LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Will you be so dismissive of the risk when a quarter of London is coated in plutonium and you don't know for sure which foreign actor did it. I will consider it a bit of a disaster. How much plutonium do you have to get into your body to get a radiation dose that will have health consequences. This is the biggest risks facing Western nations from rogue nations such as Iran.pblakeney said:I see the strategy.
Gather up all the plutonium and hide it in our missiles. Genius!0 -
If you don't know who did it, how are some extra warheads in a missile in a submarine going to help London?john80 said:
Will you be so dismissive of the risk when a quarter of London is coated in plutonium and you don't know for sure which foreign actor did it. I will consider it a bit of a disaster. How much plutonium do you have to get into your body to get a radiation dose that will have health consequences. This is the biggest risks facing Western nations from rogue nations such as Iran.pblakeney said:I see the strategy.
Gather up all the plutonium and hide it in our missiles. Genius!0 -
I think John has made great points.
A pre-emptive nuclear strike on Iran will clearly protect London with no negative consequences at all.
Can’t believe nobody has thought of this before.
We could head east towards Russia too. I am sure that will go well.0 -
If you know who did it you only need a couple of nukes. If you don't know you need plenty so you can nuke everyone.kingstongraham said:
If you don't know who did it, how are some extra warheads in a missile in a submarine going to help London?john80 said:
Will you be so dismissive of the risk when a quarter of London is coated in plutonium and you don't know for sure which foreign actor did it. I will consider it a bit of a disaster. How much plutonium do you have to get into your body to get a radiation dose that will have health consequences. This is the biggest risks facing Western nations from rogue nations such as Iran.pblakeney said:I see the strategy.
Gather up all the plutonium and hide it in our missiles. Genius!- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I am reminded of the questions during the last election: "would you fire a nuke if there was one inbound?"
I admired the public desire to have one final lash out at the world and make sure they too are fully destroyed, and how important they seemed to find this concept.0 -
If the answer is "no", then the whole thing is pointless.rick_chasey said:I am reminded of the questions during the last election: "would you fire a nuke if there was one inbound?"
I admired the public desire to have one final lash out at the world and make sure they too are fully destroyed, and how important they seemed to find this concept.0 -
Sure, it's just in the event of a nuke in bound who really cares. Just seemed a weirdly specific question.0
-
It's the whole point. If you say you are never going to use it, then how is it a deterrent?rick_chasey said:Sure, it's just in the event of a nuke in bound who really cares. Just seemed a weirdly specific question.
0 -
If there is an inbound nuke, the policy has failed.
The whole point of having them is that any potential aggressor can't be sure that we won't retaliat and our retaliation strike would not penetrate their defences.
That's why the missiles are periodically updated, such as being equipped with more independent warheads.2 -
Exactly.ballysmate said:If there is an inbound nuke, the policy has failed.
The whole point of having them is that any potential aggressor can't be sure that we won't retaliate0 -
For someone with Corbyn's record, it's not an unreasonable question. Johnson less so, because you can picture him doing it for larks.0
-
I know you are joking but the Times reported that a year ago the scientific advisors had him prepped to tell people to was happy their hands, he had even rehearsed what he was going to say to the planted question in that afternoon’s briefing.kingstongraham said:For someone with Corbyn's record, it's not an unreasonable question. Johnson less so, because you can picture him doing it for larks.
Instead he went off into his infamous story about how he had been in a hospital with Covid patients shaking hands with everybody he met.
Could he have some form of Tourette’s that causes him the exact opposite of what is needed.
Could the woman in the Iranian prison be there because he could not resist doing the wrong thing?0 -
Correct. If there's a nuke inbound I'm not gonna be worried about sending nukes outbound.ballysmate said:If there is an inbound nuke, the policy has failed.
The whole point of having them is that any potential aggressor can't be sure that we won't retaliat and our retaliation strike would not penetrate their defences.
That's why the missiles are periodically updated, such as being equipped with more independent warheads.0 -
Was she not convicted of aiding sedition or rebellion whilst working in London?
You and I may agree that that her actions were legitimate, but the pertinent point is that it was and is against Iranian law. That's why she's there.
Suspect she could be released on bail of £700m though.0 -
But if the other side knows you aren't going to respond when there's a nuke inbound, where's the deterrence? The aggressor just sends a nuke, and "wins".rick_chasey said:
Correct. If there's a nuke inbound I'm not gonna be worried about sending nukes outbound.ballysmate said:If there is an inbound nuke, the policy has failed.
The whole point of having them is that any potential aggressor can't be sure that we won't retaliat and our retaliation strike would not penetrate their defences.
That's why the missiles are periodically updated, such as being equipped with more independent warheads.
If you are in favour of a nuclear deterrent, you surely by definition need to be in favour of using it in those circumstances.0 -
I'm dismissive of most ramblings on a cycling forum. 🤣john80 said:
Will you be so dismissive of the risk when a quarter of London is coated in plutonium and you don't know for sure which foreign actor did it. I will consider it a bit of a disaster. How much plutonium do you have to get into your body to get a radiation dose that will have health consequences. This is the biggest risks facing Western nations from rogue nations such as Iran.pblakeney said:I see the strategy.
