Home Forums General Saudi Arabia

This topic contains 25 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by  Futureman 6 days, 18 hours ago.

Viewing 26 posts - 1 through 26 (of 26 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #466267

    Deboer
    Participant
    • Topics: 3
    • Replies: 257
    • Contributions: 260
    • Chief
    • ★★★★

    Member since
    17th February 2019

    While Europe is occupied with Brexit and the rise of the far right , Saudi Arabia ( helped by the Argentinians and Americans ) have nearly finished their first nuclear reactor . Why would a country with such a large amount of energy need a nuclear reactor ? :unsure:

    0
    #466292

    Babeth
    Participant
    • Topics: 19
    • Replies: 1195
    • Contributions: 1214
    • Super Star
    • ★★★★★★★

    Member since
    24th December 2018

    Just a guess, nuclear arms race ? Forward planing to eventually compete with Iran ? :unsure:

    0
    #466340

    Futureman
    Participant
    • Topics: 0
    • Replies: 68
    • Contributions: 68
    • Adventurer
    • ★★

    Member since
    20th March 2016

    Obviously so they can nuke Iran off the face of the planet. Once we’ve all gone electric via shed loads of wind turbines they can nuke the hell out of each other to their hearts content.

    0
    #466341

    Deboer
    Participant
    • Topics: 3
    • Replies: 257
    • Contributions: 260
    • Chief
    • ★★★★

    Member since
    17th February 2019

    Probably so , but then Iran had an agreement that was broken by the Americans ( Trump) and now the Americans ( Trump ) want to sell or already have sold nuclear information to the Saudis .

    Perhaps the Great Satan is moving to destroy that part of the world too?

    0
    #466343

    Dom
    Participant
    • Topics: 3
    • Replies: 81
    • Contributions: 84
    • Adventurer
    • ★★

    Member since
    22nd February 2019

    Plutonium is a by-product of uranium fission in nuclear power plants this can then be made to make nuclear bombs. I believe that the first one dropped on Japan was plutonium.

    0
    #466370

    Deboer
    Participant
    • Topics: 3
    • Replies: 257
    • Contributions: 260
    • Chief
    • ★★★★

    Member since
    17th February 2019

    Yes

    0
    #466411

    Bob
    Participant
    • Topics: 5
    • Replies: 50
    • Contributions: 55
    • Adventurer
    • ★★

    Member since
    13th October 2016

    Agree with the nuclear weapons theory, the nuclear power industry has always been the source for weapons grade nuclear material.

    0
    #466436

    Marmite
    Participant
    • Topics: 9
    • Replies: 1238
    • Contributions: 1247
    • Super Star
    • ★★★★★★★

    Member since
    6th September 2017

    As we know the uk is not in charge of the world…nor responsible for all its problems.

    trumps support of the Saudis is clear…they can commit murder with immunity.

    We cannot stop the nuclear advances of any country…even North Korea..we can only hope that they are not used aggressively .

    We had a friend who worked in the field of nuclear research…in his words..if there is a nuclear war…go into the garden and get nuked ASAP .

     

    1+
    #466554

    Deboer
    Participant
    • Topics: 3
    • Replies: 257
    • Contributions: 260
    • Chief
    • ★★★★

    Member since
    17th February 2019

    Agree with the nuclear weapons theory, the nuclear power industry has always been the source for weapons grade nuclear material.

    Yes, that was my point . Saudi “says” that the power station is to create electricity , which of course is rubbish .

    The Saudi ” kings” will continue to buy their weapons and munitions( including nuclear)  from those with the largest weapon factories until they don’t need them any more and then they will turn the same weapons on those they bought them from . History repeats itself time and time again , meanwhile people are kept busy by the media with less important news. Hurray for brexit !

    0
    #466557

    Babeth
    Participant
    • Topics: 19
    • Replies: 1195
    • Contributions: 1214
    • Super Star
    • ★★★★★★★

    Member since
    24th December 2018

    Short term financial system, Donald (and others) want the cash straight now, while he’s still in power. Then he will leave the world behind. In the american company I used to work, short term was 5 years, then reduced to 2 years. That was 12 years ago. Don’t know what is short term like now.

    0
    #466566

    Deboer
    Participant
    • Topics: 3
    • Replies: 257
    • Contributions: 260
    • Chief
    • ★★★★

    Member since
    17th February 2019

    I agree entirely Babeth . Business is business , dirty or not , that is the American way . It has to be a quick turnover , that is also why Donald is not interested in the climate . I , like you worked for American companies and saw how their system works . I’m afraid that the French  corporate system is the same . The triangle of President, oil ( or other resources)  and army .

    I don’t think that Mr Trump gives a hoot for anyone other than himself and his close family , look out UK !

    0
    #466570

    Babeth
    Participant
    • Topics: 19
    • Replies: 1195
    • Contributions: 1214
    • Super Star
    • ★★★★★★★

    Member since
    24th December 2018

    Yes of course, the US opened the door for the rest of the world to act in the same way, competitiveness springs to mind …

    0
    #466573

    Futureman
    Participant
    • Topics: 0
    • Replies: 68
    • Contributions: 68
    • Adventurer
    • ★★

    Member since
    20th March 2016

    Between them the Russians and the yanks have around 14,000 nukes, rest of the world has less than a thousand. I would have thought solar would have been more cost effective for the Saudi’s, although apparently sand storms have a detrimental affect with the panels. To be honest, I have no idea whatsoever about any of it.

    0
    #466769

    Deboer
    Participant
    • Topics: 3
    • Replies: 257
    • Contributions: 260
    • Chief
    • ★★★★

    Member since
    17th February 2019

    There are things that we know a lot about , via the media , and things that are not talked about on the media .

    Mr Trump goes to North Korea to ” solve the problem ” and the same time helps Saudi Arabia get nuclear weapons. The only reason that the Kim jong un is developing nukes is because he is scared of the Americans on his doorstep. I would be more worried about the Saudis with nukes than the North Koreans . The Saudis don’t care at all who they kill !

    Futureman , it matters not how many nukes a country have , it matters a lot if they use them , or use  just one .

    0
    #466777

    Jazzy
    Participant
    • Topics: 28
    • Replies: 1063
    • Contributions: 1091
    • Super Star
    • ★★★★★★★

    Member since
    1st December 2017

    MAD – Mutually Assured Destruction. Still No 1  in the what will wipe out humanity hit parade.

     

    0
    #466779

    Futureman
    Participant
    • Topics: 0
    • Replies: 68
    • Contributions: 68
    • Adventurer
    • ★★

    Member since
    20th March 2016

    As far as I’m aware, only one country has ever used nuclear weapons against another, and to this day its debatable whether they needed to or not.

    0
    #467210

    Deboer
    Participant
    • Topics: 3
    • Replies: 257
    • Contributions: 260
    • Chief
    • ★★★★

    Member since
    17th February 2019

    Just in case anyone wants to discuss politics , Gaddafi, Iran or Bilderberg  ( which everyone knows was started by the late Bernhard of the Netherlands)  I’m bringing this to the top to take the pressure off of  commando mum . :rose:

    and yes , the only country to use nuclear weapons were the Americans , who since then have tried to limit their development by other countries.

    1+
    #467239

    Dom
    Participant
    • Topics: 3
    • Replies: 81
    • Contributions: 84
    • Adventurer
    • ★★

    Member since
    22nd February 2019

    It was a different era when the USA took the decision to drop the bombs on Japan. It was estimated that 129.000 to 226.000 Japanese were killed or later died from the two bombs. The Americans knew from the way the Japanese had fought during the war that it was estimated America would experience 1.2 million casualties, with 267.000 deaths. even though I don’t agree with the bombing you can see why the USA went for it.

    0
    #467287

    Deboer
    Participant
    • Topics: 3
    • Replies: 257
    • Contributions: 260
    • Chief
    • ★★★★

    Member since
    17th February 2019

    I think it was ” just an excuse” , those millions of casualties , they just wanted to try out their new ” baby”

    0
    #473446

    Deboer
    Participant
    • Topics: 3
    • Replies: 257
    • Contributions: 260
    • Chief
    • ★★★★

    Member since
    17th February 2019

    So now the Americans have decided that it is time to destroy Iran , as well as Iraq,Libya and Syria , or at least John Bolton has. :unsure:

    0
    #474271

    Fitter
    Participant
    • Topics: 96
    • Replies: 954
    • Contributions: 1050
    • Super Star
    • ★★★★★★★

    Member since
    20th March 2016

    As far as I’m aware, only one country has ever used nuclear weapons against another, and to this day its debatable whether they needed to or not.

    It’s easy with the aid of 20/20 hindsight to debate whether or not the USA should have used nuclear weapons to make Japan surrender unconditionally.

    The United States could have launched a traditional ground invasion of the Japanese home islands.  However, experience showed that the Japanese did not easily surrender.  They had been willing to make great sacrifices to defend the smallest islands.  They were likely to fight even more fiercely if the United States invaded their homeland.  During the battle at Iwo Jima in 1945, 6,200 US soldiers died.  Later that year, on Okinawa, 13,000 soldiers and sailors were killed.  Casualties on Okinawa were 35 percent; one out of three US participants was wounded or killed.  President Truman was afraid that an invasion of Japan would look like “Okinawa from one end of Japan to the other.”  Casualty predictions varied, but all were high.  The price of invasion would be millions of American dead and wounded.

    So that is why President Truman ordered the use of nuclear weapons.

    What would you have done given the same set of circumstances?

    0
    #474274

    Dom
    Participant
    • Topics: 3
    • Replies: 81
    • Contributions: 84
    • Adventurer
    • ★★

    Member since
    22nd February 2019

    It’s easy with the aid of 20/20 hindsight to debate whether or not the USA should have used nuclear weapons to make Japan surrender unconditionally. The United States could have launched a traditional ground invasion of the Japanese home islands. However, experience showed that the Japanese did not easily surrender. They had been willing to make great sacrifices to defend the smallest islands. They were likely to fight even more fiercely if the United States invaded their homeland. During the battle at Iwo Jima in 1945, 6,200 US soldiers died. Later that year, on Okinawa, 13,000 soldiers and sailors were killed. Casualties on Okinawa were 35 percent; one out of three US participants was wounded or killed. President Truman was afraid that an invasion of Japan would look like “Okinawa from one end of Japan to the other.” Casualty predictions varied, but all were high. The price of invasion would be millions of American dead and wounded. So that is why President Truman ordered the use of nuclear weapons. What would you have done given the same set of circumstances?

    It was a different era when the USA took the decision to drop the bombs on Japan. It was estimated that 129.000 to 226.000 Japanese were killed or later died from the two bombs. The Americans knew from the way the Japanese had fought during the war that it was estimated America would experience 1.2 million casualties, with 267.000 deaths. even though I don’t agree with the bombing you can see why the USA went for it.

    That’s what I said ages ago. Not so in depth though!

    0
    #474276

    Futureman
    Participant
    • Topics: 0
    • Replies: 68
    • Contributions: 68
    • Adventurer
    • ★★

    Member since
    20th March 2016

    Blockade Japan, starve them into surrender. But anyway, that’s irrelevant, the nukes needed a proper test, and the only way to do that was drop one on someone, and as Japan was an island it was ideal testing ground.

    0
    #474475

    Fitter
    Participant
    • Topics: 96
    • Replies: 954
    • Contributions: 1050
    • Super Star
    • ★★★★★★★

    Member since
    20th March 2016

    Blockade Japan, starve them into surrender. But anyway, that’s irrelevant, the nukes needed a proper test, and the only way to do that was drop one on someone, and as Japan was an island it was ideal testing ground.

    A very flippant comment indeed, that the US needed to test a bomb, when all they wanted to do was to end the war in the Pacific without the huge loss of life that invading the Japanese mainland would have entailed.

    0
    #474534

    Gleaner
    Participant
    • Topics: 96
    • Replies: 2594
    • Contributions: 2690
    • Mega Star
    • ★★★★★★★★

    Member since
    18th March 2016

    I’m wondering if any of you have ever been to Hiroshima?

    I’m also wondering if any of you know of or had a freind who was present at one of the the atomic bombings and perhaps spoke with them about such?

    0
    #474542

    Futureman
    Participant
    • Topics: 0
    • Replies: 68
    • Contributions: 68
    • Adventurer
    • ★★

    Member since
    20th March 2016

    Fitter, the Japanese had had it, troops starving in the field, no ammunition. The Americans had total control of the air and the sea. The Japanese couldn’t produce enough food to feed the population, had no oil, my suggestion to blockade the island was totally logical.

    0
Viewing 26 posts - 1 through 26 (of 26 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.