williamhenry3
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Mar, 2003 10:49 pm
Drunk
0 Replies
 
Algis Kemezys
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2003 02:44 pm
Best use of that avatar yet
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2003 03:37 pm
I will be the pessimist. How is this for a scenario? There is as much chance of banning the Atomic Bomb as there is for alchemists to change lead into gold. The technology and the ingredients are readily available. In the not too distant future it will be as common as gun powder. And one bright day, booom and there goes our lovely planet. It would seem that man was always destined to develop the technology of his own destruction. Maybe that has always been the master plan. Anyone interested in a ticket to Mars? Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Laughing
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2003 04:22 pm
Right at the start of this thread Steissd wrote (regarding banning nuclear weapons)

Quote:
They are the most efficient deterrent means ever known by the mankind. From the other side, such a ban would decrease abilities of the civilized world to fight terror.


That is completely the wrong way round. Nuclear weapons in the hands of states are useless to fight terrorists, but in the hands of terrorists are perfect for fighting and winning against states.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 04:20 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
The Nagasaki bomb was a test of the plutonium device on a live city,


Well, of course they took advantage of the bomb's use to measure the results afterward. They'd be foolish not to.



Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
and an excercise in scaring the Russians.


Truman wasn't trying to scare the Soviets at the time. He was trying to get them to declare war on Japan.



Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
It had, in my opinion, nothing to do with winning the war or saving lives.


It is true that the bombs probably didn't have much impact on making Japan accept our terms before a costly invasion, but that was the motive for us using them.



Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
In August 1945, the problem was keeping Japan from surrendering long enough to test the fat man gadget on a live enemy, not using it to bring an end to the war per se.


Just the opposite. The problem was in making them stop holding out for absurd terms, and to start accepting our terms.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 05:15 am
Lightwizard wrote:
Nagasaki indeed has less moral substantiation and more political overtones


How so? It came from the same bombing order, and Japan had not given us any word that their posture had changed.



Lightwizard wrote:
Japanese intelligence had already determined that we had only two bombs.


I think you are mistaken there. They had no idea what we had, and if anything were saying we only had the one bomb (after we already used it on Hiroshima) because they did not realize that a plutonium or implosion bomb was possible and were basing their estimates on how rapidly gun-type bombs could be produced.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Jan, 2005 05:39 am
Lightwizard wrote:
However, I wouldn't have wanted to make that decison -- Truman had to decide to to it or not to do it and sending the Russians a message was also important to him.


At the time of the A-bombing the only message Truman wanted to send to the Soviets was "Hurry up and declare war on Japan already!"



Lightwizard wrote:
Then, we will really never know if the second bomb was unnecessary -- that part of the history is still cloudy. Que sera, sera.


The balance of the evidence seems to show that neither bomb was necessary, but this was not apparent to us at the time we dropped the bombs.



Lightwizard wrote:
As I remember, there wasn't enough uranium or plutonium to make that third bomb functional -- just the casing existed. If you can find information disputing that, go for it.


The plutonium was actually on its way out the door at Los Alamos on August 11 when we got word that the Japanese were beginning to break. It was planned for use around August 17-18. We delayed the shipment for three days in the hope that it was unnecessary, but it set out for the Pacific on August 14. It never left US soil before we heard that they had accepted our surrender terms.

We were going to produce three bombs a month thereafter, expanding in December to more than 7 a month with a higher yield (mostly 37kt, but some 49kt bombs would have been possible).

Section 8.1.5 here does a good job of explaining it.



Lightwizard wrote:
Those killed at the two bombing sites were civilians, we would have lost a small percentage of soldiers in that week. Some are going to believe it was a fair trade, some not. I've always been conflicted on that point but I would not in retrospect condemn Truman for dropping the bombs.


The 20,000 soldiers killed while awaiting deployment were not civilians. And while the arms-production factories and military headquarters were not "alive" to be killed, they weren't exactly civilian either.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/22/2021 at 02:11:59