MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
do america and us still have nuke bombs??
Yes
Yes.
who else has them...
russia, ****stan, india.
french.
israel.
probably some more.
why are n korea not allowed them then....
wanna buy some?
Because they are part of the axis of evil along with Tescos, Evans, France and The Isle of Wight 🙄
Because we are all white or honorary whiteys - they are untrustworthy brownies
Israel does not officially have them; there have always been strong suspicions but if it were ever more than simply conjecture, it would be a problem. China has them.
i thought the bloke who made that up had left....
Tesco Value WMD's?
they eat dogs, and in western society the dog is sacred
Ton - do you really need someone to answer that question? I mean how naieve do you need to be to even ask it.
Isreal has around 200 nukes, many at their site at Dimona.
The hypocracy of Israel is that they bang on about Iran who HAVE signed a nuclear treaty and are legally allowed to have nuclear power stations.
Amercia is funding Israel's illegal nuclear programme. It is illegal to fund nuclear weaponary of a country who has not signed the nuclear treaties.
But hey ho.
Brazil have nukes I think but I could be wrong.
geetee1972
not naieve just very uneducated on such worldly matters, so yes...
ton - Member
i thought the bloke who made that up had left....
Nope I'm still here,, oh sorry see what you mean 😳
In the next week or so the weather will change , totally from what it is now,all over the world.
Every tinme there is a large explosion or explosions the weather changes massively, wait and see.
WER`E ALL DOOMED!!!!!!!!!!1111
a quick trip to wikipedia can often avoid unnecessary embaracement.
From Wikipedia (OK not the best source for geopolitical information but easy to access)
Israel is widely believed to be the sixth country in the world to develop nuclear weapons[6] and to be one of four nuclear-armed countries not recognized as a Nuclear Weapons State by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the others being India, ****stan and North Korea.[7] International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei regards Israel as a state possessing nuclear weapons,[8] but Israel maintains a policy known as "nuclear ambiguity" (also known as "nuclear opacity"). Israel has never officially admitted to having nuclear weapons, instead repeating over the years that it would not be the first country to "introduce" nuclear weapons to the Middle East, leaving ambiguous whether it means it will not create or will not use the weapons.
Yes there is a measure of hypocrisy in all of this, but that's not to say that a Military dictatorship ruling the most repressed country in the world that routinely threatens most of it's near neighbours, and is officially still at war, having access to both missiles and the technology to produce bombs is a good or happy thing.
project - Member
In the next week or so the weather will change , totally from what it is now,all over the world.Every tinme there is a large explosion or explosions the weather changes massively, wait and see.
Good, it pi$$ed down here today so better dig out the suncream for next weekend then 😀
glover, never embarrassed , just eager to learn
[i]a quick trip to wikipedia can often avoid unnecessary embaracement. [/i]
As will a quick trip to a dictionary 😀
they eat dogs, and in western society the dog is sacred
And many people eat cows, yet in Hindu culture, the cow is sacred.
I don't know enough about the North Korean regime to offer an in-depth onion on the subject (although I'm sure there's some supercillious geeky STW tosser that is an 'expert'), but the way I see it is:
NK thinks the USA might invade them, as they have after all been supporting SK for years, so arms itself with nukes to act as a deterrent.
The USA, UK and other countries have a nukeleer deterrent, 'cos they are scared other countries might try and attack them.
Iran is developing nukeleer weapons, because it fears US invasion.
The USA are the only nation to ever use nukes against innocent civilians, in a war situation.
Hmmm.....
Every tinme there is a large explosion or explosions the weather changes massively, wait and see.
Why would an underground explosion cause a change in the weather?
I must admit that this does bring back memories of the first time they set off a Nuke. I was actually in the country at the time and got a bit drunk with the guides who were celebrating a momentous achievement, which to be fair on a technological level it was. The fact that they were skin and bone and people were starving throughout their country wasn't something that was dwelt upon, or known about if I'm honest.
fred, you have answered my Q.
