|
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 | ||
|
would the American arsenal respond, though do the Americans really want to risk all dying for what might be a single strike on London, which would certainly be enough to render the UK irrelevant as a global power it might not be the Russians - nobody who agreed to NATO article V saw it being invoked due to anyone but the Soviets. and it might not even be really about Britain as such - it could just be some junta somewhere seeking to deflect domestic pressures, same as how idiotic politics is at home
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 11:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 20:10 |
|
|
Braggart posted:Yes, I understand the concept of MAD, but radmonger was talking about a retaliatory strike 'punishing' the people who strike first and his analogies rang false to me. And as others have pointed out we are under the vastly larger US nuclear umbrella so from that perspective Trident is redundant. If the aggressor doesn't believe there is a good chance that it will be 'punished' for launching a nuclear strike then they are more likely to launch one. The UK can afford its own nuclear deterrent and I think it's good for the UK and for NATO that it's not only the USA that has a retaliatory capability politically as well as militarily.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 11:27
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:pronounce Fur Cup Sounds like gently caress up?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 11:27
|
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:HIGH COURT RULING: unlawful Tory benefit policy ’causes real damage and misery for no real purpose’ unelected trot judges 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 11:32
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Pissflaps posted:If the aggressor doesn't believe there is a good chance that it will be 'punished' for launching a nuclear strike then they are more likely to launch one. France is a nuclear power also, and I don't expect they'd be too keen on someone landing a nuke within a hundred miles of them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 11:37
|
|
|
Entropy238 posted:Sounds like gently caress up? You got it
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 11:37
|
|
|
Intrinsic Field Marshal posted:HIGH COURT RULING: unlawful Tory benefit policy ’causes real damage and misery for no real purpose’ Pissflaps posted:The UK can afford its own nuclear deterrent and I think it's good for the UK and for NATO that it's not only the USA that has a retaliatory capability politically as well as militarily. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 11:37
|
|
|
Julio Cruz posted:France is a nuclear power also, and I don't expect they'd be too keen on someone landing a nuke within a hundred miles of them. I know. And I'd argue they should keep their own nuclear deterrent for the same reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 11:41
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:If the aggressor doesn't believe there is a good chance that it will be 'punished' for launching a nuclear strike then they are more likely to launch one. Honestly I haven't settled on a position on Trident and whether we should have it. I was initially just responding to the moral question of retaliation and revenge and harming innocents. I don't know whether I'm on your side or not 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 11:47
|
|
|
Since we're talking about lovely insects and how useful they actually are. What do craneflies do that's cool and good?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 11:47
|
|
|
HMS Queen Elizabeth could be vulnerable to cyber-attackquote:Britain’s new aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth, which has left the Rosyth dockyard, could be vulnerable to a cyber-attack as it appears to be using the same outdated system that left the NHS exposed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 11:49
|
|
|
Braggart posted:Honestly I haven't settled on a position on Trident and whether we should have it. I was initially just responding to the moral question of retaliation and revenge and harming innocents. I don't know whether I'm on your side or not There are more than 180 countries in the world which don't have nuclear weapons and yet somehow have managed not to have been nuked. The "deterrent" argument is total bollocks.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 11:52
|
|
|
Julio Cruz posted:There are more than 180 countries in the world which don't have nuclear weapons and yet somehow have managed not to have been nuked. The "deterrent" argument is total bollocks. The only time a country has suffered a nuclear attack was when only one country had nuclear weapons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 11:53
|
|
|
It seems strange we're focusing on MAD so heavily when that doesn't seem to actually be the prevailing doctrine which small countries with nuclear arsenals actually adopt. Consider Iran, for example. Why did they want nuclear weapons? Their chief enemy during this period was the United States (also Israel), and no matter how successful their nuclear program could have been, there was absolutely no way it could have reached the point of being able to achieve MAD parity with the USA. So why we're they pursuing nuclear weapons in the first place? It seems to me that their chief concern was deterring a conventional attack through the threat of nuclear escalation. Doesn't the UK's arsenal serve a similar function, in practice? Of course the question would then be "who would attack us conventionally", but maybe it would be useful in deterring an invasion of the home islands by the forces of Capital after our revolution.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 11:54
|
|
|
Somehow my brain skipped over this being a ship and jumped immediately to a Demon Headmaster-style cyber attack where someone literally hypnotised the queen with an octopus game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 11:56
|
|
|
Chucat posted:Since we're talking about lovely insects and how useful they actually are. What do craneflies do that's cool and good? Kill mosquitoes and other annoying little insects and pollinate plants.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 11:59
|
|
|
Julio Cruz posted:There are more than 180 countries in the world which don't have nuclear weapons and yet somehow have managed not to have been nuked. The "deterrent" argument is total bollocks. quite a lot of countries have been nuked
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 11:59
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:The only time a country has suffered a nuclear attack was when only one country had nuclear weapons. And yet it wasn't a first strike, which is what people are screaming about the need to retaliate after. Jose posted:quite a lot of countries have been nuked In the context of testing rather than as an act of military aggression, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:00
|
|
|
Bring back the Wednesday Wasp imo Bonus Bee optional
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:02
|
|
|
gently caress Horse flies. Evil bastards, I would get rid of those. From Wikipedia...quote:The mouthparts of females are formed into a stout stabbing organ with two pairs of sharp cutting blades, and a spongelike part used to lap up the blood that flows from the wound. Also, Hornets are pretty chill compared to wasps. Leave them alone and they won't bother you. Besides if some one was trying to hit or swat me, you can bet that I would try to sting the poo poo out of them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:02
|
|
|
Julio Cruz posted:And yet it wasn't a first strike, which is what people are screaming about the need to retaliate after. I don't understand. How wasn't the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a first strike?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:04
|
|
|
Julio Cruz posted:And yet it wasn't a first strike, which is what people are screaming about the need to retaliate after. it was a first strike though anyway having been to Hiroshima gently caress anyone who thinks that nuclear strikes on civilian targets are any more justifiable than any other form of genocide I'd be loving ashamed as I died horrifically of radiation sickness knowing that we voted for people who did the same thing to millions of other innocent people
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:04
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:I don't understand. How wasn't the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a first strike? A first strike is pre-emptive act of aggression. The US and Japan had been at mutual war for quite some time at that stage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:05
|
|
|
I've been thinking. Theresa May is just Snipely Whiplash with makeup and a skirt suit isn't she? I could absolutely see her ordering poor people be tied to train tracks for no reason, cackling with laughter while wrapping herself with a new mink scarf paid for by taxpayer money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:07
|
|
|
Julio Cruz posted:A first strike is pre-emptive act of aggression. The US and Japan had been at mutual war for quite some time at that stage. My understanding is that 'first strike' is specifically the first nuclear attack rather than the very first aggressive conventional military act.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:09
|
|
|
XMNN posted:I'd be loving ashamed as I died horrifically of radiation sickness knowing that we voted for people who did the same thing to millions of other innocent people I'd be ruminating on the thought that my murderer knowing their own innocents wouldn't suffer the same fate made it more likely that I would.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:11
|
|
|
Chucat posted:Since we're talking about lovely insects and how useful they actually are. What do craneflies do that's cool and good? Remind you that you've left the window open in the evening.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:11
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:My understanding is that 'first strike' is specifically the first nuclear attack rather than the very first aggressive conventional military act. Your understanding is consistently wrong on most everything, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:11
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:My understanding is that 'first strike' is specifically the first nuclear attack rather than the very first aggressive conventional military act. Then your understanding is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:11
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:My understanding is that 'first strike' is specifically the first nuclear attack rather than the very first aggressive conventional military act. I think it can be both. Definitely the first nuclear strike though. The idea is nothing should be left after you do it though otherwise you're well hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:11
|
|
|
Catzilla posted:gently caress Horse flies. Evil bastards, I would get rid of those. I've got a scar on my stomach from a clegg bite that became infected. drat them to hell!
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:12
|
|
|
Can you quote the bit of this large Wikipedia entry you're referring to?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:14
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Can you quote the bit of this large Wikipedia entry you're referring to? Jesus Christ you're useless. You know that Wikipedia pages have a summary at the very top, right? For your convenience: quote:In nuclear strategy, a first strike is a preemptive surprise attack employing overwhelming force. First strike capability is a country's ability to defeat another nuclear power by destroying its arsenal to the point where the attacking country can survive the weakened retaliation while the opposing side is left unable to continue war. The preferred methodology is to attack the opponent's strategic nuclear weapon facilities (missile silos, submarine bases, bomber airfields), command and control sites, and storage depots first. The strategy is called counterforce.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:16
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Can you quote the bit of this large Wikipedia entry you're referring to? It's a good idea though. I'm just going to post links to the Oxford dictionary when I want to refute people. I won't add any comments though or highlight any specific parts because obviously I am an Intellectual and expect everyone else to recognize this. (also lol lets argue semantics about the subtle inflections of how first strike can be interpreted while re watching Threads to underline how its a pointless argument to even have)
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:17
|
|
|
Julio Cruz posted:Jesus Christ you're useless. You know that Wikipedia pages have a summary at the very top, right? For your convenience: Literally the first three words show your error. quote:In nuclear strategy It's specifically a term referring to an escalation of a conflict beyond the diplomatic and conventional. A nuclear 'surprise attack' doesn't require there to have been absolutely no warning or actual hostilities beforehand. And all this is utterly beside the point that deterrence does work, has worked since 1945, and the only time there wasn't a deterrent in play since the Manhattan project somebody got nuked.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:19
|
|
|
Julio Cruz posted:France is a nuclear power also, and I don't expect they'd be too keen on someone landing a nuke within a hundred miles of them. Do you support France and the United States having nuclear weapons?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:20
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Literally the first three words show your error. Are you ignoring the word "pre-emptive" or do you just not know what it means? mediadave posted:Do you support France and the United States having nuclear weapons? I don't support anyone having nuclear weapons.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:21
|
|
|
Why does it matter what 'first strike' technically means? What is the point to limiting the discussion on whether nuclear deterrent is worthwhile to such a specific circumstance? (If it only means a nuclear surprise attack with no warning or buildup then it doesn't refer to the conflict in Threads for instance, there is a conventional war in the Middle East between the US and Soviet Union in Threads which goes nuclear.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:22
|
|
|
Julio Cruz posted:Are you ignoring the word "pre-emptive" or do you just not know what it means? I know perfectly what it means. It means preempting your enemy launching their own nuclear weapons. Hence the 'first' in 'first strike'. mediadave posted:Why does it matter what 'first strike' technically means? It doesn't at all matter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 20:10 |
|
|
Julio Cruz posted:I don't support anyone having nuclear weapons. yeah, and that's fine. 'nukes are inherently evil' etc etc is a perfectly decent argument. 'Our friends have nuclear weapons' isn't though an argument to get rid of our nuclear deterrent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:24
|
|