Increasing our nuclear warhead numbers

Can't afford to pay nurses properly but £2.9 on a new stage to propagate Johnson's lies from and billions on nukes.

And Corbyn was "unelectable"...
Very sadly, he was unelectable, living as we do in a right wing country. Everything in the UK is set up to prevent a truly socialist government ever coming to power. Every now and again there's a Peterloo or an Orgreave but the people are very quickly diverted away from them by a mixture of the establishment press and the day-to-day demands of their own lives, and things drift back to normal, having to bow to the demands of their paymasters to keep life and soul together. Ho hum.
 
Not really a disgrace, Russia is absolutely massive and has a much greater population than us, they could outmuscle most. We had our time near the top of the military tree a long time ago, and we've been on our way down since.

There are bigger countries in the world, with more manpower, more natural resources, bigger budgets and they will catch us up economically and military wise faster than we can outrun them, eventually, everything finds it's level. A small country like us can't keep up with others as they increase their economies and military.

Best thing for us to do would be to cut the military budget, closer to what other NATO nations provide and ally closer with NATO in a lower-level role. There's no need for us to try and police the world. We spend about 2.5% of GDP on defence, but defence from who? If anyone attacks NATO, then NATO would retaliate, and being part of NATO is also being part of a wider force, safety in numbers.

We should cut that 2.5% to 2%, and be nearer to the guideline.

View attachment 15308
We still think of ourselves as big players but the reality is much different. France can overpower us easily with nuclear warheads or with conventional forces. They simply have more of everything.
 
Are you really trying to reference their country being overwhelmed by an all-conquering, all-powerful Nazi Germany 80 years ago? Were it not for geography, an empire and America rescuing us, do you really think this country would have held out alone?
And Russia to be fair. They had the eastern assist
 
Are you really trying to reference their country being overwhelmed by an all-conquering, all-powerful Nazi Germany 80 years ago? Were it not for geography, an empire and America rescuing us, do you really think this country would have held out alone?
Crikey, lighten up 😀

I'd be more worried about the Chinese and the Russians than the French.
 
Fair enough. I'll join in with jokes about the French surrendering easily and the Italians changing sides. My apologies, I'd forgotten we're still living in 1975. Did I tell you about my mate Chalky White with the funny voice?

Do other conquered nations get called cowards in jest or otherwise, or is it just our close rivals the French? Don't hear anyone call the Dutch or the Poles.
 
Do other conquered nations get called cowards in jest or otherwise, or is it just our close rivals the French? Don't hear anyone call the Dutch or the Poles.
It’s also an ignorant thing to say the french surrender. Because of WWII (incidentally no one uses the same line against poles, Ukrainians, Belgians, swedes, the Danish, the Dutch which make it odd)

it also neglects the fact that the french have won more battles in wars than any other nation
 
Remember that bloke in the prime ministerial debate in one of our recent elections, who was terrified of Corbyn's hesitancy during the nuclear war he had imagined?

At least he'll suck his thumb to sleep tonight, happy at last.
 
It’s also an ignorant thing to say the french surrender. Because of WWII (incidentally no one uses the same line against poles, Ukrainians, Belgians, swedes, the Danish, the Dutch which make it odd)

it also neglects the fact that the french have won more battles in wars than any other nation
Italy get the same treatment. What about the Romans? What did they ever do for us?
 
Back
Top