End of an era

Discussion in 'UK Motorcycles' started by DR, May 11, 2010.

  1. DR

    YTC#1 Guest

    What ? Like the 13 years of stability we just had ?
    And the 18 years before that ?
     
    YTC#1, May 12, 2010
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. DR

    M J Carley Guest

    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.
     
    M J Carley, May 12, 2010
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. DR

    ogden Guest

    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.
     
    ogden, May 12, 2010
    #63
  4. DR

    Jim Guest

    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...
     
    Jim, May 12, 2010
    #64
  5. DR

    Krusty Guest

    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.
     
    Krusty, May 12, 2010
    #65
  6. DR

    M J Carley Guest

    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.
     
    M J Carley, May 12, 2010
    #66
  7. DR

    Krusty Guest

    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.
     
    Krusty, May 12, 2010
    #67
  8. DR

    ogden Guest

    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.
     
    ogden, May 12, 2010
    #68
  9. DR

    Krusty Guest

    AOL
     
    Krusty, May 12, 2010
    #69
  10. DR

    M J Carley Guest

    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.
     
    M J Carley, May 12, 2010
    #70
  11. DR

    Krusty Guest

    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.
     
    Krusty, May 12, 2010
    #71
  12. DR

    DozynSleepy Guest

    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.
     
    DozynSleepy, May 12, 2010
    #72
  13. DR

    M J Carley Guest

    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.
     
    M J Carley, May 12, 2010
    #73
  14. DR

    ogden Guest

    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.
     
    ogden, May 12, 2010
    #74
  15. DR

    CT Guest

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

    Fucking Tories/LibDems!
     
    CT, May 12, 2010
    #75
  16. DR

    CT Guest

    What - like Hog's a bit "rightie"? :eek:)
     
    CT, May 12, 2010
    #76
  17. DR

    Jim Guest

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

    ConLib?

    Liberative Conservocrats?
     
    Jim, May 12, 2010
    #77
  18. DR

    ogden Guest

    Con-dem(nation), seem to be doing the rounds. Hilarious.
     
    ogden, May 12, 2010
    #78
  19. DR

    Krusty Guest

    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.
     
    Krusty, May 12, 2010
    #79
  20. DR

    Hog Guest

    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.
     
    Hog, May 12, 2010
    #80
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.