BS: UK nuclear subs

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 06:00 AM

You are not confronting the reality, Nigel. Brexit, Trump and the extreme right in the Netherlands and France are all putting the EU under siege. There are also threats to the stability of the EU coming from Germany, the Czech Republic and Italy. 27 countries are watching like hawks to see what "deal" we get. A good number of them are very likely to want to get out of the EU on similar terms if we get any untoward favours. We are not getting a good deal, end of. Because of Trump, the world is going to be an unstable and unpredictable place in the two years of our negotiations. We are well and truly stuffed.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 05:33 AM

No larger than anywhere else and as Britain has little to sell the traffic can be only one way due to our lack of industries - that's going to sort out our economy to no end, isn't it.
It's nonsense to suggest that Britain would cease to trade with Europe - do you honestly believe British firms would stand for such a move?
So if we have so little to sell to the EU, why do we need access to their market?
If they have so much to sell to us, they need access to our market, and, as such, access to their market would be a suitable quid pro quo.
Asking whether the British firms would stand for it is pointless. It is highly unlikely that it will ever happen because, under the same argument, the EU firms would not stand for it.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 04:33 AM

"A large market for its businesses"
No larger than anywhere else and as Britain has little to sell the traffic can be only one way due to our lack of industries - that's going to sort out our economy to no end, isn't it.
It's nonsense to suggest that Britain would cease to trade with Europe - do you honestly believe British firms would stand for such a move?
All that would happen is that we would have thrown away the benefits of membership - free movement of labour, unhindered border crossings....
The panic that is now taking place in Norther Ireland, the threat to the Peace Process and the possible effect on trade is indicative of the damage that has already been done and the shambles that are the negotiatuions to leave haven't even begun.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 16 Feb 17 - 03:47 AM

I repeat - there is no reason why the E.U. should grant privileges to a non - member State - why should it - what has Britain to offer in return?
A large market for its businesses. You continually ignore the balance of payments between UK & EU (the rest of).
If the EU does not arrange suitable terms, it would be like a profitable pub deciding to ban all its highest spending customers.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 10:32 PM

Think I heard that Trump was humming This the other day....

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 09:16 PM

Nuclear protection, if it were available, would be welcome. But it doesn't exist - all we've got are nuclear weapons, which are the reverse.

Up till now the main danger from the existence has been of some kind of accident or of a fatal misunderstanding, since no sane leader would launch a nuclear war. The trouble now is that the sanity of the leader with the largest nuclear arsenal is very questionable indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 12:15 PM

"That statement appears to be about changes that have already been "brought", and seems to be a definitive statement."
It seems quite likely Nigel
Do you think a country with no industry and no prospects of fulfilling its obligation to provide sufficient work for its people is wise in taking such a risk.
I repeat - there is no reason why the E.U. should grant privileges to a non - member State - why should it - what has Britain to offer in return (other than a promise that they will lock Nigel Farage in The Tower maybe!!).
Brexit was won on a 'controlling immigration' ticket.
One of the key requirements of any economy is that it should be stable
Economists reckon that the British economy will remain unstable for at least ten years and even then, there is no indication of at what level it will stabalise.
Do you not see how I find it impossible to take the whole shambles of Brexit, from its rise in racist incidents to a ******* up economy, at face value?
It's like the Trump thing - you supporters refuse to discuss the implications on the British people
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 10:48 AM

Jim:
The only "independence" Brexit has brought is the isolation of not allowing British workers to seek work in Europe - "ve vant to be alone"
That statement appears to be about changes that have already been "brought", and seems to be a definitive statement.

Compare that with: When Brexit is resolved, British workers will no longer be able to freely seek work in Europe, as I understand it. which makes it clear that it is just one person's view of what the future may hold.

