You never really think about how much damage they did, you just think of them about events. It really puts into perspective how horrfying the blast would be. Especially with the shadows. Horrfying.
Might be from Morbid Curiosity.
But i'd pay anything to see an actual Nuclear weapon in action.
Its like watching a Tornado, like your mind is going haywire while trying to comprehend that something so destructive and powerful can exist.
I think nuclear explosions and tornadoes look quite beautiful, so that's the reason I'd want to see one from a safe distance.
Its Beautiful, but its the "Shit bricks and fucking panic" beautiful.
Yeah, the firebombings were a lot more destructive and deadly iirc. But nuclear bombs are a lot more spectacular and a singular thing. It makes sense why people focus on them. They're easily romanticized.
Well yeah, but you know.. if we did still do them.. people would go see it. People used to watch them from Las Vegas.
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*bMzC0UL7ZHZYqxMqiGDHxQ.jpeg
https://iconicphotos.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/energy1113-lasvegascloud-06241957-600w_d5f4387be4.jpg?w=809
the amount of airpower used to firebomb in japan in ww2 was nuts and only the US could have ever fielded that. The problem with nukes is one of efficiency, one group of bombers can do what took hundreds of men and thousands of tons of supplies and hundreds of aircraft to do and that's just the ww2 scale, move forward and you had individual bombers capable of eliminating every city they could get in range of.
If you guys love nukes, do check out atomcentral. Its an archive of nuke footage, beautifully restored and in HD.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-bX67VmRm4&ab_channel=atomcentral
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2I66dHbSRA&ab_channel=atomcentral
Also the documentary, trinity and beyond.
Yeah. Even though the nuclear weapons are absolutely terrifying and can wipe-out an entire small-medium sized city in the matter of seconds. It was more of a show of power to convince the Japanese Military to surrender to the Allies. That was sort of the point with the use of firebombing as well. It was horrific, but a reason why Firebombing was used extensively in Japan was due to the structure material of Japanese architecture. Which was mostly built from wood. (The Japanese traditionally built their structures out of wood due to the amount of natural disasters that effected the Japanese mainland. Hurricanes, Tsunamis, Earthquakes, etc.)
A regular firebomb raid would do a lot more damage than multiple bombing runs. That and also the arrogance of the Japanese Imperial Military didn't help either. There were talks of surrendering even before the Atomic Bombs and the Soviet Union Declaration of war, but even then that was on the fence. Due to how much the Japanese military Leaders wanted to fight to the bitter end. With the combination of the devastating power of two nuclear bombs and the soviet invasion literally forced the Japanese Emperor to beg for surrender. Those two factors pretty much threw whatever idea of "Japanese resistance" out the fucking window. Since the combination of both would lead to more suffering of the Japanese people.
Another big reason for the preference of firebombs was the weather. Japan has very strong high altitude winds that make accurate targeting of convention bombs much harder, incendiary bomb clusters are harder to miss with simply because they cover a broad area.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8NdT4Yq2DvwT5liJ9QAJbA
This channel has uploaded a shit load of declassified nuclear tests for those who're interested. It was in the media a couple of years ago but they've been constantly uploading new ones. Some of the really small 20-8 ton ones are pretty interesting to see, I never even though nukes of that yield were possible.
The problem with nukes compared to firebombing is the fallout, so no, we don't play up the horror.
Just because there isn't any today doesn't mean there wasn't.
Dan Carlin's Logical Insanity podcast tackles the atomic bombings of Japan and it's justifications, it's real good, altered my opinions on a lot of aspects.
What the fuck is the argument in this thread even about? Comparing which tragedy was ‘more awful’ is fucking stupid.
I really appreciate you.
https://youtu.be/VGFQ7d-2GaA
It's impossible for me to comprehend the size and energy involved in this
And to think this was the humane way to end WW2.
It's saddening.
please don't listen to dan carlin, his history podcasts aren't that good. gets basic facts wrong, plays up narratives (and sometimes twists the facts to suit the narrative), doesn't adequately source his claims, overrelies on some sources, etc...
Oh I know, he injects a lot of his own opinions onto subjects, I just like listening to people ramble for hours. If there are better historical podcasts out there I'm open to suggestions.
as far as pop history goes, Mike Duncan can't be beat. BBC has a great podcast series called In Our Time as well.
During the early 1950s, the glow from all the testing in Nevada could be seen all the way to fucking Los Angeles. I used to have some photos of the valley during one of those tests, and all you can see is just this bright glow in the distance with the mountains silhouetted in the foregrounds. Eerie shit.
Here's one photo I found via google searching of this:
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-jf0D57LKnbg/V9KXJ42s7XI/AAAAAAABPz0/gPRsSYpQlR8/atomic-bomb-los-angeles-186.jpg?imgmax=1600
I mean it kind of depends on the nuke right? People live in Nagasaki and Hiroshima today, you can visit the spot where the bomb fell on Hiroshima iirc and not walk away with cancer or a third limb.
No, he gets very simple things wrong (like for example saying there were twenty assassins in Sarajevo on June 28th, 1914. There were only six). Things his sources get right. He's lazy and only looking to push a good story, the facts be damned.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
