20 million homeless more than a thousand dead
Comments
-
You used the word deterrent in connection to trident, it clearly is not a deterrent. Argentina being a nuclear power or not is irrelevent. As a deterrent trident didn't work.davelakers wrote:Frank the tank wrote:davelakers wrote:If we all lived in a fluffy, comfortable stable world with bells on, there would be no need to replace Trident, or for any other country to possess nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, we dont therefore a nuclear deterrent, no matter how abhorrent, is completely necessary.
Pakistan are not in a position to give up their nuclear arsenal either. That part of the world is a shithole of instability.
Did trident deter Argentina from invading the Falklands, errrrr no.
Did we utilize trident in order to force them to retire from their occupation, errrrr no.
So tell me again, what's the reason for trident?
Did we NEED to resort to nuclear weapons? errrrrrrrrr no!!
Were/are Argentina a nuclear power? errrrrrrrr no!!Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
I've sent a sponge.The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.0 -
Frank the tank wrote:My point was the Pakistani government ought to endevour to put more resorces into monsoon damage limitation for future events.
Really? Did you put any serious thought into that comment? Did you even look up what the Monsoon is?
Not even the USA can afford comprehensive storm and flood protection for Hurricanes so what are Pakistan going to be able to do in exchange for their nuclear bombs?0 -
spen666 wrote:who, what? why? when?
during the 2nd World War?
Are we mind readers and meant to know what these random figures mean
Errr.. what random figures?
How about these figures they may be of interest to those that use the roads of Britain and are a little concerned about speed cameras being turn off....
http://www.rospa.com/faqs/detail.aspx?faq=296
What would you think if this many people died every year in Britain because of floods?0 -
Ron Stuart wrote:spen666 wrote:who, what? why? when?
during the 2nd World War?
Are we mind readers and meant to know what these random figures mean
Errr.. what random figures?
How about these figures they may be of interest to those that use the roads of Britain and are a little concerned about speed cameras being turn off....
http://www.rospa.com/faqs/detail.aspx?faq=296
What would you think if this many people died every year in Britain because of floods?
The title of the thread.
Fortunately, this got sorted out about three pages ago.
Not sure what your point is after that.
Errrr does it add weight or gravitas to a post if it is prefixed by the bizarre mumble errrr.0 -
EKIMIKE wrote:Frank the tank wrote:My point was the Pakistani government ought to endevour to put more resorces into monsoon damage limitation for future events.
Really? Did you put any serious thought into that comment? Did you even look up what the Monsoon is?
Not even the USA can afford comprehensive storm and flood protection for Hurricanes so what are Pakistan going to be able to do in exchange for their nuclear bombs?
If I were to put my bloody minded head on I could say "Oh well, it happens every year it just happens to be on a grand scale this time around. Let them get on with it."
The cost of Pakistans nuclear programme may be a drop in the ocean against the cost of monsoon damage limitation, but it's the principle.
We all know Pakistan is a poorer nation than the USA all the more reason they should not fritter away what wealth they do have on a nuclear arms programme. Just my opinion., not saying it's right.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
davelakers wrote:Frank the tank wrote:davelakers wrote:If we all lived in a fluffy, comfortable stable world with bells on, there would be no need to replace Trident, or for any other country to possess nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, we dont therefore a nuclear deterrent, no matter how abhorrent, is completely necessary.
Pakistan are not in a position to give up their nuclear arsenal either. That part of the world is a shithole of instability.
Did trident deter Argentina from invading the Falklands, errrrr no.
Did we utilize trident in order to force them to retire from their occupation, errrrr no.
So tell me again, what's the reason for trident?
Did we NEED to resort to nuclear weapons? errrrrrrrrr no!!
Were/are Argentina a nuclear power? errrrrrrrr no!!
But if we had have nuked them the Falklands war would have been over a lot quicker.
Wouldn't have all that whinging about the sinking of the Belgrano then.0 -
Gazzaputt wrote:davelakers wrote:Frank the tank wrote:davelakers wrote:If we all lived in a fluffy, comfortable stable world with bells on, there would be no need to replace Trident, or for any other country to possess nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, we dont therefore a nuclear deterrent, no matter how abhorrent, is completely necessary.
Pakistan are not in a position to give up their nuclear arsenal either. That part of the world is a shithole of instability.
