Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Only the truly mad or desperate would unleash that kind of devastation on fellow human beings.

Is it just me or do the Tories seeming to be panicking slightly? The Lloyds TSB share statement just comes across as another bribe. It's like Tory central office have thought, "bugger, we're losing ground, toss out another bribe.". Apparently it's not even a new idea, it's just been brought back out into the light of day again. Not saying that any of the others are any better, but I think we are going to be in interesting times come the end of this election..

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Only the truly mad or desperate would unleash that kind of devastation on fellow human beings.

Agreed.

[user]

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I see the Daily Mail have ramped up their anti-SNP coverage to warp 9, in today's papers.

I didn't know it was possible to be a Nazi and a Communist at the same time.

There's a difference?

Isn't Nazi short for National Socialist?

 Wolfstan wrote:
Is it just me or do the Tories seeming to be panicking slightly? The Lloyds TSB share statement just comes across as another bribe. It's like Tory central office have thought, "bugger, we're losing ground, toss out another bribe.". Apparently it's not even a new idea, it's just been brought back out into the light of day again. Not saying that any of the others are any better, but I think we are going to be in interesting times come the end of this election..

They are panicking. Like I said earlier, Cameron couldn't even beat Gordon Brown in 2010, and now with the economy on the 'up' he still struggling to get past the 36% mark.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Only the truly mad or desperate would unleash that kind of devastation on fellow human beings.

President Truman was a mad man?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
[user]

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I see the Daily Mail have ramped up their anti-SNP coverage to warp 9, in today's papers.

I didn't know it was possible to be a Nazi and a Communist at the same time.

There's a difference?

Isn't Nazi short for National Socialist?

It's the usual, end of the world stuff from the Mail. Given their track record in the 1930s, I suppose they could spot a Nazi better than anybody


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Only the truly mad or desperate would unleash that kind of devastation on fellow human beings.

President Truman was a mad man?

On the contrary, he was a shrewd operator. Japan was nuked to send a message to the Soviet Union. That doesn't make it right, though.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Only the truly mad or desperate would unleash that kind of devastation on fellow human beings.

Agreed.

They already have, if you remember, twice. Putin has threatened to do so several times this year.

War is a constant of humanity unfortunately.

I'd be fine if they wanted a sub base near Colchester, its a bit in land but Clacton is fine. Seriously if Scotland paid for them to be moved here I wouldn't have a problem. I think the jobs would do the area good

I agree nuclear weapons are immoral, that's not why we have them, we would never use them to attack anyone. It's there to stop someone like Putin from firing them at us. If they fire, we fire. They flew a bomber armed with a nuke on the edge of our airspace just the other day. There is a real threat. They are not for fighting terror or protecting overseas interests. I didn't think people thought that was what they were for?

 obsidianaura wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Only the truly mad or desperate would unleash that kind of devastation on fellow human beings.

Agreed.

They already have, if you remember, twice. Putin has threatened to do so several times this year.

War is a constant of humanity unfortunately.

I'd be fine if they wanted a sub base near Colchester, its a bit in land but Clacton is fine. Seriously if Scotland paid for them to be moved here I wouldn't have a problem. I think the jobs would do the area good

I agree nuclear weapons are immoral, that's not why we have them, we would never use them to attack anyone. It's there to stop someone like Putin from firing them at us. If they fire, we fire. They flew a bomber armed with a nuke on the edge of our airspace just the other day. There is a real threat. They are not for fighting terror or protecting overseas interests. I didn't think people thought that was what they were for?

Thing is, though, our independent nuclear deterrent isn't independent.

We need the Yanks' permission to fire it, and analysis shows that the UK's warhead numbers wouldn't dent Russian defences that much.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 obsidianaura wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Only the truly mad or desperate would unleash that kind of devastation on fellow human beings.

Agreed.

They already have, if you remember, twice. Putin has threatened to do so several times this year.

War is a constant of humanity unfortunately.

I'd be fine if they wanted a sub base near Colchester, its a bit in land but Clacton is fine. Seriously if Scotland paid for them to be moved here I wouldn't have a problem. I think the jobs would do the area good

I agree nuclear weapons are immoral, that's not why we have them, we would never use them to attack anyone. It's there to stop someone like Putin from firing them at us. If they fire, we fire. They flew a bomber armed with a nuke on the edge of our airspace just the other day. There is a real threat. They are not for fighting terror or protecting overseas interests. I didn't think people thought that was what they were for?

