They're due to land upon the UK in how many minutes?
Get the smartphone, £250 quid on you've been framed? They must be crazy, get
in there.
Unilateral nuclear disarmament will show 'em whose who.
And Corbyn thinks he's a winner?
LMFAO.
You go Dave.

On 03/06/2017 01:49, bm wrote:
They're due to land upon the UK in how many minutes?
Get the smartphone, £250 quid on you've been framed? They must be crazy, get
in there.
Unilateral nuclear disarmament will show 'em whose who.
And Corbyn thinks he's a winner?
LMFAO.
You go Dave.

With people like you supporting May, he may well be a winner.

For me, the likes of MM made me vote for Brexit.

I'm currently a Tory voter, but you might change my mind if you try hard
enough.

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 03/06/2017 01:49, bm wrote:
They're due to land upon the UK in how many minutes?
Get the smartphone, £250 quid on you've been framed? They must be crazy, get
in there.
Unilateral nuclear disarmament will show 'em whose who.
And Corbyn thinks he's a winner?
LMFAO.
You go Dave.

With people like you supporting May, he may well be a winner.

For me, the likes of MM made me vote for Brexit.

I'm currently a Tory voter, but you might change my mind if you try hard
enough.

I'd love to know who currently is the enemy that we'd use nuclear weapons
on?

But Tories simply love spending taxpayer's money on prestige projects
which have no practical use. While cutting back on conventional defences
which are essential for the security of this country.

--
*A cartoonist was found dead in his home. Details are sketchy.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
On 03/06/2017 01:49, bm wrote:
They're due to land upon the UK in how many minutes?
Get the smartphone, £250 quid on you've been framed? They must be crazy,
get
in there.
Unilateral nuclear disarmament will show 'em whose who.
And Corbyn thinks he's a winner?
LMFAO.
You go Dave.

With people like you supporting May, he may well be a winner.

For me, the likes of MM made me vote for Brexit.

I'm currently a Tory voter, but you might change my mind if you try hard
enough.

Shhhh, don't tell Dave.

On 03/06/2017 12:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 03/06/2017 01:49, bm wrote:
They're due to land upon the UK in how many minutes?
Get the smartphone, £250 quid on you've been framed? They must be crazy, get
in there.
Unilateral nuclear disarmament will show 'em whose who.
And Corbyn thinks he's a winner?
LMFAO.
You go Dave.

With people like you supporting May, he may well be a winner.

For me, the likes of MM made me vote for Brexit.

I'm currently a Tory voter, but you might change my mind if you try hard
enough.

I'd love to know who currently is the enemy that we'd use nuclear weapons
on?

But Tories simply love spending taxpayer's money on prestige projects
which have no practical use. While cutting back on conventional defences
which are essential for the security of this country.

While the labour policy of "spend the same on a independent nuclear
deterrent, but make it impossible to use, and tell all the despots
around the world that we will never use it, and all our allies, that if
the **** hits the fan, they are on their own!" is a winner on every front.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
But Tories simply love spending taxpayer's money on prestige projects
which have no practical use. While cutting back on conventional
defences which are essential for the security of this country.

While the labour policy of "spend the same on a independent nuclear
deterrent, but make it impossible to use, and tell all the despots
around the world that we will never use it, and all our allies, that if
the **** hits the fan, they are on their own!" is a winner on every
front.

You'd obviously prefer a leader like Trump who would be delighted to press
the nuclear button with absolutely no reservations?

Sad the way so many dislike Corbyn who has given a lot of thought to it.
And like anyone with a scrap of humanity, finds it difficult to give a
pithy simple answer to what is the most complex of questions - the likely
end of the world as we know it.

But never mind. I'm sure you're happy with things like 'Brexit means
Brexit' and 'Strong and Stable' designed for those who don't want to
actually think things through for themselves.

--
*Isn't it a bit unnerving that doctors call what they do "practice?"

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 6/3/2017 1:11 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 03/06/2017 01:49, bm wrote:
They're due to land upon the UK in how many minutes?
Get the smartphone, £250 quid on you've been framed? They must be
crazy,
get
in there.
Unilateral nuclear disarmament will show 'em whose who.
And Corbyn thinks he's a winner?
LMFAO.
You go Dave.

With people like you supporting May, he may well be a winner.

For me, the likes of MM made me vote for Brexit.

I'm currently a Tory voter, but you might change my mind if you try
hard enough.

I'd love to know who currently is the enemy that we'd use nuclear weapons
on?

Why does there have to be a "current" enemy? The point of Trident is
that if you use it, you have failed. It's the *threat* that you *would*
use it if under attack, by anybody, that counts.

In our case the failure would be Jezza's

Some SNP twerp was bemoaning the fact that we'd spent this money on
Trident and it would never be used. It had to be pointed out that
Trident, and its predecessor, had been in use every second of every day
since their introduction, doing their job.


+1

I think Corbyn's statement that he would never push the button was
inexcusably stupid for anyone with aspirations to be PM. He should have
said "never say never", or words to that effect.

That said, he could still maintain that ethical position as PM provided
his letter of last resort says "Nuke the *******s" (or equivalent). As
long as he doesn't say that it doesn't, it is still a perfectly credible
deterrent. In fact it is quite a good one, because it virtually
guarantees "no first use" by us.

But if an aggressor does manage to wipe out the government, you can be
pretty confident that the Captain of a Trident sub is not going to have
a wobbly moment.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

Some SNP twerp was bemoaning the fact that we'd spent this money on
Trident and it would never be used. It had to be pointed out that
Trident, and its predecessor, had been in use every second of every day
since their introduction, doing their job.

Yup.

Just the same as the Belgian Nuclear Deterrent, the Dutch Nuclear Deterrent.
The Swiss Nuclear Deterrent all doing their job. Only theirs doesn't
cost quite as much.

When the Donald won't give you permission to launch Trident then what are
you going to do ?

Ask for your money back ?

https://www.publications.parliament....86/986we13.htm

michael adams

....

"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...

On 03/06/2017 12:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 03/06/2017 01:49, bm wrote:
They're due to land upon the UK in how many minutes?
Get the smartphone, £250 quid on you've been framed? They must be
crazy, get
in there.
Unilateral nuclear disarmament will show 'em whose who.
And Corbyn thinks he's a winner?
LMFAO.
You go Dave.

With people like you supporting May, he may well be a winner.

For me, the likes of MM made me vote for Brexit.

I'm currently a Tory voter, but you might change my mind if you try hard
enough.

I'd love to know who currently is the enemy that we'd use nuclear weapons
on?

But Tories simply love spending taxpayer's money on prestige projects
which have no practical use. While cutting back on conventional defences
which are essential for the security of this country.

While the labour policy of "spend the same on a independent nuclear
deterrent, but make it impossible to use, and tell all the despots around
the world that we will never use it, and all our allies, that if the ****
hits the fan, they are on their own!" is a winner on every front.

Please stop trying to confuse him with clarity.

On 03/06/2017 13:08, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
But Tories simply love spending taxpayer's money on prestige projects
which have no practical use. While cutting back on conventional
defences which are essential for the security of this country.

While the labour policy of "spend the same on a independent nuclear
deterrent, but make it impossible to use, and tell all the despots
around the world that we will never use it, and all our allies, that if
the **** hits the fan, they are on their own!" is a winner on every
front.

You'd obviously prefer a leader like Trump who would be delighted to press
the nuclear button with absolutely no reservations?

You are not even wrong.

Sad the way so many dislike Corbyn who has given a lot of thought to it.

I dislike Corbyn's policies, political outlook, and economics. I have
not met the man, so would not comment on him personally. The amount of
thought he has put into this matter seems to count for little since he
has arrived at a farcical standpoint.

He is also appears to be a hugely dishonest lying toad[1], since its
blatantly obvious he will say or do anything at the moment that will get
his hands on the levers of power. He is obviously quite content to
promote party policy which is counter to his own long held and stated
beliefs on all manner of things. Hence his attempt to distance himself
from what he believes are comrade "socialist" organisations like the IRA
or Hamas. Never actually using explicit words to condemn these or other
terrorist organisations, but instead he obfuscates and diverts - "all
deaths are regrettable" always leaving sufficient ambiguity.

[1] Nothing that makes him unique among politicians in that mind you...

And like anyone with a scrap of humanity, finds it difficult to give a
pithy simple answer to what is the most complex of questions - the likely
end of the world as we know it.

He fails to understand the concept of a deterrent (even though he thinks
its worth paying for since stating that might make it possible for him
to be elected).

The whole point of a deterrent is that it will make *any* right minded
nuclear power think very long and hard before using it in a first strike
capacity against another nuclear power, since it will indeed result
devastating consequences. However there must be mechanisms in place for
it to be used, or it is not a deterrent.

There is a secondary problem when dealing with unstable and non "right
thinking" individuals/organisations/states who may acquire a limited
nuclear capability, and you have good certainty will use it as soon as
they opportunity presents. There a first strike may well be the only
practical option and the lesser of all the alternate evils.

But never mind. I'm sure you're happy with things like 'Brexit means
Brexit' and 'Strong and Stable' designed for those who don't want to
actually think things through for themselves.

Well since article 50 has been triggered, brexit indeed does mean brexit.

However if you start from a negotiation position that we will take any
deal offered no matter how poor or punitive, because you state up front
that you are not prepared to leave without a deal, its fairly clear what
that deal will look like. I will quite possibly keep us in the single
market, almost certainly keep use committed to free movement (even when
the rest of the EU starts to curtail that), surrender authority to the
EU courts, and of course, continue to pay more than we currently do (and
probably without our rebate). However we will be "out" of the EU!





--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 03/06/2017 13:28, michael adams wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

Some SNP twerp was bemoaning the fact that we'd spent this money on
Trident and it would never be used. It had to be pointed out that
Trident, and its predecessor, had been in use every second of every day
since their introduction, doing their job.

Yup.

Just the same as the Belgian Nuclear Deterrent, the Dutch Nuclear Deterrent.
The Swiss Nuclear Deterrent all doing their job. Only theirs doesn't
cost quite as much.

When the Donald won't give you permission to launch Trident then what are
you going to do ?

Ask for your money back ?

https://www.publications.parliament....86/986we13.htm

Oi UK we disapprove of you blowing up InsertDespotHere we are going to
refuse to service your missiles! Ok USA, slight problem, they are now in
bits along with the rest of Despots headquarters.

I quite like:

https://www.publications.parliament....86/986we12.htm

Sounds like exactly the kind of thing we need.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 03/06/17 13:11, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 03/06/2017 01:49, bm wrote:
They're due to land upon the UK in how many minutes?
Get the smartphone, £250 quid on you've been framed? They must be
crazy,
get
in there.
Unilateral nuclear disarmament will show 'em whose who.
And Corbyn thinks he's a winner?
LMFAO.
You go Dave.

With people like you supporting May, he may well be a winner.

For me, the likes of MM made me vote for Brexit.

I'm currently a Tory voter, but you might change my mind if you try
hard enough.

I'd love to know who currently is the enemy that we'd use nuclear weapons
on?

Why does there have to be a "current" enemy? The point of Trident is
that if you use it, you have failed. It's the *threat* that you *would*
use it if under attack, by anybody, that counts.

In our case the failure would be Jezza's

Some SNP twerp was bemoaning the fact that we'd spent this money on
Trident and it would never be used. It had to be pointed out that
Trident, and its predecessor, had been in use every second of every day
since their introduction, doing their job.

I bet they are real hot on the precautionary principle when applied to
climate change.

Spend trillions IN CASE AGW MIGHT be right.



--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , John
Rumm wrote:

However if you start from a negotiation position that we will take any
deal offered no matter how poor or punitive, because you state up front
that you are not prepared to leave without a deal, its fairly clear
what that deal will look like. It will quite possibly keep us in the
single market, almost certainly keep use committed to free movement
(even when the rest of the EU starts to curtail that), surrender
authority to the EU courts, and of course, continue to pay more than
we currently do (and probably without our rebate). However we will be
"out" of the EU!

