Slashdot Mirror


U.S. Offers Glimpse at Manhattan Project Facility

jonerik writes "According to this article from the Associated Press, the US government is this week permitting the public a rare glimpse of its high-security Y-12 nuclear weapons plant as part of Oak Ridge, Tennessee's annual Secret City Festival, which is being held this coming weekend. Although the plant is still associated with ongoing nuclear weapons work, members of the public will be permitted to see parts of the facility associated with its work on the Manhattan Project's 'Little Boy' bomb, which was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945. The facility produced the uranium-235 which was used in the device using 1,152 massive calutrons across nine separate buildings in 1944 and 1945. 'Don't you know the people in Knoxville wondered what in the world was going on out here,' Department of Energy guide Ray Smith said on Monday. 'All this material was coming in, truckload after truckload, and nothing ever left.'"

488 comments

  1. First thing I saw... by Tuxedo+Jack · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Nothing to see here, move along."

    Scary in relevance to this.

    --

    Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
    1. Re:First thing I saw... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America celebrates its "little boy"... sad sad sad world

    2. Re:First thing I saw... by EverDense · · Score: 5, Funny

      Department of Energy guide Ray Smith said on Monday. 'All this material was coming in, truckload after truckload, and nothing ever left.'"

      The Mayor of Hiroshima begged to differ, reminding
      the gathered media of his off-touted phrase
      (just after the explosion) "What the f*** was that?"

      --
      http://jesus.everdense.com/
  2. US offers Gimp to Manhattan Project?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Key point: Don't read article titles too fast

  3. Secret City Festival? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sounds like it will be a bomb!

    -Sj53

    1. Re:Secret City Festival? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or.... sounds like it could beat the fuzz!

      Wait; that's not funny. Move on.

    2. Re:Secret City Festival? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like it will be a bomb!

      CORRECTION: Sounds like it will be "THE BOMB"

  4. OMG SOMEONE SET UP US THE BOMB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    -20 lame, i know... someone had to say it though

    1. Re:OMG SOMEONE SET UP US THE BOMB by ggvaidya · · Score: 2, Funny

      someone had to say it though

      Yes, the Japanese.

    2. Re:OMG SOMEONE SET UP US THE BOMB by zobier · · Score: 1
      -20 lame, i know... someone had to say it though
      You're a poet and you didn't even realize
      --
      Me lost me cookie at the disco.
    3. Re:OMG SOMEONE SET UP US THE BOMB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're supposed to say:
      "You're a poet and you don't even know it".

      That way it sounds witty and funny and the chicks dig it

      </delusional>

  5. Mmm... yummy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny


    Will the festival include a barbeque?

    1. Re:Mmm... yummy... by js7a · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Will the festival include a barbeque?
      You had better well hope not:
      I've been told they used to hold BBQ's with contaminated wood out in the contaminated areas at YPG in the 'old' days, YES TIMES HAVE CHANGED. What about the miners and fabricators of DU munitions and all the incidents that have occured there
      Please comment on my petition to prevent birth defects from uranium contamination.
    2. Re:Mmm... yummy... by weighn · · Score: 0, Troll
      Will the festival include a barbeque?

      Nope, you would be thinking of the festival celebrating that other great American contribution to warfare - napalm. Coming soon to the Harvard Napalm Festival.
      Dontcha just love the smell of burnt baby flesh in the morning?

      --
      Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
    3. Re:Mmm... yummy... by RickPartin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Please comment on my petition to prevent birth defects from uranium contamination.

      What do you have something against super heroes? Do you like crime? Or just jealous you won't be getting any super powers from being exposed to uranium as a child? You are a sad, sad man.

    4. Re:Mmm... yummy... by PakProtector · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yes, I do. I hate babies. They grow up into people, who breathe my precious, precious oxygen.

      My oxygen.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    5. Re:Mmm... yummy... by Strontium-90 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Incidentally, Buddy's Bar-B-Q has truly amazing barbecue (as I've mentioned a few other places). And I've had it catered on several occasions at ORNL (not Y-12).

    6. Re:Mmm... yummy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      What the *FUCK* is wrong with you? Do you realize that over 100,000 people instantly died from those bombs? Not to mention that thousands more that died really, really horrible deaths as a result of radiation poisoning.

      I'm sorry if this is a flame. It's just that those kinds of statements basically kill whatever shred of hope I had left in humanity.

      Oh, and to stave off the "We *did* it for the sake of humanity" comments, we very well may have. But it we did it at the cost of humanity, and I'm not just referring to those lives lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    7. Re:Mmm... yummy... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1
      Napalm was retired in the 70s.

      Don't let that get in the way of a good anti-American rant, though.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    8. Re:Mmm... yummy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buddy's is very good for a fast-food BBQ place, but it's a far stretch to call it "amazing". I've always thought the best thing there was not the BBQ, but the hot fudge cake. Having said that, i do always try to make a stop off at Buddy's for BBQ whenever I'm in TN to see the family (as well as the other places you can't find where I live, like Krystal and Sonic)

    9. Re:Mmm... yummy... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Informative
      Napalm was retired in the 70s.

      What's in a name?

      Only the US, United Kingdom and Russia continue to inventory gelled fuel bombs.

      The chemical used differs from napalm of the Vietnam War era in that it is based on kerosene and a polystyrene-like gel and reportedly contains an oxidizing agent. This will make it even more difficult to put out once ignited. The official designation of Vietnam-era napalm bombs is the Mark 47. Mk-77s are commonly referred to as napalm in US Military slang.

      The US Military has issued denials against articles claiming the use of napalm in cases where it seems that Mk-77s had actually been deployed (see referenced articles). The Pentagon has claimed that the Mk-77 has less impact on the environment.

    10. Re:Mmm... yummy... by op00to · · Score: 4, Informative

      Whatever. You're a moron if you think they don't use 'napalm'.

      Results are 'remarkably similar' to using napalm

      By James W. Crawley
      UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

      August 5, 2003

      American jets killed Iraqi troops with firebombs - similar to the controversial napalm used in the Vietnam War - in March and April as Marines battled toward Baghdad.
      [...]
      Mark 77 Firebomb
      "We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches," said Col. Randolph Alles in a recent interview. He commanded Marine Air Group 11, based at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station, during the war. "Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the (cockpit) video.

    11. Re:Mmm... yummy... by yiantsbro · · Score: 1

      "Dontcha just love the smell of burnt baby flesh in the morning"

      Actually, Vietnam era Napalm had a pretty overpowering odor--so it all pretty much smells the same (baby flesh, housing, equipment, adult enemy soilders, etc.). So it's hard to answer your question (unless of course you've found a way to burn baby flesh and preserve the actual flesh smell)?

    12. Re:Mmm... yummy... by yiantsbro · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hmmmm...no BBQ for them then.

    13. Re:Mmm... yummy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd have to agree with you. Buddy's has come a long way since they were in the bowling alley in downtown Oak Ridge(now lockwood greene or whatever). Its about the only thing I miss after leaving the area.

    14. Re:Mmm... yummy... by PakProtector · · Score: 4, Informative

      Just because I'm blessed and cursed with a pedantic bent and a masochistic one, respectively, I'm going to futilely attempt to enlighten you, Anonymous Coward.

      I direct your attention to Operation Downfall, the proposed plan for the United States' invasion of Japan. The estimated casualties for United States forces alone were estimated to be nearly one million men to take the island.

      When you consider at the time that Japanese soldiers and even civilians who had been forced to retreat to caves refused to surrender, fought to the death, and had to be flame-throwered in the caves because they would have done everything in their power to kill American Soldiers, combined with the fact that virtually everyone in Japan who would have been able to wield any form of weapon would have made resistance, you are looking at not only the deaths of 1 Million US Service personnel, but practically the total elimination of the Japanese Population.

      So, in short, yes, I think 100,000 lives were worth it. I happen to like Japan, and am glad that we dropped the bombs on them, because if we hadn't I doubt very much Japan would be around today.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    15. Re:Mmm... yummy... by Adams4President · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's the big deal about napalm? If your goal is to kill your enemy by the truckload...seems like a pretty effective tool.

      Not sure what the story over the environment is but if it's just a few acres of trees destroyed, then I'm appalled at the logic: we kill scores of human beings (even if they are the enemy) and everyone is worried about the poor trees.

