Yes, I heard the exact same thing, and I agree – it’s a moronic argument.

The Current UK government are in that much denial about a YES vote winning (rightly or wrongly) that they seem to be making no early provision. The SNP want the Subs out by 2019 – the end of the first parliamentary term of an Independent Scotland. That really isn’t much time to quell any NIMBY’s that will undoubtedly spring up, public enquiries etc before building of Sub pens could even begin, never mind Nuclear war head storage areas.

This actually brings up an interesting question – what happens regarding Faslane?

It’s a massive facility with billions of pounds worth on infrastructure, but since it’s in Scotland, it would surely have to count towards the 8-10% of assets that Scotland is entitled to? You can’t have it both ways, denying it to the rest of the UK and not counting it, even if Scotland doesn’t want to make use of it.

One thing that does concern me on behalf of Scotland is the picture that the Yes campaign present, where all potential problems seem to be ignored on the basis that it’ll all turn out alright in the end, and the things that are contingent on other people agreeing to them (eg. Sterling zone, EU membership automatically) it seems to be assumed that everyone will agree to things on Scotland’s terms. But that’s a discussion for another thread.

I’m a little late to the party, but I thought I’d make a contribution.

I think we need a mixed approach, one where the least harmful drugs eg. marijuana are legalised, with the most dangerous ones having their purchase and consumption decriminalised. My reasons are the following:

– In several decades we have failed to stem the flow of drugs, clearly there is a market for them and where there is a market, people will supply.

– Drugs where the level of harm is comparatively minor, and comparable with currently legal drugs (tobacco, alcohol) should be made available to consenting adults and taxed in the same manner as tobacco and alcohol. This will bring in tax revenue, allow consumers to purchase from reputable, regulated sources, and take money out of the hands of the gangs that currently deal drugs.

– Others, where the consumption may be immediately hazardous or dangerously addictive, should be available through NHS drug treatment programs. By allowing addicts to claim these for free from the NHS they no longer have to commit crime to feed their habits, and they will not have to hand over any money to drug dealers who use to to grow rich, buy guns and perpetuate organised crime. This will destroy the market for hard drugs, since dealers won’t be able to compete with free drugs. It also allows us to identify addicts quickly and give them treatment as soon as possible, minimising the harm to these people and helping them to become productive members of society again.

It seems like the most pragmatic approach. We can’t stop people from taking drugs, but we can try to minimise the harm to them and the rest of us.

j10b and typhoon is close choice. but j10b can offer same air to air capability like the next typhoon version with aesa and supercruise
but j10b is better in two ways. first is j10b has more range because it use one engine. typhoon has two engine to feed. second is air to ground. Lybia show that typhoon did very bad in a2g and needed help from other airplane. in reality it can only drop one kind of bomb

Source?

By the time Iraq might want to buy Typhoon it should have a pretty capable a2g suite, and from what I hear it did just fine over Lybia.

Also, is there any data in the public domain comparing the radar in the J-10b with that in the Typhoon?

Just to satisfy my own sanity, where (if anywhere) is development on the navalised Typhoon. I’m lock in an internet argument with someone that’s convinced that:

a) it’s in any way realistic
b) 2 years in development with a prototype

[ATTACH=CONFIG]221396[/ATTACH]

Given Iran’s usual tricks I wouldn’t be surprised if half of them were inflatables.