Support NeoGAF

[kmag]

Neither of which would deter anybody, especially the likes of China or Russia. We could literally double the sizes of our conventional forces and they still wouldn't give two shits

Nuclear missles on a boomer are a very effective deterrent as its the most lethal 1st strike weapon out there. While it will rarely prevent a conventional attack against something like the falklands, it does wonders for the purpose it was really built for.

Thats to stop nuclear blackmail against this country

How does the likes Germany stop nuclear blackmail. Answers on a postcard please. Or Australia, or Brazil or any of the other 100 odd countries in the world without nukes?

The truth is regardless of history, we're a small island on the edge of Europe. No one gives a fuck. The Reds aren't about to take over Dulwich.

 

[Jackpot]

Name one permanent member who doesn't have nukes.

Name one that doesn't have cake. What a meaningless statement.

The thing about treaties and international councils is that their rules are very clearly defined to extreme detail. We're not going to lose our seat because of some "unwritten" rule you've made up.

Name one state with nukes that isn't a UNSC permanent member.

Spoiler alert:

Spoiler

it's the same list.

um.........seriously?

They're not treaty members, so doesn't apply. We are.

So now you're saying the unifying feature is a treaty against the proliferation of nuclear weapons? Well then we'd be streets ahead if we got rid of ours.

 

[Ding-Ding]

I want to vote for cons but I don't want a cons/ukip coalition

what do I do

Thats extremely unlikely to happen.

While UKIP looks good for 3rd place according to the polls, its vote is spread very thin, reaching into both Cons/Lab strongholds. However, its unlikely they will have enough to actually turn them seats to UKIP. At best, I cant see them getting anymore than 5 seats total (even then they would be lucky). I also have a feeling that their vote is going to break at the last minute (or just stay at home)

So the chance of them being kingmakers is extremely small. Anyway, just vote for who you want, otherwise your head will hurt trying to be tactical

 

[iMax]

Name one that doesn't have cake. What a meaningless statement.

The thing about treaties and international councils is that their rules are very clearly defined to extreme detail. We're not going to lose our seat because of some "unwritten" rule you've made up.

So now you're saying the unifying feature is a treaty against the proliferation of nuclear weapons? Well then we'd be streets ahead if we got rid of ours.

You've missed the mark here.

 

[Jackpot]

You've missed the mark here.

Enlighten me.

There is no rule saying a member must have nuclear weapons. It was you who moved the goalposts by try and excuse your blunder of "name one nuclear power that isn't a member" by saying they needed to be members of an anti-nuclear treaty.

All permanent members have the ability to veto any motion put forward, including a change to the rules saying members must have nuclear weapons.

Can anyone name a single pro-nuclear argument that doesn't also apply to Spain or Italy, who have gotten by just fine without nukes?

 

[Ding-Ding]

How does the likes Germany stop nuclear blackmail. Answers on a postcard please. Or Australia, or Brazil or any of the other 100 odd countries in the world without nukes?

The truth is regardless of history, we're a small island on the edge of Europe. No one gives a fuck. The Reds aren't about to take over Dulwich.

And how many times have any of the countries you mentioned, sent their armed forces away from their own shores without a nuclear power also being involved?

Answers on a postcard (a post-it note will surffice)

Also, who the hell said anything about threats to the homeland. Thats being extremely narrow minded. The UK's interests lie well beyond our border and doesn't even have to be a UK dependant. It could be anywhere we have to deploy troops.

 

[s_mirage]

It's pretty simple, if a nuke is fired at the UK we're all dead. A good part of the world would be ruined really. There's no coming out of a nuclear war, if the world starts one, the world is over.

Not necessarily. A limited nuclear exchange would be in no way world ending, and the operational plans for an all out response were drawn up to counter the USSR. Where is the guarantee that someone else would return fire on our behalf if, for example, a future rogue state attacked us with a limited nuclear strike? We'd suffer major damage with no means to retaliate, which is why we'd have been vulnerable to an attack in the first place, and other countries may not get involved for fear of escalation.

