... I'm also intrigued by the historical precedent you quote for Russia accepting huge attritional losses from nuclear attack (or even otherwise) as a price worth paying for aggression. ...
No, no, and thrice no. Henry Blofeld is a delight. He keeps me going every year. I would pay my license fee just for him alone.
My lefty principles go kind of out the window when I hear that Australian voice. I had an Australian girlfriend (physically very, very nice and very open minded)....well 2 nights of unabashed stuff.... but that accent. I couldn't cope with it.
Well, that's it. The final proof. Tyson is a Tory but in denial. All this lefty stuff we get from you is such a smokescreen.
Listening to that horrible plummy Blofeld voice makes me want to vote for Corbyn. (And the return of the guillotine for toffs)
Cameron in The Times is really socking it to Labour
Highlights include
Why we’re the true party of working people
The recovery is steaming ahead and our One Nation mission is restoring the link between hard work and reward
and
Look at today’s Labour leadership candidates. All of them are in a race to the left, vowing to borrow, tax and spend more — all the things that failed in the last century and were rejected at the last election. Listening to some of the anti-Nato, anti-American, profoundly anti-business and anti-enterprise debates is like Groundhog Day. Labour aren’t learning.
They’re slaves to a failed dogma that has always left working people paying the price. One of their most disturbing tendencies is their obedience to left-wing union leaders — the people who are behind the Tube strikes that have wreaked chaos in the capital this summer.
Compare and contrast with tomorrow's FT front page. That will have Tory backbenchers and members spitting into their cornflakes.
Just reading it now. I warned my fellow Tories they should be careful what they wish for with Corbyn as Labour leader.
I hope to God this is still just playing with expectations. If the leaks are true, he will have given up on CAP reform, given up on limiting free movement, given up on treaty change and given up on the social chapter. And his government has already abandoned the opt out of policing and justice. What the hell is left? I guess double majority for non-Euro members, a red card system or a formal veto on financial regulations.
He won without Ukip and with the Blue Lib Dems, so he effectively owes the eurosceptics nothing.
This could be completely switched around: he won with Blue Ukippers and without the Lib Dems, so he effectively owes the pro-Europeans nothing.
In fact my version is much closer to the truth as he only limited losses to UKIP by promising an EU reformation. If you poll people that voted Conservative in 2015, the vast majority will be eurosceptic.
I recall that the polling for all parties bar UKIP was in favour of In, albeit by a fairly small margin for the 2015 Tories. But we shall see. Betting against UKIP tends to be a major source of profit!
I'm wondering whether we should renew Trident just so that we can nuke ISIS. Just like the Taliban in Afghanistan, they know their religious beliefs are on such flimsy grounds that they can not bear to have evidence of other belief systems about to suggest there is an alternative.
I find myself wishing Mohammed had never left Arabia. What barbarians these people are.
The Muslims looked after Palmyra for over a thousand years?
One may as well blame Christians for the fascists.
Are you really trying to argue the destruction of this ancient site by the Islamic State, on the grounds it is non-Islamic, is entirely unrelated to their belief in Islam?
I doubt that this has much to do with Mohammed, god bless his cotton socks. Didn't the Nazis often resort to a christian pretext to commit their atrocities?
I must admit, that I find the wanton destruction of these magnificent antiquities quite appalling. It hits the same emotional chord in me as say, the badger cull, or fox hunting- the senseless killing of wildlife.
I'm wondering whether we should renew Trident just so that we can nuke ISIS. Just like the Taliban in Afghanistan, they know their religious beliefs are on such flimsy grounds that they can not bear to have evidence of other belief systems about to suggest there is an alternative.
I find myself wishing Mohammed had never left Arabia. What barbarians these people are.
Mohammad destroyed all the idols in Mecca upon his return and expelled or forcibly converted all the idol worshippers. IS know their precedents, and these are soundly Islamic. That is the ugly truth.
I doubt that this has much to do with Mohammed, god bless his cotton socks. Didn't the Nazis often resort to a christian pretext to commit their atrocities?
I must admit, that I find the wanton destruction of these magnificent antiquities quite appalling. It hits the same emotional chord in me as say, the badger cull, or fox hunting- the senseless killing of wildlife.
I'm wondering whether we should renew Trident just so that we can nuke ISIS. Just like the Taliban in Afghanistan, they know their religious beliefs are on such flimsy grounds that they can not bear to have evidence of other belief systems about to suggest there is an alternative.
I find myself wishing Mohammed had never left Arabia. What barbarians these people are.
What could possibly be a secular motivation for the destruction of this site? I agree that ither ISIS atrocities could be explained by the human desire for power: the subjugation of women and hatred of homosexuals certainly happens without religion. But that's completely not the case here. The only reason you would destroy an unused religious site built for an extinct religion is because of your own religious beliefs.
Its not the Queen's (or Head of State's powers) powers he wants weakened, he wants new powers for people other than the Queen who hands her perogative to the PM to deal with as he sees fit. The PM of course is subject to parliament and re election.
Oops, it wasn't AndyJS, it was MikeL (I think!), that predicted the press would bang on about these sort of things. Was just pointing out that his prediction was right...
Well yes I agree on all that, but all the press are doing is reporting what he says.
Is being against having nuclear missiles really that awful?
Britain's nukes are pretty irrelevant, as are France's. If the USA ever decided to quit NATO, we'd be f*cked.
