nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Clytus

Ita generally agreed that the chances of nuclear attack on one nation by another is very slim..the policy of M.A.D kinda ensures that. But what most people worry about is the use of "Dirty Bombs",by terrorists.

I remember straight after 9/11 there was talk about the use of a Tactical Nuclear Strike if it was determined that a State was involved in the attacks.

What would worry me though is that at the moment India and Pakistan are broadening thier ability to launch nuclear weapons by land,air and sea...and these guys aint buddies!! Also intelligence reports suggest that China is retargeting more of its missiles at the U.S...probably because of Americas commitment to Taiwan.

Even though the Cold War is over...there is still a distinct Nuclear threat out there.

Overheal

darkman2 wrote: »

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.

the Hiroshima bomb killed 140,000. the Nagasaki bomb killed 80,000.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

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.

The bomb wasn't built in a day. The project began as a checkmate. But yes I suppose by the end of the War the Brass saw it as a way to put the USA out in front. I wonder if they divulged that to the Scientists of the Project at the time however.

Clytus

Overheal wrote: »

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

I agree in theory..but its not always the case. Marcel Chevalier suffered terribly as a result of his role as Chief executioner in France...and his family still suffer social isolation even today

Pompey Magnus

I used to be disgusted by the American decision to drop the bomb, but after some consideration I have begun to come round to tentatively supporting it in principle. The land invasion would have lead to the deaths of many, many young American men. We have a tendancy to see America as being war mongerers but imagine if these were young Irish lads who would have to be sent to fight against an absolutely committed enemy who would take as many Irish lads down with them, an enemy who were as good as brainwashed in their utter devotion to their Emperor/God. If that was the case and I was one of those soldiers, or a father to one of those soldiers, I would want to find any alternative to a land invasion.

Lets not forget that the Japanese were no angels, they attacked America in the first place, they committed disgusting attrocities in the countries they invaded. Yes, innocent civilians died, but don't forget that the American soldiers who would have had to take part in the land invasion were innocent also, they were just ordinary young boys who were fighting a war that they did not start. It is easy for us to criticise the Americans for not carrying out a ground invasion when it isn't us or our family that might be killed in the process.

My main problem with the bomb was why it was not dropped over a rural area first and a demand for an immediate surrender given or else an urban area would be hit next. They cetainly had enough in stock to "waste" one over an area with a small population as they had 7 more bombs ready to drop over the following 2 months should Japan not surrender.

Overheal

Well in every bomb video youve seen whats been more impressive: watching the mushroom cloud, watching it splash water or watching it mow down every structure that so happens to be in its way? The destruction pictures at Hiroshima and NAgasaki really say a lot more than any rural test.

biko

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

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.

To see how big the Tsar bomb really is http://neoturk.blogcu.com/2703226/

Voodu Child

A nuclear bomb will be detonated on a civilian population within the next decade. Probably in the US.

aidan24326

Overheal wrote: »

Well in every bomb video youve seen whats been more impressive: watching the mushroom cloud, watching it splash water or watching it mow down every structure that so happens to be in its way? The destruction pictures at Hiroshima and NAgasaki really say a lot more than any rural test.

But the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were only piddly devices compared to what tha US and Russia subsequesntly developed. Take that 50MT bomb the Russians detonated, and blow it up over a major city. The destructive power is truly frightening. The death toll would potentially be in the millions.

The big advantage of having them is to make you almost immune from attack, as no country would risk a nuclear retaliation given the horrifying power of these bombs. The irony is that if Saddam really had nuclear weapons and the capability to deploy them the US might have thought twice about attacking Iraq.

Jumpy

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

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

MADNESS?! *lifts foot to kick* THIS.. IS.. *reads further down* .. oh

Capt'n Midnight

Shiny wrote: »

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?

The fireball touched the ground, reached nearly as high as the altitude of the release plane, and was seen and felt 1,000 km away. The heat from the explosion could have caused third degree burns 100 km away from ground zero. The subsequent mushroom cloud was about 60 km high (nearly seven times higher than Mount Everest) and 30–40 km wide. The explosion could be seen and felt in Finland, even breaking windows there. Atmospheric focusing caused blast damage up to 1,000 km away. The seismic shock created by the detonation was measurable even on its third passage around the Earth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

Capt'n Midnight

Reasons to have dropped the bomb
- get data on effeciveness against real people
- to show the world that the US would use weapons of mass destruction
- to get in ahead of a potential ban, technically they could have been baned already by previous treaties

A-Bombs wer'nt more efficient than conventional bomber raids by the end of the war if you consider the cost of producing them.

