Nuclear Weaponry Thread - General

[QUOTE=Perfumly;26419381]Killing defenseless civilians is less evil than allowing two groups of soldiers to duke it out? It may have been the best option in American interest, but not ahead in morality whatsoever.[/QUOTE] If you look into the options, a land-based invasion of the home islands would have (estimated as best as they could in the 1940's) caused a hell of a lot more civilian casualties than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Look at Operation Downfall.

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;26460541]Yeah, thousands of people getting severe radiation poisoning isn't that dangerous at all.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but tell me how you give radiation poisoning and kill thousands of people with "dirty plutonium bombs"?

Somebody once told me that the germans actually invented the nuclear bomb first, yet one of the scientists sabotaged the plan so the bomb could never be used. Is this true

[QUOTE=Maucer;26464217]Yeah, but tell me how you give radiation poisoning and kill thousands of people with "dirty plutonium bombs"?[/QUOTE] The explosion from the initial detonation blasts the plutonium sphere into dust, the dust, being radioactive plutonium, is carried by local winds, and contaminates anything downwind. [QUOTE=joe588;26464272]Somebody once told me that the germans actually invented the nuclear bomb first, yet one of the scientists sabotaged the plan so the bomb could never be used. Is this true[/QUOTE] No, this is a myth.

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;26460541]Yeah, thousands of people getting severe radiation poisoning isn't that dangerous at all.[/QUOTE]It wouldn't spread that far. It would only spread as far as the explosion could carry it, a little further with wind; and then the main threat is if people were to ingest the radioactive material, as most forms of plutonium emit alpha radiation.

Plutonium isn't dangerous unless you breath it. You could hold a 10 kilogram ball of it on your hand and nothing would happen. And like 10 kilos of plutonium isn't enough to ruin air in a large area. [QUOTE=joe588;26464272]Somebody once told me that the germans actually invented the nuclear bomb first, yet one of the scientists sabotaged the plan so the bomb could never be used. Is this true[/QUOTE] They managed to split an atom first, but as far as we know they never tried to build one because they miscalculated and though it would need many times more of uranium. BTW at that time US only had enough enriched uranium for one bomb. Thats one reason why it was never tested. The second bomb used implosion and plutonium.

Anyone that thinks it was neccessary to nuke Japan is wrong. There is a lot of confusion over the so called 'warning leaflets' that were dropped into Hiroshima days before the bombing. Basically, the US printed 3 different versions of the leaflet which each listed a different set of cities that were 'going to be bombed'. Obviously, propaganda was extremely common in WWII and not much attention was given as civilians had no idea about the creation of the atomic bomb. Japan had been starved for oil throughout the war (the lack of oil exportation from the US to Japan was one of the reasons Japan felt it needed to make war on the United States) and was at the point where they were sending their battlecruisers on kamakazi missions. The US navy could have simply blockaded Japan. Despite popular belief (read: Allied propaganda) the emporer and his cabinet were not adament about continuing the war and if it had been made clear that the US was not going to invade, but lay siege to the entire nation, surrender would have came at a much lower cost of life. Now, addressing the theory that the Soviet Union was going to attempt to take Japan as a part of the pre-cold war land grab: The Soviet Union had agreed at the Yalta conference to assist in the liberation of Japenese held areas of China such as Manchuria. Although Stalin would have liked to take a nice slice of Japanese pie, it was clear that the US would have been extremely hostile towards any attempt to do this. Japan was, for sure, going to be under US influence post-war regardless of the methods used to end the conflict. Furthermore, the Soviets had been holding off their attack on Manchuria for some time; perhaps reluctant to waste Soviet lives on an enemy that Stalin knew the US was adament in defeating. It was only after the nuking of Hiroshima that Stalin moved his men into Manchuria, likely worried that the most destructive weapon ever created was going to be used on the soviet union next (many US generals and politicians wanted to use nukes on the Soviet Union to defeat them before they had a chance to get on equal footing). So, why did the US choose to unleash atomic weapons on Japan? The answer is simple: It was the ultimate test. It was the perfect opportunity to see how much damage the atomic bomb could do to a real city and to real people. Of course there was the added benefit of ending the war without the cost of allied lives but the power that the US now wielded could have been demonstrated to Japan with less life-costing methods. A village or the countryside could have been the target, a non-urban military base perhaps. To those of you who will justify these war crimes, claiming that the Allies were 'choosing the lesser of two evils' or 'protecting japan from communist influence' i am deeply disappointed that you can not see through the lies that have been shoved into history to defend what happened. The fact is that an all out blockade would have easily reduced Japan's already miniscule military capability to nil. If you disagree with this statement i advise you to study the economic, social and military situation facing Japan in 1945 more closely than simply listening to a school lecture or watching a commercialised documentary on the matter. Sadly, the winners do indeed write history and the crimes of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and many others are overshadowed by the Holocaust and the Axis powers' (ill admit, much more sickening) acts of massacre.

[QUOTE=Perfumly;26419381]Killing defenseless civilians is less evil than allowing two groups of soldiers to duke it out? It may have been the best option in American interest, but not ahead in morality whatsoever.[/QUOTE] If your the leader of a nation, theres no such thing morality, only instinct.

[QUOTE=DemonDog;26460719]Highly related; Every nuclear explosion since 1945 [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY[/media][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=dumbass from youtube]# SublimeRealityOf64 3 days ago 17 And what have these weapons solved??? Not a bloody thing! The only way these weapons will benefit humanity is if all governments are put into one room and the bomb goes off with them. Put the Illuminati in there too. Then maybe just maybe, humanity can try to salvage what we have left to make this world a better* place for our children. But until, greed and monetary gain is not the number one concern for governments, we will continue to see corruption on extreme levels. [/QUOTE] :geno:

[QUOTE=Devodiere;26419094]On both sides really. The Japanese were planning to arm every man woman and child to fight them and even the bomb wasn't enough as some of the military personnel tried to stage a coup so they could keep fighting. It's horrible to see but it's either that or wipe out about 60% of the Japanese population through war.[/QUOTE] So they planned to arm everyone? Damn, what the hell where they thinking, untrained civilians make HORRIBLE soldiers, plus putting kids in a war is a really bad idea.

[QUOTE=tier56;26468537]So they planned to arm everyone? Damn, what the hell where they thinking, untrained civilians make HORRIBLE soldiers, plus putting kids in a war is a really bad idea.[/QUOTE] Quantity over quality.

[QUOTE=^-^;26468679]Quantity over quality.[/QUOTE] Yeah that be great, but don't you think those guys would be traumatized by seeing there best friends die right next to them.

[QUOTE=tier56;26468720]Yeah that be great, but don't you think those guys would be traumatized by seeing there best friends die right next to them.[/QUOTE] You think invading soldiers would be traumatised by having to shoot hoardes of schoolchildren weilding Arisakas?

[QUOTE=Devodiere;26418999]Funny thing about WW2 and the bomb. The Uranium requires a critical mass where there are enough other atoms around to start a chain reaction. [B]The Americans calculated it based on how many atoms required so there would be just enough to create a chain reaction[/B], Heisenberg working for the Nazis calculated it so that every atom hit another one. This miscalculation made the Nazis think they needed an enormous amount of Uranium to make a bomb when all you needed was a small amount, something that their enrichment plants were making every couple of days. If Heisenberg hadn't been a dunce about it, the Nazis would of had the bomb Long before anyone else.[/QUOTE] So the Americans just made the required activation energy? Interesting.

[QUOTE=Penguin-Man;26419027][img_thumb]http://i50.tinypic.com/otmelg.gif[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] Isn't that .gif banable?

[QUOTE=^-^;26468742]You think invading soldiers would be traumatised by having to shoot hoardes of schoolchildren weilding Arisakas?[/QUOTE] Im talking about the defending forces, not the invaders.

[QUOTE=tier56;26469221]Im talking about the defending forces, not the invaders.[/QUOTE] Japan didn't care. Defend at all costs was a policy.

My history teacher says all he knows about WWIII, is that the war after WWIII wil be fought with sticks again. I think the atomicbomb has some way of peace in it. We've all seen the destruction and wel all know a nuclear war would most likely be our last war. So I doubt an country would use it cause it will also mean self destruction. But there only has to be 1 crazy leader with nuclear weapons to start a nuclear war :ohdear:

[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] Ever hear of dresden?

[QUOTE=Perfumly;26419257]Yeah those innocent civilians totally got what was coming to them. (please die)[/QUOTE] Japan was doing HORRIBLE things to people in China. That probably would have gone on more if the bomb wasn't dropped.