Really? Who exactly is *not* deterred by the thought of an automatic retaliatory strike consisting of 128 modern nuclear warheads delivered by inter-continental ballistic missiles launched from a hidden SSBN submarine?
Our nuclear deterrent may not consist of the thousands of nukes that Russia or the US have in their arsenals, but then it doesn't have to be. It is a minimal credible deterrent.
There are not 128. There are 14 missiles (instead of 16 max and less than the US Ohio vlass 24) and they are believed to have a max 4 warheads per missile (and those warheads are limited in range, unlike the missile itself - basically they are nuclear cluster bombs - cluster bombs being illegal, btw).
Check the size of Moscow Oblast, that's the absolute maximum destructive capability of the United Kingdom's very expensive and utterly useless "deterrent".
Check the size of Moscow Oblast, that's the absolute maximum destructive capability of the United Kingdom's very expensive and utterly useless "deterrent".
All the missiles would not be fired at one target you stupid man.
Is being against having nuclear missiles really that awful?
Britain's nukes are pretty irrelevant, as are France's. If the USA ever decided to quit NATO, we'd be f*cked.
Really? Who exactly is *not* deterred by the thought of an automatic retaliatory strike consisting of 128 modern nuclear warheads delivered by inter-continental ballistic missiles launched from a hidden SSBN submarine?
Our nuclear deterrent may not consist of the thousands of nukes that Russia or the US have in their arsenals, but then it doesn't have to be. It is a minimal credible deterrent.
Check the size of Moscow Oblast
So its a bit bigger than half the size of Scotland.....what are you suggesting?
Out of interest, how did you perceive Osborne's continued repitition of the four stock phrases of "keeping britain safe", "uncertain and dangerous world", "threat to our future security" and "ultimate insurance policy".
Every question he was asked - same four stock phrases.
Personally I find that sort of thing insulting (like the Ed Miliband youtube with his stock phrases highlighted when he repeated them five times each. Everything he says about Trident is a lie, Osborne thinks people are muppets.
Maybe they are,
All this is rather academic, as the Americans would not let us use it in a million years. Anyone who thinks that a country that exercises its world power in the way the US does would knowingly manufacture a weapon of that magnitude and give it to a foreign power to use with impunity with no fail-safe mechanism, kill switch etc., is bonkers, simply bonkers.
What we have is a US asset on our soil that we pay for. I'm not particularly bothered by it being there as it happens - I don't think it makes us a particular target, because I don't think anyone takes it seriously as a deterrent. But I do bitterly resent us paying for it.
How many more times. This is a lie. The entire chain of command for trident is within British control. At no point is it necessary to gain permission from the USA. This lie is repeated and repeated and repeated. It is not true now and it never has been true.
I will repeat the command and control of the trident nuclear weapons are within the British government. The US plays no part in the firing process.
Whether we would ever fire a nuclear weapon without first discussing the issue with the US is another matter.
You seriously believe that the United States would supply the pitiful, weak, insular UK with a Nuclear Warhead Launch System and HAND OVER THE KEYS. Lol, utter fantacist.
Cameron in The Times is really socking it to Labour
Highlights include
Why we’re the true party of working people
The recovery is steaming ahead and our One Nation mission is restoring the link between hard work and reward
and
Look at today’s Labour leadership candidates. All of them are in a race to the left, vowing to borrow, tax and spend more — all the things that failed in the last century and were rejected at the last election. Listening to some of the anti-Nato, anti-American, profoundly anti-business and anti-enterprise debates is like Groundhog Day. Labour aren’t learning.
They’re slaves to a failed dogma that has always left working people paying the price. One of their most disturbing tendencies is their obedience to left-wing union leaders — the people who are behind the Tube strikes that have wreaked chaos in the capital this summer.
Compare and contrast with tomorrow's FT front page. That will have Tory backbenchers and members spitting into their cornflakes.
Just reading it now. I warned my fellow Tories they should be careful what they wish for with Corbyn as Labour leader.
I hope to God this is still just playing with expectations. If the leaks are true, he will have given up on CAP reform, given up on limiting free movement, given up on treaty change and given up on the social chapter. And his government has already abandoned the opt out of policing and justice. What the hell is left? I guess double majority for non-Euro members, a red card system or a formal veto on financial regulations.
Great news for the No campaign.
Looks like one of the No campaign groups, The Know, are in the process of setting up a call centre with 200 employees.
Whats this got to do with Corbyn? Would any labour leader be different? In any event all that happens with headlines like this is that people just put their own spin on it. I suggest we wait and see what the result is in regard to 'a more flexible EU economy'. We can all then agree to like it or otherwise. But you should know (will you admit it?) that even if we left the EU we would be tied to labour rules and movement of labour from within the EEA or as part of any so called trade deal. Which is why, as I endlessly repeat, I shrug my shoulders over the whole issue.
Please tell us more about George Osborne being the official Deputy Prime Minister
Is every announcement going to be analysed to death over its effects on Osborne? its going to be a tiresome 4 years. Do the usual PB suspects want to forget that even in the last parliament the govt sanctioned hundreds of millions of pounds on preliminary work on Trident replacement? ''Trident: Philip Hammond announces new nuclear weapon deals Tories signal full steam ahead for replacement of nuclear-armed submarines despite opposition from Nick Clegg,'' ''Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, will announce that hundreds of millions of pounds has been spent so far, with thousands of people already at work on the programme to construct the new submarines, despite opposition from Nick Clegg'' ''As he publishes a major report on Trident to MPs on Monday, Mr Hammond will announce new contracts worth £79 million for the next phase of work, taking the total spent on replacing Trident to more than £800 million since 2011'' (from Telegraph 2013 report)
I wonder if it then caused all the same idiot comments about the nuclear deterrent. The government is governing, poor Nicola she will have to get used to it along with all the other lefty fruit loops.
