Nuclear device - great weapon or a vision of hell?

darkman2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12zd5oDb8TM



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1sS1TmXF38&feature=related


And the thermo kind http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWqzgVVnFC0&feature=related

What do you think? Were the scientists who perfected it insane or has the Nuke actually helped us? IMHO they should all be decommisioned as the science has advanced beyond the stage were nukes are useful. However the west should hold on to the scarier ones:p


The question here though is whether the development of the atomic bomb was the greatest mistake? Do you think it inevitable that this weapon will be the end of man kind?

Overheal

Has this topic not been done to death?

Insane? No: they were saving lies by bringing a definitive end to the War to End All Wars. II.

Has it helped us? Not particularly. Military advancement has seen a boon but beyond that, no. Nuclear Power comes beforehand. Enriched Uranium is a result of use in a Thermonuclear Reactor - the bomb need not apply.

Greatest mistake was not the development of the bomb: the biggest mistake was 50 years of attempting to attain First Strike Capability with it; duplicating and improving upon the design thousands of times over that now we have enough reactive force to effectively Glass the entire planet.

darkman2

Overheal wrote: »

Has this topic not been done to death?

Insane? No

Fair enough - the science is impecable but do sane people really create weapons like this? I dont think so. I think it takes a very 'special' type of person to carry it through.

Overheal

It also takes a special type of person to kill someone by lethal injection but they still sleep at night, in their mind knowing that justice has been delivered.

They knew the bomb could potentially kill hundreds if not thousands, or even tens of thousands; but to bring an end to a war that was killing tens of millions? I'm sorry but I'm sure if I was in that position I would have to make the same decision.

darkman2

Overheal wrote: »

They knew the bomb could potentially kill hundreds if not thousands, or even tens of thousands; but to bring an end to a war that was killing tens of millions? I'm sorry but I'm sure if I was in that position I would have to make the same decision.

I agree (and Germany was not too far away from a nuclear weapon themselves either) but it would have been 100's of thousands and, in fact,millions depending on the size of the city/target. You vastly underestimate the death toll if a bomb was dropped on even a small city.

Cunny-Funt

I think its a travesty atomic weapons were dropped on Japan. I think a lot of it was the desire to fully test the new weapons out. But seriously, dropping it on a city....a city full of civilians is ****ing wrong. & is up there with 9/11 imo.

And I know how messed up the Japanese were back in ww2 and how they would have fought till the last man yadda yadda. But they were already losing and it was pretty much over anyway. The US would not have lost the war if they didn't drop the bombs.

Yes it would have been harder to invade Japan itself, but ffs you don't NEED to invade it to win the war. If they really had to drop it, at least feckin target a Japanese fleet or something... not every day joe soaps just trying to get by.

Cunny-Funt

darkman2 wrote: »

And the thermo kind http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWqzgVVnFC0&feature=related

1st 2 mins of that video is all the same bomb. The Tsar bomb. The most powerful nuke ever detonated. 50 megatones. & the Russians actually downgraded the thing from a 100 mega tones.

You really can see the scale of the thing when you realise the shot (the 1st shot especially) is being filmed from a few hundred km away.

The atmospheric disturbance generated by the explosion orbited the earth feckin three times! Madness*.

Be interesting to superimpose the radius of its explosion on a map of Ireland, fully to scale. Just to put its potential destruction into perspective.






*And no its not sparta

St Bunt

Totally agree with Cunny-Funt. Where's the logic in saying millions of lives were saved by dropping 2 massive bloody bombs on 2 massive cities full of ordinary, innocent people?

Manic Moran

Where's the logic in saying millions of lives were saved by dropping 2 massive bloody bombs on 2 massive cities full of ordinary, innocent people?

The US government had very little loyalty towards the Japanese people at the time, and were far more interested in the preservation of US people. It seems a bit of a no-brainer that if hundreds of thousands of people are going to die, one should make sure it's the enemy if it's at all possible.

NTM

Lirange

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

I think its a travesty atomic weapons were dropped on Japan. I think a lot of it was the desire to fully test the new weapons out. But seriously, dropping it on a city....a city full of civilians is ****ing wrong. & is up there with 9/11 imo.

This was World War II. A different place. A different time. The Germans, Japanese, British, Americans, Russians, were all targeting civilians and cities at will for much of the war.

The civilian cost of the firebombing campaign over Tokyo exceeded the loss of life from the atomic bombs. The use of incendiaries on Tokyo caused horrific injuries and suffering every bit as grotesque as those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But of course that gets over shadowed by the historical significance. I recommend reading Slaughterhouse 5 to see just what sort of carnage the American and British exacted on Dresden.

Terry

Lirange wrote: »

This was World War II. A different place. A different time. The Germans, Japanese, British, Americans, Russians, were all targeting civilians and cities at will for much of the war.

The civilian cost of the firebombing campaign over Tokyo exceeded the loss of life from the atomic bombs. The use of incendiaries on Tokyo caused horrific injuries and suffering every bit as grotesque as those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But of course that gets over shadowed by the historical significance. I recommend reading Slaughterhouse 5 to see just what sort of carnage the American and British exacted on Dresden.

WTF are you talking about?

Thre was no damage done to any German city by the allies.

They were a peaceful folk who were only trying to help others.

Dakeyras

"Now i am become death, the destroyer of worlds"

Robert Oppenheimer

Lirange

Terry wrote: »

WTF are you talking about?

Thre was no damage done to any German city by the allies.

They were a peaceful folk who were only trying to help others.

Sometimes I allow myself to be seduced by the propaganda of the Huns.

Cunny-Funt

Manic Moran wrote: »

The US government had very little loyalty towards the Japanese people at the time, and were far more interested in the preservation of US people. It seems a bit of a no-brainer that if hundreds of thousands of people are going to die, one should make sure it's the enemy if it's at all possible.

Bollocks, its not like the Japanese had a massive land invasion of the Untied States in the ready only to have it spoiled by this "last ditch..no other choice" A-bombs decision.

Lirange wrote: »

This was World War II. A different place. A different time. The Germans, Japanese, British, Americans, Russians, were all targeting civilians and cities at will for much of the war.

Not sure if your disagreeing with me or not but imo wrong is wrong no matter what time it took place. Different times is not an excuse. And neither is "well they did it 1st"

digitally-yours

St Bunt wrote: »

Totally agree with Cunny-Funt. Where's the logic in saying millions of lives were saved by dropping 2 massive bloody bombs on 2 massive cities full of ordinary, innocent people?

I absolutely agree with this.

darkman2

darkman2 wrote: »

The question here though is whether the development of the atomic bomb was the greatest mistake? Do you think it inevitable that this weapon will be the end of man kind?

My Da sings this song when drunk: "A Tribute to John Foster Dullas" by the Kingston Trio. Helps if you have a pint to swing in your hand if you decide to sing along. A few appropriate lyrics:

"We can thankful,
Tranquil and proud,
That man's been endowed
With the mushroomed shaped cloud.

And I know for certain
That some lovely day
Someone will touch the spark off
And we will all be blown away!"

SimpleSam06

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

Bollocks, its not like the Japanese had a massive land invasion of the Untied States in the ready only to have it spoiled by this "last ditch..no other choice" A-bombs decision.

Japan was going to be either a Russian or American protectorate by the end of the war in any case. And did you really want the people responsible for the empire of the rising sun (and the tens of millions they slaughtered for the hell of it) still in charge of the place? Because short of an outright defeat, there was no way Japan was going to give an unconditional surrender.

And lets not forget that the Russian and American armies had no guarantee that the war would end when they met halfway across Germany. The Russians were quite capable of pushing on through Madrid and Portugal, and could probably have done it too.

On a humantarian level, it may have been a travesty. On a strategic level, it was unavoidable. That might not be palatable to a lot of people, but I believe it was the best long term move.

Cunny-Funt

Yeah I know all about how messed up Japan was.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

On a strategic level, it was unavoidable.

I still disagree. Although its something we'll never know. But ffs they could have at least aimed for a military target.

Rb

What the US did was absolutely sickening.

I also find it extremely sick that the US, a proven to be fcking brain dead country, is allowed have close to 10,000 nuclear weapons at their disposal whilst they can tell other countries not to even make one.
I'd like to see the whole lot gotten rid of, but sadly this will never happen.

Zzippy

Manic Moran wrote: »

The US government had very little loyalty towards the Japanese people at the time, and were far more interested in the preservation of US people. It seems a bit of a no-brainer that if hundreds of thousands of people are going to die, one should make sure it's the enemy if it's at all possible.

Agreed, apart from the fact they were civilians. I believe there is something called the Geneva Convention, but then, the American government and military have never been great at observing that :rolleyes:

Lirange

Zzippy wrote: »

Agreed, apart from the fact they were civilians. I believe there is something called the Geneva Convention, but then, the American government and military have never been great at observing that :rolleyes:

The Geneva Conventions at the time of World War II did not pertain to weapons or the targeting of civlilians.

Only the treatment of POWs.

Lirange

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

Not sure if your disagreeing with me or not but imo wrong is wrong no matter what time it took place. Different times is not an excuse. And neither is "well they did it 1st"

I don't know how you inferred any of that from my comments.

I was putting it into the context of the prevailing mentality of the time which resulted in many deplorable acts. Countries deliberately slaughtered civilians to create psychological terror. The other point was that sometimes other savage acts of the war get overshadowed by the headline events.

Clytus

The most powerful nuke ever detonated. 50 megatones. & the Russians actually downgraded the thing from a 100 mega tones.

The USSR was never able to keep up with the US in the missile technology stakes,so they tried to build bigger and bigger bombs instead.

IMHO they should all be decommisioned as the science has advanced beyond the stage were nukes are useful

Id have to disagree on that point...the stockpiling and deployment of nuclear warheads is a major part of alot of nations long term security precautions. Take Israel for example...they are surrounded on all borders with Arab nations which at some time waged war against them. I dont really get what you mean where you say that sicence has made theses sort of weapons redundant. The US has started a 25 year progam to replace thier aging W76 warheads at a cost of Billions of dollars.

I think its a travesty atomic weapons were dropped on Japan

Death in all conflicts is a travesty...but it must be taken in relation to the consequences of not following through on the action the US took.
America learned alot of lessons during the landings of the Pacific islands...from Iwo Jima to Okinawa the US learned that in general the japanese would fight to the death. They did have a plan to land on mainland Japan in October 1945 but other events took over. Huge distrust built up between the USA and the USSR. It became obvious it would not be in Americas interest to have a Soviet sphere of influence stretch to the Pacific rim. truman knew that Japan wanted peace...but only on terms,wich was against the collective decision of the Allies to accept nothing else but total unconditional surrender. To kill two birds with one stone he gave the order to drop the bomb.And as we all knoww Japan surrendered to the US in the Agust..thus staving off the Red Army which fresh from the German surrender was hurrying its troops to the east.


What is scary is to look at the numbers of warheads in operational use.

Russia has 5,800 in operational use with another 15,000 stockpiled
USA has 5700 in operational use with 9,900 stockpiled
France has 350 in operational use
China has 200
The UK 200
Israel 80
pakistan 60
India 50
and North Korea with less than 10 low yield war heads.

Only the USA and Russia have total global reach using thier ICBMs
China can reach most land masses using various trajectories (its missle range is 8,100 miles)

The UK and France have thier Nuclear deterant aboard thier submarine fleets...which can give them near global reach.

Clytus

just for interest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9AMtUeyDP0&feature=related

Shiny

Clytus wrote: »

The USSR was never able to keep up with the US in the missile technology stakes,so they tried to build bigger and bigger bombs instead.
...........
.........

The UK and France have thier Nuclear deterant aboard thier submarine fleets...which can give them near global reach.

You seem to know your stuff but my question is:

If London was nuked with say a massive efficent bomb, could the
blast wave hit ireland or just the fallout depending on wind direction?

Clytus

It really depends on the size of the bomb/warhead...a 1 megaton airburst over London would ( this is from data collected from the Natural Resources Defense Council) kill approx 2.8 million people,the heat flash would give first degree burns at a radius of approx 20 miles,and the fall out drift at about 100 miles with a 48 hour dose of 75-100 rad..it would give you mild radiation sickness.

Increase the yield and the effect increases exponentially.

FunkZ

I hope no bombs kill me ya'll.

C.D.

Had the Germans been more successful than the minds working on the Manhattan project. had they developed 2 nuclear weapons before the allies, and dropped them on Birmingham and Boston- "to save lives by ending the war early"- to prevent a land invasion of both the USA and the UK.

But if they had still lost the war, the German military personnel who authorized the dropping of the bombs who have been tried for crimes against Humanity.

The real tragedy of WW2 was the callous disregard shown for thousands of civilian women and children- how can anyone justify heating hundreds of thousands of civilians to >3,000K in a few milliseconds?

Clytus

WW2 developed into total war,the mobilisation of entire nations to defeat the enemy...in fact Bomber Harris was guity of the carpet bombing of Dresden,Bremen and Hamburg. Waves of britsh bombers would drop high explosives to blow apart the houses and buildings of the cities followed by waves of bombers dropping incendiaries to set alight the smashed houses...turning cities like Hamburg into firestorms. People who survived the explosions and made it to the streets would then be sucked into the burning buildings again by the huge force of the air gushing in to feed the fires...horror stuff. But like I said it was Total war...breaking the will of the nation to keep up the fight.

Even had Germany by some mirical developed a nuclear weapon and some system to deploy it,the weight of Allied war machine against them made only one outcome ever going to happen post 1942.

I think and I hope that humankind has learned lessons from the 2nd World War.

Capt'n Midnight

Overheal wrote:

Insane? No: they were saving lies by bringing a definitive end to the War to End All Wars. II
...
Greatest mistake was not the development of the bomb: the biggest mistake was 50 years of attempting to attain First Strike Capability with it; duplicating and improving upon the design thousands of times over that now we have enough reactive force to effectively Glass the entire planet.

It didn't save lives, Japan was finished anyway. The Russians just steam rollered over all oposition. South Korea only exists today because the Russians had to slow down for logistical reasons. Like in Germany the trick was to surrender to anyone but the Russians.

Dennis the Stone

after watching that video, I would like for an atomic bomb to be dropped on DJ Tiesto