Most people want a world without war and certainly nuclear weapons and the potential destruction they bring Seth.
The unfortunate reality is that not everyone does.
Whilst the likes of Putin, Kim Jong, fundamentalist nutters like Iran etc pose military might and nuclear weapons and would potentially use them to achieve their goals without a second thought if it meant there would be no response then the awful reality is that a robust deterrent is required.
This was tragically underlined by the recent invasion of Ukraine who gave up their stockpile and ultimately deterrent and don't have NATO membership to rely on.
It's awful but the genie is unfortunately out of the bottle as it has been since 1945 and unfortunately not only limited to being in the hands of (relatively) rational actors in the USA and Soviet Union but nutters like North Korea etc.
If we didn't have the NATO nuclear deterrent it's very unlikely that the UK or many parts of Europe would be safe from threat of the likes of Putin and expansionist objectives.
So until we somehow work out a way that no one has them then they're a necessary evil. And even if they didn't exist for anyone what would stop military superpowers like the USA or China doing what they want around the world unfettered beyond what is done already with no one or nothing to deter them.
It's grim but an awful reality that not everyone values good and human life the same.
This is the perfect answer to the nuclear weapon arguments.
On another note, while binging the WWII series The Pacific and Band of Brothers (for a second time) recently, I was thinking ''thank God Oppenheimer succeeded in time''. Otherwise how long would the war continue and how many more young marines and soldiers would die so tragically? And everyone in my country could be speaking Japanese now... Or worse we wouldn't even have been born.
If the Allies had invaded the Japanese home islands the death toll would have been astronomical. As horrific as the dropping of the atom bombs was, it actually saved a huge number of lives.
I’ve never seen that view expressed before. Interesting.
If you cut the head off any nutters who head up nations with nuclear weapons capacity, then whatever their names new heads will grow with new names taking their place. I believe as a race we're proving ourselves to be self destructive and are doomed anyway, so it's just the timing of our existential extinction that's up for debate.
If you cut the head off any nutters who head up nations with nuclear weapons capacity, then whatever their names new heads will grow with new names taking their place. I believe as a race we're proving ourselves to be self destructive and are doomed anyway, so it's just the timing of our existential extinction that's up for debate.
Completely agree - as soon as the nuclear bomb was invented, humanity doomed itself
If you cut the head off any nutters who head up nations with nuclear weapons capacity, then whatever their names new heads will grow with new names taking their place. I believe as a race we're proving ourselves to be self destructive and are doomed anyway, so it's just the timing of our existential extinction that's up for debate.
I think our ability to use what science has to offer has now outstripped our ability to use it sensibly. As a species we’re still slave to primitive instincts but now don’t just have bows and arrows.
Most people want a world without war and certainly nuclear weapons and the potential destruction they bring Seth.
The unfortunate reality is that not everyone does.
Whilst the likes of Putin, Kim Jong, fundamentalist nutters like Iran etc pose military might and nuclear weapons and would potentially use them to achieve their goals without a second thought if it meant there would be no response then the awful reality is that a robust deterrent is required.
This was tragically underlined by the recent invasion of Ukraine who gave up their stockpile and ultimately deterrent and don't have NATO membership to rely on.
It's awful but the genie is unfortunately out of the bottle as it has been since 1945 and unfortunately not only limited to being in the hands of (relatively) rational actors in the USA and Soviet Union but nutters like North Korea etc.
If we didn't have the NATO nuclear deterrent it's very unlikely that the UK or many parts of Europe would be safe from threat of the likes of Putin and expansionist objectives.
So until we somehow work out a way that no one has them then they're a necessary evil. And even if they didn't exist for anyone what would stop military superpowers like the USA or China doing what they want around the world unfettered beyond what is done already with no one or nothing to deter them.
It's grim but an awful reality that not everyone values good and human life the same.
Do you mind if I sum up your post as saying we have to deal with the world as it is, rather than as we would like it to be?
