Tank Slap - Motorcycle Forum

Frankly it's just China that worry me. Russia are busy taking over Eastern Europe, China are busy buying the world.

China do not need nukes to take over the world. The own much of the USA and Europe and Asia already.

Blade wrote:

duke63 wrote:Any Country with a nuclear missile has the power to destroy the world, whether anyone else has a deterrent or not.

Jack wrote:the very fact that they have been invented means we must have them as a deterrent , even if we destroyed every current nuke the plans , materials and expertise exists which means that somebody somewhere will build another one .

So they should spend billions forming a plan to make them useless rather than spending billions making more.

Just building more does not make the existing ones useless.

Based on the history of man, it is a certainty that eventually someone will use them.

duke63 wrote:China do not need nukes to take over the world. The own much of the USA and Europe and Asia already.

There is a growing appetite for that to change.

duke63 wrote: Based on the history of man, it is a certainty that eventually someone will use them.

.....And also based upon the history of man, only one man has ever used them in anger*....or perhaps even in anguish. That man was Harry S.Truman, and it happened 75 years ago.

It hasn't happened since.


* "them" as in "two devices"

So in other words, we have already used them once and it won USA the war. So what lesson does that tell everyone?

I don't know, teach - but I'm sure you have one in mind.

We no longer need nukes to devastate large areas , although it would be costly kinetic bombardment from orbit can have a potentially more devastating effect , it also has the advantage of not producing radio-active fallout .
War is hell , but very profitable if you are in the right business .
We need to make it so that it is impossible to profit from war , then we may have a chance at reducing or avoiding them .

A Virus >>> Its already proved to cripple a country, a heavy persistent virus, add to that a break down of the communication network and the country will crumble.
That way whoever wants to take over will have it all for the taking once the population has been terminated, without the added years and years of fallout.
We are in the midst of a virus, which, yes its bad, but someone developing a hybrid a little more deadly ( with them having an antidote already) is likely to win the day.
Have a massive bomb or bombs that can kill all living things and all the land around it for years and years is one of the most stupidest things man has ever created. Just look at the fall out from Chernobyl, and the mess that has left, and that is not even a bomb. Even now back in June the Russians have denied that leaks have occurred at two of its nuclear power plants. High levels of radiation over Norway, Sweden and Finland!! have been reported. Looks at the illness people have got from the tests way back when in the pacific, and the fall out from the chernobyl even to this day.... horrible and very sad.

The amount of man men/woman around the world with the money and the means to make a dirty bomb, is bad enough, if we did not have the army of intelligence groups out there I think things would be very different. We don't know for sure, but I bet we have come very close to major disaster more times than the general public will ever know. Let alone the ability to action false flag operations - of which I bet there are bloody loads taken place in my lifetime.....

Anyway, my thoughts - No they are not a good idea.

duke63 wrote:So in other words, we have already used them once and it won USA the war. So what lesson does that tell everyone?

Had Japan had an equal deterrent im pretty sure Truman wouldn't have given the order.

Maybe, maybe not.
Back in 1945 the atomic bomb wasn't yet a deterrent. The use of them in Aug.'45, and the realisation of what continued use of them would portend, is what made them a deterrent.

My point is Truman had the upper hand and the advantage and nothing to fear in retaliation. This must have factored in his decision to use the A bomb, had his opponent had equal strength then the deployment of the A bomb would have not happened.

Go out on your bikes......

BBC News - Russia deploys Avangard hypersonic missile system
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-50927648" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


BBC News - Mystery Russian satellite's behaviour raises alarm in US
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45194333" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Blade wrote:My point is Truman had the upper hand and the advantage and nothing to fear in retaliation. This must have factored in his decision to use the A bomb, had his opponent had equal strength then the deployment of the A bomb would have not happened.

I think the Battle Of Okinawa removed any doubts or misgivings Truman may have harboured about using the bomb.
Around 15,000 US casualties, and a huge number of Japanese casualities....Japanese troops using civilians as human shields to the tune of some 150,000 civilian dead, close to 80,000 troops dead, etc.
Okinawa is Japanese territory,.....if they defend it like that, what are they going to be like once the US reaches Japan's "home islands"???
I think Truman chose the lesser of two evils...and I also think it was an awful choice to have to make, and at the same time the right decision.

I'm sure I read there were about 90,000 people killed or injured every day in the conflicts involving Japan in the period from the end of the European conflict up to the bombs being dropped.

That figure sounds very high. I have no idea if it's true or not, but by my rusty math that would be 10 million+...!!

Google skills have left me. I'll look again tomorrow.

2 air raids on Japan killed. 225,000. That's just deaths.

The figure I'm thinking of included military and civilian deaths and injuries and it's for all of the Pacific theatre so that includes the battles being fought by the allies, Russia, China, Japan and the other countries in that region.