Well, he gave Hans Blix the runaround for long enough, so to speak... 😉
[img] 
[/img]
[i]The USA are the only nation to ever use nukes against innocent civilians, in a war situation.[/i]
There's an argument that however horrific the nuclear (much easier to spell BTW) weapons were, they were the lesser of two evils. (ending the war quickly with a devastating display of superior technology, or the possibility of long and ultimately higher death toll of an invasion.) Not a decision to be taken lightly either way, but I understand your point.
Nick - valid argument for the first bomb - the second was a different design and needed to be live tested so they dropped it anyway
just very uneducated on such worldly matters
That's why you come on STW innit ?
btw for those who might doubt whether Israel has any nukes, the big give away was when they jailed this guy for 18 years for revealing to the world that Israel had nuclear weapons :
[img] 
[/img]
Mordechai Vanunu - a former technician on their nuclear weapons programme
TJ, my understanding was that Truman announced via radio that [i]"If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air the likes of which has never been seen on this earth."[/i], and that the Japanese Govt did still not accept the Potsdam agreement to surrender and end the war, and hence the next bomb was dropped.
I understand that there were at least 6 other targets and bombs ready...
Nick - sounds like you know more about it than me but my understanding is that the Japanese were still considering when the second bomb was dropped. It was only a day or two later IIRC?????
Hiroshima was on August 6th, Nagasaki (not the primary target) on the 9th, Japan surrendered on the 15th. Most of the diplomacy was being done covertly by the Russians (under US instruction) to try to get the Japanese to surrender.
I think the saddest aspect for me was that people that survived Hiroshima, were evacuated to Nagasaki...
EDIT: Forgot to mention; The Potsdam agreement was first presented to the Japanese Govt in late July.
The irony is that north korea doesn't really need them, their conventional weapons could inflict WMD casualties on the south without any need for nukes- Seoul's too close to the border to be safe. But maybe they've asked themselves if ten million south korean civilian casualties are as much of a deterrant to the west as they should be.
Either way, we've given them good reasons for wanting nukes. The lesson of Iraq was obvious- make sure you have some WMDs or you might get stomped. And also, don't count on your enemy being afraid of civilian casualties, as long as it's not their civilians.
TBH, the young South Koreans DESPISE with extreme viscerality the US troops stationed in Seoul. The old folk remember the war and the genuine benefits of US participation. Go to Itaewon after dark and observe the G.I's interaction with Seoul's youth. That's where I saw the unedifying spectacle of aggro grunts line dancing to some weird hybrid of r'n'b and country'n'w.. The strobe was going to give me a seizure so I left. Watch the local youths watch the grunts manhandle the local female teens.
South Korea is more worried about dissent within than any gesture of the looney to the north.
Amercia is funding Israel's illegal nuclear programme.
Is it? I thought (from my mate's dad who was in the South African military and spent a suspiciously long time in Israel) that the story was that Israel had hidden development of nuclear weapons from the US by co-operating with apartheid South Africa.
The briefest of google searches on this fails to bring up any reliable info on that, though, but plenty of stuff that has US law as requiring sanctions on any country that violates anti-proliferation treaties. (Not that that's worked with India or ****stan, apparently). 🙁
[i]Yes there is a measure of hypocrisy in all of this, but that's not to say that a Military dictatorship ruling the most repressed country in the world that routinely threatens most of it's near neighbours, and is officially still at war, having access to both missiles and the technology to produce bombs is a good or happy thing. [/i]
Sounds a lot like America to me. I think the difference here is that America are our mates while Korea aren't so it's ok.
Kona - Israel is kept afloat by dosh from the USA - so indirectly at least USA is funding its nukes.
Hiroshima was on August 6th, Nagasaki (not the primary target) on the 9th, Japan surrendered on the 15th. Most of the diplomacy was being done covertly by the Russians (under US instruction) to try to get the Japanese to surrender.
I think you'll find that any diplomacy that you refer to, consisted of the Russians declaring war on Japan on 8th August 1945.
