Russia - threadbanned users in OP

I'll not bother engaging with your silly defence of simplistic binary approaches to life and your evident inability to apply any modicum of critical analysis.

I will ask you (though I expect you'll be lacking here too) to provide some evidence where I (it was my post to which you quoted) did the following in any post on this thread. If you can't , I respectfully ask you remove the allegation and from now on try to be accurate in your posting and not stoop to at best disingenuous posting and at worst lies...

'All the while putting autocratic dictators of any flavour on pedestals and lauding how powerful and great and smart they are'

Read the thread and stop asking stupid questions...now jog on the adults are talking.

No it you who have the casualness about it. In the battle of Okinawa the Japanese high command lost 110k soldiers and conscripts and scarficed 150 k civilians to prove a point to the US army.

The high command did not want to unconditionally surrender. They wanted the Japanese Army, Navy and airforce ( in what was left) remain intact. At that time the Japanese military controlled the Japanese government. Hawks within the regime were willing to scarfice millions of there own people( similar to Hitler) rather than accept an unconditional surrender.

Even after the Hiroshima bomb, the regime refused to surrender as they taught the US only had one bomb. After Nagasaki the emperor instructed them to surrender. Extremist in the army still tried a coup d'etat which failed to prevent surrender.

Without the bomb to force Japan to surrender it is taught that a quarter of a million Americans soldiers would die, 3-4 time that would be serious injured, 2-3million Japanese soldiers would be killed and probable double that Japanese civilians.

Would I be cheering it on no. But I can understand why a US president took the decision that Harry Truman reluctantly did.

It was not until the Japanese regime taught that the US could destroy the nation without setting foot on the country that they were willing to surrender.

You're very soft skinned if 'lad' offends you so much. Your post does nothing to counter my argument re your comprehension, anytime you wish to debate the issues here let me know...

This countries looking to use non Russian gas will have LNG terminals more than likely.

Its absolutely crazy we don’t have an LNG terminal when we are at the end of a European pipeline and hence last in line!

Easily searched indeed:

Since 2004, the UK has been a net importer of natural gas. In addition to its connection to the island of Ireland, the UK is connected to the EU gas market via subsea pipelines to Belgium and the Netherlands. The UK is also connected to Norwegian gas fields and has significant Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Infrastructure for imports and exports. Ireland‘s natural gas demand equates to approx. 6% of the United Kingdom’s overall demand.

AND

Europe is a net importer of natural gas, almost two thirds (64.1 %) of the EU-28’s imports of natural gas in 2015 came from Russia, Norway or Algeria

Norway has already said it’s maxed out and can’t supply more.

Therefore if the supply from Netherlands and Belgium is stopped due to Russia shutting the taps we need Algeria to step up.

Not sure how much extra capacity can be got from Algeria and I don’t know what the breakdown of import into the UK between Norway vs Netherlands and Belgium is.

Well please do.

Are you telling me there are two interconnectors from mainland Europe that only supply 1% gas from Russia?

Or are those interconnectors purely supplying Algerian gas?

Vitali Klitschko former heavy weight boxer and current mayor of kiev

Https://youtu.be/mnIuKBNQ8bI

No doubt Vladimir will consider such course of action, as an act of war.....

Well holy hell that looks pretty convincing to be honest.

I stand corrected.

Still don’t understand what the two interconnectors to Europe are doing though?