Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Couldn’t the USA have just said that
Israel - Palestinian Conflict (10 Viewers)
- Thread starter napolimp
- Start date
Grendel
Well-Known Member
What does that mean??
To be fair Trump could pull out at any time, claim it to be the most successful war ever and half the country would lap it up.
The issue for him will be if gas prices rise and US soldiers start coming home in coffins.
Agree it will have less impact than Ukraine war but depends how long things drag on for. If it’s a couple of months then expect Oct energy cap higher and petrol to spike.
In terms of Trump, the mid terms are in the autumn and after being elected on ‘America first’, if inflation and petrol increase over there because of this, it won’t be well received
Agree China etc will be applying pressure to end this asap. Not sure if mentioned elsewhere but sure I saw that US has removed India’s restriction to buy Russian oil. Putin probably loving all this
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Isn’t the Ukraine war another one you didn’t give a fuck about and couldn’t see how it affected us?
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
They are a pariah state
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Probably Putin came up with the idea
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Exactly. I didn’t believe in sanctions against Russia and defending Ukraine - what are you on about?
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
Woke nonsense! Our energy costs are going to skyrocket because of the green levies put on them!
Fact that if we'd have invested in renewable energy when we should have rather than saying it just increases people's prices, we'd now have a cleaner, cheaper and far more secure energy infrastructure that wouldn't be as susceptible to shit like this happening.
But, hey, keeping us reliant on fuel sources from unstable regions of the world (which are unstable BECAUSE they have the fuel sources) often run by bad faith actors who artificially keep the price high, was by far the better choice because, y'know, reasons.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
no we should - like France - have invested in nuclear energy
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
It should have ben a bridging option while transitioning.
Renewables are far cheaper, less hazardous and easier to construct long term.
But then of course we'd have still been reliant on other nations building the nuclear plants. China constructing our newest nuclear energy plant isn't in the slightest bit worrying...
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Nonsense as usual
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
America employment figures are out and they're not great reading, especially long term unemployed which has risen nearly 25% in a year.
Possibly the real reason for going in wreck everyone's economy just as it appeared to be showing signs,if we can't have it the rest of you can't?
Earlsdon_Skyblue1
Well-Known Member
Iran attacking Azerbaijan now.
www.bbc.com
Azerbaijan furious with Iran as war spills over its border
President Ilham Aliyev says drone strikes are an "act of terror" as he places the armed forces on high alert.
www.bbc.com
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
That's some bigly numbers. So much winning.
What's he going to do next to distract from this?
Crash us and Europe?
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
The argument doesn’t even stack up in France anymore. Nuclear in France is about €70 a MWh whereas renewables are about €50 a MWh. If France is the example then the example is France backed the wrong horse in Nuclear energy. If you want a good example to follow for the consumer you need to look at somewhere like Spain where they backed renewables and now the consumer is reaping the benefits.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
The French nuclear plants have been there for decades now and are probably coming to a point where the costs of maintenance and upgrades are making it less desirable. We absolutely should have pursued it as a fossil fuels alternative 50-60 years ago though.
Captain Dart
Well-Known Member
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
One of the big bones of contention I have with others on the left and the Greens especially is their long opposition to nuclear power.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
I don’t normally disagree with anyone but when our environmental officer within the union did an anti nuclear paper I was very annoyed
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
I think we need a review. I read an article many years ago that suggested that if we deployed our nuclear arsenal on the over side of the world the nuclear winter it would create would be so extreme it would wend life as we know it this side of the world. If true I’m not sure why we need so many nuclear warheads, especially when you consider that if we fire ours our allies are probably also firing theirs and our enemies are also firing theirs.
If we can reduce our arsenal the money saved could be spent in other areas of military capability. For instance we might be able to have enough type 45 frigates so there’s always at least one combat ready to leave port at a moments notice to protect British interests, unlike what we’ve witnessed this week. It’s a national embarrassment that the navy has been cut so much over the last decade or so we have to say give us a weeks notice when something kicks off. We’re an island nation, a lot of our overseas territories are island nations, we sing a song about how we ruled the waves.
Events this week should be an eye opener. Especially where the navy is concerned. It’s lost 25%?of its personnel since 2000 and the fleet shrank 50% since 2010. Yes we’re rebuilding and modernising our fleet with some incredible equipment but ships aren’t built overnight.
The estimated cost of maintaining our nuclear arsenal is something like £6.5 billion a year, that’s about 10% of our defence budget. Maybe a portion of that money could be better spent elsewhere. For instance the budget for improving equipment in the navy over the next decade is £40 billion. We could increase that substantially if we were spending less on maintaining a nuclear arsenal we never intend to use and is clearly to big.
Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
I'm talking about nuclear energy, not nuclear weapons.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
Ha ha ha. So you did. What can I tell you. It was a long night.
To be fair to them though. Investing in your most expensive form of energy production doesn’t really stack up financially anymore. That might not be their angle but we’re pretty much at the point where the argument for nuclear power is lost.
On a side note one of the most dangerous sites in the world is Sellafield, I think it’s 3rd behind some lake in Russia where they’ve been dumping nuclear waste for decades and Chernobyl, although the power station itself is now considered safer than Sellafield due to the containment structure, it’s just the exclusion zone that’s currently considered more dangerous although Sellafield is scheduled to pass at some point in the not so distant future. It’s going to take another century before Sellafield is considered safe so maybe they do still have a point.
Video Shows US Tomahawk Missile Strike Next to Girls’ School in Iran - bellingcat
New video footage shows a US Tomahawk missile hitting an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) facility in Minab, Iran, on Feb 28, showing for the first time that the US struck the area. The footage released by Mehr News, and geolocated by Bellingcat, also shows smoke already rising from the...
www.bellingcat.com