Check the size of Moscow Oblast, that's the absolute maximum destructive capability of the United Kingdom's very expensive and utterly useless "deterrent".
All the missiles would not be fired at one target you stupid man.
no, they could be fired at 14 areas with a further spread of about 50 km for four individual targets. Have you seen the size of Russia? It's barely a bloody nose.
Check the size of Moscow Oblast, that's the absolute maximum destructive capability of the United Kingdom's very expensive and utterly useless "deterrent".
All the missiles would not be fired at one target you stupid man.
no, they could be fired at 14 areas with a further spread of about 50 km for four individual targets. Have you seen the size of Russia? It's barely a bloody nose.
Doesn't the MIRV'ing happen high in the atmosphere, so range more than 50km should be possible?
Check the size of Moscow Oblast, that's the absolute maximum destructive capability of the United Kingdom's very expensive and utterly useless "deterrent".
All the missiles would not be fired at one target you stupid man.
no, they could be fired at 14 areas with a further spread of about 50 km for four individual targets. Have you seen the size of Russia? It's barely a bloody nose.
Doesn't the MIRV'ing happen high in the atmosphere, so range more than 50km should be possible?
Depends on the required accuracy as I understand it. To be reasonably sure of a MIRV launch hitting the required target would need it to be launched below the Jetstream at least.
I'm not an expert, feel free to enlighten me. It would still remain true that the UK "deterrent" still can't hurt Russia.
Check the size of Moscow Oblast, that's the absolute maximum destructive capability of the United Kingdom's very expensive and utterly useless "deterrent".
All the missiles would not be fired at one target you stupid man.
no, they could be fired at 14 areas with a further spread of about 50 km for four individual targets. Have you seen the size of Russia? It's barely a bloody nose.
Doesn't the MIRV'ing happen high in the atmosphere, so range more than 50km should be possible?
Depends on the required accuracy as I understand it. To be reasonably sure of a MIRV launch hitting the required target would need it to be launched below the Jetstream at least.
I'm not an expert, feel free to enlighten me. It would still remain true that the UK "deterrent" still can't hurt Russia.
I thought the independent warheads were powered, so there is the possibility to change trajectory. How well that can deal with the jet stream, I don't know. I am also not an expert!
Check the size of Moscow Oblast, that's the absolute maximum destructive capability of the United Kingdom's very expensive and utterly useless "deterrent".
All the missiles would not be fired at one target you stupid man.
no, they could be fired at 14 areas with a further spread of about 50 km for four individual targets. Have you seen the size of Russia? It's barely a bloody nose.
Totally irrelevant.
You have been arguing in this thread Russia would be prepared to pay a price to achieve war aims.
The horrible price paid in the last war is burned into the Russian soul. They are as horrified at the prospect of enduring anything like that again.
If you are seriously suggesting that having the city centre of the 10-plus largest cities obliterated by nukes, along with the massive loss of life, is a price that the Russians feel is worth paying, then you are "Bonkers Mental".
Cameron in The Times is really socking it to Labour
Highlights include
Why we’re the true party of working people
The recovery is steaming ahead and our One Nation mission is restoring the link between hard work and reward
and
Look at today’s Labour leadership candidates. All of them are in a race to the left, vowing to borrow, tax and spend more — all the things that failed in the last century and were rejected at the last election. Listening to some of the anti-Nato, anti-American, profoundly anti-business and anti-enterprise debates is like Groundhog Day. Labour aren’t learning.
They’re slaves to a failed dogma that has always left working people paying the price. One of their most disturbing tendencies is their obedience to left-wing union leaders — the people who are behind the Tube strikes that have wreaked chaos in the capital this summer.
Compare and contrast with tomorrow's FT front page. That will have Tory backbenchers and members spitting into their cornflakes.
Just reading it now. I warned my fellow Tories they should be careful what they wish for with Corbyn as Labour leader.
I hope to God this is still just playing with expectations. If the leaks are true, he will have given up on CAP reform, given up on limiting free movement, given up on treaty change and given up on the social chapter. And his government has already abandoned the opt out of policing and justice. What the hell is left? I guess double majority for non-Euro members, a red card system or a formal veto on financial regulations.
Great news for the No campaign.
Looks like one of the No campaign groups, The Know, are in the process of setting up a call centre with 200 employees.
Although the referendum will not be available to us for a long while so disappointing to see Dave asking for very little.
If you do not like the result then you can vote no. Some people would vote no in any event of course. But they have to show anyone with an open mind conclusively that there would be any difference let alone any benefit. This is why we should not worry too much about the whole thing - its all a big con from both sides really. We can be like Norway and be in the EEA and be effectively non voting associate members of the EU, and impliment its rules. The EU changes they will need/want relating to the Euro will be the driver of change.
The Yes campaign need to come up with some positive and inspiring reasons why we should stay in the EU. It's going to be difficult to generate the same enthusiasm there used to be for Europe in the 1960s and 1970s when most European countries were a lot better off than Britain.
Is being against having nuclear missiles really that awful?
Britain's nukes are pretty irrelevant, as are France's. If the USA ever decided to quit NATO, we'd be f*cked.
Really? Who exactly is *not* deterred by the thought of an automatic retaliatory strike consisting of 128 modern nuclear warheads delivered by inter-continental ballistic missiles launched from a hidden SSBN submarine?
Our nuclear deterrent may not consist of the thousands of nukes that Russia or the US have in their arsenals, but then it doesn't have to be. It is a minimal credible deterrent.
There are not 128. There are 14 missiles (instead of 16 max and less than the US Ohio vlass 24) and they are believed to have a max 4 warheads per missile (and those warheads are limited in range, unlike the missile itself - basically they are nuclear cluster bombs - cluster bombs being illegal, btw).
Check the size of Moscow Oblast, that's the absolute maximum destructive capability of the United Kingdom's very expensive and utterly useless "deterrent".
Cluster bombs are illegal because lots of unexploded little bomblets lying in fields for years thereafter, where kids and shepherds are quite prone to getting blown up on them, are considered to be A Bad Thing. (Basically for the same reason landmines are considered to be A Bad Thing).
Comparing MIRVs to cluster bombs is not utterly ridiculous, in the sense that one missile can carry several warheads and this basic principle is rather reminiscent of cluster munition. But to make the comparison and then point out that cluster bombs are illegal is either daft or disingenuous. Nobody's worrying about some post-apocalyptic goat-herd accidentally setting off a long-forgotten warhead. The legal status of nuclear warfare is not based on analogy to the prohibition of cluster munition. Though there is a certain irony to a little bomblet being banned, while a device that could wipe a million people from the face of the earth is permitted...
Check the size of Moscow Oblast, that's the absolute maximum destructive capability of the United Kingdom's very expensive and utterly useless "deterrent".
All the missiles would not be fired at one target you stupid man.
no, they could be fired at 14 areas with a further spread of about 50 km for four individual targets. Have you seen the size of Russia? It's barely a bloody nose.
Doesn't the MIRV'ing happen high in the atmosphere, so range more than 50km should be possible?
Depends on the required accuracy as I understand it. To be reasonably sure of a MIRV launch hitting the required target would need it to be launched below the Jetstream at least.
I'm not an expert, feel free to enlighten me. It would still remain true that the UK "deterrent" still can't hurt Russia.
This statement is only true for some seriously perverse values of "hurt".
Check the size of Moscow Oblast, that's the absolute maximum destructive capability of the United Kingdom's very expensive and utterly useless "deterrent".
All the missiles would not be fired at one target you stupid man.
no, they could be fired at 14 areas with a further spread of about 50 km for four individual targets. Have you seen the size of Russia? It's barely a bloody nose.
Totally irrelevant.
You have been arguing in this thread Russia would be prepared to pay a price to achieve war aims.
The horrible price paid in the last war is burned into the Russian soul. They are as horrified at the prospect of enduring anything like that again.
If you are seriously suggesting that having the city centre of the 10-plus largest cities obliterated by nukes, along with the massive loss of life, is a price that the Russians feel is worth paying, then you are "Bonkers Mental".
Correct. The Russians were careless of life in the defence of their country from invasion and not aggression into other areas. A 'bloody nose' is crass expression. But the world faces dangers not from just Russia. Despite efforts to the contrary we have seen nuclear proliferation and we have the prospect of other nuclear based terrorism if you want to frighten yourself to sleep. We are some way yet from being able to either multilaterally disarm or have all nuclear weapons put under independent inspection and monitoring.
Check the size of Moscow Oblast, that's the absolute maximum destructive capability of the United Kingdom's very expensive and utterly useless "deterrent".
All the missiles would not be fired at one target you stupid man.
no, they could be fired at 14 areas with a further spread of about 50 km for four individual targets. Have you seen the size of Russia? It's barely a bloody nose.
Doesn't the MIRV'ing happen high in the atmosphere, so range more than 50km should be possible?
Depends on the required accuracy as I understand it. To be reasonably sure of a MIRV launch hitting the required target would need it to be launched below the Jetstream at least.
I'm not an expert, feel free to enlighten me. It would still remain true that the UK "deterrent" still can't hurt Russia.
I thought the independent warheads were powered, so there is the possibility to change trajectory. How well that can deal with the jet stream, I don't know. I am also not an expert!
I think it's unlikely an expert will appear or at least let themselvges be known.
My understanding is that atmospheric conditions are very important to MIRV as the limited thrust on the independent warheads cannot compensate enough for most atmospheric conditions.
But the biggest problem is payload. Multiple warhead missiles - like Trident have very small warheads - W88s - which do not deliver a sufficient payload to counter atmospheric conditions in most circumstances and that payload is the problem.
For example, a W88 detonated over Faslane would have no impact on Glasgow despite being only 30 miles or so away (unless there was an unusual NW wind). Of course a Russian ICBM aimed at Faslane could every easily miss and destroy Glasgow (or more likely Tarbet or even Loch Katrine which would kill Glasgow with toxic water). But it would potentially allow a strike back as it misses the military target.
Corbyn's comments on the monarchy have some merit IMO. The monarchy should be as non-political as possible.
The story is about the royal prerogatives used by the PM. Its not about the Queen having some mysterious non constitutional power which any head of state would have.
Is being against having nuclear missiles really that awful?
Britain's nukes are pretty irrelevant, as are France's. If the USA ever decided to quit NATO, we'd be f*cked.
Really? Who exactly is *not* deterred by the thought of an automatic retaliatory strike consisting of 128 modern nuclear warheads delivered by inter-continental ballistic missiles launched from a hidden SSBN submarine?
Our nuclear deterrent may not consist of the thousands of nukes that Russia or the US have in their arsenals, but then it doesn't have to be. It is a minimal credible deterrent.
There are not 128. There are 14 missiles (instead of 16 max and less than the US Ohio vlass 24) and they are believed to have a max 4 warheads per missile (and those warheads are limited in range, unlike the missile itself - basically they are nuclear cluster bombs - cluster bombs being illegal, btw).
Check the size of Moscow Oblast, that's the absolute maximum destructive capability of the United Kingdom's very expensive and utterly useless "deterrent".
Cluster bombs are illegal because lots of unexploded little bomblets lying in fields for years thereafter, where kids and shepherds are quite prone to getting blown up on them, are considered to be A Bad Thing. (Basically for the same reason landmines are considered to be A Bad Thing).
Comparing MIRVs to cluster bombs is not utterly ridiculous, in the sense that one missile can carry several warheads and this basic principle is rather reminiscent of cluster munition. But to make the comparison and then point out that cluster bombs are illegal is either daft or disingenuous. Nobody's worrying about some post-apocalyptic goat-herd accidentally setting off a long-forgotten warhead. The legal status of nuclear warfare is not based on analogy to the prohibition of cluster munition. Though there is a certain irony to a little bomblet being banned, while a device that could wipe a million people from the face of the earth is permitted...
I think, in a post apocalyptic future (after England nukes France apparently) we will want all the goat herds we can get. The less blown up by unexploded nukes the better!
Check the size of Moscow Oblast, that's the absolute maximum destructive capability of the United Kingdom's very expensive and utterly useless "deterrent".
All the missiles would not be fired at one target you stupid man.
no, they could be fired at 14 areas with a further spread of about 50 km for four individual targets. Have you seen the size of Russia? It's barely a bloody nose.
Doesn't the MIRV'ing happen high in the atmosphere, so range more than 50km should be possible?
Depends on the required accuracy as I understand it. To be reasonably sure of a MIRV launch hitting the required target would need it to be launched below the Jetstream at least.
I'm not an expert, feel free to enlighten me. It would still remain true that the UK "deterrent" still can't hurt Russia.
This statement is only true for some seriously perverse values of "hurt".
When, in its entire history has The Great Bear ever cared about being "hurt" even to rather perverse values.
Can anyone find any examples of Jeremy Corbyn doing something similar with ‘the other side’ of any of these peace processes or inter-faith meetings? For instance does anyone anywhere have any record of Jeremy Corbyn standing for a minute’s silence for some loyalist thugs killed while on ‘active service’? Or, more plausibly, are there any records of Jeremy Corbyn attending memorial events for the many members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary killed by while doing their duty as policemen? Or are there any records of him remembering members of the British armed forces and security services killed while performing their duties? It is only if we cannot find evidence of Jeremy attending such events that people might read reasons into why we only have records of him attending memorials for the IRA.
And this is what John McDonnell MP, a Corbyn supporter and possible candidate for Shadow Chancellor has said: "It’s about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table. The peace we have now is due to the action of the IRA.”
Fuck me. He really said that?
Apparently so. Labour could be spoofing themselves of course. The whole election is like a Daily Mash article.
Reminds me of this excellent song "Would you like try a cheeseburger, Bobby Sands?
Fenian Barsteward that I am, I prefer this (1) www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI4qSdhmq1U
(1) About the original IRA fight for independence - not the modern villains like Adams.
Most of the Loyalist songs are about King Billy or the contemporary Lord Carson. Even the famine song really isn't current. Good as it is.
Wolfe Tones used to play the University circuit back in the 90s (and maybe 80s and noughties?).
Isn't that weird.
Or at least hypocritical.
Yes!
I support self-determination for people who self-identify as a nation. That includes your cause (Scotland), and the desire for the UK/rUK (whatever is left) to secede from the EU.
The only caveat is that the case has to be accepted/rejected by democratic mandate in a fair plebiscite.
I attach no great significance to the verdicts reached at Nuremburg - it was a political trial of the victors and the judges well knew what was expected of them in the climate of the time. Many have criticised the convictions of Jodl -Streicher - Frick - and some even Keitel. The Nazis -vile though they were - did not execute Daladier, Reynaud . Moreover, had the criteria used at Nuremburg been applied to Allied Military Commanders several should have been indicted. I am not suggesting that the defendants did not have a lot to answer for in respect of the other indictments relating to the Holocaust - treatment of Prisoners of War and Foreign Workers etc -but I do not believe that Keitel or Goering had any say at all as to whether Poland - or later the USSR - was to be attacked. Blair repeated on many occasions that he was not seeking regime change in Iraq. I never believed him - but it is what he said
No Justin, the Nuremburg trials were not perfect, no doubt (Certainly Jodl, as a relatively subordinate staff officer should not have been hanged. He was rehabilitated after the war). However, they were a genuine attempt by the four Powers,, inculding the Soviet Union, to have a fair trial. Three defendants were aquitted and others were sentenced to terms of imprisonment.
Your analogy with Allied commanders in WW2 does not really stand up. None of the main defendants were convicted of crimes involved in actually fighting the war. The London Blitz, for example was not considered a war crime and nor was unrestricted submarine warfare.
The main points were the planning of an aggresive war against countries that had posed no threat to Germany or any other country. The other major issue, the war crimes and murder of civilians, slave labourers and indeed the Holocaust, were uniquely evil and punished accordingly, although as i have said earlier, many terrible war criminals escaped the full rigour of the law.