H-Bombs on the other had meant one bomber could take out a city and that's when the real over kill point was reached.

The US had the bomb, but never used it again, it could have been used to intevene in the chinese civil war or in korea.

Interestingly in WWI gas caused many of the casualties towards the end of the war as their use was increasing, some speculate that had that war gone for another few years it would have been a chemical war. Similarlily had the Atomic bomb been ready a month later it's doubtful it would have been used. Had it been ready a year earlier then maybe it would still have been used against the Japanese on the basis that a fizzle would have handed the Germans the materials and technology to develop their own. Also the war in the Pacific did have racial tones too.

slipss

Overheal wrote: »

to effectively Glass the entire planet.

heh, great turn of phrase there.

Clytus

This video gives a pretty good demonstration of the power of modern nuclear weapons..an underground blast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0jRHfLdiSU

You Suck!

OH.....WHO ****IN CARES!

The reality being that we are children of the bomb, and that the 60 years hence have been one's of unbridaled prosperity.Maybe the use of bombs on Japan was wrong, but I can think of a lot Chinese reasons that it wasn't.......but for what does such an opinion matter?

Reality being that the bomb has developed Japan into a nation where the future is a concern.

Never mind the bull****, oh was it wrong, blah blah blah, we have the present to deal with!

More importantly, how will we avoid the end of humanity, how will we break the cycle of our own insanity.

But to make a long post short......MEH!

SimpleSam06

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba

The Tsar Bomba was never intended to be (and could never be) a useable weapon. Just a spot of cock wavery by the Russians.

Four-Too

If these bombs are not decomissioned, they will be f*cking used, wait. It might take 100's of years though.
They say the human races has progressed, but now instead of one man killing another with a club, one man can wipe out millions at the push of a button, where is the progress there?

Cunny-Funt

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

(and could never be)

That bomb was made in the 60's. I'm pretty sure a 100 megatone bomb could be made now that would be quite deliverable.

AlmightyCushion

Four-Too wrote: »

They say the human races has progressed, but now instead of one man killing another with a club, one man can wipe out millions at the push of a button, where is the progress there?

Probably in the other billions of inventions that man has created that help prolong life and allow us to better understand the universe around us.

Ross_Mahon

Drop nukes on city's and then there will be peace :rolleyes:

Capt'n Midnight

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

The Tsar Bomba was never intended to be (and could never be) a useable weapon. Just a spot of cock wavery by the Russians.

oddly enough since the bomb as tested had most of it's output from fission it could have been used without too much fallout going back to the east.

impractical but possible, one bomber sent against London,Paris, Milan, Dortmund would significantly weaken a NATO country. NATO would have had to intecept every single plane, the nightmare would be for all the bombers to arrive at once all along the boarder.

Actually if they detonated one on their side of the boarder or in the baltic it would take out radio and radar for an hour or so

stakey

<begins rant>

Whilst there was great atrocities and horrors on all sides in World War II, justification of the bombing of Japan with nuclear weapons (not conventional weapons) can't really be seen as a good thing when you consider the following.

Japan was close to collapse near the end of World War II, commercial shipping into Japan had almost come to a complete halt due to submarine warfare conducted by the US military.

Within the ranks of the Japanese government there was moves to negotiate a surrender to save Japan from complete and utter destruction. Japan's pre-war plan was to expand into the Pacific and conquer as much territory as possible; they envisaged a war with the US, hence the first strike policy. However, they had the full intention of negotiating a settlement with the US and keep lands they conquered.

Near the end of World War II the Japanese government (knowing full well that the war wasn't going to well) were planning their surrender. Japanese officials sent proposals for surrender to British and US governments. These proposals were rejected outright by the US and Britain.

At the same time Japanese representatives were discussing negotiating a surrender with the Soviet Union. Their intention was to have the Soviet mediate a 'favourable' settlement between them and the United States.

Considering the US and Soviet Union were allies at the time and the Yalta Conference occurred around the same time this wouldn't have been any sort of secret.

So, overall the Japanese were looking at surrendering, acknowledging that the war wasn't going well for them and that the US was close to complete victory.

The US would have known that an economic blockade along the lines of which they were conducting against Japan would've eventually made the Japanese surrender (hence the reason to use such a tactic in the first place).

The development of Nuclear Weapons in World War II had nothing to do with Japan at first. The United States developed nuclear weapons fearing Nazi Germany were doing the same, in a sense they were engaged in a cold war within World War II.

The US spent 2 billion dollars (23 Billion today) on the development of nuclear weapons, that's no small bill and certainly means that somewhere in that hierarchy there would be demand to put that 2 billion to use, no matter what.

When deciding to bomb Japan the committee decided a civilian target would shock Japan into surrender. Their initial target was Kyoto, with the full intention of destroying this culturally significant city.

It is often cited that the use of nuclear weapons at the end of World War II was a show of power against the rising Soviet army that had begun a huge wave of victories at the close of World War II.

Overall, the attack on Japan cannot be justified when you take into light the following:

Hiroshima, number dead: 140,000
Nagasaki, number dead: 80,000

Countless thousands died of the after effects of radiation exposure and the sheer humanitarian crisis that was created by the bombing. It is estimated that up to 200,000 people in Hiroshima alone died of cancer by 1950.

These numbers are from just two bombs. The numbers killed were primarily civilians. Killed over international posturing between the United States and the upstart Soviet Union.

Want an interesting read? the following link has some interesting discussions between Stalin, Churchill and Truman.

http://www.dannen.com/decision/potsdam.html

It's obvious reading them that the weapon was more about posturing than saving American or British (or Russian) lives. By the way, since when does a government (specifically the US one) care about sending its young men to their deaths in far off fields?

An interesting interview with Leó Szilárd, one of the scientists who worked on the Manhattan project can be read here:

http://www.peak.org/~danneng/decision/usnews.html

</ends rant>

Clytus

One "alternative" weapon designed from the 50s to the 70s by the US was the Neutron weapon. It was intended to be used against armoured targets in the field of battle. Basically the flood of neutrons from a nuclear weapon is radiated outwards as oppossed to inwards...
This outward pulse of neutrons has the ability to kill men in protected armoured targets.

The neutron weapon still has a blast and heat wave..but the yield is far far smaller than normal thermo-nukes.

Lirange

Ross_Mahon wrote: »

Drop nukes on city's and then there will be peace :rolleyes:

Extinguishing the human race might just do the trick.

SimpleSam06

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

That bomb was made in the 60's. I'm pretty sure a 100 megatone bomb could be made now that would be quite deliverable.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

oddly enough since the bomb as tested had most of it's output from fission it could have been used without too much fallout going back to the east.

impractical but possible, one bomber sent against London,Paris, Milan, Dortmund would significantly weaken a NATO country. NATO would have had to intecept every single plane, the nightmare would be for all the bombers to arrive at once all along the boarder.

No, it was not a real weapon. It was just too big, around 27 metric tons. There was no delivery vehicle available. A TU95 Bear (still about the largest bomber available today) could carry it as the test drop plane did, but it wouldn’t have had intercontinental range, and with this thing slung underneath the plane, even if a one-way trip was accepted, would have been an easy target.

It was impractical for warfare purposes; the Tu-95 had to be retrofitted so it could carry the bomb, which protruded out of the bomb bay doors. The plane also had to have special reflective paint to minimize heat damage from the inferno. And to help the pilots get away in time, the bomb was given a parachute to ensure a slow descent. This enabled the bomber and the observer plane to be as far away as 45km from ground zero.

Also there were no targets suitable for such a thing. Using one against Germany, for example, would have sent lethal fallout over the USSR.

SimpleSam06

stakey wrote: »

The US would have known that an economic blockade along the lines of which they were conducting against Japan would've eventually made the Japanese surrender (hence the reason to use such a tactic in the first place).

So Operation Downfall was just for the laugh, was it? It included such gems as:

Chemical weapons

Because of its predictable wind patterns and several other factors, Japan was particularly vulnerable to gas attack. Such attacks would neutralize the Japanese tendency to fight from caves — caves would only increase the soldiers' exposure to gas.

Although chemical warfare had been outlawed by the Geneva Protocol, neither the United States nor Japan were signatories at the time. While the United States had promised never to initiate gas warfare, Japan had used gas against the Chinese earlier in the war.

Nuclear Weapons

On Marshall's orders, Major-General John E. Hull looked into the tactical use of nuclear weapons for the invasion of the Japanese home islands (even after dropping two strategic atomic bombs on Japan, Marshall did not think that the Japanese would capitulate immediately).

