"National Security can't come at the cost of Social Security" - WTAF?

‘Keeping us safe from extinction from AI cannot come at the expense of social security.’

Andy Burnham speaking tomorrow…

@NullaEffugium You are being inconsistent and illogical.

So why does that bother you and why bother to engage with me ?

Hope the link works.

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0a88d50b-c220-42dd-b22b-a2601bdc5dc4

I agree but remember Russia doesn't want a European Union. It's seeks to undermine our political system and resolve. Poland, Latvia, Finland, Romania....there's a lot at stake.

People fight to defend themselves, their homes and their families first though. If the Russians invaded I cant see all British men bending over and pulling their trousers down and saying "well the government didnt give us as much support in benefits as we would have liked so I think we won't bother fighting back". I mean, what sort of men do we all know??

Murder is also a crime for which a specific amount and type of proof is required to prove the charge in court. The Yorkshire ripper was convicted in court of 13 counts of murder and 7 counts of attempted murder in 1981.

You can’t object to referring to a person as a war criminal when they have current warrant for their arrest for war crimes because they’ve not been convicted in court, but in the same breath be ok with calling a person a mass murderer with no arrest warrant and no conviction in court.

You are being inconsistent and illogical. How is ‘mass murderer’ a layman term that can be said with no conviction but not ‘war criminal’ ? Aren’t they both layman terms?

I'm not "demanding" anything.
"War Criminal" is a crime for which a specific amount and type of proof is required to prove the charge in court, which is why the trials take so long.
A "mass murderer" is a lay person's loose description of an individual who has killed several people at the same time, the actual number not being specified.
The Yorkshire Ripper was classed as a "Serial Killer" which is an individual who murders three or more people, with the killings taking place over a period of more than one month in three or more separate events,[and the killings having a motive of perverse satisfaction. The victims often have a particular characteristic in common.

That future is already here insofar as pilots of drones. But drones can’t be refueled, armed, and maintained from anywhere. They have to be at a forward operating base which will have engineers on site.

Drones also don’t have a huge range so these FOBs will be close to the area of conflict. They don’t have to be land bases, they can be on Navy ships.

Are you sure about that @bluebellsofscotland ? Isn’t it a bit inconsistent to demand a war criminal have to have been convicted, but not a mass murderer? After all murder is a crime and with no mass murder conviction, how can you call them a mass murderer? You seem to pick and choose in an inconsistent manner.

The "type of person you are responding to" is one that deals in facts not opinions and suppositions.
IMO you need to read some history.
Hitler was indicted by Czechoslovakia in 1944 for 7 separate War Crimes. He was never brought to trial because he wasn't captured due to the War still being in progress. He committed suicide in Berlin, on April 30th 1945 as Soviet troops advanced on the city.
Borman, Goering, Hess, Ribbontrop and 19 other high ranking Nazis were brought to trial of which 12 were found guilty and hung.
Hitler was both directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions of civilians, so he could be described accurately as a "mass murderer" but not IMO a "War Criminal".

Wargames: The Sequel?

You could probably cripple the world with a few hackers given our stupid and total reliance on the internet/computer systems for everything important except maybe bits of farming.

I don't think will be a rush of platform using NEETS to enlist in the armed forces anyway.

To the patriotic comment person earlier in the thread I still don't see a rush to enlist. Many people in the UK feel that the country doesn't adequately support them as it is.

I think that may have been arguable before Ukraine. We are also member of NATO and our troops would be deployed in any land invasion in the East. And we could have conscription if it becomes a war, not confined to fighting in the UK. So its not just cyber just yet unfortunately.

I think if this happens, the most likely targets would be AWS, Azure, and Google server farms. Take out enough of those in quick succession, and you bring the Western world to its knees. That said, you could achieve the same result if you hired someone to hunt down zero-day exploits and design software to exploit them, but it would cost a fraction of what you'd spend on drones.

Wars are not fought with guns and bombs unless the goal is to gain the other side's land and physical resources, and even then they start in the cyber world.

Hmm..who do you think these drones will be targeting? If all the soldiers are sitting in their bedrooms flying drones killing people and thinking that to them "it makes little difference if the drone is a simulation or a real thing". Apparently.

Do you think maybe the drones might try and target the people who fly the drones. And bearing in mind many drones have to be controlled closely to the target they cant all be sitting back at HQ. And once the drones have killed everyone what happens then?

Let's hope you are right. The UK was a useful foothold in the last two wars and held out. I would knock it on the head first if I was Russia. And take out its nukes. They didnt have to do that with Ukraine of course as Ukraine had given up all its nukes.

But who wants to take our territory, and for what purpose? Russia doesn't want our land; our tiny little island is not as significant as people like to think it is. We have no space and no valuable resources. In terms of physical landmass, the UK is worthless.

If Russia comes for us, it will be to disrupt our economy and government and prevent us from arming Ukraine, whose land they do want, and they can do that without leaving their living room.

Yes thats my point. The barracks are empty. They shouldn't be. Thats scary.

No we need boots on the ground as Ukraine has shown unfortunately. Hence the need for their conscription and the vast casualty rate showing men and women are still fighting on the modern battlefield. We were fooled that wars can be fought without soldiers. You cannot take or recover territory without it. Particulalrly if your lines of first defence fail and you are invaded. Drones are insufficient Nukes wont be used in a European war with Russia as there's not enough space. Its still going to be tanks and guns and planes and drones.

I think we need soldiers in those barracks rather than men of fighting age from enemy countries. Its terrifying that barracks are empty.

The number of armed forces personnel has fallen by 42k since 2010, it would be extraordinary if there weren’t empty barracks.

We wouldn’t be fighting yesterday’s war that needed vast numbers of boots on the ground, modern warfare is completely different.

You've chipped in misunderstanding the point. We were discussing the need for an army and whether wars are still conducted using troops.

It’s incredibly distressing, they’re often forced. Poor people. Ukrainians for not deserving any of it and the Russians made to face the superior kit.

How can it be intended for that when more on it are long term claimants than jobseekers?

Obviously it’s not its intention. Or if it is there’s not much stopping it being used long term.

Definitely. I wouldn’t want to conscript millions of young men and women and then not purchase the best most up to date weapons systems, tanks/fighter jets.

Russia tends to have so many people that they treat their soldiers as disposable cannon fodder.

These are all someone’s child.

That’s because UC is intended to be a short term aid when you are between work. It cannot have escaped you that Job Seekers part of UC is the most commonly claimed benefit apart from those that are too sick, disabled or with a child too young to be able to work?

Hopefully we’ll not know anyway, but it’s better to look to Ukraine for what to fund. It’s still incredibly expensive even if they have fewer casualties.

Poor people on both sides.

It doesn’t lower the need for a bigger defence budget to use a different strategy on where it goes.