RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
Ok the mods can take it out if they want.
But no, not men, just the politicians... and these days a handful of those who seem hellbent on destroying us all ,men, women and children...
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
Again, most politicians are male, and the whole subject seems already done to death. :DMales are responsible for all the ills of the world in the eyes of some! 😉
V
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
stretch marks I'll agree there, my shoe bill, my hairdressing bill, because my hairdresser is bloody good at doing my hair, and most rational and reasonable of all, most men can swing better at golf because of their lack of mammeries, and that is not fair!!!!!
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
Some time back, Venetian, you were banging on about how we must have a nuclear deterrent because otherwise we will be attacked (by Iran and/or India and/or China I seem to recall but I could be wrong) and I kept wanting to ask WHY we have to have nuclear capacity. Something was niggling at the back of my mind and today I found out what it was: on the Letters page of my newspaper, a certain Malyn Newitt of Romsey has written the following:
'Why must Britain have nuclear weapons to deter some hypothetical attacker when, for instance, Germany, Japan, Australia, Canada and Brazil do not need them? Western and industrialised countries all face a similar uncertain political future. Why must Britain have nuclear defences whenother countries with comparable economies and far greater geographical areas to defend, do not?'
I can only echo that. What do you say, Venetian?
Also, yes I have read the Bhagavad Gita. It details Lord Krishna's answer to Arjuna's reluctance to fight against his own family members, although the war is a 'just' one. It is usually held to have symbolic meaning (do I not recall you saying this in other threads?) But even if you take it literally and say 'the Gita is not pacifist', then what exactly is your point? So what? Would you say it advocates the use of nuclear weapons?
Ah well, maybe we'd better get back to Fawlty Towers!!!:D
Love
Sunanda xxx
PS Please, please don't let's start this male/female thing again. It's my thread and I'll shoot anyone who plays the gender card!!!
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
mea culpa Sunanda, didn't realise it was sleeping serpent....
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
ORIGINAL: Sunanda
PS Please, please don't let's start this male/female thing again. It's my thread and I'll shoot anyone who plays the gender card!!!
*Hands above head, and not to keep the "hat" on straight * 😉
Just a very small reminder to all that this forum is "lightly moderated" in line with Amy's "sticky" thread at the top of the forum. Therefore nothing is being moderated out from here at this stage, and members have the facility to edit their own posts.
Also that we cannot guarantee to read every post on the forum as soon as it appears, so comments like "the mods can remove" could easily be missed. If concerned about somebody's else's post, please use forum support or PM.
Forgive the intrusion, Sunanda, and hopefully your thread will stay on topic 😉
Holistic
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
Aw Hol, I was only joking! We've already had a digression to sing the praises of Fawlty Towers and everyone seemed to be cool with that. Personally, I'm really really pleased to have a forum to rant in. I'm trying to summon the energy to start a new thread on Guantanamo Bay in the light of the Supreme Court's condemnation of it. But at the moment I'm watching the football - so you can see I've got my priorities straight!
Actually I think we all deserve a pat on the back because we do seem to be modding ourselves as we go along.
Love
Sunanda xxx
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
Yes, big pats on backs ... and have some Brownie points as well! 😀
Hol.
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
Hi Sunanda,
Yes, the Gita is read both ways. I admit I read it symbolically, but it can be read both ways at once including literally.
Japan and Germany were forbidden or self-forbade to have large armed forces after WW2; nations such as Canada, Australia, and Brazil - and many, many more - rely on the few Allied nations to protect them against any danerous situations, just as we in Europe could never possibly have withstood the Soviets had they invaded Western Europe without an American - even conventional - presence here until 1990.
So it seems to be the burden of a few nations to be strong enough to provide a protective umbrella for others, and the others save the money. Lucky for them!
V
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
P.S. I missed this new page! Sunanda, if you want to see me truly rant - and on your side! - start off on Guantanamo Bay. 😀
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
to me, it is a question of going in the right direction.
And having nuclear weapons to protect "our borders"(which change everyso oftenanyway...in 200 years, France might be spanish and Britain could beanother country) is no justification to endanger the future of Humanity (and the living natural world).
this is, as always, short-sightenedness. To be honest, when all life forms is gone, seas and rivers for 2 millions years, and the only survivors are desert scorpios, human countries (USA against Iran,etc) will be asilly detailin the natural evolution of things.
the problem is that people in power are so because they are "ambitious", ie greedy and afraid, so the dark spiral continues...
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
I agreethat some people seek power because of the wrong reasons. Some, and quite a few - I'm with you on that.
Borders don't change so much. Britain has a natural water defence which has not been invaded for one thousand years.
Fadette, this is what I mean about the "bug-a-boo" people have toward nukes. Goodness knows,I am not for their use ever, today. But people have a ridiculous science-fiction idea about what the use of nuclear weapons achieves. It is hardly the end of the world. That's a naive fantasy, and bears no relation to scientific reality. :DHundreds of nukes have been used already in testing areas. Do you know that? The fallout problem is far overestimated. It's not nice, grant you, but the world goes on and nations go on. Some are even untouched.
The Vedic Mahabharata seems to talk of a large nuclear war in the distant past. The result? Well, one side won and one side lost, but we are all still here.
I don't see nuclear weapons ever actually being used in our lifetimes. But if they were, life elsewhere just goes on. The idea that only "scorpions" survive is pure s.f. Suppose India and Pakistan ever did do it and went nuclear (God forbid), which is the largest nuclear exchange we possibly could see in the present world? Would that affect Australia, or England, or the USA?
Only incredibly minimally. Not the the extent that you would notice. So this post of mine is summed up in - Let's get REAL. Scientifically real. Hundreds of nukes have been used already ... and here we all are living merrily. 😉
V
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
Suppose India and Pakistan ever did do it and went nuclear (God forbid), which is the largest nuclear exchange we possibly could see in the present world? Would that affect Australia, or England, or the USA
So it's OK for all other countries to be affected by nuclear fallout but not the three you mention? Sorry, I don't buy it. For me it's not OK ever to use nuclear weapons anywhere in the world. I could quote John Donne: 'No man is an island.....etc. I am a part of mankind'. How can you say it doesn't affect us? That's a very narrow view. IMHO.
You start the Guantanamo thread - I've just watched the England match and am feeling particularly jaundiced right now!
Love
Sunanda xxx
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
Hi Sunanda,
I have no real interest in the G thread - suffice it to say that that I think it's "wrong" but also a scary example of the world's first democracy abandoning deomracy - and few pull them up over it. Oops - or did I just start it? 😉
I had to write fast and thoght of India/Pakistan in a second, and also the three nations in a second. Fact is, nuclear warfare is a bbit different to other warfare obviously, but people survive. Never mind the three "surviving" nations I mentioned. Almost everybody in India and Pakistan would survive too! And the rest of the the world would not be much touched.
Only two nukes have been dropped in warfare - on Japan. Er .... is Japan still there. Sure looks like it. My point is that the whole subject of nukes has a strange and very deep impact on people psychologically, which is not rational. All this talk of "the end of the world" is scientifically ridiculous. People get by, as in Japan. people always get by.
V xxx
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
Did like Fadette's description of the US - a silly detail!!! Excellent!