Brexit, for once some facts.

[oldtom]

It seems that the investigation into electoral cheating has resulted in only one prosecution thus far. Call me cynical but I suspect a lot of covering up has been done to produce this virtual whitewash.

Of course, the kind of people who have protected paedophiles so successfully for so many years both among well-known parliamentarians and equally well-known individuals from the world of entertainment, centred largely around the BBC, have great experience in cleaning up such messy and embarrassing situations. Anyway, my experience-based prejudices aside, there is a very measured report of Jeremy Corbyn's equally measured response to the news from AAV, the web blogger

jeremy-corbyns-response-to-tory.html:

Tom

 

[oldtom]

Remember the evil bitch whose idea of diplomacy was to launch a task force and bring about hundreds of deaths and thousands of injured and maimed, both physically and psychologically in order to consolidate her rapidly disintegrating position as PM of a failing government?

One of the phrases she will be remembered for was, 'The lady's not for turning!'

Well, now we have another evil bitch struggling to find a tagline she might be remembered by and I suspect she will need to find one soon as her future in her current role does not look very bright.

This infographic seems appropriate!



Tom

 

[oldtom]

The madness of the tory nuclear policy has been demonstrated perfectly by the Defence Secretary and the PM on several occasions yet the tory media echo the party line repeatedly on the issue and project the policy as if it were in the interests of the British people.

Is there any possible scenario in anyone's mind whereby a first strike with nuclear weapons could be justified? I believe the answer is no and the answer must always be no and to ensure that remains the case, the British people must vote to rid the nation of these dangerous lunatics who advocate such a policy.

'AAV' has this to say about the matter and I'm bound to say I agree with him 100%. To agree with tory policy on nuclear weapons is to make two and two add up to something other than four.

has-britain-completely-lost-plot-over.html

Tom

 

[oldtom]

It's a kind of poetry, I think - at least, it's somewhere between Wordsworth and Eminem and it has a message:

[Tory] 'Economic Recovery'

"Forget the home you lost
That your futures bereft and bare
We have some growth in GDP
And a recovery without repair

Forget the debts you have
Zero-hour contracts and workfare
These now count as jobs
In a recovery without repair

Forget the lack of justice
For the vulnerable in despair
Their suffering can be ignored
In a recovery without repair

Forget the fracking damage
The pollution to water and air
That "Green crap" is irrelevant
In a recovery without repair

Forget NHS privatisation
And profit before patient care
These things are to be replaced
In a recovery without repair

Forget the sale of public assets
For losses beyond compare
They fuel hedge-fund profits
In a recovery without repair

Forget the tax-dodging parasites
Of which you are aware
They're doing very nicely
In a recovery without repair

Forget the promises they made
Those in power do not care
As they celebrate their unearned wealth
And a recovery without repair

I didn't write it!

Tom

 

[oldgroaner]

On Trident my thoughts are these

"How is it possible to compare the two points of view?

On the one hand we utterly denigrate and deplore Suicide Bombers.
Which is the only possible rational point of view.

Yet on the other hand our so called defensive strategy amounts to nothing more or less than making a Bluff that requires in the end a willingness to turn the ENTIRE Nation into a Suicide Bomber?

If the public really want this it is to say the least a very poor measure of their intelligence.

 

[flecc]

current goings on in the US and the UK are designed by the rich in power to kill off the poor. They (the poor) are just a hindrance now that the menial jobs they used to have can be done by robots so lets get rid of them.

It seems a plausibe theory, but it doesn't stand up to examination. Robotics and automation are largely restricted to manufacturing and some repetitive outdoor work.

But when it comes to repairs and replacements, all too often only the manual worker can do the job. Such things as tunnelling under a property to replace a fractured toilet soil pipe for example, hardly a weekend DIY job for a rich householder.

In my area all of the street lighting has been replaced, and the thousands of old lamp posts had to be slowly laboriously dug out with hand tools. Use of mechanical drills, Kangos etc was out of the question due to the profusion of cables, gas and water pipes.

In fact away from manufacturing and farming, the need for manual workers has changed little over the last half century. That's especially true in Britain where it's the norm for every manual worker doing something to be watched doing it by at least one other manual worker.
.

 

[Woosh]

On Trident my thoughts are these

"How is it possible to compare the two points of view?

On the one hand we utterly denigrate and deplore Suicide Bombers.
Which is the only possible rational point of view.

Yet on the other hand our so called defensive strategy amounts to nothing more or less than making a Bluff that requires in the end a willingness to turn the ENTIRE Nation into a Suicide Bomber?

