VJ day

Exactly rose, and I agree with everything you say. We have to realistically live in the world as it is, as we can never realistically live in the world as we would like it to be.

I thought you'd nothing more to say on this thread, niggly.

You're quite right, I did, so I must try to avoid temptation!

nigglynellie if everyone thought that we would still have executions, women wouldn't be able to vote, might still be considered as their husband's possession, children would be regularly beaten and working down mines. We change things all the time to make the world a better place to live in. Nuclear disarmament might just help to do that.

Do you think that the countries you have just been asking the question 'do we want an agreement with countries like that?' - can be trusted to honour any agreement about nuclear disarmament - I certainly don't. The Chinese are saying they do not even know what chemicals were stored at the port which suffered the horrendous explosion last week! Those countries are exactly the reason I feel we would be utterly mad to get rid of all nuclear weapons. The dreadful fact that the west did use the bombs to end the war shows they can and will use them if pushed too far - probably one of the best defences we have ever had.

I was referring to the comments Jen made of course.

www.theguardian.com/world/video/2015/aug/14/nuclear-weapon-detonation-hiroshima-nagasaki-trinity-1945-world-map-video

I hope this link works. It's a very interesting map showing the number of nuclear detonations in the world since Nagasaki.
What is interesting is the names of the countries and where they were detonated. It also shows the size of the detonations.

trisher, the reforms you mention were take at a national level so of course were possible as they didn't cause any potential outside threat, rightly so too. Nuclear disarmament needs the cooperation of every nation in the world to be effective and safe for all mankind. It's never going to happen, therefore we would be insane to abandon our nuclear deterrent, which imo has kept us safe for all these years.

No it doesn't nigglynellie - if we can't use it first (perhaps you think we can just kill so many people in a foreign city, but if so, you and I will never agree about anything as I can't imagine how you could justify it) and there would be no point in a retaliation after we had been attacked as we would have suffered the disaster by then, what earthly use is it as a deterrent? Who exactly are we deterring? are our missiles still targetted on Moscow?

I would rather spend the money on our armed forces. I think we do armed forces rather well, and there is no doubt that a well-equipped, disciplined force could be of great use in peacekeeping and such exercises as coping with epidemics (as with ebola).

I don't accept it keeps us safe, we are not the only country with nuclear warefare, if a country decides to drop a bomb on us we just pop one back at them? Considering over 70,000 were killed in a day in 1947 how many would die now? If still 70,000 we still carry on as usual

The reason having nuclear weapons keeps us safe(er) is that each country that does have them knows that if they did decide to attack another country, there would be advance warning. So do they risk retaliation?

Probably not - no point wiping out another country if you're going to be wiped out yourself!

exactly Ana.

i100.independent.co.uk/article/the-10-countries-that-import-and-export-the-most-weapons--b1EjO1btVg?utm_source=indy&utm_medium=top5&utm_campaign=i100

See how much we export and to whom.
Does this make you feel safe?

I think we all know what mutually assured destruction means.
The US might vote the idiot Trump in as president.
Would you feel safe with his finger on the button?

People were discussing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is a beautiful image of a Japanese apology for what they did during the war.

The emperer also said, "Japan's future generations must not "be predestined to apologize" for the country's role in the conflict.

Well said. Enough is enough.

I'm 100% with the replies to that tweet bags.

Can this country be trusted Bez? A vote in parliment against military strikes in Syria yet Cameron ignores this and send pilots to Join with America to attack Syria, we have a PM we can't trust

Why should they apologise seventy years later, they have apologised several times, have we apologised to Iraq yet ? Na, we British never have to apologise

Very true anniebach.

I know what the discussion is about, bags, as I started the thread. However, the last sentence was about getting rid of nuclear weapons.

If we earn so much from conventional weapons, we are not going to get rid of them, are we, so no chance of getting rid of nuclear.
Until Corbyn becomes PM, of course.

I like the irony of it being from a Chinese newspaper.
China and Tibet, anyone?

So who gets rid of nuclear first?

Does it matter?

Does it matter? I am sitting here open mouthed.

I would shut it if I were you soon, you will never win.

Can any politicians be trusted Annie even those who may sign a treaty cannot be totally trusted - and some are very wily at hiding what they are really doing with nuclear ingredients.
Goodness knows how far Corbyn would go but he does need to have the finances in place etc - I think if he remained so left wing we would all be dead - him included - before labour was in power again. It was exactly these policies which kept them out for so long and made many people - including my father- leave the Labour Party and he had been an active member for years. Many a discussion was held in our kitchen as one of his friends was an Aldermaston marcher.