"And according to your links, only one side's sources are capable of providing reliable information on this conflict: the Russian ones".
My views are based on a careful study of reports and opinion from all sources: USA, UK, France, Germany, Russia, Ukraine, India, China... I also notice which sources are consistent, logical, and fit with the facts. And which sources seem curiously identical to the statements of their governments. It is quite easy to work out who is telling the truth.
"Must I really remind you that Obama has not managed to make himself a "president for life" yet, and is scheduled to exit during the next elections?"
Not really. With an approval rating like that, he couldn't get enough votes. Anyway, he will be replaced by another carbon copy sock puppet, just as he himself replaced Dubya. The Americans and British make a big song and dance about their holy ritual of electing a new leader every few years, but what is wrong with a president for life? Isn't a good president for life better than a succession of uncoordinated nonentities, all reversing each other's minor decisions for visual effect while continuing to follow the same plan? Plato thought so, anyway.
"Must I really remind you that Obama has a credible opposing party, even if they look like the other side of the same pancake?"
You contradict yourself. If they look "like the other side of the same pancake" - as they do - they are NOT "a credible opposing party". As Gore Vidal put it, the USA is ruled by a single party with two right wings. After Democrats made a huge effort to elect Obama, they found to their horror that things went on exactly as they had under Dubya.
"Must I remind you that the US electoral system, while it is a horrible mess and reliable collapses into a two-party system with minimal differences between the parties (no other reason than game theory needed), produces reliable alteration of the persons holding power?"
Must I remind you that a "reliable alteration of the persons holding power" is meaningless if they all carry out the same policies and obey the same masters?
"Must I remind you that the private-owned mass media of the US, while helpfully serving commercial interests, are not subject to direct state control?"
That is one of the neatest tricks the USA (and other "Western" nations) has perfected. As you say, there is no formal censorship - and yet, as if by magic, the MSM presstitutes publish exact replicas of what they are told by Washington, London, Paris, Berlin - yes, and now Kiev - without ever allowing a hint of contradictory facts or opinion to see the light of day? If you want to know how it's done, read the books (e.g.) "Disciplined Minds" and "Why Are We the Good Guys?" In a sentence, everyone from the most junior reporter to the chief editor knows what kind of stories will lead to fame, favour and fortune - and which will lead to a cardboard box in a back alley.
"Must I also remind you that the US underwent the same process which Putin is enjoying, when Bush was president and 9/11 happened? The process of leaders gaining popularity via war is nothing new to human society. The popularity goes away with time and wearines, though".
Putin's rating has not fallen below 60% since 2000. When, pray, are time and weariness going to set in?
"Additionally, need I remind you that the US population has (mostly) never seen Libya, Iraq or Afghanistan as serious threats, or even threats to their fellow countrymen. Meanwhile, state-controlled media has effectively created an illusion in Russia, that Ukraine is not governed by representatives chose by its very people. As for the separatists, they prevented people in districts occupied by them from voting altogether".
If, as you claim, "the US population has (mostly) never seen Libya, Iraq or Afghanistan as serious threats," why did they support the infliction of over 2 million deaths and countless more injuries, massive homelessness, and destruction of their infrastructure? Is it because they don't care, or is it because they actually no power at all over what the government in Washington does in their name?
All your arguments are based on the arbitrary, and unsupported, assumption that Russians (including Putin) are bad and untrustworthy, whereas Americans (including Obama and Bush) are good and trustworthy. Needless to say, the very mention of Bush and Obama blows that theory out of the water. Try experimenting with objectivity one day, and see if you like it. Consider that, as Ale
Maybe, from a psychological point of view, it's a return to medieval times when a knight or nobleman on horseback automatically had the right of way. If he trampled a peasant, or swept him into the ditch and broke his neck, well that was just tough - and essentially the peasant's fault for getting in the way.
When you're a cyclist or a pedestrian, do you ever get the feeling that car drivers look at you in that way?
More realistically... why was this police officer alone in the car, yet expected to respond to messages? Either he should be accompanied by another officer (best solution), or equipped with entirely hands-free equipment so he would never have to take his eyes off the road.
Of course the real abuse in this case is that the prosecuting authorities have discretion as to whether to indict. It is disgraceful that an official should decide that there should be no prosecution, and that's it. But that is the current system; it needs to be changed.
2. Hello! This is Russia - which, in case you hadn't noticed, is different from the USSR
Not really. In the eyes of most of the world, the names may have changed, but you still act the same.
As previously mentioned, I am not Russian. I am merely a person who tries to learn the facts and evaluate them logically and as dispassionately as possible.
Gosh, that will come as a big surprise to my family and friends. In fact I am a British citizen (Scots-Irish), with a degree in history and a conservative libertarian bent.
I don't know where you come from, but your English comprehension seems poor. I stated that when the Soviets invaded Hungary and those other nations, the invasion was sudden and utterly overwhelming. Within hours or days there were Russian tanks and soldiers everywhere, and the local government had disappeared and been replaced.
As for the situation in South-East Ukraine, there is no need to drag in fictional Russian forces. Surely you can think for yourself of cases from history when hastily-formed citizen militias defeated professional armies? How about the American War of Independence? Vietnam? The Jews who - starting as a small minority of the populace - defeated the British armed forces and founded the state of Israel? Or, indeed, the Ukrainian and Russian partisans who struck powerful blows against the invading German forces in 1941-4?
"Putin... has reaped significant benefits from this already. His popularity ratings have rosen signigicantly [sic] since the war started - unfortunately the natural reaction of people during a war is to rally behind their leaders".
That would be why, after years of war against many nations, Obama's approval rating is 43%. No, Putin's approval rating is sky-high because he speaks for Russians and acts in their interests. (And, incidentally, Russia is not engaged in a war at the moment).
Obama's rating is in the toilet because Americans know very well he does not represent them and couldn't care less about their interests (except for the 1%, of course).
"...rolling tanks, armoured personnel carriers, rockets, heavy field guns, anti-aircraft guns, and airbourne troops into another country is just like what they did in Czecheslovakia or Poland or Hungary or a dozen other countries over the last 50 years..."
Sorry, that's utter rubbish.
1. If Russia had been "rolling tanks, armoured personnel carriers, rockets, heavy field guns, anti-aircraft guns, and airbourne [sic] troops" into Ukraine, it would have been subdued within a week at most - just as Czechoslovakia (sp) and Poland and Hungary were subdued, despite being far better organized than Ukraine today.
2. Hello! This is Russia - which, in case you hadn't noticed, is different from the USSR. Of course, if you are desperate to have a Hideous Giant Foreign Enemy at all times, and you can't do better than Mr Putin, have at it. But do remember that he can push a button and destroy all life on earth, so the USA has no advantage whatsoever in that regard. And do, please, remember that he is human and can get angry or make mistakes. So please - for all our sakes - don't push him too hard. If you are one of those Rapture nutcases, please just go and kill yourself, and leave the rest of us out of it.
Yes, because anyone who speaks Russian (or Ukrainian) obviously wouldn't know anything about the situation in Russia or Ukraine. Better listen to armchair pundits who never leave their easy chairs in New York.
As Ukraine is under military assault by Russia at the moment, they should abandon any complaint monitoring for the time being.
That turns out not to be the case. The Ukrainian army - which is rapidly running out of effectives who are willing to lay down their lives for billionaire Nazi oligarchs - has been severely mauled by the militias formed to defend the area around Donetsk and Lugansk. As Americans would form militias to fight for their homes if an army trundled into their state and began bombarding city centres.
It has often been mentioned that most (if not all) of the equipment is Russian. Doh... all the ex-Soviet republics had large amounts of Soviet (i.e. Russian) weapons, vehicles and aircraft. The Ukrainian armed forces use them exclusively - and the militia have some (more every day) that they grabbed from local arsenals, or acquired after the Ukrainian troops ran away, surrendered, or went for a brief holiday in Russia.
Now some of the militiamen may have been trained in Russia, or by Russians. Thanks goodness the USA never trains armed rebels in nations like Afghanistan, Syria, Libya... or gives them sophisticated military equipment and training. The difference is that the militias in Ukraine are defending their homes, families and friends against unprovoked attacks by full-scale military forces. They talk Russian because, to all intents and purposes, they ARE Russian - like almost everyone in Crimea.
...Facebook's Ukrainian office is located in Russia...
Whose brilliant idea was that?
I imagine Facebook management, on the grounds that their people would be much less likely to be killed. Ukraine is a very dangerous place at the moment - cities are being bombarded by heavy artillery and fired on with medium rockets, people whose faces don't fit are being burned alive.
According to the description, the WAMSR produces power like any other nuclear power station - but it is fuelled by "nuclear waste", which is essentially just fuel that has been 5% consumed and then discarded as no longer viable. Its proponents say that the WAMSR could provide all the power the human race needs until 2080, while using up all the nuclear waste that people are so upset about.
Better still, if necessary we can go on running conventional nuclear plants, and feeding their waste directly to WAMSRs.
OK, please tell me what's wrong with this picture? I obviously have missed some serious problem, but I'm puzzled that I haven't read articles debunking the WAMSR - instead, it's been completely ignored. Just as puzzling as the way bacteriophages are being ignored as replacements for antibiotics.
"My other half is from Inverness. ALL, repeat ALL of her family will leave by the end of the year is there is a Yes vote in September".
Great, that means there will be lots of cheap houses for sale in that beautiful, tranquil (except near Lossiemouth) part of the world. Where are those estate agent pages?
"Nukes are, well, the nuclear option, so they are of little use except in extreme circumstances..."
Very true. To clarify matters, we might ask ourselves: against which nations are the UK's thermonuclear weapons potentially useful today? (I hope no one is going to suggest that they frighten ISIS, for example).
Russia? If so, why? Russia's interests do not clash with the UK's anywhere on earth - quite the contrary, it is in our best interests to live in peace with the Russians. Whereas we lived in fear (rightly or wrongly) of the USSR invading Western Europe, Mr Putin has shown supernatural restraint in not even invading Ukraine after 750,000 of its citizens fled to Russia for safety. As for Georgia, he was "in and out quickly", as the saying goes.
China? Likewise, only if possible even more so. The Chinese are quite extraordinarily pacific (especially compared to other superpowers that shall be nameless), and what's more they are very nearly on the far side of the world.
India or Pakistan? I don't see it. They're not quite so peaceable, but they have no quarrel with us, and we should make sure that remains the case.
Israel? Not really - they would probably get in a first strike, and they have far more missiles and warheads.
And as for France, that's just childish. We should be content just to go on annoying them.
Most likely Newcastle-on-Tyne or Barrow-on-Furness. The main reason for siting the base in Scotland was presumably to get it as far away from London as possible.
Futile, though. Either the Russians decide to take out Britain, or not. (They might as well, since they have plenty of missiles). Half a dozen big warheads should render the entire country uninhabitable - why would they take out the Holy Loch and not finish the job?
Given the US administration's evident enthusiasm for starting WW3, the UK would be well advised to throw away - not drop - its nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. In a war they would make not the slightest difference to either side, but they would probably get us all fried.
"Sorry, the corporate card has no bearing on scientific topics. Save it for politics".
You don't sound stupid, so you must be cynical. It goes without saying that no scientific results can possibly be trusted without a clear understanding of ALL corporate influence and funding behind them. Witness, to take just one example of hundreds, the current advocacy of statins by panels of scientists most of whom have received huge sums of money from the corporations that manufacture statins.
"Do you really think the scientific community, which overwhelmingly supports GE crops (don't even try to deny this), does not pause to consider such things?"
You do make your astroturfing obvious, don't you? 8-)
1. In science, it doesn't matter in the least if anyone "overwhelmingly" supports any conclusion. All that counts is whether that conclusion is true. Copernicus and Galileo were right; tens of thousands of "experts" were wrong. Semmelweiss was right; the vast majority of the "medical profession" who had him fired, drove him mad, and had him confined in a lunatic asylum were wrong.
2. We have no way of knowing what the "scientific community" (whatever that may be) considers. All we know is what published papers say - always remembering that, when a corporation funds a study, any paper that does not suit that corporation's goals is most unlikely to be published.
No, actually: not in the least bit like any of those. Like grafting in genes from entirely different species, without the slightest idea (or any way of finding out) what the effects will be in the long term.
But that doesn't matter, does it? To those whose only reality is profit, there is no future beyond the current quarter.
In stark contrast to Western nations, China is largely ruled by qualified engineers and technicians. They presumably understand the insanity of radically undermining the technology that feeds most of the world's human beings: agriculture. Any experimentation with agriculture should be done with extreme caution, and as far as possible contained so it is reversible.
Less important, but also worth considering: do we really want a world where one or two vast bloated Western corporations literally own the food that keeps everyone alive? I don't think so.
And that's without even considering the multiple proven and documented cases of specific harm caused by GM "food".
No, no, no! You've got it all wrong! When private individuals do such things, they are terrorists, saboteurs, or thieves. But when governments do them, it's perfectly in order - they are only doing what all governments do.
"Il est défendu de tuer; tout meurtrier est puni, à moins qu’il n’ait tué en grande compagnie, et au son des trompettes". ("It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers to the sound of trumpets").
Slashdot Mirror
"And according to your links, only one side's sources are capable of providing reliable information on this conflict: the Russian ones".
My views are based on a careful study of reports and opinion from all sources: USA, UK, France, Germany, Russia, Ukraine, India, China... I also notice which sources are consistent, logical, and fit with the facts. And which sources seem curiously identical to the statements of their governments. It is quite easy to work out who is telling the truth.
"Must I really remind you that Obama has not managed to make himself a "president for life" yet, and is scheduled to exit during the next elections?"
Not really. With an approval rating like that, he couldn't get enough votes. Anyway, he will be replaced by another carbon copy sock puppet, just as he himself replaced Dubya. The Americans and British make a big song and dance about their holy ritual of electing a new leader every few years, but what is wrong with a president for life? Isn't a good president for life better than a succession of uncoordinated nonentities, all reversing each other's minor decisions for visual effect while continuing to follow the same plan? Plato thought so, anyway.
"Must I really remind you that Obama has a credible opposing party, even if they look like the other side of the same pancake?"
You contradict yourself. If they look "like the other side of the same pancake" - as they do - they are NOT "a credible opposing party". As Gore Vidal put it, the USA is ruled by a single party with two right wings. After Democrats made a huge effort to elect Obama, they found to their horror that things went on exactly as they had under Dubya.
"Must I remind you that the US electoral system, while it is a horrible mess and reliable collapses into a two-party system with minimal differences between the parties (no other reason than game theory needed), produces reliable alteration of the persons holding power?"
Must I remind you that a "reliable alteration of the persons holding power" is meaningless if they all carry out the same policies and obey the same masters?
"Must I remind you that the private-owned mass media of the US, while helpfully serving commercial interests, are not subject to direct state control?"
That is one of the neatest tricks the USA (and other "Western" nations) has perfected. As you say, there is no formal censorship - and yet, as if by magic, the MSM presstitutes publish exact replicas of what they are told by Washington, London, Paris, Berlin - yes, and now Kiev - without ever allowing a hint of contradictory facts or opinion to see the light of day? If you want to know how it's done, read the books (e.g.) "Disciplined Minds" and "Why Are We the Good Guys?" In a sentence, everyone from the most junior reporter to the chief editor knows what kind of stories will lead to fame, favour and fortune - and which will lead to a cardboard box in a back alley.
"Must I also remind you that the US underwent the same process which Putin is enjoying, when Bush was president and 9/11 happened? The process of leaders gaining popularity via war is nothing new to human society. The popularity goes away with time and wearines, though".
Putin's rating has not fallen below 60% since 2000. When, pray, are time and weariness going to set in?
