2015 Election

[CAM]

The site is politically neutral, it's the keyword and search history ads that are showing the Conservative wrecking ball. If you search for 4x4's you get car ads for 4x4's. If you search for World of Warcraft you get World of Warcraft and other gaming ads. If you look up political parties, hello political ads (plenty of trigger words in this thread!).

[ghafoor]

For me people who don't vote, they should not complain about the system and how things are run.... They have no right to do so.

[Garacesh]

Worked well in the Ukraine didn't it?

To be fair, isn't having nukes a deterrent against other people using nukes on you? Consider Mutually Assured Destruction.

 

(plenty of trigger words in this thread!).

[TRIGGERING INTENSIFIES]

[tmcd35]

Since they didn't stop the IRA, Al-Quida, ISIS. 9/11 and 7/7 both happened. Fawklands. I'm not sure who they are supposed to be deterring. North Korea? Pakistan? Iran?

 

If there was the possibility of the EU failing and either France or Germany getting trigger happy I might agree with you. I can't think of any other scenario were us having nukes would be more beneficial than better intelligence and special forces.

 

I'm trying to be a hippie and suggest flowers will suddenly grow out of tank turrets the day all nukes are destroyed. I'm not even suggesting that the world has complete nuclear disarmament. I just don't see the value of 3 subs bobbing under the sea. The only message they send to the Kremlin or Beijing is - "look we're still relevant, we're big boys, look, over here, please take notice of this poor island", aw bless.

[Garacesh]

Since they didn't stop the IRA, Al-Quida, ISIS. 9/11 and 7/7 both happened. Fawklands. I'm not sure who they are supposed to be deterring. North Korea? Pakistan? Iran?

Well in all fairness.. None of them have ever nuked us, have they? The big red button (figuratively speaking) is the endgame scenario. You don't push it because a terrorist organisation blows up a few bombs. You don't even push it because a terrorist organisation blows up hundreds of bombs and hijacks and crashes planes. Hopefully you don't push it at all! But it's there in case someone presses theirs first. It's supposed to stop people pressing theirs because they'll (hopefully) think "If I do this, they'll launch theirs back at me, and my country will be come just what I'm hoping to do to theirs.."

 

I'd rather nobody have them, then we wouldn't need them, but someone will always have them.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Garacesh

[6Foot2]

...I'm trying to be a hippie and suggest flowers will suddenly grow out of tank turrets the day all nukes are destroyed...

 

I think you might be missing a 'not' in there somewhere?

[pcstru]

They provide a little more stability. Little dictators with ambitions loose the ability to blitzkrieg across nations. Nations think twice before tying to sink half your fleet.

That worked well for us in the Falklands, and the USA obviously avoided a costly, bloody wars in North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

I think you have lost sight of the millions who gave their lives and the reality that your have lost the sight of death and war. You have gone through half a century of brain washing into believing these weapons are bad and should be swapped for blue skies and happy lives and it will all be fine.

We have not had much peace in the world since 1945 despite having nuclear weapons and in the wars that have raged, nuclear weapons have been utterly useless to us. When you think of people dying on the battlefield for our freedoms, perhaps you should consider soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we had invested tens of billions in modern equipment for them and their support instead of sinking it into weapons that are unusable, perhaps they would be alive, enjoying their hard won freedoms.

[sparkeh]

For me people who don't vote, they should not complain about the system and how things are run.... They have no right to do so.

That argument is always nonsense.

 

Why should someone who rejects alls the available parties in his constituency be forced to vote for policies he doesn't believe in to have the right to complain?

Example: You are a socialist and only have two parties, the BNP and UKIP standing in your constituency. Both parties stand for things that you fundamentally reject. Should you vote for UKIP because (in your eyes) they are the lesser of two evils just so you can complain that you only had 2 right wing parties to choose from?

Of course not, its nonsense.

 

I would argue the opposite. If you vote for the winning party then you have no right to complain about what you get

[Garacesh]

Completely agree with @sparkeh - of course you're allowed to complain about a system you don't agree with. It's ridiculous to propose "You can't complain about a system you're not actively part of.".. If you're actively part of the system you perpetuate its continued existence, which isn't exactly what you want to do if you're having a whinge about it.

 

Not that any politician would change the system anyway..

[tmcd35]

Well in all fairness.. None of them have ever nuked us, have they?

And they would have had we not had nukes?

 

But it's there in case someone presses theirs first. It's supposed to stop people pressing theirs because they'll (hopefully) think "If I do this, they'll launch theirs back at me, and my country will be come just what I'm hoping to do to theirs.."

 

That kind of thinking works great on the scale of Russia - USA - China. Given their proximity, it works brilliantly for Pakistan and India. According to the fountain of all miss-knowledge, wikipedia, we currently have 4 subs with 16 missiles each. I believe it's 3 at sea and 1 docked in Scotland at any one moment in time. The three at sea are deployed in different parts of the world. If Russia launched their 2000-something nukes at us, how many of our 64 will do any damage to them? We'd be gone before we know what's happened. (apparently we have about 160 operational nukes but I assume that means the subs being able to get back and restock to deploy).

 

Israel, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea - all too far away to cause us a problem in this little island. Besides Team America are the worlds police let them have the expense of dishing out nukes to the bad guys.

Edited May 6, 2015 by tmcd35

[Garacesh]

And they would have had we not had nukes?

Impossible to say, but part of it is a 'legacy thing' left over from the nuclear arms race. Everyone did it 'cause we were scared other people were going to nuke us. And now we know everyone's got 'em, nobody wants to be the first to get rid 'cause it'll cost more to re-build them than it will to keep the current ones primed.

 

If Russia launched their 2000-something nukes at us, how many of our 64 will do any damage to them?

Every single one that hit. It's a nuke, not a slingshot and a bag of pebbles. Nukes do damage. That's their purpose.

 

We'd be gone before we know what's happened.

Which is why our nukes were at sea, I thought? Island goes bye-bye, submarines come to the surface and let loose.

 

Besides Team America are the worlds police let them have the expense of dishing out nukes to the bad guys.

I'd rather not let America handle anything of ours, truth be told.

[localzuk]

That kind of thinking works great on the scale of Russia - USA - China. Given their proximity, it works brilliantly for Pakistan and India. According to the fountain of all miss-knowledge, wikipedia, we currently have 4 subs with 16 missiles each. I believe it's 3 at sea and 1 docked in Scotland at any one moment in time. The three at sea are deployed in different parts of the world. If Russia launched their 2000-something nukes at us, how many of our 64 will do any damage to them? We'd be gone before we know what's happened.

 

Israel, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea - all too far away to cause us a problem in this little island. Besides Team America are the worlds police let them have the expense of dishing out nukes to the bad guys.

 

When you look at it like that, it seems reasonable. If we hit them with all 64, in their major cities, it'd affect less than 40% of the population - probably closer to 25% at most. That said, it'd destroy their economy, destroy their government structures, and much more. So, even with a small number of weapons, their country would be nearly as badly affected as ours if they hit us.

[tmcd35]

Impossible to say, but part of it is a 'legacy thing' left over from the nuclear arms race. Everyone did it 'cause we were scared other people were going to nuke us. And now we know everyone's got 'em, nobody wants to be the first to get rid 'cause it'll cost more to re-build them than it will to keep the current ones primed.

 

It's worth putting 'everyone' into context...

 

USA, Russia, China, UK, France,

India, Pakistan,

possibly (most likely) Israel,

soon North Korea, Iran

 

Argentina not on that list Also had IRA, ISIS or Al-Qaeda got their hands on nukes, I'm not sure us having them would stop them from using. Also I'm not sure who we retaliate against if they do...

[CAM]

That worked well for us in the Falklands, and the USA obviously avoided a costly, bloody wars in North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc.

 

We have not had much peace in the world since 1945 despite having nuclear weapons and in the wars that have raged, nuclear weapons have been utterly useless to us. When you think of people dying on the battlefield for our freedoms, perhaps you should consider soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we had invested tens of billions in modern equipment for them and their support instead of sinking it into weapons that are unusable, perhaps they would be alive, enjoying their hard won freedoms.

