Originally posted by zeitghost
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Reply to: So the west attacks Syria in the end....
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "So the west attacks Syria in the end...."
Collapse
-
And now the UK is:
Terrorism threat levels
The threat level indicates the likelihood of a terrorist attack in the UK.
International threats
The threat to the UK (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) from international terrorism is severe.
Northern Ireland-related threats
The threat to Great Britain (England, Wales and Scotland) from Northern Ireland-related terrorism is moderate.
The threat to Northern Ireland from Northern Ireland-related terrorism is severe.
Threat levels
There are 5 levels of threat:
low - an attack is unlikely
moderate - an attack is possible but not likely
substantial - an attack is a strong possibility
severe - an attack is highly likely
critical - an attack is expected imminently
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by vetran View PostBy bombing 2 cities they had proved they could build 2 big bombs in months. Even if shot down they would still turn a huge area into a wasteland.
& it is the Nagasaki bombing that is the most controversial as they had already tested one at the Trinity site
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by VectraMan View PostThe thing that's forgotten is that the Red Army had entered the war on Japan, something Stalin had promised once Germany had been dealt with. They managed to advance something like 100 miles in the first day - and that's what panicked the Japanese generals and led to their surrender. They were already losing against the US; they had no chance fighting Russia too.
Tokyo had been destroyed by fire bombs, and 100,000 people killed in one night a few months before Hiroshima. So the idea that it was the nuclear bomb that ended the war doesn't quite add up. It doesn't really matter whether your enemy has one big bomb, or lots of little bombs, the result is the same. And actually, one big bomb might be preferable as you only have to shoot down one plane to stop the attack.
Truman's Reflections on the Atomic Bombings | The Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki | Historical Documents | atomicarchive.com
Dropping the bombs ended the war, saved lives, and gave the free nations a chance to face the facts. When it looked as if Japan would quit, Russia hurried into the fray less than a week before the surrender, so as to be in at the settlement.
MAD has kept peace amongst the major nations for nearly a century. Despite what credit NATO & the EU may claim.
Leave a comment:
-
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Troll View PostBradford
Birmingham
Most of London
Glasgow
Dundee
West Dunbartonshire
North Lanarkshire
Your kids probably have sex.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by oscarose View Postbury 'em alive in bacon
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Batcher View PostI have the feeling that the A-bombs were used because America wanted to see the results as well as shortening the war. It was a live test.
Did the A bombs also serve to cut short a bloody mess - impossible to say for certain, but I think that there's certainly an element of truth to it.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Batcher View PostIt's true about the japanese fighting to the death and were the first to use suicide bombers.
I have the feeling that the A-bombs were used because America wanted to see the results as well as shortening the war. It was a live test.
Tokyo had been destroyed by fire bombs, and 100,000 people killed in one night a few months before Hiroshima. So the idea that it was the nuclear bomb that ended the war doesn't quite add up. It doesn't really matter whether your enemy has one big bomb, or lots of little bombs, the result is the same. And actually, one big bomb might be preferable as you only have to shoot down one plane to stop the attack.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Batcher View PostIt's true about the japanese fighting to the death and were the first to use suicide bombers.
I have the feeling that the A-bombs were used because America wanted to see the results as well as shortening the war. It was a live test.
Leave a comment:
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Can a WhatsApp message really be a contract? Sep 25 20:17
- Can a WhatsApp message really be a contract? Sep 25 08:17
- ‘Subdued’ IT contractor jobs market took third tumble in a row in August Sep 25 08:07
- Are CVs medieval or just being misused? Sep 24 05:05
- Are CVs medieval or just being misused? Sep 23 21:05
- IR35: Mutuality Of Obligations — updated for 2025/26 Sep 23 05:22
- Only proactive IT contractors can survive recruitment firm closures Sep 22 07:32
- How should a creditors’ meeting ideally pan out for unpaid suppliers? Sep 19 07:16
- How should a creditors’ meeting ideally pan out for unpaid suppliers? Sep 18 21:16
- IR35: Substitution — updated for 2025/26 Sep 18 05:45
Leave a comment: