Hiroshima and Nagasaki
- Thread starter MapleOne
- Start date
Ah the old Hiroshima/Nagasaki accusataions:
This has been argued well into the triple digits as headers for U.S. dislike - and again has found its place here.
We will always have the horrors of the decisions made to return and review but I have yet to see a diplomatic common sense "correction" to a military response we could utilize anywhere in the world.
9/11 continues to boil but the U.S. seems to be trying to appease terrorism.... maybe a holdover from the
incidents being discussed here.
I hope some day honest reconciliation and diplomatic efforts will be the route taken because the guys who make these horrendous decisions are rarely the ones who lose loved ones or homelands.....it's the people who don't have one iota of hesitation to respond with deadly force to innocent masses of people who make the final decisions.
Who appointed them god?
What about a response rather than wiping out millions - a response of economic aid and rebuilding ensuring future work for the people until a
self-sustaining economy can be accomplished whereby nobody needs to "war" to prove
supremity when war in reality proves fear.
Some day - the people will have enough power to make a difference with government - it's time cannot come soon enough.
This has been argued well into the triple digits as headers for U.S. dislike - and again has found its place here.
We will always have the horrors of the decisions made to return and review but I have yet to see a diplomatic common sense "correction" to a military response we could utilize anywhere in the world.
9/11 continues to boil but the U.S. seems to be trying to appease terrorism.... maybe a holdover from the
incidents being discussed here.
I hope some day honest reconciliation and diplomatic efforts will be the route taken because the guys who make these horrendous decisions are rarely the ones who lose loved ones or homelands.....it's the people who don't have one iota of hesitation to respond with deadly force to innocent masses of people who make the final decisions.
Who appointed them god?
What about a response rather than wiping out millions - a response of economic aid and rebuilding ensuring future work for the people until a
self-sustaining economy can be accomplished whereby nobody needs to "war" to prove
supremity when war in reality proves fear.
Some day - the people will have enough power to make a difference with government - it's time cannot come soon enough.
Last edited:
Ahhh, democracy. It's particularly elusive especially in states where governments declare they are!
Spade
I think the people interpret democracy differently but in order to secure order in government, it is up to the people to determine who the cast will be to make this happen at the State or National level.
We need to be educating the public in simple government operations so the masses can actually understand what they are voting for and who would be the best (better) candidate to ensure success for the largest number of constituents.
There isn't one government official (elected or appointed) who gives a rat's rear about the people - power is the only goal they pursue. Personal power. We have never left the concept of "monarchy" behind.
A king bejewelled and crowned is but one brain compared to those over whom he rules.
The power when wielded properly with intellect and planning for the larger group will succeed no matter who "thinks" he/she is leading.
I think the people interpret democracy differently but in order to secure order in government, it is up to the people to determine who the cast will be to make this happen at the State or National level.
We need to be educating the public in simple government operations so the masses can actually understand what they are voting for and who would be the best (better) candidate to ensure success for the largest number of constituents.
There isn't one government official (elected or appointed) who gives a rat's rear about the people - power is the only goal they pursue. Personal power. We have never left the concept of "monarchy" behind.
A king bejewelled and crowned is but one brain compared to those over whom he rules.
The power when wielded properly with intellect and planning for the larger group will succeed no matter who "thinks" he/she is leading.
"Almost 80 per cent of Canadians still want to end the mission in Afghanistan in 2011, a new Ipsos Reid poll conducted exclusively for canada.com showed."
How likely is that to happen in the Kingdom of Canada.
How likely is that to happen in the Kingdom of Canada.
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.
So you're predicting Harpo will change his mind because untapped resources have been found?
Some, well actually, minor digging provided this...
But hey, you're a brash go getter, bucking against the man, I getchya.
Last edited:
US dive bombers had to take great risks when bombing enemy ships, as those ships did usually fight back. Some of the bombs missed the target. Some did not detonate. And even when they did detonate, they often did not put the enemy ship totally out of combat. Therefore more dive bombers had to be sent out, again at risk, having to dive in close to ensure they hit the target.
Had they had access to small-scale nukes, they would not have had to fly in quite as close, and one bomb could easily have destroyed a ship and likely damage its neighbours too. This could have saved many lives of US servicemen and made a ceasefire more appealing to the Japanese once they'd see how their ships were being sunk left, right and centre.
The first cell phone...
Todays cell phone...
Why didn't we make them like this at the very beginning?
Terrible example. That old cell phone was not nearly as capable as the modern ones. However, today's small-scale nukes that the US now has are inferior in explosive power compared to the bombs dropped on Hiroshima. The reason for this is that, unlike cellphone technology that actually changed over the years, today's small-scale nukes, while perhaps having advanced technologically too, are different mainly not so much in their tech components, but rather in the quantity of explosive material in them. It would not have required extreme genius to just cut back on the quantity of explosive material in the bomb and consequently build a smaller casing to contain it while still keeping the same technology.
The comparison is seriously flawed.
So if the comparison is accurate, then how do you explain that while cellphones got smaller and more capable, that nukes got smaller and less powerful, such as the SADM for instance?
If it were an accurate comparison, then today's SADM for instance should be more powerful than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So how do you explain that it is less so?
But if you can't answer that, that's fine.
1, You missed the point. 2, Nuclear weapons became more powerful as technology progressed, comparative to size and yield ratio.
Like I said, run with it.
Where were we going to get these small scale nukes?
Their ships were being sunk left right and center by airpower and submarines. The Allies had near complete domination of air, land, and sea towards the end.
The Japanese would not surrender.
It was a perfect example.
WELL THERE YOU GO!
Are you kidding? The smaller packaged nukes make the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs look like firecrackers.
Fat Boy and Little Man were primative much like the first cell phone. Big, bulky, almost no features except to make a static call. Todays cellphones are smaller and can do hundreds of applications.
The same with the first Atomic Bombs, big and bulky.
I really think you are not getting it.
Not at all.
Are you simply playing devil's advocate here or are you unable to grasp 1940's technolgy to todays technology.
Says who? Nukes are smaller and more powerful today.
The technolgy you are speaking of IS smaller but it is only one type of weapon and developed in the 1950's. Again, as technology advanced the size and explosive power of nukes advanced.
Are you saying that the A-Bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are more powerful than todays weapons because of their physical size?
Hey you're right. Why didn't we use long range missles and jet aircraft to attack the Japanese fleet during WWII. Why didn't our warships use surface to ship missles?
Perhaps because they weren't invented at that time and the technology was not there?
Today's W54, weighing in at about 50 lbs, has an explosive power of about 10 tons of TNT. The Little Boy had how much again?
10 tons of TNT could wipe out a few blocks of a city no doubt, but that's a far cry from wiping out the whole city.
10 tons of TNT could wipe out a few blocks of a city no doubt, but that's a far cry from wiping out the whole city.
Wow, and if I had a whizzie stick, I'd turn back time so you could help out the Allies in the Pacific theater.
Until then, run Forest run.
Agian, you're talking here of technology the US did not yet have. As for the A-bomb, the US did have that technology and would have had to do nothing more than cut back on the amount of uranium in them.
Heck, I doubt there is much difference technologically between todays' W54 and the Little Boy, the main difference being that today's W54 has less explosive material in it. We're not talking about a technology they did not have. Sure they had not built such bombs, but the knowledge to build them existed. It was essentially a matter of just building the same bomb with less explosive material in it and stuff it into a smaller casing. Not that complicated really.
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.
Now yer catching up. Keep running.
Cutting back isn't possessing the technology, it's making a smaller yield weapon.
And better refined material. Not to mention Little Boy's design had never been tested.
Given the fact that the W54 is a 1KT device, at a weight of 68Kg. Compared to Little Boy with a 4KT yield and a weight of 4,000Kg. I'd say technology wasn't what you think it was at the time.
Just stop and think about that for a minute.
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.