Louise Mensch has followed up on it. I take no view - and still haven't read the full French Parliamentary report but the does seem to be something in it.
It is perfectly true that France has particular issues arising out of its colonial past which is making it particularly vulnerable at the moment.
But all countries with significant Muslim minorities have faced problems. If the issue becomes only one of harm done to other minority groups (eg Algerian Arabs hating French Jews because of the respective way they were treated by the French state in Algeria or Muslim attitudes to homosexuality or women) or terrorism, then it is all too easy for it to be sidelined, to think that it call be resolved through security measures & some education/kumbayah-style hand-holding rubbish.
Whereas there is really a fundamental problem of having in a democratic free society a significant minority of people who, even if law-abiding, do not share in a very real sense the fundamental assumptions of the society and culture they live in. It makes some of them prey to radicalisation. But it also harms the social and cultural cohesion - in its widest sense - necessary for a society to work. You cannot have people who believe that the state & its laws should be credal living happily in a state where we believe that laws are man-made & can & will be changed. The two are mutually incompatible. One has to give way. Islam does not give way easily & it is its fundamental incompatibility with the basic tenets of Western development which seem to me to lie behind the tensions we can see, particularly at a time when the winds of change in the Islamic world are towards - rather than away from - a very fundamentalist, radical, aggressive & hostile to the West interpretation.
No amount of teaching young Syrian men how to behave with women in public is going to bridge the gap between people who believe that laws should be based on the word of Allah & those who believe that laws are what the people at any point in time think they should be. And to the extent that we believe in fundamental laws our whole concept of human rights is largely derived - ultimately - from the Judaeo-Greek-Christian tradition. The idea of human rights is nonsensical in Islamic terms since you don't have the right to be anything other than what is ordained for you (death for apostasy, for instance) and if you are not a Muslim you are - by definition - a second class citizen.
Add in all the other social/economic problems & it is little wonder that all countries have had & will continue to have problems. But they are not primarily problems for Jews or gays or women (canaries in the coalmine though they may be). They are problems for all of us. As we saw with all those who were all too quick to say that maybe free speech should not be exercised if it offended someone (& this was at the time of the Rushdie fatwa all those years ago). These problems have been known about for years & ignored for years & only now are being acknowledged but without - so far - the willingness to really address the underlying issues.
Meanwhile the size of the populations grow which makes integration and any other effective action that much harder. If nothing continues to be done I really worry about where we will be in 5 years.
Mr. Pulpstar, which Paris attacks? Hebdo or Bataclan?
Ah Bataclan where the warriors of god cut off men's privates and put them in their mouths and sexually mutilated women.
Then the French authorities decided it best the public do not know the nature of their enemies.
Why are you still repeating this utter nonsense? Does it give you some sort of warped pleasure? Bataclan was horrendous enough without inventing things.
There does seem to be some evidence that some atrocities were committed in the Bataclan. Call me old fashioned.
I thought the report said it was unsubstantiated?
See above. It's not like Brexit/Remain "lies". We know they do this sort of thing.
Louise Mensch has followed up on it. I take no view - and still haven't read the full French Parliamentary report but the does seem to be something in it.
Yes, well, I have read it. It really doesn't warrant Ms Mensch's irresponsible hysteria, which is presumably why no journalists are repeating it.
At some point, the French people will choose a president who will give the hated Jews and Muslims a good kicking. All these atrocities are grist to the mill for Marine Le Pen.
Jews aren't hated in France by native French people (outside a tiny mad minority). French Muslim anti-Semitism, yes, of course.
You are naïve. The FN have substantial support and anti-Semitism is a core part of their values. The Jews in France are mainly outsiders who moved there less than 100 years ago from North Africa and the Middle East. They would fear a President Le Pen.
I disagree completely. I know France quite well, and have a fair number of French friends.
The old style French anti-Semitism of Jean Marie le Pen is fast diminishing to a tiny hardcore. This is in part because the clear and present danger of radical Islam is occupying the mental space reserved for "the Other". The enemy is obvious, and it is not Jews.
I agree. The 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' mentality also applies. I suspect many white Christian or secular French will see Jews as natural allies in a cultural fight with Islam. The reaction in Nice suggests Mossad would be more popular than their own security service efforts right now!
Islam and Judaism have far more cultural similarities than Judaism has to Western secularism. For example, gay marriage is an anathema and Judaism regards homosexuality as an abomination worthy of death.
There appears to be only one religion openly killing gays on the basis of their sexuality - clue its not judaism.
Pew published some utterly depressing poll results on muslims view to that "crime".
Oh,and the penalty for leaving Islam.
.
There are quite a few African Christians with a similarly medieval attitude to homosexuality. See, for example, Uganda.
Mr. Pulpstar, which Paris attacks? Hebdo or Bataclan?
Ah Bataclan where the warriors of god cut off men's privates and put them in their mouths and sexually mutilated women.
Then the French authorities decided it best the public do not know the nature of their enemies.
Why are you still repeating this utter nonsense? Does it give you some sort of warped pleasure? Bataclan was horrendous enough without inventing things.
sigh - one of your ex tory mp's reported it and there are transcripts from the French enquiry.
But don't worry your pretty little head about it Richard.
How can CBS know more about the Nice attack than the government in Paris?
I heard that he has 3 relatives who are also islamist extremists.
I also posted a link the other day about the events is Paris and the true barbarity being covered up.
There have been several other events where the truth is being suppressed, Germany being a specific example.
Political class obviously don't want difficult questions
The public are on to these things quicker than the politicians like to admit anyway.
Two months ago, British tourism in Turkey was down 30% in 2016 against its 2015 numbers. And that was before the violence in Ataturk airport and the recent coup.
We've evolved to sniff out danger, protect our families and weigh up the options, regardless of what our govt tells us. Politically correct labels of racism, bigotry, small mindedness or whatever.... fade into insignificance when measured up against the cold hard facts.
People are not holidaying in Turkey as much because they sense danger and are scared. Why is this?
The answer is pretty obvious.
Friends of ours normally go to France every summer - They decided to give it a miss this year.
Go to southern Spain - warmer, the people are nicer and there are some wonderful places to visit, like Granada and Seville. History too - I once went to visit the grave of Maj. William Martin (should keep the googlers busy for a minute). Plus you get black silhouettes of a bull on almost every hillside.
'But no one is applying any rational economic risk analysis to this. That became painfully clear when the former Minister for Policy, Oliver Letwin MP, then in charge of overseeing the National Security Strategy, gave evidence to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy on 23rd May. When I questioned him about procurement costs, he was only out by a factor of 10'
I agree with Blunt.
Sweden, Ireland, Finland, Switzerland and Austria are clearly at terrible risk. They're non-aligned and do not have or want nuclear weapons.
Same with Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Argentina, Brazil and so on down a long list of smaller states.
Mr. Nabavi, unfortunately since the event sin Cologne at New Year's Eve, the line 'the mainstream media aren't reporting it' doesn't carry the weight it did, and ought to.
Our nuclear deterrent is clearly not independent - we are reliant on the Americans for the provision and servicing of the missile bodies.
How are Spain & Denmark faring without that Nuclear deterrent these days ?
What's happened to you?
You used to be very sound, Con/UKIP, but you've become rather wet over the last couple of months. Haven't you even joined the Limp Dems?
A lot of NATO shelters under the US/UK/French nuclear umbrella. We have had decades of peace precisely because we are all part of a nuclear armed alliance.
Louise Mensch has followed up on it. I take no view - and still haven't read the full French Parliamentary report but the does seem to be something in it.
Yes, well, I have read it. It really doesn't warrant Ms Mensch's irresponsible hysteria.
Agreed. A statement was made based on what someone had heard - which would not pass muster in an English court - and the police who were there denied it. The fact that a policeman vomited when he saw the bodies proves nothing. I imagine the scene was quite horrific enough for that to be the reaction.
The Bataclan massacre was quite horrific enough without people inventing further atrocities which can only cause pain to the families. Let's wait for the facts.
Frankly, at this point, detailing the horrors - whether of Bataclan or Nice - feels so insensitive and unnecessary. People are yet to be buried. Grief should not be a public spectacle for the rest of us. It is possible to comment on the events without indulging - if that is the mot juste - in a vicarious participation in the horror.
Mr. Pulpstar, which Paris attacks? Hebdo or Bataclan?
Ah Bataclan where the warriors of god cut off men's privates and put them in their mouths and sexually mutilated women.
Then the French authorities decided it best the public do not know the nature of their enemies.
Why are you still repeating this utter nonsense? Does it give you some sort of warped pleasure? Bataclan was horrendous enough without inventing things.
There does seem to be some evidence that some atrocities were committed in the Bataclan. Call me old fashioned.
I thought the report said it was unsubstantiated?
See above. It's not like Brexit/Remain "lies". We know they do this sort of thing.
Yeah, bud did they do it there is the question. I thought they couldn't find any evidence to support the claim?
You can close this page without losing your place in the queue. You are now in the queue - check your progress below
When you reach the front of the queue, you will have 10 minutes to complete and submit your application to become a Labour Party registered supporter. As long as you’re in the queue by 5pm on Wednesday 20 July, and you complete your application within your 10 minute window, your application to be a registered supporter will be processed.
If you don't want to wait on this page, give us your email address and we'll send you an email when it's your turn.
Good grief!!
A queue to fill out a form on the internet??
I don't think I've ever seen this before. The 10 minute window is particularly stupid. How does this work for goodness sake? If someone walks away from the computer while waiting (there is no timer telling them how long there is before the window comes, although there is a picture of a slowly walking man filling up a green bar - that progresses at variable speed) then I guess they'd be stuffed. So you really just have to sit and watch and wait. This is ridiculous.
(Obviously you can do the email thing, but you need to have an eye on your email inbox otherwise again, you'll miss you slot.)
How many registered supporters do we think they will get this time? I think a lot of those who registered last time for £3 to support Corbyn have now become full members, and those who are only moderately motivated are more likely to be put off by the £25 than the £3. Then again, if this time joining as a full member will not get you a vote, it could force some extra people to take this rout.
And is this Queue, evidence of a huge demand? or that some people in the HQ are trying to limit the number who successfully register?
I prefer if Britain had it's own nuclear weapons and missiles, and not having to buy from the americans or others. That's my problem with Trident.
The good thing about nuclear weapons is that they are so destructive it makes war politically and practically unfeasible between those who have them. The bad thing is that they are so destructive they can blow up the entire planet.
On other news, everyone had prior knowledge of the Turkish Coup, some info I got from Hamburg said that everyone was talking about it in the NATO conference about an upcoming coup in Turkey. Given that Turks were also present, the Turkish government would have heard about the gossip too.
There is also talk about Wikileaks leaking something soon about Erdogan and the Coup.
How can CBS know more about the Nice attack than the government in Paris?
I heard that he has 3 relatives who are also islamist extremists.
I also posted a link the other day about the events is Paris and the true barbarity being covered up.
There have been several other events where the truth is being suppressed, Germany being a specific example.
Political class obviously don't want difficult questions
The public are on to these things quicker than the politicians like to admit anyway.
Two months ago, British tourism in Turkey was down 30% in 2016 against its 2015 numbers. And that was before the violence in Ataturk airport and the recent coup.
We've evolved to sniff out danger, protect our families and weigh up the options, regardless of what our govt tells us. Politically correct labels of racism, bigotry, small mindedness or whatever.... fade into insignificance when measured up against the cold hard facts.
People are not holidaying in Turkey as much because they sense danger and are scared. Why is this?
The answer is pretty obvious.
Friends of ours normally go to France every summer - They decided to give it a miss this year.
I can highly recommend Suffolk. Very nice indeed this weekend. No currency exchange problems either.
I love Suffolk, we go there very regularly.
Dunwich being a favourite place to take the dog for a long walk.
For me this year our main holiday is a tour starting in Cumbria, moving up into Scotland and returning via Northumberland.
All an excuse for me to visit the second hand bookshop here :-)
How can CBS know more about the Nice attack than the government in Paris?
I heard that he has 3 relatives who are also islamist extremists.
I also posted a link the other day about the events is Paris and the true barbarity being covered up.
There have been several other events where the truth is being suppressed, Germany being a specific example.
Political class obviously don't want difficult questions
The public are on to these things quicker than the politicians like to admit anyway.
Two months ago, British tourism in Turkey was down 30% in 2016 against its 2015 numbers. And that was before the violence in Ataturk airport and the recent coup.
We've evolved to sniff out danger, protect our families and weigh up the options, regardless of what our govt tells us. Politically correct labels of racism, bigotry, small mindedness or whatever.... fade into insignificance when measured up against the cold hard facts.
People are not holidaying in Turkey as much because they sense danger and are scared. Why is this?
The answer is pretty obvious.
Friends of ours normally go to France every summer - They decided to give it a miss this year.
Go to southern Spain - warmer, the people are nicer and there are some wonderful places to visit, like Granada and Seville. History too - I once went to visit the grave of Maj. William Martin (should keep the googlers busy for a minute). Plus you get black silhouettes of a bull on almost every hillside.
I make a plea for Napoli and the whole Sorrento/Amalfi coastline. Enough classical history for a lifetime. Enough other history and art for those sated/bored with the classics. Brilliant food. The sun and sea are delightful. What more does anyone need?
The evidence for it is first hand hearsay which would be admissible in an English court. It is also behaviour one would expect from Isis, and sounds very similar to what indubitably happened at the Westgate mall in Kenya. That is not to say it is true, but dismissing it as "utter nonsense" seems to me over the top.
No, the 'evidence' seems to be a question asked at the official enquiry. That question was based on very little, indeed virtually nothing. The answers to the question - from those actually in charge of the investigation - made it quite clear that the suggestion was garbage.
Now, I suppose they might have been lying, for some strange reason. If so, it seems extraordinary that no witnesses have come forward to say so.
Sometimes, the simple explanation is the correct one: the alleged atrocities didn't happen, and there was no cover-up, despite some people desperately wanting to believe otherwise.
I guess some people want it to be true and sod what the families of the victims might feel.
I would prefer no one was killed or mutilated - but that's not the world we seem to be living in.
sigh - one of your ex tory mp's reported it and there are transcripts from the French enquiry.
But don't worry your pretty little head about it Richard.
Yes, as I said, I've read those transcripts, unlike those who repeat this nonsense.
I have read the transcripts and they oppose, on the one hand, two specific and detailed accounts of atrocities with, on the other, a general and unsatisfactory "absence of evidence" claim.
Knowing what we know about how Isis treats prisoners in general, and in the specific and similar circumstances of Westgate, I think your claims that this is "nonsense" are inexplicable. We just don't know.
Unfortunately the 4 million or descendants of the million black and mix raced people who fled to France after the FLN victory are second class disaffected citizens so ripe for exploitation by islamonutters.
Most of the non-Europeans who left Algeria for France were Arabs. Many of their descendants nowadays aren't religious and speak no more than a handful of words of Arabic. In Paris at both big Eid holidays the most common greeting is "Bonne Fête".
One factor that rarely gets mentioned is that the OAS and friends were often very traditionalist Catholics, to the point of crusaderism even.
I've just watched May's replay to the SNP question about "would she kill trillions of babies", and the her timing of her one word answer YES is immaculate. She pauses, deliberately, for a measured moment, to give it maximum effect.
I hate to say it, but that exchange was Thatcher-esque. She should have sat down after the YES to make it even more impressive, but nonetheless: not a bad start.
It's actually helpful for the SNP to have asked the question so bluntly. High minded talk aside, that's what the deterrent comes down to, acknowledging that many many people would die if it were ever used, and are we willing to do that. Honourable people will disagree on whether we should be, but that did cut to the heart of things.
Would a nuclear war head on the end of our missiles kill hundreds of thousands?
Anyhoo no point building a detterent if you are not happy to use it.
Depending on warhead, the yield can be anywhere from 100kt to 475kt. Answer: yes.
If the UK faced an invasion of conventional forces of overwhelming force, that would destroy our way of life, I think it would be justified to genuinely threaten a defensive low-yield nuclear strike on that force as a first strike as a last resort.
Of course, it's precisely the fear of that action that would also deter that use of conventional force.
It's difficult to imagine any other situations where they might be used, or that it'd be wise to threaten their use.
No amount of teaching young Syrian men how to behave with women in public is going to bridge the gap between people who believe that laws should be based on the word of Allah & those who believe that laws are what the people at any point in time think they should be. And to the extent that we believe in fundamental laws our whole concept of human rights is largely derived - ultimately - from the Judaeo-Greek-Christian tradition. The idea of human rights is nonsensical in Islamic terms since you don't have the right to be anything other than what is ordained for you (death for apostasy, for instance) and if you are not a Muslim you are - by definition - a second class citizen.
Add in all the other social/economic problems & it is little wonder that all countries have had & will continue to have problems. But they are not primarily problems for Jews or gays or women (canaries in the coalmine though they may be). They are problems for all of us. As we saw with all those who were all too quick to say that maybe free speech should not be exercised if it offended someone (& this was at the time of the Rushdie fatwa all those years ago). These problems have been known about for years & ignored for years & only now are being acknowledged but without - so far - the willingness to really address the underlying issues.
Meanwhile the size of the populations grow which makes integration and any other effective action that much harder. If nothing continues to be done I really worry about where we will be in 5 years.
Depressing stuff. Sorry.
Depressing, but factually difficult to argue with.
Louise Mensch has followed up on it. I take no view - and still haven't read the full French Parliamentary report but the does seem to be something in it.
Some media outlets and TV channels in europe have reported it. Others are resisting from doing so.
How can CBS know more about the Nice attack than the government in Paris?
I heard that he has 3 relatives who are also islamist extremists.
I also posted a link the other day about the events is Paris and the true barbarity being covered up.
There have been several other events where the truth is being suppressed, Germany being a specific example.
Political class obviously don't want difficult questions
The public are on to these things quicker than the politicians like to admit anyway.
Two months ago, British tourism in Turkey was down 30% in 2016 against its 2015 numbers. And that was before the violence in Ataturk airport and the recent coup.
We've evolved to sniff out danger, protect our families and weigh up the options, regardless of what our govt tells us. Politically correct labels of racism, bigotry, small mindedness or whatever.... fade into insignificance when measured up against the cold hard facts.
People are not holidaying in Turkey as much because they sense danger and are scared. Why is this?
The answer is pretty obvious.
Friends of ours normally go to France every summer - They decided to give it a miss this year.
Go to southern Spain - warmer, the people are nicer and there are some wonderful places to visit, like Granada and Seville. History too - I once went to visit the grave of Maj. William Martin (should keep the googlers busy for a minute). Plus you get black silhouettes of a bull on almost every hillside.
I make a plea for Napoli and the whole Sorrento/Amalfi coastline. Enough classical history for a lifetime. Enough other history and art for those sated/bored with the classics. Brilliant food. The sun and sea are delightful. What more does anyone need?
*Starts sobbing gently to herself*
It's a good plea, that is a lovely part of the world.
My preference for Spain is because I lived there for several years as a youngster, and it still feels a bit like going home when I visit there, which the UK, alas, does not any more.
I imagine the scene was quite horrific enough for that to be the reaction.
Yep, I believe the Bataclan terrorist were armed with heavy automatic weapons and grenades, quite capable of mutilation.
'.."It looked like an abattoir," Michael O'Connor, a 30-year-old from South Shields in north-east England who survived the attack, told BBC Radio 5Live. "I was wading through blood. It was a centimetre deep in places. I had to clamber over dead bodies to get out."
..Fahmi, was in the crowd on the lower level when he heard a noise he took to be firecrackers. "First of all I thought it was part of the show, but then I turned around and saw someone who had just taken a bullet in the eye," he told Liberation.
.."There were bodies, people hidden in every nook and cranny, phones vibrating, and blood, a lot of blood," one officer recalled, according to RTL.'
May unequivocally says she'd press the button. Corbyn unequivocally said he wouldn't. Game Over. I know the Game was over the moment Corbyn was elected but now it really is Game Over. *Sighs*
The idea that you have any real insight into how the Trident squadron operates is frankly laughable. The number of people that actually know is tiny and none of them are posting on a website under a nomme de plume.
Give it up mate all you are doing is making yourself look a prat.
Jesus wept - I'm a marketing manager in consumer goods, of course I've got no 'insight'. Furthermore, I haven't claimed any, especially not into 'how the Trident squadron operates', which has nothing to do with the technological capabilities that I'm basing my argument on. That's why I base my arguments on the best information I have access too. Others might like to try it.
This, to me, isn't acceptable. We pay billions, for a programme of 25 years, supposedly to defend against all threats but it can be unilaterally cut off if our relations with a foreign country deteriorate.
This is entirely excluding all the known and unknown ways that the US could stop the UK using its deterrent in the short term.
And Angus Robertson was vastly superior to Corbyn. Even Emily Thornberry made her best supportive intervention on Angus' speech not Corbyn's. Corbyn's only covering fire was from Caroline Lucas. Even Crispin Blunt was much better than Corbyn. *Sighs*
I've just watched May's replay to the SNP question about "would she kill trillions of babies", and the her timing of her one word answer YES is immaculate. She pauses, deliberately, for a measured moment, to give it maximum effect.
I hate to say it, but that exchange was Thatcher-esque. She should have sat down after the YES to make it even more impressive, but nonetheless: not a bad start.
The idea that you have any real insight into how the Trident squadron operates is frankly laughable. The number of people that actually know is tiny and none of them are posting on a website under a nomme de plume.
Give it up mate all you are doing is making yourself look a prat.
Jesus wept - I'm a marketing manager in consumer goods, of course I've got no 'insight'. Furthermore, I haven't claimed any, especially not into 'how the Trident squadron operates', which has nothing to do with the technological capabilities that I'm basing my argument on.
This, to me, isn't acceptable. We pay billions, for a programme of 25 years, supposedly to defend against all threats but it can be unilaterally cut off if our relations with a foreign country deteriorate.
This is entirely excluding all the known and unknown ways that the US could stop the UK using its deterrent in the short term.
Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, you wouldn't buy a Ford, Opel or Vauxhall then?
Does reaction in Nice also betray a different, more southern temperament among the population there? I have no idea, but the south of France is a very different place to the north, where the big attacks have occurred up to now.
The FN poll very well there amongst the indigines. Lots of pied noir there.
Pied Noir is a key to the whole thing. To understand what this is all about you have to know the History of Algeria.
Basically, imagine if South Africa had been declared an integral part of the UK in 1930 (and had Rhodesian style short of apartheid instituionalised discrimination including in who is allowed to vote) and that the black people were muslims.
And that most of the black and mixed race people were housed in banlieues upon arrival in the UK which in some ways were little better than townships like Soweto. And that they had had more children than indigenous population and there were about 4 million, mostly poor, few jobs and still regarded as Kaffirs by many of the indidgenous population.
That is France today.
I'd say that the FLN's victory was one of the worst things to have ever happened. The ruling group in pre 5th Republic Algeria were not your classic colonial overlords. Algeria was not a French colony. It was a Department of the French Republic. The FLN were/are your classic Maoist/kleptocratic reavers. You don't see much in the way of islamist insurgency in Algeria since the crushed/co-opted the GIS in the 90s. Some of the most black-hearted men in the world rule the roost there.
Hence why I compared the FLN with the maoist zanu-pf and pre independence Algeria with the more paternalistic Rhodesian government than the hardline apartheidists.
Unfortunately the 4 million or descendants of the million black and mix raced people who fled to France after the FLN victory are second class disaffected citizens so ripe for exploitation by islamonutters.
There is quite a stict delinealtion between "beur" and "pied noir" down there. A better Brit comparisonis NI.
I have just read 'The Plague' by Albert Camus. The thing that struck me most about the book was the total absence of Algerian characters in a book set in an Algerian city. To me that said everything about France's attitude to their southern Department.
May unequivocally says she'd press the button. Corbyn unequivocally said he wouldn't. Game Over. I know the Game was over the moment Corbyn was elected but now it really is Game Over. *Sighs*
Aren't you a Liberal Democrat supporter?
Why do you care about the fate of a hard Left Labour leader?
Blunt isn't opposed to nuclear weapons per se, but wants to consider alternative weapons programmes to Trident. From Blunt's piece:
We should be considering alternatives, such as deploying these modernised free-fall bombs on the new F35 jets we are buying from the Americans. Such a system would be a significant contribution to NATO’s nuclear posture, tailored to the type of threats NATO could face in the worst conceivable scenarios, at a fraction of the cost. If we gave ourselves half the proposed budget of Successor to play with we could also acquire F35Cs instead of less capable but more expensive F35Bs, more maritime patrol aircraft, 4 more frigates, 5 more Astute submarines, and re-engineer our aircraft carriers to launch fully capable aircraft. Investing in such a dual-capable system would free up scarce resources for other capabilities desperately needed for Britain to play the international role that matches our responsibilities and position within the NATO Alliance and on the UN Security Council.
This seems rather retrograde to me. People switched to missiles because they had a better chance of "getting through" than a plane would against modern air defences. And people switched to nuclear submarines because they are less vulnerable than land-based missiles.
Now it may be that a submarine is, these days, vulnerable too. Perhaps they can't hide so well from eyes in the sky, or (bearing in mind we are talking about a timescale going decades into the future) they can be tracked by underwater drone. I don't know enough to make an informed comment. But going back to the days of the bomber doesn't jump out at me as a forward-looking step.
@benrileysmith: Website for paying £25 and voting in Labour leadership race has crashed after less than 10 mins.
After less than 3 mins.
Tomorrows NEC has to change the criteria.
Its a complete fix
Don't assume it's just Corbyn supporters trying to register, I'm trying after having emails urging me to do so from the Stronger In Campaign, the Save Labour Campaign and from Dan Jarvis MP. For many of this is the last throw of the dice, let it fall where it may!
I've just watched May's replay to the SNP question about "would she kill trillions of babies", and the her timing of her one word answer YES is immaculate. She pauses, deliberately, for a measured moment, to give it maximum effect.
I hate to say it, but that exchange was Thatcher-esque. She should have sat down after the YES to make it even more impressive, but nonetheless: not a bad start.
Actually I felt a bit teary watching Angus Robertson. He's sort of a Poundland Charles Kennedy. But in a good. Leader of a moderately sized third parliamentary party from the radical but non Labour tradition. Didn't we used to have one of those ? *Sighs* * Sobs*
The idea that you have any real insight into how the Trident squadron operates is frankly laughable. The number of people that actually know is tiny and none of them are posting on a website under a nomme de plume.
Give it up mate all you are doing is making yourself look a prat.
Jesus wept - I'm a marketing manager in consumer goods, of course I've got no 'insight'. Furthermore, I haven't claimed any, especially not into 'how the Trident squadron operates', which has nothing to do with the technological capabilities that I'm basing my argument on.
This, to me, isn't acceptable. We pay billions, for a programme of 25 years, supposedly to defend against all threats but it can be unilaterally cut off if our relations with a foreign country deteriorate.
This is entirely excluding all the known and unknown ways that the US could stop the UK using its deterrent in the short term.
Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, you wouldn't buy a Ford, Opel or Vauxhall then?
Ford, Opel/Vauxhall etc. have no interest in my car suddenly stopping - quite the opposite. The US has every interest in stopping a third country from unilaterally blowing up cities. They would have to be nuts not to have a fall back option - raving. And of course they do. Let's not be silly.
I don't blame the US for doing it either - it's free money.
Does reaction in Nice also betray a different, more southern temperament among the population there? I have no idea, but the south of France is a very different place to the north, where the big attacks have occurred up to now.
The FN poll very well there amongst the indigines. Lots of pied noir there.
Pied Noir is a key to the whole thing. To understand what this is all about you have to know the History of Algeria.
Basically, imagine if South Africa had been declared an integral part of the UK in 1930 (and had Rhodesian style short of apartheid instituionalised discrimination including in who is allowed to vote) and that the black people were muslims.
And that most of the black and mixed race people were housed in banlieues upon arrival in the UK which in some ways were little better than townships like Soweto. And that they had had more children than indigenous population and there were about 4 million, mostly poor, few jobs and still regarded as Kaffirs by many of the indidgenous population.
That is France today.
I'd say that the FLN's victory was one of the worst things to have ever happened. The ruling group in pre 5th Republic Algeria were not your classic colonial overlords. Algeria was not a French colony. It was a Department of the French Republic. The FLN were/are your classic Maoist/kleptocratic reavers. You don't see much in the way of islamist insurgency in Algeria since the crushed/co-opted the GIS in the 90s. Some of the most black-hearted men in the world rule the roost there.
Hence why I compared the FLN with the maoist zanu-pf and pre independence Algeria with the more paternalistic Rhodesian government than the hardline apartheidists.
Unfortunately the 4 million or descendants of the million black and mix raced people who fled to France after the FLN victory are second class disaffected citizens so ripe for exploitation by islamonutters.
There is quite a stict delinealtion between "beur" and "pied noir" down there. A better Brit comparisonis NI.
I have just read 'The Plague' by Albert Camus. The thing that struck me most about the book was the total absence of Algerian characters in a book set in an Algerian city. To me that said everything about France's attitude to their southern Department.
Good book, all the same.
I studied the book at school - isn't it an allegory of the German occupation of France in ww2?
If the UK faced an invasion of conventional forces of overwhelming force, that would destroy our way of life, I think it would be justified to genuinely threaten a defensive low-yield nuclear strike on that force as a first strike as a last resort.
Of course, it's precisely the fear of that action that would also deter that use of conventional force.
It's difficult to imagine any other situations where they might be used, or that it'd be wise to threaten their use.
Easy, though, to imagine situations where their use might be threatened - say if NATO puts sufficient forces in Estonia to endanger Russian security in Kaliningrad, Russia responds by invading Estonia, Britain and the US then invade Kaliningrad, and Russia hits NATO forces with tactical nukes. That's close to the scenario imagined by British general Richard Shirreff in his recent novel, 2017: War with Russia.
May unequivocally says she'd press the button. Corbyn unequivocally said he wouldn't. Game Over. I know the Game was over the moment Corbyn was elected but now it really is Game Over. *Sighs*
Aren't you a Liberal Democrat supporter?
Why do you care about the fate of a hard Left Labour leader?
I'm a post Liberal Democrat. I'm a liberal who'd like to peruse liberalism by parliamentary means even though the former Liberal Democrats used Trident on themselves.
Actually I felt a bit teary watching Angus Robertson. He's sort of a Poundland Charles Kennedy. But in a good. Leader of a moderately sized third parliamentary party from the radical but non Labour tradition. Didn't we used to have one of those ? *Sighs* * Sobs*
There is quite a stict delinealtion between "beur" and "pied noir" down there. A better Brit comparisonis NI.
I have just read 'The Plague' by Albert Camus. The thing that struck me most about the book was the total absence of Algerian characters in a book set in an Algerian city. To me that said everything about France's attitude to their southern Department.
Good book, all the same.
Colonial France wasn't alone in creating surprisingly "European" cities in Africa.
From Wikipedia, re Italian Eritrea:While Eritrea was under Italian colonial rule, early-20th-century Europeans used Asmara "to experiment with radical new designs" in architecture. Nowadays the major part of buildings are of Italian origin, and shops still have Italian names (e.g., Bar Vittoria, Pasticceria moderna, Casa del formaggio, and Ferramenta).
Asmara was populated by a large Italian community and consequently the city acquired an Italian architectural look. The city of Asmara had a population of 98,000, of which 53,000 were Italian according to the Italian census of 1939. This fact made Asmara the main "Italian town" of the Italian empire in Africa. In all of Eritrea the population of Italians was only 75,000 in total in that year, making Asmara by far their largest centre. Italia Asmara enjoyed a huge development in the 1930s, not only economically but even socially and culturally: Italians even created the theater Asmara's Opera and the car race Circuito Asmara.
You could live in that corner of the Italian Empire and genuinely feel "Italian".
Does reaction in Nice also betray a different, more southern temperament among the population there? I have no idea, but the south of France is a very different place to the north, where the big attacks have occurred up to now.
The FN poll very well there amongst the indigines. Lots of pied noir there.
Pied Noir is a key to the whole thing. To understand what this is all about you have to know the History of Algeria.
Basically, imagine if South Africa had been declared an integral part of the UK in 1930 (and had Rhodesian style short of apartheid instituionalised discrimination including in who is allowed to vote) and that the black people were muslims.
And that most of the black and mixed race people were housed in banlieues upon arrival in the UK which in some ways were little better than townships like Soweto. And that they had had more children than indigenous population and there were about 4 million, mostly poor, few jobs and still regarded as Kaffirs by many of the indidgenous population.
That is France today.
I'd say that the FLN's victory was one of the worst things to have ever happened. The ruling group in pre 5th Republic Algeria were not your classic colonial overlords. Algeria was not a French colony. It was a Department of the French Republic. The FLN were/are your classic Maoist/kleptocratic reavers. You don't see much in the way of islamist insurgency in Algeria since the crushed/co-opted the GIS in the 90s. Some of the most black-hearted men in the world rule the roost there.
Hence why I compared the FLN with the maoist zanu-pf and pre independence Algeria with the more paternalistic Rhodesian government than the hardline apartheidists.
Unfortunately the 4 million or descendants of the million black and mix raced people who fled to France after the FLN victory are second class disaffected citizens so ripe for exploitation by islamonutters.
There is quite a stict delinealtion between "beur" and "pied noir" down there. A better Brit comparisonis NI.
I have just read 'The Plague' by Albert Camus. The thing that struck me most about the book was the total absence of Algerian characters in a book set in an Algerian city. To me that said everything about France's attitude to their southern Department.
Good book, all the same.
I studied the book at school - isn't it an allegory of the German occupation of France in ww2?
Does reaction in Nice also betray a different, more southern temperament among the population there? I have no idea, but the south of France is a very different place to the north, where the big attacks have occurred up to now.
The FN poll very well there amongst the indigines. Lots of pied noir there.
Pied Noir is a key to the whole thing. To understand what this is all about you have to know the History of Algeria.
That is France today.
I'd say that the FLN's victory was one of the worst things to have ever happened. The ruling group in pre 5th Republic Algeria were not your classic colonial overlords. Algeria was not a French colony. It was a Department of the French Republic. The FLN were/are your classic Maoist/kleptocratic reavers. You don't see much in the way of islamist insurgency in Algeria since the crushed/co-opted the GIS in the 90s. Some of the most black-hearted men in the world rule the roost there.
Hence why I compared the FLN with the maoist zanu-pf and pre independence Algeria with the more paternalistic Rhodesian government than the hardline apartheidists.
Unfortunately the 4 million or descendants of the million black and mix raced people who fled to France after the FLN victory are second class disaffected citizens so ripe for exploitation by islamonutters.
There is quite a stict delinealtion between "beur" and "pied noir" down there. A better Brit comparisonis NI.
I have just read 'The Plague' by Albert Camus. The thing that struck me most about the book was the total absence of Algerian characters in a book set in an Algerian city. To me that said everything about France's attitude to their southern Department.
Good book, all the same.
I studied the book at school - isn't it an allegory of the German occupation of France in ww2?
"The novel has been read as a metaphorical treatment of the French resistance to Nazi occupation during World War II. Additionally, he further illustrates the human reaction towards the "absurd." The Plague represents how the world deals with the philosophical notion of the Absurd, a theory that Camus himself helped to define."
I saw it mostly as pointing a spotlight on the human condition. Unless you are Algerian.
The idea that you have any real insight into how the Trident squadron operates is frankly laughable. The number of people that actually know is tiny and none of them are posting on a website under a nomme de plume.
Give it up mate all you are doing is making yourself look a prat.
Jesus wept - I'm a marketing manager in consumer goods, of course I've got no 'insight'. Furthermore, I haven't claimed any, especially not into 'how the Trident squadron operates', which has nothing to do with the technological capabilities that I'm basing my argument on.
This, to me, isn't acceptable. We pay billions, for a programme of 25 years, supposedly to defend against all threats but it can be unilaterally cut off if our relations with a foreign country deteriorate.
This is entirely excluding all the known and unknown ways that the US could stop the UK using its deterrent in the short term.
Taking that argument to its logical conclusion, you wouldn't buy a Ford, Opel or Vauxhall then?
