View Full Version : We're doomed !! Doomed!!!
Pieoftheday
10-08-2017, 10:10
Well are we? With tensions apparently ramping up between USA and North Korea is the world set for a bloody big war? Or is it just sabre rattling? Jim
southall-1998
10-08-2017, 10:36
Before the world ends.
Two things I want to accomplish.
1. Revisit my baby years by pooing on the floor.
2. By Geoff (Walpurgis) a afro wig.
S.
Just sabre rattling at moment I think. Even Kim Jong-un isn't quite that insane.....yet! I hope.
.. and shane, I like the afro idea...it will suit him:lol:
Pieoftheday
10-08-2017, 10:48
Before the world ends.
Two things I want to accomplish.
1. Revisit my baby years by pooing on the floor.
2. By Geoff (Walpurgis) a afro wig.
S.
Well if they start lobbing huge missiles about there'll be a lot of pooing!!
Yes, he may be bad but is he really totally Mad ? I doubt it. ( Kim i m talking about btw )
Yes, he may be bad but is he really totally Mad ? I doubt it. ( Kim i m talking about btw )
Seriously? He's completely loony tunes. Didn't he order every man in Korea to have their hair cut in the same style as his? If that's sane I don't want to see what crazy looks like.
Doesn't mean he will sign his own death warrant by starting a war, though. If he did it would all be over quite rapidly.
If he did it would all be over quite rapidly.
Unless China pitched in with them :sofa:
RothwellAudio
10-08-2017, 12:51
Just an alternative viewpoint: why is America allowed to have nuclear weapons pointing at North Korea but North Korea isn't allowed to have nuclear weapons pointing at America? It doesn't seem all that long ago that we were told "mutually assured destruction" kept us all safe.
rigger67
10-08-2017, 13:00
Just an alternative viewpoint: why is America allowed to have nuclear weapons pointing at North Korea but North Korea isn't allowed to have nuclear weapons pointing at America? It doesn't seem all that long ago that we were told "mutually assured destruction" kept us all safe.
I thought they'd all been banned by the UN recently ??
Arkless Electronics
10-08-2017, 13:09
Just an alternative viewpoint: why is America allowed to have nuclear weapons pointing at North Korea but North Korea isn't allowed to have nuclear weapons pointing at America? It doesn't seem all that long ago that we were told "mutually assured destruction" kept us all safe.
Precisely the point I always make on this subject! The arrogance and hubris of America is beyond belief in basically saying "look, all you countries we don't like and which dare to think for themselves are required to keep themselves weak and undefended so we can swat them like a fly at our convenience... how dare they attempt to defend themselves!?"
RothwellAudio
10-08-2017, 13:10
I thought they'd all been banned by the UN recently ??
There still seem to be plenty around. Looks like you can have them if America says so, not if they don't.
Funnily enough, the "mutually assured destruction" argument still seems to apply within America, hence everyone has a gun.
Pieoftheday
10-08-2017, 13:15
Just an alternative viewpoint: why is America allowed to have nuclear weapons pointing at North Korea but North Korea isn't allowed to have nuclear weapons pointing at America? It doesn't seem all that long ago that we were told "mutually assured destruction" kept us all safe.
A good point, I used to say that when Iran was supposedly the primary threat, I would get hateful looks when I did:scratch:
Haselsh1
10-08-2017, 13:26
Well let's see, wasn't it us who invented weapons of mass destruction until the USA swindled us out of all of our technology...? I seem to recall that actually it was. So if the UK and the USA dreamed up these weapons who put us into a position whereupon we now demand that no one else can have them...? I kind of recall that we also invented chemical weapons along the line of organophosphates which led to nerve gas which isn't really a gas but an aerosol. Now there is a World wide horror when someone actually uses them. Throwing stones...? How ridiculous.
Haselsh1
10-08-2017, 13:34
Ah, just looked at the BBC news and it would appear that North Korea are preparing a strike on the island of Guam that will be ready in a few days. I guess we'll see then whether they are bluffing or not.
walpurgis
10-08-2017, 13:39
Didn't he order every man in Korea to have their hair cut in the same style as his?
What happened to the bald guys, Have they been executed? :eek:
RothwellAudio
10-08-2017, 13:41
What happened to the bald guys, Have they been executed? :eek:
Government-issue wigs :lol:
Government-issue wigs :lol:
called whigs;)
Pieoftheday
10-08-2017, 13:57
Kim and Trump both have odd haircuts, maybe they could come together on that common ground:)
RothwellAudio
10-08-2017, 14:03
Kim and Trump both have odd haircuts, maybe they could come together on that common ground:)
How about a world-wide vote: who has the best haircut? The winner gets to keep their nuclear weapons, the loser forfeits theirs. Voting via Facebook.
walpurgis
10-08-2017, 14:07
Nah. We're approaching autumn. Just let them sort it out using conkers. Makes as much sense! :)
Minstrel SE
10-08-2017, 15:07
With inflammatory words from Trump I begin to wonder who is the mad one. It makes me think of all the world "leaders" and what they are in it for.
There will be different things said behind the scenes but I sense N korea are just Chinas steam vent for anti American/anti western sentiment. A useful tool to stir things up.
Splitting the atom should never have been developed into a weapon of war so who are all those insane people that authorised tested and first built them.
The UK has them and I wouldnt consider UK or USA leaders as moral guardians of the world. All nuclear weapons should be scrapped but I keep hearing the argument that we cant go backwards. Its an extremely sad reflection on an angry, territorial, antisocial, blinkered animal called a Human Being.
Pieoftheday
10-08-2017, 15:19
Nah. We're approaching autumn. Just let them sort it out using conkers. Makes as much sense! :)
Arn't cockers deemed to dangerous these days?
Splitting the atom should never have been developed into a weapon of war so who are all those insane people that authorised tested and first built them.
.
It was developed out of necessity. What would the world be like now if the Japanese and Nazis had got there first and won the war? Okay so it turned out they were not especially close to doing that but that wasn't known at the time.
2 A bombs ended the Pacific war that would otherwise have needed to be concluded with an invasion of the Japanese mainland, the forecast for that was 1 million casualties in the first 6 months.
You are not going to stop people fighting by getting rid of nuclear weapons, on the contrary it would probably lead to more conflict not less.
walpurgis
10-08-2017, 15:39
Arn't cockers deemed to dangerous these days?
No. They're nice dogs. :D
Pieoftheday
10-08-2017, 16:19
No. They're nice dogs. :D
:lol: bloody predictive keyboard!!
It was developed out of necessity. What would the world be like now if the Japanese and Nazis had got there first and won the war? Okay so it turned out they were not especially close to doing that but that wasn't known at the time.
2 A bombs ended the Pacific war that would otherwise have needed to be concluded with an invasion of the Japanese mainland, the forecast for that was 1 million casualties in the first 6 months.
You are not going to stop people fighting by getting rid of nuclear weapons, on the contrary it would probably lead to more conflict not less.
yup they helped keep the us and ruskies from eating each other. Tbh much of the peace in europe has been due to the closer financial and travel links due to the common market as much as anything. Its a shame its being undermined by both ends of the spectrum.
The reason for only a few decent, wise nations having nukes was to stop them being used in haste. Places like NK and Iran are not really to be trusted imo.
Haselsh1
10-08-2017, 16:47
Apparently though the two nuclear bombs dropped at the end of WWII were actually an experiment by the USA to determine which was more destructive, uranium or plutonium.
Fact or fiction...? It's what I have been taught over the years.
Haselsh1
10-08-2017, 16:48
Places like NK and Iran are not really to be trusted imo.
So true methinks.
Haselsh1
10-08-2017, 16:52
It was developed out of necessity. What would the world be like now if the Japanese and Nazis had got there first and won the war? Okay so it turned out they were not especially close to doing that but that wasn't known at the time.
2 A bombs ended the Pacific war that would otherwise have needed to be concluded with an invasion of the Japanese mainland, the forecast for that was 1 million casualties in the first 6 months.
You are not going to stop people fighting by getting rid of nuclear weapons, on the contrary it would probably lead to more conflict not less.
I agree so much Martin. Someone, somewhere would have discovered such a use for this kind of energy release and it was probably as well that Britain came up with it on paper before anyone else did. It is very worrying that Hitler almost beat us to it and of course the possibility of thermonuclear devices as well.
. Tbh much of the peace in europe has been due to the closer financial and travel links due to the common market as much as anything. .
No I disagree with that although it certainly hasn't hurt. People forget that after WW2 there were 200,000 US troops stationed in Europe, bit of an additional problem if you fancied yourself as the next Napoleon or Hitler. WW2 changed the whole European perspective entirely. Plus UK and the French had nukes by the 1950s. There is not really much point in starting a war with a country that can just nuke your cities if they start losing the conventional battle.
Apparently though the two nuclear bombs dropped at the end of WWII were actually an experiment by the USA to determine which was more destructive, uranium or plutonium.
