Did the Nazis use chemical weapons in munitions? I thought it was "just" the gas chambers.
They may have used them in Crimea in 1942 against Red Army tunnels.
I've never really seen what the problem (relatively speaking) is with chemical weapons. Calling conventional weapons "conventional" makes them sound kind of organic and wholesome when they really, really aren't. My Lai was done mainly with rifles ...
Maybe because of how indiscriminate it is? Drop a bomb on a house and you kill the inhabitants, drop a chemical bomb and you kill the entire block.
That assumes more clinical accuracy in bomb-aiming than seems to happen in real life.
The flipside of the question is, what is the incentive to use the things? The effectiveness to bad press ratio seems unfavourable - no one would be talking about Assad if he had machine gunned twice the number of people that he gassed - except as a way of flaunting your extreme evilness to the world.
Gas is a very good area-denial tool. Assad's massively short of manpower after so many years of war, and may not have the troops to do everything he needs to do. Gas might be seen as a good way of clearing an area without risking any more men.
Machine-gunning them would require boots on the ground, and the risk of getting units trapped in a semi-urban battle.
It's also a terror weapon, and he may want to terrorise his opponents so they give in.
Next time you hear of local authorities wailing bitterly that they can only afford to keep the libraries open or make sure that dementia patients get their bottoms wiped, and not both, remember the above.
How many people work in local authorities ? 2 million ? And 539 earn six figures ?
Really ? The pay cut the Barclays boss took will probably employ 50 of them.
Half of them are probably consultants
Actually might they be consultants in the medical sense? Wasn't public health hived off to the councils?
Yes, Public Health Consultants are now employed by councils, but there are not many and nearly all would be below £100 k. There may be some very well paid Headmasters too.
I was perhaps a little clinical in my description of Mrs Mays health, but it is a legitimate topic to discuss on a political betting website. Illness is pretty much the only thing that would cause a change of leader in the next 8 years or so, or electoral defeat.
In order to maintain good control an insulin dependent diabetic needs regular habits. In particular meals, exercise and sleep need to be titrated well against insulin dose. Difficult enough for most of us, but for a PM with a heavy workload, urgent interrupptions, lots of overseas travel, state dinners of calorific foods it is a real problem. TM would be much healthier in retirement.
My guess is that most of these will be directors of public health - a function transferred to local government under the coalition - many of whom are nevertheless still employed on NHS terms and conditions. They are responsible for a wide range of public health services within their areas, including sexual health, alcohol and drug misuse services, health promotion particularly in schools, workplace health, responding to local health emergencies, etc.
Did the Nazis use chemical weapons in munitions? I thought it was "just" the gas chambers.
They may have used them in Crimea in 1942 against Red Army tunnels.
I've never really seen what the problem (relatively speaking) is with chemical weapons. Calling conventional weapons "conventional" makes them sound kind of organic and wholesome when they really, really aren't. My Lai was done mainly with rifles ...
Maybe because of how indiscriminate it is? Drop a bomb on a house and you kill the inhabitants, drop a chemical bomb and you kill the entire block.
That assumes more clinical accuracy in bomb-aiming than seems to happen in real life.
The flipside of the question is, what is the incentive to use the things? The effectiveness to bad press ratio seems unfavourable - no one would be talking about Assad if he had machine gunned twice the number of people that he gassed - except as a way of flaunting your extreme evilness to the world.
Gas is a very good area-denial tool. Assad's massively short of manpower after so many years of war, and may not have the troops to do everything he needs to do. Gas might be seen as a good way of clearing an area without risking any more men.
Machine-gunning them would require boots on the ground, and the risk of getting units trapped in a semi-urban battle.
It's also a terror weapon, and he may want to terrorise his opponents so they give in.
Or it might just be an f-up.
btw chemotherapy for cancer is the direct result of WW2 observations of the effect of mustard gas (used as a weapon), so it isn't all bad (except in the eyes of nutters who see that fact as evidence that big pharma hates you and wants you to die)
He may be a tosser but on this particular point he is quite correct. And it is not as if there were not people saying it at the time. Would a single vote have been lost for Leave if they had used £280 million a week instead of £350 million?
Putin is the sort of anti-SNP. They want to break up old multinational unions, he uses the army to try and glue them back together (Ossetia, Crimea, Donbass...).
Sturgeon is an unpleasant and shrill woman who has repeatedly shown she has only one idea and no real clue of how to sort out the major problems facing the people of Scotland, but she is not a crook, a murderess or a warmonger. Comparing her or her party to Putin is fatuous and merely cheapens the person doing it, like all those silly sausages comparing Trump to Hitler.
It also makes people less likely to listen when a real, valid and vital point is being made (although in Coughlin's case this probably isn't important as he has never made such a contribution yet).
Don't be silly, given Westminster hold all the levers of power , only they can sort anything and they have no interest or care to do so.
Did the Nazis use chemical weapons in munitions? I thought it was "just" the gas chambers.
They may have used them in Crimea in 1942 against Red Army tunnels.
I've never really seen what the problem (relatively speaking) is with chemical weapons. Calling conventional weapons "conventional" makes them sound kind of organic and wholesome when they really, really aren't. My Lai was done mainly with rifles ...
Maybe because of how indiscriminate it is? Drop a bomb on a house and you kill the inhabitants, drop a chemical bomb and you kill the entire block.
That assumes more clinical accuracy in bomb-aiming than seems to happen in real life.
The flipside of the question is, what is the incentive to use the things? The effectiveness to bad press ratio seems unfavourable - no one would be talking about Assad if he had machine gunned twice the number of people that he gassed - except as a way of flaunting your extreme evilness to the world.
Americans managed to kill hundreds last week and not a chemical in sight
If anyone from the Premier League thinks they are good enough to play professional football at a serious level they should watch Juve-v-Barca and reflect.
I listened to an interesting podcast recently discussing the lack of recent success by Premier League teams compared with those from Spain, Germany and Italy.... the theory is that the competitive nature of the EPL and the relative financial parity between top clubs, means they don't have to sell to a rival, whereas Barca, Real Madrid, Munich and Juve all get to buy the best players from the other top 6 sides in their league, eg Juve buying Higuain and Pjanic last summer, whereas Spurs and Liverpool wouldnt sell Kane and Coutinho to Chelsea.
So no standout team in England makes for more exciting league but less chance of an English side doing well in Europe
Also being able to win at least half your domestic games without getting out of second gear isn't going to harm your chances.
Comments
Machine-gunning them would require boots on the ground, and the risk of getting units trapped in a semi-urban battle.
It's also a terror weapon, and he may want to terrorise his opponents so they give in.
Or it might just be an f-up.
NEW THREAD