what no annual poppy bunfight thread?

[likesfish]

Yeah, you see, the French system sounds like a genuine deterrent. The MIRV, designed to evade ABM defences and kill Brezhnev sounds more like something an aggressive imperialist power would design in the belief that it could actually emerge the winner.

it cause we were cheap and brought it off the yanks who along with the Soviets indulged in the nuclear war theory
one subs worth of missiles really wouldn be noticed in the cold war
R-36 (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia carries mirvs and penetration aids etc etc.

 

[kebabking]

it cause we were cheap and brought it off the yanks who along with the Soviets indulged in the nuclear war theory
one subs worth of missiles really wouldn be noticed in the cold war
R-36 (missile) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia carries mirvs and penetration aids etc etc.

the French system is more expensive than the UK system. building everything from scratch and having a tiny production run will do that for any project.

the French system is also less flexible, it can't be used - effectively - as a counterforce system, its far more of an all or nothing system, and while its quite possible to argue that in some cases its a nothing system when 'a bit' would be ideal, its also possible to argue that its an 'all' system when just 'a bit' would be far better.

 

[Idris2002]

Thanks to kebabking and likesfish for their responses there. But it looks to me as if the fact that the French system is (apparently) less flexible makes it less likely to be used as anything other than a very last resort, while the flexibility of the US system means that it's more likely that someday a situation will arise when the bomb would be used in anger. . . or as a piece of cold calculated Machiavellianism.

And I'm sure I read somewhere (even though "I read it somewhere" is not an acceptable citation) that the French system would have been used if even one Soviet soldier had stepped foot across the French border.

Which I suppose underlines the fundamental differences in not just nuclear policy, but also general military and geopolitical policy between the UK and France. In the case of France the motto is "1940 must never be allowed to happen again", while in London's case it's "Suez must never be allowed to happen again".

Though for ordinary people it's "I hope what happened to my son/nephew/brother/father/grandfather/uncle/cousin/sister/mother/grandmother/aunt etc. never happens again".

 

[Idris2002]

Even if Corbyn had bowed to the arbitrary standards set by the gutter press, they'd have insisted that he anoint the feet of the dead too.

I'll just leave this here:

 

[kebabking]

Thanks to kebabking and likesfish for their responses there. But it looks to me as if the fact that the French system is (apparently) less flexible makes it less likely to be used as anything other than a very last resort, while the flexibility of the US system means that it's more likely that someday a situation will arise when the bomb would be used in anger. . . or as a piece of cold calculated Machiavellianism...

i think the problem with the French system is not this or that capability or non-capability, its that someone is more likely to believe that they can construct a situation which is harmful to France, but which they think falls well short of 'the last resort'. as an aside, this is the reason i believe than any government - heres looking at you, David - is criminally irresponsible to announce under what circumstances it would or would not use nuclear weapons...

personally, i rather admire the French, and i think those who believe that they lack testicular fortitude are deeply mistaken, but that stupid belief appears to be widespread enough that someday some idiot might be tempted to test it, and its a mistake that we'd all pay for.

 

[Struwwelpeter]

The irony is that we are so close to being forced to wear red triangles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_triangle_(badge)) if we don't wear red poppies...

 

[nino_savatte]

I'll just leave this here:

Aye. Howarth is a former member of the Monday Club was elected chairman of Conservative Way Forward in 2012. He's racist scum.

 

[likesfish]

The french still have some airborne nukes if anyone needs a bit of light nuking.
We chose not to develop any nukes for the storm shadow cruise missile so its a nice cuddlyy 1000lb of high explosive in stead

 

[Sasaferrato]

Become a bit more Blairite/right wing you mean?

No, not really. Become a bit less full on. For example, 'My government will explore returning the railways to public ownership', rather than 'We will...'

If you want to get into power, don't scare the horse. Once you are in power, then you have five years to make a real difference.

 

[Sasaferrato]

No I'm not saying you're saying that I'm saying it's the general feeling every remembrance day and it seems to get worse every year.

