theblether

10 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

You said "By the way, I've been on both bases, have you? "

Which two bases are you talking about.

 

If you mean Faslane and Coulport then the answer is; many times between 1972 and 2000!

I have served as an officer in RN nuclear submarines!

Have you?

 

I just do not know where to start with regard to that ridiculously inaccurate "politico" link you provided.

It quotes the wrong Naval Bases, wrong guidance systems, makes no reference to the warheads etc!

It also states the following (which you obviously missed) where it confirms that the UK's Independent nuclear Deterrent! 

It  quotes;

"“It is in America’s interest to have an independent nuclear actor in the region, so that it complicates the decision-making for an aggressor,” Karako says. “Any attack on one NATO ally would raise the risk of retaliation from another under Article Five, and it’s not a case of piling all the responsibility on the United States. That will only work with operational independence.”

 

BTW; since the warheads and guidance systems are totally independent of any US control how could/would the US actually prevent the UK from launching them?

Once launched it would be  bit late for the US to complain!

 

PS;  Don't bother asking for any proof of my RN service career as I am obviously not posting any such proof on an open forum!

 

 

And away you go again. 

RN, my brother served, 25 years service. You are beyond deluded claiming the above to be a true reflection of what happened politically. The Americans wanted a bulwark in Europe, the French were acting up, only the UK was stable enough but highly indebted - and had the added benefit of being a permanent of the security council. Wilson had to bend after being caught out claiming the the British army was suited to jungle warfare while the SAS and RN destroyed the communists in Borneo. 

The nukes were rammed down his throat. By the way, my bro-in-law collected his Malaysia campaign medal a couple of years ago. 

I cannot take you seriously. Utter stupidity to believe that our nukes are independent in the face of all evidence including your benighted NATO saying that they are not truly independent. And you chose to ignore this pointed retort - why? Too many complicated words for you? 

But some other experts are deeply skeptical about the current state of affairs. “As a policy statement, it’s ludicrous to say that the US can effectively donate a nuclear program to the UK but have no influence on how it is used,” says Ted Seay, senior policy consultant at the London-based British American Security Information Council (BASIC), who spent three years as part of the US Mission to NATO.

Advertisement

20 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

What a load of codswallop,  The SSBN's are based at Faslane  and the warheads at RNAD Coulport, both in Scotland.

The Trident missiles are rotated between the US/UK and maintained in the US but the Warheads are built, stored and maintained in the UK!

 

"One of the most common myths around the system is that the United States has control over the UK’s Trident missile system, that is not the case.

It’s often said that the UK’s Trident nuclear weapons system is not ‘independent’ or that the UK doesn’t have the ability to use the system without the US agreeing to it, in reality the UK does retain full operational control over the system.

One common argument is that the US can simply ‘turn off’ the GPS system and therefore can stop the UK using Trident, this is also a myth, Trident isn’t guided by satellite."

 

No, America doesn’t control Britain’s nuclear weapons

 

 

You'll believe anything, gullible be thy middle name. By the way, I've been on both bases, have you? 

Is this another example of you gibbering a lot of drivel? If you seriously believe that the UK retains independent first strike status on our leased Trident's there's something wrong with your head. 

And as was clearly pointed out when the deal was signed, "we've just signed up for a £100 billion Trident commitment and we don't even own the weapons." 

No one had the bottle to say - "oh, and we can't use them without permission too." 

I suggest members read this article from Politico which explains "when an independent nuclear deterrent isn't and independent nuclear deterrent." 

And don't listen to the village idiot........from the article

"But there is one simple question that nobody is asking. When is an independent nuclear deterrent not an independent nuclear deterrent?

To many experts, the answer is all too obvious: when the maintenance, design, and testing of UK submarines depend on Washington, and when the nuclear missiles aboard them are on lease from Uncle Sam................

The report makes for striking reading. The UK does not even own its Trident missiles, but rather leases them from the United States. British subs must regularly visit the US Navy’s base at King’s Bay, Georgia, for maintenance or re-arming. And since Britain has no test site of its own, it tries out its weapons under US supervision at Cape Canaveral, off the Florida coast.

A huge amount of key Trident technology — including the neutron generators, warheads, gas reservoirs, missile body shells, guidance systems, GPS, targeting software, gravitational information and navigation systems — is provided directly by Washington, and much of the technology that Britain produces itself is taken from US designs (the four UK Trident submarines themselves are copies of America’s Ohio-class Trident submersibles)."

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-trident-nuclear-program/

I'm genuinely shocked and often entertained at the level of stupidity some posters on this forum display. 

I lay short odds that 99% of you didn't know we lease our nukes. There was a major political row a few years when the bill for the upgrade was presented. 

I suggest some of your study Denis Healy and Harold Wilson's attitude in this matter - they knew they couldn't sell a deal to the British public where they had to admit we were paying but had to ask permission to use the weapons. As Wilson famously said "you don't kick your creditor in the balls." 

In that matter he was referring to the Vietnam War, but he knew the servile relationship we had to the USA after the war. Anyone who watched Tony Blair's world tour of obsequiousness on the lead up to the Iraq War knows that.  

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68357294#:~:text=It cost £12.52bn,renew the Trident submarine fleet.

Idiots at it again. 

The social security system is operating on a 1970's computing framework. Musk knows all about default dates etc

He is driving towards modernising the system and deleting obsolete SSN's.

There is no doubt there is fraud. One woman was jailed for claiming her mother's pension for 48 years after her death. 48 years. Unbelievable. 

All numbers should auto deleted at 120 years. I think states should be checking "proof of life" at 100. It doesn't need to be intrusive. Literally a visit from a state official with a Presidential birthday card. We send out Royal birthday greetings to everyone who turns 100 in the UK. 

It's a nice touch but useful. 

Analyst says that Kavanaugh also wants District Court judges to be stripped of the ability to issue national injunctions.

37 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So that absolves yourself from that label.

Worthless.

The interesting part to that is that all district courts are allocated to circuits, so when Congress ordained district courts all were responsible to their circuit appellate court. 

Said Appeals court ruled on disputes within their circuit. 

Where is it mentioned that district courts were ordained with national powers when it's clear they were all ordained as circuit courts? 

Interesting one here - in 1996 Congress took for granted that District Courts had the power of national injunction. 

Took for granted!!! 

Congress did not grant. 

Article III "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." 

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1112&context=lawreview

Just now, candide said:

Stupid reply. It's to finance tax cuts.

Incorrect. The debt ceiling must be raised to service Federal obligations due to a large inherited deficit. 

If it's not raised the USA will default on it's debts with catastrophic consequences. 

Stop posting utter lies. 

5 hours ago, candide said:

If this administration's objective is really to lower debt, why does Trump want to raise the debt-ceiling? 🙂

Stupid question. The USA still needs to pay the cheques written by Biden. 

57 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I read many things, some are true.

Source please for your claim.

Bray - The best argument against statutory authority to grant national injunctions is that neither the APA nor the Judiciary Act of 1789 authorize them. 

Frost - In his concurrence in Trump v. Hawaii, Justice Thomas criticized nationwide injunctions and declared that “[i]f their popularity continues, this Court must address their legality.”................

a Seventh Circuit panel discussed the propriety of a nationwide injunction in detail. The Seventh Circuit then agreed to review the scope of the injunction en banc (though argument in that case was recently postponed).

Going forward, it seems likely that courts will be more cautious in issuing these injunctions, which in turn may take away the incentive for Congress or the Supreme Court to address the issue. But of course, it is always difficult to predict what the future will hold.

https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/one-for-all-are-nationwide-injunctions-legal/ 

1 hour ago, candide said:

So when courts interfered with the previous Executive, and were applauded by MAGA posters, it was also unconstitutional! Good to know that! 🤣

Calm down, it's not been ruled unconstitutional. 

My OP stands - Clarence Thomas would vote against District judges issuing national injunctions. I think this is heading to SCOTUS before the midterms. 

I just read that as Federal District Judges are not mentioned in The Constitution it is by dint unconstitutional for them to interfere with the Executive.

So all Federal District court orders of that nature are void. 

Apparently only SCOTUS has that right.

I think this is heading to SCOTUS.  

1 hour ago, SiSePuede419 said:

The Trump administration over the past two days has fired thousands of federal workers with jobs reportedly ranging from wildfire prevention to medical research.

Why it matters: A mass firing on this scale will likely vastly reshape the way the federal government doesn't work for many years to come.

 

Exactly what I was saying, a TechnoBro takeover while government is crippled so no one is watching the corruption.

 

President Musk wants to fire all the "tellers", "managers" and "security guards" and disable the "security cameras" so his boys can git to work lootin' and pillaging the Treasury.

$8M a day is just the appetizer. 👍

Foolish talk. Straight from the festering bowel of Rachel Maddow. 

This is an attack on DEI,  a rightful attack on DEI. Far too many incompetents hired based upon skin colour and sexuality. They're all gone. And now they will need to reapply for their jobs if their respective departments are continued. 

Lets see them go head-to-head on merit. 

And the delirious aspect of your post ignoring the utter stupidity of "looting" is the fact that Biden guaranteed that the Fed Gov would decline in effectiveness with his woke hiring agenda. 

He guaranteed it - with lesbian firefighters saying things like "if your husband is trapped in a burning burning - so sad, too bad - he got himself caught in the wrong place." 

Dear me. Watch here - 

1 minute ago, candide said:

S

Accusation/projection again? 🙂

Accurate description. It doesn't apply to me as I take weeks off from this forum at a time ( sometimes involuntarily ). 

You're the sad case that's easily upset. 

11 minutes ago, candide said:

Oooooh! Those people who post 500 times a week! 😆

 

So you haven't read his post but you  criticize it?

 

I read it. 

By the way, you're in the same category.  Go to a temple, tell a monk how miserable your existence is - 

Moving to Thailand to spend 12 hours a day on the Internet is a wild lifestyle choice no matter who you are. 

57 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

I have to agree sending food back just makes it worse.

 

Do that in the West, and generally they try to make it right and are apologetic for the mistake.

 

In Thailand, tends to be 'Fu====ck' him and the gloves come off.

 

Not sure if it's gotten worse, I think it's always been like this

Last time it happened to me I paid the bill and binned the food. 

Just now, Tropicalevo said:

I realise that but it would create a state of panic with other passengers and he would be in a ton of trouble with the airline.

They would probably restrain him on the flight.

Another issue, that I hope the OP has considered, is that the gentleman with dementia might take a dislike to him. I've seen irrational dislikes blow up several times in the past. 

In the OP's mind it will be an uneventful flight, may well not be. The last time I was privy to a dementia patient blowing up things were thrown continuously around the room. 

Remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. 

I just saw the news that NancyL passed away two years ago. That was a bad loss to the CM expatriate community. 

Does anyone remember the name of the organisation that she supported that looked after the elderly in CM?