Thing is, though, our independent nuclear deterrent isn't independent.

We need the Yanks' permission to fire it, and analysis shows that the UK's warhead numbers wouldn't dent Russian defences that much.

Not true, it is dependent on the US for maintenance but it is simply untrue that they cannot be fired without permission from US.

Can you show me the analysis you're talking about. A trident weapon carries a cluster of nuclear weapons in each one and it carries multiple missiles. I'd heard previously that trident could take out every major city

 obsidianaura wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 obsidianaura wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Only the truly mad or desperate would unleash that kind of devastation on fellow human beings.

Agreed.

They already have, if you remember, twice. Putin has threatened to do so several times this year.

War is a constant of humanity unfortunately.

I'd be fine if they wanted a sub base near Colchester, its a bit in land but Clacton is fine. Seriously if Scotland paid for them to be moved here I wouldn't have a problem. I think the jobs would do the area good

I agree nuclear weapons are immoral, that's not why we have them, we would never use them to attack anyone. It's there to stop someone like Putin from firing them at us. If they fire, we fire. They flew a bomber armed with a nuke on the edge of our airspace just the other day. There is a real threat. They are not for fighting terror or protecting overseas interests. I didn't think people thought that was what they were for?

Thing is, though, our independent nuclear deterrent isn't independent.

We need the Yanks' permission to fire it, and analysis shows that the UK's warhead numbers wouldn't dent Russian defences that much.

Not true, it is dependent on the US for maintenance but it is simply untrue that they cannot be fired without permission from US.

Can you show me the analysis you're talking about. A trident weapon carries a cluster of nuclear weapons in each one and it carries multiple missiles. I'd heard previously that trident could take out every major city

Yeah, we could take out every major Russian city, but the Russian counter-strike would blow this island across the Atlantic. We'd probably fuse with Texas!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Thing is, though, our independent nuclear deterrent isn't independent.

We need the Yanks' permission to fire it, and analysis shows that the UK's warhead numbers wouldn't dent Russian defences that much.

The only permission needed is that of the Prime Minister. Each submarine also carries a sealed lockbox with a document instructing what the submarine Captain should do if the Prime Minister is unreachable (i.e, dead or so far underground he cannot transmit orders). Writing out those orders is one of the tasks a new Prime Minister does on his first evening in power, and they're immediately dispatched to all submarines by special military courier.

/Interestingthingstoknow#

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Thing is, though, our independent nuclear deterrent isn't independent.

We need the Yanks' permission to fire it, and analysis shows that the UK's warhead numbers wouldn't dent Russian defences that much.

The only permission needed is that of the Prime Minister. Each submarine also carries a sealed lockbox with a document instructing what the submarine Captain should do if the Prime Minister is unreachable (i.e, dead or so far underground he cannot transmit orders). Writing out those orders is one of the tasks a new Prime Minister does on his first evening in power, and they're immediately dispatched to all submarines by special military courier.

/Interestingthingstoknow#

Don't be so naïve, Ketara.

Do you honestly think that Washington would allow the UK to start firing nukes left, right, and centre without their say so?

If you believe that, I've got a horse for sale. It's called Shergar

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 obsidianaura wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 obsidianaura wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Only the truly mad or desperate would unleash that kind of devastation on fellow human beings.

Agreed.

They already have, if you remember, twice. Putin has threatened to do so several times this year.

War is a constant of humanity unfortunately.

I'd be fine if they wanted a sub base near Colchester, its a bit in land but Clacton is fine. Seriously if Scotland paid for them to be moved here I wouldn't have a problem. I think the jobs would do the area good

I agree nuclear weapons are immoral, that's not why we have them, we would never use them to attack anyone. It's there to stop someone like Putin from firing them at us. If they fire, we fire. They flew a bomber armed with a nuke on the edge of our airspace just the other day. There is a real threat. They are not for fighting terror or protecting overseas interests. I didn't think people thought that was what they were for?

Thing is, though, our independent nuclear deterrent isn't independent.

