VJ day

Why is CND an irrelevance?
CND wants to get rid of all bombs, just as niggly wants.
I agree with when, nuclear disarmament is the way to go. I do not see how you can love a country which sells arms to despots, and has one of the biggest arms fairs in the world. Not the sort of exports we should be encouraging.

I read in yesterday's paper that Britain and China are presenting a united front on nuclear. Philip Hammond is raising hopes for a similar breakthrough over North Korea.
The vice-premier of North Korea has just been executed by Kim Jong-un for a disagreement over forestation. Do we really want an agreement with a man who can do that?
Do we want an agreement with a country like China that can kill and imprison people in Tibet for just disagreeing with it, and has done for 65 years?

I agree nigglynellie, we are going around in circles here.People either fall into the CND camp on nuclear weapons or they don't.As you say, and as I say, and as many other people on this thread have said, they can't be uninvented and it would be naive and dangerous for us to get rid of them, when other countries certainly wouldn't.They are for the protection, rather than the use of , our country.Where they are kept in the country doesn't matter.If some crazy leader of a country in the future( there will always be some of those)
Threatens us with a nuclear bomb, and we don't have any, what do we do?
dance around the maypole holding hands and singing peace songs?
what we would have to do in fact, without our own nuclear deterrent, is to capitulate.Yes, it would be lovely not to have them, for everyone not to have them, but that simply won't happen and that fact has to be faced.

I meant to say, 'this country, warts and all'

Nuclear disarmament would absolutely wonderful if the whole world could be persuaded to follow suit, which realistically 'ain't going to happen'! Again, to reiterate, you can't un invent anything - ever, once the gene is out, it stays out, no one on this earth can put it back. My DGC along with their parents live near an AERE establishment, and quite honestly I never give it a seconds thought! What would be the point? It wouldn't alter anything, SIL, works there, and that's how it is. As for war in the Far East, that conversation, for me, has been talked into the long grass and I've nothing more to say about it. The British Empire? I don't know enough about it to comment. All I would say is that I love this country, and respect and admire those who fought and died for it, and I thank God that I was born and live here; 'Better here than in a worse place'! Apart from that, I've nothing more to say on this thread.

Perhaps you would like our nuclear weapons ( the biggest dump of the things in Europe) to be within 30 miles of where your DGC live, roses? If so, you are welcome. I hate the fact that they are so close to mine, and support SCND (and CND) wholeheartedly. What is the point of keeping them? They are only a target for terrorism, against which they are no defence. It would be immoral and useless to use them, either first or in retaliation, and they are of no use against IS.

As for the 2 Japanese bombs, I do not think there was any justification for the second one. I do wonder if Tegan is right, that the fact that we have seen what they can do has kept us safer from another use of them.

My father too was in the Far East with the Royal Navy in 1945, attached to the US Navy (presumably to ensure that they didn't nick any of our "possessions" in that part of the world). He felt that the dropping of the bomb(s) had saved his life as otherwise he would have been involved in the invasion of Japan and he had seen enough to know how bloody the fighting would have been. Like other fathers mentioned earlier, he was still having nightmares about his experiences in 1951, when I was born, and he hadn't even been a POW. We knew a minister who had been a young soldier in 1945 and had had to deal with rescued POWs being brought back after the war, and he was scarred by that, second-hand, experience, for the rest of his life.

I don't think we will ever know fully the rights and wrongs of history, but I do think that nuclear disarmament is the only way to go.

As far as I was aware, we were discussing the use of the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan, not the CND movement , which is an irrelevance anyway, because we have them and will not be getting rid of them anytime soon.
no, I would not agree with the emperor of Japan, not at all.Nor will our government ( of any party) nor will any country that has them.CND will not win the day in the real world, and it would be naive to think it would.

I agree with president Abe of Japan that the world should be rid of nuclear weapons. What do others think?

Just to remind you, roses. That's what CND is all about.

True the clock cannot be put back so no point in raking up who were prisoners of war ,

Djen,I know what the thread was about, because I can read, simple as that.Your OP makes no mention of anything but Japan and nuclear weapons.No CND or British Empire or anything else.If you wish to go on about this, ad nauseam, then go ahead, knock yourself out.

Completely agree with you Bez, so no need to elaborate. I too am expecting DS and his partner to supper so will close down my Kindle till tomorrow.

How on earth can they, unless we can put the clock back which we can't?! I'm not sure that North Korea would be compliant in any nuclear disarmament, so that would be a stumbling block before you even started!
Jing, no one asks you to read this thread and if it offends you so much I'm not sure why you're still 'tuning' into it? It's up to you of course, but it does seem a little odd.

