General News Thread

[Sampson]

As much as I think most of the country dislikes those 14 years of Tory rule 2010-24 with regards to them not functioning to build houses, I will be fair to them and say I don't think they didn't try. Apart from that small weird Americanised Libertarian faction of that era of the Tories led by Jacob Rees-Mogg and his "it's not tye state's job to build houses" line, I do think those Tory governments came in and often promised and tried to build houses, but hit a brick wall of locals shutting down so many building plans.

 

I don't want to use the term NIMBYism and this certainly wasn't a left-right thing as rural Tories on the right and Green environmentalists on the left and LibDem B&B owners in Cornwall in the centre were all much a part of opposing house building in their areas - but its been very difficult to build housing in the UK for decades because it's so hard not to get planning permission tied down by (often understandly) annoyed locals. I think a big part of it despite wanting to keep their locations "as is" is thatthe promise of Thatcherism was often built so much about home ownership - you buy a house and it's your nest egg - it'll be worth 6 times the price in a generations time and you can retire on it - but thatmeans people naturally don't want more houses built around them as this naturally decreases house prices due to increased supply and so (understandbly) oppose it because they've built their dreams abd retirement on the fact their house is now worth a certain amount and they don't want to see prices in their area crash down.

 

It's a bit of a vicious cycle in a way.

Edited 19 hours ago by Sampson

[Tinman]

Ilson Bowling Ally.

 

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1061488369875571

[Parafox]

1 hour ago, Tinman said:

Ilson Bowling Ally.

 

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1061488369875571

Wow.

 

I was expecting a cricket reference.

 

 

[Foxdiamond]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 

 

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. 

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.  

[leicsmac]

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. 

 

 

[Foxdiamond]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

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. 

 

 

I suppose adequate is expensive enough

[Trav Le Bleu]

4 hours 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. 

Give everyone nukes.

 

Sorted 

[Foxdiamond]

21 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Give everyone nukes.

 

Sorted 

It certainly would be

[nnfox]

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.

[leicsmac]

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.

[leicsmac]

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.

 

 

 

[Sly]

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

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.

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. 

[leicsmac]

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. 

[nnfox]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

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. 

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.

[Izzy]

SIR Kevin Sinfield - finally!

Rugby star Sinfield and authors Blackman and Donaldson lead honours list

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gyx4dnr21o

[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. 

[Mike Oxlong]

14 minutes ago, Izzy said:

SIR Kevin Sinfield - finally!

Rugby star Sinfield and authors Blackman and Donaldson lead honours list

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gyx4dnr21o

The honours system is mostly a load of bollocks but Kevin Sinfield is a person who thoroughly deserves this recognition 

[Wymsey]

50 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

The honours system is mostly a load of bollocks but Kevin Sinfield is a person who thoroughly deserves this recognition 

Am no rugby fan, but really think Lewis Moody should be knighted with his charity involvements - with him being a patron of many, plus setting one up himself.

 

Came across this video and he came across very well in being so open about his MND battle.

 

 

 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Wymsey

[nnfox]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

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. 

I suspect that there are more than a few variables that need sorting out before any kind of accurate prediction as to what a plausible outcome would be and I'm certainly not qualified to venture into such an area.

 

What I would say though, is this:  I sleep OK at night knowing that there are people who are qualified to deal with such scenarios and they care passionately about it so that it allows me to sleep OK at night.  I also strongly suspect that the better funded they are, the better they can perform at their job and that on a macro scale, more funding for defence = less chance of a war breaking out in the first place, less funding = greater chance of war breaking out, and a much harder fight to come out the other end without pressing the master switch.

[leicsmac]

29 minutes ago, nnfox said:

I suspect that there are more than a few variables that need sorting out before any kind of accurate prediction as to what a plausible outcome would be and I'm certainly not qualified to venture into such an area.

 

What I would say though, is this:  I sleep OK at night knowing that there are people who are qualified to deal with such scenarios and they care passionately about it so that it allows me to sleep OK at night.  I also strongly suspect that the better funded they are, the better they can perform at their job and that on a macro scale, more funding for defence = less chance of a war breaking out in the first place, less funding = greater chance of war breaking out, and a much harder fight to come out the other end without pressing the master switch.

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.