We have spoken of Goering. As you say, he did not want war against England or France in 1939, but was fully aware of the invasion of Poland and was convicted of all four counts at Nuremburg, including Crimes against Peace and the waging of aggresive war.
I really do not think that the invasion of Poland in 1939 was equivalent to the Iraq War in 2003.
No David , Nuremburg was still very much a political trial - however well dressed up. Keitel was no more responsible for planning the attack on Poland than were the US and British senior officers given the task of planning the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Julius Streicher - evil and obnoxious Jew baiter that he was - was hanged for what he had said and written despite never having been a member of Hitler's Govt. He was indicted - and convicted - to satisfy the political appetite of the time.
Reminds me of this excellent song "Would you like try a cheeseburger, Bobby Sands?
Fenian Barsteward that I am, I prefer this (1) www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI4qSdhmq1U
(1) About the original IRA fight for independence - not the modern villains like Adams.
Most of the Loyalist songs are about King Billy or the contemporary Lord Carson. Even the famine song really isn't current. Good as it is.
Wolfe Tones used to play the University circuit back in the 90s (and maybe 80s and noughties?).
Isn't that weird.
Or at least hypocritical.
Yes!
I support self-determination for people who self-identify as a nation. That includes your cause (Scotland), and the desire for the UK/rUK (whatever is left) to secede from the EU.
The only caveat is that the case has to be accepted/rejected by democratic mandate in a fair plebiscite.
Let us hope that one day, Scotland will have such a "free and fair" plebiscite.
Blair repeated on many occasions that he was not seeking regime change in Iraq. I never believed him - but it is what he said
No Justin, the Nuremburg trials were not perfect, no doubt (Certainly Jodl, as a relatively subordinate staff officer should not have been hanged. He was rehabilitated after the war). However, they were a genuine attempt by the four Powers,, inculding the Soviet Union, to have a fair trial. Three defendants were aquitted and others were sentenced to terms of imprisonment.
Your analogy with Allied commanders in WW2 does not really stand up. None of the main defendants were convicted of crimes involved in actually fighting the war. The London Blitz, for example was not considered a war crime and nor was unrestricted submarine warfare.
The main points were the planning of an aggresive war against countries that had posed no threat to Germany or any other country. The other major issue, the war crimes and murder of civilians, slave labourers and indeed the Holocaust, were uniquely evil and punished accordingly, although as i have said earlier, many terrible war criminals escaped the full rigour of the law.
We have spoken of Goering. As you say, he did not want war against England or France in 1939, but was fully aware of the invasion of Poland and was convicted of all four counts at Nuremburg, including Crimes against Peace and the waging of aggresive war.
I really do not think that the invasion of Poland in 1939 was equivalent to the Iraq War in 2003.
No David , Nuremburg was still very much a political trial - however well dressed up. Keitel was no more responsible for planning the attack on Poland than were the US and British senior officers given the task of planning the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Julius Streicher - evil and obnoxious Jew baiter that he was - was hanged for what he had said and written despite never having been a member of Hitler's Govt. He was indicted - and convicted - to satisfy the political appetite of the time.
"The Nuremberg Trials have made the waging of an unsuccessful war a crime." - Field Marshal Bernard L. Montgomery. June 9th 1948
a "sanctimonious fraud” and a “high-grade lynching party", Harlan F. Stone, Chief Justice of the United States, 1945.
But you should know (will you admit it?) that even if we left the EU we would be tied to labour rules and movement of labour from within the EEA or as part of any so called trade deal. Which is why, as I endlessly repeat, I shrug my shoulders over the whole issue.
He shouldnt admit it, because its not true, as we repeatedly tell you, but you are too obsessed to understand.
The EEA does not require you to admit anyone that does not have a job, the EU requires you to admit anyone even if they have no job.
The EEA does not require you to pay benefits to anyone, the EU does
The EEA lets you throw out criminals, the EU doesn't
We can be like Norway and be in the EEA and be effectively non voting associate members of the EU, and impliment its rules.
More wrongness. How many regulations does Norway have to implement ? How many has the UK had to implement. Even then the trade regulations only apply when exporting to the EU.
In Tehran, Iran, President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr sent a message of condolence to the Sands family.[51] The government renamed Winston Churchill Boulevard, the location of the Embassy of the United Kingdom in Tehran, to Bobby Sands Street, prompting the embassy to move its entrance door to Ferdowsi Avenue to avoid using Bobby Sands Street on its letterhead.[52]
In Europe, there were widespread protests after Sands's death. 5,000 Milanese students burned the Union Flag and chanted 'Freedom for Ulster' during a march.[5] The British Consulate at Ghent was raided.[5] Thousands marched in Paris behind huge portraits of Sands, to chants of 'the IRA will conquer'.[5] In the Portuguese Parliament, the opposition stood for Sands.[5] In Oslo, demonstrators threw a tomato at Elizabeth II, the Queen of the United Kingdom, but missed (The 28-year-old assailant claimed that he had not aimed for the queen, but rather for a smirking British soldier).[5][35] In the Soviet Union, Pravda described it as 'another tragic page in the grim chronicle of oppression, discrimination, terror, and violence' in Ireland. Russian fans of Bobby Sands published a translation of the "Back Home in Derry" song ("На Родину в Дерри" in Russian).[5] Many French towns and cities have streets named after Sands, including in Nantes, Saint-Étienne, Le Mans, Vierzon, and Saint-Denis.[36] In the Republic of Ireland, Sands's death led to riots and bus burning. The West German newspaper Die Welt took a negative view of Sands.[5]
Whats this got to do with Corbyn? Would any labour leader be different? In any event all that happens with headlines like this is that people just put their own spin on it. I suggest we wait and see what the result is in regard to 'a more flexible EU economy'. We can all then agree to like it or otherwise. But you should know (will you admit it?) that even if we left the EU we would be tied to labour rules and movement of labour from within the EEA or as part of any so called trade deal. Which is why, as I endlessly repeat, I shrug my shoulders over the whole issue.
