Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Plus this government has a history of wasting vast amounts of money " Unlike the others...  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Police helicopters and other surveillance around here in central London. Big brother amassing bigger data. " So if some of them break of and burn your car and trash your house or work, you would be happy that there was not cctv of the perpetrators? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Plus this government has a history of wasting vast amounts of money Unlike the others... "so you're saying that because that's what previous governments did it's ok for the present government to continue the money wastage? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"scrap it and lose a high end technology base with all the skills and people who will emigrate and pay taxes abroad while we import low end unskilled immigrants to replace them . just a thought.. "Or we could just put them to better use - like creating stuff that isn't designed to fuck up people and places. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Plus this government has a history of wasting vast amounts of money Unlike the others...
so you're saying that because that's what previous governments did it's ok for the present government to continue the money wastage?"Not at all, it was just the way it was put... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"your right thats why netpol ran a campaign after a high ranking met officer said covering your face at a demo is a sensible precaution and we should have the right to protect ourselves from monitoring so last year we handed out 4000 free bandanas at j20 " Which is fine until a Section 60 is put in place... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Full respect to the marchers. At least some will get on to their feet, for the benefit of us all - even if we don't agree with them. Police helicopters and other surveillance around here in central London. Big brother amassing bigger data. Trident isn't the right way for us to be spending atm. That money would be better invested in searches for new antibiotics, as one example. We're so close to being unable to stop infections from routine operations, it's scary. We're not going to be able to fire at Russia or despots anyway." . So many huge problems are on the horizon that it's daunting... And when faced with that and having no answers the solution is drill baby drill or bomb baby bomb stuff that makes the headlines constantly are rarely actually huge problems. There's probably about 2% of the population that are actually aware of the real systemic problems that are existential threats to the human race and there 10 to 40 years away!!. I tend to think we're like turkeys in October, getting fat on corn and thinking ahhh xmas is miles away | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Plus this government has a history of wasting vast amounts of money Unlike the others...
so you're saying that because that's what previous governments did it's ok for the present government to continue the money wastage?"I think they are highlighting that it's a relative scale. Wasting money is kind of what governments specialise in, the only question is what % they waste. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Plus this government has a history of wasting vast amounts of money Unlike the others...
so you're saying that because that's what previous governments did it's ok for the present government to continue the money wastage?
I think they are highlighting that it's a relative scale. Wasting money is kind of what governments specialise in, the only question is what % they waste. ". According to George best he spent his money on women and gambling, the rest he just squandered... And so we get on to how you squander the money, as long as it goes into general circulation, is it possible to squander it? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Plus this government has a history of wasting vast amounts of money Unlike the others...
so you're saying that because that's what previous governments did it's ok for the present government to continue the money wastage?
I think they are highlighting that it's a relative scale. Wasting money is kind of what governments specialise in, the only question is what % they waste. .
According to George best he spent his money on women and gambling, the rest he just squandered...
And so we get on to how you squander the money, as long as it goes into general circulation, is it possible to squander it?"Yes, a common economic fallacy of the left is the multiplier effect bullshit. Simply put, living standards are only actually improved with improvements in productivity. Therefore, money is either spent in a way that improves or does not improve productivity. Where it improved productivity, we should also ask if it is improving the productivity of useful stuff or shit we don't need. In other words, it's hard to deliberately squander money on stuff like medical research but you it's very easy to squander money on beauracratic processes that don't achieve anything / paperwork exercises. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Plus this government has a history of wasting vast amounts of money Unlike the others... "yep and others | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Plus this government has a history of wasting vast amounts of money Unlike the others... yep and others"cant find any reference to how many people were there...aside from the organisers' estimate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"scrap it and lose a high end technology base with all the skills and people who will emigrate and pay taxes abroad while we import low end unskilled immigrants to replace them . just a thought.. "research and build anti missile defence? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Plus this government has a history of wasting vast amounts of money Unlike the others...
so you're saying that because that's what previous governments did it's ok for the present government to continue the money wastage?
I think they are highlighting that it's a relative scale. Wasting money is kind of what governments specialise in, the only question is what % they waste. .
According to George best he spent his money on women and gambling, the rest he just squandered...
And so we get on to how you squander the money, as long as it goes into general circulation, is it possible to squander it?
Yes, a common economic fallacy of the left is the multiplier effect bullshit. Simply put, living standards are only actually improved with improvements in productivity. Therefore, money is either spent in a way that improves or does not improve productivity. Where it improved productivity, we should also ask if it is improving the productivity of useful stuff or shit we don't need.
In other words, it's hard to deliberately squander money on stuff like medical research but you it's very easy to squander money on beauracratic processes that don't achieve anything / paperwork exercises. "Aha so it's just the left then.. I mean it's not like this current right wing government is ploughing capital into housing, which is a highly unproductive form of investment... Or nuclear weapons even which is even less unproductive as your building something that can never be used, never be seen, never be shared... If there's one thing about wars.. It certainly peaks up the productivity | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Plus this government has a history of wasting vast amounts of money Unlike the others...
so you're saying that because that's what previous governments did it's ok for the present government to continue the money wastage?
I think they are highlighting that it's a relative scale. Wasting money is kind of what governments specialise in, the only question is what % they waste. .
According to George best he spent his money on women and gambling, the rest he just squandered...
And so we get on to how you squander the money, as long as it goes into general circulation, is it possible to squander it?
Yes, a common economic fallacy of the left is the multiplier effect bullshit. Simply put, living standards are only actually improved with improvements in productivity. Therefore, money is either spent in a way that improves or does not improve productivity. Where it improved productivity, we should also ask if it is improving the productivity of useful stuff or shit we don't need.
In other words, it's hard to deliberately squander money on stuff like medical research but you it's very easy to squander money on beauracratic processes that don't achieve anything / paperwork exercises.
Aha so it's just the left then..
I mean it's not like this current right wing government is ploughing capital into housing, which is a highly unproductive form of investment... Or nuclear weapons even which is even less unproductive as your building something that can never be used, never be seen, never be shared...
If there's one thing about wars.. It certainly peaks up the productivity"In big handfuls, people waste less of their own money than other people's money. So the more money you give to governments, the more waste there will be. The Soviet Union being a fantastic example of that. The right, generally want less and smaller governments which would at least waste less money, even if some people who need other people's money, might not get it anymore. It's a relative thing though, all governments piss away money. That dumb fuck Yanis Varoufakis tried making the arguement on question time that governments can't waste money. If that was true your country wouldn't be up the shitter so much mate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Plus this government has a history of wasting vast amounts of money Unlike the others...
so you're saying that because that's what previous governments did it's ok for the present government to continue the money wastage?
I think they are highlighting that it's a relative scale. Wasting money is kind of what governments specialise in, the only question is what % they waste. .
According to George best he spent his money on women and gambling, the rest he just squandered...
And so we get on to how you squander the money, as long as it goes into general circulation, is it possible to squander it?
Yes, a common economic fallacy of the left is the multiplier effect bullshit. Simply put, living standards are only actually improved with improvements in productivity. Therefore, money is either spent in a way that improves or does not improve productivity. Where it improved productivity, we should also ask if it is improving the productivity of useful stuff or shit we don't need.
