Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (Cyborg)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

CIRCLE WITH A DOT

  1. Home
  2. Uncategorized
  3. The Green Party's key manifesto pledges include:-Bringing forward the UK’s net zero target and investing billions in wind, solar & home insulation

The Green Party's key manifesto pledges include:-Bringing forward the UK’s net zero target and investing billions in wind, solar & home insulation

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Uncategorized
31 Posts 18 Posters 2 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • bashstkid@mastodon.onlineB bashstkid@mastodon.online

    @simonzerafa @kibcol1049 Personally, I’d like to save a lot of money simply by dispensing with the little tin god that has never been used and can never be used.
    It works for Ireland, Spain, Denmark, and everyone else bar France. What do you think would happen if we joined them?

    reggiehere@mastodon.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
    reggiehere@mastodon.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
    reggiehere@mastodon.social
    wrote last edited by
    #21

    @BashStKid

    ...and would anyone actually believe us if we said we no longer had them?

    @simonzerafa @kibcol1049

    1 Reply Last reply
    0
    • disputatore@masto.ptD disputatore@masto.pt

      @kibcol1049 more than that. Giving up nuclear weapons now would be like dripping blood in the water. It would signal weakness, and Putin and Trump see weaknesses as an invitation to increase their demands.

      Another way to look at it is to ask yourselves how is the giving up nuclear weapons working out for Ukraine?

      reggiehere@mastodon.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
      reggiehere@mastodon.socialR This user is from outside of this forum
      reggiehere@mastodon.social
      wrote last edited by
      #22

      @Disputatore

      The question for the UK is the independence of the nuclear deterrent, the extortionate cost and the dependency on the US, both in terms of paying for their systems and agreeing to host US armaments on UK territory which makes the UK an automatic target in any war.

      An interesting perspective on this is whether any adversary would actually believe that the UK didn't have nuclear weapons even if we announced that we didn't, because the capability will always be there.

      @kibcol1049

      vfrmedia@social.tchncs.deV 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • disputatore@masto.ptD disputatore@masto.pt

        @markmason @kibcol1049 those are all excellent questions.

        naturepunk@ecoevo.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
        naturepunk@ecoevo.socialN This user is from outside of this forum
        naturepunk@ecoevo.social
        wrote last edited by
        #23

        @Disputatore @markmason @kibcol1049 The warheads are ours, the Tridents leased from the US, the US has no control over our nukes, the US can't turn them off, indeed nobody can once they leave the launch tube that's part of the design.

        Of the 250(ish) warheads we have an undisclosed number are always at sea and ready to fire when the government gives the order.

        If the US cut off spares and maintenance programmes it would take 10 years for it to have an effect on the Navy.

        I'd still disarm 😉

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • naturepunk@ecoevo.socialN naturepunk@ecoevo.social

          @epistatacadam @simonzerafa @kibcol1049 We do have an independent deterrent, the warheads are ours, but the delivery system is leased from the US costing us a bloody fortune to maintain.

          France kept it's own nukes entirely separate from everyone else after lots of US pressure to 'save money' by standardising.

          For the record I'd bin them off. Only Ukraine has ever chosen to do it but we're not sharing a land border with Putin.

          epistatacadam@toot.walesE This user is from outside of this forum
          epistatacadam@toot.walesE This user is from outside of this forum
          epistatacadam@toot.wales
          wrote last edited by
          #24

          @naturepunk @simonzerafa @kibcol1049 if we can't launch them unless the US says we can because our warheads are at some undefined depth in the ocean then effectively we don't have an independent deterrent.

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • simonzerafa@infosec.exchangeS simonzerafa@infosec.exchange

            @kibcol1049

            Oh well. They were doing well until the last item.

            walrus@toot.walesW This user is from outside of this forum
            walrus@toot.walesW This user is from outside of this forum
            walrus@toot.wales
            wrote last edited by
            #25

            @simonzerafa

            That's a really good one.

            We just pay for the damned things. USA won't let us fire them...

            simonzerafa@infosec.exchangeS 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • reggiehere@mastodon.socialR reggiehere@mastodon.social

              @Disputatore

              The question for the UK is the independence of the nuclear deterrent, the extortionate cost and the dependency on the US, both in terms of paying for their systems and agreeing to host US armaments on UK territory which makes the UK an automatic target in any war.