"I don't know enough about the North Korean regime to offer an in-depth onion on the subject (although I'm sure there's some supercillious geeky STW tosser that is an 'expert'), but the way I see it is:"
He He He He! But your going to tell us anyway.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not bombed at all before being nuked - so that they could accurately measure the effect of the weapons. I always find that detail deeply shocking.
Not quite, neither was subject to [i]large scale[/i] bombing, Nagasaki wasn't the indented target (Kokura the principal target was obscured by cloud cover).
their conventional weapons could inflict WMD casualties on the south without any need for nukes
I thought the last time North Korea was at war they were also fighting the Yanks ?
.
He He He He! But your going to tell us anyway.
That's a bit unfair. He didn't make any attempt at all to 'offer an in-depth onion on the subject'
.
As far as whether the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justifiable, the point is that it didn't 'win the war'. Everyone agrees that Japan had already 'lost the war'. It possibly shortened it by about 6 months.
So I think that it would be reasonable to say that the US didn't so much use nuclear weapons because it was 'necessary', but more because they could 'get away with it'.
Does anyone seriously think that the US wouldn't have used nuclear weapons on North Vietnam if China and Russia hadn't had any ?
The only thing which stops the US going ballistic imo, is other countries nuclear weapons programmes.
Isn't it just a case of "do as I say, not as I do" . . . .
Whats an 'in-depth onion' ????????
Its been refered to here several times but i can't find anything on google, well not with the worksafe filter on anyway, to enlighten me 😕
"Unfairness" or "double standards" aside, do people really feel safer knowing that North Korea, ****stan and other places of joyous and stable peace have nuclear weapons?
I'd rather the US wasn't sitting on a gigantic nuclear arsenal, I'd rather we weren't. But from the point of view of my basic peace of mind about the actual risk of someone firing a nuclear missile next year the more people who have them and the more paranoid and confrontational their governments the less reassured I am. ****stan had the capacity to drop nuclear bombs on eastern India for about a decade before someone pointed out to the ****stani high command that in other countries some sort of system to prevent uncontrolled launch was a usual safety feature of nuclear weapons systems. 🙂
Whats an 'in-depth onion' ????????
It's like an opinion, but multi-layered....
LOL !
My understanding is....
Japan is an Island, which had it's navy utterly destroyed by the americans and was reliant on imported goods for it's war effort. Surely the americans could have laid siege to the Island till it surrendered, No need for the americans to have to fight it's way through Japan.
The reason the Americans dropped the bomb was not to shorten the war or reduce american casualties in the south pacific but as a display of Power to the Russians, keeping them in order in Europe at the end of the 2nd world war. The americans did not want the Germans to go and then leave the Russians to decide to continue into further into Europe.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not bombed at all before being nuked - so that they could accurately measure the effect of the weapons. I always find that detail deeply shocking.
Makes perfect sense. Might seem a little cold and calculating but then war is just that.
Cheers Rudeboy, sounds so straight forward when you put it like that 😆
Off on a slight tangent; there's a great book called 'The Aquariums of Pyongyang' written by North Korean who finally escaped through China into South Korea.
Gives a great insight into life in North Korea through the 20th century. Worth a read IMHO.
...and another tangent; The sooner they sort the North / South issue out the better. The mountain biking in South Korea is awesome, some of the best singletrack I've ever ridden. I'd imagine it's even better ooooop north.
Israel is kept afloat by dosh from the USA - so indirectly at least USA is funding its nukes.
That's a completely different statement (itself of questionable accuracy) to the earlier one.
[i]Does anyone seriously think that the US wouldn't have used nuclear weapons on North Vietnam if China and Russia hadn't had any ?
The only thing which stops the US going ballistic imo, is other countries nuclear weapons programmes.
[/i]
So, proof of concept, mutually assured destruction works, on states that are controlled or backed by other nations which are nuclear powers.
The fear with N Korea being the fact that they are not controlled by anyone else, and that an isolated and desperate leader might resort to using them without fear of the consequences - basically, MAD relies on nobody being crazy enough to be first to use one, and its a proven concept that has kept us in relative peace for the last sixty years.
Oh yes, mutually assured destruction has indeed worked.
Up until now.
Of course the complete non-existence of any nuclear weapons at all, would probably work even better.
Bearing in mind that nuclear weapons are 1940s technology, and so many countries have now reached that level of development, isn't it perhaps time to look at a new strategy to guarantee a world free of the threat of nuclear war ?
[i]Of course the complete non-existence of any nuclear weapons at all, would probably work even better.[/i]
Yeah, that ones going to work isn't it - lets just undiscover E=MC2
The genie is out the bottle, the one reliable fact its that if noone had nukes, someone would be working to create nukes.
Go on Ernie - what's your suggestion for a new strategy that can [b]guarantee[/b] a world free of the threat?
yeah what we need is someone to develop a doomsday device...[img] 
[/img]
someone like him...
[img] 
[/img]
isn't it perhaps time to look at a new strategy to guarantee a world free of the threat of nuclear war ?
What like an interntional nuclear non proliferation treaty, a complete ban on testing and international political pressure brought to bear on new entrants not to enter the club whilst also reducing your own arsenal in proportion with everyone elses reductions for example?
Oh sorry didn't read the thread, apparently the STW massif don't see that as a way forward.
Incidentally, my father in law was a POW in Kobi at the time of the two bombs being dropped on Japan. He had been taken prisoner at the fall of Hong Kong. He was taken with the survivors of the 1000 other members of his battalion. He was used as slave labour to repair the airport, then put on a "hellship", the Lisbon Maru and sent to Japan. The boat was torpedoed enroute by the yanks, and the Japanese bolted them into the holds as the ship foundered. When the men in hold he was in broke out the Japanese machine gunned them in the water. He escaped to a nearby island where he was recaptured, and subsequently shipped to Kobi, where he spent the remainder of the war until liberation. He was one of 92 men to survive this ordeal in his battalion. HE was 6'1" tall when he joined up and a strapping great farm labourer. When he was freed he weighed just over 4 1/2 stone. My wife and children, and my brothers in law and their families owe their lives to the fact that the decision was made not to prevaricate, as do thousands upon thousands of others in similar situations.
Read the history, check the facts and then criticise the decisions, rather than post up some ridiculous crepe about some obscure conspiracy theory. Check the facts yourself, Google Lisbon Maru, his name was Claude Elmy.
Finally, try to remember that neither we nor the US started the conflict, or had any desire whatsoever to be involved in it. The Japanese could have surrendered at any time and chose not to.
"their conventional weapons could inflict WMD casualties on the south without any need for nukes"
"I thought the last time North Korea was at war they were also fighting the Yanks ?"
Yes they were, and UN support (including us) this is why there's a south korea (though the same could probably be said for the north and their chinese and russian support)
But the situation today is completely incomparable to be honest. The korean war was, well, mad. I think part of the reason it's not well known about now is that it's just hard to make it make sense, it started out with WW2-era tanks vs bazookas, and mustangs and spitfires, but ended up with mass international intervention, the first major jet combats, the first use of the helicopter and napalm in warfare, saturation bombing (8000 tons per day), open US/UN vs soviet/chinese combat (the north korean airforce was supplied with soviet pilots) and the threat of nuclear weapons. And around 2 million civilian dead.
But if hostilities were to start again tomorrow, north korea could turn Seoul (population 10 million) into a ruin within days, and most likely cause more civilian casualties in the opening hours than in the entire of the last war. Nuclear weapons have the horror factor but old fashioned explosives would do the job they need. Unless, as mentioned, they decide that the west isn't actually that bothered about south korean civilian casualties, and it'd be useful to be able to level a city in japan.
Go on Ernie - what's your suggestion for a new strategy that can guarantee a world free of the threat?
Well actually I was more interested in yours.
.
the one reliable fact its that if noone had nukes, someone would be working to create nukes.
I'm not convinced that is a very 'reliable fact'.
Certainly the case for attacking North Korea and overthrowing it's government would be immeasurably stronger if no other country in world had nuclear weapons and North Korea was developing it's own. That goes for any other country, for that matter. North Korea has said that they are prepared to abandon the nuclear weapons programme if it is in their interests to do so, I tend to believe them. Of course it is not unreasonable to expect other countries to do so.
.
So go on Zulu-Eleven - what's your suggestion for forcing North Korea to get rid of it's nuclear weapons ? How would you remove the threat of nuclear weapons ? How would you deal with countries such as Argentina who could easily develop nuclear weapons ?
Do tell.
On the subject of the atomic bombing of nagasaki, the death toll in WW2 terms was amazingly low, to hear some people talk you'd think it was an unprecedented slaughter but the death toll was less than at dresden, where conventional firebombs were used to much greater effect.
The argument for or against the use of the second bomb is hard to settle, personally I think the same could have been achieved without dropping on a city, but with no more weapons due to be complete for a fortnight, that would have been a gamble. I think that there's very little doubt that the death toll from the bombings was smaller than the likely outcome with no atomic bombings. it only becomes complicated when you ask whether japan would have surrendered without the destruction of 2 cities, and we'll just never know.
the death toll in WW2 terms was amazingly low
No it was amazingly high. That's why Japan surrendered.
I think in comparison the firebombing of tokyo killed far more initially.
No it wasn't! Highest estimates for initial casualties were 70000 at Hiroshima, 60000 at Nagasaki- though over 25000 of these weren't japanese. So just over 100,000 japanese civilian casualties, less than 1/5th of their total civilian casualties, which in turn was (in terms of defeated nations) a fairly low death toll due to the fact that the mainland was never invaded.
One Happy Hippy is spot on, the B-29 raids on Tokyo killed more than both nuclear bombs combined. The large March raid alone probably claimed more lives than the nuclear bombs, in a single night.
It has to be seen in the perspective of the times- the Japanese/Chinese region of the war led to 16 [i]million[/i] chinese civilian casualties. And while it's too easy to play the "fanatic japanese" card, their casualties at hiroshima and nagasaki were only 1/3 as great as the civilian casualties inflicted by the japanese army at nanjing alone.
Ernie
Well actually I was more interested in yours
I'm quite happy with the concept of MAD thanks.
[i]So go on Zulu-Eleven - what's your suggestion for forcing North Korea to get rid of it's nuclear weapons ? How would you remove the threat of nuclear weapons ? How would you deal with countries such as Argentina who could easily develop nuclear weapons ?[/i]
Targeted asymmetric non lethal weapon strikes on known facilities after UN Security council resolution, - take out their power grids through fusing with graphite threads, EMP weapon used on the facility to destroy computers, economic sanctions, port blockade - progressive ramping of action from political through to military tactics up to and including destruction of transport links and POL capability - quite simply make it downright not worth the hassle to continue!
enough of an answer for you?
My wife and children, and my brothers in law and their families owe their lives to the fact that the decision was made not to prevaricate, as do thousands upon thousands of others in similar situations.Read the history, check the facts and then criticise the decisions, rather than post up some ridiculous crepe about some obscure conspiracy theory. Check the facts yourself, Google Lisbon Maru, his name was Claude Elmy.
I had a grandfather on each side, one British and one Japanese so I can see your perspective. Luckily for me they both survived their respective ordeals. It is worth remembering however that although your father-in-law may owe his life to the decision 'not to prevaricate', hundreds of thousands of civilian men, women, and children died in his stead, vapourised, burned, or radiated to death.
Personally, I'd rather never have been born if it meant those bombs hadn't dropped.
A lovely idea, but any action like that will result in N Korea wiping Seoul off the face of the planet with conventional weapons. And no, I don't have any better ideas.
Unfortunately EMP weapons using conventional explosives (i.e. delivered by cruise missiles etc) are exceedingly weak in comparison to a airburst nuclear weapon derived EMP blast (nuclear generated blasts are 100,000 or a million times more powerful weight for weight of explosive.)
I think any strike on N. Korea would result in the total devestation of Seoul to be honest.
N.Korea has plenty of artillery constantly aimed at Seoul and a million man + standing arm / national service for all.
Remember also that tunnels large enough to drive to tanks through side by side were discovered to have been dug by N.Korea and im sure there would be more that wernt discovered.
I'm quite happy with the concept of MAD thanks.
Well apparently you're not. MAD is suppose to stop [i]all[/i] wars whether conventional or otherwise, yet you now want to attack another country with nuclear weapons. So it would appear that you don't think MAD is working anymore.
.
enough of an answer for you?
No. It was a rubbish answer. Why does the US/Britain/Russia/etc need nuclear weapons to, quote :
[i]Targeted asymmetric non lethal weapon strikes on known facilities after UN Security council resolution, - take out their power grids through fusing with graphite threads, EMP weapon used on the facility to destroy computers, economic sanctions, port blockade - progressive ramping of action from political through to military tactics up to and including destruction of transport links and POL capability - quite simply make it downright not worth the hassle to continue[/i]
?
.
Northwind ..... "100,000" isn't a small figure - how many bombs were used ?
****ing hell, wish i had never asked............... 😉
I forgot what the question was ton ?
What was it ? 😕
hundreds of thousands of civilian men, women, and children died in his stead, vapourised, burned, or radiated to death
Like I said :-
.......try to remember that neither we nor the US started the conflict, or had any desire whatsoever to be involved in it. The Japanese could have surrendered at any time and chose not to.
So the options were :-
a) Give up and go home
b) Blockade the country (much easier said than done incidentally, remember a certain A. Hitler tried it on us for quite a while and failed)
c) Invade with resultant massive loss of life on both sides.
d) Deploy new super weapon that is so powerful that it will convince this fanatical enemy to give up without any further bloodshed.
If you read up on the battles for Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Tarawa etc etc, its pretty easy to see why the Yanks were reticent to go for invading the mainland, and chose the nuke option instead. Arguable whether an off the coast demonstration followed by an ultimatum may have done the trick, but notice that one bombed city on its own didn't either.
NB: Possession of a weapon of itself is not a deterrant. Its possesion and the will to use it that counts.
but any action like that will result in N Korea wiping Seoul off the face of the planet with conventional weapons.
To those who made statements like this one, what makes you think that North Korea [i]wants[/i] to destroy Seoul? From what I recall of talking to the people there that they really want is a united Korea free from what they see as western interference. Now I've never spoken to anyone from the South but I'd be surprised if they didn't want the same thing albeit with the North becoming a democracy rather than the South becoming part of the notionally communist North.
"Northwind ..... "100,000" isn't a small figure - how many bombs were used ?"
100000 is a small figure when seen in context. Less than 1 quarter of one percent of the civilian casualties in WW2. Almost nobody even knows about the B29 raids on tokyo- can I ask, did you, when you said that the numbers were "amazingly high?"
I don't really see what the number of bombs has to do with it, the people killed by incendiaries in one night in tokyo are just as dead as the ones killed by two bombs in hiroshima and nagasaki.
"To those who made statements like this one, what makes you think that North Korea wants to destroy Seoul? "
They probably don't want to- but Seoul is their hostage, their MAD deterrant.
When i looked after S.Korean exchange students from Seoul uni they were talking about living under the shadow of the threat of intense artillery bombardment and that the north's threat has always been that if a move is made against them that they would level Seoul.
I don't really see what the number of bombs has to do with it
I think the Japanese probably did.
Had one nuclear bomb killed about 100 people, then I suspect that the Japanese might not have surrendered. I'm thinking along the lines that they probably thought "**** me. Did you see how many people just one bomb killed?"
Which goes back to my point : "No it was amazingly high. That's why Japan surrendered."