In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note.
Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon.
All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting.
Her logic fails pretty badly within the first 45 seconds, the entire point is that no one will send a nuke our way when they know there's a chance we'll send one back. If we don't have one at all then we're completely at their mercy.
Just to highlight the double standards of the SNP, they're 100% against the UK having nuclear weapons for "moral reasons" but they're perfectly happy for an independent Scotland to join NATO in order to be under the protection of the US nuclear umbrella, no moral objections there for some convenient reason.
On July 19 2016 07:32 Shield wrote: The UK isn't my country, but I feel like upgrading Trident was the smart choice. I'm against war and nuclear weapons mean war, but they can also mean peace if they keep discouraging wars. Only the US have used nuclear weapons so far.
When would we ever use Trident?
Hopefully never. Nuclear weapons are also for defense. I think they serve this purpose very well. Otherwise, I'm against their use as aggression.
Edit: Imagine Trident is abandoned. What will you do against Russia, China, North Korea, etc?
What would a nuclear weapon do to help us against North Korea? The only time we could possibly justify using one would be a total war to the death of one of the two civilizations and North Korea doesn't have many regional conflicts with the UK.
Consider this hypothetical. There is a cold war between two large blocs which collectively cover the globe. Each has enough nuclear weapons to completely obliterate the other and each vows annihilation if the other attacks. One day you hear reports that the other bloc has launched and that in 30 minutes your entire civilization, spanning half the globe, will be utterly destroyed. The question at this point isn't "can you stop it?", you're all going to die, it's over, the question is "do you still launch your own counterstrike?". I would argue no. It doesn't matter at this point to you, you're all dead and so is your entire civilization, all you can do is upgrade that to the entire of humanity. From a game theory perspective you want the enemy to believe you would fire nukes out of spite, even when they couldn't save you, even if it were to destroy the world, but from a practical standpoint it is never the rational choice.
you have a fail hypothetical. if you have nukes to "completely obliterate the other block" and "your civilization, spanning half the globe, will be utterly destroyed" it means that, by the logic of how nukes work, you'll destroy the whole globe. so, face with total extinction you also fire your nukes because why would you leave your nukes as legacy to whatever monkey comes next?.
Edit: but even if magic is real and your exact scenario happens, you still launch your counterstrike.
Care to elaborate on the bolded part? what logic of how the nukes work mandates that you can only destroy all of human civilization with them, and not only say the american continents worth of civilization? Obviously, there will be adverse effects for the entire world, especially with globalism and what not, but it's not like there is some quirky physics that automatically makes the whole planet automatically uninhabitable.
On July 19 2016 06:55 KwarK wrote: We're never going to use Trident aggressively so logically the best option would be to scrap Trident, use the money for other things and tell everyone we still have Trident while keeping cardboard cutout submarines in dock. So from that perspective I disagree with Trident but as I've not seen the missiles with my own two eyes I can't guarantee they haven't already done exactly that.
How do we know that's not what they've already done?
Her logic fails pretty badly within the first 45 seconds, the entire point is that no one will send a nuke our way when they know there's a chance we'll send one back. If we don't have one at all then we're completely at their mercy.
Not at all. If anyone was insane enough to start nuking countries, they aren't going to stop 'just in case they get nuked back'. Do you think that North Korea would nuke the UK if the UK had no nuclear 'deterrent'? Even if they were pushed as far as they can go, the UK having a nuke means pretty much nothing, since nuking the UK is pretty much the same as nuking any other European/American country, it means you're declaring war against half of the world. Its not as simple as you're making out at all.
On July 20 2016 00:52 bardtown wrote: If the SNP's goal is to be so utterly insufferable that England starts to support Scottish independence, it's working.
I still don't quite get Sturgeon's endgame. Even if she gets the second independence referendum, which I still think is a big "If". They're not going to get into the EU. It's rules on allowing admissions are "One No. All No" and there's NO way Spain lets them in with Catalonia and the Basque country agitating for independence and admission to the EU as a separate state so what's the end game? To end up alone and broke?
(Reuters) - Labour MP Angela Eagle said on Tuesday she was withdrawing from the race to oust party leader Jeremy Corbyn, saying she would give her support to rival Owen Smith instead in order to boost the chances of a change of leadership.
Eagle triggered the contest last week by challenging Corbyn, but said she had since received fewer nominations from Labour MPs than Smith.
"It is in the best interests of the Labour Party that we now come together so we can have one candidate," she told reporters.
Her logic fails pretty badly within the first 45 seconds, the entire point is that no one will send a nuke our way when they know there's a chance we'll send one back. If we don't have one at all then we're completely at their mercy.
Not at all. If anyone was insane enough to start nuking countries, they aren't going to stop 'just in case they get nuked back'. Do you think that North Korea would nuke the UK if the UK had no nuclear 'deterrent'? Even if they were pushed as far as they can go, the UK having a nuke means pretty much nothing, since nuking the UK is pretty much the same as nuking any other European/American country, it means you're declaring war against half of the world. Its not as simple as you're making out at all.
There will never be a war between 2 nuclear states because any war would result in the use of nuclear weapons and total annihilation of both countries, it's not as if suddenly some mad man is going to decide to nuke the UK, it's the last and very necessary line of defence to prevent escalation into full war from any minor conflicts. Without it conventional forces are useless against another nuclear power.
Also she's going on about how it doesn't deter terrorism, it was never meant to and that's so obvious that it's ridiculous she'd even bring it up.
Her logic fails pretty badly within the first 45 seconds, the entire point is that no one will send a nuke our way when they know there's a chance we'll send one back. If we don't have one at all then we're completely at their mercy.
Not at all. If anyone was insane enough to start nuking countries, they aren't going to stop 'just in case they get nuked back'. Do you think that North Korea would nuke the UK if the UK had no nuclear 'deterrent'? Even if they were pushed as far as they can go, the UK having a nuke means pretty much nothing, since nuking the UK is pretty much the same as nuking any other European/American country, it means you're declaring war against half of the world. Its not as simple as you're making out at all.
There will never be a war between 2 nuclear states because any war would result in the use of nuclear weapons and total annihilation of both countries, it's not as if suddenly some mad man is going to decide to nuke the UK, it's the last and very necessary line of defence to prevent escalation into full war from any minor conflicts. Without it conventional forces are useless against another nuclear power.
Also she's going on about how it doesn't deter terrorism, it was never meant to and that's so obvious that it's ridiculous she'd even bring it up.
The world has come very close to nuclear annihilation many times, more often through intelligence incompetence than through a genuine desire to launch a first strike. Nuclear weapons raise the stakes to a point where a single fuckup becomes a catastrophe. It's the reason neither side has implemented a dead man's hand system. Both sides recognize the importance of having a human element to the decision because it limits how mad MAD can get. I like this clip from War Games personally
although if you want a real example then Stanislav Petrov was a soviet officer in the early warning system who detected incoming missiles and concluded that it was a false alarm against protocol.
Her logic fails pretty badly within the first 45 seconds, the entire point is that no one will send a nuke our way when they know there's a chance we'll send one back. If we don't have one at all then we're completely at their mercy.
Not at all. If anyone was insane enough to start nuking countries, they aren't going to stop 'just in case they get nuked back'. Do you think that North Korea would nuke the UK if the UK had no nuclear 'deterrent'? Even if they were pushed as far as they can go, the UK having a nuke means pretty much nothing, since nuking the UK is pretty much the same as nuking any other European/American country, it means you're declaring war against half of the world. Its not as simple as you're making out at all.
There will never be a war between 2 nuclear states because any war would result in the use of nuclear weapons and total annihilation of both countries, it's not as if suddenly some mad man is going to decide to nuke the UK, it's the last and very necessary line of defence to prevent escalation into full war from any minor conflicts. Without it conventional forces are useless against another nuclear power.
Also she's going on about how it doesn't deter terrorism, it was never meant to and that's so obvious that it's ridiculous she'd even bring it up.
The world has come very close to nuclear annihilation many times, more often through intelligence incompetence than through a genuine desire to launch a first strike. Nuclear weapons raise the stakes to a point where a single fuckup becomes a catastrophe. It's the reason neither side has implemented a dead man's hand system. Both sides recognize the importance of having a human element to the decision because it limits how mad MAD can get. I like this clip from War Games personally https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReJ3RltihME&t=4m45s although if you want a real example then Stanislav Petrov was a soviet officer in the early warning system who detected incoming missiles and concluded that it was a false alarm against protocol.
