Labour Leadership - Bald men fighting over a comb?
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Stuk  Top half 14 Sep 15 1.35pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Sep 2015 1.21pm
Quote Stuk at 14 Sep 2015 12.13pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Sep 2015 12.03pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Sep 2015 10.26am
Quote serial thriller at 13 Sep 2015 1.26pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 13 Sep 2015 1.15pm
Elections are won by votes from people that overwhelmingly are not members of any political party. They tend to vote for credible leaders - the following list were spectacularly non-credible leaders of Labour that led to disastrous election campaigns:- Kinnock, Foot, Brown, Miliband (double whammy paired with Balls)..... now Corbyn Only a fool would be encouraged by yesterday's leadership result... it will end in tears for the Labour Party... mark my words.
In fact your point about leaders only proves this point. Labour lost in 83 because of a split in party membership between them and the SDP, under Milliband it nudged 200000 but that's nothing really. As for being credible, well Attlee was seen as credible in 45, Wilson was seen as credible in 74, and their manifestos were to the left of anything that's come out of the Corbyn camp so far. Interesting times.
Being credible as a leader has a significant effect on your party's chances of getting elected. I will add John Major to the list of non credible leaders. He was trounced by Blair in 97! It's not about left or right for the majority of voters. Labour got beat in May 2015 because of the public's lack of faith in Miliband/Balls being able to run our economy. This morning it appears that Corbyn has appointed his best mate as Chancellor a move which has astounded senior Labour grandees and political commentators who believe that is a disastrous move. Add that to Corbyn's intentions to re-open South Wales mines, and scrapping of Trident etc you have a very non credible leader who has almost zero chance of getting elected to PM in 2020. Fact. Edited by Hoof Hearted (14 Sep 2015 10.27am) I'd recommend people who think Trident is of any use in the modern age read how the Trident system operates and functions. It has only a prestige value only really, in so much as the UK having a nuclear deterrent that guarantees mutually assured destruction of a known enemy. Realistically it should be replaced with a land based system where missiles can be easily re-targeted as required (not really a practical solution on Subs with Nuclear missiles).
Indeed, the problem is with Trident, I'm not sure that now we are a nuclear power, that stepping back from that table is necessarily a good idea. In order to influence nuclear proliferation, you probably need to be nuclear capable. However Trident isn't really suited to the UK Solution. The system doesn't have first strike capability or the capacity to retarget missiles easily as required, nor the range to target some likely candidates. Trident worked for the UK because it would sit quiet and deep, in strike range of the Soviet Union. Its success is entirely based on the fact that even in the event of an enemy nuclear strike destroying all communications and access to the Prime Minister (and their nuclear deputies) retaliation was guaranteed and a number of Soviet and Walsaw block targets were assured of being destroyed. Plus you could be reasonably sure that any engagement between the soviet and Nato, would occur with some degree of escalation so you could be reasonably prepared, and that such a conflict would likely escalate towards the use of Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons rather than start an all out strike). Simply put Trident is really only viable if you're able to sit off the coast of the enemy, and for them to know you're there, ready to raise them to the ground. In terms of modern war, the likely use of nuclear weapons would be by terrorist groups, who have either stolen or acquired a weapon, and were not a nation state.
We aren't getting rid of the nuclear deterrent.
Optimistic as ever |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| susmik PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 14 Sep 15 1.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Sep 2015 1.21pm
Quote Stuk at 14 Sep 2015 12.13pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Sep 2015 12.03pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Sep 2015 10.26am
Quote serial thriller at 13 Sep 2015 1.26pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 13 Sep 2015 1.15pm
Elections are won by votes from people that overwhelmingly are not members of any political party. They tend to vote for credible leaders - the following list were spectacularly non-credible leaders of Labour that led to disastrous election campaigns:- Kinnock, Foot, Brown, Miliband (double whammy paired with Balls)..... now Corbyn Only a fool would be encouraged by yesterday's leadership result... it will end in tears for the Labour Party... mark my words.
In fact your point about leaders only proves this point. Labour lost in 83 because of a split in party membership between them and the SDP, under Milliband it nudged 200000 but that's nothing really. As for being credible, well Attlee was seen as credible in 45, Wilson was seen as credible in 74, and their manifestos were to the left of anything that's come out of the Corbyn camp so far. Interesting times.
Being credible as a leader has a significant effect on your party's chances of getting elected. I will add John Major to the list of non credible leaders. He was trounced by Blair in 97! It's not about left or right for the majority of voters. Labour got beat in May 2015 because of the public's lack of faith in Miliband/Balls being able to run our economy. This morning it appears that Corbyn has appointed his best mate as Chancellor a move which has astounded senior Labour grandees and political commentators who believe that is a disastrous move. Add that to Corbyn's intentions to re-open South Wales mines, and scrapping of Trident etc you have a very non credible leader who has almost zero chance of getting elected to PM in 2020. Fact. Edited by Hoof Hearted (14 Sep 2015 10.27am) I'd recommend people who think Trident is of any use in the modern age read how the Trident system operates and functions. It has only a prestige value only really, in so much as the UK having a nuclear deterrent that guarantees mutually assured destruction of a known enemy. Realistically it should be replaced with a land based system where missiles can be easily re-targeted as required (not really a practical solution on Subs with Nuclear missiles).
Indeed, the problem is with Trident, I'm not sure that now we are a nuclear power, that stepping back from that table is necessarily a good idea. In order to influence nuclear proliferation, you probably need to be nuclear capable. However Trident isn't really suited to the UK Solution. The system doesn't have first strike capability or the capacity to retarget missiles easily as required, nor the range to target some likely candidates. Plus you could be reasonably sure that any engagement between the soviet and Nato, would occur with some degree of escalation so you could be reasonably prepared, and that such a conflict would likely escalate towards the use of Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons rather than start an all out strike). Simply put Trident is really only viable if you're able to sit off the coast of the enemy, and for them to know you're there, ready to raise them to the ground. In terms of modern war, the likely use of nuclear weapons would be by terrorist groups, who have either stolen or acquired a weapon, and were not a nation state. I do not know where you get your info from but since the USSR collapsed many years ago in 1991 the trident targeting system has changed in that the target can be programmed in very quickly and the warheads can be programmed in ten or fifteen minutes by computer and fired. What you have to think about is do we want to lay down our arms in order to keep peoples morality alive and leave other countries to threaten us and hold the world to ransom? I think not.
Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| susmik PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 14 Sep 15 2.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote serial thriller at 14 Sep 2015 12.44am
Quote susmik at 13 Sep 2015 8.23pm
Quote serial thriller at 13 Sep 2015 2.08pm
One more point: this is a momentous result beyond Britain's borders because you now have a major party leader whose foreign policy will probably not involve war, arms supplying and economic exploitation. I am not a Labour party member, and am undecided as to whether I'll vote Corbyn should he remain leader in 2020. But this to me is his greatest virtue. I'm in Turkey at the moment and I've spoken to loads of people from across the Middle East, and the overriding opinion among even the more Westernised middle classes is that Britain is a massive cause of disturbance in the region. I spoke to It's easy to just look at home and regard the effect Corbyn's politics will have, but actually the biggest positive in my mind is that we shift our stance on the global scene. The Yemin people were not meak and humble when I spent three years of my life in Aden fighting them as they were trying to get the oil refinery and killed many british servicemen who are buried out there. We spent months up in the mountains stopping them coming through the pass at Dhala. I also remember the time we had to go up to near Sana their main fort and collect all the dead bodies of the ITV crew and some Coldstream guards bodies as well. It was not nice and I have no sympathy for them at all ....its come back to bite them that's for sure!
from your previous post: Did he not tell you about the people murdered in Aden by them and that was their own Arabs plus other people including British personnel and it was all done with Russian weapons so don't give me the soft story from your so called humble friend?? Give it a rest and see the wider picture and not just the one you like to paint. The Yemin STILL to this day behead people, stone women and cut peoples limbs off......great people!!! deserve all they get if you ask me IMO.
Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 14 Sep 15 2.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Just alienated himself from about 200,000 voters in the armed forces by saying he wanted to follow costa rica's model of not having any. FCUKIN TIT.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 14 Sep 15 3.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote susmik at 14 Sep 2015 1.49pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Sep 2015 1.21pm
Quote Stuk at 14 Sep 2015 12.13pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Sep 2015 12.03pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Sep 2015 10.26am
Quote serial thriller at 13 Sep 2015 1.26pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 13 Sep 2015 1.15pm
Elections are won by votes from people that overwhelmingly are not members of any political party. They tend to vote for credible leaders - the following list were spectacularly non-credible leaders of Labour that led to disastrous election campaigns:- Kinnock, Foot, Brown, Miliband (double whammy paired with Balls)..... now Corbyn Only a fool would be encouraged by yesterday's leadership result... it will end in tears for the Labour Party... mark my words.
In fact your point about leaders only proves this point. Labour lost in 83 because of a split in party membership between them and the SDP, under Milliband it nudged 200000 but that's nothing really. As for being credible, well Attlee was seen as credible in 45, Wilson was seen as credible in 74, and their manifestos were to the left of anything that's come out of the Corbyn camp so far. Interesting times.
Being credible as a leader has a significant effect on your party's chances of getting elected. I will add John Major to the list of non credible leaders. He was trounced by Blair in 97! It's not about left or right for the majority of voters. Labour got beat in May 2015 because of the public's lack of faith in Miliband/Balls being able to run our economy. This morning it appears that Corbyn has appointed his best mate as Chancellor a move which has astounded senior Labour grandees and political commentators who believe that is a disastrous move. Add that to Corbyn's intentions to re-open South Wales mines, and scrapping of Trident etc you have a very non credible leader who has almost zero chance of getting elected to PM in 2020. Fact. Edited by Hoof Hearted (14 Sep 2015 10.27am) I'd recommend people who think Trident is of any use in the modern age read how the Trident system operates and functions. It has only a prestige value only really, in so much as the UK having a nuclear deterrent that guarantees mutually assured destruction of a known enemy. Realistically it should be replaced with a land based system where missiles can be easily re-targeted as required (not really a practical solution on Subs with Nuclear missiles).
Indeed, the problem is with Trident, I'm not sure that now we are a nuclear power, that stepping back from that table is necessarily a good idea. In order to influence nuclear proliferation, you probably need to be nuclear capable. However Trident isn't really suited to the UK Solution. The system doesn't have first strike capability or the capacity to retarget missiles easily as required, nor the range to target some likely candidates. Plus you could be reasonably sure that any engagement between the soviet and Nato, would occur with some degree of escalation so you could be reasonably prepared, and that such a conflict would likely escalate towards the use of Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons rather than start an all out strike). Simply put Trident is really only viable if you're able to sit off the coast of the enemy, and for them to know you're there, ready to raise them to the ground. In terms of modern war, the likely use of nuclear weapons would be by terrorist groups, who have either stolen or acquired a weapon, and were not a nation state. I do not know where you get your info from but since the USSR collapsed many years ago in 1991 the trident targeting system has changed in that the target can be programmed in very quickly and the warheads can be programmed in ten or fifteen minutes by computer and fired. What you have to think about is do we want to lay down our arms in order to keep peoples morality alive and leave other countries to threaten us and hold the world to ransom? I think not. In theory it can. In reality Trident when active sits silent, without transferring communications on the bottom of the ocean, when its active, and as such doesn't take on new communications of targeting data transmitted. Also it needs permission to retarget the missiles. It'd give away its position to do so, and thus rendered pointless. Half decent electronic warfare counter-measures would locate the submarine, and allow the enemy to potentially destroy it before the missile targeting data can be updated. The whole point of trident is that it assured the UK could retaliate to a nuclear strike, even if the Soviet union wiped out the country in a first strike, and eliminated the entire chain of command. That isn't a situation now, likelihood is that a nuclear attack on the UK wouldn't be nation based. You should also read what I said, this is the perfect time to move from a Trident based Submarine system to a more sustainable and flexible land based system, which is more flexible in terms of deployment and capable of delivering more firepower (you don't have to reduce capacity in order to retarget, re-equip or resupply). Also, in regards to enemies states who have nuclear missiles, launch detection is now far more accurate and efficient that any launch would result in a counter launch before the missiles could even clear the country of origin. The UK would benefit from not having at least one third to all of its nuclear capability at the bottom of the sea, on a submarine that may or may not be in range of the place you want to strike. The mistake, with hindsight, was to retain the Trident program, and scrap the UK nuclear options in the 80s, moving from the Vulcan and air deployment, to a ground based ballistic missile system.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 14 Sep 15 3.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 14 Sep 2015 2.22pm
Just alienated himself from about 200,000 voters in the armed forces by saying he wanted to follow costa rica's model of not having any. FCUKIN TIT. Idealistically, I'd agree, in reality its impossible. Interesting he's appointed Burham and Benn, who both present different opinions. Personally I think we'll find that Corbyn, will either self destruct, or form a shadow government based on discourse and debate, rather than the will of its Leader. Either that or its going to be the most spectacular failure on a par with the 1998 Conservative b*ggering.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 14 Sep 15 3.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote susmik at 14 Sep 2015 2.20pm
Quote serial thriller at 14 Sep 2015 12.44am
Quote susmik at 13 Sep 2015 8.23pm
Quote serial thriller at 13 Sep 2015 2.08pm
One more point: this is a momentous result beyond Britain's borders because you now have a major party leader whose foreign policy will probably not involve war, arms supplying and economic exploitation. I am not a Labour party member, and am undecided as to whether I'll vote Corbyn should he remain leader in 2020. But this to me is his greatest virtue. I'm in Turkey at the moment and I've spoken to loads of people from across the Middle East, and the overriding opinion among even the more Westernised middle classes is that Britain is a massive cause of disturbance in the region. I spoke to It's easy to just look at home and regard the effect Corbyn's politics will have, but actually the biggest positive in my mind is that we shift our stance on the global scene. The Yemin people were not meak and humble when I spent three years of my life in Aden fighting them as they were trying to get the oil refinery and killed many british servicemen who are buried out there. We spent months up in the mountains stopping them coming through the pass at Dhala. I also remember the time we had to go up to near Sana their main fort and collect all the dead bodies of the ITV crew and some Coldstream guards bodies as well. It was not nice and I have no sympathy for them at all ....its come back to bite them that's for sure!
from your previous post: Did he not tell you about the people murdered in Aden by them and that was their own Arabs plus other people including British personnel and it was all done with Russian weapons so don't give me the soft story from your so called humble friend?? Give it a rest and see the wider picture and not just the one you like to paint. The Yemin STILL to this day behead people, stone women and cut peoples limbs off......great people!!! deserve all they get if you ask me IMO. Of course you can't trust anyone on either side of a conflict to tell you the truth, only their truth British Arms Companies don't just sell British Weapons. They sell all kinds, including Russian kit - The AK range is very popular out in the middle east (robust, easy to clean and fix). The US sold a s**t load of AKs to the Iraqi Military after the 2003 War. Most countries sell Kalishnikovs these days, and an awful lot of them manufacture them as well.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 14 Sep 15 3.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Stuk at 14 Sep 2015 1.35pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Sep 2015 1.21pm
Quote Stuk at 14 Sep 2015 12.13pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Sep 2015 12.03pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Sep 2015 10.26am
Quote serial thriller at 13 Sep 2015 1.26pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 13 Sep 2015 1.15pm
Elections are won by votes from people that overwhelmingly are not members of any political party. They tend to vote for credible leaders - the following list were spectacularly non-credible leaders of Labour that led to disastrous election campaigns:- Kinnock, Foot, Brown, Miliband (double whammy paired with Balls)..... now Corbyn Only a fool would be encouraged by yesterday's leadership result... it will end in tears for the Labour Party... mark my words.
In fact your point about leaders only proves this point. Labour lost in 83 because of a split in party membership between them and the SDP, under Milliband it nudged 200000 but that's nothing really. As for being credible, well Attlee was seen as credible in 45, Wilson was seen as credible in 74, and their manifestos were to the left of anything that's come out of the Corbyn camp so far. Interesting times.
Being credible as a leader has a significant effect on your party's chances of getting elected. I will add John Major to the list of non credible leaders. He was trounced by Blair in 97! It's not about left or right for the majority of voters. Labour got beat in May 2015 because of the public's lack of faith in Miliband/Balls being able to run our economy. This morning it appears that Corbyn has appointed his best mate as Chancellor a move which has astounded senior Labour grandees and political commentators who believe that is a disastrous move. Add that to Corbyn's intentions to re-open South Wales mines, and scrapping of Trident etc you have a very non credible leader who has almost zero chance of getting elected to PM in 2020. Fact. Edited by Hoof Hearted (14 Sep 2015 10.27am) I'd recommend people who think Trident is of any use in the modern age read how the Trident system operates and functions. It has only a prestige value only really, in so much as the UK having a nuclear deterrent that guarantees mutually assured destruction of a known enemy. Realistically it should be replaced with a land based system where missiles can be easily re-targeted as required (not really a practical solution on Subs with Nuclear missiles).
Indeed, the problem is with Trident, I'm not sure that now we are a nuclear power, that stepping back from that table is necessarily a good idea. In order to influence nuclear proliferation, you probably need to be nuclear capable. However Trident isn't really suited to the UK Solution. The system doesn't have first strike capability or the capacity to retarget missiles easily as required, nor the range to target some likely candidates. Trident worked for the UK because it would sit quiet and deep, in strike range of the Soviet Union. Its success is entirely based on the fact that even in the event of an enemy nuclear strike destroying all communications and access to the Prime Minister (and their nuclear deputies) retaliation was guaranteed and a number of Soviet and Walsaw block targets were assured of being destroyed. Plus you could be reasonably sure that any engagement between the soviet and Nato, would occur with some degree of escalation so you could be reasonably prepared, and that such a conflict would likely escalate towards the use of Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons rather than start an all out strike). Simply put Trident is really only viable if you're able to sit off the coast of the enemy, and for them to know you're there, ready to raise them to the ground. In terms of modern war, the likely use of nuclear weapons would be by terrorist groups, who have either stolen or acquired a weapon, and were not a nation state.
We aren't getting rid of the nuclear deterrent. Nor should we, whilst its not so much a deterrent these days, its still a necessity to sit 'at the big table'. We just would be better off in terms of a deterrent looking at a better solution for our needs. Trident is very expensive, resource heavy and offers a low return for your money (Almost 1/4 to 1/3 of your capability is going to be undeployable at any given time).
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| susmik PLYMOUTH -But Made in Old Coulsdon... 14 Sep 15 4.23pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Sep 2015 3.44pm
Quote susmik at 14 Sep 2015 1.49pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Sep 2015 1.21pm
Quote Stuk at 14 Sep 2015 12.13pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Sep 2015 12.03pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Sep 2015 10.26am
Quote serial thriller at 13 Sep 2015 1.26pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 13 Sep 2015 1.15pm
Elections are won by votes from people that overwhelmingly are not members of any political party. They tend to vote for credible leaders - the following list were spectacularly non-credible leaders of Labour that led to disastrous election campaigns:- Kinnock, Foot, Brown, Miliband (double whammy paired with Balls)..... now Corbyn Only a fool would be encouraged by yesterday's leadership result... it will end in tears for the Labour Party... mark my words.
In fact your point about leaders only proves this point. Labour lost in 83 because of a split in party membership between them and the SDP, under Milliband it nudged 200000 but that's nothing really. As for being credible, well Attlee was seen as credible in 45, Wilson was seen as credible in 74, and their manifestos were to the left of anything that's come out of the Corbyn camp so far. Interesting times.
Being credible as a leader has a significant effect on your party's chances of getting elected. I will add John Major to the list of non credible leaders. He was trounced by Blair in 97! It's not about left or right for the majority of voters. Labour got beat in May 2015 because of the public's lack of faith in Miliband/Balls being able to run our economy. This morning it appears that Corbyn has appointed his best mate as Chancellor a move which has astounded senior Labour grandees and political commentators who believe that is a disastrous move. Add that to Corbyn's intentions to re-open South Wales mines, and scrapping of Trident etc you have a very non credible leader who has almost zero chance of getting elected to PM in 2020. Fact. Edited by Hoof Hearted (14 Sep 2015 10.27am) I'd recommend people who think Trident is of any use in the modern age read how the Trident system operates and functions. It has only a prestige value only really, in so much as the UK having a nuclear deterrent that guarantees mutually assured destruction of a known enemy. Realistically it should be replaced with a land based system where missiles can be easily re-targeted as required (not really a practical solution on Subs with Nuclear missiles).
Indeed, the problem is with Trident, I'm not sure that now we are a nuclear power, that stepping back from that table is necessarily a good idea. In order to influence nuclear proliferation, you probably need to be nuclear capable. However Trident isn't really suited to the UK Solution. The system doesn't have first strike capability or the capacity to retarget missiles easily as required, nor the range to target some likely candidates. Plus you could be reasonably sure that any engagement between the soviet and Nato, would occur with some degree of escalation so you could be reasonably prepared, and that such a conflict would likely escalate towards the use of Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons rather than start an all out strike). Simply put Trident is really only viable if you're able to sit off the coast of the enemy, and for them to know you're there, ready to raise them to the ground. In terms of modern war, the likely use of nuclear weapons would be by terrorist groups, who have either stolen or acquired a weapon, and were not a nation state. I do not know where you get your info from but since the USSR collapsed many years ago in 1991 the trident targeting system has changed in that the target can be programmed in very quickly and the warheads can be programmed in ten or fifteen minutes by computer and fired. What you have to think about is do we want to lay down our arms in order to keep peoples morality alive and leave other countries to threaten us and hold the world to ransom? I think not. In theory it can. In reality Trident when active sits silent, without transferring communications on the bottom of the ocean, when its active, and as such doesn't take on new communications of targeting data transmitted. Also it needs permission to retarget the missiles. It'd give away its position to do so, and thus rendered pointless. Half decent electronic warfare counter-measures would locate the submarine, and allow the enemy to potentially destroy it before the missile targeting data can be updated. The whole point of trident is that it assured the UK could retaliate to a nuclear strike, even if the Soviet union wiped out the country in a first strike, and eliminated the entire chain of command. That isn't a situation now, likelihood is that a nuclear attack on the UK wouldn't be nation based. You should also read what I said, this is the perfect time to move from a Trident based Submarine system to a more sustainable and flexible land based system, which is more flexible in terms of deployment and capable of delivering more firepower (you don't have to reduce capacity in order to retarget, re-equip or resupply). Also, in regards to enemies states who have nuclear missiles, launch detection is now far more accurate and efficient that any launch would result in a counter launch before the missiles could even clear the country of origin. The UK would benefit from not having at least one third to all of its nuclear capability at the bottom of the sea, on a submarine that may or may not be in range of the place you want to strike. The mistake, with hindsight, was to retain the Trident program, and scrap the UK nuclear options in the 80s, moving from the Vulcan and air deployment, to a ground based ballistic missile system. Whatever you say but you had better get in touch with the MOD as they gave the information I gave you!!!
Supported Palace for over 69 years since the age of 7 and have seen all the ups and downs and will probably see many more ups and downs before I go up to the big football club in the sky. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 14 Sep 15 4.33pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote susmik at 14 Sep 2015 4.23pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Sep 2015 3.44pm
Quote susmik at 14 Sep 2015 1.49pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Sep 2015 1.21pm
Quote Stuk at 14 Sep 2015 12.13pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 Sep 2015 12.03pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 14 Sep 2015 10.26am
Quote serial thriller at 13 Sep 2015 1.26pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 13 Sep 2015 1.15pm
Elections are won by votes from people that overwhelmingly are not members of any political party. They tend to vote for credible leaders - the following list were spectacularly non-credible leaders of Labour that led to disastrous election campaigns:- Kinnock, Foot, Brown, Miliband (double whammy paired with Balls)..... now Corbyn Only a fool would be encouraged by yesterday's leadership result... it will end in tears for the Labour Party... mark my words.
In fact your point about leaders only proves this point. Labour lost in 83 because of a split in party membership between them and the SDP, under Milliband it nudged 200000 but that's nothing really. As for being credible, well Attlee was seen as credible in 45, Wilson was seen as credible in 74, and their manifestos were to the left of anything that's come out of the Corbyn camp so far. Interesting times.
Being credible as a leader has a significant effect on your party's chances of getting elected. I will add John Major to the list of non credible leaders. He was trounced by Blair in 97! It's not about left or right for the majority of voters. Labour got beat in May 2015 because of the public's lack of faith in Miliband/Balls being able to run our economy. This morning it appears that Corbyn has appointed his best mate as Chancellor a move which has astounded senior Labour grandees and political commentators who believe that is a disastrous move. Add that to Corbyn's intentions to re-open South Wales mines, and scrapping of Trident etc you have a very non credible leader who has almost zero chance of getting elected to PM in 2020. Fact. Edited by Hoof Hearted (14 Sep 2015 10.27am) I'd recommend people who think Trident is of any use in the modern age read how the Trident system operates and functions. It has only a prestige value only really, in so much as the UK having a nuclear deterrent that guarantees mutually assured destruction of a known enemy. Realistically it should be replaced with a land based system where missiles can be easily re-targeted as required (not really a practical solution on Subs with Nuclear missiles).
Indeed, the problem is with Trident, I'm not sure that now we are a nuclear power, that stepping back from that table is necessarily a good idea. In order to influence nuclear proliferation, you probably need to be nuclear capable. However Trident isn't really suited to the UK Solution. The system doesn't have first strike capability or the capacity to retarget missiles easily as required, nor the range to target some likely candidates. Plus you could be reasonably sure that any engagement between the soviet and Nato, would occur with some degree of escalation so you could be reasonably prepared, and that such a conflict would likely escalate towards the use of Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons rather than start an all out strike). Simply put Trident is really only viable if you're able to sit off the coast of the enemy, and for them to know you're there, ready to raise them to the ground. In terms of modern war, the likely use of nuclear weapons would be by terrorist groups, who have either stolen or acquired a weapon, and were not a nation state. I do not know where you get your info from but since the USSR collapsed many years ago in 1991 the trident targeting system has changed in that the target can be programmed in very quickly and the warheads can be programmed in ten or fifteen minutes by computer and fired. What you have to think about is do we want to lay down our arms in order to keep peoples morality alive and leave other countries to threaten us and hold the world to ransom? I think not. In theory it can. In reality Trident when active sits silent, without transferring communications on the bottom of the ocean, when its active, and as such doesn't take on new communications of targeting data transmitted. Also it needs permission to retarget the missiles. It'd give away its position to do so, and thus rendered pointless. Half decent electronic warfare counter-measures would locate the submarine, and allow the enemy to potentially destroy it before the missile targeting data can be updated. The whole point of trident is that it assured the UK could retaliate to a nuclear strike, even if the Soviet union wiped out the country in a first strike, and eliminated the entire chain of command. That isn't a situation now, likelihood is that a nuclear attack on the UK wouldn't be nation based. You should also read what I said, this is the perfect time to move from a Trident based Submarine system to a more sustainable and flexible land based system, which is more flexible in terms of deployment and capable of delivering more firepower (you don't have to reduce capacity in order to retarget, re-equip or resupply). Also, in regards to enemies states who have nuclear missiles, launch detection is now far more accurate and efficient that any launch would result in a counter launch before the missiles could even clear the country of origin. The UK would benefit from not having at least one third to all of its nuclear capability at the bottom of the sea, on a submarine that may or may not be in range of the place you want to strike. The mistake, with hindsight, was to retain the Trident program, and scrap the UK nuclear options in the 80s, moving from the Vulcan and air deployment, to a ground based ballistic missile system. Whatever you say but you had better get in touch with the MOD as they gave the information I gave you!!! I'll ask, next time they're in for a meeting.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 14 Sep 15 4.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
This made me chuckle and reminded me of a couple of people on here...
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Attachment: | Hoof Hearted 14 Sep 15 4.59pm | |
|---|---|
|
Quote nickgusset at 14 Sep 2015 4.51pm
This made me chuckle and reminded me of a couple of people on here...
If anything Corbyn's appointment has rendered Labour a damp squid in most Tories' eyes and effectively guaranteed an extra 5 years in government. If anything they would be "whacking off" in the shed at the news... not cowering in it with a colander on their heads.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.