On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 15:03:41 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> On 18/05/2021 09:31 am, Mike Collins wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 08:01:05 UTC+1, soup wrote:
> >> On 18/05/2021 04:40, Mike Collins wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> It does not change the fact that we are the only nation to have used a nuclear submarine in anger.
> >> True but you were the one saying the peace camp was there ONLY because
> >> of Nuclear weapons. Then mention 'our' use of Nuclear power . Seems a
> >> very strong statement to me that you believed Conqueror had these
> >> nuclear weapons onboard.
> >
> > What I meant was if we did not have our own nuclear deterrent the protesters would be in a gulag.
> >
> >>> I doubt the blunderment would have informed you if Conqueror was carrying nuclear weapons.
> >> AFAIK Conqueror could only launch out her torpedo tubes there is no
> >> TT launched nuclear device in existence . The Americans did have a
> >> nuclear torpedo back in the 50s but it was so large and seldom was a
> >> nuclear warhead required that it was soon discontinued.
> >
> > Russia also had a nuclear torpedo and captains were released from senior command after Cuba.
> >
> >>
> >> Subs that launch nuclear missiles (Poseidon and such) have vertical
> >> launch tubes (a completely different design to Conqueror).
> >>> Buenos Aires should be a radioactive glass crater.
> >> I severely doubt Buenos Aires would get nuked it would end in the whole
> >> world Nuking everything in sight .
> >
> > I believe in independence. The residents of the Falkland have the right to decide to which country they belong or form their own independent nation. If they choose to be British we have a duty to protect them, if that means deploying nuclear weapons then so be it.
> > You need to realise Britons built 'the bomb' and dropping both types on Japan saved lives, not in the sense that a conventional invasion would have cost more lives but someone was going to use a nuclear weapon somewhere and mankind needed a demonstration of what they can do.
> Your grasp of recent history seems... tenuous.

Define recent.

On 18/05/2021 04:48 pm, Mike Collins wrote:

> On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 15:03:41 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> On 18/05/2021 09:31 am, Mike Collins wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 08:01:05 UTC+1, soup wrote:
>>>> On 18/05/2021 04:40, Mike Collins wrote:
>
>>>>> It does not change the fact that we are the only nation to have used a nuclear submarine in anger.

>>>> True but you were the one saying the peace camp was there ONLY because
>>>> of Nuclear weapons. Then mention 'our' use of Nuclear power . Seems a
>>>> very strong statement to me that you believed Conqueror had these
>>>> nuclear weapons onboard.
>
>>> What I meant was if we did not have our own nuclear deterrent the protesters would be in a gulag.
>
>>>>> I doubt the blunderment would have informed you if Conqueror was carrying nuclear weapons.

>>>> AFAIK Conqueror could only launch out her torpedo tubes there is no
>>>> TT launched nuclear device in existence . The Americans did have a
>>>> nuclear torpedo back in the 50s but it was so large and seldom was a
>>>> nuclear warhead required that it was soon discontinued.
>
>>> Russia also had a nuclear torpedo and captains were released from senior command after Cuba.
>
>>>> Subs that launch nuclear missiles (Poseidon and such) have vertical
>>>> launch tubes (a completely different design to Conqueror).

>>>>> Buenos Aires should be a radioactive glass crater.

>>>> I severely doubt Buenos Aires would get nuked it would end in the whole
>>>> world Nuking everything in sight .
>
>>> I believe in independence. The residents of the Falkland have the right to decide to which country they belong or form their own independent nation. If they choose to be British we have a duty to protect them, if that means deploying nuclear weapons then so be it.

>>> You need to realise Britons built 'the bomb' and dropping both types on Japan saved lives, not in the sense that a conventional invasion would have cost more lives but someone was going to use a nuclear weapon somewhere and mankind needed a demonstration of what they can do.

>> Your grasp of recent history seems... tenuous.
>
> Define recent.

Starting on (say) the 1st January 1940 AD.

On 18/05/2021 04:47 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 15:04:58 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> On 18/05/2021 11:04 am, Mike Collins wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 10:00:31 UTC+1, soup wrote:
>>>> On 18/05/2021 09:31, Mike Collins wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe in independence. The residents of the Falkland have the right to decide to which country they belong or form their own independent nation. If they choose to be British we have a duty to protect them, if that means deploying nuclear weapons then so be it.
>>>> And burn the whole world (including Britain and the Falkland islands )?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You need to realise Britons built 'the bomb' .
>>>>
>>>> We did? Certainly we have our own now but initialy "wasn't us guv".
>>>> We did have scientists involved in the "Manhattan project" but it could
>>>> hardly be said to be a British invention.
>>>>
>>>> Usually Oppenheimer is thought of as the 'daddy' of the atom bomb,
>>>> from an idea by Einstein
>>>> and dropping both types on Japan
>>>> I was under the impression that was the septics [1] and "little boy" and
>>>> "fat man" had come out of the "Manhattan project".
>>>> saved lives, not in the sense that a conventional invasion would have
>>>> cost more lives but someone was going to use a nuclear weapon somewhere
>>>> and mankind needed a demonstration of what they can do.
>>>> The merits(or otherwise) of Nuclear weapons are a whole other
>>>> discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Whether they ended WWII or an invasion would have been costlier in
>>>> lives also seems to be a favourite topic for discussion'.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1]
>>>> Well the British thought of the 'MP' as a joint project whilst the
>>>> septics thought it was all them
>>>
>>> The point is someone was going to deploy an atomic weapon on someone sometime. Better it was atomic rather than nuclear. Leftpondians almost blew themselves up with the first fusion weapon by underestimating the power of Lithium.
>>
>> "Better it was atomic rather than nuclear".
>
> Is there a point you are failing to make?

Given that I was quoting you and given the quoted material, it is quite
likely that you won't be able to see or grasp the point.

On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 17:10:53 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> On 18/05/2021 04:47 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 15:04:58 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 18/05/2021 11:04 am, Mike Collins wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 10:00:31 UTC+1, soup wrote:
> >>>> On 18/05/2021 09:31, Mike Collins wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I believe in independence. The residents of the Falkland have the right to decide to which country they belong or form their own independent nation. If they choose to be British we have a duty to protect them, if that means deploying nuclear weapons then so be it.
> >>>> And burn the whole world (including Britain and the Falkland islands )?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> You need to realise Britons built 'the bomb' .
> >>>>
> >>>> We did? Certainly we have our own now but initialy "wasn't us guv".
> >>>> We did have scientists involved in the "Manhattan project" but it could
> >>>> hardly be said to be a British invention.
> >>>>
> >>>> Usually Oppenheimer is thought of as the 'daddy' of the atom bomb,
> >>>> from an idea by Einstein
> >>>> and dropping both types on Japan
> >>>> I was under the impression that was the septics [1] and "little boy" and
> >>>> "fat man" had come out of the "Manhattan project".
> >>>> saved lives, not in the sense that a conventional invasion would have
> >>>> cost more lives but someone was going to use a nuclear weapon somewhere
> >>>> and mankind needed a demonstration of what they can do.
> >>>> The merits(or otherwise) of Nuclear weapons are a whole other
> >>>> discussion.
> >>>>
> >>>> Whether they ended WWII or an invasion would have been costlier in
> >>>> lives also seems to be a favourite topic for discussion'.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> [1]
> >>>> Well the British thought of the 'MP' as a joint project whilst the
> >>>> septics thought it was all them
> >>>
> >>> The point is someone was going to deploy an atomic weapon on someone sometime. Better it was atomic rather than nuclear. Leftpondians almost blew themselves up with the first fusion weapon by underestimating the power of Lithium.
> >>
> >> "Better it was atomic rather than nuclear".
> >
> > Is there a point you are failing to make?
> Given that I was quoting you and given the quoted material, it is quite
> likely that you won't be able to see or grasp the point.

So no point as usual.

