The General Election - June 8th 2017
Comments
-
100% this. Blair understood this and won three elections.kentaddick said:
It was tongue in cheek, but your point remains. Labour are making the same mistake as they did in the eighties, trying to appeal to their dwindling core whilst ignoring swing voters.Red_James said:
As I don't agree with your views?! Thought this was a democracy??kentaddick said:
A swing voter?! BLAIRITE SCUMRed_James said:Fiiish said:Ironic people compare working hard to get what you deserve with the Tories when most of them inherited their wealth and are only where they are due to nepotism.
MuttleyCAFC said:
It is a confidence trick - as simple as that.Fiiish said:Ironic people compare working hard to get what you deserve with the Tories when most of them inherited their wealth and are only where they are due to nepotism.
I'm definitely not an ideological Tory I'm a swing voter but I feel that I relate to them this time round that I do any of the other parties
I know none of them have ever had a hard days graft on their entire life compared to the rest of us0 -
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.12 -
My latest theory on Fiiish is that he watched I, Daniel Blake while on LSD and now believes himself a character in the film12
-
Fact is, labour don't need to campaign on the NHS, on helping those on welfare. We all already know they'll do that. Blair, for all his faults, understood this. So campaigned and won the biggest majority since 1945. People want to vote for labour, but you need to give them more of a reason than feeling all warm and fuzzy inside3
-
People were utter sick of the Tories in 1997. They were hated. A bunch of corrupt, unpleasant crooks. People were itching for a change. I don't get that sense this time.2
-
Here is a breakdown of how much people's taxes are used for various critical spending items, that you suggest @Red_James would find interesting.Leuth said:Another interesting aspect of this is how Red James resents his taxes paying for benefit cheats. He might be surprised to find out what percentage of his taxes go towards benefits full stop, as opposed to, like, the NHS etc
For someone earning £25,500 a year, £2,080 of his tax goes on Pensions and Benefits
(including £212 on Housing Benefit and £296 on Incapacity Benefits); £1,094 on the NHS; £824 on Education; £339 on Defence; £160 on the Police; £44 on Prisons; £92 on Roads; £71 on Railways
Decimating Housing Benefit would only result in a saving of a quid a month to the average wage-earner. So the question is: is it worth plunging more people into housing misery, just so that an average worker can afford three more pints of lager a year?4 -
You're 100% right. This isn't 1997 all over again, it's 1992. John Major, an unelected Tory PM, who found himself in the hot seat when his opponents fell, one-by-one, won an election against a popular (within the party), left-wing Labour leader, Neil Kinnock. Five years later, Major's failings had become fully clear to the electorate and, when faced with a newly-elected Labour leader, was trounced.McBobbin said:People were utter sick of the Tories in 1997. They were hated. A bunch of corrupt, unpleasant crooks. People were itching for a change. I don't get that sense this time.
If 1992 was a portent for 2017, we're all in for a very, very bad time until 2022, when May will be beaten by whoever drags Labour back to the middle ground.