"Additionally, need I remind you that the US population has (mostly) never seen Libya, Iraq or Afghanistan as serious threats, or even threats to their fellow countrymen. Meanwhile, state-controlled media has effectively created an illusion in Russia, that Ukraine is not governed by representatives chose by its very people. As for the separatists, they prevented people in districts occupied by them from voting altogether".
If, as you claim, "the US population has (mostly) never seen Libya, Iraq or Afghanistan as serious threats," why did they support the infliction of over 2 million deaths and countless more injuries, massive homelessness, and destruction of their infrastructure? Is it because they don't care, or is it because they actually no power at all over what the government in Washington does in their name?
All your arguments are based on the arbitrary, and unsupported, assumption that Russians (including Putin) are bad and untrustworthy, whereas Americans (including Obama and Bush) are good and trustworthy. Needless to say, the very mention of Bush and Obama blows that theory out of the water. Try experimenting with objectivity one day, and see if you like it. Consider that, as Ale
Maybe, from a psychological point of view, it's a return to medieval times when a knight or nobleman on horseback automatically had the right of way. If he trampled a peasant, or swept him into the ditch and broke his neck, well that was just tough - and essentially the peasant's fault for getting in the way.
When you're a cyclist or a pedestrian, do you ever get the feeling that car drivers look at you in that way?
More realistically... why was this police officer alone in the car, yet expected to respond to messages? Either he should be accompanied by another officer (best solution), or equipped with entirely hands-free equipment so he would never have to take his eyes off the road.
Of course the real abuse in this case is that the prosecuting authorities have discretion as to whether to indict. It is disgraceful that an official should decide that there should be no prosecution, and that's it. But that is the current system; it needs to be changed.
2. Hello! This is Russia - which, in case you hadn't noticed, is different from the USSR
Not really. In the eyes of most of the world, the names may have changed, but you still act the same.
As previously mentioned, I am not Russian. I am merely a person who tries to learn the facts and evaluate them logically and as dispassionately as possible.
"Now I know you are a hard core Russian".
Gosh, that will come as a big surprise to my family and friends. In fact I am a British citizen (Scots-Irish), with a degree in history and a conservative libertarian bent.
I don't know where you come from, but your English comprehension seems poor. I stated that when the Soviets invaded Hungary and those other nations, the invasion was sudden and utterly overwhelming. Within hours or days there were Russian tanks and soldiers everywhere, and the local government had disappeared and been replaced.
As for the situation in South-East Ukraine, there is no need to drag in fictional Russian forces. Surely you can think for yourself of cases from history when hastily-formed citizen militias defeated professional armies? How about the American War of Independence? Vietnam? The Jews who - starting as a small minority of the populace - defeated the British armed forces and founded the state of Israel? Or, indeed, the Ukrainian and Russian partisans who struck powerful blows against the invading German forces in 1941-4?
"Ukrainian media can now outdo Goebbels in bending the truth".
As can the BBC nowadays, sadly.
"Putin... has reaped significant benefits from this already. His popularity ratings have rosen signigicantly [sic] since the war started - unfortunately the natural reaction of people during a war is to rally behind their leaders".
That would be why, after years of war against many nations, Obama's approval rating is 43%. No, Putin's approval rating is sky-high because he speaks for Russians and acts in their interests. (And, incidentally, Russia is not engaged in a war at the moment).
Obama's rating is in the toilet because Americans know very well he does not represent them and couldn't care less about their interests (except for the 1%, of course).
"...rolling tanks, armoured personnel carriers, rockets, heavy field guns, anti-aircraft guns, and airbourne troops into another country is just like what they did in Czecheslovakia or Poland or Hungary or a dozen other countries over the last 50 years..."
Sorry, that's utter rubbish.
1. If Russia had been "rolling tanks, armoured personnel carriers, rockets, heavy field guns, anti-aircraft guns, and airbourne [sic] troops" into Ukraine, it would have been subdued within a week at most - just as Czechoslovakia (sp) and Poland and Hungary were subdued, despite being far better organized than Ukraine today.
