RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
so you seem to be saying that yes, it was the way to end the war.
I don't think so. Many wars have been fought and finished before and that did not mean the anihilation of two big towns...while those carrying out the attack (there and then, not elsewhere) took no risk. this is post-industrial warfare, the same principle as mass-farming: get what you want without sacrifice. And the lesson? Today it looks like those who carried out these atrocities have leant nothing from it, except that they must get more weapons.
is this question not just a matter of "we are on the good side and they are the ennemies"?
In the film "the english patient", the main character says "english, german, hungarian, all the same. I don't care." His lovers' wish was to eradicate counrty boundaries and the idea of "country", because this is the root of war. I found it profound...
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
Venetian
'conchies' are or were, to be more accurate, conscientious objectors. Some of them extremely brave men who still coped with the battlefields in Europe in both WW's without being armed themselves, mainly retrieving and rescuing injured soldiers.
Most had a hell of a time of it, as they refused to fight, and said so openly, think at the beginning of the wars they were all jailed as a matter of course, but released when jobs needed to be done, but didn't involve killing anyone.
Given that all men were called up, most went to wars, some objected and paid the price and some didn't have the courage to be either.
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
[link= http://www.cofepow.org.uk/index.html ]http://www.cofepow.org.uk/index.html[/link]
Fadette, the website above may help you to understand the reasons for ending the war in Japan. Please also look at the Burma Railway and the Kwai entries.
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
Venetian
Japan were not going to surrender but were going to fight to the last, over every inch of land.
Like most things historical, that point is debatable:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4724793.stm
Regards
Tucker
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
I'd still put my money on the fact that far more people would have died if a conventional invasion took place. Japan at that time had a kind of religion around their emperor. They'd follow him till the end. (Kamikaze planes for example.)
It might have been a good idea never to have attacked Pearl Harbour? The Japanese commited atrocious war crimes, considering other races to be sub-human.
One can also see the point that why should Americans lose still more lives in a war continuing for - how much longer? As it happens, the USA did something almost unique in history. As conquerors (same in Germany) there was no revenge sought, but the nations were (1) helped to recover, and (2) taught the democratic system, which they still have today.
If I'd been US President, I don't know how in good conscience I could have sent tens of thousands more of my people to fight on and lose their lives.
Once again, not to say that the two bombs were not terrible events in human history. There is still, I think, a big bug-a-boo and nuclear weapons. Before the two were dropped, entire cities or city centers were destroyed, including in Japan, by conventional bombing. Such as the whole of the center of my hometown, Coventry. People woke up in the morning and central Coventry just wasn't there... Isn't such huge useage of conventional bombing just as terrible in war?
V
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
I think people today are looking at Hiroshima as a totally isolated separate incident, that happened long after WW11 was over.
Every major city and town in the UK was bombed, and badly and several million civilians maimed or killed. The same could be said all over Europe too, including Germany.
Compared to todays weapons and the damage they could do...
Well it brings it back to Sunada's first sentance
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
We could go on and on couldn't we. [&:]I don't see why nuclear weapons should be taken in isolation from other weapons. Maybe it's the visual impact we've seen on TV screens?
How many people were killed by poison gas in war, beginning in WWI and done by the Germans? I actually don't know the figure.
There was an 'interesting' episode I recall that you never hear about now. As America lost the Vietnam War (which they never seriously tried to win in fact), and were all pulling out of Saigon in a hurry, a few were caught and taken to an island in N. Vienamese control as prisoners. Somehow they were rescued, and as what I think was the very last act of the Vietnam War, as a kind of revenge, America dropped what I think what the largest conventional bomb ever used on that island, and flattened it. (I don't know the bomb's tonnage but it was something unbelievable.)
Was that a better act than to have used a small nuke? War is awful and none of us on HP want it; but where's the difference between that gigantic conventional bomb and a nuke of roughly similar size?
So we have chemical weapons, huge conventional weapons, and so on and on. I think the emphasis upon nuclear weapons is nowadays (when MAD is over) over-emphasised as being the greatly bad thing. It didn't really make much difference to Coventry, Tokyo, or Dresden what kind of weapons destroyed them. So I think there's something a bit hidden in the back of the psyche possibly going on here?
The thread title also says it: to us in Britain, they are not to be used but are a "deterrent". So far they've done that job very well for us, looking at the record since WW2.
In the past I'd have been called up to wage war probably twice in my life by now, and we'd all have experienced bombs falling on our cities again ...
V
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
Possibly the effects of conventional bombs do leave the undamaged areas familiar, but we have seen the atomic bombs released in Bikini Atoll which wreak havoc , and also the cluster bombs which were dropped on Baghdad, which were pretty horrifying to even watch.
And still the memory of that young girl running......
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
Yes, I think a point there is that it would be "good" or better if any war could be kept to combatants. In the 1800s civilians were so safe that they turned out to watch the battles! But civilians became legitimate targets in the 20th century.
V
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
This came into my work inbox today:
Women's Peace Blockade (1 October 2006)
----------------------
On October 1st 2006, women will gather for two days at the UK nuclear submarine base at Faslane in Scotland (30 miles from Glasgow). Our women's blockade from October 1-2 will connect with international Women in Black (October 2-3), and then be followed by mixed groups from all over Scotland, the rest of Britain and abroad. This women's action is the start of Faslane 365, a nonviolent campaign to prevent the unlawful operation of the nuclear base, using creative actions and interactions to oppose the madness and waste of Trident and all nuclear weapons.
In celebration of Greenham's 25th anniversary, Faslane 365 will bring together women who came to Greenham and all women who wished they'd been at Greenham (and, of course, our mothers, daughters, grandmothers and granddaughters). This isn't about nostalgia, but about reclaiming our power and finishing the job we started in 1981! One big push and we can get rid of British nuclear weapons forever.
Faslane is about 30 miles from Glasgow, along the north shore of beautiful Gare Loch, Firth of Clyde. It is just past Helensburgh, which can be reached by rail and road. Faslane has two main gates and a couple of smaller ones on land and a long fence. We need thousands of women to join us, singly or in groups - this is a chance to reconnect with old friends and rebuild networks and groups in your town. You will need to be as self sufficient as possible for travel, food and accommodation, including for children.
International and women's groups should contact Rebecca at <greenhamwomen@faslane356.org>
Regards
Tucker
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
And for the southerners:
Women's Action is Fun Weekend, Aldermaston Women's Peace Camp (weekend of 8, 9 & 10 July)
-------------------------------------------------------------
A weekend of workshops on non violence, guided tour round the base and party with women's street band. More information from Aldermaston Women's Peace Camp(aign)
postal: 157 Lyndhurst Road, Worthing, W Sussex BN11, Britain
m: 07969 739 812
email: info@aldermaston.net
web: [link= http://www.aldermaston.net ]http://www.aldermaston.net[/link]
Regards
Tucker
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
I thought I'd go back to Sunanda's original post, since sometimes one can lose the original point. ;)To take just one part of that:
ORIGINAL: sunanda
If the US uses nuclear weapons against Iran, then get ready for World War 3.
Really, there's absolutely no way on Earth that the USA would use nuclear weapons on Iran, ever, and they have no need to. Stealth technology and pin-pointed missiles can destroy single buildings or complexes, if ever that decision was made. All they'd want to do is to destroy the nuke-producing factories. Many years ago Iran tried developing the bomb once before (and BTW, is anyone against Iran for doing this?): Israel saw the danger and simply sent in a few fighter jets with missiles. Problem solved in an hour and simply.
I also don't understand why people talk in 2006 about "World War 3". Look at real geopolitics today: there is no potential enemy with the capability to attack us in a large and sustained way. If small terrorist bombs are "WW3", then OK, but it's not really war in the usual sense, now is it? A WW3 such as people feared during the Cold War couldn't hapen today. In short, the West won that Cold War 16 years ago... er, largely because we had a deterrent. 😉
P.S. I should add that on the opening subject of Gordon Brown upgrading Trident, I didn't follow the news on that and have no idea if it's necessary. What's the 'upgrade'? Are they just getting old and dangerous? So my posts aren't necessarily in support of that. I'd look it up now but must dash.