4 -
If stopping cheats is the primary concern, the government should also consider closing roads and railways to prevent people driving without insurance or paying the correct fare!Chizz said:
Here is a breakdown of how much people's taxes are used for various critical spending items, that you suggest @Red_James would find interesting.Leuth said:Another interesting aspect of this is how Red James resents his taxes paying for benefit cheats. He might be surprised to find out what percentage of his taxes go towards benefits full stop, as opposed to, like, the NHS etc
For someone earning £25,500 a year, £2,080 of his tax goes on Pensions and Benefits
(including £212 on Housing Benefit and £296 on Incapacity Benefits); £1,094 on the NHS; £824 on Education; £339 on Defence; £160 on the Police; £44 on Prisons; £92 on Roads; £71 on Railways
Decimating Housing Benefit would only result in a saving of a quid a month to the average wage-earner. So the question is: is it worth plunging more people into housing misery, just so that an average worker can afford three more pints of lager a year?2 -
Or even, dare I suggest, properly resourcing HMRC so they can address those not paying their taxes....stevexreeve said:
If stopping cheats is the primary concern, the government should also consider closing roads and railways to prevent people driving without insurance or paying the correct fare!Chizz said:
Here is a breakdown of how much people's taxes are used for various critical spending items, that you suggest @Red_James would find interesting.Leuth said:Another interesting aspect of this is how Red James resents his taxes paying for benefit cheats. He might be surprised to find out what percentage of his taxes go towards benefits full stop, as opposed to, like, the NHS etc
For someone earning £25,500 a year, £2,080 of his tax goes on Pensions and Benefits
(including £212 on Housing Benefit and £296 on Incapacity Benefits); £1,094 on the NHS; £824 on Education; £339 on Defence; £160 on the Police; £44 on Prisons; £92 on Roads; £71 on Railways
Decimating Housing Benefit would only result in a saving of a quid a month to the average wage-earner. So the question is: is it worth plunging more people into housing misery, just so that an average worker can afford three more pints of lager a year?10 -
This, all day and all night. And yet, where is this issue on the political agenda? Google, Facebook, Amazon, et al, all failing to pay sufficient tax on their huge, and unquestionably profitable UK sales, the proper taxation of which would undoubtedly boost funding for council -run social care, and thus relieve the NHS. heard any politician mention this point? No, me neither.NornIrishAddick said:
Or even, dare I suggest, properly resourcing HMRC so they can address those not paying their taxes....stevexreeve said:
If stopping cheats is the primary concern, the government should also consider closing roads and railways to prevent people driving without insurance or paying the correct fare!Chizz said:
Here is a breakdown of how much people's taxes are used for various critical spending items, that you suggest @Red_James would find interesting.Leuth said:Another interesting aspect of this is how Red James resents his taxes paying for benefit cheats. He might be surprised to find out what percentage of his taxes go towards benefits full stop, as opposed to, like, the NHS etc
For someone earning £25,500 a year, £2,080 of his tax goes on Pensions and Benefits
(including £212 on Housing Benefit and £296 on Incapacity Benefits); £1,094 on the NHS; £824 on Education; £339 on Defence; £160 on the Police; £44 on Prisons; £92 on Roads; £71 on Railways
Decimating Housing Benefit would only result in a saving of a quid a month to the average wage-earner. So the question is: is it worth plunging more people into housing misery, just so that an average worker can afford three more pints of lager a year?
Oh, but they roared into West Ham's offices, what am I of all people complaining about? Well call me a cynical old git, but the timing, just after an election is called, and this totally unnecessary element of their 'press release":
“This criminal investigation sends a clear message that, whoever you are, if you commit tax fraud you can expect to face the consequences.”
makes me think that this is a great way for this lot to keep the more tricky tax issues off the election agenda.
7 - Sponsored links:
-
Would it surprise you to learn that in the USA 46% of health care expenditure is paid by Govt?vff said:I am not sure if you are saying that there should be no safety net at all ? Like the US ?
In addition, per capita, per annum, US health care costs $9451. Whereas, from the figures I could find, in the UK it's $4,003 with 83% spent by Govt. So, the US Govt. pays $4,347 per person whereas in the UK it's only $3,322. So, it's not true to say there is no safety net at all in the USA. (In addition it's possible to get around $450 max per week in unemployment benefit. This is paid by the State rather than Federal Govt. But it is true to say that only those who are jobless through no fault of their own can receive these funds. Anybody who resigns of their own accord or is sacked for misconduct is unlikely to get money.)
Anyway, that's two examples. While it's far from perfect, it is untrue to say there is no safety net in the States.
0 -
In fact Ukraine were persuaded to give up their share of the FSU nuclear arsenal to their colleagues over the border.. nukes aren't be all an end all but they certainly are a deterrent - the result has been no direct conflict since 1945 betweeen the great powers. If you consider the number of wars between them prior to that well it speaks for itself.0
-
Ahem! Just look further up. Completely ignored though!razil said:In fact Ukraine were persuaded to give up their share of the FSU nuclear arsenal to their colleagues over the border.. nukes aren't be all an end all but they certainly are a deterrent - the result has been no direct conflict since 1945 betweeen the great powers. If you consider the number of wars between them prior to that well it speaks for itself.
kentaddick said:
You don't need nuclear weapons in the modern age, they're not a deterrent, just ask Ukraine I me- oh.