On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 17:09:53 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> On 18/05/2021 04:48 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 15:03:41 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
> >> On 18/05/2021 09:31 am, Mike Collins wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 08:01:05 UTC+1, soup wrote:
> >>>> On 18/05/2021 04:40, Mike Collins wrote:
> >
> >>>>> It does not change the fact that we are the only nation to have used a nuclear submarine in anger.
>
> >>>> True but you were the one saying the peace camp was there ONLY because
> >>>> of Nuclear weapons. Then mention 'our' use of Nuclear power . Seems a
> >>>> very strong statement to me that you believed Conqueror had these
> >>>> nuclear weapons onboard.
> >
> >>> What I meant was if we did not have our own nuclear deterrent the protesters would be in a gulag.
> >
> >>>>> I doubt the blunderment would have informed you if Conqueror was carrying nuclear weapons.
>
> >>>> AFAIK Conqueror could only launch out her torpedo tubes there is no
> >>>> TT launched nuclear device in existence . The Americans did have a
> >>>> nuclear torpedo back in the 50s but it was so large and seldom was a
> >>>> nuclear warhead required that it was soon discontinued.
> >
> >>> Russia also had a nuclear torpedo and captains were released from senior command after Cuba.
> >
> >>>> Subs that launch nuclear missiles (Poseidon and such) have vertical
> >>>> launch tubes (a completely different design to Conqueror).
>
> >>>>> Buenos Aires should be a radioactive glass crater.
>
> >>>> I severely doubt Buenos Aires would get nuked it would end in the whole
> >>>> world Nuking everything in sight .
> >
> >>> I believe in independence. The residents of the Falkland have the right to decide to which country they belong or form their own independent nation. If they choose to be British we have a duty to protect them, if that means deploying nuclear weapons then so be it.
>
> >>> You need to realise Britons built 'the bomb' and dropping both types on Japan saved lives, not in the sense that a conventional invasion would have cost more lives but someone was going to use a nuclear weapon somewhere and mankind needed a demonstration of what they can do.
>
> >> Your grasp of recent history seems... tenuous.
> >
> > Define recent.
> Starting on (say) the 1st January 1940 AD.

Please supply evidence to support this.

On 18/05/2021 05:31 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 17:10:53 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> On 18/05/2021 04:47 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 15:04:58 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 18/05/2021 11:04 am, Mike Collins wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 10:00:31 UTC+1, soup wrote:
>>>>>> On 18/05/2021 09:31, Mike Collins wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I believe in independence. The residents of the Falkland have the right to decide to which country they belong or form their own independent nation. If they choose to be British we have a duty to protect them, if that means deploying nuclear weapons then so be it.
>>>>>> And burn the whole world (including Britain and the Falkland islands )?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You need to realise Britons built 'the bomb' .
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We did? Certainly we have our own now but initialy "wasn't us guv".
>>>>>> We did have scientists involved in the "Manhattan project" but it could
>>>>>> hardly be said to be a British invention.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Usually Oppenheimer is thought of as the 'daddy' of the atom bomb,
>>>>>> from an idea by Einstein
>>>>>> and dropping both types on Japan
>>>>>> I was under the impression that was the septics [1] and "little boy" and
>>>>>> "fat man" had come out of the "Manhattan project".
>>>>>> saved lives, not in the sense that a conventional invasion would have
>>>>>> cost more lives but someone was going to use a nuclear weapon somewhere
>>>>>> and mankind needed a demonstration of what they can do.
>>>>>> The merits(or otherwise) of Nuclear weapons are a whole other
>>>>>> discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Whether they ended WWII or an invasion would have been costlier in
>>>>>> lives also seems to be a favourite topic for discussion'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1]
>>>>>> Well the British thought of the 'MP' as a joint project whilst the
>>>>>> septics thought it was all them
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is someone was going to deploy an atomic weapon on someone sometime. Better it was atomic rather than nuclear. Leftpondians almost blew themselves up with the first fusion weapon by underestimating the power of Lithium.
>>>>
>>>> "Better it was atomic rather than nuclear".
>>>
>>> Is there a point you are failing to make?

>> Given that I was quoting you and given the quoted material, it is quite
>> likely that you won't be able to see or grasp the point.
>
> So no point as usual.

You will presumably always have that difficulty. You have demonstrated
it before.

