FabSwingers.com forum: NATO

By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago

Cambridge

So it looks as though Ken Livingstone can't see the value of staying in NATO, or having a nuclear deterrent.

I think it's going to be very worrying to imagine what the military would look like under Labour.

Do you think we would still have a proper military under Labour and should we stay in NATO or go it alone?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35251427

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury

You say To-NAYTO, I say To-NAHTO

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rightonsteveMan
over a year ago

Brighton - even Hove!

I say nay to NATO.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury

"So it looks as though Ken Livingstone can't see the value of staying in NATO, or having a nuclear deterrent.

I think it's going to be very worrying to imagine what the military would look like under Labour.

Do you think we would still have a proper military under Labour and should we stay in NATO or go it alone?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35251427"

Being serious for a moment, the UK armed forces are already fucked under the Tories, with a sprialling price tag attached to the Trident replacement (originally a snap at £35bn, now in some quarters rising to an eye-watering £167bn)...

The conventional armed forces are being bled white for the sake of a Cold War 'deterrent' that we will never use.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *atcoupleCouple
over a year ago

Suffolk - East Anglia

"So it looks as though Ken Livingstone can't see the value of staying in NATO, or having a nuclear deterrent.

I think it's going to be very worrying to imagine what the military would look like under Labour.

Do you think we would still have a proper military under Labour and should we stay in NATO or go it alone?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35251427"

omg!!

To come out of NATO is just madness. Labour would ruin any defence of our realm. FGS get a grip and face reality. Never mind philosophical dreams, the cold hard facts remain, Putin is dangerous and so is I.S.

We must stay firm.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago

"So it looks as though Ken Livingstone can't see the value of staying in NATO, or having a nuclear deterrent.

I think it's going to be very worrying to imagine what the military would look like under Labour.

Do you think we would still have a proper military under Labour and should we stay in NATO or go it alone?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35251427

omg!!

We must stay firm."

facts? fat lot of good nato was when paris was attacked

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So it looks as though Ken Livingstone can't see the value of staying in NATO, or having a nuclear deterrent.

I think it's going to be very worrying to imagine what the military would look like under Labour.

Do you think we would still have a proper military under Labour and should we stay in NATO or go it alone?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35251427"

I can't see the point in ken livingstone.

We really need to explain why we'd want to be part of the world's most successful peace time alliance?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury

"So it looks as though Ken Livingstone can't see the value of staying in NATO, or having a nuclear deterrent.

I think it's going to be very worrying to imagine what the military would look like under Labour.

Do you think we would still have a proper military under Labour and should we stay in NATO or go it alone?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35251427

omg!!

We must stay firm.

facts? fat lot of good nato was when paris was attacked"

^ is my point.

By ploughing resources in to nuclear weapons we risk being unable to deploy conventional forces where they are needed.

UK armed forces are severely stretched over Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as peaceful deployments elsewhere. We can't fight any more wars 'cos we haven't got enough toy soldiers and boats, or planes.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So it looks as though Ken Livingstone can't see the value of staying in NATO, or having a nuclear deterrent.

I think it's going to be very worrying to imagine what the military would look like under Labour.

Do you think we would still have a proper military under Labour and should we stay in NATO or go it alone?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35251427

The conventional armed forces are being bled white for the sake of a Cold War 'deterrent' that we will never use. "

Got an official source for that ridiculous figure or did it come a biased NGO by any chance?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago

"So it looks as though Ken Livingstone can't see the value of staying in NATO, or having a nuclear deterrent.

I think it's going to be very worrying to imagine what the military would look like under Labour.

Do you think we would still have a proper military under Labour and should we stay in NATO or go it alone?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35251427

omg!!

We must stay firm.

facts? fat lot of good nato was when paris was attacked

^ is my point.

By ploughing resources in to nuclear weapons we risk being unable to deploy conventional forces where they are needed.

maybe summut to do with ca-moron scrapping a load of planes and aircraft carriers in the first month of his dictatorship

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I say nay to NATO. "
.

I've never understood the philosophy of it, I mean you only have to look at military alliances and how that started ww1 to see they don't!.

If you have one alliance that's much bigger than the other, then natural tendencies of bullying will take place through human nature surely.

Are Russia a threat or are they being bullied into grabbing neighbouring countries for protection from NATO?.

Why does it come as a surprise, it's exactly what they did after ww2 when they felt threatened by a once again free Germany...

They just grabbed a load of countries separating themselves from any future invasion by Germany, I mean wouldn't any person do that after they've been invaded by Germany three times already in the last what 70 years!.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago

Cambridge

"I say nay to NATO. .

I've never understood the philosophy of it, I mean you only have to look at military alliances and how that started ww1 to see they don't!.

If you have one alliance that's much bigger than the other, then natural tendencies of bullying will take place through human nature surely.

Are Russia a threat or are they being bullied into grabbing neighbouring countries for protection from NATO?.

Why does it come as a surprise, it's exactly what they did after ww2 when they felt threatened by a once again free Germany...

You think that NATO is planning on invading Russia? You are seriously out of touch with geopolitics.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I say nay to NATO. .

I've never understood the philosophy of it, I mean you only have to look at military alliances and how that started ww1 to see they don't!.

If you have one alliance that's much bigger than the other, then natural tendencies of bullying will take place through human nature surely.

Are Russia a threat or are they being bullied into grabbing neighbouring countries for protection from NATO?.

Why does it come as a surprise, it's exactly what they did after ww2 when they felt threatened by a once again free Germany...

You think that NATO is planning on invading Russia? You are seriously out of touch with geopolitics.

"
.

It's not what I think that matters though is it!.

It's what the Russians perceive from NATO expansion that counts

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Got an official source for that ridiculous figure or did it come a biased NGO by any chance? "

Quote from The Independent, 25/120/15

Original price tag was £25bn

The Royal United Services Institute estimated in 2013 that a new system would cost between £70bn and £80bn for its lifetime.

The independent Trident Commission said in 2014 that the cost of replacement would be around £100bn.

The new figures relate to the lifetime cost of the system between 2028 and 2060.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago

"I say nay to NATO. .

I've never understood the philosophy of it, I mean you only have to look at military alliances and how that started ww1 to see they don't!.

If you have one alliance that's much bigger than the other, then natural tendencies of bullying will take place through human nature surely.

Are Russia a threat or are they being bullied into grabbing neighbouring countries for protection from NATO?.

Why does it come as a surprise, it's exactly what they did after ww2 when they felt threatened by a once again free Germany...

You think that NATO is planning on invading Russia? You are seriously out of touch with geopolitics.

you think russia is planning on invading nato then?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Got an official source for that ridiculous figure or did it come a biased NGO by any chance?

Quote from The Independent, 25/120/15

Original price tag was £25bn

The Royal United Services Institute estimated in 2013 that a new system would cost between £70bn and £80bn for its lifetime.

The independent Trident Commission said in 2014 that the cost of replacement would be around £100bn.

The new figures relate to the lifetime cost of the system between 2028 and 2060."
.

Well if you look at what they said polaris would cost, to what it actually cost...

There out by 5 fold

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Got an official source for that ridiculous figure or did it come a biased NGO by any chance?

Quote from The Independent, 25/120/15

Original price tag was £25bn

The Royal United Services Institute estimated in 2013 that a new system would cost between £70bn and £80bn for its lifetime.

The independent Trident Commission said in 2014 that the cost of replacement would be around £100bn.

The new figures relate to the lifetime cost of the system between 2028 and 2060..

Well if you look at what they said polaris would cost, to what it actually cost...

There out by 5 fold"

Yep.

Funny how it works out that way.

If you had an extension on your house, you'd want a 20% contingency fund, not a 500% one :/

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Got an official source for that ridiculous figure or did it come a biased NGO by any chance?

Quote from The Independent, 25/120/15

Original price tag was £25bn

The Royal United Services Institute estimated in 2013 that a new system would cost between £70bn and £80bn for its lifetime.

