The Politics Thread 3.0

Our best bits.
User avatar
Trelliz
Doctor ♥
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread 3.0
by Trelliz » Thu Oct 01, 2015 11:18 pm

Karl wrote:I'm quite sure a majority of Russians would oppose such a needlessly aggressive act of destruction.


Check out this interesting article about an author who spent a week watching Russian TV. It's strawberry floating weird and terrifying.

jawa2 wrote:Tl;dr Trelliz isn't a miserable git; he's right.
User avatar
Stugene
Member ♥
Joined in 2011
AKA: Handsome Man Stugene
Location: handsomemantown
Contact:

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread 3.0
by Stugene » Thu Oct 01, 2015 11:24 pm

Karl wrote:
Stugene wrote:An understanding of morality?


We would hope! But I do feel governments (in all nations, our own included) often fail to channel the moral will of the people. I'm quite sure a majority of Russians would oppose such a needlessly aggressive act of destruction. I have to say, though, that I'm not entirely convinced that such disapproval would necessarily ensure it wouldn't happen.

You are right in that I think any "average person" the world over would be instinctively repulsed by the idea of launching a nuclear weapon as an act of aggression. I'm just not sure your average government would reflect those sensibilities.


You can also have:

• International Condemnation
• Breaching international conventions on warfare
• The rise of the proliferation of nuclear arms, after they are used in an un-provoked attack
• The loss to Russian oligarchs when all the property in London is destroyed
• Rising cost of medical care in the light of a fallout
• Nuclear winter
• Nuclear refugees
• War

No one will launch a nuke outside of a test until total disarmament. The risks outweigh the rewards.

Image
Taint
User avatar
Photek
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Dublin

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread 3.0
by Photek » Fri Oct 02, 2015 1:12 am

Very high brow discussion in here! :lol: :fp:

Ireland doesn't have nukes so I guess we're strawberry floated apparently. :(

Image
User avatar
Errkal
Member
Joined in 2011
Location: Hastings
Contact:

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread 3.0
by Errkal » Fri Oct 02, 2015 6:33 am

Actually I also think of stugen it makes no difference if we have them out not as the US will blow any one to hell that launches anyway, the issue as i see it is there is never going to be a point were one person will fire there ending a conflict or regime, if one person launches the others do and we are dead.

Us having them or not having them doesn't stop or chnage that, thus we may as well not have them and use the billions of pounds on improving the lives of people in the UK for the good instead.

User avatar
Grumpy David
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: Cubeamania

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread 3.0
by Grumpy David » Fri Oct 02, 2015 6:49 am

Photek wrote:Very high brow discussion in here! :lol: :fp:

Ireland doesn't have nukes so I guess we're strawberry floated apparently. :(



Your buddy the UK and geographical protection means we got your back. 8-) Hide beneath our Trident shield. Or free ride.

User avatar
Shadow
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread 3.0
by Shadow » Fri Oct 02, 2015 7:40 am

I think you need to treat nuclear disarmament as a sign of strength, not weakness.

We could be a guiding light to other, similar nations. The US and Russia will most likely never completely retire their nuclear arsenal, but I think everyone else could do. If we said we weren't going to renew Trident and instead spent that money on other defence projects, hospitals, schools, museums or whatever. And we show the world we did that, then I think you'd see a change in opinion in countries like France, India and Pakistan.

The issue isn't black and white, the nukes aren't useless, but I think you need to weigh it up.

Would you rather have "protection" through MAD, that if anyone dares strawberry float with us, then we're gonna strawberry float up their place too. You're paying big money for a hypothetical scenario that may never come to pass. In a lot of scenarios the money is completely wasted.

or

Would you rather free up £100bn over the next few years to spend on other things that can benefit the country: Schools, hospitals etc. In almost all scenarios, the money isn't wasted, funnily enough the one scenario in that it is wasted is when someone drops a nuke on those schools and hospitals.

User avatar
Errkal
Member
Joined in 2011
Location: Hastings
Contact:

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread 3.0
by Errkal » Fri Oct 02, 2015 8:19 am

Exactly this, I would rather improve the country than spend on something good than is for a very very unlikely what if scenario

Last edited by Errkal on Sat Oct 03, 2015 10:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Stugene
Member ♥
Joined in 2011
AKA: Handsome Man Stugene
Location: handsomemantown
Contact:

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread 3.0
by Stugene » Fri Oct 02, 2015 7:43 pm

Errkal wrote:Exactly this, I would rather improve the country than spend on something that is for a very very unlikely what if scenario


I wholeheartedly agree. The weapons are totally redundant and will never be used. That money could be spent on revitalising our failing public services.

