That was Agent Orange

That smashed trees did it?

not questioning the act ernie as I agree, i would have thought what you just posted was common knowledge. But is that top image real? looks like cgi?

It’s US carpet bombing. If you think you can find a better pic of B52 carpet bombing of Vietnam fine.

The point that Sandwich makes is irrelevant anyhow……whatever tactics were used the fact remains that the US had its ass whipped in Vietnam and were humiliated. And I have no doubt that had the US been the only country in the world to have nuclear weapons they would have used them in Vietnam.

They proved their willingness to use nuclear weapons less than 30 years earlier when they were indeed the only country in the world to possess them. A fact which JY in his rush for ‘brevity’ apparently forgot 😉

Yes I forgot about the two bombs in Japan and god bless the oracle that is google

Saddam threatened to use CW in the Gulf War (1)
we threatened retaliation up to and including nuclear
He didn’t use them

Job Jobbed
You are still arguing it all ways
The deterrent stops the threat – he threatened- in fact you said you expected them to be used so you accepted the deterrent failed.
In that case it stops the actuality when the reality is he had **** all WMD to use [ or threaten us with*]so the example is rubbish.
Its a bit double speak this for me so I am out.
* have you got a dossier on this ?

Use google images on the photo – all matches state it was agent orange.

That smashed trees did it?

You want better pictures of the effects of defoliants ?

Is this for real ?

Here are the effects of Agent Orange on a rubber plantation…….hope you like it

never let it be said i don’t rise to a challenge! 😀

b52 carpet bombing vietman:

btwthe other image was cgi, you follow it back to google you end up on the deviant art site.

According to the US air force museum, that B52 was bombing Cambodia

http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/MuseumExhibits/FactSheets/Display/tabid/509/Article/196023/hitting-sanctuaries-cambodia.aspx (image 4)

I stand corrected! 😆

how’s this?

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88jrZjsNHPc[/video]

I am not sure AO blasted the trees like that, I thought it was a herbicide.

Nonetheless it’s horrible.

Not really sure why we’re posting pictures of this horrific shit anyway…

I agree with JC – no reason to have or use weapons of mass destruction.

I’ve had a look but there’s not many photo’s of ‘carpet bombing’ over Vietnam.
I Googled ‘Linebacker Raids’, cos thats what they were named.

Thank you seosamh. I accept full responsibility for the poor use of pictures 🙂

The point I was making was that the US threw everything at Vietnam, no matter how horrendous the consequences – they were desperate to win. And you have to be pretty naive to believe that they wouldn’t have used nuclear weapons if they had thought they could get way with it, as they had 20 odd years earlier. What stopped them was the knowledge that the USSR and China, Vietnam’s allies, also possessed them.

And my further point was that while unilateral disarmament is a sensible for the UK multilateral disarmament more generally between West and East is the sensible way forward. In other words proper implementation of the non-proliferation treaty. The UK abandoning its nuclear weapons would be a step in the right direction and increase the pressure on others to do the same.

It would be to the UK’s credit if it set an example, as other have before.

It’s unlikely, impossible in fact, for that to happen under a Tory government.

agree entirely with that ernie.

EDIT: Should have read the previous page

The UK abandoning its nuclear weapons would be a step in the right direction and increase the pressure on others to do the same.

How would it increase pressure on other countries to do the same then?

Believe me I’d love to see EVERY country in the world say, ‘right that’s it, no more nukes, theyr’e banned, for everyone’.

What stopped them was the knowledge that the USSR and China, Vietnam’s allies, also possessed them.

Hurrah, we’re all in agreement, deterrence works

while unilateral disarmament is a sensible for the UK multilateral disarmament more generally between West and East is the sensible way forward. In other words proper implementation of the non-proliferation treaty. The UK abandoning its nuclear weapons would be a step in the right direction and increase the pressure on others to do the same.

thats a bit of a leap – I completely agree that multilateral disarmament is the goal (and what everyone has agreed to) its far more logical that the countries with the largest armouries reduce first, perhaps until we are all at a similar level, and then we all phase out together. One of the key important factors here being that the UK (and French) nukes guarantee that Europe cannot be left to ‘stand alone’ in the face of an attack (eg. by anything from a resurgent Russian federation to a possible future islamic caliphate)

How would it increase pressure on other countries to do the same then?

Well don’t you think it’s a tad harder to make the case for the full implementation of the non-proliferation treaty when you are not fully complying yourself? Don’t you think it’s a tad harder to make the case against nuclear weapons when you got the latest version yourself despite not even needing them?

