|
|
Post by B8 on Jul 20, 2006 7:30:18 GMT -5
My point still stands - one did nothing to get them to surrender. It is a closely held fact that we did not drop the third or fourth bomb on Japan when we could have. So we did stop before we ran out of bombs. We dropped the two because we had to get their attention. We had a communication from Japan almost immediately after the second bomb was dropped. That is what stopped us from using the other bombs. Then there is Russia, they invaded Japan and have yet to get out of the islands that the occupied near the end of WW2. Russia was getting ready to invade the mainland of Japan. The Russian Army was being transported to an embarkation area to invade before we could ever get close to Japan. IF we had let the Russians get all of Japan then they would have been bold enough to go after Korea also.
Hmm, that might have been a good thing for us, Japan would never have risen as an idustrial country and so on.
|
|
|
|
Post by TEX on Jul 22, 2006 4:13:20 GMT -5
Japanese diplomats were negotiating surrender since January of 1945 (7 months before the attacks), the only condition they had were that imperialism remained after the war was over, that's it
where are you getting your facts B8, Little Boy and Fat Man were the only working atomic weapons in existance, no more were made until after the war was over.
also, immediately after the second bomb, you call 5 whole days 'immediately'. The second bomb was dropped on Aug. 9th, the message to surrender came on Aug. 15th, that's twice the ammount of time we gave them after the first attack...
Japan did not know the losses they suffered because of the russian invasion, and it would have been no loss to us as to wait 1 week for them to enter Hokkaido, and then force Japan to surrender
And one more peice for all to see:
The Target Committee at Los Alamos on May 10–11, 1945, recommended Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and the arsenal at Kokura as possible targets. The committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective because of the chance of missing a small target not surrounded by a larger urban area. [glow=red,2,300]The psychological effects on Japan were of great importance to the committee members.[/glow] They also agreed that the initial use of the weapon should be sufficiently spectacular for its importance to be internationally recognized. [glow=red,2,300]The committee felt Kyoto, as an intellectual center of Japan, had a population "better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon."[/glow] Hiroshima was chosen because of its large size, its being "an important army depot" and the potential that the bomb would cause greater destruction because the city was surrounded by hills which would have a "focusing effect".
sounds more like terrorism, not war, with every line...
|
|
|
|
Post by aceofspades on Jul 24, 2006 21:37:57 GMT -5
has anyone else heard about the new defense against missle, theyre going to use high power lasers to blow up missles. they are designing them to be attached to plains, fighterjets, and stationary platforms on the ground.
|
|
|
|
Post by TEX on Jul 25, 2006 14:57:07 GMT -5
lasers are too bulky, and not near powerful enough to be effective against anything but slow icbms right now. what the government wants them to do, is shoot down missles that are targeting the plane, but they're too slow to do that
every test that they have had, has failed misserably
yes, i've heard of them, but i got one thing to say
NOT ON MY PLANE
|
|
|
|
Post by B8 on Aug 6, 2006 6:22:29 GMT -5
Tex there were more nukes available, only there history is hidden from view. To assume that we did not make any more is folly. Where did the rest of our arsenal come from? Did it materialize out of thin air over night? We had plenty of nukes available and that is why Russia stopped at the Elbe River in Germany. Other wise Stalin would have over run all of Europe.
As for Hiroshima being chosen, well maybe you should have talked to the pilot and co pilot of that airplane.
|
|
|
|
Post by TEX on Aug 6, 2006 7:39:57 GMT -5
We simply did not have the uranium to have more than the three bombs (don't forget the test "Trinity"). At that time, nuclear weapons required at least 25 lbs of Uranium-235 to work. Any less, and the bomb's C4 charge is the biggest boom you'll get. And at the time, we only had between 70-90 lbs (actual number is still classified).
the rest of our arsenal came from the uranium material seized at the german heavy water facility (Only large scale uranium purifying project at the time) , and the eventual discovery of plutonium as a fissionable material.
Every single country thought we had more nukes, but really, they were the test dummy's for the hydrogen bomb to be developed later, nothing to be put into war-time use. That and Britan's support for us, were the reasons why stalin stopped.
And are you implying that the pilot and co-pilot of the Enola-Gay chose the target personally? Because if you are, then I feel sorry for you that you believe so much power could be held by such a person of so little importance. The PRESIDENT authorized it's use. The PRESIDENT had the biggest say in the target.
|
|
|
|
Post by Canadian Nose on Aug 8, 2006 18:11:10 GMT -5
Its not an irrational thought Tex, as there was a time when a US Nuclear Submarine commander had the authority to fire a Nuclear weapon without express Presidential consent. So its not unheard of. But no, of course the pilot didnt choose the destination.
|
|
|
|
Post by TEX on Aug 8, 2006 19:18:07 GMT -5
A US nuclear submarine I can get, because it's almost never in direct communication with the mainland, so as long as the president authorizes their use before they are fired (ie. "If you see it fit to launch then do so"). However, a pilot can recieve orders by simply talking on his radio
|
|
|
|
Post by B8 on Aug 9, 2006 7:59:41 GMT -5
It is a shem that the man is dead now. But yes he did choose the target from a list of possible targets. The primary has never been revealed. No he did not get to choose a random city to vaporize. Just as the early sub commanders were open to a list of targets the pilots had a list with them in case the primary was unavailable to them.
