leicsmac

6 minutes ago, nnfox said:

In a Russia vs NATO conflict there could be hundreds of ways that that could play out where the use of equipment and tactics that the public have no idea even exist could be used to end it before an all out nuclear war.  But if your options are A. Nothing or B. Nukes, then the threshold for reaching taking option B becomes greatly reduces and therefore far more likely.

 

Defence spending is a funny thing really.  You don't really need it until you need it, and at that point, everyone will wish more had been spent.

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. 

2 hours ago, Sly said:

A all out war between Russia and NATO would effectively end the world. You could see Putin firing nukes and NATO would retaliate. 
 

No one wants that. 

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.

21 minutes ago, nnfox said:

Being able to defend the country against other states or terrorist organisations is should be the number one priority of any government.  It's incredibly complex and incredibly expensive, but it's a non-negotiable, otherwise you literally risk not having a country.

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.

2 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

so in love with Southampton we've hired Matt Le Tissier as a fan

Makes you think

8 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

I suppose with defence it's an insurance policy and you need at least adequate cover to meet the unexpected. Even going back to the Warsaw Pacts days it was known Nato could not win a long conventional conflict but didn't put all the eggs in the nuclear basket. As for defending British people etc against a non nuclear enemy the Thatcher government gave off the wrong signals in 1982 that led to the Falklands war that very few here thought possible.  

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. 

2 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

If we have nukes as a deterrent to anyone attacking us, then either,

 

A) we don't need to spend money on military.

 

Or 

 

B) we should get rid of the nukes, as they clearly don't work.

 

Simple logic.

2 hours ago, Foxdiamond said:

Or simplistic 

43 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Eh. Defense spending isn't just for us, it's for nato and we should be capable of doing our fair share. The idea that we'll just nuke whoever steps foot in somewhere like Poland for example is at a minimum, bananas. 

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:

23 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Additionally, I'm curious as to who exactly the UK would war with or need a highly expensive conventional deterrent from that could have a positive and not catastrophic outcome. 

 

Most of the big names mentioned have nuclear weapons, so does the UK, and any conventional conflict with them would inevitably escalate to that, so...

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. 

1 hour ago, Torquay Gunner said:

Absolutely no offence caused.  Interesting review from Durham University and the stats make sobering reading. 

https://www.durham.ac.uk/research/current/thought-leadership/2026/03/are-women-more-safe-today-in-england-and-wales-than-they-were-in-the-past/

 

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

4 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Even in Mexico, most people aren't sitting drinking tequila the way soju is drunk. 

 

You sit and drink soju neat like wine and that shit builds. It's sweet and fruity, way too easy to drink and gets thrown down in considerable bulk. 

 

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

1 minute ago, MC Prussian said:

Soju is bloody tame compared to Tequila.

Not in the quantity they drink it 

10 minutes ago, Torquay Gunner said:

To a certain extent yes and the internet of course will connect like minded individuals. However, the issue of why do so many have this mindset of entitlement is the real conundrum. 

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. 

3 minutes ago, Torquay Gunner said:

I posted this very question about a year ago.  Why are very so many inadequate men around that can’t deal with rejection?  I don’t remember there being so many instances of this type of misogyny say 30 years ago.  

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. 

On 10/06/2026 at 17:11, Zear0 said:

The bloke will essentially have a monopoly on access to space.  Appreciate IPOs are the wild west, but it's not likely to be the worst investment in the world...

A monopoly on Anglosphere access to space, perhaps. 

The Chinese are making their own waves too there. 

11 minutes ago, StanSP said:

 

 

 

 

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

21 minutes ago, Raj said:

Moment man runs over innocent woman and attacks her with a baseball bat | Watch

 

 

... 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. 

Just now, Super_horns said:

Son could have had a couple himself .

 

2-1 flattered the Czechs by the looks of it .

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

Good win for Korea. 

5 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Evidently the hat went around the departments and no one was willing to give up any budget

 

i believe the dept of energy with its carbon capture budget is in the cross hairs but ed won’t play ball. (He also refused to be shuffled last time the music stopped).  Starmer looks weak!

Needless to say, Miliband is right to stick to his guns. Either the UK helps lead the way towards a future with less carbon emissions, or the UK will need a vastly larger military budget when even the most vital resources (such as potable water) become scarce and the fighting really starts. 

https://theconversation.com/how-silicon-valley-misreads-the-lord-of-the-rings-282862

@Trav Le Bleu you might find this of particular interest. 

The appropriation of Tolkiens work by people who would be servants of Sauron (or Morgoth) in his legendarium has always made me pretty angry. This is a really good breakdown of exactly why. 

3 minutes ago, Reynaldo said:

Well this goes down as the worst opening ceremony I’ve ever seen for a tournament. 

Expect a few "worsts" in that regard. 

Just now, Foxdiamond said:

I was looking at how much is spent on housing benefit. Are private landlords making a mint at our expense. Certainly not against people getting help but perhaps private rents are a rip off?

Depends on who you talk to, but this is something that perhaps might be looked into more. 

2 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Spending more in preparing the country for future conflicts absolutely. Personally, I'd rather we had the capacity but never any need to actually use it. 

 

 

Agree with the bolded here, but as per above that's what the SLBMs are for, not much else. 

11 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Does so much need spending on defence though? If anything has been learned from Ukraine and Iran, it's that drones costing thousands can take out ships and planes costing tens of millions.

Additionally, I'm curious as to who exactly the UK would war with or need a highly expensive conventional deterrent from that could have a positive and not catastrophic outcome. 

Most of the big names mentioned have nuclear weapons, so does the UK, and any conventional conflict with them would inevitably escalate to that, so...