1. Make peace with you past, bury it with alcohol, so it won't disturb your present. 2. What other people think of you is none of your business. **** 'em anyway. 3. Time heals almost everything. Even impregnating your ex-wife's sisters, their daughters, your mother-in-law and her sisters and entering a civil partnership with your father-in-law. Give it time. 4. No one is in charge of your penis. Except you. 5. Don't compare your life to others and don't judge them, you have no idea what their journey is all about. I'll bet they're in the cheap seats anyway, the ****ers. Apologies for the cheap shot, your post is terrific advice.
It is easy to burn a straw man. Much as I would scrap Trident myself I think if you miss the key question then you are being unfair to those who do believe in a nuclear deterrent. Where does it ask "Does your enemy believe you would retaliate if he fired first?" That is the basis of a nuclear weapon as a deterrent - not would you use it but does your enemy feel confident enough to fire first?
But Leo, this is exactly the same logic that the Americans use to justify having hand guns. Namely the only way to stop a baddie with a gun is when the 'goodies' have them as well. Amazing that most countries in the World manage to get by without having such a deterrent. My main argument however is to say that if the English want it and the Scots don't (which appears to be the case) - then they should stick the things in the Thames or the Avon rather than the Clyde (I wonder if it would be so popular then).
We probably should have this debate on the politics pages rather than clutter up "thoughts" with politics. Will respond there
To quote the Ministry of Defence from January 2013, "... the nuclear submarines currently housed on the Clyde could not be moved to the Devonport base in Plymouth because an accident there would endanger too many lives." The lives of 250,000 citizens of Plymouth are too important to risk, whereas the lives of 1,200,000 Glaswegians are apparently acceptable as collateral damage? Of all the initially-considered sites in 1963, Falmouth was identified as a strong contender, but discounted as the area "has a strong tourist economy". As we all know, tourism doesn't exist in Scotland... That only applies if you believe that the accursed things are actually a deterrent. Has that ever actually been proven? The belief that Iraq had stockpiles of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons certainly didn't deter the US/UK from invading. On the issue of it being unfair to those who believe in a nuclear deterrent - I personally find that irrelevant. We are required to live in a system where we have no say in the matter. The decision to have or not have rests with 650 MPs, none of whom are allowed a conscience vote on the matter, but have to toe the party line - basically meaning that a far smaller number in a top-down organisation such as the Tory Party have the actual say. You may as well say that it's entirely unfair on every individual in the UK whether they believe in a nuclear deterrent or otherwise.
The whole point is uncertainty - that is the deterrent factor - so proof is not the point. Iraq was not attacked by nuclear weapons and were not considered a threat in the sense Russia is - so could be safely attacked. rightly or wrongly depending on your views. I was not saying the chart was unfair - it just missed the entire point of what a deterrent is. Where was the question about what a potential opponent BELIEVED you would do. JC was unaware of that too - when he said he would not fire it - the deterrent factor disappeared - it is no use having a big gun if you admit you will never use it. But would you walk into a hostile room with any weapon if the occupant had a big gun and MIGHT use it? The question of right and wrong or good or bad of nuclear weapons was not the point being made - it was that the chart missed the entire point. Maybe it was amusing - maybe not
You may be right or you may be wrong, but the common justification to the public for having nuclear weapons is that they act as deterrents – that is what is actually promoted, or, in Toryspeak, it's an issue of National Safety. Of course the US invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with nuclear weapons – if anything it was all to do with the US desire to replace Sunni with Shiite – but the point is that the US deliberately lied about the presence of them in Iraq, no doubt trying to play on public fears. Yet no-one questioned why, if both Iraq and US had these so-called deterrents, there was actually a need to invade. Surely, if they were indeed deterrents, one would cancel out the other rendering invasion/war as pointless? As that didn't happen, it tends to suggest that the ‘deterrent factor’ is flawed.
