FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Politics

Nuclear Weapons

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Bit of a random one this:

Since the creation of the H bomb, with America still being the only nation on earth to have deployed nuclear weapons (offensively/defensively), should they stand in judgment on other nations who seek to create their own 'nuclear deterrent'?

Also, this is a very random thought, there must have been trillions of dollars spent in the creation of these weapons of mass destruction in the past 60 odd years across the world. How do we actually know that this money was going to fund these weapons? Couldn't some of the money earmarked for nuclear weaponry have been filtered elsewhere, in a sort of black budget?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago

Barbados


"Bit of a random one this:

Since the creation of the H bomb, with America still being the only nation on earth to have deployed nuclear weapons (offensively/defensively), should they stand in judgment on other nations who seek to create their own 'nuclear deterrent'?

Also, this is a very random thought, there must have been trillions of dollars spent in the creation of these weapons of mass destruction in the past 60 odd years across the world. How do we actually know that this money was going to fund these weapons? Couldn't some of the money earmarked for nuclear weaponry have been filtered elsewhere, in a sort of black budget? "

You mean instead of the money going towards developing nuclear weapons, maybe it was all a ruse and they were secretly funding access to clean drinking water everywhere and a cure for cancer?

Oh well... we can dream

-Matt

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Bit of a random one this:

Since the creation of the H bomb, with America still being the only nation on earth to have deployed nuclear weapons (offensively/defensively), should they stand in judgment on other nations who seek to create their own 'nuclear deterrent'?

Also, this is a very random thought, there must have been trillions of dollars spent in the creation of these weapons of mass destruction in the past 60 odd years across the world. How do we actually know that this money was going to fund these weapons? Couldn't some of the money earmarked for nuclear weaponry have been filtered elsewhere, in a sort of black budget?

You mean instead of the money going towards developing nuclear weapons, maybe it was all a ruse and they were secretly funding access to clean drinking water everywhere and a cure for cancer?

Oh well... we can dream

-Matt"

Wouldn't the world have been a a better place, if we funded those things, good education and encouraging contentment in the poorer countries (rather than resentment, which I think can lead to extremism)?

I've got visions of all these nuclear scientists and manufacturers saying "we will make out we've created all these usable weapons but will spend the money on champagne and high living, no one will really put us to the test!"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

Answers to your questions:

1, if I have a weapon that makes you do as I say because you don't. Why would I allow you to make your own version of that weapon? Might is right, the USA, Russia, France, UK and China are mighty because we have large arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means to strike anywhere in the world. India, Pakistan and N. Korea will gain might when they succeed in developing a worldwide delivery system for their nuclear weapons.

2, it does not matter how much money was spent on nuclear weapons or diverted for other projects. The important thing is that the money was spent. Because every £ $ € or whatever expands the world economy and helps make us all wealthier.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Actually they've exploded about 2000 nuclear weapons in the last 70 years, until the 70s it was still common place to have above ground detonations.

I remember seeing some animation of all the tests that got done, it's beyond crazy

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Actually they've exploded about 2000 nuclear weapons in the last 70 years, until the 70s it was still common place to have above ground detonations.

I remember seeing some animation of all the tests that got done, it's beyond crazy"

Yeah, I've see a brilliant video of that on YouTube. I'm not denying they made them, but just wonder if every penny earmarked was spent.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Answers to your questions:

1, if I have a weapon that makes you do as I say because you don't. Why would I allow you to make your own version of that weapon? Might is right, the USA, Russia, France, UK and China are mighty because we have large arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means to strike anywhere in the world. India, Pakistan and N. Korea will gain might when they succeed in developing a worldwide delivery system for their nuclear weapons.

2, it does not matter how much money was spent on nuclear weapons or diverted for other projects. The important thing is that the money was spent. Because every £ $ € or whatever expands the world economy and helps make us all wealthier."

It's the 'do as I say' that smacks of total, Western hypocrisy though. The Americans didn't deploy their weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the Japanese war, they did so to show Russia (and the rest of the world) that they were the pre-eminent power.

I understand how the military industrial complex is said to benefit the world's economy, still can't help wondering if the money was put to different, peaceful uses, would we not be living in a fairer world now.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"Wouldn't the world have been a a better place, if we funded those things, good education and encouraging contentment in the poorer countries (rather than resentment, which I think can lead to extremism)?

"

No.

The development of nuclear weapons has made the greatest contribution to world peace in all history. If the money spent on their development had been used for 'peaceful projects and education' the whole world would be like Aleppo.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Actually they've exploded about 2000 nuclear weapons in the last 70 years, until the 70s it was still common place to have above ground detonations.

I remember seeing some animation of all the tests that got done, it's beyond crazy

Yeah, I've see a brilliant video of that on YouTube. I'm not denying they made them, but just wonder if every penny earmarked was spent. "
.

Oh yeah, there incredibly expensive to make but not hard, the hard and expensive bit is making them small and light enough for a ballistic missile and then putting it all together and keeping them ready to go in two minutes time.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

i think that only 8 countrys have been so fucking loonie as to have conducted nuclear bomb explosions

the yanks - over a thousand including 2 they actually dropped on folks

ussr - over 700

good old blighty - 88 i think , pity non of them were conducted near westminster

france - over 200

china - not as many as you might think , only in the 40's

india 3

pakistan-2

and the worlds most dangerous superpower that has every yankie arms dealer rubbing their hands in anticipation of lucrative contracts

north Korea with a planet busting 5

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"The Americans didn't deploy their weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end the Japanese war, they did so to show Russia (and the rest of the world) that they were the pre-eminent power. "

It does not matter why the USA used atomic weapons. What matters is the result using atomic weapons has had.

Trust me you would not like to live in a modern world without nuclear weapons.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Wouldn't the world have been a a better place, if we funded those things, good education and encouraging contentment in the poorer countries (rather than resentment, which I think can lead to extremism)?

No.

The development of nuclear weapons has made the greatest contribution to world peace in all history. If the money spent on their development had been used for 'peaceful projects and education' the whole world would be like Aleppo."

Why mention Aleppo? I don't see the link.

By your rationale, the freedom to carry guns in America must therefore have resulted in a much safer country? Twaddle.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


" Trust me "

Why would I trust someone who sees offensive weapons as tools of peace?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

Nice to see your well thought out reply, it is so good to see such a well researched and considered riposte in your last 2 posts Blackwood. It is reassuring to know that our children's education is in the care of such an insightful and enquiring mind that would never allow personal prejudice stop him from asking for a statement justified before dismissing it out of hand.

Here are some facts:

Between 1900 and 6/8/1945 (date of first use of atomic weapons in war) approximately 85 million were recorded killed in wars. That is just under 2 million a year.

Between 1946 and the present day approximately 20 million have been recorded killed in wars (figures include Cambodia's killing fields and Rwanda).

That is less than 266,000 a year.

Now considering that between 1900 and 1945 the machine gun had a cyclic rate of fire between 440 rounds a minute (maxim) and today we have Railguns that can fire 1,000,000 rounds a minute it is reasonable to assume that the rate of slaughter would increase. However this is not the case, therefore some other change must have caused the decline in the slaughter. It does not take a genius to deduce that that change was atomic weapons.

But as you are fond of saying to others why let facts get in the way of uniformed opinions.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

One other fact to consider!.

Since 1945 the ratio of civilians killed to soldiers has sky rocketed, so say for every civilian killed there was 18 soldiers now it's reversed.... You could say there's never been a safer time to be a soldier and never a more dangerous time to be a civilian.... The only good thing about the h bomb is we all go up together

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Nice to see your well thought out reply, it is so good to see such a well researched and considered riposte in your last 2 posts Blackwood. It is reassuring to know that our children's education is in the care of such an insightful and enquiring mind that would never allow personal prejudice stop him from asking for a statement justified before dismissing it out of hand.

Here are some facts:

Between 1900 and 6/8/1945 (date of first use of atomic weapons in war) approximately 85 million were recorded killed in wars. That is just under 2 million a year.

Between 1946 and the present day approximately 20 million have been recorded killed in wars (figures include Cambodia's killing fields and Rwanda).

That is less than 266,000 a year.

Now considering that between 1900 and 1945 the machine gun had a cyclic rate of fire between 440 rounds a minute (maxim) and today we have Railguns that can fire 1,000,000 rounds a minute it is reasonable to assume that the rate of slaughter would increase. However this is not the case, therefore some other change must have caused the decline in the slaughter. It does not take a genius to deduce that that change was atomic weapons.

But as you are fond of saying to others why let facts get in the way of unifuormed opinions. "

I have never once said on these forums that facts shouldn't get in the way of opinions. Ever.

Your quoted casualty list is off by a long chalk, I don't have time to adequately research this now, but will do so.

I did not dismiss anything out of hand, once again your own prejudice clouds your perspective. You always seem intent to want to read into everything something that isn't there.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"One other fact to consider!.

Since 1945 the ratio of civilians killed to soldiers has sky rocketed, so say for every civilian killed there was 18 soldiers now it's reversed.... You could say there's never been a safer time to be a soldier and never a more dangerous time to be a civilian.... The only good thing about the h bomb is we all go up together"

The numbers I quoted are total recorded dead not military dead.

The truth is the real weapons of mass destruction are conventional weapons and small arms in particular. It is my belief that we have avoided at least 3 world wars since 1945 because of the existence of nuclear weapons. One in the late 50's early 60's over SE Asia, one in the mid 70's over the Middle East and one in the mid to late 80's when the Soviet empire was collapsing.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Nice to see your well thought out reply, it is so good to see such a well researched and considered riposte in your last 2 posts Blackwood. It is reassuring to know that our children's education is in the care of such an insightful and enquiring mind that would never allow personal prejudice stop him from asking for a statement justified before dismissing it out of hand.

Here are some facts:

Between 1900 and 6/8/1945 (date of first use of atomic weapons in war) approximately 85 million were recorded killed in wars. That is just under 2 million a year.

Between 1946 and the present day approximately 20 million have been recorded killed in wars (figures include Cambodia's killing fields and Rwanda).

That is less than 266,000 a year.

Now considering that between 1900 and 1945 the machine gun had a cyclic rate of fire between 440 rounds a minute (maxim) and today we have Railguns that can fire 1,000,000 rounds a minute it is reasonable to assume that the rate of slaughter would increase. However this is not the case, therefore some other change must have caused the decline in the slaughter. It does not take a genius to deduce that that change was atomic weapons.

But as you are fond of saying to others why let facts get in the way of unifuormed opinions.

I have never once said on these forums that facts shouldn't get in the way of opinions. Ever.

Your quoted casualty list is off by a long chalk, I don't have time to adequately research this now, but will do so.

I did not dismiss anything out of hand, once again your own prejudice clouds your perspective. You always seem intent to want to read into everything something that isn't there. "

at last, something we agree on

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"Your quoted casualty list is off by a long chalk, I don't have time to adequately research this now, but will do so.

I did not dismiss anything out of hand, once again your own prejudice clouds your perspective. You always seem intent to want to read into everything something that isn't there. "

Well as my figures come from the UN, I expect you will be correcting them at the same time as me.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"One other fact to consider!.

Since 1945 the ratio of civilians killed to soldiers has sky rocketed, so say for every civilian killed there was 18 soldiers now it's reversed.... You could say there's never been a safer time to be a soldier and never a more dangerous time to be a civilian.... The only good thing about the h bomb is we all go up together

The numbers I quoted are total recorded dead not military dead.

The truth is the real weapons of mass destruction are conventional weapons and small arms in particular. It is my belief that we have avoided at least 3 world wars since 1945 because of the existence of nuclear weapons. One in the late 50's early 60's over SE Asia, one in the mid 70's over the Middle East and one in the mid to late 80's when the Soviet empire was collapsing."
.

No I wasn't disagreeing with you on it....I was pointing out the changing tactics of warfare

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"No I wasn't disagreeing with you on it....I was pointing out the changing tactics of warfare"

I did not think you were, I was just making clear that the figures I quoted were total dead not military dead as at least 2 here believe that the figures are not correct.

It is quite funny really but all through history until the end of the 19th century war has had the same 2 limiting factors human endurance and a limited ability to supply a force in the field. The first of those had not changed in millennia, a young, fresh, fit and healthy male could kill about 20 a minute if every blow was fatal for a few minutes before becoming exhausted. All that changed over time was the distance at which the killing could be done. The second limiting factor is quite obviously food and the difficulty in keeping supplies fresh. As a result most wars boiled down to 2 gangs agreeing to meet up in a field for a big punch up.

Then Hiram Maxim invented the water cooled, belt fed, fully automatic machine gun and suddenly 2 men could fire 450 rounds a minute for hours on end without tiring and slaughter became industrialised and the bloodletting was taken to totally new levels of horror. It took 2 atomic bombs to make the world step back from the abyss.

Another couple of facts that most seem to ignore. In April/May of 45 Germany was defeated but rather than surrender it was forced to fight on by an out of control elite. 50000 Russians died taking Berlin, they are buried in 5 mass graves in Treptower Park (an eerily quiet place). No one counted how many Germans died, but many were hanged and shot by roving SS 'field Courts-martial' for cowardice. There is nothing extraordinary in this, it is what happens at the end of most wars.

The extraordinary thing is what happened in Japan. The allied planners were expecting 3 million allied casualties including 1 million dead taking the Japanese home islands. They were also expecting 90%+ of Japanese population to be killed. Instead 2 bombs killed between 110,000 and 140,000 and Japan surrendered. It is the first time in history that a belligerent in a war has not had to be totally defeated to break their will to fight (don't quote WW1 to contradict me because WW2 was nothing more that WW1 part 2).

Of course the final death toll as a result of the 2 atomic bombs was a lot higher, maybe as much as 1 million world wide, but that was not so much as a result of the atomic explosions themselves, but because of the sort of burst (both being ground bursts). There really is too much ignorance surrounding nuclear weapons and their contribution to world peace in my opinion.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham

As long as someone in the playground has a toy, then someone will always want a bigger and better toy. Human nature

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *LCCCouple
over a year ago

Cambridge


"One other fact to consider!.

Since 1945 the ratio of civilians killed to soldiers has sky rocketed, so say for every civilian killed there was 18 soldiers now it's reversed.... You could say there's never been a safer time to be a soldier and never a more dangerous time to be a civilian.... The only good thing about the h bomb is we all go up together

The numbers I quoted are total recorded dead not military dead.

The truth is the real weapons of mass destruction are conventional weapons and small arms in particular. It is my belief that we have avoided at least 3 world wars since 1945 because of the existence of nuclear weapons. One in the late 50's early 60's over SE Asia, one in the mid 70's over the Middle East and one in the mid to late 80's when the Soviet empire was collapsing."

Not as sexy and cool as stealth jets, nuclear submarines, attack helicopters etc. but you are totally right, its small arms that do most of the worlds killings. The AK47 has killed a hell of a lot more people than nuclear weapons.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *obka3Couple
over a year ago

bournemouth


"One other fact to consider!.

Since 1945 the ratio of civilians killed to soldiers has sky rocketed, so say for every civilian killed there was 18 soldiers now it's reversed.... You could say there's never been a safer time to be a soldier and never a more dangerous time to be a civilian.... The only good thing about the h bomb is we all go up together

The numbers I quoted are total recorded dead not military dead.

The truth is the real weapons of mass destruction are conventional weapons and small arms in particular. It is my belief that we have avoided at least 3 world wars since 1945 because of the existence of nuclear weapons. One in the late 50's early 60's over SE Asia, one in the mid 70's over the Middle East and one in the mid to late 80's when the Soviet empire was collapsing."

You missed the closest one, the cuban missile crisis of course that was caused by the threat of having nukes close to the US but it does show that those holding them are afraid of them too which is a good thing

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"One other fact to consider!.

Since 1945 the ratio of civilians killed to soldiers has sky rocketed, so say for every civilian killed there was 18 soldiers now it's reversed.... You could say there's never been a safer time to be a soldier and never a more dangerous time to be a civilian.... The only good thing about the h bomb is we all go up together

The numbers I quoted are total recorded dead not military dead.

The truth is the real weapons of mass destruction are conventional weapons and small arms in particular. It is my belief that we have avoided at least 3 world wars since 1945 because of the existence of nuclear weapons. One in the late 50's early 60's over SE Asia, one in the mid 70's over the Middle East and one in the mid to late 80's when the Soviet empire was collapsing."

Sorry I am late in replying. I've asked a colleague who confirms you are approximately correct, so I apologize for calling that.

I understand what you are saying totally, but I still think it is hypocrisy for the nuclear armed nations, America in particular, to effectively forbid other nations from having them. I know the old argument of "if Saddam/Gaddaffi/Kim et al had them they'd use them" will be trotted out though...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Nice to see your well thought out reply, it is so good to see such a well researched and considered riposte in your last 2 posts Blackwood. It is reassuring to know that our children's education is in the care of such an insightful and enquiring mind that would never allow personal prejudice stop him from asking for a statement justified before dismissing it out of hand.

Here are some facts:

Between 1900 and 6/8/1945 (date of first use of atomic weapons in war) approximately 85 million were recorded killed in wars. That is just under 2 million a year.

Between 1946 and the present day approximately 20 million have been recorded killed in wars (figures include Cambodia's killing fields and Rwanda).

That is less than 266,000 a year.

Now considering that between 1900 and 1945 the machine gun had a cyclic rate of fire between 440 rounds a minute (maxim) and today we have Railguns that can fire 1,000,000 rounds a minute it is reasonable to assume that the rate of slaughter would increase. However this is not the case, therefore some other change must have caused the decline in the slaughter. It does not take a genius to deduce that that change was atomic weapons.

But as you are fond of saying to others why let facts get in the way of unifuormed opinions.

I have never once said on these forums that facts shouldn't get in the way of opinions. Ever.

Your quoted casualty list is off by a long chalk, I don't have time to adequately research this now, but will do so.

I did not dismiss anything out of hand, once again your own prejudice clouds your perspective. You always seem intent to want to read into everything something that isn't there.

at last, something we agree on "

Oh my goodness! We agree on something haha

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"No I wasn't disagreeing with you on it....I was pointing out the changing tactics of warfare

I did not think you were, I was just making clear that the figures I quoted were total dead not military dead as at least 2 here believe that the figures are not correct.

It is quite funny really but all through history until the end of the 19th century war has had the same 2 limiting factors human endurance and a limited ability to supply a force in the field. The first of those had not changed in millennia, a young, fresh, fit and healthy male could kill about 20 a minute if every blow was fatal for a few minutes before becoming exhausted. All that changed over time was the distance at which the killing could be done. The second limiting factor is quite obviously food and the difficulty in keeping supplies fresh. As a result most wars boiled down to 2 gangs agreeing to meet up in a field for a big punch up.

Then Hiram Maxim invented the water cooled, belt fed, fully automatic machine gun and suddenly 2 men could fire 450 rounds a minute for hours on end without tiring and slaughter became industrialised and the bloodletting was taken to totally new levels of horror. It took 2 atomic bombs to make the world step back from the abyss.

Another couple of facts that most seem to ignore. In April/May of 45 Germany was defeated but rather than surrender it was forced to fight on by an out of control elite. 50000 Russians died taking Berlin, they are buried in 5 mass graves in Treptower Park (an eerily quiet place). No one counted how many Germans died, but many were hanged and shot by roving SS 'field Courts-martial' for cowardice. There is nothing extraordinary in this, it is what happens at the end of most wars.

The extraordinary thing is what happened in Japan. The allied planners were expecting 3 million allied casualties including 1 million dead taking the Japanese home islands. They were also expecting 90%+ of Japanese population to be killed. Instead 2 bombs killed between 110,000 and 140,000 and Japan surrendered. It is the first time in history that a belligerent in a war has not had to be totally defeated to break their will to fight (don't quote WW1 to contradict me because WW2 was nothing more that WW1 part 2).

Of course the final death toll as a result of the 2 atomic bombs was a lot higher, maybe as much as 1 million world wide, but that was not so much as a result of the atomic explosions themselves, but because of the sort of burst (both being ground bursts). There really is too much ignorance surrounding nuclear weapons and their contribution to world peace in my opinion."

I've read that and you evidently know your stuff. A really good contribution. Thanks.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

I have a fair grasp of military history and the issues involved with warfare, and over years I have come to some rather profound conclusions.

One, prostitution is not the oldest profession in the world, warrior is.

Two, the business of warfare has remained the same since prehistory.

Three the two inventions that enabled warfare to become truly industrialised were the maxim gun (already mentioned) and the sealed tin can.

Four, that the reason more civilians than warriors now die is not because the nature of war has changed, but is because modern munitions and munitions delivery systems have negated the protection afforded to civilian populations by distance and thick walls.

Five, that if WMD (and nuclear weapons in particular) were removed from the world the human race would annihilate itself in quick order.

It is totally counter intuitive and speaks volumes about humanities basic savagery but it requires a weapon of such power that it can render the planet uninhabitable for all life to make those who wield power to moderate their behaviour.

I have to say I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that we as a species are a blight on the world.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *at69driveMan
over a year ago

Hertford


"Answers to your questions:

1, if I have a weapon that makes you do as I say because you don't. Why would I allow you to make your own version of that weapon? Might is right, the USA, Russia, France, UK and China are mighty because we have large arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means to strike anywhere in the world. India, Pakistan and N. Korea will gain might when they succeed in developing a worldwide delivery system for their nuclear weapons.

2, it does not matter how much money was spent on nuclear weapons or diverted for other projects. The important thing is that the money was spent. Because every £ $ € or whatever expands the world economy and helps make us all wealthier."
An interesting and informed post . There are also lots of spin offs from nuclear weapons.

The way I look at it , you would not leave your front door unlocked . Nuclear weapons provide us with a defence .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"An interesting and informed post . There are also lots of spin offs from nuclear weapons.

The way I look at it , you would not leave your front door unlocked . Nuclear weapons provide us with a defence . "

Thanks!

Warfare is a very interesting subject. At the same time as being totally destructive it drives innovation. If you suffer a traumatic injury your best chance of survival is to be treated by medics who have experience of battlefield medicine. Some 80 to 90% of scientific research is either defence related and funded or a spin-off from defence research. We even have warfare to thank for superglue, velcro and freeze dried food.

It is most definitely a strange world we live in.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Answers to your questions:

1, if I have a weapon that makes you do as I say because you don't. Why would I allow you to make your own version of that weapon? Might is right, the USA, Russia, France, UK and China are mighty because we have large arsenals of nuclear weapons and the means to strike anywhere in the world. India, Pakistan and N. Korea will gain might when they succeed in developing a worldwide delivery system for their nuclear weapons.

2, it does not matter how much money was spent on nuclear weapons or diverted for other projects. The important thing is that the money was spent. Because every £ $ € or whatever expands the world economy and helps make us all wealthier. An interesting and informed post . There are also lots of spin offs from nuclear weapons.

The way I look at it , you would not leave your front door unlocked . Nuclear weapons provide us with a defence . "

I'm quite lucky where I live, I've not locked either of my doors for years. Something to be said for living in a sleepy little Welsh village!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"I have a fair grasp of military history and the issues involved with warfare, and over years I have come to some rather profound conclusions.