    16. Re:Mmm... yummy... by hachete · · Score: 1

      What's equally as scary is that some of the "conventional" weapons are getting to be as big as the nukes. The Daisy-cutter, for example. Sometimes you won't be able to tell the difference.

      There's also the "highway of death". People have speculated that napalm or one of it's uglier cousins was used there. See here

      --
      Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
    17. Re:Mmm... yummy... by Lord+Haha · · Score: 1

      Don't forget those "precious bodily fluids" either...

    18. Re:Mmm... yummy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The few times I've smelled burnt human flesh it smelled like rotten eggs. High sulfur content?

    19. Re:Mmm... yummy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your reference to the rad-safe list, does not give you credibility. This list is filled with anti-rad zealots..... You probably also think Coal burning power plants rule too....

    20. Re:Mmm... yummy... by john_gault · · Score: 1

      I don't know about Y-12, but the outfit that caters to the National Lab right down the street is Buddy's Bar-B-Que. :-)

    21. Re:Mmm... yummy... by Neurotoxic666 · · Score: 1

      Please comment on my petition to prevent birth defects from uranium contamination. What do you have something against super heroes? Do you like crime? Or just jealous you won't be getting any super powers from being exposed to uranium as a child? You are a sad, sad man.

      Yeah... Opposing uranium contamination now makes you the "T" word. Sweet!

      --
      You are more than the sum of what you consume. Desire is not an occupation.
    22. Re:Mmm... yummy... by advocate_one · · Score: 1
      And, the distinctive fireball and smell have a psychological impact on troops, experts said.

      "The generals love napalm," said Alles, who has transferred to Washington. "It has a big psychological effect."

      something about the smell of napalm in the morning...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    23. Re:Mmm... yummy... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is the classic false dichotomy that everyone pulls out to support the bombing: It was either invade and take the entire island by force, or use the A-bomb. With that pair of choices, it seems pretty foolish to even question the use of the bomb.

      Now, it turns out that there were actually more than just two options, and these were options seriously considered by Truman.

      The first option was conditional surrender. The Japanese actually requested conditional surrender, with the main concession they wanted being an at least ceremonial role for their Emperor*. Now, we really wanted unconditional surrender (they -had- started the devastating Pacific War after all), and obviously we were nervous about any conditions that left Japan able to start another war. Whatever specific demands they might have had, though, we don't know for sure because we never asked for clarification.

      The second alternative was to wait for the Russians to declare war. The administration was quite sure that Japan would surrender once Russia entered the war. Now, we definitely didn't want the Japanese surrendering to the Russians. Cold War logic was in effect before WWII was over. The bombs were meant to scare not just Japan but Russia as well.

      There was a third option, the off-shore demonstration of the A-bombs incredible power, but I consider this the weakest. We only had two bombs, so if the demonstration didn't convince them we'd have to pray the one we had left worked and did the job.

      Anyway, the point of this is not to say that the bomb was the wrong decision. The point is that the situation was not as simple as 200,000 people dead in two blasts or millions dead in an invasion. That's just a false dichotomy that makes what is really a horrendous decision to have to make look simple so we can sleep at night.

      From Truman's point of view in 1945 it may have been the right choice; now that we know more about the bomb's effects it's less clear. But it was never clear to begin with.

      * A concession that, despite the unconditional surrender, McArthur granted them anyway. Ironic, and also a pretty awesome diplomatic move on McArthur's part.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    24. Re:Mmm... yummy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if they have retreated to caves then they aren't really going to hurt anyone else are they?

    25. Re:Mmm... yummy... by js7a · · Score: 1

      For the record I prefer wind power.

    26. Re:Mmm... yummy... by On_fire7 · · Score: 1
      What's the big deal about napalm? If your goal is to kill your enemy by the truckload...seems like a pretty effective tool.
      It's extremely inhumane. Being burnt to death is rather slow, and it hurts a little...
    27. Re:Mmm... yummy... by PakProtector · · Score: 1

      I take it you know very little about the theory of war.

      There was no false dichotomy. All those other solutions you prance out infront of us were examined and dismissed as 'not good enough.' We had to have unconditional surrender from Japan to inforce the point that they had been defeated, and it was a bad idea to start shit with the United States. The fact that we later let them keep their emperor is beside the point.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    28. Re:Mmm... yummy... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      There was no false dichotomy. All those other solutions you prance out infront of us were examined and dismissed as 'not good enough.'

      Those solutions were not my idea! Those other solutions were "pranced out" in front of President Truman by his Cabinet and the Chiefs of Staff. They were obviously rejected because Truman decided to drop the bomb.

      The false dichotomy is how sixty years later the only alternative that is presented is invasion. This is false. Invasion was the least favored option. You're acting like because we didn't choose any of the other options that means they didn't exist, but they did. Now we're told that it was nuke or invade when those were not the only options being seriously considered, which is the definition of false dichotomy.

      We had to have unconditional surrender from Japan to inforce the point that they had been defeated, and it was a bad idea to start shit with the United States. The fact that we later let them keep their emperor is beside the point.

      Because the fire bombing of Tokyo didn't motivate the idea that it's a bad idea to start shit with the U.S. The idea that only unconditional surrender is really a defeat is nonsense. That's a really shitty way to justify the annihilation of two cities. This "theory of war" sounds more like "theory of WWF"

      I understand completely the desire to achieve unconditional surrender. The point is that then the decision is conditional surrender vs. nukes. Not invasion vs. nukes. The traditional binary choice is completely wrong. That is important, because it is more difficult to motivate the actual decision versus the false one.

      It is not beside the point that we let them keep their emperor, because that is all they wanted. They knew they were defeated, but couldn't accept a surrender in which their emperor would be tried for war crimes. If we had demanded unconditional surrender but assured them their emperor would not be disgraced, we may even have had the best of both worlds. But instead we made it sound like the Emperor would be tried and executed. So they kept fighting. Then we nuked them. And then McArthur gave them the very thing they wanted. If we had done that from the beginning, then we wouldn't have had to use the bomb, and that is exactly the point.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    29. Re:Mmm... yummy... by PakProtector · · Score: 1

      So we're agreed that nukes were the only way to achieve the desired goal, then?

      And unless you were actually alive during the time this happened, I'm afraid I'm going to have to take the word of my Grandpa, who was alive at the time, for what it was really like.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    30. Re:Mmm... yummy... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Erm, no, you must not have been paying attention...

      And my Grandpa was alive at the time as well, and a fantastic source of information about "what it was like", but he wasn't in Truman's cabinet meetings and I doubt yours was either.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    31. Re:Mmm... yummy... by PakProtector · · Score: 1

      No, but mine was in the military.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    32. Re:Mmm... yummy... by PakProtector · · Score: 1

      Oh, my, I've got this vicious beast backed into a corner. Let me turn my back on it...

      You have some brilliant logic, Anonymous Coward. If you chase someone into a hole who has every intention of doing everything in their power, no matter the damage to their person, to kill you, you do not leave them alive.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    33. Re:Mmm... yummy... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      BFD. So was mine, and millions of other grandfathers as well.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    34. Re:Mmm... yummy... by PakProtector · · Score: 1

      Well then, I guess we'll simply have to agree to disagree.

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    35. Re:Mmm... yummy... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Fine, but the fact is that "invade vs nuke" is a false dichotomy from a strictly true, rigorous standpoint. We can disagree on the efficacy of the other options, but they existed (and were more seriously considered than invasion). That is fact; disagreeing with this makes you wrong.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    36. Re:Mmm... yummy... by anonymo · · Score: 1

      Wrong: actually the military wanted to "starve out" the Japanese army: without fuel (Japan has no any own resources of fuels) the Japanese army would give up in a few months after the Nazi defeat. The Japanese economy would collapsed fast because they had zero fuel reserv and the US know it well due to eminent cryptologs.
      The US military leaders wanted to keep the A-bomb in their "sleeves" to use in a conflict with the Soviet.
      But the president wanted a "high score" and he ordered using both bombs to end the war swiftly.

      Of course the military strategist had had right: when the Soviet learned that the bomb is working they set resources for spying on it.

      There's an very interesting episode (as I recall) told by Leo Szilard many years later: There was a shadow group of mathematicians and physics that got the result of the Manhattan Project's work and they were rewriting it as if it was done in a different way getting the same result. Officially this was done for checking the group of immigrants who actually made the work supervised by americans. But in reality their calculations were presented to the hesitating Leo and others as the result of the Nazi researchers - as if the Nazis were close behing them - this way accelerate their efforts to create a working A-bomb faster.
      This shadow-group had a code name I can't recall and I had no luck in searching for this affair - any links to it are most wellcome.

