Which are you most likely to be killed by (Brits)
Comments
-
I don't think anyone believes that any nation would use nuclear weapons. The North Koreans , the Israelis ?
Americans or Russians, its just a massive game of Gambit , And I have to agree with Frank.
If you take a nominal figure of just £100 million to renew trident? there are many better ways that money could be spent .
What use would a Trident missile be against a dozen suicide bombers armed with AK47's in a major western capital City?
Sir David Sterling was one of the first to identify the effectiveness of Cells, A group of 4 specialists with inter connecting skills and a Quarter master, who lightly armed could be highly mobile and strike at the infrastructure of Large Conventional forces ( sound like any one we knows operating model today)
Did Bomber Command, The Raf. The desert Rats and the good old Tommy win world War 2. Did Americas bombing of Hiroshima bring about the end of the War in the Pacific. probably so.
But even then the work of the S.O.E and the Bletchley Circle made a lot of those operations more effective.
We need accurate intelligence and then the Political will and courage to act on it. ( at least this time round)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.
In which case, I assume you would have been happy for the UK to threaten the Royal Navy to bombard Buenos Aires and for our subs to sink everything in Argentinian waters bigger than a pedalo. Our bombers to fly from Chile and strafe the country.
Of course not because that would be disproportionate wouldn't it?
But by your logic that would mean that the money spent on our conventional forces was money wasted.0 -
Not in cahoots at all, just manufactured the scenario.
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 
The Falklands "victory" lead to her re-election backed by a Murdoch press. Up until the war she was a deeply unpopular leader and Foot could well have won. However the war took place she bathed in glory and the blood of British service personnel and went on to destroy the fabric of British society.....Result.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Tim wroteWe need accurate intelligence and then the Political will and courage to act on it. ( at least this time round)
So true. But how many people start squealing about invasion of privacy when measures are proposed. The same people probably ask why the security service didn't stop an atrocity after the event.0 -
Russia I don't think have any cause to use them against us, not now.
The US are in a similar position vis-a-vis Russia.
Iran looks like they are on side, thanks to Obama
The North Korean regime maintain the propaganda and pomp simply to oppress their citizens.
China have no real enemies.
India have them pointing towards an impoverished state, mainly out of paranoia.
Syria can't point a nuclear weapon on their own civil war.
The Saudi's are arguably the richest nation in the middle east and I do not know who they would aim a Nuclear Weapon at, especially since Iran has come in from the cold.
So I don't know how the cold war relic that are Nuclear Weapons can be of any use on motorists.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Not in cahoots at all, just manufactured the scenario.
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
The Falklands "victory" lead to her re-election backed by a Murdoch press. Up until the war she was a deeply unpopular leader and Foot could well have won. However the war took place she bathed in glory and the blood of British service personnel and went on to destroy the fabric of British society.....Result.
So 18 months before an election the Tories sat down, looked at a globe and picked the furthest outpost and the most difficult to retake due to their distance from us and proximity to the potential enemy. The planning was so meticulous that cruise liners had to be commandeered as troop carriers ad hoc.
Yeah Frank0 -
Are you saying that trident should only be looked upon as a deterent to other nuclear arsenals rather than don't mess with us or our territories because we have nuclear weapons (regardless of your nuclear capacity)
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.
In which case, I assume you would have been happy for the UK to threaten the Royal Navy to bombard Buenos Aires and for our subs to sink everything in Argentinian waters bigger than a pedalo. Our bombers to fly from Chile and strafe the country.
Of course not because that would be disproportionate wouldn't it?
But by your logic that would mean that the money spent on our conventional forces was money wasted.
LOOK, I do not want a nuclear "deterent" because it doesn't do what it says on the very expensive tin.Given we have one though we should have used the necessary language to make Argentina believe we would use it. It is a total waste of money.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
YES.
Not in cahoots at all, just manufactured the scenario.
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
The Falklands "victory" lead to her re-election backed by a Murdoch press. Up until the war she was a deeply unpopular leader and Foot could well have won. However the war took place she bathed in glory and the blood of British service personnel and went on to destroy the fabric of British society.....Result.
So 18 months before an election the Tories sat down, looked at a globe and picked the furthest outpost and the most difficult to retake due to their distance from us and proximity to the potential enemy. The planning was so meticulous that cruise liners had to be commandeered as troop carriers ad hoc.
Yeah FrankTail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Tim (Again)What use would a Trident missile be against a dozen suicide bombers armed with AK47's in a major western capital City?
No use whatsoever. Mumbai gives you some idea of what to expect. The police/security service response was tainted by lack of training and ineptness. Security services all over the world have taken on board mistakes made and hopefully lessons learned from the deaths of people who lacked training, not courage.0 -
Frank, it's a question of proportionality. A nuclear response would not have been proportionate in the circumstances. Besides, any threat has to be credible to be effective. No-one would have believed that we would nuke Buenos Aires in those circumstances would they?
PS Glad to see you back. 0 -
Good night and god bless to you all, it's been a nice bit of banter.Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
Good night and god bless to you all, it's been a nice bit of banter.
Don't make it so long until next time. 0 -
FWIW Bally I agree with those sentiments. I happen to believe a world with fewer nulear weapons is better than one with more nuclear weapons.Frank, it's a question of proportionality. A nuclear response would not have been proportionate in the circumstances. Besides, any threat has to be credible to be effective. No-one would have believed that we would nuke Buenos Aires in those circumstances would they?
PS Glad to see you back.
BTW enjoyed this tonight mate. Tail end Charlie
The above post may contain traces of sarcasm or/and bullsh*t.0 -
FWIW Bally I agree with those sentiments. I happen to believe a world with fewer nulear weapons is better than one with more nuclear weapons.Frank, it's a question of proportionality. A nuclear response would not have been proportionate in the circumstances. Besides, any threat has to be credible to be effective. No-one would have believed that we would nuke Buenos Aires in those circumstances would they?
PS Glad to see you back.
BTW enjoyed this tonight mate.
I agree. The world would have been better if these weapons had remained undiscovered. Unfortunately we can't get the genie back in the bottle.0 -
WMD are by their nature a last resort. Even to threaten their use, the Falklands, may prove effective but were do you go there after with the next crisis?
All it does is accelerate the ambition of states without WMD to attain that capability. Biological or germ capability is much more easily attained.
The nuclear genie is out of the bottle, the world is only going to have an increasing number of startes acquiring not only nuclear weapons but continental missile capability. Fancy having no nuclear deterrent? Really?
As the US is arguably the most potent military power you don't see their enemies engaging directly in conventional warfare. It's gone asymmetric with economic, cyber and terrorism as the new battle fronts and that's not to say the military is redundant. Far from it as the enemy is ideology which has no state or uniform.“Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Teach a man to cycle and he will realize fishing is stupid and boring”
Desmond Tutu0 -
WMD are by their nature a last resort. Even to threaten their use, the Falklands, may prove effective but were do you go there after with the next crisis?
All it does is accelerate the ambition of states without WMD to attain that capability. Biological or germ capability is much more easily attained.
The nuclear genie is out of the bottle, the world is only going to have an increasing number of startes acquiring not only nuclear weapons but continental missile capability. Fancy having no nuclear deterrent? Really?
As the US is arguably the most potent military power you don't see their enemies engaging directly in conventional warfare. It's gone asymmetric with economic, cyber and terrorism as the new battle fronts and that's not to say the military is redundant. Far from it as the enemy is ideology which has no state or uniform.
Besides, what do you do if they don't believe you?0 -
Bally, you ve completely ignored that our conventional forces have been run down because we cannot afford BOTH, that inc forces that we need to face todays threats.
there is no such thing as a proportional response in a Nuclear attack, even one or 2 trident style nuclear weapons would destroy the UK as we know it, modern nuclear weapons are multiple targeted war heads, it would be the end of everything, for ever, is that worth risking?
Could we respond in the same way as the french have? our nhs is on its last legs, 350 people with gun shot wounds could well be beyond its capacity, the met have been cut to the bone, as have all other police forces, or do you and stev0 think they should be cut further? as those pesky liberals slowed it all down for the first 5 years.
As for Thatcher and the falklands, no, she didnt plan it months before hand, she just took advantage of a situation that suited her, she knew she d win against a conscripted army, when peace talks looked likely, she made sure they wouldnt, a bit of nationalistic pride never hurts a politician.0 -
FWIW Bally I agree with those sentiments. I happen to believe a world with fewer nulear weapons is better than one with more nuclear weapons.Frank, it's a question of proportionality. A nuclear response would not have been proportionate in the circumstances. Besides, any threat has to be credible to be effective. No-one would have believed that we would nuke Buenos Aires in those circumstances would they?
PS Glad to see you back.
BTW enjoyed this tonight mate.
I agree. The world would have been better if these weapons had remained undiscovered. Unfortunately we can't get the genie back in the bottle.
War being the mother of invention. If we hadn't developed nuclear weapons we wouldn't have nuclear power. The energy that powers our homes is a by product of weapons research not the other way around. Without stirring up agro from greenpeace and tree huggers, nuclear power is what is more than likely going to keep us going in the near future. Fossil fuel won't remain viable and renewable is a joke right now.
Back on topic, we need a nuclear deterrent whether we like it or not. Our conventional forces are not enough to guard against every eventuality and we are now more what we would call a hybrid defence force. In other words - we don't know what to expect so cover your ass the best you can.0 -
I disagree.
I think we have a fair idea what to expect next.
And it isn't thermonuclear war.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 -
Bally, you ve completely ignored that our conventional forces have been run down because we cannot afford BOTH, that inc forces that we need to face todays threats.
there is no such thing as a proportional response in a Nuclear attack, even one or 2 trident style nuclear weapons would destroy the UK as we know it, modern nuclear weapons are multiple targeted war heads, it would be the end of everything, for ever, is that worth risking?
Could we respond in the same way as the french have? our nhs is on its last legs, 350 people with gun shot wounds could well be beyond its capacity, the met have been cut to the bone, as have all other police forces, or do you and stev0 think they should be cut further? as those pesky liberals slowed it all down for the first 5 years.
As for Thatcher and the falklands, no, she didnt plan it months before hand, she just took advantage of a situation that suited her, she knew she d win against a conscripted army, when peace talks looked likely, she made sure they wouldnt, a bit of nationalistic pride never hurts a politician.
You are right, our forces are smaller than they were. Our place in the world has changed. Before the Great War, it was the Admiralty's policy that the navy should be the largest in the world and capable of defeating the 2nd and 3rd largest combined.The naval review at Spithead had ships lined up for miles. We now have more admirals than ships :!: and not one carrier. Likewise, our Air Force is top heavy with Air Officers. They need thinning out, although it won't save much money.
With equipment being so expensive, we have to ask ourselves what role do we want for our armed forces. We are part of various alliances which hopefully safeguard our security. We can no longer 'go it alone'. Would we be able to bomb IS, yes we would. But hopefully as part of a coalition.
Never said there was a proportionate nuclear response. If we were to suffer a nuclear attack, the system has failed. We would indeed be dead. If the PM of the day chose not to retaliate, that would be for them to decide. The point is any aggressor must believe that we would strike back.
As regards the Falklands, it was no certainty that we would win, especially when the helicopters were lost when the ships were bombed. American sidewinders also made a massive difference. If the Falklands was such a major factor, why wasn't Churchill returned as PM in 1945?0 -
As already mentioned, we don't know what the world is going to look like in 10, 20, 30 years time. We need to be able to cover all eventualities.Russia I don't think have any cause to use them against us, not now.
The US are in a similar position vis-a-vis Russia.
Iran looks like they are on side, thanks to Obama
The North Korean regime maintain the propaganda and pomp simply to oppress their citizens.
China have no real enemies.
India have them pointing towards an impoverished state, mainly out of paranoia.
Syria can't point a nuclear weapon on their own civil war.
The Saudi's are arguably the richest nation in the middle east and I do not know who they would aim a Nuclear Weapon at, especially since Iran has come in from the cold.
So I don't know how the cold war relic that are Nuclear Weapons can be of any use on motorists.
As to whether it has been a deterrent to date, let's look at the historical facts:
1. Number of nuclear attacks on countries with a nuclear deterrent - nil in the last 70 years.
2. Number of nuclear attacks on countries without a nuclear deterrent - one (or two if you count Hiroshima and Nagasaki as separate events). And it's likely that Germany would have had the bomb dropped on them in 1945 if they hadn't already surrendered.
So far, deterrence seems to work..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
That only works if you apply it purely to nuclear attacks.
As already mentioned, we don't know what the world is going to look like in 10, 20, 30 years time. We need to be able to cover all eventualities.Russia I don't think have any cause to use them against us, not now.
The US are in a similar position vis-a-vis Russia.
Iran looks like they are on side, thanks to Obama
The North Korean regime maintain the propaganda and pomp simply to oppress their citizens.
China have no real enemies.
India have them pointing towards an impoverished state, mainly out of paranoia.
Syria can't point a nuclear weapon on their own civil war.
The Saudi's are arguably the richest nation in the middle east and I do not know who they would aim a Nuclear Weapon at, especially since Iran has come in from the cold.
So I don't know how the cold war relic that are Nuclear Weapons can be of any use on motorists.
As to whether it has been a deterrent to date, let's look at the historical facts:
1. Number of nuclear attacks on countries with a nuclear deterrent - nil in the last 70 years.
2. Number of nuclear attacks on countries without a nuclear deterrent - one (or two if you count Hiroshima and Nagasaki as separate events). And it's likely that Germany would have had the bomb dropped on them in 1945 if they hadn't already surrendered.
So far, deterrence seems to work...
How many times have nuclear powers been attacked? Plenty.
Not so much of a deterrent against guerrilla warfare.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 -
Armed forces budget is not being cut:Bally, you ve completely ignored that our conventional forces have been run down because we cannot afford BOTH, that inc forces that we need to face todays threats.
there is no such thing as a proportional response in a Nuclear attack, even one or 2 trident style nuclear weapons would destroy the UK as we know it, modern nuclear weapons are multiple targeted war heads, it would be the end of everything, for ever, is that worth risking?
Could we respond in the same way as the french have? our nhs is on its last legs, 350 people with gun shot wounds could well be beyond its capacity, the met have been cut to the bone, as have all other police forces, or do you and stev0 think they should be cut further? as those pesky liberals slowed it all down for the first 5 years.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33448383
Nor is the NHS budget as already has been stated.
http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2014/10/nhs-funding-past-and-future
Clearly our counter intelligence is not doing too badly as we last had a major attack of this type 10 years ago. We dealt with 7/7 pretty well as I recall.
So stop trying make this into another 'let's spend more of our money' spiel - as we already are..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Armed forces budget is not being cut:Bally, you ve completely ignored that our conventional forces have been run down because we cannot afford BOTH, that inc forces that we need to face todays threats.
there is no such thing as a proportional response in a Nuclear attack, even one or 2 trident style nuclear weapons would destroy the UK as we know it, modern nuclear weapons are multiple targeted war heads, it would be the end of everything, for ever, is that worth risking?
Could we respond in the same way as the french have? our nhs is on its last legs, 350 people with gun shot wounds could well be beyond its capacity, the met have been cut to the bone, as have all other police forces, or do you and stev0 think they should be cut further? as those pesky liberals slowed it all down for the first 5 years.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33448383
Nor is the NHS budget as already has been stated.
http://www.kingsfund.org.uk/blog/2014/10/nhs-funding-past-and-future
Clearly our counter intelligence is not doing too badly as we last had a major attack of this type 10 years ago. We dealt with 7/7 pretty well as I recall.
So stop trying make this into another 'let's spend more of our money' spiel - as we already are...
well it is, the defence of our country is paramount and cutting it, as history has shown time and time again, is always a false economy, odd that you from the right wing cannot see this too, defence inflation (like health) far outstrips the weekly tesco shop.
Clearly, your mate Cameron also has woken up to this need to spend more (of our money spiell too ......)
https://www.rt.com/uk/322233-cameron-security-spending-boost/
talk about lastminute.com spending plans on the hoof lol! so we can take from this that since 7/7 we ve not been spending enough on the defence of this country? and where the fxxk is he going to get 1900 extra spies from? this is hardly a new threat.
listening to Lord Ian blair former met comisioner, the cuts in spending to the Mets budget and the removal/cuts of the pcso role will be - Ian Blairs phrase "devastating for our ability to gather intelligence from the very communities where these attacks can come from" and this is happening nation wide.
of course increases in spending on these 2 national assets is good, but do not make up for real terms cuts in funding by both labour and tory governments and because we spend so much on trident, we ve less to spend on conventional forces.
you bumpf about we ve not had an attack so far is nonsense, until the beginning of the year neither had Paris.0 -
I disagree.
I think we have a fair idea what to expect next.
And it isn't thermonuclear war.
Who saw 9/11 coming?0 -
Two points I'd like to make. The first is the gov.co.uk link at the bottom of page 1 is a submission by Greenpeace to a government committee. That link implies it's a government report. Please stop quoting this without making clear it is the opinions on of Greenpeace. Posting out without this clarification iis giving undue importance to the biased opinions of Greenpeace which is not a reliable source.
Second, just because the nuclear option has not been taken by UK does not provide evidence that it has or hasn't worked. Put simply the only way of knowing conclusively one way or another is when it has failed due to armageddon. In that event I'm quite sure Frank and others won't be around to say "I told you so! Nah! Nah! Nah! Nah! Nah!" Until b that happens it's only personal views and onions of which there are many.
To the OP I say it's a stupid question. The two events are exclusive and both need to be addressed by those in power. Linking them artificially, IMHO, has little merit other than to be a feed in to usual left vs right arguments about defence and threats. That and allows for that annoying Greenpeace BS to be linked to again. I know government committees need to report all submissions impartially but I just wish they'd make it clear and prominent at the top of the web page that the following contents are the opinions of Greenpeace in a submission to xy committee afoot yz issues.0 -
Not George Bush, but others did.I disagree.
I think we have a fair idea what to expect next.
And it isn't thermonuclear war.
Who saw 9/11 coming?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91651The 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 -
Not George Bush, but others did.I disagree.
I think we have a fair idea what to expect next.
And it isn't thermonuclear war.
Who saw 9/11 coming?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91651
This wasn't the first time planes had been hijacked which was the extent of the intel.
Flying them into skyscrapers was never predicted. And you can quote all the theorists in the world about conspiracies. There is no solid proof of any. 16 years ago, when I first joined the army we trained for conventional warfare against old fashioned threats like Russia and the balkans problems. We changed our entire way of working overnight after 9/11 and we are still stuck in this mindset. There are other threats around the world we are still deploying troops to all over the world. Places I bet you didn't even know we are. You never know whats coming next.0 -
Well done for the predictable response.
Not George Bush, but others did.I disagree.
I think we have a fair idea what to expect next.
And it isn't thermonuclear war.
Who saw 9/11 coming?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91651
This wasn't the first time planes had been hijacked which was the extent of the intel.
Flying them into skyscrapers was never predicted. And you can quote all the theorists in the world about conspiracies. There is no solid proof of any. 16 years ago, when I first joined the army we trained for conventional warfare against old fashioned threats like Russia and the balkans problems. We changed our entire way of working overnight after 9/11 and we are still stuck in this mindset. There are other threats around the world we are still deploying troops to all over the world. Places I bet you didn't even know we are. You never know whats coming next.
As predictable as the next attack on UK soil being done in the name of ISIS, or whatever.
It won't be a Russian (or whoever) nuclear attack.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 -
It won't be a Russian (or whoever) nuclear attack.
I wonder why?
You can cancel trident and build up conventional forces as much as you want. It WON'T prevent another terrorist attack.0
