Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Hertston

The Russians may have designs of extended power, if not sovereignty, over the former Soviet states. The Chinese probably do in respect of much of the South China Sea. As far as I'm aware, India and Pakistani terratorial ambitions are restricted to bordering chunks of each other. And as already implied, Kim Jong-un is a complete headcase that can't be relied upon to be rationally 'deterred' anyway.

The latter apart, possibly, there isn't the slightest bit of evidence any of them have any intention to threaten or use nukes in search of 'greater glory' - whatever that means. Certainly no more evidence, in most of the world's eyes, than the US doing it. As far as the UK is concerned, I'm about as worried about the ambitions for 'greater glory' of that lot as I am about an invasion from Mars.

Talking of which ..... Alien base on the Moon?

I rest my case. Unless it should turn out to be Kim Jong-un's secret vacation retreat, anyway. [;)] Of course, if anyone should now argue we should keep nuclear weapons with the additional requirement for lunar capable launchers I would have to concede the point. [:D]

I absolutely agree Hertston.

There is either no threat or a threat which would be deterred...but I do not believe the latter is present - at least against the UK. I do not believe for a split second that China, North Korea, Pakistan or India would have any intentions to launch a nuclear strike against the UK. If one was to head this way (and really?) then I believe it would be a rogue launch. We have a far greater need for a regular force than we do a "what if" force.

Dirty bombs? Yes. More terrorism? Yes. A nuclear strike? Nope. Neither of the first two instances would be deterred by Britain's Nuclear deterrent - which massively sucks funds from other very, very needy sources.

Look up 'allodial title' and you'll have your answer. Proof of ownership, land title, and contract law in the western world, it all stems from property 'held by the crown'. In other words, fee simple rule of law set down in the post-Roman 'land is property, property is rights' concept long debated by the likes of Plato, Jefferson, Mill, and Voltaire.

The English crown has ruled with a velvet glove far better than it ever did with an iron fist. What is seen and what is perceived to be seen are often far different things.

Commonwealth? Pffft... the queen's common wealth, maybe. That is a large purse to fill, after all.

ORIGINAL: Boomer78


... 'God Save the Queen' had one good thing going for it... it was a song written by the Sex Pistols.

I'll be right there with Johnny Rotten... taking a dump in her crown.

I just watched a segment of the "Final 24" that examines the last 24 hours of some celebs, in this case the late Sid Vicious of the Sex Pistols.

I had thought he later died out of guilt from a failed double-suicide with his groupie girlfriend, but apparently his mom -- who was also a heroin addict and who would often do drugs with her son -- fessed up on her deathbed that she administered a fatal heroin overdose to Sid who was still under suspicion of murder -- as his girlfriend was slashed to death with Sid's own knife -- and was headed back to jail until his trial.

Apparently his mom thought he couldn't handle it and took matters into her own maternal hands.

In a word, "horrific".

ORIGINAL: Boomer78

Look up 'allodial title' and you'll have your answer. Proof of ownership, land title, and contract law in the western world, it all stems from property 'held by the crown'. In other words, fee simple rule of law set down in the post-Roman 'land is property, property is rights' concept long debated by the likes of Plato, Jefferson, Mill, and Voltaire.

The English crown has ruled with a velvet glove far better than it ever did with an iron fist. What is seen and what is perceived to be seen are often far different things.

Commonwealth? Pffft... the queen's common wealth, maybe. That is a large purse to fill, after all.

warspite1

Nah I won't bother if its all the same - I'll just continue supporting our Queen and leave you to vomit red, white and blue while taking a dump in a crown should the need arise.

This admin's treatment of our closest allies has been abominable - most notably the U.K. and Israel.

I'm very proud to be an American - but that pride level has slid just a bit since 2009.

I'm not worried, we're waking up.

ORIGINAL: nate25

This admin's treatment of our closest allies has been abominable - most notably the U.K. and Israel.

I'm very proud to be an American - but that pride level has slid just a bit since 2009.

I'm not worried, we're waking up.

Does anyone recall when this admin "treated" the English to a set of incompatible video tapes in exchange for the crown's inauguration gift of priceless antiques?

If we're just waking up now, it's already too late.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Why? What is showing a bit of respect for a great lady that deserves it got to do with the British Government?

I don't share some of the more vulgar protestations against the British government that have been expressed above.

However, there is something uniquely affrontery about bowing before "royalty" (from anywhere) as an American. It's anathema to our roots and I find it appalling. The proper etiquette (for the political handlers) is to never be in a position to bow to anyone else unless the bow is reciprocated (e.g., an "equal" bow to the Japanese PM as a sign of mutual respect). As royalty are unlikely to reciprocate a bow amongst equals, then as an American head of state, you cannot demonstrate subservience before that audience.

Same goes for the much publicized visit to the house of Saud early in the 2008 presidential administration. You don't bow in the same way a subject does. You don't put yourself in that position. The 'handlers' should know better and avoid all occasions that would require such an act.

I guess that's my take.

But none of this English-bashing has anything to do with the OP.

Here's my summary take on that: You can pay for your defense with blood. You can pay for it in treasure. You can pay for it with global influence. But it must be paid for. If you are unwilling to have a large conscript army and choose smaller, high tech approach-you've chosen treasure payments > blood. If you choose to retreat from the world stage, you're sacrificing global influence foremost. But don't kid yourself about your global influence.

Those that starve their defenses, cut troop sizes and think that they can 'buy' global influence via the UN? They're sadly mistaken. They will have none of these influences before long. I see Canada, most of Europe and some countries in SE Asia in this boat. Possibly Japan and New Zealand too. Potential opponents really don't give a rip about their point of view, because they're incapable of exerting their political will through military efforts.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I don't share some of the more vulgar protestations against the British government that have been expressed above.

However, there is something uniquely affrontery about bowing before "royalty" (from anywhere) as an American. It's anathema to our roots and I find it appalling. The proper etiquette (for the political handlers) is to never be in a position to bow to anyone else unless the bow is reciprocated (e.g., an "equal" bow to the Japanese PM as a sign of mutual respect). As royalty are unlikely to reciprocate a bow amongst equals, then as an American head of state, you cannot demonstrate subservience before that audience.

Same goes for the much publicized visit to the house of Saud early in the 2008 presidential administration. You don't bow in the same way a subject does. You don't put yourself in that position. The 'handlers' should know better and avoid all occasions that would require such an act.

No politics please. Thread locked.