BS: Demise of the Labour Party

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 22 Jul 16 - 04:16 AM

Sheeesh ! ! ! You must have been one important cook to still have access to naval deployments after all these years.

Just when was it you left the navy?

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jul 16 - 04:02 AM

punkfolkrocker - 21 Jul 16 - 08:48 AM

Btw.. would that be the Sub that just just pranged a ship in a careless collision...

Nope the sub currently tied up alongside the wall in Gib is an Astute-Class SSN and contrary to what some think -----

Raggytash - 21 Jul 16 - 11:32 AM

From the professor deciding that the submarine in question was not carrying nuclear weapons:


"No it was not"

The truth of the matter is that we don't actually know.

The Tomahawk Cruise Missiles carried by HMS Ambush (the latest design of nuclear powered submarine)can be adapted to carry an array of warheads including a nuclear option.

Although production of the given nuclear warhead ceased some time ago almost 2000 were produced and MAY be in service still."

The nuclear weapons carried by RN Submarines have all been built in the UK. The UK has never developed a nuclear warhead for the US supplied Tomahawk Cruise Missile. The USN did make modifications to existing "Tactical" warheads for possible use but these were all "retired" some time ago. The Royal Navy never had access to these weapons.

It would be the height of folly to mount a nuclear weapon on a cruise missile for glaringly obvious reasons. Possibly why the US "retired" those weapons years ago?

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jul 16 - 03:44 AM

Raggytash - 21 Jul 16 - 11:03 AM

Ah so time actually spent in the Royal Navy and personal knowledge and experience wouldn't count then Raggy.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jul 16 - 02:59 AM

"They are not a first strike weapon."
This becomes bizarrely, you sound more and more like THIS with every line.
It is totally insane to believe that people fanatically driven enough to wrap a bomb around themselves will be deterred by the nuclear threat.
Nuclear weapons threaten all of us - the only people to have used weapons such as these have been the Americans and the only time it has been seriously suggested in wartime that they be used again was when General Westmorland proposed that the Vietnamese should be "nuked back to the Stoneage".
People like you are as mad as the suicide bombers Keith, maybe, like them, you believe that blowing everybody to your Kingdom Come is to be welcomed.
MAD AS A BAG OF CATS - listen to yourself.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 04:04 PM

If you notice professor I mentioned Tomahawk Cruise Missiles.

TOMAHAWK


Sheeeeeeeeeeeesh !

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 03:19 PM

"and it does not matter much what they do."


.. so they don't even have the future certainty & job security of a terr0ist suicide bomber...??? 😜

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 02:40 PM

after they have unleashed Armageddon.

They are not a first strike weapon.
The point of them being at sea is that they would survive any strike and retaliate, so that enemy is deterred from unleashing Armageddon.

After firing, their work is done and it does not matter much what they do.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 02:31 PM

So what exactly are the orders for nuke sub crews after they have unleashed Armageddon...???

.. make immediately for the Antarctic and hope they can live off penguin eggs and seal meat for a few decades
until they get a carrier pigeon message saying it's almost safe to come back home...????? 🙄

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 02:20 PM

The vessel can not carry or launch Trident, the subject of this discussion and of PFR's question.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 11:32 AM

From the professor deciding that the submarine in question was not carrying nuclear weapons:


"No it was not"

The truth of the matter is that we don't actually know.

The Tomahawk Cruise Missiles carried by HMS Ambush (the latest design of nuclear powered sunmarine)can be adapted to carry an array of warheads including a nuclear option.

Although production of the given nuclear warhead ceased some time ago almost 2000 were produced and MAY be in service still.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 11:03 AM

I take it Teribus that your source of information is the article on Wikipedia.

If you are going to use Wikipedia as a source please quote or link to the article instead of trying to mislead us you are quoting from a "reliable" source.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 10:31 AM

Maybe he'd send the bailiffs in for all the newest missiles, and let us hold on to a few rusty old ones,
until we could find the cash again.....????

Not really taken in a word that's been said then pfr - nice to know that you are so far off the mark.

I think in terms of costs it comes to about 5.5% of our total Defence Budget, but costs for Trident should never have been placed there in the first place. I think that change was brought about by Osbourne in the 2010 Review - before that it had always come out a separate budget.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Stu
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 10:08 AM

"Now how much more independent would you want it?"

How about as independent as India's? Or China's? Or France's? Actual independence, not some lease from someone who can pull the plug when they want because they own, fix and maintain the actual missiles.

You do know which mad fuckwit could well be president in November? You want someone like him deciding he wants to change the terms of the lease or maintenance agreement?

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 09:02 AM

...phew... ??

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 08:57 AM

No it was not.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 08:48 AM

Btw.. would that be the Sub that just just pranged a ship in a careless collision...

Great knowing we can have so much confidence in our sea going "End of the world capability" crewmen....????? 🤔

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 08:39 AM

..so basically.. it's like when we used to lease our tellys from Radio Rentals....???

There used to be a very sympathetic lady in our local branch..
she was very understanding if we couldn't afford to pay on time, or owe a couple of months..

Doubt if the Yanks will be so easy going if we can't keep up payments on their missiles...???

That Trump is making unhelpful noises about Nato friendships..

Maybe he'd send the bailiffs in for all the newest missiles, and let us hold on to a few rusty old ones,
until we could find the cash again.....???? 🙄


It probably wouldn't be so easy to pawn the missiles between payments like some folks used to with their rented tellys....

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 08:28 AM

This is the reality Stu:

At present there is a Royal Navy Vanguard-Class SSBN on patrol at sea.

It is probably carrying 8 fully operational Trident missiles each armed with 5 MIRV nuclear warheads.

These missiles can be fired should the order to fire those missiles is given

If that order was given then there is nothing any outside power or agency could do to stop those missiles from reaching their targets.

Now how much more independent would you want it?

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Stu
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 08:20 AM

The missiles are leased form the USA, we don't own them. You can post all flam you want to but the fact is they are not our missiles.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 08:09 AM

I would imagine that that would depend very much under what circumstances a decision regarding firing them would be taken.

1: Specific threat to the UK;

2: Threat to NATO.

Well past the skirting board Stu - just about to apply the second top coat.

Base coat "48 of those missiles are either in the UK at RNAD Coulport or loaded in the "at sea" SSBN, 16 missiles used to be carried but that number was reduced to 8 missiles carrying 40 warheads in 2010."

Second coat "The number of operational and fully functional missiles that we require to fully arm at least three of our submarines are in the UK at any given time. That's enough for us to blow up anything we might have to, or to serve as a deterrent against anyone thinking of attacking us."

Top coat The five MIRV warheads per missile are individually targeted while on the submarine. Once target information has been fed to the warhead it continually up dates as the submarine moves through the water. As neither the missile or the warhead relies on any further interaction with any other system the intended targeting of each warhead cannot be interfered with.

Final coat No PAL link as suggested by the writer of the article you linked to.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 07:30 AM

"Who decides upon the targets for those individual missiles."

..ooooh... we all should...!!!

That't be a great idea for the next UK public voter's referendum... 😜

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 06:12 AM

"The answer to your question Raggy - The five MIRV warheads per missile are individually targeted while on the submarine. Once target information has been fed to the warhead it continually up dates as the submarine moves through the water"

Thank You. OK next serious question. Who decides upon the targets for those individual missiles.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Stu
Date: 21 Jul 16 - 05:43 AM

"We do not have any specific missiles allocated to us there is a "pool" of missiles our Vanguard Class share with USN Ohio Class SSBNs"

So they're not even our missiles? They're hardly independent of they're shared. Lordy. You haven't even sanded down the skirting board yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Jul 16 - 11:58 AM

Teribus - I expected that answer...

I also googled "submariners mental health"..

Far too much to even begin reading on such a hot uncomfortable day...



.. 2 computers running in a small room. Even with a turbo fan aimed up at my tackle, it's unbearable heat..

In this regard submariners have my full respect for their physical endurance in the most oppressively stifling conditions..

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Jul 16 - 11:48 AM

"We're technically dependent on the US"

The number of operational and fully functional missiles that we require to fully arm at least three of our submarines are in the UK at any given time. That's enough for us to blow up anything we might have to, or to serve as a deterrent against anyone thinking of attacking us.

We do not have any specific missiles allocated to us there is a "pool" of missiles our Vanguard Class share with USN Ohio Class SSBNs

So in what way are we "technically" dependent on the US Stu?

You were wrong PFR IT WAS just fanciful paranoid adolescent hysteria.


The answer to your question Raggy - The five MIRV warheads per missile are individually targeted while on the submarine. Once target information has been fed to the warhead it continually up dates as the submarine moves through the water. As neither the missile or the warhead relies on any further interaction with any other system the intended targeting of each warhead cannot be interfered with.

I see that our MPs voted 472 to 117 in favour of renewing Trident.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 20 Jul 16 - 11:02 AM

Serious Question.

"so cannot be redirected once launched" What about before launching?

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 20 Jul 16 - 10:54 AM

I remember exactly this happening over 30 years ago....

The tories banging on about the importance of owning nukes and how weak labour would be defending us from the russkies...

All the time exploiting the issues as a cynical strategic distraction from more essential domestic social problems that they were failing to address rationally... 😣

Still.. it worked.. got 'em back in power for one more go..


I also remember the sheer underlying culture of terror and depression, as a mass phenomena, for any of us under 25;
trying to start out in life fully aware we could be incinerated or radiated at any time the crazies in power pressed the self destruct button...

Like many others at that time, I vowed to not bring kids into that unstable world of not knowing if there would be a tomorrow...
or what kind of post apocalyptic nightmare would be inflicted on any survivors.

These were real crippling fears at that time, not just fanciful paranoid adolescent hysteria.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Stu
Date: 20 Jul 16 - 09:54 AM

We're technically dependent on the US, which means it's not truly independent. Still waiting to start on the walls.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Jul 16 - 08:47 AM

From the link supplied by Stu, to explain why he thinks that the UK does not have an independent nuclear deterrent.

The article points out that although we have our own submarines and our own warheads the missiles that carry those warheads to their targets are American, built by Lockheed-Martin. The weapon is therefore not totally independent according to the writer of the article.

The article does refer to what the writer calls "Operational Independence" - which is really all you require to have an independent deterrent.

"Under the terms of a missile lease arrangement, the United States does not have any veto on the use of British nuclear weapons, which the UK may launch independently" - Ministry of Defence Statement

The writer refers to the common pool of missiles kept and maintained by Lockheed Martin across in the USA. What the writer does not say in his article is that 48 of those missiles are either in the UK at RNAD Coulport or loaded in the "at sea" SSBN, 16 missiles used to be carried but that number was reduced to 8 missiles carrying 40 warheads in 2010.

The writer towards the end of his piece then gives away his lack of knowledge by stating the following:

"We are told if a UK prime minister presses the codes for launch from a Vanguard then Washington cannot do anything."

What he is describing here is the American PAL system. No such link exists in the British system:

"At the end of the Cold War, the U.S. Navy installed devices on its submarines to prevent rogue commanders from persuading their crews to launch unauthorised nuclear attacks. These devices prevent an attack until a launch code has been sent by the chiefs of staff on behalf of the U.S. president. The Ministry of Defence chose not to install equivalent devices on Vanguard submarines on the grounds that an aggressor might be able to eliminate the British chain of command before a launch order could be sent."

There are no codes that can be sent by the Americans to self-destruct missiles, the missiles carried on the RN's SSBNs rely on no external system for guidance so cannot be redirected once launched.

