Russia's at it again

'Great' backdrop on Newsshite:

DbQOQQC.jpg
:lol:

The BBC did something similar last year as well

corbyn-osama-min.png
 
Barring any geopolitical criss that drives the price of oil up, there is simply too much shale in the US and elsewhere that is going to keep the price down for the coming years. The moment the price goes into the 60s, shale producers start to come back online and start pumping more supply into the system, which pushes the price down again.
Most of the shale oil is already extracted, as i wrote, US production is at it's peak already, it can go higher, but not by more than 1m barrels per day. And it can only do that gradually. You can read IEA report, they made the last one just this week. In order for US to drive prices down to 40$ mark it needs to produce somewhere around 14 millions barrels and that is simply not possible.
We are not talking about prices remaining in 60-65 bracket, that's a comfortable price for Russia that allows it to increase it's reserves even. We are talking about prices going down significantly and staying there for quite a while and US oil simply can do that, first of all it's already at a near maximum capacity, but more importantly if prices will fall even to 50$ some of US shale production will be cut momentary. So these big shale oil reserves you talk about can only be a factor of the price remaining as it is now or maybe 5$ lower at the most.
 
Most of the shale oil is already extracted, as i wrote, US production is at it's peak already, it can go higher, but not by more than 1m barrels per day. And it can only do that gradually. You can read IEA report, they made the last one just this week. In order for US to drive prices down to 40$ mark it needs to produce somewhere around 14 millions barrels and that is simply not possible.
We are not talking about prices remaining in 60-65 bracket, that's a comfortable price for Russia that allows it to increase it's reserves even. We are talking about prices going down significantly and staying there for quite a while and US oil simply can do that, first of all it's already at a near maximum capacity, but more importantly if prices will fall even to 50$ some of US shale production will be cut momentary. So these big shale oil reserves you talk about can only be a factor of the price remaining as it is now or maybe 5$ lower at the most.

Its not just US production - many countries are now discovering that they have shale deposits and with the extraction and transport technology improving, they will start to create their own oil and even ship it to other countries. That will keep the price of oil down for the foreseeable future.
 
I concede that you must have a greater knowledge on the history of Newsnight backdrops than me. I cannot comment on if Newsnight backdrops in recent history are designed in favour of May's government as I do not often watch it.

Tory donations from wealthy Russian individuals is controversial but how is it directly affecting the inner politics of the Tory party and how is it directly involved with the alleged Russian assassination of this double agent?

Did anyone actually this watch Newsnight episode to confirm what the content of the piece was?

The point is that there is an overarching agenda within most mainstream media outlets that attempts to paint Corbyn as some kind of wacky communist Soviet sympathiser. It's disappointing that this extends to the BBC whom should hold complete neutrality.
 
The point is that there is an overarching agenda within most mainstream media outlets that attempts to paint Corbyn as some kind of wacky communist Soviet sympathiser. It's disappointing that this extends to the BBC whom should hold complete neutrality.
He does a pretty good job of that himself, what with calling NATO a ‘danger to world peace’, refusing to say if he’d meet the obligation to defend a NATO country invaded by Russia, saying NATO should ‘restrict its role’, saying NATO should demilitarise its Eastern borders with Russia, and openly calling for British withdrawal from NATO (later retracted when he said there wasn’t an ‘appetite’ among the public to leave at the moment).

He reads straight from Russian propaganda on NATO and Russian relations. Plus all the trident nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Its not just US production - many countries are now discovering that they have shale deposits and with the extraction and transport technology improving, they will start to create their own oil and even ship it to other countries. That will keep the price of oil down for the foreseeable future.

Thing with shale is that even if the tech significantly improves the lifting cost is pretty high. Currently it is in the fifties, they might get it down to the 40 range, but due to the nature of the process it has a natural limit for efficiency. You have to force it out of the rock, normal oil deposits flows with lift from the gas beneath it, or stimulating efforts like water injection - it is like popping a balloon, meanwhile shale production is like forcing air into a balloon.

As an example the newest offshore fields going online in Norway has a break even at $16\barrel. The gulf nations who basically can use a drinking straw to find their oil under the sand are even lower.

Then again, to balance their budgets they need atleast $50 a barrel, since they are so oil dependant, but their lifting cost is ridiculously low.
 
He does a pretty good job of that himself, what with calling NATO a ‘danger to world peace’, refusing to say it he’d meet the obligation to defend a NATO country invaded by Russia, saying NATO should ‘restrict its role’, saying NATO should demilitarise it’s Eastern borders with Russia, and openly calling for British withdrawal from NATO (later retracted when he said there wasn’t an ‘appetite’ among the public to leave at the moment).

He reads straight from Russian propaganda on NATO and Russian relations. Plus all the trident nonsense.

I fully agree. It’s strange how an old leftie can’t break his attachment to a country that, while once socialist, is now brutally capitalist but I guess it’s a case of old habits die hard plus a product of viewing the world as “West irredeemably bad therefore others must be better”.
 
Thing with shale is that even if the tech significantly improves the lifting cost is pretty high. Currently it is in the fifties, they might get it down to the 40 range, but due to the nature of the process it has a natural limit for efficiency. You have to force it out of the rock, normal oil deposits flows with lift from the gas beneath it, or stimulating efforts like water injection - it is like popping a balloon, meanwhile shale production is like forcing air into a balloon.

As an example the newest offshore fields going online in Norway has a break even at $16\barrel. The gulf nations who basically can use a drinking straw to find their oil under the sand are even lower.

Then again, to balance their budgets they need atleast $50 a barrel, since they are so oil dependant, but their lifting cost is ridiculously low.

No doubt about it. The main point i was making is that there will be far more oil on the market due to the emergence of shale over the past decade than people previously thought and that will continue into the future as extraction technology continues to improve, transport options diversify, and more and more countries begin to gradually transition to renewables. Each of these will cause a protracted glut in the amount of oil and gas on the market and keep prices fairly low. If I were a better man, I would imagine we are going to see the 30s again before we ever see the 100s.
 
Thing with shale is that even if the tech significantly improves the lifting cost is pretty high. Currently it is in the fifties, they might get it down to the 40 range, but due to the nature of the process it has a natural limit for efficiency. You have to force it out of the rock, normal oil deposits flows with lift from the gas beneath it, or stimulating efforts like water injection - it is like popping a balloon, meanwhile shale production is like forcing air into a balloon.

As an example the newest offshore fields going online in Norway has a break even at $16\barrel. The gulf nations who basically can use a drinking straw to find their oil under the sand are even lower.

Then again, to balance their budgets they need atleast $50 a barrel, since they are so oil dependant, but their lifting cost is ridiculously low.

The other factor working against Russia though is that their cheaper fields (West Siberia) are depleting while other deposits are located in very challenging locations where they certainly can’t “use a drinking straw” like in the Gulf. This won’t have a short term impact but, with shale putting an effective ceiling on oil prices, it will limit their flexibility unless they diversify.
 
No doubt about it. The main point i was making is that there will be far more oil on the market due to the emergence of shale over the past decade than people previously thought and that will continue into the future as extraction technology continues to improve, transport options diversify, and more and more countries begin to gradually transition to renewables. That will cause a protracted glut in the amount of oil and gas on the market and keep prices fairly low. If I were a better man, I would imagine we are going to see the 30s again before we ever see the 100s.

The days of the 100's are over, I've yet to meet a single person in the oil industry who believes otherwise.

10-15 years ago a car would use 1 litre on the mile, today they are down to 0,3 litres. Add the electric revolution and you've got a huge drop in demand - petrol by today constitutes 60% of hydrocarbon demand.
 
The other factor working against Russia though is that their cheaper fields (West Siberia) are depleting while other deposits are located in very challenging locations where they certainly can’t “use a drinking straw” like in the Gulf. This won’t have a short term impact but, with shale putting an effective ceiling on oil prices, it will limit their flexibility unless they diversify.

This is exactly what will save our arctic areas, the future price of oil simply won't justify the lifting cost.

Even as of today there are huge deposits found in Norway that due to the nature of the oil, complexity of lifting and size of investment isn't deemed worthy.

Today's oil industry is as much about limiting lifting cost as finding what we call the "elephants". The traditional 'ugly cousin' of the oil, the LNG, is today what is the most desireable. Traditionally we just saw the LNG as a useful tool for lifting the oil without the need for injection to the well. Today it is our greatest export article, far surpassing oil.

People might drive electric cars, but they'll still use gas to heat their homes and cook their food (weirdos, we use electricity).
 
He does a pretty good job of that himself, what with calling NATO a ‘danger to world peace’, refusing to say if he’d meet the obligation to defend a NATO country invaded by Russia, saying NATO should ‘restrict its role’, saying NATO should demilitarise its Eastern borders with Russia, and openly calling for British withdrawal from NATO (later retracted when he said there wasn’t an ‘appetite’ among the public to leave at the moment).

He reads straight from Russian propaganda on NATO and Russian relations. Plus all the trident nonsense.

I mean, would the other NATO countries meet the obligation if another was invaded by Russia?

That would mean all out war with them. Nobody wants that. It's a moot point because it will never happen so does it matter?

Similarly we don't/will never need Trident and shouldn't be wasting money on it.
 
I mean, would the other NATO countries meet the obligation if another was invaded by Russia?

That would mean all out war with them. Nobody wants that. It's a moot point because it will never happen so does it matter?

Similarly we don't/will never need Trident and shouldn't be wasting money on it.

But it’s precisely Putin’s strategy to push to see how far the mutual defence pact goes (particularly in the Baltics). So, while when push comes to shove, we might not declare war, I don’t see much upside in revealing our hand in this game of bluff. And when that person has appeared on Russia Today and has someone like Milne as his adviser, it’s not unreasonable to ask questions.
 
TLW said:
The BBC's coverage of Corbyn is getting a bit over the top now:

DYb_Wlb_QX0_AI5x_Ts.jpg
:lol:
 
I mean, would the other NATO countries meet the obligation if another was invaded by Russia?
I'd certainly hope so, or the treaty isn't worth the paper it's written on. Collective defence is the whole point, and why Russia is so keen to split NATO members.

That would mean all out war with them. Nobody wants that. It's a moot point because it will never happen so does it matter?
Never? To me, this is ludicrous complacency. If human history tells us anything, it's that nations will go to war. Ten years ago, who would have thought that Europe's borders would start changing through military invasions again... but here we are with Russia invading Ukraine. The borders have changed.

You think there's no risk to the NATO countries bordering Russia? Putin certainly carries out a lot of military exercises on the border... I wouldn't want to show too much weakness if I were a Prime Minister.

The whole point of NATO and collective defence is to try and prevent all out war with Russia (or other major powers). Undermining NATO like Corbyn and Trump have been doing is precisely the kind of thoughtless talk that could actually trigger a war, if Russia think NATO won't defend itself.

Similarly we don't/will never need Trident and shouldn't be wasting money on it.
Now would be the worst time imaginable to scrap our nuclear deterrent. Russia recently helped elect a wannabe-fascist to lead our closest ally. And an actual fascist came second in the presidential race of our geographically closest ally. Just this week, Russia warned the UK 'not to threaten a nuclear power'.

I wish nuclear weapons didn't exist. But we live in a world where they do and it's hard to imagine a more crazy decision than unilateral nuclear disarmament in the current geopolitical situation.

Corbyn and his ilk approach foreign policy as if the world is the pacifist utopia they'd like it to be, rather than how it actually is.
 
Last edited:
I mean, would the other NATO countries meet the obligation if another was invaded by Russia?

That would mean all out war with them. Nobody wants that. It's a moot point because it will never happen so does it matter?

Similarly we don't/will never need Trident and shouldn't be wasting money on it.
That's the entire game. You don't want to go to all-out war with Russia, but to minimize their appetite for aggression you need to convincingly act like you would. The best way is to create a structure (NATO) that spends nearly all of its time preparing for the eventuality, so the Russians have just enough doubt about whether it will or not.

Plus, the real question for the Russians is how promptly do the Americans come. Its where history has brought us and I realize its not comfortable for European nations. But that's been the cost of keeping Germany off the stage when it comes to military affairs.
 
♪Ohhhh Jeremy Lenin♪
 


So that’s 2 Russian’s on Putin’s wanted list who have suffered attempts on their life within 8 days. One has now been classed as murder and one as attempted murder.

Putin doesn't feck about does he?
 
I believe he was specifically attacking Murray's claims that it wasn't possible to verify which chemical was used without an active sample from Russia.

Yes that's not true!
IIRC it would end the detection easily if you had a sample and then got a 100% IR match with the agent used, but you can interpret even without that.

♪Ohhhh Jeremy Lenin♪

6:50 here
 
The point is that there is an overarching agenda within most mainstream media outlets that attempts to paint Corbyn as some kind of wacky communist Soviet sympathiser. It's disappointing that this extends to the BBC whom should hold complete neutrality.

Have you even watched the piece? It’s called ‘does Labour have a Russia problem?’. It’s questioning what a lot of people suspect about his faction of the left, in that they fetishise Russia because of their communist history and continued opposition to the capitalist west. Corbyn’s actions in parliament opened the door to those questions being asked of him and it doesn’t help that members of his own party seem to believe there is substance in the perception. In fighting in major parties always makes good copy.

The piece was fair to him I thought and it was a lovely graphic.
 
Last edited:
I'd certainly hope so, or the treaty isn't worth the paper it's written on. Collective defence is the whole point, and why Russia is so keen to split NATO members.


Never? To me, this is ludicrous complacency. If human history tells us anything, it's that nations will go to war. Ten years ago, who would have thought that Europe's borders would start changing through military invasions again... but here we are with Russia invading Ukraine. The borders have changed.

You think there's no risk to the NATO countries bordering Russia? Putin certainly carries out a lot of military exercises on the border... I wouldn't want to show too much weakness if I were a Prime Minister.

The whole point of NATO and collective defence is to try and prevent all out war with Russia (or other major powers). Undermining NATO like Corbyn and Trump have been doing is precisely the kind of thoughtless talk that could actually trigger a war, if Russia think NATO won't defend itself.


Now would be the worst time imaginable to scrap our nuclear deterrent. Russia recently helped elect a wannabe-fascist to lead our closest ally. And an actual fascist came second in the presidential race of our geographically closest ally. Just this week, Russia warned the UK 'not to threaten a nuclear power'.

I wish nuclear weapons didn't exist. But we live in a world where they do and it's hard to imagine a more crazy decision than unilateral nuclear disarmament in the current geopolitical situation.

Corbyn and his ilk approach foreign policy as if the world is the pacifist utopia they'd like it to be, rather than how it actually is.

Recent history has shown that modern warfare has evolved beyond the traditional big states waging war against each other directly. Proxy wars in wartorn areas for strategic geopolitical and financial gain and using PMC's are either already commonplace or will be in the future. We'll probably never see all out war again but if you don't want to rule it out, continue to feel so frenzied. It's not complacency, it's just that MAD/the state of current affairs is enough and has been enough since 1945 with very few exceptions. We came close several times to doomsday during the first cold war and we'll probably do the same now but it's simply not realistic to think we're genuinely close to the end of the world at the minute and that's what it'd mean if Russia were to properly wage war in a traditional sense so they're not going to do it.

It's not going to be boots on the ground combat and it's not going to be air combat either. We've entered technological warfare from now on which means the threats to things like power grids as has recently cropped up are very real but a foreign country like Russia invading us? No chance.

