Oh arse.

So, I say I won't vote Lib-Dem, and then he goes and does this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8104238.stm

****.

OK, OK, OK, make that party policy, and you've got me.

****.

--
Wicked Uncle Nigel - "He's hopeless, but he's honest"

I have already made the greatest contribution to the fight against climate
change that I can make: I have decided not to breed. Now quit bugging me and
go and talk to the Catholics.

 

Wicked Uncle Nigel posted:

But, but... think of the Bonwick!

 

How odd. My thinking is the complete reverse.

 

heh.

The only real reason that Britain needs an independent nuclear
capability is because the French have got one.

 

Using that logic we'd also all be riding round on 106 BHP bikes,
eating smelly cheese, and kissing our workmates every morning.

 

You mean you don't kiss your workmates in the morning?

But seriously - can you imagine how (even more) intolerable the French
would be if they had nukes and we didn't?

 

No, and you wouldn't if you'd seen my workmates.

Easily dismissed by telling them they need nukes because they can't
win wars the proper way.

 

He'll be okay.

He will be commuting across N Wales to the new plant on Anglesey
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/8102697.stm

 

We've sunk their navy before and I'm sure we'd do it again if the
circumstances meant is was necessary.

 

I doubt I'll be around in 2024 so IRDGAF.
And as it is, we are now a third world country, so it seems stupid trying to
race and keep up with the "superpowers" as it were.
China and Russia will rule the world by then, and whoevers left will be
Muslims.

--
Greybeard

FLHR -03 UK (95 cu-in Stg 2. Big Boy 2!)

Garmin Zumo 550, To get me home!

ukrm@foxtails[dot]co[dot]uk

 

ROFL

"The French do Infrastructure really well"

"Well yeah, like the Maginot line"

 

I'm in between )

I think we need *some* nuclear deterrent, but carrying 50 warheads per
sub (and theoretically nearer 200 per sub ) is overkill (ha!).

 

Well quite. We should be able to deliver several kiloton class weapons
accurately within 100m in any field of conflict and drop a dozen 50Mt
weapons anywhere on the planet within a few moments of making such a
decision. Anything else is a hugely expensive overkill.

Then again we should be a lot more willing to use the damn things.

 

i'm sure ginge's workmates are eternally grateful that he doesn't.

 

Heh, 011000110111010101101110011101000000110100001010

Coffee -> keyboard, Baptiste and Seybel were stood by my desk as I
read that.

(No, they're not twins from Huddersfield either).

 

Looks at XJR... looks in fridge.... looks at workmate about to have
gender re-assignment ......

aaaarrrgghhhhhhh!!!!!

 

To have an efficient nuclear deterrent you need to be able to knock
out a large part of the infrastructure of any potential enemy and the
UK can only use non-nuclear weapons unless big brother gives us
permission.

We don't have a nuclear deterrent, we look after part of someone
elses.

 

....and pay for the privilege.

 

This isn't true for our own battlefield and free fall nuclear weapons. there
may be some sort of NATO caveat mind.

 

Do we still have such things? I thought the WE177 was the last of the
UK's tactical nukes, if you discount the "sub-strategic" configuration
of Trident.