Does religion have a part to pay in this?

Absolutely not. If you are ignorant enough that you choose to deprive someone else of life on the basis of some near ancient nonsense then you should have passion to state that this is your stand point.

Also, what about hypocrisy? Should a non-donor be made to wait longer to receive an organ than a donor card carrier?

As part of the opt out system, anybody who does opt out shouldhave to wait behond those who do not.

Go and think about you’re saying lol 😀

Wahh wahh the Iranians are going to target the US and European cities for fun with nuclear and conventional weapons. 😀

No one is dumb enough to do that. The North Koreans have been possessing arguably more dangerous weapons than Iran, and they haven’t harmed a hair on anyone.

That just proves that you are unable to read. It has been pointed out here on multipe occasions that Iran does not have to use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons to cause damage and death in Europe with ballistic missiles.

Now before you return I would advise you to improve your comprehension skills.

Agree with every word.

This is a non-issue as far as I can see.

Last Lightning might care to debate with my Mother-in-law, who is unlikely to get a replacement kidney because of her age, just how ‘well’ the system currently works.

If it was opt-out it’s still a voluntary system, but overcomes many of the problems that currently see perfectly serviceable organs ending up as worm food or ash.

Moggy

Absolutely, if you are that ignorant and callous that you feel the need to keep your organs after you cease to have a use for them then you will be passionate enough to opt out prior to the point at which someone will have the right to remove them anyway.

– Where did I say all was hunky-dory with Russian shipbuilding?
– see post of 20th November 2008 12:03I about which military ship types out of Severnoye design bureau lately.
– no military surface ships larger than frigates (notably Talwar class) were actually built in recent years.

The point was about whether that design bureaus and yard are still capable i.e. whether knowledge and expertise is still around. What is designed/build under severel financial constraints may not be a good indicator of that. Just because there’s no money doesn’t mean there’s no skills or expertise (though these will in time decline in the absense of real naval ship building activity).

You can be assured that after nearly 20 years of low funding the skills level has already taken a beating. Dont assume that just becuase these yards are turning out fancy pictures that they are actually capable of producing them on schedule or that the designs are that advanced beyond some smoothing out of the hull and superstructure. The Talwar’s for instance are basically just a Krivak III hull. Skills and knowledge have to be developed and in Russia they have been frozen for nearly two decades. When I see a Russian design using Aesa radars, IEP, and built in super blocks then I will be impressed. At the moment bothing like that is on the drawing board.

And they’ve closed schools and not trained anybody during those years? Like there is no shipbuilding going on (e.g. nuclear icebreakers, gas tankers)

http://spkb.air.spb.ru/en/news/publications/asian_def_february/
http://spkb.air.spb.ru/en/offers/warships/21956/

http://spkb.air.spb.ru/en/news/publications/asian_def_december/

Creating computer images of smoothed out 1980’s designs is one thing. Designing and building a 21st century LPH/,PD to the latest construction methods is quite another.

Jane’s is reporting delays of up to two years in current Russian building programmes, the Gorshkov saga is laid out for all to see, so it is pretty obvious that the Russian shipbuilding industry is not in a good state.

If we accept that the RN had two potential missions, basically GIUK/Escort and potential East of Suez ops…. Perhaps the best bet would have been to maintain an ASW-heavy fleet for the N.Atlantic, and a relatively modest expeditionary fleet. Bear in mind that the RN still had a modest requirement for force projection. The RN could, at the bare minimum have maintained Hermes as a CTOL carrier, East of Suez, perhaps based in Australia; with sisterships Albion and Bulwark as commando carriers based in the UK (especially for the Norway mission). This would be the bare minimum for maintaining any kind of out of area capability. A follow-up may then have allowed replacement of all three ships with a common, basic, carrier type, capable of undertaking either fleet or commando roles. I know, I know, we’ve discussed this ad nauseam, but there are legitimate reasons for preserving the force projection capability.

Except the UK government determined that East of Suez was no longer a policy objective and was too expensive. They thus focussed (correctly) upon the percieved direct threat to national survival. And in doing so still had NATO telling them they were not providing enough escorts.

On the subject of the Type 19, I have been reading a little on it (alas, sadly not in the ‘Rebuilding the RN’ book), and found some of the designs a little odd, especially the lack of helo capacity. By the ’60s, it had already become clear that helos were the best bet for chasing after Soviet subs. Another possible change would be a dual-role launcher, more akin to the American Mk26 type, perhaps with Sea Dart and Malafon or similar. Even without, a slightly modified Leander-type hull, with the appropriate updates, could have had the potential for a really capable ship. A large batch of these dual role vessels, with Sea Dart and Malafon (modified to use the standard 324mm Mk46, not the 533mm French torpedo) would have been excellent ships, with a heck of a lot of potential. For the ‘low’ in the mix, a more sensibly designed Type 21 would have made some sense – a lot of it’s problems could actually have been avoided with better project guidance. In essence, ordering them built with more stability and top-weight allowance, plus more room for growth, could have helped.

The Type-19 would have been a useless gunboat, its conception was itself the product of the unaffordability of the carriers. These ships would not have been ‘excellent’ without a complex CMS and good sonars and other sensors. The Type-19 did not have these because the cost of CVA-01 made them unaffordable. When the RN did come up with designs like what you propose they found them to be too expensive to procure with the carriers.

A combination of dual-role high capability AAW/ASW ships and cheap dual role ASW ships would make sense. Sea Dart gets installed on the high end ships, alongside Anglo-Malafon, with the cheaper ships just getting a simpler Malafon launcher. The multi-purpose launcher concept (hopefully) then allows relatively smooth integration of Exocet or similar

A cheap ASW frigate is a near useless one, it is cheap because it lacks sensors and a CMS but they are the very features that make the vessels capable. In a post war ASW ship the armament is only a part of the cost, the largest part being the sensors and associated electronics. The RN could not have carriers and decent escorts. Carriers provided power projection, good quality escorts contributed to national survival, which would you choose?

Before reading Rebuilding the Royal Navy, as good as it is, read the following,

Vanguard to Trident by Eric J Grove

and

British Destroyers and Frigates: The Second World War and After by Norman Friedman and A. D. Baker

Both will give you a far better context than Rebuilding the Royal Navy.

I vehemently disagree with your assertion that this technology will work as advertised. You consistently state that there is an extant threat from Iran that this technology can deter or defend against. You brush off the geopolitical implications of deployment of this technology next door to a nuclear armed Russia.

So what if the Russian’s get upset, what are they going to do about? Nothing, beyond winge and whine.

Yet I do not see you try sir and explain why you think this technology WILL work. Calling me ignorant is insulting but that’s OK. I have a thick skin and this is after all the internet.

Becuase it has already been tested and has successfully intercepted targets in trials whilst upgrades and improvments are ongoing, care to explain why it would not work?:rolleyes:

I have never professed to know ALL about this issue and I probably never will (unlike some of us here :cool:). Prove me wrong sir. Prove to me that my assertions about the effectiveness of the technology are not grounded. Prove to me that there is an extant threat that requires such a vast outlay of treasure to be defended against. Prove to me sir that this move will not start a new Cold War or a greviously damaging arms race with a resurgent Russia for no reason.

It has already been proved to you, current Iranian missiles already have the capacity to strike Europe, and their current technology development programmes could allow them to extend range to 5000km. Perhaps you are trying to put a price on human life?

Unlike you appear to be sir, I am not attached to my opinions and clouded by ideology to the point that I do not allow myself to accept the points made by somebody with a different opinion other than myself.

You are attached to your opinions which is why you keep repeating them and use the word vehemently.

If you want to escalate something, you ALWAYS need two sides doing it. The question is not whether Russians are angels, the question is why risk escalation for something as irrelevant (these are your own words) as the polish ABM site.

Becuase the Russians cn not get over the loss of their empire

Yep.. Oil…

#

Well in case you had not noticed the entire global economy is dependant upon the stuff, including ythat of your country.