We need an effective deterrent against threats without having to rely on a response from other states.

 

[iMax]

Enlighten me.

There is no rule saying a member must have nuclear weapons. It was you who moved the goalposts by try and excuse your blunder of "name one nuclear power that isn't a member" by saying they needed to be members of an anti-nuclear treaty.

All permanent members have the ability to veto any motion put forward, including a change to the rules saying members must have nuclear weapons.

Can anyone name a single pro-nuclear argument that doesn't also apply to Spain or Italy, who have gotten by just fine without nukes?

Blunder? 😄

If we gave up Trident, not only would we no longer be an NPT-power state—we wouldn't even be a nuclear-power state in any sense.

How do you think we'll justify remaining as a permanent member on the UNSC as the only state without a deterrent? We won't.

 

[anonymous_abc]

Dead Ringers being back both delights and annoys me. Delighted because it was one of my favourite shows when it was on air. Annoyed because I can't fucking listen to it since I accidentally wrecked my laptop's ethernet port while extremely drunk and I can't get the iPlayer to work on wireless.

You can get it via the Friday night comedy podcast on iTunes.

As thrown around a few posts ago, here's a needless guide to all your election satire, comedy and alternative shows on TV and Radio. Because I love comedy.

BBC Two
Jack Dee's Election Helpdesk
Mondays, 10pm
Based on the format of one of his live shows, a panel of comedians try to 'help' people.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05rjcb6

Charlie Brooker's Election Wipe
60 minute pre-election special, promising to add much-needed confusion to the campaign. No date yet. With Philomena Cunk, Barry Shitpeas, Jake Yapp and Morgana Robinson.

Rory Bremner's Election Report
30 minute post-election special. Probably similar to his recent Coalition Report programme.

BBC Radio 4
The Vote Now Show
Wednesday, Friday: 11pm
The Now Show team are on twice a week with late night specials - first episode was on Friday.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05s7hm2

Dead Ringers
Friday, 6:30pm
Friday nights, two episodes on iPlayer. Usual impression based silliness and prank calls.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05pzstr/episodes/guide

BBC iPlayer
Frankie Boyle's Election Autopsy
17 May, iPlayer
Remember after the IndyRef, Frankie Boyle had a show where he was basically just bitter that it was a No and moaned at people who disagreed with him? Well, if that's your bag, it's another post-result iPlayer special.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32019679

ITV
Newzoids
ITV do that thing where they attempt topical comedy, everyone goes 'It's the new Spitting Image' but it turns out not to be of note. Anyway, impressions plus puppetry plus weird CG mouths. Your milage may vary.
https://www.itv.com/itvplayer/newzoids/series-1/episode-1

Channel 4
The Last Leg
Thursdays, 9pm
New series starts this week with three election specials. First has that fucker Piers Morgan on, second week has Paxman, and I think they're part of Channel 4's Election night too. They did a fantastic Nick Clegg interview and are fairly clued up on stuff - personally it's one of the best UK satire shows around right now.

Ballot Monkeys
Tuesdays, 10pm
5 episode series from duo behind Outnumbered, but more importantly... Drop the Dead Donkey team. It's set on the election battle buses, with the tagline 'Political comedy so topical it hasn't been written yet'. Interestingly it looks like the series will continue after the election itself for a couple of weeks...

More4
The Vote
Election Night, 9pm
Not strictly a comedy but worth a mention. Play from the writer of Coalition, which will be shown on the stage for two weeks before it's performed live on election night. Based around what happens at polling stations.
http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tv/news...in-live-election-play-the-vote-for-more4.html

Absolute Radio
The Alternative Vote
Fridays, 7pm. Also a podcast.
Matt Forde hosts a panel show where funny types put forward their manifestos for the country.
http://absoluteradio.co.uk/schedule/the-alternative-vote-198/

Dave
Dave’s Election Night Special
Election night, 10pm
No, really. Dave are doing a special. 90 minute film with exclusive access to Al Murray's FUKP campaign.

