How do nuclear weapons act as a deterrent? Like, if you blow us to smithereens then we blow you to smithereens too, see how you like those apples bud! Great. The planet is dead and a nuclear winter presides over every part of it but at least one side gives another side a taste of their own medicine. This apparently makes sense to some people, and fortunes are spent on this policy. I must be missing something obvious here but to me nuclear weapons will only ever be used in a planet suicide situation and if that happens it is all over.
I see it as arming ourselves with the same if not better weapons then our enemies have. Why would you not want the means to defend yourself if attacked? In my house I have a baseball bat under my bed because if someone breaks in I want a means to defend myself and my family. I'm not ashamed to admit that
Because nuclear weapons are not a defense against attack. Once deployed everything is all over and finished, my children, your children, everybody's children. The only thing Nuclear weapons represent is revenge and mutually assured destruction. Some people might want that, but not me.
Nuclear weapons are a disaster full stop but the realisation is they ARE part of this world whether you like it or not. No amount of protesting or peace marches is going to stop some nutter in North Korea building and potentially firing these. So in your opinion what IS the best defence against this?
Jaw jaw not war war.
I notice it was a nutter in the White House who recently fired the 'mother of all bombs', and it was a White House nutter that dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
It was negotiating with terrorists that bought about peace in Northern Ireland. Now I wonder who suggested that?
The Tory manifesto won't say 'we will actively take money and funding away from the poor, the young, and the disabled and cut taxes for the rich and give lucrative contracts or funding to private companies we are shareholders in', but that will be what they do (and what they are currently trying to do or actively doing).
I will be voting Tories, i grew up under a single parent family with 2 brothers living in a council house in a ruff estate but my mum always had a job and worked hard as other people (neighbours/friends) around us lived on the dole each week (majority of them seemed fine to work just chose not to and have a lot of kids instead). We didn't have a lot of money but they always seemed to have more than we did (such as material things,cars etc)
Why should i now work hard for my own family (my wife & child) for others to sit at home and i pay for them via my NI/Taxes?!
I can't say Theresa May fills me with confidence but i agree with their policies immigration, trident, benefit caps etc and at least they try to cut these on the face of things anyway
I agree that immigration is good for our economy but i want to stop the people coming to the UK that cheat benefits to build their homes in eastern Europe & people that hate the UK but are happy to be put up in a lush council house and live on benefits whilst preaching hate of the way we live (ie hate preachers "Anjem Choudary" etc) why do we still pay for these peoples families to live in they UK they should be deport? And i cant see Corbyn kicking these people out of the country! I doubt the Tories will either but i will take my chances
As for Brexit people want to know what is happening i would imagine Theresa May/David Davis know what they want to do but will not spill the beans until they know how the EU will be negotiating with us. I certainly agree that we shouldn't commit to the current EU nationals living here are fine to stay until we know about our current Ex-pats and their situation within the EU as it will just weaken our position!
(if anyone cares my mum managed to save and buy her own home on her own, I am 24yrs old i own my own house have a nice car and have a good job with great prospects as i was taught to work hard to get what you want in life)
Out of interest how do you think your council house was paid for/subsidised?
As @Red_James states - via a system that his mum paid in to: "grew up under a single parent family with 2 brothers living in a council house in a ruff estate but my mum always had a job".
Unlike those he specifically singles out as undeserving - "around us lived on the dole each week (majority of them seemed fine to work just chose not to and have a lot of kids instead).".
It's quite clear to see there's a difference, both morally and practically, about being allowed to use the system that you've paid in to vs abusing a system you have no intention of paying in to. It's different if you're vulnerable, ill or needy - but neither vulnerable, ill or needy are life choices.
As a teenager, when my mum and I lost our house we didn't know if we had anywhere to live until a matter of hours before we had to leave; fortunately the housing association came through for us at the very final stages. Which, considering my mum had 30 odd years of paying in to the system, I don't think is particularly a piss take. She used the system when there was no alternative, how the system was designed to be used - in an practical and sustainable way.
During the year we were in emergency accommodation we met exactly the kind of people James talks about; there was a stream of police on our road constantly, a neighbour who was investigated for fraud for (a) living in a property under his girlfriends name, and (b) claiming JSA whilst having undeclared income - there was perhaps 3 genuine cases out of the 20 or so flats.
Later when we were found more permanent accommodation we had neighbours who knew how to play the game; they knew their exact entitlements, what circumstances could change to warrant an upgrade etc. These are genuinely nice people, the likes who I'd have a cigarette with if we were outside the flats at the same time, but were they legitimate? No. Were they abusing the system? Yes.
It's a complex issue, but I can sympathise with James' position. James' story is the perfect example of social mobility, and from James' age - I would assume a lot of that progress was made under the last 7 years too.
Fine - some people cheat the system (even while many more survive by it) - so what do you do? Oh, you dismantle the system, that's right
No I don't want to dismantle it as it helped me and my family when we was in need! What I was trying to get across is that not all Tory voters are stuck up toffs!
Yet you are happy to vote for a party that does want to - and is in the process of dismantling it?
How do nuclear weapons act as a deterrent? Like, if you blow us to smithereens then we blow you to smithereens too, see how you like those apples bud! Great. The planet is dead and a nuclear winter presides over every part of it but at least one side gives another side a taste of their own medicine. This apparently makes sense to some people, and fortunes are spent on this policy. I must be missing something obvious here but to me nuclear weapons will only ever be used in a planet suicide situation and if that happens it is all over.
I see it as arming ourselves with the same if not better weapons then our enemies have. Why would you not want the means to defend yourself if attacked? In my house I have a baseball bat under my bed because if someone breaks in I want a means to defend myself and my family. I'm not ashamed to admit that
Because nuclear weapons are not a defense against attack. Once deployed everything is all over and finished, my children, your children, everybody's children. The only thing Nuclear weapons represent is revenge and mutually assured destruction. Some people might want that, but not me.
Nuclear weapons are a disaster full stop but the realisation is they ARE part of this world whether you like it or not. No amount of protesting or peace marches is going to stop some nutter in North Korea building and potentially firing these. So in your opinion what IS the best defence against this?
Nuclear deterrence only works when those with the weapons are capable and willing to act rationally.
A nutter with control of a nuclear arsenal will be less likely to be deterred.
However, having a radically different world view from the West does not automatically make Kim Jong Un a nutter.
He is an unpleasant dictator, heading an appalling regime, but they have their own political and military concerns (including the thought that China might abandon the DPRK to it's enemies).
Looked at from their perspective, developing a competent nuclear arsenal and delivery systems is deterrence.
How do nuclear weapons act as a deterrent? Like, if you blow us to smithereens then we blow you to smithereens too, see how you like those apples bud! Great. The planet is dead and a nuclear winter presides over every part of it but at least one side gives another side a taste of their own medicine. This apparently makes sense to some people, and fortunes are spent on this policy. I must be missing something obvious here but to me nuclear weapons will only ever be used in a planet suicide situation and if that happens it is all over.
I see it as arming ourselves with the same if not better weapons then our enemies have. Why would you not want the means to defend yourself if attacked? In my house I have a baseball bat under my bed because if someone breaks in I want a means to defend myself and my family. I'm not ashamed to admit that
I'm sure that any baseball bat in your bedroom is only there should you feel a desperate need to practice softball at 3am...
How do nuclear weapons act as a deterrent? Like, if you blow us to smithereens then we blow you to smithereens too, see how you like those apples bud! Great. The planet is dead and a nuclear winter presides over every part of it but at least one side gives another side a taste of their own medicine. This apparently makes sense to some people, and fortunes are spent on this policy. I must be missing something obvious here but to me nuclear weapons will only ever be used in a planet suicide situation and if that happens it is all over.
Nuclear deterrence is basically an insurance policy against deliberately starting World War 3.
Deterrence is based on the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (Dean Acheson?), where no-one can "win" a nuclear conflict, which works perfectly well when you have two main factions with the capacity to eliminate all life on Earth. It is a less certain defensive policy when any one nuclear power (however minor), in a world of multiple nuclear armed factions, believes that it might achieve some advantage by their use (a more likely scenario where warhead delivery, in particular with non-state actors, could potentially be achieved without missiles that could be tracked).
While it is a policy that relies on a desire for self-preservation, it also depends on each party respecting the other's ability to retaliate.
It's essential that no one nuclear power gains a significant technical advantage over its opponents, or a first strike "victory" might be considered achievable.
Where it might fall down is in a case like North Korea, in which one side may become desperate, feeling themselves to have no option, or the Middle East, where a country which may not officially have nuclear weapons is expected to utilise them as a last ditch defence against invasion if it's opponents ever got the upper hand (including an expected nuclear mine in the Golan Heights).
We have suicide bombers, so it won't be long before we have suicide nuclear bombers.
I'm reasonably certain that that was in effect what the nuclear bomber squadrons were until the development of things like cruise missiles.
But yes, if certain elements get nuclear weapons, suicide bomber delivery is all but inevitable (apart from anything else, as the Korean missiles demonstrate, they are both accurate and cheaper than alternatives).
How do nuclear weapons act as a deterrent? Like, if you blow us to smithereens then we blow you to smithereens too, see how you like those apples bud! Great. The planet is dead and a nuclear winter presides over every part of it but at least one side gives another side a taste of their own medicine. This apparently makes sense to some people, and fortunes are spent on this policy. I must be missing something obvious here but to me nuclear weapons will only ever be used in a planet suicide situation and if that happens it is all over.
Nuclear deterrence is basically an insurance policy against deliberately starting World War 3.
Deterrence is based on the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (Dean Acheson?), where no-one can "win" a nuclear conflict, which works perfectly well when you have two main factions with the capacity to eliminate all life on Earth. It is a less certain defensive policy when any one nuclear power (however minor), in a world of multiple nuclear armed factions, believes that it might achieve some advantage by their use (a more likely scenario where warhead delivery, in particular with non-state actors, could potentially be achieved without missiles that could be tracked).
While it is a policy that relies on a desire for self-preservation, it also depends on each party respecting the other's ability to retaliate.
It's essential that no one nuclear power gains a significant technical advantage over its opponents, or a first strike "victory" might be considered achievable.
Where it might fall down is in a case like North Korea, in which one side may become desperate, feeling themselves to have no option, or the Middle East, where a country which may not officially have nuclear weapons is expected to utilise them as a last ditch defence against invasion if it's opponents ever got the upper hand (including an expected nuclear mine in the Golan Heights).
We have suicide bombers, so it won't be long before we have suicide nuclear bombers.
I'm reasonably certain that that was in effect what the nuclear bomber squadrons were until the development of things like cruise missiles.
But yes, if certain elements get nuclear weapons, suicide bomber delivery is all but inevitable (apart from anything else, as the Korean missiles demonstrate, they are both accurate and cheaper than alternatives).
My concern is that nations like north Korea might make nuclear weapons available to terrorists to deliver by lorry or boat.
Wasn't gadafy persuaded to give up nuclear technology?
The MAD concept has undeniably contributed to the lack of a third world war over the decades.
As Trident won't be an independent deterrent I understand why people might argue against the system.
What makes no sense at all is to purchase all this hardware at huge expense and tell your prospective enemies that you would never use them!
Historically I think it is true to say that there have been American troops traipsing all over Korea, but no Korean troops traipsing all over America.
Define Korea, and define historically.
Before the Korean War we're discussing WW2, so The Korean War seems like the logical place to start - as it's as far back as we can go. In which case, the US (amongst a whole plethora of others) were there under the banner of the UN, and were to hold back an invasion of the South from the North - following on from the post-war/cold-war separation of the two. (A la Germany and The Berlin Wall)
Since then, the only way the US has had soldiers traipsing over Korean land has been the same way US/UK soldiers have been traipsing over post-WW2 German land: primarily as a form of defence to prevent an invasion, and secondarily as an ally of the nation. (In fact, it's similar to the USAF presence still in the UK)
Whether it's correct to dice up regions between the victors - as precipitated the USSR and also the Korean border - is another issue completely, but it's wrong suggest that it's a defence for one of the most despicable regimes of the twenty first century - over 70 years later - to conduct themselves with petulance.
Not to mention that the metric of "they've had more troops traipsing over their land" is horribly simplistic, would that logic hold true for Bosnia or places that have had US and UK boots on the ground to prevent genocide and mass murder? Context is the key.
How do nuclear weapons act as a deterrent? Like, if you blow us to smithereens then we blow you to smithereens too, see how you like those apples bud! Great. The planet is dead and a nuclear winter presides over every part of it but at least one side gives another side a taste of their own medicine. This apparently makes sense to some people, and fortunes are spent on this policy. I must be missing something obvious here but to me nuclear weapons will only ever be used in a planet suicide situation and if that happens it is all over.
Nuclear deterrence is basically an insurance policy against deliberately starting World War 3.
Deterrence is based on the concept of Mutual Assured Destruction (Dean Acheson?), where no-one can "win" a nuclear conflict, which works perfectly well when you have two main factions with the capacity to eliminate all life on Earth. It is a less certain defensive policy when any one nuclear power (however minor), in a world of multiple nuclear armed factions, believes that it might achieve some advantage by their use (a more likely scenario where warhead delivery, in particular with non-state actors, could potentially be achieved without missiles that could be tracked).
While it is a policy that relies on a desire for self-preservation, it also depends on each party respecting the other's ability to retaliate.
It's essential that no one nuclear power gains a significant technical advantage over its opponents, or a first strike "victory" might be considered achievable.
Where it might fall down is in a case like North Korea, in which one side may become desperate, feeling themselves to have no option, or the Middle East, where a country which may not officially have nuclear weapons is expected to utilise them as a last ditch defence against invasion if it's opponents ever got the upper hand (including an expected nuclear mine in the Golan Heights).
We have suicide bombers, so it won't be long before we have suicide nuclear bombers.
I'm reasonably certain that that was in effect what the nuclear bomber squadrons were until the development of things like cruise missiles.
But yes, if certain elements get nuclear weapons, suicide bomber delivery is all but inevitable (apart from anything else, as the Korean missiles demonstrate, they are both accurate and cheaper than alternatives).
My concern is that nations like north Korea might make nuclear weapons available to terrorists to deliver by lorry or boat.
Wasn't gadafy persuaded to give up nuclear technology?
The MAD concept has undeniably contributed to the lack of a third world war over the decades.
As Trident won't be an independent deterrent I understand why people might argue against the system.
What makes no sense at all is to purchase all this hardware at huge expense and tell your prospective enemies that you would never use them!
I agree wholeheartedly with you regarding nations being able to use nuclear weapons to support terrorist actions - a brilliant, and IMO more credible example, is that of Pakistan. A country which has supposedly developed its own nuclear programme to counter the threat of India, very much in the spirit of MAD.
Alas, Pakistan is far from a stable country; with a lot of domestic issues fuelled by religion, border areas with heavy Taliban presences, and security services with some curious alleged sympathies.
It's not difficult to see how that situation could pan out, either via a hostile administration gaining power, or technology and equipment falling in to the wrong hands.
How do nuclear weapons act as a deterrent? Like, if you blow us to smithereens then we blow you to smithereens too, see how you like those apples bud! Great. The planet is dead and a nuclear winter presides over every part of it but at least one side gives another side a taste of their own medicine. This apparently makes sense to some people, and fortunes are spent on this policy. I must be missing something obvious here but to me nuclear weapons will only ever be used in a planet suicide situation and if that happens it is all over.
I see it as arming ourselves with the same if not better weapons then our enemies have. Why would you not want the means to defend yourself if attacked? In my house I have a baseball bat under my bed because if someone breaks in I want a means to defend myself and my family. I'm not ashamed to admit that
You fool, a child could get hold of that baseball bat and give up cricket for good
Haha. It's all golf and football in my house
I reckon you could fuck up a home invader worse with a nine-iron than a baseball bat...hmm, maybe not
How do nuclear weapons act as a deterrent? Like, if you blow us to smithereens then we blow you to smithereens too, see how you like those apples bud! Great. The planet is dead and a nuclear winter presides over every part of it but at least one side gives another side a taste of their own medicine. This apparently makes sense to some people, and fortunes are spent on this policy. I must be missing something obvious here but to me nuclear weapons will only ever be used in a planet suicide situation and if that happens it is all over.
I see it as arming ourselves with the same if not better weapons then our enemies have. Why would you not want the means to defend yourself if attacked? In my house I have a baseball bat under my bed because if someone breaks in I want a means to defend myself and my family. I'm not ashamed to admit that
You fool, a child could get hold of that baseball bat and give up cricket for good
Haha. It's all golf and football in my house
Bloody Tory/Socialist with your massive house big enough to play football and golf in it.
9 hole course only, surely? Otherwise you are taking the piss!
I never said that benefit cheats don't exist. But as a line item on our country's expense sheet, it barely registers. If HMRC even bothered to collect the unpaid tax from one of the hundreds of companies the Tories protect then the bill for benefit fraud would be paid for.
That said, the Tory solution to benefit fraud has been to pass over handling of benefit assessment to private companies at extortionate expense to the taxpayer, from which high level Tories stand to benefit personally. There is also a focus on punishing those who do not meet stringent criteria and demands of the DWP through sanctions and withdrawal of welfare, the majority of which, when appealed, are overturned. However this is an expensive and lengthy process that leaves many genuine claimants without funds or support for months. This leads to children starving or not having the right clothes, disabled people.begging, elderly people dying, or vulnerable women and children in the clutches of abusive partners or sexual predators. There is a very real human cost for the Tory welfare state and the sorry truth is it is probably costing the taxpayer more than if they had a more open and friendly system of welfare and we accepted benefit fraud is an unavoidable cost of such a system. Instead we have a system that harms the most vulnerable in society, does little to tackle benefit fraud, and costs more than a more generous system.
I completely agree with you on this post, mate.
Whether or not the taxation and welfare systems are fair, it's plain to see that the application of the taxation system isn't. HMRC appear either woefully inadequate at tackling the problem, or unforgivably complicit in its manifestation.
I accept your point about the economics of benefit fraud, and the cost of confronting it vs accepting it. Despite accepting it's logic, I still find it unreasonably difficult to agree with simply ignoring it.. I understand that that doesn't make a huge amount of sense.
By writing off fraud as a negligible expense it seems to be a tacit acceptance of criminal activity, and it's a further snub to those who legitimately find themselves reliant on those funds. I find it akin to having a donation box and letting people help themselves, sure that lets everyone have access when they need it - but ultimately those who need it would get more if they were the only ones with access?
In addition to HMRC, I also agree wholeheartedly with you about the assessments being done by the likes of Atos - this should be scrapped. For the likes of ESA and DLA, I wonder whether assigning the money afforded to Atos would've been better allocated to the NHS.
Those who are long term ill will be receiving ongoing healthcare treatment, and the medical assessments already require medical notes, so why not cut Atos and co out, and have a smaller internal presence at the DWP that verifies the paperwork matches with the records? It's theoretically fool proof, removes the burden on the vulnerable and ill having to attend third party assessments, and provides a small cash injection to a much needed public service.
Scrapping private contracts from the welfare system, combined with enforcing tax regulations fairly and equally, would IMO be a massive step forward and provide some much needed funds. Regardless of party affiliation, I feel that's something that we should all be able to agree on.
Where that money would go afterwards though, that's where we can all get back to a good ol' argument.
It is a balancing act. If the benefits system is too generous, money is wasted on those who don't deserve it. If it is too mean, then people die. We, as a country, ought to decide what is better on our conscious - financial cost or human cost. Although as I pointed out, the Tory approach involves both types of cost due to how cack-handedly they manage the process.
It is, in practice, impossible to get it perfect, but I would rather a system that was easier to exploit as long as everyone who needed welfare got what they needed to live.
It's that old canard - the deserving and the undeserving poor. People are happy for welfare and other safety net provisions by the state to go to those who "deserve" it. Benefit cheats fall into the "undeserving" category. But there is no definition of who is deserving and who is not with all of the welfare systems being based on need and eligibility. Someone who is minded to cheat the system still has to be determined to be in need and eligible. Agencies that administer such things are working to ensure this is the case.
And one man's "deserving" is another man's "undeserving". When it happened to me and my mum, we were deserving. But when it happened to the guy down the street, well, he was undeserving.
The trouble is, the Dailies Mail, Express and their ilk fan the flames of prejudice which are then swallowed hook line and sinker by some. Whereas the real evidence is that the cost of benefit fraud is minimal. And could probably be reduced if the government invested in those services that carry out the fact checking.
It's a similar story with taxation and evasion. The tax regulations are there to be abided by all. Some people and companies think it is fair game to "dodge" their tax burdens, either through legitimate schemes - Gary Barlow, Jimmy Carr - or from pretending you make no money, or running your business operation from the Channel Islands. And once again, more could be done about this if there was the political will, and if the government of the day invested in sufficient resources to beef up the tax evasion operation.
It's that old canard - the deserving and the undeserving poor. People are happy for welfare and other safety net provisions by the state to go to those who "deserve" it. Benefit cheats fall into the "undeserving" category. But there is no definition of who is deserving and who is not with all of the welfare systems being based on need and eligibility. Someone who is minded to cheat the system still has to be determined to be in need and eligible. Agencies that administer such things are working to ensure this is the case.
It's not about the deserving and the undeserving poor at all; and if it were then I would suggest that deserving is merely a synonym for eligible.
Most of my points have been about disability benefits, ESA and DLA respectively. In which case there's a very clear definition of who is eligible and the reasons why.
Although it is similar with JSA - someone is unemployed, and thus they should be eligible - given that they remember the S in the acronym and actually seek work. As you quite rightly point out, adherence is ensured via agencies that partner with the DWP - they are supposed to prevent cheating by overseeing and monitoring the applications an individual make; in reality they were (or are) very poor at it.
And one man's "deserving" is another man's "undeserving". When it happened to me and my mum, we were deserving. But when it happened to the guy down the street, well, he was undeserving.
I was going to ignore your post, but this is the bit that jumped out - as it's clearly a dig at either James or myself; I can't speak for James, but I feel quite happy that I gave examples of the behaviour I mentioned, and underlined the amount of genuine cases that I lived with.
The trouble is, the Dailies Mail, Express and their ilk fan the flames of prejudice which are then swallowed hook line and sinker by some. Whereas the real evidence is that the cost of benefit fraud is minimal. And could probably be reduced if the government invested in those services that carry out the fact checking.
Agreed wholeheartedly; with the caveat that those services are provided "in house" and not contracted out to the lowest bidder, as was the case with the DWP during the timeframe I mentioned.
I'll reiterate that the Atos money should've gone towards the NHS, and the DWP should've developed their own capabilities for doing the medical assessments, (a) using health records directly, and (b) without requiring manual input from clinicians and claimants. Technically speaking this solution is very much possible and also inexpensive compared to their chosen one, whilst it also would've had a better success rate and improved the quality of life for most claimants.
It's a similar story with taxation and evasion. The tax regulations are there to be abided by all. Some people and companies think it is fair game to "dodge" their tax burdens, either through legitimate schemes - Gary Barlow, Jimmy Carr - or from pretending you make no money, or running your business operation from the Channel Islands. And once again, more could be done about this if there was the political will, and if the government of the day invested in sufficient resources to beef up the tax evasion operation.
I'll give HMRC some credit here - for once, and only once! - they do appear to be taking some steps against contractors who are sole directors of their own limited company; their inability to go after the bigger guys who really are shafting the economy is frustrating though.
It doesn't help when accountancy/consultancy firms go after senior HMRC officials when they're recruiting, offering them attractive salaries for their expertise and network.
Apologies if I've misunderstood, but that seemed like quite a pointed dig at me - when in this case there's a lot of common ground, in spite of our respective political stances.
In addition to HMRC, I also agree wholeheartedly with you about the assessments being done by the likes of Atos - this should be scrapped. For the likes of ESA and DLA, I wonder whether assigning the money afforded to Atos would've been better allocated to the NHS.
Those who are long term ill will be receiving ongoing healthcare treatment, and the medical assessments already require medical notes, so why not cut Atos and co out, and have a smaller internal presence at the DWP that verifies the paperwork matches with the records? It's theoretically fool proof, removes the burden on the vulnerable and ill having to attend third party assessments, and provides a small cash injection to a much needed public service.
The thing is there's already the facility to do "paper assessments" at least as far as PIP is concerned, but they don't seem to use it very often, or only apply it to the most severe cases. And the problem with just relying on treatment records is that it relies on people actually receiving the treatment that they need. Given that provision is variable across the country, particularly in the mental health sector, you'd get a double whammy of postcode lottery problems - first you don't get the treatment you need to get better, and then you don't get the state support while you're ill, which will probably make your condition worse.
The thing about a nuclear deterrent, a bomb dropped in Russia, China, USA India or Pakistan will devestate a small part of their country. But we are a small island. Manchester Birmingham and London would take out most of our population.
Yes we are smaller than russia, and of course china, but most of their populations are concentrated around major cities in their coastal regions, with vast areas of under populated lands.
You seem to have adopted your own unique style of quoting. Speaking for myself I find it bloody confusing and if someone wants to reply in the normal way, it creates a huge unwieldy post.
I'd never looked at the survivability of Nuclear bomber pilots,although I've studied Nuclear war and deterrents. I found this forum - they argue nearly as much as CL and the number of post deletions is 'horrific'
Tactical nuclear weapons are also interesting to the whole debate, as they are designed for use in battlefield scenarios, but often not considered or discussed.
The thing about a nuclear deterrent, a bomb dropped in Russia, China, USA India or Pakistan will devestate a small part of their country. But we are a small island. Manchester Birmingham and London would take out most of our population.
My understanding is that devastation is not controlled, and will cause damage that lasts possibly thousands of Earth years. The notion that there is any kind of controlled Nuclear War is rubbish in my view, nuclear arsenal's exist that can wipe out the planet several times over.
I hope we can all agree that in the event of nuclear weapons being deployed nobody wins.
Whether Corbyn gets to make that decision is a moot point as he's almost certainly not going to be PM anyway. Despite the spin being put on it by the Tories and press, a nuclear deterrent still remains the policy of the Labour party and I don't see that changing, under Corbyn or any other leader. The nuclear argument is a red herring for me and more relevant is the approach taken to supporting our conventional forces.
On the subject of Labour promoting a "benefits as lifestyle" culture that has been suggested by a couple of posters. Nobody, but nobody disputes that there are peetakers out there who are criminally exploiting the system.
If this abuse of the system due to Labour's failings or policies were as widespread as claimed then, logically, it follows that the data would show a greater uptake in the numbers of the long term unemployed under them. But it does not and in fact unemployment levels were at their lowest for decades under Blair.
Purely anecdotally, my mate runs a benefits fraud team. Of all those his team have caught and pursued only a tiny % seem reliant exclusively on falsely claiming benefits to support their lifestyle. The vast majority are involved in other criminality alongside benefits fraud. He laughs at the suggestion you can live anything approaching the luxurious lifestyle highlighted as being available on benefits alone that is often portrayed in the media.
Comments
A nutter with control of a nuclear arsenal will be less likely to be deterred.
However, having a radically different world view from the West does not automatically make Kim Jong Un a nutter.
He is an unpleasant dictator, heading an appalling regime, but they have their own political and military concerns (including the thought that China might abandon the DPRK to it's enemies).
Looked at from their perspective, developing a competent nuclear arsenal and delivery systems is deterrence.
But yes, if certain elements get nuclear weapons, suicide bomber delivery is all but inevitable (apart from anything else, as the Korean missiles demonstrate, they are both accurate and cheaper than alternatives).
Wasn't gadafy persuaded to give up nuclear technology?
The MAD concept has undeniably contributed to the lack of a third world war over the decades.
As Trident won't be an independent deterrent I understand why people might argue against the system.
What makes no sense at all is to purchase all this hardware at huge expense and tell your prospective enemies that you would never use them!
http://linkis.com/cKMYY
Think you might want to read this.
Before the Korean War we're discussing WW2, so The Korean War seems like the logical place to start - as it's as far back as we can go. In which case, the US (amongst a whole plethora of others) were there under the banner of the UN, and were to hold back an invasion of the South from the North - following on from the post-war/cold-war separation of the two. (A la Germany and The Berlin Wall)
Since then, the only way the US has had soldiers traipsing over Korean land has been the same way US/UK soldiers have been traipsing over post-WW2 German land: primarily as a form of defence to prevent an invasion, and secondarily as an ally of the nation. (In fact, it's similar to the USAF presence still in the UK)
Whether it's correct to dice up regions between the victors - as precipitated the USSR and also the Korean border - is another issue completely, but it's wrong suggest that it's a defence for one of the most despicable regimes of the twenty first century - over 70 years later - to conduct themselves with petulance.
Not to mention that the metric of "they've had more troops traipsing over their land" is horribly simplistic, would that logic hold true for Bosnia or places that have had US and UK boots on the ground to prevent genocide and mass murder? Context is the key.
Alas, Pakistan is far from a stable country; with a lot of domestic issues fuelled by religion, border areas with heavy Taliban presences, and security services with some curious alleged sympathies.
It's not difficult to see how that situation could pan out, either via a hostile administration gaining power, or technology and equipment falling in to the wrong hands.
9 hole course only, surely? Otherwise you are taking the piss!
;-)
Whether or not the taxation and welfare systems are fair, it's plain to see that the application of the taxation system isn't. HMRC appear either woefully inadequate at tackling the problem, or unforgivably complicit in its manifestation.
I accept your point about the economics of benefit fraud, and the cost of confronting it vs accepting it. Despite accepting it's logic, I still find it unreasonably difficult to agree with simply ignoring it.. I understand that that doesn't make a huge amount of sense.
By writing off fraud as a negligible expense it seems to be a tacit acceptance of criminal activity, and it's a further snub to those who legitimately find themselves reliant on those funds. I find it akin to having a donation box and letting people help themselves, sure that lets everyone have access when they need it - but ultimately those who need it would get more if they were the only ones with access?
In addition to HMRC, I also agree wholeheartedly with you about the assessments being done by the likes of Atos - this should be scrapped. For the likes of ESA and DLA, I wonder whether assigning the money afforded to Atos would've been better allocated to the NHS.
Those who are long term ill will be receiving ongoing healthcare treatment, and the medical assessments already require medical notes, so why not cut Atos and co out, and have a smaller internal presence at the DWP that verifies the paperwork matches with the records? It's theoretically fool proof, removes the burden on the vulnerable and ill having to attend third party assessments, and provides a small cash injection to a much needed public service.
Scrapping private contracts from the welfare system, combined with enforcing tax regulations fairly and equally, would IMO be a massive step forward and provide some much needed funds. Regardless of party affiliation, I feel that's something that we should all be able to agree on.
Where that money would go afterwards though, that's where we can all get back to a good ol' argument.
It is, in practice, impossible to get it perfect, but I would rather a system that was easier to exploit as long as everyone who needed welfare got what they needed to live.
And one man's "deserving" is another man's "undeserving". When it happened to me and my mum, we were deserving. But when it happened to the guy down the street, well, he was undeserving.
The trouble is, the Dailies Mail, Express and their ilk fan the flames of prejudice which are then swallowed hook line and sinker by some. Whereas the real evidence is that the cost of benefit fraud is minimal. And could probably be reduced if the government invested in those services that carry out the fact checking.
It's a similar story with taxation and evasion. The tax regulations are there to be abided by all. Some people and companies think it is fair game to "dodge" their tax burdens, either through legitimate schemes - Gary Barlow, Jimmy Carr - or from pretending you make no money, or running your business operation from the Channel Islands. And once again, more could be done about this if there was the political will, and if the government of the day invested in sufficient resources to beef up the tax evasion operation.
You seem to have adopted your own unique style of quoting. Speaking for myself I find it bloody confusing and if someone wants to reply in the normal way, it creates a huge unwieldy post.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2yb21r/in_case_of_a_nuclear_war_what_would_bomber_crews/
Tactical nuclear weapons are also interesting to the whole debate, as they are designed for use in battlefield scenarios, but often not considered or discussed.
Whether Corbyn gets to make that decision is a moot point as he's almost certainly not going to be PM anyway. Despite the spin being put on it by the Tories and press, a nuclear deterrent still remains the policy of the Labour party and I don't see that changing, under Corbyn or any other leader. The nuclear argument is a red herring for me and more relevant is the approach taken to supporting our conventional forces.
On the subject of Labour promoting a "benefits as lifestyle" culture that has been suggested by a couple of posters. Nobody, but nobody disputes that there are peetakers out there who are criminally exploiting the system.
If this abuse of the system due to Labour's failings or policies were as widespread as claimed then, logically, it follows that the data would show a greater uptake in the numbers of the long term unemployed under them. But it does not and in fact unemployment levels were at their lowest for decades under Blair.
Purely anecdotally, my mate runs a benefits fraud team. Of all those his team have caught and pursued only a tiny % seem reliant exclusively on falsely claiming benefits to support their lifestyle. The vast majority are involved in other criminality alongside benefits fraud. He laughs at the suggestion you can live anything approaching the luxurious lifestyle highlighted as being available on benefits alone that is often portrayed in the media.
The Ironman/Red Rum coalition is your friend.