Regarding collective defence, it's easy to back vocally when the chances that Russia's sabre-rattling actually becoming a genuine threat to a sovereign NATO member are slim to none. They can continue shouting but Russia won't actually take on a NATO country, Putin is a power hungry dictator but he's not suicidal. Besides, Russia don't actually have the cash or the resources to wage a world war. Their military isn't in a great state, their economy is even worse (given their reliance on fossil fuels it's entirely possible they'll be even more vulnerable as time passes) and the videos of the stupidly huge nuke are more so Putin can remain in power with an iron grip than they are a message to anyone outside of Russia. Perhaps he's feeling threatened by the oligarchs, perhaps by Navalny (in symbolism rather than actual means) and by technology enabling young people to dissent (he's all about controlling dissent by force) and find out about the sheer corruption by which he controls everything. An ignorant populace is an easily controlled populace and having everything at our fingertips and instantly shared makes it much harder for dictators to rule.

As such, we don't need Trident. If we were under threat of attack then our closest allies have nukes anyway plus they're obligated to protect us and the chance that we'll ever use them is about as close to zero as you can get. A nuclear bomb being used in an attack from now until the end of time means death for everyone, aka MAD. It's just not going to happen. Why are we wasting money on it when we've got a trillion layers on backup?

We have them now because we've still got the vague notion that the UK actually matters or has any influence on the world stage and we're not ready to assume our proper place in the world. Only the big three really need nukes and even then they'll never see use. You'll say 'never say never' but c'mon. Who wants to be the one who wipes 7.4 million people+ off the face of the earth? You can't even be remembered in history if there's nobody to record it left.
 
They can continue shouting but Russia won't actually take on a NATO country, Putin is a power hungry dictator but he's not suicidal. Besides, Russia don't actually have the cash or the resources to wage a world war.
If Putin felt the need politically to go in to Estonia or wherever, the invasion of Ukraine would be the template. 'Little green men' on the ground and a denial that they have anything to do with the Russian state. Sew doubt and uncertainty... claim 'the people' want to be part of Russia... hope no one comes to their aid and the territory can be absorbed over time.

It's not complacency, it's just that MAD/the state of current affairs is enough and has been enough since 1945 with very few exceptions.
For MAD to work, we need our nukes. Or you have to rely on the US nukes. I wouldn't chance it based on the state of US politics at the moment. I'd much rather just stump up the cash than gamble on the US staying stable and behind us.

It's simply not realistic to think we're genuinely close to the end of the world at the minute.
https://thebulletin.org/2018-doomsday-clock-statement
 
18:37

Russia ambassador: Britain is "hiding" details

Alexander Yakovenko has said Russia is not getting enough information about the Skripals and seems to indicate he wants to see a photograph of Sergei and his daughter Yulia to prove their condition.

He said: "The British keep hiding the medical assessment from us, we do not have access to the patients, we do not have a chance to talk to the doctors.


"No one has even published the photo (of the Skripals). They may be alive, maybe not, maybe nothing happened at all."

"We are expected to take everything on trust, and that is inadmissible."
They’re getting on my nerves now.

Sergei is a British citizen and his medical condition is confidential. We do not publish photographs of patients without their (or nok) permission or give out their medical details. This is a uk crime and as such subject to uk rules. Russians don’t seem to accept any rules except their own.
 
They’re getting on my nerves now.

Sergei is a British citizen and his medical condition is confidential. We do not publish photographs of patients without their (or nok) permission or give out their medical details. This is a uk crime and as such subject to uk rules. Russians don’t seem to accept any rules except their own.
Yeah, you don't give the prime suspect in an attempted murder investigation access to the hospitalised victim so they can finish the job.
 
They’re getting on my nerves now.

Sergei is a British citizen and his medical condition is confidential. We do not publish photographs of patients without their (or nok) permission or give out their medical details. This is a uk crime and as such subject to uk rules. Russians don’t seem to accept any rules except their own.

His daughter is a Russian citizen.
 
His daughter is a Russian citizen.
She is, so next of kin can visit theoretically but as she is the victim of an attempted murder they will need permission. She has not been arrested so consular visits are not required. She is a patient so her condition is still classed as confidential. As MUN has already stated anyone who may be indirectly connected to the attempt on her life will not be allowed to visit.
 
If Putin felt the need politically to go in to Estonia or wherever, the invasion of Ukraine would be the template. 'Little green men' on the ground and a denial that they have anything to do with the Russian state. Sew doubt and uncertainty... claim 'the people' want to be part of Russia... hope no one comes to their aid and the territory can be absorbed over time.


For MAD to work, we need our nukes. Or you have to rely on the US nukes. I wouldn't chance it based on the state of US politics at the moment. I'd much rather just stump up the cash than gamble on the US staying stable and behind us.


https://thebulletin.org/2018-doomsday-clock-statement

He won't go into Estonia because they're NATO, even disguised as the green men force a la Ukraine. As much as I don't think everyone else would actually rush up there to save the Estonians the implicit nature of the deal in NATO would stop Putin. They couldn't do it they way they did in Ukraine, especially not after Ukraine happened too. We're too alert to the possibility and the first hint of any suspicious activity would be a call to war. Like I said, Putin is a murderous dictator but he's not suicidal. He knows what it means to attack a NATO member (even if I personally don't think anything would come of it).

For MAD to work, you only need opposition parties with nukes. We're one and the same with the US (regardless of Trump) or even with France who also have nukes. We're all NATO so NATO have nukes and that's enough to put Putin off. Do you seriously think he'd nuke the UK if we didn't have Trident? Would he bollocks. That's all out nuclear war. Even if the US or France didn't respond with their own nuke, he's not going to pick on us specifically (think about the logistics and optics of that for a second and realise how impossible that is, Trident or not) and attack us/invade us so Trident is completely redundant. Absolutely, one hundred percent a waste of money, time and effort.

I'm well aware of the doomsday clock but it's just a warning sign by people who have opinions much like any of us. They may have been party to more facts than the general, I'm not sure but it's still just opinions.

Nobody is using a nuclear weapon against anyone else any time soon. Kim wouldn't do it despite all the hysterics about him. Trump won't do it either even if he gets full warhawk types advocating a first strike like the people rumoured to replace Tillerson are. Much as he's the type that would love to ride a nuke into history and stamp his name forever more in mankind's tale even he isn't stupid enough to doom us all. It's literally just propaganda and hysteria.

Nuclear weapons are the symbol of the end. That's why MAD works. They're not actually anything else and they don't need to be either.

Putin is prodding and probing because he knows how successful the approach in America was. He knows how successful Brexit has been too to sowing discord but as you referenced before, it didn't actually work with Le Pen. We're going to be made to look like the jokers who jumped the gun because the supposed right wing wave died on it's arse shortly after we let it get the better of us. The Dutch and Austrians rejected it, the French then rejected it too which is arguably much more important and now we're just gonna be left hanging once Trump has had his time in the sun. Once the world consolidates ourselves again and the balance swings back, Putin/Russia won't be the boogeyman they are now and he knows it. They're not really a big threat but the press has gone into overdrive a bit like the red scare back in the 50's.

You need to calm down.
 
Last edited:
He was an intelligence officer who betrayed the identities of his colleagues and countrymen for cash. I could understand some people thinking a double agent a hero if he does things selflessly because he believes in something. There are examples of such nature from both sides during the times of the Cold War. But that's clearly not the case here, so what exactly makes him a 'good guy'? Not to mention that he was selling out his country to MI6 five years after the fall of Soviet Union so there was no ideological factor involved, it was just pure greed.

The good guy from the allies' perspective. Not the good guy from an objective perspective.
 
Recent history has shown that modern warfare has evolved beyond the traditional big states waging war against each other directly. Proxy wars in wartorn areas for strategic geopolitical and financial gain and using PMC's are either already commonplace or will be in the future. We'll probably never see all out war again but if you don't want to rule it out, continue to feel so frenzied. It's not complacency, it's just that MAD/the state of current affairs is enough and has been enough since 1945 with very few exceptions. We came close several times to doomsday during the first cold war and we'll probably do the same now but it's simply not realistic to think we're genuinely close to the end of the world at the minute and that's what it'd mean if Russia were to properly wage war in a traditional sense so they're not going to do it.

It's not going to be boots on the ground combat and it's not going to be air combat either. We've entered technological warfare from now on which means the threats to things like power grids as has recently cropped up are very real but a foreign country like Russia invading us? No chance.

Regarding collective defence, it's easy to back vocally when the chances that Russia's sabre-rattling actually becoming a genuine threat to a sovereign NATO member are slim to none. They can continue shouting but Russia won't actually take on a NATO country, Putin is a power hungry dictator but he's not suicidal. Besides, Russia don't actually have the cash or the resources to wage a world war. Their military isn't in a great state, their economy is even worse (given their reliance on fossil fuels it's entirely possible they'll be even more vulnerable as time passes) and the videos of the stupidly huge nuke are more so Putin can remain in power with an iron grip than they are a message to anyone outside of Russia. Perhaps he's feeling threatened by the oligarchs, perhaps by Navalny (in symbolism rather than actual means) and by technology enabling young people to dissent (he's all about controlling dissent by force) and find out about the sheer corruption by which he controls everything. An ignorant populace is an easily controlled populace and having everything at our fingertips and instantly shared makes it much harder for dictators to rule.

As such, we don't need Trident. If we were under threat of attack then our closest allies have nukes anyway plus they're obligated to protect us and the chance that we'll ever use them is about as close to zero as you can get. A nuclear bomb being used in an attack from now until the end of time means death for everyone, aka MAD. It's just not going to happen. Why are we wasting money on it when we've got a trillion layers on backup?

We have them now because we've still got the vague notion that the UK actually matters or has any influence on the world stage and we're not ready to assume our proper place in the world. Only the big three really need nukes and even then they'll never see use. You'll say 'never say never' but c'mon. Who wants to be the one who wipes 7.4 million people+ off the face of the earth? You can't even be remembered in history if there's nobody to record it left.

That may all be true yet we would still be stupid to give up our nukes unilaterally. I’d be happy to give ours up - if everyone else did too.
 
He won't go into Estonia because they're NATO, even disguised as the green men force a la Ukraine. As much as I don't think everyone else would actually rush up there to save the Estonians the implicit nature of the deal in NATO would stop Putin. They couldn't do it they way they did in Ukraine, especially not after Ukraine happened too. We're too alert to the possibility and the first hint of any suspicious activity would be a call to war. Like I said, Putin is a murderous dictator but he's not suicidal. He knows what it means to attack a NATO member (even if I personally don't think anything would come of it).

For MAD to work, you only need opposition parties with nukes. We're one and the same with the US (regardless of Trump) or even with France who also have nukes. We're all NATO so NATO have nukes and that's enough to put Putin off. Do you seriously think he'd nuke the UK if we didn't have Trident? Would he bollocks. That's all out nuclear war. Even if the US or France didn't respond with their own nuke, he's not going to pick on us specifically (think about the logistics and optics of that for a second and realise how impossible that is, Trident or not) and attack us/invade us so Trident is completely redundant. Absolutely, one hundred percent a waste of money, time and effort.
At the end of the day you keep nukes on the off chance this kind of reasoning is wrong.
 
That may all be true yet we would still be stupid to give up our nukes unilaterally. I’d be happy to give ours up - if everyone else did too.

There are less than 10 nuclear armed countries in the world and the other 190+ do alright.

There's no reason whatsoever why Britain needs them when we're part of a group that ensures we've got them anyway if we need them.