Pleased to see you deleted both of those posts.

Did i miss something? :hmmm:

Ihr seid sowas am Ende... Harahrharhar. :har:, wie beschränkt muß man eigentlich sein,
Naja... da war ja noch die Sache mit dem Affen... und diese Einschätzung findet vortrefflig auf England zu.

Possibly, possibly not....time will tell.

Bit non-plussed as well. Since Jim's post appeared immediately below one of mine it could be construed as being aimed at me although I know full well it isn't.

Anyways.....

I find this faintly amusing "PM observes 'coming together' after Brexit in Easter message": http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39607056

Whilst the headline for BBC Scotland is "Dramatic drop in church attendance in Scotland": http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-39613631

Mike.

Quite correct...I am able to see and read post deletions and there are two (the ones I'm referring to) between yours (#6271) and the post of mine (#6272).

Has she seen over the years Christians get slapped down at work and in the courts over their belief. Oh well never mind lets put it down to our PM was out of town. Not for the first time some one saying something that sounds odd or the last time.

Spill the beans jim. :Kaleun_Salivating:

And now TRUMP..

On the radio last night I got a good laugh, Trump is coming to England this October and wants to be taken to the Queen in...

http://www.londonperfect.com/blog/wp...h-Carriage.jpg


Granted the radio presenter did not say where this snippet came from but knowing Trump I would not put it pass him.

I guess it would go into this topic, as nuclear deterent is political.

We know how deterence works - it is about dealing assured unacceptable dammage to the enemy. So I was wondering, after accessing documents on the US (and Russian side) regarding this topic, are there public policy guidelines regarding nuclear use or public discussion documents that I can read?

The topics are:

Perceived unacceptable dammage levels. For example US in their policy guidelines works from say percentage of economy/population/industrial capacity of an adversary being destroyed. Is there such criteria in British policy?
I ask this because 40/120 deliverable RVs translate into 5-15 designated ground zeroes in US STRATCOM practice, which doesnt appear to be much.

Perceived survivability and credibility - it appears that UK does not cover it's SSBN base for example in terms of air defenses (UK has very few SAMs and it does not appear that RN bases any surface combatants in Faslane). Is this problem being discussed?

If such matters are discussed it's behind closed doors. As far as I'm aware there's very little in the public domain covering such issues as it no doubt comes under the "Official Secrets Act": LINK.

The OSA is a bit of a beast of a law, for good reason.

What I've been able to find online:

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...52479541,d.ZGg (PDF File)

http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/898

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/d...ment/osp11.pdf

https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/...port-15_11.pdf

Mike.

No biggy but sonar continues to listen.

How about a couple of trucks loaded to the brim with these..


http://home.bt.com/images/poundnote-136394333186002601

I can't take this cold turkey much longer, need my PMQ's weekly fix.

BREAKING NEWS

GENERAL ELECTION JUNE 8TH 2017


http://news.sky.com/story/theresa-ma...ction-10842088

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-bri...-idUKKBN17K0UY

Labour is going to get wiped out and I say great, this with hope will spell the end of mental backward Labour and re-build to a better party that will stand up and fight back.

Elections !!!!
How do you prefer your Brexit?
Rare, medium-rare, medium or well-done ?
Either way I think Labour will get burned ... :hmmm:


.