              An interesting perspective on this is whether any adversary would actually believe that the UK didn't have nuclear weapons even if we announced that we didn't, because the capability will always be there.

              @kibcol1049

              vfrmedia@social.tchncs.deV This user is from outside of this forum
              vfrmedia@social.tchncs.deV This user is from outside of this forum
              vfrmedia@social.tchncs.de
              wrote last edited by
              #26

              @ReggieHere @Disputatore @kibcol1049

              We would be better off and safer working with France than USA on defence (and there have been decades of working together since WW2 and the Cold War)

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              • bashstkid@mastodon.onlineB bashstkid@mastodon.online

                @simonzerafa @kibcol1049 Personally, I’d like to save a lot of money simply by dispensing with the little tin god that has never been used and can never be used.
                It works for Ireland, Spain, Denmark, and everyone else bar France. What do you think would happen if we joined them?

                simonzerafa@infosec.exchangeS This user is from outside of this forum
                simonzerafa@infosec.exchangeS This user is from outside of this forum
                simonzerafa@infosec.exchange
                wrote last edited by
                #27

                @BashStKid @kibcol1049

                That's the whole point.

                Both sides know what the results would be from a first strike or attempted invasion etc.

                So these things don't happen. It's called Deterrence.

                In an ideal world no-one would have or need them. As you're probably aware we cannot trust our allies at the moment let alone our enemies.

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • disputatore@masto.ptD disputatore@masto.pt

                  @kibcol1049 more than that. Giving up nuclear weapons now would be like dripping blood in the water. It would signal weakness, and Putin and Trump see weaknesses as an invitation to increase their demands.

                  Another way to look at it is to ask yourselves how is the giving up nuclear weapons working out for Ukraine?

                  gareth@tenforward.socialG This user is from outside of this forum
                  gareth@tenforward.socialG This user is from outside of this forum
                  gareth@tenforward.social
                  wrote last edited by
                  #28

                  @Disputatore
                  I think the main difference is we're not in walking distance from Russia... they'd have to cross a lot of land to get here and I suspect the locals would be somewhat irked.
                  @kibcol1049

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • walrus@toot.walesW walrus@toot.wales

                    @simonzerafa

                    That's a really good one.

                    We just pay for the damned things. USA won't let us fire them...

                    simonzerafa@infosec.exchangeS This user is from outside of this forum
                    simonzerafa@infosec.exchangeS This user is from outside of this forum
                    simonzerafa@infosec.exchange
                    wrote last edited by
                    #29

                    @Walrus

                    That's not my understanding of how an independent system would operate but clearly such above top secret information is widespread on Mastodon.

                    jeffrey@tooting.chJ 1 Reply Last reply
                    0
                    • simonzerafa@infosec.exchangeS simonzerafa@infosec.exchange

                      @Walrus

                      That's not my understanding of how an independent system would operate but clearly such above top secret information is widespread on Mastodon.

                      jeffrey@tooting.chJ This user is from outside of this forum
                      jeffrey@tooting.chJ This user is from outside of this forum
                      jeffrey@tooting.ch
                      wrote last edited by
                      #30

                      @simonzerafa @Walrus Can you imagine closed source software to launch missiles where the supplier has not pre-programmed the inability to accept certain coordinates? Mainland USA for example?

                      simonzerafa@infosec.exchangeS 1 Reply Last reply
                      0
                      • jeffrey@tooting.chJ jeffrey@tooting.ch

                        @simonzerafa @Walrus Can you imagine closed source software to launch missiles where the supplier has not pre-programmed the inability to accept certain coordinates? Mainland USA for example?

                        simonzerafa@infosec.exchangeS This user is from outside of this forum
                        simonzerafa@infosec.exchangeS This user is from outside of this forum
                        simonzerafa@infosec.exchange
                        wrote last edited by
                        #31

                        @Jeffrey @Walrus

                        If they can jailbreak an F-35 then that shouldn't be too difficult to circumvent 😂

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        1
                        0
                        • R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
                        Reply
                        • Reply as topic
                        Log in to reply
                        • Oldest to Newest
                        • Newest to Oldest
                        • Most Votes


                        • Login

                        • Login or register to search.
                        • First post
                          Last post
                        0
                        • Categories
                        • Recent
                        • Tags
                        • Popular
                        • World
                        • Users
                        • Groups