The independent Trident Commission said in 2014 that the cost of replacement would be around £100bn.

The new figures relate to the lifetime cost of the system between 2028 and 2060..

Well if you look at what they said polaris would cost, to what it actually cost...

There out by 5 fold

Yep.

Funny how it works out that way.

If you had an extension on your house, you'd want a 20% contingency fund, not a 500% one :/"
.

One alteration on the polaris system in the 80s actually cost what the entire system was cost at if my memory serves me correct!.

Do they cost the decommissioning of the nuclear vessel and any warheads..

They usually have a habit of leaving out decommissioning costs when mentioning nuclear power stations

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *entaur_UKMan
over a year ago

Cannock

"So it looks as though Ken Livingstone can't see the value of staying in NATO, or having a nuclear deterrent.

I think it's going to be very worrying to imagine what the military would look like under Labour.

Do you think we would still have a proper military under Labour and should we stay in NATO or go it alone?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35251427

omg!!

We must stay firm."

North Korea just conducted a new nuclear test with an H bomb. It was All over the news yesterday. With a rogue state like north Korea developing and testing nuclear bombs it would be madness for us to scrap trident. The words madness and Labour seem to be closely linked together since Corbyn became leader though.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago

Titz Towers, North Notts

I don't see much point in a nuclear deterrent. Who is it meant to deter and from doing what?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *S RachaelTV/TS
over a year ago

Lowestoft

[Removed by poster at 07/01/16 18:39:25]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury

"I don't see much point in a nuclear deterrent. Who is it meant to deter and from doing what? "

It's a political sop, as well you know, and a relic of the Cold War.

There are also serious questions over its 'independence'...

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/986we13.htm

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago

Cambridge

"I say nay to NATO. .

I've never understood the philosophy of it, I mean you only have to look at military alliances and how that started ww1 to see they don't!.

If you have one alliance that's much bigger than the other, then natural tendencies of bullying will take place through human nature surely.

Are Russia a threat or are they being bullied into grabbing neighbouring countries for protection from NATO?.

Why does it come as a surprise, it's exactly what they did after ww2 when they felt threatened by a once again free Germany...

You think that NATO is planning on invading Russia? You are seriously out of touch with geopolitics.

you think russia is planning on invading nato then?"

No I don't, they wouldn't have invaded Georgia or Ukraine had they been members.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury

"No. The costs are expected to be between 100 and 167 billion not for replacement but in total including all maintenamce costs and operating cost over the 40 year lifetime. Ie Ave.

4 billion a year or 10%.

It's a shame that it was never expanded to a conventional warhead..The US used cruise missiles in Iraq quite successfully but in any case can the naysayers tell us what dangers we face in say 30 years time. The Left tell us that the US WILL

Protect us but do we believe that. They will pursue their own best interests.

And NATO is not just a cold war necessity. Hey would not have supported us in the falklands if it had not been and turkey would not care about western interests if it wasn't a member. "

All that is as maybe...

But it's slightly different from the £25bn original price tag?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I don't see much point in a nuclear deterrent. Who is it meant to deter and from doing what? "
.

It was a deterrent from the communist soviet empire, there no longer communist and are one of our largest trading partners.

Now I'm not saying there perfect or even close to good, however this notion that NATO expansion doesn't threaten the Russians is quite frankly deluded.

If I were Russian, I would feel threatened by NATO expansion... To then expect them to do nothing about that perceived threat is some sort of mental block

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *S RachaelTV/TS
over a year ago

Lowestoft

"So it looks as though Ken Livingstone can't see the value of staying in NATO, or having a nuclear deterrent.

I think it's going to be very worrying to imagine what the military would look like under Labour.

Do you think we would still have a proper military under Labour and should we stay in NATO or go it alone?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35251427

The conventional armed forces are being bled white for the sake of a Cold War 'deterrent' that we will never use. "

. The costs are expected to be between 100 and 167 billion not for replacement but in total including all maintenamce costs and operating cost over the 40 year lifetime. Ie Ave.

4 billion a year or 10% of today's defence budget

Protect us but do we believe that. They will pursue their own best interests.

And NATO is not just a cold war necessity. Hey would not have supported us in the falklands if it had not been and turkey would not care about western interests if it wasn't a member.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I say nay to NATO. .

I've never understood the philosophy of it, I mean you only have to look at military alliances and how that started ww1 to see they don't!.

If you have one alliance that's much bigger than the other, then natural tendencies of bullying will take place through human nature surely.

Are Russia a threat or are they being bullied into grabbing neighbouring countries for protection from NATO?.

Why does it come as a surprise, it's exactly what they did after ww2 when they felt threatened by a once again free Germany...

You think that NATO is planning on invading Russia? You are seriously out of touch with geopolitics.

you think russia is planning on invading nato then?

No I don't, they wouldn't have invaded Georgia or Ukraine had they been members."
.

That's the exact actions that you could predict by NATO expansion, it's exactly what they did after ww2 .. Look on a map, they grabbed the entire line of countries north to south after Germany cutting out western expansion then started doing the same on the southern borders with Islam.

China, Mongolia, Korea no threat no expansion no grabbing?.

Reverse the situation and imagine the soviet union still bring in existence imagine that alliance growing from country to country getting closer and closer until one day the next country to join them is France?...

What do you think the UK,s response would be.... A perceived threat or ohh look there's the soviets ... Cooey over here Mr Putin!.

NATO expansion is causing the tension, you need a line of countries that separate the west from Russia that both parties agree not to alliance with!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *LCC OP Couple
over a year ago

Cambridge

"I say nay to NATO. .

I've never understood the philosophy of it, I mean you only have to look at military alliances and how that started ww1 to see they don't!.

If you have one alliance that's much bigger than the other, then natural tendencies of bullying will take place through human nature surely.

Are Russia a threat or are they being bullied into grabbing neighbouring countries for protection from NATO?.

Why does it come as a surprise, it's exactly what they did after ww2 when they felt threatened by a once again free Germany...

You think that NATO is planning on invading Russia? You are seriously out of touch with geopolitics.

you think russia is planning on invading nato then?

No I don't, they wouldn't have invaded Georgia or Ukraine had they been members..

China, Mongolia, Korea no threat no expansion no grabbing?.

What do you think the UK,s response would be.... A perceived threat or ohh look there's the soviets ... Cooey over here Mr Putin!.

NATO expansion is causing the tension, you need a line of countries that separate the west from Russia that both parties agree not to alliance with!"

You don't believe those countries have a right to self determination?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We come out of nato we weaken our defence we become an easy target so I say do it at your peril and remember these words when we are attacked

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Got an official source for that ridiculous figure or did it come a biased NGO by any chance?

Quote from The Independent, 25/120/15

Original price tag was £25bn

The Royal United Services Institute estimated in 2013 that a new system would cost between £70bn and £80bn for its lifetime.

The independent Trident Commission said in 2014 that the cost of replacement would be around £100bn.

The new figures relate to the lifetime cost of the system between 2028 and 2060."

Right well this is interesting isn't it. Firstly, the NAO who actually have some estimating ability themselves put the figure at about £25bn of which more than half is the cost of the submarines themselves, a somewhat dubious inclusion inclusion in my opinion.

The so called 'independent' Trident Commission are just a bunch of MPs who know absolutely nothing about military costs and yes I include Lord Browne in that. They don't have any better information than anyone else and they definately don't estimate for themselves.

Then we come to RUSI who are credible, I'll have to read their report and come back on that one but even their upper estimate is half of the £167bn figure you quoted. I'm curious what they included but for £80bn I'd bet it's the submarines, the missiles, the people and the base. It's questionable how much of that you'd get rid of if you didn't have nukes.

Finally and most damingly, in my opinion, instead of listening to morons in the press who couldn't estimate their way out of a paper bag, we could just look at what Uncle Sam spend. As of 2013, America had spent $69.4bn (£47.1bn) in today's money on 533 Trident II's - a fifth of which were development costs and by the way, we have a whopping 64 missiles.

