General News

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

I agree with most of your points above, but not sure everyone who has extreme concerns about immigration is hatred. I hope I don't 'hate' immigrants. I'd like to think I'm polite and sociable to anyone. And frankly, if I were i had a chance to move abroad for better paid work, I'd do it too like they have. 

 

But it's all too easy to lump genuine concerns as hated or racism..

 

Absolutely right.

 

However, it is enough people that possess that xenophobic sentiment to have effects on policy that then affect many more people.

[Sly]

3 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I wouldn't disregard India/Pakistan there either, especially if water resources in that region start to become strained.

It would be bonkers for anyone to use one now. 
 

The ones the USA dropped on Japan by all accounts were quite insignificant compared to what could potentially be unleashed now. 

[Grebfromgrebland]

6 hours ago, Sly said:

You’re right, however people will still continue to warmonger to hold onto them. 
 

At some point, some crazy nation will drop a nuclear bomb and we’ll need to adapt to survive. 

Luckily I've played quite a few computers games now which simulate this exact scenario so I'll be fine.

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Sly said:

It would be bonkers for anyone to use one now. 
 

The ones the USA dropped on Japan by all accounts were quite insignificant compared to what could potentially be unleashed now. 

To elaborate on this, the ones used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the equivalent of around 12 and 20 kilotons of TNT, respectively. Most modern nuclear weapons have yields of around 200-500 kilotons.

 

So yes, it would be bonkers, especially considering in almost all situations where one is used escalation would be inevitable, but I just hope that a nuclear armed nation doesn't get to the point where they figure they have to use them or perish.

[reporterpenguin]

57 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

To elaborate on this, the ones used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the equivalent of around 12 and 20 kilotons of TNT, respectively. Most modern nuclear weapons have yields of around 200-500 kilotons.

 

So yes, it would be bonkers, especially considering in almost all situations where one is used escalation would be inevitable, but I just hope that a nuclear armed nation doesn't get to the point where they figure they have to use them or perish.

While many modern weapons do have mind boggling yields in to them megaton range, I’d guess those are mostly used as a manhood measuring contest. 
 

Should nuclear weapons ever be used in anger they would surely have yields closer to, or even below, those dropped on Japan. Unless you’re literally trying to wipe a country off the map what’s the point of using something with a yield measured in megatons? 
 

That said, trying to think rationally about how they’d be used probably isn’t the most representative way of considering it…

 

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, reporterpenguin said:

While many modern weapons do have mind boggling yields in to them megaton range, I’d guess those are mostly used as a manhood measuring contest. 
 

Should nuclear weapons ever be used in anger they would surely have yields closer to, or even below, those dropped on Japan. Unless you’re literally trying to wipe a country off the map what’s the point of using something with a yield measured in megatons? 
 

That said, trying to think rationally about how they’d be used probably isn’t the most representative way of considering it…

 

From what I can tell, "counterforce" tactical weapons for precision targeting are in the low kiloton range, but "countervalue" weapons for targeting cities are hundreds of kilotons to megaton strength.

 

But as you say, rationality goes out the window when the use of the former would almost inevitably escalate to the use of the latter on a wide scale anyway.

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

To elaborate on this, the ones used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the equivalent of around 12 and 20 kilotons of TNT, respectively. Most modern nuclear weapons have yields of around 200-500 kilotons.

 

So yes, it would be bonkers, especially considering in almost all situations where one is used escalation would be inevitable, but I just hope that a nuclear armed nation doesn't get to the point where they figure they have to use them or perish.

I noticed even Putin said the other day that his new favourite toy could make nukes obsolete. I’m assuming he meant tactical nukes, if he thinks he can destroy any target in Europe with a conventional rocket then that is better for us all. No one would ever contemplate using strategic nukes in this day and age unless something went so badly wrong that it’s beyond the realm of imagination. 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I noticed even Putin said the other day that his new favourite toy could make nukes obsolete. I’m assuming he meant tactical nukes, if he thinks he can destroy any target in Europe with a conventional rocket then that is better for us all. No one would ever contemplate using strategic nukes in this day and age unless something went so badly wrong that it’s beyond the realm of imagination. 

The Avangard system? Yeah, it's apparently an answer to the US Prompt Global Strike - the idea of delivering a high power conventional warhead to anywhere in the world in 24 hours. Of course, ICBMs have that ability already, but seeing as they're inextricably associated with nuclear weapons, that means somewhat perversely that no nuclear power can now use them for conventional purposes (because naturally those attacked would get the wrong idea), so the big players have had to develop different options.

 

It's true that this new idea from both the US and Russia might in fact lower the chance of mutually assured destruction for the exact reasons you say here.

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

The Avangard system? Yeah, it's apparently an answer to the US Prompt Global Strike - the idea of delivering a high power conventional warhead to anywhere in the world in 24 hours. Of course, ICBMs have that ability already, but seeing as they're inextricably associated with nuclear weapons, that means somewhat perversely that no nuclear power can now use them for conventional purposes (because naturally those attacked would get the wrong idea), so the big players have had to develop different options.

 

It's true that this new idea from both the US and Russia might in fact lower the chance of mutually assured destruction for the exact reasons you say here.

Nooo the Oreshnik thing he’s been firing off. He says it’s so accurate that it renders nukes pointless. 

[leicsmac]

39 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Nooo the Oreshnik thing he’s been firing off. He says it’s so accurate that it renders nukes pointless. 

Ah, thank you.

 

That appears to be nothing new under the sun, but then info on it appears to be sparse anyway.

[Wymsey]

It makes you think, to be quite honest..

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgr7nk97w9o

 

[Lionator]

23 minutes ago, Wymsey said:

It makes you think, to be quite honest..

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgr7nk97w9o

 

I doubt very few people would ever think that their colleague would be doing something like that, it’s not really a shock. 

[Paninistickers]

Duncan Norvelle gone. 

 

Always thought he was from Nottingham. Actually Hoton which is apparently near Loughborough. I'm gonna guess on the Leicester/Notts border. Edit; yes it is.

Edited 12 December 2024 by Paninistickers

[FOXYTALK]

7 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

Duncan Norvelle gone. 

 

Always thought he was from Nottingham. Actually Hoton which is apparently near Loughborough. I'm gonna guess on the Leicester/Notts border. Edit; yes it is.

The old wacky warehouse 😏

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly41x7eg71o

 

"I'm really pleading directly to the one billion people living in Nato territory, and particularly in Canada and Europe, to ask them to help me," Rutte said.

"Call up your politicians, tell them that you agree that yes it is difficult, it will mean somewhat less spending on some other items, but that you want them, your politicians, to prioritise defence, because this is long-term crucial…

"My plea here is if you have children, grandchildren, if you think our way of life should be preserved, the democracy, our values, then we have to prioritise defence.

"And if we don't, in four or five years we are in real difficulty."

 

... and this is after a quite large part of the overall world military expenditure of $2.44 trillion was spent on it last year.

 

I mean, I understand the need, but Meneer Rutte surely understands that directing money to that one area won't solve the problems the world faces.

[Salisbury Fox]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly41x7eg71o

 

"I'm really pleading directly to the one billion people living in Nato territory, and particularly in Canada and Europe, to ask them to help me," Rutte said.

"Call up your politicians, tell them that you agree that yes it is difficult, it will mean somewhat less spending on some other items, but that you want them, your politicians, to prioritise defence, because this is long-term crucial…

"My plea here is if you have children, grandchildren, if you think our way of life should be preserved, the democracy, our values, then we have to prioritise defence.

"And if we don't, in four or five years we are in real difficulty."

 

... and this is after a quite large part of the overall world military expenditure of $2.44 trillion was spent on it last year.

 

I mean, I understand the need, but Meneer Rutte surely understands that directing money to that one area won't solve the problems the world faces.

I’m sure he knows full well the problems the world faces, but I assume he’s thinking along the lines of the quote from Denis Healy:

 

“Once we cut defence expenditure to the extent where our security is imperilled, we have no houses, we have no hospitals, we have no schools. We have a heap of cinders”. 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Salisbury Fox said:

I’m sure he knows full well the problems the world faces, but I assume he’s thinking along the lines of the quote from Denis Healy:

 

“Once we cut defence expenditure to the extent where our security is imperilled, we have no houses, we have no hospitals, we have no schools. We have a heap of cinders”. 

Sadly, with the way the world is as it is now, I agree.

 

If we also don't spend on other essentials, we'll have the same outcome - just perhaps a little further into the future. Shortages of critical resources will make warfare inevitable no matter what is spent on military hardware and upkeep.

 

Here's hoping there's the resources and the will to do both.

[Sampson]

Her interviews are just always so incredibly weird, it’s like something a 14 year old boy would say in the schoolyard to try and convince his friends he’s not gay. I’m pretty convinced by this point she is pretty strongly autistic, like she doesn’t seem to understand adult social conventions.

Edited 13 December 2024 by Sampson

[The Horse's Mouth]

Reform winning in Merseyside is pretty wild

[jgtuk]

7 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Her interviews are just always so incredibly weird, it’s like something a 14 year old boy would say in the schoolyard to try and convince his friends he’s not gay. I’m pretty convinced by this point she is pretty strongly autistic, like she doesn’t seem to understand adult social conventions.

And who has a sandwich for breakfast? 
She’s a strange one…

[jgtuk]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/12/majority-of-brexit-voters-would-accept-free-movement-to-access-single-market-uk-eu?utm_source=newsshowcase&utm_medium=gnews&utm_campaign=CDAQkIGNws2CoOe8ARjjlLbyxIXioowBKg4IACoGCAowl6p7MN-zCQ&utm_content=rundown
 

Bring it on 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

Reform winning in Merseyside is pretty wild

.... in a single St Helens council seat with a 16.3% turnout, yes.

 

With that being said, they should be taken seriously, even with likely over four years to the next GE.

[The Horse's Mouth]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

.... in a single St Helens council seat with a 16.3% turnout, yes.

 

With that being said, they should be taken seriously, even with likely over four years to the next GE.

It’s a council election they don’t exactly have high turnouts, it’s a big result for them. Little results like this in the red wall only helps legitimise them as a serious threat.

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

It’s a council election they don’t exactly have high turnouts, it’s a big result for them. Little results like this in the red wall only helps legitimise them as a serious threat.

Unfortunately I agree.

 

We live in interesting times.

[Sampson]

21 minutes ago, jgtuk said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/dec/12/majority-of-brexit-voters-would-accept-free-movement-to-access-single-market-uk-eu?utm_source=newsshowcase&utm_medium=gnews&utm_campaign=CDAQkIGNws2CoOe8ARjjlLbyxIXioowBKg4IACoGCAowl6p7MN-zCQ&utm_content=rundown
 

Bring it on 

The polls have been showing it for years. Sadly I think the political appetite from the Labour Party isn’t there. Starner bizarrely said the UK wouldn’t rejoin “any part of the EU or customs union or have freedom of movement… in his lifetime” despite the fact his parties voters overwhelmingly support it. It’s the reason he turned me off Labour I voted LibDem over Labour the last election.
 

Fair enough in the short term it’s not going to happen but the guy is 61 and could live for another 30 years, to rule out moving even slightly back towards the EU within 30 years struck me as bizarre given his voter base - that’s a hell of a long time in geopolitics, I mean think about the difference in Japan or West Germany from 1945 to 1975 or the difference in the Baltic countries from post-recovering ex Soviet states in 1994 to some of the happiest and highest UN index countries in the world today. Russia and Turkey could’ve embraced democracy and have joined the EU by then for all we know.

Edited 13 December 2024 by Sampson