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.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I don't think we should be getting ridding of our nuclear arsenal, but I do think that Trident is wasteful and unnecessary. We don't need an expensive fleet of nuclear submarines, we should be using a cheaper alternative. Bombers and missile silos?
The UK has no bombers capable of carrying a nuclear payload. The last such aircraft was the Vulcan. Then there is the issue that if the bombers were kept on the ground they could be taken out with submarine launched missile attacks before having a chance to take off, nullifying our strike capability. That is why the US, when it used nuclear bomb wings as a large part of its main deterrent, ensured that it always had several wings in the air, within strike range of their targets, at any time, refuelling them in flight and having the crews operate in rotations.
Missile silos have huge infrastructure costs as they must be capable of withstanding a direct nuclear strike whilst still maintaining the capability to launch a return strike in order to be effective as a deterrent. The US and Russia both have an advantage in that they have huge swathes of land where they could build multiple large sites, spreading out their nuclear arsenal to make it more unlikely that it could be completely crippled by a surprise attack.
In short, if the UK wants a nuclear deterrent then a submarine carried nuclear system is the only viable form it could take.
I disagree, bombers can be hidden like any plane any whore at any hidden airfield. If radar and satellite finds the sub, planes sink the sub, sub can't launch. Drones are feasible and cheaper replacement. There is nothing stopping a new Harrier jump jet development which can land and take off pretty much any where as well to be considered. As ballistic missiles can be highly portable on trailers and self propelled vehicles, it would be a simple measure to fire and then relocate to a different camouflaged area.
I disagree, bombers can be hidden like any plane any whore at any hidden airfield. If radar and satellite finds the sub, planes sink the sub, sub can't launch. Drones are feasible and cheaper replacement. There is nothing stopping a new Harrier jump jet development which can land and take off pretty much any where as well to be considered. As ballistic missiles can be highly portable on trailers and self propelled vehicles, it would be a simple measure to fire and then relocate to a different camouflaged area.
I'm sorry but you're just plain wrong. The UK does not have a huge abundance of airfields, let alone airfields capable of accommodating an aircraft the size and requirements of which a strategic bomber would have to be and then we will need several as a single strategic bomber does not frighten anyone which deterrence is meant to check. It would be much easier for a satellite to get pictures of all the UKs airfields, analyse them to determine which ones are capable of housing and launching a nuclear capable bombing wing and then strike them than to scour all of the oceans trying to find a single submarine which could be almost anywhere, including sitting under arctic ice sheets.
Also, the Harrier never used its jump jets to take off for combat missions because it is an extremely inefficient method of take off and would massively reduce the maximum payload of weapons systems and fuel which the Harrier could carry. To suggest that we do so for an aircraft which will weigh many times more than the harrier and whose entire role is built around maximising combat range and payload is just plain dumb.
As for ballistic missiles being highly portable, yes they can be. However making them portable typically means a reduction in size, which means a reduction in fuel capacity which means a reduction in range. Also, once you have fired such a system there is no reason to relocate as you are not going to be capable of rearming your system.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/27 18:00:16
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
I disagree, bombers can be hidden like any plane any whore at any hidden airfield. If radar and satellite finds the sub, planes sink the sub, sub can't launch. Drones are feasible and cheaper replacement. There is nothing stopping a new Harrier jump jet development which can land and take off pretty much any where as well to be considered. As ballistic missiles can be highly portable on trailers and self propelled vehicles, it would be a simple measure to fire and then relocate to a different camouflaged area.
I'm sorry but you're just plain wrong. The UK does not have a huge abundance of airfields, let alone airfields capable of accommodating an aircraft the size and requirements of which a strategic bomber would have to be and then we will need several as a single strategic bomber does not frighten anyone which deterrence is meant to check. It would be much easier for a satellite to get pictures of all the UKs airfields, analyse them to determine which ones are capable of housing and launching a nuclear capable bombing wing and then strike them than to scour all of the oceans trying to find a single submarine which could be almost anywhere, including sitting under arctic ice sheets.
Also, the Harrier never used its jump jets to take off for combat missions because it is an extremely inefficient method of take off and would massively reduce the maximum payload of weapons systems and fuel which the Harrier could carry. To suggest that we do so for an aircraft which will weigh many times more than the harrier and whose entire role is built around maximising combat range and payload is just plain dumb.