If that is true, then is there any point in anybody seeking rapprochement rather than the endless spending (and spread?) on Nuclear weapons?
Your point about the grim reality of not valuing human life applies as much to the UK as it does to North Korea when you contemplate the road that got us to where we are.
Really !!!!
You think human life is valued in the same way in the the U.K. as in North Korea ? That’s about as bonkers as your posts have ever been.
Both you and @bobmunro have missed the bit of my post that reads ‘when you contemplate the road that got us to where we are’.
I would suggest the UK had a poor regard for human life during times of slavery, colonialism, the Opium wars in China and so on. Events that made this country rich enough to indulge in frightening weapons.
If that is a bonkers thought process I can live with that.
As @RodneyCharltonTrotta said above ‘until we can somehow work out a way when no one has them’. Is anybody trying, is anybody bothered?
If no one has them then you're one crank leader/ dictator from a China or a USA steamrolling the world with military superpower. Or there would be regular world wars and millions/ billions of lives lost through non nuclear global warfare.
I don't think people stopped at 2 world wars because of enlightenment...it's because the bomb raised the stakes catastrophically.
Taking it away would potentially mean more war and death as there would be no ultimate deterrent.
As @RodneyCharltonTrotta said above ‘until we can somehow work out a way when no one has them’. Is anybody trying, is anybody bothered?
If no one has them then you're one crank leader/ dictator from a China or a USA steamrolling the world with military superpower. Or there would be regular world wars and millions/ billions of lives lost through non nuclear global warfare.
I don't think people stopped at 2 world wars because of enlightenment...it's because the bomb raised the stakes catastrophically.
Taking it away would potentially mean more war and death as there would be no ultimate deterrent.
From my perspective it looks like there have been plenty of wars since WW2. It doesn’t look like people have stopped.
The argument might be something about degree. Like there has been wars all over the place since WW2, but they have been the nice kind of wars. But global nuclear wipeout would be less nice.
I mentioned above that there used to be talk of ‘battlefield nuclear weapons’ (nobody seems to want to explore that idea), but would they be somewhere in between nice and catastrophic?
Or is the talk of ‘battlefield nuclear weapons’ some kind of comfort zone to help people believe nuclear war wouldn’t be so bad after all?
As @RodneyCharltonTrotta said above ‘until we can somehow work out a way when no one has them’. Is anybody trying, is anybody bothered?
Seth, you can't have the mentality of 'I try to be the gentleman' while facing the evil. You'd be dead!! It's the same in the Pacific theatre of WWII. The US soldiers/marines had their code but the Japanese always always played it dirty. They used the Americans' kindness, humanity and naivety. The result was that more American soldiers/marines got killed.
Even if most of the nations around the world stopped using nuclear weapons, would a trend like this stop people like Putin? Of course not. It would only play right into the hands of the evil. They'd be laughing their heads off!!
I take your point. You have to be evil to face evil. I don’t apologise for not liking that one little bit. Some seed of morality however tiny has to exist somewhere, is what I believe ought to be the case.
As @RodneyCharltonTrotta said above ‘until we can somehow work out a way when no one has them’. Is anybody trying, is anybody bothered?
Seth, you can't have the mentality of 'I try to be the gentleman' while facing the evil. You'd be dead!! It's the same in the Pacific theatre of WWII. The US soldiers/marines had their code but the Japanese always always played it dirty. They used the Americans' kindness, humanity and naivety. The result was that more American soldiers/marines got killed.
Even if most of the nations around the world stopped using nuclear weapons, would a trend like this stop people like Putin? Of course not. It would only play right into the hands of the evil. They'd be laughing their heads off!!
I take your point. You have to be evil to face evil. I don’t apologise for not liking that one little bit. Some seed of morality however tiny has to exist somewhere, is what I believe ought to be the case.
No one likes it at all. But it's the reality of the world and humanity since the dawn of time.
It's a pragmatic stance to say it's awful that they exist but they do and as long as they do there needs to be mutual detterance.
If they didn't exist we'd be living in a very different world now I think and the UK would have been subject to what Ukraine is now (or far worse) on many occasion potentially.
Most people want a world without war and certainly nuclear weapons and the potential destruction they bring Seth.
The unfortunate reality is that not everyone does.
Whilst the likes of Putin, Kim Jong, fundamentalist nutters like Iran etc pose military might and nuclear weapons and would potentially use them to achieve their goals without a second thought if it meant there would be no response then the awful reality is that a robust deterrent is required.
This was tragically underlined by the recent invasion of Ukraine who gave up their stockpile and ultimately deterrent and don't have NATO membership to rely on.
It's awful but the genie is unfortunately out of the bottle as it has been since 1945 and unfortunately not only limited to being in the hands of (relatively) rational actors in the USA and Soviet Union but nutters like North Korea etc.
If we didn't have the NATO nuclear deterrent it's very unlikely that the UK or many parts of Europe would be safe from threat of the likes of Putin and expansionist objectives.
So until we somehow work out a way that no one has them then they're a necessary evil. And even if they didn't exist for anyone what would stop military superpowers like the USA or China doing what they want around the world unfettered beyond what is done already with no one or nothing to deter them.
It's grim but an awful reality that not everyone values good and human life the same.
Do you mind if I sum up your post as saying we have to deal with the world as it is, rather than as we would like it to be?
If that is true, then is there any point in anybody seeking rapprochement rather than the endless spending (and spread?) on Nuclear weapons?
Your point about the grim reality of not valuing human life applies as much to the UK as it does to North Korea when you contemplate the road that got us to where we are.
Really !!!!
You think human life is valued in the same way in the the U.K. as in North Korea ? That’s about as bonkers as your posts have ever been.
Both you and @bobmunro have missed the bit of my post that reads ‘when you contemplate the road that got us to where we are’.
I would suggest the UK had a poor regard for human life during times of slavery, colonialism, the Opium wars in China and so on. Events that made this country rich enough to indulge in frightening weapons.
If that is a bonkers thought process I can live with that.
You obviously have your heart in the right place Seth. I don’t doubt that but sometimes I do wonder where your head is to be found.
As @RodneyCharltonTrotta said above ‘until we can somehow work out a way when no one has them’. Is anybody trying, is anybody bothered?
That’s such an altruistic and futile goal. There are evil nut jobs ruling countries all over the world all of the time. Would you seriously want to trust in the hope that once we rid the world of this crop of nutters that no more will ever be seen with intentions to reintroduce of seek nuclear weapons. You might just as well hope that people won’t seek to get into your house if you do away with locks. It’s a fantasy.
As @RodneyCharltonTrotta said above ‘until we can somehow work out a way when no one has them’. Is anybody trying, is anybody bothered?
That’s such an altruistic and futile goal. There are evil nut jobs ruling countries all over the world all of the time. Would you seriously want to trust in the hope that once we rid the world of this crop of nutters that no more will ever be seen with intentions to reintroduce of seek nuclear weapons. You might just as well hope that people won’t seek to get into your house if you do away with locks. It’s a fantasy.
Futile probably, but not so much a fantasy as a hope and aspiration.
As @RodneyCharltonTrotta said above ‘until we can somehow work out a way when no one has them’. Is anybody trying, is anybody bothered?
That’s such an altruistic and futile goal. There are evil nut jobs ruling countries all over the world all of the time. Would you seriously want to trust in the hope that once we rid the world of this crop of nutters that no more will ever be seen with intentions to reintroduce of seek nuclear weapons. You might just as well hope that people won’t seek to get into your house if you do away with locks. It’s a fantasy.
Futile probably, but not so much a fantasy as a hope and aspiration.
Millions of people have died on the hill of hope and aspiration.
Most people want a world without war and certainly nuclear weapons and the potential destruction they bring Seth.
The unfortunate reality is that not everyone does.