Did trident deter Argentina from invading the Falklands, errrrr no.
Did we utilize trident in order to force them to retire from their occupation, errrrr no.
So tell me again, what's the reason for trident?
Did we NEED to resort to nuclear weapons? errrrrrrrrr no!!
Were/are Argentina a nuclear power? errrrrrrrr no!!
But if we had have nuked them the Falklands war would have been over a lot quicker.
Wouldn't have all that whinging about the sinking of the Belgrano then.
Excellent point.0 -
I think we need to apply some perspective here. Pakistans culture, infrastructure and way of life are completely different to the UK's. Geographically they are at a dis-advantage which their government cannot do anything about. Comparing crisises(?) is fundamentally flawed and infantile. If Pakistan stopped its border troubles with India it would not have to rely on a nuclear programme to counteract Indias nuke capability.
Plus, and this may be wrong, I don't think many people in the developed northern hemisphere give a toss what happens in middle Asia and never have, they just don't want to be bothered by it.0 -
Funny how a tragedy which should transcend politics so quickly decends into a (dismissive) discussion on Pakistani politics...0
-
The politics is irrelevant. This is my point.
There is no way to prevent or limit the effects of a disaster like this. The only thing that can be done is to respond as best as possible. Hence why i find Frank the Tanks views pretty laughable.
And Frank you missed the point about the USA and flood/storm defences. No amount of money provides the answer. An infinite sum of money would fail to neutralise such consequences we are seeing in Pakistan. The scale of this disaster and others like it are simply too big.
The key thing with disaster prevention i.e. preventing a hazard from becoming a disaster is to know When it will occur, Where it will occur and How Big it will be. I'm sure the experts in Pakistan knew all three of these details but the problem was that it was just too big to deal with geographically.
I'm sure right now that there are thousands of tonnes of food aid, and other things such as shelters, blankets e.t.c stockpiled at various airports in Pakistan right now but they can't be put into use because the people who are in need cannot be accessed. There is no solution to the problem. The flood waters must clear first but by then people will be starving or suffering the effects of disease.0 -
In fact the only hazard i can recall that can be effectively mitigated through a technical solution is Avalanches. They fire munitions at the slopes to displace the snow. Then they clear the road or the snow is funnelled away from settlements by huge concrete constructions.
Not surprising considering how localised Avalanches are. A few hundred square metres on a mountain slope. Now compare it to the Monsoon rains. The only effective mitigation would possibly be to cut the tops off the Himalayas
? 0 -
The title of the thread.
Fortunately, this got sorted out about three pages ago.
Not sure what your point is after that.
Errrr does it add weight or gravitas to a post if it is prefixed by the bizarre mumble errrr.[/quote]
The title of the thread did not use random figures these are random figures......
http://www.websters-dictionary-online.o ... Search#945
The point and it's difficult to think you missed it, is that the deaths/injuries on our roads every year are far greater than those so far experienced by the tragic Pakistani floods which do not happen every year. Road deaths are a consequence of direct human action. The question I posed at the end was if it were flood victims and not road victims would it create more of a stir in the UK?
As for errrr it is an Inflection (modulation of the voice) in this case an affix. If your still puzzled try this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflection
Oh! (Inflection) have a look at a few posts down from your last one, it seems to be multiplying. :P0 -
-
I wouldn't take alot of what the media is saying at face value. The real problem at the moment is not the volume of aid, be it financial, food, medical e.t.c. but the ability to distribute the aid to those people who need it.
Also, the comparison in thatr Guardian article compares the donations made in relation to the Haiti Earthquake and the Pakistan floods. A very poorly considered comparison. Haiti is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere - hence the massive donation of aid from the International Community.
I get the sense, and you might think this is cynical, that all this we are hearing about there being a lack of sympathy is a simply a persuasion to get more people and organisations donating. It's fair game but creates the wrong impression that there isn't enough being done already.
Let's look at it in real time terms and say Pakistan got $1.5bn of UN donations today. How long would it take to implement that $1.5bn effectively? A month? A few months? A year?0 -
Ron Stuart wrote:The title of the thread.
Fortunately, this got sorted out about three pages ago.
Not sure what your point is after that.
Errrr does it add weight or gravitas to a post if it is prefixed by the bizarre mumble errrr.
The title of the thread did not use random figures these are random figures......
http://www.websters-dictionary-online.o ... Search#945
The point and it's difficult to think you missed it, is that the deaths/injuries on our roads every year are far greater than those so far experienced by the tragic Pakistani floods which do not happen every year. Road deaths are a consequence of direct human action. The question I posed at the end was if it were flood victims and not road victims would it create more of a stir in the UK?
As for errrr it is an Inflection (modulation of the voice) in this case an affix. If your still puzzled try this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflection
Oh! (Inflection) have a look at a few posts down from your last one, it seems to be multiplying. :P[/quote]
You're pretty good at using that search function,I'll give you that. Not at all bad at copying and pasting either. A real giant of intellect.
The random numbers which spen666 was very obviously referring to were the numbers in the title of the thread. Being a mathematician by profession I am well aware these are not actual randomly generated numbers so no need to embarrass yourself further by posting another link to a third party who knows what they're talking about. The point being that it was frighteningly clear which numbers spen666 was alluding to.
Still not really clear on the relevance of your info on road traffic casualties in this country. Interesting though it is. Perhaps you could start a new thread, and those who want to discuss it are free to do so without it being overshadowed by the small number of deaths in Pakistan.
The errr thing is a bit of a minor irritation for me. I'm quite sure I had no need to burden you with my moan since I appreciate it is a practice that is in common use. I tried to wade through the very useful article to which you linked but got bored. I got far enough to realise that writing errrr in front of a sentence is not an inflectional affix as you claim. Never mind. I do understand it's intended meaning, which is to lend a little more weight to the statement it prefixes. Don't know why it irritates me really, it just does.
Please don't reply with a series of links to external sources. I don't have time to read them all.0 -
Ron i think alot more than 2000 people will end up dying because of this disaster. All those people you see on the TV are basically having a death sentence placed upon them. Whether they drown, starve, fall ill, get infrected with diesease they will probably end up dead. The consequences of floods are very much drawn out compared to say and earthquake.
Again it's the short-termist view on things. The initial onset of a disaster may look shocking on the 7 o'clock news but it's normally not when the most people die. And that goes for most natural hazards. The death toll for this disaster is going to be huge. However it will have exited the media spotlight by then.0 -
Maybe Tony B can donate the proceeds of his next tome to help. They're going to need it.0
-
Please don't reply with a series of links to external sources. I don't have time to read them all.
Jim, you need help mate, I think the expression is 'all bitter and twisted'.
I shall be signing off from this thread now as it has got personal (big mistake on forums)
Find some new prey. :twisted:0 -
Ron Stuart wrote:Please don't reply with a series of links to external sources. I don't have time to read them all.
Jim, you need help mate, I think the expression is 'all bitter and twisted'.
I shall be signing off from this thread now as it has got personal (big mistake on forums)
Find some new prey. :twisted:
Good grief, honestly this is nothing compared to past ding-dongs.
0 -
Ekimike, your absolutely correct and I apologize for hijacking the thread to make a point. How ever I did recognize the figures were going to rise over time when I wrote: (so far experienced by the tragic Pakistani floods).
It is another one of these massive natural tragedies that happen from time to time and should be tended to with swift and massive aid.
Problem is getting the monies donated to solve directly the crises as was the fate of the last earthquake tragedy, £300 million of aid given for that specific event was re-directed to other sources by the then government.
A government that now as then lives in absolute splendor in Palaces only fit for the kings of rich nations or as in the case of the current leader, in Dubai most of the time. This is a country that has it's masses groveling in dirt for living. Our leaders in the west are quite happy to go along with President Asif Ali Zardari's wealth and contrasting poverty of it citizens.
I am now signing off from this thread.
Keep cool. 0 -
dmclite wrote:Ron Stuart wrote:Please don't reply with a series of links to external sources. I don't have time to read them all.
Jim, you need help mate, I think the expression is 'all bitter and twisted'.
I shall be signing off from this thread now as it has got personal (big mistake on forums)
Find some new prey. :twisted:
Good grief, honestly this is nothing compared to past ding-dongs.[/quote
I agree, I thought Ron here was in it for the long haul. Obviously not. Oh well.
Nice guy though, if a little reliant on wikipedia.0