As for ballistic missiles being highly portable, yes they can be. However making them portable typically means a reduction in size, which means a reduction in fuel capacity which means a reduction in range. Also, once you have fired such a system there is no reason to relocate as you are not going to be capable of rearming your system.
Well one last attempt to sway you! Why not have flying bombs like the V1s that act like planes and can fly to the target or better still adopt a larger pay load linked to a fighter relase aircraft? I.e Luftwaffe's Mistel system?
It helps give us more international power by being a nuclear armed country, a lot more than we'd have without it.
Plus, all the jobs that come with them. Plus we can't exactly get rid of our nukes that easily, it would probably cost more to dismantle them than to keep on using them.
It doesn't make that much of a difference internationally. The UK's seat on the UN security council is probably more influential. Is Pakistan a global power?
Its an incredibly inefficient way to make a couple of thousand jobs...
There is also the small issue that Trident is entirely dependent upon the US.
You need long range stuff that has a low possibility of being shot down. The most elusive of aircraft can't carry a large payload across continents, the payoff for speed and stealth.
It helps give us more international power by being a nuclear armed country, a lot more than we'd have without it.
Plus, all the jobs that come with them. Plus we can't exactly get rid of our nukes that easily, it would probably cost more to dismantle them than to keep on using them.
It doesn't make that much of a difference internationally. The UK's seat on the UN security council is probably more influential. Is Pakistan a global power?
Its an incredibly inefficient way to make a couple of thousand jobs...
There is also the small issue that Trident is entirely dependent upon the US.
That's a myth. We pool technical resources it is true, and stockpiles are in the US, but not the missiles currently deployed. There's nothing the US can do to stop us firing the missiles today.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/27 18:24:12
Well one last attempt to sway you! Why not have flying bombs like the V1s that act like planes and can fly to the target
You mean just like the Tomahawk missile? Which are largely ship or submarine launched...
Ok I admit I am not a ballistic missile expert, however I do believe many options should be considered for a nuclear option should the Trident System become totally obsolete. Adaptability is key in war, you can't be a naysayer. Nuclear payloads should be viable for conventional bombing, missile package and any other workable form, just as missiles themselves should be adapted for land, air and sea use. Hopefully we will never have to use them, but it pays to have options in case all your subs get sunk.
Back to the political front another political warrior of yesteryear rejoins the fray of 'turn the tide against Brexit'. Re-enter John Major attacking the country as 'unreal and too-optimistic' what a load of gak! Joining the legion of Canute's to turn back the tide is above all hopeless. I believe it is also shameful for him to preach that we are too optimistic. We need optimism coming through Brexit, the news usually is and has been constantly filled with pessimistic entries so why should we suddenly become grumpy and let Brexit slip into a national decline? I have no confidence in a man that ruined the UK's interest rates in a night and cost people their homes. "Obstacles are brushed aside as of no consequence, whilst opportunities are inflated beyond any reasonable expectation of delivery." Quotes on what he thinks Brexit will be, but makes a great self-quote for his 'Black Wednesday' debacle!
I disagree, bombers can be hidden like any plane any whore at any hidden airfield. If radar and satellite finds the sub, planes sink the sub, sub can't launch. Drones are feasible and cheaper replacement. There is nothing stopping a new Harrier jump jet development which can land and take off pretty much any where as well to be considered. As ballistic missiles can be highly portable on trailers and self propelled vehicles, it would be a simple measure to fire and then relocate to a different camouflaged area.
I'm sorry but you're just plain wrong. The UK does not have a huge abundance of airfields, let alone airfields capable of accommodating an aircraft the size and requirements of which a strategic bomber would have to be and then we will need several as a single strategic bomber does not frighten anyone which deterrence is meant to check. It would be much easier for a satellite to get pictures of all the UKs airfields, analyse them to determine which ones are capable of housing and launching a nuclear capable bombing wing and then strike them than to scour all of the oceans trying to find a single submarine which could be almost anywhere, including sitting under arctic ice sheets.
Also, the Harrier never used its jump jets to take off for combat missions because it is an extremely inefficient method of take off and would massively reduce the maximum payload of weapons systems and fuel which the Harrier could carry. To suggest that we do so for an aircraft which will weigh many times more than the harrier and whose entire role is built around maximising combat range and payload is just plain dumb.
