Fair enough I bow to your greater knowledge. Did they solve the split grouping?
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
A Political Thread
- Thread starter Draggs
- Start date
- Status
Fair enough I bow to your greater knowledge. Did they solve the split grouping?
The A2 is still heavy, and impossible to fire left-handed. I did actually try do the latter while in the OTC and it was not a good idea. I'm quite bitter on that, because due to wonky eyes with the bad eyesight on my right, it kept me out of applying for a regular commission. Well, I think I could have, but it wouldn't have been a regiment I wanted to join.
Well, that and the time a doctor decided to write down a chest infection as asthma. Bloody doctors.
Anyway, as for Trident, well no, it doesn't deter those things, in the same way no one believes you're going to shoot them because they pinched your chips. Even stabbing them with a fork is seen as ludicrously over the top. It has to be something really big before people believe in the direct deterrence (i.e. other people's nukes, invasion of homeland). Are we are immediate risk of those? No. But a cursory study of military history says the threats you face can change very quickly. No one expected Russia to be doing what they are three years ago. I'm happy to buy them on the "What if" if it wasn't for the cost.
And I've no idea how much sway they give you in everyday negotiations - diplomatic meetings are rarely publicised. But no one says "Do it because I've got a really big submarine." Its just there in the back of everyone's minds (as is the fact that the UK is a permanent member of the Security Council, which it probably wouldn't be without nukes). How much difference does that make today? Don't know. Again, happy to have them for that, except the cost...
Do have to question whether its the best use of money right now. Still, I don't blame MPs for voting without an estimate, as history says BAE's estimates tend to be more for stand up comics than they are serious economic debate.
Finally, I don't think Eagle was ever a serious candidate, but rather the sacrificial goat staked out there to get the process rolling. I'm sure she'll be rewarded if Smith wins, and if Corbyn wins, then who cares anyway.
Well, that and the time a doctor decided to write down a chest infection as asthma. Bloody doctors.
Anyway, as for Trident, well no, it doesn't deter those things, in the same way no one believes you're going to shoot them because they pinched your chips. Even stabbing them with a fork is seen as ludicrously over the top. It has to be something really big before people believe in the direct deterrence (i.e. other people's nukes, invasion of homeland). Are we are immediate risk of those? No. But a cursory study of military history says the threats you face can change very quickly. No one expected Russia to be doing what they are three years ago. I'm happy to buy them on the "What if" if it wasn't for the cost.
And I've no idea how much sway they give you in everyday negotiations - diplomatic meetings are rarely publicised. But no one says "Do it because I've got a really big submarine." Its just there in the back of everyone's minds (as is the fact that the UK is a permanent member of the Security Council, which it probably wouldn't be without nukes). How much difference does that make today? Don't know. Again, happy to have them for that, except the cost...
Do have to question whether its the best use of money right now. Still, I don't blame MPs for voting without an estimate, as history says BAE's estimates tend to be more for stand up comics than they are serious economic debate.
Finally, I don't think Eagle was ever a serious candidate, but rather the sacrificial goat staked out there to get the process rolling. I'm sure she'll be rewarded if Smith wins, and if Corbyn wins, then who cares anyway.
Last edited:
The A2 is still fiddly, heavy, and impossible to fire left-handed. I did actually try do the latter while in the OTC and it was not a good idea. I'm quite bitter on that, because due to wonky eyes with the bad eyesight on my right, it kept me out of applying for a regular commission. Well, I think I could have, but it wouldn't have been a regiment I wanted to join.
Well, that and the time a doctor decided to write down a chest infection as asthma. Bloody doctors.
Anyway, as for Trident, well no, it doesn't deter those things, in the same way no one believes you're going to shoot them because they pinched your chips. Even stabbing them with a fork is seen as ludicrously over the top. It has to be something really big before people believe in the direct deterrence (i.e. other people's nukes, invasion of homeland). Are we are immediate risk of those? No. But a cursory study of military history says the threats you face can change very quickly. No one expected Russia to be doing what they are three years ago. I'm happy to buy them on the "What if" if it wasn't for the cost.
And I've no idea how much sway they give you in everyday negotiations - diplomatic meetings are rarely publicised. But no one says "Do it because I've got a really big submarine." Its just there in the back of everyone's minds (as is the fact that the UK is a permanent member of the Security Council, which it probably wouldn't be without nukes). How much difference does that make today? Don't know. Again, happy to have them for that, except the cost...
Do have to question whether its the best use of money right now. Still, I don't blame MPs for voting without an estimate, as history says BAE's estimates tend to be more for stand up comics than they are serious economic debate.
Finally, I don't think Eagle was ever a serious candidate, but rather the sacrificial goat staked out there to get the process rolling. I'm sure she'll be rewarded if Smith wins, and if Corbyn wins, then who cares anyway.
BAE systems are a bunch of con artists worse than anyone in the pharmaceutical industry.
And yes the A2 still cannot be fired left handed and the 5.56 is underpowered for ops like Afghanistan. It was a very expensive weapons system that everyone else in the world steered clear of.
The difficulty with Trident is that we'll never know whether it has stopped a war. We haven't had a world war in 70 years... is that because of WMDs, or mid-to-late-20th century enlightenment and peace processes? Would the Cold War have been a much more conventional war had the nuclear deterrent not existed? It's impossible to prove its worth. I am undecided on it as a result.
I just dislike the cavalier approach the government has taken with this. It has spent years cutting away at welfare, arguing "the hard decisions need made" and "we're all in it together", and with one vote - brought forward only to stick it into Labour - without full costing - has put an unspecified amount back onto the budget. There should have been an independent review into alternatives, with both Trident and the most likely alternatives fully costed, before a decision was taken.
Also, the government talks of multilateral disarmament, yet boycotts meetings to discuss the topic (not sure why this wasn't picked up by the big news outlets):
https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/...ts-uns-multilateral-nuclear-disarmament-talks
http://www.acronym.org.uk/2016/02/2...he-un-multilateral-nuclear-disarmament-talks/
I just dislike the cavalier approach the government has taken with this. It has spent years cutting away at welfare, arguing "the hard decisions need made" and "we're all in it together", and with one vote - brought forward only to stick it into Labour - without full costing - has put an unspecified amount back onto the budget. There should have been an independent review into alternatives, with both Trident and the most likely alternatives fully costed, before a decision was taken.
Also, the government talks of multilateral disarmament, yet boycotts meetings to discuss the topic (not sure why this wasn't picked up by the big news outlets):
https://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/...ts-uns-multilateral-nuclear-disarmament-talks
http://www.acronym.org.uk/2016/02/2...he-un-multilateral-nuclear-disarmament-talks/
Last edited:
Considering how cheerily the powers involved went to war in that period with non-nuclear countries, I think its a fairly safe call that the Cold War would have ran Hot without them, and it certainly wouldn't have been because of mid-to-late-20th century enlightenment and peace processes if they hadn't.
Also, there was a review last parliament. I forget whether it was independent, but the Tories had done all the prior due diligence that might be expected. They should have waited for the final figures but they wouldn't have changed the vote.
In other news, I rather like this from Private Eye -
Also, there was a review last parliament. I forget whether it was independent, but the Tories had done all the prior due diligence that might be expected. They should have waited for the final figures but they wouldn't have changed the vote.
In other news, I rather like this from Private Eye -
Yeh Enlightenment IMO hasn't stopped a major super power war IMO.
That is very much wishful thinking.
That is very much wishful thinking.
I think you guys are underestimating how far we have come in the last century.
The thing that springs to mind immediately is the disappearance of colonialism. We may fight wars over various reasons, but not to subjugate countries. When was the last time Britain attempted to annex land? Germany or France? We will fight to maintain our borders, but not to expand them - not anymore. I don't see there being any desire to, and I think it is widely seen as a wrong thing to do. Colonialism was one of the major contributors to the causes of the First World War; I think its disappearance has been good for peace.
Secondly, the disappearance of the eugenics movement. We don't view that we have the right to rule over "lesser" people anymore. Churchill argued in favour of using poisonous gas against "uncivilised tribes" when referring to Kurds and Afghans. In modern times, can you imagine a UK PM being elected with such views? A party leader would be dropped within a day if they said so outrageous a thing.
Even Russia's annexation of Crimea, although wrong, appears to be supported by the people of Crimea. I don't necessarily think it's indicative that Russia are bent on global border expansion.
So all the proxy wars after WW2 were not a form of colonialism? The war in Vietnam was a straight struggle between the USA and the USSR with the winner running the government and having first dibs on national resources.
TBH Britain France and Germany wasn't on my mind.
More like thinking about Russia and North Korea.
Russia IMO has certainly eyed up it's western bloc again esp countries like Georgia (Which things did kick off with in 2008 abit halfheartedly).
And whilst Colonialism was a major contributor to WW1 it was one of many, and as said the major players of the old Colonial days (England, Germany, France, Spain, Netherlands) either have no desire or don't have the means to continue anyway but regardless of that they are not the countries that NATO etc are worried about.
Whilst a majority of countries have gone into an age of "Enlightenment" there is a fair amount of countries ATM that haven't or certainly don't show it if they have and the trouble is a few of those countries have WMD themselves and some of them do like to put on an aggressive stance towards other countries (Mainly US).