One, prostitution is not the oldest profession in the world, warrior is.

Two, the business of warfare has remained the same since prehistory.

Three the two inventions that enabled warfare to become truly industrialised were the maxim gun (already mentioned) and the sealed tin can.

Four, that the reason more civilians than warriors now die is not because the nature of war has changed, but is because modern munitions and munitions delivery systems have negated the protection afforded to civilian populations by distance and thick walls.

Five, that if WMD (and nuclear weapons in particular) were removed from the world the human race would annihilate itself in quick order.

It is totally counter intuitive and speaks volumes about humanities basic savagery but it requires a weapon of such power that it can render the planet uninhabitable for all life to make those who wield power to moderate their behaviour.

I have to say I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that we as a species are a blight on the world. "

Again, thanks for your contribution. Such a shame that humankind cannot work through the world's problems peaceably.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


".

The extraordinary thing is what happened in Japan. The allied planners were expecting 3 million allied casualties including 1 million dead taking the Japanese home islands. They were also expecting 90%+ of Japanese population to be killed. Instead 2 bombs killed between 110,000 and 140,000 and Japan surrendered. It is the first time in history that a belligerent in a war has not had to be totally defeated to break their will to fight (don't quote WW1 to contradict me because WW2 was nothing more that WW1 part 2).

Of course the final death toll as a result of the 2 atomic bombs was a lot higher, maybe as much as 1 million world wide, but that was not so much as a result of the atomic explosions themselves, but because of the sort of burst (both being ground bursts). There really is too much ignorance surrounding nuclear weapons and their contribution to world peace in my opinion."
.

They fire bombed Tokyo for three weeks prior to the atomic bomb being dropped. The fire bomb attacks actually killed more people than the atomic bombs, you cannot bomb a people who are willing to die for the cause into submission.

The main reason the Japanese surrendered was the allieds eventually let them keep their emperor, the emperor for Japanese people is about as close as Jesus for Christians, the initial conditions of surrender basically said give up and give up your God!.

To which the reply was we'd rather die.

I don't know about the taking of the mainland and deaths but as the Japanese had basically got zero fucking oil for anything i doubt it would have been that hard, sure there'd have fought on with swords and spoons given their resolve but it isn't much of an obstacle or hazard for a tank.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *onny MCMan
over a year ago

Crawley

Going back to the original point about the money spent on weapons, wasn't it Bill Hicks who said "If you took what the US spends on defence in a year, you could drill a well in every village in Africa and give that entire continent an indefinite supply of clean water"?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Going back to the original point about the money spent on weapons, wasn't it Bill Hicks who said "If you took what the US spends on defence in a year, you could drill a well in every village in Africa and give that entire continent an indefinite supply of clean water"? "

He was a man much before his time, who spoke a great deal of sense and encouraged his fans to question the status quo. There is a well known conspiracy that he was murdered due to his outspoken critique of the US government.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"One other fact to consider!.

Since 1945 the ratio of civilians killed to soldiers has sky rocketed, so say for every civilian killed there was 18 soldiers now it's reversed.... You could say there's never been a safer time to be a soldier and never a more dangerous time to be a civilian.... The only good thing about the h bomb is we all go up together"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

For generations, British leaders kept a deliberately ambiguous silence about their willingness to authorise the use of nuclear weapons.

After all, it's only a deterrent if your foe cannot be sure they would emerge unscathed from a surprise attack.

Lately, it's become like a badge of honour - that somehow a leader needs to prove their credentials by showing their willingness to inflict 8 million fatalities and a further 8 million casualties (the strategic objective of British WMD).

The "go to" question for journalists demanding a sound-byte answer.

Sorry, but I do lose respect for those who fall into this trap and think a very assertive answer is something to be proud of.

Because:

a) it means your country faces the imminent prospect of complete annihilation, i.e. you are responding to confirmation of incoming nuclear bombardment

b) millions of your own citizens are about to slaughtered

c) the infrastructure of your country is about to be completely obliterated.

I would be much happier if candidates simply reverted to the traditional answer and gave up on this apparent zeal for genocidal points scoring.

What do you think?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"For generations, British leaders kept a deliberately ambiguous silence about their willingness to authorise the use of nuclear weapons.

After all, it's only a deterrent if your foe cannot be sure they would emerge unscathed from a surprise attack.

Lately, it's become like a badge of honour - that somehow a leader needs to prove their credentials by showing their willingness to inflict 8 million fatalities and a further 8 million casualties (the strategic objective of British WMD).

The "go to" question for journalists demanding a sound-byte answer.

Sorry, but I do lose respect for those who fall into this trap and think a very assertive answer is something to be proud of.