V
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
ORIGINAL: Fadette
We need action, not distraction (football, and feel-good theories).
Oooo Ouch!:)
Us mad footie fans are capable of other thought and are not zombiefied or one dimensional... wedo surprisingly have fairly thought provoking ideas and views on many and varied issues that span world affairs, spirituality, history, the human condidtion, philosophy and yes... we can even appreciate art in it's many guises... even PJ Harvey - as we all have thoughts & 'tales' to tell;)
"I am the teller of tales; and I want other people to hear them..." - Harvey;)
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
Sorry, I missed this and I think it was addressed to me?
ORIGINAL: Fadette
so you seem to be saying that yes, it was the way to end the war.
I don't think so. Many wars have been fought and finished before and that did not mean the anihilation of two big towns...
The annihilation of towns began with the Germans (Hitler) in fact. The practice had already begun. The London blitz, the destruction of other industrial towns, and as I already posted, the original center of my hometown simply ceased to exist in one night.
The results were the same by conventional means; only the method differed. I take it you did know about the destruction of Coventry, etc? Such acts began before Hiroshima. That can be seen as a continuation of a practice begun a year before, you see.
RE: Britain's nuclear deterrent (Rant No. 1)
I'm interested in this subject so here I am talking to myself on it. ;)It's a deep and fascinating topic since so much hangs on it and also -- people on both sides mean very well and are truly trying to do the right thing.
OK, so to go back to Gordon Brown and how the thread began, I read up on that, though information is skimpy. I'm no absolute military expert and would have to look more up, but I think the point is that Trident is our only effective nuclear deterrent. The missiles and 4 subs (yes, just 4) will be falling apart, so the point Brown was making was that as PM he'd OK the decision to upgrade (rebuild) ... which wouldn't be completed until 2024. Knowing how things work, call that 2030. 😉
So do we need Trident? (And it's used by subs so they come as part of the package.) Cruise missiles with nuclear warheads would be much cheaper, and possibly could be much smaller in tonnage,but I think I'm probably right in saying that these are exclusively owned by the USA? Same with stealth bombers.The whole point of Trident is that it's all we have that is ours, and which we could ever use without going to Uncle Sam without first asking for 'permission'. So the crunch point is to have an independent deterrent, independent of relying on the USA. And Trident is what we have. It's upgrade Trident or don't have anything. (That BTW would make us more reliant on the USA and therefore less free to act or not act geopolitically.) There's so much talk of us being under the thumb of the USA - well Trident helps prevent that.
If we can respect each other's opinions, as we seem to here, I'm still therefore 'for' the Trident upgrade. We don't want to be some kind of infant, depending on the USA to come (or not to come) and help us out in the event of a very major threat - and if there ever is a major threat I believe in self-defence, not pacifism.
There's no realistic enemy in existence right now, but if Brown was talking about this being ready by 2024 (and call that 2030 ;)) - and given that it's mant for the period forward from then - in other words, say, 2030 to 2060 maybe - that's a long, long way ahead and a long tme-period. We don't know what might happen in the world by then, and if ever any enemy did arise, I'd prefer to be able to say, "Er, back off, mate, because we have these 4 subs by the way" rather than threatening that if push comes to shove we can create a second Dad's Army armed with broomsticks as pretend-rifles and use that to keep us safe!
Second subject: while I truly do respect the 'other opinion' which is effectively pacifism, and truly respect that the CND in the 70s and 80s (apparently with Blair as an MI5 mole within it?!), and the Greenham Common demonstrators were active in doing what they thought was right, I'd pose the question: I presume that you equally demonstrated on the other side, namely within the Soviet Union? - or that there was a similar demonstrating body there? Or if not - why not?
V