      That is the source of the legends that the Nazis were close to make an A-bomb. In reality they were not on the map at all as the tape recordings of the captured Nazi scientists and other fact linked in this posting already showed well.

    37. Re:Mmm... yummy... by mink · · Score: 1

      " The Pentagon has claimed that the Mk-77 has less impact on the environment."

      Someone should mod the Pentagon +1 funny.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  6. good idea? by rich42 · · Score: 0, Redundant
    "Although the plant is still associated with ongoing nuclear weapons work, members of the public will be permitted to see parts of the facility..."

    Is this really a good idea? I'm just imagining local Al Qaeda operatives on the tour...

    "so again, to separate out the U235, the electromagnetic coils need approximately a 45KVA power supply - correct?"

    "Could you tell me roughly how many camels on treadmills that works out to?"

    1. Re:good idea? by idiotism · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I highly doubt that they're going to give out plans on building your own nuke...you can find that stuff on the internet, anyways. And congrats on being another one of the million Americans that think 9/11 should restrict everything we do. "OH NO, THERE ARE TERRORISTS EVERYWHERE! I'm staying in my house for the rest of my life."

    2. Re:good idea? by NitsujTPU · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Finding out how to refine nuclear material and build a nuclear bomb in the modern world hardly requires the kind of intelligence that you're describing.

      Now, the intelligence to run by the library and pick up a good book, that you might need.

    3. Re:good idea? by NitsujTPU · · Score: 1
    4. Re:good idea? by Detritus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's obsolete technology, along with the gas diffusion plant. If someone wants to enrich uranium, there are more efficient methods, like gas centrifuges.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    5. Re:good idea? by utnow · · Score: 0

      No worries. I got the joke. I'll laugh with you, HAHAHAHA. Now lets point together at the people who lept to call you a rascist and slap them with trouts for being flamers. ;)

    6. Re:good idea? by FireFury03 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And congrats on being another one of the million Americans that think 9/11 should restrict everything we do.

      When I was growing up, here in the UK, we had terrorist attacks from the IRA every so often (bombings, shootings, etc. mainly in London). The thing that the politicians always said was "If the terrorists change they way we live our lives and restrict what we can do then they have won" (or words to that effect). Then a bunch of people flew a plane into a building in the US and it seems the terrorists have won since everything is now being restricted to prevent terrorism... how times change.

    7. Re:good idea? by XanC · · Score: 0
      Where on Earth would we get the idea that there are terrorist sleeper cells in the US, biding their time, gathering information, and that one day they may strike and kill thousands of people?

      Couldn't happen.

    8. Re:good idea? by js7a · · Score: 1

      If only the people building the weapons had the intelligence to know what they have done to birth defect rates.

    9. Re:good idea? by MoonFog · · Score: 1

      Does it do any good if you run around thinking about it all day?

      What do you suggest? A police state where the government is given unlimited power?

      The US is not the only country to suffer from terrorism, the UK has had it for decades, I don't talk to many English men who run around constantly scared about whether or not something will strike though.

    10. Re:good idea? by XanC · · Score: 1
      Does it do any good if you run around thinking about it all day?

      I think it's a good thing to keep in mind when dealing with things like nuclear bombs.

      What do you suggest? A police state where the government is given unlimited power?

      No, but I do think it's wrong to jump on people who ask questions as the original poster asked.

      The US is not the only country to suffer from terrorism, the UK has had it for decades

      I don't want to end up in that boat. Stamp it out now. Don't give them opportunities to do more harm.

    11. Re:good idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but everyone who lives in a desert area is a camel herding terrorist?

    12. Re:good idea? by jacksonj04 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The US is not the only country to suffer from terrorism, the UK has had it for decades

      "I don't want to end up in that boat. Stamp it out now. Don't give them opportunities to do more harm."

      Hell no, I *refuse* to let the American public have any say at all in the Northern Ireland issue.

      Marching in guns blazing will not be a solution with NI. Terrorism in the UK was dealt with slowly, carefully and for the most part effectively. It is now primarily only within Ireland and N. Ireland that bombings still occur, and they are on a decrease.

      Tip for the US - Recognise the cause.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    13. Re:good idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The US is not the only country to suffer from terrorism, the UK has had it for decades

      I don't want to end up in that boat. Stamp it out now. Don't give them opportunities to do more harm."

      The UK had terrorism for decades because it was sponsored by the US. If you are thinking of jumping on Arabs you could jump on the Irish a bit first.

    14. Re:good idea? by EiZei · · Score: 1

      Guess it has something to do with the fact that the cold war is over. Couple of bombs probably didn't seem that bad compared to a nuclear holocaust back then. What a bunch of pussies have we become now.

    15. Re:good idea? by drrnwbb · · Score: 1

      without the help/pressure of the american government, there would be no peace process in northern ireland.

    16. Re:good idea? by AaronLawrence · · Score: 1

      You can't "stamp out" terrorism. It just doesn't work that way. You can stamp out entire populations , if you're so inclined, but terrorists by definition are hidden and unknown until you have a police state.

      --
      For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
    17. Re:good idea? by Nogami_Saeko · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Well, the US administration knows that keeping people scared is the best way to control them.

      So they pile on restrictions, security checks, etc. all with the claim of "making things safer", when what they really mean is "keeping people scared". Nothing like lots of visible security to remind people that the world is a daaaaangerous place and only republicans are willing (cawf cawf) to protect the population by force.

      Of course, we all know that a determined terrorist can get through ANY security with enough planning and money. So it's all a farce - and a lot of ass-covering so politicians can say "we did everything we could, so please re-elect us!".

      N.

      --
      "Nothing strengthens authority so much as silence." - Charles de Gaulle
    18. Re:good idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense, without American Funding and support the IRA may well have given in sooner.

    19. Re:good idea? by pecanNZ · · Score: 1

      Boston Irish funding the IRA in the 70s and 80s, well they must be patriots in the mold of American rebels fighting the British

    20. Re:good idea? by karzan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      there were still IRA bombings up to the late 90s, no cold war then either. and the bombs did seem pretty bad because they killed and injured a lot of people.

      the difference is that they were not exploited in order to create a climate of fear completely disproportional to the actual events. incidentally that is exactly the point of terrorist tactics--but we see today that those tactics can be effectively turned around and made more useful for the (supposed) target of the attacks than for the attackers...

    21. Re:good idea? by drrnwbb · · Score: 1

      that funding was (primarily) from irish americans.
      the pressure put on sinn fein and the IRA by the american government aswell as the granting of travel visas to sinn fein brought them into the peace process and led to the good friday peace process.

      granted, the funding over the years did the people of northern ireland no favours, but that money didnt come from the american government, but instead from (primarily) americans of irish extraction.

    22. Re:good idea? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      That's because we here in the US are more accustomed to being on the giving end of terroist attacks rather than the receiving. Case in point: the IRA.

      No members of Congress were involved in IRA fundraising... this year...

    23. Re:good idea? by CortoMaltese · · Score: 1
      Number of casualties in the September 11, 2001 attacks: 2,992.

      Number of persons killed in motor vehicle traffic crashes in the U.S. in 2002: 43,005.

      "Oh no, there are cars everywhere..."

    24. Re:good idea? by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      there were still IRA bombings up to the late 90s, no cold war then either. and the bombs did seem pretty bad because they killed and injured a lot of people.

      Indeed. And infact, for the UK, the terrorist attacks on the US have probably been beneficial since they made the people in the US who fund the IRA's terrorism realise what their money was actually doing.

    25. Re:good idea? by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      It is now primarily only within Ireland and N. Ireland that bombings still occur

      Actually only in Northern Ireland, the south was never a target of bombing attacks. Wonderful how much peace you can have when you don't go around invading people, really.

    26. Re:good idea? by Strontium-90 · · Score: 1

      Good point. The enrichment methods used during the Manhattan Project required rediculous amounts of resources. During tours you often hear terms like "Most of the free world's mercury and silver" for the cyclotrons and "10% of the electricity in the US" for the gasseous diffusion plant. I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but it's indicative of the resources needed. Enriching uranium is an extremely non-trivial thing, especially if using the antiquated techniques of the Manhattan Project.

