news & politics:discussion

[Ozanne]

Tories will call for her to resign whilst still backing Patel to stay in roll. 

[mcshed]

13 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Okay, then Scotland was traded into a union by wealthy aristocrats after the problematic Derien project. A bit similar to how New Amsterdam or other colonies were traded in the Imperial days.

Wealthy anglo-Scottish landowners then proceeded to exploit both land and labour for a couple of hundred years.

If it looks like a colony and smells like a colony..

Except for the joining of heads of state that preceded the political union and that it was what 50 years after the act of union before the first Scottish PM of Britain, for better and worse Scotland was a partner in the Empire.

[mcshed]

1 minute ago, Barry Fish said:

Pretty much the mirror image of the SNP...  Calling on Patel to resign while backing Sturgeon

Scottish Labour are in the right, everyone should resign.

[eFestivals]

23 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Okay, then Scotland was traded into a union by wealthy aristocrats after the problematic Derien project. A bit similar to how New Amsterdam or other colonies were traded in the Imperial days.

Wealthy anglo-Scottish landowners then proceeded to exploit both land and labour for a couple of hundred years.

If it looks like a colony and smells like a colony..

That trade was endorsed by the people of Scotland in the 2014 indyref

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, mcshed said:

Except for the joining of heads of state that preceded the political union and that it was what 50 years after the act of union before the first Scottish PM of Britain, for better and worse Scotland was a partner in the Empire.

The Scottish king was the world's biggest slaver.andmore ordinary people in Scotland owned slaves than English ever did

[steviewevie]

Starmer has failed the nuke question. 

 

[efcfanwirral]

9 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Starmer has failed the nuke question. 

 

Ridiculous- the end of him even having a chance. Too many in this country would love us to use them 

[efcfanwirral]

And why do we need so many? I get that you need to have some in different places in case they all get sabotaged or something but SO many? You can destroy the planet ten times over with not that many 

[Ozanne]

12 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Starmer has failed the nuke question. 

 

I hate that question. There is no right answer, you’re either happy to kill millions or perceived as weak. 

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, efcfanwirral said:

And why do we need so many? I get that you need to have some in different places in case they all get sabotaged or something but SO many? You can destroy the planet ten times over with not that many 

I know right...you only get to use them once...

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

I hate that question. There is no right answer, you’re either happy to kill millions or perceived as weak. 

it's almost as if it's the main reason that govt brought up the whole trident thing, just so starmer could get asked this question.

[mcshed]

11 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

If a foreign country attacked in the morning - wouldn't you expect the PM to authorise the military to do just that ?  

No?

I can't imagine any events that could happen in the morning to which the appropriate response would be to kill millions.

[Homer]

I saw a clip earlier of Stamrer criticising the EU - seems like a good opportunity to help rid himself of the Massive Remainer tag.

[philipsteak]

4 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

So we just roll over and have our belly's tickled ?  

I would shoot you first for desertion. 

Course you would, Barry. You big, brave soldier. Course you would

[Simsy]

The countries with nukes have been involved in a lot of wars over the last 75 years, yet none of them have dropped the bomb since Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Clearly it's not the automatic response to aggression. There's something between "roll over and have our bellies tickled" and nuking the fuck out of our enemies.

[mcshed]

4 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

So we just roll over and have our belly's tickled ?  

I would shoot you first for desertion. 

You also fancy nuking Germany over vaccines, so I'm not surprised you want me shot for maybe suggesting genocide isn't the best response to anything.

I don't think conscientious objectors tend to be shot though.

[Haan]

9 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Ever thought that is the reason we haven't had a lot of wars over the last 75 years ? 

Its called a nuclear deterrent for a reason 🙂 

 

 

[Haan]

5 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Yet the evidence is there - no major war between major nations since nukes was last used.  

Chinese invasion of Korea, 1950 – faced nuclear-armed USA
Egypt/ Syria attack on Israel, 1973 – Israel nuclear-armed
Argentinean invasion of Falklands, 1982 – faced nuclear-armed UK

[mattiloy]

5 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

Yet the evidence is there - no major war between major nations since nukes was last used.  

That isn’t evidence, there is no causal link since we do not know the counterfactual.

Albeit non nuclear, German rearmament by a hawkish, nationalistic government directly precipitated the second world war.

The kind of approach to geopolitics that leads to an increase in the number of nukes makes the world less secure.

[Haan]

13 minutes ago, Barry Fish said:

I don't think any of those are major nations.  I am taking about nuclear armed countries but I think you know that 

What? all of these countries faced nuclear armed countries and it did not stop them from war. And nuclear armed countries continue to fight each other through proxy wars anyway so what's the point of these weapons? 

[fraybentos1]

1 hour ago, mcshed said:

You also fancy nuking Germany over vaccines, so I'm not surprised you want me shot for maybe suggesting genocide isn't the best response to anything.

I don't think conscientious objectors tend to be shot though.

The guy is clearly trolling and I've no idea why people are still giving him attention. Put him on ignore and he will get bored soon enough.

[squirrelarmy]

15 minutes ago, Haan said:

What? all of these countries faced nuclear armed countries and it did not stop them from war. And nuclear armed countries continue to fight each other through proxy wars anyway so what's the point of these weapons? 

I’m not a fan of them but I understand the situation we’re in because of their existence. 
 

In a book I read a few years ago it explored the scenario of a nuclear arms reduction. 
 

Right now the major powers have enough weapons so if one of them decided to strike then there would be enough weapons left the counterstrike would leave the aggressors country a radioactive ruin. This MAD (mutual assured destruction) means that these weapons are very unlikely to be used. The ultimate deterrent. 
 

The book explored what would happen if the countries reduced their nuclear arms. One of the options explored was that less nuclear weapons in the world could actually mean a nuclear strike is actually a feasible option and potentially a winnable strategy especially if they are launched from short range like from a submarine and a countries own launch sites were targeted first. 
 

The short answer is, as long as nuclear weapons exist then we need the deterrent available to prevent someone else using their own first. Unless all the major powers disarm fully and at the same time then there will always be a purpose for them. Hopefully never having to be used though. Ours being submarine based also mean they can’t be targeted either. So until there aren’t any threats available, programs like Trident need to continue. 
 

The world would be a much better place without them but it’s hard to undo the invention of these weapons. 

[topmarksbri]

Nuclear question also awkward for labour because of amount of union jobs tied up in it. Unite always voted to keep them. 

[DeanoL]

1 hour ago, Ozanne said:

I hate that question. There is no right answer, you’re either happy to kill millions or perceived as weak. 

You say yes. Or you say you're in favour of complete disarmament. There's no other sensible response. Now, whether you actually mean "yes" when you say it is a whole different question. 

[Ozanne]

17 minutes ago, squirrelarmy said:

I’m not a fan of them but I understand the situation we’re in because of their existence. 
 

In a book I read a few years ago it explored the scenario of a nuclear arms reduction. 
 

Right now the major powers have enough weapons so if one of them decided to strike then there would be enough weapons left the counterstrike would leave the aggressors country a radioactive ruin. This MAD (mutual assured destruction) means that these weapons are very unlikely to be used. The ultimate deterrent. 
 

The book explored what would happen if the countries reduced their nuclear arms. One of the options explored was that less nuclear weapons in the world could actually mean a nuclear strike is actually a feasible option and potentially a winnable strategy especially if they are launched from short range like from a submarine and a countries own launch sites were targeted first. 
 

The short answer is, as long as nuclear weapons exist then we need the deterrent available to prevent someone else using their own first. Unless all the major powers disarm fully and at the same time then there will always be a purpose for them. Hopefully never having to be used though. Ours being submarine based also mean they can’t be targeted either. So until there aren’t any threats available, programs like Trident need to continue. 
 

The world would be a much better place without them but it’s hard to undo the invention of these weapons. 

That’s a really analysis of the situation mate, thank you for writing it. I haven’t thought about it from that POV before so that’s really interesting.