Because:

a) it means your country faces the imminent prospect of complete annihilation, i.e. you are responding to confirmation of incoming nuclear bombardment

b) millions of your own citizens are about to slaughtered

c) the infrastructure of your country is about to be completely obliterated.

I would be much happier if candidates simply reverted to the traditional answer and gave up on this apparent zeal for genocidal points scoring.

What do you think?"
Agree with you on this one !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

It does make me cringe. Swinson was the latest.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oi_LucyCouple
over a year ago

Barbados


"For generations, British leaders kept a deliberately ambiguous silence about their willingness to authorise the use of nuclear weapons.

After all, it's only a deterrent if your foe cannot be sure they would emerge unscathed from a surprise attack.

Lately, it's become like a badge of honour - that somehow a leader needs to prove their credentials by showing their willingness to inflict 8 million fatalities and a further 8 million casualties (the strategic objective of British WMD).

The "go to" question for journalists demanding a sound-byte answer.

Sorry, but I do lose respect for those who fall into this trap and think a very assertive answer is something to be proud of.

Because:

a) it means your country faces the imminent prospect of complete annihilation, i.e. you are responding to confirmation of incoming nuclear bombardment

b) millions of your own citizens are about to slaughtered

c) the infrastructure of your country is about to be completely obliterated.

I would be much happier if candidates simply reverted to the traditional answer and gave up on this apparent zeal for genocidal points scoring.

What do you think?"

In an ideal world, I'd agree. But the issue currently is that as soon as one of them says "Yes I would" then everyone else who says "No comment" is massacred by the press for being weak.

For all the rest of her faults, I did quite like the way Jo Swinton just said "yes" and that was the end of that conversation. I'm not saying I agree with their use, but as you say, it is only a deterrent if the other side think you are going to use it. So you might as well just say "yes" and then move on. But likely one of those "damned if you do damned if you don't questions"

-Matt

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iltsguy200Man
over a year ago

Warminster


"For generations, British leaders kept a deliberately ambiguous silence about their willingness to authorise the use of nuclear weapons.

After all, it's only a deterrent if your foe cannot be sure they would emerge unscathed from a surprise attack.

Lately, it's become like a badge of honour - that somehow a leader needs to prove their credentials by showing their willingness to inflict 8 million fatalities and a further 8 million casualties (the strategic objective of British WMD).

The "go to" question for journalists demanding a sound-byte answer.

Sorry, but I do lose respect for those who fall into this trap and think a very assertive answer is something to be proud of.

Because:

a) it means your country faces the imminent prospect of complete annihilation, i.e. you are responding to confirmation of incoming nuclear bombardment

b) millions of your own citizens are about to slaughtered

c) the infrastructure of your country is about to be completely obliterated.

I would be much happier if candidates simply reverted to the traditional answer and gave up on this apparent zeal for genocidal points scoring.

What do you think?"

The ambiguity still exists as no one knows what the PM writes in their letters of last resort.

The letters of last resort are four identically worded handwritten letters from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to the commanding officers of the four British ballistic missile submarines. They contain orders on what action to take in the event that an enemy nuclear strike has destroyed the British government and has killed or otherwise incapacitated both the prime minister and the "second person" whom the prime minister has designated to make a decision on how to act in the event of the prime minister's death. In the event that the orders are carried out, the action taken could be the last official act of Her Majesty's Government.

The letters are stored inside two nested safes in the control room of each submarine. The letters are destroyed unopened after a prime minister leaves office, so their content remains known only to the prime minister who issued them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

Exactly.

If the contents of the letter of last resort are never divulged, why do those who sign them make such unambiguous statements about their intentions in the first resort?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *V-AliceTV/TS
over a year ago

Ayr

Just to complicate things, there is no guarantee the instructions in those letters - God forbid they're ever opened - will be obeyed.

Either way.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

Yes, the scenario is simply too horrific for any rational person to contemplate.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

Another thing I had not realised until quite recently is the PM is not the sole "key-holder".

Before the authorisation is transmitted, two separate and matching codes are required - one from the PM and the other from the chief of the defence staff.

It's a safety measure to guard against a Prime Minister who has gone mad, apparently.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *V-AliceTV/TS
over a year ago

Ayr

It's pretty much always been that way for strategic nukes - nobody can do a General Ripper. Rightly so.

Tactical nukes - I'm not sure. Though you'd have to hope it's the same.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I've always been very indifferent over them.

I certainly wouldn't shit my pants if somebody like Corbyn got rid of them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East


"It's pretty much always been that way for strategic nukes - nobody can do a General Ripper. Rightly so.

Tactical nukes - I'm not sure. Though you'd have to hope it's the same."

Does Britain have such a thing any more?

It kept free-fall nuclear weapons at places like Lossiemouth or Kinloss until the 1990s, I think.

I believe all UK warheads today are configured for the Trident delivery system.

