Why The Nuclear Deterrent Has Had Its Day!!

One year after the expected date of the next election - sometime in 2016 - the UK will be making the decision of to commit about £20 billion to replace the four Vanguard submarines (which will be approaching the termination of their service), each of which carries a Trident D5 missile.

A Trident missile armed Vanguard class ballistic missile submarine leaving its base in the Firth of Clyde. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Since 1994, these four submarines and their nuclear weapons system have provided the UK's main deterrent. The question is, is Trident really a deterrent - or merely a political insurance policy?

If a country like Iran or North Korea should launch a nuclear attack on Britain, then four Triden D5's wouldn't stop the barrage of weapons that would expectedly be thrown at us. So why do we have them?

The answer is a simple one. To strike back and cause damage to any aggressor that might think to wipe us out. Vanguard has the ability to take Trident close enough to hart any aggressor.

They doesn't really protect, they might deter slightly, but that are good for retaliation. "Wipe us out," they threaten, "and you'll regret it!" That's as bad a a dog that barks at a burger after he's robbed your house.

The truth about the nuclear deterrent is: it isn't one at all. No sane person wants to go down in history for pressing the button; and wiping out thousands of innocent individuals. Nuclear isn't like a missile that can take out a specific military target - it burns indiscriminately, men women and children alike. A Trident D5 is powerful enough to destroy a major capital city (like New York). There are no winners in a nuclear strike - not even the aggressor.

During the 1980's, Labour were commitment to unilateral disarmament. However, the 1983 elections put pay to their plans; and from the moment Tony Blair took on leadership of the party, Labour's stance on defence toughened.

English: United States Trident II (D-5) missile underwater launch. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Conservatives stance is to back full Trident replacement. The Liberal Democrats want something else, a policy that is distinct and radical; a less elaborate deterrent might suffice. (Whatever that less-elaborate-deterrent might be is still unclear.) Ed Miliband has not said where he wants to take Labour - concerning the nuclear deterrent.

£20bn in capital expenditure is a cost that Britain can ill afford.

We have a rare opportunity to make a radical change. The (British) Social Media Party was founded to overcome the sovereignty and national independence of singular governments, and form an all-powerful one-world government with the sole aimed of promoting disarmament and guiding peace. (The most powerful clique in history.)

I have but this one objective: to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the nationalism of countries. I want to end national boundaries and racial and ethnic loyalties to increase and ensure world peace. What I strive for will inevitably remove the dictatorship of governments and the loss of freedoms the people suffer daily.

The existing order is breaking down at a very rapid rate, and the main uncertainty is whether mankind can exert a positive role in shaping a new one. Or are we doomed to await for the collapse. I believe a new order will be born sooner than later and that the death throes of the old and the birth pangs of the new will be a testing time for the human species.

Outwardly, most governments seem democratic. However, operating within each government or political system is another body - representing another form of government - the bureaucratic elite.

It is possible to fashion unity while cherishing diversity; a common action is possible, despite the variety of races, interests, and beliefs we see amongst socialists. Progress and peace and justice are attainable.

What our intent is, is to create a worldwide economic power superior to the political governments of the nation-states involved. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so during its construction by gallant and graceful people.

But before the new world order becomes an efficient and beneficent world system countless people will hate it (the fortune 400), some will even die protesting against it (the malcontents who never have enough). But the stability of the future peace of the world depends upon it.

By reluctant enthusiasm, the world seems to be definitely drifting towards a world social democracy. So I say to all governments and their people: Let's fashion together a new world order of peace in our time.

A World Party - A Revolution

Eventually, the world as we know it will cease to exist. It will become one nation, one singularity. With a single governing body, a single currency, a single agenda. That's the world I can't wait to be in.

Take away political nationalism and you have no need for country embargos. Remove nation-states and there can be no world wars

World War III (film) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

What happens in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia, or the US should be as important to anyone as what's happening in their own country; it's important to every human being on this planet. What happen in the political area effects economies - and that affects lives in so many ways.

If there's trouble in Russia today, it could spill-over into any other country across the world. This has happened in many of the Muslim countries over the past few years. Riots take on an energy and a life of their own; social media takes the mantle and continues it elsewhere.

Borders have little meaning when peoples in separate continents can converse and plan strategies through Facebook or Twitter or a myriad of other sites. Gamers can become terrorist by using a few choice words to other gamers.

The web has no safe zones. There is no hiding behind a countries lax or hacker-friendly laws.

Hacker Dojo (Photo credit: mightyohm)

There needs to be a focus on the creation of a world of democracy, peace and prosperity for all. For the welfare of the whole world and the new world order. A world financial system dominated by the political system of each country but with a centralized head. Credit controlled by one fund, so everyone has the same chances.

Bankers think they own the earth. Our plan is to take it away from them. The power to create money and control credit should be in the hands of the people; in the hands of a world government run to help the people, not harm them. I want nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in public hands, nothing less than the economy of the whole world.