Ford, Opel/Vauxhall etc. have no interest in my car suddenly stopping - quite the opposite. The US has every interest in stopping a third country from unilaterally blowing up cities. They would have to be nuts not to have a fall back option - raving. And of course they do. Let's not be silly.
I don't blame the US for doing it either - it's free money.
As every fool knows, including the phrase "of course" in a statement is unarguable evidence of its verity. Obviously.
There's no scenario in which that step is remotely plausible. We wouldn't under any circumstances respond to an invasion of Estonia by invading Russia.
I've just watched May's replay to the SNP question about "would she kill trillions of babies", and the her timing of her one word answer YES is immaculate. She pauses, deliberately, for a measured moment, to give it maximum effect.
I hate to say it, but that exchange was Thatcher-esque. She should have sat down after the YES to make it even more impressive, but nonetheless: not a bad start.
I have just read 'The Plague' by Albert Camus. The thing that struck me most about the book was the total absence of Algerian characters in a book set in an Algerian city. To me that said everything about France's attitude to their southern Department.
Indeed. Worth saying though that many French settlers saw themselves as "the Algerians" (or the Christians or Europeans), with the natives being "the Arabs" (or the Muslims).
There's no scenario in which that step is remotely plausible. We wouldn't under any circumstances respond to an invasion of Estonia by invading Russia.
Blunt isn't opposed to nuclear weapons per se, but wants to consider alternative weapons programmes to Trident. From Blunt's piece:
We should be considering alternatives, such as deploying these modernised free-fall bombs on the new F35 jets we are buying from the Americans. Such a system would be a significant contribution to NATO’s nuclear posture, tailored to the type of threats NATO could face in the worst conceivable scenarios, at a fraction of the cost. If we gave ourselves half the proposed budget of Successor to play with we could also acquire F35Cs instead of less capable but more expensive F35Bs, more maritime patrol aircraft, 4 more frigates, 5 more Astute submarines, and re-engineer our aircraft carriers to launch fully capable aircraft. Investing in such a dual-capable system would free up scarce resources for other capabilities desperately needed for Britain to play the international role that matches our responsibilities and position within the NATO Alliance and on the UN Security Council.
This seems rather retrograde to me. People switched to missiles because they had a better chance of "getting through" than a plane would against modern air defences. And people switched to nuclear submarines because they are less vulnerable than land-based missiles.
Now it may be that a submarine is, these days, vulnerable too. Perhaps they can't hide so well from eyes in the sky, or (bearing in mind we are talking about a timescale going decades into the future) they can be tracked by underwater drone. I don't know enough to make an informed comment. But going back to the days of the bomber doesn't jump out at me as a forward-looking step.
There is no way the UK are going to buy F35Cs. There might, just, be a buy for As 10 years down the line but the MoD is entirely bought into 100+ Bs. Integration with the USMC and RAF Typhoon fleets is where it's at.
Does reaction in Nice also betray a different, more southern temperament among the population there? I have no idea, but the south of France is a very different place to the north, where the big attacks have occurred up to now.
The FN poll very well there amongst the indigines. Lots of pied noir there.
Pied Noir is a key to the whole thing. To understand what this is all about you have to know the History of Algeria.
That is France today.
I'd say that the FLN's victory was one of the worst things to have ever happened. The ruling group in pre 5th Republic Algeria were not your classic colonial overlords. Algeria was not a French colony. It was a Department of the French Republic. The FLN were/are your classic Maoist/kleptocratic reavers. You don't see much in the way of islamist insurgency in Algeria since the crushed/co-opted the GIS in the 90s. Some of the most black-hearted men in the world rule the roost there.
Hence why I compared the FLN with the maoist zanu-pf and pre independence Algeria with the more paternalistic Rhodesian government than the hardline apartheidists.
Unfortunately the 4 million or descendants of the million black and mix raced people who fled to France after the FLN victory are second class disaffected citizens so ripe for exploitation by islamonutters.
There is quite a stict delinealtion between "beur" and "pied noir" down there. A better Brit comparisonis NI.
I have just read 'The Plague' by Albert Camus. The thing that struck me most about the book was the total absence of Algerian characters in a book set in an Algerian city. To me that said everything about France's attitude to their southern Department.
Good book, all the same.
I studied the book at school - isn't it an allegory of the German occupation of France in ww2?
"The novel has been read as a metaphorical treatment of the French resistance to Nazi occupation during World War II. Additionally, he further illustrates the human reaction towards the "absurd." The Plague represents how the world deals with the philosophical notion of the Absurd, a theory that Camus himself helped to define."
I saw it mostly as pointing a spotlight on the human condition. Unless you are Algerian.
To be perfectly frank, I saw it mostly as a way of getting as many 'O' Level marks as possible. My inner Algerian didn't raise even a murmur.
I've just watched May's replay to the SNP question about "would she kill trillions of babies", and the her timing of her one word answer YES is immaculate. She pauses, deliberately, for a measured moment, to give it maximum effect.
I hate to say it, but that exchange was Thatcher-esque. She should have sat down after the YES to make it even more impressive, but nonetheless: not a bad start.
The idea that you have any real insight into how the Trident squadron operates is frankly laughable. The number of people that actually know is tiny and none of them are posting on a website under a nomme de plume.
Give it up mate all you are doing is making yourself look a prat.
Jesus wept - I'm a marketing manager in consumer goods, of course I've got no 'insight'. Furthermore, I haven't claimed any, especially not into 'how the Trident squadron operates', which has nothing to do with the technological capabilities that I'm basing my argument on. That's why I base my arguments on the best information I have access too. Others might like to try it.
This, to me, isn't acceptable. We pay billions, for a programme of 25 years, supposedly to defend against all threats but it can be unilaterally cut off if our relations with a foreign country deteriorate.
This is entirely excluding all the known and unknown ways that the US could stop the UK using its deterrent in the short term.
You don't have access to good information. Where do you think the back door is again?
The idea that you have any real insight into how the Trident squadron operates is frankly laughable. The number of people that actually know is tiny and none of them are posting on a website under a nomme de plume.
Give it up mate all you are doing is making yourself look a prat.
Jesus wept - I'm a marketing manager in consumer goods, of course I've got no 'insight'. Furthermore, I haven't claimed any, especially not into 'how the Trident squadron operates', which has nothing to do with the technological capabilities that I'm basing my argument on. That's why I base my arguments on the best information I have access too. Others might like to try it.
This, to me, isn't acceptable. We pay billions, for a programme of 25 years, supposedly to defend against all threats but it can be unilaterally cut off if our relations with a foreign country deteriorate.
This is entirely excluding all the known and unknown ways that the US could stop the UK using its deterrent in the short term.
You don't have access to good information. Where do you think the back door is again?
There are three back doors. Behind one of them is Armageddon...
I saw the reference to a May put down, and immediately I assumed it was something said by or about Captain Slow. (They recorded their first studio session for the Grand Tour over the weekend by the way. Just updated my Amazon Fire TV so it can handle 4k video).
Score one for the prime minister on that put down.
Re French colonial practice in Algeria: autres temps, autres moeurs.
At some point, though, people have to take responsibility for their own actions. The mess most Middle Eastern countries are in is not solely the fault of Europe. Arabs are not children. They too are actors and their own actions and inactions have played a part - probably the most important part - in determining what their societies are like now.
I have no problem with people arguing in favour of nuclear weapons per se. What does appall me is the sheer humbug and hypocrisy of those who say we must have these terrible weapons for our defence whilst at the same time seeking to deny them to other countries fully entitled to share our fears of being attacked.
I've just watched May's replay to the SNP question about "would she kill trillions of babies", and the her timing of her one word answer YES is immaculate. She pauses, deliberately, for a measured moment, to give it maximum effect.
I hate to say it, but that exchange was Thatcher-esque. She should have sat down after the YES to make it even more impressive, but nonetheless: not a bad start.
She is right, you either have it and are willing to use it or you don't have it at all.
A very assured response and a very assured performance all around from May.
Years ago I read Alexander Haig's bio. He said he was present at Reagan's initiation in the nuke codes. According to Haig the Gipper said something like this: "gentlemen, you need to be aware that I will not, under any circumstances authorise the use of nuclear weapons". The point being that the Soviets didn't know that!
The idea that you have any real insight into how the Trident squadron operates is frankly laughable. The number of people that actually know is tiny and none of them are posting on a website under a nomme de plume.
Give it up mate all you are doing is making yourself look a prat.
Jesus wept - I'm a marketing manager in consumer goods, of course I've got no 'insight'. Furthermore, I haven't claimed any, especially not into 'how the Trident squadron operates', which has nothing to do with the technological capabilities that I'm basing my argument on. That's why I base my arguments on the best information I have access too. Others might like to try it.
This, to me, isn't acceptable. We pay billions, for a programme of 25 years, supposedly to defend against all threats but it can be unilaterally cut off if our relations with a foreign country deteriorate.
This is entirely excluding all the known and unknown ways that the US could stop the UK using its deterrent in the short term.
You don't have access to good information. Where do you think the back door is again?
There are three back doors. Behind one of them is Armageddon...
I've just watched May's replay to the SNP question about "would she kill trillions of babies", and the her timing of her one word answer YES is immaculate. She pauses, deliberately, for a measured moment, to give it maximum effect.
I hate to say it, but that exchange was Thatcher-esque. She should have sat down after the YES to make it even more impressive, but nonetheless: not a bad start.
She is right, you either have it and are willing to use it or you don't have it at all.
A very assured response and a very assured performance all around from May.
Years ago I read Alexander Haig's bio. He said he was present at Reagan's initiation in the nuke codes. According to Haig the Gipper said something like this: "gentlemen, you need to be aware that I will not, under any circumstances authorise the use of nuclear weapons". The point being that the Soviets didn't know that!
I've just watched May's replay to the SNP question about "would she kill trillions of babies", and the her timing of her one word answer YES is immaculate. She pauses, deliberately, for a measured moment, to give it maximum effect.
I hate to say it, but that exchange was Thatcher-esque. She should have sat down after the YES to make it even more impressive, but nonetheless: not a bad start.
She is right, you either have it and are willing to use it or you don't have it at all.
A very assured response and a very assured performance all around from May.
Years ago I read Alexander Haig's bio. He said he was present at Reagan's initiation in the nuke codes. According to Haig the Gipper said something like this: "gentlemen, you need to be aware that I will not, under any circumstances authorise the use of nuclear weapons". The point being that the Soviets didn't know that!
There's no scenario in which that step is remotely plausible. We wouldn't under any circumstances respond to an invasion of Estonia by invading Russia.
Well you had better tell British general Richard Shirreff that. And tell RUSI too, where Shirreff launched his book (and the prime minister launched her campaign for the Tory leadership). Shirreff until recently was NATO's deputy supreme allied commander in Europe. (DSACEUR is always a Brit.)
OGH: " Trump is managing to appeal to a section of white America that is very similar to LEAVE on June 23rd. The big dividing line is whether voters had a college education or not."
If I didn't know Mike better, I'd have to conclude from the above that he believes LEAVE won the referendum only on account of attracting the support of the great uneducated. Does he have any evidence I wonder to support this assertion?
I have read the transcripts and they oppose, on the one hand, two specific and detailed accounts of atrocities with, on the other, a general and unsatisfactory "absence of evidence" claim.
Knowing what we know about how Isis treats prisoners in general, and in the specific and similar circumstances of Westgate, I think your claims that this is "nonsense" are inexplicable. We just don't know.
If you really want to think that those are 'two specific and detailed accounts of atrocities', and you are determined to ignore the facts that those in charge of the clear-up and investigation would have known about them and that no witnesses have come forward, then TBH I don't think I can comment further, other than to scratch my head in bewilderment.
Re French colonial practice in Algeria: autres temps, autres moeurs.
At some point, though, people have to take responsibility for their own actions. The mess most Middle Eastern countries are in is not solely the fault of Europe. Arabs are not children. They too are actors and their own actions and inactions have played a part - probably the most important part - in determining what their societies are like now.
Much easier to blame us though. And they will plenty of useful fools here who will agree with them.
I have no problem with people arguing in favour of nuclear weapons per se. What does appall me is the sheer humbug and hypocrisy of those who say we must have these terrible weapons for our defence whilst at the same time seeking to deny them to other countries fully entitled to share our fears of being attacked.
Depends what you mean by "fully entitled". Personally I don't think that Khameni or Kim share the same entitlement as us. I'd rather Putin or Xe didn't have them as well.
The idea that you have any real insight into how the Trident squadron operates is frankly laughable. The number of people that actually know is tiny and none of them are posting on a website under a nomme de plume.
Give it up mate all you are doing is making yourself look a prat.
Jesus wept - I'm a marketing manager in consumer goods, of course I've got no 'insight'. Furthermore, I haven't claimed any, especially not into 'how the Trident squadron operates', which has nothing to do with the technological capabilities that I'm basing my argument on. That's why I base my arguments on the best information I have access too. Others might like to try it.
This, to me, isn't acceptable. We pay billions, for a programme of 25 years, supposedly to defend against all threats but it can be unilaterally cut off if our relations with a foreign country deteriorate.
This is entirely excluding all the known and unknown ways that the US could stop the UK using its deterrent in the short term.
You don't have access to good information. Where do you think the back door is again?
I'd like to know the 'known' ways the US could stop the UK from using it.
But let's think about this. We have the missiles for long periods, and could do tests on them. We manufacture our own warheads to more-or-less joint designs. We have intelligent engineers. *If* the Yanks put in items that would prevent us using the weapons in the short-term - say a secondary, hidden PAL system - then we *would* find it.
Saying otherwise is saying our people are thick.
And if we did find it, we could raise a stink. But there's worse for the US:
From the Yank POV: we could negate it. If it's in the warhead design, they'd never know. It'd be harder with the missiles, but it might well be feasible to put the hidden system back in place by the time the missiles are returned to the US.
So it's pointless the US doing it, as they'd never know if we'd subverted it.
The idea that you have any real insight into how the Trident squadron operates is frankly laughable. The number of people that actually know is tiny and none of them are posting on a website under a nomme de plume.
Give it up mate all you are doing is making yourself look a prat.
Jesus wept - I'm a marketing manager in consumer goods, of course I've got no 'insight'. Furthermore, I haven't claimed any, especially not into 'how the Trident squadron operates', which has nothing to do with the technological capabilities that I'm basing my argument on. That's why I base my arguments on the best information I have access too. Others might like to try it.
This, to me, isn't acceptable. We pay billions, for a programme of 25 years, supposedly to defend against all threats but it can be unilaterally cut off if our relations with a foreign country deteriorate.
This is entirely excluding all the known and unknown ways that the US could stop the UK using its deterrent in the short term.
You don't have access to good information. Where do you think the back door is again?
OGH: " Trump is managing to appeal to a section of white America that is very similar to LEAVE on June 23rd. The big dividing line is whether voters had a college education or not."
If I didn't know Mike better, I'd have to conclude from the above that he believes LEAVE won the referendum only on account of attracting the support of the great uneducated. Does he have any evidence I wonder to support this assertion?
I think many polls show this. But the assertion made by some that somehow degree=intelligence is false because many universities in Britain accept students with D grades or even lower.
Labour MP Roger Godsiff taking the view that we shouldn't renew trident and instead contribute to the cost of the US deterrent.
Perhaps we should charge Europe for ours?
He was arguing that NATO members shouldn't get a free pass in this respect. So perhaps we should have a NATO fund for the US deterrent and just accept that they have the final say.
I have no idea if LG83 is right about the US being able to stop us from using our independent deterrent, but I think it's the crucial question in respect to whether we should bother with spending a great sum on renewing Trident.
OGH: " Trump is managing to appeal to a section of white America that is very similar to LEAVE on June 23rd. The big dividing line is whether voters had a college education or not."
If I didn't know Mike better, I'd have to conclude from the above that he believes LEAVE won the referendum only on account of attracting the support of the great uneducated. Does he have any evidence I wonder to support this assertion?
Quick recap: 3% of those born in the 1940s went to uni. 13% of the boomers. Only 20% went in the early 90s. Unless you assume that people are inherently smarter these days (do people actually assume that?), education != intelligence.
Remember, education is the process of progressively knowing more and more about less and less. Ask any post-grad.
So it's pointless the US doing it, as they'd never know if we'd subverted it.
Assuming the Brits who knew about the subverting of it always spoke in low voices and kept the tap running during any conversations they had about what they were doing, right?
I've just watched May's replay to the SNP question about "would she kill trillions of babies", and the her timing of her one word answer YES is immaculate. She pauses, deliberately, for a measured moment, to give it maximum effect.
I hate to say it, but that exchange was Thatcher-esque. She should have sat down after the YES to make it even more impressive, but nonetheless: not a bad start.
She is right, you either have it and are willing to use it or you don't have it at all.
A very assured response and a very assured performance all around from May.
Years ago I read Alexander Haig's bio. He said he was present at Reagan's initiation in the nuke codes. According to Haig the Gipper said something like this: "gentlemen, you need to be aware that I will not, under any circumstances authorise the use of nuclear weapons". The point being that the Soviets didn't know that!
So the 'we begin bombing in five minutes' joke really, really was a joke.
I have no problem with people arguing in favour of nuclear weapons per se. What does appall me is the sheer humbug and hypocrisy of those who say we must have these terrible weapons for our defence whilst at the same time seeking to deny them to other countries fully entitled to share our fears of being attacked.
Depends what you mean by "fully entitled". Personally I don't think that Khameni or Kim share the same entitlement at us. I'd rather Putin or Xe didn't have them as well.
Disagree. Every country can fear being attacked by such weapons. Why should we get special consideration? After all - in alliance with the US and others- we have shown very clear evidence in recent years of aggressive intent, so it is entirely reasonable for other countries to seek to defend themselves against us.
Labour MP Roger Godsiff taking the view that we shouldn't renew trident and instead contribute to the cost of the US deterrent.
Perhaps we should charge Europe for ours?
He was arguing that NATO members shouldn't get a free pass in this respect. So perhaps we should have a NATO fund for the US deterrent and just accept that they have the final say.
I have no idea if LG83 is right about the US being able to stop us from using our independent deterrent, but I think it's the crucial question in respect to whether we should bother with spending a great sum on renewing Trident.
Can the US stop us from using our independent deterrent? In the short-term: no. And the short-term is what matters. In the medium-term: yes, by withholding missiles in particular. In the long-term: no. We could re-engineer (at cost) whatever they don't give us.
Indeed and it's been very easy money for a long time.
Yes though on one sense it has cost us dear having so much tied up when they were giving out free money on referendum night and my cards were maxed out
The idea that you have any real insight into how the Trident squadron operates is frankly laughable. The number of people that actually know is tiny and none of them are posting on a website under a nomme de plume.
Give it up mate all you are doing is making yourself look a prat.
Jesus wept - I'm a marketing manager in consumer goods, of course I've got no 'insight'. Furthermore, I haven't claimed any, especially not into 'how the Trident squadron operates', which has nothing to do with the technological capabilities that I'm basing my argument on. That's why I base my arguments on the best information I have access too. Others might like to try it.
This, to me, isn't acceptable. We pay billions, for a programme of 25 years, supposedly to defend against all threats but it can be unilaterally cut off if our relations with a foreign country deteriorate.
This is entirely excluding all the known and unknown ways that the US could stop the UK using its deterrent in the short term.
You don't have access to good information. Where do you think the back door is again?
Sorry, what?
You said you don't have access to very good information. I was just confirming your impression there.
You also seem to have this strange idea that the Americans - through some technical mechanism as yet undefined - could interrupt the UK chain of command. This is often known as a "back door".
We have been through this before. You assert that the UK deterrent is subject to ultimate US control. Lot's of more informed folks tell you you are wrong but the magical thinking persists.
Don't get me wrong. I like you. We are on the same side on Brexit. You write well and persuasively. One thing about the Brexit thing was that it broke down previous lines. But you do have some strange ideas. Including about nutrition and medicine.
OGH: " Trump is managing to appeal to a section of white America that is very similar to LEAVE on June 23rd. The big dividing line is whether voters had a college education or not."
If I didn't know Mike better, I'd have to conclude from the above that he believes LEAVE won the referendum only on account of attracting the support of the great uneducated. Does he have any evidence I wonder to support this assertion?
I think many polls show this. But the assertion made by some that somehow degree=intelligence is false because many universities in Britain accept students with D grades or even lower.
Even a short spell in the City would tell you that having a degree, even several, is no proof against stupidity and a staggering absence of even the most basic common-sense.
I'm quite sure the same applies in other walks of life. There is a kind of stupidity that only the highly intelligent are capable of.
Would you rather your auntie were your uncle as well? When influential British and US figures take the view that NATO security in Estonia (against a possible attack by nuclear-armed Russia) comes from entitlement whereas Russia aren't so entitled to have security in Kaliningrad (against a possible attack by nuclear-armed NATO), things start getting very dangerous.
I have no problem with people arguing in favour of nuclear weapons per se. What does appall me is the sheer humbug and hypocrisy of those who say we must have these terrible weapons for our defence whilst at the same time seeking to deny them to other countries fully entitled to share our fears of being attacked.
Depends what you mean by "fully entitled". Personally I don't think that Khameni or Kim share the same entitlement at us. I'd rather Putin or Xe didn't have them as well.
Disagree. Every country can fear being attacked by such weapons. Why should we get special consideration? After all - in alliance with the US and others- we have shown very clear evidence in recent years of aggressive intent, so it is entirely reasonable for other countries to seek to defend themselves against us.
So it's pointless the US doing it, as they'd never know if we'd subverted it.
Assuming the Brits who knew about the subverting of it always spoke in low voices and kept the tap running during any conversations they had about what they were doing, right?
Well, yes. But the same holds true for this putative back-door system that somehow our guys are too thick to detect.
*If* it existed, the Yanks could never be sure it still operated on our missiles/warheads as they don't have control over them day to day, rendering the system pointless.
I have read the transcripts and they oppose, on the one hand, two specific and detailed accounts of atrocities with, on the other, a general and unsatisfactory "absence of evidence" claim.
Knowing what we know about how Isis treats prisoners in general, and in the specific and similar circumstances of Westgate, I think your claims that this is "nonsense" are inexplicable. We just don't know.
If you really want to think that those are 'two specific and detailed accounts of atrocities', and you are determined to ignore the facts that those in charge of the clear-up and investigation would have known about them and that no witnesses have come forward, then TBH I don't think I can comment further, other than to scratch my head in bewilderment.
And the same, mutatis mutandis, to you. Isis behave the way they behave, and your unshakable faith that in Paris they are different and start to conduct themselves according to the laws of civilized terrorism is a mystery. I am neither a torture-porn addict nor a conspiracy theorist, but I do know a "not proven" situation when I see one.
On the plus side I now know from the transcripts the meaning of "armes blanches," which I didn't before.
I have no problem with people arguing in favour of nuclear weapons per se. What does appall me is the sheer humbug and hypocrisy of those who say we must have these terrible weapons for our defence whilst at the same time seeking to deny them to other countries fully entitled to share our fears of being attacked.
Depends what you mean by "fully entitled". Personally I don't think that Khameni or Kim share the same entitlement at us. I'd rather Putin or Xe didn't have them as well.
Disagree. Every country can fear being attacked by such weapons. Why should we get special consideration? After all - in alliance with the US and others- we have shown very clear evidence in recent years of aggressive intent, so it is entirely reasonable for other countries to seek to defend themselves against us.
Years ago I read Alexander Haig's bio. He said he was present at Reagan's initiation in the nuke codes. According to Haig the Gipper said something like this: "gentlemen, you need to be aware that I will not, under any circumstances authorise the use of nuclear weapons". The point being that the Soviets didn't know that!
So the 'we begin bombing in five minutes' joke really, really was a joke.
Sure. And just to cheer everyone up, the idea of "nuclear winter" is increasingly being written off too, as exaggeration or KGB propaganda. According to US National Security, "experts suggest" that "the nature of modern US city design and construction" may make even "a raging firestorm" unlikely after a nuclear attack (page 24). So who would worry?
Years ago I read Alexander Haig's bio. He said he was present at Reagan's initiation in the nuke codes. According to Haig the Gipper said something like this: "gentlemen, you need to be aware that I will not, under any circumstances authorise the use of nuclear weapons". The point being that the Soviets didn't know that!
So the 'we begin bombing in five minutes' joke really, really was a joke.
Sure. And just to cheer everyone up, the idea of "nuclear winter" is increasingly being written off too, as exaggeration or KGB propaganda. According to US National Security, "experts suggest" that "the nature of modern US city design and construction" may make even "a raging firestorm" unlikely after a nuclear attack (page 24). So who would worry?
After what I saw of Troon in July over the weekend, nuclear winter must have its attractions for them.
I have no problem with people arguing in favour of nuclear weapons per se. What does appall me is the sheer humbug and hypocrisy of those who say we must have these terrible weapons for our defence whilst at the same time seeking to deny them to other countries fully entitled to share our fears of being attacked.
Depends what you mean by "fully entitled". Personally I don't think that Khameni or Kim share the same entitlement at us. I'd rather Putin or Xe didn't have them as well.
Disagree. Every country can fear being attacked by such weapons. Why should we get special consideration? After all - in alliance with the US and others- we have shown very clear evidence in recent years of aggressive intent, so it is entirely reasonable for other countries to seek to defend themselves against us.
Because we are better than them. Clear enough?
Meanwhile Boris Johnson tells the continental European powers that Britain won't "abandon" them, and that Britain will continue to play its "leading role" in Europe.
Comments
@Richard Nabavi
Louise Mensch has followed up on it. I take no view - and still haven't read the full French Parliamentary report but the does seem to be something in it.
PART 1
It is perfectly true that France has particular issues arising out of its colonial past which is making it particularly vulnerable at the moment.
But all countries with significant Muslim minorities have faced problems. If the issue becomes only one of harm done to other minority groups (eg Algerian Arabs hating French Jews because of the respective way they were treated by the French state in Algeria or Muslim attitudes to homosexuality or women) or terrorism, then it is all too easy for it to be sidelined, to think that it call be resolved through security measures & some education/kumbayah-style hand-holding rubbish.
Whereas there is really a fundamental problem of having in a democratic free society a significant minority of people who, even if law-abiding, do not share in a very real sense the fundamental assumptions of the society and culture they live in. It makes some of them prey to radicalisation. But it also harms the social and cultural cohesion - in its widest sense - necessary for a society to work. You cannot have people who believe that the state & its laws should be credal living happily in a state where we believe that laws are man-made & can & will be changed. The two are mutually incompatible. One has to give way. Islam does not give way easily & it is its fundamental incompatibility with the basic tenets of Western development which seem to me to lie behind the tensions we can see, particularly at a time when the winds of change in the Islamic world are towards - rather than away from - a very fundamentalist, radical, aggressive & hostile to the West interpretation.
No amount of teaching young Syrian men how to behave with women in public is going to bridge the gap between people who believe that laws should be based on the word of Allah & those who believe that laws are what the people at any point in time think they should be. And to the extent that we believe in fundamental laws our whole concept of human rights is largely derived - ultimately - from the Judaeo-Greek-Christian tradition. The idea of human rights is nonsensical in Islamic terms since you don't have the right to be anything other than what is ordained for you (death for apostasy, for instance) and if you are not a Muslim you are - by definition - a second class citizen.
Add in all the other social/economic problems & it is little wonder that all countries have had & will continue to have problems. But they are not primarily problems for Jews or gays or women (canaries in the coalmine though they may be). They are problems for all of us. As we saw with all those who were all too quick to say that maybe free speech should not be exercised if it offended someone (& this was at the time of the Rushdie fatwa all those years ago). These problems have been known about for years & ignored for years & only now are being acknowledged but without - so far - the willingness to really address the underlying issues.
Meanwhile the size of the populations grow which makes integration and any other effective action that much harder. If nothing continues to be done I really worry about where we will be in 5 years.
Depressing stuff. Sorry.
But don't worry your pretty little head about it Richard.
Sweden, Ireland, Finland, Switzerland and Austria are clearly at terrible risk. They're non-aligned and do not have or want nuclear weapons.
Same with Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Argentina, Brazil and so on down a long list of smaller states.
You used to be very sound, Con/UKIP, but you've become rather wet over the last couple of months. Haven't you even joined the Limp Dems?
A lot of NATO shelters under the US/UK/French nuclear umbrella. We have had decades of peace precisely because we are all part of a nuclear armed alliance.
The Bataclan massacre was quite horrific enough without people inventing further atrocities which can only cause pain to the families. Let's wait for the facts.
Frankly, at this point, detailing the horrors - whether of Bataclan or Nice - feels so insensitive and unnecessary. People are yet to be buried. Grief should not be a public spectacle for the rest of us. It is possible to comment on the events without indulging - if that is the mot juste - in a vicarious participation in the horror.
And is this Queue, evidence of a huge demand? or that some people in the HQ are trying to limit the number who successfully register?
That's my problem with Trident.
The good thing about nuclear weapons is that they are so destructive it makes war politically and practically unfeasible between those who have them.
The bad thing is that they are so destructive they can blow up the entire planet.
On other news, everyone had prior knowledge of the Turkish Coup, some info I got from Hamburg said that everyone was talking about it in the NATO conference about an upcoming coup in Turkey.
Given that Turks were also present, the Turkish government would have heard about the gossip too.
There is also talk about Wikileaks leaking something soon about Erdogan and the Coup.
Dunwich being a favourite place to take the dog for a long walk.
For me this year our main holiday is a tour starting in Cumbria, moving up into Scotland and returning via Northumberland.
All an excuse for me to visit the second hand bookshop here :-)
http://www.barterbooks.co.uk/html/About Us/The Bookshop.php
*Starts sobbing gently to herself*
Knowing what we know about how Isis treats prisoners in general, and in the specific and similar circumstances of Westgate, I think your claims that this is "nonsense" are inexplicable. We just don't know.
One factor that rarely gets mentioned is that the OAS and friends were often very traditionalist Catholics, to the point of crusaderism even.
Of course, it's precisely the fear of that action that would also deter that use of conventional force.
It's difficult to imagine any other situations where they might be used, or that it'd be wise to threaten their use.
Others are resisting from doing so.
My preference for Spain is because I lived there for several years as a youngster, and it still feels a bit like going home when I visit there, which the UK, alas, does not any more.
'.."It looked like an abattoir," Michael O'Connor, a 30-year-old from South Shields in north-east England who survived the attack, told BBC Radio 5Live. "I was wading through blood. It was a centimetre deep in places. I had to clamber over dead bodies to get out."
..Fahmi, was in the crowd on the lower level when he heard a noise he took to be firecrackers. "First of all I thought it was part of the show, but then I turned around and saw someone who had just taken a bullet in the eye," he told Liberation.
.."There were bodies, people hidden in every nook and cranny, phones vibrating, and blood, a lot of blood," one officer recalled, according to RTL.'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34827497
In the medium to long term, our nuclear programme - manufacture, testing, maintenance, components, is wholly dependent on the US. That much is established fact. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/986we13.htm
This, to me, isn't acceptable. We pay billions, for a programme of 25 years, supposedly to defend against all threats but it can be unilaterally cut off if our relations with a foreign country deteriorate.
This is entirely excluding all the known and unknown ways that the US could stop the UK using its deterrent in the short term.
Good book, all the same.
Why do you care about the fate of a hard Left Labour leader?
We should be considering alternatives, such as deploying these modernised free-fall bombs on the new F35 jets we are buying from the Americans. Such a system would be a significant contribution to NATO’s nuclear posture, tailored to the type of threats NATO could face in the worst conceivable scenarios, at a fraction of the cost. If we gave ourselves half the proposed budget of Successor to play with we could also acquire F35Cs instead of less capable but more expensive F35Bs, more maritime patrol aircraft, 4 more frigates, 5 more Astute submarines, and re-engineer our aircraft carriers to launch fully capable aircraft. Investing in such a dual-capable system would free up scarce resources for other capabilities desperately needed for Britain to play the international role that matches our responsibilities and position within the NATO Alliance and on the UN Security Council.
This seems rather retrograde to me. People switched to missiles because they had a better chance of "getting through" than a plane would against modern air defences. And people switched to nuclear submarines because they are less vulnerable than land-based missiles.
Now it may be that a submarine is, these days, vulnerable too. Perhaps they can't hide so well from eyes in the sky, or (bearing in mind we are talking about a timescale going decades into the future) they can be tracked by underwater drone. I don't know enough to make an informed comment. But going back to the days of the bomber doesn't jump out at me as a forward-looking step.
Courtesy of Guido.
I don't blame the US for doing it either - it's free money.
From Wikipedia, re Italian Eritrea: While Eritrea was under Italian colonial rule, early-20th-century Europeans used Asmara "to experiment with radical new designs" in architecture. Nowadays the major part of buildings are of Italian origin, and shops still have Italian names (e.g., Bar Vittoria, Pasticceria moderna, Casa del formaggio, and Ferramenta).
Asmara was populated by a large Italian community and consequently the city acquired an Italian architectural look. The city of Asmara had a population of 98,000, of which 53,000 were Italian according to the Italian census of 1939. This fact made Asmara the main "Italian town" of the Italian empire in Africa. In all of Eritrea the population of Italians was only 75,000 in total in that year, making Asmara by far their largest centre. Italia Asmara enjoyed a huge development in the 1930s, not only economically but even socially and culturally: Italians even created the theater Asmara's Opera and the car race Circuito Asmara.
You could live in that corner of the Italian Empire and genuinely feel "Italian".
I saw it mostly as pointing a spotlight on the human condition. Unless you are Algerian.
Good night!
Score one for the prime minister on that put down.
At some point, though, people have to take responsibility for their own actions. The mess most Middle Eastern countries are in is not solely the fault of Europe. Arabs are not children. They too are actors and their own actions and inactions have played a part - probably the most important part - in determining what their societies are like now.
Armageddon sentimental over you.
Any more anyone?
If I didn't know Mike better, I'd have to conclude from the above that he believes LEAVE won the referendum only on account of attracting the support of the great uneducated. Does he have any evidence I wonder to support this assertion?
But let's think about this. We have the missiles for long periods, and could do tests on them. We manufacture our own warheads to more-or-less joint designs. We have intelligent engineers. *If* the Yanks put in items that would prevent us using the weapons in the short-term - say a secondary, hidden PAL system - then we *would* find it.
Saying otherwise is saying our people are thick.
And if we did find it, we could raise a stink. But there's worse for the US:
From the Yank POV: we could negate it. If it's in the warhead design, they'd never know. It'd be harder with the missiles, but it might well be feasible to put the hidden system back in place by the time the missiles are returned to the US.
So it's pointless the US doing it, as they'd never know if we'd subverted it.
I have no idea if LG83 is right about the US being able to stop us from using our independent deterrent, but I think it's the crucial question in respect to whether we should bother with spending a great sum on renewing Trident.
Remember, education is the process of progressively knowing more and more about less and less. Ask any post-grad.
Can the US stop us from using our independent deterrent?
In the short-term: no. And the short-term is what matters.
In the medium-term: yes, by withholding missiles in particular.
In the long-term: no. We could re-engineer (at cost) whatever they don't give us.
'So Stephen Colbert Crashed The RNC Stage Dressed As Caesar Flickerman From “The Hunger Games”'
http://tinyurl.com/hhvzfqn
You also seem to have this strange idea that the Americans - through some technical mechanism as yet undefined - could interrupt the UK chain of command. This is often known as a "back door".
We have been through this before. You assert that the UK deterrent is subject to ultimate US control. Lot's of more informed folks tell you you are wrong but the magical thinking persists.
Don't get me wrong. I like you. We are on the same side on Brexit. You write well and persuasively. One thing about the Brexit thing was that it broke down previous lines. But you do have some strange ideas. Including about nutrition and medicine.
I'm quite sure the same applies in other walks of life. There is a kind of stupidity that only the highly intelligent are capable of.
*If* it existed, the Yanks could never be sure it still operated on our missiles/warheads as they don't have control over them day to day, rendering the system pointless.
This is especially true as we don't use PAL.
On the plus side I now know from the transcripts the meaning of "armes blanches," which I didn't before.