I can't see Obama ever pushing any big red buttons and with any luck the Drumpfster won't ever be in a position to do it. The DPRK would do it if they could get a missile more than 2 feet in the air. Apparently they had another failed attempt yesterday. http://tass.ru/en/world/887231
We had to drop another one on Nagasaki three days after Hiroshima, so perhaps they didn't get the message first time. But still, over the countryside may have worked, who knows?
Well I suppose we need to renew Trident to maintain our "special relationship" with the USA. We don't want to loose any more friends.
I've always convinced myself the US was justified in dropping that bomb because the Japanese were completely driven by a zealotic (sic...) doctrine that considered the Emperor to be virtually a supernatural/religious figure, and they were quite prepared to die for the cause. Even the citizens, women and children, were being trained to throw themselves under the wheels of any invading army, clutching grenades to their chests. To win the war by 'normal' means would have caused staggeringly high allied casualties. But, but, but, it was Dawkins who pointed out that evolution has made 'posturing' the norm between animals (usually males) fighting for the attention of females, with actual serious harm being rare ('cos it's counter-productive). He wondered, therefore, if the bombs could have delivered the message without such loss of innocent humans. And there's a good chance he's right. With Fuji having such significant religious significance, I wonder if that - or simply targeting areas of low population (to demonstrate the other side's relative humanity...) - would have done the trick? Mind you, it could be argued that the 'targets' were the industrial areas of these cities, part of Japan's war effort? It is staggering to think that this all happened chust marginally outwith our own lifetimes .
I suspect you are right. If the worst case scenario were to happen - a massive nuclear launch towards the West - I still imagine Obama would make a moral decision; 'do I risk wiping out all of mankind, simply because we in the US are about to die, or do I allow humans to continue and hopefully they'll get it right in time...?'* Countries driven by religious dogma, however, are genuinely unpredictable. Many in ArmourDinnerJacketed's party, for example, were actively waiting -and wishing - for Armageddon. He would keep a chair empty in the political cabinet for the coming of the ninth Mahdi or summat. Give them boyz a nook, and we're in the poo-poo. *I have absolutely no doubt what Wry would do .
Completely agree. I wasn't being sarky with the countryside comment. I'd never even thought about it until you mentioned it and considering the circumstances, I don't suppose they did either. Could have worked though, hindsight eh.
Yes, I sure would. As we're only one of three in, NATO with nukes I think we should rightly hang onto them for the 'token' value at least. Our arsenal is miniscule compared to the, US, but it's there, non the less.
Yes with parties to NATO I agree the deterrent argument still applies as it always has done. And the deterrent argument is the only one there is. The nuclear deterrent is an insurance policy that we all hope we will never need to claim on. But this argument does not apply to rogue states and that is why policies against nuclear proliferation are so important. Regarding the two atom bombs dropped on Japan to end WW2 if think it is true to say that if they had not been used they would have been used in subsequent wars possibly with far greater loss of life because they would then have been hydrogen bombs. And if they had not been used the war would have dragged on for months and there would have been even greater loss of life on both sides.
Personally I think a nuclear war between Pakistan and India would be the more likely scenario. They hate each other with a venom. Thing is, which side would the rest of the world take?? (or just sit back and let it happen?)
To use a football comment " at the end of the day" if we can't all get on like good boys, and have the hippy dream of all living in peace, toked out our nuts on the finest weed, pumpin all things and making a great big melting pot, churning out chocolate coloured babies by the score. Our island is a target for all with nukes (and those without) except (hopefully) NATO and the good old US of A. So when it all kicks off, it wont matter who pushes the button first, (my moneys on USSR, not that ill be able to go down the bookies the next day to pick up my winnings) when ever it is detected there has been a launch, all that have buttons to press will be pressing. Interestingly Jezza Corbyn stated if he was in charge of our island, he wouldn't push the button..... Don't worry Jezza, I don't think you will be in charge, but that's a conversation for another thread.
Alas, we'll never know. Isn't it sobering to think that, only 70 years ago, pretty much the whole population of Japan had a completely different mind-set to what they have now. Isn't it incredible? It is a 100% turn-around in attitude. And ditto in Germany. It's staggering to think how pliable a population can be. We kid ourselves we are rational, clear-thinking people, seeing through all the carp and propaganda, and yet history is almost repeating itself. Really very scary.
Even Putin isn't mad enough. He isn't a loon, just a carefully manipulative psychopath. He has personally too much to lose by taking such an action. He loves his life, the power, the money the influence. He wouldn't do anything to lose all that. He isn't driven by a supernatural ideology where you can kid yourself that there's something even better available if you only blow yourself - and everyone else - up... Now, that is scary.
Yes the veneer of civilisation is just that. The atrocities against people carried out by ISIS are possibly not much worse than those perpetrated during the French Revolution barely 250 years ago and then were the Nazi atrocities barely 75 years ago.
Hmmm When asked if he'd resign as leader of the Labour party, Jeremy Corbyn replied,, "I'm not going anywhere." which is a fairly accurate statement .............. (think about it)
What about the Putin that's just been diagnosed with some terminal nasty.... he wouldn't give 2 f. hoots to what he has acquired. Moneys still on him. Who is going to replace him? that's the scary bit. How do you get him to honourably step down like DC. To quote Harry Enfield's character " that bloke's a nutter"
Forums
Facebook
Twitter
You Tube
Instagram
Shop