- Nuclear weapons, where do you stand?
Come for the bike chat, stay for the preposterous conspiracy theories that Dan Brown & Jeffrey Archer would turn down.
Where’s my “I like Icke” badge gone?
On the OP’s question, if Hollywood tells us anything, then crouching in a 50s American fridge will provide sufficient blast protection.Posted 4 years agoJunkyardMember
Often they can be disproved; you’re welcome to do so with this one if you have legitimate materials to achieve that end
Legitimate – you mean from government or state sources then- perhaps you mean you would trust some internal Conservative party document or something from the apartheid era SA.Posted 4 years ago
YOUR TURNING INTO ONE OF THEM 😉jivehoneyjiveMember
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 😉Posted 4 years ago
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 withPosted 4 years ago
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!Posted 4 years agoKarinofnineMember
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.Posted 4 years agoteamhurtmoreMember
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)!!!Posted 4 years agobuzz-lightyearMember
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.Posted 4 years agosbd16vMember
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 lolPosted 4 years agokonabunnyMember
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.Posted 4 years agocranberryMember
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.Posted 4 years ago
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.Posted 4 years agokonabunnyMember
Have any two nuclear powers ever declared war against each other? Not as far as I am aware.
Declarations of war are irrelevant, what matters is actual war. The Cold War was extremely hot – millions of Asians, Africans and Latin Americans died in proxy wars between the USSR and the USA. Nuclear weapons didn’t prevent war, they just displaced and prolonged it.Posted 4 years ago
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.Posted 4 years ago
The topic ‘Nuclear weapons, where do you stand?’ is closed to new replies.