leicsmac

If the point about popularity is true here, then the "real world" is clearly a lot about tribal conflict, death and suffering for practically no sake at all and I'm not sure why that should be endorsed, or even accepted. Even if it is a majority viewpoint.

An additional argument that has been made was that the Soviets were keen on taking as much Japanese-held territory as they could (including all of Korea) before the surrender, so it was in the US interest at the time to force the surrender as quickly as possible before they took much more.

Yep. Such weapons clearly appear to be helping with the big picture, hopefully a solution can be found to the smaller picture (which is a bit of a corollary of the big one) too.

Such weapons have evidently done very well to stop the major powers from messing with each other. However, they have done rather less to stop those major powers from messing with the smaller players.

Unfortunately I agree. It's manna from heaven for those like the ones who turned out in force last summer.

A related observation I've seen that might be relevant to this matter, as well: Winners never commit war crimes. Even when they do.

Around twelve hours short of eighty years ago, on the morning of the 6th of August 1945 on the Japanese Home Islands, a single American plane (with a few others in support roles) undertook a mission that would change the world forever. Around 70000 people in the city of Hiroshima died in practically an instant that day. Perhaps as many again died by the end of the year as a direct result of the first use of a nuclear weapon in warfare. A second such weapon was dropped on the city of Nagasaki (not the original target) three days later. It killed roughly 40000 people immediately, and perhaps the same again by years end. Japan surrendered about a week later. Four years afterwards, the USSR joined the US in the nuclear club, and since then a handful of nations, including the UK, have done likewise - some deniable, some not. Up until the end of the Cold War, the threat of nuclear annihilation was a fact of life. The invasion of Ukraine by Russia more recently has brought back some of those old fears, and some of the survivors of the only times a nuclear weapon has been dropped in anger have taken what will likely be their last chance on an anniversary to speak their piece. So... eighty years after the world changed irrevocably, have such weapons served their purpose? Was the original attack justified? What role, if any, should such weapons have going forward into the future? Is it possible to separate the process of generating material for fission/fusion power and generating it for weaponry? What other questions arise? There are so many questions that a lot of people have talked about and written about ever since the first weapons were used, and there seems to be an interest in it here that spanned a couple of threads, so I decided to start this one for all related discussion, given the significance of both the event and that tomorrow (in the UK) it will be exactly eighty years since the first one was used.

Another time where I wish I could react and at the same time. I think I will start a new thread.

Agreed. 1962 and 1983 likely the closest calls that we know about. As said on the TV thread, if there's interest I'll start a specific thread on the topic given the anniversary and importance of the matter.

A sentient race that in their desperation for supremacy opened Pandora's Box. And now it's almost impossible to close. Though the debate on the bombings themselves probably deserve their own thread.

Division based on an idea of cultural supremacy and segregation based on those and demographic lines. In short, the same tribal ideas humans have had since time immemorial, that almost always end in death and suffering.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp8zlwd3e42o 80 years since a nuclear weapon was dropped in the cause of war. What those who witnessed it say needs to be recorded for posterity and repeated as long as such weapons exist.

Silly would be the right word, I think. I certainly can't bring myself to hate the man, but the ideology he pursues is horrifically misguided and leads nowhere good.

Everybody falls the first time.

And then you have those who know how tribal divisions over anything like economics, demographics, culture or nation or other such matters ends, because history has been very clear on the matter.

I think the batting is pretty much set in stone - Crawley isn't going anywhere and Bethell didn't do enough to challenge Pope. It's the bowling that is going to be critical- desperately need Archer, Wood and Atkinson ready to go, with Carse, Tongue and Potts available as well. Anything less than full strength won't get the job done.

On the topic above, another reason this series resulted as it did was how many English frontline bowlers were missing (and also how much Broad and Jimmy are missed). Was definitely a series for the batting averages, not the bowling ones.

The Saffers do often win those smaller series and matches, though. Do agree regarding the county system. It's pretty situation dependent IMO, but I wouldn't inhibit someone like Brook by getting him to go into his shell needlessly. And 2005 had the right result, that was very important IMO.

This may be so, but 2011 when the England team was legit the best in the world isn't all that long ago. Is there really a reason they can't scale those heights again? Edit: to give a more recent example, the Saffers have consistently punched way above what might be considered their weight class recently too.

I can see this point of view, but I can't a a legit way to make this team play better than it is now. People go on a lot about mentality, but given the last mentality the team had led to one win in 17 Tests with similar personnel, I'm not sure what the point is.

Well, coming to the conclusion that England will lose at least two Tests in Oz, four lost Tests and the over rate points penalties mean that I reckon they'll find it very difficult to outscore two of India, Oz or the Saffers.

Also, looking ahead, given this result it's pretty much guaranteed England won't qualify for the WTC final this cycle already either.

Ah yes, sorry, should be the last four attempts over seven years, you're right. I think that style is the only way that England have a chance in Oz anyway. Take it to that bowling attack or they take you apart no matter what.

On the one hand, feels very much like a missed opportunity. Still no series win in England against India or Oz for ten years now. On the other, fantastic entertainment the whole way.

Absolute chaos.