Hmm…

It would be interesting to see the ‘None of the above’ option on ballot papers, but then I suspect nobody would ever get elected! :p

True, but the French Carrier will be getting the catapults, so it’s hardly impossible for the UK one to also include them. Well, not if HM Treasury have anything to say, but my point was that Rafale represents a viable alternative to the F-35.

Firefox; and if all else fails, Safari.

Here’s a question:

Would it be as effective simply to conduct recon/human intel on Afghanistan and them simply bomb offending parties instead of occupying the entire country?

Well, the USA reneged on its undertakings once before, hence the fuss a few years ago. Perhaps it’s now reneged on what was agreed in 2007, though since the exact terms (i.e. what we were supposed to get access to) remain secret, one can’t be sure.

We should never have got involved. 🙁 I don’t know how good a Super Harrier could have been, or how much it would have cost, but either it, or a catapult-launched non-US fighter, looks as if it may have been a better option for the RN. Maybe Italy & Spain could have been persuaded to join a Super Harrier project, using Harrier systems (e.g. Blue Vixen) initially. But probably not.

I wonder what would have happened if the UK had tried to interest the other Eurofighter partners in a Replica Eurofighter? The latter could have been just an airframe development project, wrapped around Eurofighter engines & systems. Ah well, too late now.

But it isn’t too late to buy Rafale instead, which the RN should probably do.

Have the F-35 in RAF service replaced by Gripen, for a Euro-canard trio! :diablo:

We can dream…

In terms of loadout UCAVs are getting much better very quickly.

Newer predators can carry 2 500lb bombs and 4 hellfire missiles,, and this is only going to improve with the Predator C and other new UCAVs

If biblical witness standards are upheld, then yes. Just on a DNA conviction, or on the word of one police officer, or something like that, I would be worried. The problem is that some of today’s convictions have sketchy evidence and witnesses – which is a problem. But, if a person is properly convicted of murder, the death penalty should be enforced.

Ryan

If biblical legal standards were enforced we would stone disobedient children to death, alongside adulterers.

Even today are convicted of murder by a jury and yet convictions are overturned, which is why I cannot support the death penalty. There may be some cases where it is virtually certain that person x is guilty of murder; but for the sake of consistency the punnishment for the same crime must be the same.

I don’t have a moral problem with killing, if someone were threatening the life of people I love then I would not lose any sleep over taking life to protect them, but as a legal system, I really don’t think that it is satisfactory.