Colonel Lyle E. Seeman reported that at least seven bombs would be available by X-Day, which could be dropped on defending forces. Seeman advised that American troops not enter an area hit by a bomb for "at least 48 hours"; the risk of fallout was not well understood, and that short amount of time would have resulted in substantial radiation exposure for the American troops.

A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7 to 4 million American casualties, including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.

[Deleted User]

Offtopic but surprised nobody has mentioned this. The American and English forces completely carpet-bombed the city of Dresden. Nobody fully knows the figures of the dead but reports say it ranges from 8,200 to 300,000 (this figure was also quote in the Kurt Vonneghut book, Slaughter House Five). It's near impossible to determine the true number because bodies were destroyed, funerals unrecorded, and the sheer volume of refugees in the city at that point.

This happened before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It just goes to show their willingness to destroy life in that means. The English have since apologised for this act, as far as I know the Americans have not.

Also, is it not a bit strange to say that the dropping of the nuclear bombs was up there with 9/11. They have nothing in common. 9/11 killed .. what .. 3,000+ people?

williambonney

The Japanese were brutes of the highest order. They deliberately tortured, raped and murdered countless thousands of people. They also completely ignored the Geneva Convention. What they did in Nanking was absolutely inexcusable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
They lost the run of themselves when they attacked the USA and as the good book says “Hosea 8:7 - "They sow the wind, And reap the whirlwind”
They got exactly what they deserved, in fact, IMO the Americans should have dropped a third bomb, on Tokyo, as close to the Emperor’s palace as possible.

Clytus

Offtopic but surprised nobody has mentioned this. The American and English forces completely carpet-bombed the city of Dresden. Nobody fully knows the figures of the dead but reports say it ranges from 8,200 to 300,000 (this figure was also quote in the Kurt Vonneghut book, Slaughter House Five)

I mentioned it a few posts back.

Clytus wrote: »

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.

Iv heard numbers ranging from 10,000 to 300,000...but I think its somewhere in the 50,000 range.

Capt'n Midnight

williambonney wrote: »

The Japanese were brutes of the highest order. They deliberately tortured, raped and murdered countless thousands of people. They also completely ignored the Geneva Convention. What they did in Nanking was absolutely inexcusable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
They lost the run of themselves when they attacked the USA and as the good book says “Hosea 8:7 - "They sow the wind, And reap the whirlwind”
They got exactly what they deserved, in fact, IMO the Americans should have dropped a third bomb, on Tokyo, as close to the Emperor’s palace as possible.

The US has also ignored the Geneva Convention, they didn't even declare war North Vietnam.

Quote from the bible wouldn't mean a lot to Chinese or Japanese and don't justify mass murder.

Yes what the Japanese did was inexcusable, but the US did worse in forgiving them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731

At the end of the war, MacArthur secretly granted immunity to the physicians of Unit 731 in exchange for providing America with their research on biological warfare.

Dropping a bomb on the Emperors palace would have done what exactly, apart from removing the only person who could order everyone to lay down their and providing a devine martyr.

Bombing civilians and civilian infrastructure is what the US is good at. As demonstrated in Korea, South East Asia, Libya, Iraq, Afganistan, Yoguoslavia, Somalia etc. etc.

Stalin suggested killing 50,000 German officers after WWII, cruel but had it served as a warning to the future it probably have saved more lives in the 20th century alone. And at least it would have some accountability. Bombing a city just means your death is random and would have happened no matter what crimes you did. IIRC the French hung thousands of "collaborators" after WWII probably more then were killed by the Allies in all the war crimes trials.

To this day there is no deterent to the military for causing civilian deaths. The US military doesn't punish those it captures, except for blatent political reasons. US troops have gotten away with murder and manslaughter so often it's a joke, especially when compared to the executions of poor "trash" in the south back home.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote:

Also, is it not a bit strange to say that the dropping of the nuclear bombs was up there with 9/11. They have nothing in common. 9/11 killed .. what .. 3,000+ people?

More american's died as a result of the other 9/11. Then again Chileans don't count especailly when it was part of a regieme change in favour of the US.

9/11 was'sthe US's public's wake up call. Or rather the first one they actually listened to. The numbers killed by the US military since the end of WWII are into the millions, add in the numbers killed by sanctions and Allies of the US who would not be able to continue without US arms and finance.