Turkey shoots down Russian jet

Wrong :the use of 2 nuclear weapons against Japan did not start a nuclear war .

A nuclear war starts when 2 or more parties are using nuclear weapons .

 

Don't you think if Japan had one, they'd have used it. Too many players now have nukes to chance a retaliatory exchange.

 

ISIS has no nukes, thus,it could be the moment to use a nuke against ISIS .And, I don't think that an other country would attack the US with nuclear weapons if the IS would use a nuclear weapon against ISIS .

 

Silly man!

Everyone knows the only acceptable use for nuclear weapons is to prevent the Rooskies from putting fluoride in our water supply!

 

???
It is pretty clear indeed (so clear as to meet the "beyond all reasonable doubt" criteria) that the separatist were responsible for shooting down the Malaysian plane. Exactly what role the Russians played is not as clear. It is pretty clear that they both created the separatist and armed them with the missiles. Whether it was a Russian crew on that actually launched the missile is a possibility. There has been more than enough data produced on this forum to allow one to come to that conclusion. None of it has been refuted and the only attempts to do so have been general hand waving such as the above. Of course things are "different" in your fantasy world.

 

Actually the existence of a NATO country in the ME is a very definitive proof that NATO both has the right and the capacity to operate there.

Sending aircraft from one place outside of Britain to another outside of Britain is also pretty conclusive evidence of a capacity to operate outside of Britain. British operations in the ME and the Med in recent years are also rather conclusive in that regard. I know what your point was and I conclusively refuted it. Go back to your fantasy world your happier there. By the way if you don't post your fantasies here you won't have to deal with us showing that they are indeed fantasies at least in the real world.

 

Actually it did indeed turn World War 2 into the first "nuclear war" or if one uses the standard conventions "atomic war". Your definition is hardly well accepted. Calling any war where atomic or nuclear weapons are used a "nuclear war" is perfectly reasonable.

 

come on LWD, you know what he means....

war---''a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state.''

so a nuclear war would mean nulcear weapons used between the different nations....they would have to exchange nukes ..if not, it is just a plain old war where one side only uses them...it can't we a nuclear war unless they both exchange them....the nukes are warring in a nuclear war

 

I disagree. If the Soviet Union were to have first striked us during the Cold War and we had been unable to retaliate, it would still have been a nuclear war.

 

I do indeed know what he means but I refuse to accept his definition of what constitutes a nuclear war. A war in which nuclear weapons are used is a perfectly good and IMO better definition than one in which there is an exchange of said weapons. Part of the reluctance to go nuclear is that it thought that it would likely lead to such an exchange. That shouldn't be allowed to define the term though. The use of chemical weapons by the Italians for instance meant they were engaged in chemical warfare just like the use of the atomic weapons vs Japan meant we engaged in atomic (or if you prefer nuclear) warfare. Now doe it make sense to say we engaged in nuclear warfare but it wasn't a nuclear war?

 

yes LWD, etc.....I would say the term warfare applies .......it was an activity, military operation, not an entire war...it only covered a few hours of a war that lasted years....and when you take in the actual combat time, it only lasted minutes.......look at the differences between the definitions....I think you proved yourself wrong...? for nuke war, nukes would had to have been used a lot more.....now I know you will bring up a different definition for warfare that is close to war, but I see the main and first definitions as


warfare ....: ''military fighting IN a war''.....let me reiterate --IN a war, not the war
: '''activity that is done as part of a struggle between competing groups, companies, etc.''' --italics and bold mine

activity is in both definitions....


definitely there can be and is a difference...and nuke warefare suits WW2 better than calling WW2 a nuclear war..the nuke combat was only an infinitesimal part of the war, that was not nuclear...there's that word again--part--as we see in the definition..everyone knows the nuke combat was infinitesimal, no?? compared to the non-nulcear combat...?

 

Not really. Some of the predictions related to a nuclear war between the US and USSR suggested the actual exchange of nuclear weapons would only last a short time (hours) while the war could in theory go on for years (due to the lack of any structure left to end it) if it didn't result in the end of at least human life on earth. The military operation that involved dropping the bomb could also be considered to have lasted more than a few hours. The delivery of the bombs to the air bases from which they were launched took weeks. I don't see anything that says it matters how long or how many nukes have to be used to make it a "nuclear war". Any threshold like that will be quite arbitrary while it is clear if one is used or not. The only problem that way is whether or not to include dirty bombs with conventional explosives.

 

LWD, I ask you, for a true and straight answer--would you call it nuclear warfare or nuclear war? considering combat time? please include delivery time..but then you have to include all corresponding time for non-nuclear war ...please include the Manhatten project...still, nuclear time was infinitesimal to non-nuclear...consider anything you want....you consider it a nuclear war and not nuclear warfare??
the only time nukes were used was at the very, very, very, very end-last moment of the war
less than infinitesimal !!!! anyone , please read # 151, and give me your answer..warefare or war?

 

Yes I would consider it the first and only nuclear war. Consider the impact and the resources and effort consumed. Indeed if you consider WWI a chemical or gas war then it is hard not to consider WW2 an atomic or nuclear war. The atom bombs for instance produced significantly more fatalities than the poison gas in WWI.

 

And this is not true : military WWI gas casualties were 1230000,civilian : 100000/260000

 

In a nuclear exchange between the then USSR and USA so many people would be killed that they would not care whether it was classed as war or warfare.

Its all a bit academic and extremely tedious. What the hell does it matter what you call it, mass destruction is ,mass destruction.

A bit like the what if strand, totally pointless.

Brian

 

About US/USSR nuclear exchange. There is a reason why the missile silos are so close together. Numerous explosions in a concentrated area in theory would cause other incoming missiles to fail. Whether or not civilian targets would be attacked is conjecture.

The thought of a massive exchange in a short period of time might not have (or could) happen (ed).

Either way it's bad. Having been to Ukraine a lot, I'm convinced the human toll is/was much higher from Chernobyl than reported.

Even taking out that theory, the concept of the US system working as planned isn't/wasn't very high. The US military is far advance in readiness.

A full out US/USSR war may have been longer than thought.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VG2aJyIFrA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NinLCoLs26k

 

LEARN TO READ BEFORE YOU REPLY.

I said the number of fatalities not the number of casualties. Your casualty number is the same as listed on wiki which gives ~90K fatalities. Other sources list similar fatalities.

Wiki list the fatalities from the atomic bombs as being between 129K and 246K. So yes it was true.

 

no : during WWII 117000 people died because of the use of nuclear weapons :Nagasaki : 39000,Hiroshima : 78000 and during WWI some 90000 dies from gas : the difference is not significantly higher .

if one want to include the number of death after WWII and after WWI,than one must add 270000 for WWII and an unknown but big number for WWI : from those who became sick because gas(1.4 million) ,a very big part died after the war :if it was only 20% of the total, it would be 280000 and there would be no significant difference between the gas and nuclear fatalities .