Wow!

[mk1super]

 

Scary stuff

[Copey]

scary stuff indeed

 

ace song though

[Mr Sam]

i like the test houses ready to be blown, how bizzare would it be to walk round an empty town in imaculate condition!

[mk1super]

i like the test houses ready to be blown, how bizzare would it be to walk round an empty town in imaculate condition!

 

Im with you Sam very bizzare and scary

[johnny_h]

The scary thing is, the nukes we have today make those old atom bombs look like party poppers in comparison. I remember reading the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was only 10% effective yet it vaporised around 30,000 people in a second and killed many more thousands in the years to come from radiation poisoning. That bomb was 12 kilotons (equivalent to 12000 tons of dynamite).

The largest bomb ever tested was a russian one called the Tsar Bomba which was 50000 Kilotons (equivalent to 50 million tons of dynamite).

 

[mk1super]

What gets me is why the fook do we need that kinda things

[Copey]

What gets me is why the fook do we need that kinda things

 

thats summert i have always wondered too

 

though humans seem to be forever coming up with inventive new ways of killing eachother

[mk1super]

What gets me is why the fook do we need that kinda things

 

thats summert i have always wondered too

 

though humans seem to be forever coming up with inventive new ways of killing eachother

 

Exactly if we arent all fighting why do we need crap like that?

[Copey]

exactly! worlds backwards!

[emu]

What gets me is why the fook do we need that kinda things

 

thats summert i have always wondered too

 

though humans seem to be forever coming up with inventive new ways of killing eachother

 

Exactly if we arent all fighting why do we need crap like that?

 

We have crap like that because its used as a deterent.

 

We do manage to come up with more and more ways to kill each other, not much advances technology like war.

[Vista]

Horrific and indiscriminate as they were, the alternative to those two bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima was an all out land invasion of Japan.

 

In late March 1945, allied forces came ashore in Okinawa, a fierce battle took place on these islands. The Battle of Okinawa lasted for more than 90 days and resulted in the death of more than 200,000 Japanese and Americans, including some 120,000 civilian Okinawans.

 

Ok the death toll from those two atom bombs was appalling, but can you imagine how many more would have died had we had to take the japanese mainland inch by inch? As can be seen from the Okinawa statistics, the Japanese were fanatical in their defence of their homeland and thought nothing of surrendering their lives for it (Kamikaze ring a bell with anyone?) they would have fought to the death for every last scrap of soil and the war might have gone on years longer.

 

Nuclear detente is also probably what we all owe our continued survival too. It is foolish to think (as the hippies that surrounded greenham common did in the 80's and still do at Faslane nuclear submarine base) that if we had no nuclear weapons we would not have been a target for soviet aggression during the cold war, any superpower with designs on global domination would push aside whoever stood in their way, especially if the risk of retaliation was non existent.

 

The argument for their continued retention now holds less water though. Whilst I have been firmly against unilateral disarmament in the past, I'm not so sure we should be spending billions more pounds to replace Trident when their life expires. Their continued possession does however still buy us a permanent seat at the UN security council table and that is still both significant and important.

[hellblue]

That does sum it up scott, but these big bombs are all very big shit in our small world but on a lighter note at least we had a good song out of it (enola gay the name of the B-29 that dropped the bombs)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ_X43zcXcU

[mk1super]

I guess i never paid too much attention to such things till watching that videos and i'll be honest it scared the crap out of me!

[johnny_h]

On a scarier note (not that we need one) the US and Russia have now developed bombs as powerful as todays nukes with no radioactive fallout or damage to the environment called vacuum bombs. The nuclear deterent is only viable because an all out nuclear war would render the earth useless for hundreds of years to come hense the term "MAD" (Mutually Assured Destruction) but these new bombs can kill just as many people but leave the earth inhabitable to whoever comes out of it alive.

[FredTransit]

 

In late March 1945, allied forces came ashore in Okinawa, a fierce battle took place on these islands. The Battle of Okinawa lasted for more than 90 days and resulted in the death of more than 200,000 Japanese and Americans, including some 120,000 civilian Okinawans.

