R.I.P
Not a Trident sub though.
Trident
How do you know they even reported it in the USSR?Lucky Lucan wrote: LOL you know what Karl, somehow I had the feeling you were going to say that, well if thats the case and the Yanks never went to the moon, how did they manage to persuade Leonid Brezhnev to go along with the deception?
And every soviet scientist/astrophysicist that has been interviewed on tv and the internet has stated categorically that it was and still is impossible to organic matter such as humans to travel beyond the protective shield around the earth known as the van allen belt.
We are off the topic of trident by the way.
But you see governments have a habit of selling lies to their public and as you know in London now there are a lot of soviet bloc people living now. Ask them if they believe that nasa went to the moon in the sixties.
Our purchase of trident will be the biggest white elephant in history. Unless you believe the same propaganda that told you about weapons of mass destruction 45 minutes away.
I mean for goodness sake did having TRIDENT stop argentina from attacking us in 1983? Has trident helped us in Iraq or arghanistan today? No is the answer.
-
Lucky Lucan
- admin
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 9:51 pm
Well the first thing is the nonsense about the van allen belts, I can give you a scientific answer to show that the amount of radiation received by astro/cosmonauts is quite small in the short time they are passing through the belts, why would soviet scientist/astrophysicist argue the opposite? quite simple sour grapes, now the point I was making about Brezhnev was do you not think the Soviets we tracking Apollo 11, because I'm sure they were watching it like a Hawk, don't you think they were receiving the communications from the lunar surface, you can bet your bottom dollar they would have been screaming at the top of their voices if there was any chance the yanks were faking it, no?Karl wrote:How do you know they even reported it in the USSR?Lucky Lucan wrote: LOL you know what Karl, somehow I had the feeling you were going to say that, well if thats the case and the Yanks never went to the moon, how did they manage to persuade Leonid Brezhnev to go along with the deception?
And every soviet scientist/astrophysicist that has been interviewed on tv and the internet has stated categorically that it was and still is impossible to organic matter such as humans to travel beyond the protective shield around the earth known as the van allen belt.
We are off the topic of trident by the way.
But you see governments have a habit of selling lies to their public and as you know in London now there are a lot of soviet bloc people living now. Ask them if they believe that nasa went to the moon in the sixties.
Our purchase of trident will be the biggest white elephant in history. Unless you believe the same propaganda that told you about weapons of mass destruction 45 minutes away.
I mean for goodness sake did having TRIDENT stop argentina from attacking us in 1983? Has trident helped us in Iraq or arghanistan today? No is the answer.
Now back to the topic in hand, my argument about Trident was not about the rights and wrongs of having a nuclear weapons program, thats a whole different argument altogether, you stated that Trident won't work and I was pointing out that that's a load of cobblers, The Trident missile system is a suburb weapon with stunningly advanced technology, thats not to say I admire the weapon but i can't but be impressed with the technology.
Tony Blair was at pains to say that firing Trident does not require the permission, the satellites or the codes of any other country
in the commons
Norman Baker -Liberal party said
essentially our Tridents are American missiles mounted on British submarines, which require American guidance satellites to work properly
Des Browne (Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence): Since May 1994, the UK’s nuclear missiles have not been targeted at any country
so target would be decided at the point of firing
if the satelites are knocked out
remember the 24 satelites making the grid are also EARLY WARNING
So if anyone like the chinese attacks them first we will be as blind as a bat up a rats ass
in the commons
Norman Baker -Liberal party said
essentially our Tridents are American missiles mounted on British submarines, which require American guidance satellites to work properly
Des Browne (Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence): Since May 1994, the UK’s nuclear missiles have not been targeted at any country
so target would be decided at the point of firing
if the satelites are knocked out
remember the 24 satelites making the grid are also EARLY WARNING
So if anyone like the chinese attacks them first we will be as blind as a bat up a rats ass
-
Lucky Lucan
- admin
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 9:51 pm
Tony Blair is correct, Britain could at any time launch a nuclear strike against any country including the U.S.A.
Norman Baker is incorrect to say Trident needs any external help to find it's way to its target, the use of gps might make the missile slightly more accurate, but whats a few feet either way to a nuclear missile, Trident is a bludgeon not a rapier.
Des Brown is correct (for once) but Trident can be targeted and launched within 15 minutes.
I have heard of no reason to suspect that the Chinese would want to attack the west, but if they did launch a mass attack on western satellites it would be detected as soon as the missiles left China and would be regarded as an act of war which would result in immediate retaliatory attacks on China, resulting in nuclear Armageddon, the threat of which should be enough to stop any aggression, of course if we did not have a nuclear deterrent then the Chinese could attack the west with impunity, thanks Karl you have talked me round, we must have Trident to defend us from the Chinese.
Norman Baker is incorrect to say Trident needs any external help to find it's way to its target, the use of gps might make the missile slightly more accurate, but whats a few feet either way to a nuclear missile, Trident is a bludgeon not a rapier.
Des Brown is correct (for once) but Trident can be targeted and launched within 15 minutes.
I have heard of no reason to suspect that the Chinese would want to attack the west, but if they did launch a mass attack on western satellites it would be detected as soon as the missiles left China and would be regarded as an act of war which would result in immediate retaliatory attacks on China, resulting in nuclear Armageddon, the threat of which should be enough to stop any aggression, of course if we did not have a nuclear deterrent then the Chinese could attack the west with impunity, thanks Karl you have talked me round, we must have Trident to defend us from the Chinese.
If we just wanted a "bludgeon", then we have far cheaper ways to bludgeon someone (c.f. Lebanon / Iraq / Afghanistan / yugoslavia).Lucky Lucan wrote: Trident is a bludgeon not a rapier.
Let's not forget the Chemical and Biological "research" centers (also known as WMD centers).
Indeed, if country is an enemy, just push for "democracy" in that country .. seemed to be no better way to destroy a country / empire (c.f. USSR, Iraq etc.) and a nice side-effect is your corrupt cronies make an utter fortune at the expense of the locals.
If country is a friend, then just support the local strong man/dictator against the locals.
Either way, the locals get shafted.
Now, I wonder why Britain, USA and Israel are the most hated nations in the world. FYI, the locals in these countries are also being shafted, and they can't seem to get rid of unpopular leaders either.
Good point faceless.faceless wrote:gg_fan - why do you keep writing "c.f." when giving examples? why not use e.g.?
I just checked my 126 postings on this site, and above was the 3rd time I used c.f.
I agree in above posting, I should have used "e.g." since there are lots of other examples. Other two times I believe it was right to use "c.f." instead of "e.g."
I should remember to only use "c.f." when it means compare/refer to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cf.
I note Wikipedia used "cf." and not "c.f." .. Let's see if you can teach an old dog new tricks.
Last edited by Mandy on Fri Mar 23, 2007 8:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I've never seen anyone use c.f or cf ever and had never even heard of it before I saw you using it. It's nerdishly useful to know, but I'll probably not be using it myself as I don't think enough people will know what it means - meaning that it would be "bad" communication. The terms "eg", "re", or even "see" should do the trick.
-
Lucky Lucan
- admin
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 9:51 pm
Boy, even when working on my masters and reading through my father's doctoral thesis I never saw cf. Pretty interesting to learn. I have a friend studying law, I'll have to start looking through her books and have an eye out for it.GG_Fan wrote:Good point faceless.faceless wrote:gg_fan - why do you keep writing "c.f." when giving examples? why not use e.g.?
I just checked my 126 postings on this site, and I above was the 3rd time I used c.f.
I agree in above posting, I should have used "e.g." since there are lots of other examples. Other two times I believe it was right to use "c.f." instead of "e.g."
I should remember to only use "c.f." when it means compare/refer to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cf.
I note Wikipedia used "cf." and not "c.f." .. Let's see if you can teach an old dog new tricks.
Lets go back to the TRIDENT issue.
Who thinks it is a good deal?
Who thinks we need it?
who thinks it will even work?
i certainly dont. All that money going to feed some fat american defense contractors and their swiss bank accounts it should be spent on better equipment for our conventional forces and building infrastructure projects here in the UK
Who thinks it is a good deal?
Who thinks we need it?
who thinks it will even work?
i certainly dont. All that money going to feed some fat american defense contractors and their swiss bank accounts it should be spent on better equipment for our conventional forces and building infrastructure projects here in the UK
-
Lucky Lucan
- admin
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 9:51 pm
Who thinks it is a good deal?
Hard to say, whats a good nuclear deterrent worth these days, I think a system similar to the French would be better, but would cost far more.
Who thinks we need it?
Who can tell, can you tell me what threat's may exist in 10,20 or 30 years, I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
who thinks it will even work?
Why not, I've yet to hear of an informed reason why it would not work.
Hard to say, whats a good nuclear deterrent worth these days, I think a system similar to the French would be better, but would cost far more.
Who thinks we need it?
Who can tell, can you tell me what threat's may exist in 10,20 or 30 years, I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.
who thinks it will even work?
Why not, I've yet to hear of an informed reason why it would not work.