We need the Yanks' permission to fire it, and analysis shows that the UK's warhead numbers wouldn't dent Russian defences that much.

Not true, it is dependent on the US for maintenance but it is simply untrue that they cannot be fired without permission from US.

Can you show me the analysis you're talking about. A trident weapon carries a cluster of nuclear weapons in each one and it carries multiple missiles. I'd heard previously that trident could take out every major city

Yeah, we could take out every major Russian city, but the Russian counter-strike would blow this island across the Atlantic. We'd probably fuse with Texas!

Exactly that's what is called mutually assured destruction. That's why they don't nuke us and we don't Nuke them.

Also if you think about it, how many nuclear armed countries have been invaded.

Ukraine wouldn't be under attack from Russia if they had not listen to us and kept their Nukes


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Thing is, though, our independent nuclear deterrent isn't independent.

We need the Yanks' permission to fire it, and analysis shows that the UK's warhead numbers wouldn't dent Russian defences that much.

The only permission needed is that of the Prime Minister. Each submarine also carries a sealed lockbox with a document instructing what the submarine Captain should do if the Prime Minister is unreachable (i.e, dead or so far underground he cannot transmit orders). Writing out those orders is one of the tasks a new Prime Minister does on his first evening in power, and they're immediately dispatched to all submarines by special military courier.

/Interestingthingstoknow#

Don't be so naïve, Ketara.

Do you honestly think that Washington would allow the UK to start firing nukes left, right, and centre without their say so?

If you believe that, I've got a horse for sale. It's called Shergar

I think it's more naive to think that we'd agree to anything else.

I'm quite amused by the panic Sturgeon is causing. I don't believe she's trustworthy, but the idea that the scottish are "subverting democracy" by voting for the party that they believe best represents their interests is hilarious to me.

If the Tories and Labour want the Scots to vote for them, perhaps they should try to come up with policies the Scots find attractive.

And the Tories have no problem allying with bigots when it suits them- see their long running alliance with the DUP.

Edit: Also if I was British I'd keep the nukes. I would like Ireland to have some too, then we could have a bit more sway internationally. Very exclusive club, this WMD club.

Also if you think about it, how many nuclear armed countries have been invaded.

Ukraine wouldn't be under attack from Russia if they had not listen to us and kept their Nukes

The Falkland Islands are British territory - Argentina invaded it. Britain didn't send a missile their way with Major Kong sitting upon it

The US embassy in Saigon was de facto American territory, the North Vietnamese danced all over it.

Ok, that last example was splitting hairs, but nuclear weapons can't solve every problem.

Even if Ukraine had nukes, would they have used them if Russia had annexed Crimea? I doubt it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
I'm quite amused by the panic Sturgeon is causing. I don't believe she's trustworthy, but the idea that the scottish are "subverting democracy" by voting for the party that they believe best represents their interests is hilarious to me.

If the Tories and Labour want the Scots to vote for them, perhaps they should try to come up with policies the Scots find attractive.

And the Tories have no problem allying with bigots when it suits them- see their long running alliance with the DUP.

Edit: Also if I was British I'd keep the nukes. I would like Ireland to have some too, then we could have a bit more sway internationally. Very exclusive club, this WMD club.

For two years, Conservatives and Labour begged Scotland to stay in the UK. They stayed. Now they've shifted the goalposts and are saying we only wanted you to stay if you voted for us.

 Da Boss wrote:
I'm quite amused by the panic Sturgeon is causing. I don't believe she's trustworthy, but the idea that the scottish are "subverting democracy" by voting for the party that they believe best represents their interests is hilarious to me.

If the Tories and Labour want the Scots to vote for them, perhaps they should try to come up with policies the Scots find attractive.

And the Tories have no problem allying with bigots when it suits them- see their long running alliance with the DUP.

Edit: Also if I was British I'd keep the nukes. I would like Ireland to have some too, then we could have a bit more sway internationally. Very exclusive club, this WMD club.

It's not the Scottish it's the SNP. Who do well for Scotland but would injure the rest of the UK if they thought it would benefit Scotland

It's more about the SNP getting into a coalition with another party and having more influence than they fairly ought to. Like the lib dems but without a county bias.