    27. Re:good idea? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      without the help/pressure of the american government, there would be no peace process in northern ireland.

      As someone who has lived in NI most of his life, I agree completely. It's not that long ago that Bush and Blair had a conference in Northern Ireland about (among other things) how to integrate the policitcal wing of Al Qaeda into the government of the USA, and combining the might of the armed forces of the USA and UK in their fight against the IRA in the war on Terror.

      Oh, hang on. I think I've got something wrong there.

    28. Re:good idea? by aamcf · · Score: 1

      IIRC, the percentage of the population of the USA killed in the 9/11 attacks was slightly lower than the percentage of the population of Northern Ireland killed in the Omagh Bomb.

      Something like 3000 people have been killed in the troubles as a whole.

      What happened on 9/11 was terrible, almost to the point where I can't comprehend it. What happened in Northern Ireland was worse. And what happened in Northern Ireland was peanuts compared to Rwanda.

    29. Re:good idea? by coopex · · Score: 1

      Hehe, I always thought it was amusing that they needed copper for the cyclotrons, but couldn't get any due to wartime shortages, so they borrowed 15,000 tons of silver from the Treasury.

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    30. Re:good idea? by Strontium-90 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I heartily agree. I've always pictured the exchange kind of like this:

      Oak Ridge: "Hello, is this the US Treasury? We need all of your silver for the war effort."
      Treasury: "Excuse me? All of the silver?"
      Oak Ridge: "Yes, if you'd kindly ship it to this little blank spot on the map in the middle of nowhere in Tennessee."
      Treasury: "... ... ... and who exactly are you?"
      Oak Ridge: "I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. No. Seriously. Ship the silver ASAP, if you don't mind."

      Needless to say, this probably isn't what happened, but the story of the Manhattan Project is full of these little amazing details. 15ktons of silver... think of all of the silverware that that would make!

    31. Re:good idea? by mink · · Score: 1

      And Americans funded it.

      Before any dunderhead Americans stamp their feat in anger assuming I'm a forigner, I'm also an American. I've been against support of the IRA since I was able to understand what was going on. What part of "Dont fucking do this" as more politely written in various scriptures dont people understand. I'm not even christian and I get it.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
  7. I don't think that's such a good idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If some half-wit accidentally walks into a restricted area and gets hungry, they might accidently push the button marked "lunch."

    1. Re:I don't think that's such a good idea. by jcuervo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We need -1, Funny.

      --
      Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
    2. Re:I don't think that's such a good idea. by Grey+Ninja · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hey, if funny bothers you, there's always the ability to browse at -1 funny. Personally, I like funny. It makes me laugh.

    3. Re:I don't think that's such a good idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately, we have people like you already covered with -1 Troll or -1 Flamebait. I'm just disappointed nobody has exercised the ability yet.

    4. Re:I don't think that's such a good idea. by jcuervo · · Score: 1

      I meant just for really bad jokes and puns. They're still funny, you just can't laugh without a pained expression. :P

      I was actually trying to be funny. I guess I failed.

      Maybe -1, Unfunny for people like me. :-)

      --
      Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
    5. Re:I don't think that's such a good idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how many remember Far Out Space Nuts?

      http://www.70slivekidvid.com/fosn.htm

      According to the existing replies, few!

    6. Re:I don't think that's such a good idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Bush will not be taking the tour as he is away that weekend.

    7. Re:I don't think that's such a good idea. by kryzx · · Score: 1

      Starting Score: 0 points
      Moderation
      Funny HaHa +1
      Funny Strange -1
      Total Score: 0

      --
      "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
  8. Not so timely news by helioquake · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Man, I have quite a few paid leave days to spend and this would have been a great geek opportunity to spend part of them...being a science/history geek, this would have been a nice thing to visit.

    It's not like we find any reason to visit Tennessee these days...

    1. Re:Not so timely news by Strontium-90 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I believe that there are other tours in other sections that you can go to. Although, things may have changed since 2001. They've really beefed up security since then. There's also the American Museum of Science and Energy that out-of-towners sometimes find interesting.

      However, I can tell you that Oak Ridge is a wonderful city. Those of us who grew up there find it a little bit boring, but in all honesty, I miss it a whole lot.

      If you end up visiting, I'd suggest stopping at Big Ed's for dinner. And if you like BBQ, check out Buddy's BBQ anywhere in Tennessee. It's insulting what passes for barbecue out here in California.

    2. Re:Not so timely news by SeanAhern · · Score: 1

      I'm about to move from California to Oak Ridge, TN. Just accepted a job with ORNL. I have two small children, and we're hoping to buy a house in Oak Ridge directly. Should be interesting...

      I'm glad to hear your vote of confidence about the city! Though I'm a bit leery of living that close to Y-12. They haven't always been the best environmental neighbors.

    3. Re:Not so timely news by Strontium-90 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I really hope that you like Oak Ridge. Since you have small kids, this should be of importance to you: From first-hand experience I can tell you that the Oak Ridge school system is truly outstanding, from elementary school through high school. Taxes are high in Oak Ridge so that we can maintain this. When I was in high school, most of my friends and I took nothing but AP classes, and while a "3" is considered passing, most people who got 3's would hide out of shame. We do quite well in everything from Science Olympiad and Science Bowl to test scores to athletics (we have a very good football team, and good soccer/basketball/baseball/tennis/etc). Not bad for a public school system. I'm constantly amazed by how much more prepared I was for college than my fellow undergrads (I went to Rice U. It was rather nice to start out as a second semester sophomore). Yes, your kids should do quite well if they take advantage of the opportunities that the Oak Ridge school system gives them. As for environmental issues, there really isn't that much to worry about. All three government facilities are in separate valleys from the rest of the city, which was initially so that if one facility had a catastrophe, the other two could keep running. This helps things now by concentrating pollutants into smaller areas that are easy to clean up. Just don't plan on cooking your catch when you go fishing. Otherwise you'll be just fine. Besides, I can only think of one neighborhood that is within a mile of Y-12. ORNL and K-25 are much farther away from the residentail areas. Another good thing about Oak Ridge is that you get to take advantage of cheap TVA electricity. Bull Run Steam Plant (a coal power plant) is a model of efficiency and environmental friendliness. You also have Knoxville, which is much larger than Oak Ridge, and the University of Tennessee right next door, within about a 30-45min drive. And I am naturally a big fan of Tennessee football (meaning college football primarily), hiking in the mountains, swimming in and skiing on the lakes, rafting on the Ocoee, and eating really good barbecue. I'm sure that the people you'll be working with at ORNL will be more than happy to answer any questions you have about moving, but I'd be happy to help out too. Incidentally, what division will you be working in at ORNL?

    4. Re:Not so timely news by Maestro4k · · Score: 3, Informative
      I'm about to move from California to Oak Ridge, TN. Just accepted a job with ORNL. I have two small children, and we're hoping to buy a house in Oak Ridge directly. Should be interesting... Good choice buying a house in Oak Ridge, they have the best school system in the area. You'll be pleased to hear they just broke ground on a massive addition & remodel of the high school that'll take about three years to complete, plenty of time for it to be finished for your kids to use. :) BTW, the community strongly supports the school system, the addition/remodel's being paid for by a combination of a half cent sales tax increase (voted in with over 70% of voters approving it) and donations -- in the millions. Not only ORNL/Y12/K25 employees and their families live in Oak Ridge, many of UTK's professors choose to move there so their kids can go to the Oak Ridge school system. Oh yes, you won't be calling it ORNL for too long, it's X10. That was it's original name, and most of the employes call it that, you'll get in the habit fast, it's also quicker to say.

      Also, last I heard ORNL is still run by a combo of The University of Tennessee and Battel (sp?) so your kids will likely qualify for reduced tuition at UT when they get to college age. UT's an excellent school. :) Oh yeah, on that vein, hope you like Orange, you'll see a lot of it, everywhere. The UT fans here are quite, ahh, intense. :)

      I'm glad to hear your vote of confidence about the city! Though I'm a bit leery of living that close to Y-12. They haven't always been the best environmental neighbors. While we like to joke about people from Oak Ridge glowing in the dark it's really not a problem. I grew up (and still live) in a town 30 minutes away. I've got friend in Oak Ridge, some who work for ORNL & Y12. There's really no danger. I even did a summer fellowship at ORNL, while I had to wear a radiation monitor I was never exposed to any. Some things you'll have to watch out for (you'll learn this from your coworkers) are the animals on the ORNL reserve. They can get into contaminated areas, so make sure you don't hit them. That could contaminate your car, but is unlikely to harm you, just cause some hassle. :)
    5. Re:Not so timely news by hackstraw · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      It's not like we find any reason to visit Tennessee these days...

      Hey, maybe its where Saddam's WMDs are hiding?!?

    6. Re:Not so timely news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's not like we find any reason to visit Tennessee these days... "

      That's a shame. I think Tennessee is one of the most beautiful states I've visited. And I'm from California.

    7. Re:Not so timely news by cybrpnk2 · · Score: 1

      Tennesse is THE most beautiful state in the United States, and East Tennnessee where OR is is the most beautiful part of Tennessee. The Great Smokies National Park, particularly the Townsend side wih Cades Cove, is truly heaven on Earth. Now, the Pigeon Forge side of GSNP is a mind-numbing exercise in jaw-dropping hillbilly capitalism...

    8. Re:Not so timely news by Skjellifetti · · Score: 1

      I've had pizza in many local spots between LA and NYC. Big Ed's makes the best. Buddy's, OTOH, is OK, but most any little dive in the South can do better.

    9. Re:Not so timely news by SeanAhern · · Score: 1

      Thanks for all of the info. We have been working toward home schooling our children, and have already started with our 4-year-old. But having an excellent school system will allow us to take advantage of cooperative educational opportunities that we otherwise wouldn't have. And by the time they transition to high school, they'll have something phenomenal to go to! Plus, the school system helps maintain housing values. I just heard about an hour ago from our realtor that they're about to break ground on the new high school.

      As for the environmental areas, I'm most worried about the East Fork Poplar Creek that runs through Y-12 and then heads north and west to run along the west end of the Turnpike. It was used basically as an "industrial ditch" by Y-12 for a long time. I absolutely love the houses along that western ridge, but I'm a bit worried about my kids playing in what was contaminated with lots of mercury for many years. They still can't get the levels down in the fish. And my wife would like to do organic gardening. I don't think it's much of a problem for that, but she's rather worried. We are likely to buy in the Emory Valley Road area.

      I'll be working in the Computer Science and Mathematics Division, heading up a scientific visualization team. Just did the physical this morning, and I hope to start in a few weeks.

    10. Re:Not so timely news by Zima-harley · · Score: 1

      I can't begin to tell you what a hugh mistake it would be to move two small children into Oak Ridge. I grew up there, worked there and thought it was safe. Even when I was evacuated during a release I was told everything was ok. My children were three and four at the time. They are now 28 and 29. One suffers from Hasimoto's disease from the I-131 and the other has MS. My lungs are riddled with Be and my bones with Pu. Don't risk your children's health, please!

    11. Re:Not so timely news by Zima-harley · · Score: 1

      Please don't endanger your children. Live in West Knoxville against the prevailing winds.

  9. Huh? Is this new? by jonoton · · Score: 2, Informative

    I thought they'd been doing tours round this plant for many years.

    A few years ago I went on a 'bizzare places' tour round the states and this was one of the places on the agenda.

    Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to go on the tour round Y-12, but they were doing daily trips from the science & technology museum in nearby oakridge.

    1. Re:Huh? Is this new? by Detritus · · Score: 1

      What I would like to see is the plutonium extraction and reprocessing plant that was used to extract Pu239 from used reactor fuel rods. When the fuel rods are removed from the reactor, they are thermally hot from decay heat and very radioactive. From what I've read, they built a very large and complex plant that was completely operated by remote control, using 1940s technology. Once it began operation, nobody could enter the plant due to the high radiation levels. All repairs and maintenance had to be done by remote control.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    2. Re:Huh? Is this new? by y0bhgu0d · · Score: 2, Funny

      if by tours you mean "try to run past the armed guards and if you make it more than 50ft, we'll call it a tour" then i'm sure they have.

      good luck getting in without a badge any time other than this event ;)

    3. Re:Huh? Is this new? by jonoton · · Score: 1

      :) No that's what we did at Fort Knox!

    4. Re:Huh? Is this new? by Muhammar · · Score: 2, Informative

      In the opposite part of US. Try "Hanford Nuclear Reservation"

      The reason why they chose Washington state for plutonium work was a low density of population, with no major towns downwind. Also plenty of water for cooling and a cheap hydro. During war, the graphite reactor design went from the initial Chicago pile through one mid-size prototype to several large reactors (built at the same time as the prototype). Since the possibility of a catastrophic event was rather high, they considered a reactor fire/explosion disaster resulting in huge contamination of surrounding land - and they built the reactors many miles apart so that the mishap of one would not put the others out of production.

      --
      I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
    5. Re:Huh? Is this new? by Strontium-90 · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is the first I've ever heard of tours being given at Y-12, since it is still operational. However, there are (or at least were) tours of various parts of X-10 (aka the Oak Ridge National Laboratory or ORNL) and K-25 (gasseous diffusion plant). However, having worked at Y-12 for a couple summers as an undergrad, I did have a chance to see some of the sights at Y-12, and can say that it's an interesting place in many ways.

      Incedentally, the museum is the American Museum of Science and Energy. Also, X-10, Y-12, and K-25 (the three plants) are all inside the city limits of Oak Ridge, but since it's a fairly rural area, they are sometimes mistaken as being outside the city. If you want to know more about Oak Ridge and the Manhattan Project, there is a really good book City Behind a Fence.

    6. Re:Huh? Is this new? by bofkentucky · · Score: 1

      You won't even make it 50' at the Fort Knox Bullion Depository fence, that yard is mined, heavily, was buried claymores back in the 60's, probably something nastier now. Then the snipers, which you can see from the road. Then whatever security is in the depository (U.S. Mint police).

      Add in the fact that there is the equivalent of a brigade of infantrymen and a brigade of tankers there at any given day, you aren't leaving with anything.

      --
      09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
  10. Engrish by Fifty+Points · · Score: 0

    Don't you know the people in Knoxville wondered what in the world was going on out here,' Department of Energy guide Ray Smith said on Monday. Is it just me, or is that a little confusing in print?

    --
    I'm in between insightful sigs right now...
  11. sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    "Although the plant is still associated with ongoing nuclear weapons work, members of the public will be permitted to see parts of the facility..."

    Is it really necessary to build even more nukes?

    after all, there is only 1 nation that has ever used them on people. that should be scary enough not to build them. whats even more scarier, it really wasnt even necessary to nuke japan since the war was practically over. the only reason was to test the weapon while still in war (to make it more acceptable).

    and btw, why is it that north korea and iran are not allowed to build any while some are allowed to build as many as they like?

    the world spends more money on weapons than ever before, even during the cold war. what a lousy place this has become, money dictating peoples lives.

    1. Re:sigh... by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with a few extra nukes? IMO the US can build as many nukes as they want. Pu is a great fuel for nuclear power plants, let the DOD pay for it, leaves less money for invading, euh, liberating any axis of evil they've left. And beside who are they going to nuke anyway? Don't think Al Quaida has a capital.

    2. Re:sigh... by js7a · · Score: 1

      For one thing, the byproducts make a mess.

    3. Re:sigh... by Zeebs · · Score: 1

      And beside who are they going to nuke anyway? Don't think Al Quaida has a capital.

      Yea and that logical thinking stopped the army from invading Iraq how? You should really be seeking to limit, with in reason for a national defence force, these peoples power. Not encouraging them to build weapons designed to inflict massive civilian casualities. Weapons designed with the sole intent, of destroying entire cities, women, children, combatant or not.

      --

      Happy Noodle Boy says "F###ing doughnut! Mock me? You fried cyclops!!"
    4. Re:sigh... by suricatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a UN thing. Only the founding members of the UN (US, Russia, France, China, UK) are permitted to develop nukes, ostensibly for peacekeeping purposes.

      Anyone wanting to join the UN has to agree to this and not develop nuclear weapons. In return they get access to nuclear theory and technology to make (for example) nuclear energy reactors.

      If you're a country and you want to develop nukes, then you're in for some serious trouble. If you're a member of the UN then you're breaking the rules, so everyone gets pissed off at you. If you're not a member of the UN then you're considered to be the bad guys, so everyone gets pissed off at you.

      The problem is that as a country you can't really afford to have everyone pissed off at you because you face things like international pressure, political sanctions and pre-emptive strikes. In today's globalised interdependent economy, these things really matter.

