Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lizzie_Zoom]

America sneezes and rest of world gets a cold !!!!!

Are we talking nuclear sneeze or financial sneeze? Two threads at once can be confusing

I would usually agree on that Steve, but the financial situation in the USA has more than financial implications.  The  point I am making is that Britain security needs to be strengthened to allow for a power vacuum that will result from a fading USA, if they do not sort out their financial problems, which must in turn result in a reduction in their military power and the world becoming far more dangerous for all.

This process was seen in the days of the fading Roman Empire in the West; the British Empire. and more recently the USSR, to name three key examples.  All faded from within with political animosity and inertia, a greatly weakened financial situation, and a degrading military might. They all fell relatively quickly, and the USA is, very regrettably, now showing all the signs of that form of Empire decline.  It therefore becomes a far greater issue than just a financial one for that individual state.

[cem_devecioglu]

Nuke-fiscal no matter America always bends us over-if you get my meaning.

    completely and sadly agreed

[albitz]

I wouldnt write the U.S.off just yet as a global power. They have been in the game quite a long time,and the Chinese bubble could go pop any time soon.
I agree the Scots will vote to stay within the union. Nationalistic pride is all well and good,but it wont provide the £1 billion per month overall in subsidy which goes from the Treasury to Scotland.They know deep down which side their bread is buttered imo.
P.S its a few decades too late to be speaking of keeping Britain British. Its (hopefully) not too late to return Britain (or the U.K. to be more precise) to being British though.

[Rog]

So here is an analogy of US revenue and debt changed into 'household figures' that we can hopefully all understand....


What do you think you should do? Raise the ceilings or remove the sh1t?

Excellent. I was in t'pub with SWMBO trying to explain it as the TV  in pub was full of it. Should have invited you over for a quick beer to help out   

[cem_devecioglu]

Due to all the arguing, failure to agree, brinkmanship, power plays etc etc there are some really interesting bits of this problem that have not been aired a great deal, as even the American Public in all it's innate stupidity might actually see through some of these power hungry politicians ..

First ... everyone knows the Senate and House of Representatives are controlled by opposing political groups, also, everyone knows that the HoR is effectively run by the Speaker who is opposing the President as hard as he can .... question ...  why ...  answer given to public ... principle .. "that is what my party stands for" .. possible other answer .. not heavily publicised .. on Jan 3rd the post of speaker is up for re-election and he wants to be seen as hard line to keep the job .... he cares more about the speakership than he does the american economy.

Second ...there are actually THREE rules set by politicians to "control" the american economy ...

One ... By law they MUST pay certain "bills" regardless of political affinity .. State wages/pensions/social payments/defence  etc etc

Two ... by law they are ONLY allowed to collect the taxes stipulated..

Three .... to make up the difference they are can borrow UP TO a certain amount .. the "debt ceiling"

The problem is .. and again they don't publicise this ... the figures don't balance ..

The spending is higher than the taxes but by lots more than the amount they are allowed to borrow !!!

Which is why the "Fed" has had to announce some "special accountancy procedures" - fiddling the books ?? - simply to allow the government to operate for the first 2 months of the year ...... if they don't reach an agreement.....

A lot of "nest feathering" going on in Washinton at the moment ..

you are right there Entwood.. American budget actually is a bit "complicated" budget..  and I bet no one knows what the actual unofficial budget is..

[Sir Tigger KC]

If they did leave us all, our nuclear deterrent should be based in England, and would provide employment for those in that area.

If you are talking about a submarine based detterent then we only have one option and that is in Scotland. maybe it is actually That traitors ultimate bargaining chip. Whatever, it won't have escaped his attention of that we can be sure.

I'm sure Devonport would welcome the nuclear subs with open arms!! and Plymouth badly needs more industry/employment! 

[Lizzie_Zoom]

If they did leave us all, our nuclear deterrent should be based in England, and would provide employment for those in that area.

If you are talking about a submarine based detterent then we only have one option and that is in Scotland. maybe it is actually That traitors ultimate bargaining chip. Whatever, it won't have escaped his attention of that we can be sure.

I'm sure Devonport would welcome the nuclear subs with open arms!! and Plymouth badly needs more industry/employment! 

Exactly.   Portsmouth would also no doubt welcome the nuclear subs and all those jobs in the traditional home of the Royal Navy.

[Varche]

Portsmouth. Nice idea. Sadly it is inadequate for subs AND the storage of nuclear warheads.

Scotland is the UKs only viable site. Maybe a new one could be constructed but it would be at great expense.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Portsmouth. Nice idea. Sadly it is inadequate for subs AND the storage of nuclear warheads.

Scotland is the UKs only viable site. Maybe a new one could be constructed but it would be at great expense.

If needs must, then I am sure Varche the UK Government will make the necessary decisions.  There will be no public inquiries stretching out the inevitable as it will be in the interests of national security.  There are always the South Downs to tunnel under as they did during the Napoleonic Wars  to build forts, and certainly there is always large areas of "empty" land close to Dover and Dungeness that could be used for nuclear storage.  Down here there is already a protest on to persuade the Government to build a replacement nuclear power station at Dungeness, and many did not object to the idea of an underground storage bunker for nuclear waste.  Jobs are needed so if the Government say "yes" it could all go ahead, with the subs needs taken into account.

[dbdb]

Now lets remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget:

* Annual family income: $21,700
* Money the family spent: $38,200
* New debt on the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Total budget cuts so far: $38 and 50 cents

But if you change "Outstanding balance on the credit card" to "outstanding debts including mortgage" which would be a fairer comparison,  it looks more normal.

[Varche]

Portsmouth. Nice idea. Sadly it is inadequate for subs AND the storage of nuclear warheads.

Scotland is the UKs only viable site. Maybe a new one could be constructed but it would be at great expense.

If needs must, then I am sure Varche the UK Government will make the necessary decisions.  There will be no public inquiries stretching out the inevitable as it will be in the interests of national security.  There are always the South Downs to tunnel under as they did during the Napoleonic Wars  to build forts, and certainly there is always large areas of "empty" land close to Dover and Dungeness that could be used for nuclear storage.  Down here there is already a protest on to persuade the Government to build a replacement nuclear power station at Dungeness, and many did not object to the idea of an underground storage bunker for nuclear waste.  Jobs are needed so if the Government say "yes" it could all go ahead, with the subs needs taken into account.

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=20012

Money can always be found no matter how skint. I personally would make Salmond pay and then send him to the gate. Fortuneately as Albitz said, Scotland will stay part of the Uk so it is all academic.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Portsmouth. Nice idea. Sadly it is inadequate for subs AND the storage of nuclear warheads.

Scotland is the UKs only viable site. Maybe a new one could be constructed but it would be at great expense.

If needs must, then I am sure Varche the UK Government will make the necessary decisions.  There will be no public inquiries stretching out the inevitable as it will be in the interests of national security.  There are always the South Downs to tunnel under as they did during the Napoleonic Wars  to build forts, and certainly there is always large areas of "empty" land close to Dover and Dungeness that could be used for nuclear storage.  Down here there is already a protest on to persuade the Government to build a replacement nuclear power station at Dungeness, and many did not object to the idea of an underground storage bunker for nuclear waste.  Jobs are needed so if the Government say "yes" it could all go ahead, with the subs needs taken into account.

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id=20012

Money can always be found no matter how skint. I personally would make Salmond pay and then send him to the gate. Fortuneately as Albitz said, Scotland will stay part of the Uk so it is all academic.

Indeed, thank goodness.

[albitz]

As a unionist I agree,but I also believe things need to change.I strongly believe that if we are a united kingdom then we should all live by the same rules.Thanks to McRuin,English taxpayers get a very raw deal these days.It cant be fair that they have to subsidise free prescriptions,universities etc. in other parts of the U.K. while not enjoying these privileges themselves.
Imo it should be that the U.K. as a whole,either can afford it or cant.

[Rods2]

Portsmouth. Nice idea. Sadly it is inadequate for subs AND the storage of nuclear warheads.

Scotland is the UKs only viable site. Maybe a new one could be constructed but it would be at great expense.

If needs must, then I am sure Varche the UK Government will make the necessary decisions.  There will be no public inquiries stretching out the inevitable as it will be in the interests of national security.  There are always the South Downs to tunnel under as they did during the Napoleonic Wars  to build forts, and certainly there is always large areas of "empty" land close to Dover and Dungeness that could be used for nuclear storage.  Down here there is already a protest on to persuade the Government to build a replacement nuclear power station at Dungeness, and many did not object to the idea of an underground storage bunker for nuclear waste.  Jobs are needed so if the Government say "yes" it could all go ahead, with the subs needs taken into account.

You need direct access to the deep water of the Atlantic very quickly for our nuclear subs to disappear. This is why they are based in Scotland and when they leave there is lots of navy surface activity to hide their noise signature. Once the enemy have this they can track them anywhere in the world. 

This is why the recent trial of the navy rating that tried to sell such secrets to Russians was such a potentially grave security breach. 

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Portsmouth. Nice idea. Sadly it is inadequate for subs AND the storage of nuclear warheads.

Scotland is the UKs only viable site. Maybe a new one could be constructed but it would be at great expense.

If needs must, then I am sure Varche the UK Government will make the necessary decisions.  There will be no public inquiries stretching out the inevitable as it will be in the interests of national security.  There are always the South Downs to tunnel under as they did during the Napoleonic Wars  to build forts, and certainly there is always large areas of "empty" land close to Dover and Dungeness that could be used for nuclear storage.  Down here there is already a protest on to persuade the Government to build a replacement nuclear power station at Dungeness, and many did not object to the idea of an underground storage bunker for nuclear waste.  Jobs are needed so if the Government say "yes" it could all go ahead, with the subs needs taken into account.

You need direct access to the deep water of the Atlantic very quickly for our nuclear subs to disappear. This is why they are based in Scotland and when they leave there is lots of navy surface activity to hide their noise signature. Once the enemy have this they can track them anywhere in the world. 

This is why the recent trial of the navy rating that tried to sell such secrets to Russians was such a potentially grave security breach. 

You are right of course Rod2, but I am sure another location for our Trafalgar Class nuclear subs could be found, say around the coast of Cornwall for a quick dive into the Atlantic trenches, with storage of the missiles at Portland Bill for instance.  It is certainly something the UK Government will have to sort out, but only if Scotland becomes independent which is unlikely.