Please tell us more about George Osborne being the official Deputy Prime Minister
Is every announcement going to be analysed to death over its effects on Osborne? its going to be a tiresome 4 years. Do the usual PB suspects want to forget that even in the last parliament the govt sanctioned hundreds of millions of pounds on preliminary work on Trident replacement? ''Trident: Philip Hammond announces new nuclear weapon deals Tories signal full steam ahead for replacement of nuclear-armed submarines despite opposition from Nick Clegg,'' ''Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, will announce that hundreds of millions of pounds has been spent so far, with thousands of people already at work on the programme to construct the new submarines, despite opposition from Nick Clegg'' ''As he publishes a major report on Trident to MPs on Monday, Mr Hammond will announce new contracts worth £79 million for the next phase of work, taking the total spent on replacing Trident to more than £800 million since 2011'' (from Telegraph 2013 report)
I wonder if it then caused all the same idiot comments about the nuclear deterrent. The government is governing, poor Nicola she will have to get used to it along with all the other lefty fruit loops.
look, you made a mistake ok? it happens. He does function as a deputy, but you were being very condescending about him being 'official' deputy pm, you were very specific about that, which is an office he does not hold, he just doesn't. We can quibble about meaningless distinctions, but it is a fact he is not 'official' deputy pm.
You seriously believe that the United States would supply the pitiful, weak, insular UK with a Nuclear Warhead Launch System and HAND OVER THE KEYS. Lol, utter fantacist.
"pitiful, weak, insular UK"
Haters will hate.
As for the discussion:
IANAE, and as far as I recall, atmospheric winds can be expected to alter modern ICBM target accuracy by around a few hundred feet at most; other factors increase double or triple that. This was not true for early warheads with low ballistic coefficient (blunt shapes), which spent long periods slowing down in the upper atmosphere. In comparison, a modern MIRV warhead (RV) will be travelling at very high speed at detonation: the shapes are so fine they have little time to slow down.
ISTR that variations in gravity along the route is likely to have a greater effect than re-entry winds, and rumours are that the major powers have spent a fortune trying to map these variations to work out how they effect target accuracy.
Wiki has an interesting list of supposed ICBM accuracies: look at the 'CEP' column. Note Trident II has a CEP of 90-120 metres. So it is believe that 50% of all warheads will fall within that distance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_ICBMs
So does that mean it will 'miss' the target? A W88 warhead in a Trident II RV has an about 500kt yield. If you plug that into Nukemap (http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ ) you can see that the fireball blast from a single W88 alone is much greater than that. (Why not target one on London: that'll give your small hater mind a bit of excitement!)
MIRV's are released after the boost, but before re-entry; whilst at altitude, the container takes a series of different trajectories, releasing one or a number of warheads on each trajectory to hit different targets, with a probable maximum crossrange of a few hundred kilometres.
As with railway electrification a few weeks ago, you are utterly clueless. And you have also shown yourself as being a hater as well. Good work for one night!
Comments
Listening to that horrible plummy Blofeld voice makes me want to vote for Corbyn. (And the return of the guillotine for toffs)
After all that kerfuffle.
David De Gea's move to Real Madrid may have fallen through, because the paperwork wasn't submitted on time.
PS: I note that you are no longer at the foot of the table in the Footy.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34111092
https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/638479255656136705/photo/1
Check the size of Moscow Oblast, that's the absolute maximum destructive capability of the United Kingdom's very expensive and utterly useless "deterrent".
Looks like one of the No campaign groups, The Know, are in the process of setting up a call centre with 200 employees.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/601724/EXCLUSIVE-No-EU-campaign-chaos
Although the referendum will not be available to us for a long while so disappointing to see Dave asking for very little.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33162783
Is every announcement going to be analysed to death over its effects on Osborne? its going to be a tiresome 4 years.
Do the usual PB suspects want to forget that even in the last parliament the govt sanctioned hundreds of millions of pounds on preliminary work on Trident replacement?
''Trident: Philip Hammond announces new nuclear weapon deals
Tories signal full steam ahead for replacement of nuclear-armed submarines despite opposition from Nick Clegg,''
''Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, will announce that hundreds of millions of pounds has been spent so far, with thousands of people already at work on the programme to construct the new submarines, despite opposition from Nick Clegg''
''As he publishes a major report on Trident to MPs on Monday, Mr Hammond will announce new contracts worth £79 million for the next phase of work, taking the total spent on replacing Trident to more than £800 million since 2011''
(from Telegraph 2013 report)
I wonder if it then caused all the same idiot comments about the nuclear deterrent.
The government is governing, poor Nicola she will have to get used to it along with all the other lefty fruit loops.
I'm not an expert, feel free to enlighten me. It would still remain true that the UK "deterrent" still can't hurt Russia.
You have been arguing in this thread Russia would be prepared to pay a price to achieve war aims.
The horrible price paid in the last war is burned into the Russian soul. They are as horrified at the prospect of enduring anything like that again.
If you are seriously suggesting that having the city centre of the 10-plus largest cities obliterated by nukes, along with the massive loss of life, is a price that the Russians feel is worth paying, then you are "Bonkers Mental".
This is why we should not worry too much about the whole thing - its all a big con from both sides really. We can be like Norway and be in the EEA and be effectively non voting associate members of the EU, and impliment its rules.
The EU changes they will need/want relating to the Euro will be the driver of change.
Comparing MIRVs to cluster bombs is not utterly ridiculous, in the sense that one missile can carry several warheads and this basic principle is rather reminiscent of cluster munition. But to make the comparison and then point out that cluster bombs are illegal is either daft or disingenuous. Nobody's worrying about some post-apocalyptic goat-herd accidentally setting off a long-forgotten warhead. The legal status of nuclear warfare is not based on analogy to the prohibition of cluster munition. Though there is a certain irony to a little bomblet being banned, while a device that could wipe a million people from the face of the earth is permitted...
But the world faces dangers not from just Russia. Despite efforts to the contrary we have seen nuclear proliferation and we have the prospect of other nuclear based terrorism if you want to frighten yourself to sleep.
We are some way yet from being able to either multilaterally disarm or have all nuclear weapons put under independent inspection and monitoring.
My understanding is that atmospheric conditions are very important to MIRV as the limited thrust on the independent warheads cannot compensate enough for most atmospheric conditions.
But the biggest problem is payload. Multiple warhead missiles - like Trident have very small warheads - W88s - which do not deliver a sufficient payload to counter atmospheric conditions in most circumstances and that payload is the problem.
For example, a W88 detonated over Faslane would have no impact on Glasgow despite being only 30 miles or so away (unless there was an unusual NW wind). Of course a Russian ICBM aimed at Faslane could every easily miss and destroy Glasgow (or more likely Tarbet or even Loch Katrine which would kill Glasgow with toxic water). But it would potentially allow a strike back as it misses the military target.
Look at the globe. Russia is HUGE.
Reminds me of this excellent song "Would you like try a cheeseburger, Bobby Sands?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_NXdj3MaFk
Chief executive announces drive to recruit new donors with ‘superman’ message based on successful campaign in Denmark"
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/31/britains-national-sperm-bank-wants-men-to-prove-their-manhood#comment-58552644
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI4qSdhmq1U
(1) About the original IRA fight for independence - not the modern villains like Adams.
For a standard 10% agent's fee I'll hire her out to them as a conslutlant.
Wolfe Tones used to play the University circuit back in the 90s (and maybe 80s and noughties?).
Isn't that weird.
Or at least hypocritical.
I support self-determination for people who self-identify as a nation. That includes your cause (Scotland), and the desire for the UK/rUK (whatever is left) to secede from the EU.
The only caveat is that the case has to be accepted/rejected by democratic mandate in a fair plebiscite.
Julius Streicher - evil and obnoxious Jew baiter that he was - was hanged for what he had said and written despite never having been a member of Hitler's Govt. He was indicted - and convicted - to satisfy the political appetite of the time.
Not sure whether you are just attempting to advertise Gibraltar as a tourist destination to PB's almost-exclusively-male audience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria
Really?
I think this is probably the sickest and most disgusting post I've ever read on this site. And yet, you won't get banned. Utterly appalling.
a "sanctimonious fraud” and a “high-grade lynching party", Harlan F. Stone, Chief Justice of the United States, 1945.
The EEA does not require you to admit anyone that does not have a job, the EU requires you to admit anyone even if they have no job.
The EEA does not require you to pay benefits to anyone, the EU does
The EEA lets you throw out criminals, the EU doesn't
Clear now ? More wrongness. How many regulations does Norway have to implement ? How many has the UK had to implement. Even then the trade regulations only apply when exporting to the EU.
I hear this kind of thing is discouraged nowadays, tho
Haters will hate.
As for the discussion:
IANAE, and as far as I recall, atmospheric winds can be expected to alter modern ICBM target accuracy by around a few hundred feet at most; other factors increase double or triple that. This was not true for early warheads with low ballistic coefficient (blunt shapes), which spent long periods slowing down in the upper atmosphere. In comparison, a modern MIRV warhead (RV) will be travelling at very high speed at detonation: the shapes are so fine they have little time to slow down.
ISTR that variations in gravity along the route is likely to have a greater effect than re-entry winds, and rumours are that the major powers have spent a fortune trying to map these variations to work out how they effect target accuracy.
Wiki has an interesting list of supposed ICBM accuracies: look at the 'CEP' column. Note Trident II has a CEP of 90-120 metres. So it is believe that 50% of all warheads will fall within that distance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_ICBMs
So does that mean it will 'miss' the target? A W88 warhead in a Trident II RV has an about 500kt yield. If you plug that into Nukemap (http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ ) you can see that the fireball blast from a single W88 alone is much greater than that. (Why not target one on London: that'll give your small hater mind a bit of excitement!)
MIRV's are released after the boost, but before re-entry; whilst at altitude, the container takes a series of different trajectories, releasing one or a number of warheads on each trajectory to hit different targets, with a probable maximum crossrange of a few hundred kilometres.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle#Mode_of_operation
The following might also be of interest:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/695726main_ComingHome-ebook.pdf
As with railway electrification a few weeks ago, you are utterly clueless. And you have also shown yourself as being a hater as well. Good work for one night!