|
Poll: Who Should Be Leader of HM Most Loyal Opposition? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Jeremy Corbyn |
|
95 | 18.63% |
| Dennis Skinner |
|
53 | 10.39% |
| Angus Robertson |
|
20 | 3.92% |
| Tim Farron |
|
9 | 1.76% |
| Paul Ukips |
|
7 | 1.37% |
| Robot Lenin |
|
105 | 20.59% |
| Tony Blair |
|
28 | 5.49% |
| Pissflaps |
|
193 | 37.84% |
| Total: | 510 votes | ||
|
That account reads so weird https://twitter.com/YoungLiberalsUK/status/842839056765607938 How do you do, fellow young persons?
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 14:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 14:24 |
|
|
jBrereton posted:"Before standing armies we would never go to war over abstract ideas or, more pointedly, territorial disputes the average Brit does not care about" claim those with a sketchy at best understanding of history. Good job only you made that claim then.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
Jose posted:Young liberals do suk it's true as opposed to other kinds of liberals?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 14:23
|
|
|
Baron Corbyn posted:as opposed to other kinds of liberals? Dead ones are good, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
Man in the pub discussion time. If you were suddenly the secret king of the UK would you do away with the nukes and reduce the military in general? Discuss. My view. Id dismantle the whole trident system and not replace but keep the warheads so we could threaten to bomb them on something in the extremely unlikely situation even a threat of that is needed. Id offer the people made out of work from this technical jobs in the government structure somewhere. I'd keep all the new warships on order and the ones that have just been built because it would probably more hassle to stop all that. Retire all the poo poo ones and relocate the workers to something useful. Massively reduce the army in a nice way, they learnt plenty of skills doing that stuff, infrastructure building maybe under new ministry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
We lease the Trident missiles - would you continue to pay the lease on something you had no intention of using and even then, had no way of using anyway (seeing as you have scrapped the launch system)?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 14:40
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Dead ones are good, apparently. I suppose the younger they are, the further they are from good. Question withdrawn. Dead Goon posted:We lease the Trident missiles - would you continue to pay the lease on something you had no intention of using and even then, had no way of using anyway (seeing as you have scrapped the launch system)? we already have no intention of using them though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
Redirect all military spending into aerospace, robotics and energy research, scrap all nukes and just use orbital tungsten harpoon launchers, and robot armies with coilguns. Go full LFTR for energy generation. Suddenly the other countries start doing the same and you've tricked the world into cheap energy robot space utopia and defeated climate change.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
Dead Goon posted:We lease the Trident missiles - would you continue to pay the lease on something you had no intention of using and even then, had no way of using anyway (seeing as you have scrapped the launch system)?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
I'd replace the whole thing with a one shot planet killer, like an asteroid pilot or that thing that can tenfold the output of the sun for a few years. Also I'd have a skull throne but an ethical one so maybe MDF skulls or something. Pochoclo posted:Redirect all military spending into aerospace, robotics and energy research, scrap all nukes and just use orbital tungsten harpoon launchers, and robot armies with coilguns. Go full LFTR for energy generation. Suddenly the other countries start doing the same and you've tricked the world into cheap energy robot space utopia and defeated climate change. e2: Do we even have any good bombers for that? Guavanaut fucked around with this message at 14:52 on Mar 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 14:49
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:Man in the pub discussion time. Reducing the military AND getting rid of the nukes is really dumb. Especially in a time where NATO might not exist in a few years. The world is peaceful for these reasons: 1) Nato (mainly America) 2) Nukes 3) No one wants the world economy to collapse. 1 is on shaky ground because of Trump. 3 seems like it could go at any moment with poo poo like Brexit and, again, Trump loving around. Instead of reducing the military I'd keep the budget the same, or maybe raise it a small amount, but put almost all of it into the Navy. We're an island nation. We need a decent top of the line Navy. Instead, we've let the navy rot in order to fund the Army so we can stick our nose where it doesn't belong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
It is an ideological and possibly naive position I have. I just wonder if a just about first world nation lead the way by completely scrapping its nukes (I think South Africa did it as well to be fair) and reducing the gently caress out of military spending in total and spent it on something good instead it might lead to progress.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
Prince John posted:Interesting disparity between the real and the imagined level of expected acceptance there. i'd have thought better of you. that's such a shortsighted attitude. what does talking about your sexuality at work mean? it means being able to engage in perfectly normal office conversation like "did you go anywhere nice on your two weeks off" without constantly second guessing pronouns to hide the gender of your partner.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