Cordoban Addick said:
See the Budapest Memorandum. One of the four signatories was a Conservative Prime Minister.
Or you could say, "ask Spain, Italy, Australia, Brazil,Turkey, Eire etc etc".0 -
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.
0 -
Well, if you are sane, you realise that if you use and your enemy uses on you, you don't win so it is a deterrent. The problem is when you are not sane! There is a growing amount of that in the world. Whilst I see all that, I don't see why Britain has to be a nuclear power! It is best left to the Americans.0
-
Nuclear deterrence is basically an insurance policy against deliberately starting World War 3.seth plum said: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.
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 its opponents ever got the upper hand (including an expected nuclear mine in the Golan Heights).1 -
Apologies for not recalling something you wrote a week ago LR.LuckyReds said:Algarveaddick said:
They shouldn't, and the government has had plenty of time to increase the number of fraud investigators, but have not done so instead they have done what Cordoban Addick explained on the previous page, but I guess you didn't read, so here it is again:LuckyReds said:
So you're saying that both James and I have been lied to by the tabloids, and didn't actually see it? Yeah, the Daily Mail & co loves to sell a paper by "poor baiting", but that doesn't mean that it's not a legitimate problem.Fiiish said:The greatest lie that the Tories and the tabloids have managed to sell is that:
a) an extraordinary number of people are wilfully cheating the benefits system
b) that they cost the taxpayer a non-trivial sum of money
c) that slashing the welfare state is the best way to stop these cheats, even if a lot of people in genuine need of help from the state are either hurt, forced into unsafe situations, or die as a result of these cuts.
And the success of how well this lie is spread is that people are so open about how much they detest people who need welfare to survive.
I haven't ever heard ANYONE state that those who desperately in need shouldn't be given help, I've only ever heard that that help should only be afforded to those who are genuinely in need. Why should someone who is desperately in need be given the same entitlements as someone who has made a choice not to work?
You what? I mentioned one of those companies about 20 pages ago mate - so I'm well aware, but I guess you didn't read.
We have paid £700 million to two private American companies (£200m above contract) to check if disabled people are fit for work and 80% of their decisions to cut benefits have been wrong (on appeal).
I know, around 20 pages ago I mentioned that I had to go through the whole appeals process for ESA and DLA around 6 years ago. I'm pretty sure I've also mentioned how all of the private companies bought in are woefully inept - including the ones running the jobsearch activities, who are actually just fraudulent. I contacted my MP and the Minister for Work and Pensions (IDS at the time?) to underline my own views.
The bedroom tax is a disaster and has not met anywhere near savings targets but has caused real hardship for vulnerable people. It has been consistently (successfully) challenged in the courts.
I don't agree with the bedroom tax personally, but the only person I do has - surprisingly - had to move because of it herself. I do however agree with the idea behind it - making effective use of the available stock.
Housing benefit cuts for the young (under 25s) has actually cost money.
And as I previously said they implemented blanket cuts that affected everyone, yet I bet if you go to the places the idle scumbags live, they are still poncing away. Meanwhile the real needy suffer from these Tory decisions.
Right, and this was precisely my point.. So.. Yeah..? I openly stated that the vulnerable, needy and ill need assistance, and they should be given it whilst those who are abusing the system shouldn't.
I haven't said I explicitly agree with the Tory policy, and actually I was clarifying the point that James made. Your response is a bit bizarre and confused.
By drawing on the shortcomings of my memory you have conveniently side stepped the issue of why the Tories have done sod all to tackle those that abuse the system
(I believe it is to maintain scapegoats that they can blame the countries problems on - but that is just an opinion of course) . In that original post, and indeed in this one you appear to have the same misgivings that I do about the Tories, and yet, you seem to want to vote for them on the single issue of corporation tax, brushing aside all the other rotten things they do? If you have dealt with that in a post in the past fortnight, I apologise again.
