Property price crash if Tories win

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 22 Apr 2010, 08:44

Why do you think they have not been used to date?

To prevent the start of the slippery slope towards use of bigger & bigger devices.

Also, nobody wants to be the first to (re)start the use of nuclear weapons.

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 27 Apr 2010, 20:52

Nobody wants to see these weapons used, but Britain needs the ultimate deterrant if anybody threatoned to attack us using these weapons. We are entering a dangerious era and I think we would be stupid to scrap them now.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 27 Apr 2010, 21:24

Adam1 wrote:Nuclear weapons have always been militarily pointless and morally wrong.

Do you believe Japan would have surrendered without an invasion if the US had not dropped an atom bomb on them?

I don't.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 27 Apr 2010, 21:28

Beria3 wrote:Nobody wants to see these weapons used, but Britain needs the ultimate deterrant if anybody threatoned to attack us using these weapons. We are entering a dangerious era and I think we would be stupid to scrap them now.

I'm really not sure this is true. Britain doesn't need to have international enemies on the scale it currently has. Intervening in various parts of the world where we don't belong makes us more enemies, not fewer. If we want to minimise the threat from Iran then I suggest a better way forward is to make it clear that we DON'T support the Israeli-US axis of evil.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 27 Apr 2010, 22:04

Anyway a nuke war would be catastrophic for house prices...

Andy Hunt · Post by **Andy Hunt** » 27 Apr 2010, 22:13

Vortex wrote:
Why do you think they have not been used to date?
To prevent the start of the slippery slope towards use of bigger & bigger devices.

Also, nobody wants to be the first to (re)start the use of nuclear weapons.

So what would have to change in the international situation to make them usable?

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 28 Apr 2010, 07:43

UndercoverElephant wrote:
Adam1 wrote:Nuclear weapons have always been militarily pointless and morally wrong.
Do you believe Japan would have surrendered without an invasion if the US had not dropped an atom bomb on them?

I don't.

Of course Japan would have surrendered without the two atomic bombs, just not quite so quickly and perhaps to the Russians rather than the Americans. Don't re-write history to defend our weapons of mass destruction.

Vortex · Post by **Vortex** » 28 Apr 2010, 08:49

The Japanese situation could be viewed as a body-count calculation.

More would have died in total had the bombs not been used.

Also, we needed to test the technologies out.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 28 Apr 2010, 09:12

More Americans would have died.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 28 Apr 2010, 11:03

biffvernon wrote:
UndercoverElephant wrote:
Adam1 wrote:Nuclear weapons have always been militarily pointless and morally wrong.
Do you believe Japan would have surrendered without an invasion if the US had not dropped an atom bomb on them?

I don't.
Of course Japan would have surrendered without the two atomic bombs, just not quite so quickly and perhaps to the Russians rather than the Americans. Don't re-write history to defend our weapons of mass destruction.

I'm not rewriting history. It is a historical fact that the Japanese fought to the death for every square metre of the pacific islands and there is little doubt they would have defended their homeland with the same suicidal vigour. Far more people would have died before a Japanese surrender if an invasion had been necessary.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 28 Apr 2010, 11:04

Vortex wrote:The Japanese situation could be viewed as a body-count calculation.

More would have died in total had the bombs not been used.

Wow! I actually agree with something posted by Vortex.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 28 Apr 2010, 11:08

biffvernon wrote:More Americans would have died.

Yes...and why should more Americans have died? How would that be justified, given that the Japanese entered the war with an unprovoked attack on the US and that Japanese culture dictates suicidal fighting to the death rather than the disgrace of surrender? And this is coming from somebody who has a history of vitriolic anti-americanism.

Japan has never even officially apologised for the numerous atrocities it perpretrated during WWII. At least the Germans feel guilty about it. I've never been able to understand the Japanese mentality. They are aliens as far as I am concerned...I find them culturally repulsive.

Adam1 · Post by **Adam1** » 28 Apr 2010, 11:23

+1 Biff

I agree also with Vortex's point about testing the technology. It was also meant to send a message to the Russians. The two 1945 A bombs achieved exactly that. Later the net lives saved argument was used to justify their use.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 28 Apr 2010, 18:16

Vortex wrote:The Japanese situation could be viewed as a body-count calculation.

More would have died in total had the bombs not been used.

Yup. Everybody forgets what the Japanese were up to in China at the time. Though I'm anti-nuke now, I reckon a lot of Chinese owe their lives to those 2 bombs.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 28 Apr 2010, 18:45

Adam1 wrote:It was also meant to send a message to the Russians.

Maybe the message got lost in translation but it got interpreted as 'Let's have a cold war with a nuclear arms race'. Really smart move that was.

Yup. I can't imagine a better way to motive the Russians to build their own bomb.