 

None of those countries have (or had at the time) nuclear weapons. Some of those were even proxy wars where Soviet and US forces had someone else duke it out because they knew if they duked it out it would end in a nuclear holocaust. So point proven in favour of the bomb!

 

IRA, ISIS and Al-Qaeda are paramilitary groups and not nation states, they do not hold nuclear weapons and have no place on the international stage. Nuclear weapons are a nation to nation affair (of course, if one of these does get hold of a nuke that would be a bloody mess for every nation in the world).

 

If you think blood has been flowing now, imagine how much more would be flowing if nukes were freely used instead of being used in a MAD stand-off? Society as we know it would collapse. All it takes for MAD to "resolve" itself would be enough opposing nations to lose their stockpile (or for someone to create a sufficient defence) so a country can freely lob missiles without retaliation. That's the part of MAD that nuclear activists don't understand.

[Gatt]

For me people who don't vote, they should not complain about the system and how things are run.... They have no right to do so.

 

Indeed! I tried to make this point earlier in the thread, but was shot down with posts like these:

 

That argument is always nonsense.

 

Why should someone who rejects alls the available parties in his constituency be forced to vote for policies he doesn't believe in to have the right to complain?

Example: You are a socialist and only have two parties, the BNP and UKIP standing in your constituency. Both parties stand for things that you fundamentally reject. Should you vote for UKIP because (in your eyes) they are the lesser of two evils just so you can complain that you only had 2 right wing parties to choose from?

Of course not, its nonsense.

 

I would argue the opposite. If you vote for the winning party then you have no right to complain about what you get

 

Completely agree with @sparkeh - of course you're allowed to complain about a system you don't agree with. It's ridiculous to propose "You can't complain about a system you're not actively part of.".. If you're actively part of the system you perpetuate its continued existence, which isn't exactly what you want to do if you're having a whinge about it.

 

Not that any politician would change the system anyway..

 

 

IMO, if you choose to sit on the fence during an election, then on that fence thou shalt remain and keep thy trap firmly shut!

[sonofsanta]

Guys, if we scrap Trident, what is Bruce Willis going to use to save us?

 

A gentle nudge with a nuke: Deflecting Earth-bound asteroids | Ars Technica

 

...planetary defense is one reason the United States' National Nuclear Safety Administration (NNSA) has given for not destroying some of its surplus nuclear warheads.

 

It's easy to be cynical about American nuclear weapons policy, especially now that we're decades since the end of the Cold War. Debates over nuclear winter, mutually assured destruction, and the like feel very distant. So reports that the US wasn't following the stated schedule for decommissioning nukes in the name of planetary defense triggered the skeptical radar, not least since The Atlantic, The Wall Street Journal, and other sources made it sound like the plan was to blow asteroids to smithereens.

 

On Earth, much of the damage from a nuclear explosion comes from shock waves and heat traveling through the air, but that doesn't work in space. Instead, Syal and colleagues propose an almost gentle-sounding process called "nuclear ablation." This involves exploding a nuke several hundred meters away from an asteroid. With no air to carry a shockwave, the products of the explosion are high-energy gamma rays, X-rays, and neutrons, which will pummel the surface material and heat it up. The energetic particles are sufficient to vaporize some material and strip electrons off atoms, creating a hot plasma that will in turn blast some particles back out into space. If everything works as planned, the plasma will act like a rocket thruster, altering both the asteroid orbit and rotation.

[LeMarchand]

Why is this imappropriate?

Would you be saying the same if it was Labour / SNP / Lib Dem?

 

This really has got your goat:

 

Erm... Why? Whats inappropriate and/or offensive about this?

Would you be as eager to block an ad from one of the other parties?

 

or do we g all draconian and block ALL election ads?

(Which really we should if this gets blocked!)

 

Still, Minions do seem to try to find the most despicable person to follow .

 

More seriously, as I replied on the other thread, I'm not sure political ads should be displayed.

 

Though (as my posts should have made obvious) I'm not a Tory supporter and the Lib Dems sold out to them. Don't know enough about the SNP.

[Garacesh]

Somewhat relevant to the current discussion.

[Gatt]

Still, Minions do seem to try to find the most despicable person to follow

 

Follows @LeMarchand

 

Don't know enough about the SNP.

 

IMHO they are worse than the 3 main UK parties* combined!

*Though not sure who the 3rd is these days : Lib Dem or UKIP

[pcstru]

None of those countries have (or had at the time) nuclear weapons. Some of those were even proxy wars where Soviet and US forces had someone else duke it out because they knew if they duked it out it would end in a nuclear holocaust. So point proven in favour of the bomb!

You need to read exactly what I was replying to. The assertion was that nuclear weapons would stop these things happening. They didn't. That is a fact.

[LeMarchand]

Follows @LeMarchand

 

Yes! My Minion Army now has a member!

[CAM]

You need to read exactly what I was replying to. The assertion was that nuclear weapons would stop these things happening. They didn't. That is a fact.

 

I have, and as I said we are talking about a nation vs nation level. Al-Qaeda, IRA and ISIS are paramilitary and not a nation. North Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan are nations but they are not a nuclear power (or wasn't a nuclear power for 50's era Korea), here comes the US/Soviet Steamroller. When did you last see us go to war against Russia? Answer: We haven't because they will wipe us off the planet, just look at all the tip-toes and posturing in Eastern Ukraine and ask why US and UN troops aren't on the ground keeping distance between the two armed forces and Putin was playing diplomacy and daggers? The US/RU/CN nuclear triangle is what keeps some semblance of peace in the world, any part of that collapses and you can kiss goodbye to a warm home and a loving family.

[ghafoor]

That argument is always nonsense.

 

Why should someone who rejects alls the available parties in his constituency be forced to vote for policies he doesn't believe in to have the right to complain?

Example: You are a socialist and only have two parties, the BNP and UKIP standing in your constituency. Both parties stand for things that you fundamentally reject. Should you vote for UKIP because (in your eyes) they are the lesser of two evils just so you can complain that you only had 2 right wing parties to choose from?

Of course not, its nonsense.

 

I would argue the opposite. If you vote for the winning party then you have no right to complain about what you get

 

So in other words, you would let bigger evil win by not voting the lesser evil? I am sorry your argument is weak. There are numerous parties with various manifestos that you can say they are closer to your political beliefs.

Edited May 6, 2015 by ghafoor

[pcstru]

I have, and as I said we are talking about a nation vs nation level.

You obviously didn't read it. Let me quote it :

@Galway said :

 

"They provide a little more stability. Little dictators with ambitions loose the ability to blitzkrieg across nations. Nations think twice before tying to sink half your fleet."

 

To which I replied :

 

"That worked well for us in the Falklands, and the USA obviously avoided a costly, bloody wars in North Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc. "

 

No mention of ISIS, IRA, Al-Qaeda. There is mention of little dictators with ambitions being put off giving it a go, yet all across the world since 1945 we see little dictators having a go and nuclear weapons making no odds at all. Remember the rationale for invading Iraq was a threat of WMD - how come we needed to invade if our own weapons were actually an effective deterrent to little dictators with or without WMD?

 

Nuclear weapons might, just might have prevented the Russians having a go at European integration early on in the cold war (1950- ~1970). They have also very nearly been responsible for some serious accidents in the USA, Spain and Iceland (and those are just ones we know about, there are undoubtedly classified incidents). The rationale for having them today is extremely suspect. There are more effective ways to spend on defence - ways that would actually help the men and women we seem to regularly send into harms way.

[sonofsanta]

UKIP candidate Robert Blay suspended over shooting threat - BBC News

 

A UKIP candidate has been suspended after being filmed apparently threatening to shoot a Conservative rival.

 

Robert Blay, who is standing in North East Hampshire, was secretly filmed by the Daily Mirror making the comments about Ranil Jayawardena.

 

The Mirror reported that he said: "If he is I will personally put a bullet between his eyes. If this lad turns up to be our prime minister I will personally put a bullet in him. That's how strong I feel about it."

 

Questioning Mr Jayawardena's background, he said: "His family have only been here since the 70s. You are not British enough to be in our parliament.

 

"I've got 400 years of ancestry where I live. He hasn't got that."

 

So at what point do we all agree that UKIP is stuffed full of racists and bigots, no matter how often Farage tries to claim the contrary?