That's what is upsetting people


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Also if you think about it, how many nuclear armed countries have been invaded.

Ukraine wouldn't be under attack from Russia if they had not listen to us and kept their Nukes

The Falkland Islands are British territory - Argentina invaded it. Britain didn't send a missile their way with Major Kong sitting upon it

The US embassy in Saigon was de facto American territory, the North Vietnamese danced all over it.

Ok, that last example was splitting hairs, but nuclear weapons can't solve every problem.

Even if Ukraine had nukes, would they have used them if Russia had annexed Crimea? I doubt it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
I'm quite amused by the panic Sturgeon is causing. I don't believe she's trustworthy, but the idea that the scottish are "subverting democracy" by voting for the party that they believe best represents their interests is hilarious to me.

If the Tories and Labour want the Scots to vote for them, perhaps they should try to come up with policies the Scots find attractive.

And the Tories have no problem allying with bigots when it suits them- see their long running alliance with the DUP.

Edit: Also if I was British I'd keep the nukes. I would like Ireland to have some too, then we could have a bit more sway internationally. Very exclusive club, this WMD club.

For two years, Conservatives and Labour begged Scotland to stay in the UK. They stayed. Now they've shifted the goalposts and are saying we only wanted you to stay if you voted for us.

An oversea territory doesn't count it's not nearly the same. What would the world have done if we had nuked over a tiny territory like that

Why is it bad when the SNP does it and okay when the DUP does it though?

Also, coalitions are totally common in a lot of other EU countries and the minor party usually gets completely screwed, and only benefits if they are very clever in picking their battles and spinning what happens. Fair doesn't really come into it, it's politics.

See: The Lib Dems.

 Da Boss wrote:
Why is it bad when the SNP does it and okay when the DUP does it though?

Also, coalitions are totally common in a lot of other EU countries and the minor party usually gets completely screwed, and only benefits if they are very clever in picking their battles and spinning what happens. Fair doesn't really come into it, it's politics.

See: The Lib Dems.

Except this isn't Europe.

This is AmBritica!

 obsidianaura wrote:

It's not the Scottish it's the SNP. Who do well for Scotland but would injure the rest of the UK if they thought it would benefit Scotland

How? Anything that the SNP manage to do with a confidence and supply agreement with Labour (the SNP ruled out a coalition long before Labour did) would have a broadly similar affect across the entire UK; besides there will be a maximum of 56 SNP MPs, no where near enough to do anything without the support of English MPs. Devo max wouldn't injure the rUK and to be honest at this stage its quite possibly the only thing that will save the union in the long term as the momentum is strongly behind the Yes camp, even after last year's referendum defeat. Besides the 3 main UK parties did make their 'vow' after all

Coalitions and other power sharing agreements are hardly new and are an inevitable consequence of our parliamentary system. Denying the wishes of Scots voters would bring about the end of the Union even quicker than leaving the EU would.

The SNP have released their manifesto, nothing unexpected really although I really don't like the proposal to implement a mandatory 50% female membership on public boards.

16 days to go. For God's sake, let me vote and be done with it. I'm dying of boredom here!!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Thing is, though, our independent nuclear deterrent isn't independent.

We need the Yanks' permission to fire it, and analysis shows that the UK's warhead numbers wouldn't dent Russian defences that much.

The only permission needed is that of the Prime Minister. Each submarine also carries a sealed lockbox with a document instructing what the submarine Captain should do if the Prime Minister is unreachable (i.e, dead or so far underground he cannot transmit orders). Writing out those orders is one of the tasks a new Prime Minister does on his first evening in power, and they're immediately dispatched to all submarines by special military courier.

/Interestingthingstoknow#

Don't be so naïve, Ketara.

Do you honestly think that Washington would allow the UK to start firing nukes left, right, and centre without their say so?

If you believe that, I've got a horse for sale. It's called Shergar

Either you're asserting that British nuclear submarine Captains take their orders from the US President, or that the British Prime Minister does. Either one is mildly ludicrous.

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Thing is, though, our independent nuclear deterrent isn't independent.

We need the Yanks' permission to fire it, and analysis shows that the UK's warhead numbers wouldn't dent Russian defences that much.

The only permission needed is that of the Prime Minister. Each submarine also carries a sealed lockbox with a document instructing what the submarine Captain should do if the Prime Minister is unreachable (i.e, dead or so far underground he cannot transmit orders). Writing out those orders is one of the tasks a new Prime Minister does on his first evening in power, and they're immediately dispatched to all submarines by special military courier.

/Interestingthingstoknow#

Don't be so naïve, Ketara.

Do you honestly think that Washington would allow the UK to start firing nukes left, right, and centre without their say so?

If you believe that, I've got a horse for sale. It's called Shergar

Either you're asserting that British nuclear submarine Captains take their orders from the US President, or that the British Prime Minister does. Either one is mildly ludicrous.

You know as well as I do that British Prime minsters couldn't send a rowing boat overseas without America's say so. We've been the junior partner a long time.

You're just avoiding having to admit you were wrong about the PM needing the US president's permission to use our nukes.

 Albatross wrote:
You're just avoiding having to admit you were wrong about the PM needing the US president's permission to use our nukes.

If Britain's independent nuclear deterrent is independent, my name's Margret Thatcher.

Incidentally (can't recall who asked) Lord Ashcroft blocked me on Twitter because I tweeted that I would '*literally* rather cut my face than follow Lord Ashcroft on Twitter.'

He tweeted back '...to help you in case you ever change your mind, I'm helping you out by blocking you...take care'

And then blocked me.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Thing is, though, our independent nuclear deterrent isn't independent.

We need the Yanks' permission to fire it, and analysis shows that the UK's warhead numbers wouldn't dent Russian defences that much.

The only permission needed is that of the Prime Minister. Each submarine also carries a sealed lockbox with a document instructing what the submarine Captain should do if the Prime Minister is unreachable (i.e, dead or so far underground he cannot transmit orders). Writing out those orders is one of the tasks a new Prime Minister does on his first evening in power, and they're immediately dispatched to all submarines by special military courier.

/Interestingthingstoknow#

Don't be so naïve, Ketara.

Do you honestly think that Washington would allow the UK to start firing nukes left, right, and centre without their say so?

If you believe that, I've got a horse for sale. It's called Shergar

Either you're asserting that British nuclear submarine Captains take their orders from the US President, or that the British Prime Minister does. Either one is mildly ludicrous.

You know as well as I do that British Prime minsters couldn't send a rowing boat overseas without America's say so. We've been the junior partner a long time.

Like that time we invaded the Falklands. Oh wait, America tried to stop it first.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
You're just avoiding having to admit you were wrong about the PM needing the US president's permission to use our nukes.

If Britain's independent nuclear deterrent is independent, my name's Margret Thatcher.

I'd love to know how the US president would stop one of our subs from launching.

He wouldn't.

Do_I is just wrong.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Thing is, though, our independent nuclear deterrent isn't independent.

We need the Yanks' permission to fire it, and analysis shows that the UK's warhead numbers wouldn't dent Russian defences that much.

The only permission needed is that of the Prime Minister. Each submarine also carries a sealed lockbox with a document instructing what the submarine Captain should do if the Prime Minister is unreachable (i.e, dead or so far underground he cannot transmit orders). Writing out those orders is one of the tasks a new Prime Minister does on his first evening in power, and they're immediately dispatched to all submarines by special military courier.

/Interestingthingstoknow#

Don't be so naïve, Ketara.

Do you honestly think that Washington would allow the UK to start firing nukes left, right, and centre without their say so?

If you believe that, I've got a horse for sale. It's called Shergar

Either you're asserting that British nuclear submarine Captains take their orders from the US President, or that the British Prime Minister does. Either one is mildly ludicrous.

You know as well as I do that British Prime minsters couldn't send a rowing boat overseas without America's say so. We've been the junior partner a long time.

Like that time we invaded the Falklands. Oh wait, America tried to stop it first.

The Falklands are a British overseas territory. You can't invade what's yours. Britain liberated it


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Albatross wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Albatross wrote:
You're just avoiding having to admit you were wrong about the PM needing the US president's permission to use our nukes.

If Britain's independent nuclear deterrent is independent, my name's Margret Thatcher.

I'd love to know how the US president would stop one of our subs from launching.

Considering they get the warheads from the US in the first place...