leicsmac

Another key point. As well as acknowledging that the issue exists, perhaps more people should ask exactly how the problem came to be in the first place, if they really want to address the core matters that allow it to be solved.

Oh yeah, Just World Fallacy. Should have included that too. Incredibly damaging.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czerd0zky10o https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c873z413r9lo Only today. It's good to have validation, isn't it? This problem isn't going away, and voting for a party that will do nothing about it won't make it go away either.

You do see so much of this social Darwinist stuff. "I suffered so you should too, that's what life is about". Whatever happened to being happy that future generations have it better? Surely that's the direction we should be looking in as a species?

Hopefully their future will not be as grim as might be predicted now.

It is a massive problem, and likely another example that people want to kick down the road because they think it "too big". Which future generations won't likely thank us for.

It's the farmers saying that they're struggling because of reduced yields due at least in part to biodiversity loss caused by changing weather patterns and overexploitation, not just me. But then I guess the first stage of grief/loss is denial.

And yet none of the alternatives seem capable of addressing likelythe key reason why those harvests are poor and may get much poorer soon. At least the subsidy/economic issues aren't so difficult by comparison to reverse once in motion.

Hopefully not, it's all been pretty genial so far. There certainly appears to have been an inflection point in the late 70s/early 80s. Some European and Scandinavian nations took one route, the US, UK and some other European nations the other. The results are as everyone sees.

Absolutely agree. However, all the tax breaks in the world won't help those farmers businesses when their land is either too flood-stricken or drought-stricken to farm effectively. There's a lot of noise about how changing patterns are making it much more difficult for yields already, and it's certainly not going to get any easier.

If nothing else, taking the issue that will affect those farmers more than any other with at least something approaching the seriousness it deserves, rather than dismissing it as a problem at all. Yep. Big picture, people. It matters.

Apparently the Japanese knew about the potential for such a weapon, but thought it near impossible to actually create. It was only a couple of days after the one was dropped on Hiroshima that they truly knew what it was, and that was partly because of Trumans announcement. The Soviets launching their own attack certainly helped tilt the balance as well. WRT the firebombing campaign, the only thing I'll add there is that General LeMay, the architect of it, is on record as saying that if the US had lost the war, he fully expected to be convicted as a war criminal. The US leadership knew what they were doing, but as per above, winners never commit war crimes.

All of the above being considered, even a week appears to be a long time in politics right now so goodness only knows what the landscape will be like in 2029.

Saw an article (sadly didn't snapshot it) about a lot of East Mids farmers wanting to vote Reform. That is of course their prerogative, but considering these farmers must be aware of an issue that is already hitting them hard, will only hit them harder in future and on which Reform intend to do either precisely nothing or the opposite of what's needed to help them, the phrase "turkeys voting for Christmas" comes to mind.

Appreciate the recommendations, everyone.

Additionally, I can see why some might be compelled to use comments regarding echo chambers on here, but it is a little ironic that such comments often come from parties that cannot or choose not to see beyond the end of their own front door or their own countries border in terms of consequence. The UK cannot hide away from the rest of the world and what they do and pretend that they're the only one of importance. Not on most matters, anyhow.

Possibly not, but a comment into the state of the man giving statements in this style as the most politically powerful person in the world, with (again remarking on the anniversary of the first use of nuclear weapons) the authority to launch a unilateral nuclear strike at any time, might be welcomed, rather than merely ignoring the way he acts.

The only thing I'll add to this is that I hope the fvckup isn't so big that it causes irrevocable problems (possible), and that the "not seeing his ilk for decades" is not only desirable, but necessary for anything approaching the safe continuity of human civilisation (rather than just one small and relatively insignificant part of it).

Not sure he was quite as right about Mdme Swift, though. All of that aside, eighty years after the events of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I'm wondering if someone who makes statements like the above is really someone you want with the power to order a unilateral and absolute nuclear strike on whatever target he wishes?

In Other news: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cdjxp4n2371t OceanGate had "critically flawed" safety practices and a toxic workplace culture, a damning report into the fatal Titan sub disaster finds The US Coast Guard says the company "leveraged intimidation tactics... to evade regulatory scrutiny" and "completely" ignored vital inspections Chief executive Stockton Rush showed "negligence that contributed to the deaths", the report says, adding he may have been subject to criminal liability had he survived The family of two victims says "no report can alter the heart-breaking outcome" and calls for "meaningful reform". That's rather damning.

Yes. Yes it is, and no, it is not a parody.

Hold up, the leader of the "free world" has given us his balanced and erudite take.

Bingo. The problem is deeply systemic and needs a systemic solution.

If the point about popularity is true here, then the "real world" is clearly a lot about tribal conflict, death and suffering for practically no sake at all and I'm not sure why that should be endorsed, or even accepted. Even if it is a majority viewpoint.

An additional argument that has been made was that the Soviets were keen on taking as much Japanese-held territory as they could (including all of Korea) before the surrender, so it was in the US interest at the time to force the surrender as quickly as possible before they took much more.