As for the amount of material that was availalble it was classified, and still is classified material. But it was common knowlege that there were more bombs available. I have heard this from more than one independent source. Sorry but all of them are dead now.
Next you will be claiming that we do not have neutron bombs. Sorry pal they were used on the anti missle defense system that we had for a while in the 1970's. They were called enhanced radiation warheads. That information was in printed form and may still be looked up in old Scientific American magazines.
|
|
|
|
Post by TEX on Aug 22, 2006 9:52:19 GMT -5
Problem is, planes (esp. bombers) have a rather limited supply of fuel. That's why every air mission is planned out to every last detail before anyone leaves the ground. That's why I can't believe you B8.
Where did we get this nuclear material if not from the captured U-boat? All that was captured was accounted for.
No, I am not denying the existance of the neutron bomb. I never have. I do, however, hate it more than a regular nuclear bomb, because it was not designed to be used in an anti-missle program like you say it is. It was designed to kill more people with massive ammounts of radiation than with an explosion. That way, you get the same effect as killing the entire city, but the city still stands. Plus, the radiation fallout has a much shorter time dissapating rather than it's counterpart. It is the most cowardly and gutless weapon ever thought of.
|
|
|
|
Post by B8 on Aug 22, 2006 12:32:51 GMT -5
War is conducted on the basis of the maximum killing effect with the minimum colateral dammage. Any other way of killing is a waste of valuable resources. True the neutron bomb was possibly developed before the anti missle program, but that is the only program that we have had that mentioned the existance of such a weapon.
The people that I talked to did not know the source of the material, nor should they have know where it came from. We were at war at the time and such information was compartmentalized. Where it came from is irrelevant, we had many programs producing materials for bombs and they were all going full tilt at that time. Read a book by the title of "The Secret History of the Atomic Bomb." Then tell me where all of the material for the reactors in the late 1940's and early 1950's came from so fast. Read between the lines and you will see that there was far more material around than any one wants to divulge. They were testing bombs at a very fast rate at that time. Thta is right - open air testing right here in the USA. There were times when the milk from cetain states had to be dumped because it was radioactive. Bet you will not find that in any history book printed today. If they can cover that up what else is missing?
|
|
|
|
Post by TEX on Aug 22, 2006 15:04:18 GMT -5
So innocent lives aren't colateral dammage? The bomb was intended to KILL people. Not disarm them, not make them weaker, KILL THEM.
And the material for the open air tests in Nevada and Arizona came from the heavy water facillity outside of munich germany, AFTER the war was over.
I have not seen this book "The Secret History of the Atomic Bomb", but the authors are well know for conspiracy theory books. Not too many credible sources as well.
I don't have to read between the lines, when the truth is spelled out in front of you
|
|
|
|
Post by Canadian Nose on Aug 22, 2006 16:44:52 GMT -5
So innocent lives aren't colateral dammage? Gotta agree with him on this one. Were supposed to fight terror and inhumanity in the world, but we cant do that if we make a Neutron Bomb intended to kill more innocent lives while leaving the stones standing. I would consider that an act of terrorism, no matter who dropped it on who for whatever reason. |
|
|
|
Post by B8 on Aug 28, 2006 19:08:14 GMT -5
There are variable size nuke bombs in our arsenal right now. How do you suppose that we change the yield of a bomb? You do that by controling the size of the fusion stage of the reaction. By definition that is a neutron bomb. Fission bombs have one size to go bang at and they are not variable.
By definition collateral damage includes all civilians.
"Watch my hands they will never leave my wrists." Misdirection is used very often in defining sources. Germany never made any plutonium as they had no reactors working, nor did they have uranium separated to weapons grade material. so in no way did any of the bomb material come from that source. Nice try but that is a re-write of the history books.
|
|
|
|
Post by TEX on Aug 28, 2006 23:15:03 GMT -5
You can control the yield of a bomb by limiting the ammount of material in the bomb, E=MC^2, not just the frequency of the fusion stage of an H-bomb. Where the amount of energy released is directly proportional to the ammount of mass converted in the reaction. So, more fissionable material means bigger bang. And 'by definition', a Neutron Bomb is a small thermonuclear device in which the burst of neutrons generated by the fusion reaction is intentionally allowed to escape, instead of being absorbed into the weapon. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bombGermany did not create plutonium. However, they had seperated U-235 (weapons grade) from U-238 (usless), where did we get the original nuclear material if not from a captured German U-boat. And even if it is just a stretch of the truth and that they had only stockpiled raw uranium without refining it or anything, that doesn't mean we could not do so ourselves. |
|
