69th anniversary this month

[Trickytreesreds]

The Two A-Bombs brought the second world war to an end. - view external link (http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/500065/The-bombs-that-changed-the-world-Japan-marks-69th-anniversary-of-Hiroshima-and-Nagasaki)

[RedBasie]

I just can't see why some people glorify war, although in this instance I would say these bombings were necessary. Although two cities full of people were completely wiped out in cold blood and thus a war crime the loss of life in taking Japan would have been much much more. In a war of survival not of our making such actions are sometimes necessary as was the fire bombing of Dresden in Europe although a civilian target was important in providing important infrastructure to the Germans. Perhaps people who make these wars possible, the state sponsored terrorists who kick off these events should start to question orders from their leaders before committing the world to such madness.

[Trickytreesreds]

Not sure glorifying is the right word.
They were necessary, despite their terror.
Without them, a lot more would have died, using conventional weapons. Also, why should those lives lost be allied lives?
The Japanese, were not only the aggressors, but the most barbaric monsters the world had seen in a long while. The Chinese, Koreans, Malaysians,Philippians,Thais,Borneans will all testify to it. Rape, murder, destruction all for the hell of it.
The Military ruling body, showed a complete disregard for any human life, even their own.
I haven't even touched on the barbarity against allied prisoners.

So bad? Yes and No. The world changed overnight.
What they did bring, was 70 years of non major wars.
Nuclear power was born.
So do I feel sorry for the Japanese? Absolutely not. They started it and I'm afraid they got what they deserved at the time.

Here's a poser for you. At the end of the war, the Americans actually had the power to disarm the world.
They didn't and four years later the f

[RedBasie]

[quote="Trickytreesreds"]Not sure glorifying is the right word.
They were necessary, despite their terror.
Without them, a lot more would have died, using conventional weapons. Also, why should those lives lost be allied lives?
The Japanese, were not only the aggressors, but the most barbaric monsters the world had seen in a long while. The Chinese, Koreans, Malaysians,Philippians,Thais,Borneans will all testify to it. Rape, murder, destruction all for the hell of it.
The Military ruling body, showed a complete disregard for any human life, even their own.
I haven't even touched on the barbarity against allied prisoners.

So bad? Yes and No. The world changed overnight.
What they did bring, was 70 years of non major wars.
Nuclear power was born.
So do I feel sorry for the Japanese? Absolutely not. They started it and I'm afraid they got what they deserved at the time.

Here's a poser for you. At the end of the war, the Americans actually had the power to dis

[Trickytreesreds]

[quote="RedBasie"]Not sure glorifying is the right word.
They were necessary, despite their terror.
Without them, a lot more would have died, using conventional weapons. Also, why should those lives lost be allied lives?
The Japanese, were not only the aggressors, but the most barbaric monsters the world had seen in a long while. The Chinese, Koreans, Malaysians,Philippians,Thais,Borneans will all testify to it. Rape, murder, destruction all for the hell of it.
The Military ruling body, showed a complete disregard for any human life, even their own.
I haven't even touched on the barbarity against allied prisoners.

So bad? Yes and No. The world changed overnight.
What they did bring, was 70 years of non major wars.
Nuclear power was born.
So do I feel sorry for the Japanese? Absolutely not. They started it and I'm afraid they got what they deserved at the time.

Here's a poser for you. At the end of the wa

[Trickytreesreds]

Just to add to that Basil. I did say to you the other day, that most of mans best inventions come from original military ideas.

Radar/Sat Nav/jet engines/nuclear/gunpowder/the chariot/sailing ships/the computer/production lines/exhaust pipes/trauma medicine/super glue/jerry can/pressurised cabins/and on and on.

So back to your favourite topic , space.
At the moment, nuclear energy is the only feasible do able plan, to propel a craft over distances. Using nuclear power, an ion drive is the nearest we can get yet.
Now your Enterprise and Captain Kirk has one, so the idea is practical.
Until we learn how to "warp" space and time, the light barrier will elude us.
But the ion drive is a start.

Energy E = (1/2) m v2.
Momentum p = m v
Therefore p = sqrt(2 m E)

I'll let Es*** do the maths.

[Romanis]

You know something is not right in the world when Trickytreesreds starts talking nuclear physics. ;D

[RedBasie]

Tricky- I don't believe that. Stonehenge was not a fortress, but an ancient timepiece which told our ancestors when to sow and when to reap. The pyramids were just an ancient burial mound.Navigation was made possible by studying the stars and inventing the clock. Newton discovered gravity not by killing anyone. The first Transatlantic cable was hardly military and this lead to artificial satellites orbiting the Earth and the Apollo mission and then on to mobile phones and the Internet.Materials can be tested by such pursuits such as motor racing and climbing Mount Everest or descending to the bottom of the deepest oceans.Having said that I don't think we'll ever leave our solar system for outer space. C S Lewis says that the vast interstellar distances are God's quarantine measures to prevent inter species contamination. Our only memorial will be the likes of Voyager stuck out there in space waiting for the time when another solar system drifts into it's locality.

[Trickytreesreds]

[quote="RedBasie"]Tricky- I don't believe that. Stonehenge was not a fortress, but an ancient timepiece which told our ancestors when to sow and when to reap. The pyramids were just an ancient burial mound.Navigation was made possible by studying the stars and inventing the clock. Newton discovered gravity not by killing anyone. The first Transatlantic cable was hardly military and this lead to artificial satellites orbiting the Earth and the Apollo mission and then on to mobile phones and the Internet.Materials can be tested by such pursuits such as motor racing and climbing Mount Everest or descending to the bottom of the deepest oceans.Having said that I don't think we'll ever leave our solar system for outer space. C S Lewis says that the vast interstellar distances are God's quarantine measures to prevent inter species contamination. Our only memorial will be the likes of Voyager stuck out there in space waiting for the time when another solar system dr

[Romanis]

Talking of anniversaries, this past week marked the 67th anniversary of Nehru's speech to mark India's independence. It's 1 of the best speeches ever, even better if read aloud. The remarkable thing is that his vision all those years ago is still relevant today.
Nehru was a socialist and a realist. I believe it was he who started the non-aligned movement.

I am sure Basie can identify with his ideals. - view external link (en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tryst_with_Destiny)

[Trickytreesreds]

Talking of anniversaries, this past week marked the 67th anniversary of Nehru's speech to mark India's independence. It's 1 of the best speeches ever, even better if read aloud. The remarkable thing is that his vision all those years ago is still relevant today.
Nehru was a socialist and a realist. I believe it was he who started the non-aligned movement.

I am sure Basie can identify with his ideals.

Yes, very moving and hypocritical.

To the nations and peoples of the world we send greetings and pledge ourselves to cooperate with them in furthering peace, freedom and democracy.

Right before the killing started between Hindu's/Sikhs/Muslims.
Then happy birthday Pakistan.

Oh yes. What folks say and what they do eh?

TTR- philosopher/politician/realist/pragmatist

[Romanis]

Talking of anniversaries, this past week marked the 67th anniversary of Nehru's speech to mark India's independence. It's 1 of the best speeches ever, even better if read aloud. The remarkable thing is that his vision all those years ago is still relevant today.
Nehru was a socialist and a realist. I believe it was he who started the non-aligned movement.

I am sure Basie can identify with his ideals.

Yes, very moving and hypocritical.

To the nations and peoples of the world we send greetings and pledge ourselves to cooperate with them in furthering peace, freedom and democracy.

Right before the killing started between Hindu's/Sikhs/Muslims.
Then happy birthday Pakistan.

Oh yes. What folks say and what they do eh?

TTR- philosopher/politician/realist/pragmatist[/quote]

Dear Mr Philosopher turned whatever,

Please don not twist history to suit your arguments.

The killing

[Trickytreesreds]

If any blame is to be laid, please lay it at Mr Atlee's door or Mr Jinnah's. The former who said independence would take 14 months, gave them 7 weeks notice and agreed to sudden partition there and then without time for people to decide where to go or which country to be part of. It was hasty and sparked fear and unrest resulting in a bloodbath.

Mr Jinnah, who despite Nehru's and Gandhi's best efforts, insisted on independence and urged his supporters to take tot he streets to demand immediate partition. Shocked at the violence Gandhi relented and mourned the deaths by not being in Delhi for the independence ceremonies.

Regards


Romanis
Fact checker.[/quote]

So it's as I said then? India fractured itself, whilst under the guise of the peaceful protester/non conformist/united opinion wins.
You can proclaim, do what you want, shout from the rooftops to the international community. Yet it doesn't change a thing what you told the world, when you are fractured internally.Especially when

[Romanis]

Steady there boy. It's exactly what Nehru said. He understood the problems India were facing and till today it's relevant. That was what I inferred by his speech. A great speech good prose and very true and relevant.

Oh yes, India is not my country btw.

Berk!>:)

[Romanis]

Anyways back to the topic about war and arming oneself. That I agree - if the atomic bombs were not dropped the war would have continued to the bitter end with heavy loss of life especially civilian ones. Maybe in far excess to those lost at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Many in Asia do not regret this. The Japanese were very brutal as bad and evil as the Nazis. Had the war gone on longer who knows what the Japanese would have done besides just scorch earth. Everyone believed that summary killings world have continued.

[Romanis]

Finally whatever is said of the USA and the Vietnam War, many South East Asian countries were thankful for American intervention. It stopped the Communist threat in its tracks.

[Trickytreesreds]

Anyways back to the topic about war and arming oneself. That I agree - if the atomic bombs were not dropped the war would have continued to the bitter end with heavy loss of life especially civilian ones. Maybe in far excess to those lost at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Many in Asia do not regret this. The Japanese were very brutal as bad and evil as the Nazis. Had the war gone on longer who knows what the Japanese would have done besides just scorch earth. Everyone believed that summary killings world have continued.

That is one thing you can bank on Romoanski.
The civilian deaths would have amounted to millions in the event of a land assault. They was supposed to honour the Bushido code and fight to the death, or commit suicide. Rather than suffer the humiliation of defeat.
The Military government did not care for the eventual genocide that would ensue.
Weirdly, the emperor himself intervened, despite attempts to stop him.
A vicious

[RedBasie]

Gotcha Tricky. Ideas come from anywhere do they? If so it's not true we'd still be in the Stone Age if not for the Military.Traditionally governments give the Military inflated budgets on which to target good ideas. Isn't it about time that the governments started to invest in living decent civilised lives instead of killing.

[Trickytreesreds]

Gotcha Tricky. Ideas come from anywhere do they? If so it's not true we'd still be in the Stone Age if not for the Military.Traditionally government's give the Military inflated budgets on which to target good ideas. Isn't about time that the governments started to invest in living decent civilised lives instead of killing.

Got me?

The minute the world is devoid of threats and terrors Basie, then I am sure they will.
When that day comes, we will all see rainbows and puffy clouds and crap sparkly sweets.
For the last time-

Man has been clubbing each other to death since the stone age. Can you really see it stopping?
Wake up Basie, the human mind will always devote such intelligence and resources to the pursuit of protection.
The day it stops, well I can only assume the sun has become a red giant.

[Romanis]

I do believe there's no real right or wrong answer that both of you have raised. At times, there's a need to rearm to face a growing threat - like Churchill advocated in vain in the 1930s and the Americans to combat the Red Menace in the 1950s and through the Cold War.

But at times, there's a need to look at the civilian aspect of things, to concentrate on the real issues that mankind faces - disease, poverty, freedom, justice and creating a better life for the present and future. If too much is spent on the war effort and defense, it will inevitably lead to economic ruin as seen in the cases of the Soviet Union and present-day North Korea. These countries had state of the art weaponry, yet the ordinary civilian does not have enough food to eat and their children are doomed to a torturous existence.

It all depends on balance and the prevailing circumstances. If no threat exists, more effort must be placed on economic and social justice. War should always be the last option and not th

[Romanis]

Talking about Eisenhower and the Iraq/Afghan wars, it was really stupid of HM's Govt to involve the UK in the war, just so Blair could show the Americans he was on their side, and to seize his moment in history.

Blair had been too pally with Clinton for the UK's own good and when the USA switched from Democrat to Republican, it had an indirect strain on bilateral relations. Blair wanted to show Bush, that hey, Britain is still your BFF.

When in fact, Eisenhower had provided a historical escape route for Blair and the UK - the Suez Crisis. Eisenhower refused to intervene on the side of the UK and Israel, and clobber Nasser's Egypt. The American refusal doomed the British effort in the Suez and cost Eden his job.

Blair had a chance to invoke this, to say like the Suez crisis, it was an internal American matter in Afghanistan and later Iraq. Britain might provide support on the diplomatic front (in the UN etc) and maybe allow some of its bases to be utilised, but basically that was it.