Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
And Sturgeon alone amongst leaders wants a no fly zone enforced in Ukraine
Really unbelievable error of judgement
She said it shouldn't be ruled out. Applying the Big G interpretation method, I assume you now want an NFZ ruled out in any circumstance. Duly noted.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.
That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).
In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
Exactly. We either find a way to get rid of them or we don't have a long run future.
If you have any ideas on how to persuade North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and China to give up their nuclear weapons, I'm sure the UN would be delighted to hear from you.
But even if you could via, say, a programme of mass hypnosis I honestly cannot see the Americans giving up nukes.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
And Sturgeon alone amongst leaders wants a no fly zone enforced in Ukraine
Really unbelievable error of judgement
She said it shouldn't be ruled out. Applying the Big G interpretation method, I assume you now want an NFZ ruled out in any circumstance. Duly noted.
Given that a NFZ would in practice amount to a NATO declaration of war on Russia, I am with Big G on this.
Very little sign of progress by Russia today. Managed to fire missiles at a few new places, including a warning shot against any NATO forces that might be hanging around but no evidence of any advances against any of the city targets. I think that logistics are still slowing them down as much as the Ukrainians. Quite a poor effort in truth.
FWIW they claim they've advanced today to the edge of Sievierodonets, which is one of the regional centres that changed hands back and forth in the last conflict, so a likely target to expand the East Ukraine "republics". Possibly they'll concentrate on the east for a few days as the peace talks actually seem to be progressing well, according to both sides, and that's more likely to create facts on the ground that they might keep than attacking Kyiv. They'll probably still want to take Mariupol and wipe out the Azov Brigade, though, for the reasons in the article that Topping linked to.
All armchair speculation, but with a lot of luck we might be seeing the final stages before a cease-fire.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
And Sturgeon alone amongst leaders wants a no fly zone enforced in Ukraine
Really unbelievable error of judgement
Well, not really. First of all, she isn't actually a leader. She runs a sub-national government with no armed forces. It's the equivalent of the governor of California calling for a no fly zone ie pretty much an irrelevance.
Second, her aim isn't really to influence policy, but to show herself as different from Johnson (as it was through, say, most of the pandemic). In this case it's a free hit. If there is no NFZ nobody will really care what she thought, if there is, and it fails, nobody will hold it against her rather than the decision makers, and if it works, she will be able to praise her own foresight.
Finally, it gains her some attention in the press and makes her supporters purr because it shows her doing more for Ukrainians than NATO, whom they don't like.
So it isn't an error of judgement when you consider what she wants to achieve from it. It does show she has a rather warped set of priorities but we already knew that,
Except the majority of supporters like NATO and policy is to be a member. She is a nutter but your pathetic Little Englander jibe is pretty poor to say the least and just makes you sound like the usual Scotland BAD whiners on here.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
And Sturgeon alone amongst leaders wants a no fly zone enforced in Ukraine
Really unbelievable error of judgement
Well, not really. First of all, she isn't actually a leader. She runs a sub-national government with no armed forces. It's the equivalent of the governor of California calling for a no fly zone ie pretty much an irrelevance.
Second, her aim isn't really to influence policy, but to show herself as different from Johnson (as it was through, say, most of the pandemic). In this case it's a free hit. If there is no NFZ nobody will really care what she thought, if there is, and it fails, nobody will hold it against her rather than the decision makers, and if it works, she will be able to praise her own foresight.
Finally, it gains her some attention in the press and makes her supporters purr because it shows her doing more for Ukrainians than NATO, whom they don't like.
So it isn't an error of judgement when you consider what she wants to achieve from it. It does show she has a rather warped set of priorities but we already knew that,
Except the majority of supporters like NATO and policy is to be a member. She is a nutter but your pathetic Little Englander jibe is pretty poor to say the least and just makes you sound like the usual Scotland BAD whiners on here.
I'm not English Malc. And nor is Big G, of course.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
And I was already depressed. Thanks.
Add harvie and you have two complete nutters.
If only Malc. Your unbearable optimism shining through once again.
I did mean Slater and Harvie David, not your goodself
Hard to believe how bad Scottish gobvernment is nowadays , after flushing more than 100M down the drain to Ferguson's we now have these muppets paying another 100M + to Turkey to build ferries. The incompetence is breathtaking.
Genuine question, malcolm:
Could an SNP government ever get so bad you might, in the end, vote for a Non-indy party?
But it’s not a balanced header. In fact it’s not true TSE.
Back to my original post on previous thread, US politics ganging up on White House war strategy something we should be keeping an eye on. If it moves to a Ukraine annexed into big Putin finger at west position, and US politics from left to right angry at this, does it make Biden a lame duck, and plunge democrats into electoral trouble?
Surely the best position is to publicly refuse to let the Ukrainians have the Polish MIGs, and then let them have them anyway. To prosecute a war you lie, you cheat, you scheme. "Truth is the first casualty of war" as someone once said.
Spot on John. Have we been quick, canny and even brave enough?
On topic. The problem for Biden’s White House is both managing it today, without world war 3, but also suffering when the Ukraine leaders have been escorted away and replaced like Putin’s bogus mayors, and Putin has his goons on every border post, at which point angry electorate will say White House policy has failed, won’t they, it wasn’t brave enough. This plays straight into opponents sleepy Joe caricature
The worry about all the money and equipment going to Ukraine government now is if it is too late to make a difference, and perhaps even ends up in hands of the Russians.
I’m on the side of PB posters who feel West could have been quicker, smarter and braver, and being slower, dummer and more cautious/cowardly has only made it worse. 😕
Specifically? Braver on planes and over the horizon stuff. Putin’s support to his forces from the air superiority could create a horrible shift in it now and be unfair to all the courage in the defenders
I mean look at them. They look ready for a bit of early March garden tidy. What are they going to do against professional fighting force? Look at the Molotov cocktails you have seen stockpiled on our media, look at the instances where they have valiantly fought back with these Molotov cocktails and got wiped out. 😢
The article that Topping posted today pointed out that there's been very little 'air' action at all. The author surmised that the Ukrainian airforce had been largely destroyed by missile attack on its airfields, but that Russia didn't have enough guided bombs, and its stupid bombs weren't accurate enough and involved flying low and danger from Stinger missiles, so it was avoiding it. So, happily, a stalemate.
I don't know how accurate that article is, but it's the only real analysis I have read on the progress of the conflict.
That picture is exactly how recruits have looked since before Pontius was a Pilot. The army takes some teenagers and......
One bit missing from the article @TOPPING linked to was that there is plenty of evidence that the Ukrainians have more than a few Stingers - that some of their large and more more powerful SAM systems have survived. And prospered.
Flying low *puts* the Russians in Stinger/Strela territory. Why do that?
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
And Sturgeon alone amongst leaders wants a no fly zone enforced in Ukraine
Really unbelievable error of judgement
She said it shouldn't be ruled out. Applying the Big G interpretation method, I assume you now want an NFZ ruled out in any circumstance. Duly noted.
It was an odd intervention. I'd imagine she thought that a NFZ was in the offing anyway and she wanted to look ahead of the curve. She's done it very well on Covid. A rare PR misjudgement.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
And Sturgeon alone amongst leaders wants a no fly zone enforced in Ukraine
Really unbelievable error of judgement
She said it shouldn't be ruled out. Applying the Big G interpretation method, I assume you now want an NFZ ruled out in any circumstance. Duly noted.
She said she supported a no fly zone but then you cannot take any criticism of sainted Nicola
A NFZ will always be ruled out as any escalation that may be needed will be a full on confrontation between NATO and Russia
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
But it’s not a balanced header. In fact it’s not true TSE.
Back to my original post on previous thread, US politics ganging up on White House war strategy something we should be keeping an eye on. If it moves to a Ukraine annexed into big Putin finger at west position, and US politics from left to right angry at this, does it make Biden a lame duck, and plunge democrats into electoral trouble?
Surely the best position is to publicly refuse to let the Ukrainians have the Polish MIGs, and then let them have them anyway. To prosecute a war you lie, you cheat, you scheme. "Truth is the first casualty of war" as someone once said.
Spot on John. Have we been quick, canny and even brave enough?
On topic. The problem for Biden’s White House is both managing it today, without world war 3, but also suffering when the Ukraine leaders have been escorted away and replaced like Putin’s bogus mayors, and Putin has his goons on every border post, at which point angry electorate will say White House policy has failed, won’t they, it wasn’t brave enough. This plays straight into opponents sleepy Joe caricature
The worry about all the money and equipment going to Ukraine government now is if it is too late to make a difference, and perhaps even ends up in hands of the Russians.
I’m on the side of PB posters who feel West could have been quicker, smarter and braver, and being slower, dummer and more cautious/cowardly has only made it worse. 😕
Specifically? Braver on planes and over the horizon stuff. Putin’s support to his forces from the air superiority could create a horrible shift in it now and be unfair to all the courage in the defenders
I mean look at them. They look ready for a bit of early March garden tidy. What are they going to do against professional fighting force? Look at the Molotov cocktails you have seen stockpiled on our media, look at the instances where they have valiantly fought back with these Molotov cocktails and got wiped out. 😢
The article that Topping posted today pointed out that there's been very little 'air' action at all. The author surmised that the Ukrainian airforce had been largely destroyed by missile attack on its airfields, but that Russia didn't have enough guided bombs, and its stupid bombs weren't accurate enough and involved flying low and danger from Stinger missiles, so it was avoiding it. So, happily, a stalemate.
I don't know how accurate that article is, but it's the only real analysis I have read on the progress of the conflict.
That picture is exactly how recruits have looked since before Pontius was a Pilot. The army takes some teenagers and......
One bit missing from the article @TOPPING linked to was that there is plenty of evidence that the Ukrainians have more than a few Stingers - that some of their large and more more powerful SAM systems have survived. And prospered.
Flying low *puts* the Russians in Stinger/Strela territory. Why do that?
Exactly. That's why they aren't - the article argues.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
And Sturgeon alone amongst leaders wants a no fly zone enforced in Ukraine
Really unbelievable error of judgement
She said it shouldn't be ruled out. Applying the Big G interpretation method, I assume you now want an NFZ ruled out in any circumstance. Duly noted.
Given that a NFZ would in practice amount to a NATO declaration of war on Russia, I am with Big G on this.
I know PB Strategic Command has a bit of heft, but can you list the actual players who've unequivocally stated that an NFZ should not be applied in any circumstances?
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
Is it going to become a bigger real issue than all the other issues that you predicted would a real issue for the Scottish government?
Yes
I genuinely do not think many have be able to understand just how much this war will affect opinions on a wide range of subjects and not only defence and security but also energy supply security and far more domestic production, to the billions needed not just for the NHS but now defence
Add in the inevitable closer cooperation between UK and EU on all kinds of matters, former policies are redundant and a whole new attitude will come about with many implications across the west
Indeed
Just look at Germany. Seventy years of peacetime pacifism gone in ten days.
And re the EU, yes this has made me, a Leaver, look much more kindly upon the EU. It is still a flawed mess of a polity, but it is all we have along with NATO. It IS most of the West, it is Europe.
I hope we can find some better way to co-operate with our European friends, cousins, allies. Enough of this pointless snarling. We have a common enemy who wishes us all ill
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
And Sturgeon alone amongst leaders wants a no fly zone enforced in Ukraine
Really unbelievable error of judgement
She said it shouldn't be ruled out. Applying the Big G interpretation method, I assume you now want an NFZ ruled out in any circumstance. Duly noted.
She said she supported a no fly zone but then you cannot take any criticism of sainted Nicola
A NFZ will always be ruled out as any escalation that may be needed will be a full on confrontation between NATO and Russia
It also wouldn’t make that much difference, since most of the damage is being done by rockets and artillery. Ukraine wants it because it widens the war, not because by itself it is any sort of magic bullet.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
And Sturgeon alone amongst leaders wants a no fly zone enforced in Ukraine
Really unbelievable error of judgement
Well, not really. First of all, she isn't actually a leader. She runs a sub-national government with no armed forces. It's the equivalent of the governor of California calling for a no fly zone ie pretty much an irrelevance.
Second, her aim isn't really to influence policy, but to show herself as different from Johnson (as it was through, say, most of the pandemic). In this case it's a free hit. If there is no NFZ nobody will really care what she thought, if there is, and it fails, nobody will hold it against her rather than the decision makers, and if it works, she will be able to praise her own foresight.
Finally, it gains her some attention in the press and makes her supporters purr because it shows her doing more for Ukrainians than NATO, whom they don't like.
So it isn't an error of judgement when you consider what she wants to achieve from it. It does show she has a rather warped set of priorities but we already knew that,
Except the majority of supporters like NATO and policy is to be a member. She is a nutter but your pathetic Little Englander jibe is pretty poor to say the least and just makes you sound like the usual Scotland BAD whiners on here.
I'm not English Malc. And nor is Big G, of course.
Does not stop you sounding like one, much worse the fact you are Welsh and have that subservient attitude.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
And Sturgeon alone amongst leaders wants a no fly zone enforced in Ukraine
Really unbelievable error of judgement
She said it shouldn't be ruled out. Applying the Big G interpretation method, I assume you now want an NFZ ruled out in any circumstance. Duly noted.
She said she supported a no fly zone but then you cannot take any criticism of sainted Nicola
A NFZ will always be ruled out as any escalation that may be needed will be a full on confrontation between NATO and Russia
I agree we should not impose a no fly zone because WWW3. I also think the West should have never publicly ruled it out in all circumstances, because strategic ambiguity and keeping the Russians guessing is sensible. In that context, some apparent domestic pressure from people like Sturgeon would not be unhelpful, precisely because she’d usually not be quick to demand military action.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.
That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).
In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
Exactly. We either find a way to get rid of them or we don't have a long run future.
If you have any ideas on how to persuade North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and China to give up their nuclear weapons, I'm sure the UN would be delighted to hear from you.
But even if you could via, say, a programme of mass hypnosis I honestly cannot see the Americans giving up nukes.
I think the only solution is to develop technology that makes nuclear weapons obsolete or at least not a slam dunk - I can't see a good argument against missile defence and I think it'd be irresponsible to ignore it given the risks.
We can't always rely on possessors to be rational with MAD theory, even if it's held for the last 70 years so far.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
I am just suggesting it is a good idea in principle but nobody wanting to win an election is going to go near
Do people think fracking is feasible as a supply of gas to Europe?
Depends on the country. Yes in Poland, no in the UK.
This is all in dispute. If petrol hits £20 a litre and the economy goes into energy-starved Depression I suspect we’d suddenly find that those UK shale reserves are ‘recoverable’, after all
Its not a question of recoverable. It is whether it is practical on a scale to make a difference. The scale of operations is radically different from conventional drilling either onshore or offshore. I can effectively drain a reasonably sized oil field with 4 or 5 wells all from a central wellhead- less if it is gas because the injector requirements are less. To effectively exploit the UK shale gas reserves you would need between 4000 and 6000 wells. In the US they have rigs sat a few hundreds yards from each other in a long rows marching across the countryside drilling wells because the tight formations can only be exploited to small multiples of the the length of the fractures. So you need LOTS of wells. I am not sure the least nimby of residents is prepared for such industrial levels of activity in the UK countryside.
Depends how shit the countryside is
Lancashire is pretty bleak in places, anyway
I accept it is unlikely to happen in the Kentish Weald
Lancashire South of Preston is shit but Bowland and the Wyre valley which I think are fracking country are among the most beautiful bits of England
And heavily Tory.
Fracking has very low, temporary impact unlike solar farms! Small surface footprint. Yes, increased road traffic can be an issue but similar to quarrying.
Solar farms don't make a lot of economic sense. Sticking panels on the rooves of houses, offices, shops, industrial parks, etc., makes a lot of sense though.
Fracking - the issue is that we simply don't have enough idea of what the long term costs are in the UK.
If you go to the big US shale plays, you will have massive amounts of geological data available, from core samples, to seismic, to the drilling history of 300 wells nearby. You will know the optimal well bore spacing. You will know the correct formulation of fracking fluid.
And most importantly, you will have an excellent idea of what initial flow rates will be, and what the decline curve will be.
(You also have massive ranches without people on them.)
That means that an oil & gas company can evaluate very easily what a well will produce and how expensive it will be.
We have literally none of that information in the UK. It took about fifteen years from George Mitchell fracking his first gas well to the US being in a position to export gas. Now, some things are easier now (we know fracking works for sure). But some things are harder: the US had a lot of existing infrastructure than we don't.
Fracking *may* work in the UK. But it also may not. Let's not forget that a dozen shales in the US have been effectively abandoned, because it takes only very small changes to your initial flow rate and decline curve assumptions to change the price of gas from $5 to $50/mmbtu.
I'm not a geologist speciating in Hydrocarbons, or related field, you may be right about the cost/geology but may be not. But I don't think that should stop private investors and companies that what to try form trying. its there money invested not taxpayers, and if successful, then lots of tax revenue for government, to pay our nurses, instead of Putin Paying his army. Fracking has been known about in theory since at least the 1940s, and a lot of supposedly knolagable people sead it would never could never work in practice, then in the US they allowed company's to try and they worked out the problems and made it happen, not everywhere not ever field, but in lots of places and the technology has improved very rapidly.
Those who think it cant be done should be free to make there predictions, but not able to stand in the way of people who are trying to do it.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
And Sturgeon alone amongst leaders wants a no fly zone enforced in Ukraine
Really unbelievable error of judgement
She said it shouldn't be ruled out. Applying the Big G interpretation method, I assume you now want an NFZ ruled out in any circumstance. Duly noted.
Given that a NFZ would in practice amount to a NATO declaration of war on Russia, I am with Big G on this.
I know PB Strategic Command has a bit of heft, but can you list the actual players who've unequivocally stated that an NFZ should not be applied in any circumstances?
You are attempting to deflect from the error Sturgeon made by speaking without thinking
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
And I was already depressed. Thanks.
Add harvie and you have two complete nutters.
If only Malc. Your unbearable optimism shining through once again.
I did mean Slater and Harvie David, not your goodself
Hard to believe how bad Scottish gobvernment is nowadays , after flushing more than 100M down the drain to Ferguson's we now have these muppets paying another 100M + to Turkey to build ferries. The incompetence is breathtaking.
Genuine question, malcolm:
Could an SNP government ever get so bad you might, in the end, vote for a Non-indy party?
Imagine there was no Alba alternative
Yes for sure the SNP as it is now is not for Independence. Unfortunately the only advocates at present are ALBA or ISP. SNP will need a big clear out for sure and way they are going on GRA they may have some big shocks coming. Unfortunately the other parties , Tories, Labour , Lib Dems and Greens are just a joke. SNP is now just the New Labour party, all their dross left and took SNP over with connivance of Sturgeon. PS: No way will I vote SNP in May Local Elections.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
And Sturgeon alone amongst leaders wants a no fly zone enforced in Ukraine
Really unbelievable error of judgement
She said it shouldn't be ruled out. Applying the Big G interpretation method, I assume you now want an NFZ ruled out in any circumstance. Duly noted.
Given that a NFZ would in practice amount to a NATO declaration of war on Russia, I am with Big G on this.
I know PB Strategic Command has a bit of heft, but can you list the actual players who've unequivocally stated that an NFZ should not be applied in any circumstances?
Do you mean on PB? Well, the very lucid explanation of why it was a bad idea by @Dura_Ace was convincing enough for me.
In the big bad outside world, I suppose Jens Stoltenberg as Secretary General of NATO might count as an 'actual player.' Or Senator Marco Rubio. Or the US State Department.
Ultimately NATO isn't going to shoot first at Russia. It is possible that Putin might be mad enough to hit Poland - he had a pretty near miss today - in which case all bets are off, but NATO Kosovo notwithstanding thinks of itself as a defensive alliance.
Very little sign of progress by Russia today. Managed to fire missiles at a few new places, including a warning shot against any NATO forces that might be hanging around but no evidence of any advances against any of the city targets. I think that logistics are still slowing them down as much as the Ukrainians. Quite a poor effort in truth.
FWIW they claim they've advanced today to the edge of Sievierodonets, which is one of the regional centres that changed hands back and forth in the last conflict, so a likely target to expand the East Ukraine "republics". Possibly they'll concentrate on the east for a few days as the peace talks actually seem to be progressing well, according to both sides, and that's more likely to create facts on the ground that they might keep than attacking Kyiv. They'll probably still want to take Mariupol and wipe out the Azov Brigade, though, for the reasons in the article that Topping linked to.
All armchair speculation, but with a lot of luck we might be seeing the final stages before a cease-fire.
That's my feeling too. And I have a feeling that Zelensky wouldn't mind the Azov Brigade being shuffled off this mortal coil.
SCOOP - Russia has asked China for military equipment and other assistance to support its invasion of Ukraine.
..hmm. A worrying escalation?
Maybe, but I'm doubtful, mostly because Russia does not want to let china think its running out of equipment, and is therefore week. Do you have a link?
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
And Sturgeon alone amongst leaders wants a no fly zone enforced in Ukraine
Really unbelievable error of judgement
Well, not really. First of all, she isn't actually a leader. She runs a sub-national government with no armed forces. It's the equivalent of the governor of California calling for a no fly zone ie pretty much an irrelevance.
Second, her aim isn't really to influence policy, but to show herself as different from Johnson (as it was through, say, most of the pandemic). In this case it's a free hit. If there is no NFZ nobody will really care what she thought, if there is, and it fails, nobody will hold it against her rather than the decision makers, and if it works, she will be able to praise her own foresight.
Finally, it gains her some attention in the press and makes her supporters purr because it shows her doing more for Ukrainians than NATO, whom they don't like.
So it isn't an error of judgement when you consider what she wants to achieve from it. It does show she has a rather warped set of priorities but we already knew that,
Except the majority of supporters like NATO and policy is to be a member. She is a nutter but your pathetic Little Englander jibe is pretty poor to say the least and just makes you sound like the usual Scotland BAD whiners on here.
I'm not English Malc. And nor is Big G, of course.
Does not stop you sounding like one, much worse the fact you are Welsh and have that subservient attitude.
The irony of that post is when I speak in English I do sound English.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
And Sturgeon alone amongst leaders wants a no fly zone enforced in Ukraine
Really unbelievable error of judgement
She said it shouldn't be ruled out. Applying the Big G interpretation method, I assume you now want an NFZ ruled out in any circumstance. Duly noted.
Given that a NFZ would in practice amount to a NATO declaration of war on Russia, I am with Big G on this.
I know PB Strategic Command has a bit of heft, but can you list the actual players who've unequivocally stated that an NFZ should not be applied in any circumstances?
You are attempting to deflect from the error Sturgeon made by speaking without thinking
Very little sign of progress by Russia today. Managed to fire missiles at a few new places, including a warning shot against any NATO forces that might be hanging around but no evidence of any advances against any of the city targets. I think that logistics are still slowing them down as much as the Ukrainians. Quite a poor effort in truth.
FWIW they claim they've advanced today to the edge of Sievierodonets, which is one of the regional centres that changed hands back and forth in the last conflict, so a likely target to expand the East Ukraine "republics". Possibly they'll concentrate on the east for a few days as the peace talks actually seem to be progressing well, according to both sides, and that's more likely to create facts on the ground that they might keep than attacking Kyiv. They'll probably still want to take Mariupol and wipe out the Azov Brigade, though, for the reasons in the article that Topping linked to.
All armchair speculation, but with a lot of luck we might be seeing the final stages before a cease-fire.
If we are the tell will be Ukrainian counterattacks looking to recover lost ground.
Do people think fracking is feasible as a supply of gas to Europe?
Depends on the country. Yes in Poland, no in the UK.
This is all in dispute. If petrol hits £20 a litre and the economy goes into energy-starved Depression I suspect we’d suddenly find that those UK shale reserves are ‘recoverable’, after all
Its not a question of recoverable. It is whether it is practical on a scale to make a difference. The scale of operations is radically different from conventional drilling either onshore or offshore. I can effectively drain a reasonably sized oil field with 4 or 5 wells all from a central wellhead- less if it is gas because the injector requirements are less. To effectively exploit the UK shale gas reserves you would need between 4000 and 6000 wells. In the US they have rigs sat a few hundreds yards from each other in a long rows marching across the countryside drilling wells because the tight formations can only be exploited to small multiples of the the length of the fractures. So you need LOTS of wells. I am not sure the least nimby of residents is prepared for such industrial levels of activity in the UK countryside.
Depends how shit the countryside is
Lancashire is pretty bleak in places, anyway
I accept it is unlikely to happen in the Kentish Weald
Lancashire South of Preston is shit but Bowland and the Wyre valley which I think are fracking country are among the most beautiful bits of England
And heavily Tory.
Fracking has very low, temporary impact unlike solar farms! Small surface footprint. Yes, increased road traffic can be an issue but similar to quarrying.
Solar farms don't make a lot of economic sense. Sticking panels on the rooves of houses, offices, shops, industrial parks, etc., makes a lot of sense though.
Fracking - the issue is that we simply don't have enough idea of what the long term costs are in the UK.
If you go to the big US shale plays, you will have massive amounts of geological data available, from core samples, to seismic, to the drilling history of 300 wells nearby. You will know the optimal well bore spacing. You will know the correct formulation of fracking fluid.
And most importantly, you will have an excellent idea of what initial flow rates will be, and what the decline curve will be.
(You also have massive ranches without people on them.)
That means that an oil & gas company can evaluate very easily what a well will produce and how expensive it will be.
We have literally none of that information in the UK. It took about fifteen years from George Mitchell fracking his first gas well to the US being in a position to export gas. Now, some things are easier now (we know fracking works for sure). But some things are harder: the US had a lot of existing infrastructure than we don't.
Fracking *may* work in the UK. But it also may not. Let's not forget that a dozen shales in the US have been effectively abandoned, because it takes only very small changes to your initial flow rate and decline curve assumptions to change the price of gas from $5 to $50/mmbtu.
I'm not a geologist speciating in Hydrocarbons, or related field, you may be right about the cost/geology but may be not. But I don't think that should stop private investors and companies that what to try form trying. its there money invested not taxpayers, and if successful, then lots of tax revenue for government, to pay our nurses, instead of Putin Paying his army. Fracking has been known about in theory since at least the 1940s, and a lot of supposedly knolagable people sead it would never could never work in practice, then in the US they allowed company's to try and they worked out the problems and made it happen, not everywhere not ever field, but in lots of places and the technology has improved very rapidly.
Those who think it cant be done should be free to make there predictions, but not able to stand in the way of people who are trying to do it.
I am 100% I'm favour of removing the ban on fracking in the UK.
But I think you need to be realistic. Costs are much higher than in the US. And we don't know a great deal about the geology.
I am an igas shareholder, and believe me, there's nothing I'd like more than for it to work here in the UK.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
And I was already depressed. Thanks.
Add harvie and you have two complete nutters.
If only Malc. Your unbearable optimism shining through once again.
I did mean Slater and Harvie David, not your goodself
Hard to believe how bad Scottish gobvernment is nowadays , after flushing more than 100M down the drain to Ferguson's we now have these muppets paying another 100M + to Turkey to build ferries. The incompetence is breathtaking.
Genuine question, malcolm:
Could an SNP government ever get so bad you might, in the end, vote for a Non-indy party?
Imagine there was no Alba alternative
Yes for sure the SNP as it is now is not for Independence. Unfortunately the only advocates at present are ALBA or ISP. SNP will need a big clear out for sure and way they are going on GRA they may have some big shocks coming. Unfortunately teh other parties , Tories, Labour , Lib Dems and Greens are just a joke. SNP is now just the New Labour party, all their dross left and took SNP over with connivance of Sturgeon. PS: No way will I vote SNP in May Local Elections.
Interesting, ta
Sturgeon looks tired and shopworn, now (to this non-Scottish outsider). She is still a capable politician, she has been formidable, but she seems weary in her soul.
To be fair, I imagine every politician on earth is fucking exhausted. Covid, now war. And economic ruin approaching? Not a fun time to be leading
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
And Sturgeon alone amongst leaders wants a no fly zone enforced in Ukraine
Really unbelievable error of judgement
Well, not really. First of all, she isn't actually a leader. She runs a sub-national government with no armed forces. It's the equivalent of the governor of California calling for a no fly zone ie pretty much an irrelevance.
Second, her aim isn't really to influence policy, but to show herself as different from Johnson (as it was through, say, most of the pandemic). In this case it's a free hit. If there is no NFZ nobody will really care what she thought, if there is, and it fails, nobody will hold it against her rather than the decision makers, and if it works, she will be able to praise her own foresight.
Finally, it gains her some attention in the press and makes her supporters purr because it shows her doing more for Ukrainians than NATO, whom they don't like.
So it isn't an error of judgement when you consider what she wants to achieve from it. It does show she has a rather warped set of priorities but we already knew that,
Except the majority of supporters like NATO and policy is to be a member. She is a nutter but your pathetic Little Englander jibe is pretty poor to say the least and just makes you sound like the usual Scotland BAD whiners on here.
I'm not English Malc. And nor is Big G, of course.
Does not stop you sounding like one, much worse the fact you are Welsh and have that subservient attitude.
The irony of that post is when I speak in English I do sound English.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.
That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).
In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
Yes indeed
Lots of countries will be looking at the images of flattened Ukrainian cities and will be superkeen to go nuke. Japan and South Korea spring to mind. Also Saudi Arabia and maybe even the UAE. Perhaps even Poland?
You really couldn't blame Poland if it opted to take up nuclear missiles, not when you look at Kharkiv and Mariupol, which they will be doing
Poland will take absolutely no shit whatsoever with Russia; it will arm up and face up to the max.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
Is it going to become a bigger real issue than all the other issues that you predicted would a real issue for the Scottish government?
Yes
I genuinely do not think many have be able to understand just how much this war will affect opinions on a wide range of subjects and not only defence and security but also energy supply security and far more domestic production, to the billions needed not just for the NHS but now defence
Add in the inevitable closer cooperation between UK and EU on all kinds of matters, former policies are redundant and a whole new attitude will come about with many implications across the west
Indeed
Just look at Germany. Seventy years of peacetime pacifism gone in ten days.
And re the EU, yes this has made me, a Leaver, look much more kindly upon the EU. It is still a flawed mess of a polity, but it is all we have along with NATO. It IS most of the West, it is Europe.
I hope we can find some better way to co-operate with our European friends, cousins, allies. Enough of this pointless snarling. We have a common enemy who wishes us all ill
Putin has successfully brought the EU and UK closer together. I must admit that I'm quite impressed.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.
That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).
In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
Exactly. We either find a way to get rid of them or we don't have a long run future.
If you have any ideas on how to persuade North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and China to give up their nuclear weapons, I'm sure the UN would be delighted to hear from you.
But even if you could via, say, a programme of mass hypnosis I honestly cannot see the Americans giving up nukes.
All I can do is argue and vote for my own country to do it.
SCOOP - Russia has asked China for military equipment and other assistance to support its invasion of Ukraine.
..hmm. A worrying escalation?
What’s the source? Big questions for the west if it was true, and the request granted (itself a big question for China).
Source is key. It smacks of desperation to be honest - Russia is well aware of the implications of asking for Chinese help.
As for China, if this is true, my guess is the answer will be some version of no. The States can slap sanctions on countries seen to be aiding countries under sanctions. Given China’s economy is fragile and likely to get more fragile with the issues in Shenzhen, the last thing they need is an economic hit.
There is also the issue for China of how their actions could prompt Japan et al to boost their security and / or change the US to become more willing to be military assertive in the Pacific.
One other point - China will also be aware that the odds of a Republican Congress are increasing and / or Trump back in 2024. Again, not helpful for China to be giving the hawks in the US a stick with which to beat it.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.
That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).
In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
Exactly. We either find a way to get rid of them or we don't have a long run future.
If you have any ideas on how to persuade North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and China to give up their nuclear weapons, I'm sure the UN would be delighted to hear from you.
But even if you could via, say, a programme of mass hypnosis I honestly cannot see the Americans giving up nukes.
I think the only solution is to develop technology that makes nuclear weapons obsolete or at least not a slam dunk - I can't see a good argument against missile defence and I think it'd be irresponsible to ignore it given the risks.
We can't always rely on possessors to be rational with MAD theory, even if it's held for the last 70 years so far.
Missile defence is a terrible idea. It makes the use of nuclear warheads conceivable.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
And I was already depressed. Thanks.
Add harvie and you have two complete nutters.
If only Malc. Your unbearable optimism shining through once again.
I did mean Slater and Harvie David, not your goodself
Hard to believe how bad Scottish gobvernment is nowadays , after flushing more than 100M down the drain to Ferguson's we now have these muppets paying another 100M + to Turkey to build ferries. The incompetence is breathtaking.
Genuine question, malcolm:
Could an SNP government ever get so bad you might, in the end, vote for a Non-indy party?
Imagine there was no Alba alternative
Yes for sure the SNP as it is now is not for Independence. Unfortunately the only advocates at present are ALBA or ISP. SNP will need a big clear out for sure and way they are going on GRA they may have some big shocks coming. Unfortunately teh other parties , Tories, Labour , Lib Dems and Greens are just a joke. SNP is now just the New Labour party, all their dross left and took SNP over with connivance of Sturgeon. PS: No way will I vote SNP in May Local Elections.
Interesting, ta
Sturgeon looks tired and shopworn, now (to this non-Scottish outsider). She is still a capable politician, she has been formidable, but she seems weary in her soul.
To be fair, I imagine every politician on earth is fucking exhausted. Covid, now war. And economic ruin approaching? Not a fun time to be leading
I think all of us are exhausted after the last few years. 24 months of peace and quiet would be very welcome.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
And Sturgeon alone amongst leaders wants a no fly zone enforced in Ukraine
Really unbelievable error of judgement
She said it shouldn't be ruled out. Applying the Big G interpretation method, I assume you now want an NFZ ruled out in any circumstance. Duly noted.
Given that a NFZ would in practice amount to a NATO declaration of war on Russia, I am with Big G on this.
I know PB Strategic Command has a bit of heft, but can you list the actual players who've unequivocally stated that an NFZ should not be applied in any circumstances?
Looks like Ukraine might be getting 8 helicopters!
Ok this is form youtube and no idea how accurate, but apparently there where 8 helicopters 4 Mi8 and 4Mi 24 with 250 personnel on peacekeeping mission in Africa who are about to return home.
8 helicopters and 250 is not a lot, so don't expect it to change much, but when the enemy is getting bogged down, any extra forces is a bonus.
How? By sea? In which case, still how?
Edit - And can’t they bring with them 20 Mig-29s that are definitely not from Poland?
Why don't you volunteer to fly them in and take Algy along for the ride?
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
Is it going to become a bigger real issue than all the other issues that you predicted would a real issue for the Scottish government?
Yes
I genuinely do not think many have be able to understand just how much this war will affect opinions on a wide range of subjects and not only defence and security but also energy supply security and far more domestic production, to the billions needed not just for the NHS but now defence
Add in the inevitable closer cooperation between UK and EU on all kinds of matters, former policies are redundant and a whole new attitude will come about with many implications across the west
Indeed
Just look at Germany. Seventy years of peacetime pacifism gone in ten days.
And re the EU, yes this has made me, a Leaver, look much more kindly upon the EU. It is still a flawed mess of a polity, but it is all we have along with NATO. It IS most of the West, it is Europe.
I hope we can find some better way to co-operate with our European friends, cousins, allies. Enough of this pointless snarling. We have a common enemy who wishes us all ill
Putin has successfully brought the EU and UK closer together. I must admit that I'm quite impressed.
The western alliance was looking flakey, so the US activated agent Putin. It was time.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.
That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).
In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
Exactly. We either find a way to get rid of them or we don't have a long run future.
If you have any ideas on how to persuade North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and China to give up their nuclear weapons, I'm sure the UN would be delighted to hear from you.
But even if you could via, say, a programme of mass hypnosis I honestly cannot see the Americans giving up nukes.
All I can do is argue and vote for my own country to do it.
And that's the problem, isn't it? Ukraine and Kazakhstan gave up their nukes, and are now in effect giving up their sovereignty as well as a result. So no politician will get rid of their nukes until *everyone* agrees to get rid of them.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.
That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).
In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
Exactly. We either find a way to get rid of them or we don't have a long run future.
If you have any ideas on how to persuade North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and China to give up their nuclear weapons, I'm sure the UN would be delighted to hear from you.
But even if you could via, say, a programme of mass hypnosis I honestly cannot see the Americans giving up nukes.
All I can do is argue and vote for my own country to do it.
We must never do it unless every other country with nukes in the world does so at the same time
SCOOP - Russia has asked China for military equipment and other assistance to support its invasion of Ukraine.
..hmm. A worrying escalation?
What’s the source? Big questions for the west if it was true, and the request granted (itself a big question for China).
Source is key. It smacks of desperation to be honest - Russia is well aware of the implications of asking for Chinese help.
As for China, if this is true, my guess is the answer will be some version of no. The States can slap sanctions on countries seen to be aiding countries under sanctions. Given China’s economy is fragile and likely to get more fragile with the issues in Shenzhen, the last thing they need is an economic hit.
There is also the issue for China of how their actions could prompt Japan et al to boost their security and / or change the US to become more willing to be military assertive in the Pacific.
One other point - China will also be aware that the odds of a Republican Congress are increasing and / or Trump back in 2024. Again, not helpful for China to be giving the hawks in the US a stick with which to beat it.
Agree. I think this is already going to put rocket boosters on a “make the west less reliant on the baddies” agenda, where the Aussies and US will want to include China.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
And I was already depressed. Thanks.
Add harvie and you have two complete nutters.
If only Malc. Your unbearable optimism shining through once again.
I did mean Slater and Harvie David, not your goodself
Hard to believe how bad Scottish gobvernment is nowadays , after flushing more than 100M down the drain to Ferguson's we now have these muppets paying another 100M + to Turkey to build ferries. The incompetence is breathtaking.
Genuine question, malcolm:
Could an SNP government ever get so bad you might, in the end, vote for a Non-indy party?
Imagine there was no Alba alternative
Yes for sure the SNP as it is now is not for Independence. Unfortunately the only advocates at present are ALBA or ISP. SNP will need a big clear out for sure and way they are going on GRA they may have some big shocks coming. Unfortunately teh other parties , Tories, Labour , Lib Dems and Greens are just a joke. SNP is now just the New Labour party, all their dross left and took SNP over with connivance of Sturgeon. PS: No way will I vote SNP in May Local Elections.
Interesting, ta
Sturgeon looks tired and shopworn, now (to this non-Scottish outsider). She is still a capable politician, she has been formidable, but she seems weary in her soul.
To be fair, I imagine every politician on earth is fucking exhausted. Covid, now war. And economic ruin approaching? Not a fun time to be leading
I think all of us are exhausted after the last few years. 24 months of peace and quiet would be very welcome.
Shame about Putin.
Not really. 24 more months is way more than he deserves.
SCOOP - Russia has asked China for military equipment and other assistance to support its invasion of Ukraine.
..hmm. A worrying escalation?
What’s the source? Big questions for the west if it was true, and the request granted (itself a big question for China).
Source is key. It smacks of desperation to be honest - Russia is well aware of the implications of asking for Chinese help.
As for China, if this is true, my guess is the answer will be some version of no. The States can slap sanctions on countries seen to be aiding countries under sanctions. Given China’s economy is fragile and likely to get more fragile with the issues in Shenzhen, the last thing they need is an economic hit.
There is also the issue for China of how their actions could prompt Japan et al to boost their security and / or change the US to become more willing to be military assertive in the Pacific.
One other point - China will also be aware that the odds of a Republican Congress are increasing and / or Trump back in 2024. Again, not helpful for China to be giving the hawks in the US a stick with which to beat it.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
And Sturgeon alone amongst leaders wants a no fly zone enforced in Ukraine
Really unbelievable error of judgement
She said it shouldn't be ruled out. Applying the Big G interpretation method, I assume you now want an NFZ ruled out in any circumstance. Duly noted.
She said she supported a no fly zone but then you cannot take any criticism of sainted Nicola
A NFZ will always be ruled out as any escalation that may be needed will be a full on confrontation between NATO and Russia
You can't seem to bear anyone contradicting your half baked observations on Scotland. Tbh I'm not that interested in PB's chief flipflopper's observations in general but I just can't resist the occasional prick when you get on your 'I have my own tartan and know fisher folk' high horse.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
You mean like all members of NATO do , only France has any real self reliance, we are just renting ours and USA decides when and if they are used. rUK would remain poodles.
No they aren't, we leased Trident off the US but the UK PM still decides whether to fire it or not
Looks like Ukraine might be getting 8 helicopters!
Ok this is form youtube and no idea how accurate, but apparently there where 8 helicopters 4 Mi8 and 4Mi 24 with 250 personnel on peacekeeping mission in Africa who are about to return home.
8 helicopters and 250 is not a lot, so don't expect it to change much, but when the enemy is getting bogged down, any extra forces is a bonus.
How? By sea? In which case, still how?
Edit - And can’t they bring with them 20 Mig-29s that are definitely not from Poland?
Why don't you volunteer to fly them in and take Algy along for the ride?
Shhhhh We’re knee deep in Mig-29 training. Bit more complex than a Sopwith Camel, sadly.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
And Sturgeon alone amongst leaders wants a no fly zone enforced in Ukraine
Really unbelievable error of judgement
She said it shouldn't be ruled out. Applying the Big G interpretation method, I assume you now want an NFZ ruled out in any circumstance. Duly noted.
Given that a NFZ would in practice amount to a NATO declaration of war on Russia, I am with Big G on this.
I know PB Strategic Command has a bit of heft, but can you list the actual players who've unequivocally stated that an NFZ should not be applied in any circumstances?
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.
That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).
In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
Exactly. We either find a way to get rid of them or we don't have a long run future.
If you have any ideas on how to persuade North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and China to give up their nuclear weapons, I'm sure the UN would be delighted to hear from you.
But even if you could via, say, a programme of mass hypnosis I honestly cannot see the Americans giving up nukes.
I think the only solution is to develop technology that makes nuclear weapons obsolete or at least not a slam dunk - I can't see a good argument against missile defence and I think it'd be irresponsible to ignore it given the risks.
We can't always rely on possessors to be rational with MAD theory, even if it's held for the last 70 years so far.
Missile defence is a terrible idea. It makes the use of nuclear warheads conceivable.
How would their use be conceivable if they couldn't get through?
You can't uninvent weapons, be they swords, bows and arrows, guns, battleships or nukes; the only thing you can do is make them obsolete.
I see making it unfeasible to wipe out whole nations at the push of a button a positive development.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
And Sturgeon alone amongst leaders wants a no fly zone enforced in Ukraine
Really unbelievable error of judgement
Well, not really. First of all, she isn't actually a leader. She runs a sub-national government with no armed forces. It's the equivalent of the governor of California calling for a no fly zone ie pretty much an irrelevance.
Second, her aim isn't really to influence policy, but to show herself as different from Johnson (as it was through, say, most of the pandemic). In this case it's a free hit. If there is no NFZ nobody will really care what she thought, if there is, and it fails, nobody will hold it against her rather than the decision makers, and if it works, she will be able to praise her own foresight.
Finally, it gains her some attention in the press and makes her supporters purr because it shows her doing more for Ukrainians than NATO, whom they don't like.
So it isn't an error of judgement when you consider what she wants to achieve from it. It does show she has a rather warped set of priorities but we already knew that,
Except the majority of supporters like NATO and policy is to be a member. She is a nutter but your pathetic Little Englander jibe is pretty poor to say the least and just makes you sound like the usual Scotland BAD whiners on here.
I'm not English Malc. And nor is Big G, of course.
Does not stop you sounding like one, much worse the fact you are Welsh and have that subservient attitude.
Subservient? I've tried issuing orders to that querellous Welshman multiple times and the bugger just doesn't know his place - beneath the boot of an Englishman!
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
And I was already depressed. Thanks.
Add harvie and you have two complete nutters.
If only Malc. Your unbearable optimism shining through once again.
I did mean Slater and Harvie David, not your goodself
Hard to believe how bad Scottish gobvernment is nowadays , after flushing more than 100M down the drain to Ferguson's we now have these muppets paying another 100M + to Turkey to build ferries. The incompetence is breathtaking.
Genuine question, malcolm:
Could an SNP government ever get so bad you might, in the end, vote for a Non-indy party?
Imagine there was no Alba alternative
Yes for sure the SNP as it is now is not for Independence. Unfortunately the only advocates at present are ALBA or ISP. SNP will need a big clear out for sure and way they are going on GRA they may have some big shocks coming. Unfortunately teh other parties , Tories, Labour , Lib Dems and Greens are just a joke. SNP is now just the New Labour party, all their dross left and took SNP over with connivance of Sturgeon. PS: No way will I vote SNP in May Local Elections.
Interesting, ta
Sturgeon looks tired and shopworn, now (to this non-Scottish outsider). She is still a capable politician, she has been formidable, but she seems weary in her soul.
To be fair, I imagine every politician on earth is fucking exhausted. Covid, now war. And economic ruin approaching? Not a fun time to be leading
Oddly enough, I bumped into Nicola while out for a walk not so long ago and had a brief chat. I'd been thinking 'She does look worn out' after seeing her on TV - but in person she was bright as a button.
Looks like Ukraine might be getting 8 helicopters!
Ok this is form youtube and no idea how accurate, but apparently there where 8 helicopters 4 Mi8 and 4Mi 24 with 250 personnel on peacekeeping mission in Africa who are about to return home.
8 helicopters and 250 is not a lot, so don't expect it to change much, but when the enemy is getting bogged down, any extra forces is a bonus.
How? By sea? In which case, still how?
Edit - And can’t they bring with them 20 Mig-29s that are definitely not from Poland?
Why don't you volunteer to fly them in and take Algy along for the ride?
Shhhhh We’re knee deep in Mig-29 training. Bit more complex than a Sopwith Camel, sadly.
You managed the Spur OK and that must have been a devil to fly given it was a propellor aircraft claimed to have better performance than a jet.
The FT is a pretty reliable source, and it, in turn, is citing US intelligence, which so far has been highly accurate in predicting Ukrainian developments
So that is concerning. That said, I am not sure China wants to agitate its enemies so openly, by shoring up a Mafia regime in Russia. If they assist Putin, it will be discreet. And probably with a hefty price. No nuclear war would be on their menu, China does not want to rule half of a ruined world
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.
That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).
In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
Exactly. We either find a way to get rid of them or we don't have a long run future.
If you have any ideas on how to persuade North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and China to give up their nuclear weapons, I'm sure the UN would be delighted to hear from you.
But even if you could via, say, a programme of mass hypnosis I honestly cannot see the Americans giving up nukes.
All I can do is argue and vote for my own country to do it.
And that's the problem, isn't it? Ukraine and Kazakhstan gave up their nukes, and are now in effect giving up their sovereignty as well as a result. So no politician will get rid of their nukes until *everyone* agrees to get rid of them.
But the other way - proliferate until bang - is imo a bigger problem. And I don't think our nukes protect us. The logic doesn't really work for that. Not as I assess it.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
And Sturgeon alone amongst leaders wants a no fly zone enforced in Ukraine
Really unbelievable error of judgement
She said it shouldn't be ruled out. Applying the Big G interpretation method, I assume you now want an NFZ ruled out in any circumstance. Duly noted.
She said she supported a no fly zone but then you cannot take any criticism of sainted Nicola
A NFZ will always be ruled out as any escalation that may be needed will be a full on confrontation between NATO and Russia
You can't seem to bear anyone contradicting your half baked observations on Scotland. Tbh I'm not that interested in PB's chief flipflopper's observations in general but I just can't resist the occasional prick when you get on your 'I have my own tartan and know fisher folk' high horse.
Shame for you independence is over
If you were not interested in my comments then why do they upset you so, other than they are prescient and of course if they did not get to you you did not need to respond with your sad attempts to discredit my Scottish family
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.
That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).
In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
Exactly. We either find a way to get rid of them or we don't have a long run future.
If you have any ideas on how to persuade North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and China to give up their nuclear weapons, I'm sure the UN would be delighted to hear from you.
But even if you could via, say, a programme of mass hypnosis I honestly cannot see the Americans giving up nukes.
All I can do is argue and vote for my own country to do it.
And that's the problem, isn't it? Ukraine and Kazakhstan gave up their nukes, and are now in effect giving up their sovereignty as well as a result. So no politician will get rid of their nukes until *everyone* agrees to get rid of them.
But the other way - proliferate until bang - is imo a bigger problem. And I don't think our nukes protect us. The logic doesn't really work for that. Not as I assess it.
So - let me get this right - you are pro-unilateral disarmament? You would vote for an Abandon Our Nukes party? And you'd be happy if we did that, despite Ukraine?
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
1) This may shock you but some people care more about the country than their political party.
2) The 2% is a floor, and a pretty modest one that’s ok only in peacetime.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
Is it going to become a bigger real issue than all the other issues that you predicted would a real issue for the Scottish government?
Yes
I genuinely do not think many have be able to understand just how much this war will affect opinions on a wide range of subjects and not only defence and security but also energy supply security and far more domestic production, to the billions needed not just for the NHS but now defence
Add in the inevitable closer cooperation between UK and EU on all kinds of matters, former policies are redundant and a whole new attitude will come about with many implications across the west
Indeed
Just look at Germany. Seventy years of peacetime pacifism gone in ten days.
And re the EU, yes this has made me, a Leaver, look much more kindly upon the EU. It is still a flawed mess of a polity, but it is all we have along with NATO. It IS most of the West, it is Europe.
I hope we can find some better way to co-operate with our European friends, cousins, allies. Enough of this pointless snarling. We have a common enemy who wishes us all ill
Putin has successfully brought the EU and UK closer together. I must admit that I'm quite impressed.
Well, Wiki tells me one meaning of Vladimir is 'peace owner/ruler of peace', so it makes sense he's be a peacemaker.
Of course, it also says another meaning is 'ruler of the world', which would also explain a lot about his ambitions, and the sort of peace he might be expected to create, the Calgacus type.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.
That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).
In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
Exactly. We either find a way to get rid of them or we don't have a long run future.
If you have any ideas on how to persuade North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and China to give up their nuclear weapons, I'm sure the UN would be delighted to hear from you.
But even if you could via, say, a programme of mass hypnosis I honestly cannot see the Americans giving up nukes.
All I can do is argue and vote for my own country to do it.
And that's the problem, isn't it? Ukraine and Kazakhstan gave up their nukes, and are now in effect giving up their sovereignty as well as a result. So no politician will get rid of their nukes until *everyone* agrees to get rid of them.
But the other way - proliferate until bang - is imo a bigger problem. And I don't think our nukes protect us. The logic doesn't really work for that. Not as I assess it.
It does to the extent that Putin knows he has a bigger military than every other nation in Europe and if he managed to breach through NATO conventional forces but if he invades France and the UK they have nuclear weapons as a weapon of last resort
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
And I was already depressed. Thanks.
Add harvie and you have two complete nutters.
If only Malc. Your unbearable optimism shining through once again.
I did mean Slater and Harvie David, not your goodself
Hard to believe how bad Scottish gobvernment is nowadays , after flushing more than 100M down the drain to Ferguson's we now have these muppets paying another 100M + to Turkey to build ferries. The incompetence is breathtaking.
Genuine question, malcolm:
Could an SNP government ever get so bad you might, in the end, vote for a Non-indy party?
Imagine there was no Alba alternative
Yes for sure the SNP as it is now is not for Independence. Unfortunately the only advocates at present are ALBA or ISP. SNP will need a big clear out for sure and way they are going on GRA they may have some big shocks coming. Unfortunately teh other parties , Tories, Labour , Lib Dems and Greens are just a joke. SNP is now just the New Labour party, all their dross left and took SNP over with connivance of Sturgeon. PS: No way will I vote SNP in May Local Elections.
Interesting, ta
Sturgeon looks tired and shopworn, now (to this non-Scottish outsider). She is still a capable politician, she has been formidable, but she seems weary in her soul.
To be fair, I imagine every politician on earth is fucking exhausted. Covid, now war. And economic ruin approaching? Not a fun time to be leading
I think all of us are exhausted after the last few years. 24 months of peace and quiet would be very welcome.
Shame about Putin.
Not really. 24 more months is way more than he deserves.
I had a discussion with a colleague about how tired we all are. Really intending to take my full leave allocation this year, which I normally don’t.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
You mean like all members of NATO do , only France has any real self reliance, we are just renting ours and USA decides when and if they are used. rUK would remain poodles.
No they aren't, we leased Trident off the US but the UK PM still decides whether to fire it or not
Last time it was test-fired (without the US knowing), the missiles turned tail and headed back to Florida.
We don't have an independent nuclear deterrent, we have a pair of our granddad's shoes that we're shuffling around in.
Well, 155.9p per litre for unleaded and 162.9p per litre for diesel didn't seem to be losing Tesco's any customers yesterday, Unfortunately, the petroleum dependent are prisoners and will pay almost any price for their addiction.
I noted Shell's big profit announcement a few days ago and wondered if a windfall tax on those directly benefitting from high energy prices might not be a popular solution.
Of course, that would include the Government for whom (presumably) increasing fuel levy will help offset the cost of dealing with the administration of the Ukrainian diaspora though unlikely to do much against the overwhelming calls for increased defence expenditure.
As the post-Cold War Peace Dividend unravels, the problem is or are the expenditure structures which have evolved since the early 90s - given education and health are sacrosanct (it would seem), where is the balance in public finances? It seems there are still some clamouring for tax cuts but tax rises seem the only option.
Yet, the immediate problem is inflation and wage rises chasing price rises (the 1970s called and would like their economics back, by the way) and the return of Union militancy. The Government may not mind a "summer of discontent" as strikers rival Russian oligarchs in the popularity stakes.
Thinking aloud, I wonder if we are seeing a new "war on wealth" with those seemingly possessing Croesus-like levels of personal affluence the next group to be demonised as most people struggle.
I think inheritances will have to be taxed more heavily. The introduction of residential nil rate relief, means that at some point in this decade I will likely enjoy an additional £50,000 over and above what I would otherwise have inherited. That £50,000 is nice to have, but it's less essential than this country having adequate defences.
I'd accept the abolition of exemption of CGT on main homes and inheritance tax at the basic rate with, say, a £100k allowance per owner/joint owner.
I think 20% tax on asset windfalls is fair enough if we need to raise money quickly.
I'd prefer that than any more NI rises or income tax threshold freezes.
Problem is it means no one sells.
Let’s say you buy a house for £200k and sell it for £300k because you want to move.
Ignoring allowances and costs you have £100k in gross profit and £80k in net profit.
So your £300k house can only be replaced with a £280k house - why would you move to a less nice property by choice?
You need rollover relief which massively reduces the tax take
Sounds good but it would end any political party gaining power
Remember the poll tax, this would be 10 times worse
If we can't afford to defend ourselves and become serfs to authoritarian states to Russia, how many times worse than the poll tax do you think that would be?
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
We do not want a tax on asset windfalls, a wealth tax or a rise in inheritance tax. No, no, no. Better to go into opposition than for this government to do anything so un Tory and betray the Tory core vote
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
It is pretty obvious that existing defence spending would wipe the floor with Putin. Why spend more?
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.
That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).
In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
Exactly. We either find a way to get rid of them or we don't have a long run future.
If you have any ideas on how to persuade North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and China to give up their nuclear weapons, I'm sure the UN would be delighted to hear from you.
But even if you could via, say, a programme of mass hypnosis I honestly cannot see the Americans giving up nukes.
All I can do is argue and vote for my own country to do it.
And that's the problem, isn't it? Ukraine and Kazakhstan gave up their nukes, and are now in effect giving up their sovereignty as well as a result. So no politician will get rid of their nukes until *everyone* agrees to get rid of them.
But the other way - proliferate until bang - is imo a bigger problem. And I don't think our nukes protect us. The logic doesn't really work for that. Not as I assess it.
It does to the extent that Putin knows he has a bigger military than every other nation in Europe and if he managed to breach through NATO conventional forces but if he invades France and the UK they have nuclear weapons as a weapon of last resort
Pity for him then that his military is in bits across Ukraine
The FT is a pretty reliable source, and it, in turn, is citing US intelligence, which so far has been highly accurate in predicting Ukrainian developments
So that is concerning. That said, I am not sure China wants to agitate its enemies so openly, by shoring up a Mafia regime in Russia. If they assist Putin, it will be discreet. And probably with a hefty price. No nuclear war would be on their menu, China does not want to rule half of a ruined world
Agree, the FT is pretty reliable and it is quoting sources. So we can take it as accurate I think.
I suspect Putin is putting Xi on the spot here. Supplying weapons to Russia is the last thing he will want. They might be able to help with things such as cyber attacks and satellite imagery but it’s still tricky for Xi given the implications I outlined earlier *
* another implication for China if it helped Russia is that it would screw up its relations with the EU even further and probably push more countries to be more vocal backing Lithuania in its dispute with China.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
You mean like all members of NATO do , only France has any real self reliance, we are just renting ours and USA decides when and if they are used. rUK would remain poodles.
No they aren't, we leased Trident off the US but the UK PM still decides whether to fire it or not
Last time it was test-fired (without the US knowing), the missiles turned tail and headed back to Florida.
We don't have an independent nuclear deterrent, we have a pair of our granddad's shoes that we're shuffling around in.
Yes, missiles fail occasionally. Your point being?
As well as your other pro-Russian ramblings on here, ISTR you claimed that all the cruise missiles Russia fired on Syria hit their targets, with no failures? So Russian missiles = good, Yank/British ones = bad?
Sadly I can tread that because of the paywall, what is in the article, does it day what assistance they are after?
Unspecified
"US officials told the Financial Times that Russia had requested military equipment and other assistance since the start of the invasion. They declined to give details about what Russia had requested.
"Another person familiar with the situation said the US was preparing to warn its allies, amid some indications that China may be preparing to help Russia. Other US officials have said there were signs that Russia was running out of some kinds of weaponry as the war in Ukraine extends into its third week."
The interesting point is they've been asking the Chinese since the start. Which suggests they got a big fat bu keyi back. Lends great credence to the Chinese paper we were discussing yesterday. Which said China has a big decision. And only a week or two to make it.
SCOOP - Russia has asked China for military equipment and other assistance to support its invasion of Ukraine.
..hmm. A worrying escalation?
What’s the source? Big questions for the west if it was true, and the request granted (itself a big question for China).
Source is key. It smacks of desperation to be honest - Russia is well aware of the implications of asking for Chinese help.
As for China, if this is true, my guess is the answer will be some version of no. The States can slap sanctions on countries seen to be aiding countries under sanctions. Given China’s economy is fragile and likely to get more fragile with the issues in Shenzhen, the last thing they need is an economic hit.
There is also the issue for China of how their actions could prompt Japan et al to boost their security and / or change the US to become more willing to be military assertive in the Pacific.
One other point - China will also be aware that the odds of a Republican Congress are increasing and / or Trump back in 2024. Again, not helpful for China to be giving the hawks in the US a stick with which to beat it.
Cheers @IshmaelZ. I still think the implications for Xi are far too risky. It puts China on the side of the aggressor.
One possible clue might be whether that article someone posted up earlier by the academics in China talking about how the war will lead to the West being strengthened is still up. The Chinese are usually pretty quick at taking down pieces which are seen to go too far
The interesting point is they've been asking the Chinese since the start. Which suggests they got a big fat bu keyi back. Lends great credence to the Chinese paper we were discussing yesterday. Which said China has a big decision. And only a week or two to make it.
The FT is a pretty reliable source, and it, in turn, is citing US intelligence, which so far has been highly accurate in predicting Ukrainian developments
So that is concerning. That said, I am not sure China wants to agitate its enemies so openly, by shoring up a Mafia regime in Russia. If they assist Putin, it will be discreet. And probably with a hefty price. No nuclear war would be on their menu, China does not want to rule half of a ruined world
Agree, the FT is pretty reliable and it is quoting sources. So we can take it as accurate I think.
I suspect Putin is putting Xi on the spot here. Supplying weapons to Russia is the last thing he will want. They might be able to help with things such as cyber attacks and satellite imagery but it’s still tricky for Xi given the implications I outlined earlier *
* another implication for China if it helped Russia is that it would screw up its relations with the EU even further and probably push more countries to be more vocal backing Lithuania in its dispute with China.
Whatever happens, we are now heading for a Cold War, with the West on one side - plus Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore - and China/Russia on the other. The democracies versus the autocracies
The Global South will look on - esp India and Brazil - and try to gain advantage by steering between the two poles, as and when it suits them
I am confident we can survive and thrive. We are the West. We are the richest people that ever lived on earth, and still full of resourcefulness and innovation. In a sense, perhaps we needed a horrible shake-up like this. To stop us navel-gazing our way to absolute decline
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.
That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).
In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
Exactly. We either find a way to get rid of them or we don't have a long run future.
If you have any ideas on how to persuade North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and China to give up their nuclear weapons, I'm sure the UN would be delighted to hear from you.
But even if you could via, say, a programme of mass hypnosis I honestly cannot see the Americans giving up nukes.
All I can do is argue and vote for my own country to do it.
And that's the problem, isn't it? Ukraine and Kazakhstan gave up their nukes, and are now in effect giving up their sovereignty as well as a result. So no politician will get rid of their nukes until *everyone* agrees to get rid of them.
But the other way - proliferate until bang - is imo a bigger problem. And I don't think our nukes protect us. The logic doesn't really work for that. Not as I assess it.
So - let me get this right - you are pro-unilateral disarmament? You would vote for an Abandon Our Nukes party? And you'd be happy if we did that, despite Ukraine?
I kind of hope I've got this wrong
Here is some simple maths that everyone on the planet can do.
If Russia didn't have nukes, then NATO would be discussing whether to stop when we reach Moscow. Or not.
Given that, when do you expect the Russians to give up nukes, in the next 10,000 years or so?
SCOOP - Russia has asked China for military equipment and other assistance to support its invasion of Ukraine.
..hmm. A worrying escalation?
What’s the source? Big questions for the west if it was true, and the request granted (itself a big question for China).
Source is key. It smacks of desperation to be honest - Russia is well aware of the implications of asking for Chinese help.
As for China, if this is true, my guess is the answer will be some version of no. The States can slap sanctions on countries seen to be aiding countries under sanctions. Given China’s economy is fragile and likely to get more fragile with the issues in Shenzhen, the last thing they need is an economic hit.
There is also the issue for China of how their actions could prompt Japan et al to boost their security and / or change the US to become more willing to be military assertive in the Pacific.
One other point - China will also be aware that the odds of a Republican Congress are increasing and / or Trump back in 2024. Again, not helpful for China to be giving the hawks in the US a stick with which to beat it.
Cheers @IshmaelZ. I still think the implications for Xi are far too risky. It puts China on the side of the aggressor.
One possible clue might be whether that article someone posted up earlier by the academics in China talking about how the war will lead to the West being strengthened is still up. The Chinese are usually pretty quick at taking down pieces which are seen to go too far
That wouldn't have been circulated unless there was a good reason. He's a senior adviser. Therefore it will have been officially OKed. It did say the West has been strengthened. It also warned against PRC being caught on the wrong side and effectively encircled. I suspect there has been much more Sino-Western back channel chat than Putin bargained for.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
And Sturgeon alone amongst leaders wants a no fly zone enforced in Ukraine
Really unbelievable error of judgement
She said it shouldn't be ruled out. Applying the Big G interpretation method, I assume you now want an NFZ ruled out in any circumstance. Duly noted.
Given that a NFZ would in practice amount to a NATO declaration of war on Russia, I am with Big G on this.
I know PB Strategic Command has a bit of heft, but can you list the actual players who've unequivocally stated that an NFZ should not be applied in any circumstances?
You are attempting to deflect from the error Sturgeon made by speaking without thinking
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
You mean like all members of NATO do , only France has any real self reliance, we are just renting ours and USA decides when and if they are used. rUK would remain poodles.
No they aren't, we leased Trident off the US but the UK PM still decides whether to fire it or not
Last time it was test-fired (without the US knowing), the missiles turned tail and headed back to Florida.
We don't have an independent nuclear deterrent, we have a pair of our granddad's shoes that we're shuffling around in.
Yes, missiles fail occasionally. Your point being?
As well as your other pro-Russian ramblings on here, ISTR you claimed that all the cruise missiles Russia fired on Syria hit their targets, with no failures? So Russian missiles = good, Yank/British ones = bad?
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
And Sturgeon alone amongst leaders wants a no fly zone enforced in Ukraine
Really unbelievable error of judgement
She said it shouldn't be ruled out. Applying the Big G interpretation method, I assume you now want an NFZ ruled out in any circumstance. Duly noted.
She said she supported a no fly zone but then you cannot take any criticism of sainted Nicola
A NFZ will always be ruled out as any escalation that may be needed will be a full on confrontation between NATO and Russia
You can't seem to bear anyone contradicting your half baked observations on Scotland. Tbh I'm not that interested in PB's chief flipflopper's observations in general but I just can't resist the occasional prick when you get on your 'I have my own tartan and know fisher folk' high horse.
Shame for you independence is over
If you were not interested in my comments then why do they upset you so, other than they are prescient and of course if they did not get to you you did not need to respond with your sad attempts to discredit my Scottish family
Haven't a clue about or much interest your family, and you take minimal discrediting, so all good.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.
That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).
In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
Exactly. We either find a way to get rid of them or we don't have a long run future.
If you have any ideas on how to persuade North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and China to give up their nuclear weapons, I'm sure the UN would be delighted to hear from you.
But even if you could via, say, a programme of mass hypnosis I honestly cannot see the Americans giving up nukes.
All I can do is argue and vote for my own country to do it.
And that's the problem, isn't it? Ukraine and Kazakhstan gave up their nukes, and are now in effect giving up their sovereignty as well as a result. So no politician will get rid of their nukes until *everyone* agrees to get rid of them.
But the other way - proliferate until bang - is imo a bigger problem. And I don't think our nukes protect us. The logic doesn't really work for that. Not as I assess it.
So - let me get this right - you are pro-unilateral disarmament? You would vote for an Abandon Our Nukes party? And you'd be happy if we did that, despite Ukraine?
I kind of hope I've got this wrong
Here is some simple maths that everyone on the planet can do.
If Russia didn't have nukes, then NATO would be discussing whether to stop when we reach Moscow. Or not.
Given that, when do you expect the Russians to give up nukes, in the next 10,000 years or so?
If Russia didn't have nukes it wouldn't have invaded.
The interesting point is they've been asking the Chinese since the start. Which suggests they got a big fat bu keyi back. Lends great credence to the Chinese paper we were discussing yesterday. Which said China has a big decision. And only a week or two to make it.
China wil not help Putin now.
He's a loser.
And it is all very bad for business.
If China did agree to sell, it would charge top dollar. How would the Russians pay? They've done a brilliant job of bankrupting themselves.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.
That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).
In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
Exactly. We either find a way to get rid of them or we don't have a long run future.
If you have any ideas on how to persuade North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and China to give up their nuclear weapons, I'm sure the UN would be delighted to hear from you.
But even if you could via, say, a programme of mass hypnosis I honestly cannot see the Americans giving up nukes.
All I can do is argue and vote for my own country to do it.
And that's the problem, isn't it? Ukraine and Kazakhstan gave up their nukes, and are now in effect giving up their sovereignty as well as a result. So no politician will get rid of their nukes until *everyone* agrees to get rid of them.
But the other way - proliferate until bang - is imo a bigger problem. And I don't think our nukes protect us. The logic doesn't really work for that. Not as I assess it.
So - let me get this right - you are pro-unilateral disarmament? You would vote for an Abandon Our Nukes party? And you'd be happy if we did that, despite Ukraine?
I kind of hope I've got this wrong
Here is some simple maths that everyone on the planet can do.
If Russia didn't have nukes, then NATO would be discussing whether to stop when we reach Moscow. Or not.
Given that, when do you expect the Russians to give up nukes, in the next 10,000 years or so?
It all went wrong in 1945 when we didn’t follow Churchill and Patton’s instincts, release non-SS German POWs and march on with them until Moscow.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.
That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).
In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
Exactly. We either find a way to get rid of them or we don't have a long run future.
If you have any ideas on how to persuade North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and China to give up their nuclear weapons, I'm sure the UN would be delighted to hear from you.
But even if you could via, say, a programme of mass hypnosis I honestly cannot see the Americans giving up nukes.
All I can do is argue and vote for my own country to do it.
And that's the problem, isn't it? Ukraine and Kazakhstan gave up their nukes, and are now in effect giving up their sovereignty as well as a result. So no politician will get rid of their nukes until *everyone* agrees to get rid of them.
But the other way - proliferate until bang - is imo a bigger problem. And I don't think our nukes protect us. The logic doesn't really work for that. Not as I assess it.
So - let me get this right - you are pro-unilateral disarmament? You would vote for an Abandon Our Nukes party? And you'd be happy if we did that, despite Ukraine?
I kind of hope I've got this wrong
Here is some simple maths that everyone on the planet can do.
If Russia didn't have nukes, then NATO would be discussing whether to stop when we reach Moscow. Or not.
Given that, when do you expect the Russians to give up nukes, in the next 10,000 years or so?
If China helps then surely we'll be sanctioning them, which is the second cold war well and truly on. If they don't help Russia then lol. Launching a war and running out of tanks/supply convoys/precision guided missiles less than a month in is pathetic.
The interesting point is they've been asking the Chinese since the start. Which suggests they got a big fat bu keyi back. Lends great credence to the Chinese paper we were discussing yesterday. Which said China has a big decision. And only a week or two to make it.
This snipit is interesting,
“Other US officials have also said there were signs that Russia was running out of some kinds of weaponry as the war in Ukraine approaches the start of its third week,” the FT report said
What do we think they have run out of? Trucks obviously is a pinch point, but Presidion guide missiles and smart bombs? anything else?
The interesting point is they've been asking the Chinese since the start. Which suggests they got a big fat bu keyi back. Lends great credence to the Chinese paper we were discussing yesterday. Which said China has a big decision. And only a week or two to make it.
China wil not help Putin now.
He's a loser.
And it is all very bad for business.
If China did agree to sell, it would charge top dollar. How would the Russians pay? They've done a brilliant job of bankrupting themselves.
Ans why would China want to make a strategic partner of Russia? The only thing a weakened and humiliated Russia might have is land and resources. Russia *might* be willing to sell the latter at a reduced price in the future for help now, but the former? No way.
This is probably an occasion where China might want to act the neutral elder statesman than a player on the field.
Regarding previous thread, I think 2024 will be a very good election to lose! (Like 1992). Tories should hope for a decent performance from Boris, not not so good that he actually wins. 2029 would be a cataclysm.
For the amusement of PBers, I provide the latest from Lorna Slater, Green MSP, and Minister in the Scottish Government - on NATO and nuclear weapons...
And she is an actual minister. That's quite scary if you're Scottish. A person this childishly, dangerously clueless has serious power in your government
Her logic is very confused. Russia having nuclear weapons as a successful deterrent is somehow NATO's fault, and we need to get rid of them because none of us are safe until nobody has them?
There is a plausible case for getting rid of nuclear weapons but it certainly isn't that.
The problem is that Ukraine has rendered nearly all arguments for unilateral disarmament useless. You can no longer say nukes aren't a deterrent - they are certainly deterring us from stopping Putin with our greater military might. You can no longer say They would never be used by anyone - it is horribly clear Putin is capable of using them. You can't say We must set the first example and disarm and people will follow - Putin will disarm because Scotland closes Faslane? Really?
So the SNP/Greens are left with the pure and slender moral argument: these weapons are awful and we cannot possess them, even if that puts us at much greater danger of being invaded like Ukraine.
That's a pretty tough sell, so she didn't even bother.
This is going to become a real issue for the Scot Gov. And underneath it all is the huge hypocrisy that iScotland would almost certainly remain in NATO and, er, rely on the iUK and US to protect it. With, erm, nukes
The much bigger problem though is not those countries with nukes deciding to hang on to them, it will be the smaller nations with big aggressive neighbours deciding to get them to be on the safe side.
That greatly increases the risk of something going wrong or a rogue/false flag strike (as in the plot of On The Beach).
In a book Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs written 15 years ago that was criticised as flawed by military experts but I nevertheless found interesting, Lewis Page made this exact point. 'Nuclear weapons confer immunity from American interference up to a point, which is why everyone is so keen to get them...(footnote) Everyone really is keen to get them: this isn't scaremongering or lies. Chemical weapons are a bogey to frighten the children with - the Kaiser had them in World War One, for goodness sakes. But long range nukes are the real deal. If I were running a country, I'd want some.'
Exactly. We either find a way to get rid of them or we don't have a long run future.
If you have any ideas on how to persuade North Korea, Russia, India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and China to give up their nuclear weapons, I'm sure the UN would be delighted to hear from you.
But even if you could via, say, a programme of mass hypnosis I honestly cannot see the Americans giving up nukes.
All I can do is argue and vote for my own country to do it.
And that's the problem, isn't it? Ukraine and Kazakhstan gave up their nukes, and are now in effect giving up their sovereignty as well as a result. So no politician will get rid of their nukes until *everyone* agrees to get rid of them.
But the other way - proliferate until bang - is imo a bigger problem. And I don't think our nukes protect us. The logic doesn't really work for that. Not as I assess it.
So - let me get this right - you are pro-unilateral disarmament? You would vote for an Abandon Our Nukes party? And you'd be happy if we did that, despite Ukraine?
I kind of hope I've got this wrong
Here is some simple maths that everyone on the planet can do.
If Russia didn't have nukes, then NATO would be discussing whether to stop when we reach Moscow. Or not.
Given that, when do you expect the Russians to give up nukes, in the next 10,000 years or so?
If Russia didn't have nukes it wouldn't have invaded.
Why not? Giant willy waving military, filling ol' Red Square with lot of jack boots. All the things that make the stupid people with too much brass macaroni on their hats, think they are awesome. Look at the *rocket* on that launcher..... All long and wide.....
In a world with no nukes, why not take the band on tour in your smaller neighbour?
The FT is a pretty reliable source, and it, in turn, is citing US intelligence, which so far has been highly accurate in predicting Ukrainian developments
So that is concerning. That said, I am not sure China wants to agitate its enemies so openly, by shoring up a Mafia regime in Russia. If they assist Putin, it will be discreet. And probably with a hefty price. No nuclear war would be on their menu, China does not want to rule half of a ruined world
Agree, the FT is pretty reliable and it is quoting sources. So we can take it as accurate I think.
I suspect Putin is putting Xi on the spot here. Supplying weapons to Russia is the last thing he will want. They might be able to help with things such as cyber attacks and satellite imagery but it’s still tricky for Xi given the implications I outlined earlier *
* another implication for China if it helped Russia is that it would screw up its relations with the EU even further and probably push more countries to be more vocal backing Lithuania in its dispute with China.
Whatever happens, we are now heading for a Cold War, with the West on one side - plus Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore - and China/Russia on the other. The democracies versus the autocracies
The Global South will look on - esp India and Brazil - and try to gain advantage by steering between the two poles, as and when it suits them
I am confident we can survive and thrive. We are the West. We are the richest people that ever lived on earth, and still full of resourcefulness and innovation. In a sense, perhaps we needed a horrible shake-up like this. To stop us navel-gazing our way to absolute decline
The interesting point is they've been asking the Chinese since the start. Which suggests they got a big fat bu keyi back. Lends great credence to the Chinese paper we were discussing yesterday. Which said China has a big decision. And only a week or two to make it.
China wil not help Putin now.
He's a loser.
And it is all very bad for business.
If China did agree to sell, it would charge top dollar. How would the Russians pay? They've done a brilliant job of bankrupting themselves.
Ans why would China want to make a strategic partner of Russia? The only thing a weakened and humiliated Russia might have is land and resources. Russia *might* be willing to sell the latter at a reduced price in the future for help now, but the former? No way.
This is probably an occasion where China might want to act the neutral elder statesman than a player on the field.
Russia could "sell" the area around Vladivostok back to China.
Comments
Applying the Big G interpretation method, I assume you now want an NFZ ruled out in any circumstance. Duly noted.
But even if you could via, say, a programme of mass hypnosis I honestly cannot see the Americans giving up nukes.
All armchair speculation, but with a lot of luck we might be seeing the final stages before a cease-fire.
Could an SNP government ever get so bad you might, in the end, vote for a Non-indy party?
Imagine there was no Alba alternative
One bit missing from the article @TOPPING linked to was that there is plenty of evidence that the Ukrainians have more than a few Stingers - that some of their large and more more powerful SAM systems have survived. And prospered.
Flying low *puts* the Russians in Stinger/Strela territory. Why do that?
A NFZ will always be ruled out as any escalation that may be needed will be a full on confrontation between NATO and Russia
The fact our homes are worth anything decent at all is because we live in a safe, secure and wealthy part of the world - keeping that means investing in its protection or we risk losing it all.
Just look at Germany. Seventy years of peacetime pacifism gone in ten days.
And re the EU, yes this has made me, a Leaver, look much more kindly upon the EU. It is still a flawed mess of a polity, but it is all we have along with NATO. It IS most of the West, it is Europe.
I hope we can find some better way to co-operate with our European friends, cousins, allies. Enough of this pointless snarling. We have a common enemy who wishes us all ill
..hmm. A worrying escalation?
We can't always rely on possessors to be rational with MAD theory, even if it's held for the last 70 years so far.
Those who think it cant be done should be free to make there predictions, but not able to stand in the way of people who are trying to do it.
Unfortunately the other parties , Tories, Labour , Lib Dems and Greens are just a joke. SNP is now just the New Labour party, all their dross left and took SNP over with connivance of Sturgeon.
PS: No way will I vote SNP in May Local Elections.
In the big bad outside world, I suppose Jens Stoltenberg as Secretary General of NATO might count as an 'actual player.' Or Senator Marco Rubio. Or the US State Department.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2022-03-08/no-fly-zone-ukraine-russia-biden-nato
Ultimately NATO isn't going to shoot first at Russia. It is possible that Putin might be mad enough to hit Poland - he had a pretty near miss today - in which case all bets are off, but NATO Kosovo notwithstanding thinks of itself as a defensive alliance.
I just wonder if China senses an opportunity here
But I try not to give myself Ayrs and graces.
But I think you need to be realistic. Costs are much higher than in the US. And we don't know a great deal about the geology.
I am an igas shareholder, and believe me, there's nothing I'd like more than for it to work here in the UK.
Sturgeon looks tired and shopworn, now (to this non-Scottish outsider). She is still a capable politician, she has been formidable, but she seems weary in her soul.
To be fair, I imagine every politician on earth is fucking exhausted. Covid, now war. And economic ruin approaching? Not a fun time to be leading
It's been there before.
As for China, if this is true, my guess is the answer will be some version of no. The States can slap sanctions on countries seen to be aiding countries under sanctions. Given China’s economy is fragile and likely to get more fragile with the issues in Shenzhen, the last thing they need is an economic hit.
There is also the issue for China of how their actions could prompt Japan et al to boost their security and / or change the US to become more willing to be military assertive in the Pacific.
One other point - China will also be aware that the odds of a Republican Congress are increasing and / or Trump back in 2024. Again, not helpful for China to be giving the hawks in the US a stick with which to beat it.
Shame about Putin.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/biden-no-fly-zone-ukraine-nato-b2026302.html
Johnson
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10599637/Boris-Johnson-reveals-deeply-upsetting-calls-Volodymyr-Zelensky.html
Stoltenberg
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/03/09/why-doesn-t-nato-impose-a-no-fly-zone-over-ukraine
They are not saying "not under any circs" but they aren't saying "as things currently stand" either.
not paywalled
You can't uninvent weapons, be they swords, bows and arrows, guns, battleships or nukes; the only thing you can do is make them obsolete.
I see making it unfeasible to wipe out whole nations at the push of a button a positive development.
So that is concerning. That said, I am not sure China wants to agitate its enemies so openly, by shoring up a Mafia regime in Russia. If they assist Putin, it will be discreet. And probably with a hefty price. No nuclear war would be on their menu, China does not want to rule half of a ruined world
In any case we already spend the 2% of gdp on defence NATO wants, it is other nations like Germany who have not but are finally now going to do so following Putin's invasion of Ukraine
If you were not interested in my comments then why do they upset you so, other than they are prescient and of course if they did not get to you you did not need to respond with your sad attempts to discredit my Scottish family
I kind of hope I've got this wrong
2) The 2% is a floor, and a pretty modest one that’s ok only in peacetime.
Of course, it also says another meaning is 'ruler of the world', which would also explain a lot about his ambitions, and the sort of peace he might be expected to create, the Calgacus type.
We don't have an independent nuclear deterrent, we have a pair of our granddad's shoes that we're shuffling around in.
I suspect Putin is putting Xi on the spot here. Supplying weapons to Russia is the last thing he will want. They might be able to help with things such as cyber attacks and satellite imagery but it’s still tricky for Xi given the implications I outlined earlier *
* another implication for China if it helped Russia is that it would screw up its relations with the EU even further and probably push more countries to be more vocal backing Lithuania in its dispute with China.
As well as your other pro-Russian ramblings on here, ISTR you claimed that all the cruise missiles Russia fired on Syria hit their targets, with no failures? So Russian missiles = good, Yank/British ones = bad?
"US officials told the Financial Times that Russia had requested military equipment and other assistance since the start of the invasion. They declined to give details about what Russia had requested.
"Another person familiar with the situation said the US was preparing to warn its allies, amid some indications that China may be preparing to help Russia. Other US officials have said there were signs that Russia was running out of some kinds of weaponry as the war in Ukraine extends into its third week."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/mar/13/ukraine-news-russia-war-ceasefire-broken-humanitarian-corridors-kyiv-russian-invasion-live-vladimir-putin-volodymyr-zelenskiy-latest-updates-live
The interesting point is they've been asking the Chinese since the start.
Which suggests they got a big fat bu keyi back.
Lends great credence to the Chinese paper we were discussing yesterday.
Which said China has a big decision. And only a week or two to make it.
A serious failure’: scale of Russia’s military blunders becomes clear
for the ft piece
One possible clue might be whether that article someone posted up earlier by the academics in China talking about how the war will lead to the West being strengthened is still up. The Chinese are usually pretty quick at taking down pieces which are seen to go too far
He's a loser.
And it is all very bad for business.
The Global South will look on - esp India and Brazil - and try to gain advantage by steering between the two poles, as and when it suits them
I am confident we can survive and thrive. We are the West. We are the richest people that ever lived on earth, and still full of resourcefulness and innovation. In a sense, perhaps we needed a horrible shake-up like this. To stop us navel-gazing our way to absolute decline
If Russia didn't have nukes, then NATO would be discussing whether to stop when we reach Moscow. Or not.
Given that, when do you expect the Russians to give up nukes, in the next 10,000 years or so?
He's a senior adviser. Therefore it will have been officially OKed.
It did say the West has been strengthened.
It also warned against PRC being caught on the wrong side and effectively encircled.
I suspect there has been much more Sino-Western back channel chat than Putin bargained for.
“Other US officials have also said there were signs that Russia was running out of some kinds of weaponry as the war in Ukraine approaches the start of its third week,” the FT report said
What do we think they have run out of? Trucks obviously is a pinch point, but Presidion guide missiles and smart bombs? anything else?
This is probably an occasion where China might want to act the neutral elder statesman than a player on the field.
In a world with no nukes, why not take the band on tour in your smaller neighbour?