Gather up all the plutonium and hide it in our missiles. Genius!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 -
Having a nuclear deterrent that you say openly that you aren't going to use if under nuclear attack is like getting rottweilers as guard dogs and putting up signs saying "they might look fierce, but they're actually very friendly".0
-
You don't have to be in favour. The other side need only to think you are.kingstongraham said:
But if the other side knows you aren't going to respond when there's a nuke inbound, where's the deterrence? The aggressor just sends a nuke, and "wins".rick_chasey said:
Correct. If there's a nuke inbound I'm not gonna be worried about sending nukes outbound.ballysmate said:If there is an inbound nuke, the policy has failed.
The whole point of having them is that any potential aggressor can't be sure that we won't retaliat and our retaliation strike would not penetrate their defences.
That's why the missiles are periodically updated, such as being equipped with more independent warheads.
If you are in favour of a nuclear deterrent, you surely by definition need to be in favour of using it in those circumstances.0 -
Which is why the question was a reasonable one.ballysmate said:
You don't have to be in favour. The other side need only to think you are.kingstongraham said:
But if the other side knows you aren't going to respond when there's a nuke inbound, where's the deterrence? The aggressor just sends a nuke, and "wins".rick_chasey said:
Correct. If there's a nuke inbound I'm not gonna be worried about sending nukes outbound.ballysmate said:If there is an inbound nuke, the policy has failed.
The whole point of having them is that any potential aggressor can't be sure that we won't retaliat and our retaliation strike would not penetrate their defences.
That's why the missiles are periodically updated, such as being equipped with more independent warheads.
If you are in favour of a nuclear deterrent, you surely by definition need to be in favour of using it in those circumstances.
As a country, our stated position has to be at least "maybe we will". Or we stop wasting our money.0 -
The Russian defense industry began developing an intercontinental-range nuclear-powered cruise missile capable of penetrating any interceptor-based missile defense system. It is said to have unlimited range and ability to evade missile defenses. A major stage of trials of the cruise missile of the Burevestnik complex, the tests of the nuclear power unit, were successfully completed in January 2019.
Military expert Anton Lavrov in the Izvestia article suggested that the design of the Burevestnik uses a ramjet engine, which, unlike the more traditional propulsion systems for nuclear weapons, will have radioactive exhaust throughout its entire operation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/national-pride-stake-russia-china-united-states-race-build-hypersonic-weapons
Isn't this the issue. Unlimited range nuclear weapons.0 -
Well no it's not reasonable, because there is only one answer.kingstongraham said:
Which is why the question was a reasonable one.ballysmate said:
You don't have to be in favour. The other side need only to think you are.kingstongraham said:
But if the other side knows you aren't going to respond when there's a nuke inbound, where's the deterrence? The aggressor just sends a nuke, and "wins".rick_chasey said:
Correct. If there's a nuke inbound I'm not gonna be worried about sending nukes outbound.ballysmate said:If there is an inbound nuke, the policy has failed.
The whole point of having them is that any potential aggressor can't be sure that we won't retaliat and our retaliation strike would not penetrate their defences.
That's why the missiles are periodically updated, such as being equipped with more independent warheads.
If you are in favour of a nuclear deterrent, you surely by definition need to be in favour of using it in those circumstances.
As a country, our stated position has to be at least "maybe we will". Or we stop wasting our money.
It was always asked by some member of the public who wasn't necessarily well versed in the doctrine of MAD but instead wanted blood
"Yes, I will definitely kill millions of foreign people if a nuke is bound for the UK"
*wild clapping*0 -
I can't believe that it's estimated there have been around 2000 nuclear tests in the world.0
-
developing effective defence systems are moe of an issuefocuszing723 said:The Russian defense industry began developing an intercontinental-range nuclear-powered cruise missile capable of penetrating any interceptor-based missile defense system. It is said to have unlimited range and ability to evade missile defenses. A major stage of trials of the cruise missile of the Burevestnik complex, the tests of the nuclear power unit, were successfully completed in January 2019.
Military expert Anton Lavrov in the Izvestia article suggested that the design of the Burevestnik uses a ramjet engine, which, unlike the more traditional propulsion systems for nuclear weapons, will have radioactive exhaust throughout its entire operation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/national-pride-stake-russia-china-united-states-race-build-hypersonic-weapons
Isn't this the issue. Unlimited range nuclear weapons.0 -
You either have to give a truthful yes or lie with conviction and say yesrick_chasey said:
Well no it's not reasonable, because there is only one answer.kingstongraham said:
Which is why the question was a reasonable one.ballysmate said:
You don't have to be in favour. The other side need only to think you are.kingstongraham said:
But if the other side knows you aren't going to respond when there's a nuke inbound, where's the deterrence? The aggressor just sends a nuke, and "wins".rick_chasey said:
Correct. If there's a nuke inbound I'm not gonna be worried about sending nukes outbound.ballysmate said:If there is an inbound nuke, the policy has failed.
The whole point of having them is that any potential aggressor can't be sure that we won't retaliat and our retaliation strike would not penetrate their defences.
That's why the missiles are periodically updated, such as being equipped with more independent warheads.
If you are in favour of a nuclear deterrent, you surely by definition need to be in favour of using it in those circumstances.
As a country, our stated position has to be at least "maybe we will". Or we stop wasting our money.
It was always asked by some member of the public who wasn't necessarily well versed in the doctrine of MAD but instead wanted blood
"Yes, I will definitely kill millions of foreign people if a nuke is bound for the UK"
*wild clapping*0 -
Try and stop that, what are we going to use sea bass with friggin laser beams?surrey_commuter said:
developing effective defence systems are moe of an issuefocuszing723 said:The Russian defense industry began developing an intercontinental-range nuclear-powered cruise missile capable of penetrating any interceptor-based missile defense system. It is said to have unlimited range and ability to evade missile defenses. A major stage of trials of the cruise missile of the Burevestnik complex, the tests of the nuclear power unit, were successfully completed in January 2019.
Military expert Anton Lavrov in the Izvestia article suggested that the design of the Burevestnik uses a ramjet engine, which, unlike the more traditional propulsion systems for nuclear weapons, will have radioactive exhaust throughout its entire operation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/national-pride-stake-russia-china-united-states-race-build-hypersonic-weapons
Isn't this the issue. Unlimited range nuclear weapons.0 -
There are multiple possible answers. But an answer of "no" is not compatible with a MAD nuclear deterrent.rick_chasey said:
Well no it's not reasonable, because there is only one answer.kingstongraham said:
Which is why the question was a reasonable one.ballysmate said:
You don't have to be in favour. The other side need only to think you are.kingstongraham said:
But if the other side knows you aren't going to respond when there's a nuke inbound, where's the deterrence? The aggressor just sends a nuke, and "wins".rick_chasey said:
Correct. If there's a nuke inbound I'm not gonna be worried about sending nukes outbound.ballysmate said:If there is an inbound nuke, the policy has failed.
The whole point of having them is that any potential aggressor can't be sure that we won't retaliat and our retaliation strike would not penetrate their defences.
That's why the missiles are periodically updated, such as being equipped with more independent warheads.
If you are in favour of a nuclear deterrent, you surely by definition need to be in favour of using it in those circumstances.
As a country, our stated position has to be at least "maybe we will". Or we stop wasting our money.
It was always asked by some member of the public who wasn't necessarily well versed in the doctrine of MAD but instead wanted blood
"Yes, I will definitely kill millions of foreign people if a nuke is bound for the UK"
*wild clapping*
That's why it's a reasonable question. If you don't like the answer, maybe there's a problem with the policy.0 -
Isn't Humanity just kicking the can until AI takes over?0
-
I will put my hands up and say admit that I am all in favour of of cutting the foreign aid budget but am totally against this notion of bypassing Parliament and hope that those guardians of Parliamentary sovereignty like JRM and Chope will use the arcane chicanery that I hate so much to force a vote.
Shooting down something you passionately want is what principles are all about, not inconveniencing yourself to preserve your favourite hobby0 -
2 thoughts on Henry's presence at this ground-breaking reveal:rjsterry said:Couldn't decide where to put this, but to misquote the famous credit card add:
New no.10 press studio:£2.6m
Henry left out in the corner of the proud publicity shot: priceless.
1- it's a c0ck up (entirely plausible with this Govt) - ITV have somehow (not at all arranged by a govt flunky, no definitely not) managed to get 'sneak preview' shots of this important new national asset, and in a rush to tidy up someone simply left Henry out.
2 - They actually use Dysons at no.10, but know that brand is seen as a bit toxic since James 'back Britain, leave the EU' Dyson upped and F'd off to Singapore taking a chunk of jobs and tax with him. Therefore they rushed out to grab a good, dependable, 'British' Henry and deliberately left him in shot - partly so we would have this chat and not focus on how 2.6m has been spent here....
Not so much a dead cat on a table as an idle Henry in the corner.0 -
If they're that concerned with Russia wouldn't they be better not letting Russians fund and dictate Tory policy in ways that benefit Russia?rick_chasey said:
So I am apparently quick to criticise the gov't, and there is probably good reason to here, but things like the military are also informed by things that we the public are not privy to, so we're not able to be in a good position to properly criticise or otherwise as we don't have the full picture.elbowloh said:Way to get your priorities right. We've decided to increase our stockpile of nuclear weapons. Apparently we need to bomb 80 more places now when push comes to shove.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56413920
I suspect, FWIW, that the gov't is more concerned with China and Russia than they are letting on.
Anyway, Russia has found they can do far more damage to the West via Facebook and Twitter without having to unleash 1 single missile.1