Don't know about you Stu, but that seems pretty independent to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Stu
Date: 20 Jul 16 - 04:37 AM

"1: Your reasons for making that statement."

1) Threats have to be challenged. I still don't see any 'Stu' coloured walls here.

2) Calling people names like 'wanker' is not nice and has no place in a forum like this. If that's as imaginative as your insults get, then you have my pity.

3) The Beatles are still better than the Stones (although I love both deeply).



"2: Do you actually believe it?"

Yes. See here: Trident: is our nuclear deterrent really independent?

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jul 16 - 02:35 AM

"We are facing a huge terrorist threat, "
How on earth will our having nuclear weapons make the slightest difference to that?
Don't you think it's time that you people responded to exactly why we are facing a terrorist threat?
Will it, like the damage done by Brexit, all sort itself out, given time?
What a bunch of destructive, hate-filled tossers you people are.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 06:39 PM

does that mean we get to target ... the yanks.."!!!???

Too right, if The Trumpshit gets elected!

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 05:25 PM

I want an independent nuclear deterrent..

If everybody in the UK over the age of 18 had their own independent nuclear deterrent
we could all live in eternal universal peace...!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 04:03 PM

Stu - 19 Jul 16 - 02:04 PM

"The UK does not have an independent nuclear deterrent."

1: Your reasons for making that statement.

2: Do you actually believe it?

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Stu
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 02:04 PM

"Oh and please, please, please let just one of you clowns chirp up and say that the UK does not have an independent nuclear deterrent, as I will paint the room with you."

The UK does not have an independent nuclear deterrent.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: akenaton
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 01:40 PM

With the greatest of respect Teribus, isn't it about time we stopped talking in terms of Mutually Assured Destruction.   We are facing a huge terrorist threat, our economies can be attacked at will by tiny groups of terrorists, soon they will move on to biological terror, even the threat will be enough to check our economic revival.
We should be concentrating on this real and present danger, rather than threatening one another with MAD. The whole concept is MAD.

We need co-operation on security in the whole developed world, if these madmen are not stopped now by every means at our disposal including rigorous checks on immigrants.......our future looks bleak.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 01:35 PM

"Great Britain and France made sure that they would have their own independent nuclear deterrents because Suez showed that the USA could not be trusted."

Brilliant.. does that mean we get to target both the commie east and the yanks.."!!!???

fairs fair... Little Britain, World Apocalypse referee... 🙄


..about those Sub jobs... Keep building 'em....

The Ark idea aint so unrealistic... dedicated onboard Labs storing frozen sperm and eggs,
seeds, plantlings, and a photo library of what our green and pleasant land used to look like before the end came...

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 01:23 PM

punkfolkrocker - 19 Jul 16 - 11:30 AM

A Tory tool eh? Very funny then that it was a Labour Prime Minister who was its greatest advocate and Nye Bevan who insisted that we have it so that no British foreign Secretary would have to walk into any international negotiation naked.

"after all, nuke moscow, and survivors can still repopulate up in the northern tundra;
take out washington, and they can still attempt to rebuild elsewhere on the wild west continent."

pfr just exactly what do you think MAD means? We. us, little Britain has got the nuclear capability to wipe out Russia and China while we could only wipe them out the once Russia could wipe us out about about 100 times - but when all said and done once is enough isn't it?


Raggytash - 19 Jul 16 - 09:42 AM

Raggy the Argentines acted in 1982 for a number of reasons. They totally misread the situation and seriously underestimated the resolve of the British Government and the capabilities of our armed forces.

punkfolkrocker - 19 Jul 16 - 12:24 PM

Start totting up how many British jobs depend on those submarines being built.

Steve Shaw - 19 Jul 16 - 12:43 PM

"You don't really think that the yanks would put up with someone taking over a non-nuclear UK, do you?