2. Hello! This is Russia - which, in case you hadn't noticed, is different from the USSR. Of course, if you are desperate to have a Hideous Giant Foreign Enemy at all times, and you can't do better than Mr Putin, have at it. But do remember that he can push a button and destroy all life on earth, so the USA has no advantage whatsoever in that regard. And do, please, remember that he is human and can get angry or make mistakes. So please - for all our sakes - don't push him too hard. If you are one of those Rapture nutcases, please just go and kill yourself, and leave the rest of us out of it.
Yes, because anyone who speaks Russian (or Ukrainian) obviously wouldn't know anything about the situation in Russia or Ukraine. Better listen to armchair pundits who never leave their easy chairs in New York.
Oh wait.
As Ukraine is under military assault by Russia at the moment, they should abandon any complaint monitoring for the time being.
That turns out not to be the case. The Ukrainian army - which is rapidly running out of effectives who are willing to lay down their lives for billionaire Nazi oligarchs - has been severely mauled by the militias formed to defend the area around Donetsk and Lugansk. As Americans would form militias to fight for their homes if an army trundled into their state and began bombarding city centres.
It has often been mentioned that most (if not all) of the equipment is Russian. Doh... all the ex-Soviet republics had large amounts of Soviet (i.e. Russian) weapons, vehicles and aircraft. The Ukrainian armed forces use them exclusively - and the militia have some (more every day) that they grabbed from local arsenals, or acquired after the Ukrainian troops ran away, surrendered, or went for a brief holiday in Russia.
Now some of the militiamen may have been trained in Russia, or by Russians. Thanks goodness the USA never trains armed rebels in nations like Afghanistan, Syria, Libya... or gives them sophisticated military equipment and training. The difference is that the militias in Ukraine are defending their homes, families and friends against unprovoked attacks by full-scale military forces. They talk Russian because, to all intents and purposes, they ARE Russian - like almost everyone in Crimea.
...Facebook's Ukrainian office is located in Russia...
Whose brilliant idea was that?
I imagine Facebook management, on the grounds that their people would be much less likely to be killed. Ukraine is a very dangerous place at the moment - cities are being bombarded by heavy artillery and fired on with medium rockets, people whose faces don't fit are being burned alive.
Why am I not seeing much more discussion of the "Waste Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor" (WAMSR)?
http://news.discovery.com/tech...
According to the description, the WAMSR produces power like any other nuclear power station - but it is fuelled by "nuclear waste", which is essentially just fuel that has been 5% consumed and then discarded as no longer viable. Its proponents say that the WAMSR could provide all the power the human race needs until 2080, while using up all the nuclear waste that people are so upset about.
Better still, if necessary we can go on running conventional nuclear plants, and feeding their waste directly to WAMSRs.
OK, please tell me what's wrong with this picture? I obviously have missed some serious problem, but I'm puzzled that I haven't read articles debunking the WAMSR - instead, it's been completely ignored. Just as puzzling as the way bacteriophages are being ignored as replacements for antibiotics.
"Anyone stupid enough to just dismantle nukes instead of selling them is a moron".
Thanks, that's the best laugh I've had this year! So, to whom do you suggest selling the British nuclear deterrent:
1. The USA (which sold it to us years ago, doesn't accept trade-ins, and has masses of more up-to-date equipment of its own);
2. The potential enemies against whom the deterrent has been directed;
3. Or nations that currently don't have nuclear weapons (thus breaking the NNP treaty and making the world a far more dangerous place)?
Or perhaps you would prefer they be sold directly to a terrorist group?
"Scotland has only been invaded by, erm, one country, many times as it happens, in the last 1000 years".
Nice try, and I agree with the spirit of your post. But have you forgotten Norway?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
Although the Scots gave back as good as they got:
http://www.scotsman.com/lifest...
"The real question is what are Scotland going to do about their currency post-independence?"
Why not use the dollar, like everyone else?
"My other half is from Inverness. ALL, repeat ALL of her family will leave by the end of the year is there is a Yes vote in September".
Great, that means there will be lots of cheap houses for sale in that beautiful, tranquil (except near Lossiemouth) part of the world. Where are those estate agent pages?
