Originally posted by huckleberryhoundI am not suggesting that. Sorry if it came accross that way, I can sometimes sound patronizing without meaning to (I tend to say everything that is relevant about the subject, no matter how obvious). No, I am saying that the nuclear detterant overused, and that most of the countries with nuclear weapons should stop producing them, since their only purpose is to scare, and that it might be better not to use the detterrant.
Are you suggesting i do not understand what a detterant is?
Bieng someone, as a lot of us were, i grew up in the nuclear age, so i know quite well what a detterant is.
Don't try to patronise me mate.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI don't know about that I'm afraid - I'm no entymologist. I'll have to look it up.
Not if they're fighting other animals of their own species, which is what the stinger evolved for.
My understanding of why bees evolved their sting, and it's death sentence was rather more based on heredity than usage. I'm sure you know, but I'll spell it out for others. Female Bees within one hive are all genetic sisters, however they are rather more closely related to each other than sisters of many other species. In most species, two sisters are likely to share around 50% of each others genes. In social insects however, it is normally around the 75% mark (for reasons I won't go into here - but if you're interested read Dawkins "Selfish gene" for a concise, easy to read, explanation). It is because of this close relatedness that female bees (who are non-reproductive, except for the hive queen) are willing to sacrifice their own lives, since she can help more copies of her genes to survive by protecting the production of her sisters than she could by running away and breeding herself.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungNo, you're wrong - High population growth can be attributed to an abundance of food, due to England's moist, warm, stable, climate. England needs more rain.
No, you're wrong - massive population growth is what made the Angles great. England needs to keep breeding and breeding.
Originally posted by scottishinnzWell, I do have to admit - high population growth does correlate with the abundance of moist, warm...
No, you're wrong - High population growth can be attributed to an abundance of food, due to England's moist, warm, stable, climate. England needs more rain.
Oh you mean the weather!
Originally posted by scottishinnzis this about stinger missiles ?
I don't know about that I'm afraid - I'm no entymologist. I'll have to look it up.
My understanding of why bees evolved their sting, and it's death sentence was rather more based on heredity than usage. I'm sure you know, but I'll spell it out for others. Female Bees within one hive are all genetic sisters, however they are rather more closely rel ...[text shortened]... ng the production of her sisters than she could by running away and breeding herself.
Originally posted by RedmikeThey need one for the gum "Trident" because their teeth are just awful.
The nuclear submarine missile system, Trident, is reaching obsolesence.
We are told we need a replacement, and it looks like this will happen without much in the way of a debate.
This is despite:
- it will cost £25-£40 billion, which could pay for 120,000 new qualified nurses each year for the next 10 years or 60,000 new teachers every year for 20 y ...[text shortened]... protecting us' (from whom, exactly?), they just make us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by scottishinnzthat was the ponit, I was reffering to retaliation capability in the event we were attacked with nuclear weapons. we die they die, so like a bee sting it works as a deterant to attack us but is fairly useless as an offensive weapon. I think the bee analogy works quite well.
Bees die when they sting you. Basically stinging causes their guts to be ripped out. Wasps, on the other hand, do not die....
Originally posted by googlefudgeWorks great until someone doesn't really care if they die. We seem to have seen a resurgence in that kind of idea over the past few years.
that was the ponit, I was reffering to retaliation capability in the event we were attacked with nuclear weapons. we die they die, so like a bee sting it works as a deterant to attack us but is fairly useless as an offensive weapon. I think the bee analogy works quite well.
1 edit
Originally posted by RedmikeI totally agree we should n't replace it.
The nuclear submarine missile system, Trident, is reaching obsolesence.
We are told we need a replacement, and it looks like this will happen without much in the way of a debate.
This is despite:
- it will cost £25-£40 billion, which could pay for 120,000 new qualified nurses each year for the next 10 years or 60,000 new teachers every year for 20 y protecting us' (from whom, exactly?), they just make us more vulnerable to terrorist attacks
The government shouldn't spend the saving, they should tax us less.
Originally posted by endersgameThe irony of the fact that the replacement nuclear weapons will be leased from the US and the US will have some say over their usage is perhaps lost on you.
i think u forget this 2006 its british forces not english. Anyway nukes are used as a deterrent so that other nations see that britian means business and that we are not a nation that hides behind the US.