Bamaga man wrote:Jerzy wrote:s@int wrote:There are currently eight states that have successfully detonated nuclear weapons. Five are considered to be "nuclear weapons states", an internationally recognized status conferred by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In order of acquisition of nuclear weapons these are: the United States of America, Russia (formerly the Soviet Union), the United Kingdom, France and the People's Republic of China. Since the formulation of the NPT, three non-signatory states of the NPT have conducted nuclear tests: India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Additionally, Israel is also strongly suspected to have an arsenal of nuclear weapons though it has refused to confirm or deny this, and there have been reports that over 200 nuclear weapons might be in its inventory. This status is not formally recognized by international bodies; none of these four countries is currently a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
5 countries have signed the non proliferation treaty, and are thereby official, the others havent and are deemed to be unofficial.
I suppose if an unofficial country signed the treaty they would become official
I don't see why the US are still allowed to build nuclear weapons when they wanted to wipe Japan off the face of the map some sixty years ago. This treaty seems incredibly elitist.
Honestly, I dont think anyone new the scale of an atom bomb explosing back then, and its never been done since so ....... I think the world today is more wiser to the effects of it, and as Woof said it possibly saved more lives than killing. Thats no excuse but as you said it happened some sixty years ago, its a different world we live in today.
While the Japanese are not terribly happy about it and there appears to be a growing feeling in Japan that the A-bombs were their "Holocaust" the dawn of the nuke did more than to save 2-4million Japanese and American lives in 1945 - ? if America had to invade the Japanese homeland, and probably as much as 10million lives, as a long drawn out campaign and US naval blockade of the Japanese home islands would would have led to catastrophic infant mortality and famine, "hidden" deaths not directly related to the fighting.
I think the US were right to use the A-bomb.
However, the A-bomb probably prevented a catastrophic third world war breaking out between the West and the Communist block which could have cost more than 50million lives had neither side not being able to obtain a swift victory. Europe, which was slowly recovery from the second world war, would have been destroyed once again even through conventional fighting between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, with countries like Germany, Poland, Belgium, Holland and Czechoslovakia would have suffered hurrendous civilian casaulties even in conventional fighting, and the UK would have suffered heavy civilian losses of probably two or three times the scale of the Blitz through Soviet bombing and ballistic missile attacks. The Soviet Union would also have been able to bomb US cities on its western seaboard, Korea would have flared up again and Japan would have been threatened. And that is not even taking into account the massive civilian losses that the Soviet homeland would have experienced through American bombing.
A third world war would likely have broken out no later than the 1950s, as Stalin would not have been intimidated by a US nuclear detterent and it is very likely that had the US no bomb, he would have invaded western Europe a few years after the end of the second world war.
A third world war coming so soon after the second world war would have been catastrophic to the world economy and as many as 100million worldwide could have died from poverty and famine during and in the aftermath of such a war.
Nuclear weapons made such a war almost unthinkable and therefore their advent during the 45 years after 1945 was probably a good thing, although its a dangerous new world we live in now.