Sorry, I must have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. I share your unease about the relentless glorification of every dead/alive servicemen as our 'heroes'. There were heroes, men whose acts we observed with awe. The majority of us were not heroes, we were people doing our jobs in difficult circumstances, in a constant state of various levels of terror. 'H' Jones was a hero, although I suspect had he survived, he may have been court martialed, or at least his career would not have advanced.

 

[Sasaferrato]

And what about the millions of innocent civilians in those countries murdered by a retaliatory strike I guess they deserve death too. Absolutely disgusting, but then it fits in with your vile defence of the attacks on the Gaza flotilla for example.

I have decided not to tolerate abusive idiots any longer. You are now on ignore.

 

[Sasaferrato]

I didn't see anything disrespectful in his placing of his wreath.
He seemed at least as respectful as Cameron.
Did I miss something?

No, a question was asked, and I answered. The depth of his nod is immaterial to me really.

 

[ddraig]

I have decided not to tolerate abusive idiots any longer. You are now on ignore.

so you'll be dishing out less of it yourself then? good

 

[Sasaferrato]

Possibly this?
A useful distraction on the day when the head of UK armed forces made a very deliberate foray into party politics?

What the soldier said was absolutely correct. A deterrence is of no use if you state categorically that it won't be used.

 

[Sasaferrato]

so you'll be dishing out less of it yourself then? good

You are being considerably less than accurate here. You will struggle to find a post where I gratuitously abused anyone. I used to respond, now I just put obnoxious arseholes like OU on ignore.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Worse than fucking Hitler.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Even if Corbyn had bowed to the arbitrary standards set by the gutter press, they'd have insisted that he anoint the feet of the dead too.

Indeed. The press (both right and left) do not like Corbyn.

 

[likesfish]

Thing is trident doesnt work like that anyway if somebody decided to nuke us less than a dozen nukes would kill 90% of the population.
And jezza wouldnt even know what was happening

So trident doesnr get to hear the archers nukes fly

 

[Sasaferrato]

This.

I got involved in an opera thing that had been commissioned to mark the start of WW1. I played the part of the "recruiting officer", and had to play a scene in which we'd gone to a village to get people to sign up. The recruiting officer was not a pleasant character - there was lots of moral blackmail, misogyny, and patronising stuff, all aimed at getting young men signed up.

I felt uncomfortable, because it seemed to me inconceivable that anyone would have been quite so blatantly manipulative about getting people to sign up to fight, so I did some research. And what I learned was that, far from being a caricature of the situation, it was, if anything, a toned down version of what went on. Huge amounts of emotional blackmail were applied, both by the military themselves, but by society at large. People bought into this, to the extent that apparently fit young men who hadn't signed up (this was prior to conscription, which didn't happen until 1916) were often given a hard time in the street.

The "Pal's battalions", similarly, weren't as simple as they're now presented - people were put under considerable pressure to join up with their workmates, neighbours, or friends. We might see the idea of a bunch of mates going off to fight together as noble and laudable, and it was certainly presented that way, but a lot of people joined up because they didn't feel that not joining up was an option.

Furthermore, the stories we hear of young people so fired up with patriotic fervour that they signed up with false ages also tell quite a few tales - a lot of that went on with a nod and a wink from the authorities, who were knowingly signing up 14 year olds to go and fight in the horror of the trenches. Any sense of moral rectitude had taken second place behind the goal of getting as many people onto the battlefield by whatever means possible, whether they were old enough or genuinely willing to volunteer - so long as they gave the impression of volunteering, that was good enough.

And that's before we get into economic conscription, or the rights and wrongs of statutory conscription.

WWI was indeed a horror. The tactic of basing your battle plan on eventually winning, simply because you have more troops to expend was despicable. WWII was a different story, that was fought to preserve the nation. WWI wasn't.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Thing is trident doesnt work like that anyway if somebody decided to nuke us less than a dozen nukes would kill 90% of the population.
And jezza wouldnt even know what was happening

So trident doesnr get to hear the archers nukes fly

The thought of using nuclear weapons in a first strike is inconceivable, other than battlefield nukes, they would have been deployed about day 5 or 6 had the Warsaw Pact invaded. North Korea can now reach the US, and their technology in missile design continues. What would Corbyn's response be to NK saying 'Disband your army, and ship your gold reserves to us, or we'll nuke you?'. To say that you will never use nukes in a first strike is one thing, to say we have them but would never use them is quite another.