    5. Re:sigh... by FireFury03 · · Score: 0, Troll

      IMO the US can build as many nukes as they want.

      Why is it considered bad for a warmongering dictator (Saddam) to have weapons of mass destruction whilest it's ok for a warmongering dictator (Bush) to have weapons of mass destruction?

    6. Re:sigh... by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unless you're Israel, then you get away with it because you've got a lot of friends in Washington.

      --
      When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
    7. Re:sigh... by Neoprofin · · Score: 0

      Limiting your military only works if you have friends who don't or nothing of value. And what are a few more nukes anyway? If we can already destroy the surface of the earth a hundred times over why not go for 101?

    8. Re:sigh... by Grym · · Score: 1
      Why is it considered bad for a warmongering dictator (Saddam) to have weapons of mass destruction whilest it's ok for a warmongering dictator (Bush) to have weapons of mass destruction?

      I forgot--perhaps you can refresh my memory: How many nukes did we use in the most recent Iraq war?

      -Grym

    9. Re:sigh... by RebelWithoutAClue · · Score: 1
      I don't get this.

      So many people seem obsessed with comparing Bush with Saddam/Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot whoever. My reply is: Grow Up. If you truly cant see the difference between Bush and Saddam, then I truly feel sorry for you.

      --
      "However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
    10. Re:sigh... by minus_273 · · Score: 0

      man that really worked for India and Pakistan. Everyone was REALLY pissed at them. I mean they are pariahs now.. stupid UN. ... I think you are confuding it with the NPT

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    11. Re:sigh... by minus_273 · · Score: 0

      "really wasnt even necessary to nuke japan since the war was practically over. the only reason was to test the weapon while still in war (to make it more acceptable)."

      i can't believe there are people who still think that is true. Keep in mind this is the japanese we are talking about not the french, they will die before they surrender. They are still finding japanese soldiers who refused to surrender. The japanese are impressive warriors, you have to give them that much.

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    12. Re:sigh... by Muhammar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Pu is not so great fuel. To make Mixed Oxide Fuel, from free separated Pu and free DU or natural U actualy costs more than mining, extracting and enriching Uranium to the 5% level (or whatever is used in the plant) . Apart from hazzards of Pu, the economy is not there with MOX.

      Pu is a toxic waste from energy production perspective and should be burried, not re-made into nuclear fuel.

      --
      I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
    13. Re:sigh... by Zeebs · · Score: 1

      Very simple, if go for 101 you won't bring it below 100. I didn't mean to limit the military by size or by not giving every soldier a rifle that shoots 3000 rounds per second and slices through even the heaviest of armoured vehicles with ease.

      I just see no justification for weapons which aren't even targeted against enemy soldiers but rather enemy cities, packed as I mentioned, with CIVILIANS.

      --

      Happy Noodle Boy says "F###ing doughnut! Mock me? You fried cyclops!!"
    14. Re:sigh... by LardBrattish · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's a UN thing. Only the founding members of the UN (US, Russia, France, China, UK) are permitted to develop nukes, ostensibly for peacekeeping purposes.

      I think you meant to say permanent members of the Security Council...

      --
      What are you listening to? (http://megamanic.blogetery.com/)
    15. Re:sigh... by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      I forgot--perhaps you can refresh my memory: How many nukes did we use in the most recent Iraq war?

      I think you can safely say that the US has killed more people with nukes than Iraq... Just because the US hasn't used a nuclear weapon recently shouldn't give them the right to tell other countries that they can't do the same - only when the US has decomissioned all it's weapons of mass destruction would it be non-hypocritical to tell other people they shouldn't have weapons of mass destruction.

      Infact, given the US's history of trying to be the world's police force, I think many countries are more in need of weapons to defend themselves against an attack by the US than the US is in need of weapons to defend themselves.

    16. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since I don't see the difference, please point it out to me.

    17. Re:sigh... by FireFury03 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So many people seem obsessed with comparing Bush with Saddam/Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot whoever. My reply is: Grow Up. If you truly cant see the difference between Bush and Saddam, then I truly feel sorry for you.

      Nomatter who you're talking about, I don't see what gives the right for one country who has weapons of mass destruction (and has used them in the past) to tell another country that they can't develop their own. If the US decomissioned it's weapons of mass destruction then it would be in more of a position to make that point. Like it or not, the US is _not_ the most morally superior and trustworthy country in the world.

    18. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you are India, conveniently located between the "West" and China, and the only country with a population to match China's. Conventional or nuclear, chances are with India in the fold the other side will run out of moving targets first.

    19. Re:sigh... by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Yeah but those so called 'Civilians' are as guilty as hell of giving support, comfort and aid to their terrorist armed forces.

      If they're not with us they are against us and deserve to die

    20. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're just jealous

    21. Re:sigh... by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      Not quite - the Nuke Non Proliferation Treaty is a separate thing, but it used to be that the UN Security Council members were the only ones with nukes. Today however, pretty much every country with nuclear power stations also have a few bombs stashed away somewhere as an insurance policy against invasion by a large power.

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    22. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are 51 founding memebers of the UN.

      http://www.un.org/Overview/growth.htm

      The reason is because of the Non-Proliferation Treaty which most UN members have signed.

      http://nobelprize.org/peace/educational/nuclear_we apons/readmore.html

    23. Re:sigh... by Zeebs · · Score: 1

      Great, so are you then by your own logic. You are supporting forces which have invaded two, count them, two soverign nations.

      Now afganistan is a gimme I figgure, hell even I gave 'support' for that one, several of my friends have gone/are going there. Canadian Forces Reservists who voulenteered if it matters.

      So now we both deserve to die for the actions of people who are acting with out our consent on these issues, or at the very least without our informed consent.

      To the people on the otherside of your big ol' stick you are the "Civilian" giving support, aid, and comfort to people 'invading' their land. I'm not saying that having troops stationed in foriegn countries with that governments consent is an invasion as such but some take it as such. So now I'm back to "If they're not with us they are against us and deserve to die", if you are able, IF, look at 9/11 through that lens puts a different perspective on it. Your land is threated, by something that may be completely fictional, you strike at a target that is designed to instill fear of your awesome power, you kill mostly civilians. Are they right? How can you still be?

      If this was ment to be 'funny', I'm sorry but I didn't get it. Then again I try not to end jokes in "deserve to die".

      --

      Happy Noodle Boy says "F###ing doughnut! Mock me? You fried cyclops!!"
    24. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoooo, whoooooooo! Here comes the clue train, last stop: you.

      1) They are not "so called 'Civillians'". They are civillians. That is a fact, which follows logically from the defintion of the word "civillian". Providing support and aid to armed forces does not make you a member of said armed forces.

      2) How the hell do you know they are "guilty as hell" of giving support, comfort and aid? There are a lot of American citizens in the US who oppose the invasion of Iraq. It is a logical fallacy to assume that citizens of a country which has terrorists in it are all supporting said terrorists. By that reasoning, I might presume that you support the lynching of black people just because you live in a country that has KKK members in it.

    25. Re:sigh... by Mxyzptlk · · Score: 4, Funny

      as a country you can't really afford to have everyone pissed off at you because you face things like international pressure, political sanctions and pre-emptive strikes

      Tell me about it. I did a nuclear strike in Persia in Civ III, and suddenly everybody went bananas on me.

    26. Re:sigh... by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      That definition of civilian is outdated and does not fit with the current world situation and the threats we now face as a people.

      If our country is at war with the enemy then that entire country consitutes the threat, maybe we beat the armed forces into a cocked hat and conquer them but what then, insurrections, terrorism, suicide bombers ? All carried out by your oh so innocent civilians !

      Merely harbouring some intellectual critisms of the leadership whilst supporting it's actions by continuing to work for that country, pay taxes and supporting your armed forces does not excuse you from the evil your country is responsible for and makes you a threat which must be neutralized.

    27. Re:sigh... by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Goddamn right I support those liberations, of course I do. They were necessary to protect the freedoms of the free world in which we live.

      What you obviously fail to realise is that yes I am civilan and yes I am responsible for the actions of my country, but let me tell you buddy I'm am not going to die ( although obviously I would unhesitatingly throw down my life for the cause of righteous and claim my reward in heaven )for supporting what is right and just. No, I will simply take my share of the glory when our job is done.

    28. Re:sigh... by zerocool^ · · Score: 1

      I guess it's time to switch to china inf, then.

