OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2011 06:56 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
It appears you're losing your temper?
It is OFFENSIVE that u accuse Oralloy of doing what it is YOUR practice to DO.
U shoud be ashamed.



Setanta wrote:
Could this mean a sudden, unhealthy rise in your blood pressure? One can only hope.
Keep hoping, liar.
As it happens, my blood pressure has always been good.


Setanta wrote:
Tell us about the commie next door
It is not entirely clear whether u are now denying, by your tacit implication,
that a commie lived next door to me in the 1930s & '4Os.




Setanta wrote:
and losing your virginity again, Mr. Wackjob, i could use a good laugh.
( Are u obsessed with expressing yourself in run-on sentences??? )
I have never discussed the end of my virginity in this forum.
That is off topic. (Your credibility is ON topic insofar as it bears
upon your nuclear-related scurrilous denunciations of Oralloy.)

In the incidents whereof u have chosen to lie,
I addressed the issues of an older girl (17, when I was 11)
and another in her early 20s, a few months later.
U falsely accused me of changing my description
of these events and then, upon being challenged qua
your false defamation of myself, u offered NO proof whatsoever
in support of your lies.

I surmise that u are tacitly implying that girls of 17,
or in their 2Os, cannot have erotic desires for boys of 11.
I find that concept odd.

U have never met me; therefore, u are in no position to judge
how attractive I was or was not when I was 11.
U simply MAKE UP any unflattering lies that enter your mind
apparently because of your repulsion toward people
who love political freedom and who support freedom-oriented candidates for political office.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2011 07:09 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
We pretty much bluffed our way to the closure of the war
by making it appear we could have an unlimited supply of these bombs,
so we really relied on the Japanese emperor to blink.
Interestingly, after Hiroshima, the Emperor was informed by his ministers
that we were NOT able to make more than 1 nuke.
That was before August 9th. ( I gotta believe that proved to be a little embarrassing.)
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2011 10:27 am
@Lustig Andrei,
Quote:
Desperate times call for desperate measures.


Nice little cliche, LA. In truth, war crimes can never be excused by desperate times.

Quote:
more and more American lives had been lost


The perpetual whine about American lives as if no other people are on the planet.

Potential Nazi material?
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2011 10:37 am
@djjd62,
Your ignorance is duly noted, again.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2011 11:18 am
@JTT,
Quote:
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
JTT wrote:
Nice little cliche, LA. In truth, war crimes can never be excused by desperate times.
By what reasoning was nuking the Japs a war crime, J ?
Do u have any doubt (dout) that the Japs 'd have done it to us ?

Quote:
more and more American lives had been lost
JTT wrote:
The perpetual whine about American lives as if no other people are on the planet.
Yes, indeed; thay don 't count. If u want to allege that our ALLIES count,
then I 'll grudgingly accept that, but certainly not the enemy.

Indeed, if the American leadership had delayed the end
of the war, or contributed to any injury (however slight)
to an American serviceman, or to an American citizen,
that woud constitute TREASON, which is a major felony.





David
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2011 11:37 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Why do you take such great pains to illustrate your inhumanity, Om?

You are one fine example of excrement.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2011 11:51 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
Why do you take such great pains to illustrate your inhumanity, Om?
Well, in military circumstances,
that is the proper place for inhumanity.
We 'd have offered the Japs better treatment, IF
thay 'd left our Fleet in Pearl Harbor undisturbed.
We avenged the victims of Pearl Harbor.
I 'd wager that the victims (survivors) of many other places
believed that we (incidentally) avenged them upon the Japs,
on both August 6th and August 9th, 1945.

Both as a boy and as an adult, I have wished that I coud
go back in time and make some changes,
but for sure I 'd leave our nuclear attacks intact.
I 'd just cheer & exult LOUDER than I did in 1945.
We were feeling pretty good when we heard about it.




JTT wrote:
You are one fine example of excrement.
In such statements u reveal more about YOURSELF
(showing your lack of civility & abandonment of reason)
than u do about the victim of your rudeness.
(Even the Japs, themselves, did not bring down such DISGRACE
on themselves in 1945, with such language, as u did.)

Well, I suppose that there is not much that I can expect
from someone who overtly rejects logic.





David
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2011 01:40 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
U defamed ME,


Logic tells us that one can't defame despicable.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2011 06:07 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Theer was no third bomb at the time Japan surrendered.


But there was a third bomb a week after they surrendered.



Setanta wrote:

Theer was no third bomb at the time Japan surrendered. Not only that, the plutonium for a third bomb had not been shipped to Tinian. If it had been shipped, then a bomb might, might have been dropped as early as August 20th. However, although authorities disagree about whether it was Oppenheimer, Groves or Marshall who vetoed the shipment, they all agree that shipement of the plutonium had been halted. Late August or early September whould have been the soonest a third bomb could have been dropped, if Truman had immediately authorized the shipment--something he didn't do.


When we received Japan's conditional surrender offer on August 10, Truman ordered a halt to the A-bombing to give them some breathing room.

General Groves took that farther, and ordered a halt to shipping the plutonium pit.

On August 11, the plutonium pit was just going out the door at Los Alamos to be flown out to the Pacific theater when they got the order to halt shipping. It didn't make it any farther than the Los Alamos parking lot before being recalled.

Had Japan not made that surrender offer, there would have been no halt to the shipping, and the A-bomb drop date would have been August 17-18.

Around noon on August 14, Truman decided that enough time had passed, and ordered the pit to be shipped anyway. But that was halted once again a few hours later when Japan surrendered for real.

Had the shipment resumed on August 14, the A-bomb drop date would have been August 20-21.



Setanta wrote:
Therefore, your statement that it's a good thing Japan surrendered when they did, so that we did not drop a third bomb on them is bullshit.


Not really. They missed the third bomb by about a week.



Setanta wrote:
There was no third bomb to drop at the time Japan surrendered.


Yes. But there was a third bomb a week after Japan surrendered.



Setanta wrote:
EDIT: Leaving aside that i'll take Tibbet's testimony over yours any day,


That is an error. With all the information that has been declassified and is now publicly available, I am more informed about the subject today than Tibbets was in 1945.

However, the difference between what I say and what Tibbets said is not very significant.

Going by Tibbets' statement, Japan surrendered about two weeks before the third A-bomb.

Going by my statement, Japan surrendered about one week before the third A-bomb.

One week verses two weeks.... A distinction without a difference?



Setanta wrote:
you're making more things up.


Nope. You cannot show a single thing I've ever even gotten wrong, much less have made up.



Setanta wrote:
At the end of 1945, there were only two bombs in our atomic arsenal, not the three you claim were available in September.


That is because after the war ended, A-bomb production was halted until they could design safer bombs.

Had the war continued, A-bomb production would have increased rapidly until we were making a minimum of seven a month.



Setanta wrote:
Once again, you make things up, and i've seen you do it again and again--notoriously in the thread about bombing Germany in 1945, when you made things up about Dresden left, right and center.


Nope. You cannot show a single thing I've made up about Dresden, or about any other subject.



Setanta wrote:
You'll always jump in to contradict established authority if it doesn't coincide with your screwy world view.


Well, I'm certainly not afraid to challenge established authority if they are wrong, but instances where I do that are somewhat rare.

In this particular case, established authority agrees with me 100%, so I don't anticipate that I'll be challenging them.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2011 06:08 pm
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Dyslexia asked me four years ago why we dropped two bombs on Japan, I told him I always thought the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima to demand the Japanese to surrender and the second bomb on Nagasaki was to warn off the Soviets to stay out of the Japanese war. Surprisingly, he agreed with me.

BBB



No, both bombs were to make Japan surrender. We were *encouraging* the Soviets to enter the war against Japan.