We might then be "out", but for all practical purposes we'd still be in.
Still paying money, still subject the the ECJ, still subject to EU
regulation.

Still waiting for you to say what a good deal would be. Unless you are one
of those happy not to have any deal at all with the EU - making you part
of a very small minority.

--
*Two many clicks spoil the browse *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , John
Rumm wrote:

However if you start from a negotiation position that we will take any
deal offered no matter how poor or punitive, because you state up front
that you are not prepared to leave without a deal, its fairly clear
what that deal will look like. It will quite possibly keep us in the
single market, almost certainly keep use committed to free movement
(even when the rest of the EU starts to curtail that), surrender
authority to the EU courts, and of course, continue to pay more than
we currently do (and probably without our rebate). However we will be
"out" of the EU!

We might then be "out", but for all practical purposes we'd still be in.
Still paying money, still subject the the ECJ, still subject to EU
regulation.

Still waiting for you to say what a good deal would be.

How about we give 'em 10000 monkeys for a handful of of stealth elephants?

Unless you are one
of those happy not to have any deal at all with the EU - making you part
of a very small minority.

On Sat, 3 Jun 2017 13:23:00 +0100, newshound wrote:

I think Corbyn's statement that he would never push the button was
inexcusably stupid for anyone with aspirations to be PM. He should have
said "never say never", or words to that effect.

Quite. It's very worrying that he can't answer "Will you push the
button?" in the same way that he answers other questions that don't
fit his *personal* views, "It's party policy..." or "It's in the
manifesto that...". These contradictions between his personal views
and policy/manifesto don't bode well, its human nature not to do your
very best if you don't believe in what your are doing.

"Never say never" is very applicable to nuclear weapons. No one knows
what threat or actions (nuclear, chemical or conventional) we are
going to face in the future. You don't want to be in a fight with one
arm behind your tied behind your back.

That said, he could still maintain that ethical position as PM provided
his letter of last resort says "Nuke the *******s" (or equivalent).

A *VERY* big "if" IMHO. At the end of Ch4 debate whenhe said he'd
"write the letter(s)" his body language and tone of voice said "I'll
write the letters but only because I have to (and you won't know
what's in them...)".

--
Cheers
Dave.

Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Sat, 3 Jun 2017 13:23:00 +0100, newshound wrote:

I think Corbyn's statement that he would never push the button was
inexcusably stupid for anyone with aspirations to be PM. He should have
said "never say never", or words to that effect.

Quite. It's very worrying that he can't answer "Will you push the
button?" in the same way that he answers other questions that don't
fit his *personal* views, "It's party policy..." or "It's in the
manifesto that...". These contradictions between his personal views
and policy/manifesto don't bode well, its human nature not to do your
very best if you don't believe in what your are doing.

The difference is that in the Conservative Party (and some others) the
leader will do what he or she wants to do, provided the MPs can be
induced to accept it. However, the Labour Party is democratic and the
leader has to follow the party conference's policy. So Corbyn's
position is correct and honest. He will no doubt continue to campaign
for the party to accept his views, but it is not forced to do so. He
is, however, committed to following party policy. So one knows what one
is voting for.




"Never say never" is very applicable to nuclear weapons. No one knows
what threat or actions (nuclear, chemical or conventional) we are
going to face in the future. You don't want to be in a fight with one
arm behind your tied behind your back.

That said, he could still maintain that ethical position as PM provided
his letter of last resort says "Nuke the *******s" (or equivalent).

A *VERY* big "if" IMHO. At the end of Ch4 debate whenhe said he'd
"write the letter(s)" his body language and tone of voice said "I'll
write the letters but only because I have to (and you won't know
what's in them...)".


--

Roger Hayter

On 6/3/2017 4:47 PM, John Rumm wrote:
On 03/06/2017 13:28, michael adams wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

Some SNP twerp was bemoaning the fact that we'd spent this money on
Trident and it would never be used. It had to be pointed out that
Trident, and its predecessor, had been in use every second of every day
since their introduction, doing their job.

Yup.

Just the same as the Belgian Nuclear Deterrent, the Dutch Nuclear
Deterrent.
The Swiss Nuclear Deterrent all doing their job. Only theirs doesn't
cost quite as much.

When the Donald won't give you permission to launch Trident then what are
you going to do ?

Ask for your money back ?

https://www.publications.parliament....86/986we13.htm


Oi UK we disapprove of you blowing up InsertDespotHere we are going to
refuse to service your missiles! Ok USA, slight problem, they are now in
bits along with the rest of Despots headquarters.

I quite like:

https://www.publications.parliament....86/986we12.htm


Sounds like exactly the kind of thing we need.



I think it is remarkable just how dramatically the total number of
warheads has been ramped down by the various SALT treaties. This
certainly reduces the risk of the General Ripper scenario. It does
suggest that, propaganda notwithstanding, Soviet and western leaders
seem to be very rational.

On 03/06/2017 19:49, newshound wrote:
On 6/3/2017 4:47 PM, John Rumm wrote:
On 03/06/2017 13:28, michael adams wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

Some SNP twerp was bemoaning the fact that we'd spent this money on
Trident and it would never be used. It had to be pointed out that
Trident, and its predecessor, had been in use every second of every day
since their introduction, doing their job.

Yup.

Just the same as the Belgian Nuclear Deterrent, the Dutch Nuclear
Deterrent.
The Swiss Nuclear Deterrent all doing their job. Only theirs doesn't
cost quite as much.

When the Donald won't give you permission to launch Trident then what
are
you going to do ?

Ask for your money back ?

https://www.publications.parliament....86/986we13.htm


Oi UK we disapprove of you blowing up InsertDespotHere we are going
to refuse to service your missiles! Ok USA, slight problem, they are
now in bits along with the rest of Despots headquarters.

I quite like:

https://www.publications.parliament....86/986we12.htm


Sounds like exactly the kind of thing we need.



I think it is remarkable just how dramatically the total number of
warheads has been ramped down by the various SALT treaties. This
certainly reduces the risk of the General Ripper scenario. It does
suggest that, propaganda notwithstanding, Soviet and western leaders
seem to be very rational.

Not only that, and its many decades worth of free fuel for the right
kind of power station ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

bm wrote:
[things]

On the subject of nuclear weapons use, here's an interesting
article on consequences:


http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do...1063/1.3047679


#Paul

On 6/4/2017 2:34 AM, John Rumm wrote:
On 03/06/2017 19:49, newshound wrote:
On 6/3/2017 4:47 PM, John Rumm wrote:
On 03/06/2017 13:28, michael adams wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

Some SNP twerp was bemoaning the fact that we'd spent this money on
Trident and it would never be used. It had to be pointed out that
Trident, and its predecessor, had been in use every second of every
day
since their introduction, doing their job.

Yup.

Just the same as the Belgian Nuclear Deterrent, the Dutch Nuclear
Deterrent.
The Swiss Nuclear Deterrent all doing their job. Only theirs doesn't
cost quite as much.

When the Donald won't give you permission to launch Trident then what
are
you going to do ?

Ask for your money back ?

https://www.publications.parliament....86/986we13.htm



Oi UK we disapprove of you blowing up InsertDespotHere we are going
to refuse to service your missiles! Ok USA, slight problem, they are
now in bits along with the rest of Despots headquarters.

I quite like:

https://www.publications.parliament....86/986we12.htm



Sounds like exactly the kind of thing we need.



I think it is remarkable just how dramatically the total number of
warheads has been ramped down by the various SALT treaties. This
certainly reduces the risk of the General Ripper scenario. It does
suggest that, propaganda notwithstanding, Soviet and western leaders
seem to be very rational.

Not only that, and its many decades worth of free fuel for the right
kind of power station ;-)

Good point. Pity we screwed up our first big MOX plant so badly.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
John Rumm wrote:
But Tories simply love spending taxpayer's money on prestige projects
which have no practical use. While cutting back on conventional
defences which are essential for the security of this country.

While the labour policy of "spend the same on a independent nuclear
deterrent, but make it impossible to use, and tell all the despots
around the world that we will never use it, and all our allies, that if
the **** hits the fan, they are on their own!" is a winner on every
front.

You'd obviously prefer a leader like Trump who would be delighted to press
the nuclear button with absolutely no reservations?

Sad the way so many dislike Corbyn who has given a lot of thought to it.
Corbyn has given no more thought to it than anyone else. He just likes
revelling in it.
And like anyone with a scrap of humanity, finds it difficult to give a
pithy simple answer to what is the most complex of questions - the likely
end of the world as we know it.

You are assuming that in the use of nuclear weapons any target has the
capacity of MAD. Only Russia and China outside NATO has that capability.
But never mind. I'm sure you're happy with things like 'Brexit means
Brexit' and 'Strong and Stable' designed for those who don't want to
actually think things through for themselves.

You lost get over it.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , John
Rumm wrote:

However if you start from a negotiation position that we will take any
deal offered no matter how poor or punitive, because you state up front
that you are not prepared to leave without a deal, its fairly clear
what that deal will look like. It will quite possibly keep us in the
single market, almost certainly keep use committed to free movement
(even when the rest of the EU starts to curtail that), surrender
authority to the EU courts, and of course, continue to pay more than
we currently do (and probably without our rebate). However we will be
"out" of the EU!

We might then be "out", but for all practical purposes we'd still be in.
Still paying money, still subject the the ECJ, still subject to EU
regulation.

Still waiting for you to say what a good deal would be. Unless you are one
of those happy not to have any deal at all with the EU - making you part
of a very small minority.

Not only do you not understand the concept of deterrence you have no
idea how to go about a negotiation with a body with the composition of
the EU. Basically it's quite simple
Shut the **** up.
--
bert

In article , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 03/06/2017 01:49, bm wrote:
They're due to land upon the UK in how many minutes?
Get the smartphone, £250 quid on you've been framed? They must be crazy,
get
in there.
Unilateral nuclear disarmament will show 'em whose who.
And Corbyn thinks he's a winner?
LMFAO.
You go Dave.

With people like you supporting May, he may well be a winner.

For me, the likes of MM made me vote for Brexit.

I'm currently a Tory voter, but you might change my mind if you try
hard enough.

I'd love to know who currently is the enemy that we'd use nuclear weapons
on?

Why does there have to be a "current" enemy? The point of Trident is
that if you use it, you have failed. It's the *threat* that you *would*
use it if under attack, by anybody, that counts.

In our case the failure would be Jezza's

Some SNP twerp was bemoaning the fact that we'd spent this money on
Trident and it would never be used. It had to be pointed out that
Trident, and its predecessor, had been in use every second of every day
since their introduction, doing their job.

As well as keeping about 3000 Scots in well paid employment.
--
bert

In article , michael
adams writes

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
. ..

Some SNP twerp was bemoaning the fact that we'd spent this money on
Trident and it would never be used. It had to be pointed out that
Trident, and its predecessor, had been in use every second of every day
since their introduction, doing their job.

Yup.

Just the same as the Belgian Nuclear Deterrent, the Dutch Nuclear Deterrent.
The Swiss Nuclear Deterrent all doing their job. Only theirs doesn't
cost quite as much.

Never heard of NATO?
When the Donald won't give you permission to launch Trident then what are
you going to do ?

Ask for your money back ?

https://www.publications.parliament....t/cmdfence/986
/986we13.htm

michael adams

...



--
bert

On 6/4/2017 11:04 AM, wrote:
bm wrote:
[things]

On the subject of nuclear weapons use, here's an interesting
article on consequences:


http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do...1063/1.3047679


#Paul

Havn't read it properly but it goes on a lot about soot. Immediately
post WW2 most of the stored fuel was coal. Whether the total amount per
capita is more or less now, I have no idea, but I bet you don't get 16
grams of soot per kilogram of natural gas.