      But, china inf is for n00bs.

      --
      sig?
    29. Re:sigh... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Informative

      Israel is not a signatory of NNPT. For that matter, neither are India or Pakistan. I do not know where the GP got that weird idea that it is a UN thing, because it is not. Countries may choose to sign or not freely - well, unless they happen to be declared "rogue states" by the US, in which case any and all treaties are just ink on the paper anyway.

    30. Re:sigh... by ccarson · · Score: 1

      I think this has something to do with responsible nations. Under the former leadership, Iraq couldn't be trusted with WMD weapons. There's a theory which was called the Golden Arches Theory and is now referred to the Supply Chain Theory which states that no two countries that both had McDonald's had fought a war against each other since each got its McDonald's. You can read more about this theory from here or here.

    31. Re:sigh... by Dobeln · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This isn't an issue about "rights" (well, you can make it one, but that's not very helpful) - it's an issue of who you trust.

      If you are fine with our friend Kim Yong Il and the nice Mullahs of Theran getting the bomb, so be it. Still, that really tells the rest of us all we need to know about you and your alliegances.

      Arguments about "rights" are useful in communities where there is some level of mutual trust and reciprocity - they aren't very useful when dealing with entities such as those mentioned above.

    32. Re:sigh... by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      it's an issue of who you trust.

      An issue of who who trusts? You may trust Bush (I don't) but I think it's fair to say most of the middle-east don't trust Bush... so I ask again, why is it ok for the US to have nukes but other countries not to have them? Is this because _you_ trust the US and not Iraq? What about the people who trust Iraq and not the US? Or are you making the claim that you are right, everyone else is wrong? How arrogant.

      I'm afraid I just see it as massively hypocritical to declare that it's ok for you to do something but noone else is trustworthy enough to do the same. If you're going to tell people they shouldn't be doing something you sure as hell shouldn't be already doing it yourself.

    33. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you think the outcome will be if North Korea or Iran obtain nukes? It will not be a M.A.D. approach, they'll sell/give it to the nearest terrorist group and walk it across the boarder into the U.S. and flatten a city. There will be no "standoff" or posturing, they will level a city. It would be great if everyone got rid of their nukes but it's not realistic. I can understand the argument of the average Iranian: "What gives you the right to tell us we can't have nukes when you have them?", but the alternative is EVERYONE (including al-queda) have nukes. If you believe that syria,n.korea,iran,iraq(pre-invasion) would only *threaten* nuclear attack then you are naive indeed.

    34. Re:sigh... by Grym · · Score: 1

      I think you can safely say that the US has killed more people with nukes than Iraq...

      ...because Iraq never obtained any nuclear weapons. Of course, you take this as meaning that, if they did, they wouldn't have used them, but that thought is just patently untrue and flies in the face of Saddam's brutal history of aggressively using chemical weapons against his own people and Iranians. Which, brings us back to the whole perceived impetus (Saddam's refusal to allow U.N. weapons inspectors in) for the war in Iraq to begin with.

      I think many countries are more in need of weapons to defend themselves against an attack by the US than the US is in need of weapons to defend themselves.

      Are you living under a rock or something? The war on terror has less to do with legitimate nation-states obtaining nuclear weapons (See: India and Pakistan) and more to do with rogue nations and terrorists from getting their hands on nuclear weapons. Simply allowing unfettered proliferation of nuclear weapons to fanatics unaccountable to their own people would be a bad--if not lethal--situation for everyone in the world.

      -Grym

    35. Re:sigh... by Zeebs · · Score: 1

      So when can they expect to see you down at the Army or Marine recruiting office? Get yourself a rifle and get your ass in the grass grunt, err sand. OH you're taking your share of the glory for sitting on you're ass state side?

      --

      Happy Noodle Boy says "F###ing doughnut! Mock me? You fried cyclops!!"
    36. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, if the US decommed its WMDs and then told another nation that it shouldn't develop them, don't you imagine the temptation would exist for that nation to say "Fuck off, what the hell are YOU going to do about it?"

    37. Re:sigh... by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Goddamn right I am, my ass on the chair is the safest place for it the deviants they got around here now.

      Any monkey can crawl around in the sand with a rifle, the real hard work is done in the factories and churches back home to equip those boys properly and urge them on. Government lobbyists perform an invaluable service also.

    38. Re:sigh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Countries may choose to sign or not freely - well, unless they happen to be declared "rogue states" by the US, in which case any and all treaties are just ink on the paper anyway.

      If there is one lesson the Bush administration has taught the world it is that, when it comes to the US, all treaties are just ink on paper.

    39. Re:sigh... by superyanthrax · · Score: 1

      Not only Israel, but also India and Pakistan. Their justification for having nukes essentially is b/c they need to protect themselves against each other. It is also fairly well documented that North Korea has made a nuclear weapon. In addition, South Africa and Iran are rumored to be working on or already possess them.

    40. Re:sigh... by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      Are you living under a rock or something? The war on terror has less to do with legitimate nation-states obtaining nuclear weapons (See: India and Pakistan) and more to do with rogue nations and terrorists from getting their hands on nuclear weapons.

      From what I can tell, the "war on terror" is all about scaring the shit out of law abiding citizens of countries like the US and UK whilest restricting their rights. Oh and invading other sovereign states on the grounds that they have weapons of mass destruction - yes, thats right, the war was justified against much public opposition (certainly here in the UK) on the grounds that there _were_ weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, despite no proof of this and infact much evidence to the contrary... and guess what, the weapons inspectors couldn't find anything.... which is what the intelligence services had been suggesting all along.

      If the war had been justified with evidence of _something_ (not necessarilly anything to do with weapons of mass destruction) then it may have been a valid thing to do - justifying it by lieing to your citizens is not a good plan. Sadly recent elections have shown that the electorate either have very short memories or are just plain stupid.

      Simply allowing unfettered proliferation of nuclear weapons to fanatics unaccountable to their own people would be a bad--if not lethal--situation for everyone in the world.

      I'm not advocating the proliferation of nuclear weapons - I'm saying that before the US tells a country that they can't develop nukes, maybe the US should set an example and decomission their own. Afterall, if the enemy doesn't have any nukes, why the hell does the US need them to defend itself - you can bet that if the enemy suddenly had the means to build a nuke and the US found they needed to defend themselves, the US could knock one up in next to no time even if they had decomissioned the lot. As it is, sitting on top of your own nukes and telling everyone else that they can't have any themselves because they can't be trusted is completely hypocritical, especially when the US decides that it's going to illegally invade other countries whenever it pleases (admittedly not using nukes, but I fail to see how this promotes trust).

    41. Re:sigh... by spauldo · · Score: 1

      Because one of those countries is large and powerful and already has plenty of them and has used them in the past.

      That's what it boils down to. We're big, we can use our influence or threats to keep other people from getting as big or powerful as us.

      Nations aren't rational. Quite a bit of the time international politics is indistiguishable from schoolyard fighting. We happen to be the big kid. That's all the justification we need, until the voters decide to make it a large enough issue to make our government step back or the rest of the world gets sick of us and gangs up on us.

      "Rights" don't exist for nations, nor do ethics. Everything's in the eye of the beholder - especially the beholder with the most weapons, largest military, and most globally intwined economy.

      --
      Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
    42. Re:sigh... by The+GooMan · · Score: 1

      He's not naive, he's stupid. I'm an American so I care about the USA 1st and foremost (unlike some Americans). I don't care what the Middle East and N Korea think about being told not to develop nukes. We used 2 nukes in the 60 years we have had them in one of the largest wars (if not the largest) of all time. While Japan was raping, murdering, pillaging and surprise attacking Pearl Harbor and Stalin & Hitler were killing whoever they wanted we used 2 nukes. Big freakin' deal.

    43. Re:sigh... by Grym · · Score: 1

      From what I can tell, the "war on terror" is all about scaring the shit out of law abiding citizens of countries like the US and UK whilest restricting their rights. Oh and invading other sovereign states on the grounds that they have weapons of mass destruction...

      Sovereign states? Surely you don't believe pre-war Afghanistan and Iraq to be sovereign states. What kind of sovereignty is there in a oligarchy (in the guise of a theocracy) and a dictatorship?

      ...which [the lack of WMDs in Iraq] is what the intelligence services had been suggesting all along.