In other words, it's hard to deliberately squander money on stuff like medical research but you it's very easy to squander money on beauracratic processes that don't achieve anything / paperwork exercises. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Plus this government has a history of wasting vast amounts of money Unlike the others...
so you're saying that because that's what previous governments did it's ok for the present government to continue the money wastage?
I think they are highlighting that it's a relative scale. Wasting money is kind of what governments specialise in, the only question is what % they waste. .
According to George best he spent his money on women and gambling, the rest he just squandered...
And so we get on to how you squander the money, as long as it goes into general circulation, is it possible to squander it?
Yes, a common economic fallacy of the left is the multiplier effect bullshit. Simply put, living standards are only actually improved with improvements in productivity. Therefore, money is either spent in a way that improves or does not improve productivity. Where it improved productivity, we should also ask if it is improving the productivity of useful stuff or shit we don't need.
In other words, it's hard to deliberately squander money on stuff like medical research but you it's very easy to squander money on beauracratic processes that don't achieve anything / paperwork exercises.
Aha so it's just the left then..
I mean it's not like this current right wing government is ploughing capital into housing, which is a highly unproductive form of investment... Or nuclear weapons even which is even less unproductive as your building something that can never be used, never be seen, never be shared...
If there's one thing about wars.. It certainly peaks up the productivity""they also serve who only stand and wait" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Plus this government has a history of wasting vast amounts of money Unlike the others...
so you're saying that because that's what previous governments did it's ok for the present government to continue the money wastage?
I think they are highlighting that it's a relative scale. Wasting money is kind of what governments specialise in, the only question is what % they waste. .
According to George best he spent his money on women and gambling, the rest he just squandered...
And so we get on to how you squander the money, as long as it goes into general circulation, is it possible to squander it?
Yes, a common economic fallacy of the left is the multiplier effect bullshit. Simply put, living standards are only actually improved with improvements in productivity. Therefore, money is either spent in a way that improves or does not improve productivity. Where it improved productivity, we should also ask if it is improving the productivity of useful stuff or shit we don't need.
In other words, it's hard to deliberately squander money on stuff like medical research but you it's very easy to squander money on beauracratic processes that don't achieve anything / paperwork exercises.
Aha so it's just the left then..
I mean it's not like this current right wing government is ploughing capital into housing, which is a highly unproductive form of investment... Or nuclear weapons even which is even less unproductive as your building something that can never be used, never be seen, never be shared...
If there's one thing about wars.. It certainly peaks up the productivity
In big handfuls, people waste less of their own money than other people's money. So the more money you give to governments, the more waste there will be. The Soviet Union being a fantastic example of that. The right, generally want less and smaller governments which would at least waste less money, even if some people who need other people's money, might not get it anymore. It's a relative thing though, all governments piss away money.
That dumb fuck Yanis Varoufakis tried making the arguement on question time that governments can't waste money. If that was true your country wouldn't be up the shitter so much mate. ". But ZIRP and NIRP are just ways to increase spending, the entire economy relies upon spending, despite the bullshit trotted out by Osborne about saving.... I mean saving money in an account.. This guys a fucking lunatic and he's in charge of the economy!... Oh wait he says he doesn't want a housing bubble but then he gives out great big government deposits. He says he wants people to save but then he does everything in his power to ensure they don't!. He says he'll sort out the banks but then argues with the EU on bank reforms and bonuses. He says he'll bring in productivity increases while cutting infrastructure payments. He says he'll cut waste but then every fucking year it increases He's the guy that says one thing but does the the exact opposite... But somehow Jeremy corbyn is the loon with a bad suit?. We've spent 8 trillion as a species propping up failed banks and financial institutions while systematically destroying human rights, banging on about capitalism while at the same time seeing those very same bailed out failed industries rigging every market going. Give me freedom or give me anarchy... The chances are that either will work out better than the last 40 years of jingoism, corporatist, gerrymandering, cronyism. There is no left and right... Just right and wrong | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Plus this government has a history of wasting vast amounts of money Unlike the others...
so you're saying that because that's what previous governments did it's ok for the present government to continue the money wastage?
I think they are highlighting that it's a relative scale. Wasting money is kind of what governments specialise in, the only question is what % they waste. .
According to George best he spent his money on women and gambling, the rest he just squandered...
And so we get on to how you squander the money, as long as it goes into general circulation, is it possible to squander it?
Yes, a common economic fallacy of the left is the multiplier effect bullshit. Simply put, living standards are only actually improved with improvements in productivity. Therefore, money is either spent in a way that improves or does not improve productivity. Where it improved productivity, we should also ask if it is improving the productivity of useful stuff or shit we don't need.
In other words, it's hard to deliberately squander money on stuff like medical research but you it's very easy to squander money on beauracratic processes that don't achieve anything / paperwork exercises.
Aha so it's just the left then..
I mean it's not like this current right wing government is ploughing capital into housing, which is a highly unproductive form of investment... Or nuclear weapons even which is even less unproductive as your building something that can never be used, never be seen, never be shared...
If there's one thing about wars.. It certainly peaks up the productivity
In big handfuls, people waste less of their own money than other people's money. So the more money you give to governments, the more waste there will be. The Soviet Union being a fantastic example of that. The right, generally want less and smaller governments which would at least waste less money, even if some people who need other people's money, might not get it anymore. It's a relative thing though, all governments piss away money.
That dumb fuck Yanis Varoufakis tried making the arguement on question time that governments can't waste money. If that was true your country wouldn't be up the shitter so much mate. .
But ZIRP and NIRP are just ways to increase spending, the entire economy relies upon spending, despite the bullshit trotted out by Osborne about saving.... I mean saving money in an account.. This guys a fucking lunatic and he's in charge of the economy!...
Oh wait he says he doesn't want a housing bubble but then he gives out great big government deposits.
He says he wants people to save but then he does everything in his power to ensure they don't!.
He says he'll sort out the banks but then argues with the EU on bank reforms and bonuses.
He says he'll bring in productivity increases while cutting infrastructure payments.
He says he'll cut waste but then every fucking year it increases
He's the guy that says one thing but does the the exact opposite... But somehow Jeremy corbyn is the loon with a bad suit?.
We've spent 8 trillion as a species propping up failed banks and financial institutions while systematically destroying human rights, banging on about capitalism while at the same time seeing those very same bailed out failed industries rigging every market going.
Give me freedom or give me anarchy... The chances are that either will work out better than the last 40 years of jingoism, corporatist, gerrymandering, cronyism.
There is no left and right...
