Wednesday 30th September 2015

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 6:36 am

Good morning all

Just to start the morning I thought I would point any coffee drinkers in this direction to see what chemicals make up the aroma of coffee

I am a chemist you see and think of everything in terms of chemical compounds.....I think if more of us understood this type of area then I think our science debates (I mean 'our' in terms of society in general rather than here) would be more useful

By the way some of these compounds are relatively interesting - I was surprised to see thiols in there (mercaptans is another name for these and methyl mercaptan is one of the the vilest smelling substances....it is the sulfur-with an 'f'-equivalent of methanol) and also acetaldehyde which is not a particularly pleasant compound. Interesting (well it is to me anyway!

http://www.compoundchem.com/2015/02/17/coffee-aroma/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 6:46 am

howsillyofme1 wrote:Good morning all

Just to start the morning I thought I would point any coffee drinkers in this direction to see what chemicals make up the aroma of coffee

I am a chemist you see and think of everything in terms of chemical compounds.....I think if more of us understood this type of area then I think our science debates (I mean 'our' in terms of society in general rather than here) would be more useful

By the way some of these compounds are relatively interesting - I was surprised to see thiols in there (mercaptans is another name for these and methyl mercaptan is one of the the vilest smelling substances....it is the sulfur-with an 'f'-equivalent of methanol) and also acetaldehyde which is not a particularly pleasant compound. Interesting (well it is to me anyway!

http://www.compoundchem.com/2015/02/17/coffee-aroma/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am very chemistry orientated this morning......

The methyl mercaptan presence in coffee may be surprising as the semll is so bad but often in very low concentrations these foul-smelling compounds provide a nuance int he aroma of something such as coffee

The most impressive are compounds such as skatole (a methylindole produced by the breakdown of tryptophan) which literally smells like shit that is actually used in perfumes as its low concentration odour is quite pleasant

These points aconcentration having a dramatic effect on the actual perception of the aroma may seem interesting but not very important but it can be used as a way of explaining toxicity. Like aroma, toxicity is based on dose so just because something is either harmful or harmless at a certain concentration does not mean it is all the time

On that note I will now head off for work

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 8:11 am

Corbyn on Radio 4 now, for those who may be interested.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 8:59 am

howsillyofme1 wrote:
howsillyofme1 wrote:Good morning all

Just to start the morning I thought I would point any coffee drinkers in this direction to see what chemicals make up the aroma of coffee

I am a chemist you see and think of everything in terms of chemical compounds.....I think if more of us understood this type of area then I think our science debates (I mean 'our' in terms of society in general rather than here) would be more useful

By the way some of these compounds are relatively interesting - I was surprised to see thiols in there (mercaptans is another name for these and methyl mercaptan is one of the the vilest smelling substances....it is the sulfur-with an 'f'-equivalent of methanol) and also acetaldehyde which is not a particularly pleasant compound. Interesting (well it is to me anyway!

http://www.compoundchem.com/2015/02/17/coffee-aroma/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am very chemistry orientated this morning......

The methyl mercaptan presence in coffee may be surprising as the semll is so bad but often in very low concentrations these foul-smelling compounds provide a nuance int he aroma of something such as coffee

The most impressive are compounds such as skatole (a methylindole produced by the breakdown of tryptophan) which literally smells like shit that is actually used in perfumes as its low concentration odour is quite pleasant

These points aconcentration having a dramatic effect on the actual perception of the aroma may seem interesting but not very important but it can be used as a way of explaining toxicity. Like aroma, toxicity is based on dose so just because something is either harmful or harmless at a certain concentration does not mean it is all the time

On that note I will now head off for work

This is interesting - I understand (please correct me if I'm wrong) that aldehydes are used a lot in perfumes. Not being a chemist, I have no idea if these are the sort of chemicals you mean.....
My two favourites are Chanel No5 and Lanvin's Arpege - both of which are based on aldehydes.
The Arpege smells floral and citrussy on me - but a friend tried it and said it smelt faecal on her (bleugh)

On toxicity, how drugs are used throws up some interesting factoids.
Amitryptrilline (a tricyclic anti-depressant) was given in high doses for clinical depression, had awful side-effects, and was lethal in even small overdoses. It wasn't all that effective, and has been replaced largely by newer drugs like SSRI's.
But - in very very low dosage, previously considered ineffective for its intended purpose, it works incredibly well as an analgesic especially for nerve-related pain like sciatica. At these dosage levels, it's not very toxic at all.