great time to be in healthcare, let's hope the gov don't have to bring in private companies to boost nursing numbersquote:The number of EU nationals registering as nurses in England has dropped by 92% since the Brexit referendum in June, and a record number are quitting the NHS, it can be revealed. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/18/nhs-eu-nurses-quit-record-numbers of course the government has increased the limit on those who can train to be nurses at university by scrapping the bursary and giving everyone loans quote:The NHS is already under pressure because of a long-term failure to hire enough people. Applications for nursing courses plummeted by almost a quarter in a year after the government axed bursaries for trainees in 2016. Numbers fell by 9,990 to 33,810 in 12 months, according to figures released in February by the university admissions service Ucas. Looke fucked around with this message at 15:08 on Mar 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
Looke posted:great time to be in healthcare, let's hope the gov don't have to bring in private companies to boost nursing numbers Oh no, no one could possibly have predicted that EU healthcare personnel would start leaving! Also lol the NHS will be sold to the highest bidder (USA megacorps) in 3 years tops.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
Cerv posted:i'd have thought better of you. that's such a shortsighted attitude.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
In weird as gently caress and probably counterproductive news: Transaction analysis to prevent money laundering and people trafficking is a good thing, and they've outlined several ways that that they're doing that through monitoring restaurants, airlines, anonymous payments, etc. but that headline.  I can't think of any time that giving the impression that you're policing contraception or scaring sex workers away from purchasing prophylactics has ever had good results.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 15:22
|
|
|
A Malgorithm in the printed-press!
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
TinTower posted:It plays well with the Hooker with a Heart of Gold trope the public believe in. Death to tropers
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Pochoclo posted:Oh no, no one could possibly have predicted that EU healthcare personnel would start leaving! Yeah so far most of the talk is about "we won't guarantee people can stay" - "So deportations could happen then?" - "Nobody's saying that! What a terrible thing to say!", and in the meantime people are either wandering off or not coming anyway. That and if we talk about EU citizens having/choosing to go home, "home" in this case is the EU27 + EFTA zone, so it's not like someone who was bored of Poland/Germany/Cyprus and came to the UK has to go back to that country, and therefore might reluctantly stick with the UK.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:That account reads so weird Its like one of those image identification AIs. Like yes its true and correct but in such a wrong way
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:
With modern tech, if your plan is not getting invaded by Russia, you would probably be better reinforcing the RAF and giving the Army serious business surface to ship missiles and relying on the US to protect our food imports. If they can't or won't do even that much for the duration of a modern war we're hosed anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
Relying on bombers as your sole nuclear deterrent is a really really really bad idea. They have a couple of very big problems: they require infrastructure like runways and airports to launch (guess what your enemy would be aiming to destroy first in a hypothetical nuclear first strike!), and they're fat, slow, and comparatively easy to shoot down before they reach their target. Submarine-launched ballistic missiles are launched from things that are effectively invisible when deployed (and so can't be destroyed by an enemy's first strike), and are also near-impossible to shoot down with modern technology - it turns out that it's quite hard to even keep track of lumps of metal travelling through space at 7 km/s, never mind hitting them with anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:In weird as gently caress and probably counterproductive news: can't wait for the police to smash in the door of an extremely horny couple
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Transaction analysis to prevent money laundering and people trafficking is a good thing, and they've outlined several ways that that they're doing that through monitoring restaurants, airlines, anonymous payments, etc. but that headline.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
LemonDrizzle posted:Relying on bombers as your sole nuclear deterrent is a really really really bad idea. They have a couple of very big problems: they require infrastructure like runways and airports to launch (guess what your enemy would be aiming to destroy first in a hypothetical nuclear first strike!), and they're fat, slow, and comparatively easy to shoot down before they reach their target. Submarine-launched ballistic missiles are launched from things that are effectively invisible when deployed (and so can't be destroyed by an enemy's first strike), and are also near-impossible to shoot down with modern technology - it turns out that it's quite hard to even keep track of lumps of metal travelling through space at 7 km/s, never mind hitting them with anything. I didn't mean bombers - this isnt the 50s - and I was assuming we keep Trident. It's our carriers and other surface ships I'm querying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
To have a proper nuclear deterrent you need a bit of everything: strategic bombers, mobile, land based systems and submarines. It's called the Nuclear Triad and it ensures that no matter what, you'll preserve enough of your nuclear forces to launch retaliatory strikes in the event of an attack. Britain's 'credible' deterrent consists of one poxy submarine floating around in the North Sea, operating from a single base. All the Russians would have to do is destroy that single active submarine, then nuke the spares at Faslane to render us completely defenseless against them. It's the usual British compromise: we don't dump our nukes completely, 'cos that'll make us look 'weak' but we're not prepared to spend the money to have something that'd actually be effective, either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