Just right and wrong"Or the shorter version would be, Osborne promised to eliminate the deficit in his first term... and failed. Therefore, he failed. I don't care about what he says or believes, he's a failure. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have a Meningitis vaccination - only not all kids can have it because it's not 'cost effective'. We know somebody whose daughter has been seriously ill. Her GP recommended she get the vaccine. It'll cost her £200. 1. I'd rather kids could get a vaccine than have shiny new fucking submarine moored off Scotland. 2. I'd rather we invested in more medical science and that we did something about the absurdity of people not being able to afford medicines." As I said earlier, we'd spend 2% of GDP on defence whether we had trident or not. So it's not Trident or medicine. If the NHS hadn't pissed away £20bn on NPfIT then that's real money that was in the right department to go on vaccines. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As I said earlier, we'd spend 2% of GDP on defence whether we had trident or not. So it's not Trident or medicine. If the NHS hadn't pissed away £20bn on NPfIT then that's real money that was in the right department to go on vaccines. " Fair point. I'd feel happier knowing that if my kid got Meningitis. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So many fools ...buy a bandage or feed the poor....we have that choice through strength if you scrap trident you loose more than money, your just cowards that honestly belive you can be nice and cuddly in this world.....you cant go hug a fkin tree " So what will happen to us if we lose Trident? Will we be invaded? Blown up?.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As I said earlier, we'd spend 2% of GDP on defence whether we had trident or not. So it's not Trident or medicine. If the NHS hadn't pissed away £20bn on NPfIT then that's real money that was in the right department to go on vaccines. Fair point. I'd feel happier knowing that if my kid got Meningitis." Don't get me wrong, I'd spent more on medical research and vaccines tomorrow. A healthier workforce is one of the easiest ways to improve productivity, it's a no brainer really. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As I said earlier, we'd spend 2% of GDP on defence whether we had trident or not. So it's not Trident or medicine. If the NHS hadn't pissed away £20bn on NPfIT then that's real money that was in the right department to go on vaccines. Fair point. I'd feel happier knowing that if my kid got Meningitis. Don't get me wrong, I'd spent more on medical research and vaccines tomorrow. A healthier workforce is one of the easiest ways to improve productivity, it's a no brainer really. " and can be easily exported. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"we loose our courage as a nation something our armed forces are proud of and need to be one of the few remaining nations on this planet that have soldiers that wish to serve and are not conscripted to do so, you want to let them fight your battles with no teeth behind them .....you coward " Have you served? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"we loose our courage as a nation something our armed forces are proud of and need to be one of the few remaining nations on this planet that have soldiers that wish to serve and are not conscripted to do so, you want to let them fight your battles with no teeth behind them .....you coward Have you served?" I have and whats your point? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As I said earlier, we'd spend 2% of GDP on defence whether we had trident or not. So it's not Trident or medicine. If the NHS hadn't pissed away £20bn on NPfIT then that's real money that was in the right department to go on vaccines. Fair point. I'd feel happier knowing that if my kid got Meningitis. Don't get me wrong, I'd spent more on medical research and vaccines tomorrow. A healthier workforce is one of the easiest ways to improve productivity, it's a no brainer really. and can be easily exported." Basically, there are a whole host of activities and circumstances that aren't in the least productive. Eliminating them would make us all better off. - people being sick - sitting in traffic jams - filling out forms that could be automated - any use paper that isn't art! ... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 
My point is you're making a lot of noise from your rear end. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"
My point is you're making a lot of noise from your rear end."Sorry that was in response to the person getting angry about cowards. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Plus this government has a history of wasting vast amounts of money Unlike the others...
so you're saying that because that's what previous governments did it's ok for the present government to continue the money wastage?
I think they are highlighting that it's a relative scale. Wasting money is kind of what governments specialise in, the only question is what % they waste. .
According to George best he spent his money on women and gambling, the rest he just squandered...
And so we get on to how you squander the money, as long as it goes into general circulation, is it possible to squander it?
Yes, a common economic fallacy of the left is the multiplier effect bullshit. Simply put, living standards are only actually improved with improvements in productivity. Therefore, money is either spent in a way that improves or does not improve productivity. Where it improved productivity, we should also ask if it is improving the productivity of useful stuff or shit we don't need.
In other words, it's hard to deliberately squander money on stuff like medical research but you it's very easy to squander money on beauracratic processes that don't achieve anything / paperwork exercises.
Aha so it's just the left then..
I mean it's not like this current right wing government is ploughing capital into housing, which is a highly unproductive form of investment... Or nuclear weapons even which is even less unproductive as your building something that can never be used, never be seen, never be shared...
If there's one thing about wars.. It certainly peaks up the productivity
In big handfuls, people waste less of their own money than other people's money. So the more money you give to governments, the more waste there will be. The Soviet Union being a fantastic example of that. The right, generally want less and smaller governments which would at least waste less money, even if some people who need other people's money, might not get it anymore. It's a relative thing though, all governments piss away money.
That dumb fuck Yanis Varoufakis tried making the arguement on question time that governments can't waste money. If that was true your country wouldn't be up the shitter so much mate. .
But ZIRP and NIRP are just ways to increase spending, the entire economy relies upon spending, despite the bullshit trotted out by Osborne about saving.... I mean saving money in an account.. This guys a fucking lunatic and he's in charge of the economy!...
Oh wait he says he doesn't want a housing bubble but then he gives out great big government deposits.
He says he wants people to save but then he does everything in his power to ensure they don't!.
He says he'll sort out the banks but then argues with the EU on bank reforms and bonuses.
He says he'll bring in productivity increases while cutting infrastructure payments.
He says he'll cut waste but then every fucking year it increases
He's the guy that says one thing but does the the exact opposite... But somehow Jeremy corbyn is the loon with a bad suit?.
We've spent 8 trillion as a species propping up failed banks and financial institutions while systematically destroying human rights, banging on about capitalism while at the same time seeing those very same bailed out failed industries rigging every market going.
Give me freedom or give me anarchy... The chances are that either will work out better than the last 40 years of jingoism, corporatist, gerrymandering, cronyism.
There is no left and right...
