|
What is the best flav... you all know what this question is: This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Labour |
|
907 | 49.92% |
| Theresa May Team (Conservative) |
|
48 | 2.64% |
| Liberal Democrats |
|
31 | 1.71% |
| UKIP |
|
13 | 0.72% |
| Plaid Cymru |
|
25 | 1.38% |
| Green |
|
22 | 1.21% |
| Scottish Socialist Party |
|
12 | 0.66% |
| Scottish Conservative Party |
|
1 | 0.06% |
| Scottish National Party |
|
59 | 3.25% |
| Some Kind of Irish Unionist |
|
4 | 0.22% |
| Alliance / Irish Nonsectarian |
|
3 | 0.17% |
| Some Kind of Irish Nationalist |
|
36 | 1.98% |
| Misc. Far Left Trots |
|
35 | 1.93% |
| Misc. Far Right Fash |
|
8 | 0.44% |
| Monster Raving Loony |
|
49 | 2.70% |
| Space Navies Party |
|
39 | 2.15% |
| Independent / Single Issue |
|
2 | 0.11% |
| Can't Vote |
|
188 | 10.35% |
| Won't Vote |
|
8 | 0.44% |
| Spoiled Ballot |
|
15 | 0.83% |
| Pissflaps |
|
312 | 17.17% |
| Total: | 1817 votes | ||
|
Tigey posted:Its the other way around I think - the war starts going badly for the Soviets, who decide to nuke Birmingham as a show of force, and the West retaliates by nuking Minsk. It leads to an end to the war as both sides are unwilling to escalate I read that book in the mid to late 80s when I was a kid. I seem to remember that in it, WW3 started with the breakup of Yugoslavia and NATO forces rushing across the Adriatic. The whole breakup of Yugoslavia thing was pretty prescient, fortunately not the bit about WW3 and firing an SS-18 at Winson Green prison.
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 07:13 |
|
|
Brendan Rodgers posted:Yeah everyone with a hardon for nukes needs to be forced to watch this BBC test run of their nuclear warning, or at least the last 10 minutes. Lord Buckethead had the right idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 22:53
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:
that theresa bio they're talking about up top could be interesting tho
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/hrtbps/status/879449822650126338
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:This is amazing because it promotes the fact that head teachers think Tory policies are wrong. Well yes, because the right has believed for years that the public education system is just another organ in a massive
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
The only time Sharia law came up when I was at school was when an RS teacher specifically said we should be worried about it being brought to the UK.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 22:59
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:
Interesting, usually when the most hated woman in Britain's on the cover of the Daily Mail it's because she's got a column inside.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Julio Cruz posted:Interesting, usually when the most hated woman in Britain's on the cover of the Daily Mail it's because she's got a column inside. Well actually 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:
It's almost like The Daily Mail are loving nazis who endorse and encourage right wing governments and are going out of their way to avoid literally any negative coverage of Theresa May.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:04
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I like the implication of the top half that Diana was Britain's most hated woman until she died and it fell to Camilla. they called her the people's princess but i never once saw her perform a people's elbow
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
Brendan Rodgers posted:Yeah everyone with a hardon for nukes needs to be forced to watch this BBC test run of their nuclear warning, or at least the last 10 minutes. Lord Buckethead had the right idea. that was goddamned nerve-wracking
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
Digiwizzard posted:Well yes, because the right has believed for years that the public education system is just another organ in a massive Race mixing is great tbh
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:Coohoolin isn't an EU national. He's Swiss lol This is the biggest mindfuck in this thread. Lord of the Llamas posted:This is amazing because it promotes the fact that head teachers think Tory policies are wrong. Why not? Teachers are all lazy bums who get a ton of holiday a year and just have to read out of books or something right?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:09
|
|
|
Ugh why did I watch that nuclear broadcast before bed? Now I'm wondering where I'd build my inner refuge and if we have enough food to survive 14 days. Also realising that it would be pointless anyway. drat. My main hope would be that relative proximity to Cheltenham and Fairford would mean a swift death.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:13
|
|
|
I have absolutely zero interest living in a post-nuclear war world, I would much prefer to just be directly beneath one when it goes off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
DesperateDan posted:I wrote a thing on trident and nukes in general awhile back if people need a more detailed primer- it sorely needs an update after another years study but the basics are well in order. A pro-trident argument I have not seen refuted is that in the case of Russia, the US or China first-striking the U.K., then the rest of the world would be faced with a country that had launched a first strike and still had enough military that you couldn't do anything to punish them without having your own cities burn. In other words, no-one would say a thing. So their initiation of nuclear war would be a political success for them. And successes always have imitators. In contrast, at least crippling the military of the country that started a nuclear war would be a parting legacy from the UK to the rest of the world, making it far more likely to be something that didn't happen again any time soon. The most terrifying thing I ever read about nuclear war is not the isual ones, but one book where ongoing nuclear war just became a routine thing. Every few years or so there would be a spasm and you would lose a few cities. Then there would be peace and you could spend the next few years trying to settle refugees and rebuild. Except the peace never lasted, so afterr about 400 years of that, the ongoing ecological damage was too much to allow rebuilding and society just generally rolled over and died. Of course, this is not an argument that Trident is worth the money, merely a case for the morality of using it in retaliation under the right circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
CptAwesome posted:I have absolutely zero interest living in a post-nuclear war world, I would much prefer to just be directly beneath one when it goes off. If you don't care about living at least let the rest of us eat you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
I knew thumb people were thick, but holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:If you don't care about living at least let the rest of us eat you. That's fair. If im not vapourised, all UKMT posters have free reign to do what they will with my remains. Eat me, fly tip me, whatever. I dont care; i'm dead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:23
|
|
|
radmonger posted:A pro-trident argument I have not seen refuted is that in the case of Russia, the US or China first-striking the U.K., then the rest of the world would be faced with a country that had launched a first strike and still had enough military that you couldn't do anything to punish them without having your own cities burn. What a load of nonsense. Which of these countries initiated and why? Why is this conflict somehow in a vacuum between the aggressor and the UK only? The only real use of nuclear weapons is to cause large scale and ongoing civilian deaths. Most state actors of any note can already do that with conventional weapons. How else can you refute something that seems to be a fevered fantasy except by pointing out that it's complete bollocks?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
CptAwesome posted:That's fair. If im not vapourised, all UKMT posters have free reign to do what they will with my remains. Eat me, fly tip me, whatever. I dont care; i'm dead. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
Any situation in which Russia goes insane and starts nuking people invalidates MAD because if they've gone crazy why would they even care about MAD?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
In London for a few days. Any shops where I can buy labour merch to contribute to them somehow, or after campaign is over is it all gone?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
radmonger posted:A pro-trident argument I have not seen refuted is that in the case of Russia, the US or China first-striking the U.K., then the rest of the world would be faced with a country that had launched a first strike and still had enough military that you couldn't do anything to punish them without having your own cities burn. In this scenario the aggressor nation is gambling that the UK's allies (or any other nuclear armed country) won't detect the launches and simply launch a massive retaliatory strike. That's a pretty huge gamble. If you're arguing for an aggressor that is completely willing to risk everything to bomb the UK why would Trident deter them, considering there's a decent chance the Prime Minister won't order a futile retaliation anyway? Fans posted:Any situation in which Russia goes insane and starts nuking people invalidates MAD because if they've gone crazy why would they even care about MAD? This, basically.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Julio Cruz posted:Interesting, usually when the most hated woman in Britain's on the cover of the Daily Mail it's because she's got a column inside. Looking at that font and peach highlighting I think you might be right radmonger posted:A pro-trident argument I have not seen refuted is that in the case of Russia, the US or China first-striking the U.K., then the rest of the world would be faced with a country that had launched a first strike and still had enough military that you couldn't do anything to punish them without having your own cities burn. The UMAD doctrine
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Fans posted:Any situation in which Russia goes insane and starts nuking people invalidates MAD because if they've gone crazy why would they even care about MAD? jabby posted:In this scenario the aggressor nation is gambling that the UK's allies (or any other nuclear armed country) won't detect the launches and simply launch a massive retaliatory strike. That's a pretty huge gamble. If you're arguing for an aggressor that is completely willing to risk everything to bomb the UK why would Trident deter them, considering there's a decent chance the Prime Minister won't order a futile retaliation anyway? I had almost this exact argument on Twitter with someone recently. (I know.. sigh) But have you considered that ~someone~ might do it for ~some reason~ but might be put off by Trident ~because~?  Edit: The worst part was that he compared trident to seat belts because they're both "preventative measures".
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:Edit: The worst part was that he compared trident to seat belts because they're both "preventative measures". Cars should come with preventative measures that ensure the death of people in the other car if they crash into you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Like a Pinto fuel tank?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
radmonger posted:A pro-trident argument I have not seen refuted is that in the case of Russia, the US or China first-striking the U.K., then the rest of the world would be faced with a country that had launched a first strike and still had enough military that you couldn't do anything to punish them without having your own cities burn. By this logic they could get a 'free' first strike against ANY country that doesn't have nukes, which is most of the world. The only sensible answer is nukes for all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Wasn't there that thing about how cars with spikes on them were safer because people drove more carefully in them? The solution is a nuke that goes off on you if you try and use it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:Cars should come with preventative measures that ensure the death of people in the other car if they crash into you. https://twitter.com/GhamGraham/status/879059924009005056
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Do you see any tigers around here?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
How can you be so smug admitting your analogy is loving stupid? I hate you Twitter man
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Well someone never watched Yes Prime Minister as a child.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
spectralent posted:The solution is a nuke that goes off on you if you try and use it. Skinty McEdger posted:There was a fault in the onboard targeting system where for inexplicable reasons it would in flight reset to factory defaults. The default co-ordinates are in the US. It's not a bug, it's a feature. jabby fucked around with this message at 23:45 on Jun 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:How can you be so smug admitting your analogy is loving stupid? The analogy marched on! https://twitter.com/GhamGraham/status/879064118766039041
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
I hide 3 of my 4 seatbelts at sea at any given time so that after my death one of my friends can strangle the other driver with one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
haakman posted:I'd be into this - transition etc. I did a bit of study on the Soviet side when I studied Sakharov. I've been on a massive Cold War reading binge of late and there are so many bizarre devils in the details. What's most interesting is how dispassionately they deal with the complete breakdown of civilisation (and that despite having to sign off on such things PMs have been happy to continue to sign off on nuclear weapons). Their very best-case scenario (low-yield high-accuracy attacks purely on military and logistics targets, ignoring Westminster and population centres altogether) still had over a sixth of the population dead within a week and another sixthdead in 20 years with the country returning to "normal" in 10 years. Their realistic scenario - bigger, less accurate bombs targeting population centres - had as it's actual planned end state, their actual best outcome, as 90% deaths in a year (25% on the first day!) and the entire country returning to a pre-Industrial Revolution state ruled over as private fiefdoms by the various political leaders who got a place in a bunker. The various scenarios they envisaged for a transition to war are fascinating too because at no point do they consider the possibility of de-escalation. Of course part of that is because when you're planning for a war you don't really make detailed plans about "But they all lived happily ever after, The End", but it really seems like there's an undercurrent of "Look just how many stupid decisions in a row the politicians will have to make for this to happen". This was going to be a longer post but it's late and I'm tired so I'll finish it here with my absolutely favourite detail - while the Americans were working on flying command centres for POTUS Her Majesty's Government wouldn't spring for a 2-way radio for the Prime Ministerial Bentley so instead, if the PM were in transit when the balloon went up, they would rely on a one-way radio transmission to his car where he would either be able to use an AA phone on a main road or a public call box elsewhere to call back to Whitehall , with one civil servant having it minuted that they had to ensure his chauffeur had 4d on his person in order to make the call that would end the world.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:50
|
|
|
My plan is to never wear a seatbelt at all and make sure if someone ever is about to hit me I suddenly angle the car so my body projectiles out the windscreen and into my foe's horrified face and/or their family and loved ones
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 07:13 |
|
Guavanaut posted:I hide 3 of my 4 seatbelts at sea at any given time so that after my death one of my friends can strangle the other driver with one. Of course your friends will only do so upon the discovery that radio 4 has gone off the air.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2017 23:52
|
|