Forum menu
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" . . . .