|
And
Aug 6, 2014 22:00:53 GMT
Post by Moose on Aug 6, 2014 22:00:53 GMT
Apparently this is also the anniversary of the dropping of the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima. I've seen so much debate - participated in plenty myself, too - about this even over the years. I know that this is a prevailing opinion that says that it helped end the war and hence saved lives in the long run. I am not sure whether that argument has any validity to those civilians who suffered and died on that day, and the later day when the same was done to Nagazagi. I do not like, either, the implications for humanity's fate because it seems to me to be almost inevitable that one day much more powerful nuclear weapons will be deployed and the slaughter will be wholesale and terrible. It's out of control now. No-one really knows how many countries have procured the necessary materials to create their own thermodynamic weapons. No-one has any way of preventing any country that wants to do so in the future from doing so. And this is not even seventy years from the deployment of the first. This WILL be the way that that the world ends .. with a fucking big bang. I suppose that is appropriate.
|
|
|
And
Aug 6, 2014 22:10:01 GMT
Post by Mari on Aug 6, 2014 22:10:01 GMT
Hmmm, I doubt it. The moment any country uses a nuclear weapon, they will be outlawed by the entire world and their country (and them) flattened within a week. Not saying I like that prospect or that it's a good solution, but using a nuclear weapon will get you nothing. The only reason any country has to use it is being alone in the world and hating it so much that you'd rather take the entire world down with you, then suffering them to live. There is still too much love in the world for that to happen. Keep in mind that 70 years ago the results of the bomb were for most people still theoretical. Since then the world has seen and has been horrified by what they can do. If we all go, it's more probable to be because of some new weapon gone wrong (like a bio attack that can't be contained), then something we already know. As it has always been, see WW I and WW II.
|
|
|
And
Aug 6, 2014 22:24:56 GMT
Post by Moose on Aug 6, 2014 22:24:56 GMT
I just wrote a reply and then accidentally deleted it, grr. But essentially what I said was that I disagree. I think that any country that deploys such a weapon will be an outlaw anyway - why should they care what the rest of the world thinks? I know also that the weapons that are now extant would make what happened at Hiroshima look like a child firing a cap gun. And why should the leaders of any fanatical state give a damn about what happens to THEIR citizens?
|
|
|
And
Aug 7, 2014 8:09:02 GMT
Post by Mari on Aug 7, 2014 8:09:02 GMT
But how would they escape the destruction of their country? They wouldn't find refuge anywhere else. Besides, those types need people to lord over. They might not care about most of their peasants dying, but they will care about not having anyone or anything left to rule.
|
|
|
And
Aug 7, 2014 8:12:02 GMT
Post by tangent on Aug 7, 2014 8:12:02 GMT
What we see at the moment is that nuclear weapons are being used as a threat. North Korea is developing rocket technology so that they can deliver a nuclear device to New York. Using it would kill many people but would also make New York radioactive and effectively destroy large parts of the city. They will never use it, because it is much, much more valuable as a threat, but the possibility will always be there. And a madman could use it as an act of vengeance.
Such a possibility would have occurred if Sadam Hussein had developed a nuclear device. With such a weapon, he would have been untouchable and an Iraq invasion would then have been impossible. He would almost certainly have developed a much more powerful device, the hydrogen bomb or even the so-called Doomsday device, and the likelihood is he would have used it.
Currently, the world is relatively safe. North Korea doesn't have rocket technology to deliver a nuclear device and Iran and Iraq are off the danger list. But who knows what will happen in the future? There are plenty more rogue states. Libya had nuclear ambitions at one point and it wouldn't surprise me if Syria is hoping to develop the technology. There is a danger that terrorists will capture some radioactive material and set off a dirty bomb in a large city but there is actually little risk of any significant effect if they do, other than widespread alarm and panic.
|
|
|
And
Aug 7, 2014 23:16:15 GMT
Post by Moose on Aug 7, 2014 23:16:15 GMT
I disagree with most of what you're saying Steve . For one thing, Kim Jong whatever his name is IS a madman. I have no doubt at all that he would use a nuclear weapon that could reach NY if he had one. I also feel fairly reassured that he's never going to have one. As for Saddam - maybe he would have simply left the West alone if we had left him alone. I do not know very much about that war or his regime but I understand that Iraq is far more extremist now than it was then. I do not think that we improved things at all. Where are you getting the idea that Iran is off the danger list? It is not. Ultimately, in the longer term, these states are going to get these weapons. We might not be alive to see it - I hope we are not anyway. But it will happen.
|
|
|
And
Aug 7, 2014 23:17:41 GMT
Post by Moose on Aug 7, 2014 23:17:41 GMT
Mari - two thoughts in answer to your question. One is underground bunkers - places where the elite can go to find shelter and survive. The second and in my mind more chilling possibility is that if you put these weapons into the hands of the right kind of religious nuts they will be happy to die also.
|
|
|
And
Aug 7, 2014 23:26:49 GMT
Post by tangent on Aug 7, 2014 23:26:49 GMT
I disagree with most of what you're saying Steve I'm OK with that
|
|
|
And
Aug 8, 2014 12:01:30 GMT
Post by Mari on Aug 8, 2014 12:01:30 GMT
Re: underground bunkers... so they live. And they've got left... what? There are enough nutters out there, but they always want something. Scoring one over the US or the EU or wherever is not going to outweigh the loss of their country (i.e. their possessions), money, people to lord over, etc. It will also completely lose them the international power they had when they still had the bomb as a threat. You lose that power and all that comes with it when you use your threat. Technically the only thing a nuclear bomb is good for is as a threat since you can use it to nuke a city, but there will be lots of cities left to turn their weapons in your direction and they will, should you use your bomb. Nutters in power may be nutters, but their own interests will always come first. Even the religious nutters: how many religious nutters in power would actually die for their cause? How many religious nutters in power are actually religious nutters and not just nutters using religion to solidify their power? No, the people killing themselves and trying to bring down as many people with them as they can are the flunkies who have been made promises by the higher ups.
|
|