![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Jul. 3rd, 2006
I just thought I'd take the opportuntity to pimp the Incense Man.
I find a spot of incense these summer nights, when the windoows open and when the bugs like to come bite, works wonders.
In particular, I'm a fan of the Tibetan stuff, especially the Kailash and Paljor. But there's enough of a selection there for most tastes. (And at a sensible price too, none of this 'fiver for 2 sticks' malarky you get on some market stalls)
I find a spot of incense these summer nights, when the windoows open and when the bugs like to come bite, works wonders.
In particular, I'm a fan of the Tibetan stuff, especially the Kailash and Paljor. But there's enough of a selection there for most tastes. (And at a sensible price too, none of this 'fiver for 2 sticks' malarky you get on some market stalls)
It would appear that the Trident program is up for renewal. Our nuclear submarines, and their ICBMs are getting old and out of date.
Renewal is costed at between 10 and 25 billion.
As you may have guessed, this has sparked some fierce debate, about 'nuclear deterrent'.
For my money, we may as well just scrap Trident. Simply because by the time we're prepared to actually fire, we'll have already lost whatever conflict we're looking at, and it'll be retribution.
I mean, just ask yourself for a moment: You're the one in charge of the arsenal. At what point are you prepared to fire them? When someone declares war? When they threaten you with nukes? When you have soldiers on your land? Or when they've fired already, and you want to kill all their civilians too?
The problem with ICBMs you see, is they're strategic. What they're really good at is cutting the heart out of a few square miles of city.
In general, I'm not against nuclear weapons. They're like, bombs that explode bigtime, and have a few secondary affects.
The thing I have a problem with though, is that there's really never a moral case for 'stop your army, or we'll blow up a lot of your civilians'. That's pretty much what the terrorists do.
And frankly, I don't think any of our politicians (and strategic nukes _is_ a political decision) would be prepared to do that either.
At least, I hope they wouldn't and if they are, then I'd rather like them to stop representing me in Parliment.
So, let's just scrap trident. If the defense is that important, let's buy a load of new toys for the Armed Forces. I'm sure 10 - 25 bn of ships/aircraft/guns will go a long way. Nukes are a fairly cost effective solution - they give a lot of bang for your money. But they're also the First world equivalent of sucide bombing. Ugly, nasty and utterly pointless.
The UK will still be a 'nuclear power' - I'm pretty certain there's quite a few 'special weapons' locked up in bunkers around the world. They're unlikely to get used too, but I can at least see that they _might_ be used as tactical weapons. 4 minute citykillers, are really not needed.
Renewal is costed at between 10 and 25 billion.
As you may have guessed, this has sparked some fierce debate, about 'nuclear deterrent'.
For my money, we may as well just scrap Trident. Simply because by the time we're prepared to actually fire, we'll have already lost whatever conflict we're looking at, and it'll be retribution.
I mean, just ask yourself for a moment: You're the one in charge of the arsenal. At what point are you prepared to fire them? When someone declares war? When they threaten you with nukes? When you have soldiers on your land? Or when they've fired already, and you want to kill all their civilians too?
The problem with ICBMs you see, is they're strategic. What they're really good at is cutting the heart out of a few square miles of city.
In general, I'm not against nuclear weapons. They're like, bombs that explode bigtime, and have a few secondary affects.
The thing I have a problem with though, is that there's really never a moral case for 'stop your army, or we'll blow up a lot of your civilians'. That's pretty much what the terrorists do.
And frankly, I don't think any of our politicians (and strategic nukes _is_ a political decision) would be prepared to do that either.
At least, I hope they wouldn't and if they are, then I'd rather like them to stop representing me in Parliment.
So, let's just scrap trident. If the defense is that important, let's buy a load of new toys for the Armed Forces. I'm sure 10 - 25 bn of ships/aircraft/guns will go a long way. Nukes are a fairly cost effective solution - they give a lot of bang for your money. But they're also the First world equivalent of sucide bombing. Ugly, nasty and utterly pointless.
The UK will still be a 'nuclear power' - I'm pretty certain there's quite a few 'special weapons' locked up in bunkers around the world. They're unlikely to get used too, but I can at least see that they _might_ be used as tactical weapons. 4 minute citykillers, are really not needed.