Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,218 Posted July 24, 2016 Relatives just left Turkish airspace after flying out in the middle of the coup attempt last week. I honestly didn't expect them to go and good to see them on their way back. The threat of terrorism didn't come into it for me when thinking about going to Turkey; let's face it you can get blown up or shot nearly anywhere these days. But Government crackdowns and the elimination of the opposition make me think again. On the one hand to creates an uneasy and potentially dangerous situation and on the other I'm loath to support the Government by spending money in the Country. I think id feel safer in Benidorm, Bognor or Palma Nova than I would in Bodrum or Marmaris.... I'm going to San Francisco. I figure my chances at 50-50. San Fran is being considered for next year............ 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rockhopper penguin 2,265 Posted July 24, 2016 Relatives just left Turkish airspace after flying out in the middle of the coup attempt last week. I honestly didn't expect them to go and good to see them on their way back. The threat of terrorism didn't come into it for me when thinking about going to Turkey; let's face it you can get blown up or shot nearly anywhere these days. But Government crackdowns and the elimination of the opposition make me think again. On the one hand to creates an uneasy and potentially dangerous situation and on the other I'm loath to support the Government by spending money in the Country.On the other hand if your going to a coastal resort those people need tourist money more than ever at this point regardless of what you think of the government. It's a fair point but most of the money goes in taxes to the government. It's analogous to the anti - apartheid arguments. I can't quite reconcile Erdogan's conservatism with what goes on in the coastal resorts. My worry is that neither can Erdogan. 20% tax rate, so 80% isn't. They take £10 from everyone entering. Tax rate 100%. Currently funding Erdogan's Pokemon Go programme. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bibliogryphon 9,582 Posted July 25, 2016 Relatives just left Turkish airspace after flying out in the middle of the coup attempt last week. I honestly didn't expect them to go and good to see them on their way back. The threat of terrorism didn't come into it for me when thinking about going to Turkey; let's face it you can get blown up or shot nearly anywhere these days. But Government crackdowns and the elimination of the opposition make me think again. On the one hand to creates an uneasy and potentially dangerous situation and on the other I'm loath to support the Government by spending money in the Country. I think id feel safer in Benidorm, Bognor or Palma Nova than I would in Bodrum or Marmaris.... I'm going to San Francisco. I figure my chances at 50-50. Have you got the flowers? (for your hair). 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rockhopper penguin 2,265 Posted July 25, 2016 Relatives just left Turkish airspace after flying out in the middle of the coup attempt last week. I honestly didn't expect them to go and good to see them on their way back. The threat of terrorism didn't come into it for me when thinking about going to Turkey; let's face it you can get blown up or shot nearly anywhere these days. But Government crackdowns and the elimination of the opposition make me think again. On the one hand to creates an uneasy and potentially dangerous situation and on the other I'm loath to support the Government by spending money in the Country.I think id feel safer in Benidorm, Bognor or Palma Nova than I would in Bodrum or Marmaris.... I'm going to San Francisco. I figure my chances at 50-50. Have you got the flowers? (for your hair). I hear you'll meet some gentle people there (maybe 60-40 then), 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rotten Ali 600 Posted July 25, 2016 On both posts above. 1 - accept lots of politicians are twats but why are they in politics? It can't be for the money really. And what is the alternative to directly elected representatives? It comes back down to if you don't like something get off your arse and do something about it (and I take my hat off to Nigel Farage for that even thought he is a reprehensible weasel - and i'll die for his right to be a reprehensible weasel). 2 - under what circumstances is the UK going to use one of it's 4 warheads? And anyway they need the US's permission to use them - and the US could block them being used. If Prime Minister May wants to show she's got balls it would be loads cheaper to dangle these in front of the Chinese. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BmVdV_zIEAAfeIB.jpg Anyway... Think you will find that the UK has some number between 180 and 210 nuclear warheads. Exact number top secret classified. They would make a real mess of any country that want to truly test our metal. And no, on the issue of whether we need US permission to fire them, that too is an athamer. The captain can launch them, without any external input, especially if contact can't be made and it looks like the UK was the prior subject of a cataclysmic attack. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rockhopper penguin 2,265 Posted July 25, 2016 On both posts above. 1 - accept lots of politicians are twats but why are they in politics? It can't be for the money really. And what is the alternative to directly elected representatives? It comes back down to if you don't like something get off your arse and do something about it (and I take my hat off to Nigel Farage for that even thought he is a reprehensible weasel - and i'll die for his right to be a reprehensible weasel). 2 - under what circumstances is the UK going to use one of it's 4 warheads? And anyway they need the US's permission to use them - and the US could block them being used. If Prime Minister May wants to show she's got balls it would be loads cheaper to dangle these in front of the Chinese. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BmVdV_zIEAAfeIB.jpg Anyway... Think you will find that the UK has some number between 180 and 210 nuclear warheads. Exact number top secret classified. They would make a real mess of any country that want to truly test our metal. And no, on the issue of whether we need US permission to fire them, that too is an athamer. The captain can launch them, without any external input, especially if contact can't be made and it looks like the UK was the prior subject of a cataclysmic attack. The trident subs will carry 4 warheads and sometimes not all of them will be operational. There may be others on land, or maybe not. There were plenty of US ones. One weapon can make enough of a mess for everybody. And yes the US can block launches through technology, whether it gives permission or not. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rotten Ali 600 Posted August 2, 2016 On both posts above. 1 - accept lots of politicians are twats but why are they in politics? It can't be for the money really. And what is the alternative to directly elected representatives? It comes back down to if you don't like something get off your arse and do something about it (and I take my hat off to Nigel Farage for that even thought he is a reprehensible weasel - and i'll die for his right to be a reprehensible weasel). 2 - under what circumstances is the UK going to use one of it's 4 warheads? And anyway they need the US's permission to use them - and the US could block them being used. If Prime Minister May wants to show she's got balls it would be loads cheaper to dangle these in front of the Chinese.https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BmVdV_zIEAAfeIB.jpg Anyway... Think you will find that the UK has some number between 180 and 210 nuclear warheads. Exact number top secret classified. They would make a real mess of any country that want to truly test our metal. And no, on the issue of whether we need US permission to fire them, that too is an athamer. The captain can launch them, without any external input, especially if contact can't be made and it looks like the UK was the prior subject of a cataclysmic attack. The trident subs will carry 4 warheads and sometimes not all of them will be operational. There may be others on land, or maybe not. There were plenty of US ones. One weapon can make enough of a mess for everybody. And yes the US can block launches through technology, whether it gives permission or not. I really don't know why you need to keep getting wrapped round your tits... From wiki... Armament: 4 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes for: Spearfish heavyweight torpedoes 16 ballistic missile tubes for: 16 × Lockheed Trident II D5 SLBMs (carrying up to 8 warheads each) Do your maths... 16 missiles each topped with upto 8 warheads. Quite likely two singles, two doubles, ten quads, and two full force eight up. That's about 64 warheads on a sub. Not to mention two more active subs fully armed but not hidden in deep water. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rotten Ali 600 Posted August 2, 2016 On both posts above. 1 - accept lots of politicians are twats but why are they in politics? It can't be for the money really. And what is the alternative to directly elected representatives? It comes back down to if you don't like something get off your arse and do something about it (and I take my hat off to Nigel Farage for that even thought he is a reprehensible weasel - and i'll die for his right to be a reprehensible weasel). 2 - under what circumstances is the UK going to use one of it's 4 warheads? And anyway they need the US's permission to use them - and the US could block them being used. If Prime Minister May wants to show she's got balls it would be loads cheaper to dangle these in front of the Chinese.https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BmVdV_zIEAAfeIB.jpg Anyway... Think you will find that the UK has some number between 180 and 210 nuclear warheads. Exact number top secret classified. They would make a real mess of any country that want to truly test our metal. And no, on the issue of whether we need US permission to fire them, that too is an athamer. The captain can launch them, without any external input, especially if contact can't be made and it looks like the UK was the prior subject of a cataclysmic attack.The trident subs will carry 4 warheads and sometimes not all of them will be operational. There may be others on land, or maybe not. There were plenty of US ones. One weapon can make enough of a mess for everybody. And yes the US can block launches through technology, whether it gives permission or not.I really don't know why you need to keep getting this wrapped round your tits...From wiki... Armament: 4 × 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes for: Spearfish heavyweight torpedoes 16 ballistic missile tubes for: 16 × Lockheed Trident II D5 SLBMs (carrying up to 8 warheads each) Do your maths... 16 missiles each topped with upto 8 warheads. Quite likely two singles, two doubles, ten quads, and two full force eight up. That's about 64 warheads on a sub. Not to mention two more active subs fully armed but not hidden in deep water. However also from wiki...The boats are capable of deploying with a maximum of 192 independently targetable warheads, or MIRVs, with immediate readiness to fire. However, as a result of a decision taken by the 1998 Strategic Defence Review this was reduced to 48 warheads with a readiness to fire reduced 'to days rather than minutes'. Furthermore, the total number of warheads maintained by the United Kingdom was reduced to approximately 200, with a total of 58 trident missiles. The reduced warhead load per missile allowed the development of lower-yield non-strategic warheads loading options. The 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review reduced this number further and the submarines will put to sea in future with a reduced total of 40 warheads and a reduced missile load of 8 (from a maximum possible 16). The number of operationally available nuclear warheads is to be reduced 'from fewer than 160 to no more than 120' and the total UK nuclear weapon stockpile will number no more than 180. Believe it if you want... So that scenario would be 8 missiles with an average of 5 warheads on each missile. Then 3 active subs holding a sum total of 120 warheads. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CarolAnn 926 Posted August 3, 2016 And exactly how damn many are needed anyway? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rotten Ali 600 Posted August 3, 2016 Well you've got 700 or so ... And there are 4037 cities in the world, let alone military targets. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lord Fellatio Nelson 6,218 Posted August 3, 2016 Well you've got 700 or so ... And there are 4037 cities in the world, let alone military targets. Nowt better than a statistical analysis by our very own RA. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CarolAnn 926 Posted August 4, 2016 I doubt the nuclear destruction of 4037 cities would be necessary for world domination. I would figure 10 would be sufficient for a world leader to yell uncle. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deathray 2,940 Posted August 4, 2016 I doubt the nuclear destruction of 4037 cities would be necessary for world domination. I would figure 10 would be sufficient for a world leader to yell uncle. Depends they'd need to be evenly spread I'd go for New York and Washington Beijing and Moscow Istanbul and Dubai Sydney and Seoul Rio der Janero and Buenos Aero's Paris and Berlin Cape Town and baghdad Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rockhopper penguin 2,265 Posted August 10, 2016 It seems intolerance is still alive and kicking (or at least making hissing noises from the sidelines) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37034082Who knows what the woman would have done if they'd been buggering by the hob nobs. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Toast 16,140 Posted August 10, 2016 It seems intolerance is still alive and kicking (or at least making hissing noises from the sidelines) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37034082Who knows what the woman would have done if they'd been buggering by the hob nobs. I don't get why all the anger towards the poor security bloke, rather than the bitch who complained. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deathray 2,940 Posted August 10, 2016 It seems intolerance is still alive and kicking (or at least making hissing noises from the sidelines) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37034082Who knows what the woman would have done if they'd been buggering by the hob nobs. I don't get why all the anger towards the poor security bloke, rather than the bitch who complained. Because the woman's an ignorant fuck with no authority. The security guard is failing to carry out his duty as trained without discrimination (unless he can prove he'd do the same to a straight couple). You can just waltz in and work as a security person, you undergo training in a variety of things - which this guy ignored a section of. If he ignored the equality and diversity section it makes you wonder what else he ignored (the law section? Restraint techniques? health and safety? Conflict management?) 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cat O'Falk 3,290 Posted August 10, 2016 It seems intolerance is still alive and kicking (or at least making hissing noises from the sidelines) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37034082Who knows what the woman would have done if they'd been buggering by the hob nobs. I don't get why all the anger towards the poor security bloke, rather than the bitch who complained. Because the security bloke sided with the complainant instead of telling her it's the 21st century and not the 1950s. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
msc 18,472 Posted August 19, 2016 On the other hand, you know what's funny in the US election? Jill Stein, less popular than a dead gorilla. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rockhopper penguin 2,265 Posted August 19, 2016 On the other hand, you know what's funny in the US election? Jill Stein, less popular than a dead gorilla. If I've read this correctly, should the Gorilla get 15% backing it will be able to participate in a debate.Come on US chums, get behind the ape! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deathray 2,940 Posted August 20, 2016 On the other hand, you know what's funny in the US election? Jill Stein, less popular than a dead gorilla. If I've read this correctly, should the Gorilla get 15% backing it will be able to participate in a debate.Come on US chums, get behind the ape! I'd assume being dead would disqualify the candidate? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
msc 18,472 Posted August 20, 2016 On 20/08/2016 at 09:41, Deathray said: On 19/08/2016 at 11:54, rockhopperpenguin said: On 19/08/2016 at 11:36, msc said: On the other hand, you know what's funny in the US election? Jill Stein, less popular than a dead gorilla. If I've read this correctly, should the Gorilla get 15% backing it will be able to participate in a debate.Come on US chums, get behind the ape! I'd assume being dead would disqualify the candidate? Tommy Burks was a 20 year Senator from Tennessee by 1998. His Republican opponent, Byron Looper, certainly assumed so, as he shot Burks dead. However, they put the man's widow on the ballot and she thumped the killer, who spent the rest of his life in jail instead. However, former Bush Attorney General John Ashcroft lost to a dead man in 2000. He was swiftly given the government post by Bush. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cat O'Falk 3,290 Posted September 5, 2016 Theresa May's on her way back to Blighty courtesy of the RAF. https://www.flightradar24.com/KRF26/ae800d6 Although I'm not sure about them switching the ADS-B on for everyone to follow them is a good idea. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rockhopper penguin 2,265 Posted September 5, 2016 Theresa May's on her way back to Blighty courtesy of the RAF. https://www.flightradar24.com/KRF26/ae800d6 Although I'm not sure about them switching the ADS-B on for everyone to follow them is a good idea. Agree. But do the Chinese know we can monitor their airspace? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Deathray 2,940 Posted September 5, 2016 Theresa May's on her way back to Blighty courtesy of the RAF. https://www.flightradar24.com/KRF26/ae800d6 Although I'm not sure about them switching the ADS-B on for everyone to follow them is a good idea. Stupid question time. How do we know thats her plane? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cat O'Falk 3,290 Posted September 5, 2016 Theresa May's on her way back to Blighty courtesy of the RAF. https://www.flightradar24.com/KRF26/ae800d6 Although I'm not sure about them switching the ADS-B on for everyone to follow them is a good idea. Stupid question time. How do we know thats her plane? The registration is ZZ336 and it's the RAF's new VIP transport aircraft. The British Government have gone back to using the RAF instead of chartering a British Airways plane. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/raf-reveals-vip-configured-voyager-427048/ 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
