|
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 | ||
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Why not both? Can't multilaterally disarm if you already unilaterally disarmed. *picture of man tapping side of head*
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
forkboy84 posted:OK, who is going to invade Britain? Well, I definitely agree that the conventional navy etc has been cut to shreds and needs to be boosted, it has been many many years since we've been able to fulfil our NATO patrol obligations, never mind maintain a regular presence in the Caribbean etc, and Russian warships can regularly cut into UK waters with perhaps at best a minesweeper being available to show our face. Regardless of Trident, any government should invest in that, and honestly that's an area where Labour could, if it wished, come at the conservatives from the right as with police numbers and show why austerity is bad and actively damaging to national security. That said, the nuclear deterrence argument doesn't rest on the next few years, but the coming decades. The resurgence of Russia as a military power - and as an interventionist, expansionist military power - over the last few years has been entirely unpredicted, and who is to say what the geopolitical situation will look like in five years, never mind ten, or twenty, or thirty or more years down the line?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 14:47
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Being anti-nuke isn't about chasing the Liberal Moral High Ground, it's about trying to minimize the risk of armageddon. You're looking at this from a completely wrong angle, mate. Cerebral Bore posted:Why not both?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 14:56
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Do you think that war stopped happening after 1945 or what? we are the children of that time. we accomplished a Europe that was merely a basket case instead of being the kind of nut job that lights it's bed on fire when it was cold. MAD did that- and if you are any student of history at all you'll know it's mad it did too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 14:57
|
|
|
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. I feel loving sick after watching this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
Filboid Studge posted:The transformation plan (assuming TYC isn't binned altogether) isn't about centralisation, it's about reducing the burden on secondary care by moving services into the community and investing more in public health, social care and preventive medicine. Better for the public and cheaper so more can be invested in service improvements. You expect me to drive to Belfast and have to listen to all those bastards  Cheers for that, I'm not really too clued up on health policy and my eyes kind of gloss over on the details
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
I agree with Corbyn's position of multi-lateral efforts to get rid of nukes. We have come very close to nuclear holocaust in the past and our luck will not hold forever. Particularly if the US keeps giving maniacs the chance to kill everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
I'm cool with nukes provided the country hires competent scientists and engineers to maintain and store them safely (i.e not any country gutting everything to the bone, not the sauds, short ruling warlords etc.). Ultimately they're just a deterrance from complete invasion; a "if you are capable of destroying us, we can do the same". It's a big part of why Israel and America are terrified of Iran dabbling with nukes and nuclear energy; random unprovoked strafing runs on a country become much deadlier when they have the means to fight back. No country is going to use nukes precisely because every nation on the earth is allied with a bation capable of second strike. If anything, global dismantlement triggers a game of chicken where as the number of nukes decrease the odds of suffering reprecussions for a first strike also decrease. At the same time it doesn't matter at all if the UK keeps or dismantles Trident; not only are you allied with other nations with second strike capability, you are also geographically insulated from any sort of spontaneous invasion that doesn't strike other countries first. The Empty House Banking Island is far down on the list of attractive EU nations to invade. Neurolimal fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Jun 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
Cerv posted:plenty of people are posing it as the moral position though. The moral position is the one that decreases the risk of blowing up the world, yes. Cerv posted:if you've unilaterally disarmed, you don't have a seat at multilateral disarmament talks. you no longer have anything to bring to the table. What? So the moment you don't possess nukes you lose all ability to influence other countries to disarm? How does that make any sense? Besides that it's pretty drat clear that the disarmament talks that matter are the US-Russia ones. CoolCab posted:not war, but The War. The great European War, the child of a couple centuries of war and rearming periods, a collection of so many arms races it wound up a damned arms marathon. a toxic conflict that spilled out over the remainder of the planet in the form of colonialism, imperialism, capitalism. the war that never bloody changed until entire loving continents were at war over some pissup in the Balklands, and then had the sequel to end all sequels where ever more lives were extinguished in ever more horrific fashions. Yeah, we've moved the butchery to the global fringe countries instead of throwing down in Europe. And I still like your tiger-repelling rock.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Entropy238 posted:I feel loving sick after watching this. The last 10 minutes lost me a good hour or two of sleep for how much fear it instilled in me, holy gently caress. I think the reason why this is so viscerally frightening is because it's the closest realistic analogue we're actually going to hear of the abrahamic 'sounding of the horns that ends the earth' as we're going to get. Al-Saqr fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Jun 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Nukechat is worse than boatchat 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:The moral position is the one that decreases the risk of blowing up the world, yes. How is this goal brought forward by the UK unilaterally disarming?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
Regarde Aduck posted:There were rumours that the second carrier would be immediately mothballed because the MoD decided it couldn't actually afford them but only decided this after the order. I have no idea what the status of the second carrier is now. The MoD was going to mothball it yeah but then Putin and Ukraine rather changed their minds. We'll be operating both of them. (Presumably, most of the time, one actually out and doing stuff and one docked for maintenance and refurbishment). To be fair, the yanks are having loads of trouble with EMALS, which is the type of catapult that would have gone into our carriers and now might be a complete turkey, so kinda hosed either way.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:*picture of man tapping side of head* ~~Rollsafe.jpg~~
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
I think nukes are bad and anyone that uses them is a monster, and I hope one day they no longer exist. But I don't think the world is there yet. And TBH don't see it getting there in my lifetime. The fact is they exist. And, I think it's far to say that they have probably* resulted in a better, more peaceful** world since WW2. The Cold War would not have been so cold, and we could quite easily have slipped back into a WW2-scale warfare. With the threat of nukes, and rational actors in the US and USSR, we instead had a period of very tense brinksmanship and a few proxy wars. That clearly is not perfect, but probably better than the full-scale international hot war that might have been there instead. As for the UK specifically. It is a very difficult one and there are valid arguments on both sides. On balance I support continuing to keep the minimum deterrent, with a view to supporting long-term multi-lateral disarmament. People are right that - in the current world order - a scenario where the UK would need to use its nukes unilaterally is barely imaginable. But who is to say what the world will be like in 50 years? Things change, and at the moment are changing at a greater and greater pace. Threats that exist now were not on our radar 20-30 years ago. Also, UK as a nuclear power/partner is something the US greatly respects, and through that partnership the UK gets a huge (and more so than other allies) amount of access to US technology, knowledge, cooperation, business (mostly in defence and similar fields, but not just that). That would be a much tougher ask if we unilaterally disarmed. *Yes, this cannot be proven until we invent a machine to look at alternate universes. **Than it would have been. I know we can't call today particularly "peaceful".
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
Spuckuk posted:Nukechat is worse than boatchat How about nukeboatchat?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
His Divine Shadow posted:It would be better to genetically engineer them to dislike humans. This is the worst fetish yet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:How about nukeboatchat? Answer remains the same: the best nukeboat is your friends nukeboat 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:How about nukeboatchat? Boaty McBlowUpWorld?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
Pissflaps posted:How is this goal brought forward by the UK unilaterally disarming? It will because you think it won't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:How about nukeboatchat? https://medium.com/war-is-boring/her-majestys-nuclear-seaplane-7043b94b09aa 
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
Shut up! Shut up, all of you! God, i've never wanted to nuke anyone less in my life!
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
The only good nukes are the ones you drop on France, or maybe India, in Civ 4
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:How about nukeboatchat?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
k let's cheer up with some crazy Julian https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/879706484438966272
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
We haven't had a world war since Pippi Longstocking was published, thereby proving something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:What? So the moment you don't possess nukes you lose all ability to influence other countries to disarm? How does that make any sense? Generally the point of multilateral disarmament talks are to trade a reduction in your capacity for a reduction in their capacity. If you give up all your capacity for free you don't so much have a trade as asking them nicely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
Ewan posted:k let's cheer up with some crazy Julian My money is on "was eating a half melted curly wurly with his fingers."
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Generally the point of multilateral disarmament talks are to trade a reduction in your capacity for a reduction in their capacity. If you give up all your capacity for free you don't so much have a trade as asking them nicely. Regardless the UK will run out of nukes to trade away long before you've made a significant dent in the US or Russian arsenals even if they accept a deal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
To go back to an actual life threatening thing rather than a theoretical wanky one, there's a point that has not really been made much in the cladding discussion, which is insulation. The choice is largely between fibre filled cladding and foam filled cladding. The latter is not very fire resistant, the former is; the latter is cheaper (slightly). This has been one of the main thrusts of the discussion. What has been missed out is that they are different in other areas, too. The reason that foam cladding has been preferred, according to an actual real life builder person I was talking to on Friday, is that fibre filled cladding has a tendency to compact over time as the fibres settle, which result in a significantly reduced amount of insulation being provided by the blocks. He said that the issue would not have been over the £5k to use different cladding, which is a tiny amount compared to the total costs of renovation as we all know, but over the longer time lifetime cost impact and from environmental concerns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
Ewan posted:k let's cheer up with some crazy Julian https://twitter.com/elizabday/status/879713549471416322
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:13
|
|
|
Guys do you think the US would be better off it had single payer or a NHS like health care system?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:17
|
|
|
ThisIsWhyTrumpWon posted:Guys do you think the US would be better off it had single payer or a NHS like health care system? I don't know, what do you think the UK Marxism Thread consensus on this issue might be?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
ThisIsWhyTrumpWon posted:Guys do you think the US would be better off it had single payer or a NHS like health care system? The answer is Yes anyway, either of those would beat what you've got already hands down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:22
|
|
|
ThisIsWhyTrumpWon posted:Guys do you think the US would be better off it had single payer or a NHS like health care system? Bernie would have one (payer)
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:23
|
|
|
Moonwolf posted:The answer is Yes anyway, either of those would beat what you've got already hands down. Even though the NHS is being defunded by right wing politicians and the exact same thing could happen in the us on a even more extreme level?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:24
|
|
|
Flayer posted:This is a little hyperbolic. Our Navy is trash compared to the USAs but so is everybody else's. I reckon our new carrier is pretty competitive against anyone but the Yanks. The carrier is fine. I'd prefer they'd have spent the cash for a catapult so it could use a proper range of aircraft. As it is it's overly specialised to use the F-35B and nothing else. The real problem is the F-35B. From experience, I know it won't be as bad as all the armchair generals say it will be but it doesn't look like its worth the billions it cost either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:27
|
|
|
What does single payer mean because I would assume it means the government pays for everything but I thought it meant that everyone pays for their own healthcare which is stupid.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:What does single payer mean because I would assume it means the government pays for everything but I thought it meant that everyone pays for their own healthcare which is stupid. Similar to what the NHS will be in a decade.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
ThisIsWhyTrumpWon posted:Even though the NHS is being defunded by right wing politicians and the exact same thing could happen in the us on a even more extreme level? Having something good taken away by bad people doesn't make the good thing bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2017 16:33
|
|
