Matt T

Some genuinely confusing posts on our favourite weblog, Conservative Commentary. The first was on ayslum seekers, and Oliver Letwin's plan to reduce their number to 20,000 a year (we have subsequently learnt that this will free up enough money to solve crime, but that's a different story, albeit a similar promise -- i.e one he knows he'll never have to keep).

Peter Cuthbertson wrote 'As we currently take in 110,000 with around 90% of them being bogus' (note the use of the word bogus, a word the right only use when talking about asylum seekers or people collecting welfare benefits). Now apart from getting his numbers wrong (there's an appeals system, and there is another category which takes some of those who otherwise would have to be given asylum) saying this is like saying '27,000 of the undergraduates a year that Bristol University takes in aren't good enough to be accepted' even though Bristol, university rejects 27,000 applicants and takes in only 3,000 The whole point of the system is to see which asylum seekers pass our (stringent) qualifications and which don't! There is a major issue about the tardiness with which those who aren't accepted are removed, but until the last point of the comments its not clear Peter realises the distinction.

The second strange post is this one about using nuclear weapons in the fight against terror (of which even Peter is not in favour of at present). He says;

"I think the key is not to lose sight of what must remain an essential objective - a missile defence system that will protect America and her close allies from nuclear attack. I seem to be the only person in the world who has realised this, but not only would this protect us against nuclear missiles, but also against the suitcase bombs everyone warns that our enemies will revert to as soon as the missile shield is established. If any country attempts a suitcase attack, then given a missile shield, we can nuke them without fear of retaliation in kind. They will know this, and will be far less likely to use a suitcase bomb in the first place. QED. "

Again the only response is...what? The reason it is argued a missile shield is necessary is that the policy of nuclear deterrence no longer works. If such a policy no longer works, then it must be because the other country does not fear its destruction. If it does not fear its destruction then it does not fear its destruction in a retaliation for launching a suitcase bomb. Thus a missile shield is no deterrence to launching a suitcase bomb.

posted by Matthew @ 3/11/2003 05:31:00 PM Comments: 0