As for ballistic missiles being highly portable, yes they can be. However making them portable typically means a reduction in size, which means a reduction in fuel capacity which means a reduction in range. Also, once you have fired such a system there is no reason to relocate as you are not going to be capable of rearming your system.
Well one last attempt to sway you! Why not have flying bombs like the V1s that act like planes and can fly to the target or better still adopt a larger pay load linked to a fighter relase aircraft? I.e Luftwaffe's Mistel system?
Spoiler:
I'm guessing you're joking, or trolling, because your suggestions are not only a bit out of date, but they're not even feasible. Submarines are the only reliable, secure and safe method of deploying our nuclear arsenal. We simply do not have the airframes, logistics, equipment or bombs to go back to airborne deployment. Even starting to plan for and develop a system like that again, that would even remotely work, would require such mind bogglingly high expenditure it would make HS2 look like a bargain.
The only debate here really is to whether we will be keeping trident or not, I suspect that in 10 years, we won't be a nuclear power anymore.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/27 19:29:16
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
I disagree, bombers can be hidden like any plane any whore at any hidden airfield. If radar and satellite finds the sub, planes sink the sub, sub can't launch. Drones are feasible and cheaper replacement. There is nothing stopping a new Harrier jump jet development which can land and take off pretty much any where as well to be considered. As ballistic missiles can be highly portable on trailers and self propelled vehicles, it would be a simple measure to fire and then relocate to a different camouflaged area.
For the UK the best method of nuclear deterrent is easily a submarine. Bombers have to fly to their target and drop/launch their payload (and are visible to satellites). You can bet your last dollar that if we were heading that way then every aircraft launch would be monitored with the utmost seriousness (if not already done). Secondly if you assume we will never be the aggressor then you the first attack would be on UK soil. The first targets will inevitably high priority military and government installations. We might just have enough time to escape to a bunker but arming and launching a nuke would be ineffective (effectively you need it permanently armed and ready to go). Hence there are a lot of risks with bombers - easy observation, limited launch sites, easily destroyed by a first strike.
Mobile cruise missiles also have the same issue; again if you assume a second strike attack, the first one is against us. To completely irradiate/eradicate the UK requires 6-8 of the largest nuclear warheads available. That's not a lot. You could easily make any area in the country unviable for launches first. You'd also have the social issue of having a permanently armed and ready to go nuclear deterrent rolling around different sites in the UK countryside. This is more difficult for attacks on the US/Russia because there is so much more space to play with.
Silos are possible but they are expensive and likely to be located near areas of high population and make them a primary target. Silos work where you have lots of them scattered over large areas of land making nuking each one unviable.
The advantages with subs for the UK is that they have a much larger area to live in (and that's three dimensionally as well). Once away from Scotland they can effectively relocate anywhere where there is water (that's about 65% of the world) and once underwater can't be seen by satellite (and would need a global network of underwater sonar to pick them up). They are also immune to a first strike on the UK as that wouldn't then cripple them. It's not say that submarines are perfect (all the eggs are in one basket for example), but for the UK as a deterrent they are most viable option (if they can fly straight anyway!)
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
I'm guessing you're joking, or trolling, because your suggestions are not only a bit out of date, but they're not even feasible. Submarines are the only reliable, secure and safe method of deploying our nuclear arsenal. We simply do not have the airframes, logistics, equipment or bombs to go back to airborne deployment. Even starting to plan for and develop a system like that again, that would even remotely work, would require such mind bogglingly high expenditure it would make HS2 look like a bargain.
The only debate here really is to whether we will be keeping trident or not, I suspect that in 10 years, we won't be a nuclear power anymore.
Would it surprise you that I wasn't joking nor trolling? I was just throwing out creative ideas for assessment. I believe if we do get rid of Trident in the future, it would be very wise to keep the nuclear warheads under lock and key -in case- a future doomsday scenario means we actually need to use them in some form of future deterrent weapon (as the variable factors dictate). I just think a couple of nuclear capable subs could easily be detected and sunk in a major war and then suddenly any spare missiles are effectively useless.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I have a brilliant nuclear solution remote controlled carrier torpedoes! Here me out, why not have drone sub torpedoes that can be remotely controlled or programmed, fire their set payload and then return to a secret coastal location for rearmament and refuelling or perhaps even a mid-sea overhaul by submarine, naval ship or disguised as civilian vessel? Cheaper to produce, less lives at risk, maximum production!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/27 19:41:19
Well one last attempt to sway you! Why not have flying bombs like the V1s that act like planes and can fly to the target
You mean just like the Tomahawk missile? Which are largely ship or submarine launched...