If the public really want this it is to say the least a very poor measure of their intelligence.

I think there is very little difference in deterrent value between owning say 100 W88 warheads (8 of them fitted in each Trident) and 10,000 warheads.
I honestly can't see anyone of us, regardless of political leaning, willing to approve first use. So, if Trident is there as a deterrent, we already have more than enough to deter any enemy country.
As for retaliation, again, we have more than enough and it's not that difficult to make more of them anyway.
The end result is, I think we should maintain Trident but not buying the upgrades.

 

[oldgroaner]

I think there is very little difference in deterrent value between owning say 100 W88 warheads (8 of them fitted in each Trident) and 10,000 warheads.
I honestly can't see anyone of us, regardless of political leaning, willing to approve first use. So, if Trident is there as a deterrent, we already have more than enough to deter any enemy country.
As for retaliation, again, we have more than enough and it's not that difficult to make more of them anyway.
The end result is, I think we should maintain Trident but not buying the upgrades.

Logic says all Trident achieves is to make us a First Strike Target, and frankly we are too puny militarily to pose a threat to any aggressor, and as an invasion destination of no consequence whatsoever.
What would anyone want to invade this island for?
Just what glittering prize do we represent?
Oil? gone
Gas?, Gone
Mineral Resources? you can get cheaper elsewhere.
Industry? Do we actually have anything they would want?
Vast open Food growing plains? Do give over.

Basically it's a run down shadow of a Modern society, were even the benighted population doesn't know friends from enemies.

As it stands it must be as attractive as a second hand graveyard to any potential aggressor, whose only possible motivation would be to put our comical nuisance of a deterrent out of action.

Lets face it they only have to be patient while we ruin it completely then if they really want the place they can come to the Car boot sale of what fragments remain.
The only threat we pose to any Agressor is that we might give them a Hernia laughing at us.

If I was in Putin or any other potential enemies position Trident would be the only thing to prevent them forgetting completely we even exist, and attract the sort of attention from them that is as welcome as being slowly disembowelled with a blunt spoon.

Get rid of it and all nuclear weapons before they make us victims of our own stupid overblown pride and stupidity.

Trident make as much sense as giving yourself a Gelatine coated enema with a core of solid Phosphorous, in the hope of beneficial action before something goes spectacularly wrong

 

[anotherkiwi]

In fact away from manufacturing and farming, the need for manual workers has changed little over the last half century. That's especially true in Britain where it's the norm for every manual worker doing something to be watched doing it by at least one other manual worker.
.

1 manual worker
1 overseer
1 to make the tea
2 or 3 to hold the spare shovels (sometimes they take turns at digging. After a cup of tea of course!)

 

[flecc]

The end result is, I think we should maintain Trident but not buying the upgrades.

I don't think that's an option. Although the submarines are ours, the Trident missiles are under US control with software and maintenance essentials from them.. We either have the upgrade or nothing.

This has been the case throughout, from the early Polaris system through to Trident.

A bit like Microsoft systems, we pay for them but they dictate what we can do with them and for how long.
.

 

[Woosh]

Lets face it they only have to be patient while we ruin it completely then if they really want the place they can come to the Car boot sale of what fragments remain.

didn't you mean 'Bargain Hunt' for antiques?

 

[Woosh]

, the Trident missiles are under US control with software and maintenance essentials from them.. We either have the upgrade or nothing.

do you mean we pay an extortionate price for the hardware we can't use unless they tell us to press the button?

 

[oldtom]

A bit like Microsoft systems, we pay for them but they dictate what we can do with them and for how long.

Nice analogy 'flecc'!

Tom

 

[oldgroaner]

Nice analogy 'flecc'!

Tom

Could we actually take the decision to fire them, and do so independently?
And you have to wonder if the Americans don't have the ability to fire the missiles even if we don't want to!

Sent from my XT1032 using Tapatalk

 

[Woosh]

And you have to wonder if the Americans don't have the ability to fire the missiles even if we don't want to!

I can see a '24' plot coming up.

 

[oldtom]

Could we actually take the decision to fire them, and do so independently?
And you have to wonder if the Americans don't have the ability to fire the missiles even if we don't want to!

That's an interesting piece of conjecture OG and something that has troubled me for several years.

It has occurred to me that we may be no more than a convenient military launch site on the far side of the Atlantic, (from the US), for deployment of American missiles......which we pay the full, gross price for! We may have got rid of the American bomber squadrons capable of atomic bomb delivery but perhaps they retain the methodology by which their US-built missiles on British soil could be deployed without any need to get the ok from the British government. Far-fetched.....? Perhaps.

If we consigned all those WMD to the scrapheap, I feel sure the UK would be a much safer place - especially if we also, (1) stopped bombing Arab countries and (2), diplomatically told Saudi Arabia and Israel they are no longer friends of ours and will no longer receive any support for their terrorist activities or for anything else.

Tom

 

[flecc]

do you mean we pay an extortionate price for the hardware we can't use unless they tell us to press the button?

Yes. It's for the USA's own safety that they retain the ultimate control.

It should never be forgotten that at the start of the 1930s the USA had an advanced plan to go to war against Britain, something that was finally fully revealed under their release of documents time interval rules.

Ironically it was the rise of Hitler and the Nazis that saved us, once the Americans realised that we could pair with Hitler to defend against them.

The purpose of the intended war was their hatred of empire owning countries. They'd just finished their protracted war against the Spanish in their colonies such as the Phillipines, freeing them all, and they intended the same with the British colonies. They got their own way in the end in a different way, by forcing us to release the colonies after WW2.

So it can be seen that war in modern times between the USA and the UK is possible, and why they would never equip us with arms that we could conceivably turn on them with devastating effect.
.

 

[tillson]

I watched Question Time last night. I was left wondering why the people of Yorkshire are fixated with entering into a nuclear conflict with Iran. There was one guy who couldn't let go of the idea. He kept ranting on, in his comedy Yorkshire voice, about unleashing nukes. It was hilarious.

I though Corbyn handled the idiot in the audience well, and if you listened to what Corbyn was saying, his policy is sensible. It's such a shame that the rest of Labour are such muppets, it makes them unelectable.

 

[oldgroaner]

Yes. It's for the USA's own safety that they retain the ultimate control.

It should never be forgotten that at the start of the 1930s the USA had an advanced plan to go to war against Britain, something that was finally fully revealed under their release of documents time interval rules.

Ironically it was the rise of Hitler and the Nazis that saved us, once the Americans realised that we could pair with Hitler to defend against them.

The purpose of the intended war was their hatred of empire owning countries. They'd just finished their protracted war against the Spanish in their colonies such as the Phillipines, freeing them all, and they intended the same with the British colonies. They got their own way in the end in a different way, by forcing us to release the colonies after WW2.

So it can be seen that war in modern times between the USA and the UK is possible, and why they would never equip us with arms that we could conceivably turn on them with devastating effect.
.

That was Plan Red if my memory serves flecc.

 

[oldgroaner]

You have to wonder how any of the Public who support retainng Trident are actually aware of who's finger is on the Trigger.
Corbyn missed a great one liner there when asked if he would ever deploy Trident he should have replied.
I don't have to worry about that as the Americans own it and will fire it even if I say no!
We only cart the things around for them anyway.

Here is an interesting link, but as always one can only judge for oneself on the level of Probability as to the Truth
https://theferret.scot/westminster-trident-nuclear-independence/
"
Trident missiles are rented and collected from the US navy, their targeting and communications systems depend on US software and satellites, and their arming and firing systems are made in the US, the report says.

The code words needed to detonate UK warheads are produced in the US, it claims. In extreme cases, it warns that the US could locate Trident submarines and shoot down their missiles in flight.

The lead author of the study is Dr Dan Plesch, the director of the Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy at the University of London. “The British public have been lied to for decades by an establishment that dare not tell them the truth,” he said.

“This report demonstrates that there is no British bomb, and that Trident is an American system that the Americans can prevent Britain from using independently. So the Parliament in London is discussing spending tens of billions of pounds on something that does not exist.”
The report says: “The US can interfere with British communications with Royal Navy submarines, with the satellites and computer software upon which they rely, use its formidable anti-submarine warfare capability and knowledge of British operations to hunt for the British submarines and use its dozens of anti-ballistic missile systems on its Navy’s vessels to shoot down British Trident missiles.”

It points out that submarines have to collect Trident missiles from a US naval port in Georgia on the Atlantic coast under a “lease-purchase” arrangement. “The UK makes use of US satellites to target Trident and US communications facilities to contact the submarines,” it says.

The British public have been lied to for decades by an establishment that dare not tell them the truth Dr Dan Plesch, University of London
“Former UK Trident launch control officers have said that it would be very difficult to fire the missiles without the use of the satellites.”

Now that my Friend is what REAL INSURANCE is....
In extreme cases, it warns that the US could locate Trident submarines and shoot down their missiles in flight.

But one suspects eliminating the entire submarine would be the method of choice employed, by simply triggering a warhead.
Accidentally
On...Purpose...With messages of Sympathy of course.........