Oh I'm aware there have been close calls, notably during the Cuban missile crisis but also things as silly as the moon, a flock of geese and a bear triggering some kind of tripwire at a US AFB being registered by systems as nuclear attacks and the operators didn't fire the missiles. AFAIK the Russians did operate a dead hand system during the cold war and possibly still do today. The systems aren't perfect and are obviously very complex and prone to accidents and mistakes but they've worked successfully for about 6 decades now and resulted in the most peaceful era in human history.
I guess modern conventional weapons though are enough to keep the peace in Europe itself these days though, after the continent obliterated itself twice in 30 years war suddenly became very unprofitable compared to the old days.
On July 20 2016 00:52 bardtown wrote: If the SNP's goal is to be so utterly insufferable that England starts to support Scottish independence, it's working.
I still don't quite get Sturgeon's endgame. Even if she gets the second independence referendum, which I still think is a big "If". They're not going to get into the EU. It's rules on allowing admissions are "One No. All No" and there's NO way Spain lets them in with Catalonia and the Basque country agitating for independence and admission to the EU as a separate state so what's the end game? To end up alone and broke?
This isn't quite true.
If there was a legal referendum, approved by Westminster, that was held, and Scotland were to achieve independence, Spain would be unlikely to veto.
This isn't a problem for Spain since Spain just won't give Catalonia or the Basque a referendum ever, their only concern is if Scotland unilaterally achieved independence, much as, for example, Kosovo did.
On July 20 2016 00:52 bardtown wrote: If the SNP's goal is to be so utterly insufferable that England starts to support Scottish independence, it's working.
I still don't quite get Sturgeon's endgame. Even if she gets the second independence referendum, which I still think is a big "If". They're not going to get into the EU. It's rules on allowing admissions are "One No. All No" and there's NO way Spain lets them in with Catalonia and the Basque country agitating for independence and admission to the EU as a separate state so what's the end game? To end up alone and broke?
This isn't quite true.
If there was a legal referendum, approved by Westminster, that was held, and Scotland were to achieve independence, Spain would be unlikely to veto.
This isn't a problem for Spain since Spain just won't give Catalonia or the Basque a referendum ever, their only concern is if Scotland unilaterally achieved independence, much as, for example, Kosovo did.
There would be other obstacles to an independent Scotland joining the EU such as the rules on deficits, the EU sets a limit of 3% and Scotland is currently running at something like 11%, following independence that would only be higher due to extra costs and suddenly having to actually pay interest as well. Also I don't think most people in Scotland realise that we would have to join the Euro if we were to rejoin the EU and I think once they realised that an independence vote would be even less likely to pass.
I personally doubt there will be another Scottish referendum any time soon anyway though.
On July 20 2016 00:52 bardtown wrote: If the SNP's goal is to be so utterly insufferable that England starts to support Scottish independence, it's working.
I still don't quite get Sturgeon's endgame. Even if she gets the second independence referendum, which I still think is a big "If". They're not going to get into the EU. It's rules on allowing admissions are "One No. All No" and there's NO way Spain lets them in with Catalonia and the Basque country agitating for independence and admission to the EU as a separate state so what's the end game? To end up alone and broke?
This isn't quite true.
If there was a legal referendum, approved by Westminster, that was held, and Scotland were to achieve independence, Spain would be unlikely to veto.
This isn't a problem for Spain since Spain just won't give Catalonia or the Basque a referendum ever, their only concern is if Scotland unilaterally achieved independence, much as, for example, Kosovo did.
There would be other obstacles to an independent Scotland joining the EU such as the rules on deficits, the EU sets a limit of 3% and Scotland is currently running at something like 11%, following independence that would only be higher due to extra costs and suddenly having to actually pay interest as well. Also I don't think most people in Scotland realise that we would have to join the Euro if we were to rejoin the EU and I think once they realised that an independence vote would be even less likely to pass.
I personally doubt there will be another Scottish referendum any time soon anyway though.
Those are much more practical and realistic limitations to Scottish entry into the EU, and Scottish deficits in particular would have to be resolved somehow. Scottish accession is however unlikely to run into the same obstacles as other countries that previously entered, if only because much of their laws and regulations are already harmonized with the EU. So while they do exist, there are less barriers and accession hinges on a much smaller number of necessary reforms.
I also agree in that there is unlikely to be another this decade, if only because May and the Tories have no reason to grant one (they can rely on the "once in a generation vote" line to delay it).
That being said, it depends on how Brexit is actually conducted. If there isn't a Brexit, Scotland stays. If there is one, but the UK is successful in negotiating common market access among other issues, then Scotland is probably going to stay. If however the UK has to revert to WTO rules, I would expect an extremely spirited push for a vote in Scotland, and, if the SNP were able to get a referendum, would most likely pass.
Her logic fails pretty badly within the first 45 seconds, the entire point is that no one will send a nuke our way when they know there's a chance we'll send one back. If we don't have one at all then we're completely at their mercy.
Not at all. If anyone was insane enough to start nuking countries, they aren't going to stop 'just in case they get nuked back'. Do you think that North Korea would nuke the UK if the UK had no nuclear 'deterrent'? Even if they were pushed as far as they can go, the UK having a nuke means pretty much nothing, since nuking the UK is pretty much the same as nuking any other European/American country, it means you're declaring war against half of the world. Its not as simple as you're making out at all.
There will never be a war between 2 nuclear states because any war would result in the use of nuclear weapons and total annihilation of both countries, it's not as if suddenly some mad man is going to decide to nuke the UK, it's the last and very necessary line of defence to prevent escalation into full war from any minor conflicts. Without it conventional forces are useless against another nuclear power.
Also she's going on about how it doesn't deter terrorism, it was never meant to and that's so obvious that it's ridiculous she'd even bring it up.
The world has come very close to nuclear annihilation many times, more often through intelligence incompetence than through a genuine desire to launch a first strike. Nuclear weapons raise the stakes to a point where a single fuckup becomes a catastrophe. It's the reason neither side has implemented a dead man's hand system. Both sides recognize the importance of having a human element to the decision because it limits how mad MAD can get. I like this clip from War Games personally https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReJ3RltihME&t=4m45s although if you want a real example then Stanislav Petrov was a soviet officer in the early warning system who detected incoming missiles and concluded that it was a false alarm against protocol.
Oh I'm aware there have been close calls, notably during the Cuban missile crisis but also things as silly as the moon, a flock of geese and a bear triggering some kind of tripwire at a US AFB being registered by systems as nuclear attacks and the operators didn't fire the missiles. AFAIK the Russians did operate a dead hand system during the cold war and possibly still do today. The systems aren't perfect and are obviously very complex and prone to accidents and mistakes but they've worked successfully for about 6 decades now and resulted in the most peaceful era in human history.
I guess modern conventional weapons though are enough to keep the peace in Europe itself these days though, after the continent obliterated itself twice in 30 years war suddenly became very unprofitable compared to the old days.
On July 20 2016 00:52 bardtown wrote: If the SNP's goal is to be so utterly insufferable that England starts to support Scottish independence, it's working.
I still don't quite get Sturgeon's endgame. Even if she gets the second independence referendum, which I still think is a big "If". They're not going to get into the EU. It's rules on allowing admissions are "One No. All No" and there's NO way Spain lets them in with Catalonia and the Basque country agitating for independence and admission to the EU as a separate state so what's the end game? To end up alone and broke?
What is SNPs policy on how much of the UK national debt they will take on anyway? Can't say i have heard much about it.The other issue is currency, couldn't see them using the euro as a non-member state and i remember Osborne saying he wouldn't allow them to use the pound if they voted out last time.
Iron out these two serious economic issues and SNP may have a viable platform and path to freedom.
She gave the job to him because now he will be responsible for the brexit negotiations so she can put all the blame on him when it inevitably goes wrong.
I don't think it will be possible to put all the blame on Johnson considering Leave victory is the only reason why May is the PM. She will be the face of Brexit regardless of who negotiates it. It's unreasonable to assume she wants him to fail.
EPT
