|
CoolCab posted:trotskyism is an international conspiracy to prop up the printing press industry and ensure that every open mic at every event in any context ever absolutely requires a strict time limit. they're OK otherwise. Except for the problem with their parties being lead by sex criminals
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 22:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 13:55 |
|
|
Continuity NIP posted:Except for the problem with their parties being lead by sex criminals Well, they're still brits after all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 22:07
|
|
|
genericnick posted:Well, they're still brits after all. yeah can't imagine an american putting up with that poo poo
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 22:40
|
|
|
ISO dissolved because they were covering up rapes
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 00:30
|
|
|
oliwan posted:Can someone tell me why anyone would need more than say 5 nuclear missiles? Let alone 260? being somewhat serious: nukes are not reliable pieces of equipment, they need constant maintenance, so the majority are not operable at any one time and even the ones that are launch ready stand a real chance of being duds due to being nukes anti-missile defenses are not as much a joke as memes would tell you. A full exchange between any of the big powers would completely overwhelm their opposition's defenses, but that's because they've got thousands of warheads each of which has decoys and dummies and such these two combine with the fact that using nukes in a multinuclear world is a "better not miss" type of thing. You don't want to be 50% sure you hit your target or 90% sure, you want to be 99.9% sure, and if each nuke has like a 30% chance of being a dud and the missile defense has like a 50% chance of shooting down any given missile, you suddenly need a lot of missiles to get up to high confidences this kind of thing is less of an issue if you're like, a james bond villain who is actively going for destructiveness, but if you're talking about a whole-rear end state that is building nukes in the hopes of utilizing MAD (whether or not MAD is a good theory is a different question but afaik the big boys take it seriously) you need a couple hundred or else it's worse than nothing
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 00:57
|
|
|
Continuity NIP posted:ISO dissolved because they were covering up rapes the International Organization for Standardization?????
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 00:57
|
|
|
my god, by what metric would they justify that
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 00:58
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Socialist_Organization
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 01:00
|
|
|
bud i am a (lasped) member of rs21, i am yanking your chain 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 01:04
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:bud i am a (lasped) member of rs21, i am yanking your chain Consider my chain very yanked
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 01:08
|
|
|
CoolCab posted:my god, by what metric would they justify that 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 07:33
|
|
|
Tulip posted:being somewhat serious: There's also the fact that - according to most nuclear strategy stuff - you nominally want a bunch so that an aggressor can't blow them all up in one first strike targeting your own nuclear capabilities (such as four submarines). If you have fewer nuclear weapons, you have a greater incentive to use the ones you have before they get taken out. I'm not going Full Waltz - 'more nuclear weapons would be safer' - but since most of the paths to nuclear war involve a bunch of sweaty generals with itchy trigger fingers thinking 'use it or lose it' in a high tension scenario, I can see the appeal of that. (although in practice, yeah, that does imply a rational centralised command which I don't think you'd get, and the anti nuke arguments above are more convincing)
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 08:16
|
|
|
If people remotely believed that Britain genuinely needed a nuclear defense, they'd be spending billions developing a nuclear triad of submarines, nuclear bombers and mobile land-based launchers, which is what you actually need to be reasonably sure of being able to respond to a 1st strike. But we're not, because they don't and we're sticking with our dumb submarines.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 10:22
|
|
|
In the modern world nuclear weapons are what you need to stop bigger bullies from loving with you. See: Georgia, Ukraine, and Iran. They have limited military value apart from deterrence because the instant you use one in a conflict then everybody loses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 10:54
|
|
|
The UK doesn't have nuclear weapons to ensure MAD or *win* a nuclear war by destroying the opponent's (i.e. Russia or China) nuclear capability in a first strike, that would be prohibitively expensive. The UK's arsenal is purely deterrent - invade the UK, prepare to lose a few major cities in the process. This is why 1. The number of warheads doesn't really matter, it's mostly a "do you really want to invade a nuclear country" situation since even with anti-ballistic missile technology you're taking a big risk 2. We don't need a triad, all we need is submarines since they are basically undetectable and therefore perfect for retaliatory strikes
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 11:16
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:The UK doesn't have nuclear weapons to ensure MAD or *win* a nuclear war by destroying the opponent's (i.e. Russia or China) nuclear capability in a first strike, that would be prohibitively expensive. The UK's arsenal is purely deterrent - invade the UK, prepare to lose a few major cities in the process. This is why This is not how any of this works op. no one is going to "invade the UK" lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 11:27
|
|
|
oliwan posted:This is not how any of this works op. no one is going to "invade the UK" lol During the Scottish independence referendum people straight up argued "if Scotland isn't in NATO & defended by nukes the Russians will invade." Unironically. Brits are loving dumb.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 11:36
|
|
|
We must protect our Cornish lithium reserves
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 11:37
|
|
|
Pistol_Pete posted:mobile land-based launchers I mean I know you mean like trucks but Metal Gear is to easy to picture Oh man, imagine a British made Metal Gear
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 11:55
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:I mean I know you mean like trucks but Metal Gear is to easy to picture The first Metal Gear found to have gained sentience and used it to abuse children.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 12:04
|
|
|
The only reason to invade the UK would be to eradicate the british or to make D day more difficult, there are no resources of value. I guess you’re deterring a lot of former colonies motivated by pure spite, that’s something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 12:07
|
|
|
I also just remembered that the british people all had a massive meltdown when Corbyn said that he wouldn't use nuclear weapons lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 12:09
|
|
|
Do Brits think that the rest of us who live in countries without nukes live in constant fear of being invaded?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 12:11
|
|
|
oliwan posted:Do Brits think that the rest of us who live in countries without nukes live in constant fear of being invaded? i imagine iran and north korea do.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 12:12
|
|
|
oliwan posted:This is not how any of this works op. no one is going to "invade the UK" lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 12:14
|
|
|
ItohRespectArmy posted:i imagine iran and north korea do. Every single day, the reasons for Iran and North Korea to develop nuclear weapons become stronger and stronger.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 12:17
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:The only reason to invade the UK would be to eradicate the british That's certainly the main moral reason, but we've lots of fresh water so one day the resources of this hell country will be very important and we should be invaded as a preemptive measure
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 12:21
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:I mean I know you mean like trucks but Metal Gear is to easy to picture Noted anti-semite Solid Snake defies the will of the people with his opposition to our brave genome soldiers. Was he even wearing a poppy? I think we should be told
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 12:30
|
|
|
oliwan posted:I also just remembered that the british people all had a massive meltdown when Corbyn said that he wouldn't use nuclear weapons lol It's more deluded Empire bullshit where having nukes proves that Britain's still important and someone like Corbyn coming out and bluntly saying that nukes are dumb and he'd never use them sends the gammons into a frothing rage of bruised egos.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 12:41
|
|
|
For the libs we're also defenders of the world so not using nukes is basically like giving up on everyone else and letting Yemen invade
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 12:43
|
|
|
 I've no doubt these men all have very strong opinions on the importance of Britain's nuclear deterrent
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 12:47
|
|
|
forkboy84 posted:That's certainly the main moral reason, but we've lots of fresh water so one day the resources of this hell country will be very important and we should be invaded as a preemptive measure Or we could stop polluting all the world's waters and then reject the bullshit national geographic narrative that water is a special resource which is super rare and wars must now be fought over it. Did you know China has more water than us? Activate the paratroopers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 12:56
|
|
|
oliwan posted:Do Brits think that the rest of us who live in countries without nukes live in constant fear of being invaded? There are a lot of Brits who think we'd be invaded if we didn't have nukes so yes
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 12:59
|
|
|
as if vlad isnt eying up the pot noodle mines, finger on the button
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 13:02
|
|
|
bedpan posted:
IIRC several of those are from the time that Pistol_Pete posted:Corbyn coming out and bluntly saying that nukes are dumb and he'd never use them sends the gammons into a frothing rage of bruised egos. We're building more nukes because hams like them need to think of vaporising children to cum
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 13:02
|
|
|
Like check out the governments website for some pure ideology on thisquote:Our independent nuclear deterrent remains an important part of our national security strategy and it is wrong to say it is never used. The reality is that our deterrent protects us every hour of every day. By providing a credible and effective response option to extreme aggression, the deterrent reduces the likelihood of such an attack taking place. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-uks-nuclear-deterrent-the-facts#:~:text=The%20UK's%20nuclear%20deterrent%20is,of%20Nuclear%20Weapons%20(%20NPT%20).&text=The%20TPNW%20risks%20undermining%20existing,will%20not%20enhance%20our%20security.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 13:03
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:Or we could stop polluting all the world's waters and then reject the bullshit national geographic narrative that water is a special resource which is super rare and wars must now be fought over it. What are you, some kind of antisemitic communist?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 13:05
|
|
|
ro5s posted:IIRC several of those are from the time that They are literally all from that episode of Question Time, all in a row iirc They were followed up by an extremely nervous young woman who said something along the lines of "unlike everyone else in the audience I don't want to incinerate everyone in nuclear fire so I'm going to ask about something else"
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 13:05
|
|
|
Lol https://twitter.com/Arbeit_Fish/status/1372153259566190594?s=19
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 13:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 13:55 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/ejhchess/status/1371903285246955522 Edit: From later in the thread: https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1166695638173659137 genericnick has issued a correction as of 13:32 on Mar 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 13:29
|
|