This discussion has been closed.
Posted by sevenskies (U13875542) on Sunday, 22nd March 2009
The controversy on who has the right to acquire A-bombs and who hasn't is quite unjustified. The ban itself is an act of modern imperialism , an instrument to terrorise .
Why more than 10 countries maintain arsenals of atomic weaponry (some has criminal record) and many are banned from its aquisition (some need it as a deterrent to insure national security) ?
, in reply to message 1.
Posted by JB on a slippery slope to the thin end ofdabiscuit (U13805036) on Sunday, 22nd March 2009
Nobody is 'banned' from acquiring nuclear weapons unless they choose to ban themselves by signing the NPT, as Iran has done and Israel has not.
We must remember that this is a history board and not a general discussion board.
Each passing instant becomes a part of history.
The NPT is no more than a temporary commitment , once the national security is endagered then the commitment is void.
Since the so-called Israel was forced upon the MidEast region and later its acquisition of stockpiles of atomic offensive arsenal added to its officials' unceasingly irresponsible threats . The countries of the region were forced into two paths ; to live with that deadly menace that may fall any time , or to go for the atomic choice.
I can't understand why the civilised world can enforce oveall destruction of all atomic weapons , things can't go by selective options and expect some future for peace on Earth at the same time.
, in reply to message 3.
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
Apart from a tenuous mention of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where's the history?
sevenskies
"Don't you think that the U.S. bombing of Asian civilians by two atomic bombs in WW2 was a very hideous part in world's history "
In the context of the confict it was part of, and what it prevented - of course not!!!! Grow up!
Now this is a history board, not a political one.
It's a controversial subject of course. But I believe the cosensus among historians is that if there had been no Hiroshima bomb the war would have gone on for several more months and far more - maybe millions more - people would have been killed.
The Japanese military were committed to fight to the death & in the absence of the A bomb Japanese cities like Hiroshima would have been destroyed by 'conventional' fire bombing instead
"...The NPT is no more than a temporary commitment , once the national security is endagered then the commitment is void..."
The T in NPT stands for 'Treaty'. It does not become void because the view of the people running one particular country change their minds.
Please be aware that the posting of deliberately inflammatory, racist and provocative messages is agains the House Rules and may result in action being taken aginst the accounts of those who persist in doing so.
Thread closed.
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.