It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
Feedback
I would agree that there's a possibility that nuclear weapons will be used. The likely users are the US or Israel, against North Korea or Iran. How does Trident keep us safe then?
I really cannot understand what anyone thinks using it would achieve, other than to kill millions of innocent civilians in whatever the target country is, and even if we survive, to deepen the environmental damage to the whole planet.
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
It's these shining examples of our meddling with Darwinian evolution that decide what happens to all of us.
There needs to be a test before anyone gets handed a ballot paper...
Chips are "Plant-based" no matter how you cook them
Donald Trump needs kicking out of a helicopter
I'm personally responsible for all global warming
1. Absolutely. Just like Velma is a real lesbian.
2. It gets tired
3. Sherlock Holmes. Intellectualised Jeremy Kyle.
4. Lord Ashcroft, Len McCluskey, God.
Look at the former Soviet republics that ended up with vast stockpiles of Nukes following the breakup of the Soviet Union. None of them used any, even during the unstable times, the times when they've fallen to strongman dictators. Look at the threat of terrorists buying those Nukes - they've never surfaced. I think history shows us that level heads DO prevail, and the nutters self-destruct long before they get to the point where they can destroy the world. Do you really think China will allow North Korea to become an imminent global threat? Do you really think Iran wants to Nuke the UK?
TL:DR; I think you're very, very wrong. And to dismiss horror at using these weapons as virtue signalling merely demonstrates your partisan political position.
Bandcamp
Spotify, Apple et al
Surely a comprehensive but usable weapons strategy is a better bet? Ultimately, if we use large scale nuclear weapons we are killing a lot of innocent people and causing a lot of fallout problems that will affect the ability to survive in the area for decades. That is what deters us from using it.
Whereas a new arsenal of smaller weapons (which surely could be created now) that are capable of more localised destruction is more able to be used, and thus a better deterrent than something like Trident, which seems to be more of a last-resort weapon.
Obviously I don't know how much scrapping trident and replacing it with smaller but more usable weapons would be, but surely it would create jobs and make our country safer? Or am I a victim of the endless nonsense spouted by those who know as little as me on social media?
It's true that it wouldn't be as effective at destroying Russia in a Third World War as Trident - but since that would automatically result in the total destruction of the UK as well, what would be the point?
May and Fallon have specifically said that they would consider a *first strike* as well - that's the height of utter insanity, it would amount to national suicide. Do you really want people with this sort of attitude with their fingers anywhere near the button?
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
"When you get a semi on #bbcqt while thinking about the skin evaporating off the bodies of hundreds of thousands of innocent people"
Apparently she was a plant - come the end of the debate she walked off behind Corbyn and joined the campaign team in the green room and was seen on Newsnight when Emily Wightlesswas interviewing Labour politicians.
The consensus in the press, bar the Telegraph, was Corbyn won hands down. Bar the IRA and nukes (which I think are irrelevant) I thought he did well. May got a rougher ride on education cuts and the NHS. Only a three point gap which if it is right puts Corbyn in number 10.
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
Building up the conventional forces would also be good for the defence industry and jobs. Perhaps we wouldn't need to sell so many arms to nasty regimes like Saudi Arabia if we did - which Amber Rudd explicitly used to justify that the other night.
It's also worth remembering that General Galtieri decided to invade the Falklands after a Tory defence review which resulted in cuts to the military there and the withdrawal of HMS Endurance. And the fact that we had Polaris nuclear weapons at the time didn't seem to deter him...
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
Hiram Maxim, the inventor of the machine gun, declared, "Only a general who was a barbarian would send his men to certain death against the concentrated power of my new gun." But send them they did. In World War One, the machine gun often mowed down tens of thousands of men in a single day.
Orville Wright saw a similar vision: "When my brother and I built and flew the first man-carrying flying machine, we thought we were introducing into the world an invention that would make further wars practically impossible." Far from ending war, however, the airplane increased the ability to maim and kill. In firebombing raids on London, Hamburg and Tokyo the airplane wrought previously unimaginable levels of destruction. In a single night, March 9, 1945, 25 percent of Tokyo was destroyed, 80,000 people were killed, and over 1 million left homeless.
History shows the folly in hoping that each new, more destructive weapon will not be used. And yet we dare to hope that this time it will be different. We and the Soviets have amassed a combined arsenal of 50,000 nuclear weapons, equivalent in destructive force to some 6,000 World War II’s, capable of reaching their targets in a matter of minutes, and able to destroy every major city in the world. All in the belief that they will never be used.
But unless we make a radical shift in our thinking about war, this time will be no different. On our current path, nuclear war is inevitable.
The inevitability concept can best be understood by analogy to finance. It does not make sense to talk of an interest rate as being high or low, for example 50 percent or 1 percent, without comparing it to specific period of time. An interest rate of 50 percent per year is high. An interest rate of 50 percent per century is low. And the low interest rate of 1 percent per year builds up to a much larger interest rate, say 100 percent, when compounded over a sufficiently long time.
In the same way, it does not make sense to talk about the probability of nuclear war being high or low -- for example 10 percent versus 1 percent -- without comparing it to a specific period of time -- for example, 10 percent per decade or 1 percent per year.Having gotten the units right, we might argue whether the probability of nuclear war per year was high or low. But it would make no real difference. If the probability is 10 percent per year, then we expect the holocaust to come in about 10 years. If it is 1 percent per year, then we expect it in about 100 years.The lower probability per year changes the time frame until we expect civilization to be destroyed, but it does not change the inevitability of the ruin. In either scenario, nuclear war is 100 percent certain to occur