Theresa May says "Yes," she's prepared to kill hundreds of thousands in nuke attack

a reply to: andy06shake

Only being honest but, yeah...no point. It was a bit wild back then but mostly good people. It's definitely not a racial issue, govanhill was well known for having a large pakistani and indian population. This had been the case for many years and it wasn't any different to most areas in Glasgow.

But it's different now, it got so bad even the migrants who were already there want to leave so I don't blame you at all.

a reply to: samerulesapply

Trust me when i say its a different kettle of fish thesedays.

Those Pakistani and Indian people, which i attended secondary school with, think the same, a few of them are my mates.

Ive lived in numerous areas of the city and its very different.

The problems Govanhill experiences today are almost unique. As is the disregard by our supposed first minister who refuses to see the forest for the trees.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Being an elite politician means she also knows the likelihood of nukes being used is almost zero.

Famous last words. Every weapons system that was ever invented has been / will be used, one day.

When the Romans invented the steel sword and armor they used it to build their empire. Most of their victims had sticks.

When steel tipped arrows were invented the Kings of Europe used them, when the cannon and musket were invented the spaniards used them to conquer the Americas. Dynamite, the machine gun, tank and airplane, all swiftly utilized for conquest.

Now we got all these nukes just lying around.

a reply to: intrptr

Nukes have already been used on cities, twice if im not mistaken, which is why they never will be again i hope.

Your assumption is i take it that human beings have never invented a tool they have not utilized? But the tool in question is certainly, imho, not the correct one for the job.

a reply to: awareness10

According to an article I read last week, one of the first duties of a new British Prime Minister is to handwrite four letters which are then dispatched to the four Vanguard-class submarines which hold the Trident missile system.

The handwritten letter is only opened by the Captain of each submarine if the Prime Minister and their Cabinet are wiped out in an attack (not sure if this relates just to nuclear attacks). The letter will contain authorisation for one of three choices, which the PM made previously when coming into office:

1. Retaliate with a nuclear strike
2. Allied forces to decide if nuclear strike is warranted.
3. No nuclear strike.

This process has occurred with every prime minister since WW2 ie the previous letters are destroyed unopened and replaced with letters from the new Prime Minister.

Many PM's have never disclosed which option they chose.

a reply to: intrptr

Famous last words. Every weapons system that was ever invented has been / will be used, one day

The point was going to be 'zero chance' and erred on the pragmatic side instead

a reply to: Morrad

Thankyou for that information.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: intrptr

Nukes have already been used on cities, twice if im not mistaken, which is why they never will be again i hope.

Your assumption is i take it that human beings have never invented a tool they have not utilized? But the tool in question is certainly, imho, not the correct one for the job.

Neither is Depleted Uranium munitions. Using that particularly insidious weapon a lot.

a reply to: intrptr

Well apparently Uranium depleted rounds are safe, even to be shot with!

If thats no a misnomer i don't know what is? LoL

It's brilliant the things that we postulate that we actually take for factual evidence.

a reply to: andy06shake

I was responding to your 'no nukes being used as far as you know'. Fallout from this technology is evident in places like fallujah Iraq. It is radioactive fallout, from nuclear weapons.


graphic images

a reply to: intrptr

Shoosh, don't tell the poor Fallujahns that, they might think democracy's a poisonous idea.

Which may not be the case but its certainly an illusion.

originally posted by: awareness10
a reply to: antiguaEstrella

Which is precisely why she too, needs to be called out.

We, sadly so, are living in a world with a timer.

Humans are not humans. To say human is to somehow elevate one's self. It conveys the connotation that we are not animals. We are. There is no biological difference between animals and humans when it comes to our physiology and the wiring of our brains. Everything boils down to love or fear/hate, and should it trip into the range of fear/hate, fight or flight. We are every bit as animalistic as our beloved dogs and cats. We have merely developed the artisitc aspect of being able to talk and utilize tools. Nothing, and I repeat, nothing has changed outside of that.

We cannot, and will not live peaceably. When we head out to the stars, we will bring our tendencies with us.

This is what our reality is.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: antiguaEstrella

Which makes her unfit to hold the position, along with anyone else who desires to do so.

Wouldn't you agree?

Whether I am in agreement or not, is besides the point. Humans are a painfully small hairs width away from causing our own extinction.

If Mrs. May does it or doesn't do it...doesn't really matter. Inevitably, someone else will.

a reply to: antiguaEstrella

Theresa May is simply posturing so the rest of the world leaders think she has some mettle.

Just because, some form of nuclear conflict, may or may not take place at some future date does not mean that its prudent to get in on the act.

Also working along that train of thought, a chemical/biological weapons exchange is also on the cards at some point. One has to wonder if May will have the balls to come out and state she would unleash those type of weapons on her perceived enemy?

a reply to: andy06shake

Bio and chemical weapons are the same class as nukes.
The US and UK signed treaties agreeing to no longer weaponise chemical and biological agents.
The flip side is, any attack using those weapons can be met with nukes, so you don't have to wonder what May would do. She already said.

a reply to: SprocketUK

We may have signed treaties but somehow i imagine we have plenty of stockpiles of both chemical and biological weaponry or the ability to produce them in no time sharp. Just look at such facilities as Porton Down and there like.

Yes the implication seems to suggest that she would also use chemical and biological agents which to my mind simple eludes to the fact that this world and the people at the helm of our nation are indeed crazy bastards.

a reply to: andy06shake

Andy, you misunderstood me.
We don't have stocks of chemical and biological weapons.
The treaty we signed allows us to respond with nukes to a chemical or biological attack.
There's no need for us to go through the hassle of making and maintaining other wmd's when we have nukes.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Some of the chemical and biological agents conceived could wipe out a city in a few hours or a few days then go inactive. Leaving the info structure and buildings intact and the area ripe for invasion or occupation.

So trust me there is a need for study and production of such weaponry simply because the other team probably has it. Its the exact same mentality and reason that we have for possessing Nuclear armaments.

So treaty or otherwise i imagine we do indeed have secret stores of biological weaponry at our disposal. Keep in mind this is not science fiction, we are not talking about secret Tesla howitzer and scalar weaponry, these agents actually exist, do what they say on the tin, and have been used, if memory serves by both Iraq and Iran in previous conflicts.

a reply to: andy06shake

You are talking about sarin.
It isn't the wonder weapon people think.
The main effect of these types of weapons is to slow down and degrade the effectiveness of the opposition's troops when they have to wear noddy suits etc.

We don't need bio and chemical weapons to counter other nations as we can, quite legally, respond with nukes.

No point in using the same missile to carry a chemical warhead that may or may not kill loads of people when you can fire a nuke that absolutely will destroy a city.



I won't deny the need for study at places like Porton Down.
There is no production on a large enough scale to use offensively by Nato countries though.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Sarin is only one of the many agents that has been weaponized but yes i think that is indeed what Iraq used against Iran.

Im talking about the other agents through like VX and there like. Never mind the rest that we dont hear about. The ones that are airborne based and highly communicable.

You dont need missiles to delver such an attack just a few canisters released at strategic positions. Perfect first strike weapon if you ask me with plausible deniability if delivered in a covert fashion.


How would nukes serve there supposed purpose then when you have no clue who to strike back at?