The UK getting rid of its nuclear weapons won’t suddenly make the world nuclear free but it will do two things, firstly it will save us a hell of a lot of money (we haven’t got much apparently), and secondly it will say to others “we’ve got rid of ours, now it’s your turn to do something to rid the world of most horrific WMDs in human history”.

The world with less nuclear weapons is a better safer place than a world with more nuclear weapons…..every little helps, as they say.

when you are not fully complying yourself?

How are we not fully complying with the NPT?

I’d like to see the UK abandon the Trident Nuclear programme or Quadrant if it is to upgraded but unfortunately I feel it’s a bit late for us as a Nation to start wearing Daisy chains in our hair and start dancing round half naked with all the other peacefull Nations who don’t want to harm any one else.

The reality is that no other Nation is seeking to abolish Nuclear weapons in fact it’s quite the opposite, so why put our once great Nation out there as an example of Humanity when in reality we have pissed off just about every Nation on all continents at some point or another including our closest neighbours Scotland Wales and Ireland. One mans ideology echoed by others is nothing short of a dictatorship, he has his views and like him or loathe him he is going to weasel himself into a position of great power to express those on the people of this country.

Personally I think the bloke is a spineless coward who sucks up to which ever Terrorist organisation is En Vogue at that moment in an attempt to not get bullied, a lot like a wimp In the school playground.

He’s got a couple of weeks tops before he steps down. Either that or take him to the Tower of London and seperate his head from his body before he does actually commit treason.

Yeah I know you repeatedly trot out the Tory line that the non-proliferation treaty is being fully implemented ninfan, but it’s nonsense of course. But hey, what’s new?

but it’s nonsense of course

You are the one that alleged the UK wasn’t fully complying

Go on then

how?

OK Ro5ey – yours at 490!

Sounds good on paper Ernie but not every country with nukes has a stable government/someone who isn’t a fruitcake in charge, & as I’ve said, I don’t trust any politician in the whole wide world. But that’s probably just me being me.

Personally I think the bloke is a spineless coward who sucks up to which ever Terrorist organisation is En Vogue at that moment in an attempt to not get bullied, a lot like a wimp In the school playground.

He’s got a couple of weeks tops before he steps down. Either that or take him to the Tower of London and seperate his head from his body before he does actually commit treason.

& this, he’s dangerous basically.

The reality is that no other Nation is seeking to abolish Nuclear weapons in fact it’s quite the opposite

There’s plenty of examples of nations abandoning their nuclear weapons, or nuclear weapons programmes, or putting their nuclear weapons beyond deployment capabilities, or committing themselves not to developing them.

There are plenty of countries in the world which are perfectly capable of developing and deploying nuclear weapons, even small insignificant countries such as Argentina, but they realise that the world would not be safer place for them, in fact they fully recognise the stupidity of them. We should too.

Personally I think the bloke is a spineless coward who sucks up to which ever Terrorist organisation is En Vogue at that moment in an attempt to not get bullied, a lot like a wimp In the school playground.

Well that’s convinced me.

I’m not trying to convince you, I’m just voicing my opinion. Just like everyone else, I just don’t think abondoning our subs and Nuclear capability will bring about world peace. I think the lunatics who are running the asylum will sell off the hardware to the highest bidder in a foolhardy attempt to broker Middle East stabilisation. With all good intentions I’m sure after all the Nobel Peace Prize has to go to some one next year, meanwhile the de stabilised nation who purchased the shiny kit hasn’t ruled out the UK as an enemy and totally dis regards the peace process as the deal that was brokered behind the arms trade was to start looking for and drilling Oil & Gas.

I’m sure the Argentines love being associated with being small and insignificant. 1982,
Moving on to present day and they are still wanting the Falkland Islands. Maybe that will make them that bit bigger.

There are plenty of countries in the world which are perfectly capable of developing and deploying nuclear weapons, even small insignificant countries such as Argentina, but they realise that the world would not be safer place for them, in fact they fully recognise the stupidity of them.

Are you suggesting that its impossible that a small, insignificant country such as Argentina would suffer a sudden change of government?

Perhaps to a fascist military Junta?

stranger things have happened…

If, as you say, they are perfectly capable of developing and deploying nuclear weapons then doesn’t it make your suggestion that we ought to disarm unilaterally even more foolish?

Are you suggesting that its impossible that a small, insignificant country such as Argentina would suffer a sudden change of government?

Perhaps to a fascist military Junta?
Are you suggesting that nukes would stop this happening in Argentina?

