edward-bloke.bsky.social
Former farmer from Lincolnshire living in Yorkshire UK. Heart attack survivor. Loves both codes of rugby🏉. Retired prop forward. Centrist politics. NAFO Fella. Cat dad.
393 posts
1,382 followers
2,865 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Starmer must replace Reeves and get rid of McSweeney.
comment in response to
post
It's really frustrating as it is not hard to see that Reform are probably top of the list of those who'd make life worse for working class and those in or, close to poverty.
We are sleep walking into something terrible here, worse than we've had before. And I can't see how we can stop it. /End
comment in response to
post
Will it be a confidence motion?
comment in response to
post
Starmer and Reeves have made a pig's ear of this. But somehow, in a way that is almost impressive, Badenoch has managed to fuck it up even worse.
comment in response to
post
On the other hand I am seeing some grounds for cautious optimism. Trump just re-committed to NATO Article 5. We know he may change his mind in an instant but I think he is starting to feel jaded about his treatment by Putin and Netanyahu.
comment in response to
post
IMHO we also need to keep invested in friendships and alliances elsewhere. I think we need to keep in with Australia, NZ, S Korea and Japan in the face of Chinese aggression. We know China will invade Taiwan sooner or later. China is also breaking International Maritime Law in the South China Sea
comment in response to
post
With regard to Russia, their technology is known, a lot of it was captured and analysed in 2022/3. Also their power has been so degraded by their war in Ukraine that they are years away from threatening NATO even without USA. However, we know Russian intentions and need to invest now.
comment in response to
post
There are always calculations. Canada was expecting to buy lots of F35As, but have slashed the number and are buying lots of Saab Gripens instead, alongside a small number of F35As.
Also, all this MASSIVELY strengthens the case for the British/Japanese/Italian Tempest 6th Gen GCAP.
comment in response to
post
Rafale, not the Mutant Ninja Turtle, sodding predictive text 🙄
comment in response to
post
While I don't think Trump will invade Greenland, I agree we can't rule it out. However, there will be greater pushbackand possibly lots of officer resignations in the US military if he is mental enough to go that far. Long term supply of F35 parts are also a problem but it is a calculated risk.
comment in response to
post
That is on my mind as well but we are already invested in F35 and have been throughout its development. This is just an addition of a conventional runway version of a jump jet plane we already have. We also have Typhoon, while allies also have variously Typhoon, Rafael and Gripen.
comment in response to
post
We are heavily invested in F35 regardless of who is in the Whitehouse. This isn't partnering up with Trump, just making a wise investment in a capability we don't currently have.
comment in response to
post
F35A is an important addition to conventional capacity as well. I don't understand why the government is making it a statement about nuclear posture. I think this is a cretinously stupid statement about a very good and necessary addition to our defence capability.
comment in response to
post
This is big picture thinking, but BAE Systems has 15%, I think, of all the F35 project, so it adds to British jobs and tax revenue. This, in turn, adds to revenue for NHS, social care etc.
comment in response to
post
I know many argue being a nuclear power makes us more of a target while I argue the opposite. However, total nuclear disarmament would completely change that dynamic, but adding a small nuclear capability to the big one we already have doesn't change that dynamic at all.
comment in response to
post
Whether we are more or less of a target because we are a nuclear power already is debatable but even if we definitely get nuclear bombs for F35As, it doesn't make one iota of difference whether we are more of a target or not.
comment in response to
post
The plane buy is good for efficiency reasons. The nuclear thing is a red herring IMHO. We are already a nuclear power with sub launched missiles. There only one nation on Earth that had nuclear weapons and gave them up and that was Ukraine.
comment in response to
post
The F35A has greater payload, range, and internal weapons bay volume than the B. Buying planes that CAN use nuclear bombs doesn't necessarily mean we SHALL buy such bombs. We are announcing the plane buy, but we currently have no budget for nuclear bombs.
comment in response to
post
I agree with you absolutely on this but without any sort of military muscle and military industry we reduce our ability to influence any of these things anywhere.
comment in response to
post
If you think it is OK to let Putin commit bestial war crimes like those at Bucha, and let other similar things happen while our country throws away any ability to affect things on the world stage, that is your right. I disagree but it is a fair debate to be had.
comment in response to
post
Me need them for the safety and security of our nation and that of our allies. If we were to leave NATO and pull up the drawbridge you could argue we need less defence, but as things stand we need this capability and many others.
comment in response to
post
There is shooting war in Europe. Russia is currently massively over-matched by European NATO members alone if Russia tries it in the Baltics but Putin definitely has plans for that in the long term. While we are in NATO we need these regardless of other spending commitments.
comment in response to
post
The plan was to only buy F35B jump jets but by buying some F35As they get a version with greater range and payload with MUCH lower running costs. The nuclear capability is a capability, not necessarily a plan. It just diverts attention away from good procurement practice