Fantastic, thanks I have lots to catch up on apparently.

 

[Jezbollah]

Damn. We really need that list of Jonathan's in the OP.

 

[kmag]

And how many times have any of the countries you mentioned, sent their armed forces away from their own shores without a nuclear power also being involved?

Answers on a postcard (a post-it note will surffice)

Also, who the hell said anything about threats to the homeland. Thats being extremely narrow minded. The UK's interests lie well beyond our border and doesn't even have to be a UK dependant. It could be anywhere we have to deploy troops.

See there's your problem. You want to be the world's policeman, or more accurately the world's policeman's toothless poodle. I say don't bother. Japan and Germany seem to survive the loss of 'prestige' well enough.

Trident and it's replacement reduce our potential ability for putting troops elsewhere. And other than the Falklands we've not deployed troops elsewhere in the world without the US's involvement since Suez. We couldn't even carry out an aerial campaign in Libya without US involvement, was it the 1st or 2nd week we ran out of cruise missiles?

We have absolutely no force projection capability just risky pretend capability. The Falklands campaign was an exocet away from disaster due to a lack of EWS, the new carriers repeat that mistake. But hey we can always find what ever money is required for the National epeen extensions at Faslane.

 

[Ding-Ding]

See there's your problem. You want to be the world's policeman, or more accurately the world's policeman's toothless poodle. I say don't bother. Japan and Germany seem to survive the loss of 'prestige' well enough.

Trident and it's replacement reduce our potential ability for putting troops elsewhere. And other than the Falklands we've not deployed troops elsewhere in the world without the US's involvement since Suez. We couldn't even carry out an aerial campaign in Libya without US involvement, was it the 1st or 2nd week we ran out of cruise missiles?

We have absolutely no force projection capability just risky pretend capability. The Falklands campaign was an exocet away from disaster due to a lack of EWS, the new carriers repeat that mistake. But hey we can always find what ever money is required for the National epeen extensions at Faslane.

So here is a question for you, would you be happy if all NATO countries gave up their nuclear weapons, while others retained theirs.

Just wondering if you are someone who doesn't mind living without nuclear protection, or if you are just another hypocrite who wants it just as long as you dont pay for it.

 

[Jackpot]

How do you think we'll justify remaining as a permanent member on the UNSC as the only state without a deterrent? We won't.

based on what? The nuclear deterrent membership clause is just something you've made up. The rules are already rigged so that a member can't be forced out.

 

[iMax]

based on what? The nuclear deterrent membership clause is just something you've made up. The rules are already rigged so that a member can't be forced out.

So you think it's just a coincidence then that the UNSC permanent members happen to be the same as those that are nuclear deterrents?

I'm asking you, how can Britain justify to remain in such a position without such a deterrent? It's regardless of what I'm basing my opinion on. If Britain wants to keep its position, how does it justify it?

 

[kmag]

So here is a question for you, would you be happy if all NATO countries gave up their nuclear weapons, while others retained theirs.

Just wondering if you are someone who doesn't mind living without nuclear protection, or if you are just another hypocrite who wants it just as long as you dont pay for it.

Happy to lose it. Ultimately it's still a three horse race with nukes. Our piddling 'contribution' is pointless chaff to make the American's feel a bit better. And if NATO ended tomorrow that wouldn't change. While the main players still have nukes no one will use them. You think we're still a main player that hasn't been the case since the end of World War 2 (sorry to be break that to you and your pals in the civil service). We keep trying to be, but we ain't.

Even if we fell out with the US tomorrow, I'd still get rid of Trident the next day. Of course if we did fall out with the US our "independent" nuclear deterrent would be useless within 6 months anyway.

 

[iMax]

So here is a question for you, would you be happy if all NATO countries gave up their nuclear weapons, while others retained theirs.

Just wondering if you are someone who doesn't mind living without nuclear protection, or if you are just another hypocrite who wants it just as long as you dont pay for it.

Honestly, I'd love it if this happened. I think Nuclear weapons should be solely in NATO's control, not the individual states. You could argue that is certainly the case now, in terms of the logistics and protocols for how a nuclear strike is initiated but a fully unilateral approach is best.

 

[Uzzy]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ack-Russian-submarine-in-Scottish-waters.html

Whether or not they come into our waters, we need to be able to identify and monitor threats - so not having a navy/airforce capable of doing so in the waters around us is a bit of an issue.

They are perfectly allowed to do it but why do you think they chose to spend on things their perfectly allowed to do? We should spend on the things were perfectly allowed to do as well. Our current military is still based on being capable of deploying into central Europe to fight a land war - but the Soviet Union has fallen, other countries are now on side and can provide that defensive capability in NATO; Britain should be highly operational across the Northern European skies and seas.

We totally should, yes, and hopefully the next SDSR will see some money thrown at a maritime patrol aircraft. No disagreement there.

 

[Ding-Ding]

Happy to lose it. Ultimately it's still a three horse race with nukes. Our piddling 'contribution' is pointless chaff to make the American's feel a bit better. And if NATO ended tomorrow that wouldn't change. While the main players still have nukes no one will use them. You think we're still a main player that hasn't been the case since the end of World War 2 (sorry to be break that to you and your pals in the civil service). We keep trying to be, but we ain't.

Even if we fell out with the US tomorrow, I'd still get rid of Trident the next day. Of course if we did fall out with the US our "independent" nuclear deterrent would be useless within 6 months anyway.

Pretty pointless huh. Do you really think our piddling 'contribution' doesn't concern others at all?. Cant even begin to tell you how incredibly naive that is.

Also, why do people like you always run to the extremes in your attempts at debate. I dont recall ever saying nukes made us a superpower. You also run to the extremes again talking about a fallout with America. All it would take for NATO to dissolve is America becoming an isolationist country again or the EU deciding an EU army, independent of the US is the better way to go. Both scenario's though doesn't necessarily mean America stops Trident support.

That is the whole point. You just see things in black & white and totally incapable to understand that the world is anything but. We dont even know where the threats are going to come from in 5 years time, let alone the threats in the timeframe when the new system is operational.

You want to risk that, fine. Problem is you ask the rest of us to do likewise. Well sod that

 

[kmag]

Pretty pointless huh. Do you really think our piddling 'contribution' doesn't concern others at all?. Cant even begin to tell you how incredibly naive that is.

Also, why do people like you always run to the extremes in your attempts at debate. I dont recall ever saying nukes made us a superpower. You also run to the extremes again talking about a fallout with America. All it would take for NATO to dissolve is America becoming an isolationist country again or the EU deciding an EU army, independent of the US is the better way to go. Both scenario's though doesn't necessarily mean America stops Trident support.

That is the whole point. You just see things in black & white and totally incapable to understand that the world is anything but. We dont even know where the threats are going to come from in 5 years time, let alone the threats in the timeframe when the new system is operational.

You want to risk that, fine. Problem is you ask the rest of us to do likewise. Well sod that

Ok so the US decides sod this for a game of international geopolitics, but we'll keep maintaining and subsiding the limeys nuclear arsenal? Aye right.

We could spend £100 billion on it tomorrow, and have the US shut it down within 6 months by ending the missile lease. Not only is it a pointless white elephant, it does nothing to protect us if the US decides not to play ball. We'd have 4 subs and a bunch of plutonium but we'd need UPS to deliver it. Why bother? If it's not actually an sustainable independent deterrent why honestly bother with it?

Give me one example where there could be future circumstances in which we face a strategic threat where the US nuclear deterrent is off the table, but in which the US would not obstruct the UK exercising the independent operation of trident. A UK Trident launch by the way is completely indistinct from a US launch so would open the US up to reprisals.

