Which are you most likely to be killed by (Brits)
Frank the tank
Posts: 6,553
A nuclear bomb or someone with a ak47 and a suicide vest?
I think the latter, though both are a remote possibility.
No to trident, yes to strengthening our traditional armed forces and intelligence services.
I think the latter, though both are a remote possibility.
No to trident, yes to strengthening our traditional armed forces and intelligence services.
Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.
0
Comments
-
I'm with you Frank. I don't see that more massive weaponry is the answer.
I say that as an ex-military man. I'm not a pacifist, but see that we could use our money betterEcrasez l’infame0 -
now if we add motorist to the list which?Raleigh Eclipse, , Dahon Jetstream XP, Raleigh Banana, Dawes super galaxy, Raleigh Clubman
http://s189.photobucket.com/albums/z122 ... =slideshow0 -
We used to deploy along the Inner German Border every October and wait to see if the Russian Wheat Crop failed. Which we were reliably informed would result in swarms of T72 tanks heading for N.A.T.O Europe and a life expectancy for us ( A radio relay det) of about 7 seconds.
We were pushed to be Russian linguists and briefed for a Pan European Armoured battle, which if one side looked like loosing would probably result in the other launching Cruise missiles and wiping out the whole of civilisation.
Lately I can remember going to Op Granby in 1990 and sitting in a Operational Control centre ran by the Americans and their Intelligence officers telling me don't worry, We ve played this war out for the last ten years every Wednesday through Friday and we haven't lost one yet!
I Still question if the real reason the Chilcott report is not yet released is because it will actually show that all we achieved was destabilising the Middle East, from which there was no real threat and creating an Ideology and Enemy from which there is now a very real threat.
Governments to a certain degree rely heavily on an agenda of Militarism and fear to insure control , but this time its not their rhetoric that has created the threat and they appear to have little response.
I question the fact that a Syrian Passport was found at the scene of one of the atrocities in Paris, or that one of the terriorists was tracked as a refugee entering Europe via Greece from Syria.
The Media (PONTYS) are more involved in creating a mindset than ever before.
But as for your Original Question of whether I live more in Fear of Nuclear attack or Terrorist atrocity id have to say neither!
What I actually live in perpetual fear of is an Oxbrige educated ruling class constantly trying to get me to swallow its bullshit and live a restricted life within its control.1 -
Nicely put Mr Wand. Also as Priory said there are other things far more likely to kill us. A bee sting perhaps.0
-
Most likely cancer.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I agree with you Tim.
I posed the question for the hell of it really. I don't see trident as a deterent just a massive expence and you and I are more likely to be killed by an act of terrorism rather than nuclear holocaust, though both are unlikely.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Hello again Frank.
The chances of being killed by either are remote. You say No to Trident, but do you have a crystal ball to see what the world will look like in 30 years? As abhorrent as these weapons are, we need to keep the capability. The aptly named MAD has worked so far. The only country so far to give up its nukes is Ukraine. Britain, US and Russia were signatories to the Budapest Memorandum which could have serious ramifications for us.
Build up conventional forces? Where would you deploy squadrons of MBTs? Where is the enemy? As Tim will no doubt tell you, they would be hopelessly inadequate if Putin woke up one morning with a major cob on and marched west. As far as I am aware all war games during the cold war resulted in Nato trying to funnel Russian forces into natural bottlenecks and deploying tactical nuclear weapons to halt them. Things may have changed somewhat, depending on the balance of air power, but conventional forces would be over run.
Massive conventional forces to deploy where? Usually the people calling for larger conventional forces instead of renewing our nuclear capability are the ones saying that we should not be playing world policeman. As far as I can see, at the moment, that is their only role for them.
But that said, I still support the strengthening of conventional forces, because as I stated, no-one has a crystal ball.
Sad as it seems, I can see our armed forces getting sand in their boots again.0 -
My take on nuclear weapons is, I don't see a British PM ever pressing the button first.
Given that, trident has failed to be a deterent.I, you and most of the world will be dead. Our PM giving the nod to deploy our weapons to doubly kill people is no consolation to a dead me and mine.
Did trident deter the invasion of the Falklands and was trident used as a means of getting them back? No
A massive waste of money.
I know I'm a leftie but I don't know anyone who would buy something that doesn't work and have no intention of using. Spend the dosh on stuff people need in the here and now.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
My take on nuclear weapons is, I don't see a British PM ever pressing the button first.
Given that, trident has failed to be a deterent.I, you and most of the world will be dead. Our PM giving the nod to deploy our weapons to doubly kill people is no consolation to a dead me and mine.
Did trident deter the invasion of the Falklands and was trident used as a means of getting them back? No
A massive waste of money.
I know I'm a leftie but I don't know anyone who would buy something that doesn't work and have no intention of using. Spend the dosh on stuff people need in the here and now.
I do. That moron Corbyn. The NEC agreed to the renewal of Trident and then Jezza said he would never use it. Bravo.0 -
As regards the Falklands analogy, Trident's sole purpose is to deter a nuclear attack on the UK. So your point is moot.0
-
And it appears to have worked.As regards the Falklands analogy, Trident's sole purpose is to deter a nuclear attack on the UK. So your point is moot.
Speak softly, carry a big stick - as the saying goes. Nukes are a very big stick."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Not so sure about the sole part.As regards the Falklands analogy, Trident's sole purpose is to deter a nuclear attack on the UK. So your point is moot.
Doesn't the President have to give the go ahead? Who knows what conflicts that could bring?
"The fact that, in theory, the British Prime Minister could give the order to fire Trident missiles without getting prior approval from the White House has allowed the UK to maintain the façade of being a global military power. In practice, though, it is difficult to conceive of any situation in which a Prime Minister would fire Trident without prior US approval. The USA would see such an act as cutting across its self-declared prerogative as the world's policeman, and would almost certainly make the UK pay a high price for its presumption. The fact that the UK is completely technically dependent on the USA for the maintenance of the Trident system means that one way the USA could show its displeasure would be to cut off the technical support needed for the UK to continue to send Trident to sea."
And if you think this is some leftie propaganda, look at the source.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/986we13.htmThe above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
My Father was a Royal Marine Commando for near on 30 years from the 50's through to the late 70's , was called back but fortunately not deployed for the Falklands conflict, He used to joke he'd never seen a currant bun thrown in anger, and had more bust ups with the locals in Portsmouth boozers than any other theatre of War.
Due more to my trade skills than my choice of Regiment I clocked up a bit more than that. but in six operational tours and 12 years , I never once pulled the hammer back on the trigger guard. I did however pass on information and intelligence that lead to the demise of Whatever enemy de jour we faced then.
Conventional Land based infantry and Calvary is the stuff of Wellington, Todays wars are intelligence battles Won and Lost not in the Rhineland, Deserts or Jungles , but by Satellites and Drones quite literally way above our heads.
We can all have Garmins on our bikes , because Clinton in the 90s signed over the " obsolete " military satellites they had then. 20 years ago I was sat in the Saudi desert with kit that could hear you fart in your front room in Basingstoke, so feck knows what they ve got now.
I m not a big advocate of the intelligence state where by everything we do is monitored, but I don't need to be its here, its real and its far further reaching than the Edward Snowden glimpses we ve seen.
Good knows why it took them a decade to find Sadam and more to find Bin Laden, A grunt with a teaspoon and biscuit tin could found them both in less than an hour with the kit they ve got now, Truth is the political will didn't exist , like it or not those 2 bogey men allowed us to maintain an agenda of militarism and fear, whilst in reality (and I apologise to any one who lost friends and family during this time ) their effect on Western democracies and our relationship with Arabic rich oil states was minimal.
As for now and the next 30 years , Ballys right none of us know, My father and myself never envisaged a day when the Head of State , our Queen would shake hands with McGuiness and Adams. But a generation before could probably not forsee a German Chancellor being the most powerful political figure in Europe.
Back to conventional forces, I actually think we should with draw from the theatres of the last decade. Iraq/Afghanistan Syria ( yes I know we haven't been to Syria officially) and have a home defence force which actually patrols our borders and citys. ( Dad's Army has had a remake for February 2016, Maybe the media can get behind this Idea),
The presence of our troops in the Middle East seems only to have given the Extremists fuel to attack us, so lets use these resources at home. This is and has always been from a western prospective about controlling our interest in Petro Chemical states, The sooner we can move away from a reliance on these technologies the sooner we can let these bastards just rot in their on dust bowl.
Therefore I conclude the answer is to do more Cycling! ipso facto PRIORY is right! ultimately Motorist will kill us all.0 -
Are the Falklands not classed as British, they surely are or loads of British service personnel would not have died trying to reclaim them.As regards the Falklands analogy, Trident's sole purpose is to deter a nuclear attack on the UK. So your point is moot.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Are the Falklands not classed as British, they surely are or loads of British service personnel would not have died trying to reclaim them.As regards the Falklands analogy, Trident's sole purpose is to deter a nuclear attack on the UK. So your point is moot.
Did I miss something Frank? Did Buenos Aires launch a nuclear strike on Port Stanley when no-one was looking?0 -
Franks " Favourite Lady" good old Margaret actually had been warned by the Admiralty that an Argentinian invasion of the Falklands was imminent . If she had just authorised the deployment of one submarine ( and she had time to do so ) into the waters Off San Carlos, then the Argentinians would never have been able to land an effective military force on the Islands.
She's lauded for the direct actions she took against the terrorists in the Iranian Embassy siege , but its conveniently forgotten that she could have actually prevented the whole Falklands conflict! Still there probably wouldn't have been much Flag Waving outside of Downing Street and a Second Term in office just for silently deploying a Sub.0 -
Tim wroteI m not a big advocate of the intelligence state where by everything we do is monitored, but I don't need to be its here, its real and its far further reaching than the Edward Snowden glimpses we ve seen.
In this day and age, intelligence is vital. The trick is substantiating hard intelligence from the vast amounts of information gathered. Not easy.0 -
No they did not, which is the point I'm making, us having nuclear weapons did not deter the Argentinian invasion. Also we never threatened to use it rather than send servicemen to their deaths, hence it's a waste of money.
Are the Falklands not classed as British, they surely are or loads of British service personnel would not have died trying to reclaim them.As regards the Falklands analogy, Trident's sole purpose is to deter a nuclear attack on the UK. So your point is moot.
Did I miss something Frank? Did Buenos Aires launch a nuclear strike on Port Stanley when no-one was looking?
If the argument is it prevents nuclear attac, no it does not, if we were to suffer a nuclear attac we're all dead anyway.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
IFranks " Favourite Lady" good old Margaret actually had been warned by the Admiralty that an Argentinian invasion of the Falklands was imminent . If she had just authorised the deployment of one submarine ( and she had time to do so ) into the waters Off San Carlos, then the Argentinians would never have been able to land an effective military force on the Islands.
She's lauded for the direct actions she took against the terrorists in the Iranian Embassy siege , but its conveniently forgotten that she could have actually prevented the whole Falklands conflict! Still there probably wouldn't have been much Flag Waving outside of Downing Street and a Second Term in office just for silently deploying a Sub.
Nothing will ever convince me that the Falklands war was nothing more than a re-election "stunt" for that horrible bitch.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Tim wroteI m not a big advocate of the intelligence state where by everything we do is monitored, but I don't need to be its here, its real and its far further reaching than the Edward Snowden glimpses we ve seen.
In this day and age, intelligence is vital. The trick is substantiating hard intelligence from the vast amounts of information gathered. Not easy.
Youve only got to ask the Mods on here what a balls ache of a job that is
0 -
Franks " Favourite Lady" good old Margaret actually had been warned by the Admiralty that an Argentinian invasion of the Falklands was imminent . If she had just authorised the deployment of one submarine ( and she had time to do so ) into the waters Off San Carlos, then the Argentinians would never have been able to land an effective military force on the Islands.
She's lauded for the direct actions she took against the terrorists in the Iranian Embassy siege , but its conveniently forgotten that she could have actually prevented the whole Falklands conflict! Still there probably wouldn't have been much Flag Waving outside of Downing Street and a Second Term in office just for silently deploying a Sub.
Peter, Lord Carrington resigned because as Foreign Secretary he had been caught unaware of the Argentinian intentions.
History is full of 'What ifs'.
Hitler was shocked when Britain and/or France didn't kick his troops out of the Rhineland when he moved to reoccupy it in 1935. He was just chancing his arm. Maybe 30 million people need not have perished. We will never know.0 -
Franks " Favourite Lady" good old Margaret actually had been warned by the Admiralty that an Argentinian invasion of the Falklands was imminent . If she had just authorised the deployment of one submarine ( and she had time to do so ) into the waters Off San Carlos, then the Argentinians would never have been able to land an effective military force on the Islands.
She's lauded for the direct actions she took against the terrorists in the Iranian Embassy siege , but its conveniently forgotten that she could have actually prevented the whole Falklands conflict! Still there probably wouldn't have been much Flag Waving outside of Downing Street and a Second Term in office just for silently deploying a Sub.
Peter, Lord Carrington resigned because as Foreign Secretary he had been caught unaware of the Argentinian intentions.
History is full of 'What ifs'.
Hitler was shocked when Britain and/or France didn't kick his troops out of the Rhineland when he moved to reoccupy it in 1935. He was just chancing his arm. Maybe 30 million people need not have perished. We will never know.
I can genuinely remember about 15 years ago reading an article in one of the broad sheets where the then head of Defence Staff who was an Admiral surmised that the biggest threat to British National interest would be Pirates in the Atlantic between Britain and Portugal. I m really not making this up! I ll try and google the article. But how feckin out of touch ! Maybe he was submitting scripts to Tom Hanks.0 -
Frank.
I said that Trident is designed to deter a nuclear attack. ie Any aggressor that launches a nuclear attack on the UK cannot be sure that the UK will not retaliate. It is not designed to deter attacks by conventional forces on small outposts around the world, of whatever nation and certainly not to deter suicide bombers.
It is designed to deter NUCLEAR POWERS launching a nuclear attack. Argentina is no such power and lacks the capability. So I say again , your point is moot.0 -
IFranks " Favourite Lady" good old Margaret actually had been warned by the Admiralty that an Argentinian invasion of the Falklands was imminent . If she had just authorised the deployment of one submarine ( and she had time to do so ) into the waters Off San Carlos, then the Argentinians would never have been able to land an effective military force on the Islands.
She's lauded for the direct actions she took against the terrorists in the Iranian Embassy siege , but its conveniently forgotten that she could have actually prevented the whole Falklands conflict! Still there probably wouldn't have been much Flag Waving outside of Downing Street and a Second Term in office just for silently deploying a Sub.
Nothing will ever convince me that the Falklands war was nothing more than a re-election "stunt" for that horrible *****.
Is that you Manc?
God bless her!0 -
The game of noughts and crosses that is Game Theory predicts no positive outcome deploying Nuclear weapons.
Some statistic (Yes I know - yawn) had stated that there has only been a handful of days of global peace since the end of the 2nd World War.
Is that because the war can continue under the 'umbrella' of nuclear weapons because using them has been (during civil war) pointless? Does that mean that as a deterrent, nuclear weapons have failed to maintain any sort of peace, they have failed to deter wars taking place? The apocalypse from actually using WMD has no benefit for either side.
The irony is that both the Russians and the collective West have spent uncountable billions on the development, maintenance and creation of nuclear weapons and in this current crises, they are totally redundant.
The last cat to chuck in amongst the pigeons is of course the end of the cold war and the chaos that has rained down since.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
And it appears to have worked.As regards the Falklands analogy, Trident's sole purpose is to deter a nuclear attack on the UK. So your point is moot.