[QUOTE=SoaringScout;26469854]Japan was doing HORRIBLE things to people in China. That probably would have gone on more if the bomb wasn't dropped.[/QUOTE] manchuria was quickly becoming liberated thanks to the advances of the USSR in the north. Their army and navy basically fell apart towards the end of the war

[QUOTE=Greaterbeing;26465617]Anyone that thinks it was neccessary to nuke Japan is wrong. There is a lot of confusion over the so called 'warning leaflets' that were dropped into Hiroshima days before the bombing. Basically, the US printed 3 different versions of the leaflet which each listed a different set of cities that were 'going to be bombed'. Obviously, propaganda was extremely common in WWII and not much attention was given as civilians had no idea about the creation of the atomic bomb. Japan had been starved for oil throughout the war (the lack of oil exportation from the US to Japan was one of the reasons Japan felt it needed to make war on the United States) and was at the point where they were sending their battlecruisers on kamakazi missions. The US navy could have simply blockaded Japan. Despite popular belief (read: Allied propaganda) the emporer and his cabinet were not adament about continuing the war and if it had been made clear that the US was not going to invade, but lay siege to the entire nation, surrender would have came at a much lower cost of life. [/QUOTE] Japan had little to no capability to even sustain it's citizens. There was one thing that Japan wanted; resources of [b]everything[/b]. They conquered Manchuria, parts of China, the Islands for resources. Once the Russians and Americans took them all, Japan will starve of more than just oil, it will starve of everything. Projections were clear that if the war did go on for another year, a huge number of Japanese civilians will be starved. Many were already subject to harsh rationing. [QUOTE=Greaterbeing;26465617]Now, addressing the theory that the Soviet Union was going to attempt to take Japan as a part of the pre-cold war land grab: The Soviet Union had agreed at the Yalta conference to assist in the liberation of Japenese held areas of China such as Manchuria. Although Stalin would have liked to take a nice slice of Japanese pie, it was clear that the US would have been extremely hostile towards any attempt to do this. Japan was, for sure, going to be under US influence post-war regardless of the methods used to end the conflict. Furthermore, the Soviets had been holding off their attack on Manchuria for some time; perhaps reluctant to waste Soviet lives on an enemy that Stalin knew the US was adament in defeating. It was only after the nuking of Hiroshima that Stalin moved his men into Manchuria, likely worried that the most destructive weapon ever created was going to be used on the soviet union next (many US generals and politicians wanted to use nukes on the Soviet Union to defeat them before they had a chance to get on equal footing).[/QUOTE] You're also neglecting occupied Korea. Stalin was long aware of America's development of the bomb and he would have been more than happy to push further onto the peninsula right after Manchuria. [QUOTE=Greaterbeing;26465617]So, why did the US choose to unleash atomic weapons on Japan? The answer is simple: It was the ultimate test. It was the perfect opportunity to see how much damage the atomic bomb could do to a real city and to real people. Of course there was the added benefit of ending the war without the cost of allied lives but the power that the US now wielded could have been demonstrated to Japan with less life-costing methods. A village or the countryside could have been the target, a non-urban military base perhaps. To those of you who will justify these war crimes, claiming that the Allies were 'choosing the lesser of two evils' or 'protecting japan from communist influence' i am deeply disappointed that you can not see through the lies that have been shoved into history to defend what happened. The fact is that an all out blockade would have easily reduced Japan's already miniscule military capability to nil. If you disagree with this statement i advise you to study the economic, social and military situation facing Japan in 1945 more closely than simply listening to a school lecture or watching a commercialised documentary on the matter. Sadly, the winners do indeed write history and the crimes of Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki and many others are overshadowed by the Holocaust and the Axis powers' (ill admit, much more sickening) acts of massacre.[/QUOTE] Like I said, blockading is even worse for the [b]rest of the people in Japan[/b]. By July 1945, the Japanese government was ready to surrender. When the cabinet first received unofficial word of the surrender terms laid out by the Allied leaders meeting in Potsdam, they considered the terms lenient and were inclined to accept. But they decided to withhold comment until they receive the Allied ultimatums through official channels. With that in mind, elderly premier Kantaro Suzuki tried to tread a careful path when questioned about the Potsdam Declaration. Unfortunately, he used a word that has two meanings. He told a press conference that the cabinet was adopting a position of [i]mokusatsu[/i]. The world [i]mokusatsu[/i] can mean "withhold comment for the moment." it can also mean "ignore". Historically, mokusatsu has been used in between warlords during feudal times. The Japanese News Agency mistakenly translated it the second way. Radio Tokyo flashed the mistake to the world. Headlines in the U.S. blared that Japan was ignoring the declaration, rejecting the surrender terms. The results were nothing short of tragic. President truman decied that he had no choice but to go ahead and drop the atomic bomb. More than a hundred thousand people were killed and the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki virtually destroyed--in part because one old man chose the wrong word. Harry Truman gave the go-ahead to use the bomb three days later. Mokusatsu also had the meaning "to kill with silence". [editline]3rd December 2010[/editline] I would much rather throw two atomic bombs on two cities than to send my entire bombing air force to level the entirety of the country.

I like how everyone has this mindset that it was, "NUKE A DENSE CIVILIAN POPULATION, OR INVADE! THERE ARE ONLY EVER TWO OPTIONS!" Or, you know, they could have dropped the nuke somewhere else where the Japs could have SEEN how powerful it was without having to lose hundreds of thousands of innocents in the process. They could have dropped both bombs where their destructive forces could have been witnessed without the full effects having to be felt by the civilians.

