RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
and another one just for the face expression!
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
Well, what the heck, it is all off-subject now but if that is OK?
Basil in his heydey put a few nails on the head. Actually he proved in quotes that men don't rule the world. His wife did. 😀
On fallout - boy, I totally agree. Who wants that? One can only say such things as that Trident has stopped wars, and that the West have stopped nucleuar wars in NW India/Pakistan.
The technology is simply out there now, so why not try to control it? I do understand why the West should not stop other nations getting it?
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
I liked the sausages one and the one about poor Manuel's rat.
There isn't anyone from Barcelona is there?
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
Thought you were talking about Caroline Wotserface Venetian, the MRS Mertyl show ( I think)
The new German Chancellor not a favourite of yours then?
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
I know nothing of her and she's probably fine?
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
Merton, probably!
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
Totally back on-subject, I vaguely caught in the background this morning that a "panel of Labour MPs" (or something like that) are to look into how much of a deterrent we need in future (i.e. what those few guys think ;)) and it may not be necessary to always have 4 subs with one Trident-carrying sub always at sea.
So far as I can see, this is a kind of half-measure and means scaling down but not stopping Trident totally. It sounds OK to me as the Cold War is over, just so long as we have something to put to sea if we really need to. Would a "half-Trident" such as half (two) of the subs be acceptable to the peace activists, I wonder?
So the subject certainly is in the news.
V
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
Venetian,
I had heard something about that also, but the thought entered my mind this might be real Labour, and possible another string to their bow to fire at Blair et al, in which case get outta the way, the Pacifists might be pushing the button!
I think we all do understand that it would be folly to be unprotected, but Gordon Brown's aggressive? stance on arming ourselves to the teeth tells a very alarming story, especially as this Govt couldn't arrange a do in a brewery, and our armed forces are pared to the bone.
In an older era then, whose catapult is firing whose stone?
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
Sheringham,
Four nuke subs is pretty minimal to start with, with only about one at sea at any time. Given the end of the Cold War I can see the space to hone that down by maybe half, but IMHO not completely.
Since we don't fight nuclear wars anyway, but given that there are always, believe it or not, something like 20-40 conflicts going on in the world at any time - and that the UK (such as the SAS) intervene in very good ways, and NOT under the thumb of the USA, I agree if you are saying hone down the nuclear subs but put of bit of money back into regular forces.
By coincidence I used to live just 5 minutes from the main shop, in London, where our own soldiers used to go to buy - with their own money - the quality stuff (packs, weather gear, boots, etc) which they were not being provided for as part of their jobs. So swop the money over to regular forces by all means, yes.
V
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
Venetian
Oh yes we must keep our defences up, including the emergency services also. I think if you include the 999 services in this and we are all aware that there are personnel shortages there also, and we are as civilians likely to find an hours wait for an ambulance intolerable, what then would it be if we were under attack??
I have heard of military personnel having to buy equipment to protect themwhen that should be bogstandard issue, rather like the local fire brigade having to buy their own tender???
Perhaps Mr Blair might like to buy his own plane?
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
Venetian, you asked:Would a "half-Trident" such as half (two) of the subs be acceptable to the peace activists, I wonder?
As far as I'm concerned, the answer is "no".
Love
Sunanda xx
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
OK, Sunanda, that's a pretty plain reply. 😀
Thanks, BTW. For I do believe that without this continuing deterrence the 20th century, which started out in the first half full of constant global conflict, would have continued that way beyond 1945. In which case I would personally have been called up to go to war conventionally for at least several years of my lifeby now, and I might not even be around and alive today. It's OK for the ladies to be so outright... You don't get called up: you just get protected by those maleswho are called up, in the main.
So again, while I respect the pacifist stance andI dosee the spiritual undertones to it, I don't accept it.
Er ... ever read the Bhagavad Gita? It's the principle Hindu text, and is much concerned with how to deal with conflict. It isn't pacifist.
V 😉
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
Just ruminating really here about pacifism/confrontation. It could just be the on going battle of the sexes.
Woman by her very nature gives life and protects and defends it to the hilt.
Also as little girls we are brought up to be nice and peaceful, not to fight, but expected ,asI was anyway to keep the peace between my brothers.
Small boys on the other hand are encouraged not to cry, keep a stiff upper lip and learn to defend themselves, (funny girls are discouraged to do that, but expected of us over our young)Wierd!!
When the Isreali army were recruiting women many years ago there was an outcry, all the points I have raised were used against the motion.
Even today when most Western countries do have women soldiers, are they active in warfare or behind the scenes nursing etc?
It could just be that we have to agree to differ over this, and treat each others views with respect? (I mean that generally, not confined to people on this thread?)
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
Sheringham, 😀
I wouldn't even "go there" on HP if I were you.
I don't recall the specific threads so can't give links, but most peopl on HP are female it seems, and there have been more than one intense thread (one quite recent) which IMO were frankly female-chauvanist, saying that men are responsible for all wars etc. I recall Conspiritualist giving good responses.
I could say more on the subject, but it's too off-topic.
V 😉