leicsmac

I know what you mean, man. It's not great how it's bled over into everything, football included, but that sadly is where we are. I do hope as many fans of all nations have a good a time as possible over there.

... and what was it that Nikola Tesla said about "man made horrors beyond your comprehension"?

An unfortunate, if predictable, consequence of the events of the last couple of years. Lack of decorum tends to be answered with like lack of decorum.

So it looks like a large part of Texas is struggling with a parasitic worm called screw worm affecting their livestock. This is after government cuts to scientific agencies researching how best to keep it away, and total ignorance towards the warming natural world which allows this parasite to flourish in more places. Sometimes the Earth and its consequences comes at you fast.

USA in ridiculous future inhibiting nationalism shocker.

There's certainly a point to be made about the value of intel and how it lends itself to accurately gauging the amount of deterrent required. It is a necessary debate as to how much deterrent is required and therefore how much in terms of resources need to be allocated, though, particularly when other areas that are more mundane but equally threatening to human life and health exist that also require said resources.

Absolutely agree about the great many possibilities, but I'd be curious to know about just one or two plausible outcomes that would "win" a war against Russia on behalf of NATO without nuclear weaponry being used. Don't get me wrong, I see where you're coming from, but I simply don't see how any scenario that's plausible enough to be worth staking a lot of money and indeed the future itself on doesn't end that way.

My point exactly. Any kind of sustained direct conflict between the two would inevitably escalate to that point. And imo it wouldn't necessarily be Putin, just whoever appeared to be losing (which is more likely to be him), using such weapons rather than surrendering. So I'm not sure where a little added budgetary cash would change that outcome.

As an addendum, from the Beeb article on this topic, a line stood out: UK intelligence believed "there could be an attack by Russia on Nato as soon as 2030. One senior defence figure told me that if that were true, "then we should be doubling spending" If this is true, all the money in the UK treasury, Fort Knox and the Federal Reserve bank wouldn't stop such a conflict from inevitably ending with the losers being everyone.

And the complexity lies at least partly in being able to correctly analyse the degree of any particular threat and allocate resources accordingly. Which, given the shift in the way military engagements are occurring, is becoming very complex indeed.

Makes you think

Adequate being the important word there, because that definition really depends on the beholder and the situation. It just appears that the UK needs to keep enough to challenge any Argentina-level challenger, while keeping nuclear weapons as a deterrent against any of the bigger players, but there's not much more need than that.

What Trav said about nukes was reasonably simple but it also has a logical progression that hasn't really been addressed yet, rather just the rather more emotive argument of meeting NATO requirements because "it's the right thing to do". Perhaps some closer examination of the exact consequences if the UK doesn't fulfil such requirements should be considered. To add: This still stands. Edit: I know that the UK only having the capacity to go 0-nuke 'em removes a lot of strategic flexibility from any conventional response. But I'm not sure how much the current issues would affect such a conventional response against (smaller) parties that don't have nukes anyway.

A very sobering read and I have no reason whatsoever to doubt any conclusion drawn within it.

And then the following day you get a hangover delivered specially from Hell.

Not in the quantity they drink it

At the risk of causing offence, I think quite a few have always had that mindset of entitlement towards women. It was just more socially acceptable back then and (thankfully) is becoming less so now, so those with that mindset, like the dinosaurs they are, are roaring and trying to preserve their own entitlement, even when the meteor is incoming.

Looks like he wanted one last show at Lords before finishing up. Superb cricketer and great guy by all accounts.

I think this is a bit of two things; there was a lot of misogynistic violence back then, we just didn't get to hear about it as much, and social media aiding and abetting such misogynist trends by helping pieces of shite connect with and encourage each other in their shiity behaviour.

A monopoly on Anglosphere access to space, perhaps. The Chinese are making their own waves too there.

Having spent time drinking soju with Koreans, tequila wouldn't present them much difficulty

... what is it with too many blokes and being knuckle dragging shitebags to women simply because of some grotesque idea that they have the right to do it to them?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c17ydny8zyro A South Korean court has sentenced former President Yoon Suk Yeol to 30 years in jail for sending drones into North Korea. Prosecutors argued that Yoon ordered the operation in October 2024 to provoke Pyongyang and create a pretext for his failed martial law bid later that year. When Yoon declared martial law on 3 December, he had claimed he was protecting the country from "anti-state" forces that sympathised with North Korea. But it soon became clear he was driven by domestic troubles and he rolled back the order in the face of mass protests. Yoon was impeached and is now serving time in prison after he was sentenced to life for insurrection over his botched martial law attempt. They do know what to do with corrupt officials over there. It's unfortunate that the system allows so many of them to get to the top in the first place, though.

Better teams will take advantage of the weakness from set pieces, but Korea do look good going forward.

Good win for Korea.