On another note - I haven't posted much as I've been a bit poorly. Been keeping an eye on you, though!
The conference has been done to death by the MSM with the usual spin and whatnot. I despair of hacks sometimes.

I spotted something in an article the other day that made me chuckle - Hameron, apparently, was on CBS discussing Syria and said that the "intractable problems" there are the toughest thing "Barack and I" face.

This issue is so important that he's left the big UN speech to the oleaginous Hammond while he, Hameron, pisses off to the Caribbean for a bit of trade. Very nice.
He's using £25 Million of our aid budget to build a prison in Jamaica for all the Yardies or whoever we've got incarcerated here so he can send 'em all back.
Apparently their own jails are so bad we'd b breaching Jamaican nationals' human rights if we sent them home now; so we're using aid money to lock 'em up UK-style.

As expected, there's talk of slavery reparations. BTL at the G people are asking why taxpayers should pay reparations to the descendants of slaves when it was all so long ago etc.etc.etc. whilst ignoring the fact that taxpayers back then forked out compensation to slave-owners when slavery was abolished.
Hameron's much-removed relation, James Duff, got the equivalent in today's money of £345,000 (he still had the slaves, but they became "apprentices" once they were "free")
Go on, Dave - pay it back, you can afford it........

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 9:04 am

Glad to see you back Ephie, hope you are feeling a bit brighter and Show is still on the mend.

Lithium is another of those toxic/therapeutic drugs, as is Digoxin.

Maybe it shows how my OCD mind works but I saw something positive politically in HowSilly's chemistry post.
All those who wail 'Corbyn's toxic'...to some he will be a dose of medicine and may end up healing rather than poisoning.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 9:17 am

Morning all.

Hugo's attempt to sneak back into CiF after his two user names got blasted yesterday seems to failed

There is something very odd about someone who persists like he does - even dear old Burgau gave up after 6 goes.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 9:18 am

yahyah wrote:Corbyn on Radio 4 now, for those who may be interested.

Hints of condescension from Today.
Well you may be principled which is an admirable quality but eventually the Party will come to its senses and see the light, return to proper sensible politics.

Morning all btw.

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 9:34 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all.

Hugo's attempt to sneak back into CiF after his two user names got blasted yesterday seems to failed

There is something very odd about someone who persists like he does - even dear old Burgau gave up after 6 goes.

It never did Eddie the Eagle any harm,
Out of interest, how do you know it was Hugo?

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 9:38 am

StephenDolan wrote:
yahyah wrote:Corbyn on Radio 4 now, for those who may be interested.
Hints of condescension from Today.
Well you may be principled which is an admirable quality but eventually the Party will come to its senses and see the light, return to proper sensible politics.

Morning all btw.

One hopes that will indeed be the case.

Corbyn's comments on Trident today are hopeless. He is never going to be PM.

What I hate far more than Dan Hodges being wrong is Dan Hodges being mostly right. His summary of Corbyn's conference address are in many respects spot on.

Basically in my view the new approach to the economy is brilliant, if a hard sell to the electorate. We should have a government that does that, we should have a government that builds lots of council housing. None of it is going to happen while Corbyn is leader.

Until this week I held out some hope this might work, now I believe it is utterly doomed. The only question being how big a hole he leaves the party in.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 9:41 am

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:
yahyah wrote:Corbyn on Radio 4 now, for those who may be interested.
Hints of condescension from Today.
Well you may be principled which is an admirable quality but eventually the Party will come to its senses and see the light, return to proper sensible politics.

