Hmmmm, I think the JSF is the last big manned strike aircraft project, most first world nations are working on stealthy UAV’s that will do the first day of war jobs.

6th gen UAV’s are here sooner than you think.

How many of the UAV’s are capable of full spectrum aerial warfare?:rolleyes:

IMHO, people who hold views like the BNP should not be encouraged, because I think they hold potentially dangerous opinions. To compare, is it OK to harbour thoughts of paedophilia as long as you don’t bring them into the work place ?

I take your point in principle, but I find it hard to afford the BNP their ‘democratic rights’ when their ultimate agenda isn’t the least bit democratic.

Democracy is merely dictatorship by majority. If the majority choose to persecute the minority it is democracy.;)

The problem with the BNP is distinguishing between those who are genuinely racist andd habour desires akin to ethnic cleansing and those who are mebers out of a sense of disenfranchisement or opposition to immigration on material grounds. Ethinic tensions do not have to be the product of racism but are more often associated with identity. Why should someone who joined the BNP because he/she feels threatened by gangs of offensive youths distributing ideological hate be persecuted himself?

Or the plumber who has gone out of business after being undercut by Polish immigrants?

Obviously knowone can defend the policeman who just hates black people.

So because I don’t want “them” cutting up my children should anything happen to them that makes me callous & ignorant? Maybe it is from planet sealord but where I come from I call that a right. On a personal level, they can do what they want to me, but my kids? That’s a whole different ball game. If that makes me callous & ignorant in your eyes then too bad.

Deciding to deny another the right to life is callous and ignorant.:mad:

Look at the opt out scheme another way. Assume one was “meant” to opt out the kids but they forgot, or didn’t get round to it. Then something happened to them, and during the time you then tell “them” that in no way do you want any organs removed. Will they then have the right to say “sorry, they haven’t got an opt out card, we can take what we like” ? That would be my worst nightmare come true.

If you ‘forget’ or ‘dont get round to it’ then you obviously do not feel strongly enough about the issue anyway. If you feel that strongly about it you will remember and find the time.:rolleyes:

Egypt is a special case, because of the value of Suez canal tolls to its economy. Canal tolls were about 4% of GDP last year, & a much higher percentage of state revenues. That’s in addition to the vulnerability everyone else has.

That as maybe but the Egyptian economy is in a bad way as is their Navy.

The Kenyans are having a pair of fast attack craft regenerated by Fincantieri (and missiles removed) with the apparent purpose of using them to help the anti-pirate effort.

Notice I said conventional weapons? Who can’t read? Looks like you. :rolleyes:

If they so much as fart in the direction of Europe they are going to get wrecked, so your point is as worthless as ever.

Perhaps they except the fact they will get wrecked, all this is already explained in the thread.:p

For the most part I’m in favor of the opt out organ donation scheme (default being an organ donor); except for perhaps minors; which maybe the parents should have an option to override an organ donation over a minor.

While I think an opt out program would definitely increase the number of organs available, I think it may decrease the quality of organs. I suspect people that volunteer their organs for donation screen themselves; in other words I suspect that people that are drug addicts, excessively promiscuous (have unprotected sex, or other high-risk behaviors), have severe contagious diseases (IE AIDs, hepatitis, mad cow) are more likely to screen themselves out and less likely to volunteer ( opt in) their organs.

Contrary to what you say I think atheists should be allowed to receive organs, though they should be farther down the list.

(that was just a joke to reflect your own prejudice)

Atheism is not a cult, simply the final step on the path to the enlightenment provided by the realisation that religion is nothing more than a fictional nonsense designed to help simple people understand complex issues.

That anybody would use it to justify denying life to another (or taking it away for that matter) is deeply discomforting.

With regard to the escort numbers I was under the impression that it was more the other way around. David Owen and Sir Michael Le Fanu used the NATO anti-submarine role to argue against a substantial cut in escort numbers that was the logical result of dropping the East of Suez role. In 64 the RN had only some 28 escorts in European waters.

Also if you look at some of the escorts in commission as late as 79 such as two Salisbury class, a Whitby and a Blackwood. No helicopter capability and the longest range AS weapon either Limbo or the Squid mortars. I doubt this was the best use of resources possible.

This is not to say that I think that CV01 was the right ship at the right time. It was far too ambition. But the carrier crisis did not I think result in the best possible use of future resources either.

NATO was rarely impressed with the UK’s escort numbers. Do not get carried away with the percieved lack of modernity of some of the escorts. They still had some reasonable sensors and this was in a world where a number of Soviet submarines were themselves pretty outmoded by the latest standards.

Given the UK’s threat scenario and associated foreign policy requirements it can be stated that the right decisions were taken.

i think religion does come into this Mormons wont take blood transfusions or organs. As for giving blood and organs i dont know but just guessing i would say they dont.:confused:

If your strange cult states that you should not give then thats fine, but you should not recieve either.