Do you see why it is so difficult for people to take your arguments at face value?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 09:56 AM

"British workers are not allowed to seek employment in Europe?"
When Brexit is resolved, British workers will no longer be able to freely seek work in Europe, as I understand it.
"Currently EU workers are entitled to: travel across an open border; recognition of their professional qualifications; take up employment without restriction; be treated equally and without discrimination based on nationality; access healthcare both where they live and where they work; and access, and occasionally export, social welfare payments based on their EU record of social insurance contributions."
This is quite likely to disappear with Brexit - at the very least, this is what has been put at risk.
There is no reason whatever that Britain should be afforded any benefits not enjoyed by any other nation on the planet.
As I said - not independence, just who we are dependent on
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 08:41 AM

The only "independence" Brexit has brought is the isolation of not allowing British workers to seek work in Europe - "ve vant to be alone"

British workers are not allowed to seek employment in Europe? I must have missed that in the newspapers (or is it just in your imagination?). I thought the negotiations on exit were yet to start.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 06:54 AM

More time now
Teribus
Your loutish behaviour does not hide either your ignorance nor your dishonesty
Your lateest (carefully unlinked) claim about the left supporting nuclear weapons - "Well good ol Clem Attlee and Ernest Bevin were 100% behind the UK having them Jom?" underlines my point.
It is taken from a article that points out that despite the admiration of the left for Atlee (Bevin could never in a million years have been described as "left") his stance on nuclear weapons was in total opposition to that of the left
As I said - THE LEFT have always opposed nuclear weapons despite the actions of some politicians.
Nigel
Despite your assertions, Brexit will not give Britain independence from anybody - the only change it will bring about will be who Britain is dependent on.
We will continue to fill our sops with goods manufactured by near slave labour in conditions it would be illegal to keep animals in - creating conditions fit for terrorist to thrive from.
We will continue to sell weapons to monsters who profit from these societies.
We weill now become dependent on Trump - hence May's undignified scramble to kiss his arse.
Trumps belligerent racism towards Muslim nations has already nudged the Doomsday clock up another couple of notches and the fact that he is in trall to Russia has added yet another genocidal war in the Ukraine to our collection.
The only "independence" Brexit has brought is the isolation of not allowing British workers to seek work in Europe - "ve vant to be alone"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 05:59 AM

Well you were applying 1940s and1950s thinking to modern situations so where's yer beef? Do you really think that a 1940s leftie, dusting himself or herself down after two bloody wars, is the same thing as a 2017 leftie? Had Attlee been around today he might have been thrown out of the party for blatant sexism. He turned into a hardline Cold War warrior before the end of his first term and was a patriotic Empire golden-age little Englander. And I see nothing whatsoever dated in Humphreys' piece. You don't get to dismiss it so easily. It's a piece of whimsy, all right, but out of whimsy can come forth reflection. Instead, you see who's posted and immediately focus on the next pejorative you can dredge up.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 05:44 AM

Sorry - missed a bit
"What a typical "socialists" response Shaw. "
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 05:36 AM

Jom

Latest display from of persuasive argument – from this thread alone – so far - no doubt much more to come

Best stick to your wild flowers and your diet.

Only to you Stu, only to you.

Priceless Raggy - f**kin' priceless
Stick to orchids pal - you know S.F.A. about submarines.
And no Raggy unlike you I do not believe everything I read in the Press.

Well Stu at least you seem to realise that the point Raggytush was trying to make was a load of shit.

What part of "the Vanguard Class of nuclear missile carrying submarines is unaffected" did you fail to understand?

Do you do that "veracity check" before or after you post complete and utter codswallop Raggers? Applied to this thread it would appear that you only do your checking after the event of you going into print and making a complete and utter arse of yourself.

Ah Raggyarse, paying far too much attention to Jom I see - you shouldn't because off traditional music he's not really all that reliable.

What's the matter Raggedarse plain English comprehension too difficult for you, or are you catching Jom's dyslexia - never thought it was contagious. What is it about you Raggy that compels you to react to every post by trying to make some pathetic smart-arse remark that never quite gets there but just merely succeeds in you jamming both your feet firmly in your mouth - here is a classic example:

Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash - PM
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 12:24 PM

Terrikins, Once again you seem to be labouring under the impression that there is a gang/group/lot of people all opposing you.

