1
votes
Tim Worstall asks a good question about why the UK taxpayer is giving aid to countries. First off - as can be seen in the associated comment thread - it seems madness to give money to a rapidly growing economy such as India when that nation has a space programme and a nuclear weapons programme. True, that country still has immense numbers of very poor people, but surely the best way to address tha...
submitted by Samizdata on 28th May 2010 (via samizdata.net)



Add your comment
Please Login or Signup to leave a comment



Similar Articles
1
votes
The withdrawal of the Communists from the Indian government over the nuclear deal almost brought Manmohan Singh's government down. However, it survived that crisis by getting other minor parties on board. Now, the US Senate has agreed it . It seems that - perhaps as a counterweight against China - the US has changed its position on India's nuclear weapons and is accepting it as a 6th nuclear weapo...
submitted by MyPoliticalBlog on 4th Oct 2008 (via vinospoliticalblog.blogspot.com)
1
votes
Glenn Reynolds linked a report that the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are calling for refurbishment of the existing nuclear weapons in the U.S.  Good find by Glenn.  A brief word of explanation. It has always been true that we can’t sit on the nuclear weapons stockpile without working to
submitted by TheCaptainsJournal on 27th Oct 2008 (via captainsjournal.com)
2
votes
Asked about the Government s response to President Obama s plan to reduce nuclear weapons, the PMS said that David Miliband had given a long speech on this today. We had been very clear for some time that we strongly supported the global commitment to a world free from nuclear weapons and creating the conditions whereby this could be achieved. Obviously that had to be worked on with many other cou...
submitted by DowningStreetSays on 5th Feb 2009 (via downingstreetsays.com)
1
votes
First congratulations to India on the Launch of their Chandrayaan-1 mission to the moon which lasted off this week. But this begs the question why is the UK funding development projects in a country that chooses to put the development of Nuclear Weapons and a Space programme above other needs that we are funding ? The UK doesn't have a space launch capability, having been the only country in ...
submitted by ManInAShed on 22nd Oct 2008 (via atoryblog.blogspot.com)
Tags: · · ·
1
votes
Far from representing or effecting national pride or independence, our nuclear weapons programme has only ever represented and effected the wholesale subjugation of Britain's defence capability to a foreign power. That power maintains at least no less friendly relations with numerous other countries, almost none of which have nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons (like radiological, chemical and biolog...
submitted by DavidLindsay on 19th Mar 2009 (via davidaslindsay.blogspot.com)
Tags: · · · · · · · · ·
1
votes
Poor Gordon, if I was sure that Alex Salmond wanted to keep nuclear power off the agenda then I am double sure that the Prime Minister wants the issue of nuclear weapons away from Scottish eyes. It is just one of many topics that splits at the border, Scotland being largely anti-nucelar weapons and down south being significantly more pro-nuclear. The fact that the UK's arsenal of weapons is h...
submitted by SNPTacticalVoting on 18th Mar 2009 (via snptacticalvoting.blogspot.com)
1
votes
On Tuesday night in the House of Commons, the nuclear industry moved a significant step closer to getting their hands on an extra £1.3 billion of public money, courtesy of a coalition Government that promised no subsidy for nuclear power. A Labour attempt to claw the money back through a windfall tax failed. And although
submitted by LiberalDemocratVoice on 7th Jul 2011 (via libdemvoice.org)
1
votes
In a hush-hush deal, the British government just sold its last shares in the country's nuclear weapons plant to a U.S. company. California-based Jacobs Engineering Group paid an undisclosed amount for the government's one-third stake in the only plant in the UK that manufactures nuclear weapons, including Trident warheads. Lockheed Martin owns another third of the plant, and a British bu...
submitted by FPPassport on 22nd Dec 2008 (via blog.foreignpolicy.com)
1
votes
Iran: "Nuclear Energy For All, Nuclear Weapons For No One" Reality is Stranger Than Fiction as Iran Plays Marketing 101 If you say it, then it must be so. This is the newest gambit being played by the Iranians, as they announce a two-day meeting to be called "Nuclear Energy For All, Nuclear Weapons For No One." The Iranian nuclear conference is scheduled to begin just days after the Global Nuclear Security Summit in Washington ends. Read the full story at...
submitted by PoliticsandFinance on 5th Apr 2010 (via politicsandfinance.blogspot.com)
1
votes
This article of mine appears over on the Guardian's Comment Is Free site: The army has never liked Trident. It is the navy's, not theirs. The army has no nuclear weapons, and it hurts. But the generals who wrote in yesterday's Times that Britain no longer needs a nuclear deterrent are simply stating fact. Far from representing or inspiring national pride or independence, our nuclear weapons progra...
submitted by DavidLindsay on 17th Jan 2009 (via davidaslindsay.blogspot.com)

Add Story

Hot Topics
from the last 24 hours
1
photos (3494)
2
London (1756)
3
Glasgow (1748)
4
o (1747)
5
Living (1747)
6
7
Cameron (17)
8
More. (15)
9
10
11
Deal (12)
12
13
14
video (9)
15
16
UK (9)
17
18
19
Bill (8)
20

Get a widget

Quick start user guide

Mobile Politigg

 







Powered By PHPDug version 2.0.0
Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions