The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[I1L2T3]

We only have the ability to do any serious damage in maybe 5% of Russia. We would leave 80% or more of the population unscathed.

 

In a return attack from Russia we would be utterly destroyed. It would not make sense for us to act alone.

[drummonds]

We only have the ability to do any serious damage in maybe 5% of Russia. We would leave 80% or more of the population unscathed.

 

In a return attack from Russia we would be utterly destroyed. It would not make sense for us to act alone.

 

in other words russia know that should it launch a nuclear attack on the uk it will lose several of its cities in return....unless corbyn gets to number 10 when it could launch an attack and their tame monkey would do nothing.

 

not only are labour not trusted with the economy they are demonstrating they cannot be trusted with our security either.

[L00b]

it is very simple. take advice from professionals and not sf experts. that way you don't break the law but can make a living.

 

so no tax evasion. just taking the rules and working within them.

 

https://www.gov.uk/goods-sent-from-abroad/tax-and-duty

 

You pay VAT on goods sent from non-European Union (EU) countries and EU special territories (eg the Canary Islands) if they’re:... other goods worth more than £15

 

You’ll be charged Customs Duty on gifts and other goods sent from outside the EU if they’re above a certain value, unless the duty comes to less than £9.

I know how imports, exports, import duty and VAT works, d, thanks.

 

Your 'advice' was to keep the declared value of anything imported at under £15:

that's odd. i ship thousands of pounds worth of goods from china and never pay a bean. the secret is to keep the packet value down to around £15. then you can sent pretty much anything anywhere and pay no duty or vat.

Your latest link and reply still doesn't explain how under-declaring the value of stuff being imported from outside the EU, worth more than £15 and/or with an import duty >£9, to avoid being paying import duty and VAT, is legal.

 

Since that is exactly the type of fraud covered by HMRC's CCPs and CCEPs (and for which a fair few people have been sent down the clink), I am justifiably puzzled.

 

As you obviously claim to be such a professional, indeed that is why I keep asking you, as the self-proclaimed 'SF expert'

Edited October 1, 2015 by L00b

[I1L2T3]

in other words russia know that should it launch a nuclear attack on the uk it will lose several of its cities in return....unless corbyn gets to number 10 when it could launch an attack and their tame monkey would do nothing.

 

not only are labour not trusted with the economy they are demonstrating they cannot be trusted with our security either.

 

Or to put it another way, Russia would know that it would totally defeat us and emerge with vast swathes of its land unscathed, with most of its population unharmed and most of its military capacity intact.

 

For us to attack alone would assure our defeat and destruction.

 

Which brings us onto the most important question and one that every UK politician is afraid to ask. Are there any circumstances in which we would attack alone. If the answer is no there is no point having Trident.

[Eric Arthur]

Or to put it another way, Russia would know that it would totally defeat us and emerge with vast swathes of its land unscathed, with most of its population unharmed and most of its military capacity intact.

 

For us to attack alone would assure our defeat and destruction.

 

Which brings us onto the most important question and one that every UK politician is afraid to ask. Are there any circumstances in which we would attack alone. If the answer is no there is no point having Trident.

 

It is the wrong argument. What would Russia have to gain by wiping out the UK? What would the UK have to gain by wiping out some of Russia?

 

Where neither party has geographic rather than geopolitical and economic expansionist plans, the zero sum game is the principle of the post Cold War détante version of MAD.

 

Trident is very relevant in 2015 and beyond. Think of it as the UK's gift to world peace.

[drummonds]

I know how imports, exports, import duty and VAT works, d, thanks.

 

Your 'advice' was to keep the declared value of anything imported at under £15:

Your latest link and reply still doesn't explain how under-declaring the value of stuff being imported from outside the EU, worth more than £15 and/or with an import duty >£9, to avoid being paying import duty and VAT, is legal.

 

Since that is exactly the type of fraud covered by HMRC's CCPs and CCEPs (and for which a fair few people have been sent down the clink), I am justifiably puzzled.

 

As you obviously claim to be such a professional, indeed that is why I keep asking you, as the self-proclaimed 'SF expert'

 

i don't have a clue what you are on about. if you want to ship an item from china to the uk without paying vat or import duty it is very simple. you ship items individually ensuring that each has a value under £15. so if you want to ship 2 memory sticks that cost £14.99 each they come in 2 packages. it's not rocket science. but as there are thousands of folk already doing it who ship hundreds of thousands of items each year, it is difficult to see how folk bulk importing and mailing from within the uk compete.

 

but do feel free to take your jibberings up with taxman. i look forward to his jibberings on the subject.

Edited October 1, 2015 by drummonds

[JFKvsNixon]

Or to put it another way, Russia would know that it would totally defeat us and emerge with vast swathes of its land unscathed, with most of its population unharmed and most of its military capacity intact.

 

For us to attack alone would assure our defeat and destruction.

 

Which brings us onto the most important question and one that every UK politician is afraid to ask. Are there any circumstances in which we would attack alone. If the answer is no there is no point having Trident.

 

We could destroy their biggest populated cities, and irradiate much of the rest. Russia is a huge country with big parts of it frozen tundra or boggy marsh land. To destroy a country you do not have to physically destroy all of it, you just need to destroy or seriously damage it's infrastructure.

 

What good would vast swaths of irradiated land do Russia when it can no longer produce electricity, manufacture anything, educate and look after it's nations failing health, have a working sewage system or transport system. I could go on but you get the picture, life as Russia knows it would cease to exist for the state.

 

Before anyone accuses me of being Dr Strangelove, I'm arguing for effectiveness of the deterrent not how moral it is. I'm a multilateralist not a unilateralist.

Edited October 1, 2015 by JFKvsNixon

[drummonds]

Which brings us onto the most important question and one that every UK politician is afraid to ask. Are there any circumstances in which we would attack alone. If the answer is no there is no point having Trident.

 

you seem to have skipped over the reason that trident is called a deterent. it is not a weapon that we would use to attack. it is a weapon that we use to deter. you seem preoccupied with russia. the deterent deters russia from attacking us as it would cost them several major cities and most of the country's infrastructure. it would set them back to the 1920s. that's a big deterent. it also deters countries like north korea who could lose all their major cities. you missed that one.

 

corbyn stating that he would never fire under any circumstances effectively destroys the deterent. it is just another indication of how out of touch he is with reality something that has probably just cost labour another dozen or so marginals.

Edited October 1, 2015 by drummonds

[Anna B]

Do we really need a seat at that table? We haven't exactly led the world in peace have we given our recent participation in wars of questionable legality. We supply and equip dozens of countries, some of them with poor records on democracy and human rights, with weapons.

 

I think we're a little bit too big for our boots these days

 

Indeed.

 

Nor do I want to be dragged into America's wars. It's bad enough knowing we're near the top of the hit list because we support America, who sometimes seems to act more the aggressor than the peace keeper. America is desperate to maintain its position as 'top gun' and that makes them dangerous.

 

I also find the fact that we supply and equip other countries with weapons (and as you say, many of them have poor records on democracy and human rights,) quite shaming. We are at the top of a very slippery slope that far from giving us status, I think drags us down. Germany seems to have gained the premier position in Europe without being a nuclear power.

 

If, as Eric says, 65 countries are at war, nuclear weapons are hardly keeping the peace. It's 70 years since the world went nuclear, maybe it's time for a proper reappraisal.

Edited October 1, 2015 by Anna B

[JFKvsNixon]

Which brings us onto the most important question and one that every UK politician is afraid to ask. Are there any circumstances in which we would attack alone. If the answer is no there is no point having Trident.

 

I'm sorry I missed this bit, the question about our relationship with the USA regarding nuclear deterrence.

 

I don't think that it's the right question in the context, the question that should be asked is - if we relied upon America for our nuclear deterrent, would they be willing to lose one of their major cities and then risk nuclear escalation, to strike back if just Birmingham was destroyed?

 

Our ownership of a nuclear deterrent makes this question irrelevant.