Why did Russia and the west decide to hate each other again after the USSR collapsed anyway?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 16:58
|
|
|
and i must meme posted:Why did Russia and the west decide to hate each other again after the USSR collapsed anyway?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
and i must meme posted:Why did Russia and the west decide to hate each other again after the USSR collapsed anyway?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
the Soviet Union exited the stage with a grace rather akin to Britain in the Middle East. there are lot of ethnic Russians in places that are nationalistically passionate about not being Russia, and there are lots of people ethnically passionate about not being Russian citizens in places that, for most intents and purposes, are Russia the West did not pay all that much attention to Chechnya, but Russia did in TYOOL 2017 we are now, once again, reconciled to the fact that Moscow cannot be meaningfully strongarmed by the threat of international isolation and concerted European exclusion - we are now a very long way from the humiliating experience of the First Chechen War atop that - it was probably a bad idea to let the 1998 default occur as it did - but the Lewinsky scandal was raging and Clinton did not have the political strength to execute a rescue as per the 1995 Mexico bailout. On such things does history turn. ronya fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Mar 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
ronya posted:atop that - it was probably a bad idea to let the 1998 default occur as it did - but the Lewinsky scandal was raging and Clinton did not have the political strength to execute a rescue as per the 1995 Mexico bailout. On such things does history turn. It'd be the perfect end for mankind: destroyed because of a blowjob
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Like yes its true and correct but in such a wrong way Jose posted:can't wait for the police to smash in the door of an extremely horny couple  Seaside Loafer posted:Just give it up mate, the political version of the 'science' of business intelligence ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_intelligence ) is being used by our government to do whatever the gently caress they want with it and this has been the case for the past 5 years or so. Its to late this is big brother already. This post probably got noted because in a previous thread I said something about suitcase sized nuclear weapons. Your interactions with a pharmacist should be protected the same as those with a lawyer or a doctor should be, and nobody, especially sex workers, should be put off accessing birth control and prophylactics. feedmegin posted:I didn't mean bombers - this isnt the 50s - and I was assuming we keep Trident. It's our carriers and other surface ships I'm querying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Pistol_Pete posted:To have a proper nuclear deterrent you need a bit of everything: strategic bombers, mobile, land based systems and submarines. It's called the Nuclear Triad and it ensures that no matter what, you'll preserve enough of your nuclear forces to launch retaliatory strikes in the event of an attack. In TYOOL 2017 strategic bombers are only useful for making the Air Force not feel left out in countries with the money to spend that much on nukes; it's politics not military usefulness. The idea of that one submarine of course is that it is very difficult to find, but the solution to any fears in that regard is lots more submarines, not to also add aircraft and land based systems. Especially for us given how little warning time we'd get from a Russian first strike (and China isn't that much better) and how small we are (not many places to hide said land based systems, compared to the US).
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Imo bombers are the best since you can't go out dr Strangelove style from a submarine launched missile
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
a lot of stuff is too small to warrant credible annihilation but is too big to just give up and once you have bombers for those, well, fitting them to be able to hypothetically carry nukes doesn't seem like a stretch
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
A doomsday device is the way to go. Plant sufficiently many large enough nukes under the entirety of the UK that we can respond to any first strike by wiping the British Isles from the map and filling the atmosphere with enough radioactive dust that no sunlight reaches the planet's surface for the next decade and the topsoil of the entire globe is deadly to all life. That's the kind of deterrent that people respect. "You can't nuke us, we'll nuke us first, and also turn the Earth into a sterile, glow-in-the-dark snowball."
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:A doomsday device is the way to go. Plant sufficiently many large enough nukes under the entirety of the UK that we can respond to any first strike by wiping the British Isles from the map and filling the atmosphere with enough radioactive dust that no sunlight reaches the planet's surface for the next decade and the topsoil of the entire globe is deadly to all life. That was a plot device from an episode of Doctor Who, which we honestly may as well get our military ideas from at this point.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
that only deters being nuked to annihilation it doesn't even deter, say, a credible commitment to nuke only one british city
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 14:24 |
|
|
Can it be Coventry?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2017 18:41
|
|