Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
NO FUCK YOU DAD
Oct 23, 2008

Junior G-man posted:

That article is just so catastrophically bad.

Corbyn might not have given her a nosebleed, but her lovely article gave me a headache. The best part is where she feverishly extrapolates Watson's critique of Conservative policy into a hatred of Tories, non-Corbynites, the media and anyone with a Twitter account.

"Tom Watson called the Tories the Nasty Party. So much for kindness!". How utterly inane. She even has the gall to follow up her piece of speculative fiction by saying how "the peculiar certainties of these worldviews do not speak to me of the modern world". Don't vote for the voices in your head, then, you utter cretin.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Rude Dude With Tude
Apr 19, 2007

Your President approves this text.
Vice have attacked Corbyn for his weak stance on global annihilation http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/nukes-are-good-for-the-british-economy-578

quote:

Reasons Why the Nuclear Destruction of Life on Earth Is Good for the British Economy

It's been a great week for the end of the world. At the Labour party conference in Brighton, delegates – including, prominently, those from Unite, GMB, and other major unions – have voted against debating the party's position on the Trident nuclear weapons programme. Of course, this is a small victory: the motion wasn't for Labour to oppose Trident, but for them to have a debate about the possibility of opposing it, and with a Tory majority in Parliament it's likely that the programme would have been renewed anyway. For the next five years, at least, the lives of every single person on the planet will remain where they belong, in the hands of whoever has been chosen to lead the Conservative Party. But for those of us who eagerly await the fiery destruction of all human life, it's a victory nonetheless. Because, as we know, the end of the world is good for Britain's economy.

It's not entirely clear why Jeremy Corbyn is so opposed to Britain's nuclear deterrent. (After all, in 2004 he sponsored a motion in Parliament to officially welcome "the day when the inevitable asteroid slams into earth" and wipes out humanity forever. Maybe it's the means, not the ends, that he's concerned about.) His anti-Armageddon stance certainly isn't making him many political allies. He's recently come under attack from senior Labour party figures for claiming on Radio 4 that, were he Prime Minister, he'd refuse to push the big red button. According to shadow defence secretary Maria Eagle, "a potential prime minister answering a question like that in the way that he did" is not "helpful." At least someone's saying it how it is: what's the point of spending £20 billion on nuclear weapons if you're not going to use them?

This is a critical moment for the party: how can they win the trust of the electorate if they're not seen to be grunting and drooling at the prospect of instantly annihilating millions of people? Power is ultimately more important than principle, and Labour needs to be a party of government, not of opposition, even if what it ends up governing is a big mutant-strewn stick of charcoal in a sea clogged with ashes and bones. But nuclear weapons aren't just good for Labour, they're good for the country. Here's why.

TRIDENT KEEPS BRITAIN WORKING

This was the line taken by many union delegates when they voted against any debate on the nuclear issue. For Len McCluskey, the general secretary of Unite, while there's "a moral case and the huge cost of replacing Trident, especially in this era of austerity," these concerns are outweighed by "jobs and the defence of communities." 520 civilian employees at the Faslane naval base in Scotland – and their families – depend directly on the continuation of Britain's nuclear deterrent. While it's true that, were Trident to be scrapped, the £20 billion of savings would be enough to compensate each former worker with a redundancy payment of just under £38,461,538.50, their new lives of unimaginable wealth and luxury would soon start to feel like a hollow sham; without good honest work they'd soon become bored and restless, wishing for a nuclear apocalypse just to save them from the sheer ennui, and tragically impotent to bring it about.

In any case, laying off British workers just because what they do has the potential to kill every living thing on the planet is a slippery slope. The British arms industry is one of the few manufacturing concerns that this country still has, and much of its output is exported to repressive states like Israel and Saudi Arabia. Should that be scrapped too, along with the thousands of jobs it provides? What about the BBC, which makes a significant profit selling Top Gear and Doctor Who around the world, subjecting millions to programmes so terrible that any honest tribunal would class them as war crimes? Some countries base their economies on oil or minerals; Britain's is based on monstrous, inexplicable evil. Nobody likes it, but any attempt to change that is just not feasible.

NUCLEAR DEVASTATION HELPS THE WIDER ECONOMY TOO

It's not only those workers directly employed by Trident that might feel its benefits. For decades, there's been a severe lack of good, dependable, unionised industrial work available in this country. This has been the result of numerous factors, but by far the most significant is the industrialisation of the Global South. It's simply cheaper for British employers to open up factories staffed by Malaysian slave-labourers than it is for them to invest in communities at home. Our attempts to deal with this historical shift haven't been entirely successful – while there's been some investment in the formation of a high-tech workforce, and an effort to drive down wages to competitive levels through zero-hours contracts and other mechanism for casualising labour, unemployment is still high and productivity is still flatlining. Trident offers an effective alternative. It'll be much easier for hardworking British people to compete with workers overseas when those workers have been turned into gently drifting clouds of dust by the ungodly heat of a thermonuclear explosion.

The tourism sector is another vital component of the British economy that could be helped out by the irradiation of much of the world's surface. As things stand, our traditional seaside resorts are in steep decline, thanks to a combination of cheap air travel and the fact that they aren't very good. Rather than doing their bit for the economy by pretending to have fun as the rain lazily spits its displeasure at Weston-super-Mare, thousands are instead choosing to fly out to more enticing destinations overseas. It's very likely that targeted nuclear strikes on popular holiday destinations, turning pristine beaches and charmingly rustic hotels into a silent span of black glass that bubbles underfoot as the radiation-burned survivors pathetically crawl for the sea, will be a much-needed boon for our traditional hospitality industry. Many voters in seaside towns have abandoned Labour for UKIP, and a newfound commitment to the systematic eradication of all foreigners might be what it takes to lure them back. A fairer, better, full-employment economy is almost within reach: all we need to do is push the button.

THE ANNIHILATION OF ALL LIVING THINGS CAN SOLVE THE DEFICIT CRISIS

All this is assuming that Britain itself emerges unscathed from any nuclear war, which isn't likely. But if a future Prime Minister's decision to deploy Trident ends up being the last decision anyone ever makes, it could still be great news for our economy. The millions we're currently spending on welfare payments to scroungers, smackheads and the rest of the undeserving poor can finally be put to better use. Unemployment will instantly be wiped out, at the small cost of the unemployed. Overcrowding at NHS hospitals will, admittedly, briefly become an extremely serious problem, but within a few days it will recede into utter insignificance. Britain's balance of payments will be perfectly even and its debts will fall to zero. There'll be no inflation, no credit crunches, no dropping share prices. And the Labour party will never lose another election.

Zohar
Jul 14, 2013

Good kitty

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:

Vice have attacked Corbyn for his weak stance on global annihilation http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/nukes-are-good-for-the-british-economy-578

lol of course it's sam kriss

Jedit
Dec 10, 2011

Proudly supporting vanilla legends 1994-2014

NO gently caress YOU DAD posted:

Corbyn might not have given her a nosebleed, but her lovely article gave me a headache. The best part is where she feverishly extrapolates Watson's critique of Conservative policy into a hatred of Tories, non-Corbynites, the media and anyone with a Twitter account.

"Tom Watson called the Tories the Nasty Party. So much for kindness!". How utterly inane. She even has the gall to follow up her piece of speculative fiction by saying how "the peculiar certainties of these worldviews do not speak to me of the modern world". Don't vote for the voices in your head, then, you utter cretin.

What happened, did he mispronounce "Nazi Party" or something?

XMNN
Apr 26, 2008
I am incredibly stupid
So if the Tories survive the Europe referendum are we going to see some acknowledgement that disagreement on some issues, even hugely important and divisive ones, isn't necessarily a death knell for a party?

Fans
Jun 27, 2013

A reptile dysfunction

XMNN posted:

So if the Tories survive the Europe referendum are we going to see some acknowledgement that disagreement on some issues, even hugely important and divisive ones, isn't necessarily a death knell for a party?

No because it's a death knell for the Labour Party. The Conservatives can do what they like.

Gonzo McFee
Jun 19, 2010
The Tories are the nasty party. They're literally the reason the UK is being investigated for human rights abuses against the disabled. If calling the tories the Nasty Party upsets you more than human rights abuses against the disabled then what the gently caress is wrong with you?

quote:

Being for kindness is as vague as being against austerity.

What the gently caress does this even mean? Like, is austerity not identifiable as ideological cuts to the public sector and mass privatisation? Why is she describing it as if it's an emotion? What the gently caress even is the Guardian's comment is free section anymore?

Help my nose is bleeding

sebzilla
Mar 17, 2009

Kid's blasting everything in sight with that new-fangled musket.


Guavanaut posted:

e: 3 - The rule of emperor Augustus is renewed for a ten-year period. One of the better emperors by all accounts, as at least he didn't gently caress a pig.

Has he actually denied it, though? Otherwise we can't rule it out.

OhYeah
Jan 20, 2007

1. Currently the most prevalent form of decision-making in the western world

2. While you are correct in saying that the society owns

3. You have not for a second demonstrated here why

4. I love the way that you equate "state" with "bureaucracy". Is that how you really feel about the state
http://news.sky.com/story/1561619/corbyn-nukes-didnt-do-usa-much-good-on-9-11

Why can't Corbyn just shut the gently caress up about nukes already?

quote:

He said: "Nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction that take out millions of civilians. They didn't do the USA much good on 9/11."

Oh okay, that makes sense.

No wait, it doesn't, that's loving retarded. Nukes are not there to respond to terrorism or even deter from terrorist from attacking you. They are there do deter other countries from nuking you or invading you.

serious gaylord
Sep 16, 2007

what.
I believe its a statement about how modern wars are not being fought against nations so deterrents that put off nations have little to no effect on them.

Which is right, but it doesnt deny the point that it still does give said nation a lot more bargaining power at the negotiating table with other nations.

Crashbee
May 15, 2007

Stupid people are great at winning arguments, because they're too stupid to realize they've lost.

OhYeah posted:

No wait, it doesn't, that's loving retarded. Nukes are not there to respond to terrorism or even deter from terrorist from attacking you.

It's almost like that was his entire point!

MrL_JaKiri
Sep 23, 2003

A bracing glass of carrot juice!

OhYeah posted:

http://news.sky.com/story/1561619/corbyn-nukes-didnt-do-usa-much-good-on-9-11

Why can't Corbyn just shut the gently caress up about nukes already?

Because people ask him and he answers things honestly?

OhYeah posted:

Oh okay, that makes sense.

No wait, it doesn't, that's loving retarded. Nukes are not there to respond to terrorism or even deter from terrorist from attacking you. They are there do deter other countries from nuking you or invading you.

“Would anybody press the nuclear button? Nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction that take out millions of civilians. They didn’t do the USA much good on 9/11 – the problems in this world are not huge wars in that way."

Yes that does make sense, what's your problem with it

communism bitch
Apr 24, 2009
can we please just have a loving moratorium on nukechat

mfcrocker
Jan 31, 2004



Hot Rope Guy

Oberleutnant posted:

can we please just have a loving moratorium on nukechat

there is always more and it is always worse

Lord of the Llamas
Jul 9, 2002

EULER'VE TO SEE IT VENN SOMEONE CALLS IT THE WRONG THING AND PROVOKES MY WRATH

OhYeah posted:

http://news.sky.com/story/1561619/corbyn-nukes-didnt-do-usa-much-good-on-9-11
Why can't Corbyn just shut the gently caress up about nukes already?

Oh okay, that makes sense.

No wait, it doesn't, that's loving retarded. Nukes are not there to respond to terrorism or even deter from terrorist from attacking you. They are there do deter other countries from nuking you or invading you.

Nobody is going to nuke or invade the UK.

I'm very sorry that your country is next to Russia but ours isn't.

Phoon
Apr 23, 2010

Lord of the Llamas posted:

Nobody is going to nuke or invade the UK.

I'm very sorry that your country is next to Russia but ours isn't.

im sure it will be soon

raises an interesting question, if we did drop trident would the US look for another european country to gain/increase their arsenal?* Germany was their client state for decades and is nearer to russia so they seem the obvious choice

*really they would engineer a coup before we could get rid of them

TheRat
Aug 30, 2006

OhYeah posted:

http://news.sky.com/story/1561619/corbyn-nukes-didnt-do-usa-much-good-on-9-11

Why can't Corbyn just shut the gently caress up about nukes already?