Though I could well believe the engineers at Aldermaston and Burghfield could easily produce something for a different delivery system.

The US kept a stock of nuclear bombs in the UK during the Cold War. At air force bases.

The US still has several hundred stored at air force bases throughout Europe but I think the UK ones may have gone now.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *V-AliceTV/TS
over a year ago

Ayr


"Does Britain have such a thing any more?

It kept free-fall nuclear weapons at places like Lossiemouth or Kinloss until the 1990s, I think.

I believe all UK warheads today are configured for the Trident delivery system.

Though I could well believe the engineers at Aldermaston and Burghfield could easily produce something for a different delivery system.

The US kept a stock of nuclear bombs in the UK during the Cold War. At air force bases.

The US still has several hundred stored at air force bases throughout Europe but I think the UK ones may have gone now.

"

I think you're right. I don't know for sure. If there are any at all, they'll be on cruise missiles, with the RN.

Hopefully, they're gone. They were always even more mental than the strategic ones.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So where are you going to store your nukes when scotland is independent?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"So where are you going to store your nukes when scotland is independent?"
.

Somewhere else!.

What you think your the only place it can be done?.

It's the 21st century times have moved on, but good luck with your living in the past

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

Give yourself 10 years at least to build a replacement for the weapons handling and storage area at Coulport. I believe the storage area is a hollow mountain.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You do realise that if Momentum Labour win the GE that the VP of CND - Corbyn - will be in a position to do what CND have always preached about, and that's to get rid of the UK's independent nuclear deterrent?

On the flip side, if we slink back to the EU then under Lisbon our IND comes under EU control, which makes it even scarier.

5 unelected presidents - including Butcher Selmeyer- all of whom hate Russia and want to get their hands on Ukraine, just like Napoleon & Adolf did, in charge IG the nuclear key.

I mean, even Blair wasn't that insane. On either count.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

Where do you get the idea that an individual could disarm the UK? It would require a vote of Parliament.

Britain's WMD is already assigned to NATO.

Where do you get the idea it will be assigned to the EU as well?

Under the Nassau Agreement, the UK retains a right to act unilaterally only when the "supreme national interest" is threatened.

The General War Book requires the PM to consult the President of the US prior to launch authorisation.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

The UK has signed an international treaty that commits the UK to nuclear disarmament, by the way.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

Which is very much the message coming from the Pope this weekend on his visit to Nagasaki.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"You do realise that if Momentum Labour win the GE that the VP of CND - Corbyn - will be in a position to do what CND have always preached about, and that's to get rid of the UK's independent nuclear deterrent?

On the flip side, if we slink back to the EU then under Lisbon our IND comes under EU control, which makes it even scarier.

5 unelected presidents - including Butcher Selmeyer- all of whom hate Russia and want to get their hands on Ukraine, just like Napoleon & Adolf did, in charge IG the nuclear key.

I mean, even Blair wasn't that insane. On either count."

You have quite an imagination

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham


"So where are you going to store your nukes when scotland is independent?"

They will go to the USA.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

Have you seen Donald Trump's real estate prices?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *V-AliceTV/TS
over a year ago

Ayr

I may be wrong here - but I'm less worried about nukes being used than I am about knife crime; and now we have people taking machetes with them when they go to the pictures.

Is mental the new normal? It seems like it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Give yourself 10 years at least to build a replacement for the weapons handling and storage area at Coulport. I believe the storage area is a hollow mountain.

"

Saw a letter in a local newspaper condemning SNP’s stance on no Trident and it being a bargaining tool for helping out Labour occasionally if a hung parliament. Nothing to do with morals of nuclear deterrents, all to do with loss of lay jobs with Trident.

So, 520 jobs are hostage to £ millions. Jobs are important but where does the morality fall with this?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

Lot more than 520 jobs at Faslane and Coulport.

7500 maybe.

Plus, the entire UK submarine fleet is in the process of being relocated there.

Lots of work going on. Lots of jobs.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes but only 520 of lay workers with Trident.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago

Bristol East

i believe that's correct.

If you cotinued to operate all the facilities as they are, just minus the Trident missiles and warheads bit, I can believe that number is accurate.

Would Britain want to keep any submarines if none carried WMD? I guess so. Can't imagine Scotland being in need of submarines.

Total workforce is 6500 apparently.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

That’s including Navy personnel, I think. Their role is reserved by Westminster at present so their jobs would depend on factors decided by rUk

There are naval vessels that are serviced by other lay people but the number directly related to Trident is 520, I believe.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *lem-H-FandangoMan
over a year ago

salisbury


"I may be wrong here - but I'm less worried about nukes being used than I am about knife crime; and now we have people taking machetes with them when they go to the pictures.

Is mental the new normal? It seems like it.

"

Normal for Birmingham maybe.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top