I have no problem whatsoever by what was done in the past and cannot now be changed. What I feel is that to know about these things and work so that they do not happen again is the way forward. Unfortunately I fear there are too many places inhabited by cultures which see nothing wrong with cruelty against one's enemy etc - while that is still rife we do need the be sure we can protect ourselves. If we were unable to defend ourselves then I fear we would soon be under the control of one of the extremist groups/sects/ countries etc. But I see no point in keep going over the past and berating ourselves and keeping on saying what an awful country we live in. There is a lot if that about and it must be very demoralising for young people wondering about the country they live in. We cannot be that bad or we would not have all these poor people wanting to come and join us.

I am off out this evening after we have eaten to see Helen Mirren at the local cinema.

How do you know what the thread was about, roses? I think the idea of the British Empire being included is important.

I really would like CND to win the day.

Bez, you may have a problem with the fact that the UK is as guilty of war crimes and cruelty in conflict as any other country but it 's your problem so you should not expect others to start a different thread thus avoiding including the UK with all other countries guilty of these crimes .

God! Is anyone still reading all these long-winded posts now?

Well said nigglynellie, also Elegran and Bez.It was a forlorn hope that this thread would end without breast beating and wailing about the British Empire. not what this thread was about at all.

Absolutely, you can't uninvent anything whatever it is! It's there in stone till the end of time, and I don't think you would have to look too far to find someone who would have a nuclear capacity and use it as a very real threat, and in the end maybe even employ it; so ridding the world of nuclear weapons however much we would like to is a forlorn hope. They've been invented as surely as the wheel, and controlling them and hopefully keeping them out of the hands of the next mad person is the best we can hope for.

Bez It is irrational to focus on the inhumane and cruel behaviour of one country whilst overlooking equally awful things done on our own behalf. It is only relatively recently that the behaviour of British troops in Kenya has come to light, where Mau Mau rebels were roasted alive and all manner of atrocities were committed.

The attempt to close down discussion on the grounds that such comments are mere "self flagellation" is typical of the sort of behaviour of powerful countries who are eager to shine a light on the bad behaviour of less influential nations but very reluctant to acknowledge their own complicity in torture and violence - and it is only with great perseverance that these injustices are brought to light.

I think friends123 has hit the nail on the head. The arms industry is a very wealthy one and, of course, requires constant wars and unrest in order to continue to amass further wealth.

The website Arming All Sides says "Every year the UK government authorises the sale of arms to over 100 countries across the globe. This is hardly surprising given that it is government policy to promote arms exports."

This includes countries with the most disgraceful human rights records such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

What is worse is that many of these export are to both sides in areas of tension, such as China and Taiwan, India and Pakistan, Russia and Georgia, Greece and Turkey, etc.

People quite clearly have very different views as to whether the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified and although I personally view it as a war crime (as Trisher said, why were two bombs dropped), it is true that all warfare affects civilians. It's estimated that in WW2 at least 50% of deaths were civilian deaths, and in some other wars the estimates are much higher.

How is it right that rich and powerful nations feel it is acceptable to actively encourage the manufacture and sale of these terrible weapons in order to boost their respective economies whilst at the same time seeking to present themselves as forces for peace? The argument is that nuclear weapons maintain the peace because they can never be used. Well, they were used - on Japan - and, as another poster pointed out, the one human activity that continues to thrive unabated is war.

If they could all vanish without a trace, and the technology and the knowledge of how to make new ones wouild vanish too, that would be wonderful. We would be back where we were before they were invented - we wouldn't be perfect but we would not have this destructive weapon.

BUT I am not sure the genie will go back into the bottle. Someone, somewhere, would secretly renew the research and manufacture, so as to have the "ultimate weapon" in their hands to use against - - - I wonder who it would be used against and by whom? Who would feel they have the sanction of legitimacy to launch it?

The op said, "I agree with President Abe of Japan that the world should be rid of nuclear weapons. What do others think."

You are all quite welcome to start your own thread on other subjects. Somehow I already know who will agree with me and the President of Japan.

Agreed!!!!

We are digressing onto colonial rule etc and perhaps it should have a new thread and title for those who wish to get their whips ready for a bit of self flagellation.

I think the same trisher , yes abhor war crimes but all war crimes not be selective . Our own history shames me but we keep claiming we were heaven sent to the countries we colonised, so not true and America which claims to be the worlds saviour needs to look inward on it's self

That was my first thought. What I did hope we might examine is the aftermath of WW2 and how things have developed since the dropping of the atomic bombs. My argument would be that when one great power is defeated another takes its place and may become equally as cruel and inhumane. The problem is some posters seem willing to excuse other countries but are determined that Japan should continue to be blamed. I have no problem with war crimes being remembered but think we should be very clear that atrocities were not, and are not, the prerogative of any one country.

You are describing the British Empire