Oh okay, that makes sense.

No wait, it doesn't, that's loving retarded. Nukes are not there to respond to terrorism or even deter from terrorist from attacking you. They are there do deter other countries from nuking you or invading you.

Did you grow tired of being schooled in the scandinavian thread and decide to move on to other battlefields?

Kegluneq
Feb 18, 2011

Mr President, the physical reality of Prime Minister Corbyn is beyond your range of apprehension. If you'll just put on these PINKOVISION glasses...

Oberleutnant posted:

can we please just have a loving moratorium on nukechat

Or at least make a formal agreement to not allow it to proliferate further.

communism bitch
Apr 24, 2009
In the spirit of peace I am unilaterally declaring that I will never engage in nukechat.

Guavanaut
Nov 27, 2009

Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998



Toilet Rascal

serious gaylord posted:

I believe its a statement about how modern wars are not being fought against nations so deterrents that put off nations have little to no effect on them.
Some people would say that the nuclear deterrent is the reason why modern wars are not being fought between large nations. Others would say that it's more to do with economic globalization. Others still would say that

Oberleutnant posted:

can we please just have a loving moratorium on nukechat
And I'd agree. Perhaps we could have a separate thread for discussing Trident. It'd be a good use for the Tridon't title suggestion.

mfcrocker posted:

there is always more and it is always worse
An Investigation Into the Effects of Nukechat on Threads

Forums Terrorist
Dec 8, 2011

Phoon posted:

im sure it will be soon

raises an interesting question, if we did drop trident would the US look for another european country to gain/increase their arsenal?* Germany was their client state for decades and is nearer to russia so they seem the obvious choice

*really they would engineer a coup before we could get rid of them

actually the us wants britain to give up trident iirc

Igiari
Sep 14, 2007

Gonzo McFee posted:

The Tories are the nasty party. They're literally the reason the UK is being investigated for human rights abuses against the disabled. If calling the tories the Nasty Party upsets you more than human rights abuses against the disabled then what the gently caress is wrong with you?


What the gently caress does this even mean? Like, is austerity not identifiable as ideological cuts to the public sector and mass privatisation? Why is she describing it as if it's an emotion? What the gently caress even is the Guardian's comment is free section anymore?

Help my nose is bleeding

I think she's enjoyed a bit too much of the finest wines known to humanity.

Fans
Jun 27, 2013

A reptile dysfunction

Oberleutnant posted:

In the spirit of peace I am unilaterally declaring that I will never engage in nukechat.

How can anyone be a UKMT Goon if they're not willing to kill a thread at a moments notice?

What if people bring back Boatchat? Are you not going to Nukechat the thread for the good of all?

Microplastics
Jul 6, 2007

:discourse:
It's what's for dinner.

Phoon posted:

im sure it will be soon

raises an interesting question, if we did drop trident would the US look for another european country to gain/increase their arsenal?

Do they even need to any more? Their missiles can reach Russia from the US, and I'm sure they have a shitload of subs for when they want to be snuggled up nice and close.

Guavanaut
Nov 27, 2009

Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998



Toilet Rascal

Fans posted:

What if people bring back Boatchat? Are you not going to Nukechat the thread for the good of all?
Nukechat is good if it is discussing nuclear power generation. Nukechat is less good if it descends into nuclear annihilation speculation.

Likewise Boatchat is good if it is discussing living on boats or the use of boats to decrease reliance on airfreight. Boatchat is bad if it is talking about college rowing or your luxury yacht (especially if it's called Morning Cloud).

baka kaba
Jul 19, 2003

PLEASE ASK ME, THE SELF-PROFESSED NO #1 PAUL CATTERMOLE FAN IN THE SOMETHING AWFUL S-CLUB 7 MEGATHREAD, TO NAME A SINGLE SONG BY HIS EXCELLENT NU-METAL SIDE PROJECT, SKUA, AND IF I CAN'T PLEASE TELL ME TO
EAT SHIT

Oberleutnant posted:

can we please just have a loving moratorium on nukechat

Future transmission from Labour government 2020

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHy8kW632dE

mfcrocker
Jan 31, 2004



Hot Rope Guy
We already have a last resort if hit with Boatchat; it's called Crispchat

communism bitch
Apr 24, 2009
cookingchat is always good.