I expected a tutorial on how to make nuclear weapons. I am disappoint.

[QUOTE=sltungle;26475965]I like how everyone has this mindset that it was, "NUKE A DENSE CIVILIAN POPULATION, OR INVADE! THERE ARE ONLY EVER TWO OPTIONS!" Or, you know, they could have dropped the nuke somewhere else where the Japs could have SEEN how powerful it was without having to lose hundreds of thousands of innocents in the process. They could have dropped both bombs where their destructive forces could have been witnessed without the full effects having to be felt by the civilians.[/QUOTE] Seeing how it took two bombs on two cities to get them to surrender, I think they would have just laughed at this.

[QUOTE=Shane;26476001]Seeing how it took two bombs on two cities to get them to surrender, I think they would have just laughed at this.[/QUOTE] I dunno, they probably thought the Americans couldn't possibly have TWO nuclear weapons. I'm sure if you dropped two or three NEAR civilian populations, but far enough away that casualties were a minimum and THEN warned the Japanese emperor, "next time we'll target your cities!" they would have surrendered.

[QUOTE=sltungle;26476039]I dunno, they probably thought the Americans couldn't possibly have TWO nuclear weapons. I'm sure if you dropped two or three NEAR civilian populations, but far enough away that casualties were a minimum and THEN warned the Japanese emperor, "next time we'll target your cities!" they would have surrendered.[/QUOTE] How would you demonstrate for the entire Japanese war cabinet to see? Drop it in Tokyo bay? No. You'll just sprinkle the entire city with fallout and risk contaminating the royal family.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;26476087]How would you demonstrate for the entire Japanese war cabinet to see? Drop it in Tokyo bay? No. You'll just sprinkle the entire city with fallout and risk contaminating the royal family.[/QUOTE] Maybe you should take the time to think about how a nuclear weapon would REALLY look if you saw it detonate in real life. The only experience we've ever had in seeing nukes go off is pictures, videos, none of us have ever actually seen, heard, and felt what it would really be like. I reckon if the Japanese military got two or three first hand looks at nukes going off increasingly more close to population centres they'd probably be very, very worried. Your little 21 inch monitor doesn't do those monsters true justice, there's no way in hell you can put yourself in the right mindset to say such a thing.

[QUOTE=sltungle;26476185]Maybe you should take the time to think about how a nuclear weapon would REALLY look if you saw it detonate in real life. The only experience we've ever had in seeing nukes go off is pictures, videos, none of us have ever actually seen, heard, and felt what it would really be like. I reckon if the Japanese military got two or three first hand looks at nukes going off increasingly more close to population centres they'd probably be very, very worried. Your little 21 inch monitor doesn't do those monsters true justice, there's no way in hell you can put yourself in the right mindset to say such a thing.[/QUOTE] So instead of dropping two, we set off a firework show of atom bombs? They only made two bombs. Having them manufactured, transported, loaded and armed in the middle of flight is already posing a very huge risk of accidental detonations, especially with the simple safety features they placed in the earliest bombs. Why would we set off a 'number' of nukes near? You are still showering the area with fallout. And with a Japanese population that has never been acquainted with radiation, only raised with the ideals of an Imperial nation, and being indoctrinated on how they are the divine race, you are still placing thousands in danger of showing 'displays' in 'remote' areas. And if they wanted to set off a display with Little Boy, their recon is going to have a very difficult time to determine the best weather to decrease the risk of fallout reaching the cities, and at the same time, find a good spot to display the bomb to a bunch of 'military officials' with in an area.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;26476316]So instead of dropping two, we set off a firework show of atom bombs? They only made two bombs. Having them manufactured, transported, loaded and armed in the middle of flight is already posing a very huge risk of accidental detonations, especially with the simple safety features they placed in the earliest bombs. Why would we set off a 'number' of nukes near? You are still showering the area with fallout. And with a Japanese population that has never been acquainted with radiation, only raised with the ideals of an Imperial nation, and being indoctrinated on how they are the divine race, you are still placing thousands in danger of showing 'displays'. And if they wanted to set off a display with Little Boy, their recon is going to have a very difficult time to determine the best weather to decrease the risk of fallout reaching the cities, and at the same time, find a good spot to display the bomb to a bunch of 'military officials' with in an area.[/QUOTE] Yeah but at least you're not killing multiple tens of thousands instantly and giving them the chance to relocate away from the fallout. I mean... 80000 people dead... that's is a HUGE number of civilians, like... that is really, really unacceptable.