On 18/05/2021 05:33 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
> On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 17:09:53 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>> On 18/05/2021 04:48 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 15:03:41 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
>>>> On 18/05/2021 09:31 am, Mike Collins wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 08:01:05 UTC+1, soup wrote:
>>>>>> On 18/05/2021 04:40, Mike Collins wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> It does not change the fact that we are the only nation to have used a nuclear submarine in anger.
>>
>>>>>> True but you were the one saying the peace camp was there ONLY because
>>>>>> of Nuclear weapons. Then mention 'our' use of Nuclear power . Seems a
>>>>>> very strong statement to me that you believed Conqueror had these
>>>>>> nuclear weapons onboard.
>>>
>>>>> What I meant was if we did not have our own nuclear deterrent the protesters would be in a gulag.
>>>
>>>>>>> I doubt the blunderment would have informed you if Conqueror was carrying nuclear weapons.
>>
>>>>>> AFAIK Conqueror could only launch out her torpedo tubes there is no
>>>>>> TT launched nuclear device in existence . The Americans did have a
>>>>>> nuclear torpedo back in the 50s but it was so large and seldom was a
>>>>>> nuclear warhead required that it was soon discontinued.
>>>
>>>>> Russia also had a nuclear torpedo and captains were released from senior command after Cuba.
>>>
>>>>>> Subs that launch nuclear missiles (Poseidon and such) have vertical
>>>>>> launch tubes (a completely different design to Conqueror).
>>
>>>>>>> Buenos Aires should be a radioactive glass crater.
>>
>>>>>> I severely doubt Buenos Aires would get nuked it would end in the whole
>>>>>> world Nuking everything in sight .
>>>
>>>>> I believe in independence. The residents of the Falkland have the right to decide to which country they belong or form their own independent nation. If they choose to be British we have a duty to protect them, if that means deploying nuclear weapons then so be it.
>>
>>>>> You need to realise Britons built 'the bomb' and dropping both types on Japan saved lives, not in the sense that a conventional invasion would have cost more lives but someone was going to use a nuclear weapon somewhere and mankind needed a demonstration of what they can do.
>>
>>>> Your grasp of recent history seems... tenuous.
>>>
>>> Define recent.

>> Starting on (say) the 1st January 1940 AD.
>
> Please supply evidence to support this.

No need. You've already done it.

Re-read your own "contributions" (still quoted above).

On 18/05/2021 14:27, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 10:56:46 AM UTC+1, soup wrote:
>
>>> I read cycling related articles from many sources.
>>>
>> Was he riding a bike or drinking water/catching his breath?
>
> All of those things at various times.

"Various times".
Yesterday I rode a bike, and today I mugged an old lady[1]
would you say a cyclist mugged an old lady?

Oh and yesterday I drove a car, and today I mugged an old lady[1]
Would you say a motorist mugged an old lady

[1] I didn't really they were just examples.

On 19/05/2021 08:13, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 7:05:06 AM UTC+1, soup wrote:
> bike, and today I mugged an old lady[1]
>> would you say a cyclist mugged an old lady?
>
> Most of the news media would say EXACTLY that.

So can you put a time scale on that ?
No Simon I am not 'getting at' you I just wonder how far the press et al
go in their misreporting of events to support their agenda.

If I had ridden a bike the previous day I am a cyclist,
what about the previous week or month or even year.
are they cyclists too?
Extending that logic to ridiculous extremes most are cyclists [1] .

[1] Most learn to ride a bike as children .

On 19/05/2021 10:59 am, soup wrote:

> On 19/05/2021 08:13, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 7:05:06 AM UTC+1, soup wrote:

>> bike, and today I mugged an old lady[1]

>>> would you say a cyclist mugged an old lady?
>
>> Most of the news media would say EXACTLY that.
>
> So can you put a time scale on that ?
> No Simon I am not 'getting at' you I just wonder how far the press et al
> go in their misreporting of events to support their agenda.
>
> If I had ridden a bike the previous day I am a cyclist,
> what about the previous week or month or even year.
> are they cyclists too?
> Extending that logic to ridiculous extremes most are cyclists [1] .
>
> [1] Most learn to ride a bike as children .

It's surely a question of qualification and compliance with the law.

A majority (I expect) of British adults are technically qualified
drivers in that at some time in the past, they have passed a driving
test. But not all of them will have a current licence and many won't
have access to a vehicle. Some others, whether or not they notionally
have access to a vehicle, won't have any insurance covering its
potential use. Yet others will be disqualified from driving. They are
not drivers because they cannot - at least, cannot immediately - drive
lawfully.

But 100% of them - and 100% of everyone else, of all ages - are
qualified cyclists. Everybody meets the non-existent requirements to be
allowed to ride a bike lawfully, even someone who has never studied the
rules of the road, has no idea of the difference between red and green
and "thinks" that it is acceptable to ride their bikes along the
pedestrian footway.