 

Ok the death toll from those two atom bombs was appalling, but can you imagine how many more would have died had we had to take the japanese mainland inch by inch? As can be seen from the Okinawa statistics, the Japanese were fanatical in their defence of their homeland and thought nothing of surrendering their lives for it (Kamikaze ring a bell with anyone?) they would have fought to the death for every last scrap of soil and the war might have gone on years longer.

 

 

When put it like that, it makes the Japanese army all sound like suicide bombers, is which case why did we bother to send troops to Iraq? Why not just nuke them? It would have been quicker, and many suicide bombers would have been done away with in a single stroke. The problem with nuclear weapons is that they are indiscriminate. Aside from that, and I don't want to play the environmental card here, they don't just affect where they drop.

Unilateral Disarmament is a brilliant idea, the problem is no one country wants to go first.

[Vista]

When put it like that, it makes the Japanese army all sound like suicide bombers, is which case why did we bother to send troops to Iraq? Why not just nuke them? It would have been quicker, and many suicide bombers would have been done away with in a single stroke. The problem with nuclear weapons is that they are indiscriminate. Aside from that, and I don't want to play the environmental card here, they don't just affect where they drop.

 

How does it make them sound like suicide bombers? "They were prepared to die in the defence of their country" reads nothing like "they are prepared to strap bombs to their backs and run into crowded restaurants and murder civilians"

 

Soldiers giving their lives in defence of their lands are heroes regardless of nationality, suicide bombers are terrorist filth that murder the innocent as indiscriminately as any nuclear bomb.

 

Iraq was and is a completely different scenario, they were a people ruled by an evil dictator who had killed countless thousands of them over the decades. Their evident joy at his toppling was proof enough of that.

[johnny_h]

The Japs were learning to do just that. "Strap bombs to thier backs" but instead of innocent people they would target tanks and other armour. Like Vista says, a ground invasion of Japan would have been a massacre as they were all prepared and expected to die.

[FredTransit]

When put it like that, it makes the Japanese army all sound like suicide bombers, is which case why did we bother to send troops to Iraq? Why not just nuke them? It would have been quicker, and many suicide bombers would have been done away with in a single stroke. The problem with nuclear weapons is that they are indiscriminate. Aside from that, and I don't want to play the environmental card here, they don't just affect where they drop.

 

How does it make them sound like suicide bombers? "They were prepared to die in the defence of their country" reads nothing like "they are prepared to strap bombs to their backs and run into crowded restaurants and murder civilians"

 

Soldiers giving their lives in defence of their lands are heroes regardless of nationality, suicide bombers are terrorist filth that murder the innocent as indiscriminately as any nuclear bomb.

 

Iraq was and is a completely different scenario, they were a people ruled by an evil dictator who had killed countless thousands of them over the decades. Their evident joy at his toppling was proof enough of that.

 

I believe the kamikaze pilots were the original suicide bombers. That's what I was talking about when I said when you put it like that.

 

the Japanese were fanatical in their defence of their homeland and thought nothing of surrendering their lives for it (Kamikaze ring a bell with anyone?

[Vista]

Perhaps, but not in the sense that we understand the term suicide bombers today. They were flying their planes into their enemies ships, enemies that were exclusively combat personnel. They weren't blowing themselves up in Mosques or any other public gatherings.

[X-pack-Glyn]

On a scarier note (not that we need one) the US and Russia have now developed bombs as powerful as todays nukes with no radioactive fallout or damage to the environment called vacuum bombs. The nuclear deterent is only viable because an all out nuclear war would render the earth useless for hundreds of years to come hense the term "MAD" (Mutually Assured Destruction) but these new bombs can kill just as many people but leave the earth inhabitable to whoever comes out of it alive.

 

Well thats a comfort to know mate, Thanks Johny, i'l sleep tonight.

[X-pack-Glyn]

Perhaps, but not in the sense that we understand the term suicide bombers today. They were flying their planes into their enemies ships, enemies that were exclusively combat personnel. They weren't blowing themselves up in Mosques or any other public gatherings.

 

Why hasnt anyone blown up a mosque yet in this country, thats what i wana know.

 

as kids we did leave a pigs head on the doorstep of one once but thats hardly gona make an impact.