Fact or fiction...? It's what I have been taught over the years.
I think I recall reading that the two bombs were of different designs. They certainly looked very different.
Spectral Morn
10-08-2017, 16:58
Seriously? He's completely loony tunes. Didn't he order every man in Korea to have their hair cut in the same style as his? If that's sane I don't want to see what crazy looks like.
Doesn't mean he will sign his own death warrant by starting a war, though. If he did it would all be over quite rapidly.
And the fall out would effect the world. Korea gone, Japan damaged, China damaged. America effected directly, only the 'dear nut job' knows how far his missiles will fly.
I hope both of these nut jobs, trump and the dear little nut job, stop this pissing contest immediately - no one will win and all of us will pay the price.
I think I recall reading that the two bombs were of different designs. They certainly looked very different.
delete that. think im being an idiot lol.........they were different in that the first one was uranium and the second plutonium. Little boy was the mk 2 and mk3 was fat man on Nagasaki. It was bigger as it was an implosion device
And the fall out would effect the world. Korea gone, Japan damaged, China damaged. America effected directly, only the 'dear nut job' knows how far his missiles will fly.
I hope both of these nut jobs, trump and the dear little nut job, stop this pissing contest immediately - no one will win and all of us will pay the price.
Assuming NK has nukes which is highly unlikely. Even if they did they would only be tactical weapons and the only available form of delivery would be via artillery. So not good for South Korea but nothing like enough to create radiation issues of a global nature. In a conventional battle NK wouldn't last any longer than Saddam's Iraq.
Technically the Korean war is not over,America carpet bombed North Korean cities and infrastructure -and kept doing it over and over ,killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.North Korea looks over the dmz and sees American military stationed ready to do the same again and the fact that America was ready to use A bombs on the North and deployed them on South Korean soil, and one wonders why the North want nuclear weapons of their own! p.s what would America say if N.K flew spy planes and bombers over and close to the usa .A few points to think of from the opposite perspective .Mick
Assuming NK has nukes which is highly unlikely. Even if they did they would only be tactical weapons and the only available form of delivery would be via artillery. So not good for South Korea but nothing like enough to create radiation issues of a global nature. In a conventional battle NK wouldn't last any longer than Saddam's Iraq.
its thought they have managed to make a bomb small enough to fit into their missile so yes, they could kick off a ww3 scenario. Whether the US's defences could stop it is debatable as their issiles dont have a good track record so far. Interestingly the Israeli's system seems to be much more reliable; Necessity is the mother of invention. it will likely be fairly dirty as well compared to modern US/Russian ones.
fission, ie Atom bombs are pretty radioactive at best of times. and you need one for a Hydrogen or fusion bomb. If we ever manage to get a purely fusion h bomb then radiation will be 0. but its not currently possible
Thread Crap ALERT:
All the posts on here have correctly spelled NUCLEAR when referring to nuclear weapons. Why is that so may in the media refer to them as NUCULAR weapons!!!!!:eek::mental:
Pieoftheday
10-08-2017, 17:37
. There is not really much point in starting a war with a country that can just nuke your cities if they start losing the conventional battle.[/QUOTE].
I suppose the real worry is if you get a world leader or just a nutter with the attitude of Islamic state, they seem happy to move on to the next world, well they're happy for their numpties to...
Arkless Electronics
10-08-2017, 18:15
yup they helped keep the us and ruskies from eating each other. Tbh much of the peace in europe has been due to the closer financial and travel links due to the common market as much as anything. Its a shame its being undermined by both ends of the spectrum.
The reason for only a few decent, wise nations having nukes was to stop them being used in haste. Places like NK and Iran are not really to be trusted imo.
Indeed the fine thing which is the EU has helped enormously with European peace and stability, as Churchill expected it to.
Minstrel SE
10-08-2017, 18:49
It was developed out of necessity. What would the world be like now if the Japanese and Nazis had got there first and won the war? Okay so it turned out they were not especially close to doing that but that wasn't known at the time.
2 A bombs ended the Pacific war that would otherwise have needed to be concluded with an invasion of the Japanese mainland, the forecast for that was 1 million casualties in the first 6 months.
You are not going to stop people fighting by getting rid of nuclear weapons, on the contrary it would probably lead to more conflict not less.
Yes I dont want to get too heavy about it Martin because I just get on with my life of charity shops and libraries like in the Lets Wrestle song.
However I dont buy the slant that it was necessary or makes the world a safer place. A loaded gun wont set you free in that true sense.
