tonyh29 Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 I'll put this in here what with the ongoing Trident question and Corbyns view but did anyone watch World War III inside the war room on BBC2 ? it starts with a hyperthetical breakaway in Latvia which the Russians then back by putting troops on the ground ( except they deny it of course ) .... But Essentially Ukraine all over again the war room meet to decide what action to take and then each action has a consequence , throw in the Americans and NATO for good measure and it brought up some interesting developments at some stage in proceeding Putin brings in the nukes and threatens to use them and during a ground attack on Russian held Latvia by US and the U.K. Plus a collation of the willing ( Germany and thereby NATO don't sanction it , thus NATO kinda fails a the first hurdle giving Putin exactly what he wants ) Russia then fire a nuke at A British and US warship killing thousands .... the British war room met and are told by the Russian diplomat it was an accident , a Russian general over reaching his authority ... The British agree not to launch a nuke retaliatory strike but put together some demands to Russia , however in the meantime the yanks launch a tactical nuke back at Russia ( military target) so then the Russians are fueling and making launch ready their ICBM's and so the immediate vote is if they launch do we give the order to fire trident back the verdict interestingly was 3 to launch and 5 not to launch ... The argument the 5 put up was Trident was a deterrent and if Russia launch the deterrent had failed and killing millions of Russians seemed pointless Worth watching the show on catchup ... Interesting to know if it would change anyone's mind seeing the outcome of this particular war game ... Daft as it sounds even with the vote of No to using trident , it still to my mind justified having trident as Russia could possibly have been persuaded to withdraw had the Americans not launched their retaliation strike , without that trident threat I think the Russians would have acted differently towards us .... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) Surely the argument is that without Trident they wouldn't have targeted us in the first place? In the same way that they didn't target, say, Spain. EDIT: I didn't see the program, I'm just guessing based on your description! Edited February 9, 2016 by HanoiVillan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 43 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: Surely the argument is that without Trident they wouldn't have targeted us in the first place? In the same way that they didn't target, say, Spain. EDIT: I didn't see the program, I'm just guessing based on your description! Spain hadn't put ground troops into Latvia in this scenario ( or any involvement other than the German position , sorry I mean NATO position ) which was what prompted the nuke attack on the carriers I probably haven't done the show justice with my abridged version tbh ... It might be on YouTube if you google it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, tonyh29 said: Spain hadn't put ground troops into Latvia in this scenario ( or any involvement other than the German position , sorry I mean NATO position ) which was what prompted the nuke attack on the carriers I probably haven't done the show justice with my abridged version tbh ... It might be on YouTube if you google it Thanks for the recommendation, I've just finished watching it. Very interesting! I do enjoy a bit of war-gaming. Now I see why my question didn't make a whole lot of sense. I was trying to drive at 'if we didn't have Trident, we wouldn't be a target' but we were a target for our conventional military actions, so my point was moot. I see your point - the Russians seemed very contrite, so maybe they wouldn't have fired the ICBM's if the Americans hadn't hit back, and then Trident would have worked as a deterrent (sort of, although not really, because basically an entire land war was already in progress before it got to that stage). I don't know if it changed my mind. The revelation that most wouldn't authorise a retaliatory attack on population centres rather removed Trident's 'second strike' capability as a reason for supporting it, and the film rather adequately demonstrated that Britain's nuclear status, combined with its very small amount of firepower and total lack of influence on Washington, makes us a target but without much corresponding influence. The other, rather more urgent feeling I had watching it was just how dumb it was for George W Bush to push for admitting Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, and how imperative it is that we stop any further NATO expansion, forever. Good programme though! Edited February 9, 2016 by HanoiVillan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said: The other, rather more urgent feeling I had watching it was just how dumb it was for George W Bush to push for admitting Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, and how imperative it is that we stop any further NATO expansion, forever. Spot on, although the EU had just as great a hand in pushing the eastward expansion as NATO. To Russia the EU looks like Germany by other means, a view not entirely divorced from reality. I think a major part of the problem is the lack of historical knowledge and perspective applied when formulating western foreign policy, a post Cold War hubris peculiar to the modern 'West'. The likes of Kissinger then, or China now make no such school boy errors. The non-alignment of Ukraine with Europe (EU/NATO) is a vital interest of Russia, a truism that holds whether the country is led by Putin or Mary Poppins. Russia has learned the hard way that politics is an actor that can change it's clothes with incredible speed, peace or war, aggression or non-aggression are postures of convenience and the Russian people paid a catastrophic price for such naivety in the past. The idea they could accept Ukraine being part of a potentially hostile alliance is utter foolishness. Following Tony's point NATO had planned to go nuclear from the start had Russia invaded Western Europe during the Cold War. They will have known that, so despite their clear conventional superiority nuclear deterrence actually prevented direct conflict long enough for the USSR to collapse. As Russia is now rearming at an astonishing rate it is certainly useful to maintain the security architecture that served us well in the past, including Trident. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rds1983 Posted February 9, 2016 VT Supporter Share Posted February 9, 2016 13 hours ago, tonyh29 said: I'll put this in here what with the ongoing Trident question and Corbyns view but did anyone watch World War III inside the war room on BBC2 ? it starts with a hyperthetical breakaway in Latvia which the Russians then back by putting troops on the ground ( except they deny it of course ) .... But Essentially Ukraine all over again the war room meet to decide what action to take and then each action has a consequence , throw in the Americans and NATO for good measure and it brought up some interesting developments at some stage in proceeding Putin brings in the nukes and threatens to use them and during a ground attack on Russian held Latvia by US and the U.K. Plus a collation of the willing ( Germany and thereby NATO don't sanction it , thus NATO kinda fails a the first hurdle giving Putin exactly what he wants ) Russia then fire a nuke at A British and US warship killing thousands .... the British war room met and are told by the Russian diplomat it was an accident , a Russian general over reaching his authority ... The British agree not to launch a nuke retaliatory strike but put together some demands to Russia , however in the meantime the yanks launch a tactical nuke back at Russia ( military target) so then the Russians are fueling and making launch ready their ICBM's and so the immediate vote is if they launch do we give the order to fire trident back the verdict interestingly was 3 to launch and 5 not to launch ... The argument the 5 put up was Trident was a deterrent and if Russia launch the deterrent had failed and killing millions of Russians seemed pointless Worth watching the show on catchup ... Interesting to know if it would change anyone's mind seeing the outcome of this particular war game ... Daft as it sounds even with the vote of No to using trident , it still to my mind justified having trident as Russia could possibly have been persuaded to withdraw had the Americans not launched their retaliation strike , without that trident threat I think the Russians would have acted differently towards us .... When was this on? I tried to find it on the Iplayer but it didn't show up. I can find a version on YouTube but it's only ten minutes long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 The link is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06zw32h (Might not work if you're outside the UK). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 Prefer to base our decisions on Trident renewal on the real world, not some latter day Dr Strangelove fantasy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 9, 2016 Share Posted February 9, 2016 56 minutes ago, meregreen said: Prefer to base our decisions on Trident renewal on the real world, not some latter day Dr Strangelove fantasy. For fantasy Latvia read present day Ukraine or any number of countries Putin has his eye on ... Real world It may not play out as the show suggests but throw president Trump into the mix and stranger things could happen Still it was worth a try 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted February 10, 2016 Share Posted February 10, 2016 The show was interesting, and I don't think the phrase 'latter day Dr Strangelove fantasy' is a particularly fair summary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Heard a little snippet today on the radio regarding the railways (not sure why it was the phone in topic today of all days) , and I know renationalising them is a favourite of the corduroy wearing members of VT so presumably they will be able to correct the bits I picked up on ... The callers seemed to be complaining about fares and punctuality and forgive the selective quoting as I was in the car and not taking notes but the spokesman appeared to be saying the biggest cause of late trains was signalling and track failures ... both of which are carried out by Network Rail a company under state ownership , it was also mentioned that the train companies themselves aren't truly privately run companies as they weren't free to set the prices of tickets for themselves the last point he made was that train punctuality was there or thereabouts at the levels it was under British Rail so other than presumably putting everything back under the umbrella of one government owned company at huge ..make that HUGE costs to the taxpayer in view of what was said ( add your own required pinch of salt) what would renationalising the railways give us ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 17, 2016 Moderator Share Posted February 17, 2016 2 hours ago, tonyh29 said: so other than presumably putting everything back under the umbrella of one government owned company at huge ..make that HUGE costs to the taxpayer in view of what was said ( add your own required pinch of salt) what would renationalising the railways give us ? The East coast line was run by National Express, I think it was, and it was a bit crap. They basically walked out on their contract part way through, saying they didn't want to pay the costs they were incurring under their contract - leaving the state to pick up the tab. Then it was run by the state, at a healthy profit, with higher customer satisfaction than all the other lines, and to general all round acclaim until the franchise was put back up for auction again, recently. I'm simple folk, but surely if the railways were publicly run, best case is they could be like the East Coast line was (no guarantees). Overall it would cost nothing if each franchise was put back public again as the contracts run out - just let a/the publicly owned entity (like the Directly Operated Railways thing) take over the running of them. The East Coast line proved that private isn't best. If stuff is run without having to pay out shareholder dividends, or for another tropical island for Beardie, then costs should be lower (or fares lower). Having a properly integrated public transport system is an advantage to the public, as can be experienced in a neighbouring country of ours called Europe. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 (edited) 25 minutes ago, blandy said: The East coast line was run by National Express, I think it was, and it was a bit crap. They basically walked out on their contract part way through, saying they didn't want to pay the costs they were incurring under their contract - leaving the state to pick up the tab. Then it was run by the state, at a healthy profit, with higher customer satisfaction than all the other lines, and to general all round acclaim until the franchise was put back up for auction again, recently. I'm simple folk, but surely if the railways were publicly run, best case is they could be like the East Coast line was (no guarantees). Overall it would cost nothing if each franchise was put back public again as the contracts run out - just let a/the publicly owned entity (like the Directly Operated Railways thing) take over the running of them. The East Coast line proved that private isn't best. If stuff is run without having to pay out shareholder dividends, or for another tropical island for Beardie, then costs should be lower (or fares lower). Having a properly integrated public transport system is an advantage to the public, as can be experienced in a neighbouring country of ours called Europe. I'm not sure that is the case though ... it would require a new act of parliament first and there is something in law (?) that means any up for renewal before 2020 then have to either be renewed or paid off .. so we again come back to cost . I'll have to read up on the East coast thingy in more detail but it returned to profit through ticket sales, catering and parking fees .. suggesting increases in the fees for all of those ? which seemed to be the opposite of what renationalising was supposed to achieve .. that company also paid it's chief Exec £224 ,000 which also doesn't appear very nationalised either As I mentioned the claim was that the railways are currently running as well as they did previously , East Coast in isolation may not be the fairest way to judge it .. Wasn't it East Coast that needed vast amounts of upgrades carried out , that rail track started and then stopped before completion due to financial problems ? on top of increases in the number of trains running on that route it sounds like exceptional mitigating circumstances for that line I'm going to fall into the trap of drawing the EU into this but this Labour co chair of London (whatever that is ) also seems to have doubts Quote Undoubtedly EU law will be a huge obstacle to any renationalisation scheme – especially one that aims to do away with competition and markets. The EU is clear that its objective is “Opening up national freight and passenger markets to cross-border competition”. Its directives and regulations have created what can only be described as a legal quagmire Edited February 17, 2016 by tonyh29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Cardiff to London by train - 235 quid including parking a car as I'm 12 miles from the station (door to door approx 2.5 / 3 hours each way) Cardiff to London by car - 61 quid including petrol, parking in London and tolls (door to door approx 3 / 3.5 hours each way) I'm out. If either private or public could get the cost of that train ticket reduced by 170 quid (and I still arrive before lunch and am allowed to leave before 7:00pm) I'd be interested. (my local daily commute, just over a fiver a day by train, or less than 2 quid petrol) Trains are a great idea, I can't get my head around how I could use them though, regardless of who owns what bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 15 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: If either private or public could get the cost of that train ticket reduced by 170 quid (and I still arrive before lunch and am allowed to leave before 7:00pm) I'd be interested. I agree ... I was looking at 4 tickets for Manchester so that I don't have to drive back hung-over from The Stone Roses in June ... £140 each for a train ticket was what the website came back with (and that's cheap compared to some options I saw) ... so either £560 or a freebie in the car using company fuel as I urgently go visit a client of mine in Manchester ... it's not even a close call is it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 The trains are now the preserve of the wealthy, which I'm sure is what the Tories wanted all along. Job done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praisedmambo Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 (edited) I'm not keen on having a queen either (which sane person thinks we should have a ruling class in the 21st century?)—what's up with the title of this thread? I mean, is it ironic or what? Or is this a right-wing message board? Because it's not as if we have a Remi Garde is the saviour thread or a Ashley Westwood is amazing thread. We just have a straight up Remi Garde and Ashley Westwood thread—a place where all opinions are (kind of) welcome no matter what the angle. I say kind of as a joke about the frequent arguments. Edited February 19, 2016 by praisedmambo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkyvilla Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 12 minutes ago, praisedmambo said: I'm not keen on having a queen either (which sane person thinks we should have a ruling class in the 21st century?)—what's up with the title of this thread? I mean, is it ironic or what? Or is this a right-wing message board? Because it's not as if we have a Remi Garde is the saviour thread or a Ashley Westwood is amazing thread. We just have a straight up Remi Garde and Ashley Westwood thread—a place where all opinions are (kind of) welcome no matter what the angle. I say kind of as a joke about the frequent arguments. Fear not it's just a joke thread name, reversing the old leftist prejudices against the right that are far more common on here and in the banker-loving baby-eating Tory thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 19, 2016 Moderator Share Posted February 19, 2016 3 hours ago, praisedmambo said: what's up with the title of this thread?.....I mean, is it ironic or what? Or is this a right-wing message board? There are two threads - one for each of the major laughing stocks sorry major Political parties. The one for the other lot is called "The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread" With that information, I'll leave you to decide if this is a right wing, un-ironic message board, or if it's "just" a Football site with a lively off topic forum, which isn't always completely reverent about bollitics. or take it up wit the mod who gave them the titles (me)* *tonyh made me do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 did we ever have a thread for the Libs or were we just promised one and then that promise was broken ? * credit where it's due , it was your title my suggestion was nowhere near as amusing 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts