FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
First British hydrogen bomb test

First British hydrogen bomb test

(6:21) First British hydrogen bomb test in 1957, or so it was claimed. According to an article in The Independent in 1992: "Britain's first 'H-bombs', tested in 1957, were not H-bombs at all, but a bluff to convince the world that Britain was still a first-rate power..." http://tiny.cc/vdmpww

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1627 days ago)
Suppose someone from the UK would like to comment? Why would any country ever need a weapon this powerful that could kill millions of people in one blast? If you never plan on using them, why have them? I ask because the UK people seem to complain about the US having WMD's. If another country like Germany started to invade the UK, would you use one of these weapons against Germany? At what point would you use it?
ReplyVote up (201)down (203)
Original comment
Suppose someone from the UK would like to comment? Why would any country ever need a weapon this powerful that could kill millions of people in one blast? If you never plan on using them, why have them? I ask because the UK people seem to complain about the US having WMD's. If another country like Germany started to invade the UK, would you use one of these weapons against Germany? At what point would you use it?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: rossglory (1627 days ago)
simple, so the united states would take the uk seriously and we'd get a place on the security council. pathetic really
ReplyVote up (164)down (166)
Original comment
simple, so the united states would take the uk seriously and we'd get a place on the security council. pathetic really
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1627 days ago)
i am not proud of the fact that we have wmd but we do and there is not alot i can do about it apart from hope its never used.as for your example i guess you are using ww2 in your example if the usa had the atom bomb it would be safe to say the uk would also have the same access as the uk and usa where fighting the same war i know you will use dates in you defence but some form of atomic wmd could have been about and used by the uk on germany the fact is we didnt.i also hope you dont put me in the uk people who complain about the usa having wmd??my only compaint was how you feel people deserved to be bombed
ReplyVote up (182)down (201)
Original comment
i am not proud of the fact that we have wmd but we do and there is not alot i can do about it apart from hope its never used.as for your example i guess you are using ww2 in your example if the usa had the atom bomb it would be safe to say the uk would also have the same access as the uk and usa where fighting the same war i know you will use dates in you defence but some form of atomic wmd could have been about and used by the uk on germany the fact is we didnt.i also hope you dont put me in the uk people who complain about the usa having wmd??my only compaint was how you feel people deserved to be bombed
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1627 days ago)
Sorry but I may have worded my question in a confusing manner. I was referring to today and the potential use of those weapons today. So what would happen if any other country tried to invade the UK today? Should you use those nuclear weapons or just defend yourselves with conventional weapons like rifles and grenades? If you will only use conventional weapons today, why would you keep 160 active (225 total) nukes in your stock pile today? LINK Don't you agree that 1 or 2 active nukes is more than enough to kill a large quantity of enemies to stop a war?
ReplyVote up (166)down (163)
Original comment
Sorry but I may have worded my question in a confusing manner. I was referring to today and the potential use of those weapons today. So what would happen if any other country tried to invade the UK today? Should you use those nuclear weapons or just defend yourselves with conventional weapons like rifles and grenades? If you will only use conventional weapons today, why would you keep 160 active (225 total) nukes in your stock pile today? LINK Don't you agree that 1 or 2 active nukes is more than enough to kill a large quantity of enemies to stop a war?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1627 days ago)
to me we have wmd not as a last resort weapon but as a deterrent against being invaded in the first place the through of total wipe out of both sides should be enough to make any country think long and hard before an attack and this worked just with the usa ussr uk in the 60's.i would like to think we would fight with guns bombs and stones as a last resort and wmds never used but war is shitty so we can only hope we never find out.one wmd is more the enough in my eyes to work why we have so many who knows but thats capitalism isnt it??
ReplyVote up (171)down (136)
Original comment
to me we have wmd not as a last resort weapon but as a deterrent against being invaded in the first place the through of total wipe out of both sides should be enough to make any country think long and hard before an attack and this worked just with the usa ussr uk in the 60's.i would like to think we would fight with guns bombs and stones as a last resort and wmds never used but war is shitty so we can only hope we never find out.one wmd is more the enough in my eyes to work why we have so many who knows but thats capitalism isnt it??
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1627 days ago)
Good answer about using WMDs as last resort. So how many millions of people need to be killed before it's acceptable to use WMDs against the enemy? Is 30 million people enough to make that decision? Or does it need to be more than that?
