• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

Preparing for a possible next major World War

GaryH said:
So what do we think, deadline on Iran is 1am UK time tomorrow morning - will he? won't he?

I'm still waiting (and hoping) for a TACO moment - I think if he goes ahead and does this, it will have HUGE repercussions around the world for years to come.
Click to expand...
TACO once he's told all his mates so they can cash in and make a fortune on the markets, again. They even brag about how much money they made on the markets in the Oval Office on camera, they're not even bothering to hide their corruption.
 
Given Trump’s latest tweet (‘whole civilisation will die tonight’) I think there is a greater than even chance that we wake up tomorrow to see he’s used the nukes.

Don’t hold your breath that anyone will stop him - the Pentagon is run and has been purged by a maniac who has the symbol of the crusaders tattooed on his chest, and openly wants a Holy War. Others spent Easter weekend comparing Trump to Jesus. Remove what’s left of America’s constitutional and legal systems (and they’re trying), and it would quickly be indistinguishable from the Iranian regime.

If we make it out of this, America needs to become as much of a pariah as Russia. I know I’ll never set foot in the place again.
 
The White House has denied considering using nuclear weapons. If they do go ahead with ramping up their assault tonight, I'd presume it would be hitting more of the power and transport infrastructure etc. Maybe make life so rubbish for the Iranians that there is a large uprising from within or that whoever is in power eventually decides to do a deal. Who knows what will happen though. It's a very dangerous situation and there's so much uncertainty. I'll find out when I wake up for work at 4.15am tomorrow, I suppose.
 
The first talk I have heard of "nukes" is on here, despite following the war in detail through the media.
DanJB said:
Given Trump’s latest tweet (‘whole civilisation will die tonight’) I think there is a greater than even chance that we wake up tomorrow to see he’s used the nukes.
Click to expand...
Do we have any sources for this claim?
A greater than fifty percent chance of nuclear war...the first such action in eighty years?

I do not think so personally at all.

Thank god the Donald doesn't read thoosie forums, it might give him ideas.

Edit...just been searching...no genuine sources for a nuclear threat...just the usual bunch of bloggers and nutters online.
 
Last edited:
I think people have translated his threat of wiping out a civilisation (of which Iran is 93 million people) would imply the use of nukes, however JD Vance this afternoon dismissed this.

However - Iran does have nuclear power stations. If Trump is hitting all power stations, what happens to the radioactive fall out from these when they are hit? Remember Chernobyl anyone? Radioactive clouds across Europe and the Middle East.

Plus the response from Iran - all the oil and gas in the Middle East will be wiped out for years to come. Nothing will change in Iran, they will still control the straight of Hormuz, they will still even more so pursue a nuclear weapon. Meanwhile there will be a Global recession, food, fuel, medicine shortages, it doesn’t bear thinking about. If anything Trump will send the world back to the stone ages, not Iran.

I’m just really hoping either the 25th Amendment is invoked tonight or the military generals refuse to obey orders and turn on Trump.
 
So, for the record...
No nuclear attacks.
No World War Three.
No civilisation died.
No 25th amendment used.
No sacking of the US president.

So there we go.

Don't believe everything you read on the internet...especially on thoosie forums about politics.
 
Last edited:
Here’s an article from a month ago about how vulnerable the UK is to food shortages- it may be a few weeks old but given the ongoing situation in the Middle East, it’s even more important now.
www.theguardian.com

UK must stockpile food in readiness for climate shocks or war, expert warns

Prof Tim Lang says country produces far less food than it needs to feed population and is particularly vulnerable
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

I know people that are already stocking up on dried goods such as rice- in the forthcoming season the Asia Pacific region will be most affected by fertiliser shortages due to the blockade.
 
GaryH said:
Farmers are even encouraged to not grow crops anymore, but use their land for solar panels.
Click to expand...
This is not really true, and farmers are paid more to grow less profitable crops we need. But, at the same time they are being encouraged to diversify as we simply do not have the land to produce crops as effeciently as other larger countries. This is just another reason leaving the EU was beyond stupid.
 
JAperson said:
This is not really true, and farmers are paid more to grow less profitable crops we need. But, at the same time they are being encouraged to diversify as we simply do not have the land to produce crops as effeciently as other larger countries. This is just another reason leaving the EU was beyond stupid.
Click to expand...
Hmm I disagree with regards land use changing to solar panels instead of growing crops -

 
JAperson said:
This is not really true, and farmers are paid more to grow less profitable crops we need. But, at the same time they are being encouraged to diversify as we simply do not have the land to produce crops as effeciently as other larger countries. This is just another reason leaving the EU was beyond stupid.
Click to expand...
I don’t think farmers are paid to grow less profitable crops we need. The agriculture budget (around 2.4bn) has been moved from agricultural support (subsidising farmers to get on and farm) to environmental goods, whereby farmers can apply to be contractors to Govt, fulfilling certain actions on the land to qualify for the money available. This is a big reason why farming in the UK is now more of a gamble compared to countries that still have direct agricultural subsidies, such as our EU neighbours.
Our land here is excellent for agricultural production but other reasons why we are not as efficient as other parts of the world include our high costs (land/rental costs, labour costs, regulatory burden) and the fact that, while machinery has continued to get larger, field sizes have stayed the same because our landscape benefits from hedges etc which cannot be removed, compared to the cropping areas of N America where fields will commonly be a mile square without obstruction- that can be cropped very efficiently.
This probably comes under regulatory burden; we are great at banning stuff here, for instance the chemicals blamed for harming bees. All very commendable but the result is that a third less OSR is grown here now and we import more heavily from countries where those chemicals are freely available.
There’s no joined up thinking in the system with the upshot that our food production system is more precarious.
 
JAperson said:
This is not really true, and farmers are paid more to grow less profitable crops we need. But, at the same time they are being encouraged to diversify as we simply do not have the land to produce crops as effeciently as other larger countries. This is just another reason leaving the EU was beyond stupid.
Click to expand...
75% of farms have reported diversification activity away from agriculture, in the UK, in 2025.
This is fact, really true.
Farmers are diversifying away from agriculture, arable and animal, because they cannot make money from growing food with the current costs for labour, fertiliser and fuel.
It is not a matter of "efficient production" comparisons, it is simply a matter of no profit, so people leave the industry, often for leisure.

...and hedges are removed, quietly, every day of the year.
 
Last edited:
rob666 said:
75% of farms have reported diversification activity away from agriculture, in the UK, in 2025.
This is fact, really true.
Farmers are diversifying away from agriculture, arable and animal, because they cannot make money from growing food with the current costs for labour, fertiliser and fuel.
It is not a matter of "efficient production" comparisons, it is simply a matter of no profit, so people leave the industry, often for leisure.
Click to expand...
It’s a weird situation that farmers are officially encouraged to diversify in the face of dwindling agricultural incomes. In what other sector would the official line be “Oh, your business doesn’t make money? Have you thought about getting a second job to subsidise your first job that’s increasingly going down the pan?”

Farmers are essentially being asked to retain the UK’s food security by setting up side hussles. It’s often a bit economically illiterate.
 
Slackjawedyokel said:
It’s a weird situation that farmers are officially encouraged to diversify in the face of dwindling agricultural incomes. In what other sector would the official line be “Oh, your business doesn’t make money? Have you thought about getting a second job to subsidise your first job that’s increasingly going down the pan?”

Farmers are essentially being asked to retain the UK’s food security by setting up side hussles. It’s often a bit economically illiterate.
Click to expand...
Literally every single zero hour worker in this country. Every Uber, Just Eat and Deliveroo driver. Every freelance creative, every teaching assistant picking up bar shifts on the weekend, every nurse working bank shifts just to cover their soaring energy bills....

Welcome to the realities of modern British capitalism.

I find it fascinating how we, as a society, readily romanticise agriculture while applying brutal, free market Darwinism to absolutely everyone else. If a high street shop, a local pub, or a regional theme park (to keep things somewhat on brand) fails to turn a profit, the prevailing economic wisdom is that they failed to adapt to the market. They're told to diversify, restructure, or close their doors.

When a minimum wage hospitality worker can't afford their rent, they are told by columnists in The Telegraph or talking heads on GB News to cancel their Netflix subscription, stop buying coffee, "upskill" and start a "side hustle."

Yet, when a land owning agricultural business struggles to turn a profit on its primary yield, the suggestion that they might need to leverage their massive, tangible, equity rich assets (perhaps by opening a farm shop, leasing land for solar / wind generation, or throwing up a few yurts for glamping) is somehow framed as a unique and tragic insult.

Farming is a business. A vital one, absolutely, and one which is already heavily subsidised by the taxpayer precisely because of its strategic national importance, but it's still a commercial enterprise. If the primary product of your business is no longer covering its operational costs, diversifying your revenue streams isn't some cruel, unusual punishment inflicted by a tyrannical state.

If only the precarious gig economy workers of this country had a few hundred acres of rolling countryside to "diversify" with when their primary income goes down the pan.
 
GooseOnTheLoose said:
Literally every single zero hour worker in this country. Every Uber, Just Eat and Deliveroo driver. Every freelance creative, every teaching assistant picking up bar shifts on the weekend, every nurse working bank shifts just to cover their soaring energy bills....

Welcome to the realities of modern British capitalism.

I find it fascinating how we, as a society, readily romanticise agriculture while applying brutal, free market Darwinism to absolutely everyone else. If a high street shop, a local pub, or a regional theme park (to keep things somewhat on brand) fails to turn a profit, the prevailing economic wisdom is that they failed to adapt to the market. They're told to diversify, restructure, or close their doors.

When a minimum wage hospitality worker can't afford their rent, they are told by columnists in The Telegraph or talking heads on GB News to cancel their Netflix subscription, stop buying coffee, "upskill" and start a "side hustle."

Yet, when a land owning agricultural business struggles to turn a profit on its primary yield, the suggestion that they might need to leverage their massive, tangible, equity rich assets (perhaps by opening a farm shop, leasing land for solar / wind generation, or throwing up a few yurts for glamping) is somehow framed as a unique and tragic insult.

Farming is a business. A vital one, absolutely, and one which is already heavily subsidised by the taxpayer precisely because of its strategic national importance, but it's still a commercial enterprise. If the primary product of your business is no longer covering its operational costs, diversifying your revenue streams isn't some cruel, unusual punishment inflicted by a tyrannical state.

If only the precarious gig economy workers of this country had a few hundred acres of rolling countryside to "diversify" with when their primary income goes down the pan.
Click to expand...
All good stuff. But what if too many of the farmers sell off their land and move to Greece or Spain? Less food security and we're in a worse position than before. It's fine if we think that our government will put together a plan to take over these lands or start new farms elsewhere. But would they?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top