I'd prefer never to have heard about your fetishes, but that's not the world we live in, is it?I'd prefer neither, but that's another story.
I'd prefer never to have heard about your fetishes, but that's not the world we live in, is it?I'd prefer neither, but that's another story.
Japan lacked the resources to win the war period.Japan lacked the resources to win the war in the Pacific following the Battle of Midway in 1942.
Of all American war resources only 15% were going to the Pacific.
The Japanese were looking for a conditional surrender.US Strategic Bombing Survey
You're not really correct here.It was an unnecessary display of military might for the Russians. The Americans had been bombing the hell out of Japanese cities for some time using conventional weapons - they destroyed 75% of Nagasaki with the nuclear bomb but had in the month and a half prior reached a similar level of destruction in ten other Japanese cities using conventional weapons. By the time that the bomb was dropped the relationship between Russia and America had changed - please don't be fooled into characterising the use of nuclear weapons against japan as anything other than bringing about the end of the war in the most blunt and horrific way possible as a show of strength to the Russians.
They targeted a residential area with a weapon that wouldn't just kill but would cause pain and suffering for decades to come. It had nothing to do with saving Japanese lives. Repeat after me: dropping a nuclear bomb on the residential area of a Japanese city had nothing to do with saving Japanese lives. Especially not the second time.
Anyone that tries to justify the use of the first bomb, let alone the second one by saying it was revenge for pearl harbour is a mental.
What difference does it make if you wife and child is killed by one bomb, or another? I mean really.Resources are relevant because that is what you need to keep the country going. Tough sanctions would have crippled Japan's finances and food supplies to a point that they would have had to surrender. The writing was already on the wall in fact Japan was already negotiating with the Soviet Union to surrender. The problem was purely cultural. They couldn't allow their emperor to bear the shame of what had happened by asking an unconditional surrender but that could have been tackled anyway once all resources ran out, famine kicked in and the country would have ended on its knees.
As I said the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings where sound military strategies which brought a once super power to its knees with a show of power. It may well have saved the world from a WW3 because after Nagasaki/Hiroshima no one, not even Stalin was mad enough to start a third world war. On the other hand no one can justify what had happened. Imagine your wife and children being nuked out of the blues because your country had acted like an arse.
It's the fallout and effect of the Nukes - in generations to come. The birth defects, the detahs due to cancer. The same can be said of napalm and its effects well after its use.What difference does it make if you wife and child is killed by one bomb, or another? I mean really.
Indeed, despite the folklore the raid on Pearl Harbor was a failure as soon as the Lexington and Radisson were confirmed to not be in port.Japan lacked the resources to win the war period.
The ABCD embargo ensured that, it also pushed Japan into war.
The Japanese strategy was to crush the American Pacific fleet and then consolidate their holdings and dig in with a barrier defense. Their hope was that the US after losing their Pacific fleet would settle for a negotiated peace.
Surely conditions had changed between 1941 and 1944-45?The flaw in that line of reasoning is that the Americans were pressuring the Russians to get involved in the war against the Japanese from 1941, if the Russians got involved and allowed the Americans use of their soil the war against the Japanese would have been over far quicker seeing as the Russian mainland is 200 miles from the Japanese home islands.
There is no debate about it saving more lives.It's the fallout and effect of the Nukes - in generations to come. The birth defects, the detahs due to cancer. The same can be said of napalm and its effects well after its use.
Also I beleive once a nuke is launched it's crossing the rubicon into unknown territory which frightens many people.
In the end we can debate about this as long as we like whether it perversely saved more lives in the long run or not.
Surely it was more - much more who died/suffered as a result of those bombs. These are nuclear bombs; their effects are felt for generations.It is easy to rail from a position of zero responsibility about the 100k who died as a direct result of the detonations.
Casualties at the time of the bombings were about 100k between both attacks.Surely it was more - much more who died/suffered as a result of those bombs. These are nuclear bombs; their effects are felt for generations.
Your kid might though, especially if your wife was pregnant at the timeCasualties at the time of the bombings were about 100k between both attacks.
It isn't like Nagasaki and Hiroshima were glowing after they were bombed.
New Scientist - Google Books
Basically the idea that an atomic bomb turning land into a radioactive wasteland is bullshit.
Most radiation is soaked up by dust which can literally be brushed off with minimal ill effects. I mean, I personally wouldn't want to roll around in irradiated dust, but I probably wouldn't spontaneously start glowing, grow a third eye, or die from radiation any time soon.
Basically what happens is this. Bomb explodes. A burst of (gamma?) radiation radiates out. It irradiates dust primarily. However the massive explosion consumes all oxygen near the epicenter. This creates a massive void where more air rushes to fill. The intense heat super heats the air and everything is sucked up into the mushroom cloud. Normal circumstances, these particles are distributed into the atmosphere where they settle in virtually harmless quantities around the globe.
Bad situation is, the mushroom cloud mixes with rain clouds and this irradiated dust mixes with the precipitation and falls back in more concentrated quantities to earth. This is bad and it happened at either Hiroshima or Nagasaki I forget which.
Really bad situation, hundreds of thermo-nuclear warheads detonate and we descend into a nuclear winter where the sky is so filled with irradiated dust we basically feck ourselves ;p
This is also why all the media fear mongering about the dirty terrorists getting a "dirty" bomb is complete rubbish.
Is a dirty bomb one that is delivered through the backdoor?Casualties at the time of the bombings were about 100k between both attacks.
It isn't like Nagasaki and Hiroshima were glowing after they were bombed.
New Scientist - Google Books
Basically the idea that an atomic bomb turning land into a radioactive wasteland is bullshit.
Most radiation is soaked up by dust which can literally be brushed off with minimal ill effects. I mean, I personally wouldn't want to roll around in irradiated dust, but I probably wouldn't spontaneously start glowing, grow a third eye, or die from radiation any time soon.
Basically what happens is this. Bomb explodes. A burst of (gamma?) radiation radiates out. It irradiates dust primarily. However the massive explosion consumes all oxygen near the epicenter. This creates a massive void where more air rushes to fill. The intense heat super heats the air and everything is sucked up into the mushroom cloud. Normal circumstances, these particles are distributed into the atmosphere where they settle in virtually harmless quantities around the globe.
Bad situation is, the mushroom cloud mixes with rain clouds and this irradiated dust mixes with the precipitation and falls back in more concentrated quantities to earth. This is bad and it happened at either Hiroshima or Nagasaki I forget which.
Really bad situation, hundreds of thermo-nuclear warheads detonate and we descend into a nuclear winter where the sky is so filled with irradiated dust we basically feck ourselves ;p
This is also why all the media fear mongering about the dirty terrorists getting a "dirty" bomb is complete rubbish.
the effect of the A bomb was required in my opinion, however they could have dropped it in a less populated area as a warning to give the japs the opportunity to surrender.....but certainly it may have saved up to 1 million lives of soldiers and civilians alike if an invasion was necessaryYesterday was the 65th anniversary of the bombing.
If USA hadn't dropped the bombs, with an eventual invasion of the Japanese mainland in sight, how long could the war have continued?
Was the Nagasaki bomb really necessary?
Even more in the UK, who had been at it longer, if you read contemporary accounts there was a complete sense of exhaustion - that people couldn't take much more. Which is one of the reasons why it is difficult to judge in hindsight.my father in-law worked on the Enloa Gay (ground crew) , at the time he said it ended the war so he was happy.
Is this a pisstake? - Nuclear winter, anyone?It isn't like Nagasaki and Hiroshima were glowing after they were bombed.
Basically the idea that an atomic bomb turning land into a radioactive wasteland is bullshit.
Again, there's no point in exaggeration to try and prove a point. No one is saying people will suddenly start mutating (is such a thing even possible? - the one thing that anyone can guarantee about how Nature behaves is that changes tend to be continuous, not abrupt).Most radiation is soaked up by dust which can literally be brushed off with minimal ill effects. I mean, I personally wouldn't want to roll around in irradiated dust, but I probably wouldn't spontaneously start glowing, grow a third eye, or die from radiation any time soon.
The dynamics of the detonation, and its aftermath depend on what altitude the bomb is dropped, as well as the yield of the bomb. It even depends on what type of day it is (dry, hazy, windy etc).Basically what happens is this. Bomb explodes. A burst of (gamma?) radiation radiates out. It irradiates dust primarily. However the massive explosion consumes all oxygen near the epicenter. This creates a massive void where more air rushes to fill. The intense heat super heats the air and everything is sucked up into the mushroom cloud. Normal circumstances, these particles are distributed into the atmosphere where they settle in virtually harmless quantities around the globe.
Why?This is also why all the media fear mongering about the dirty terrorists getting a "dirty" bomb is complete rubbish.
very true - on all points.Even more in the UK, who had been at it longer, if you read contemporary accounts there was a complete sense of exhaustion - that people couldn't take much more. Which is one of the reasons why it is difficult to judge in hindsight.
Most radiation is captured in dust. Hence the term fallout.Is this a pisstake? - Nuclear winter, anyone?
I exaggerate, since this would require a MAJOR exchange, but so do you in assuming I'm claiming a 'glowing' after the bombings! - Moreoever, I don't recall ever mentionining that N-H were turned into radioactive wastelands!
Anyway, it is well-known that nuclear bombs can turn the land inhospitable. See, for instance, From the Cover: Massive global ozone loss predicted following regional nuclear conflict, which considers more than just local effects.
Again, there's no point in exaggeration to try and prove a point. No one is saying people will suddenly start mutating (is such a thing even possible? - the one thing that anyone can guarantee about how Nature behaves is that changes tend to be continuous, not abrupt).
Moreover, I'd take issue with your claim that one can 'soak up' radiation - how exactly? Radiation consists of light and particles, mass-energy which must be conserved. It has to go somewhere! The result is radioactive isotopes!
In fact, the developers of the first bombs were unsure, till the very moment of the first test detonation, whether or not a chain-reaction might be set off in the atmosphere, precisely because one is seeding the environment with fast-moving (sub-)nuclear particles and high-energy rays which have to dissipate their energy somewhere!
Then, of course, there is debris from the radioactive remains of fissionable materials, which, being mass-energy, cannot simply 'be disappeared'.
The question becomes instead how long these will linger (short-lived, short-term-dangerous isotopes, or longer-lived, more insidious but as-deadly isotopes?); and therefore to what extent they are exposure-risks for people in the area.
I read of a study carried out by the Japan Radiation Effects Research Foundations on around 40 000 Hiroshima survivors in which almost 15% had developed thyroid-related cancers. This is a greater incidence than in the general population. The study was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in around 2006.
Certainly not three-eyes, but I'm willing to bet, given the choice, the ones with the malignant tumours would go for an extra eye right about now!
Note also that these effects showed up upwards of 40-50 years later! Certainly confirming your statement: 'won't die from radiation any time soon', though I think not in the way you meant it.
Another point: as far as I know, there were only localised pockets of radiation from the WWII bombs, but it would not be accurate to claim that this would be true of all nuclear bombs (see below). Or to claim that radiation is essentially a non-factor.
The dynamics of the detonation, and its aftermath depend on what altitude the bomb is dropped, as well as the yield of the bomb. It even depends on what type of day it is (dry, hazy, windy etc).
It isn't as simple as you're making out.
See here
Why?
This is precisely why I posted the comment re: the study published in peer-reviewed literature. Statistics can be a tricky business, and anecdotal evidence, while not necessarily wrong, even trickier. If you recall, the study was conducted on Hiroshima survivors, a significant fraction of whom developed tumours, sometimes malignant, decades after exposure.Basically what happens is this. Any child born in Hiroshima or Nagasaki with any sort of disability, it is blamed on the bombs. Reality is unless they were exposed to those bombs in utero the evidence suggests those bombs had very minimal impact on future genetic problems.
This is what you said: "Basically, the idea of an atomic bomb turning land into a radioactive wasteland is bullshit". From which I naturally inferred you were speaking of all atomic weapons, including the modern monstrosities (I'm looking at you, Tsar Bomba).I really wasn't talking about modern world killing bombs. We were talking about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, those two bombs. Two bombs that are about as alike a 500 pound bomb, as modern thermo-nuclear devices are to Fat Man and Little Boy.
I was just wondering, since your statement didn't seem to follow from what had gone on before. I needed context.I don't know where you live, but the media loves to talk about the "terrorists" getting a dirty bomb. Then they put forth the idea that such a bomb would irradiate whatever location it was detonated in, rendering it unlivable.
I don't think 'really try' is right. Things are linked. I've already pointed to a link on the effects of about 100 Hiroshima bombs on the ozone layer; as usual, it isn't the bombing itself, but the complex network of interconnected events that leads to the problem.If we want to talk about how inhospitable nuclear weapons can make a region, let's look at the Bikini Atoll. Life is thriving there. Now, don't get me wrong, a modern global thermo-nuclear war is going to ruin this planet, but we'd REALLY have to try. With bombs the size of H-N, being atomic in origin is about the only similarity they share with modern weapons.
Now, I'm not aware of whether or not there is a consensus on accepted levels of radiation for a human being. But then my knowledge of biology and medicine is pretty much at the junior college level.It was recommended that Bikini Island should not be permanently resettled under the present radiological conditions. This recommendation was based on the assumption that persons resettling on the island would consume a diet of entirely locally produced food. The radiological data support that if a diet of this type were permitted, it could lead to an annual effective dose of about 15 mSv. This level was judged to require intervention of some type for radiation protection purposes.
I never claimed that the land would be a 'radioactive waste'. However, radiation did play and continued to play a role in the aftermath, as the incidences of cancer attest. Like I said, mine was a physics issue: you can't 'disappear' all that mass-energy. It then becomes a question of how localised it is and for how long it stays so.I think really the impasse here is over scale. The HN bombs were not large enough to leave the land an irradiated waste. I've made that point several times. We're not talking about a modern nuclear holocaust. We're talking about primitive atomic bombs.
To reiterate, you made a general statement regarding the dynamics of a bomb in the immediate aftermath of detonation; hence my general reply.I don't refute the existence of fallout. It would be difficult to refute it's existence, you know, when I am talking about dust being the primary collecting agent of said radiation. We don't need to talk about aerial bursts and all that, as the variations are as many as the day is long. We can just focus on what actually happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Detonations in which dust and debris were sucked into the mushroom cloud, this loose material is where the majority of the radiation settled.
So we are assured by propaganda. But is it true? I could certainly buy the first bomb serving your stated ends, but the second?This is off topic anyways. Dropping the bombs ended the war sooner, saved millions of lives. Loss of 100k people in the initial blasts and immediate aftermath and the problems that resulted afterwards are a drop in the bucket compared to the bloodbath and humanitarian crisis that would have resulted from an invasion.
Sorry about that.For the record, my Grandfather fought on Okinawa, and was in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki a few weeks after the bombs were dropped as part of an occupation clean up force. He died at 44 of some sort of cancer, I don't recall which. The possibility that he developed said cancer due to his deployment was not lost on the family, nor the government.
Nobody can really defend the use of such a devastating weapon and the terrible loss of life. But Japan committed horrendous war crimes against the Chinese.
The civilian deaths suffered by the Chinese far out way the casualties inflicted on the Japanese. Another sad and shameful part of human history.
But after learning of Japans notorious Unit 731 i really find it difficult to feel a tremendous amount of sympathy.
Fighting the Japanese until their unconditional surrender was revenge for Pearl Harbour.was having this dicussion with my daughter who had to do a paper on this and she contends strongly that we need not have dropped the bombs.
While I disagreed, especially with the first bomb, I have read elsewhere that the atom bombs were in retaliation for Pearl Harbour.
was having this dicussion with my daughter who had to do a paper on this and she contends strongly that we need not have dropped the bombs.
While I disagreed, especially with the first bomb, I have read elsewhere that the atom bombs were in retaliation for Pearl Harbour.
Well you could argue the bombs were not 100% necessary to end the war BUT what would have cost more in terms of lives and destruction though?was having this dicussion with my daughter who had to do a paper on this and she contends strongly that we need not have dropped the bombs.
.
Alternatively, it was all about sending a message to Stalin & his mob. Truman was never fit to consider a decision of this magnitude. If one follows the logical line of "the bombing saved countless soldiers' lives" perhaps, in future, we should send civilians to war instead of troops...y'know, to protect soldiers from the results of combat? And so deny them them the very thing - soldiering - which is their duty?
An utterly horrific crime committed against innocents. And since when, in the modern era, have governments given a feck about 'revenge'? On the contrary, politicians are too pragmatic, expedient and cold-hearted to care about the vengeful longings of the electorate.
Ok then, I'll rephrase: since when have governments given a feck about soldiers?
You have to consider that point in the war things were at. You can't just look at the decision as if it were made out of the blue. Many things went into that decision and concerns for the ongoing casualties , as I stated earlier the same reports that estimated US and allied casualties also estimated millions of Japanese civilian casualties in any invasion of the main Japanese islands.By that logic, we should always aim for maxiumum civilian destruction right away. You know, to break their spirit. After all, think of how many soldiers and civilians might get killed if we have to send the troops in, and the war lasts a while.
No doubt that was part of the decision, but not the only part. Same as the Russians late entry in the war against Japan had nothing to do with wanting to defeat Japan but in being able to extend influence in the region. Geo-politics, go figure.The bit about showing the Soviets we had this horrific new weapon does make sense Steve.
I have read that elswhere too.
just too awful to think that may have been the case.
I can't help but remember how I read of Truman practically tripping over his own feet (at the Potsdam Conference) in his rush to tell Stalin about the new weapon, mate.The bit about showing the Soviets we had this horrific new weapon does make sense Steve.
I have read that elswhere too.
just too awful to think that may have been the case.