Hiroshima and Nagasaki

CDNBear

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Machjo said:
What? That's what I've been trying to say all along!
Click to expand...
I know, which is why the analogy was right and you've been wrong all along.

Dude, do the math.

In the late 50's early 60', the technology made a 68Kg package capable of yielding a 1KT explosion.

In 45, the technology available made a weapon with a yield of just 4 times that, at a weight of 4,000Kg.

You're still looking at a delivery system in the 1,000 of lbs.

So you do admit that the US had the knowledge necessary to reduce the yeald of the weapon. Finally!
Click to expand...
That was the point.

Now, seeing how Little Boy was way too powerful to target military installations without harming civilians, would you not agree that building a lower-yield weapon would have been preferable?
Click to expand...
OMG, you just don't get it do you?

Sorry, when I was saying 'smaller' above, I did not mean smaller with the same yield, but rather smaller-yield, which would have meant less explosive material and therefore the possibility of putting it into a smaller casing.
Click to expand...
Now you're back peddling.

Such smaller-yield weapons could have been used to destroy the Japanese fleet more efficiently or, since it had already been destroyed except for the odd submarine, then at least ensure any new ship Japan built could have been so efficiently destroyed, thus destroying Japan's will to fight... but without so many civilian casualties.
Click to expand...
Making this a moot point, besides being besides the point.

Looking at it that way, smaller-yield nukes could possibly have saved more lives, civilian and military alike.
Click to expand...
You still missed the point. You seem to think that the Japanese people were ready to roll over. They weren't. They were ready and willing to all die for their God/Emperor.

Fait enough. Then by reducing the explosive power by 3/4, certainly the size could have been reduced by at least a little. Heck, even if the size did remain the same, the lower yield would still have saved the US money, and allowed them to use the extra uranium saved for other bombs, thus saving some money too. Even if the bomb were the same size but just a little less heavy, even that would have helped make it at least a little more versatile too for slightly smaller bombers.

Or, if the bomb were still in such an experimental stage, not use it at all, just keep destroying the Japanese Navy, and offer not surrender but a simple ceasefire that would not have required Japan to lose face, seeing that losing face was likely the main thing preventing Japan from surrendering.
Click to expand...


Stop viewing history with a contemporary eye.
 
EagleSmack

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Machjo said:
Agian, you're talking here of technology the US did not yet have.
Click to expand...

Badabing.

I doubt I could have helped. I'm sure part of the reason was not just strategic, but emotional, to teach the 'Japs' a lesson.
Click to expand...

Of course, not just to end the war but to teach them a lesson. Oh brother.

Machjo said:
Or, if the bomb were still in such an experimental stage, not use it at all, just keep destroying the Japanese Navy, and offer not surrender but a simple ceasefire that would not have required Japan to lose face, seeing that losing face was likely the main thing preventing Japan from surrendering.
Click to expand...


Basically this is what you wanted? You did not think the Japanese had to surrender after all they had done and it was a war that they started.

The allies should have give in to the Japanese so they could save face and not admit that they were defeated? Perhaps so they could do it all over again.

The Japanese were willing to let this war go on and there population suffer because they did not want to admit defeat. Where does the fault really lie?
 
ironsides

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
Machjo said:
What? That's what I've been trying to say all along!

So you do admit that the US had the knowledge necessary to reduce the yeald of the weapon. Finally!

Now, seeing how Little Boy was way too powerful to target military installations without harming civilians, would you not agree that building a lower-yield weapon would have been preferable?

Sorry, when I was saying 'smaller' above, I did not mean smaller with the same yield, but rather smaller-yield, which would have meant less explosive material and therefore the possibility of putting it into a smaller casing.

Such smaller-yield weapons could have been used to destroy the Japanese fleet more efficiently or, since it had already been destroyed except for the odd submarine, then at least ensure any new ship Japan built could have been so efficiently destroyed, thus destroying Japan's will to fight... but without so many civilian casualties.

Looking at it that way, smaller-yield nukes could possibly have saved more lives, civilian and military alike.



Fait enough. Then by reducing the explosive power by 3/4, certainly the size could have been reduced by at least a little. Heck, even if the size did remain the same, the lower yield would still have saved the US money, and allowed them to use the extra uranium saved for other bombs, thus saving some money too. Even if the bomb were the same size but just a little less heavy, even that would have helped make it at least a little more versatile too for slightly smaller bombers.

Or, if the bomb were still in such an experimental stage, not use it at all, just keep destroying the Japanese Navy, and offer not surrender but a simple ceasefire that would not have required Japan to lose face, seeing that losing face was likely the main thing preventing Japan from surrendering.
Click to expand...

If, If, if only we had a hydrogen bomb, then one bomb would have finished the war. We had no miniaturization of anything really back in 1945. (no transistors, no microcircuits) As for the nuclear bomb, we only had 3 and were bluffing if we had to use a 4th immediately. No we did not have the technology to miniaturize anything, and it was small by todays standards.
 
Nuggler

Nuggler

kind and gentle
Feb 27, 2006
11,596
141
63
Backwater, Ontario.
Bear said"I guess that all depends on whether or not the Liberals take power or not. Since Rae want's to debate the Conservatives firm date of withdraw.""

Does he not want to do this just to ensure we do in fact withdraw in 2011?? Hope so.

Anyhow, back on topic:

It's been stated that there were as many people killed in the firebombing of Tokyo as in the Hiroshima drop.
Tokyo = many planes, many bombs.
Hiroshima = one plane..........whoooooof!!
Likewise Nagasaki..................I think that got their attention.
Too bad they hadn't had one for Germany too...............right down the pipe in ol' Berlin.

The nazis were working on the A bomb as well, and rockets, and they would have used them.

Would have saved a lot of Yanks, Brits, Aussies, Canucks, Kiwis. etc. Worthwhile.

might have caused Joe Stalin to suck up his nuts and back off a bit. regarding the iron curtain.

...........Not too rabid, am I :blob6:

Might even vote Conservative.:pukeleft:

:glasses11:
 
CDNBear

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Nuggler said:
Bear said"I guess that all depends on whether or not the Liberals take power or not. Since Rae want's to debate the Conservatives firm date of withdraw.""

Does he not want to do this just to ensure we do in fact withdraw in 2011?? Hope so.
Click to expand...
Who knows. I can't see how they could take the confirmed date as being flexible or up for debate, when the Gov't has clearly stated there will be no extension. Unequivocally on several occasions.

Unless some politician was trying to make political hay out of nothing. But no Liberal politician would do that.

Anyhow, back on topic:

It's been stated that there were as many people killed in the firebombing of Tokyo as in the Hiroshima drop.
Tokyo = many planes, many bombs.
Hiroshima = one plane..........whoooooof!!
Likewise Nagasaki..................I think that got their attention.
Too bad they hadn't had one for Germany too...............right down the pipe in ol' Berlin.

The nazis were working on the A bomb as well, and rockets, and they would have used them.

Would have saved a lot of Yanks, Brits, Aussies, Canucks, Kiwis. etc. Worthwhile.

might have caused Joe Stalin to suck up his nuts and back off a bit. regarding the iron curtain.

...........Not too rabid, am I :blob6:

Might even vote Conservative.:pukeleft:

:glasses11:
Click to expand...
Yer never too rabid dude.
 
earth_as_one

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
Making small atomic bombs is quite tricky. Its not as simple as cutting back on the amount of HEU. Unless the amount of fissionable material exceeds critical mass, all you will get is a dud. I'm not an expert, but it would make sense that bomb components for a small nuke would have to be extremely pure, bomb components would have to be shaped extremely precisely and assembly of the weapon (detonation) would have to be extremely quick. The US did not have the time or material to test/develop alternate A-bomb designs. They had two designs which worked and they used them.
 
ironsides

ironsides

Executive Branch Member
Feb 13, 2009
8,583
60
48
United States
It is a wonder that life came back after the pounding the atoll got. Just goes to prove that we may destroy ourselves, but life will go on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom