How the UK's HMG replied to questions on NUKES

national | public consultation / irish social forum | other press

Wednesday March 14, 2007 23:37

by neptune's eye - there are many.

I'm not scared of nukes. I'm scared of the people who buy them.

This is thrilling stuff. I could point you in loads of directions at stunning analysis & biting cartoons. But it's best just to look at the nitty gritty of the pieces of paper that go into Hansard - the official record of the Houses of Commons and Lords SW1A Aaakkkmi6mi5. now one of those is a real secret society with hoods on. & I'm not talking about hoodies or asbestos. We do though (get hoodies & asbestos) because we're scum.

Remember that the link in this "other press" article is to a site envisioned for people who aren't like you, that's why it's called "they work for you". Thanks to the foresight of some maligned predecessors & hard bleeding by other predecessors - we either live in the bubble of the Irish diasporia or in the republic of Ireland & a lot of voting households up the wee north.
& it's not wee actually.... It's global. anyway

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2007-03-13a.116...44.mh
with such delights which got through Hansard's grater to us in cyber-land fnord "cache it now" as this :-
Q. how many application forms does a Brit Hun officer have to fill out?
A. anyway.......my honourable friend

anyway
anyway
it's not wee

They've still got nukes you know. when will they use them?

this article was faked using top range consumer products. Write your own, I'm not answering queries or questionaires - I'm on holidays. Somewhere sunny - all the neighbours built their own houses. Respect to them I say. They built lovely hotels too. That's how it goes says you. How many Nukes does our neighbour have? How many of them rely on Sellafield in any way - [look at your top right hand screen now.] & how many of them float in our waters.
With or without sick people on board.......................Have they filled in the proper forms?

save preference

Comments (2 of 2)

By the way - Skynet cost so much for a variety of reasons :-

by macavity

Wed Mar 28, 2007 17:26

Aside from C.A.A.T. (& pals) and Janes Defence Weekly (told you above that's a specialist journal not a porn mag) no-one really watches defence expenditure. Makes it very easy to bill wrongly, run up false labour costs, & make a packet. With money which to be quite frank .:. ought go to the 3rd world and poor of the realm & peace bonus funds for the Basques.
the MOD (UK HMG Ministry of war) accepted the idea of building 2 Skynet satelites. Just in case the one which didn't get launched on March 11th (I'd find a war system particularly offensive on that date) but the next day - got effed up on the way.
A lot of reasons why it would get effed up on the way. ESA isn't HMG UK property. Quite a few people would like to see Skynet effed up before hand, on the way & once it's up there. There are some aspects of its design which push the envelope on strategic technological balance. Which I dear friends am agin. I'll tell you about the militarisation of space another time - maybe some day my idea for an indymedia global space site will be taken up. Anyway..............
If Skynet goes squeeky tick tock like clockwork - it is supposed to pay for itself over the forthcoming years by leasing out part of its bandwith. Not to you or me. It took "us lot" years to get satelite space by which time there were thousands of religious telly channels competing with porn movies coming down to us from space. The who and why of the leasing of that bandwith is........ too big an issue to touch on here......... I'll tell you more soon enough........(in a sunday papers). But just to give you a quick visual idea of the market who will be pitching (& it is a closed near cartel - almost all in the hands of one of the few lady US billionaires) here's a reminder of the Lebanon war - I asked you to consider whose telly war that was & to thus appreciate how important telly and other communication satelites are to us. That war began ostensibly over a border soldier hostage incident you'll remember. Low tech stuff - they never came back either :-
http://indymedia.ie/article/77517

very interesting murkiness going on in the UK regards nukes

by iosaf

Thu Mar 15, 2007 19:07

the vote in the commons yesterday of course followed the technical "democratic" bit of Q&A which I linked to last night - then just about the stage of almost everyone in Westminster giving the green light to more Brit nukes - the Liberal Democrats raised a topic I haven't spotted on my radar in 2 years.

the SBIRS ( which is a US missile shield system read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SBIRS )
Blair's defence secretaries of course clucked clucked "anyway anyway" that there are no plans on the table at the moment for the US to be allowed use British facilities as part of that shield. Indeed - the neocons want them out in the former warsaw pact. Which is dear reader one reason they want you or more specifically members of Congress in the USA to believe that Iran wants nukes. (remember ye are not members of congress - remember ye like me are scum - though probably most of you are higher paid scum than I am)

Touching the "non-subject" of SBIRS confirmed for those who read Jane's weekly (an august newspaper for army and special services types not a porn mag) that the British nuclear deterrent is "more independent" than ever before. OH yes. quite. ribbid. gurgle.

Then I remembered monday's space launch from ESA control centre on the north South American coast. Yes! the skynet system which got up there at a cost of £3.2bn. Skynet ought remind most of you the computer system in the fictional sci-fi series of movies "The Terminator" which of course were so good Arnold Schwarzenegger is now governor of California. Skynet will further ensure that the Brit Hun army and its nuclear deterrent continue to be ever so more "independent".....without technically saying or declaring that they are. Blair has not needed to a De Gaulle renegotiation of NATO - on the contrary the more independent of NATO HMG-UK becomes - the more control over NATO HMG-UK exerts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6434773.stm
I'll not go out on a limb & speculate on the future use of this technology or of a Brit Hun nuke incident for the moment - save to say - I have long maintained that the HMG UK's (meaning the true ruling class not the elected meritocracy) interest was served by the Iraqi invasion in several ways -
(1) it ensured the discredit of new labour.
(2) it put the US where they wanted them - in a mess.
(3) it meant the discredit of the UN and its irksome burdens and limitations of imperial action for their own HMGUK "brit hun 21st century". As I said I'm not going out on a limb with this - most of it comes from having known etonians at various points in my life & noting how they think - in hundred year time spans. Suffice to say - The Brits have more Nukes and more tech to use them and less moral inhibition on thier use than at any stage since Mr Fuchs passed the Abomb secrets first to the Soviets & then to.....

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Voltaire Network

How the UK's HMG replied to questions on NUKES

Comments (2 of 2)