Image
Taint
User avatar
Alvin Flummux
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread 3.0
by Alvin Flummux » Sat Oct 03, 2015 12:03 am

I go by the (probably flawed) logic that, if the UK lacks nukes, it probably won't be nuked in the event of that kind of war. Who wastes their nuclear arsenal on a non-nuclear power when other, much more nuclear countries are waiting to be glassed? With a limited arsenal of the things, non-nuclear powers won't be a priority. That said, even if it leaves the UK open to be pressured by belligerent nuclear states, France is just next door, and the US will have our backs for the foreseeable future.

User avatar
Dual
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread 3.0
by Dual » Sat Oct 03, 2015 9:21 am

What would a visiting alien think of our planet?

User avatar
Shadow
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread 3.0
by Shadow » Sat Oct 03, 2015 10:45 am

Proposer wrote:What would a visiting alien think of our planet?


Is it weird that I think the threat of alien invasion is actually the most compelling reason to keep the nukes?

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Sat Oct 03, 2015 11:04 am

Shadow wrote:
Proposer wrote:What would a visiting alien think of our planet?


Is it weird that I think the threat of alien invasion is actually the most compelling reason to keep the nukes?


We need nukes so that Bruce Willis has something to blow up asteroids with.

User avatar
Stugene
Member ♥
Joined in 2011
AKA: Handsome Man Stugene
Location: handsomemantown
Contact:

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread 3.0
by Stugene » Sat Oct 03, 2015 1:43 pm

Proposer wrote:What would a visiting alien think of our planet?


Phew! Thank god there's more life on other planets, with people enjoying life inside of a darwinian system!

Image
Taint
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread 3.0
by Moggy » Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:00 pm

Proposer wrote:What would a visiting alien think of our planet?


They would love the fact that we have a nuclear bomb fire night every year.

User avatar
Meep
Member
Joined in 2010
Location: Belfast

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread 3.0
by Meep » Sat Oct 03, 2015 4:41 pm

I would like to think that any advance alien race that came across us would immediately take things in hand and use their advanced technology to disable the weapons systems of every military on the planet and turn Earth into a protectorate, sort of like adults coming across bunch of unruly children playing with matches and then confiscating them.

User avatar
mcjihge2
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread 3.0
by mcjihge2 » Sat Oct 03, 2015 7:21 pm

I like what Corbyn is trying to do and the way he is going about it. But he has some idiot policies. We should have nukes and we should have a leader who is prepared to use them. This is so much more for bluffing purposes than anything else. Russia, China, Iran and Pakistan will be laughing at Corbyn.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34421115

Some doctors in England are being offered thousands of pounds to cut the number of patients being sent to hospital, an investigation has found.
GP practices are being paid to help local NHS groups limit the number of patient referrals and cut costs, the doctors' magazine Pulse found.
Appointments affected include scans and consultations with specialists - including those for cancer patients.
The British Medical Association said such incentives were "misguided".


This is disgusting. Corbyn should forget his misguided thought of re-nationalisitng the railways and should concentrate on reversing the privatization of the NHS.
This represents gross medical negligence. The people responsible for it should be criminally prosecuted.

Xbox Live: GCE
User avatar
Return_of_the_STAR
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread 3.0
by Return_of_the_STAR » Sat Oct 03, 2015 8:13 pm

mcjihge2 wrote:I like what Corbyn is trying to do and the way he is going about it. But he has some idiot policies. We should have nukes and we should have a leader who is prepared to use them. This is so much more for bluffing purposes than anything else. Russia, China, Iran and Pakistan will be laughing at Corbyn.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34421115

Some doctors in England are being offered thousands of pounds to cut the number of patients being sent to hospital, an investigation has found.
GP practices are being paid to help local NHS groups limit the number of patient referrals and cut costs, the doctors' magazine Pulse found.
Appointments affected include scans and consultations with specialists - including those for cancer patients.
The British Medical Association said such incentives were "misguided".


This is disgusting. Corbyn should forget his misguided thought of re-nationalisitng the railways and should concentrate on reversing the privatization of the NHS.
This represents gross medical negligence. The people responsible for it should be criminally prosecuted.


In theory this should be a huge story. It is unthinkable that you can go to the doctors with an issue and the GO is sitting there thinking, "hmmm he should get this checked out but I can really do with the cash for my new Porsche."

Shoe Army
User avatar
KK
Moderator
Joined in 2008
Location: Botswana
Contact:

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread 3.0
by KK » Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:45 pm

Hunt has been a...plonker with his choice of words:

Image

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -americans

Image
User avatar
That
Dr. Nyaaa~!
Dr. Nyaaa~!
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread 3.0
by That » Mon Oct 05, 2015 10:57 pm

As someone in the comments reminded us: If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.

Image
User avatar
Return_of_the_STAR
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread 3.0
by Return_of_the_STAR » Mon Oct 05, 2015 11:38 pm

KK wrote:Hunt has been a...plonker with his choice of words:

Image

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -americans


I like how the mirror do to the Torres what most of the other media do to labour.

Shoe Army

Return to “Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 339 guests