Morning all btw.
One hopes that will indeed be the case.

Corbyn's comments on Trident today are hopeless. He is never going to be PM.

What I hate far more than Dan Hodges being wrong is Dan Hodges being mostly right. His summary of Corbyn's conference address are in many respects spot on.

Basically in my view the new approach to the economy is brilliant, if a hard sell to the electorate. We should have a government that does that, we should have a government that builds lots of council housing. None of it is going to happen while Corbyn is leader.

Until this week I held out some hope this might work, now I believe it is utterly doomed. The only question being how big a hole he leaves the party in.

He may be so poor and unpopular come the General Election that Labour don't win. Oh....

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 10:01 am

If, at a club, a minority of football fans take a disliking to a newly appointed manager, contrasting with those enthused who had been disenchanted with the club previously, should the manager be replaced after 2 weeks? Is the team cheered on against their rivals in the chase for silverware, or should we hope he fails?

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 10:02 am

tinybgoat wrote: It never did Eddie the Eagle any harm,
Out of interest, how do you know it was Hugo?

Everyone has their own posting style which its very difficult to hide - he's easy to spot.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 10:08 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all.

Hugo's attempt to sneak back into CiF after his two user names got blasted yesterday seems to failed

There is something very odd about someone who persists like he does - even dear old Burgau gave up after 6 goes.

There's another one today called colintd. Sometimes I think a new one is SH but the "voice" isn't quite the same. I think the way some people write, like their speech, is actually quite distinctive - I doubt I could pretend to be someone else for long without being spotted.

I don't think it's odd when people do this. I think it's a bit sick, actually. If it's made clear, repeatedly, that one isn't welcome, I don't get why someone would keep trying to get back into the conversation - unless they are so certain they are right, or so arrogant that they insist their voice is heard and the rest of us must listen....or maybe a bit of both.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 10:12 am

Well quite.

I have a DT logon which only one person over there has managed to guess but if it was deleted I wouldn't spend time getting a new one...and then another..and then another.

There are people that do at the DT - they're normally the rabid ethno-nationalists. They're easy to spot too...

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 10:16 am

I don't hope he fails,quite the opposite.I just cannot see in any way he can possibly win.It is not the "clubs" fans he has to appeal to.Putting myself into the position of neutral observer as much as I can,this repeated refrain of I have a mandate (strictly true of the members-a miniscule number of voters)is not doing him any favours ie.more concerned with Party machinations.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 10:27 am

howsillyofme1 wrote:Good morning all

I am a chemist you see and think of everything in terms of chemical compounds.....I think if more of us understood this type of area then I think our science debates (I mean 'our' in terms of society in general rather than here) would be more useful

Great news, thank you, howsillyofme1.
I agree with you.

Good-morning, everyone.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 10:28 am

HindleA wrote:I don't hope he fails,quite the opposite.I just cannot see in any way he can possibly win.It is not the "clubs" fans he has to appeal to.Putting myself into the position of neutral observer as much as I can,this repeated refrain of I have a mandate (strictly true of the members-a miniscule number of voters)is not doing him any favours ie.more concerned with Party machinations.

I noticed yesterday, in his speech, that he often referred to "the electorate" when he was speaking of the people who took part in the ballot for the leadership. I'm hoping that his understandable euphoria at the scale of his victory will fade into the background fairly quickly. This was, after all, his first conference which followed on very quickly from his assuming the post of leader.

As an aside - I was very pleased that he didn't witter on about being "humbled" (or at least I didn't spot it if he did).

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 10:29 am

Good morfternoon.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 10:35 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all.

Hugo's attempt to sneak back into CiF after his two user names got blasted yesterday seems to failed

There is something very odd about someone who persists like he does - even dear old Burgau gave up after 6 goes.

I have wondered whether SH is autistic, tbh (as a confirmed Aspie myself this is something with which I can sympathise)

My impression is that he very rarely means to offend people, but finds some of the social skills many take for granted a struggle.

