Slashdot Mirror

So where does the United States of America fit then?

August 6th, 1945 - Hiroshima, Japan - estimated 90,000 - 170,000 casualties
August 9th, 1945 - Nagasaki, Japan - estimated 40,000 - 80,000 casualties

So somewhere between 130,000 and 250,000 casualties.

The committee tasked with determining these targets stated "It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released" [citation]

So clearly the intention was to cause the Japanese population to be terrified of subsequent bombings.

It's not unusual for governments to devote their greatest abilities to the worst ends (see: Hiroshima, Japan).

Blame Einstein for that one. Committed pacifist that he was he was still sufficiently afraid of the idea of Hitler having the bomb as to use his influence to get the United States to build one first.

Because people go to the US mostly for the "branding" that was built over the last century

Yes, that's why my ancestors came here. The "branding". My grandfather often told me stories about how his family would sit around the hearth in Germany and debate which country they should relocate to. Public relations and marketing was a huge factor in this decision. Economic opportunity and personal liberty had nothing to do with it at all.

People don't come here because of the "branding". They come here because the United States was founded by immigrants and is one of a handful of genuinely multi-cultural countries that exist on planet Earth. I can drive across my small city of 50,000 and meet people "fresh off the boat" from areas ranging from Laos to the Ukraine to the former Yugoslavia. I can drive through neighborhoods built by Italian immigrants and their descendants. Ditto for neighborhoods built by Greek, Chinese and German immigrants. My small hometown has at least one each of a Christian Church, Jewish Temple, Islamic Mosque, Sikh Temple and a Hindu Temple.

That's just a sampling of the diversity that you'll find in one pathetically small American city. Visit a large city like New York and you'll find a representative of almost every culture, religion and race from planet Earth. That's why people choose to come here. It's also our greatest advantage and something the rest of the world will never be able to match us on. We do tend to get complacent periodically but sooner or later the sleeping giant wakes up and takes the world by storm. 25 years ago people were predicting that Japan was going to out-compete/out-innovate us and dominate the world. How'd that work out again?

Last but not least: a lot of research is defence-funded. Some do not have problems with that, but Einstein would not have accepted that. Guess where the next Einstein will look for a position?

And yet, amazingly enough, Einstein decided to come here. He even wrote a letter to FDR encouraging him to undertake the development of a weapon of mass destruction. You may not like the fact that America spends so much money on defense but when the chips are down you have no problems begging us to come and save your sorry ass.

America wasn't an interventionist power until the rest of the free world got clobbered twice in the span of twenty years by aggressive non-free countries. Would it surprise you to learn that at the start of WW2 our Army was smaller than Portugal's? We were quite content to remain out of your affairs until it became apparent that you couldn't save yourself and we'd wind up fighting your enemies sooner or later anyway. Might as well fight them on your soil instead of ours if the conflict is inevitable.

I'll tell you a secret: America goes from Canada to Argentina. The US are not America, whatever your language's customs may be. I was specifically restricting my focus to the US using an unusual word to avoid implying that non-US Americans do not already have to learn language at school

Take your geography lesson and shove it up your ass. Believe it or not but I am aware of the geography of the western hemisphere. Are you aware of the fact that the commonly accepted adjective to describe a citizen of the United States in the English language is American? Are you aware of the fact that the full name of my country is the United States of America?

The use of the "word" US'ian is intended as nothing more than a way to piss off Americans and manufacture an issue where none exists. Ireland is part of the British Isles but I don't hear anybody demanding that the British call themselves "UK'ians". Interesting bit of hypocrisy, isn't it?

A liar, an ignoramus or both. http://www.dannen.com/decision/bardmemo.html

Didn't you promised to 'stop wasting time' on me?

I guess I have nothing better to do at this particular moment in time.

Germany was working on nuclear weapons

Once again your "knowledge" of history proves to be highly entertaining. The German nuclear program never really got off the ground and was never taken seriously by the German leadership. Granted, the West didn't know this at the time, which led to Einstein's letter and the launch of the Manhattan Project.

USA had moral high ground waiting well into the game until it was clear who was going to win

Go look up the order of battle for US Armed Forces in 1939-1941 and figure out how you would have utilized those forces to stop Nazi Germany. Keep in mind that we had a smaller army than Portugal and our Air Force was nearly non-existent. It took years to build up a force that was large enough to intervene in Europe -- a process that FDR started right around the time that the war began. Even in 1941 the only branch of our military that was really ready for war was the US Navy -- and you'll note that the US Navy was already fighting the Germans months before Pearl Harbor and our formal entry into the war.

Don't let the facts get in the way of your pre-convinced notions though.

Talk about living in Fantasy Land - I provided links! I provided links to the Undersecretary of the Navy stating that Japan was about to surrender. I provided links to Truman's own diary, and a transcript of his speech right after the bombing (what do you need to prove the point - audio?).

Truman directly wrote in his diary "use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children". He further wrote "The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement". Immediately after the bombing, he referred to Hiroshima as "a military base". Either he was lying to *himself*, to his private diary that wasn't released for decades, or he truly thought that we were going to bomb a, to use his words, "purely military target". Do you think he was lying to himself? Honestly?

Then you claim that Japan was in no way preparing to surrender. Obviously you know more than the bloody Undersecretary of the Navy at the time. Clearly you know more than the immediate postwar Strategic Bombing Survey, which came to the same conclusion post-facto as well.

Do I feel proud of what the US did in WWII (followed by your comments about reconstruction)

That's not what I asked, or discussed. Of course there is reason to be proud of how the US treated the defeated, and little reason to have expected such treatment from many of the other parties should situations have been reversed. The question was about whether we should be proud of inflicting agonizing deaths on half a million civilians when the war was almost over (firebombing the nearly unarmed refugee city Dresden, using firebombings on Tokyo specifically with the goal of killing as many civilians as possible, and wiping two cities off the map without warning and contrary to what Truman himself wrote he wanted in his diary).

Call things "fantasy" all you want, but if you can't face up to what was written and said, the only one living in a fantasy world is you. Truman wrote what he wrote. He said what he said. Bard wrote what he wrote. The SBS came to the same conclusion. These are facts; deny them all you want.

Feel proud man!

How can you ask a person to feel pride at firebombing Dresden and Tokyo (killing 100-200k people each), and nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki (killing about 250k total), when in each case the war was essentially over? Asking a person to view it as necessary is one thing (which I would strongly disagree, but that's not the point I'm making), but asking a person to be *proud* of the painful (and sometimes prolongued) slaughter of up to half a million people, most of whom were civilians, is appalling.

the EU would have been the CU

You haven't looked at Europe's politics lately, have you? :) (j/k)

I agree, by the way, that the concept of MAD has been good for the world. That doesn't mean that we should be proud of using it, and using firebombings, to brutally slaughter huge numbers of civilians - even if one views it as necessary. It is cruel and unamerican. I think Truman himself said it best in his diary:

"This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.

He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance."

(note that Truman, given his speeches in addition to his diary, seemed unaware that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were cities. No such warning, as Truman requested, was ever given, even after the bombing of Hiroshima before the followup on Nagasaki. We had two bombs, and wanted to try them both out on populated areas, even ruling out areas of vital military importance because there wouldn't be enough people there. Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph Bard took the same position as Truman did in his diary, in weighing in (repeatedly) on the usage of the bomb (even moreso, he was completely convinced by US intelligence that Japan was preparing to surrender even without the bomb, and a demonstration would have been plenty); he was ignored by Groves).

Feel proud man!

How can you ask a person to feel pride at firebombing Dresden and Tokyo (killing 100-200k people each), and nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki (killing about 250k total), when in each case the war was essentially over? Asking a person to view it as necessary is one thing (which I would strongly disagree, but that's not the point I'm making), but asking a person to be *proud* of the painful (and sometimes prolongued) slaughter of up to half a million people, most of whom were civilians, is appalling.

the EU would have been the CU

You haven't looked at Europe's politics lately, have you? :) (j/k)

I agree, by the way, that the concept of MAD has been good for the world. That doesn't mean that we should be proud of using it, and using firebombings, to brutally slaughter huge numbers of civilians - even if one views it as necessary. It is cruel and unamerican. I think Truman himself said it best in his diary:

"This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.

He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance."

(note that Truman, given his speeches in addition to his diary, seemed unaware that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were cities. No such warning, as Truman requested, was ever given, even after the bombing of Hiroshima before the followup on Nagasaki. We had two bombs, and wanted to try them both out on populated areas, even ruling out areas of vital military importance because there wouldn't be enough people there. Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph Bard took the same position as Truman did in his diary, in weighing in (repeatedly) on the usage of the bomb (even moreso, he was completely convinced by US intelligence that Japan was preparing to surrender even without the bomb, and a demonstration would have been plenty); he was ignored by Groves).

Feel proud man!

How can you ask a person to feel pride at firebombing Dresden and Tokyo (killing 100-200k people each), and nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki (killing about 250k total), when in each case the war was essentially over? Asking a person to view it as necessary is one thing (which I would strongly disagree, but that's not the point I'm making), but asking a person to be *proud* of the painful (and sometimes prolongued) slaughter of up to half a million people, most of whom were civilians, is appalling.

the EU would have been the CU

You haven't looked at Europe's politics lately, have you? :) (j/k)

I agree, by the way, that the concept of MAD has been good for the world. That doesn't mean that we should be proud of using it, and using firebombings, to brutally slaughter huge numbers of civilians - even if one views it as necessary. It is cruel and unamerican. I think Truman himself said it best in his diary:

"This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.

He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance."

(note that Truman, given his speeches in addition to his diary, seemed unaware that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were cities. No such warning, as Truman requested, was ever given, even after the bombing of Hiroshima before the followup on Nagasaki. We had two bombs, and wanted to try them both out on populated areas, even ruling out areas of vital military importance because there wouldn't be enough people there. Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph Bard took the same position as Truman did in his diary, in weighing in (repeatedly) on the usage of the bomb (even moreso, he was completely convinced by US intelligence that Japan was preparing to surrender even without the bomb, and a demonstration would have been plenty); he was ignored by Groves).

Feel proud man!

How can you ask a person to feel pride at firebombing Dresden and Tokyo (killing 100-200k people each), and nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki (killing about 250k total), when in each case the war was essentially over? Asking a person to view it as necessary is one thing (which I would strongly disagree, but that's not the point I'm making), but asking a person to be *proud* of the painful (and sometimes prolongued) slaughter of up to half a million people, most of whom were civilians, is appalling.

the EU would have been the CU

You haven't looked at Europe's politics lately, have you? :) (j/k)

I agree, by the way, that the concept of MAD has been good for the world. That doesn't mean that we should be proud of using it, and using firebombings, to brutally slaughter huge numbers of civilians - even if one views it as necessary. It is cruel and unamerican. I think Truman himself said it best in his diary:

"This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.

He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance."

(note that Truman, given his speeches in addition to his diary, seemed unaware that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were cities. No such warning, as Truman requested, was ever given, even after the bombing of Hiroshima before the followup on Nagasaki. We had two bombs, and wanted to try them both out on populated areas, even ruling out areas of vital military importance because there wouldn't be enough people there. Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph Bard took the same position as Truman did in his diary, in weighing in (repeatedly) on the usage of the bomb (even moreso, he was completely convinced by US intelligence that Japan was preparing to surrender even without the bomb, and a demonstration would have been plenty); he was ignored by Groves).

There seem to be a lot of "WTF?? electromagnetic pump w/no moving parts?!?" posts here and while I do not know the intricate details of this particuar implementation I STRONGLY suspect that a casual perusal of the science behind the Einstein-Szilard refrigerators would prove highly informative.... Its a bizarre and almost unknown chapter in the history of safe refrigeration techniques.... and Einstein's life for that matter!

Actually, Einstein encouraged the US to develop an atomic bomb, because he feared the Germans were far ahead of the Americans. While he did not approve of its use, he saw the deterrent value of an atomic weapon, and was well aware that it would probably be used eventually.

It turns out the Germans had sqandered their lead in atomic research, allowing the Americans to develop and test an atomic bomb first. After Germany's collapse, and the realization that Japan would never surrender (fighting with religious fervor to the last man, woman and child), the Americans decided to use the weapon in the Pacific to force Japan to unconditional surrender.

America: We're Not As Bad As Saddam, Dammit!

Nope, you're worse.

> Civilians were not targeted "on purpose", ie, the idea was not to kill as many civilians as possible.

Wrong. Read the minutes of the second Target Committee, for example. Especially read section 6, "Status of Targets", which discusses the three primary criteria. Note the number one entry - they must be important targets *in a large urban area*. Later in the report, they rule out areas because there are not sufficient civilians nearby.

remove himself from the political aspect and just enjoy the work. Think Einstein and the atomic bomb.

That's completely backwards. Regarding the atom bomb, Einstein wasn't "an engineer" at all. He had no technical input to the Manhattan Project- he wasn't even on the site.

The only way Einstein helped make the bomb was by suggesting to President Roosevelt that the project should be started at all. His role was much closer to a philosopher or politician, and not an engineer (that was Oppenheimer)

Well, since they didn't give up when the first actual city was hit, then probably not. Also, they didn't exactly have a huge supply of bombs.

The real question is which are they? One mans' terrorist is another mans' freedom fighter.

I don't think most liberals deny the existence of evil; rather, I think they see evil in places where you don't. Like here here , here, and here. Of course, there is also this.

Evil is all too common; don't turn a blind eye to the evil which you find convenient.

Leo Szilard was the other side of the Force.

Definitely this is the women-not-invited dept., as billed, but it reminds me of a conversation I had with a 98 year old woman in 1982. I was 28, had a toddler and an infant, and was very much afraid that motherhood would be the end of any other kind of creative work for me. (The exhaustion factor alone was daunting.)

..."Honey, women are not like men -- we get better with age. After all, you can't think straight until your parts settle. I promise, when you are 45, you'll know what you want to do with yourself, and it won't have anything to do with diapers."

She was right about women, or about me, at any rate. I'm 48 ...

What I notice is that my younger colleagues are quick and bright, but that what I lack in speed I make up in context...

And all of us are passionate about what we are doing, but the flavor is a little different depending on age. When we are working well together, the combination of gifts is truly wonderful. Perhaps instead of framing the "game" (of math or of anything else) as a contest, we ought to be looking at ways to make progress that makes use of both the experience of age and the quickness of youth.

He wrote about humanity's cleverness having outstripped its wisdom. In the story his hero sets up a foundation to retard the progress of scientific knowledge, to give our wisdom a chance to catch up.

About the widely spread notion that math, physics etc, are fields were only the young come up with the paradigm shifting insights... I have also read the suggestion that it is new arrival in the field that really counts, and that the older person who switches fields can come up with the paradigm shifting notion too.

My knowledge of pure math is not sufficient to know this. Are these two recent, famous developments really paradigm shifting? Or are they admirable accomplishments, but more developments of existing ideas? Can anyone set me straight?

I'll pretend you're serious, but I'm not doing to respond to any responses to this message... A newborn baby must go on the next shuttle mission!

I am serious damn it! ...
Newborn babies have to drive over bridges, as do 103 year old grandmothers. That's one of the main reasons bridges are as safe as they are. If the mindset for designing bridges was that they only had to be useable by people in top physical condition, how safe do you think they'd be? If that seems to stretch the point too much, consider comercial aircraft instead. Or elevators. Or cars.

I am going to pretend you are serious too.

America used to have a conscription program, where young adult males were forced to serve in the Armed Forces. It wasn't very popular.

Babies and 103 year old grannies take medicines. Would you advocate drafting random people, including babies and 103 year old grannies in to drug trials.

Leo Szilard , Atomic pioneer, gave up Physics after participating in the development of the Atomic Bomb in World War 2, He had a suggestion for how to react to the preseence of Nuclear weapons.

His suggestion was an alternative to drafting 1 million young men, and wasting a year of productivity, putting them in the Armed Forces, and spending a huge fraction of the Nation's revenue building expensive weapons for them. He was still going to draft them, but rather than wasting their time in the Armed Forces, he suggested the USA and the USSR merely exchange hostages.

Each country would be responsible for feeding, housing, and putting said hostages to work, within agreed upon limits.

If one of the countries attacked the other, the attacked country was authorized to kill some of all of their hostages.

One of the long term advantages of Szilard's plan was, if Soviet hostages were billeted in American homes, and vice versa, hostages returning after their hitch would have a much better understanding of the other Nation's people and culture. They would have friends over there, maybe would have fallen in love. All of which would make it a lot harder to imagine launching a nuclear exchange.

Why did I bring up Szilard? His conscription program is unconventional, like MarkusQ's. But I think it held a lot more merit.

But the US hasn't used it on innocent civilians, dickhead.

Thats highly debatable.

He wrote the letter to FDR that spawned the entire effort.

This is a US based messageboard. You are preaching to the brainwashed.

There are few people in the US who even wants to consider any scenarios other than that they were taught in school. "The Japanese were fanatic, wouldn't surrender, not even after the first bomb, our only alternative was to bomb and kill a lot of civillians."

I bet they aren't taught that Truman claimed that Hiroshima was a military installation, or that he initially thought they were going to save thousands of lives, not millions. That's something his bad conscience made up in the fifties.

A [sic] assume your saying you have. I dont believe you did

I've studied WWII alot in both theaters and one of the best books I've ever read was John Hersey's Hiroshima. Yes, the human toll was heart breaking. I can understand that it was, but what other alternatives were there? After the fierce Japanese resistance in the island hopping campaign , how can you not assume hundreds of thousands of casualities required to take the island?

They could have dropped it over the ocean, but this would have been little more than a light show. How can you convince somebody of its destruction ability yet not destroy anything? Besides look at the alternatives: months of fire bombing every major city the "soften" up the invation, months of city fighting against a determined foe, the cost of such an operation. There was no right choice, it just happened that the bomb was the easiest, cheapest (after the intial R&D of course), and most garunteed way to ensure surrender. What would you have done?

Also, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were stragtegic targets. To deny so is nieve. To quote Harry Tuman This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.

He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful...

Also, was I wrong about the Japanese being honor driven? Please explain. IIRC, the Japanese weren't open for peace negotiations until the second bomb went off.

Come on you cant really believe that. The war had not been going their way for over a year and althought they may have been surprised that they actually lost they were not in "utter shock".

You underestimate the value of their propaganda machine. Germany was the same way. Most Germans and Japanese had no idea how bad their situation really was until the Allies came rolling through. How would they have known? There was no free press. Yes, the Americans had been bombing relentlessly, but when all you hear is propaganda, what do you believe?

Or how about Leo Szilard who has always been a hero of mine. He had his bag packed, ready to leave when Hitler was elected. He stood up to Groves, Roosevelt, Stimson and Byrnes.

I imagine he was deeply conflicted. He was a key person in getting the Manhattan project started. Groves, the general in charge, didn't trust Szilard. IIRC Szilard had felt, or hoped, that atomic weapons would be demonstrated first, on uninhabited targets. And that their horrific destructive power would be sufficient to induce surrender.

It bugs me to have you call him stupid.

Szilard wrote some science fiction stories to explore the guilt he felt over his participation on the bomb. See particularly "My trial as a War Criminal".

...Forget which ones, though. Anyone remember names?

You are probably thinking of Leo Szilard . Here is another brief biography . Szilard gave up Physics after the war.

Szilard's circulated a petition a couple of weeks before the bomb was dropped on Japan, urging the President not to drop it on Japanese cities. 69 of his Manhattan project colleagues chose to sign it with him. The link to the petition above lists the co-signers. The only other name I recognized was Eugene Wigner.

Wigner, Teller and Szilard -- three Hungarian emigres -- went to Einstein to get him to write Roosevelt the letter credited with getting the the Manhattan Project created. I have read that Einstein dictated the letter to his old friend Szilard. I have read that Szilard drafted the letter, and brought it for Einstein's signature.

...Forget which ones, though. Anyone remember names?

You are probably thinking of Leo Szilard . Here is another brief biography . Szilard gave up Physics after the war.

Szilard's circulated a petition a couple of weeks before the bomb was dropped on Japan, urging the President not to drop it on Japanese cities. 69 of his Manhattan project colleagues chose to sign it with him. The link to the petition above lists the co-signers. The only other name I recognized was Eugene Wigner.

Wigner, Teller and Szilard -- three Hungarian emigres -- went to Einstein to get him to write Roosevelt the letter credited with getting the the Manhattan Project created. I have read that Einstein dictated the letter to his old friend Szilard. I have read that Szilard drafted the letter, and brought it for Einstein's signature.

Truman suggested the nuclear bomb to Stalin 57 years ago TODAY, and you nerds are discussing the first wind-up phone charger review? MY GOD, GET SOME FRICKIN' PRIORITIES!!!

The Mormons first settled in Utah and founded Salt Lake City 155 years ago TODAY, and you people are JACKING OVER a wind up phone charger? JESUS H. CHRIST, PEOPLE, GET SOME PRIORITIES!!!

Martin Van Buren died 140 years ago TODAY, and you people are STILL going on about that phone charger? DAMMIT, GET SOME PRIORITIES, YOU SICK FREAKS?!?!?!