<>

Hmmmm… I’m not sure that any nuclear attack – however small could be considered “trifling”!
And take a look at the attached image from a cold-war Soviet bunker. There’s some familiar-looking aircraft on there that seem to suggest the Soviets didn’t consider the risk of a UK attack entirely “trifling”

[ATTACH=CONFIG]244058[/ATTACH]

I’m confused by your argument: You say Britain only had nuclear weapons to “keep us a player on the global stage” – but deny that they offer the UK “an outsized role on the global stage”. What’s the difference?

You also talk about nuclear weapons being useful for weaker states who can’t guarantee security by conventional means”.. well wouldn’t that also apply to the UK or France just as much as to North Korea, or indeed any smaller nuclear-armed state potentially facing the conventional forces of America, Russia or China? Once again – it’s the whole argument of deterrence.

As you say yourself,”no one has ever threatened the survival of a nuclear-armed nation” So doesn’t that alone justify having them?!

Well to answer one of your questions – surely it WAS a deterrent for the Soviet Union – just as Soviet nukes were for the west?
That was the whole argument of Mutually Assured Destruction.

I would also wager that after the Black Buck raids and the sinking of the Belgrano, the Argentinian Junta were suddenly very mindful of the UK’s nuclear capability – especially as it was Mrs T’s finger hovering over the button.

And today? Well I bet fat Kim in North Korea knows exactly who has, and doesn’t have such a capability

I don’t think anyone has ever suggested they have a positive usefulness: it’s always been a case of the big stick behind the soft talking. I suppose the question back would be – would you feel safer NOT having a nuclear capability?

Well if you fancy a trip around the moon, flights are booking now…

http://www.spaceadventures.com/experiences/circumlunar-mission/

As Soyuz was originally built to go to the moon it’s technically feasible, and the company has already brokered several private trips to the ISS, so they have a track record. As to the cost – I think the figure being quoted was in excess of one hundred million dollars per seat – and that was a few years ago.

As I recall it was rumoured at one point that James Cameron, the film director had his name down. I guess in terms of making a film of the journey, he could probably turn a profit on it.

Not sure about Havoc… see attached. Radio t/x and r/x equipment is the white box and larger black box to the left of it
[ATTACH=CONFIG]241860[/ATTACH]

Quite similar to typical sort of dial found on B17, B24 and others… but not an exact match.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]241861[/ATTACH]

Well if I remember rightly, XJ823 was delivered into retirement at Carlisle by Neil McDougall – whose previous Vulcan trips included Black Buck 5 and also 6 – with it’s unscheduled detour to Rio. So it’s possible the Pope’s smile might indeed be a bit rigid if he was ever to pop in.

Some pics of finds…

http://forums.airshows.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=70003

Yes, It would be nice to see a Brit motorcycle, ridden BY a Brit take up the cudgel again and claim the record.

Jim
Lincoln .7

Guy Martin’s out to do exactly that….

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/2015/july/guy-martin-challenges-land-speed-record/

I think it’s been delayed slightly through injury… but still very much on.

[QUOTE=Lincoln 7;2260149]I particularly liked the bit where “Burt” failed the inspection of his bike, then shaved the tread off his tyres and then used black shoe polish to make them look like new.

And apparently it’s totally true. Among other things, part of the suspension was made from an old gate… he carved his own con rods out of old tractor axles – and made the cylinder barrels out of old gas pipe that was being dug up and replaced – reasoning that after fifty odd years underground it’d be nicely seasoned. Then at the age of 68 he set a speed record that still stands today. Truly incredible man.