|
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 | ||
|
I honestly don't know what is Theresa May's endgame, if she was planning to hold onto power she could easily throw in a few crowdpleasers or try to defend her actions, but she seems to have given up. My theory is that prior to the election she was planning to stand down due to bad health (as rumoured), but decided that a Labour-smashing majority and an election win was too tempting a legacy to leave. Now she's created an amazing mess, and is attempting to stabilise the political situation before she steps down.
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 20:48 |
|
|
I think she wants to leave a legacy of having delivered a 'successful' Brexit then stand down in time for somebody else to fight an election either straight after or in 2022.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:26
|
|
|
I just had this discussion with a Lithuanian housemate who wasn't really a fan of Corbyn due to his association with the IRA and his anti-Trident attitude. Basically he's rightly rather nervous about Russia's intentions but didn't really have an answer to me saying that it's more likely to come from little green men annexation or cyber attacks which are unlikely to be stopped or undone by nuclear weapons. Basically they're incredibly dangerous objects with known dangers and risks but with increasingly questionable value in the modern age. If you're worried about military annexation from a foreign power you should start teaching cyber defence and asymmetrical warfare, not nuclear weapons. Currently states won't do this for the obvious reason that if you do teach people how to do that, they're likely to start using it against the current state. namesake fucked around with this message at 12:33 on Jun 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:27
|
|
|
Yowza https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/879661360682074113 Wait until they start looking at all those new university and college buildings....
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:27
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Literally the first three words show your error. ukraine might not have been invaded if they still had their nukes
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:30
|
|
|
namesake posted:I just had this discussion with a Lithuanian housemate who wasn't really a fan of Corbyn due to his association with the IRA and his anti-Trident attitude. Basically he's rightly rather nervous about Russia's intentions but didn't really have an answer to me saying that it's more likely to come from little green men annexation or cyber attacks which are unlikely to be stopped or undone by nuclear weapons. Well, the reason Russia has to rely on little green men and cyber attacks to re-assert it's dominion is because it can't risk a conventional war with a Nato member - even one it would win very quickly, ie in the Baltic, because it can't risk it spilling out of control due to the existence of the Nuclear umbrella.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:30
|
|
|
Jose posted:ukraine might not have been invaded if they still had their nukes I think that's guaranteed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:32
|
|
|
mediadave posted:'Our friends have nuclear weapons' isn't though an argument to get rid of our nuclear deterrent. Why not? Every other country under the US nuclear umbrella seems to do fine WRT not being nuked out of the blue, and if the US-UK alliance breaks completely Trident will become useless in short order anyway because the UK doesn't have the capabilities to perform maintenence on it. Pissflaps posted: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. Do you also happen to have a tiger-repelling rock?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:32
|
|
|
gerry adams has written an article for the guardian
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:34
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Yowza And office blocks. The amount of buildings affected is could be in the thousands once you count all types of high rises.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:34
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted: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. different priorities I guess, I'd find it p abhorrent that our elected representatives decided to commit a pointless war crime and I'd hope they get eaten by whichever kangaroo court of cannibal mutants passes for a justice system afterwards same goes for Putin or trump or whoever started it obv
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:35
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Why not? Every other country under the US nuclear umbrella seems to do fine WRT not being nuked out of the blue, and if the US-UK alliance breaks completely Trident will become useless in short order anyway because the UK doesn't have the capabilities to perform maintenence on it. a) You don't support the existence of a nuclear umbrella in the first place, so how can you use it as an argument? 'We can just rely on this thing that I wish didn't exist'. b) In the age of Trump in particular, can we - or anyone - depend on America's beneficence? c) That may be an argument to develop our own delivery system, as France has done.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:35
|
|
|
I cannot believe people are still running windows loving XP. Reveilled posted: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? Same for North Korea (though this is functionally an escalation of it's "if attacked we'll bombard the south" policy). XMNN posted: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 It's not like lengthy firebombing, chemical attacks, or cutting the entire island off from the outside world and starving it out would've been massively more humane.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:38
|
|
|
mediadave posted:I think that's guaranteed. I wouldn't say guaranteed. Russia's annexation of Crimea would justify some form of retaliation but Ukraine had an interim government and may well have been nervous about entering nuclear war with a country as large as Russia, whose second strike capabilities would far outweigh Ukraine's first strike capabilities.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:38
|
|
|
XMNN posted:different priorities I guess, I'd find it p abhorrent that our elected representatives decided to commit a pointless war crime and I'd hope they get eaten by whichever kangaroo court of cannibal mutants passes for a justice system afterwards Apparently so. My priority is for nobody to suffer a nuclear strike.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:39
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:I wouldn't say guaranteed. Russia's annexation of Crimea would justify some form of retaliation but Ukraine had an interim government and may well have been nervous about entering nuclear war with a country as large as Russia, whose second strike capabilities would far outweigh Ukraine's first strike capabilities. It's unlikely Russia would have risked it though in the first place
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:39
|
|
|
TheHoodedClaw posted:I've got a scar on my stomach from a clegg bite that became infected. drat them to hell! Bet you're glad he was voted out then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:41
|
|
|
Would it really be surprising if the time came to use the nukes they just poo poo the bed and didn't work? Because that seems to be the theme of every loving piece of technology run by the public sector. Warships and a national health service underpinned by that totally robust and not decades old Windows OS.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:42
|
|
|
mediadave posted:a) You don't support the existence of a nuclear umbrella in the first place, so how can you use it as an argument? 'We can just rely on this thing that I wish didn't exist'. Because is does, in fact, exist? I mean, much as I would like it, the universe doesn't actually rearrange itself based on my wishes. EDIT: And if it did, I'd also wish away the Russian nuclear arsenal. mediadave posted:b) In the age of Trump in particular, can we - or anyone - depend on America's beneficence? As mentioned, if Trump decides to screw you then he could just let your missiles rust away. mediadave posted:c) That may be an argument to develop our own delivery system, as France has done. Why piss away a lot of money just so that a bunch of thumb people can get a hardon at the thought of nuclear annihilation?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:42
|
|
|
spectralent posted:It's not like lengthy firebombing, chemical attacks, or cutting the entire island off from the outside world and starving it out would've been massively more humane. Japan was already offering to surrender, though. The myth that the bombs did it is one of the grossest murder porn instances in history. Japan offered conditional surrender - requesting that the Emperor remain in place - in May, months before the bombings. The Emperor remained in place in the post-war surrender deal, so if the condition of their surrender was honoured anyway, why did 300,000 people have to die and many more be injured?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:43
|
|
|
Honestly I'm not too worried about failures in MAD, I'm more worried about misjudgements or straight-up-errors. The times we've been most at risk of the apocalypse have been when there was an erroneous readout from detection or people, lacking full context, convinced themselves they were about to die in a nuclear maelstrom. This is the big threat of a nuclear arsenal; if everyone's pointing guns at each other so they feel safe over a long enough period of time someone's going to get muscle fatigue and drop one, and so far we've been lucky enough there's not been an accidental discharge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:44
|
|
|
Nuke chat is consistently the worst. The only people insane enough to nuke us would do it whether or not we have the nuclear deterrent. Therefore, why bother when they money can be spent better elsewhere? On top of that, it's quite likely that either our next Prime Minister or next but one will be someone who has said he will never countenance using nuclear weapons. Therefore, MAD doesn't work & there's no point of having them. God bless The Absolute Boy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:45
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I cannot believe people are still running windows loving XP.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:45
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:Apparently so. My priority is for nobody to suffer a nuclear strike. unless of course we have already suffered one in which case it's that as many other innocent people die as possible
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:47
|
|
|
XMNN posted:unless of course we have already suffered one in which case it's that as many other innocent people die as possible No. My priority is for nobody to suffer a nuclear attack. Having a credible deterrent helps ensure that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:48
|
|
|
XMNN posted:unless of course we have already suffered one in which case it's that as many other innocent people die as possible Look, right, if there's even the slightest risk I might be hurt I want hundreds of thousands of children to be executed or horrifically injured in nuclear hellfire.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:49
|
|
|
Keeping nuclear weapons is a question of whether you still want to be seen as a world player. Currently the UK has an elevated world status due to the empire holding out just long enough to provide it with a legacy of economic and military prowess far beyond its natural level. If the UK steps back from that legacy of power then it is a tacit admission that the UK no longer wants to be a relevant global influence. It really depends on the level of ambition, I suppose. Leaving the EU is also counter to losing the nuclear deterrent, leaving the herd to go it alone requires a greater investment in military and prestige projects, not less.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:49
|
|
|
At the end of the day, the best argument for why the whole deterrent argument is bunk is that Pissflaps thinks it isn't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:52
|
|
|
Has there been any talk about trying to raise the minumum wage? Both major parties committed to at least £9 so it should be easy to pass. At the very least it would force the Tories to vote against their own manifesto.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:52
|
|
|