I am not part of any gang as I've indicated before. I recently even put up a record of my personal interaction with the people you suspect I am in a gang with, it is minimal to say the least.

Still I suspect you still believe there are reds under the bed.

Hope you have a good nights sleep.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 03:51 AM

Jim:
Any future this planet has is dependent on international co-operation - the exact opposite of both Brexit and Trumpism.
Despite your assertions Brexit is not the opposite of international cooperation.
Brexit will allow the UK to cooperate internationally as a sovereign state, rather than as part of an artificial bloc.

International cooperation does not mean cooperating with Europe. It means cooperating with all nations.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Feb 17 - 02:24 AM

What a typical "socialists" response Shaw. As to introducing the bit quoted from Nicholas Humphrey (1982), who was being deliberately obtuse. I'd make the observation that it is idiotic to apply 1980s thinking and views to 1940s situations.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 09:29 PM

Attlee and Bevan were both men with many flaws. I don't even make the excuse that they were simply "of their time," so let's just say that they espoused non-PC views that would have modern-day lefties horrified. But they did give us the NHS and they did set this country on the road to post-war recovery. As for going naked into the conference chamber, read this:

AN IMMODEST PROPOSAL

In 1957 at the Labour Party's debate on disarmament, Aneurin Bevan declared that he was not prepared to 'go naked into the conference chamber'. It is a phrase which has been echoed by Tory and Labour defence spokesmen alike; something similar was said at the Liberal Party conference in September 1981. But what was it that Bevan had to hide? Bevan came into the world naked, and naked he left it. Why should he have been afraid to go naked into the conference chamber to discuss matters of global life and death? What he had to hide, as much from himself as from his adversaries, was nothing less than his humanity.

Of course, by the rules of the game he had to hide it. For no naked human being, conscious of his own essential ordinariness, the chairseat pressing against his buttocks, his toes wriggling beneath the conference table, his penis hanging limply a few feet from Mr Andropov's, could possibly play the game of international politics and barter like a god with the lives of millions of his fellow men. No naked human being could threaten to press the nuclear button.

So I come to my proposal. Our leaders must be given no choice but to go naked into the conference chamber. At the United Nations General Assembly, at the Geneva disarmament negotiations, at the next summit in Moscow or in Washington, there shall be a notice pinned to the door: 'Reality gate. Human beings only beyond this point. NO Clothes.' And then, as the erstwhile iron maiden takes her place beside the erstwhile bionic commissar, it may dawn on them that neither she nor he is made of iron or steel, but rather of a warmer, softer and much more magical material, flesh and blood. Perhaps as Mr Andropov looks at his navel and realises that he, like the rest of us, was once joined from there to a proud and aching mother, as Mrs Thatcher feels the table-cloth tickling her belly, they will start to laugh at their pretensions to be superhuman rulers of the lives of others. If they do not actually make love they will, at least, barely be capable of making war.

[Nicholas Humphrey, 1982]

Back to sanity, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 03:07 PM

"The Left has always opposed Nuclear Weapons, whoever has them - it's on record" - Jom

Well good ol Clem Attlee and Ernest Bevin were 100% behind the UK having them Jom?

Clement Attlee revered on the left as the father of the NHS and the welfare state. What a pity Jom forgot his role as the father of Britain's nuclear bomb. All done in secret Jom no reference to Parliament.

"The answer to an atomic bomb on London is an atomic bomb on another great city," - Clement Attlee 22 days after Hiroshima

Ernest Bevin: "We've got to have this thing over here, whatever it costs," foreign secretary, and former trade union leader, Ernest Bevin, is reported to have told one committee.
"We've got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it."

Aneurin Bevan: 1957 he surprised supporters by hitting back at calls for Britain to get rid of it nuclear weapons by telling that year's party conference the unilateralists were gripped by an "an emotional spasm" that would send a future Labour foreign secretary "naked into the conference chamber".

Then of course every Labour Party Manifesto has stated that the Party would retain our nuclear deterrent and every Labour Government has voted to keep our nuclear deterrent.

From that then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Labour Party must have nothing whatsoever to do with the "Left" Jom. In which case why have all you "lefties" been voting for them?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 02:36 PM

"So who bells the cat?"
Just like a trip back to the sixties (or listening to an argument by the gun-lobby).
Demands for Nuclear weapons to be brought under international control have been part of most of my life
Unless a nation is ruled by raving madmen they will never be used - in which case they are not a deterrent
Any future this planet has is dependent on international co-operation - the exact opposite of both Brexit and Trumpism.
The more nations build walls around themselves, the higher the risk.
One of the greatest international opportunities in my lifetime was thrown away when the Arab Spring was not supported.
Basically, all human beings just want to stay alive and have enough to live on - take steps to solve that and you start winning the hearts and minds of those who matter..
The problem of the fanatics does not enter into the equation - no nuclear weapons are going to deter them and nobody knows where to use them without wiping out swathes of mankind.
Any move to disarm is a risk, and always has been, but no greater one than putting a madman multi- billionair's reach of 'The Button' - that's 'James Bond' territory.
Go check the Doomsday Clock and see what time it is.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 02:19 PM

So who bells the cat?

How are you going to get Russia to give them up?

How are you going to get China to give them up?

How are you going to keep Iran from getting them?

When you have that figured out then you can dream about a world free of nuclear weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 01:19 PM

Good to know that the Left would rather depend on Trump and America to provide nuclear protection against Russia and China."
The Left has always opposed Nuclear Weapons, whoever has them - it's on record
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 01:18 PM

Well speaking for myself I would prefer it is no such weapons existed.

The fact we could ensure mutual destruction does not help one iota if I am blown to smithereens.

Am I going to go to my death rejoicing that my government is causing some poor bastard I have never met to suffer the same fate as me.

The answer to that question is resolutely NO!

Any other answer to my mind is insane.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 01:05 PM

Good to know that the Left would rather depend on Trump and America to provide nuclear protection against Russia and China.

Unless they mean to depend on the next largest nuclear power. That would be Israel, by number of warheads...

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Stu
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 01:02 PM

It was a bit tongue in cheek to Jim, I wasn't being serious. I quite like Terbius, the lad's consistent, although I'm still not sure after all these years whether he's taking the piss or not.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 01:00 PM

If only we could all decide that the Connemara orchids are a thousand times more important than a bunch of dismal underwater tubes carrying weapons of ultimate destruction....let's stay sane!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Stu
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 12:59 PM

Don't believe it. I'm a reet bizzball me.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 12:50 PM

"Tezza's thinks "
Hate to point it out Stu but you're sinking to his schoolyard name calling level
You're better than that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Stu
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 12:27 PM

"Still I suspect you still believe there are reds under the bed."

Tezza's thinks we're all BETTER DEAD THAN RED whether we want to be or not. The cheek!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 12:24 PM

Terrikins, Once again you seem to be labouring under the impression that there is a gang/group/lot of people all opposing you.

I am not part of any gang as I've indicated before. I recently even put up a record of my personal interaction with the people you suspect I am in a gang with, it is minimal to say the least.

Still I suspect you still believe there are reds under the bed.

Hope you have a good nights sleep.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 12:09 PM

"Not really interested, as you lot seem to be, in mithering about what may or may not happen at some indeterminate time in the future."
So you are not interested in what state the world is when we leave it to our kids - whe=at in incredibly selfish attitude
Makes sense of a lot!!
And yet more displays of insecurity
Jim Carroll

Latest display from of persuasive argument – from this thread alone – so far - no doubt much more to come

Best stick to your wild flowers and your diet.

Only to you Stu, only to you.

Priceless Raggy - f**kin' priceless
Stick to orchids pal - you know S.F.A. about submarines.
And no Raggy unlike you I do not believe everything I read in the Press.

Well Stu at least you seem to realise that the point Raggytush was trying to make was a load of shit.

What part of "the Vanguard Class of nuclear missile carrying submarines is unaffected" did you fail to understand?

Do you do that "veracity check" before or after you post complete and utter codswallop Raggers? Applied to this thread it would appear that you only do your checking after the event of you going into print and making a complete and utter arse of yourself.

Ah Raggyarse, paying far too much attention to Jom I see - you shouldn't because off traditional music he's not really all that reliable.

What's the matter Raggedarse plain English comprehension too difficult for you, or are you catching Jom's dyslexia - never thought it was contagious. What is it about you Raggy that compels you to react to every post by trying to make some pathetic smart-arse remark that never quite gets there but just merely succeeds in you jamming both your feet firmly in your mouth - here is a classic example:

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 11:57 AM

Just asking a question Raggyarse - She seems to be blamed directly for everything by you Lefties and so-called "socialists" at the drop of a hat.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 11:56 AM

"I object to the inference that Winston Churchill, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and the nations of USA & UK were insane."
Thay were Atom Bombs Nigel - and they were used, which should be warning enough of the insanity of ever considering such an obscenity being ever used again.
Jim Carroll
Exactly. You cannot apply present day knowledge to classify those who used (or authorised the use of) the bombs in those particular circumstances as 'insane'

Jim's comment was: Nuclear weapons have never been considered by any sane nation as a practical, never mind a human method of warfare . thus classifying anyone who has ever used nuclear weapons as 'insane'

My comments were in relation to that statement.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 11:50 AM

Care to tell me where I have mentioned Thatcher?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 11:47 AM

Well now Raggy, on the subject of dead people not being dierectly responsible for things that happened after their death - does that still hold good with you and your clown pals for Margaret Thatcher?

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 11:04 AM

You obviously fail to understand that if someone is deceased they cannot be held to be DIRECTLY responsible.

Did Roosevelt give the order to use "the first special bomb" himself or did someone else give the order.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 10:54 AM

Stu - 14 Feb 17 - 04:29 AM

"he often doesn't reply to questioning about the morality of such acts of barbarity."

What acts of barbarity have I not replied to questions about Stu?

Think I've said this before quite recently. I will only comment on events and things that have happened, or on things actually stated by the principals involved. Not really interested, as you lot seem to be, in mithering about what may or may not happen at some indeterminate time in the future.

"I do personally know about seven of them. Then of course I could go into those of that rank I knew but who have passed away in the last fifteen years" - Teribus

Elicited the following from Raggy - "Of course you know all those Admirals Teri, of course you do. Nelson, Jellicoe, Mountbatten..."

What's the matter Raggedarse plain English comprehension too difficult for you, or are you catching Jom's dyslexia - never thought it was contagious. What is it about you Raggy that compels you to react to every post by trying to make some pathetic smart-arse remark that never quite gets there but just merely succeeds in you jamming both your feet firmly in your mouth - here is a classic example:

"I don't think any direct blame can be laid at FDR's door, he had died 4 months beforehand."

I take it that you realise somebody had to have authorised the Manhattan Project which ran from 1942 until 1946 - who was the President of the United States in 1942 Raggy? He was one of the half-dozen people who knew that they were designing and building the most powerful bomb in the history of the world.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 06:35 AM

By the way Nigel.
If the people you mention had been aware of the effects of these weapons on humanity they were either insane or should have stood in the dock next to Goering and Hess and tried for crimes against humanity.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 06:28 AM

"I object to the inference that Winston Churchill, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and the nations of USA & UK were insane."
Thay were Atom Bombs Nigel - and they were used, which should be warning enough of the insanity of ever considering such an obscenity being ever used again.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 06:02 AM

Well, Nigel, apropos of nuclear insanity:

Only part of us is sane: only part of us loves pleasure and the longer day of happiness, wants to live to our nineties and die in peace, in a house that we built, that shall shelter those who come after us. The other half of us is nearly mad. It prefers the disagreeable to the agreeable, loves pain and its darker night despair, and wants to die in a catastrophe that will set back life to its beginnings and leave nothing of our house save its blackened foundations.