We certainly had lots of reservations about Soviet involvement (and rightly so, given their stamping out of freedom in eastern Europe), but if it continued to the point of a massive ground invasion, we wanted all the help we could get.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2011 06:10 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
The amount of fissionable material available was divvied up between Hanford Wash (which ran a separation process to gather the Plutonium from Uranium hexaflouride) and at Oak Ridge , whgere by 2 processes that finally worked , we were able to produce enough U235 for ONE bomb.
after Nagasaki, we had exactly ZERO amount of critical mass 235 Uranium and very small amounts of Plutonium (The very shape pf the Pu bomb an "Implosion stylle" was the result of a committee decision to try to conserve all the available Pu so when we produced more at HAnford, we could have enough for a series of bombs if needed).
The way I understood from the HAnford History , is that we would not have had enough fisiionable Pu till about mid September (and then wed need to construct a third bomb as an implosion style (:FAT MAN STYLE")


The main reason for the implosion design was that plutonium could not be used in a gun-style bomb. The insertion speed of a gun bomb is way too slow for plutonium.

But the fact that implosion designs required a lot less fissile material than a gun bomb was certainly no drawback. We'd definitely have had a lot fewer A-bombs if we'd needed to devote more of our limited supply of fissile material to each bomb.

Anyway, Hanford had already produced enough plutonium for another A-bomb pit by the end of the war.

The finished plutonium pit was on its way out the door at Los Alamos on August 11 when Japan's surrender offers started slowing things down.

On August 21, a day when it might have been exploding over Tokyo, that plutonium pit was exposing foolish scientists at Los Alamos to lethal levels of radiation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core



farmerman wrote:
We pretty much bluffed our way to the closure of the war by making it appear we could have an unlimited supply of these bombs, so we really relied on the Japanese emperor to blink.


The supply may not have been unlimited, but we had plenty on the way.

After the third one in August, there would have been three more in September, four more in October, five more in November, and a minimum of seven a month from then on.

After nuking Tokyo though, we'd have started saving them up to use all at once to clear the beaches ahead of the invasion of Honshu, instead of dropping each one on a city as soon as we had it ready to use.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2011 06:32 pm
@JTT,
Quote:
U defamed ME,
JTT wrote:
Logic tells us that one can't defame despicable.
FOOLISHNESS from ignorance. If u knew anything about logic, J,
then u 'd not have uttered your nonsense about grammar.





David
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2011 06:34 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
You've not addressed any grammar issues, Om. One would think that a mensan would be able to get at least one thing right about the very language he uses. Odd that you can't.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Thu 18 Aug, 2011 06:48 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
You've not addressed any grammar issues, Om.
One would think that a mensan would be able to get at least one
thing right about the very language he uses. Odd that you can't.
U r just babbling, meaninglessly; waste.
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Aug, 2011 12:27 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

JTT wrote:
You've not addressed any grammar issues, Om.
One would think that a mensan would be able to get at least one
thing right about the very language he uses. Odd that you can't.
U r just babbling, meaninglessly; waste.



But that's what JTT does best, David
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Aug, 2011 08:54 am
@Lustig Andrei,
And what's your forte, LA, being a snipe.

Actually, if you had noticed, Om admitted that he hadn't addressed the grammar issues that he promised he would. It was one excuse after another - the doctor, time to eat, gotta go take a crap, ... .

Come to think of it, you're a lot like Dave when it comes to not addressing things.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Aug, 2011 10:56 am
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

And what's your forte, LA, being a snipe.

Actually, if you had noticed, Om admitted that he hadn't addressed the grammar issues that he promised he would. It was one excuse after another - the doctor, time to eat, gotta go take a crap, ... .

Come to think of it, you're a lot like Dave when it comes to not addressing things.
J, I thought u lost interest in that,
and that we tacitly agreed to forget it, but
I have no wish to withhold information relative thereto.

Please tell me whatever it is that u want to know
about grammar and I will answer u. I 'd give u the information now,
but I 've lost track of it. Do u remembet which thread it was??

or can u ask me whatever the questions were, again ?
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Aug, 2011 11:22 am
@OmSigDAVID,
http://able2know.org/topic/171284-6#post-4632912

'everyone their' is the tag.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Aug, 2011 12:32 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
OK, J; thank u.
I 'll read the thread from your link and respond
to all of your concerns today.





David
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Aug, 2011 12:48 am
eurocelticyankee tag tantrum

http://able2know.org/user/eurocelticyankee/tags/oralboy_insanity/

http://able2know.org/user/eurocelticyankee/tags/omsig_the_nazi/
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Lest we forget
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/24/2022 at 11:02:02