The power of the internet is so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that it encompasses everything. This world conspiracy of social media has been steadily growing. This conspiracy plays a definite recognizable role in most peoples' lives; and it will become the mainspring of every political movement during the 21st Century. At last this extraordinary wellspring from the underworld of the Geek has gripped the world's people by their hair and become the undisputed master of commerce. The growth of social media has made it possible to centralize the world's economic control for the direct benefit of the people (and not all current economic groups).

i-Politics: Camerons Empty Rhetoric

Reblogged from The Writing's on the Wall: i-Politics:

Labour says Cameron's 

'Need to Make Prison Work' 

is empty Rhetoric

Private firms, voluntary groups and charities will be paid to help offenders turn their lives around, the government have decided. This is a new drive to beat crime, put forward by the Conservatives.

David Cameron, Leader of the Conservative
Party, United Kingdom. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

David Cameron has spoken out in a fight against crime - his most intense since taking office. All but the most high-risk prisoners will be given help by 2015.

Cameron has warned though there isn't a "blank cheque" for this initiative; he expects "more for less".

Cameron invited that serious crime would hold long prison sentences. He is adamant that he's no going "soft" or being "liberal" in crime. Stating that "...we need to make prison work."

Labour's Shadow Justice Secretary, Sadiq Khan, accused the Tories of " empty rhetoric" yesterday. Adding: "After 29 months, this Tory-led government's justice policy is in tatters. Today's announcement.... is ... a weak Prime Minister who is pandering to the backbenchers..."

This comes after a week where Andrew Mitchell was forced to reign (after swearing at the police) and George Osborne was caught in First-Class rail with a none-First-Class ticket (and refused to pay the upgrade fee).

I hicks that if Mr Cameron wants to shoe he's tough on crime, then he need to start with his own MP's.

Project Get Elected (Part 1)

I decided on the 10th of September, twelve days before my 47th Birthday, that I'd like to be an MP.

The thing is, I'm a punk, I'm neither a Labour man nor a Conservative. And the Liberal Democrats have been shown to be a traitor to there own policies; so they are out. I don't have faith in the fringe parties - neither Greens nor UKIP. And the fanatics don't interest me in the slightest (BNP, SNP, etc).

So I sat down and decided to form my own party: the (British) Social Media Party was born.

(Photo credit: CyberPunk65)

Within the first month I created a twitter account (@B_SocialMedia_P), a Facebook Fan Page, a Google+ page, a weblog, a mission statement and spoke about the party on two of my other blogs.

This is where I am now. I'm trying to come up with a philosophy (but it's slow going).

i-Views: Would Charles Be A Democratic Monarch?

Taken from i-thorts' i-Views:

Is the Prince of Wales fit to be the next king?

In a democratic society, it is imperative that government (not unelected royalty) have control.

Charles, Prince of Wales (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The veils, thrown over Prince Charles's letters to ministers, from 2004 - 2005 continues to show how undemocratic our next monarch has become.

His job is to work with the government of the day, not against them!

If Charles wishes to have a political opinion, then he should voice it publicly, and not hide behind disclosure vetoes. (He wants them kept secret forever.)

He should renounce the throne and lobby openly for political office. The next monarch, like the present one, has to play a role of impartiality. As commander of the armed forces, the head of the Church of England, and the figure-head of this country it is more than important for the him to play a neutral role in politics. The king or queen cannot be seen to have a political agenda!

He or she should not try to sway political opinion his or her way. That is undemocratic for a British Monarch; since Cromwell, the crown has become a symbol of fairness.

Are we to return to the bad old days of a state-run by the crown? That is truly undemocratic.

If the king-in-waiting abuses his power now, how much further could he take these abuses once he takes the crown? Might he try to sway political opinion his way on anything he disagreed with? Could he even devolve parliament altogether and take their job on his own shoulders?

There is no telling what Charles has in mind. It isn't, however, upholding the British constitutional laws. (He bent them the moment he became a political animal.) This is not how a British Monarch should behave. As a divorced man he should have given up the throne (a divorcee cannot be the head of the C of E) but the rules have been changed to allow him to stay the king-in-waiting.

Now (using his powers of influence), he is blocking the ruling to disclose these letters to ministers. Is that because it would make his political views public - thereby, rendering him ineligible to take the crown? Or is it something even more unpalatable? Might he be trying to hide just 'how much' he has influenced British political policy during 2004-5 (the space of those letters)?

So far, Charles has succeeded in keeping a lid on this political hotpot. But he can't keep manipulating the facts to suit himself forever.

The true nature of his Highness' meddling will come into the light eventually, and I believe it won't be pretty.

What do you think?

Should Andrew Mitchell Resign?

reblogged from i-thorts' i-Politics

If it was a sack-able offence to be a jerk, then half the cabinet would lose their jobs. So, should Andrew Mitchell really resign?

The allegation is that he called police “f****** plebs” and “morons”; however, Mitchell denies using those “words attributed” to him.

English: Andrew Mitchell. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Having stayed away from the Tory's conference (last week), probably in the hopes of quelling speculation over his future.

Not that it seems like he has much future, with the 1922 (backbench) comity baying at his heals for answers.

The police are not happy with the whole incident (where Mitchell is alleged to have sworn at an officer outside 10 Downing Street). There are questions as to whom is lying - police officer or Member of Parliament. Mr Mitchell may have to answer these questions at Scotland Yard.

i-thorts' i-Views: Isn't 'Compassionate Conservatism' An Oxymoron These Days?

Reblogged from The Writing's on the Wall: i-Politics:

From a party that wants to cut Welfare by £10billion, isn't it a little two-faced for the Tories to claim they're policies are the best way to help thee poor, the weak and the vulnerable?

Conservative Party (UK) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

"It's not enough to know our ideas are right. We've got to explain why they are compassionate too." Cameron tells the Conservative party conference.

Rowena Holland with Conservative Party leader David Cameron. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

"My mission from the day I became leaders was ... to show the Conservative party is for everyone, north or south, black or white, straight or gay."

(Cameron, however, didn't include 'rich or poor' in this list; a distinction that is ominous by its omission!)

A Bit of PM Name-Calling

reblogged from i-thorts' i-Politics

David Cameron has little time for the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, dubbing him a "blonde haired mop" with a mouth.

• • 
    

Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, 2009. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This was ahead of the conservative party conference, where it is believed Jonson will be up to his usual show-stealing antics.

Proportional Representation Makes Sense

• 
• • CyberPunk65
  • 
    Wednesday 3rd October 2012       

"...is a concept in voting systems used to elect an assembly or council. PR means that the number of seats won by a party or group of candidates is proportionate to the number of votes received. For example, under a PR voting system if 30% of voters support a particular party then roughly 30% of seats will be won by that party. PR is an alternative to voting systems based on single member districts or onbloc voting; these non-PR systems tend to produce disproportionate outcomes and to have a bias in favour of larger political groups. PR systems tend to produce a proliferation of political parties, while single member districts encourage a two-party system."
  - Taken from: Wikipeadia

Don't settle for less. Choose PR today. Choose the (British) Social Media Party!!

Conference Season is Boring!

reblogged from i-thorts' i-Politics

They say a week in politics is a long time; but with this Labour Party conference it's seemed longer.

Ed Milliband MP speaking at the 

Labour Party conference. 

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

To me, conference season is a time for leaders to show off their metal in the face of their true believers.

But so far it's been boring. Where are the rising stars, nipping at the proverbial ankles? Where are the party goofballs and political suicides?

For me, there has been a lack of spark and fire.

I've had the hardest time keeping interested. Clegg did a little impromptu karaoke. But Miliband has bored the pants off me with his 'one nation' stuff. (It's the same 'no policy' Labour as usual.)

Let's hope the good old Tory nut-jobs won't let us down. (If he Chief whip doesn't keep them in toe, then Cameron's smarmy smile might keep them at bay. Hopefully not, though.) This has been a far too civilized and calibrated rendition of keeping to the party-theme for my taste for both the Limp Debts and the Later Party.

So, lets hope the Cons have someone to entertain us. Cameron's false set of promises won't!

Observer via Guardian claim a need for a social democratic party in Britain

reblogged from i-thorts' i-Politics

The Observer via Guardian claims: We desperately need a true social democratic party. How can this be? When we have a new social democratic political party: the (British) Social Media Party.

SDP logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

• 
• • 
    

The history of British politics has been linked inextricably with social and democratic parties. The one of the originals being the British Labour Party:

"The Labour party could be characterised as a social democratic party until John Smith's death, but it ceased to be as such in England with the advent of New Labour." - The Guardian

However, once New Labour took over from the Labour Party they lost their emphasis of social 'anything' - selling off state-owned or state-run industries and organisations. Leaving this country devoid of any central party, and a lack of social (and Socialist) democratic political parties.

"England has no major left-of-centre party."
- The Guardian

Some of the fringe parties including the greens and later the SDP itself (which was later swallowed by the Liberal party and became the Liberal Democrats) have tried to fill the void.

"This has created a large void that the Lib Dems under Kennedy and Campbell moved into slightly and Clegg has sped away from. Labour under Miliband shows little sign of promoting public service over capitalism or representing people as active citizens rather than passive consumers."
- The Guardian

But due to voter apathy - and limited media exposure - together with the current 'First Past the Post' style of politics have kept these smaller parties at the fringes of the political spectrum. Only the spirited little Social Media Party seems to fit the bill - and offer a more reasonable 'Proportional Representation' style of politics (which the Lib Dems got in on, but have so far reneged on). Where every vote counts - just as every 'like' and 'follow' and 'tweet or retweet' count in the Social Media realm.

To expose how unfair the current system is, if only 2% of the people who voted last time for the fringe parties (and also the Lib Dems) JOINED OUR PARTY and VOTED FOR US, then they could have HAD THE POLITICS they expected from the fringe parties and the Liberal Democrats.

You see, Britain doesn't need another SDP, just a correctly functioning political party (with the significant numbers of real people as members.)