[Closed] Nuclear weapons, where do you stand?

My uncle designs Nuclear warheads, says business is slow ATM.. 😉

Great link Drac

Thanks, MikeWS - 😀

Watergate was once a conspiracy theory, before sufficient evidence swung public opinion to the extent it became historic fact.

Surely by now you know call me Dave is more bent than a contortionist caterpillar and lower than limbo under a snakes arsehole to boot, just like Blair before him and Thatcher before that etc etc.

Apathy is understandable, but when governments are infringing on so many basic rights and spending public money for dark deeds, standing by and letting it happen isn't going to leave much of a future for your kids kids.

Peace and love, not greedy thugs 😉

Love that film drac!

Good isn't it.

Not sure if I found it on here or was linked on twitter but either way it's great at demonstrating the mess conspiracy theories get themselves in when the explanation is often the simple one that no one thought to ask.

😀

I must say I am prepared to accept that our current and past politicians would do anything Tory support for Pol Pot , Pinochet and Suharto spring to mind but this just does not pass the common sense test. Why on earth would we do this when we have a fully functioning nuclear arsenal ?

Ever notice how every stage of Blair's career involved a convenient death?

In relation to the wider question I am with
Thucydides " one nuclear bomb can ruin your entire day. "

Generally, when our governments have time after time completely failed to even make a few trains run on time and reliably, how are we meant to believe that they can actually manage to get these horendously complicated and tenuous "conspiracies" to happen? 😉

I like the way those nutty theorists put in "fake science" to make it sound plausable, except that it generally does the exact opposite. Like the "with special windows to monitor core temp" Hey? It's a bomb, not a reactor you nutters, it ain't critical before it goes off!

Oh yeah, the the answer to the original question:

"As far back as possible"........ 😉

I feel sad about them. Sad because we have this beautiful and amazing planet to live on, and instead of using our brains and money to help each other and protect our world, we produce terrible weapons that can poison it and kill hundreds of thousands of living things.

maxtorque - Member
Generally, when our governments have time after time completely failed to even make a few trains run on time and reliably, how are we meant to believe that they can actually manage to get these horendously complicated and tenuous "conspiracies" to happen?

Exactly. It's like the mythical powers attributed regularly to Mrs T (on both sides)!!!

Jhj is a spokesman for the lizard overlords, putting out disinformation to divert our attention from the [i]real[/i] conspiracies!
There's YouTube videos about it to show the truth and everything!

Saw this the other day, scared the poop out of me! It's on Netflix.

I am THE lizard overlord and I don't take kindly to your impertinence; you shall all be consumed in due course.

Don't say I didn't warn you out of a pang of evolution.

I feel the same way about insurance. Bit of a rip off but not when you need it.

Do you think between us we could get a subscription to the scientologits and get all of the proper vids about what really hapened?

More population, less food and energy reserves....they'll be used sometime this century.

I feel the same way about insurance. Bit of a rip off but not when you need it.

That pretty much sums it for me.

To answear the question when I was on a nuke sub far to close for comfort(still no danger to me just not sure liked being that close to it)

War: Ever had an angry dispute over a garden fence? It's like that with 100,000,000 indignant people egging you on. But mutually assured destruction tends to stop the egging on as people realise that it won't just be foreign soldiers on remote battlefields who will be killed. Since sub launched ICBMs can't effectively be defended against, they are the ultimate preventer of war because no one could ever "win".

Horrible invention, but they seem to keep the peace.

"Horrible invention, but they seem to keep the peace."

Really? There has been only one year since they were invented when a British soldier has not been killed in combat.

If you are amongst the people with high probability of dying from nuclear incineration then there is no escaping, because you are just another statistic in the grand scheme of things.

🙄

Does the UK still have any nuclear bombs or are we solely a missile power?

the only nuclear weapons we have are trident missiles delivered from a nuclear (powered) submarine.

one of the biggest reasons we still have nuclear weapons program is to remain one of the perminant members of nato.

which gives us a lot of power in the worlds defence, you only need to look at how our goverment stopped a missile attack on Syria.

obviously with my job im for nuclear weapons lol

And some people say that manmade global warming is a conspiracy! 🙄

That makes no sense at all.

Obviously, its the lizard overlords who are responsible! Since they're cold blooded, a warmer climate is more suitable to them.

1) In 1989, Iraq and the US were allies and there was no reason for the US to worry about Iraq invading Kuwait hence the 1990 misunderstanding which resulted in Iraq thinking the US ambassador had tacitly approved the invasion plan.

2) if the UK and US wanted to stop the ANC getting hold of the nukes and had the cooperation of the apartheid regime, it could have just decommissioned the lot in exchange for cash or a relaxation of sanctions.

3) if the UK wanted to stop the ANC getting nukes, it would have bought all of them, not just a couple.

4) what is the point of a nuclear power secretly acquiring a nuclear bomb? If it were ever used everyone would know.

Soviet vs sino vs West world war would have happened before now without MAD, no? Would the Germans have tried to annex the rest of Europe twice? No.

crankboy - Member

"Horrible invention, but they seem to keep the peace."

Really? There has been only one year since they were invented when a British soldier has not been killed in combat.

I'm sure that there is some logic in your flaw, but I just don't see it at the moment.

Take a look at 1945 - the year that nuclear weapons were used and when they forced Japan to the peace table. They saved an estimated 2 million lives - those that would have perished had an invasion of Japan been necessary.

buzz-lightyear - Member

Soviet vs sino vs West world war would have happened before now without MAD, no?

Possibly. Show us your working?

Soviet vs sino vs West world war would have happened before now without MAD, no?

Possibly. Show us your working?

Have any two nuclear powers ever declared war against each other? Not as far as I am aware.

So we have correlation. Now we just need causation.

Korea Vietnam the Falklands the Gulf versions one and two even only one side having "the Bomb" does not prevent war the reason the Big West East war never happened may well be due to a lack of willingness to go through the devastation of large scale conventional war given how rosy an experience the first two were particularly for the Russians.

Have any two nuclear powers ever declared war against each other? Not as far as I am aware.

It's also worth noting that modern conventional "smart" weapons have reduced some of the nuclear weapons advantages.

Back in WW2, the problem with just lobbing things out of planes was that it was very difficult to actually hit the thing you wanted to hit. Nuclear devices solved that problem with the "sledgehammer to a nut" response. I.e. you no longer needed accuracy if the bomb was big enough.

Fast forward 70 years, and we can now send a smart bomb/missile or whatever pretty much through the correct letterbox on your front door from 1000 miles away, and so massive explosive power has become unnecessary. In fact, concerns over killing "innocents" and the massive collateral damage caused as a result of using enormous explosive power weapons pretty much relegates Nuclear weapons to that "last ditch" MAD only strategy use.

As far away as possible

Nuclear weapons didn't prevent war, they just displaced and prolonged it.

That's true though it's hard to weigh up the more 'real' suffering and pain of people from conventional weaponry against the absolute devastation and (very) long term impact of nuclear war.

Have any two nuclear powers ever declared war against each other? Not as far as I am aware

Yeah, those bloody Scots. Still we'll be able to nuke them if they go it alone 🙂

Take a look at 1945 - the year that nuclear weapons were used and when they forced Japan to the peace table. They saved an estimated 2 million lives - those that would have perished had an invasion of Japan been necessary.

This one pops up all the time - eg Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war in the Pacific and saved x million lives (on both sides of course)

The truth is the Japanese had already had most of their cities levelled by early incendiary bomb attacks so two more small cities levelled was not a show stopper for the Japanese.

What actually ended the war was the Russians invading Manchuria.

Anyway nuclear weapons are horrible things. It would be really good if we could un-invent them but we can't. I'm not sure how I feel about Britain's nuclear arsenal, I understand why we feel the need to have them I'm just not sure the benefits outweigh the risk and costs

Yeah, those bloody Scots. Still we'll be able to nuke them if they go it alone

You'll have to get them off us first 😉

I'm pretty sure Big Al has said that he wants them out. He'll rue that 😉

When a country dismantles its nuclear weaponry, inspections are carried out by the International Atomic Energy Agency to verify that the programme has been entirely dismantled so that the country in question can then accede to the NPT.

This paper on the [url= http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/proliferation/south-africa/baeckmann_dillon_perricos_verification.pdf ]IAEA Report[/url] is quite boring, because it is quite long. It gives some flavour of the methodical nature of the IAEA's work, and of the difficulty and complexity of the business of NPT verification and of counter-proliferation generally.

As far as I'm concerned, the idea that Mark Thatcher ran off with a significant proportion of RSA's nuclear arsenal in a shipping container (while the IAEA completely missed this or was successfully nobbled by David Cameron when he was but a callow youth) is an extraordinary claim, one that would usually require extraordinary proof to be accepted. The proof offered is a youtube documentary. 😐

Also, the 1999 [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kargil_War ]Kargil War[/url] between India and ****stan took place after both countries had successfully conducted nuclear tests (although Musharraf later claimed the ****stanis' delivery systems were not operational).

The ****stanis made some ambiguous threats suggestive of an intention to use nuclear weapons if the war (which they had started) escalated.

This was a limited, conventional war, started by the ****stanis in full knowledge that they and the Indians had some nuclear capability (albeit probably not enough to assure mutual destruction).

Given flashpoints like India/****stan, KSA/Iran, India/China I wouldn't have the slightest confidence that nuclear weapons will not be used. Past behaviour of established military powers is not a good guide to future behaviour of rising powers.

time-lapse of nuclear explosions worldwide.

I think they are quite cuddly.

The Tsar Bomba is beautiful: