The labour Leader thread...
- Thread starter easyrider
- Start date
Jezza saying he 'won't use weapons of mass destruction' only increases the dangerousness of those who say they might.
Last edited:
Head link poster for ocuk.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Mainly investigating existing processes and durable solutions.
Can't see him credited in the acknowledgements - RA for Roger or something?
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Not sure how I can be more specific? Do you mean exact blocks of text? That's not how collabarotive academic journals of this size and stature work.
I'd say around 3% of research? Word count on my research is about twelve thousand words. Of those, only about a thousand words made it into the final report.
It's not normal convention to credit undergrads on these types of reports (else they'd have to list about 50 of us)!
Prepping for my PhD
Nope.
Yes.
Sort of - I've already done a lot of research and papers for social issue scenarios through my work with Trade Unions and consulting for them so when I asked the Tutor of my PhD course for some prep work things just sort of fell in to place.
Last edited by a moderator:
I was trying to think of an analogy and I think that's it! He's a bit like someone who wings an interview then comes massively unstuck in the job.
But this charade is purely for the enjoyment of the public, China & Russia both know we would not use nuclear weapons in any likely scenario (except for possible revenge, which is frankly pointless & won't change our own demise).[TW]Fox;28628335 said:
A major super power could begin a standard war of aggression using conventional forces & we would not use them, a bomb could go off in a major city from a nuclear weapon & we would not use them.
If a large entity wanted to use them on us they would not fire them from the land in the nation of origin, it would be via mobile land based, sea, air or sub - all of which determining the nation of origin may be incredibly difficult to do quick enough to 'respond to'. The facts are they are a useless deterrent as they result in self-destruction if used on a large scale for the instigator. The real threat is from nations who don't worry about mutual self-destruction (insane theocratic dictators, of those willing to live in a bunker for entirety while their home nation burns).
They can't be sure, no rational government would escalate to that point while there was the chance it could happen and if we are dealing with madmen then all bets are off - there is also the factor that with our current setup they could do all of that - wipe the UK off the face of the map - but our subs could still be out there able to strike a retaliatory blow and that is a big deterrent.
A single bomb in a major city not connected to the aggressor is of little practical use aside from as a random act of terror - to make a statement (which is all you are going to do with a single bomb) it has to be connected to whoever initiated the attack and no rational government is going to authorise it as a clandestine mission given the consequences if it was linked back to them.
There are scenarios where nuclear weapons aren't effective but that doesn't detract from the scenarios where they are - you are also looking too closely at nuclear on nuclear capabilities - they are also a deterrent against mass conventional force invasions where it is much harder to obfuscate who the attacker is.
Don't forget that we are a relatively small country punching far far above our weight - our nuclear capabilities gives us a balance of power against countries who potentially would/could otherwise dominate us with conventional forces - the cards might play out in our favour in the world of today but there is no guarantee in the world of tomorrow. (The world at large is a lot less stable and sure than the perception people often get living in the bubble that has been Western European life for the last 3 decades).
Last edited:
Again all purely your own opinion. None of this is really fact based, none of it can be proven to be true and you cannot form these conclusions and present them as fact like you seem to be doing. China and Russia know we will not use them? Conjecture again.
What was it that they did in minority power?
but it does change our demise that's the point.
you wipe us out (which they can) our last remaining sailors wipe you out in pure vindictive revenge.
so you never ever want to wipe us out, because all it takes is one of those subs left alone with no one to call home to and that's it you're just as dead as we are.
its a little bit cause following effect but its perfectly reasonable.
I never said it wasn't.
But it's no more or less conjecture than those declaring it's vital to our national security. In the long term the refusal to adhere to our commitments of the none proliferation treaty could just as easily cause the very situation we are trying to avoid.
When considering our national security building better relations & working towards global disarmament is just as much a valid position as maintaining a nuclear arsenal.
One thing which is true, the more nations which have nuclear weapons & the more time progresses an escalation becomes increasingly probable.
Which would be fine, but as if already outlined no nation would be stupid enough to launch silo based traceable rockets back to their respective country. Unless of course it's a insane dictator & willing to accept the loss of domestic life ergo making a deterrent pointless.
Besides, even if say China nuked us tomorrow - we could trace the missiles. What would be gained from nuking them back?, killing any British citizens abroad by causing a nuclear winter?.
The 'revenge' would only result in thr death of more citizens of our nation anyway, making it not only pointless but counterproductive.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,250
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
You would probably get laughed out of Russia for even talking about total nuclear disarmament.
Right after they have locked you up and liquidate your multibillion dollar business that is.
Right after they have locked you up and liquidate your multibillion dollar business that is.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2003
- Posts
- 5,510
- Location
- Worthington-on-sea
Watch this space - there's a lot more going on in the Labour party than first appears
The next two years are going to be fascinating for any political observer. There is going to be a seismic shift in the UK political landscape but not in a way most can imagine yet.
Ah, it all makes sense now. Amigafan is alluding to the cosy little breakout chats he's been having with his Trades Union mukkas and their plans to lead the country in a popular revolution. Comrade Corbyn, who was voted into power by a compelling majority, is going to lead "the majority" in an overthrow of the elitist 1% running the country in the interest of their City chums. This "majority" support by the British people gives Corbyn undeniable mandate to wave his magic red flag and make our society fairer and better for everyone.
Unless you're better off than average, which will be half of the population, in which case you'll be worse off. But still, it's what the majority wants. The majority that is 60% of the 30% of the electorate who voted Labour, which is only 18%....
That's the problem when you start picking at these loose threads, the whole thing begins to unravel.
Last edited: