quote:

ORIGINAL: Hertston

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

So Lady Thatcher was wrong for removing the deterrent that led to the Falklands, but we can give up our only weapon against future nutters that can wipe us out? Right....

Neither nuclear weapons nor anything else can be relied upon to deter 'nutters' as those nutters by definition are likely to act irrationally. Seen from some particular religious viewpoints, it might even be considered rational to provoke a nuclear strike by launching one. Therefore... the only way a nuclear deterrent can prevent a nuclear attack on the UK is a 100% successful first strike on an assessed threat, with the associated consequences.

Sorry mate, but regardless of which bunch might be in power, that scenario is not acceptable to me. Neither is wasting 100 billion plus on something far better spent on conventional defence, healthcare, tax cuts or whatever else your ideological heart might desire. The whole nuclear thing is a nonsense for the UK in the 21st century. It's nothing to do with the efficacy or otherwise of any 'deterrent', and everything to do with staying in the club that includes a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

Is it the opinion of most, that Russia (the old Soviet Union) could NEVER fall back to their former communist aggressive ways?

With a leader like Putin it would be a mistake to think there isn’t much he wouldn’t do to regain dominance in Eastern Europe again. As long as he can maintain his power through Russia’s current system of government, he has shown he’s not going to try and grab control permanently (at least not yet). But if his power is threatened, I have no doubt he’d revert to communism in a heartbeat if it would allow him to maintain control. The man is evil.

As to the armed forces, it seems the world goes in cycles. Wars are fought and people value their ability to defend themselves and they remain strong for a while, but then time passes. Peaceniks and liberals rail on about the tragedy of defense spending instead of giving stuff to the poor and countries slowly disarm. Then along comes some evil bastard who notices how weak the world is and he goes for broke and millions die. It seems humanity is destined to never learn from the past.

The real tragedy of the world situation today over the past is countries around the globe have come to rely on the US almost totally for defense. Professional militaries are almost non-existent in the world today and the ability to fight in an emergency if needed is questionable. What was it we found out during the Libya uprisings, non-US NATO forces only had 6 days worth of ammunition stockpiled or some ridiculously tiny number of days? It basically revealed how defenseless they are if the US isn’t there to do the heavy lifting.

If the US military gets defunded the way the liberals want to defund it, the world will be ripe for the picking. If that happens the only thing that might buy enough time to rearm is nuclear deterrent. Get rid of that and you’re headed into slavery or worse guaranteed.

Jim

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS Wyoming

When the US gets a new president, we will reignite our kinship with the UK militarily, strategically and diplomatically. The current president has low regard for the UK and as soon as he's gone-relations will improve.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JW

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS Wyoming

When the US gets a new president, we will reignite our kinship with the UK militarily, strategically and diplomatically. The current president has low regard for the UK and as soon as he's gone-relations will improve.

This

quote:

ORIGINAL: Boomer78

quote:

ORIGINAL: JW

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS Wyoming

When the US gets a new president, we will reignite our kinship with the UK militarily, strategically and diplomatically. The current president has low regard for the UK and as soon as he's gone-relations will improve.

This

Speak for yourself. The next time I see an American bow to the Queen I think I'll make sure to vomit red, white and blue.

That says nothing about the British people themselves... says quite a bit about my thoughts on the British government, which shouldn't be trusted any further than we could throw 'em.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Boomer78

quote:

ORIGINAL: JW

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS Wyoming

When the US gets a new president, we will reignite our kinship with the UK militarily, strategically and diplomatically. The current president has low regard for the UK and as soon as he's gone-relations will improve.

This

Speak for yourself. The next time I see an American bow to the Queen I think I'll make sure to vomit red, white and blue.

That says nothing about the British people themselves... says quite a bit about my thoughts on the British government, which shouldn't be trusted any further than we could throw 'em.

warspite1

Why? What is showing a bit of respect for a great lady that deserves it got to do with the British Government?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Boomer78

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Boomer78

quote:

ORIGINAL: JW

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS Wyoming

When the US gets a new president, we will reignite our kinship with the UK militarily, strategically and diplomatically. The current president has low regard for the UK and as soon as he's gone-relations will improve.

This

Speak for yourself. The next time I see an American bow to the Queen I think I'll make sure to vomit red, white and blue.

That says nothing about the British people themselves... says quite a bit about my thoughts on the British government, which shouldn't be trusted any further than we could throw 'em.

warspite1

Why? What is showing a bit of respect for a great lady that deserves it got to do with the British Government?

Oh, come now, Warspite. Whatever happened to that working class revolutionary that the English are so well known for? 'God Save the Queen' had one good thing going for it... it was a song written by the Sex Pistols.

I'll be right there with Johnny Rotten... taking a dump in her crown.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hertston

The Russians may have designs of extended power, if not sovereignty, over the former Soviet states. The Chinese probably do in respect of much of the South China Sea. As far as I'm aware, India and Pakistani terratorial ambitions are restricted to bordering chunks of each other. And as already implied, Kim Jong-un is a complete headcase that can't be relied upon to be rationally 'deterred' anyway.

The latter apart, possibly, there isn't the slightest bit of evidence any of them have any intention to threaten or use nukes in search of 'greater glory' - whatever that means. Certainly no more evidence, in most of the world's eyes, than the US doing it. As far as the UK is concerned, I'm about as worried about the ambitions for 'greater glory' of that lot as I am about an invasion from Mars.

Talking of which ..... Alien base on the Moon?

I rest my case. Unless it should turn out to be Kim Jong-un's secret vacation retreat, anyway. [;)] Of course, if anyone should now argue we should keep nuclear weapons with the additional requirement for lunar capable launchers I would have to concede the point. [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Boomer78


... 'God Save the Queen' had one good thing going for it... it was a song written by the Sex Pistols.

I'll be right there with Johnny Rotten... taking a dump in her crown.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Boomer78

Look up 'allodial title' and you'll have your answer. Proof of ownership, land title, and contract law in the western world, it all stems from property 'held by the crown'. In other words, fee simple rule of law set down in the post-Roman 'land is property, property is rights' concept long debated by the likes of Plato, Jefferson, Mill, and Voltaire.

The English crown has ruled with a velvet glove far better than it ever did with an iron fist. What is seen and what is perceived to be seen are often far different things.

Commonwealth? Pffft... the queen's common wealth, maybe. That is a large purse to fill, after all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: nate25

This admin's treatment of our closest allies has been abominable - most notably the U.K. and Israel.

I'm very proud to be an American - but that pride level has slid just a bit since 2009.

I'm not worried, we're waking up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Why? What is showing a bit of respect for a great lady that deserves it got to do with the British Government?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I don't share some of the more vulgar protestations against the British government that have been expressed above.

However, there is something uniquely affrontery about bowing before "royalty" (from anywhere) as an American. It's anathema to our roots and I find it appalling. The proper etiquette (for the political handlers) is to never be in a position to bow to anyone else unless the bow is reciprocated (e.g., an "equal" bow to the Japanese PM as a sign of mutual respect). As royalty are unlikely to reciprocate a bow amongst equals, then as an American head of state, you cannot demonstrate subservience before that audience.

Same goes for the much publicized visit to the house of Saud early in the 2008 presidential administration. You don't bow in the same way a subject does. You don't put yourself in that position. The 'handlers' should know better and avoid all occasions that would require such an act.