Yeah I can't buy any argument that says MAD didn't work for the USA and Russia during the cold war. They both would of probably would of come to major blows rather than proxy wars had the threat of nuclear extinction not loomed over their heads. Yes the Cuban missile crisis would of been averted but if those weapons were not nuclear that scenario would of ended in war.
My question now is do WE need a deterrent? I'm not convinced we ever did we're not a superpower and we're unlikely to ever be again.
This was a fine opportunity to lead the way in nuclear disarmament and we blew it to the tune of around 100 billion according to the independent commission.
My question now is do WE need a deterrent? I'm not convinced we ever did we're not a superpower and we're unlikely to ever be again.
This was a fine opportunity to lead the way in nuclear disarmament and we blew it to the tune of around 100 billion according to the independent commission.
I'm sorry but that is wishful thinking again, whilst it would be brilliant the countries that everyone is worried about (hence the deterrent) wouldn't give a damn if Briatin or even the US disarmed it's Nuclear weapons, and that is the trouble.
It would be great to live in a world like that but it isn't the world we live in and prob will never be unfortunately. (Not to sound like to much of a downer)
On Britain need a deterrent guess that is more of a NATO thing.
I was thinking more about the likes of Israel and China
Yeah but what caused the Cuban missile crisis? The Soviets reacting to the US deploying nuclear weapons to Turkey. Contrary to popular belief the real aggression of the cold war came from the USA with the Soviets playing catch up. Nuclear weapons might have stopped WW3 but millions died in proxy wars and wars between two nations backed buy either superpower and the arms race could have been easily avoided.
Last edited:
Oh don't get me wrong both countries were massive cocks (let's not protracted Russian leaders as good guys). But yes avoiding WW3 was a good thing whilst the proxy wars led to a lot of death it was probably better than being dragged into another global total war conflict.
But better that both countries left each other the **** alone or didn't murder their own civilians but that could be said of everyour conflict.
But better that both countries left each other the **** alone or didn't murder their own civilians but that could be said of everyour conflict.
Imagine the money both sides spent on nuclear weapons was spent on cancer research instead? Or HIV research? How many lives would that have saved?
The arms race was a very stupid waste of money for no reason. Apart from Douglas mcCarther no military leader actually thought nuclear war was a good idea even when the US were deploying Pershing missiles to west Germany(nearly started WW3) none of the NATO high command actually wanted to launch them. It was a big white elephant with both sides to stupid to stop making them
In the bit you quoted
It's just that on the topic of modern colonialism, those seem to be the 2 countries currently engaged in the illegal occupation of a different country (along with Russia, which had already been mentioned)
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 13,659
- Reaction score
- 10,529
This Trident stuff reminds me of Yes Prime Minister. Very old comedy and yet so much of it is still relevant. Of course back then it was Polaris rather than Trident. That big expensive weapons system that we never used? We decided we needed a bigger, more expensive one.
Nope, Trident then too.
Last edited by a moderator:
What's that got do with the Cold War? That's what my post was about, but there's not a single thing in that reply about it.
If we want to make this a general argument though, then yes, there's been incredible social progress.
Has the progress taken us beyond the point where governments will declare war even when not directly threatened if they believe it to be in their/the national interest? No.
Why do we not engage in colonialism? In doesn't pay. Its better economic sense to have a friendly government who'll sell you the natural resources cheap and prop them up when needed. Empires are dead, spheres of influence are in. Do we and others do that? Yes. With military power when needed? Yes.
There is a clear hard limit to how much progress we have made.
As such, I do not believe that, if offered the opportunity to do so successfully and if it was held to be in the national interest, the world's current powers wouldn't launch a major war. Because on the rare occasions this happens, they do. What keeps us peaceful is not ethical progress, but progress in terms of making war hideously expensive and difficult.
Do you need nuclear weapons to do that? Maybe not. But would Russia have annexed parts of Ukraine if they'd keep their nuclear weapons? Probably not. In Ukraine's case, they probably did not nuclear weapons to maintain their territorial integrity.
Tbh, I think I'm against nuclear disarmament full stop. I'm against proliferation of course, but I do not see how you can make disarmament permanent. Any country with a civilian nuclear industry can produce a bomb pretty quick if they really wanted to.
At which point, I think it is safer for the world to have a small number of countries that are known to have nuclear weapons, than a small number of countries who at at any moment could become the only country to have nuclear weapons. There is not an inspection regime in the world conceivable I would trust to defuse the latter scenario. The only way in which complete and permanent disarmament is possible is if every single country dismantles their entire nuclear industry.
- Status
Similar threads