 

[ddraig]

You are being considerably less than accurate here. You will struggle to find a post where I gratuitously abused anyone. I used to respond, now I just put obnoxious arseholes like OU on ignore.

errr no you can't hack it and fly off the handle
dishing it out but not taking it

 

[Sasaferrato]

errr no you can't hack it and fly off the handle
dishing it out but not taking it

Bollocks.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The thought of using nuclear weapons in a first strike is inconceivable, other than battlefield nukes, they would have been deployed about day 5 or 6 had the Warsaw Pact invaded. North Korea can now reach the US, and their technology in missile design continues. What would Corbyn's response be to NK saying 'Disband your army, and ship your gold reserves to us, or we'll nuke you?'. To say that you will never use nukes in a first strike is one thing, to say we have them but would never use them is quite another.

Just to be clear, the UK needs nukes to protect it from North Korea. This is what you're saying here.

You have to feel sorry for Spain and Italy and Germany and Sweden and Poland and Ireland and all the other non-Nuke European countries. They're defenceless against the North Korean threat.

 

[Ax^]

has the uk sold nukes to north korea?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

has the uk sold nukes to north korea?

No, but they helped Israel develop them in secret and in violation of international treaties.

Go UK!

 

[Orang Utan]

I have decided not to tolerate abusive idiots any longer. You are now on ignore.

That's hardly abuse. It IS vile to advocate the murder of millions of civilians just as a tit for that tactic that hastens the end of the world as we know it.

 

[Ax^]

No, but they helped Israel develop them in secret and in violation of international treaties.

Go UK!

Britannia fucking up the middle east since the crusades

go UK indeed

 

[Sasaferrato]

Just to be clear, the UK needs nukes to protect it from North Korea. This is what you're saying here.

You have to feel sorry for Spain and Italy and Germany and Sweden and Poland and Ireland and all the other non-Nuke European countries. They're defenceless against the North Korean threat.

No, they are NATO members. They sit under the nuclear umbrella provided by Britain, France* and the US.

Just to put the record straight, I'm no lover of nuclear weapons. Simultaneous multilateral disposal of all nuclear weapons would be a glorious day. People are a wee bit ignorant about the effects of nukes. They seem to think that if Israel nuked Iran, or the US nuked North Korea, it would have no effect on us. They forget about the Welsh and Scottish hill sheep, that were not safe to eat until years after Chernobyl, and Chernobyl was fuck all compared to an air burst nuclear warhead. Use the dreadful things and poison the whole world.

I don't support unilateral disarmament, simply because it keeps the lunatics in check.

*Not sure if France is in NATO at the moment.

 

[existentialist]

No, they are NATO members. They sit under the nuclear umbrella provided by Britain, France* and the US.

Just to put the record straight, I'm no lover of nuclear weapons. Simultaneous multilateral disposal of all nuclear weapons would be a glorious day. People are a wee bit ignorant about the effects of nukes. They seem to think that if Israel nuked Iran, or the US nuked North Korea, it would have no effect on us. They forget about the Welsh and Scottish hill sheep, that were not safe to eat until years after Chernobyl, and Chernobyl was fuck all compared to an air burst nuclear warhead. Use the dreadful things and poison the whole world.

I don't support unilateral disarmament, simply because it keeps the lunatics in check.

An air burst would be substantially cleaner than a ground burst. The problem with Chernobyl was all the bits of reactor material, but with a bomb, that's less of an issue: the real trouble comes from the the irradiated soil and rock elements, of which there would be thousands of tons.

 

[Sasaferrato]

An air burst would be substantially cleaner than a ground burst. The problem with Chernobyl was all the bits of reactor material, but with a bomb, that's less of an issue: the real trouble comes from the the irradiated soil and rock elements, of which there would be thousands of tons.

An air burst creates a vacuum, which draws a lot of material from the ground, and irradiates it. This then continues up into the atmosphere, and is delivered over big distances by the jet stream. Anyway, we are really arguing over whether you would rather be shot or hanged, both are terrifying scenarios.