End of an era

What ? Like the 13 years of stability we just had ?
And the 18 years before that ?

 

Britain has one, literally one, nuclear submarine at sea. It can't
attack anywhere without American permission. It can't attack any
other nuclear armed power because it would be wiped out in the retaliation.
The only reason Britain has nuclear weapons is to maintain its `standing',
meaning it has to feel as important as France.

 

No, the only reason Britain has nuclear weapons is to retain its veto as
a permanent member of the UN Security Council.

Which isn't bad reason, tbh, but at enormous cost.

 

Saw this on Ben Goldacre's (the bloke who wrote Bad Science, a book
which IMO should be required reading for MPs and journalists) blog the
other day:

http://www.mo-seph.com/files/StructuralBalance.png

Apparently there's a fairly good correlation between government majority
size and the amount of debt they manage to rack up...

 

A /minimum/ of one. I'm sure the others would be out there too if there
was a hint of a threat (not that they couldn't launch missiles from the
docks anyway).

I doubt we'd ever attack unless we were about to be wiped out anyway.

So it's an opinion rather than some official arrangement then. Not that
there's anything wrong with opinions, I just thought there might be
something a bit more concrete from the way you said it.

Be interesting to see if CamClegg talk to Sarkozy about his sub-sharing
proposal after Brown veto'd it. Seems like that could save a fair few
quid.

 

That would mean India and Israel having a veto too.

Bad reason, and not the real reason. Maybe it's time to lose the
illusions of importance.

 

Specifically the first sentence, but more generally that ConLib was the
right thing to do given the figures.

I know. But many Labour MPs have been saying the same thing, & given
the fact that Labour weren't going to budge an inch on policies
(assuming they were serious about a coalition), & are therefore very
unlikely to have given the LibDems anything like the cabinet positions
they've got from the Tories, I imagine lots of LibDem voters would've
joined the Tory voters in their disgust.

I don't for all sorts of reasons, not least because the various city
bods they've talked to on the news over the last couple of days have
said pretty much the same thing.

 

Red herring. Israel are undeclared and India (and why ignore Pakistan?)
wasn't a nuclear power at the time the NPT was signed.

I firmly agree on the last point - it's high time we as a nation faced
up to the fact that it's getting on for 70 years since the Empire
crumbled and we really are just a small island off the coast of Europe.

 

AOL

 

Not since the 1998 Strategic Defence Review:

The number of submarines on patrol at any given time was reduced to
one, and the number of warheads deployed on a submarine was reduced
to 48 (half of what had been planned, and identical to the force
loading on its previous Polaris fleet).

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Uk/UKArsenalRecent.html

Even then, what would be the point?

There is no other good reason.

 

Yeah I know there's only one on permanent patrol, but that doesn't mean
there aren't others at sea doing training, testing kit etc.

Absolutely none whatsoever.

 

On 11/05/2010 21:38, Hog wrote:
snip

Heh, had this conversation last night in the pub. Started off with why
Scotland rejected the tories and ended up with my friend asking me why I
didn't vote for them. She was surprised when I said I couldn't. I
personally find it abhorrent that in this day and age we are still
lorded over by nobility and over privileged twats.

 

There was no NPT when the Security Council was set up and, at the time,
only the US had nuclear weapons: why does possession of a bomb have
anything to do with holding a veto? If it does, India, Pakistan and
Israel should have one; if not, why have them?

There are worse things to be than Germany or Sweden.

 

They have a veto because they're permanent members of the council, not
because they have nukes.

My point was that not having nukes would put the UK in a weaker position
when arguing for retention of its permanent position (and by implication
the veto that comes with it).

India is pushing for a permanent position. Israel will never get one for
reasons other than its nuclear status. Pakistan, well, lets not, eh?

On the topic of security council reform, I'd argue that India and Brazil
should be given seats and France and the UK should have their separate
seats replaced by a combined one representing the EU. If I could be
arsed to, that is, which I can't.

 

And the first thing this new government has done, is oversee an
increase in the jobless figures.

Fucking Tories/LibDems!

 

What - like Hog's a bit "rightie"? )

 

I spent some time whilst cycling into work this morning (don't ask)
pondering this exact question.

ConLib?

Liberative Conservocrats?

 

Con-dem(nation), seem to be doing the rounds. Hilarious.

 

Heh. There was some chav bint on the news earlier saying the Tories
getting in would ruin her life as she'll really struggle when they cut
the child tax credits. I despair.

 

Don't YOU fucking start. What is this a GSXR1300 induced virus.

Left and Right are another two expressions that have lost all their meaning
don't you think. Nothing is that clear and dried any more. Champ was Party
member for a while. I'm a Union member most of my life.

The most profound hope is that this Con-Lib alliance puts an end to these
cold war politics and that policies have to become consensus bound, both
MP's and the general public. With a bit of voting reform that deals with
the West Lothian question such an alliance could become a very long term
feature and both parties would lose the rough edges.

I see I was right about the fixed term government initiative. It is indeed
intended to cement this alliance for 4 years.