MilitaryForums.co.uk

Did the UK and France devlope nuclear weapons on their own? or Did the USA give them nuclear capibility? :grab: :scatter: :rocol: :smilecolros: :rainbowafro: :rainbow1: :puppydogeyes: :infinity: :infinity: :new-alien:

Well Mickkel did America devlop the bomb on it's own or did they have help from scientist from other countries. there were many British Scientist working in America on this project. What America knew so did the British.

I knew that I wish I would have thought about it before I posted my message...well thanks.

Yep we made deals with Nazi scientist's, that is how we got the bomb. And once we get something we just have to use it.

I hate nukes, it takes the sport out of the proffession of arms, instead of the best man winning, the spoiled sport can radiate the Earth rather than admit he got whopped. Plus the enviormental cost is rediculous. I wish no one would have ever invented that thing. Yeah we fixed Japan alright, but look at how the Nuke has cost us since.

Also of interest:
- meteorological (environmental) warfare
- chemical warfare
- biological warfare.

Good stuff for nightmares. And I said that before, but watch Kubrick's 'Dr. Strangelove', that's a great flick....

Well whitey the invention nuclear weapons was inevitable just be glad of all the countries on earth the US was the first to get them at just the right time. Nuclear weapons are not evil it just depends on who has them and nucler weapons if anything they helped prevent WWIII.

Well WW3 without Nukes would be better than WW3 with nuke don't you think? And now that the USSR broke apart many questionable countries have them.

I dislike war really, but if you are going to fight, fight, but don't destroy the planet along with you.

Nukes are a weapon plain and simple I am willing to admit that I am a bit of a warhawk and am not very tollerant of other cultures since 9/11 my attitude towards the mid east is kill them not with nukes but we cannot afford to fight a nice war on terrorism and I dont mean kill entire countires but the have kids who would kill Americians or jews we just have to eliminate any precived threat ASAP shit! I just realized I majorly trailed off the subject sorry but I would have ended up saying that later
I am not boasting or exagerating I am a born soldier and if I coludnt win WWIII and China for example was going to conqure the worl I wouldnt hasatae to turn the planet into a chunk of glowing dirt in space.

Would you not rather take the time, patience and acumen to destroy China from the inside and help form a better world after its downfall?

The 'turn the planet into a chunk of glowing dirt in space' approach seems like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

geeze...

Ok kids listen up, whitey and cobalt are right, there are better ways to dispose of ones enemies than nuking the whole country...

Could you justify wiping out a whole culture just because they seemed to be a threat to you or your way of life, with a nuke you not only killing the opposing armies, your killing women children and old people too, and infecting future generations to come who’s war it wasn’t, so after your dead and buried you are still effecting, grandchildren’s, grandchildren’s children… as for turning this planet into a burning rock in space, I would rather china be in charge of the planet than not be here at all, at least we could fight then…

Plus I’m not to happy about America having this huge nuclear capability with bush at the head of it, I’d sooner trust the Arabs with a nuke than him...


lew

Plus I’m not to happy about America having this huge nuclear capability with bush at the head of it, I’d sooner trust the Arabs with a nuke than him...

I don’t feel save either, I don’t think one country should hold 3 or 4 times as many nukes as another. Like after WWI when there was cut back's on the amount of Battleships each country was allowed to have. Then the Royal Navy lost more Battleships than any other country, as it was the largest navy in the world.

They should apply that same idea with nuclear weapons, each country should cut back on the number of nuclear weapons they have. If I had my way I would get rid of them all together, I know they have huge power in my eye's I see them as a coward’s weapon.


Well that's me penny's worth.

Personally I'm very happy nuclear weapons have been developed, yes they have killed hundreds of thousands directly and many more indirectly, but the sheer power if harnessed I think will be the future of human development at least on the technological front. Starting from the beginning, everyone was developing nuclear weapons; America was hosting most of the allied development as far as I'm aware, while Germany and Japan both had their programs. The Americans simply had vastly more resources so got there first.

Howeve sincle World War II thier affect has beenso great it's difficult to calculate, on the one hand the world is perhaps more unstable now thanks to the proliferation of them, but once the Russians aquired them from a defector, it made the cost of large sclae wars to high even for them to attempt it. After all, World War II itself killed millions, if the Cold war had directly sparked off (which it may well have done given the ideological reasons were far from new), millions more would have died, and maybe have stalled international development in it's tracks, and the world would ahve continued scrapping over land resources and ideals for a long time to come. It's my opinion that nuclear weapons are one of the key things to have (potentially) broken the cycle of conflict leading to conflcit, simply because victory in nuclear war is almost impossible against even just a slightly equal opponent.

This itself does fo course pose it's own problems, as for instance the US national missile defence system has shown; America and maybe some of it's allies will be protected from the prevailent nuclear capability, allowing it to use more precise nuclear weapons with near impunity as has been shown by US plans to increase their use of tactical nuclear weapons for bunker busting. But even so public opinion in the US hasn't kept up with the total power philosophy popular with the government, so it is likely to be restrained at least to some extent.

The real value of nuclear technology to my mind is not in fighting each other though or preventing it; nuclear power is the only long term energy solution for the developed world. environmentalist groups will happily plug solar, wave, wind power etc but it is simply impossible for these sytems to reliably power whole countries, leaving either fossil fuels whch are in incredibly short supply, and nuclear power. The latter is readily available given the efficiency in terms of material usage of the fuel supply, and the potential for further development (fusion technology for example) could provide a very long term proposition which could keep up with the pace fo development for centuries, assuming of course we don't all revert to spiky sticks and living in tree houses before then . Hmm, looking back at that I think I'm getting a bit far fetched, I'd better stop .

Whitey wrote:Well WW3 without Nukes would be better than WW3 with nuke don't you think? And now that the USSR broke apart many questionable countries have them.

Whitey,

I think the whole point of nukes and the Arms Race is/was that they'd never be used. The strategy worked when it was, basically, the US vs USSR scenario. The problem now is every Tom, Dick and Harry has the capability to produce them. Their most likely use these days seem to be terrorists using them to flatten individual cities (NY, London, etc). So WW3 seems unlikely to arise from the use of nukes.

If Osama Bin Laden used one on a Western city, who would the victims attack?? George has had a go at Iraq but would find it difficult to extend the theatre of operations [despite rattling sabres at Syria, Iran, N.Korea, etc..... ] so an escalation to a World War seems unlikely.

Anyway, he's running out of time. I doubt he'll get re-elected next time round.

(OK, I concede he didn't actually get elected last time! )

Much rather have Bush in control of our nukes than the Bill and Hillary crowd
Wholley.

I think I might too, but whenever I see George in action it gives me no confidence he's in control of anything. Not least the process of speech, never mind America's nuclear arsenal