Please answer with reference to Pakistan and their two [ or is it three i forget] military coups as a nuclear state and show your working

If you must troll ernie at least try and make sense as that is both a straw man [ he never said that did he] and also wrong as well.
Making up straw men that dont even prove your point is especially tragic

they are perfectly capable of developing and deploying nuclear weapons then doesn’t it make your suggestion that we ought to disarm unilaterally even more foolish?

they are not making them so we are not at risk from them nuking us with weapons they dont have. Its not the deterrent at wokrrk here is it
That makes no more sense than your first point.

more reading I found interesting. This time on the game theory of nuclear threat.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2015/09/jeremy-corbyn-and-nirvana-fallacy

they are not making them so we are not at risk from them nuking us with weapons they dont have.

But Ernie’s point was that they easily could if they wanted to

all it takes is a sudden change in government

Nobody is suggesting that nuclear weapons could stop a coup, that would be silly – the issue is clearly that in the event of a coup, they could go down the line of making them, because, like Ernie said, they could do it easily…

at which point, our decision to disarm unilaterally would have been proved to be downright ‘king foolish.

This is the problem with nuclear disarmament, its utopian – the technology is there and understood, you can’t put it back in the bottle – if nobody had them, then the first country with a fascist junta to secretly make one could hold the rest to ransom. and as Ernie concedes, a great many countries could make them. disarmament increases instability rather than reducing it.

Yes a little country with one nuke could hold the world to ransom

Probably ask for 1 million dollars I would imagine
Was I meant to take what you said seriously ?

If, as you say, they are perfectly capable of developing and deploying nuclear weapons then doesn’t it make your suggestion that we ought to disarm unilaterally even more foolish?

Well using that logic makes what you said less than hour ago really foolish.

ninfan – Member

I completely agree that multilateral disarmament is the goal (and what everyone has agreed to) its far more logical that the countries with the largest armouries reduce first, perhaps until we are all at a similar level, and then we all phase out together.

Posted 58 minutes ago # Report-Post

If you believe in multilateral disarmament and that “we all phase out together” how would you deal with a “fascist military Junta” ?

Make your mind up geezer……..do you want multilateral nuclear disarmament or do we need nuclear weapons to deal with a nuclear armed Argentina ? You can’t have it both ways.

Btw according to what has been reported only last week in newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph there is the prospect of the military taking power in the UK, should people vote incorrectly next general election.

So it might be a good idea to get rid of nuclear weapons in case of what might happen in the UK in the future, although it’s obviously to late in the case of the next few years.

And you are probably unaware that due to the completely different situation in Argentina today, and indeed throughout South America, there is no reasonable prospect of any military coup. There is for obvious and understandable reasons far greater determination and safeguards to prevent such an occurrence in Argentina than there is in the UK.

Indeed it’s probably fair to say that a military coup is more likely in the UK than in Argentina.

EDIT : Btw, a successful military coup in South America would require, as always, full approval and support from the United States. US influence South America is pretty much nonexistent these days, unsurprisingly.

all it takes is a sudden change in government

No, it would require a change in law (and more than likely the constitution, I’m not sure) it would also require violating signed international treaties. And of course it would require a nuclear weapons programme.

A “sudden change in government” wouldn’t make Argentina nuclear armed ffs.

Have we done Yes Minister yet?

[video]https://youtu.be/XyJh3qKjSMk[/video]

You understand the difference between

the goal

and an achievable outcome – just like

the goal

of the NPT is disarmament, while we remain fully in adherence with the NPT without disarming?

And you are probably unaware that due to the completely difference situation in Argentina today, and indeed throughout South America, there is no reasonable prospect of any military coup.

no reasonable prospect? between now and 2050?
phew – can I you PM me details for where to get one of those crystal balls you bought please?

And of course it would require a nuclear weapons programme.

like you said: There are plenty of countries in the world which are perfectly capable of developing and deploying nuclear weapons, even small insignificant countries such as Argentina…

Yes ninfan I am fully aware that Argentina is capable having a nuclear weapons programme. That doesn’t take away the fact that “all it takes is a sudden change in government” is a ridiculous comment with regards to Argentina having nukes.

I really ought to stick more rigidly to my rule about not wasting my time arguing with you ninfan.

I really ought to stick more rigidly to my rule about not wasting my time arguing with you ninfan

Like deterrence, threats only have value if there is a realistic chance of them being carried out. 😉

So anyway, why would anyone:

a) Attack

or

b) Invade

the UK?

😆

Of course not the Queen would not allow it and she controls the armed forces of the entire world.

So anyway, why would anyone:
a) Attack
or
b) Invade
the UK?

To benefit from our vast mineral, agricultural and energy resources. Oh, hang on…