Thoughts on the Olympics opening ceremony

[regexcellent]

because nukes are eeeeeevul. Never mind the fact that other, actually evil people have them, like China.

[-Jrabbit]

I would like to thank the Olympics, both for the sporting competition of the past couple weeks, and for being done now.

[MikeH]

Why would the Lib Dems want to end Britain's nuclear program? As I recall Britain has no ICBMs or bomber nukes anymore.

Simple: They'd rather spend the money on something else.

[MikeH]

eg. close economic rivals like France/Germany don't have nuclear deterrent, there is an argument that our spending in that area gives us a slight competitive disadvantage against them.

[Hauldren Collider]

Er, no, France has nukes. And the only reason Germany can spend so little on defense is because we have so many troops there.

[MikeH]

Ah yes France does, but spends less on it or something...

I'm not saying the argument is correct I'm detailing what some of them are.

A lot of it is just WMD are bad mmmkay? And no-one's ever going to use their nuclear arsenal so what's the point having it?

(I think we should keep our deterrent)

[MOBIUS]

Just politics about when to replace really do we pay for a replacement now or extend the life of the current subs by a few years before procuring the replacements.

Only the Lib Dems don't want to replace them and they have destroyed themselves as a national political force by actually coming into power.

The Lib Dems didn't want to replace like-for-like, not completely abandon the nuclear deterrent.

Unfortunately I have to agree with the latter part of that sentence, though mostly it is Nick Clegg that is to blame IMO - the stupid naive fool! If the Lib Dems really want to implode as a party, they should keep him as leader for the next general election.

[MikeH]

ITYM "we" not "they"?

[C0ckney]

ie. They compromised pretty much every principle they had for a shot at an electoral reform vote, but only got allowed a vote on a type of reform no-one (not even LibDems) really wanted.

It really was pathetic (and I speak as someone who sometimes votes for them).

that's not really fair. the problems the lib dems have are not because of 'compromising principals', but rather having to actually nail their colours to the mast. when in what seemed like permanent opposition, they presented themselves as all things to all men. this was always going to come unstuck when they got into power and had to actually make decisions.

i agree with you about the referendum. it was an absolute joke. no one wanted av (and with good reason), but the two main parties will never allow a proportional system.

[kentonio]

As I recall Britain has no ICBMs or bomber nukes anymore.

We made the calculation that submarine carried nuclear weapons were enough of a deterrent. I think it's something like a single sub is always at sea carrying 16 missiles with 48 warheads. The theory being if we can wipe out a dozen or more major cities, that's probably going to stop you first striking us.

[MikeH]

that's not really fair. the problems the lib dems have are not because of 'compromising principals', but rather having to actually nail their colours to the mast. when in what seemed like permanent opposition, they presented themselves as all things to all men. this was always going to come unstuck when they got into power and had to actually make decisions.

Hmm. Well I think the sitting on the fence thing was always unfair. They've always had fairly clear policies on stuff, but they were often different from the main two parties and the media seems unable to discuss a nuanced debate, much preferring to air two opposing sides.

[Hauldren Collider]

We made the calculation that submarine carried nuclear weapons were enough of a deterrent. I think it's something like a single sub is always at sea carrying 16 missiles with 48 warheads. The theory being if we can wipe out a dozen or more major cities, that's probably going to stop you first striking us.

I agree that it is appropriate for Britain. On the other hand, I think it is appropriate for the US to have bomber nukes and ICBMs as well.

[kentonio]

I agree that it is appropriate for Britain. On the other hand, I think it is appropriate for the US to have bomber nukes and ICBMs as well.

Fair play if it makes you guys happier. To be honest I think everyone could probably just go the submarine route and be perfectly safe, but I don't suppose it makes much difference really as long as the principles of MAD are maintained.

[C0ckney]

Hmm. Well I think the sitting on the fence thing was always unfair. They've always had fairly clear policies on stuff, but they were often different from the main two parties and the media seems unable to discuss a nuanced debate, much preferring to air two opposing sides.

there's some truth in that (that it must be the reds or the blues is one of things i hate the most about british politics) and in fact i agree with a lot of liberal policies. i would have voted for them more if it weren't for europe. however it's also true that the liberals said different things to different people depending on what they wanted to hear, believing that they'd never have to put it into practice. i saw this first hand. the things the liberals said about national issues in swansea, were different from the things that they said in somerset, where my parents lived. more so than the other parties.

they also played the politics of permanent opposition. the tuition fees pledge is a prime example of that. all the parties support tuition fees around the current levels. labour calls it a graduate tax but its policy is essentially the same. the reason is because there really aren't many alternatives to making students pay for the benefits of their university education, unless you want to drastically reduce student numbers, or transfer lots of spending from elsewhere. yet the liberals, knowing full well the reality but thinking they weren't going to win, signed the pledge, with disastrous consequences as it turned out.

[Tupac Shakur]

Focus, people...

Still deeply traumatized by brief but near lethal glimpse of Russell Brand's "I Am the Walrus" . Might need to return to narcotics.

https://twitter.com/Bourdain/status/235035608114941953

Who thought it was a good idea to let Russell Brand into the closing ceremony? Don't you realize that he's an embarrassment? Wasn't choosing the talentless Gallagher to play "Wonderwall" ill-advised enough?