(this would not be inconsistent with fairly specialised work in academia, which is I believe his day job)

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 10:39 am

This, from the local rag -

City Labour leader John Ferrett also shared his concerns about his party’s new leader.

He claimed Mr Corbyn’s election would make it tough for Labour to ever get a crucial foothold within the city.

Councillor Ferrett, whose brother Ken resigned from the party last week after Mr Corbyn’s election, said: ‘The speech clearly played well with the those at the conference and pressed all the right buttons in making the delegates feel good about themselves.

‘But I didn’t feel that it spoke to the rest of the country.’

Cllr Ferrett claimed that during the last election, voters ‘did not trust’ Labour on its economic plan and its ability to cut the deficit.

He added Mr Corbyn’s speech did little to regain that trust.

Likewise, the Labour leader’s comments about the Trident programme also concerned Cllr Ferrett.

‘I totally disagree with Jeremy Corbyn on Trident,’ he said.

‘I feel that the nuclear deterrent has served our country well.

‘Losing Trident could be disastrous for jobs.’

He added any detrimental impact on the nation’s overall defence services could also have a knock-on effect in Portsmouth, leaving the city in a ‘bad situation’.(Portsmouth News)

I think John Ferrett's (John Ferrett was Portsmouth North's Labour candidate in the last General Election)final comment was missing the point rather widely. Conventional defence spending would, presumably, increase.

(I don't think he (JF) was that keen on Ed Miliband, either.)

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 10:54 am

Wistfully dreaming of Mair v Cameron...

So, Prime minister Cameron, would you press the button?

Yes.

Under what circumstances?

Well I won't go into specifics of the rules of engagement...

Yes, but can you give me one hypothetical scenario where you would press the button?

... Security,... Nation... Patriotic.... Etc

Two final questions.

If there's been a nuclear missile launched at the UK, has the nuclear deterrent worked?

How many people do you think is an acceptable number to kill via a nuclear strike?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 10:54 am

HindleA wrote:I don't hope he fails,quite the opposite.I just cannot see in any way he can possibly win.It is not the "clubs" fans he has to appeal to.Putting myself into the position of neutral observer as much as I can,this repeated refrain of I have a mandate (strictly true of the members-a miniscule number of voters)is not doing him any favours ie.more concerned with Party machinations.

Come on now, hundreds of thousands of people is not "miniscule".

And let's not start buying into the myth of this group being some hermetically sealed sect, and that they don't have relatives friends and work/student colleagues with which they interact regularly. And remember how the great upsurge in SNP membership led to a historic landslide just months later (surely not a mere coincidence)

Actual real political involvement is coming back into fashion (and has been for a while, JC's election is just the latest in a series of events confirming this)

This, at least, is an unequivocally good thing.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 10:55 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:
tinybgoat wrote: It never did Eddie the Eagle any harm,
Out of interest, how do you know it was Hugo?
Everyone has their own posting style which its very difficult to hide - he's easy to spot.

It is indeed hard to alter writing style, more than people generally think.

Doris Lessing wrote a novel using another name and a friend read the book by this 'new' author.
The friend contacted Lessing, not suspecting her of using a pseudonym.
The communication went something like this:
"Read it if you get a chance, it's wonderful, uncanny how I heard your voice sounding in the pages - do you know the author?"

Sometimes it takes some time but it's almost impossible to adopt a consistently different writing style - geniuses probably can't do it.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 10:58 am

Ephemerid, I'm sorry to read you've not felt well.
Enjoy good health, my friend, you're in my thoughts.
Give my love to Showmaster and good health to all your people.
xx
cJA

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 11:07 am

ephemerid wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all.

Hugo's attempt to sneak back into CiF after his two user names got blasted yesterday seems to failed

[img]image%20edited%20out%20-%20cJA[/img]

There is something very odd about someone who persists like he does - even dear old Burgau gave up after 6 goes.
There's another one today called colintd. Sometimes I think a new one is SH but the "voice" isn't quite the same. I think the way some people write, like their speech, is actually quite distinctive - I doubt I could pretend to be someone else for long without being spotted.

