Off Topic The QPR Not 606 Rolling Election Poll
- Thread starter sb_73
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
Nice utopian view, but it only needs one country to keep a warhead to topple the tree you're hugging. And one madman at the security council will do the same thing. As it is, there's a number of things that need to go completely mental before anyone would actually consider pushing the button. That's where the balance lies.
It is a very hypothetical view I admit.
Would you say that the number of warheads is just enough to maintain the balance (ie not overstocked) and would you say that Britain having four nuclear submarines is a key role in that balance and that number is the minimum we can have to play that role?
I'd say that we've grown as a species beyond the need to kill each other a hundred times over, as the various SALT treaties of the 80s and 90s demonstrated, and as the deconstruction of the Eastern Bloc showed.
I don't think it's a matter of numbers, until you get to the point where a single strategically placed pre-emptive strike destroys a nation's capacity to respond. In that sense, I think we probably have the right number now. Whether our ability to disperse and protect would be significantly reduced with three instead of four, I'm not sure. I also can't say for certain whether it is wise to have a single facility for maintenance and armament, as that simply creates the target.
All I do know for sure, is that I lived through the seventies, eighties and nineties, and the fear of WW3 that went along with all that, and that terrorism notwithstanding, I feel safer today than I ever have. So I'm for keeping the current status quo.
That's fair enough Chaz. I think it's just two views of the same situation.
My hypothetical view would require detection abilities that could cover huge areas and through underground facilities (although I didn't want to bog my post down with science fiction).
My real view is that the deterrent status quo is better held by those that have many magnitudes more warheads.
It's a bit of a passive stance but it seems to me like we have one foot in a race that has already been run and we're not on the podium (ie a negligible contribution).
My hypothetical view would require detection abilities that could cover huge areas and through underground facilities (although I didn't want to bog my post down with science fiction).
My real view is that the deterrent status quo is better held by those that have many magnitudes more warheads.
It's a bit of a passive stance but it seems to me like we have one foot in a race that has already been run and we're not on the podium (ie a negligible contribution).
Seriously Swords, are you going to offer an opinion or just deride others? I'm genuinely wanting to know.
How many Countries has the UK been at war with in the last Century compared to, say Iran, who's nuclear programme is causing you so many jitters during the night, Chaz?
Right, on the policy quiz posted earlier, I came out 40% Tory, 30% Labour and 30% Liberal. Just done Ubers quiz again, and came out the same as when he posted it the first time, ages ago, a libertarian leftie
...which is the Ghandi/Green option. I'm a bit confused. And this completely useless campaign by all parties isn't helping.
You must log in or register to see images
...which is the Ghandi/Green option. I'm a bit confused. And this completely useless campaign by all parties isn't helping.
Don't say that Sooper, that sounds like my kind of political party
Monster Raving Loonies Lite...
Alex Salmond, deputy prime minister: how it could happen
Alex Salmond, the outgoing SNP leader and First Minister of Scotland, is poised to make an audacious comeback at Westminster as the leader of a bloc of Scottish Nationalist MPs who could wield serious power in a hung Parliament.
Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/6...me-minister-how-it-could-happen#ixzz3WqP7imep
Alex Salmond, the outgoing SNP leader and First Minister of Scotland, is poised to make an audacious comeback at Westminster as the leader of a bloc of Scottish Nationalist MPs who could wield serious power in a hung Parliament.
Read more: http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/6...me-minister-how-it-could-happen#ixzz3WqP7imep
Not too far off the mark. I love a bit of chaos and it looks like this election will provide it in abundance.
Even more fun if like me you are an ex Labour Tory boy who went full circle and now can't be arsed to vote anymore . We are doomed I tell you, doomed
I feel similarly dispirited by the campaign so far, Stan - so much negativity, epitomised by Fallon this morning. I'm desperately looking for good constructive reasons to vote Labour (i.e. more than just the desire to kick the posh boys out), but they don't seem capable of coming up with anything. Setting aside the independence issue, the SNP probably come closest to the kind of agenda I would favour, but of course I can't vote for them. My favoured realistic outcome is a Labour minority government pushed leftwards by the SNP and a touch of Green.
I had a very interesting conversation last night with a woman who was working in Tory central office when Thatcher came to power. She had no time for Thatcher and went on to work for the Tory Reform Group (Maggie's 'Wets') and considers herself nowadays to the left of the Labour party on many issues.
If you'll allow me to stoop to the lowest form of wit for a second: that sounds heavenly.
- Status