Ok I admit I am not a ballistic missile expert, however I do believe many options should be considered for a nuclear option should the Trident System become totally obsolete. Adaptability is key in war, you can't be a naysayer. Nuclear payloads should be viable for conventional bombing, missile package and any other workable form, just as missiles themselves should be adapted for land, air and sea use. Hopefully we will never have to use them, but it pays to have options in case all your subs get sunk.
You're not joking you're no expert, what you're saying here is pure fantasy land. I'd just give up if I were you. I say that as someone who has spent 19 years in the industry, and does know what they're talking about.
Sentinel1 wrote: Back to the political front another political warrior of yesteryear rejoins the fray of 'turn the tide against Brexit'. Re-enter John Major attacking the country as 'unreal and too-optimistic' what a load of gak! Joining the legion of Canute's to turn back the tide is above all hopeless. I believe it is also shameful for him to preach that we are too optimistic. We need optimism coming through Brexit, the news usually is and has been constantly filled with pessimistic entries so why should we suddenly become grumpy and let Brexit slip into a national decline? I have no confidence in a man that ruined the UK's interest rates in a night and cost people their homes. "Obstacles are brushed aside as of no consequence, whilst opportunities are inflated beyond any reasonable expectation of delivery." Quotes on what he thinks Brexit will be, but makes a great self-quote for his 'Black Wednesday' debacle!
Yep, relentless, optimism and positivity is key.
John Major was also talking about not using cheap rhetoric to annoy the EU, and to attempt to build bridges.
"In my own experience, the most successful results are obtained when talks are conducted with goodwill: it is much easier to reach agreement with a friend than a quarrelsome neighbour.
"Behind the diplomatic civilities, the atmosphere is already sour. A little more charm, and a lot less cheap rhetoric, would do much to protect the UK's interests."
Or do you think he's just trying to talk down the UK as well?
I'm guessing you're joking, or trolling, because your suggestions are not only a bit out of date, but they're not even feasible. Submarines are the only reliable, secure and safe method of deploying our nuclear arsenal. We simply do not have the airframes, logistics, equipment or bombs to go back to airborne deployment. Even starting to plan for and develop a system like that again, that would even remotely work, would require such mind bogglingly high expenditure it would make HS2 look like a bargain.
The only debate here really is to whether we will be keeping trident or not, I suspect that in 10 years, we won't be a nuclear power anymore.
Would it surprise you that I wasn't joking nor trolling? I was just throwing out creative ideas for assessment. I believe if we do get rid of Trident in the future, it would be very wise to keep the nuclear warheads under lock and key -in case- a future doomsday scenario means we actually need to use them in some form of future deterrent weapon (as the variable factors dictate). I just think a couple of nuclear capable subs could easily be detected and sunk in a major war and then suddenly any spare missiles are effectively useless.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I have a brilliant nuclear solution remote controlled carrier torpedoes! Here me out, why not have drone sub torpedoes that can be remotely controlled or programmed, fire their set payload and then return to a secret coastal location for rearmament and refuelling or perhaps even a mid-sea overhaul by submarine, naval ship or disguised as civilian vessel? Cheaper to produce, less lives at risk, maximum production!
Please, just stop.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/27 19:42:27
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
I have a brilliant nuclear solution remote controlled carrier torpedoes! Here me out, why not have drone sub torpedoes that can be remotely controlled or programmed, fire their set payload and then return to a secret coastal location for rearmament and refuelling or perhaps even a mid-sea overhaul by submarine, naval ship or disguised as civilian vessel? Cheaper to produce, less lives at risk, maximum production!
How do you propose to control these submarines? We can do it over short distances but unless you are proposing sailing a destroyer around above our nuke submarine drone then it just won't work.
Also, disguising a military vessel as a civilian vessel will most likely break many international laws, especially when said vessel is also dealing with nuclear weapons.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/27 19:55:37
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
I have a brilliant nuclear solution remote controlled carrier torpedoes! Here me out, why not have drone sub torpedoes that can be remotely controlled or programmed, fire their set payload and then return to a secret coastal location for rearmament and refuelling or perhaps even a mid-sea overhaul by submarine, naval ship or disguised as civilian vessel? Cheaper to produce, less lives at risk, maximum production!