So forgive me if I struggle with the idea that scapping trident will save £167bn.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury

"So forgive me if I struggle with the idea that scapping trident will save £167bn."

That's not what I said

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I say nay to NATO. .

I've never understood the philosophy of it, I mean you only have to look at military alliances and how that started ww1 to see they don't!.

If you have one alliance that's much bigger than the other, then natural tendencies of bullying will take place through human nature surely.

Are Russia a threat or are they being bullied into grabbing neighbouring countries for protection from NATO?.

Why does it come as a surprise, it's exactly what they did after ww2 when they felt threatened by a once again free Germany...

You think that NATO is planning on invading Russia? You are seriously out of touch with geopolitics.

you think russia is planning on invading nato then?

No I don't, they wouldn't have invaded Georgia or Ukraine had they been members..

China, Mongolia, Korea no threat no expansion no grabbing?.

What do you think the UK,s response would be.... A perceived threat or ohh look there's the soviets ... Cooey over here Mr Putin!.

NATO expansion is causing the tension, you need a line of countries that separate the west from Russia that both parties agree not to alliance with!

You don't believe those countries have a right to self determination? "

As much as this pains me, I have to agree with doors here. Although I caveat all of it by being clear i have less sympathy for his comrades, their treatment is what one should expect after being on the losing side of a war (hot or cold).

However, the answer to your question is yes in an ideal world and no in the one we live in. NATO has broken promises not to expand east and a neutral zone would be diplomacy 101.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So forgive me if I struggle with the idea that scapping trident will save £167bn.

That's not what I said

OK so to your earlier point, how much more money could we spend on conventional forces if we didn't have nukes?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury

"So forgive me if I struggle with the idea that scapping trident will save £167bn.

That's not what I said

OK so to your earlier point, how much more money could we spend on conventional forces if we didn't have nukes? "

I just pointed to the spiraling costs of an irrelevant deterrence and wondered if the money could be better spent elsewhere on conventional forces.

How much more?

2p?

What do you reckon?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago

"So forgive me if I struggle with the idea that scapping trident will save £167bn.

That's not what I said

OK so to your earlier point, how much more money could we spend on conventional forces if we didn't have nukes?

I just pointed to the spiraling costs of an irrelevant deterrence and wondered if the money could be better spent elsewhere on conventional forces.

How much more?

2p?

What do you reckon?"

do we need to be that generous?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I say nay to NATO. .

I've never understood the philosophy of it, I mean you only have to look at military alliances and how that started ww1 to see they don't!.

If you have one alliance that's much bigger than the other, then natural tendencies of bullying will take place through human nature surely.

Are Russia a threat or are they being bullied into grabbing neighbouring countries for protection from NATO?.

Why does it come as a surprise, it's exactly what they did after ww2 when they felt threatened by a once again free Germany...

You think that NATO is planning on invading Russia? You are seriously out of touch with geopolitics.

you think russia is planning on invading nato then?

No I don't, they wouldn't have invaded Georgia or Ukraine had they been members..

China, Mongolia, Korea no threat no expansion no grabbing?.

What do you think the UK,s response would be.... A perceived threat or ohh look there's the soviets ... Cooey over here Mr Putin!.

NATO expansion is causing the tension, you need a line of countries that separate the west from Russia that both parties agree not to alliance with!

You don't believe those countries have a right to self determination?

However, the answer to your question is yes in an ideal world and no in the one we live in. NATO has broken promises not to expand east and a neutral zone would be diplomacy 101. "
.

Arghh... I would have loved to have seen your face typing that sentence

Don't worry normal services resumes soon, have you not spotted my oil price thread..

Were debating inflation and pricing

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So forgive me if I struggle with the idea that scapping trident will save £167bn.

That's not what I said

OK so to your earlier point, how much more money could we spend on conventional forces if we didn't have nukes?

I just pointed to the spiraling costs of an irrelevant deterrence and wondered if the money could be better spent elsewhere on conventional forces.

How much more?

2p?

What do you reckon?"

Not like you to dodge a question!

First off, it ain't sprialling. You're just mixing different estimates of different things from a mixture of credible and idiotic sources.

You're welcome to your opinion that it's irrelevant.

Allow me to try another way, do you agree with the SNP that scrapping trident would save "£100bn to ease austerity measures"?

A yes or no with suffice.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I say nay to NATO. .

I've never understood the philosophy of it, I mean you only have to look at military alliances and how that started ww1 to see they don't!.

If you have one alliance that's much bigger than the other, then natural tendencies of bullying will take place through human nature surely.

Are Russia a threat or are they being bullied into grabbing neighbouring countries for protection from NATO?.

Why does it come as a surprise, it's exactly what they did after ww2 when they felt threatened by a once again free Germany...

You think that NATO is planning on invading Russia? You are seriously out of touch with geopolitics.

you think russia is planning on invading nato then?

No I don't, they wouldn't have invaded Georgia or Ukraine had they been members..

China, Mongolia, Korea no threat no expansion no grabbing?.

What do you think the UK,s response would be.... A perceived threat or ohh look there's the soviets ... Cooey over here Mr Putin!.

NATO expansion is causing the tension, you need a line of countries that separate the west from Russia that both parties agree not to alliance with!

You don't believe those countries have a right to self determination?

However, the answer to your question is yes in an ideal world and no in the one we live in. NATO has broken promises not to expand east and a neutral zone would be diplomacy 101. .

Arghh... I would have loved to have seen your face typing that sentence

Don't worry normal services resumes soon, have you not spotted my oil price thread..

Were debating inflation and pricing

Inflation, oh boy, why didn't you PM me!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"We come out of nato we weaken our defence we become an easy target so I say do it at your peril and remember these words when we are attacked

Exactly who is going to attack us that isn't already attacking us? I don't see NATO doing much to stop domestic terrorism.

NATO - No Action, Talk Only.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Not like you to dodge a question!

First off, it ain't sprialling. You're just mixing different estimates of different things from a mixture of credible and idiotic sources.

You're welcome to your opinion that it's irrelevant.

Allow me to try another way, do you agree with the SNP that scrapping trident would save "£100bn to ease austerity measures"?

A yes or no with suffice. "

And that's a straw man :P

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ylonhunterMan
over a year ago

At the last election farage was talking about conservatives getting us into Europe and then becoming part of a European army and that's the way I can see it heading.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Not like you to dodge a question!

First off, it ain't sprialling. You're just mixing different estimates of different things from a mixture of credible and idiotic sources.

You're welcome to your opinion that it's irrelevant.

Allow me to try another way, do you agree with the SNP that scrapping trident would save "£100bn to ease austerity measures"?

A yes or no with suffice.

And that's a straw man :P"

Where's your mate from Bracknell when I need him?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So the OP asks our opinions on NATO and Labour's attitude to Defence. And what do we get? The same old suspects slagging off Cameron for what happened in 2010. Forgetting of course WHY he had to make the cuts he did. Which was 'There was no money' plus Labour had left a £35 Billion black hole in the Defence budget. (That is kit ordered and no money to pay for it)

Aircraft Carriers? Well Labour scrapped HMS Invincible in 2005, Ark was scrapped in 2012 and Illustrious is in store for the Nation. They were old, unreliable and very limited capability. Oh wait .. we now have two of the biggest ships ever built for the Navy well on their way!

Harriers? It was a choice between Tonkas and Harriers. They made the right choice. Oh wait ... aren't we a major part of the F35 programme and just ordered 138?

Nimrod MRA4? None flying, the wings wouldn't fit, 9 years overdue and £ Billions over budget. Outstanding. Oh wait ... we have just ordered a fleet of brand new Poseidons from the USA.

Someone said 'the forces have been fucked under the Tories' Well new carriers, new Tide Class tankers, new Astute subs, new Frigates, new light Frigates, new MRA aircraft, restoring stored Tr1 Typhoons and upgrading the rest, new Voyager tankers, new A400 transports, C130 upgrades, upgraded Challenger II MBTs, new armoured vehicles etc etc. And yes we WILL get the new Successor subs for Trident. Its a 'must have' if you want to be at the top table and have influence. Plus that deterrent has deterred anyone attacking us since WWII ...

As for Livingstone? He is an old Socialist dinosaur past his sell by date and a f**king liability if he gets anywhere near power. For Livingstone also read Corbyn, McDonnell, Thornberry. Not a bloody clue between them.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 07/01/16 20:33:11]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So the OP asks our opinions on NATO and Labour's attitude to Defence. And what do we get? The same old suspects slagging off Cameron for what happened in 2010. Forgetting of course WHY he had to make the cuts he did. Which was 'There was no money' plus Labour had left a £35 Billion black hole in the Defence budget. (That is kit ordered and no money to pay for it)

Harriers? It was a choice between Tonkas and Harriers. They made the right choice. Oh wait ... aren't we a major part of the F35 programme and just ordered 138?

Nimrod MRA4? None flying, the wings wouldn't fit, 9 years overdue and £ Billions over budget. Outstanding. Oh wait ... we have just ordered a fleet of brand new Poseidons from the USA.

Good analysis of what happened. To be fair to labour, it's civil servants that should take more responsibility.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Did someone mention the SNP? Those wizards who were going to create a Socialist Nirvana north of the Border on oil at $130 a barrel. Its now $48. And run a £ multi billion deficit with the rest of the UK?

The same SNP who don't want Trident in Scotland? OK so move them to Cumbria right near where all our subs are built.

And the same SNP that want Independence from Westminster while wanting to be ruled from Brussels.

** Face / Palm **

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

House of Commons Defence Select Committee:

Mr Bacon: It is on page 6, paragraph 4: “The list of armoured vehicles projects cancelled, suspended or delayed in Figure 1 suggests that…the Department’s standard acquisition process for armoured vehicles has not been working.”

Ursula Brennan: We have acknowledged that there were failings in our procurement of armoured ?ghting vehicles. Yes, we do acknowledge this.

Q24 Mr Bacon: Who has paid the price for that? Who has paid the penalty for that scale of error? Because for most of this decade—although we have had an enormous ?nancial crunch since 2008 or late 2007—it was a period of rising Government spending. It is a huge failure. Who is paying the penalty for that? Is anyone?

Ursula Brennan: The reasons—

Q25 Mr Bacon: Apart from the soldiers on the ground, obviously, who has paid the penalty for this failure in the Ministry of Defence?

Ursula Brennan: The reasons—

Q26 Mr Bacon: No, no, my question is who? The answer must be a person or no person.

Ursula Brennan: The reason why I wanted to say the reasons is because the reasons why certain programmes were stopped or cancelled were to do with decisions that were taken, in some cases about the procurement routes, between Ministers and of?cials at the time about the way it was chosen to procure—

Q27 Mr Bacon: You are answering a question that is not the question I asked. You are giving me an explanation of how we reached this position through decisions having been taken. Plainly, some decisions must have been taken for us to end up in a particular position. There must have been bad decisions for us to end up in a particularly bad position such as this one. My question is who has paid the penalty for this in the Ministry of Defence? It’s a simple question. Who?

Ursula Brennan: I can’t point the ?nger at one person, because there isn’t one person who was responsible for the different sets of decisions that were taken about individual vehicles.

Mr Bacon: Is there anybody who has paid the penalty for this?

Vice-Admiral Lambert: If I can—

Mr Bacon: No, no, no. I am looking at Ms Brennan. I am asking her a question. She is the accounting of?cer. She is the permanent secretary. My question stands; I’ve asked it three or four times now. It is very simple and very clear. Is there anybody in the Ministry of Defence who has paid a penalty for this?

Ursula Brennan: No. I don’t think I can point the ?nger at anybody

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Can I add to the 'cost of Trident replacement' debate? Its like the 'cost of the F35' arguments. People confuse the costs of building and supplying a major Defence system with the service life costs of maintenance, operations and upgrades.

The [MoD] has said it will cost £17.5bn to £23.4bn to procure the replacement system at 2013-14 prices. Of that between £12.9bn and £16.4bn would be spent on the submarines themselves.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-scotland-32236184

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Not like you to dodge a question!

First off, it ain't sprialling. You're just mixing different estimates of different things from a mixture of credible and idiotic sources.

You're welcome to your opinion that it's irrelevant.

Allow me to try another way, do you agree with the SNP that scrapping trident would save "£100bn to ease austerity measures"?

A yes or no with suffice.

And that's a straw man :P

Where's your mate from Bracknell when I need him? "

Hiding his light under a bushel, I suspect

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury

"Can I add to the 'cost of Trident replacement' debate? Its like the 'cost of the F35' arguments. People confuse the costs of building and supplying a major Defence system with the service life costs of maintenance, operations and upgrades.

The [MoD] has said it will cost £17.5bn to £23.4bn to procure the replacement system at 2013-14 prices. Of that between £12.9bn and £16.4bn would be spent on the submarines themselves.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-scotland-32236184

There is the initial cost of the subs, the cost of the warheads and then operating costs/personnel over the lifetime.*

* that value of your defence spending may go up as well as down

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *razedcatMan
over a year ago

London / Herts

Nuclear weapons are stupid.

NATO is stupid.

Borders are stupid.

We're all pretty stupid.

But at this advanced stage, it's simply a case of waiting to see who backs down first, and who will exploit that...a lot of of states, I suspect

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Nuclear weapons are stupid.

NATO is stupid.

Borders are stupid.

We're all pretty stupid.

But at this advanced stage, it's simply a case of waiting to see who backs down first, and who will exploit that...a lot of of states, I suspect

At least the loser can have a hot defence lawyer though...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *inky-MinxWoman
over a year ago

Grantham

"UK armed forces are severely stretched over Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as peaceful deployments elsewhere. We can't fight any more wars 'cos we haven't got enough toy soldiers and boats, or planes. "

There's all the guys in the TA

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

1st we must pay for it 2 millions a year.

2nd if we don't want to feed our army 100% we will feed somebody's else twice as ours

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *inky-MinxWoman
over a year ago

Grantham

I've met Ken Livingston, he's small and kind of slimey

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *eavenNhellCouple
over a year ago

carrbrook stalybridge

we dont have an army we have a defense force anything less than 80,000 men is just that

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"we dont have an army we have a defense force anything less than 80,000 men is just that "

Must get back national service there is plenty youngsters on the streets

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *razedcatMan
over a year ago

London / Herts

"Nuclear weapons are stupid.

NATO is stupid.

Borders are stupid.

We're all pretty stupid.

But at this advanced stage, it's simply a case of waiting to see who backs down first, and who will exploit that...a lot of of states, I suspect

At least the loser can have a hot defence lawyer though... "

Hmm yes, Amal Clooney XD

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury

"we dont have an army we have a defense force anything less than 80,000 men is just that

Must get back national service there is plenty youngsters on the streets "

Someone had to say it!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"we dont have an army we have a defense force anything less than 80,000 men is just that

Must get back national service there is plenty youngsters on the streets "

As if the Army want the rif raf from our streets!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"we dont have an army we have a defense force anything less than 80,000 men is just that

Must get back national service there is plenty youngsters on the streets

As if the Army want the rif raf from our streets! "

That's true. I been and can say not too bad

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Nuclear weapons are stupid.

NATO is stupid.

Borders are stupid.

We're all pretty stupid.

But at this advanced stage, it's simply a case of waiting to see who backs down first, and who will exploit that...a lot of of states, I suspect

? At least the loser can have a hot defence lawyer though...

Hmm yes, Amal Clooney XD"

So so. I doubt there will be many people lining up to be assad's defence. Dream big, get him off and you too could be a Kardashian.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Nuclear weapons are stupid.

NATO is stupid.

Borders are stupid.

We're all pretty stupid.

But at this advanced stage, it's simply a case of waiting to see who backs down first, and who will exploit that...a lot of of states, I suspect

? At least the loser can have a hot defence lawyer though...