LemonDrizzle
Mar 28, 2012

neoliberal shithead

Forums Terrorist posted:

actually the us wants britain to give up trident iirc
http://www.theguardian.com/world/defence-and-security-blog/2014/jul/29/nuclear-weapons-us-uk-cooperation
The UK, Obama added, "intends to continue to maintain viable nuclear forces into the foreseeable future." It was in America's interest, to continue to help Britain "in maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent".

In all honesty, I doubt they care much one way or the other given that our deterrent is the equivalent of a quiet surreptitious fart compared to their thunderous eggy table-rattling monster guff.

serious gaylord
Sep 16, 2007

what.

Guavanaut posted:

Nukechat is good if it is discussing nuclear power generation. Nukechat is less good if it descends into nuclear annihilation speculation.

Likewise Boatchat is good if it is discussing living on boats or the use of boats to decrease reliance on airfreight. Boatchat is bad if it is talking about college rowing or your luxury yacht (especially if it's called Morning Cloud).

The morning cloud is what follows me around for the first few minutes after i've woken up.

Guavanaut
Nov 27, 2009

Looking At Them Tittys
1969 - 1998



Toilet Rascal

serious gaylord posted:

The morning cloud is what follows me around for the first few minutes after i've woken up.
Don't use it to dispose of children's corpses.

Forums Terrorist
Dec 8, 2011

LemonDrizzle posted:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/defence-and-security-blog/2014/jul/29/nuclear-weapons-us-uk-cooperation
The UK, Obama added, "intends to continue to maintain viable nuclear forces into the foreseeable future." It was in America's interest, to continue to help Britain "in maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent".

In all honesty, I doubt they care much one way or the other given that our deterrent is the equivalent of a quiet surreptitious fart compared to their thunderous eggy table-rattling monster guff.

Oh, guess I misremembered. I thought something was linked itt that said the opposite.

hookerbot 5000
Dec 21, 2009

Oberleutnant posted:

cookingchat is always good.

Apparently the slimy water from tins of chickpeas is a great egg white substitute.

MrL_JaKiri
Sep 23, 2003

A bracing glass of carrot juice!

Forums Terrorist posted:

Oh, guess I misremembered. I thought something was linked itt that said the opposite.

I recall the "don't give a poo poo about trident" came from whispers from unnamed sources while the "pro trident" obviously comes from a speech from Obama. Given the way America works I think the former is probably actually more credible.

Microplastics
Jul 6, 2007

:discourse:
It's what's for dinner.

Forums Terrorist posted:

Oh, guess I misremembered. I thought something was linked itt that said the opposite.

Probably something along the lines of "The US wants to be the only country in the world with nuclear weapons" which is almost certainly true if never publicly stated.

Angepain
Jul 13, 2012

what keeps happening to my clothes

Wouldn't a punch in the face lose most of its damaging effects in slow motion? Boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder.

MrL_JaKiri
Sep 23, 2003

A bracing glass of carrot juice!

Angepain posted:

Wouldn't a punch in the face lose most of its damaging effects in slow motion? Boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder.

"Actually ok, but could sound scary if you don't think about it" is a pretty accurate characterisation I think why are we all getting on Moore's back on this

Phoon
Apr 23, 2010

Oberleutnant posted:

cookingchat is always good.

how would you prepare and cook a pigs head

Zephro
Nov 23, 2000

I suppose I could part with one and still be feared...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ABghHHFv5k

If you haven't seen this it's worth watching. Is Eamon Holmes always this rambling and bad? OK MR CORBYN LET'S TALK ABOUT ARSENE WENGER

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Dead Goon
Dec 13, 2002

No Obvious Flaws



Phoon posted:

how would you prepare and cook a pigs head

I would make sure it was well lubricated with butter, or maybe lard.

  • Locked thread