In the wake of Suez - the greatest foreign policy mistake the Yanks ever made (Even their President who made the decisions at the time agreed with that) Both Great Britain and France made sure that they would have their own independent nuclear deterrents because Suez showed that the USA could not be trusted. France actually left the NATO military alliance and kicked all US troops out of their NATO bases on French soil.

Oh and please, please, please let just one of you clowns chirp up and say that the UK does not have an independent nuclear deterrent, as I will paint the room with you.

"And Freddie And The Dreamers were greater than both."

Only to a wanker like you Shaw.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 01:13 PM

Although a year or three later it was Cat Stevens for me, the first LP's I ever bought.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 01:05 PM

.. I'm veering more towards choosing between The Move, Small Faces, The Who,The Yardbirds, and Syd Barrett era Pink Floyd...

The beatles had a lot to thank George Martin for...

See how superior music was under Harold Wilson.... 😎

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Stu
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 12:45 PM

"And Freddie And The Dreamers were greater than both."

Ack.

*does funny little jig*

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 12:43 PM

Huh? Don't know what happened to my post there. Never mind. So a nation that is otherwise deterred by our nukes needn't worry as long as it takes us by surprise. Heheh. As for the number of countries on the planet, there are various ways of counting. Google it. Picking me up on that technicality is a mark of the man's desperation. As for non-nuclear countries not being attacked because they're in some sort of alliance, well we could do that. You don't really think that the yanks would put up with someone taking over a non-nuclear UK, do you?

And Freddie And The Dreamers were greater than both.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 12:24 PM

.. maybe that little fleet of big submarines might have a better use as Arks...

.. crested newts, slow worms, lizards, tasty rare breed pigs & sheep, a few other remaining endangered indigenous UK island species....????

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 11:30 AM

I've always considered the 'nuclear armament' issue to be a bit of a very expensive political tool
to be used by the tories as a last resort to discredit Labour election candidates,
when the tories are losing the debates on more pressing social priorities......


I can be persuaded to see the reasons for mega world powers occupying huge land masses
to rely on the deterrence factor..

after all, nuke moscow, and survivors can still repopulate up in the northern tundra;
take out washington, and they can still attempt to rebuild elsewhere on the wild west continent.

If nothing else, Chernobyl established that radiation fall out could be 'contained' to some extent.

But whichever way you look at it, one or two nukes on London, Manchester, and the Whitby folk festival,
and all of us are 100% cooked and f@cked.....!!!!! 😬

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Greg F.
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 09:49 AM

Yeah, but you know how those Argie wogs are! They'll do it one of these days!

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Raggytash
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 09:42 AM

I've come across many inane statements over the years on this forum but this particular one is brilliant in replying to Steve Shaw statement

"3: "We have the bomb but it didn't deter Argentina from occupying our sovereign territory".

Teribus typed "Most certainly did in 1977" something also prevented them in 1976, 1975, 1974, 1973 and numerous years before that. It also did in 1978, 1979, 1980 and 1981 but NOT 1982 the year the Argentinians invaded the Falklands Islands. Something has prevented them every year ever since but I somehow doubt it is the threat of nuclear retribution.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 08:19 AM

A

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Stu
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 06:52 AM

"I thought everybody knew that."

I disagree that the Stones were better than The Beatles.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 04:20 AM

Steve Shaw - 18 Jul 16 - 07:09 PM

1: "Israel has the bomb but that has not deterred attacks on Israel from multiple quarters. Go on, tell me why Israel didn't nuke Gaza or Lebanon, and please don't say it was because Israel is the nice guy."

I would imagine that Israel has never ever used it's nuclear weapons because it has never needed to. The pan-Arabic movement of Nasser no longer exists and Israel is no longer confronted by nation states calling for its destruction (It has been 43 now since Israel was attacked by an enemy that represented a nation state).

2: "Pakistan has the bomb but it hasn't prevented Indian aggression or US drones from killing people on their turf."

Trust you to get the shoe on the wrong foot Shaw. What Indian aggression? Four times in the past Pakistan attacked India, there have been no such attacks since both acquired nuclear weapons. The Government of Pakistan is incapable of enforcing the rule of law and order in either the NWFP or in the FATA along it's border with Afghanistan, "allied" to the US effort to prevent attacks from inside these areas hitting targets in Afghanistan why would Pakistani nuclear weapons enter the equation.

3: "We have the bomb but it didn't deter Argentina from occupying our sovereign territory.

Most certainly did in 1977. In 1982 the Argentine invasion took the UK Government by surprise, or so we are led to believe. I personally know that Captain Nick Barker RN who was in command of the Antarctic Patrol Ship HMS Endurance had been supplying the powers that be in the Royal Navy and the Foreign Office with intelligence of Argentina's intentions for at least a year before the event.

At present it is the threat that one of our SSNs is allocated to the area that provides the greatest deterrent to any military action by the Argentines.

4: "The US has the bomb but it didn't deter 9-11."
Nor would I expect it to, but what it has deterred is what the USA identified as the greatest threat to its national security in the wake of the attacks on the 11th September 2001:

An international terrorist organisation, linking up with a "rogue" State hostile to the USA that either possesses WMD or has the technical ability to produce or procure WMD, which results in an "anonymous" asymmetric attack on the USA using WMD.

Subsequent US actions taken after 9/11 and US nuclear weapons did succeed in deterring any state from acting in the role of "rogue" state to any international terrorist organisation in the scenario outlined above. Evidence to substantiate that assertion?

Libya - unilaterally renounced its WMD programmes including a secret nuclear weapons programme.
North Korea - momentarily halted its nuclear weapons programme while GWB was in office.
Iran - was forced to halt its nuclear weapons programme when the US found out about the undeclared uranium enrichment facilities at Natanz and Qum.
Syria - Secret nuclear weapons programme halted and destroyed.
Pakistan - Illegal nuclear weapons proliferation network run by Dr A.Q.Khan exposed and shut down

5: "Over 200 countries do not have the bomb and the vast majority of them have not been attacked during the nuclear age."

Are you sure about that? From your list of 200 (The UN has only 193 member states including all those with nuclear weapons, so the following does not include those countries that you have obviously invented) take away those whose security is guaranteed by being part of an alliance that has as one of its partners a nuclear power. then go through the list again and you will be astounded at the number who have been involved in some form of conflict or another since 1945.


6: the Stones were better than the Beatles

I thought everybody knew that.

7: "The best deterrent by far is to have a non-aggressive, non-interfering foreign policy."

Really? What happens when another nation adopts an interfering and aggressive foreign policy towards you? Your statement is complete and utter rubbish.

8: The modus operandi of the likes of Al-Qaeda and ISIS is to pop up, do something and then get hammered. That has been their track record so far.

Subject: RE: BS: Demise of the Labour Party
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jul 16 - 02:50 AM

"Apparently we need nuclear weapons to aid the fight against terrorism"
How exactly to we "fight terrorism" with nuclear weapons - bomb Iraq, or Syria, or Nice, or Paris, or London, or Istanbul..... or wherever the terrorists operate? - how stupid can you get.
That's the nature of terrorism - unlike the nations involved in the Cold War, it has no base.
States like Israel and Saudi, whose policies generate terrorism and who, in some cases, finance it, are considered friends and allies; in the case of Israel, they have openly shown that they are prepared to spread terrorism by offering to assist apartheid South Africa to obtain nuclear weapons..
Deterrence has always been a short term and unreliable policy, even when our "enemies" had identifiable locations.
Winning the hearts and minds has always been the answer to world conflict and that will never happen while national self-interest is put first.
Have we learned nothing from the Chilcott rport?   
COST OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
WHO BENEFITS FROM NUCLEAR WEAPONS?
Jim Carroll