Hmm yes, Amal Clooney XD

So so. I doubt there will be many people lining up to be assad's defence. Dream big, get him off and you too could be a Kardashian."

There's no assad or Kardashian there is USA

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Nuclear weapons are stupid.

NATO is stupid.

Borders are stupid.

We're all pretty stupid.

But at this advanced stage, it's simply a case of waiting to see who backs down first, and who will exploit that...a lot of of states, I suspect

? At least the loser can have a hot defence lawyer though...

Hmm yes, Amal Clooney XD

So so. I doubt there will be many people lining up to be assad's defence. Dream big, get him off and you too could be a Kardashian.

There's no assad or Kardashian there is USA "

You don't think the Kardashians are the ones pulling the strings in the middle east?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Nuclear weapons are stupid.

NATO is stupid.

Borders are stupid.

We're all pretty stupid.

But at this advanced stage, it's simply a case of waiting to see who backs down first, and who will exploit that...a lot of of states, I suspect

? At least the loser can have a hot defence lawyer though...

Hmm yes, Amal Clooney XD

So so. I doubt there will be many people lining up to be assad's defence. Dream big, get him off and you too could be a Kardashian.

There's no assad or Kardashian there is USA

You don't think the Kardashians are the ones pulling the strings in the middle east? "

No they too stupid

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Nuclear weapons are stupid.

NATO is stupid.

Borders are stupid.

We're all pretty stupid.

But at this advanced stage, it's simply a case of waiting to see who backs down first, and who will exploit that...a lot of of states, I suspect

? At least the loser can have a hot defence lawyer though...

Hmm yes, Amal Clooney XD

So so. I doubt there will be many people lining up to be assad's defence. Dream big, get him off and you too could be a Kardashian.

There's no assad or Kardashian there is USA

You don't think the Kardashians are the ones pulling the strings in the middle east?

No they too stupid

Stupid is as stupid does.... which I guess makes them stupid, except Robert, that glove line was genius.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *razedcatMan
over a year ago

London / Herts

"Nuclear weapons are stupid.

NATO is stupid.

Borders are stupid.

We're all pretty stupid.

But at this advanced stage, it's simply a case of waiting to see who backs down first, and who will exploit that...a lot of of states, I suspect

? At least the loser can have a hot defence lawyer though...

Hmm yes, Amal Clooney XD

So so. I doubt there will be many people lining up to be assad's defence. Dream big, get him off and you too could be a Kardashian.

There's no assad or Kardashian there is USA

You don't think the Kardashians are the ones pulling the strings in the middle east? "

*gasp* it all makes sense now! XD

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Nuclear weapons are stupid.

NATO is stupid.

Borders are stupid.

We're all pretty stupid.

But at this advanced stage, it's simply a case of waiting to see who backs down first, and who will exploit that...a lot of of states, I suspect

? At least the loser can have a hot defence lawyer though...

Hmm yes, Amal Clooney XD

So so. I doubt there will be many people lining up to be assad's defence. Dream big, get him off and you too could be a Kardashian.

There's no assad or Kardashian there is USA

You don't think the Kardashians are the ones pulling the strings in the middle east?

*gasp* it all makes sense now! XD"

Tell me you loved the glove line, I know you did - didn't you, didn't you

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *razedcatMan
over a year ago

London / Herts

*gasp* it all makes sense now! XD

Tell me you loved the glove line, I know you did - didn't you, didn't you"

I'm a law student, of course I did XD

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

*gasp* it all makes sense now! XD

Tell me you loved the glove line, I know you did - didn't you, didn't you

I'm a law student, of course I did XD"

It made me want to be a law student... almost

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago

dress it up how you want but everyone who isn't a complete idiot can clearly see the dictatorship of ca-MORON and co have been and continue to run down the armed forces (as well as eveything else in this country) and it started by scrapping billions of pounds worth of brand new planes, leaving us without sea-bourne air defence in the interim, huge cuts to personnel, equipment etc. we'll never see as big a bellend as ca-MORON ..... but then saying that there's legions of other complete bellends who support him and voted for him.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"dress it up how you want but everyone who isn't a complete idiot can clearly see the dictatorship of ca-MORON and co have been and continue to run down the armed forces (as well as eveything else in this country) and it started by scrapping billions of pounds worth of brand new planes, leaving us without sea-bourne air defence in the interim, huge cuts to personnel, equipment etc. we'll never see as big a bellend as ca-MORON ..... but then saying that there's legions of other complete bellends who support him and voted for him.

Name calling, the pinnacle of debating sophistication

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury

Name calling, the pinnacle of debating sophistication"

You have a way of bringing it out of people tho'

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Name calling, the pinnacle of debating sophistication

You have a way of bringing it out of people tho'

Shut up you carrot cruncher

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago

i wasn't debating

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"i wasn't debating "

OK well next time you need to release anger just consider having a wank

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury

"i wasn't debating

OK well next time you need to release anger just consider having a wank"

Flexing those intellectual muscles, I see

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *its_n_piecesCouple
over a year ago

i wasn't releasing anger

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"i wasn't debating

OK well next time you need to release anger just consider having a wank

Flexing those intellectual muscles, I see

Actually that was a line I stole from you on another thread, take it as a compliment, I thought it was funny

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury

"i wasn't debating

OK well next time you need to release anger just consider having a wank

Flexing those intellectual muscles, I see

Actually that was a line I stole from you on another thread, take it as a compliment, I thought it was funny"

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ust RachelTV/TS
over a year ago

Horsham

I think the way things are going NATO might say no to us, sadly we are no longer the formidable force we once were. I do believe that we should stay in NATO, if only for own defence sale.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

As Oscar Wilde observed:

"Abuse is the refuge of the witless"

And

"I would love to have a battle of wits with you but I fear you are totally lacking"

And as Mr Cameron might say:

" I would refer the Honourable Gentleman to the reply I gave earlier .."

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So it looks as though Ken Livingstone can't see the value of staying in NATO, or having a nuclear deterrent.

I think it's going to be very worrying to imagine what the military would look like under Labour.

Do you think we would still have a proper military under Labour and should we stay in NATO or go it alone?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35251427

The conventional armed forces are being bled white for the sake of a Cold War 'deterrent' that we will never use. "

That's the point

We don't use it

Deterrent - Mutual assured destruction

Also keep UK at the top table in the international arena

We need it - no matter what the tree hungers say

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So it looks as though Ken Livingstone can't see the value of staying in NATO, or having a nuclear deterrent.

I think it's going to be very worrying to imagine what the military would look like under Labour.

Do you think we would still have a proper military under Labour and should we stay in NATO or go it alone?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35251427

The conventional armed forces are being bled white for the sake of a Cold War 'deterrent' that we will never use.

That's the point

We don't use it

Deterrent - Mutual assured destruction

Also keep UK at the top table in the international arena

We need it - no matter what the tree hungers say "

Oh my knight in shining armour, we were wondering where for art thou. Joe was missing you...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So it looks as though Ken Livingstone can't see the value of staying in NATO, or having a nuclear deterrent.

I think it's going to be very worrying to imagine what the military would look like under Labour.

Do you think we would still have a proper military under Labour and should we stay in NATO or go it alone?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35251427

The conventional armed forces are being bled white for the sake of a Cold War 'deterrent' that we will never use.

That's the point

We don't use it

Deterrent - Mutual assured destruction

Also keep UK at the top table in the international arena

We need it - no matter what the tree hungers say

Oh my knight in shining armour, we were wondering where for art thou. Joe was missing you... "
huh?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So it looks as though Ken Livingstone can't see the value of staying in NATO, or having a nuclear deterrent.

I think it's going to be very worrying to imagine what the military would look like under Labour.

Do you think we would still have a proper military under Labour and should we stay in NATO or go it alone?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35251427

The conventional armed forces are being bled white for the sake of a Cold War 'deterrent' that we will never use.

That's the point

We don't use it

Deterrent - Mutual assured destruction

Also keep UK at the top table in the international arena

We need it - no matter what the tree hungers say

Oh my knight in shining armour, we were wondering where for art thou. Joe was missing you... huh?"

Somewhere in the middle of the thread the subject of a £167bn figure was getting a lot of attention and I asked why you hadn't joined the debate yet.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So it looks as though Ken Livingstone can't see the value of staying in NATO, or having a nuclear deterrent.

I think it's going to be very worrying to imagine what the military would look like under Labour.

Do you think we would still have a proper military under Labour and should we stay in NATO or go it alone?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35251427

The conventional armed forces are being bled white for the sake of a Cold War 'deterrent' that we will never use.

That's the point

We don't use it

Deterrent - Mutual assured destruction

Also keep UK at the top table in the international arena

We need it - no matter what the tree hungers say

Oh my knight in shining armour, we were wondering where for art thou. Joe was missing you... huh?

Somewhere in the middle of the thread the subject of a £167bn figure was getting a lot of attention and I asked why you hadn't joined the debate yet. "

There was no link was there? Or did someone created a wiki page and list it as a fact?

Been busy on call of duty today - sorry I wasn't around to satisfy your need for smart comments x

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *etsorderpizzaMan
over a year ago

dyce

Jeremy Corbyn the communist!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So it looks as though Ken Livingstone can't see the value of staying in NATO, or having a nuclear deterrent.

I think it's going to be very worrying to imagine what the military would look like under Labour.

Do you think we would still have a proper military under Labour and should we stay in NATO or go it alone?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35251427

The conventional armed forces are being bled white for the sake of a Cold War 'deterrent' that we will never use.

That's the point

We don't use it

Deterrent - Mutual assured destruction

Also keep UK at the top table in the international arena

We need it - no matter what the tree hungers say

Oh my knight in shining armour, we were wondering where for art thou. Joe was missing you... huh?

Somewhere in the middle of the thread the subject of a £167bn figure was getting a lot of attention and I asked why you hadn't joined the debate yet.

There was no link was there? Or did someone created a wiki page and list it as a fact?

Been busy on call of duty today - sorry I wasn't around to satisfy your need for smart comments x "

Well it came from lobbyist groups so about as reliable as official North Korea state media. Even they had to basically include the running of the Royal Navy in their figures to get it over £100bn.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It becomes academic if we do or do not have a successor to the Vanguard subs we have now because both Corbyn and Thornberry have said they wouldn't use it if we were daft enough to elect the unelectable ...

I can see the Labour Party going further and further Left and either a new party emerging or a wipe out in 4 years time ...

Which, while I would be most happy to see that Leftie slapped down isn't good for Democracy.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ethnmelvCouple
over a year ago

Cardiff

As i recall after the break up of the Soviet Union, Ukraine was left with a large nuclear arsenal. Through agreement between Russia, Ukraine, Uk and the US, Ukraine agreed to unilaterally destroy its nuclear weapons on the proviso that its territorial integrity was guaranteed by these parties. Sadly the Russians renaged on tjis agreement and invaded Crimea and East Ukraine.

Perhaps nuclear weapons don't prevent bad things happening, but if you have a bully as a neighbour you might want to think twice about giving up a means of discouraging him.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"So it looks as though Ken Livingstone can't see the value of staying in NATO, or having a nuclear deterrent.

I think it's going to be very worrying to imagine what the military would look like under Labour.

Do you think we would still have a proper military under Labour and should we stay in NATO or go it alone?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35251427

omg!!

We must stay firm.

facts? fat lot of good nato was when paris was attacked

^ is my point.

By ploughing resources in to nuclear weapons we risk being unable to deploy conventional forces where they are needed.

Toy soldiers?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"As i recall after the break up of the Soviet Union, Ukraine was left with a large nuclear arsenal. Through agreement between Russia, Ukraine, Uk and the US, Ukraine agreed to unilaterally destroy its nuclear weapons on the proviso that its territorial integrity was guaranteed by these parties. Sadly the Russians renaged on tjis agreement and invaded Crimea and East Ukraine.

Perhaps nuclear weapons don't prevent bad things happening, but if you have a bully as a neighbour you might want to think twice about giving up a means of discouraging him."

Yup, South Korea would have done in the north long ago if they didn't have nukes

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Perhaps nuclear weapons don't prevent bad things happening, but if you have a bully as a neighbour you might want to think twice about giving up a means of discouraging him."

You watching TV to much. Russia invaded Crimea cos 95% people want it. No russian troops in Ukraine. Kiev fights with his own people. That's the truth! Bbc cnn and all big tv just shows what they want to make you hate Russia.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Perhaps nuclear weapons don't prevent bad things happening, but if you have a bully as a neighbour you might want to think twice about giving up a means of discouraging him.

Hmmmm according to Wikipedia :

According to the (2001 census), the ethnic makeup of Crimea's population consists of the following self-reported groups: Russians:1.18 million (58.3%), Ukrainians: 492,200 (24.3%), Crimean Tatars: 243,400 (12.0%), Belarusians: 29,200 (1.4%), other Tatars: 11,000 (0.5%), Armenians: 8,700 (0.4%).

So I'm actually surprised that 95% want to realign themselves with Russia

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Perhaps nuclear weapons don't prevent bad things happening, but if you have a bully as a neighbour you might want to think twice about giving up a means of discouraging him.

To be fair, whether people want it or not, Russia should not risk potentially having a NATO member less than 10km from their border.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *alandNitaCouple
over a year ago

Scunthorpe

Wouldn't it be great if WE were the first step towards Global Nuclear Dissamament?

In reality, it would have no impact on the UK's defences if we didn't have Nukes. The likes of NATA and the UN would do the "Chest Beating" and "Posturing" on our behalf. Obviously if things did come down to these things being fired we're all dead anyway....

Cal

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago

Titz Towers, North Notts

I've just been listening to that wonderful episode of Yes, Prime Minister where the logic of nuclear weapons is discussed. It's still wonderfully relevant.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ethnmelvCouple
over a year ago

Cardiff

Perhaps nuclear weapons don't prevent bad things happening, but if you have a bully as a neighbour you might want to think twice about giving up a means of discouraging him.

Not really a tv driven argument. Russia committed to defend Ukraines territorial integrity so long as they gave up Nukes. Ukraine gave up Nukes and when Russia didn't like what was happening in Ukraine they decided to invade, pretending it wasn't them! & as another post shows, your grasp on maths is poor with the percentage wanting to be invaded! The argument here is not I voted to be invaded, but would not have been less likely if Ukraine had Nukes?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Wouldn't it be great if WE were the first step towards Global Nuclear Dissamament?

If you read the thread instead of spewing propoganda you'd see that Ukraine already took the first step...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

We may get armed forces suitably equipped for the treats of the 21st century. The Tories have recently bought Spy aircraft that don't use the same in air refuelling system as the TAF use, we are building 2 aircraft carriers but won't have planes for them until 3 years after the ships are launched. Don't believe the anti-Corbin media he has gone on record as saying he would modernise the military (he has the backing of ex generals on this).

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"The Tories have recently bought Spy aircraft that don't use the same in air refuelling system as the TAF use, we are building 2 aircraft carriers but won't have planes for them until 3 years after the ships are launched "

Oh wow are we in lala land, point scoring or trying to have a serious discussion here? I assume you mean my old mob the RAF? Right lets be clear our 14 new Voyager MRTTs are all drogue type refuellers. They can be retro-fitted with rear fuselage ARBS probes if needed as its all 'plumbed in'. The RAAF already use both systems on their MRTTs. USAF aircraft use probe refuelling. We don't. We use the same as the US Navy and USMC Drogue systems. A system we actually invented by the way. Our C-17s and RC-135 Rivet Joint use Probes but can be converted very easily. Our E-3D Sentry AEW1 aircraft (which are converted 707s like the RC-135) have been so converted. The new Poseidons will have no A2A capability but will be 'plumbed in' for our Drogue system if we choose to add it later but they all have internal range sufficient for the Ops on which we will use them.

As for the QE Carriers they will have the aircraft they need when they finish sea trials and Commissioning. When they are 'launched' is of no relevance although the QE was actually 'floated up' (as will PoW). She goes to see early this year and will have first aircraft trials late this year or early 2017. Full fixed wing air IOC for these ships was scheduled around the arrival of the new F35B aircraft and THAT is what will happen but we will use them for a wide variety of operations for which we already have the men and aircraft.

The media are not anti-Corbyn. God forbid the BBC should speak out the truth against its Luvvie lefties in Labour! Corbyn and his cronies are being judged by their previous history, speeches and actions. He is a unilateralist disarmer and has just appointed Thornberry who thinks likewise to Defence as he removed Eagle for supporting Trident. He appointed Livingstone who knows sod all about Defence to lead a Defence Review. He shares Livingstone's view we should get out of NATO. He 'sees no point' in the British Army. He will never use the Nuclear Deterrent. He supported the IRA (like his mate McDonnell) and thinks we should have been kinder to Bin Laden and Jihadi John. He is a key member of the 'ant-war' mob and CND. He is a Pacifist. The man is judged by HIS actions... And I can find no Generals or ex Generals who support his views at all ....

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *razedcatMan
over a year ago

London / Herts

War is dumb.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Perhaps nuclear weapons don't prevent bad things happening, but if you have a bully as a neighbour you might want to think twice about giving up a means of discouraging him.

To be fair, whether people want it or not, Russia should not risk potentially having a NATO member less than 10km from their border. "
.

That's exactly the point.

The entire Cuban missile crises was all about missiles being located to close to opponents borders.

Cuba for the Americans

And Turkey for the Russians

Both parties removed those missiles in an agreed action to stop tensions.

Last time I looked Russia hadn't put theirs back but we have!.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Perhaps nuclear weapons don't prevent bad things happening, but if you have a bully as a neighbour you might want to think twice about giving up a means of discouraging him.

To be fair, whether people want it or not, Russia should not risk potentially having a NATO member less than 10km from their border. .

That's exactly the point.

The entire Cuban missile crises was all about missiles being located to close to opponents borders.

Cuba for the Americans

And Turkey for the Russians

Both parties removed those missiles in an agreed action to stop tensions.

Last time I looked Russia hadn't put theirs back but we have!."

Good so you agree all the talk that goes with it is bollocks? It does matter whether the people want it or not, who started what or whichever fecking name it's done in, it's just one piece of land too close to another piece of land and that's the bottom line...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

To be fair, Ken Livingstone knows sod all about most things. He is an authentic prolateriat, I'll give him that, but when he speaks you realise that he's just not all that bright.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Perhaps nuclear weapons don't prevent bad things happening, but if you have a bully as a neighbour you might want to think twice about giving up a means of discouraging him.

To be fair, whether people want it or not, Russia should not risk potentially having a NATO member less than 10km from their border. .

That's exactly the point.

The entire Cuban missile crises was all about missiles being located to close to opponents borders.

Cuba for the Americans

And Turkey for the Russians

Both parties removed those missiles in an agreed action to stop tensions.

Last time I looked Russia hadn't put theirs back but we have!.

I totally agree.

Nuclear weapons serve one purpose for the main five, they get you a seat on the big table, and none of those five are going to give them up, for that reason alone!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Perhaps nuclear weapons don't prevent bad things happening, but if you have a bully as a neighbour you might want to think twice about giving up a means of discouraging him.

To be fair, whether people want it or not, Russia should not risk potentially having a NATO member less than 10km from their border. .

That's exactly the point.

The entire Cuban missile crises was all about missiles being located to close to opponents borders.

Cuba for the Americans

And Turkey for the Russians

Both parties removed those missiles in an agreed action to stop tensions.

Last time I looked Russia hadn't put theirs back but we have!.

I totally agree.

Nuclear weapons serve one purpose for the main five, they get you a seat on the big table, and none of those five are going to give them up, for that reason alone!"

So you're on one thread agreeing with realist principles of international relations theory and on another agreeing we should all hold hands and do away with national borders. That's why I asked if you were schizophrenic!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Hi chalk, I've never voted labour/nor considered doing that. So I've no dog in that particular fight - but to deny the media is doing a hatchet job on Corbyn is just ignoring what's in front of your eyes.

They tried it before he got elected , and continue to do so since he became leader. It's pretty obvious no?

Admittedly I don't use/watch:read bbc - but mail and guardian have both been at him for months.. and that's the only media I read online -so 100% of my tiny sample!

Might be worth a few minutes asking yourself why this is.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *vsnikkiTV/TS
over a year ago

Limavady

I was in the army in the 80's and very conscious of public political views on NATO. While most soldiers believed that Labour generally paid the army better, than the Conservatives, their NATO and nuclear policies would have been disastrous. Luckily the public had similar views and Labour only got elected after revising them.

I bet the Tories are glad Corbyn is the new leader and hope he stands up for what he believes.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

They tried it before he got elected , and continue to do so since he became leader. It's pretty obvious no?

Admittedly I don't use/watch:read bbc - but mail and guardian have both been at him for months.. and that's the only media I read online -so 100% of my tiny sample!

Might be worth a few minutes asking yourself why this is.

I don't find it obvious no, please give some examples of when he gets treated worse than Dave "Piggy" Cameron?

I think it's his own mouth that does the damage personally. The media don't need to misquote him, just let him explain his policies and he'll list of the 1983 labour manifesto! It didn't work then and it definately hasn't gotten better over time...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I was in the army in the 80's and very conscious of public political views on NATO. While most soldiers believed that Labour generally paid the army better, than the Conservatives, their NATO and nuclear policies would have been disastrous. Luckily the public had similar views and Labour only got elected after revising them.

I bet the Tories are glad Corbyn is the new leader and hope he stands up for what he believes."

How is soldiers pay negotiated? It comes out of the same ~£40bn defence budget that trident comes out of, so if that goes down then isn't it inevitable the front line take the pay hit?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm not saying he gets worse than Cameron , nor denying that he may well talk a bit of tosh.

But he's def getting done over by the media - most days it's a succession of stories, on both those sites - about how dangerous he could be. commentators , ex ministers , fairly senior ex ministers at that. Some are fair pints, where they may criticize his stance - others are more what you might call subliminal. A constant drip drip of how useless he is.

If its fair to deduce a media org agenda as being reflected in the stories they print and give prominence to- he's a problem for them.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *dwalu2Couple
over a year ago

Bristol

"I say nay to NATO. .

I've never understood the philosophy of it, I mean you only have to look at military alliances and how that started ww1 to see they don't!.

If you have one alliance that's much bigger than the other, then natural tendencies of bullying will take place through human nature surely.

Are Russia a threat or are they being bullied into grabbing neighbouring countries for protection from NATO?.

Why does it come as a surprise, it's exactly what they did after ww2 when they felt threatened by a once again free Germany...

You think that NATO is planning on invading Russia? You are seriously out of touch with geopolitics.

you think russia is planning on invading nato then?

No I don't, they wouldn't have invaded Georgia or Ukraine had they been members."

If you think that the US s going to start WW3 to protect Georgia, Ukraine, or any Eastern European country, you are very mistaken.

The only reason NATO membership was extended to so many countries is that short-sighted politicians believed that Russia would always be weak. Now it's strong, they have no idea what to do.

The truth is that Russia could expand all the way up to West Germany and there is literally nothing NATO could do about it...except begin the apocalypse. And that will not happen.

Luckily for word peace, Putin is a much more canny political operator than anyone else leading a significant world power today. He'll take what he deems useful whenever he wants to, without pushing the West into an impossible position. Humiliating definitely, but impossible, no.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I'm not saying he gets worse than Cameron , nor denying that he may well talk a bit of tosh.

If its fair to deduce a media org agenda as being reflected in the stories they print and give prominence to- he's a problem for them. "

I think the media trash all our politicians reasonably well. It's not like they have noticed that George Osborne got elected by promising to eliminate the deficit, failed and then ran again on exactly the same pledge!

The only politicians that have gotten off lightly in recent years, in my opinion, are:

1) Bill Clinton for helping the 2008 crash by signing it the financial services modernization act

2) Donald Rumsfeld for signing off the de-baathification policy of Iraq that helped create ISIS

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I say nay to NATO. .

I've never understood the philosophy of it, I mean you only have to look at military alliances and how that started ww1 to see they don't!.

If you have one alliance that's much bigger than the other, then natural tendencies of bullying will take place through human nature surely.

Are Russia a threat or are they being bullied into grabbing neighbouring countries for protection from NATO?.

Why does it come as a surprise, it's exactly what they did after ww2 when they felt threatened by a once again free Germany...

You think that NATO is planning on invading Russia? You are seriously out of touch with geopolitics.

you think russia is planning on invading nato then?

No I don't, they wouldn't have invaded Georgia or Ukraine had they been members.

If you think that the US s going to start WW3 to protect Georgia, Ukraine, or any Eastern European country, you are very mistaken.

The only reason NATO membership was extended to so many countries is that short-sighted politicians believed that Russia would always be weak. Now it's strong, they have no idea what to do.

The truth is that Russia could expand all the way up to West Germany and there is literally nothing NATO could do about it...except begin the apocalypse. And that will not happen.

Very good analysis

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Perhaps nuclear weapons don't prevent bad things happening, but if you have a bully as a neighbour you might want to think twice about giving up a means of discouraging him.

To be fair, whether people want it or not, Russia should not risk potentially having a NATO member less than 10km from their border. .

That's exactly the point.

The entire Cuban missile crises was all about missiles being located to close to opponents borders.

Cuba for the Americans

And Turkey for the Russians

Both parties removed those missiles in an agreed action to stop tensions.

Last time I looked Russia hadn't put theirs back but we have!.

I totally agree.

Nuclear weapons serve one purpose for the main five, they get you a seat on the big table, and none of those five are going to give them up, for that reason alone!

Not me gov!, you've got me confused.

But I still could be schizo

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *dwalu2Couple
over a year ago

Bristol

The media are not anti-Corbyn.

I don't find it obvious no, please give some examples of when he gets treated worse than Dave "Piggy" Cameron?

Itwas actually specifically proven that the media have systematically attacked Corbyn by the Media Reform Coalition.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11/26/jeremy-corbyn-media-coverage_n_8653886.html

Good luck finding a similar level of attacks on Cameron. But he is protecting the vested interests of the people who own the media, so unless you are unfamiliar with reality, why would you?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Perhaps nuclear weapons don't prevent bad things happening, but if you have a bully as a neighbour you might want to think twice about giving up a means of discouraging him.

To be fair, whether people want it or not, Russia should not risk potentially having a NATO member less than 10km from their border. .

That's exactly the point.

The entire Cuban missile crises was all about missiles being located to close to opponents borders.

Cuba for the Americans

And Turkey for the Russians

Both parties removed those missiles in an agreed action to stop tensions.

Last time I looked Russia hadn't put theirs back but we have!.

I totally agree.

Nuclear weapons serve one purpose for the main five, they get you a seat on the big table, and none of those five are going to give them up, for that reason alone!

Not me gov!, you've got me confused.

But I still could be schizo

Nations vrs Earth and you agree with everything the OP said!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The media are not anti-Corbyn.

I don't find it obvious no, please give some examples of when he gets treated worse than Dave "Piggy" Cameron?

Itwas actually specifically proven that the media have systematically attacked Corbyn by the Media Reform Coalition.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11/26/jeremy-corbyn-media-coverage_n_8653886.html

Good luck finding a similar level of attacks on Cameron. But he is protecting the vested interests of the people who own the media, so unless you are unfamiliar with reality, why would you?

Hooray facts!

1) only 11% of guardian articles about him were negative so perhaps nohurry would like the withdraw the allegation that the guardian has done him in

2) obviously the right wing press aren't going to like him! The BBC is the missing elephant in the room. So this just proves that the Telegraph and Daily Mail hate him and the Guardian love him.

3) 60% negativity probably reflects how the voting public see him given that 90% of his policies are re-harshed from 1983 and 68% of the voters didn't back them then.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Perhaps nuclear weapons don't prevent bad things happening, but if you have a bully as a neighbour you might want to think twice about giving up a means of discouraging him.

To be fair, whether people want it or not, Russia should not risk potentially having a NATO member less than 10km from their border. .

That's exactly the point.

The entire Cuban missile crises was all about missiles being located to close to opponents borders.

Cuba for the Americans

And Turkey for the Russians

Both parties removed those missiles in an agreed action to stop tensions.

Last time I looked Russia hadn't put theirs back but we have!.

I totally agree.

Nuclear weapons serve one purpose for the main five, they get you a seat on the big table, and none of those five are going to give them up, for that reason alone!

Not me gov!, you've got me confused.

But I still could be schizo

Nations vrs Earth and you agree with everything the OP said! "
.

Ohhh yeah I agree that it would be best..

Then I said it's got fuck all chance of happening and that I really don't think it's worth going out of our way to save most humans as most of them are fucking nuts!.

What I would like and what I think will happen are two completely different things!

Would the world be a better place without nuclear weapons.. Obviously!.

Do I think it's going to happen.. No fucking chance.

Your right through I could be schizo

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Perhaps nuclear weapons don't prevent bad things happening, but if you have a bully as a neighbour you might want to think twice about giving up a means of discouraging him.

To be fair, whether people want it or not, Russia should not risk potentially having a NATO member less than 10km from their border. .

That's exactly the point.

The entire Cuban missile crises was all about missiles being located to close to opponents borders.

Cuba for the Americans

And Turkey for the Russians

Both parties removed those missiles in an agreed action to stop tensions.

Last time I looked Russia hadn't put theirs back but we have!.

I totally agree.

Nuclear weapons serve one purpose for the main five, they get you a seat on the big table, and none of those five are going to give them up, for that reason alone!

Not me gov!, you've got me confused.

But I still could be schizo

Nations vrs Earth and you agree with everything the OP said! .

Ohhh yeah I agree that it would be best..

Then I said it's got fuck all chance of happening and that I really don't think it's worth going out of our way to save most humans as most of them are fucking nuts!.

What I would like and what I think will happen are two completely different things!

Would the world be a better place without nuclear weapons.. Obviously!.

Do I think it's going to happen.. No fucking chance.

Your right through I could be schizo

I don't like the idea and I'm glad it won't happen. Anyone who wants to live in a utopia can fuck off to North Korea.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iamondjoeMan
over a year ago

Glastonbury

"I don't like the idea and I'm glad it won't happen. Anyone who wants to live in a utopia can fuck off to North Korea. "

Better than Saudi, I hear

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I don't like the idea and I'm glad it won't happen. Anyone who wants to live in a utopia can fuck off to North Korea.

Better than Saudi, I hear

Less nuclear radiation in Saudi I believe

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *vsnikkiTV/TS
over a year ago

Limavady

I bet the Tories are glad Corbyn is the new leader and hope he stands up for what he believes.

How is soldiers pay negotiated? It comes out of the same ~£40bn defence budget that trident comes out of, so if that goes down then isn't it inevitable the front line take the pay hit? "

No. Not sure about now, but certainly in the 70s and 80's, the pay was a governmental decision with a recommendation by the Armed Forces Pay Review Board. It wasn't a set percentage of the total defence budget. Not really relevant to the thread.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I don't like the idea and I'm glad it won't happen. Anyone who wants to live in a utopia can fuck off to North Korea.

Better than Saudi, I hear

Less nuclear radiation in Saudi I believe"
.

Still less than Iraq, from all the depleted uranium like

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I don't like the idea and I'm glad it won't happen. Anyone who wants to live in a utopia can fuck off to North Korea.

Better than Saudi, I hear

Less nuclear radiation in Saudi I believe.

Still less than Iraq, from all the depleted uranium like

Well we shut the munitions factories and had stock piles to use up... can't have it siting around now can we

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread