U.S. Came Close to Nuclear Disaster

JONJO THE MISER

One simple, dynamo-technology, low voltage switch stood between the United States and a major catastrophe

Read more: http://nation.time.com/2013/09/21/report-u-s-came-close-to-nuclear-disaster-in-1961/#ixzz2fZn40N69
http://nation.time.com/2013/09/21/report-u-s-came-close-to-nuclear-disaster-in-1961/?iid=us-main-mostpop1

Frosty McSnowballs

It's no inanimate carbon rod!

Riddle101

Would it be wrong to say Karma, if a bomb really did go off. I mean the US did drop two atom bombs on Japan.

uch

WOW

wes

Everyone should get rid of these weapons. There have already been enough near misses with Nuclear Weapons, and the world surely doesn't need anymore.

bizmark

Riddle101 wrote: »

Would it be wrong to say Karma, if a bomb really did go off. I mean the US did drop two atom bombs on Japan.

Karma would of been satisfied by getting nuked after starting the war and commiting various war crimes including such lovely episodes as the rape of nanking surely ?

paddy147

Senor Fancy Pants wrote: »

It's no inanimate carbon rod!

In "rod" we trust.

Riddle101

bizmark wrote: »

Karma would of been satisfied by getting nuked after starting the war and commiting various war crimes including such lovely episodes as the rape of nanking surely ?

Interestingly, the Vietnam war was going on during that, where the US did commit war crimes. But since there was no Nuke involved there, I suppose it wouldn't. But still, they used two atom bomb and arguably committed a war crime there own, did they not?

P_1

To be honest I'd say as more papers become declassified over time I'd imagine we'll be hearing about a lot more 'near misses' when it comes to nuclear weapons. Hundreds of bombers loaded up with bombs designed for various Soviet cities were flying about the States back in the bad old days of the Cold War.

Nonoperational

Meh....

You always hear of these "close calls"... come back to me when we are facing a nuclear apocalypse.

The Backwards Man

It's not like there was any imminent danger. The yoke did what is was supposed to do when the thingamajig failed. No dramas.

returnNull

Riddle101 wrote: »

Would it be wrong to say Karma, if a bomb really did go off. I mean the US did drop two atom bombs on Japan.

Countries dont have karma ,individuals do . Highly unlikely anyone in hiroshima/nagasaki or indeed north carolina had built up enough bad karma to justify been nuked.

Doom

260 times the power of hiroshima bomb. ...scary

returnNull

Doom wrote: »

260 times the power of hiroshima bomb. ...scary

yes very scary...heres a time lapse map of the world showing nukes been used.Not 100% complete because there have been loads of undocumented explosions.

Its kinda cool in a way.watch as india get the bomb and then pakistan get it too and notice them doing tit for tat tests

EDIT:the small number beside the year is the month

Riddle101

returnNull wrote: »

Countries dont have karma ,individuals do . Highly unlikely anyone in hiroshima/nagasaki or indeed north carolina had built up enough bad karma to justify been nuked.

The people who made the bomb, allowed it to be created, and had intentions to use it are responsible for it, so yeah the karma goes against those people. If they ruin their own homeland by accidentally letting off a weapons of mass destruction, it's karma for the evil they created. But of course, innocent lives are at stake so it's a touchy subject.

uch

Were never with me in the Jax, no issue

o1s1n

Riddle101 wrote: »

The people who made the bomb, allowed it to be created, and had intentions to use it are responsible for it, so yeah the karma goes against those people. If they ruin their own homeland by accidentally letting off a weapons of mass destruction, it's karma for the evil they created. But of course, innocent lives are at stake so it's a touchy subject.

Oh for the love of...

Karma doesn't exist, evil doesn't exist.

All that exists in this scenario is a lust for power - nuclear bombs are the ultimate military power. It's as simple as that.

If this hydrogen bomb did go off it would have just been extremely bad luck. Nothing 'karmic' about it.

Riddle101

o1s1n wrote: »

Oh for the love of...

Karma doesn't exist, evil doesn't exist.

All that exists in this scenario is a lust for power - nuclear bombs are the ultimate military power. It's as simple as that.

If this hydrogen bomb did go off it would have just been extremely bad luck. Nothing 'karmic' about it.

It was a figure of speech tbh. The US created weapons of destruction, if it had gone off in their country it would have been quite the unfortunate event for a country who has used similar weapons before.

And if you don't think Evil exists in this world, then then maybe you should go visit some prisons. I'm sure you'll find some people in those places who might qualify for what is termed as evil.

paddy147

returnNull wrote: »

Countries dont have karma ,individuals do . Highly unlikely anyone in hiroshima/nagasaki or indeed north carolina had built up enough bad karma to justify been nuked.

You'd think that wouldnt you??


:pac::D

o1s1n

Riddle101 wrote: »

It was a figure of speech tbh. The US created weapons of destruction, if it had gone off in their country it would have been quite the unfortunate event for a country who has used similar weapons before.

And if you don't think Evil exists in this world, then then maybe you should go visit some prisons. I'm sure you'll find some people in those places who might qualify for what is termed as evil.

Ah, so you were using 'Karma' in a 'serves them right' way because some of their military scientists happened to build a nuclear bomb - doesn't really make any sense to be honest as all the casualties would have been mostly civilians.

Evil does not exist as a 'force', no. There's no such thing. It's sillyness made up by religions to go with the whole god (good) versus the devil (evil) setup.

The brain is a complex thing. Some people are sociopaths with no empathy. In basic terms, they have something wrong with their brain which makes them do horrible things.

Rho b

o1s1n wrote: »

Oh for the love of...

Karma doesn't exist, evil doesn't exist.

All that exists in this scenario is a lust for power - nuclear bombs are the ultimate military power. It's as simple as that.

If this hydrogen bomb did go off it would have just been extremely bad luck. Nothing 'karmic' about it.

I would disagree with you. Biological warfare is the ultimate military power :mad:

o1s1n

Rho b wrote: »

I would disagree with you. Biological warfare is the ultimate military power :mad:

It's really not.

You could stand in the middle of a biological warzone in relative safety if you were wearing the proper equipment.

Can't really say the same for someone standing in the middle of a thermonuclear warzone.

Rho b

o1s1n wrote: »

It's really not.

You could stand in the middle of a biological warzone in relative safety if you were wearing the proper equipment.

Can't really say the same for someone standing in the middle of a thermonuclear warzone.

You do the test run so :eek:

o1s1n

Rho b wrote: »

You do the test run so :eek:

Well they're both pretty awful scenarios to be in - but the idea of being stuck in a biological warfare situation isn't quite as terrifying as imagining being vapourized/fried/melted by a nuclear bomb. (or the absolute horror of the hellish aftermath with everyone around dying horribly from radiation poisoning)

Read up on eyewitness accounts from the aftermath of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, very harrowing stuff

If you ever have time, watch the BBC docu drama from the 80s called 'Threads'. I think it's on youtube. Will scare the bejaysus out of you.

Riddle101

o1s1n wrote: »

Ah, so you were using 'Karma' in a 'serves them right' way because some of their military scientists happened to build a nuclear bomb - doesn't really make any sense to be honest as all the casualties would have been mostly civilians.

Sometimes the responsibilities of certain individuals weigh heavy and are bigger and greater then we know. You have a weapon of mass destruction in your hands, it's a device used for killing, it has no other purpose. Whoever uses it, is in the wrong, and if the US was prepared to use it on someone then they are the ones to be held accountable for. The point I was making is. The US once dropped two atom bombs on Japan. They also were the first to create those weapons. If one of them went off then it is very unfortunate for the people who have to suffer, but it would be creators, the ones who allowed it to be created and are fully prepared to use it, who are responsible for it, but it would show them what such a weapons would do firsthand if it were to go off in their home country. Hense why I mentioned karma. They would use it on someone else's country, but imagine if it were to happen in their own.

Evil does not exist as a 'force', no. There's no such thing. It's sillyness made up by religions to go with the whole god (good) versus the devil (evil) setup.

I don't mean evil as a supernatural force. Evil is a term used to describe a person who commits an immoral act. If someone commits an immoral act like killing, or something then I would deem it as evil depending on the circumstances. You seem to laboring under the impression, that i'm talking about supernatural forces or something. In reality I am describing the immorality of using weapons of mass destruction like H Bombs etc. But then again, I didn't bring up the evil debate.

The brain is a complex thing. Some people are sociopaths with no empathy. In basic terms, they have something wrong with their brain which makes them do horrible things.

People grow up to become sociopaths. Sometimes it depends on their upbringing, sometimes people just become the way they are through other circumstances. People aren't born sociopaths though. But it doesn't matter. We're getting further and further off topic.

SeanW

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

One simple, dynamo-technology, low voltage switch stood between the United States and a major catastrophe

Read more: http://nation.time.com/2013/09/21/report-u-s-came-close-to-nuclear-disaster-in-1961/#ixzz2fZn40N69
http://nation.time.com/2013/09/21/report-u-s-came-close-to-nuclear-disaster-in-1961/?iid=us-main-mostpop1

You missed a few key points in your title:

1. 1961
2. The near miss related to nuclear weapons.

the_syco

If the USA hadn't created it before the Germans, history would have been different.

Riddle101 wrote: »

The US created weapons of destruction, if it had gone off in their country it would have been quite the unfortunate event for a country who has used similar weapons before.

If it had gone off, it would have been an unfortunate event for Russia, who would've gotten a large section wiped off the map.

Manic Moran

The Backwards Man wrote: »

It's not like there was any imminent danger. The yoke did what is was supposed to do when the thingamajig failed. No dramas.

Pretty much. There's a reason there were a number of failsafes in the device.

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

Pretty much. There's a reason there were a number of failsafes in the device.

the article that I read this morning disagrees. The analysis the military apparently did after the accident concluded the designed failsafes were completely inadequate for their application as bomber payload.

somefeen

:O this thread matches my mood.

minidazzler

Riddle101 wrote: »

Would it be wrong to say Karma, if a bomb really did go off. I mean the US did drop two atom bombs on Japan.

The Atom Bombs prevented far more deaths than they caused. The US couldn't fight a land war or launch a land invasion in Japan with any less than 500,000 casualties on their own side, probably 4 times that on the Japanese side.

BlatentCheek

This happened a few times in the 1960s. Potentially the most serious was the Thule Air Base crash in 1968, where a B52 crashed in Greenland and its nukes "only" contaminated the area in a dirty bomb fashion. If the nukes onboard the B52 had detonated they would have knocked out the early warning centre in Thule and probably lead the yanks to assume Russia was launching a strategic attack, triggering full retaliation and World War III. The Chrome Dome operation, whereby multiple nuclear armed aircraft were kept in the air ready to strike at all times, was cancelled shortly after. Chilling stuff.

King Hearts

bizmark wrote: »

Karma would of been satisfied by getting nuked after starting the war and commiting various war crimes including such lovely episodes as the rape of nanking surely ?

No not really, the ordinary citizens of America didn't nuke anyone.

TommiesTank

Riddle101 wrote: »

Would it be wrong to say Karma, if a bomb really did go off. I mean the US did drop two atom bombs on Japan.

Yes, it would. You have it the wrong way around, the 2 bombs dropped on Japan were karma for Japan.

The US were right to use then on Japan. An invasion of the Japanese mainland would have unnecessarially lost tens of thousands of US service men's lives.

And of course the Japanese leadership were entirely responsible for the second one, since they knew it was coming and chose not to surrender.

Bog Standard User

the irish came dangerously close to a nuclear disaster... but its ok many of us still have our out of date iodine capsules and the parish church's lead flashing

the_syco

Bog Standard User wrote: »

the irish came dangerously close to a nuclear disaster... but its ok many of us still have our out of date iodine capsules and the parish church's lead flashing

We fecked around with nuclear power before we even knew we had nuclear power...

hansfrei

I left the immesion on once. All day. True story.

Duckworth_Luas

Why panic, just do what Indiana Jones did and hop in the fridge.

Riddle101

minidazzler wrote: »

The Atom Bombs prevented far more deaths than they caused. The US couldn't fight a land war or launch a land invasion in Japan with any less than 500,000 casualties on their own side, probably 4 times that on the Japanese side.

That's the cliche argument for why they were dropped. However before the the bombs were dropped, Japan was already incapable of fighting, and were trying privately to conduct peace negotiations at the time. That along with the fact that Russia had declared war on Japan and were about to invade. I think it's debatable about what would have happened if the US hadn't dropped the bomb. But I believe there were ulterior motives for dropping the bomb.

Nonetheless, an alternative could have been found other then using the atom bombs, but the US refused to acknowledge this and dropped them anyway.

The US were right to use then on Japan. An invasion of the Japanese mainland would have unnecessarially lost tens of thousands of US service men's lives.

As I mentioned to the above poster, other alternatives could have been found, but the US decided to drop them because they were impatient. I suppose it goes down to a what if scenario really.

And of course the Japanese leadership were entirely responsible for the second one, since they knew it was coming and chose not to surrender.

Japanese leadership gave a public impression of not surrendering, but that's because it's part of Japanese culture. However as I mentioned, they were trying to make peace. Who knows what would have happened, but it happened nonetheless.

TommiesTank

What are these 'alternatives'? Why would the US choose to waste more American lives when they had the atomic bomb?

Or do you think they should have simply withdrawn and left the Japanese leadership in place to continue their warmongering?

The onus was on the US to make use of the weapons.

Riddle101

TommiesTank wrote: »

What are these 'alternatives'? Why would the US choose to waste more American lives when they had the atomic bomb?

Or do you think they should have simply withdrawn and left the Japanese leadership in place to continue their warmongering?

The onus was on the US to make use of the weapons.

They could have blockaded Japan and destroyed Japanese supply lines, they could have put a strangle hold on Japan and won by a war of attrition. Maintain a presence there until Japan was ready to talk. Since Japan was attempting peace negotiations through Russia, I feel they were on the verge of breaking down, but the US wanted to end the war as quick as possible.

As for Japanese warmongering, with the Japanese almost crippled, I fail to see what warmongering they could have done. But again, if the US maintained a presence in the region, it might have prevented further warmongering.

TommiesTank

Riddle101 wrote: »

They could have blockaded Japan and destroyed Japanese supply lines, they could have put a strangle hold on Japan and won by a war of attrition. Maintain a presence there until Japan was ready to talk. Since Japan was attempting peace negotiations through Russia, I feel they were on the verge of breaking down, but the US wanted to end the war as quick as possible.

As for Japanese warmongering, with the Japanese almost crippled, I fail to see what warmongering they could have done. But again, if the US maintained a presence in the region, it might have prevented further warmongering.

Pure speculation on all suggestions.

The Japanese military leadership did not want to surrender.

The Germans failed attempting to blockage the UK, no way would that have worked against Japan regardless of the size of the US Navy.

You mention war of attrition, goes back to my original point, why should the US have gotten themselves into a war of attrition when the didn't need to?

The US government rightly placed American service men's lives ahead of Japanese civilian lives. Every country does the same.

Skylinehead

TommiesTank wrote: »

The US government rightly placed American service men's lives ahead of Japanese civilian lives. Every country does the same.

It's simpler than that, an invasion would almost certainly cost more civilian lives in Japan than the atomic bombs. Just look at Okinawa, much smaller than the Japanese mainland and 40-150,000 civilians died over less than 3 months.

Riddle101

TommiesTank wrote: »

Pure speculation on all suggestions.

It's all speculating regardless. But you asked for an alternative and I gave it.

The Japanese military leadership did not want to surrender.

The Japanese made entreaties to the Russians before they declared war, to mediate peace. But it all went to sh*t after Russia declared war. Since that they were willing to go to such lengths, that shows that they were not above peaceful solutions.

The Germans failed attempting to blockage the UK, no way would that have worked against Japan regardless of the size of the US Navy.

The Germans had a weaker navy then the British, and more importantly the US. The US's navy was far stronger then the Japanese at that point. So I don't know if I can believe they couldn't have successfully blockaded Japan, since Japan was much weaker at that point and incapable of operations.

You mention war of attrition, goes back to my original point, why should the US have gotten themselves into a war of attrition when the didn't need to?

Why should the US have gotten themselves into a war of attrition? Because there would have been less casualties on both sides. The US wouldn't have lost many soldiers, and Japan wouldn't have lost many civilian lives. But then again with both Russia and the US putting pressure on Japan, they couldn't have held out for long.