Just right and wrong
Or the shorter version would be, Osborne promised to eliminate the deficit in his first term... and failed. Therefore, he failed. I don't care about what he says or believes, he's a failure. ". Have some bonds, there worthless junk anyhow, just throw them in your log burner, yeah 300 year lows who gives a shit! Lenin was a shit economist but a great humanist... Everything else is incidental | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So we scrap it, save a billion ish pounds . Pakistan falls to taliban and they say were going to nuke Europe . But its ok they wont nuke us as we don,t have any lol . While im not happy -we live in a world full of WMD. That is the problem the world is full of them and without them you can not offer AMD to your violator Just for some info on WMD , drop one say on Paris and Radiation will pollute most of the south east corner of the UK within 1 week and spread to Brum IN 2 weeks sooner if its dropped during summer months . So having none wont make us any safer " Cos we're the only ones with nuclear weapons in Europe? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They have a Meningitis vaccination - only not all kids can have it because it's not 'cost effective'. We know somebody whose daughter has been seriously ill. Her GP recommended she get the vaccine. It'll cost her £200. 1. I'd rather kids could get a vaccine than have shiny new fucking submarine moored off Scotland. 2. I'd rather we invested in more medical science and that we did something about the absurdity of people not being able to afford medicines." Scrap Trident and do not renew As for Meningitis vaccination, how the heck do you expect us to pay for that and other medications when we are paying £55 million every day to stay a member of the EU We don't have unlimited cash so we have to decide what our priorities are It looks like our priorities are staying part of Europe and continuing to pay £55 million each day, every day, every year | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After the awesome numbers out today in London on the ANTI-trident march just thought id see what others think personally im for scrapping it to start the erm debate." Should have nuked em!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So we scrap it, save a billion ish pounds . Pakistan falls to taliban and they say were going to nuke Europe . But its ok they wont nuke us as we don,t have any lol . While im not happy -we live in a world full of WMD. That is the problem the world is full of them and without them you can not offer AMD to your violator Just for some info on WMD , drop one say on Paris and Radiation will pollute most of the south east corner of the UK within 1 week and spread to Brum IN 2 weeks sooner if its dropped during summer months . So having none wont make us any safer Cos we're the only ones with nuclear weapons in Europe? " Apart from the French, so there is one reason to keep them!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So we scrap it, save a billion ish pounds . Pakistan falls to taliban and they say were going to nuke Europe . But its ok they wont nuke us as we don,t have any lol . While im not happy -we live in a world full of WMD. That is the problem the world is full of them and without them you can not offer AMD to your violator Just for some info on WMD , drop one say on Paris and Radiation will pollute most of the south east corner of the UK within 1 week and spread to Brum IN 2 weeks sooner if its dropped during summer months . So having none wont make us any safer Cos we're the only ones with nuclear weapons in Europe? Apart from the French, so there is one reason to keep them! "Is that the same French who are supplying our nuclear energy? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So we scrap it, save a billion ish pounds . Pakistan falls to taliban and they say were going to nuke Europe . But its ok they wont nuke us as we don,t have any lol . While im not happy -we live in a world full of WMD. That is the problem the world is full of them and without them you can not offer AMD to your violator Just for some info on WMD , drop one say on Paris and Radiation will pollute most of the south east corner of the UK within 1 week and spread to Brum IN 2 weeks sooner if its dropped during summer months . So having none wont make us any safer Cos we're the only ones with nuclear weapons in Europe? Apart from the French, so there is one reason to keep them!
Is that the same French who are supplying our nuclear energy?"& some cheese! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I will happily vote to scrap Trident when everyone else scraps their Nukes. Until then we need them. Its not called Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) for nothing. And its what has assured there has been NO nuclear wars since WWII. " If this is true we should be encouraging every nation to have them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I will happily vote to scrap Trident when everyone else scraps their Nukes. Until then we need them. Its not called Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) for nothing. And its what has assured there has been NO nuclear wars since WWII. My only worry is that a bunch of zealots like Daesh will get hold of one from Pakistan and lob it at us. And we have no one to hit back at and if we did they wouldn't care. On a related point as the SNP do not want Trident (but they like the peace it brings as long as someone else pays) we should re-locate Trident subs from the Clyde to near Barrow where they were built. Lots of jobs would be appreciated in Cumbria and when we leave the EU we will have the cash to do as we please ... And the Scots now have their own taxes to pay all the Unemployment Benefits in the Clyde." . My only argument against that is Nobody of a sound mind wants to lob a nuclear weapon at anyone regardless of whether they've got them or not, and there's lots of reasons why, like say Russia "lobbed" twenty at the UK, well the wind tends to blow their way a lot! And if they lobed a few at Ukraine, well there next door? I mean have you ever wondered why Israel doesn't nuke Palestine or Lebanon or Syria or Egypt during the height of conflict while trying to be invaded by said countries? and people without a sound mind tend to not really give a shit about MAD... in fact they can't wait to meet the guy in the sky?. You know this IT'S WHY THERE'S BEEN NO NUCLEAR WARS statement.. If you read the declassified US documents, you'll see we came within a gnats whisker of MAD three times, once during the Cuban crises and twice out of completely random accidents... Yes that's right were twice as likely to have an ACCIDENTAL nuclear war than an intentional one! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"a 60aa you mean which is hardly ever used or enforced from my experience they threaten a lot and just lead a march down a different route and they cant carry out a 60aa too there a lot of ways round them sometimes" Protesting isn't really my thing so don't know all the in's and out's. What I do know is, I have been on a few marches, as a protester and as an anti-protester... Not once have I ever felt the need to cover my face... If you do no wrong, you have no need to hide... Unless your idea of protesting is smashing a window and running off with 4 pairs of trainers or attacking someone... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After the awesome numbers out today in London on the ANTI-trident march just thought id see what others think personally im for scrapping it to start the erm debate." IMAGINE; If we built Nuclear Power Stations instead of renewing Trident The renewal of Trident was initially due to cost £100 billion, this has now rose to £140 billion 1 Nuclear Power Station costs £4 billion to build and supplies huge amounts' of power, we can supply the whole of the UK, provide jobs and run supplies to Ireland and across the water to sell, at a fraction of the cost | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You know this IT'S WHY THERE'S BEEN NO NUCLEAR WARS statement.. If you read the declassified US documents, you'll see we came within a gnats whisker of MAD three times, once during the Cuban crises and twice out of completely random accidents... Yes that's right were twice as likely to have an ACCIDENTAL nuclear war than an intentional one! "And yet there have been no nuclear wars and thus your assertion is flawed and void. It would only have any relevance if we had had 3 nuclear wars and two of them had been caused by accidents | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" You know this IT'S WHY THERE'S BEEN NO NUCLEAR WARS statement.. If you read the declassified US documents, you'll see we came within a gnats whisker of MAD three times, once during the Cuban crises and twice out of completely random accidents... Yes that's right were twice as likely to have an ACCIDENTAL nuclear war than an intentional one!
And yet there have been no nuclear wars and thus your assertion is flawed and void.
It would only have any relevance if we had had 3 nuclear wars and two of them had been caused by accidents"having averted accidental wars a few times. Its only a matter of time before we do have one! So its your logic that is flawed! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"scrap it and lose a high end technology base with all the skills and people who will emigrate and pay taxes abroad while we import low end unskilled immigrants to replace them . just a thought..
Or we could just put them to better use - like creating stuff that isn't designed to fuck up people and places."Put them to better use? Because of course they'd have no free will to do as THEY please. Plus of course it's a great idea to put highly trained scientists to work as, oh, say, nurses, because the skill sets are such a good match. What a load of utter twaddle.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thou I hate the wasted money Only a complete Moron would think of getting rid of them in an age when countries are been over run with terrorists and east/west relations are in meltdown But I suppose some people can convince themselves of anything" So a nuclear bomb is the answer to "terrorists", who, if we'll use the Middle East as the example, blend in and out of cities and highly populated places full of innocents? What're you going to nuke then, a little compound in the hills? Do you realise how devastating nuclear weapons are? They're not suitable against "terrorists" as you say, and only much good against large, densely populated areas, where you want to absolutely incinerate everything within hundreds of miles and ensure nothing can live there properly for a very long time after (from all the radiation, which lasts for years and years and never really goes away). They don't really have a military application, more of a "fuck your country and everyone in it, innocent or not" weapon. We don't need one (and especially can't afford to spend hundreds of billions on it). Of course though, 'some people can convince themselves of anything'...  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does anybody know how many people trident employs? It is an industry after all. It's not dead money." I know one site that employs in excess of 18000 people. Plus the revenue stream for local businesses would suffer. They recently let 1000 people go, projects coming to an end, transfers etc. The local sainsbury estimated that it cost them in the region of £37500 a week in lost revenue. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"scrap it and lose a high end technology base with all the skills and people who will emigrate and pay taxes abroad while we import low end unskilled immigrants to replace them . just a thought..
Or we could just put them to better use - like creating stuff that isn't designed to fuck up people and places.
Put them to better use? Because of course they'd have no free will to do as THEY please.
Plus of course it's a great idea to put highly trained scientists to work as, oh, say, nurses, because the skill sets are such a good match.
What a load of utter twaddle....". I think he meant paying them to do other stuff that might be more creative in their relevant fields, not making them all nurses | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"scrap it and lose a high end technology base with all the skills and people who will emigrate and pay taxes abroad while we import low end unskilled immigrants to replace them . just a thought..
Or we could just put them to better use - like creating stuff that isn't designed to fuck up people and places.
Put them to better use? Because of course they'd have no free will to do as THEY please.
Plus of course it's a great idea to put highly trained scientists to work as, oh, say, nurses, because the skill sets are such a good match.
What a load of utter twaddle.....
I think he meant paying them to do other stuff that might be more creative in their relevant fields, not making them all nurses"My point is, if you're trained to do a job, that's the job you're trained to do. You don't just wake up one day with the skills to work in a totally different industry. But I suspect you know that already. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"scrap it and lose a high end technology base with all the skills and people who will emigrate and pay taxes abroad while we import low end unskilled immigrants to replace them . just a thought..
Or we could just put them to better use - like creating stuff that isn't designed to fuck up people and places.
Put them to better use? Because of course they'd have no free will to do as THEY please.
Plus of course it's a great idea to put highly trained scientists to work as, oh, say, nurses, because the skill sets are such a good match.
What a load of utter twaddle.....
I think he meant paying them to do other stuff that might be more creative in their relevant fields, not making them all nurses
My point is, if you're trained to do a job, that's the job you're trained to do.
You don't just wake up one day with the skills to work in a totally different industry.
But I suspect you know that already. ". Yeah I know, but there's very few people who work in that sector that aren't engineers, physicists, chemists, Mathematicians... The fact that they currently service/build nuclear weapons doesn't make their skill redundant, just redundant in that field | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How come its the countries with Nuclear deterrents that are constantly attacked for example; USA France UK why are countries without nuclear deterrents living a stress free life just a thought" What like Syria? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Like doctors, nurses, and teachers?" Already leaving in droves! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How come its the countries with Nuclear deterrents that are constantly attacked for example; USA France UK why are countries without nuclear deterrents living a stress free life just a thought" Sorry, but what? The US is hardly ever gets attacked. That's part of why 9/11 was so crazy.
And anyway, if you think that nuclear weapons have anything to do with that then I don't really know what to say to you. Nuclear deterrence only works between states, not non-state actors. What was the last state to attack American soil?
-Courtney | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How come its the countries with Nuclear deterrents that are constantly attacked for example; USA France UK why are countries without nuclear deterrents living a stress free life just a thought Sorry, but what? The US is hardly ever gets attacked. That's part of why 9/11 was so crazy.
And anyway, if you think that nuclear weapons have anything to do with that then I don't really know what to say to you. Nuclear deterrence only works between states, not non-state actors. What was the last state to attack American soil?
-Courtney "Japan? Ballon thing? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How come its the countries with Nuclear deterrents that are constantly attacked for example; USA France UK why are countries without nuclear deterrents living a stress free life just a thought Sorry, but what? The US is hardly ever gets attacked. That's part of why 9/11 was so crazy.
And anyway, if you think that nuclear weapons have anything to do with that then I don't really know what to say to you. Nuclear deterrence only works between states, not non-state actors. What was the last state to attack American soil?
-Courtney
Japan? Ballon thing?"I genuinely don't know what a ballon thing is. Sorry. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How come its the countries with Nuclear deterrents that are constantly attacked for example; USA France UK why are countries without nuclear deterrents living a stress free life just a thought" If you think the USA, U.K. and France suffer the most attacks by anyone you're completely mistaken! Even the terrorist groups who have struck these three countries have launched far more attacks in other countries. As for nuclear deterrent, I suppose the problem is you don't know what hasn't happened because of our nuclear capability. Because you don't know what hasn't happened. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"to the people defending trident: Can Nuclear bombs stop suicide bombers? Can Nuclear bombs stop radical religious fundamentalism? Can Nuclear bombs help us AT ALL when the US has the launch codes and we don't? (Oh yeah, that's the thing everyone in favour of trident seems to forget, we can't launch the fucking things without the americans pushing the button) ... so how is that even SLIGHTLY useful in any way shape or form? " What utter utter bollocks! I suppose man never landed on the moon (apart from Elvis in his B52 bomber), and the queen is actually a lizzard. You really do gotta love these conspiracy theories! I'm also not in favour of trident....but as my cousin did serve on one of the subs (navy lieutenant) I can definitely confirm that the launch codes are in a safe on the submarines! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" In the guardian?...... My bad it so MUST be true lol!" lol you're aware the guardian is one of the last newspapers that does actual reasonably unbiased investigative journalism in the world right? Something in the guardian is 10000000000000x more likely to be true than something in breitbart or the daily fail or the telegraph or the independant, which actually has a similar reputation for reliability. just because the guardian is perceived as having left-bias (it doesn't, politically it is centre) doesn't mean their award winning investigative journalism means any less. But please Morpork Watch continue proving you're an ignorant fool like I originally assumed... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Without the americans the entire system of trident would fall apart in 3-4 months, tell me again how it's useful in any way shape or form ? " Because it's not operated without the help of the yanks, and never will be, so it is useful. Obviousley. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How come its the countries with Nuclear deterrents that are constantly attacked for example; USA France UK why are countries without nuclear deterrents living a stress free life just a thought Sorry, but what? The US is hardly ever gets attacked. That's part of why 9/11 was so crazy.
And anyway, if you think that nuclear weapons have anything to do with that then I don't really know what to say to you. Nuclear deterrence only works between states, not non-state actors. What was the last state to attack American soil?
-Courtney
Japan? Ballon thing?
I genuinely don't know what a ballon thing is. Sorry. "Ah come on Courtney! You must know your own history! The Japanese let balloons drift towards the west coast with bombs attached towards the end of ww2. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How come its the countries with Nuclear deterrents that are constantly attacked for example; USA France UK why are countries without nuclear deterrents living a stress free life just a thought Sorry, but what? The US is hardly ever gets attacked. That's part of why 9/11 was so crazy.
And anyway, if you think that nuclear weapons have anything to do with that then I don't really know what to say to you. Nuclear deterrence only works between states, not non-state actors. What was the last state to attack American soil?
-Courtney
Japan? Ballon thing?
I genuinely don't know what a ballon thing is. Sorry.
Ah come on Courtney! You must know your own history! The Japanese let balloons drift towards the west coast with bombs attached towards the end of ww2.". They bombed the fuck out of pearl harbour a little bit before that though | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How come its the countries with Nuclear deterrents that are constantly attacked for example; USA France UK why are countries without nuclear deterrents living a stress free life just a thought Sorry, but what? The US is hardly ever gets attacked. That's part of why 9/11 was so crazy.
And anyway, if you think that nuclear weapons have anything to do with that then I don't really know what to say to you. Nuclear deterrence only works between states, not non-state actors. What was the last state to attack American soil?
-Courtney
Japan? Ballon thing?
I genuinely don't know what a ballon thing is. Sorry.
Ah come on Courtney! You must know your own history! The Japanese let balloons drift towards the west coast with bombs attached towards the end of ww2."Oh, balloons! 
Yeah, that was all pre-nuclear deterrence so it proves my point  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How come its the countries with Nuclear deterrents that are constantly attacked for example; USA France UK why are countries without nuclear deterrents living a stress free life just a thought Sorry, but what? The US is hardly ever gets attacked. That's part of why 9/11 was so crazy.
And anyway, if you think that nuclear weapons have anything to do with that then I don't really know what to say to you. Nuclear deterrence only works between states, not non-state actors. What was the last state to attack American soil?
-Courtney
Japan? Ballon thing?
I genuinely don't know what a ballon thing is. Sorry.
Ah come on Courtney! You must know your own history! The Japanese let balloons drift towards the west coast with bombs attached towards the end of ww2..
They bombed the fuck out of pearl harbour a little bit before that though "Ah i think we were all thinking mainland, not just soverign soil. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How come its the countries with Nuclear deterrents that are constantly attacked for example; USA France UK why are countries without nuclear deterrents living a stress free life just a thought Sorry, but what? The US is hardly ever gets attacked. That's part of why 9/11 was so crazy.
And anyway, if you think that nuclear weapons have anything to do with that then I don't really know what to say to you. Nuclear deterrence only works between states, not non-state actors. What was the last state to attack American soil?
-Courtney
Japan? Ballon thing?
I genuinely don't know what a ballon thing is. Sorry.
Ah come on Courtney! You must know your own history! The Japanese let balloons drift towards the west coast with bombs attached towards the end of ww2..
They bombed the fuck out of pearl harbour a little bit before that though
Ah i think we were all thinking mainland, not just soverign soil.". Ahh... I just jumped in feet first on that post  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How come its the countries with Nuclear deterrents that are constantly attacked for example; USA France UK why are countries without nuclear deterrents living a stress free life just a thought Sorry, but what? The US is hardly ever gets attacked. That's part of why 9/11 was so crazy.
And anyway, if you think that nuclear weapons have anything to do with that then I don't really know what to say to you. Nuclear deterrence only works between states, not non-state actors. What was the last state to attack American soil?
-Courtney
Japan? Ballon thing?
I genuinely don't know what a ballon thing is. Sorry.
Ah come on Courtney! You must know your own history! The Japanese let balloons drift towards the west coast with bombs attached towards the end of ww2..
They bombed the fuck out of pearl harbour a little bit before that though
Ah i think we were all thinking mainland, not just soverign soil..
Ahh... I just jumped in feet first on that post "Jeez don't apologise! That shit is mandatory on here! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How come its the countries with Nuclear deterrents that are constantly attacked for example; USA France UK why are countries without nuclear deterrents living a stress free life just a thought Sorry, but what? The US is hardly ever gets attacked. That's part of why 9/11 was so crazy.
And anyway, if you think that nuclear weapons have anything to do with that then I don't really know what to say to you. Nuclear deterrence only works between states, not non-state actors. What was the last state to attack American soil?
-Courtney
Japan? Ballon thing?
I genuinely don't know what a ballon thing is. Sorry.
Ah come on Courtney! You must know your own history! The Japanese let balloons drift towards the west coast with bombs attached towards the end of ww2..
They bombed the fuck out of pearl harbour a little bit before that though
Ah i think we were all thinking mainland, not just soverign soil."Pearl Harbor happened when Hawaii wasn't technically a state yet. And it was pre nuclear deterrence! If anything it shows that state lead attacks on US soil have stopped since the creation of the atomic bomb. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How come its the countries with Nuclear deterrents that are constantly attacked for example; USA France UK why are countries without nuclear deterrents living a stress free life just a thought Sorry, but what? The US is hardly ever gets attacked. That's part of why 9/11 was so crazy.
And anyway, if you think that nuclear weapons have anything to do with that then I don't really know what to say to you. Nuclear deterrence only works between states, not non-state actors. What was the last state to attack American soil?
-Courtney
Japan? Ballon thing?
I genuinely don't know what a ballon thing is. Sorry.
Ah come on Courtney! You must know your own history! The Japanese let balloons drift towards the west coast with bombs attached towards the end of ww2..
They bombed the fuck out of pearl harbour a little bit before that though
Ah i think we were all thinking mainland, not just soverign soil.
Pearl Harbor happened when Hawaii wasn't technically a state yet.
And it was pre nuclear deterrence! If anything it shows that state lead attacks on US soil have stopped since the creation of the atomic bomb.". Yeah for you... You've invaded 54 sovereign country's since then | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How come its the countries with Nuclear deterrents that are constantly attacked for example; USA France UK why are countries without nuclear deterrents living a stress free life just a thought Sorry, but what? The US is hardly ever gets attacked. That's part of why 9/11 was so crazy.
And anyway, if you think that nuclear weapons have anything to do with that then I don't really know what to say to you. Nuclear deterrence only works between states, not non-state actors. What was the last state to attack American soil?
-Courtney
Japan? Ballon thing?
I genuinely don't know what a ballon thing is. Sorry.
Ah come on Courtney! You must know your own history! The Japanese let balloons drift towards the west coast with bombs attached towards the end of ww2..
They bombed the fuck out of pearl harbour a little bit before that though
Ah i think we were all thinking mainland, not just soverign soil.
Pearl Harbor happened when Hawaii wasn't technically a state yet.
And it was pre nuclear deterrence! If anything it shows that state lead attacks on US soil have stopped since the creation of the atomic bomb..
Yeah for you...
You've invaded 54 sovereign country's since then "Fair enough. 
But that doesn't speak to the point | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How come its the countries with Nuclear deterrents that are constantly attacked for example; USA France UK why are countries without nuclear deterrents living a stress free life just a thought Sorry, but what? The US is hardly ever gets attacked. That's part of why 9/11 was so crazy.
And anyway, if you think that nuclear weapons have anything to do with that then I don't really know what to say to you. Nuclear deterrence only works between states, not non-state actors. What was the last state to attack American soil?
-Courtney
Japan? Ballon thing?
I genuinely don't know what a ballon thing is. Sorry.
Ah come on Courtney! You must know your own history! The Japanese let balloons drift towards the west coast with bombs attached towards the end of ww2..
They bombed the fuck out of pearl harbour a little bit before that though
Ah i think we were all thinking mainland, not just soverign soil.
Pearl Harbor happened when Hawaii wasn't technically a state yet.
And it was pre nuclear deterrence! If anything it shows that state lead attacks on US soil have stopped since the creation of the atomic bomb..
Yeah for you...
You've invaded 54 sovereign country's since then
Fair enough.
But that doesn't speak to the point "actually it probably does as technically nobody you invaded was a nuclear nation lol. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"How come its the countries with Nuclear deterrents that are constantly attacked for example; USA France UK why are countries without nuclear deterrents living a stress free life just a thought Sorry, but what? The US is hardly ever gets attacked. That's part of why 9/11 was so crazy.
And anyway, if you think that nuclear weapons have anything to do with that then I don't really know what to say to you. Nuclear deterrence only works between states, not non-state actors. What was the last state to attack American soil?
-Courtney
Japan? Ballon thing?
I genuinely don't know what a ballon thing is. Sorry.
Ah come on Courtney! You must know your own history! The Japanese let balloons drift towards the west coast with bombs attached towards the end of ww2..
They bombed the fuck out of pearl harbour a little bit before that though
Ah i think we were all thinking mainland, not just soverign soil.
Pearl Harbor happened when Hawaii wasn't technically a state yet.
And it was pre nuclear deterrence! If anything it shows that state lead attacks on US soil have stopped since the creation of the atomic bomb..
Yeah for you...
You've invaded 54 sovereign country's since then
Fair enough.
But that doesn't speak to the point actually it probably does as technically nobody you invaded was a nuclear nation lol.
"Cheers then! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To be fair to that stat, the US has acted as the world policeman since ww2 spending trillions doing it!. Most of those countries would have been invaded by UN forces if not them, obviously the leaders of the USA have had certain interests in being the police, however the people of the US who've had to pay for it might have been less inclined otherwise" "Spending trillions" i think this is half the trouble with defence headlines. It's not "Spending" it's "turning over". Redistribution of wealth in actual fact. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"@Mixedbicouple " The right, generally want less and smaller governments which would at least waste less money, even if some people who need other people's money, might not get it anymore. It's a relative thing though, all governments piss away money." ....Are you serious? What planet do you live on? Every right wing government in history from thatcher to bush has fucked the working class and the economy - look at britain, we were scheduled to recover faster than germany and france until right wing austerity took over, now look at us, we're so far behind only America and Greece are below us in world rankings of 1st world countries. And Austerity is a 100% right-wing measure. How you gonna blame the left for that?" ...... I'm sorry but you forget one thing in the above statement.. Fucking labour put us their after 13 years in government knowing full well the shit storm that was about to happen when they finally got seen for what they were , useless tossers | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To be fair to that stat, the US has acted as the world policeman since ww2 spending trillions doing it!. Most of those countries would have been invaded by UN forces if not them, obviously the leaders of the USA have had certain interests in being the police, however the people of the US who've had to pay for it might have been less inclined otherwise "Spending trillions" i think this is half the trouble with defence headlines. It's not "Spending" it's "turning over". Redistribution of wealth in actual fact." . No the US could have sat on its heels since ww2, it was already incredibly wealthy, from 1890 to 1960 the US was the Saudi Arabia of its day, unfortunately for them they were also the world's biggest consumer of oil, when the 73 oil shock happened,they realised they were completely helpless to the consequences and made the decision to "make sure it didn't reoccur". Hence why they became the world police. It's just a shame they didn't take the diametrical decision to get off oil instead while they had the chance, we'd have all been better off!. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm all for trident ... Hooray for trident , long live trident and lets just hope we don't see it go , so when north Korea get nucs were all shitting bricks at the thought of them coming our way , but I bet if we had them its a better chance they wouldn't be" . North Korea has nukes already, they've had them for awhile! They struggle in the ability to shrink them light enough for ballistic missiles and the ballistic missiles themselves although there making progress on that front, but at the moment they could attack, Japan, China, Russia, Mongolia, Malaysia etc etc | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm all for trident ... Hooray for trident , long live trident and lets just hope we don't see it go , so when north Korea get nucs were all shitting bricks at the thought of them coming our way , but I bet if we had them its a better chance they wouldn't be. North Korea has nukes already, they've had them for awhile! They struggle in the ability to shrink them light enough for ballistic missiles and the ballistic missiles themselves although there making progress on that front, but at the moment they could attack, Japan, China, Russia, Mongolia, Malaysia etc etc" .... Even more reason to keep them then , because with mad dictators in the world that have been and past , they wont be the last either and I think everyone needs to e reminded of that , yes atm we have world peace but not if another hitler would ever get into power somewhere and nukes are about the only thing that would make someone like that either aim them somewhere else or not at all | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"scrap it and lose a high end technology base with all the skills and people who will emigrate and pay taxes abroad while we import low end unskilled immigrants to replace them . just a thought..
Or we could just put them to better use - like creating stuff that isn't designed to fuck up people and places.
Put them to better use? Because of course they'd have no free will to do as THEY please.
Plus of course it's a great idea to put highly trained scientists to work as, oh, say, nurses, because the skill sets are such a good match.
What a load of utter twaddle.....
I think he meant paying them to do other stuff that might be more creative in their relevant fields, not making them all nurses
My point is, if you're trained to do a job, that's the job you're trained to do.
You don't just wake up one day with the skills to work in a totally different industry.
But I suspect you know that already. .
Yeah I know, but there's very few people who work in that sector that aren't engineers, physicists, chemists, Mathematicians...
The fact that they currently service/build nuclear weapons doesn't make their skill redundant, just redundant in that field"Exactly, well done, if that field disappears, they are redundant. Do you realise how specialised this field is? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"scrap it and lose a high end technology base with all the skills and people who will emigrate and pay taxes abroad while we import low end unskilled immigrants to replace them . just a thought..
Or we could just put them to better use - like creating stuff that isn't designed to fuck up people and places.
Put them to better use? Because of course they'd have no free will to do as THEY please.
Plus of course it's a great idea to put highly trained scientists to work as, oh, say, nurses, because the skill sets are such a good match.
What a load of utter twaddle.....
I think he meant paying them to do other stuff that might be more creative in their relevant fields, not making them all nurses
My point is, if you're trained to do a job, that's the job you're trained to do.
You don't just wake up one day with the skills to work in a totally different industry.
But I suspect you know that already. .
Yeah I know, but there's very few people who work in that sector that aren't engineers, physicists, chemists, Mathematicians...
The fact that they currently service/build nuclear weapons doesn't make their skill redundant, just redundant in that field
Exactly, well done, if that field disappears, they are redundant.
Do you realise how specialised this field is? ". Which job are we taking about exactly, the physicists who service the warheads?, the electronics engineers who service the control panels?... There's so many but they all have highly sought after useful skills, that could be applied in many different jobs!. I mean let's say we dismantle the warheads and recycle them into power stations, same skill, different application | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As this is a sex site ill put it to the closest terms possible to that . Imagine its like a condom , when you have one its better when you need it , than needing one and not having it" Well said!! I still believe Iraq had WMD's with a desert area larger than Wales and Iran next door sharing a mutual hatred for the infidels they would have been easily hidden. Let's face it the regimes at the time would have had no problems eliminating witnesses. Also submarines are also used for electronic intelligence gathering not just taxis for nukes | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"scrap it and lose a high end technology base with all the skills and people who will emigrate and pay taxes abroad while we import low end unskilled immigrants to replace them . just a thought..
Or we could just put them to better use - like creating stuff that isn't designed to fuck up people and places.
Put them to better use? Because of course they'd have no free will to do as THEY please.
Plus of course it's a great idea to put highly trained scientists to work as, oh, say, nurses, because the skill sets are such a good match.
What a load of utter twaddle.....
I think he meant paying them to do other stuff that might be more creative in their relevant fields, not making them all nurses
My point is, if you're trained to do a job, that's the job you're trained to do.
You don't just wake up one day with the skills to work in a totally different industry.
But I suspect you know that already. .
Yeah I know, but there's very few people who work in that sector that aren't engineers, physicists, chemists, Mathematicians...
The fact that they currently service/build nuclear weapons doesn't make their skill redundant, just redundant in that field
Exactly, well done, if that field disappears, they are redundant.
Do you realise how specialised this field is? .
Which job are we taking about exactly, the physicists who service the warheads?, the electronics engineers who service the control panels?... There's so many but they all have highly sought after useful skills, that could be applied in many different jobs!.
I mean let's say we dismantle the warheads and recycle them into power stations, same skill, different application
"You can say it if you like, but it's not possible. Sorry.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"scrap it and lose a high end technology base with all the skills and people who will emigrate and pay taxes abroad while we import low end unskilled immigrants to replace them . just a thought..
Or we could just put them to better use - like creating stuff that isn't designed to fuck up people and places.
Put them to better use? Because of course they'd have no free will to do as THEY please.
Plus of course it's a great idea to put highly trained scientists to work as, oh, say, nurses, because the skill sets are such a good match.
What a load of utter twaddle.....
I think he meant paying them to do other stuff that might be more creative in their relevant fields, not making them all nurses
My point is, if you're trained to do a job, that's the job you're trained to do.
You don't just wake up one day with the skills to work in a totally different industry.
But I suspect you know that already. .
Yeah I know, but there's very few people who work in that sector that aren't engineers, physicists, chemists, Mathematicians...
The fact that they currently service/build nuclear weapons doesn't make their skill redundant, just redundant in that field
Exactly, well done, if that field disappears, they are redundant.
Do you realise how specialised this field is? .
Which job are we taking about exactly, the physicists who service the warheads?, the electronics engineers who service the control panels?... There's so many but they all have highly sought after useful skills, that could be applied in many different jobs!.
I mean let's say we dismantle the warheads and recycle them into power stations, same skill, different application
You can say it if you like, but it's not possible. Sorry. ". It's a big task I'll grant you but not impossible. Think of it this way by all reasonable scientific conclusion were going to have to do alot of very big difficult stuff in the next 14 years, we've committed to reducing c02 to keep to a maximum 2 degree rise in global temperatures, this actually means cutting c02 by about 8% per year for the next 14 years.... That's a huge task it's roughly the same reduction as the fall of the Soviet union saw during there collapse in the 90s!. The alternative is busting through 2 degrees and going towards 4 degrees and that would mean that roughly 2 billon people would be at serious risk of death, around 800 million would die. Now if you think we've got problems with immigration today!! Try 2030 because at current levels of c02 output, well probably bust through 2 degrees in just 14 years!. So yes we've got a really really big task ahead but we can fail while trying or do nothing and fail... The choice is ours! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"to the people defending trident: Can Nuclear bombs stop suicide bombers? Can Nuclear bombs stop radical religious fundamentalism? Can Nuclear bombs help us AT ALL when the US has the launch codes and we don't? (Oh yeah, that's the thing everyone in favour of trident seems to forget, we can't launch the fucking things without the americans pushing the button) ... so how is that even SLIGHTLY useful in any way shape or form? " Can scraping trident achieve this? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I saw a report recently that these warheads are transport by trucks without escorts in dangerous conditions. a. I don't know if this is true. B. if it is why are they transported through residential areas and in dangerous weather etc. C. why arent these trucks escorted properly and kept to routes away from homes. D. surely trident and the way they are transported does need a serious rethink if not to be stopped." . Weapons grade uranium isn't very radioactive, you can pretty much stop it's alpha radiation with cardboard and you struggle to set one off by hitting it with a hammer or even a car!. The biggest risk is getting it nicked and I'm pretty sure they keep a good eye on them while transporting them.... And I'm also a person that thinks we don't need them either! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I saw a report recently that these warheads are transport by trucks without escorts in dangerous conditions. a. I don't know if this is true. B. if it is why are they transported through residential areas and in dangerous weather etc. C. why arent these trucks escorted properly and kept to routes away from homes. D. surely trident and the way they are transported does need a serious rethink if not to be stopped." A. It's not true. B. Only a small part of any journey would be residential. C. They are escorted properly, even the decoy convoys are. D. Why? And what do you suggest? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I saw a report recently that these warheads are transport by trucks without escorts in dangerous conditions. a. I don't know if this is true. B. if it is why are they transported through residential areas and in dangerous weather etc. C. why arent these trucks escorted properly and kept to routes away from homes. D. surely trident and the way they are transported does need a serious rethink if not to be stopped. A. It's not true. B. Only a small part of any journey would be residential. C. They are escorted properly, even the decoy convoys are. D. Why? And what do you suggest?" your first poiunt solves this one then | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I saw a report recently that these warheads are transport by trucks without escorts in dangerous conditions. a. I don't know if this is true. B. if it is why are they transported through residential areas and in dangerous weather etc. C. why arent these trucks escorted properly and kept to routes away from homes. D. surely trident and the way they are transported does need a serious rethink if not to be stopped. A. It's not true. B. Only a small part of any journey would be residential. C. They are escorted properly, even the decoy convoys are. D. Why? And what do you suggest? your first poiunt solves this one then" ps I did see it on a cnd related site | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I saw a report recently that these warheads are transport by trucks without escorts in dangerous conditions. a. I don't know if this is true. B. if it is why are they transported through residential areas and in dangerous weather etc. C. why arent these trucks escorted properly and kept to routes away from homes. D. surely trident and the way they are transported does need a serious rethink if not to be stopped." I've heard they attract bears And are responsible for Manchester United's poor form this season. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I saw a report recently that these warheads are transport by trucks without escorts in dangerous conditions. a. I don't know if this is true. B. if it is why are they transported through residential areas and in dangerous weather etc. C. why arent these trucks escorted properly and kept to routes away from homes. D. surely trident and the way they are transported does need a serious rethink if not to be stopped." C) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I saw a report recently that these warheads are transport by trucks without escorts in dangerous conditions. a. I don't know if this is true. B. if it is why are they transported through residential areas and in dangerous weather etc. C. why arent these trucks escorted properly and kept to routes away from homes. D. surely trident and the way they are transported does need a serious rethink if not to be stopped. C) "i mean kept away from homes as if somebody tried to rob them during transport its putting more people at risk than need be | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
