Happy Nuclear Bomb Day

[DOSMAN]

On this day in 1945, the B-29 bomber Enola Gay dropped "Little Boy" on Hiroshima, Japan.

[Dexter]

I do hope that your use of the word "happy" in the thread title is strictly an oversight or an attempt sarcasm...:rolleyes:

Dexter...

[Thrax]

I'm pretty sure it was sarcasm, Dexter. :rolleyes:

[oCoMiK]

I've always been intrigued by the scientist who worked on this project, some of the greatest minds of the 20th century, and what internal conflicts they must have dealt with.

To me, and I'm sure to many of the scientist working on the Manhatten project, science is about discovery and increasing mans understanding of the things around him to better society NOT destroy it. What a dichotomy.

[Dexter]

I'm pretty sure it was sarcasm, Dexter. :rolleyes:


I hope so, but let's let the poster speak for himself, shall we?

Detxer...

[primesuspect]

I've always been fascinated by the psychology of the atomic pioneers. There was a time when they weren't really sure if the atomic reaction would stop. Literally, they thought there may be a chance that the entire atmosphere might burn up. Can you imagine the very first atomic test? The scientists must have thought "well, either we just made the most powerful weapon in the world, or we are about to destroy the entire planet".. WHO COULD PUSH THAT BUTTON? Fascinating....

On topic for this thread: Has anyone been to the Japanese War Memorial in Washington DC (the new one).... It's extremely touching and basically memorializes the terrible mistakes that America made regarding US-based japanese people (the camps and all that) .. not much to do with the a-bomb, but sort of on topic.

[KilJaeden]

Even the Japanesse admitted that without the bomb many more would have died. Millions... they would have done what we would have done. Fought to the very last man. It would have been extremely bloody. In reality the bomb saved lives...

[Thrax]

And if you go to Japan, many of them apologize to you for the war. It's weird.

[Nomad]

I've never honestly felt conflict about dropping the atomic bombs. Early studies showed that mainland attacks on Japan could bring the death of anywhere between 70,000 and 120,000 American soldiers. That excludes Russian and British activity, as well as Japanese military and civilian casualties. They'd never lost on their main islands before, and they'd all be fighting tooth and nail to defend it. It was a choice where you picked the lesser of two evils.

[Jengo]

while i do think this was an important part of history. i dont think its something to be happy about. Thousands of people dying under a stupid bomb is not something to be "happy" about.

[Dexter]

And the interesting thing to realize, is that it took the second bomb to actually force Japan to surrender. After the first bomb, the Japanese Emperor considered the carnage to be "acceptable losses" and urged his forces to fight on harder against the American devils. After the 2nd bomb. his generals forced him to sit down, shut up, and listen to the fact that if it could be done twice, it could be done 4 times, or 6 times, or until their entire nation was a nuclear wasteland.

Dexter...

[Nomad]

while i do think this was an important part of history. i dont think its something to be happy about. Thousands of people dying under a stupid bomb is not something to be "happy" about.

I suppose it's happier than the alternative.

[primesuspect]

I suggest anyone who is interested in the Japanese psyche and their concept of On, or obligation, read Ruth Benedict's The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture. It's a short book written by an American woman during the war, which as you can imagine was a pretty tremendous feat considering that the Japanese were still sort of practicing their isolationist policies up until the war started (for all intents and purposes - go ahead history buffs and argue with me on this one). It explains very well why a modern Japanese would apologize to an American for the war. It also explains why dropping two atomic bombs was pretty much the only way to stop Japan. They would have fought till they were all exterminated - every man, woman, and child. As a buddhist, I abhor the use of the atomic weapon and I abhor the carnage that took place in those two cities, and all the useless loss of civilian life, but I also sadly acknowledge the necessity of such dire means when you take the culture into account.

[Missileman]

I have been to Trinity Site at White Sands 3 different times. (This is the first blast test site). It is an eerie feeling looking at the melted stump of a huge steel tower.

The "bomb" saved a lot of lives. More than most people know or want to admit. It saved 2-3 million estimated in WWII. How many millions did it save as a detterent to war. The horror of using it prevented major conflicts between WWII and today.

Yes it is a terrible weapon, but it is a weapon so powerful it hardly needs to be used.

[Thrax]

I suggest anyone who is interested in the Japanese psyche and their concept of On, or obligation, read Ruth Benedict's The Chrysanthemum and the Sword: Patterns of Japanese Culture. It's a short book written by an American woman during the war, which as you can imagine was a pretty tremendous feat considering that the Japanese were still sort of practicing their isolationist policies up until the war started (for all intents and purposes - go ahead history buffs and argue with me on this one). It explains very well why a modern Japanese would apologize to an American for the war. It also explains why dropping two atomic bombs was pretty much the only way to stop Japan. They would have fought till they were all exterminated - every man, woman, and child. As a buddhist, I abhor the use of the atomic weapon and I abhor the carnage that took place in those two cities, and all the useless loss of civilian life, but I also sadly acknowledge the necessity of such dire means when you take the culture into account.

Do you mean when the war started in Asia in 1933, or..?

[primesuspect]

No, she was researching and writing right up until 1941, whereupon she had to leave the country (for obvious reasons)... You can imagine how rare it was for an american to be fluent in Japanese at the time, even moreso for a woman. She was quite a lady :)

[Nomad]

I don't condone the use of nuclear strikes, this was clearly a last effort to end the war sooner than it would have in the absence of an atomic bomb. In my eyes, the Japanese were going to lose period, and the atomic bomb was a way of stopping it without the loss of more lives then there would be in the two blasts it would have taken another year or two to defeat the Japanese with conventional methods. Plus, I would have never wanted to enter the cold war without either side knowing what the bomb could actually do in a real situation, not just turning sand into glass. The world learned an important lesson from it.

I feel sorry for what happened to the innocent civilians at the time, but it wasn't the first time it happened during the war. If some of you know your Japanese war history before 1941, in 1937 the Japanese army basically murdered civilians in Nanjing during their Chinese conquest, between 155,000 and 175,000 people died defenselessly. Then there are allied bombing raids that were clearly attacks on civlian cities to "Drive the point home and unsettle the homefront" in bombing raids such of that on Dresden. Lets not also forget what Stalin did, killing 20 million of his own countrymen between 1939 and 1945. A few years later in Mao Zedong's rule in China, roughly 40 million people were killed while he was in power.

[DOSMAN]

I've always been interested in the Manhattan project. If you're looking for an interesting docudrama movie, I recommend "Day One", starring David Strathairn.

And yes, it was obviously sarcasm.

[Black Hawk]

I feel sorry for what happened to the innocent civilians at the time, but it wasn't the first time it happened during the war. If some of you know your Japanese war history before 1941, in 1937 the Japanese army basically murdered civilians in Nanjing during their Chinese conquest, between 155,000 and 175,000 people died defenselessly. Then there are allied bombing raids that were clearly attacks on civlian cities to "Drive the point home and unsettle the homefront" in bombing raids such of that on Dresden. Lets not also forget what Stalin did, killing 20 million of his own countrymen between 1939 and 1945. A few years later in Mao Zedong's rule in China, roughly 40 million people were killed while he was in power.So you're basically saying it's okay cause others have died before?

[Nomad]

So you're basically saying it's okay cause others have died before?

No, I'm just stating the fact that people shouldn't be flabbergasted at the fact that 125,000 civilians died. While it's awful on any level, some people tend to think that when it came to the Pacific theater that the bombs were the only horrific loss of civilian life.

[EgoShowcase]

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/atomicbomb.wmv

[Nomad]

I always wondered how they stopped those cameras from being destroyed that are inside the blast radius, and what poor bastard had to go get them.

[KilJaeden]

It is a horrendous weapon, but so far it seems to have saved more lives then it cost. The problem is that it can kill is all tens of teims over.

[Nomad]

Considering countries have nuclear weapons that will crack the Earth, I don't see them doing anymore future "good."

[shwaip]

A good documentary about atomic bombs and their development is "Trinity and Beyond"...I found it interesting...but I just watched stuff blow up.

[Missileman]

Considering countries have nuclear weapons that will crack the Earth, I don't see them doing anymore future "good."

Where do you people come up with these nonsense ideas ? Television is mostly lies and I hope we all know the movies are. Even the history channel is wrong 30% of the time.

We have weapons capable of destroying a good size state. The majority of our weapons are low yield devices. This is why the US concentrates on extreme accuracy, so we can use low yield clean bombs. One device which was discontinued by Reagan was like a Star Trek photon torpedo. Device went off emitting almost pure electromagnetic energy. Killed all living things with no fallout, residual radiation, or damage to inorganic matter. You could move in and begin using the impact site in 30 minutes. Reagan deemed it a dangerous weapon because it would be too tempting to use.

If you look at my avatar you will see a weapon that could deliver a 1 kiloton to 10 kiloton device 1400 miles and hit within 9 ft of it's target.

Since I worked on nuclear weapons for 30 years I tend to know a little bit about them. The soviets had some pretty heavy yield devices, but they wouldn't crack the planet. Films of these explosions appear to have a terribly long range because of the visual scale. It's not as big as you would think. A 10 kiloton explosion would have a ground zero of about 4-5 miles in diameter. Ground zero is the area under a nuclear explosion where 100% destruction occurs. Yes that would level a good size city. I believe the bombs dropped on Japan were in the 5-7 Kiloton range (adjusted yield calculations). (They were expecting a 1-2 kiloton yield). Ground zero for these bombs was 2-3 miles in diameter.

There are a some weapons in the megaton range. Most are not. The strategy was to saturate an area with multiple warheads. Less chance of getting them all shot down. Our current Trident submarine launched weapons by design can carry up to 18 warheads each, but by treaty are limited to 12. Nuclear weapons are still heavy. A 1 kiloton warhead weighs about 1 ton actual weight. Missiles have a limited payload capacity.

Planet busters don't exist. Could we destroy all life on the planet - no we could not. Could we decimate civilization - you bet ya. We could set man back to the stone age. We could not kill all mankind and we certainly could not kill all life. Cause an ice age - maybe. Poison the planet - good chance. Cause radiation mutations - surely.

I just always find it amazing how these "urban legends" propagate. Of course the politicians and the environmental groups all spin them the way they want it to look like so you will back their cause of the week.

[Nomad]

Hmm, I must have misread then, or I mispoke.

A few years ago I read about how the strategic placement of nuclear weapons undergrown near 'unstable' fault lines could trigger earthquakes because of their force, it was all theory. That changes things drastically though. That's not really plausible in military application even if it did work though, since that's assuming you could get down deep enough and had the time + manpower. It was pretty much theory.

[qparadox]

Trinity and Beyond is an excellent documentary. Its truly awe-inspiring. While its a sickening thought, I truly and honestly believe that the bombs were the most humane way to end the war. In matter of fact the two bombs killed far less people than the firebombing of Tokyo. Its saddening but I do believe that the facts from the day do support the use of the bomb.

Article on the conventional bombing of tokyo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II

[Missileman]

Actually I worked on some technology a few years ago (actually early 80's)called earth penetrating warheads. It was never deployed, but the technology worked. We could plunge warheads into the ground 1-2 miles deep (depending on composition) and have them detonate. We had several perfect shots and one gopher run where the warhead hit slanting bedrock and bounced 90 degrees to the side and looked like a giant gopher had dug a BIG tunnel out a few miles. Was an interesting view from the helicopter :)

I have read the same type of info you were talking about. It required multiple warheads all planted deep on a fault and all going off at the same time. I could believe that as possible, but you could do that with regular HE as well. It would be something you would have to set up intending to do it. Not something you could do on a whim.

Destruction of the planet should not be on the military's list of things to do I would hope. I'm sure somebody somewhere has run that scenario though. There are a lot of paranoid types in the 5 sided building, but it is those guys who help to keep our hind sides safe most of the time.

[Nomad]

I would hope that it's not very many peoples plans to destroy the world ;)

[Squill]

Random Quote from Einstein that I thought would be approprate...

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." -- Albert Einstein

[Squill]

and another...

--If I had only known, I would have been a locksmith.
Albert Einstein

[Nomad]

Interesting, considering he suggested that Roosevelt persue atomic capabilities.

[TheSmJ]

and another...

--If I had only known, I would have been a locksmith.
Albert Einstein

I recall reading he "would have been a fisherman".

Hmm.

[Missileman]

Science would have advanced regardless of who made the discovery. There are always multiple people working on the same ideas.

Most of the technology we take for granted today came from military research. Governments fund the large monetary requirements for it. Private corps can't afford it. Look at the drug industry as an example. Some current top of the line cancer drugs cost $28,000.00 a month to take (or more) and they still claim they will never recoup there investment. Imagine what your cell phone would cost if the tech hadn't been paid for by the government.

The government pays to develop the technology and then civilian application follows. Been that way since the 30's and probably will not change in the near future. Not until mankind matures to a point beyond the need for self protection through deadly force.

Even Einstein did a lot of government funded research. If he hadn't developed Relativity someone else soon would have.

[Guyute]

I recently found out about the Soviet test of that MEGA-bomb in the Arctic.

"Time: 30 October 1961
Location: Parachute retarded airburst, 4000 m altitude
Over Novaya Zemlya Island test range (in the Arctic Sea)
Yield: 50 Megatons
In districts hundreds of kilometers from ground zero, wooden houses were destroyed, and stone ones lost their roofs, windows and doors; and radio communications were
interrupted for almost one hour.
If detonated at full scale the yield of 100 megatons (100Mt--equal to one hundred million tons of TNT). The explosive force of this bomb would have been approximately 6,500 times the 15-16 kiloton bomb detonated at Hiroshima. It would have increased the world's total fission fallout since the invention of the atomic bomb by 25%.
"

To think that humans would be able to cause this much destruction is scary; to think that they didn't do it on this scale to others is sheer luck.

[DOSMAN]

Trinity and Beyond was a great movie, although after a while, you get used to seeing nuclear weapons going off. A very scary concept indeed.

And it's narrated by "The Captain", William Shatner.


To those of you concerned about nuclear fallout and the "end of the world", here's an interesting statistic for you. Since 1945, there have been 2046 nuclear weapons detonated on Earth, 528 of which were in the Atmosphere.

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab15.asp