The point is that the amount abuse of welfare costs is grossly overestimated, and to vote for a party based on that "lie" is a bit daft to say the least.2 -
Surprised nobody picked up on yesterday's release of the latest quarterly GDP figures. UK growth slowed unexpectedly (to forecasters) to 0.3%. If that slower growth rate continues we will have growth of only 1.2% this year.
For me this is significant for two reasons. Firstly return to the warnings that a Brexit vote would cause a slowdown. this was widely misunderstood. A big economy like the UK cannot go into reverse immediately except after a catastrophic event. I tried to explain that we would see the effect round about this time, and was widely poo-pooed by Brexiteers seizing on the figures immediately after the vote. Well now the slowdown appears to be here, much as I forecast. It will be especially interesting to see how the UK now does compared with Eurozone countries. France also slowed slightly, also to 0.3%, so we grow at the same rate; however Spain accelerated to 0.6%. If we start to slow, and the Eurozone does better, serious questions need to be asked.
But it will be too late to ask those serious questions, because May will be safely tucked up with her big majority. Many people suggested she and Hammond knew this slowdown was coming and this is one of the reasons for the early election she claimed she would not call.1 -
Interesting lead editorial in this week's New Statesman.
https://google.co.uk/amp/www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/04/ns-leader-cold-britannia%3Famp0 -
I have said if one or two of them were not there, they would have to invent them. You have to make the public angry. It is like civil servants - the vast majority work extremely hard but stereo types are believed by many. Scroungers are the enemy of decent people because they are used to justify hammering the disabled and desperately needy. As long as we have rags like the Sun and the Daily Mail they will continue to serve their purpose.Algarveaddick said:
Apologies for not recalling something you wrote a week ago LR.LuckyReds said:Algarveaddick said:
They shouldn't, and the government has had plenty of time to increase the number of fraud investigators, but have not done so instead they have done what Cordoban Addick explained on the previous page, but I guess you didn't read, so here it is again:LuckyReds said:
So you're saying that both James and I have been lied to by the tabloids, and didn't actually see it? Yeah, the Daily Mail & co loves to sell a paper by "poor baiting", but that doesn't mean that it's not a legitimate problem.Fiiish said:The greatest lie that the Tories and the tabloids have managed to sell is that:
a) an extraordinary number of people are wilfully cheating the benefits system
b) that they cost the taxpayer a non-trivial sum of money
c) that slashing the welfare state is the best way to stop these cheats, even if a lot of people in genuine need of help from the state are either hurt, forced into unsafe situations, or die as a result of these cuts.
And the success of how well this lie is spread is that people are so open about how much they detest people who need welfare to survive.
I haven't ever heard ANYONE state that those who desperately in need shouldn't be given help, I've only ever heard that that help should only be afforded to those who are genuinely in need. Why should someone who is desperately in need be given the same entitlements as someone who has made a choice not to work?
You what? I mentioned one of those companies about 20 pages ago mate - so I'm well aware, but I guess you didn't read.
We have paid £700 million to two private American companies (£200m above contract) to check if disabled people are fit for work and 80% of their decisions to cut benefits have been wrong (on appeal).
I know, around 20 pages ago I mentioned that I had to go through the whole appeals process for ESA and DLA around 6 years ago. I'm pretty sure I've also mentioned how all of the private companies bought in are woefully inept - including the ones running the jobsearch activities, who are actually just fraudulent. I contacted my MP and the Minister for Work and Pensions (IDS at the time?) to underline my own views.
The bedroom tax is a disaster and has not met anywhere near savings targets but has caused real hardship for vulnerable people. It has been consistently (successfully) challenged in the courts.
I don't agree with the bedroom tax personally, but the only person I do has - surprisingly - had to move because of it herself. I do however agree with the idea behind it - making effective use of the available stock.
Housing benefit cuts for the young (under 25s) has actually cost money.
And as I previously said they implemented blanket cuts that affected everyone, yet I bet if you go to the places the idle scumbags live, they are still poncing away. Meanwhile the real needy suffer from these Tory decisions.
Right, and this was precisely my point.. So.. Yeah..? I openly stated that the vulnerable, needy and ill need assistance, and they should be given it whilst those who are abusing the system shouldn't.
I haven't said I explicitly agree with the Tory policy, and actually I was clarifying the point that James made. Your response is a bit bizarre and confused.
By drawing on the shortcomings of my memory you have conveniently side stepped the issue of why the Tories have done sod all to tackle those that abuse the system (I believe it is to maintain scapegoats that they can blame the countries problems on - but that is just an opinion of course) . In that original post, and indeed in this one you appear to have the same misgivings that I do about the Tories, and yet, you seem to want to vote for them on the single issue of corporation tax, brushing aside all the other rotten things they do? If you have dealt with that in a post in the past fortnight, I apologise again.
The point is that the amount abuse of welfare costs is grossly overestimated, and to vote for a party based on that "lie" is a bit daft to say the least.1 - Sponsored links:
-
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?seth plum said: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.
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 that0 -
You fool, a child could get hold of that baseball bat and give up cricket for goodagim said:
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?seth plum said: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.
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 that5 -
Moreover, if GDP growth continnues to decline by, 0.4 percentage points per quarter (replicating the reduction between Q1 17 and Q4 16) we will be in negative growth during Q2 17 (ie now) and in recession during Q3.PragueAddick said:Surprised nobody picked up on yesterday's release of the latest quarterly GDP figures. UK growth slowed unexpectedly (to forecasters) to 0.3%. If that slower growth rate continues we will have growth of only 1.2% this year.
For me this is significant for two reasons. Firstly return to the warnings that a Brexit vote would cause a slowdown. this was widely misunderstood. A big economy like the UK cannot go into reverse immediately except after a catastrophic event. I tried to explain that we would see the effect round about this time, and was widely poo-pooed by Brexiteers seizing on the figures immediately after the vote. Well now the slowdown appears to be here, much as I forecast. It will be especially interesting to see how the UK now does compared with Eurozone countries. France also slowed slightly, also to 0.3%, so we grow at the same rate; however Spain accelerated to 0.6%. If we start to slow, and the Eurozone does better, serious questions need to be asked.
But it will be too late to ask those serious questions, because May will be safely tucked up with her big majority. Many people suggested she and Hammond knew this slowdown was coming and this is one of the reasons for the early election she claimed she would not call.
It's looking more and more like the early 90s again. We're in trouble.
1 -
We have suicide bombers, so it won't be long before we have suicide nuclear bombers.NornIrishAddick said:
Nuclear deterrence is basically an insurance policy against deliberately starting World War 3.seth plum said: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.
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).0 -
Haha. It's all golf and football in my houseLeuth said:
You fool, a child could get hold of that baseball bat and give up cricket for goodagim said:
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?seth plum said: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.
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 that0 -
Because nuclear weapons are not a defense against attack. Once deployed everything is all over and finished, my children, your children, everybody's children.agim said:
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?seth plum said: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.
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
The only thing Nuclear weapons represent is revenge and mutually assured destruction.
Some people might want that, but not me.0 -
As Seth points out - nuclear weapons are not a defence other than telling any attacker that they will also die.agim said:
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?seth plum said: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.
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
Your argument is basically saying if the burglar dies as he is killing me it's a result!0 -
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?seth plum said:
Because nuclear weapons are not a defense against attack. Once deployed everything is all over and finished, my children, your children, everybody's children.agim said:
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?seth plum said: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.
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
The only thing Nuclear weapons represent is revenge and mutually assured destruction.
Some people might want that, but not me.0 -
Jaw jaw not war war.agim said:
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?seth plum said:
Because nuclear weapons are not a defense against attack. Once deployed everything is all over and finished, my children, your children, everybody's children.agim said:
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?seth plum said: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.
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
The only thing Nuclear weapons represent is revenge and mutually assured destruction.
Some people might want that, but not me.
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.1