[Rebecca West, Black Lamb and Grey Falcon]


President Truman to the officers of the Augusta, reported in the Times on 7 August 1945: The experiment has been an overwhelming success.

The same paper the next day:

The fundamental power of the universe, the power manifested in the sunshine that has been recognised as the sustaining force of earthly life, is entrusted at last to human hands.

Daily Express, 10 August 1981:

The neutron weapon is for Western Europe today what the English longbow was for Henry V and his army at Agincourt in 1415.

Ah yes, all totally sane. Of course! How insulting to declare that advocates of nuclear weapons are insane!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 05:54 AM

Yes, but if one of those little buggers flaps its wings in Peru we get a storm.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 05:37 AM

Yep, Greg, same species! Most of ours migrate here from Europe in spring (don't tell Farage) but a few manage to hibernate in southern England. Most of yours move up from the south as as well, including from Mexico. We should adopt the red admiral as our emblem of resistance to Trump and the little Englanders who are leading us to brexit disaster. Out of delicacy and beauty comes forth strength!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 05:36 AM

I don't think any direct blame can be laid at FDR's door, he had died 4 months beforehand.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 05:30 AM

Jim:
Nuclear weapons have never been considered by any sane nation as a practical, never mind a human method of warfare .

I object to the inference that Winston Churchill, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and the nations of USA & UK were insane.

Of course you may have meant something entirely different, but I can only respond to what you actually type.

The actions of the Allies may have been wrong in hindsight, but even that is open to debate.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Stu
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 04:29 AM

"Stu I'm sure you know you are discussing this with a senior member of the MOD (retired) who knows far more than you."

Hardly; he often doesn't reply to questioning about the morality of such acts of barbarity.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 04:22 AM

Of course you know all those Admirals Teri, of course you do. Nelson,
Jellicoe, Mountbatten ......................








............. Matron, check his medication again would you

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Feb 17 - 03:55 AM

Nuclear weapons have never been considered by any sane nation as a practical, never mind a human method of warfare .
Crazies like Westmorland proposed their use in Vietnam, but nobody took him seriously - thank god.
They are the wet dreams of fanatics - it seems we in Mudcat have our own Doctor Strangelove.
The present problem is that we now have a madman in the White House - lets hope the U.S. has an efficient deterrent to him in place,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 09:30 PM

Now that's interesting, Steve - we have Red Admiral (Vanessa atalanta) butterflies here in the Colonies as well - didn't realize they were the same species in the Britain!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 08:13 PM

I can beat that. I had eight red admirals all at once one day last August, flitting around the 🌺🌸🌻s in my garden. The 🦋s were ever so pretty. They especially seemed to like my Sedums and my Buddleia. I also had a few commas and peacocks and was mightily relieved to see the small 🐢shells rallying late on after a disastrous start to the season. Not a good year for painted 💃🏻s, sadly. We did have a humming 🐦 🦅 moth early on, but nothing like the huge numbers of a few years ago. It's been a pretty good winter for garden 🐦s so far with plenty of song birds and a woodpecker or two. More to come. Lots!

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Teribus
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 07:45 PM

Ah Raggyarse, paying far too much attention to Jom I see - you shouldn't because off traditional music he's not really all that reliable. He apparently has a thing about cooks. He seems to have a real downer on the profession, possibly on one occasion one of them put something nasty in his bucket of gruel, whatever it was it was obviously remembered and probably richly deserved.

Admiral - good heavens no - but I do personally know about seven of them. Then of course I could go into those of that rank I knew but who have passed away in the last fifteen years - and no I did not cook for any of them.

Subject: RE: BS: UK nuclear subs
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Feb 17 - 12:26 PM

Stu I'm sure you know you are discussing this with a senior member of the MOD (retired) who knows far more than you.

It's frankly amazing how much you can learn in the galley when frying eggs.

I'm surprised he's not an Admiral.