"Nukes are, well, the nuclear option, so they are of little use except in extreme circumstances..."
Very true. To clarify matters, we might ask ourselves: against which nations are the UK's thermonuclear weapons potentially useful today? (I hope no one is going to suggest that they frighten ISIS, for example).
Russia? If so, why? Russia's interests do not clash with the UK's anywhere on earth - quite the contrary, it is in our best interests to live in peace with the Russians. Whereas we lived in fear (rightly or wrongly) of the USSR invading Western Europe, Mr Putin has shown supernatural restraint in not even invading Ukraine after 750,000 of its citizens fled to Russia for safety. As for Georgia, he was "in and out quickly", as the saying goes.
China? Likewise, only if possible even more so. The Chinese are quite extraordinarily pacific (especially compared to other superpowers that shall be nameless), and what's more they are very nearly on the far side of the world.
India or Pakistan? I don't see it. They're not quite so peaceable, but they have no quarrel with us, and we should make sure that remains the case.
Israel? Not really - they would probably get in a first strike, and they have far more missiles and warheads.
And as for France, that's just childish. We should be content just to go on annoying them.
Sod it, I meant "Newcastle-upon-Tyne or Barrow-in-Furness". Too early in the morning... er. afternoon.
Apologies to citizens of those two noble towns.
Most likely Newcastle-on-Tyne or Barrow-on-Furness. The main reason for siting the base in Scotland was presumably to get it as far away from London as possible.
Futile, though. Either the Russians decide to take out Britain, or not. (They might as well, since they have plenty of missiles). Half a dozen big warheads should render the entire country uninhabitable - why would they take out the Holy Loch and not finish the job?
Given the US administration's evident enthusiasm for starting WW3, the UK would be well advised to throw away - not drop - its nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. In a war they would make not the slightest difference to either side, but they would probably get us all fried.
"Sorry, the corporate card has no bearing on scientific topics. Save it for politics".
You don't sound stupid, so you must be cynical. It goes without saying that no scientific results can possibly be trusted without a clear understanding of ALL corporate influence and funding behind them. Witness, to take just one example of hundreds, the current advocacy of statins by panels of scientists most of whom have received huge sums of money from the corporations that manufacture statins.
"Do you really think the scientific community, which overwhelmingly supports GE crops (don't even try to deny this), does not pause to consider such things?"
You do make your astroturfing obvious, don't you? 8-)
1. In science, it doesn't matter in the least if anyone "overwhelmingly" supports any conclusion. All that counts is whether that conclusion is true. Copernicus and Galileo were right; tens of thousands of "experts" were wrong. Semmelweiss was right; the vast majority of the "medical profession" who had him fired, drove him mad, and had him confined in a lunatic asylum were wrong.
2. We have no way of knowing what the "scientific community" (whatever that may be) considers. All we know is what published papers say - always remembering that, when a corporation funds a study, any paper that does not suit that corporation's goals is most unlikely to be published.
No, actually: not in the least bit like any of those. Like grafting in genes from entirely different species, without the slightest idea (or any way of finding out) what the effects will be in the long term.
But that doesn't matter, does it? To those whose only reality is profit, there is no future beyond the current quarter.
In stark contrast to Western nations, China is largely ruled by qualified engineers and technicians. They presumably understand the insanity of radically undermining the technology that feeds most of the world's human beings: agriculture. Any experimentation with agriculture should be done with extreme caution, and as far as possible contained so it is reversible.
Less important, but also worth considering: do we really want a world where one or two vast bloated Western corporations literally own the food that keeps everyone alive? I don't think so.
And that's without even considering the multiple proven and documented cases of specific harm caused by GM "food".
But surely the reason is to keep the data out of the hands of the US courts?
No, no, no! You've got it all wrong! When private individuals do such things, they are terrorists, saboteurs, or thieves. But when governments do them, it's perfectly in order - they are only doing what all governments do.
"Il est défendu de tuer; tout meurtrier est puni, à moins qu’il n’ait tué en grande compagnie, et au son des trompettes".
("It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers to the sound of trumpets").
- Voltaire