Heck... there even used to be a cyclist posting here who expected -
seriously, he wasn't joking - to be allowed to ride his bike along
railway station platforms.

So... what do you call someone who is blind drunk, has never taken a
driving test, has never bothered to even enquire about the cost of
insurance and has absolutely no concept of the rights of others?

There's only one word which fits: a (fully qualified) cyclist.

On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 10:59:44 AM UTC+1, soup wrote:
> On 19/05/2021 08:13, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 19, 2021 at 7:05:06 AM UTC+1, soup wrote:
> > bike, and today I mugged an old lady[1]
> >> would you say a cyclist mugged an old lady?
> >
> > Most of the news media would say EXACTLY that.
> So can you put a time scale on that ?
> No Simon I am not 'getting at' you I just wonder how far the press et al
> go in their misreporting of events to support their agenda.
>
> If I had ridden a bike the previous day I am a cyclist,
> what about the previous week or month or even year.
> are they cyclists too?

It's usually taken as if you are wearing cycling clothes and are in the vicinity of a bicycle.
It's seems then that you are a cyclist and therefore guilty of all of the traits a handful of your fellow cyclists exhibit.
Of course, if you are in a car, you are not guilty of committing any of these offences ever.

Such as:
Speeding, parking the wrong way at night, on yellow lines, on zig zags, outside schools, pavement parking, obstructing traffic by inconsiderate parking, driving while drunk, on mobile phones, with no car tax, no licence, no insurance, no MOT, illegal plates, overtaking on double lines, due care, bald tyres, faulty brakes, one eyed monsters, no rear lights, no brake lights, no indicators, fog light abuse, faulty steering, windscreen obscuration, darkly tinted windows, child seat abuse, no seatbelts, insecure load, one way street abuse, amber/red light jumping, cycle box abuse, bus lane abuse, box junction abuse, death by dangerous driving, excess smoke and noise from exhaust, duff suspension, leaking oil, cash for crash fiddles, underage child in front, lights causing glare, over weight limit, ignoring no entry signs, parking without permit, not having control of your vehicle, improper use of horn, using horn at night, no in date photo licence, no licence application after long ban, without prescribed eyewear, failing to stop for police/lollipop/zebra etc - ran out of space.

On 19/05/2021 07:05, soup wrote:
> On 18/05/2021 14:27, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 10:56:46 AM UTC+1, soup wrote:
>
>>>> I read cycling related articles from many sources.
>>>>
>>> Was he riding a bike or drinking water/catching his breath?
>>
>> All of those things at various times.
>
> "Various times". Yesterday I rode a bike, and today I mugged an old
> lady[1] would you say a cyclist mugged an old lady?

The rules go something like this -

~ you mugged her during a journey by bicycle then a cyclist would have
mugged her.

~ you were riding your bicycle and she stepped into the road in a manner
that you could not avoid running into her, then she would have been run
over by a cyclist.

~ you were riding your bicycle and and crashed because you lost control
then a cyclist would have crashed after losing control.

> Oh and yesterday I drove a car, and today I mugged an old lady[1]
> Would you say a motorist mugged an old lady

~ you mugged her during a journey by car, then the mugger had used a car.

~ you were driving your car and she stepped into the road in a manner
that you could not avoid running into her, then she would have been run
over by a car.

~ you were driving your car and crashed because you lost control then
your car would have crashed after going out of control.

On 18/05/2021 11:20, Mike Collins wrote:
> On Tuesday, 18 May 2021 at 10:00:31 UTC+1, soup wrote:
>> On 18/05/2021 09:31, Mike Collins wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I believe in independence. The residents of the Falkland have the right to decide to which country they belong or form their own independent nation. If they choose to be British we have a duty to protect them, if that means deploying nuclear weapons then so be it.
>> And burn the whole world (including Britain and the Falkland islands )?
>>
>>
> When fusion bombs were invented it was believed this was a real possibility. They could set off a chain reaction that would fuse all the atmospheric Hydrogen to Helium. And yes I am aware fusion bombs use fission bombs to generate the X-rays necessary to start the fusion reaction.
>
I rather meant in an MAD sense, not literally, atmosphere being ignited etc,