Nuclear Weaponry Thread - General

It could've been considered wrong. But it ended the war, and that was what counted. The Japanese wanted to take over the world, I think a lot of us would've taken desperate measures to stop them.

[QUOTE=Slacks3000;26419708]It could've been considered wrong. But it ended the war, and that was what counted.[/QUOTE] And it prevented another war from happening with the Soviet Union over in the Pacific as many people like to think.

[QUOTE=Perfumly;26419700]You probably won't wipe 70% of two cities out completely through conventional war. That and the after effects of nuclear fallout, it's bad mojo.[/QUOTE] You're right, but we would have destroyed 50% of many more cities such as Tokyo, which is more populous and developed that the 2 we bombed.

[QUOTE=Perfumly;26419700]You probably won't wipe 70% of two cities out completely through conventional war. That and the after effects of nuclear fallout, it's bad mojo.[/QUOTE] Two cities vs. Every city. As I said before, the Japanese civilians were jumping off cliffs because they thought the Americans were monsters and in addition to the large amount of militia and suicide attacks, there would of been significant civilian casualties even if none were done by American weapons.

[QUOTE=Perfumly;26419700]You probably won't wipe 70% of two cities out completely through conventional war. That and the after effects of nuclear fallout, it's bad mojo.[/QUOTE] So it's fine that we wipe out 25% of a major city through conventional war instead and bomb it consistently? That and the products of firestorms.

Fun fact: China's involvement in the war was mostly fighting off a brutal Japanese Invasion, and suffered the second highest number of casualties of any country.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;26419773]So it's fine that we wipe out 25% of a major city through conventional war instead and bomb it consistently? That and the products of firestorms.[/QUOTE] Here is why we used the bomb. Couldn't explain it better than this. [url]http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_US_drop_the_atomic_bombs_on_Japan[/url]

[QUOTE=Perfumly;26419435]I'm not the one making assumptions, did you read what you just typed?[/QUOTE] He never said he wasn't making assumptions, he just disagreed with yours. [QUOTE=Explosions;26419398]That is a stupid assumption, as less life was lost in these two bombings than what would have been lost if an invasion had occurred, as well as material damage.[/QUOTE] Explosions is probably right, on this point at least. The Japanese weren't ready to surrender during the conventional bombing, despite the fact that more civilians died from the 'conventional' bombing of Japan then they did from the two atomic bombs. Even after the dropping of both bombs, there was an assassination attempt on the Emperor orchestrated by a section of the military that did not want to surrender. On another note, it's not like the attack was a surprise. America warned the citizens and the government prior to the use of the atomic weapons.

[QUOTE=Meep Moop;26419902]He never said he wasn't making assumptions, he just disagreed with yours. Explosions is probably correct. The Japanese weren't ready to surrender during the conventional bombing, despite the fact that more civilians died from the 'conventional' bombing of Japan then they did from the two atomic bombs. Even after the dropping of both bombs, there was an assassination attempt on the Emperor orchestrated by a section of the military that did not want to surrender. On another note, it's not like the attack was a surprise. America warned the citizens and the government prior to the use of the atomic weapons.[/QUOTE] Explosions [b]is right.[/b] The Japanese were [b]NOT[/b] going to surrender to us through conventional bombing. Hell they were going to fight every American Soldier with every single person in that entire country until they won the war. It was really better off that we used the bomb because it really ended up causing less casualties.

How many nukes does it take to destroy the environment?

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;26420375]How many nukes does it take to destroy the environment?[/QUOTE] depends on yield 1 gud sized cobalt bomb bout 250 megtons shuf fuk u up

[QUOTE=Fuhrer;26420392]depends on yield 1 good sized cobalt bomb bout 250 megatons should fuck you up[/QUOTE] [editline]30th November 2010[/editline] Mien Fuhrer you need to work on your English

[QUOTE=Perfumly;26419700]You probably won't wipe 70% of two cities out completely through conventional war. That and the after effects of nuclear fallout, it's bad mojo.[/QUOTE] I don't think you realize the Americans wanted to end the war before they lost anymore of their own. They could have lost another million soldiers fighting conventionally. Regardless if they were citizens, Japan attacked, America responded.

[QUOTE=alphatwo;26419461]yup, and I think they deleted the quest where you can nuke megaton too.[/QUOTE] They changed the model of the bomb

[QUOTE=Explosions;26418891]IMO, the Japs had it coming.[/QUOTE]Well there were only four options at the time A. Wait for Russia to take everything Japan had. B. Attack and have Russia take most of it C. Lose ridiculously large amounts of soldiers. D. Use that new thingamajig we made.

[QUOTE=Cheshire_cat;26419539][b]*KABOOOOOM*[/b] Brb, surrender or get nuked. Kthxbai Sincerely, America[/QUOTE] fuckno do ur worst faggot lolgtfo Sincerely, Japan

[QUOTE=Cheshire_cat;26419513]Yeah, Mr. Burke doesn't appear in the game. I wonder if you could just add the Fusion Pulse Charge using a cheat code. You could very easily restore it using a mod, though.[/QUOTE] actually Megaton didn't appear in the game IIRC, if not it wasn't as the other versions had it.

The picture in OP is the Nagasaki explosion. This is the Hiroshima explosion: [img_thumb]http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/images/HiroshimaCloudLarge.gif[/img_thumb] Can you correct it, OP? By the way, here's some other shots of this beauty! [img_thumb]http://blogs.knoxnews.com/knx/munger/hiroshima.jpg[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://fugato.net/wp-content/hiroshima-mushroom-cloud.jpg[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://hsgm.free.fr/recent/bomb3.jpg[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://static.blogcritics.org/10/01/17/123789/HiroshimaCloudGroundLarge.jpg[/img_thumb] [img_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Atomic_cloud_over_Hiroshima_from_B-29.jpg[/img_thumb] [editline]1st December 2010[/editline] And here's a kid who's got his skin melted by the explosion. [media]http://www.hiroshima-remembered.com/photos/effects/images/PC06.jpg[/media] Atomic bombs are beaultiful! I'd pay to see an atomic bomb test!

[QUOTE=Cheshire_cat;26419394]For some reason I like 'Nuka-Launcher' better than 'Fat Man'. I dunno why. Maybe because I like anything with 'Nuka' in it. :v: On-topic: Yeah, nukes are scary, but aren't today's nukes engineered to give off less radiation than, say, the Fat Man?[/QUOTE] No, the weapons of our day have a much higher blast radius, cause much more damage, and 'beast-mode on dem hoes'

Time for a random explanation of the difference between Uranium nukes and Plutonium nukes. Basically, Uranium nukes are pretty easy to make - smash 2 sub-critcial pieces of Uranium-235 together - but, the actual material required to make it is, well, hard to find. Uranium-235 is found in traces of most Uranium present, and isotopic search and retrieval. Plutonium nukes are harder to make - basically involving the use of explosives "shells" around a Plutonium-239 together to compress it - but Plutonium's significantly easier to find (or more accurately, make). It's still a bitch though, but Uranium fission is the most impractical type of nuclear fission.

This year, I visited the Hiroshima Peace Museum, and naturally they provide information on why America used nuclear weapons. Interestingly, however, they don't focus on the "lesser-of-two-evils" concept which most Westerners would see, but instead claim that nuclear weapons were used in an attempt to deter the Soviet Union. This is really a bit of a misrepresentation of the truth (in my opinion), as I feel the "lesser-of-two-evils" concept was actually the more prevalent reason; but, I can understand and partially sympathise their motivations.

-snip-

[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;26421367]This year, I visited the Hiroshima Peace Museum, and naturally they provide information on why America used nuclear weapons. Interestingly, however, they don't focus on the "lesser-of-two-evils" concept which most Westerners would see, but instead claim that nuclear weapons were used in an attempt to deter the Soviet Union. This is really a bit of a misrepresentation of the truth (in my opinion), as I feel the "lesser-of-two-evils" concept was actually the more prevalent reason; but, I can understand and partially sympathise their motivations.[/QUOTE]If we didn't take over Japan fast enough Russia would eat that shit up like Cake for a starved fat guy. It just so happens that the only way to get Japan to surrender fast enough is to use the most destructive explosive device known to man. [editline]30th November 2010[/editline] If we had enough troops to take it over we would have done it that way, but Russia was just too darn determined.

[QUOTE=Perfumly;26419435]I'm not the one making assumptions, did you read what you just typed?[/QUOTE] C'mon Perfumely, I thought mods were supposed to be smart. They weren't making any assumptions. More people would have died in an invasion, it's confirmed. Projected allied losses from an invasion would have been 500,000. And that's not even counting the countless Japanese men, women, and children that would have subsequently been killed. The total losses from the two bombings, is roughly 200-250k Japanese lives. If you add in the amount killed by radiation sickness after the bomb dropped, Japanese records show it to be about 420,000 people. You may notice that that number alone is less than the projected allied casualties alone, not counting the millions of Japanese that would have been killed if an invasion had taken place. What other part of his statement was speculation then? The only thing left is that he said material damage would occur. And it's not like in the allied invasion of Japan all the infrastructure would be left untouched. Do you remember what France and Germany looked like after the allies were finished with them? Both of them were desolate places, almost every corner of their countries was ravaged by war. For god's sake look at German cities after we were done firebombing them. Not only had millions died, but the entire infrastructure of the city was annihilated due to the raging fires. Why do you suspect an invasion of Japan would lead to different results, especially when you consider the fanatical devotion of the population to their cause.

Living in the very site that the atom bomb that was used in the World War. Hanford It's pretty shitty living here though, although there's a lot of rich people around.

More on Dr. Funk's point, Another big factor in the decision to drop the bombs was soviet involvement. I forget the dates but the Soviets were going to join the war in the pacific about a week after the bombs were scheduled to drop. America had to end the war before that date because if they didn't then the Soviets would join and share in control of Japan afterwards. That meant that America would have a communist presence in the west, the Soviets would have gained a great amount of control in the pacific waters (the soviets were working on atomic weapons as well which could then be deployed from the pacific area),f tensions over the now divided Germany and the mounting distrust between capitalism and communism our feelings towards the Soviet Union and communism in general at the time we couldn't let that happen.

Tsar bomba wins it all [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f2/Tsar_Bomba_Revised.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Dr_Funk;26421367]This year, I visited the Hiroshima Peace Museum, and naturally they provide information on why America used nuclear weapons. Interestingly, however, they don't focus on the "lesser-of-two-evils" concept which most Westerners would see, but instead claim that nuclear weapons were used in an attempt to deter the Soviet Union. This is really a bit of a misrepresentation of the truth (in my opinion), as I feel the "lesser-of-two-evils" concept was actually the more prevalent reason; but, I can understand and partially sympathise their motivations.[/QUOTE] Modern Japan actually goes to great lengths to hide their involvement in WW2. The Japanese Empire killed almost [i]twice as many[/i] people as Nazi Germany did - and most Japanese people today don't know that.

Japanese POW camps were some of the worst around, worse than the Russian-German camps. While Japanese prisoners were treated fine, Allied prisoners were given barbaric treatment. Modern day Japan ignores this and instead focuses on how they were nuked and are the victims.

[QUOTE=Novangel;26419291]fcuk your shit [img_thumb]http://gyazo.com/cc96b91a9141f921223fdf60801c067c.png[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] Saw a video about that. Stupidest creation ever, the distance it could fire also affected the firers with radiation.