TommiesTank

Riddle101 wrote: »

It's all speculating regardless. But you asked for an alternative and I gave it.



The Japanese made entreaties to the Russians before the declared war to mediate peace. But it all went to sh*t after Russia declared war. Since that they were willing to go to such lengths, that shows that they were not above peaceful solutions.



The Germans had a weaker navy then the British, and more importantly the US. The US's navy was far stronger then the Japanese at that point. So I don't know if I can believe they couldn't have successfully blockaded Japan, since Japan was much weaker at that point and incapable of operations.



Why should the US have gotten themselves into a war of attrition? Because there would have been less casualties on both sides. The US wouldn't have lost many soldiers, and Japan wouldn't have lost many civilian lives. But then again with both Russia and the US putting pressure on Japan, they couldn't have held out for long.

Zero casualties is still better than less casualties. Ultimately it comes down to that.

Riddle101

TommiesTank wrote: »

Zero casualties is still better than less casualties. Ultimately it comes down to that.

But there were casualties from dropping the bombs anyway. There was no way to stop that.

TommiesTank

Riddle101 wrote: »

But there were casualties from dropping the bombs anyway. There was no way to stop that.

US casualties? I seem to recall something about a POW camp or something in one of the cities?

Karl Stein

We're like monkeys with shotguns.

minidazzler

Riddle101 wrote: »

That's the cliche argument for why they were dropped. However before the the bombs were dropped, Japan was already incapable of fighting, and were trying privately to conduct peace negotiations at the time. That along with the fact that Russia had declared war on Japan and were about to invade. I think it's debatable about what would have happened if the US hadn't dropped the bomb. But I believe there were ulterior motives for dropping the bomb.

Nonetheless, an alternative could have been found other then using the atom bombs, but the US refused to acknowledge this and dropped them anyway.

Ireland goes to war with X country, we have an atom bomb, do we send more of our guys to go and fight field battles and die with great honour or do we blast the other cnuts to smithereens and keep our own alive? I know which I'd choose. The less risky option for the side I'm on.

They explored other alternatives, and for those alternatives they had 500,000 purple hearts minted. So many, that they still have 120,000 of those left and they are still using them.

When you have an ace in the hole, and need to show you mean business, you go all in and show the world that you're not fcuking about.

The simple fact is, the Japanese would have fought a prolonged Guerrilla campaign had they been given the chance. The war would have gone on another 3 years minimum and far more casualties would have ensued. While a Nuke isn't for every day use, it stopped more deaths than it caused.

el pasco

The question that should be asked is if these nuclear bombs went off would they think they were being attacked and would they attack back with nuclear weapons or would they know it was there own bombers the second question is how would DC be affected by the fallout it is 250m away but the bomb would of destroyed everything within a 100m radius so it could do a lot of damage to DC

el pasco

minidazzler wrote: »

Ireland goes to war with X country, we have an atom bomb, do we send more of our guys to go and fight field battles and die with great honour or do we blast the other cnuts to smithereens and keep our own alive? I know which I'd choose. The less risky option for the side I'm on.

They explored other alternatives, and for those alternatives they had 500,000 purple hearts minted. So many, that they still have 120,000 of those left and they are still using them.

When you have an ace in the hole, and need to show you mean business, you go all in and show the world that you're not fcuking about.

The simple fact is, the Japanese would have fought a prolonged Guerrilla campaign had they been given the chance. The war would have gone on another 3 years minimum and far more casualties would have ensued. While a Nuke isn't for every day use, it stopped more deaths than it caused.

I disagree that the war would of went on for 3 more years if the atomic bomb was not used as the Russians and British/commonwealth and US were pilling on the troops after the war in Europe ended

Secondly the reason why they used the bomb was to show what they got for their massive investment and to show the Russians what they were dealing with after the war was over
The Russia's were making massive gains after there entry in to the war with Japan and they were afraid that they would get to mainland Japan before them
Remember Japan was supposed to be divided into 4 zones like Germany but this didn't happen as the yanks got there first although British and commonwealth troops did help out in different zones