I think the dropping of the bombs on Japan was a war crime. I dont agree with any war but if analysed the Japanese fought bravely on conventional terms inflicting heavy American casualties. Obliterating civilians and entire cities is not and was not acceptable.
Then again what are the rules of war which is obviously people killing each other for a so called political/economic cause. Alls fair in love and war eh. I think most soldiers dont even know the real reasons they are being used and who they are being used by.
Any civilised world would strive for full nuclear disarmament. I agree that fighting will probably never end but if you take it back a few pegs it doesnt destroy the planet.
Trouble is you can't uninvent the bomb If your enemies who are unstable or zealots get it alone then your in deep doodoos. The fact that with the status quo no more w wars have happened
Yes I dont want to get too heavy about it Martin because I just get on with my life of charity shops and libraries like in the Lets Wrestle song.
However I dont buy the slant that it was necessary or makes the world a safer place. .
I never said that and I agree with you on that point. I said it was necessary to invent it and necessary use it in order to end the war with Japan. If you look it from the point of view of a mother receiving the news that her son has been killed in the invasion of Japan when all along there was a weapon that would have avoided that happening.
I think it is a mistake to view these things with hindsight re accusations of war crimes. WW2 was a fight to the finish and no stone was left unturned on either side. They simply couldn't afford to take that chance. It's ugly, yes, but it was the grim reality of the situation.
Apparently though the two nuclear bombs dropped at the end of WWII were actually an experiment by the USA to determine which was more destructive, uranium or plutonium.
Fact or fiction...? It's what I have been taught over the years.
The Americans wanted to do a Los Alamos type test to demonstrate the newly developed atomic bomb to invited Japanese observers, as a warning as to what the Japanese military could expect if they did not surrender. However the demonstration was not carried out because the Los Alamos scientists could not guarantee a successful test; and if the test hadn't been successful it would have made America look foolish.
The Americans wanted to do a Los Alamos type test to demonstrate the newly developed atomic bomb to invited Japanese observers, as a warning as to what the Japanese military could expect if they did not surrender. However the demonstration was not carried out because the Los Alamos scientists could not guarantee a successful test; and if the test hadn't been successful it would have made America look foolish.
Think that was the scientists involved, or quite a few of them, and not the US Govt. it was never brought to Trumans attention by Groves as he thought it a non starter.
Think that was the scientists involved, or quite a few of them, and not the US Govt. it was never brought to Trumans attention by Groves as he thought it a non starter.
Yes, it was Groves who poured cold water on the idea for the reasons mentioned.
Minstrel SE
11-08-2017, 04:19
I never said that and I agree with you on that point. I said it was necessary to invent it and necessary use it in order to end the war with Japan. If you look it from the point of view of a mother receiving the news that her son has been killed in the invasion of Japan when all along there was a weapon that would have avoided that happening.
I think it is a mistake to view these things with hindsight re accusations of war crimes. WW2 was a fight to the finish and no stone was left unturned on either side. They simply couldn't afford to take that chance. It's ugly, yes, but it was the grim reality of the situation.
Yes I know where you're coming from. Its certainly a weapon of mass destruction that scares me as I dont like to think about its existence.
I hope for a future of nuclear disarmament but with power games between various countries and mad despotic leaders, I cant see that happening anytime soon. I dont think the western governments are necessarily wearing the white hat if I can put it that way.
Anyway Im off to the whats for tea section as Im not going to get too heavy on subjects like this
Best wishes
Martin
RothwellAudio
11-08-2017, 09:06
Technically the Korean war is not over,America carpet bombed North Korean cities and infrastructure -and kept doing it over and over ,killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.North Korea looks over the dmz and sees American military stationed ready to do the same again and the fact that America was ready to use A bombs on the North and deployed them on South Korean soil, and one wonders why the North want nuclear weapons of their own! p.s what would America say if N.K flew spy planes and bombers over and close to the usa .A few points to think of from the opposite perspective .Mick
Yes, and if I'm not mistaken the closest the world has come to nuclear war was when Kennedy thought he was perfectly entitled to station missiles in Turkey pointing at Russia, but when the Russians did the same and put missiles in Cuba pointing at America Kennedy thought nuclear war was the answer.
"Do as we say, not as we do" seems to be America's attitude.
And on the subject of attitudes, I'm tired of hearing American politicians talking about what's intolerable. Children find finds they don't like intolerable and they have tantrums about them. Adults find thinks they don't like but realise that tolerating them rather than having a tantrum is the better option. Lots of things can be tolerated if you're adult about it.
When "our" side has nukes ,it's for world peace,when the other side dares to get them it's a threat to this very peace.
farflungstar
11-08-2017, 11:26
The arrogance of the US is without question. The stupidity, retardation if trump is also without question. Hes a dictator with the worlds greatest arsenal at his disposal pitched against another dictator in the East and desperate to show Putin how 'butch' he can be. It's a sorry situation.
All nuclear weapons are monitored by the UN or some other body except N Korea and Israel which denies it's huge arsenal of nuclear bombs and missiles - but nothing is said about them.
Hypocrisy is the new black.
I don't understand how you can describe Trump as a dictator.
Aside from the fact that he was democratically elected via universal suffrage, as President of the USA he actually has less power to act without approval of Congress than, say, the British Prime Minister has to act without the approval of Parliament.
Okay so on paper he controls the strategic nuclear arsenal. But in practice he doesn't. He cannot just wake up in a bad mood one morning and nuke the world.
farflungstar
11-08-2017, 11:48
Easily.
A dictator puts his own family in positions of power. A dictator passes laws or orders that exclude either themselves or their family from prosecution.
Trump has done both things. And many dictators are put into power by the people or foreign governments aka the US. Then they show their true colours.
He is far from the first US President to place family members in governmental positions. JFK appointed his brother as Sec of State for example. They get to appoint who they like to cabinet positions, it is how their system works and always has.
As for passing laws making himself immune from prosecution you will have to expand on that as I have no knowledge of it.
Don't get me wrong I am not arguing that he is not an idiot, or that he is not bad news in general. But I think you are overstating your case a little.
Haselsh1
11-08-2017, 12:22
The Americans wanted to do a Los Alamos type test to demonstrate the newly developed atomic bomb to invited Japanese observers, as a warning as to what the Japanese military could expect if they did not surrender. However the demonstration was not carried out because the Los Alamos scientists could not guarantee a successful test; and if the test hadn't been successful it would have made America look foolish.
America look foolish...!!! WHAT...!!! Surely not Barry...? Not with a Trump at the helm...?
Haselsh1
11-08-2017, 12:23
I don't understand how you can describe Trump as a dictator.
Aside from the fact that he was democratically elected via universal suffrage, as President of the USA he actually has less power to act without approval of Congress than, say, the British Prime Minister has to act without the approval of Parliament.
Okay so on paper he controls the strategic nuclear arsenal. But in practice he doesn't. He cannot just wake up in a bad mood one morning and nuke the world.
No Martin, not if you take the historical example of a dictator.
Surely one of the fundamentals of a dictator is that he is not answerable to anyone? Since Trump will be up for re-election in 3 and a bit years I just don't see how the term can be applied to him, whether we are taking an historical definition of dictatorship or some more modern version of which I am unaware.
I would be surprised if he even runs for a second term of office. It seems to me that he assumed, in his ignorance, that he would have dictator-like powers as President, and that now he has discovered the reality he is losing all interest in it.
Arkless Electronics
11-08-2017, 12:43
There's never a grassy knoll when it's needed :D
Or a book depository.
Or a secret service agent with an AR15 and a casual attitude towards weapon discipline.
Arkless Electronics
11-08-2017, 12:50
Or a book depository.
Or a secret service agent with an AR15 and a casual attitude towards weapon discipline.
Indeed. Champagne keeps well enough though...
sq225917
12-08-2017, 07:36
When "our" side has nukes ,it's for world peace,when the other side dares to get them it's a threat to this very peace.
indeed
So on one side we have Iran, a country who never invaded anyone, ever, are energy secure, and don't have a Rothschild run central bank.
And on the other side we have America run by an orange Baboon who apparently uses Twitter to bring us all to the edge of ww3, who need other countries oil, have been at war constantly for the past hundred years and have already used nukes twice, once out of spite.
Guess who I feel safer with.
I think those of you criticising Americas use of nuclear weapons in WW2 are not fully aware of the strategic situation at the time, and the options that were on the table. I doubt anyone placed in Truman's position in 1945 would have chosen to go for a conventional invasion of mainland Japan instead.
In addition I'd suggest that any attempt to label 'good guys' and 'bad guys' when it comes to geopolitics is to oversimplify the analysis to the point where it is meaningless.
Iran did invade Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, although admittedly this was in response to a failed Iraqi invasion of Iran. It depends on how far back in history we are considering as 'counting' but when Iran was the heart of the Persian Empire they invaded lots of places over several hundred years.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.