the snap general election thread

wotsthat

kabayiri wrote: »

Am I supposed to take consolation in a different type of failure?

Isn't that what you're already doing?

A Tory failure to clear the deficit = oh well it's impossible anyway.

A Labour failure to clear the deficit = well did you expect anything else?

I also see a difference between failing to meet a stated target and a straight lie.

Joe_Horner

kinger101 wrote: »

I know it depends partly on how they are detonated, but given Little Boy and Fat Man were 15 Kt and 20 Kt, tactical nukes are still massively destructive and would destroy entire cities.

This is the calculated effect of a 20kt device detonated 490m above St Pauls:

https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=20&lat=51.5140182&lng=-0.0976372&hob_opt=2&hob_psi=5&hob_ft=1608&zm=13

And this is 100kt detonated about 1.5km above the same point:

https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=20&lat=51.5140182&lng=-0.0976372&hob_opt=2&hob_psi=5&hob_ft=1608&zm=13

You can try your own settings on there for a 50Mt Tsar Bomb, but not much will be left standing inside the M25 and you'll be getting quite a suntan in Reading.....

kinger101

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Did you see the interview? No way was Paxman going to allow him to set up examples (not that that should have been the interviewee's job), he was intent on a simple yes / no answer.

I'm not claiming bias, btw, because Paxo behaved exactly the same with May - it's what he does. But to draw a conclusion that "He wouldn't let us kill the bad guys" from that interview is lunacy.

Incidentally, the end of my last post was intended as a lighthearted dig rather than condescension. I apologise if it didn't come across as such :beer:

Paxman was aggressive, but this was Corbyn's opportunity to explain where his red lines were, and why. IMO he kept it ambiguous because he didn't believe the answer he would have like to have given would have went down well with the electorate. Unfortunately, to those unsure of how Corbyn would respond, it rather gives the impression he'd dither or duck difficult to call situations.

michaels

Joe_Horner wrote: »

This is the calculated effect of a 20kt device detonated 490m above St Pauls:

https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=20&lat=51.5140182&lng=-0.0976372&hob_opt=2&hob_psi=5&hob_ft=1608&zm=13

And this is 100kt detonated about 1.5km above the same point:

https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?&kt=20&lat=51.5140182&lng=-0.0976372&hob_opt=2&hob_psi=5&hob_ft=1608&zm=13

You can try your own settings on there for a 50Mt Tsar Bomb, but not much will be left standing inside the M25 and you'll be getting quite a suntan in Reading.....

Not going to do a lot for house prices...

I thought the whole point of nukes was deterence not thinking you could get away with a small one....

Joe_Horner

kinger101 wrote: »

Paxman was aggressive, but this was Corbyn's opportunity to explain where his red lines were, and why. IMO he kept it ambiguous because he didn't believe the answer he would have like to have given would have went down well with the electorate. Unfortunately, to those unsure of how Corbyn would respond, it rather gives the impression he'd dither or duck difficult to call situations.

Pretty sure Paxman wasn't interested in giving either of them an opportunity to draw their own lines. He was always little more than a snide middle-England version of Jeremy Kyle more interested in scoring outrage points than actually delving for the truth and retirement hasn't improved him any. You may gather I never liked his style much

One of the things that we've seen in Parliament re Corbyn is that he doesn't like and tries very hard not to engage in that sort of point scoring, preferring to address issues in an adult way - not always easy in room full of braying MPs anxious to get a few laughs in before lunch.

That said, I agree that Corbyn's response could lead to doubt, but it's a far cry from "doubt" to "he wouldn't do it". Not that it would be his call anyway - as far as I'm aware any orders to shoot to kill still (rightly) come from the commanders on the ground - pretty sure they don't need to phone home for permission!

The only say that a PM might have would (with the backing of Parliament) to legislate it as a general rule of engagement or not - effectively a "shoot first, ask later" approach which he's quite right in calling dangerous.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

It is more than nice to know when you are putting your life and career on the line and heading for an immediate investigation by pulling the trigger on a terrorist that the people at the top support the rules under which you are instructed and trained to engage.

BobQ

Thrugelmir wrote: »

How would you deploy these additional officers in order to reduce the threat of terrorism though?

THe video Hamish quotes says that police advised it should be deployed to gain more local intelligence on the ground and be more proactive to these threats rather than the reactive stance resulting from less officers.

BobQ

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Back to the polls

According to latest YouGov poll the Tories are now 21 seats short of a majority with Labour just 37 behind

https://yougov.co.uk/uk-general-election-2017/

I wonder what impact tactical voting will have on this?

kinger101

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Pretty sure Paxman wasn't interested in giving either of them an opportunity to draw their own lines. He was always little more than a snide middle-England version of Jeremy Kyle more interested in scoring outrage points than actually delving for the truth and retirement hasn't improved him any. You may gather I never liked his style much

One of the things that we've seen in Parliament re Corbyn is that he doesn't like and tries very hard not to engage in that sort of point scoring, preferring to address issues in an adult way - not always easy in room full of braying MPs anxious to get a few laughs in before lunch.

That said, I agree that Corbyn's response could lead to doubt, but it's a far cry from "doubt" to "he wouldn't do it". Not that it would be his call anyway - as far as I'm aware any orders to shoot to kill still (rightly) come from the commanders on the ground - pretty sure they don't need to phone home for permission!

The only say that a PM might have would (with the backing of Parliament) to legislate it as a general rule of engagement or not - effectively a "shoot first, ask later" approach which he's quite right in calling dangerous.

I'm pretty sure authorization for a drone strike in a country we're not officially at war with (e.g. Syria, Libya) would need to come from the government (most likely ultimately the PM).

BobQ

kabayiri wrote: »

Pure speculation then.

......................It's only in the last 3 months that terrorism has really entered the public consciousness. Before that, we had a better record than the countries on the continent.

It feels a bit like revisionism.

Police resourcing should always be about evolving threats and demand.

Not what the police were saying in 2015 in the video Hamish posted