ReplyVote up (170)down (168)
Original comment
Good answer about using WMDs as last resort. So how many millions of people need to be killed before it's acceptable to use WMDs against the enemy? Is 30 million people enough to make that decision? Or does it need to be more than that?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1627 days ago)
this is a hard thing for me to write but war is not a bad thing it thins down the population and in the long run may have made our exitstance on this planet a little bit longer as there will be alot less people using the planets resourses i bet you didnt expect that??(globel 2000 if you like)so as long as we have enough people left to start again the number can go has high as you like but without the use of wmd. man i hope will figure out the cost of life we are paying in this war we need to stop i hope will come before we end up with only a few left if we get that low manybe we should be extinct.wmd is a real game changer they f**k the planet leaving the possiblity for no life to go on total extinction of life so i would hope we would never use them but war is war so lets hope
ReplyVote up (188)down (172)
Original comment
this is a hard thing for me to write but war is not a bad thing it thins down the population and in the long run may have made our exitstance on this planet a little bit longer as there will be alot less people using the planets resourses i bet you didnt expect that??(globel 2000 if you like)so as long as we have enough people left to start again the number can go has high as you like but without the use of wmd. man i hope will figure out the cost of life we are paying in this war we need to stop i hope will come before we end up with only a few left if we get that low manybe we should be extinct.wmd is a real game changer they f**k the planet leaving the possiblity for no life to go on total extinction of life so i would hope we would never use them but war is war so lets hope
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1627 days ago)
If 1 billion people were wiped out instantly (thats 3x US plus 1x UK) the planet would still be left with 6 billion people, and we would be back to our current 7 billion in maybe a decade of so. It just buys a bit of time, rather than solving the problem. To solve the problem we need to get the birthrate to an average of below 2 per woman, then over time, the population will fall. From Wikipedia "Current United Nations predictions estimate that the world population will reach 9.0 billion around 2050, assuming a decrease in average fertility rate from 2.5 down to 2.0." If a woman has 2 children, then the population will be stable, because one child replaces the father when he dies, and the other replaces the mother when she dies.
ReplyVote up (177)down (173)
Original comment
If 1 billion people were wiped out instantly (thats 3x US plus 1x UK) the planet would still be left with 6 billion people, and we would be back to our current 7 billion in maybe a decade of so. It just buys a bit of time, rather than solving the problem. To solve the problem we need to get the birthrate to an average of below 2 per woman, then over time, the population will fall. From Wikipedia "Current United Nations predictions estimate that the world population will reach 9.0 billion around 2050, assuming a decrease in average fertility rate from 2.5 down to 2.0." If a woman has 2 children, then the population will be stable, because one child replaces the father when he dies, and the other replaces the mother when she dies.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1627 days ago)
At least you're honest about your opinion.
ReplyVote up (168)down (187)
Original comment
At least you're honest about your opinion.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1627 days ago)
thankyou it comes from a eyes wide open way of seeing things, plus i will always try and answer all questions put to me no matter how it looks the post is going even if its looking like its not going in my favour plus i try not to avoid answering difficult questions by going off on a different track hint hint cengland0
ReplyVote up (163)down (169)
Original comment
thankyou it comes from a eyes wide open way of seeing things, plus i will always try and answer all questions put to me no matter how it looks the post is going even if its looking like its not going in my favour plus i try not to avoid answering difficult questions by going off on a different track hint hint cengland0
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1627 days ago)
i think this whole "the earth can't sustain more than 15billion people" is bull crap. There is so much new renewable technology out there and so much renewable energy and so many renewable resources that it's hard to sum it all up in a comment, so i wont even try. Check out the articles on this site LINK especially this part LINK
ReplyVote up (134)down (191)
Original comment
i think this whole "the earth can't sustain more than 15billion people" is bull crap. There is so much new renewable technology out there and so much renewable energy and so many renewable resources that it's hard to sum it all up in a comment, so i wont even try. Check out the articles on this site LINK especially this part LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
tornadodog tornadodog (1627 days ago)
thats the power needs sorted out what about food water and somewhere to live for 15b people comming from???sadly i dont agree on this one. i feel we are now on the point of to many people.the world already has food shortage problems now.some could be solved if we shared but we dont now eg the western world wastes food while other countries stave
ReplyVote up (159)down (170)
Original comment
thats the power needs sorted out what about food water and somewhere to live for 15b people comming from???sadly i dont agree on this one. i feel we are now on the point of to many people.the world already has food shortage problems now.some could be solved if we shared but we dont now eg the western world wastes food while other countries stave
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1626 days ago)
food you say? clean water? picture all of the deserts and barren lands of the world covered with 3 or 4 story (maybe more) buildings such as this one LINK and on their roofs there's this LINK . As long as we have light and nutrients for the plants, we will have food. As long as we have energy we will have light. For the nutrients just look into Aquaponics LINK . as long as there is desert and sun and wind and energy, we will have food. You can grow crops underground with a source of artificial light. This whole "the earth can't sustain more than 15 billion people" stuff is false. The correct way to say it is "the earth can't sustain more than 15 billion people under a capitalist economy in a democratic society."
ReplyVote up (158)down (163)
Original comment
food you say? clean water? picture all of the deserts and barren lands of the world covered with 3 or 4 story (maybe more) buildings such as this one LINK and on their roofs there's this LINK . As long as we have light and nutrients for the plants, we will have food. As long as we have energy we will have light. For the nutrients just look into Aquaponics LINK . as long as there is desert and sun and wind and energy, we will have food. You can grow crops underground with a source of artificial light. This whole "the earth can't sustain more than 15 billion people" stuff is false. The correct way to say it is "the earth can't sustain more than 15 billion people under a capitalist economy in a democratic society."
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1626 days ago)
PS: ... all the shortages are artificially created. The civilized world is throwing away food at the same time that people are dying of hunger. Where will they live? i think there was a video on boreme that said that all the population in the world could fit in a space the size of texas: LINK . All of these problems are not real! the only problem is the cost of these solutions. The capitalists will never agree to this, unless the cost of the technology needed to set this up goes down.
ReplyVote up (151)down (173)
Original comment
PS: ... all the shortages are artificially created. The civilized world is throwing away food at the same time that people are dying of hunger. Where will they live? i think there was a video on boreme that said that all the population in the world could fit in a space the size of texas: LINK . All of these problems are not real! the only problem is the cost of these solutions. The capitalists will never agree to this, unless the cost of the technology needed to set this up goes down.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1626 days ago)
Latest comment: artificial crisis: LINK . What is worse is that food prices seem to be constantly going up due to traders speculating on the price of food, which has gotten worse in recent years by the deregulation of the commodities markets and the removal of trading limits for buyers and sellers.
ReplyVote up (152)down (119)
Original comment
Latest comment: artificial crisis: LINK . What is worse is that food prices seem to be constantly going up due to traders speculating on the price of food, which has gotten worse in recent years by the deregulation of the commodities markets and the removal of trading limits for buyers and sellers.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1627 days ago)
War has changed. We don't really have armies amassing in a field and then blowing the shit out of themselves anymore. Maybe if North Korea kicks off, that'll be the last of the old fashioned method of warring. In a globalised world run in the interests of corporations, it becomes increasingly difficult for nations to fight nations because they share interests. If the US and China came to blows, the US would lose cheap labour, China would lose orders. Mass deaths have also become politically unacceptable, thanks to the media, and corporations are multi-national. Nations are expanding by buying foreign companies and "investing" in foreign countries - as China is doing in Africa. The battlefield is relocating to the internet. Cyber war is much less expensive, available to anyone anywhere, and hits where it hurts most - the wallet. So I say money and expertise spent on nuclear weapons could be better spent on cyber defence and intelligence. That would be the smart thing to do.
ReplyVote up (149)down (183)
Original comment
War has changed. We don't really have armies amassing in a field and then blowing the shit out of themselves anymore. Maybe if North Korea kicks off, that'll be the last of the old fashioned method of warring. In a globalised world run in the interests of corporations, it becomes increasingly difficult for nations to fight nations because they share interests. If the US and China came to blows, the US would lose cheap labour, China would lose orders. Mass deaths have also become politically unacceptable, thanks to the media, and corporations are multi-national. Nations are expanding by buying foreign companies and "investing" in foreign countries - as China is doing in Africa. The battlefield is relocating to the internet. Cyber war is much less expensive, available to anyone anywhere, and hits where it hurts most - the wallet. So I say money and expertise spent on nuclear weapons could be better spent on cyber defence and intelligence. That would be the smart thing to do.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1627 days ago)
a quick google search on Cyber weapons of mass destruction revealed the following articles: LINK , LINK and LINK . Very interesting read.
ReplyVote up (102)down (171)
Original comment
a quick google search on Cyber weapons of mass destruction revealed the following articles: LINK , LINK and LINK . Very interesting read.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1627 days ago)
Yes very interesting, and scary - thanks.
ReplyVote up (172)down (156)
Original comment
Yes very interesting, and scary - thanks.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1627 days ago)
my pleasure :)
ReplyVote up (183)down (189)
Original comment
my pleasure :)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: PeterLondon (1627 days ago)
As Noam Chomsky so clearly points out here, the vast investment in the military is really a disguised socialist investment in high-technology research that benefits society as a whole. This strategy is very successful, and is one of the main reasons the USA has such a strong economy and a high median income. Same goes for the UK: LINK But it has to be disguised as military research and investment, or the majority of the right-wing would not allow it, and our countries would suffer. This is why the military budgets are so often ring-fenced, and it's why often both the left and the right support high "defence" spending.
ReplyVote up (149)down (182)
Original comment
As Noam Chomsky so clearly points out here, the vast investment in the military is really a disguised socialist investment in high-technology research that benefits society as a whole. This strategy is very successful, and is one of the main reasons the USA has such a strong economy and a high median income. Same goes for the UK: LINK But it has to be disguised as military research and investment, or the majority of the right-wing would not allow it, and our countries would suffer. This is why the military budgets are so often ring-fenced, and it's why often both the left and the right support high "defence" spending.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1627 days ago)
So why doesn't the military invest in something that could benefit mankind instead of destroy it? Perhaps put more money into renewable energy projects.
ReplyVote up (181)down (167)
Original comment
So why doesn't the military invest in something that could benefit mankind instead of destroy it? Perhaps put more money into renewable energy projects.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: AngelCakes324 (1627 days ago)
Nuclear weapons are pretty.
ReplyVote up (148)down (176)
Original comment
Nuclear weapons are pretty.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
60-year-old life hacks put to the test
60-year-old life hacks put to the test
Fifties jet engine concept car
Fifties jet engine concept car
Park-Car, 5 wheeler from the fifties
Park-Car, 5 wheeler from the fifties
On board with Mike Hawthorne at Le Mans, 1956
On board with Mike Hawthorne at Le Mans, 1956
Creator of The Twilight Zone talks about censorship (1959)
Creator of The Twilight Zone talks about censorship (1959)