Whilst the likes of Putin, Kim Jong, fundamentalist nutters like Iran etc pose military might and nuclear weapons and would potentially use them to achieve their goals without a second thought if it meant there would be no response then the awful reality is that a robust deterrent is required.
This was tragically underlined by the recent invasion of Ukraine who gave up their stockpile and ultimately deterrent and don't have NATO membership to rely on.
It's awful but the genie is unfortunately out of the bottle as it has been since 1945 and unfortunately not only limited to being in the hands of (relatively) rational actors in the USA and Soviet Union but nutters like North Korea etc.
If we didn't have the NATO nuclear deterrent it's very unlikely that the UK or many parts of Europe would be safe from threat of the likes of Putin and expansionist objectives.
So until we somehow work out a way that no one has them then they're a necessary evil. And even if they didn't exist for anyone what would stop military superpowers like the USA or China doing what they want around the world unfettered beyond what is done already with no one or nothing to deter them.
It's grim but an awful reality that not everyone values good and human life the same.
This is the perfect answer to the nuclear weapon arguments.
On another note, while binging the WWII series The Pacific and Band of Brothers (for a second time) recently, I was thinking ''thank God Oppenheimer succeeded in time''. Otherwise how long would the war continue and how many more young marines and soldiers would die so tragically? And everyone in my country could be speaking Japanese now... Or worse we wouldn't even have been born.
If the Allies had invaded the Japanese home islands the death toll would have been astronomical. As horrific as the dropping of the atom bombs was, it actually saved a huge number of lives.
I’ve never seen that view expressed before. Interesting.
Its a pretty common view, taught in history in schools, its in many documentaries. Its pretty much accepted as fact.
Thats it, Putin will be at us soon, get your tin hats ready and clear out your under stairs cupboards
Joking aside, the Putin threat is being taken very, very seriously here in Sweden. Already my wife (who is a nurse, so is in the military numbers) has been given her war postings, in the event of an outbreak of war. My brother-in-law (also a nurse, but in the reserve army), has been in recent military exercises and is being issued an assault rifle to be kept in the house, so that nobody is off guard, and that if in the event of an outbreak, the Swedish munitions stations were to be bombed, then there are stocks with every soldier.
It's all very serious here and a conversation nobody wants to discuss as being a reality, but many are expectant about, is an outbreak of war with Russia within the next year, similar to Ukraine.
I think that is the reason why Sweden is keen to get the NATO deal over the line.
One advantage, if you can call it that, is that Swedes continue to do National Service in their later teens and so learn the basics of combat. Even the nephew who is a passifist, has done a few tours in Afghanistan.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
The threat of impending nuclear Armageddon is indeed concerning but I just want to clarify something - your wife is a Swedish nurse? Lucky bugger!
Well it went like this. 15 or so years ago, I was single after 1st wife dumped me. I had joined Facebook and at the time there was a dating app within the app. Somehow she saw my profile and sent a message. Anyway I saw her profile and thought.
1) Blonde................. Tick 2) Blue Eyes.......... ..Tick 3) A Climber............ Tick 4) Swedish Nurse...Tick
My thoughts weren't necessarily in that order, but rest assured I booked my flights promptly!
..........Anyway back to main topic. It's somehow odd that the Swedes who haven't been IN a war in over 300 years are so up for a scrap with the Russians. To say they are unlikely to become bedfellows, would be the understatement of all understatements.
Like others have said, the fact that most Brits I speak to, aren't even the slightest expecting an escalation, is somewhat strange, when history tells us, we love to wave our willie's in any given contest.
Back to the failed test, my wife said, at least a failed test means two things.
1) We are making sure the damned things work and are ready.
2) The opposition know that if the button ever gets pressed in anger, they just might (ala, blind poker)!
Most people want a world without war and certainly nuclear weapons and the potential destruction they bring Seth.
The unfortunate reality is that not everyone does.
Whilst the likes of Putin, Kim Jong, fundamentalist nutters like Iran etc pose military might and nuclear weapons and would potentially use them to achieve their goals without a second thought if it meant there would be no response then the awful reality is that a robust deterrent is required.
This was tragically underlined by the recent invasion of Ukraine who gave up their stockpile and ultimately deterrent and don't have NATO membership to rely on.
It's awful but the genie is unfortunately out of the bottle as it has been since 1945 and unfortunately not only limited to being in the hands of (relatively) rational actors in the USA and Soviet Union but nutters like North Korea etc.
If we didn't have the NATO nuclear deterrent it's very unlikely that the UK or many parts of Europe would be safe from threat of the likes of Putin and expansionist objectives.
So until we somehow work out a way that no one has them then they're a necessary evil. And even if they didn't exist for anyone what would stop military superpowers like the USA or China doing what they want around the world unfettered beyond what is done already with no one or nothing to deter them.
It's grim but an awful reality that not everyone values good and human life the same.
This is the perfect answer to the nuclear weapon arguments.
On another note, while binging the WWII series The Pacific and Band of Brothers (for a second time) recently, I was thinking ''thank God Oppenheimer succeeded in time''. Otherwise how long would the war continue and how many more young marines and soldiers would die so tragically? And everyone in my country could be speaking Japanese now... Or worse we wouldn't even have been born.
If the Allies had invaded the Japanese home islands the death toll would have been astronomical. As horrific as the dropping of the atom bombs was, it actually saved a huge number of lives.
I’ve never seen that view expressed before. Interesting.
Its a pretty common view, taught in history in schools, its in many documentaries. Its pretty much accepted as fact.
Yep, it was definitely the prevailing view when I was studying the development of the atomic bomb during my degree, and that was before some of the younger posters on here were born. If you're interested in the background, and don't mind the occasional scientific equation, "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes is hefty but a pretty good read.
However, as Jessie says, this conversation has veered into HoC mode, so it's probably best we leave it here.
Comments
I would suggest the UK had a poor regard for human life during times of slavery, colonialism, the Opium wars in China and so on. Events that made this country rich enough to indulge in frightening weapons.
If that is a bonkers thought process I can live with that.
Is anybody trying, is anybody bothered?
I don't think people stopped at 2 world wars because of enlightenment...it's because the bomb raised the stakes catastrophically.
Taking it away would potentially mean more war and death as there would be no ultimate deterrent.
The argument might be something about degree. Like there has been wars all over the place since WW2, but they have been the nice kind of wars. But global nuclear wipeout would be less nice.
I mentioned above that there used to be talk of ‘battlefield nuclear weapons’ (nobody seems to want to explore that idea), but would they be somewhere in between nice and catastrophic?
Or is the talk of ‘battlefield nuclear weapons’ some kind of comfort zone to help people believe nuclear war wouldn’t be so bad after all?
I don’t apologise for not liking that one little bit.
Some seed of morality however tiny has to exist somewhere, is what I believe ought to be the case.
It's a pragmatic stance to say it's awful that they exist but they do and as long as they do there needs to be mutual detterance.
If they didn't exist we'd be living in a very different world now I think and the UK would have been subject to what Ukraine is now (or far worse) on many occasion potentially.
1) Blonde................. Tick
2) Blue Eyes.......... ..Tick
3) A Climber............ Tick
4) Swedish Nurse...Tick
My thoughts weren't necessarily in that order, but rest assured I booked my flights promptly!
..........Anyway back to main topic. It's somehow odd that the Swedes who haven't been IN a war in over 300 years are so up for a scrap with the Russians. To say they are unlikely to become bedfellows, would be the understatement of all understatements.
Like others have said, the fact that most Brits I speak to, aren't even the slightest expecting an escalation, is somewhat strange, when history tells us, we love to wave our willie's in any given contest.
Back to the failed test, my wife said, at least a failed test means two things.
1) We are making sure the damned things work and are ready.
2) The opposition know that if the button ever gets pressed in anger, they just might (ala, blind poker)!