pap

The intention of the post was not to apologise for India and Pakistan. It's simply a statement of fact reflecting their currrent capabilities. Pakistan and India are more concerned with each other than us and like you point out, they presently lack the means to do so. Even when they do secure intercontinental delivery systems, why would they stop targeting each other, and what would they gain from targeting, say, a small island in Western Europe? Israel is a whole other debate. When all is said and done, they have to be responsible for their own security and their own rumoured deterrent. I don't see how us lacking Trident changes that, nor do I see us nuking a Middle Eastern country because of its disputes with Israel. There would be very little left of the Middle East if we did. Finally, have to take issue with your last point. The US has one of the largest nuclear capabilities in the world, and thus, one of the largest deterrents in the world. Someone still funded 9/11.

Actually, the membership of the UN Security Council is made up of the victors of World War II. Having nuclear weapons is not a pre-requisite for membership, nor could have been. In 1946, the time when the Council was formed, only the US had nuclear weapons.

More accurately, it's one attack that actually happened. There have been numerous plots which have been thwarted. The intent is there, but the implementation has been stopped. And while I agree that more nations have nukes on standby, very few of the new countries that have nukes, such as India and Pakistan, have them pointed at us. As the market for a lot of Russian and Chinese imports, it's not really in their interests to strike us. In a wider sense, it's not really in anybody's interest for nukes to go off anywhere.

Yeah, I saw you make this point earlier on. Not sure I buy it. Japan famously doesn't have nuclear weapons, yet managed to punch above its weight for decades in manufacturing and economics. I'd argue that our place on the UN Permanent Security council has more to do with our place at the "top table". That doesn't go away if we're no longer able to launch megatons onto someone's front lawn.

Do you think we need a deterrent though? Trident and its predecessor were both products of the Cold War era. That era is 20 years dead now. We no longer have the spectre of mutually assured destruction hanging over us. What are the practical applications of a nuclear deterrent in this day and age? Doesn't seem to be acting as a deterrent for Islamic fundamentalists.

Since the Cold War, Britain has had a submarine-based nuclear capability. Trident is its current iteration, and costs at least £1 billion a year to run. This capability is due to be replaced, with projected costs around the £100 billion mark. Given the problems that we currently have balancing the nation's books, is the cost justified? Are there other, cheaper options to maintain a nuclear deterrent, such as ICBMs? Do we need a nuclear deterrent at all? dune pointed out in another thread that our nuclear capability gets us to the top table, and while I'd like to believe that, I seriously doubt that threatening people with nukes is necessarily going to be a good negotiating tactics. At best, a nuclear deterrent gives pause to anyone thinking of nuking us, but could anyone launch nukes at Western Europe without some form of retaliation? Or anywhere, for that matter? To me, it seems like we're paying a lot of money for something we're never going to use, and never going to want to use.

Went out to see Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Have to say, didn't have high hopes when I heard this announced, but I really enjoyed it.

Think the site might be down. I've just tried that link from Virgin and have got the same problem.

I'd agree with that. It'd be hard enough going anywhere. Cheers.

Another no-go. At the moment, her "would" list contains only six entries. 1) Sam from Supernatural 2) Dean from Supernatural 3) Castiel from Supernatural 4) Edward from Twilight 5) Jacob from Twilight 6) The good looking bloke who entered Celebrity Big Brother last night.

Unfortunately tdd, this only works if Liverpool is actually exakkkly the same as the depictions in Bread and Brookside, which, to be fair, somewhat accentuated certain aspects of Liverpool life

Tell you one thing, if they ever go to the shops in their PJs I have failed as a parent.

Yeah, posted something similar, and we may still call it off. I was always moving back after they'd gone to Uni, but a few things going on atm that are causing me to accelerate the timetable - and I'm not sure they'll keep for another eight years.

LOL! I don't have a wife, just a long-suffering girlfriend, but marriage is probs on the agenda. As for parks, they were great fans of the Common and have only really seen a quarter of it. I think half the fun with that place is having a wander on your own and discovering something that (as a kid) you believe no-one else has seen before. The kids are 15 and 11, which is a bit of an awkward age really. They're far too old to go for any bullshyte, so it has to be genuine life-affirming stuff all the way.

The youngest is unfortunately a Reds fan ( although she's only started liking footy this year ). The eldest doesn't like footy at all, but has admitted that if she had to support someone, it'd be Saints and not Liverpool.

I see what you're doing there. Good luck with that.

Ah, you get used to the accent. Like a lot of Irish-influenced accents, it comes down to "singing when they speak". Still, I would like them to be able to use RP when they need to, and living down South certainly helps in that department. That said, it did take me about six weeks to fully understand it.

After years of living in Liverpool, I'm slowly coming to realise that I'd like to return to Southampton. Lot of reasons, really - family, friends all that jazz. The problem I've got is my kids. The pair of them were brought up in Liverpool, and their opinion of Southampton is pretty poor - having spent the vast majority of their time sitting in people's houses while the missus and I were plied with copious amounts of tea and coffee. If we move, it'll be September 2012. That means I have roughly a year to win approval from the offspring. The missus believes we have to mount a charm offensive, illustrating all the positive and fun aspects of the city. Having been away for so long, I'm not really up to speed on what's there. How would you 'sell' Southampton to a prospective inhabitant? Kids are 15 and 11 respectively, both girls if that helps.

The appeals are not going to be spurious though, are they? The sentences are political. Fair enough, if you've done wrong, you've done wrong and you should be punished within the existing sentencing rules. If they want to change the sentencing rules, fair play - but that's another debate and it should go through the proper channels. What's really amusing is that this is the same Government who were advocating a 50% reduction in sentences if the defendants were good enough to spare them the cost of a jury trial.

They did alright tonight. Fair enough, plenty of their fans are nobs that use their refractory periods to disrespect the mighty Saints FC on the Internet. They've got other fans who are pretty complimentary about Southampton, and they're just behind us on goal difference. Another team with a perfect start, so should be respected. Some of their fans are not fond of dear old Nige. Think his comments last year riled them. Also, Adkins does come across as an explosion in a cliche factory every time he's interviewed. Their fascination with Nige's former career as a physio is amusing. He's a physio!! He won't know who to sign!! Put a Jack Cork in it chaps

You may not have a victim mentality, but judging from this post, I'd get the inbreeding thing checked out right away.

I don't think really think that's the purpose of the nuclear deterrent. I mean, do we really go around saying "do this, or we'll nuke you?". It's an empty threat, and can't work. We'd never get away with it. The only possible use of the nuclear deterrent would be in retaliation to an attack on our shores by a nation state. Even then, it's almost impossible to imagine using nukes in a retaliatory attack. Who could we actually nuke on this Earth without upsetting people and ultimately getting nuked ourselves?

Mildly amusing. Nothing more. The Starkey interview with added pussy.

Completely agree. The rhetoric on some of these videos instantly turn people off, as do the distortions that are employed to sex stuff up. Wholesale adoption of any dogma is ultimately unhealthy for the truth.

Well, I had some inkling about the cricket, but no idea about the cheese rolling. This changes everything. The sort of power that Britain could project with a well-rolled round of cheddar is staggering. The French won't know what's hit them ( their feeble attempts at Brie retaliation will ultimately fall victim to the Gallic insistence that it is ripe ). With this potential route to world domination, are you ready to renounce your liberal credentials and join the jackbooters, Verbal?