Speak softly, carry a big stick - as the saying goes. Nukes are a very big stick.
Do we carry any big stick Stev0?
I ve been shocked by the cuts in defence by labour and Tory governments over many years, having Trident at the expense of being able to defend ourselves is a mistake, Trident is a last resort, 99.99999999etc etc % of threats to this country wont involve a nuclear response, europe cannot rely on the yanks to continually bail us out.
If boots are needed in syria and Iraq, without the americans, we could nt manage it nor could we know re take the falklands, no carrriers, so no air power, a depleted navy and army and no merchant fleet to get them there.
Bally who the fcuk is going to threaten to nuke ONLY the UK? get real, the fallout from that sort of attack would devaste most of western europe. triggering a US response and the end of the world, anyone mad enough to do that would do it whether we ve nukes or not, we ve got them because it makes the PM of any party look powerful, we need the conventional means to stop IS etc from ever getting the means to deploy a nuclear bomb.0 -
And it appears to have worked.As regards the Falklands analogy, Trident's sole purpose is to deter a nuclear attack on the UK. So your point is moot.
Speak softly, carry a big stick - as the saying goes. Nukes are a very big stick.
Do we carry any big stick Stev0?
I ve been shocked by the cuts in defence by labour and Tory governments over many years, having Trident at the expense of being able to defend ourselves is a mistake, Trident is a last resort, 99.99999999etc etc % of threats to this country wont involve a nuclear response, europe cannot rely on the yanks to continually bail us out.
If boots are needed in syria and Iraq, without the americans, we could nt manage it nor could we know re take the falklands, no carrriers, so no air power, a depleted navy and army and no merchant fleet to get them there.
Bally who the fcuk is going to threaten to nuke ONLY the UK? get real, the fallout from that sort of attack would devaste most of western europe. triggering a US response and the end of the world, anyone mad enough to do that would do it whether we ve nukes or not, we ve got them because it makes the PM of any party look powerful, we need the conventional means to stop IS etc from ever getting the means to deploy a nuclear bomb.
As I said earlier, you have to take a long term view. 25 - 30 years.
Would Trueman have bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki if Japan had possessed similar weapons? What do you think? 0 -
So Frank thinks we were in cahoots with the Argentine junta, who obligingly invaded at a suitable time and then 'threw' the conflict
IFranks " Favourite Lady" good old Margaret actually had been warned by the Admiralty that an Argentinian invasion of the Falklands was imminent . If she had just authorised the deployment of one submarine ( and she had time to do so ) into the waters Off San Carlos, then the Argentinians would never have been able to land an effective military force on the Islands.
She's lauded for the direct actions she took against the terrorists in the Iranian Embassy siege , but its conveniently forgotten that she could have actually prevented the whole Falklands conflict! Still there probably wouldn't have been much Flag Waving outside of Downing Street and a Second Term in office just for silently deploying a Sub.
Nothing will ever convince me that the Falklands war was nothing more than a re-election "stunt" for that horrible *****.
Is that you Manc?
God bless her! She didn't need the publicity anyway, she was up against this loser in 1983 
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I disagree mate.Frank.
I said that Trident is designed to deter a nuclear attack. ie Any aggressor that launches a nuclear attack on the UK cannot be sure that the UK will not retaliate. It is not designed to deter attacks by conventional forces on small outposts around the world, of whatever nation and certainly not to deter suicide bombers.
It is designed to deter NUCLEAR POWERS launching a nuclear attack. Argentina is no such power and lacks the capability. So I say again , your point is moot.
Given we have trident, whether the attackers have a nuclear capacity or not I'd have had a conversation along these lines'
Galtieri get your troops off of the Falklands or Beunos Airies will get one.
That would legitimise the expence of trident.
Given (thankfully) that would never happen trident is IMHO a total waste of money.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
You make the point about Europe relying on the US and you have a point. We and the other NATO countries however would seem to be content to shelter under the US nuclear umbrella. Bit hypocritical hey what?0