It has been and always will be an cold war us too deterrent. Oh you're glassing Asia Mr President, us too. Oh you're going to make Moscow a giant crater, race your missile there. Other than that it's protecting against threats which don't and almost certainly won't ever exist, i.e a localised UK specific threat which does not involve the US. If it's the US threatening us, they just have to wait a couple of months until the seals on the missiles need replaced in Alabama and we're left with 4 £6 Billion subsea battering rams.

You asked the question earlier whether I'd be happy to live like the rest of NATO under the US nuclear shield without paying for it. While I'd be happy to give it all up, I at least understand we functionally live under the US nuclear shield just now, we just like to pretend like we don't and pay a relative pittance (in comparison to what the US spends but a sizeable sum for us) for that delusion. If the US shuts up shop tomorrow or cuts us off, we're out of the nuclear arms club unless we talk very nicely to the French, who for all their faults have managed to keep a completely independent deterrent and at the same time a completely independent nuclear energy program (which allows them to run their deterrent at a lower total cost than the 'UK' deterrent, but then they don't pay the BAE tax either).

We lost any semblance of a properly sustainable independent deterrent when we retired the WE-177 airdrop in 98 and even that like every other UK thermonuclear device ever built required US provided tritium gas to build and maintain it. Although we did have enough warheads that could recover the tritium to maintain an ever decreasing amount of them. Funny enough the plant for recovering that radioactive gas was also in Scotland.

And "people like you", nice. Sweeping vaguely derogatory generalisations always the sign of a guy who is confident in winning the argument and who is a pleasant well adjusted chap.

 

[ICKE]

This thread is related to UK elections but the results in Finnish parliamentary elections are coming in right now and the Green party is heading for a massive victory (my choice as well). The existing right wing parties are losing existing seats so the coalition negotiations will be interesting. It is quite clear that people have rejected EU skepticism. Good news and hopefully UK opts for something similar though I assume the UKIP is strong?

 

[Mr Git]

-snip-

Brilliant, thanks for this. Had no idea Brooker was doing a special.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Anna Heaford @anna_heaford
Follow

The stripper had just arrived for @nicolab13 hen do..! #EdMiliband

The story that keeps on giving.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Fantastic news that Brooker has something planned for the election, any info on when it's due to air? Nothing in the upcoming week from a quick glance at the sky planner.

The story that keeps on giving.

Amazing.

 

[Jezbollah]

This thread is related to UK elections but the results in Finnish parliamentary elections are coming in right now and the Green party is heading for a massive victory (my choice as well). The existing right wing parties are losing existing seats so the coalition negotiations will be interesting. It is quite clear that people have rejected EU skepticism. Good news and hopefully UK opts for something similar though I assume the UKIP is strong?

UKIP are not strong. They are just very good at gathering (bad) publicity.

They will not get more than 5 MPs out of 650 available.

 

[Ding-Ding]

Ok so the US decides sod this for a game of international geopolitics, but we'll keep maintaining and subsiding the limeys nuclear arsenal? Aye right.

We could spend £100 billion on it tomorrow, and have the US shut it down within 6 months by ending the missile lease. Not only is it a pointless white elephant, it does nothing to protect us if the US decides not to play ball. We'd have 4 subs and a bunch of plutonium but we'd need UPS to deliver it. Why bother? If it's not actually an sustainable independent deterrent why honestly bother with it?

Give me one example where there could be future circumstances in which we face a strategic threat where the US nuclear deterrent is off the table, but in which the US would not obstruct the UK exercising the independent operation of trident. A UK Trident launch by the way is completely indistinct from a US launch so would open the US up to reprisals.

It has been and always will be an cold war us too deterrent. Oh you're glassing Asia Mr President, us too. Oh you're going to make Moscow a giant crater, race your missile there. Other than that it's protecting against threats which don't and almost certainly won't ever exist, i.e a localised UK specific threat which does not involve the US. If it's the US threatening us, they just have to wait a couple of months until the seals on the missiles need replaced in Alabama and we're left with 4 £6 Billion subsea battering rams.

You asked the question earlier whether I'd be happy to live like the rest of NATO under the US nuclear shield without paying for it. While I'd be happy to give it all up, I at least understand we functionally live under the US nuclear shield just now, we just like to pretend like we don't and pay a relative pittance (in comparison to what the US spends but a sizeable sum for us) for that delusion. If the US shuts up shop tomorrow or cuts us off, we're out of the nuclear arms club unless we talk very nicely to the French, who for all their faults have managed to keep a completely independent deterrent and at the same time a completely independent nuclear energy program (which allows them to run their deterrent at a lower total cost than the 'UK' deterrent, but then they don't pay the BAE tax either).

We lost any semblance of a properly sustainable independent deterrent when we retired the WE-177 airdrop in 98 and even that like every other UK thermonuclear device ever built required US provided tritium gas to build and maintain it. Although we did have enough warheads that could recover the tritium to maintain an ever decreasing amount of them. Funny enough the plant for recovering that radioactive gas was also in Scotland.

And "people like you", nice. Sweeping vaguely derogatory generalisations always the sign of a guy who is confident in winning the argument and who is a pleasant well adjusted chap.

O.K, you are talking utter nonsense. For a start 100 billion is a lifetime cost, so why would we pay all upfront. Also, the US supplies the missles, not the wahead. Its British design and manufactured and done by AWE in this county. Moving on, I dont think you understand what a independent nuclear deterrent is. The US gets zero input in the UK's decision to fire. As a backup, each sub has a letter from the Prime Minister regarding launch should the UK go 'off air' and its only replaced when a new Prime Minister enters office. Needless to say, I doubt the letter has the White House's swithboard telephone number to get approval from our US overlords

The missle itself is a bit of an issue but not insurmountable. The UK will have the full design, it will just have a very large expenditure to get everything off the ground based in the UK.

Oh, if you dont like people being condescending towards you, next time you make flippant remarks thinking you are being amusing, think twice before you start typing

 

[CyclopsRock]

This is super interesting

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsTonight/status/589861967126474752

Sorry for lack of Info, they're images and I'm on my phone.

Edit: mostly the lib dem numbers as someone the other day asked who in the lib dems would want another coalition with the blues. Well, a lot!

 

[avaya]

O.K, you are talking utter nonsense. For a start 100 billion is a lifetime cost, so why would we pay all upfront. Also, the US supplies the missles, not the wahead. Its British design and manufactured and done by AWE in this county. Moving on, I dont think you understand what a independent nuclear deterrent is. The US gets zero input in the UK's decision to fire. As a backup, each sub has a letter from the Prime Minister regarding launch should the UK go 'off air' and its only replaced when a new Prime Minister enters office. Needless to say, I doubt the letter has the White House's swithboard telephone number to get approval from our US overlords

The missle itself is a bit of an issue but not insurmountable. The UK will have the full design, it will just have a very large expenditure to get everything off the ground based in the UK.

Oh, if you dont like people being condescending towards you, next time you make flippant remarks thinking you are being amusing, think twice before you start typing

The UK does not design shit. It's all US expertise no matter what bs the government says. We just screw the bits together. We can't even make the FOGBANK, the US even forgot how to manufacture it at Y-12.

 

[phisheep]

This is super interesting

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsTonight/status/589861967126474752

Sorry for lack of Info, they're images and I'm on my phone.

Edit: mostly the lib dem numbers as someone the other day asked who in the lib dems would want another coalition with the blues. Well, a lot!

That's just what I'd expect. I'm continually surprised how many people just assume that labour is a more natural partner for the LibDems. In coalition with labour they might lose their identity altogether, while they've managed to keep themselves distinguished from the conservatives while in power.

 

[tomtom94]

This is super interesting

https://twitter.com/SkyNewsTonight/status/589861967126474752

Sorry for lack of Info, they're images and I'm on my phone.