Mighty Steed posted:I honestly don't know what is Theresa May's endgame, if she was planning to hold onto power she could easily throw in a few crowdpleasers or try to defend her actions, but she seems to have given up. Flayer posted:Keeping nuclear weapons is a question of whether you still want to be seen as a world player. Currently the UK has an elevated world status due to the empire holding out just long enough to provide it with a legacy of economic and military prowess far beyond its natural level. If the UK steps back from that legacy of power then it is a tacit admission that the UK no longer wants to be a relevant global influence. It really depends on the level of ambition, I suppose. Leaving the EU is also counter to losing the nuclear deterrent, leaving the herd to go it alone requires a greater investment in military and prestige projects, not less. Seems like you guys stopped being relevant on the world table since the 70's. The Falklands was a sort of way to say "hey we are still there" when decline had started. Both your intelligence service and military has been at the service of the US since the end of the 50's. Afaik your nuclear program is entwined with the US and probably couldn't work without them at all, hence you do not need it if the US has its own (assuming you are in favour, and no one needs such things if you are against). You leaving the EU has no impact on your defense as you are still part of NATO and defensive Europe does not exists. (France wants it Germany does not want to pay more for it and is only considering it because it's developing a fear of Russia for some reason) SA_Avenger fucked around with this message at 13:10 on Jun 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:57
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:
this would be good analogy if between 50 and 80 million people died from being eaten by tigers in the five years before we got the rock e: which was only the latest in a series of colossal tiger feasts on the back of a period of alternating tiger buffet and tiger reraising that stretched back to the Hundred Year Tiger Eating Party CoolCab fucked around with this message at 13:01 on Jun 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:58
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Japan was already offering to surrender, though. The myth that the bombs did it is one of the grossest murder porn instances in history. This jars with what I'm aware of, which was that motions for a conditional surrender were made in July (and were fully unrealistic, believing that the soviets were going to arrange a negotiated surrender for them when they were, in fact, mobilising to invade Manchuria). It's worth noting that even after the surrender there was an internal coup with the aim of continuing the war. Now, one of the more reasonable arguments instead is that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria was more significant than the atomic bombing, since abruptly ending up at war with the people they assumed would have their side in negotiations pretty much killed any realistic hope of a negotiated surrender with people who weren't insane death cultists, but US war plans were going down one of those three routes regardless since they were still fighting actual fascists.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 12:58
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:Has there been any talk about trying to raise the minumum wage? Both major parties committed to at least £9 so it should be easy to pass. At the very least it would force the Tories to vote against their own manifesto. I think Labour are going for £10.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 13:00
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:Kill mosquitoes and other annoying little insects and pollinate plants. I know dragonflies are insane insect murderers but I don't get how craneflies can kill anything., they just sorta bumble around and then stick to a wall and act lame for 8 hours.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
The DPRK posted:
Then I looked her up. Turns out her and her partner own Thornbridge Brewery. Thanks UKMT, you ruin everything (even good black IPA).
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 13:09
|
|
Coming in to this a bit late, but the stuff about Emma Harrison is particularly bad in this Wiki.
|
XMNN posted:it was a first strike though I'd be probably be concerned with the whole making GBS threads out my guts and my family dying myself but each to their own?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
Braggart posted:The problem with what you're saying here is that the people who fire the first nuke will not be the ones getting punished by the retaliation. It would be innocent people who happen to live in their country. If you were murdered, would you feel comfort knowing that a random innocent would also be killed as a result? Is a hundred people dying in a fire a reason to start another fire in a random towerblock somewhere while a negligent rich person enjoys his party? Yes the analogous position here is "we need to burn down a towerblock in another part of London to make it fair"
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 13:12
|
|
|
Mighty Steed posted:I honestly don't know what is Theresa May's endgame, if she was planning to hold onto power she could easily throw in a few crowdpleasers or try to defend her actions, but she seems to have given up. I don't think so. She wouldn't have run for PM if she didn't want the job. I think she's just poo poo tbh.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 13:13
|
|
|
spectralent posted:It's not like lengthy firebombing, chemical attacks, or cutting the entire island off from the outside world and starving it out would've been massively more humane. I mean they sort of did the first two as well as nuking the place so it's not like you have to choose.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 20:48 |
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Why not? Every other country under the US nuclear umbrella seems to do fine WRT not being nuked out of the blue, it always comes back to that in this thread's circular nuclear arguments. it's immoral for us to have a weapons programme but just great to be protected under someone else's. I don't know how to square that circle.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 13:17
|
|