How do you propose to control these submarines? We can do it over short distances but unless you are proposing sailing a destroyer around above our nuke submarine drone then it just won't work.
Also, disguising a military vessel as a civilian vessel will most likely break many international laws, especially when said vessel is also dealing with nuclear weapons.
1) Well some form of long range coded transmission or pre coded AI GPS type robotic system that knows when to launch at where, from what point at what time and then return to point x etc. It should be possible to do.
2) Ok so perhaps disguised vessels break international law, but in a scenario whereby Putin causes ww3 I seriously doubt international law will be at the top of the Kremlins list.
To all those critical responses. Firstly thank you, I enjoy constructive criticism as I lack knowledge in many areas. None the less, as you have noticed I am a rather imaginative and creative person. If I may ask, do all of you go round life and see something and then think how it can be improved or replaced by something better? I do, of course my visions are well just visions and may be ineffective when tested but could be the start of a real improvement. Examples not too fly off the wall ideas I have thought up are: A self cleaning load removing bucket for industrial/agricultural industry, improved spinach harvester and a production line automated factory farm concept for green leaf salads like but improving on the Japanese model.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/27 20:23:06
I have a brilliant nuclear solution remote controlled carrier torpedoes! Here me out, why not have drone sub torpedoes that can be remotely controlled or programmed, fire their set payload and then return to a secret coastal location for rearmament and refuelling or perhaps even a mid-sea overhaul by submarine, naval ship or disguised as civilian vessel? Cheaper to produce, less lives at risk, maximum production!
Maybe we should just design an AI that can do all the thinking for us. Hmmm, how about we call it...Skynet?
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
You're not joking you're no expert, what you're saying here is pure fantasy land. I'd just give up if I were you. I say that as someone who has spent 19 years in the industry, and does know what they're talking about.
Out of curiosity, was that 19 years in the armed service or 19 years as a technician, engineer or other?
Deporting an "exceptional" engineering student months before she completes her degree. I thought she was exactly the sort of immigrant this country needed.
Looks like some jobsworth(s) at the Home office have got there quotas to fill and grandmothers and students are easy pickings.
That's a myth. We pool technical resources it is true, and stockpiles are in the US, but not the missiles currently deployed. There's nothing the US can do to stop us firing the missiles today.
GPS. It's owned by the Americans. It's instrumental to most weapons systems. They can selectively turn it off at will. At present we don't have a functioning alternative.
Sentinel1 wrote: I have a brilliant nuclear solution remote controlled carrier torpedoes! Here me out, why not have drone sub torpedoes that can be remotely controlled or programmed
This is not brilliant. This is bloody stupid. Firstly remote control of ROVs is done wirelessly at short range or with an umbilical cord. You can't do long range without having an above surface buoy which defeats the purpose of your sub.
Secondly you don't give a nuke to a drone. It is technically very easy but for a lot of reasons you just don't.
Yeah it's sickening. Good people are being kicked out because they're easy targets. Meanwhile, scumbags are being given free reign to stay with taxpayer funded support for housing and other bs. It enrages me to no end.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I am pretty disgusted at the handling and timing of the cases above.
However, on a more general level, I am unsure what we should be expecting from the home office regarding deportation? There must be so many historic and exceptional cases, wallowing in purgatory as the wheels slowly turn. When their time is up does the HO then sit on it further?
How much time do you allow for an appeal? How much should you?
Does everyone have an exceptional leave to remain? Is everyone allowed to overstay? To have documents which are incorrect?
How much do you spend in order to timely process all those in the system?
How is it decided that a visa is granted or extended? Relax or tighten up those procedures?
Do you rip families apart after 20 years or remove their potential opportunity to succeed and be productive after days or mere weeks?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/27 21:36:08
Sentinel1 wrote: I lack knowledge in many areas. None the less, as you have noticed I am a rather imaginative and creative person.
Not wishing to be too critical, but fantasist would be a better description.
Are you implying that it is a bad thing to be one?
Future War Cultist wrote: Yeah it's sickening. Good people are being kicked out because they're easy targets. Meanwhile, scumbags are being given free reign to stay with taxpayer funded support for housing and other bs. It enrages me to no end.
My thoughts exactly, how they got away with it I don't know. They should have let her at least get her degree after paying in for it.
That's a myth. We pool technical resources it is true, and stockpiles are in the US, but not the missiles currently deployed. There's nothing the US can do to stop us firing the missiles today.
GPS. It's owned by the Americans. It's instrumental to most weapons systems. They can selectively turn it off at will. At present we don't have a functioning alternative.
Trident doesn't use GPS, it uses astro-inertial guidance which doesn't need communication with satellites.
Sentinel1 wrote: I lack knowledge in many areas. None the less, as you have noticed I am a rather imaginative and creative person.
Not wishing to be too critical, but fantasist would be a better description.
Are you implying that it is a bad thing to be one?
When your suggestions have zero grounding in reality, yes.
Oh come on! That's a bit extreme, yes certain pointers have more been what first blurts out of my head rather than fact, but deep down there is realism involved in my ideas. I am by no way endorsing them, but such routes could be explored and they could become viable. Nothing is impossible, whether it is relevant or effective is of course another matter. At least I like to throw concepts on the table rather than just moan about why things can't be done and not giving any alternative suggestions.
You want suggestions? Fine. I have a modest proposal. Why don't you shoot anyone who's been unemployed for more than a year, and turn them into food? It's entirely doable, grounded in reality and would help to alleviate the housing problem, reduce the drain on tax payers, and help Britain safeguard domestic food production. We could do the same to everyone over 65 to massively reduce state expenditure.
Or we could stop pretending that suggesting things for the sake of suggesting things is a reasonable approach and start actually thinking through what we're suggesting for more than five minutes.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You want suggestions? Fine. I have a modest proposal. Why don't you shoot anyone who's been unemployed for more than a year, and turn them into food? It's entirely doable, grounded in reality and would help to alleviate the housing problem, reduce the drain on tax payers, and help Britain safeguard domestic food production. We could do the same to everyone over 65 to massively reduce state expenditure.
Or we could stop pretending that suggesting things for the sake of suggesting things is a reasonable approach and start actually thinking through what we're suggesting for more than five minutes.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You want suggestions? Fine. I have a modest proposal. Why don't you shoot anyone who's been unemployed for more than a year, and turn them into food? It's entirely doable, grounded in reality and would help to alleviate the housing problem, reduce the drain on tax payers, and help Britain safeguard domestic food production. We could do the same to everyone over 65 to massively reduce state expenditure.
Didn't Futurama predict this. The writers must have some form of crystal ball. Coming soon to the UK "Bachelor Chow"
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Sentinel1 wrote: I lack knowledge in many areas. None the less, as you have noticed I am a rather imaginative and creative person.
Not wishing to be too critical, but fantasist would be a better description.
Are you implying that it is a bad thing to be one?
When your suggestions have zero grounding in reality, yes.
Oh come on! That's a bit extreme, yes certain pointers have more been what first blurts out of my head rather than fact, but deep down there is realism involved in my ideas. I am by no way endorsing them, but such routes could be explored and they could become viable. Nothing is impossible, whether it is relevant or effective is of course another matter. At least I like to throw concepts on the table rather than just moan about why things can't be done and not giving any alternative suggestions.
The problem is, your "suggestions" have no grounding in reality, and "throwing concepts on the table", when they're of this quality is just time wasting, and actively obscures any good idea that you, or somone else may have.
You admit you know nothing about the subject, but persist in making suggestions, which you believe we should take seriously. If you want to be actually productive, do some research into your subject first, and then come up with a seriously considered proposal instead of just spit balling ill-considered rubbish. You're much more likely to get a positive response.
Might be an idea if you applied that methodology to your politics too, just a thought.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/27 22:32:25
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
That's a myth. We pool technical resources it is true, and stockpiles are in the US, but not the missiles currently deployed. There's nothing the US can do to stop us firing the missiles today.
GPS. It's owned by the Americans. It's instrumental to most weapons systems. They can selectively turn it off at will. At present we don't have a functioning alternative.
Trident doesn't use GPS, it uses astro-inertial guidance which doesn't need communication with satellites.
Not my speciality, I bow to your knowledge.
edit: although I've never worked on any inertial nav system that doesn't have some form of GPS to provide corrections. I'm guessing that's what the "astro" part of astro-inertial guidance is for. Time to get my geek on.
edit 2: just read about it. Oh my god that's frikkin cool. Thanks Treesong.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/02/27 23:43:12