I don't think it's odd when people do this. I think it's a bit sick, actually. If it's made clear, repeatedly, that one isn't welcome, I don't get why someone would keep trying to get back into the conversation - unless they are so certain they are right, or so arrogant that they insist their voice is heard and the rest of us must listen....or maybe a bit of both.

I should read the thread before replying to each post, I think.
You've written better what I was trying to say regarding the unique quality of our voice, written or spoken.

It's probable some people use Internet forums as part of their chosen career as a manipulator, sometimes called, 'advertising'.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 11:08 am

I've found myself defending Corbyn's nuclear disarmament stance this morning on CIF. Not so much because I'm desperate to get rid of Trident, but more because those (politicians) who want to renew it haven't even attempted to start making a case for it. Cameron has already kicked the thorny issue of renewing Trident into the long grass with the Coalition as a handy excuse (because he's so good at taking the difficult decisions!) but I can't see how he can avoid the decision much longer. As such, Corbyn's longstanding commitment to nuclear disarmament actually puts Cameron in a tricky position, one where he actually has to justify the gobsmacking amounts of money he is committed to throwing at this essential relic of the cold war past. The media have so far adopted a position of "of course Trident is necessary", but if that's true, why the dragging of heels in renewing it? Cameron can't exactly attack Corbyn for refusing to renew Trident on principle, only to fail to renew it himself because of fear of the political repercussions to himself because of the cost. Both sides may end up taking a "hit" on this decision and at least Corbyn's stance is a straightforward one based on regard for human life that is easy to defend.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 11:13 am

On Trident - the whole point of deterrents is to deter, and in a twisted way that sort of works.

Knowing the US/whoever has nuclear capability didn't/doesn't stop countries wanting their own; but once they have them all they achieve is defence against countries who are unlikely to use them because the rest of their arsenal is so extensive - and in the case of the US, they are so powerful that they have their allies convinced they have right on their side a lot of the time.

Our armed forces are among the best in the world. We are brilliant at intelligence, good at the "hearts and minds" thing, and better-trained in some ways thus avoiding too much gung-ho mentality (unlike the US troops).
That's why I think that if we must spend tens of billions on something, it would be best spent on the things we are good at; proper, well-equipped services, with an acknowledgement that we are actually a small country albeit with powerful friends.

We can't use the nukes we are leasing at vast expense. It's a waste of public money. Our foreign policies have aped those of the Americans for too
long, IMHO, and we should be thinking differently.
I thought the extra-judicial killing of Bin Laden was a bad thing - he was hidden in plain sight and I find it impossible to believe that nobody knew he was there. Watching Obama and Clinton as they watched their troops obliterate a family as though it was some sort of video game made me feel very queasy, and all they achieved was elevating their enemy to martyrdom.
I also have a real issue with our deployment of drones to kill people in Syria or wherever. We are not at war. We should not be doing this without UN and Parliamentary agreement, however odious ISIS is.

It's all a bit of a mess.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 11:14 am

Hmmm, is TE above *really* saying above that JC is unelectable as PM because he refuses to press a button that would incinerate millions?

I thought anyway that the whole point of nuclear deterrence was exactly that - the weapons exist precisely so that they should *not* be used.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 11:15 am

Anatoly -points taken.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 1:00 pm

Hello, anybody there?

howsillyofme1 · Post by **howsillyofme1** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 1:01 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Hmmm, is TE above *really* saying above that JC is unelectable as PM because he refuses to press a button that would incinerate millions?

I thought anyway that the whole point of nuclear deterrence was exactly that - the weapons exist precisely so that they should *not* be used.

Indeed

I would like to respond to some of the points

Regarding mandate, I do not believe he has everindicated he has a mandate from the whole country - how could he, that is a massive straw man.

He has a massive mandate within the party to change the direction and policy framework. It is this the right wing seem not to realise. I he has no mandate from the party then who has? Mandelson? Kendall? Burnham?

Ido not understand TE saying Corbyn is not fit to be PM because of his stance on Trident - firstly, that is a subjective opinion and one I disregard (sorry TE) as one from a non-neutral observer. I imagine Cameron thinks the same but I don't take much notice of him either. I thought HidleA's comment was more balanced on this

I think Cameron is the most unfit person to have ever been PM - he is a liar, incompetent, ignorant and many other things. Unfortunately, he is the PM and it seems none of his failings stopped him becoming so. I thought Miliband,a nd Corbyn actually, would make far better PMs than Cameron.

I take it, TE, that because Cameron is PM then he is a better choice than Corbyn - because he believes in Trident?

Finally, I am glad to see some honesty froma potential PM on nuclear weapons. I think the deterrent is a myth.....it is a revenge weapon and I rember an episode of Yes Prime Minister where this was discussed - when would it be used?

I would like to see Cameron asked this question. Would you use the weapon? If yes, when? I imagine he will not say and this silence will be considered by TE to be statesmanlinke.....in fact it is because he can't answer because he doesn't know

My view anyone who would consider using that weapon would be unfit to be PM.....

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 1:08 pm

The greatest weapon a leader has is the ability to effectively communicate thus preventing harm to people, country and the world.
What is the best speech and action to achieve the goal of protecting people, country and world?

The UK Prime Minister is responsible for all weapons used (or not) to protect people and country.
The UK currently has a 'nuclear button'.
How best to use the 'nuclear button'?

'Would you push the '[nuclear] button', Mr. Corbyn?'

Corbyn response:
'No.'

I know not pushing the nuclear button is the right action to protect people and country.
I don't know the most effective words a leader uses to communicate effectively protecting people and land.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 1:08 pm

Latest forcasted benefit caseload/expenditure for those interested.

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... 15#history" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 1:16 pm

Maria Eagle, the shadow defence secretary, has criticised Jeremy Corbyn for saying he would not press the nuclear button." onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He's a member of CND. What else can he say? I don't blame her for thinking it but it hardly helps to say these things in public. I tried to point out this would be a problem when advocating Burnham over Corbyn for leader because I knew it would be an issue, but Corbyn won so Labour needs to find a way to live with an advocate of unilateral disarmament as leader because it is wholly unrealistic to expect him to lie about it or change his mind.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 1:18 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Hmmm, is TE above *really* saying above that JC is unelectable as PM because he refuses to press a button that would incinerate millions?

I thought anyway that the whole point of nuclear deterrence was exactly that - the weapons exist precisely so that they should *not* be used.

Yes, that's correct.
The deterrent part relies upon a leader being willing to push the button, or at least bluffing well enough to make it unwise to test the strength of conviction.
Jeremy Corbyn has told the world he won't use nuclear weapons.
The deterrent is gone.

It's safer and more responsible not to use nuclear weapons, of course.
It's also a better use of resources, safer and more responsible to disarm the weapons that won't ever be used.

Some disagree with this plan.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 1:19 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Hello, anybody there?

I was examining my thoughts.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 1:20 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:Question: Under what circumstances is it down to the PM to make the decision to use nuclear weapons?

Good point!
Does the PM of the UK have the authority to push the button?

ohsocynical · Post by **ohsocynical** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 1:24 pm

ephemerid wrote:
RogerOThornhill wrote:Morning all.

Hugo's attempt to sneak back into CiF after his two user names got blasted yesterday seems to failed

There is something very odd about someone who persists like he does - even dear old Burgau gave up after 6 goes.

There's another one today called colintd. Sometimes I think a new one is SH but the "voice" isn't quite the same. I think the way some people write, like their speech, is actually quite distinctive - I doubt I could pretend to be someone else for long without being spotted.

I don't think it's odd when people do this. I think it's a bit sick, actually. If it's made clear, repeatedly, that one isn't welcome, I don't get why someone would keep trying to get back into the conversation - unless they are so certain they are right, or so arrogant that they insist their voice is heard and the rest of us must listen....or maybe a bit of both.

On the other hand there are some who simply enjoy stirring things up...

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 1:25 pm

Willow904 wrote:
Maria Eagle, the shadow defence secretary, has criticised Jeremy Corbyn for saying he would not press the nuclear button." onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
He's a member of CND. What else can he say? I don't blame her for thinking it but it hardly helps to say these things in public. I tried to point out this would be a problem when advocating Burnham over Corbyn for leader because I knew it would be an issue, but Corbyn won so Labour needs to find a way to live with an advocate of unilateral disarmament as leader because it is wholly unrealistic to expect him to lie about it or change his mind.

I've been thinking about this all morning.

'Would you push the '[nuclear] button', Mr. Corbyn?'

Corbyn response:
"The job requirements of the PM of the UK include my duty to responsibly protect people and the country using all means at my disposal."

Corbyn could've sat a little chillier on this horse.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 1:27 pm

citizenJA wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Hello, anybody there?
I was examining my thoughts.

Never a bad thing

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 1:29 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:Question: Under what circumstances is it down to the PM to make the decision to use nuclear weapons?
Good point!
Does the PM of the UK have the authority to push the button?
Helpfully, this just popped up in my Twitter feed:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-3439 ... ow_twitter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There's no button to push, the PM of the UK doesn't get to make the decision alone and the submarine commander is the one ordering to fire in the end anyway.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 1:39 pm

citizenJA wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Hmmm, is TE above *really* saying above that JC is unelectable as PM because he refuses to press a button that would incinerate millions?

I thought anyway that the whole point of nuclear deterrence was exactly that - the weapons exist precisely so that they should *not* be used.
Yes, that's correct.
The deterrent part relies upon a leader being willing to push the button, or at least bluffing well enough to make it unwise to test the strength of conviction.
Jeremy Corbyn has told the world he won't use nuclear weapons.
The deterrent is gone.

It's safer and more responsible not to use nuclear weapons, of course.
It's also a better use of resources, safer and more responsible to disarm the weapons that won't ever be used.

Some disagree with this plan.

The deterrent element is based on uncertainty. Corbyn may not be willing, as a pacifist, to give the order, but he could step down at any moment. As such, as long as we have the weapon, there remains a possibility it may be used, so the deterrent remains. If Corbyn is weakening UK security by saying he won't use it, Cameron is equally weakening UK security by failing to get on and renew it. There have been maintenance issues with this aging arsenal:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... -submarine" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 1:48 pm

The whole emotive language of the media doesn't help.
The PM does not have some button brought to him that he pushes to nuke cities off the map.

Has the case for nuclear disarmament really become so off the table for discussion even in the Labour party ?

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 1:50 pm

Memo to self.
Remember that CND was once a proscribed organisation according to Labour party rules.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 1:50 pm

citizenJA wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
Maria Eagle, the shadow defence secretary, has criticised Jeremy Corbyn for saying he would not press the nuclear button." onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
He's a member of CND. What else can he say? I don't blame her for thinking it but it hardly helps to say these things in public. I tried to point out this would be a problem when advocating Burnham over Corbyn for leader because I knew it would be an issue, but Corbyn won so Labour needs to find a way to live with an advocate of unilateral disarmament as leader because it is wholly unrealistic to expect him to lie about it or change his mind.
I've been thinking about this all morning.
'Would you push the '[nuclear] button', Mr. Corbyn?'

Corbyn response:
"The job requirements of the PM of the UK include my duty to responsibly protect people and the country using all means at my disposal."
Corbyn could've sat a little chillier on this horse.

I think Corbyn was right not to dodge this, his views on unilateral disarmament are too well known, he can't change them now. All Labour can do is hope that it doesn't do them too much damage.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 2:00 pm

yahyah wrote:The whole emotive language of the media doesn't help.
The PM does not have some button brought to him that he pushes to nuke cities off the map.

Has the case for nuclear disarmament really become so off the table for discussion even in the Labour party ?

Despite Trident coming up for renewal, the debate on nuclear weapons has been very muted in recent years. Are we sure spending £100bn on renewal is the generally accepted vote winner that the media is painting it as? I honestly don't know. Keeping a weapon you already have would probably be widely supported, while investing huge sums of money on a nuclear weapon when you didn't previously have one would surely be unpopular - so where does that leave renewal? Is it equated in peoples' minds with keeping an existing weapon, or are the sums of money that need to be found for it going to push it into the unpopular "new" weapon territory?

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 2:04 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Hmmm, is TE above *really* saying above that JC is unelectable as PM because he refuses to press a button that would incinerate millions?

I thought anyway that the whole point of nuclear deterrence was exactly that - the weapons exist precisely so that they should *not* be used.

No I am saying he is unelectable as PM for a whole host of reasons however here are two related to Trident.

Supporting CND has in the past made Labour unelectable and there is no real evidence majority public opinion has changed (Kinnock lost in 87 and dumped the policy because he saw it as a disaster).

The whole point of a deterrent is to deter, which is why serious politicians are bright enough never to answer the question would you use it. You have to believe they might. The fact he answered the question just defies belief.

What Corbyn should have said is -" I do not believe in nuclear weapons, however to the extent they have a function it is to act as a deterrent, and that function is best served by not answering your question."

The fact he lost the vote on it, but has still made it headline news and engineered a massive row with his shadow defence secretary, plus a huge split with his key front bench MPs, takes a special kind of total incompetence found in relatively few individuals.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 2:09 pm

I'll get booed and hissed I know for saying this.
But is suggesting taking a position of being brave enough to discard one's nuclear weapons really that wrong ?

Sometimes it takes people brave enough to say 'end slavery', 'give votes to women', 'lets have universal suffrage'.

Maybe we need to be brave enough to say we're willing to lay down appalling, human and planet destroying weapons.

Can see the right wing thinking of using MAD as a vote winner at this rate.
Labour people don't need to be helping them.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 2:16 pm

Willow904 wrote:
citizenJA wrote:
Willow904 wrote: He's a member of CND. What else can he say? I don't blame her for thinking it but it hardly helps to say these things in public. I tried to point out this would be a problem when advocating Burnham over Corbyn for leader because I knew it would be an issue, but Corbyn won so Labour needs to find a way to live with an advocate of unilateral disarmament as leader because it is wholly unrealistic to expect him to lie about it or change his mind.
I've been thinking about this all morning.
'Would you push the '[nuclear] button', Mr. Corbyn?'

Corbyn response:
"The job requirements of the PM of the UK include my duty to responsibly protect people and the country using all means at my disposal."
Corbyn could've sat a little chillier on this horse.
I think Corbyn was right not to dodge this, his views on unilateral disarmament are too well known, he can't change them now. All Labour can do is hope that it doesn't do them too much damage.

I think you're probably right.
My partner and I had a talk this morning about this earlier.
It's a good conversation to have, the country, the leaders.

Some are likely dismayed by this because they're told to be frightened, they're told flat-out lies, they're encouraged to be scared.
I've written before that facts, reality, accuracy, history and rational thinking form only part of how human beings understand things, believe things. It doesn't happen all the time to everyone but the events I've lived through and history I've read teach me people are swayed by influences not wholly logical. That's not to say we're deluded, we're not.

I admit when my husband told me about Corbyn's unequivocal answer today, my heart sank a bit. I've contemplated it and I admire the man as much as ever. Might have been the best thing get this here issue over right at the get-go.

Please, everyone dubious about Corbyn, sit chilly on your horse.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Wed 30 Sep, 2015 2:17 pm

There's some stuff here about the expulsions and proscribed organisations in the book I've just read.
Amazing how much I'd already forgotten.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=tgc ... ur&f=false" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;