Edit: mostly the lib dem numbers as someone the other day asked who in the lib dems would want another coalition with the blues. Well, a lot!

The middle-class libertarian "both parties are just as bad" vote has gone to UKIP and all that's left are the old-style Liberal voters who were clamoring for a deal with the Tories all along and a handful of left-wingers who think the Greens are just too nuts. I must admit I was not expecting a coalition with the Conservatives to be their number one option, though.

 

[Empty]

why would it be surprising that the remaining lib dem voters actually liked the coalition with the tories?

 

[Jezbollah]

why would it be surprising that the remaining lib dem voters actually liked the coalition with the tories?

Indeed. Isnt it a case of "better the devil you know?"

 

[Miles Quaritch]

'Liberal' Democrats.

Also frightening that 17% would be happy to see the Tories in coalition with UKIP.

 

[Par Score]

That's just what I'd expect. I'm continually surprised how many people just assume that labour is a more natural partner for the LibDems. In coalition with labour they might lose their identity altogether, while they've managed to keep themselves distinguished from the conservatives while in power.

Labour was the natural partner for the Lib Dems, before they were taken over by the Orange Book-ers, and before they went into coalition with the Tories. They've moved from slightly left of Labour to slightly left of the Tories.

Most of the Lib Dems most discomforted by coalition with the Tories have already left, that's why they're on ~8% rather than the ~23% at the last election.

EDIT: That last line actually shocked me when I read it back. The Lib Dems have lost two thirds of their national support since the last election, two thirds! They are simply no longer the party they were before 2010, and shouldn't be considered as such.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That's just what I'd expect. I'm continually surprised how many people just assume that labour is a more natural partner for the LibDems. In coalition with labour they might lose their identity altogether, while they've managed to keep themselves distinguished from the conservatives while in power.

42%-39% is within the margin of error of each other. From that, all you can conclude is that the Liberal Democrats are approximately equally likely to favour either party.

 

[Lirlond]

I don't get why the Labour supporters hate the SNP. Are they jealous?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I don't get why the Labour supporters hate the SNP. Are they jealous?

I don't think they do, aside from a few odd balls?

 

[Goodlife]

I don't get why the Labour supporters hate the SNP. Are they jealous?

Because the SNP means no Labour majority

 

[iMax]

What's happening with the BNP these days? Still cunts? They've been suspiciously quiet as of late.

 

[s_mirage]

I don't get why the Labour supporters hate the SNP. Are they jealous?

It might have something to do with not wanting the possibility of the UK government being held to ransom by a party that most of the UK cannot vote for, which represents only one region, and has a stated goal of independence for that region.

Perhaps they don't trust the SNP not to exploit their position, or for Miliband not to sell the party's principles down the river in exchange for job security.

 

[Ding-Ding]

What's happening with the BNP these days? Still cunts? They've been suspiciously quiet as of late.

Last I heard they had a bit of an internal ding dong.

So hopefully they killed each other

 

[iMax]

Last I heard they had a bit of an internal ding dong.

So hopefully they killed each other

ding ding says they had a ding dong.

 

[Ding-Ding]

ding ding says they had a ding dong.

Rubber Dubber Dingdong

 

[tomtom94]

What's happening with the BNP these days? Still cunts? They've been suspiciously quiet as of late.

Tl;dr: UKIP stole their thin veneer of respectability and Britain First stole most of their supporters, so all they've got left are the really hardcore racists.

 

[Lirlond]

It might have something to do with not wanting the possibility of the UK government being held to ransom by a party that most of the UK cannot vote for, which represents only one region, and has a stated goal of independence for that region.

Perhaps they don't trust the SNP not to exploit their position, or for Miliband not to sell the party's principals down the river in exchange for job security.

Sell their principals? The SNP follow labour principles, they just kept to them.

 

[iMax]

Tl;dr: UKIP stole their thin veneer of respectability and Britain First stole most of their supporters, so all they've got left are the really hardcore racists.

Oh yes, how could I possibly forget Britain First. Ugh. :/

 

[hohoXD123]

Are there any political commentary youtube channels you guys recommend? If only we had a John Oliver/Jon Stewart equivalent.

 

[kmag]

O.K, you are talking utter nonsense. For a start 100 billion is a lifetime cost, so why would we pay all upfront. Also, the US supplies the missles, not the wahead. Its British design and manufactured and done by AWE in this county. Moving on, I dont think you understand what a independent nuclear deterrent is. The US gets zero input in the UK's decision to fire. As a backup, each sub has a letter from the Prime Minister regarding launch should the UK go 'off air' and its only replaced when a new Prime Minister enters office. Needless to say, I doubt the letter has the White House's swithboard telephone number to get approval from our US overlords

The missle itself is a bit of an issue but not insurmountable. The UK will have the full design, it will just have a very large expenditure to get everything off the ground based in the UK.

Oh, if you dont like people being condescending towards you, next time you make flippant remarks thinking you are being amusing, think twice before you start typing

All UK thermonuclear warheads are produced with US sourced tritium gas (it's used to make the big boom into the huge boom) supplied under the auspices of the 1958 Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for Cooperation on the uses of Atomic Energy for Mutual Defense Purposes to give it it's full title. The UK lost it's only tritium source when Chapelcross in Arran shut in 2004 (second job I had out of uni was a 6 month contract there). Chapelcross was also used for recovering tritium from our warheads by the way.

We have 58 missiles leased from the US (i.e we can take 58 out of their arsenal in Georgia) but in reality it's thought we only take around 32 at a time since the 2010 defense review where we dropped the operational silos on each sub from 16 to 8, 8 missiles for the operational sub, 8 for the sub in transit/refit from Georgia, and the rest are stored in Coulport to quickly arm the standby sub.

Can we launch Trident without US say so? yes. Although as that would probably cause someone to launch against the US if they had the capability it would be wise to give them the heads up first. Can we maintain it possibly, but without the US supply of tritium we'd be dismantling warheads to maintain yield from an ever reducing supply of warheads. It's thought we have around 225. You need between 3 and 4 grams of Tritium to build a warhead, as Tritium decays rapidly (and the Helium-3 it produces absorbs fission neutrons) you need to top up with between 0.2g and 0.4g per year. You can't store Tritium for very long due to the decay so you'd need a reasonably regular supply.

Unless we pull a heavy water reactor capable of accepting Lithium 6 out of our asses in the meantime you'd have a short period of time (measured in a few years) you could maintain an ever reducing arsenal of thermonuclear weapons without US support.

According to the US Navy the seals on the propellant chamber need to be replaced every 6 months on the D5 so operationally the number of missiles would be limited without US support. That's probably something we could fix, the gas not really.

Don't take my word for it, the independent cross party Trident commission stated without US support you could measure the viability of the deterrent in months not years.

If the United States were to withdraw their cooperation completely, the UK nuclear capability would probably have a life expectancy measured in months rather than years

That to me is not independent. If a nuclear deterrent is reliant on another country to remain operational, you are wedded to that countries foreign policy. The French have a truly independent deterrent, we do not. We require to stay on friendly terms with the US come what may. If it's not independent then we're just paying a bit more than most to stay under the US shield

 

[Uzzy]

Sell their principals? The SNP follow labour principles, they just kept to them.

Labour support the Union. SNP want to break it up. That's a pretty big difference in principles.

 

[kmag]

YouGov/Sun poll tonight – Labour have a one-point lead: CON 34%, LAB 35%, LD 8%, UKIP 13%, GRN 5%

 

[WayneMorse]

What's happening with the BNP these days? Still cunts? They've been suspiciously quiet as of late.

Griffin got kicked out and no one cares about them cause the pragmatic racist vote is going for UKIP this time.