ckn

Admin
  • Content count

    12,129
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    12

ckn last won the day on December 9 2017

ckn had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,547 Excellent

About ckn

  • Birthday August 9

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. The TV Thread

    The wife suggested we watch a Hindi film tonight, Lagaan, about a cricket game in the late 1800s. 3hrs 43 minutes. That's more than a one-day match's innings...
  2. I could stick this here or on the Tory thread but here's most relevant. We can't bring doctors in from abroad because we don't pay them enough to get past Tory immigration rules.
  3. Separate post, the first one was theoretical stuff. This is where I get frustrated with the UK's attitude. Take our lovely new aircraft carriers, capable of taking 36 F-35B aircraft in standard usage, we're fitting it out with 12. And one of the carriers will be mothballed meaning 12 operational aircraft on those big old beasts. Where will the UK get the other aircraft then at short notice? The old rule of 4 purchased = 1 operational applies with these. The maths behind it is ropey but we'll have about enough for 24 operational aircraft across our entire military for the 138 we intend to buy, and we won't have them all before 2030 either... We simply are not buying enough if we ever intend to use them for anything but airshows and a floating cocktail bar for ambassadors around the world. The REALLY annoying thing is that the new carriers can operationally take almost double capacity in a war situation yet we couldn't fit one of them out with standard capacity without stripping the RAF, never mind fill them up with wartime capacity. You could take that with virtually everything done in the military since the mid 90s and every procurement decision
  4. Again, you're right. We need a strong military to cope with the threats we have. We should be able to bully almost any nation into behaving if they became belligerent with us, the likes of Russia and China are out of our league and we'd be relegated to supporting the US in any proper fight with them. For example, we couldn't take back the Falklands now if the Argentinians launched a sneak attack and took out the forces there. There's other examples, we couldn't even do what we did in 2003 with Iraq now and Gibraltar always sits on my risk radar. Then there's the "unknown unknowns" that I think is sorely underestimated as a concept. As a separate point (deliberately so as many people disagree with this with incredibly valid reasons), we should have our ultimate "f*** you" of our nuclear weapons that really should be 100% independently owned by us with no US control at all. We have absolutely no clue what'll happen next decade, what if China reverted to a 100% hard-line "communist" state again with its modern technology and sheer size, nukes are the one thing we have as a backstop. It stopped the Soviets in the Cold War as they knew that if there were nothing left to lose then NATO WOULD use nukes. I've said it more than a few times but Theodore Roosevelt's "speak softly, and carry a big stick" suits what the UK should have at all times.
  5. As that crazy foreigner (the North Korean one) has reminded us, an EMP weapon can do more damage to a modern society than a tactical nuclear weapon. My view is the N Korean threat on this is overhyped but I would be very surprised if the bigger military powers don't have something similar ready to use.
  6. By "direct", I mean physical armed conflict dominated by things that go bang. You're absolutely right, my military thinking is still largely Cold War and post-Cold War between two forces in direct conflict of the type going back to when the first two tribes fought over a nice bit of land. Modern "direct" conflict can, of course, include cyber warfare. It astounds me to this day that some highly sensitive parts of our infrastructure are connected to the outside world at all. I've only ever seen one place do it properly and that was a physical divide between all things that could see the world outside their TEMPEST'ed offices and those that were specifically designed to only see inside. Separate kit that only hard-coded PCs (no laptops) could access and absolutely nowhere that the two could interact.
  7. Ah, the Russian Navy, token response at best against the US in open conflict and they know it, they don't even pretend. They don't need much of it though as they can project land power to such an extent. The Soviet era plans for an European conflict, including taking the UK, relied on land-projected air closing the English Channel then safely get over that way, using modern air superiority to do what the Germans couldn't in WW2; they couldn't leave a safe European port for the US to rally from meaning they couldn't leave the UK standing undefeated.
  8. This year saw the first gas tanker from Russia arrive in the UK. That's fine though as capitalism means you discard the expensive for the cheap whether it's handing over strategic power to others or not.
  9. Quantity has a quality of its own when it comes to things like that.
  10. We're so insecure and needy that we've set it so you can't ignore Administrators or Moderators
  11. Nursing recruitment difficulties with one area filling 1 in 400 nursing jobs advertised. Crisis? What crisis? Across England, only 1 in 7 nursing roles that are advertised gets filled. Note, this does not cover the roles that are not advertised because Trusts can't afford to do so.
  12. The TV Thread

    It's gone a bit weird since the break. Still quite good but my support is wavering a bit.
  13. People have asked us how to "ignore" someone on this forum from the mobile version of the forum. Well, John found it: Tap the menu option icon in the top right hand corner of the mobile screen (three horizontal lines) On the pop up menu which appears, tap on 'Account' and a new menu slides in from the right. On this new menu, tap 'Ignored Users'. Start type the username of the user you want to ignore into the box until they appear in the drop down list and then various options on what you want to ignore can be selected, eg: posts, messages, signature, mentions. Click 'Add User' button when done.
  14. A friend of mine described our drama at “intercepting” Russian ships going past as being like small dog syndrome where they bark at anything going past their fence. The UK military would not go up against Russia on its own. We couldn’t win, even if we quadrupled our military. We actually could hold them to a stalemate at sea because our subs are better than theirs but that’s it.
  15. It's a big distraction in my opinion. With the demise of ISIS, there has to be an enemy to distract us. Russia is no direct military threat to us. The persistent stories that are being pushed with ever more drama about us intercepting Russian ships and aircraft are just that, drama. Russian ships have to go past the UK to get to the Mediterranean, how else would they get there except by going the VERY long way round. We fly planes right along the Russian border when on exercise with our NATO allies yet when they send one ancient old Bear reconnaissance turboprop plane within 250 miles of us it's prominent news in the nationalist newspapers. They may attack their neighbours, and that's where we should be focussing our view, deterrence. Speak softly, and carry a big stick.