March in London on the 26th?

[dirtydog]

I am most certainly a multilateral disarmer, if I gave the impression of being otherwise then I was mistaken. When I said that it was pointless renewing Trident, I didn't mean to imply that we shouldn't (if that makes any sense ). I am absolutely not a unilateral disarmer.

It's just with countries like Iran pursuing nuclear weapons, I get ever more nervous about it.

Also, I'm not one of these lefties that says the United States and the United Kingdom are the two biggest rogues states in the world, a la George Galloway and company.

If George Galloway said that then I agree with him - we are - but that probably confuses people who think I am a right winger

 

[Floogie]

Nuclear weapons are horrible, I agree. I don't like them at all, they make my blood run cold. But we can't un-invent them. I wish we could. Given that we can't, if we give up ours, someone else will have them and then they have enormous power over us.

Yeah, I don't know how the Danes, Swedes, Germans, etc sleep at night without knowing one of their countrymen has their finger on the button!

The thing is, its these sad little wars that reinforce our requirement for these weapons. Only if we didn't have small man syndrome on a global scale then we could spend the cash on more wholesome, nutricious stuff.

Yet with the current situation there are still other ways. A shared nuclear deterrent with the EU or France or the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons within a year (as with Japan) all warrants careful consideration as an alternative.

 

[Naffa]

I'm surprised at you Castiel, have you not heard what Carl Sagan says about nukes?

If George Galloway said that then I agree with him - we are - but that probably confuses people who think I am a right winger

In that case, I disagree with you even more then previously thought. And for the record, I'm a hefty lefty.

 

[dirtydog]

I quite agree. I watched Threads again the other day, I think that should be required viewing for every world leader when they take power.




btw: when is the real DD coming back.....all this agreement with you is freaking me out...

Everyone should watch Threads. Probably the most horrible and upsetting film I've ever seen, but given its subject matter, it should be.

 

[dirtydog]

Yeah, I don't know how the Danes, Swedes, Germans, etc sleep at night without knowing one of their countrymen has their finger on the button!

The sad thing is, its these sad little wars that reinforce our requirement for these weapons. Only if we didn't have small man syndrome on a global scale then we could spend the cash on more wholesome, nutricious stuff.

Yet with the current situation there are still other ways. A shared nuclear deterrent with the EU or France or the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons within a year (as with Japan) all warrants careful consideration as an alternative.

They live under the umbrella of protection that other countries provide them.

 

[Floogie]

They live under the umbrella of protection that other countries provide them.

Is that not good enough for us?

 

[Castiel]

I'm surprised at you Castiel, have you not heard what Carl Sagan says about nukes?

Are you referring to this:

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/sagan_nuclear_winter.html


Carl Sagan contributed to the film Threads. Maybe if everyone watched it, it may make them think about nuclear weapons as something we should be removing from existence.

 

[dirtydog]

Is that not good enough for us?

Well, it might be. Unless the USA decides to stop providing that protection one day. Or even turn on us itself. Who knows what the future holds? By having our own independent nuclear weapons, we are a freer nation than those countries which rely on the kindness of other nations.

I don't think the USA really gives a toss about Britain, and if push came to shove, they wouldn't defend us. They would act in their own self interest.

 

[Dolph]

Is that not good enough for us?

Not really, given how many countries we protect at the moment...

It's a hell of a lot of responsibility and respect to give up to gain £2bn a year of our £160bn debt...

 

[Sankari]

I don't thinks that's right

Dude, I saw his post! Mine was about 95% correct!

aren't you Australian?

Yes. An Australian with British citizenship.

trident is a waste of money.

No.

And yet Australia is one of the world's largest exporters of uranium. What's good for the goose is not good for the gander eh?

Strictly controlled sales, but yes, it's a painful irony. I wish we had nuclear power (not nuclear weapons) but I can't see it happening any time in the near future.

I don't doubt Trident's military effectiveness, but it would appear to be a "nice-to-have" which the UK can no longer afford. It's a cold-war weapon with very limited value for current conflicts - I'd rather have helicopters and aircraft carriers with some aircraft.

Trident flies faster than a chopper and hits harder than an aircraft carrier. I'm willing to bet it's cheaper than an equivalent amount of conventional forces.

 

[Naffa]

Are you referring to this:

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/sagan_nuclear_winter.html


Carl Sagan contributed to the film Threads. Maybe if everyone watched it, it may make them think about nuclear weapons as something we should be removing from existence.

I actually meant that as as joke, but I suppose if I were to mean it, I would mean this:

 

[Floogie]

Well, it might be. Unless the USA decides to stop providing that protection one day. Or even turn on us itself. Who knows what the future holds? By having our own independent nuclear weapons, we are a freer nation than those countries which rely on the kindness of other nations.

NATO would provide the nuclear weapons, not the USA. Although admittedly their primacy within NATO is not contested, it would be unlikely they could suddenly remove all EU-deployed nukes at will.

Furthermore, I advocate what I suggested with Japan. One year is more than enough in global politics to manufacture a weapon should it be necessary to bring back an independent deterrent on the loss of a shared one.

I don't think the USA really gives a toss about Britain, and if push came to shove, they wouldn't defend us. They would act in their own self interest.

On this there is no doubt.

Not really, given how many countries we protect at the moment...

Who do we, as a sole nation, protect?

It's a hell of a lot of responsibility and respect to give up to gain £2bn a year of our £160bn debt...

Yet if this money could be used actively saving people's lives than just a missile sitting in a tube, I'm all for it.

 

[scorza]

Trident flies faster than a chopper and hits harder than an aircraft carrier. I'm willing to bet it's cheaper than an equivalent amount of conventional forces.

But you can't actually use Trident, whereas helicopters and aircraft carriers are being used and are over-stretched right now.

 

[Dolph]

Who do we, as a sole nation, protect?

We provide direct retaliatory protection to the other NATO members for a start... You appear to be arguing that we should give up this independence and cower behind the USA instead?

Yet if this money could be used actively saving people's lives than just a missile sitting in a tube, I'm all for it.

If we want to cut the defence budget to free up money, the solution is to keep trident as it is a very good defensive setup, and dramatically cut back the armed forces which have far more use outside of the direct defence of the country....

 

[Dolph]

But you can't actually use Trident, whereas helicopters and aircraft carriers are being used and are over-stretched right now.

Trident is in constant use. The purpose of a deterrant is to deter, not to destroy...

 

[Sankari]

But you can't actually use Trident, whereas helicopters and aircraft carriers are being used and are over-stretched right now.

You can use Trident - as a deterrent! The beauty of it is that you don't have to fire it. It's there to stop other nuclear powers attacking your country. Non-nuclear powers can be dealt with by conventional forces.

Trident is a complementary addition to the UK arsenal.

 

[dante6491]

I recall that we recently sent a Nuclear Sub down to the Falklands when the Argies were getting all argie bargie over the possible discovery of oil. Shut them up real quick.

 

[dirtydog]

You can use Trident - as a deterrent! The beauty of it is that you don't have to fire it. It's there to stop other nuclear powers attacking your country. Non-nuclear powers can be dealt with by conventional forces.

Trident is a complementary addition to the UK arsenal.

Yes. It is an insurance policy. Just because your house doesn't burn down or you don't crash your car, doesn't mean that it wasn't worth having insurance against those things occurring

 

[PermaBanned]

Just woke up, after being caught in Cameron's 'Operation Halt All Trains For Slight Revenge'

Was a great march, met a lot of people and now i can't be bothered to sift through 20 pages worth of right wing complaining.

As for the violence? There was very little of it. Nobody was hurt. Actually, the police were the only violent ones. Violence means attacking people. What some were doing was attacking property. Of which there is no such thing. There's personal property, which you need to survive and to exercise your craft, and there's private property - which implies that you have something that somebody else needs and they must earn it. This is not the case, it is just an illusion.

So here's the real story:

The UK Uncut action was peaceful in every sense of the word, including the occupations on Oxford St. The occupation of F&M was also completely peaceful, with no stock being damaged at all. Outside what appeared to be the Black Bloc were attacking property, and good on them for doing so - brilliant organization on their part. Later on the occupation of Trafalgar Square (i believe it was there anyway) was also completely peaceful in every sense of the word, the police were just looking for a fight and so when somebody stuck a sticker on the Olympic Clock they screamed criminal damage and went in all guns blazing.

Also, to those who were saying there would only be a few thousand, lets have a look at the scale of this. I arrived at Embankment at about 11:30, where everywhere you could see, including the bridges and side streets, was packed with people. Surprisingly light police presence, but i'm not going to complain. Anyway, after battling my way to where my dad's union (Unison) was, we began the march. This is more than 20 people wide the whole way through, and we were pretty near the front apparently. Definitely more than three people per meter squared to start with. Anyway, at no point did we actually see the start, and we definitely didn't see the end. By the time we arrived in Hyde Park the area in front of the stage was packed, and people were still pouring in. We got a text from somebody an hour later saying they were still stuck at Embankment. At roughly 7PM the march finished, when everybody made it to Hyde Park. That's easily half a million, probably more.

 

[Dolph]

you don't half talk some **** super.... what colour is the sky in your fantasy world?