      Despite the fact that some illegal weapons were found and destroyed (medium-ranged missiles), your point is absurd even with regard to "real" WMDs. Both German and UK intelligence services believed Iraq had WMDs. The collective intelligence of states at the U.N. believed it when they voted on referendum 1440. The only time doubts even began to arise occurred when the time for action drew near and the proverbial lines in the sand were beginning to be drawn.

      You can argue that the intelligence was bad because of serious structural and procedural problems at both domestic and international intelligence services. I'll agree with you. But sitting here claiming that intelligence never indicated the presence of any WMDs is completely bunk.

      I'm not advocating the proliferation of nuclear weapons - I'm saying that before the US tells a country that they can't develop nukes, maybe the US should set an example and decomission their own...

      This issue has nothing to do with fairness. I'd like to live in this idealistic paradise you seem to be in--it seems really nice. Unfortunately, the real world doesn't work like this. The approach you describe is like me trying to start a new wave of socialism simply by giving away all my possessions. It doesn't work that way.

      You seem to be of the notion that everyone thinks defensively such as yourself. Unfortunately, this isn't the case. Like it or not (I personally don't), international stability depends in part upon the theory of Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.) even now in the post-Cold War era. Expecting North Korea, for example, to not develop and use nuclear weapons simply because its enemies don't have them only works if the DPRK is concerned solely with defense, which they most certainly are not. Removing the threat of nuclear retaliation only makes the option of developing and using nuclear weapons aggressively that much more viable.

      The goal shouldn't be to remove all nuclear weapons technology wherever it exists. If there's anything the P2P battles (or any other instance in which groups have tried to stop the inevitable march of technological progress) have taught us anything it's that: hiding or preventing people from getting access completely to a technology for an indefinite amount of time is impossible. Preventing certain groups, however, from obtaining the technology is well within our power. Preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons to unstable or rogue nations is a beneficial, pragmatic goal. Perhaps it's not fair, but lives and international stability depend upon it.

      -Grym

    44. Re:sigh... by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      Compare Bush to Saddam? Let's see...

      1. Invaded other country(s) without provocation...check.
      2. Holding prisoners without due process or trial rights...check.
      3. Torture...check.
      4. Killed thousands of people...check.
      5. Actively worked to reduced the rights of his people...check.
      6. Use of propoganda and nationalism...check
      7. Weapons of Mass Destruction...Weapons of Mass Destruction????

      You're right. Only Bush has access to weapons of mass destruction. There's no comparison.

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
    45. Re:sigh... by RebelWithoutAClue · · Score: 1
      You know very well Bush is nothing like Saddam. If you dont, then youve allowed yourself to be blinded by politics.
      1. Invaded another country which will be better off because of it
      2. Torture consisting of mostly humiliation. These guys leave in better health for goodness sake. They can also pray 5 times a day. vs throwing people in shredders and vats of acid.
      3. Tried to avoid killing enemy civilians at the cost of own soldiers vs killing thousands of his own civilians
      4. Gone in 3 yrs vs ?
      5. used wmd on his own civilians vs didnt use wmd at all
      I know its hard. But dont believe everything your friends believe. I used to be anti-Bush too.
      --
      "However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results" - Winston Churchill
    46. Re:sigh... by FireFury03 · · Score: 1

      Both German and UK intelligence services believed Iraq had WMDs.

      Wrong - post-war investigations have shown that the UK intelligence services thought it very unlikely Iraq had WMDs and the government had infact ignored that and outright lied to the public.

  12. This sounds dumb...but by ROFLMAObot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is it not a bit awry that we are allowing tours through the building where a bomb that killed thousands of people was built? I mean, it isn't exactly a tour of an art museum, or a place like the White House. It's just kind of odd.

    1. Re:This sounds dumb...but by XanC · · Score: 1, Insightful
      They have tours of things like concentration camps, don't they? That's a lot more directly connected to deaths than the place where they built a bomb.

      Besides, this is not just a bomb that killed thousands of people. It's a bomb that saved hundreds of thousands of lives. By forcing the Japanese into surrender, a months-long, duke-it-out, land invasion of Japan became unneccessary.

    2. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Japanese offered to surrender, but the US wouldn't accept their terms (which basically boiled down to "Let us keep our Emperor" - something that the US eventually let them do anyway!).

      What a waste of human life. But since they weren't American, I guess it doesn't count, right? Kinda like all those Iraqis.

    3. Re:This sounds dumb...but by G�tz · · Score: 2, Insightful
      No, you can't compare that. Nobody celebrates concentration camps. The Nazis have been condemned for their crimes.

      The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs where serious war crimes. BTW I think was more a demonstration for the Soviet Union than the Japanese.

    4. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Revisionist history and left wing propoganda/conspiracy.

    5. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By kiling hundreds of thousands women and children the US showed they can be as evil as the most brutally dictator.
      Im not a Japanese and im only 26, but i know what the Japanese did but thats no reason to kill innocent people.

    6. Re:This sounds dumb...but by |>>? · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It makes me sick that you could write such a mindless statement:

      It's a bomb that saved hundreds of thousands of lives.


      You've missed a word there, "American" lives. It killed around 140 thousand Japanese civilian lives.

      Perhaps one day the US will understand that the world we live in, hatred, war and violence included, is one of their making.

      You're not the World's Police Force, nor do you have the sensitivity to become it.
      --
      |>>? ..EBCDIC for Onno..
    7. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excuse my ignorance, but who would those Americans be shooting at if not the Japanese?

    8. Re:This sounds dumb...but by XanC · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Oh yes? How many Japanese would have been killed by continued blockades, conventional bombing for months, and, most importantly, total war to the last man, civilian or otherwise?

      Perhaps one day, you will understand that the world is still governed by the aggressive use of force, and that it's only the right people winning armed conflicts that allows us to simulate otherwise.

    9. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Grym · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Japanese offered to surrender...

      What?

      Japanese soldiers out of supplies and hope for victory often ran off nearby cliffs and even, in some cases, resorted to cannibalism rather than surrender.

      For the Japanese, submitting in battle was the worst humiliation possible. Only the realistic prospect of utter annihilation would (and did) convince them to surrender.

      What a waste of human life.

      Agreed. Unfortunately, war often confronts us with difficult situations that require less than ideal actions.

      But since they weren't American, I guess it doesn't count, right? Kinda like all those Iraqis.

      Which Iraqis? The ones Saddam killed on a regular basis? Funny how they seem to be forgotten in all of the vitriolic grandstanding from the far left.

      Is it just me or does anyone else find it ironic that the faction which champions ideals of tolerance and a sophisticated worldview seems to have this notion that the United States holds a monopoly on the evil of the world? That *if only* the US didn't exist, some magical utopia would appear? It almost makes the evangelical far right look intelligent--which is a difficult task indeed.

      -Grym

    10. Re:This sounds dumb...but by greg_barton · · Score: 1

      That *if only* the US didn't exist, some magical utopia would appear? It almost makes the evangelical far right look intelligent--which is a difficult task indeed.

      Wow, it's the battle of the straw men. Better not light a match there, sonny. Your whole worldview might go up.

    11. Re:This sounds dumb...but by koko775 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Disclaimer: I am Japanese.

      I'd like to point out that you're not entirely correct. Okay, maybe the first bomb was justifiable, if terrible and horrifying, in the name of ending the war.

      What you fail to realize is that 1) The US originally had many more targets on their list, including Kyoto, which has a large historical significance (the Heian period was a very peaceful time), and 2) They issued an ultimatum, dropped the first bomb, and dropped the second bomb before the time was up.

      They could've dropped the first bomb and had the same result. The fact that they chose to drop two bombs is troubling.

    12. Re:This sounds dumb...but by XanC · · Score: 0, Troll

      What else could a reasonable observer conclude about their point of view? Every time anything is wrong in the world, it must be the US's fault.

    13. Re:This sounds dumb...but by jizmonkey · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Besides, this is not just a bomb that killed thousands of people. It's a bomb that saved hundreds of thousands of lives. By forcing the Japanese into surrender, a months-long, duke-it-out, land invasion of Japan became unneccessary.

      Ah, it's because of messages like yours that I have "insightful" set to score "-2."

      You do know that the "unconditional" surrender that Roosevelt accepted (keeping the emperor on the throne) was essentially the same as the rejected offer the Japanese had previously made, right?

      There are two very good museums in Japan you'd learn a lot at. One is in Hiroshima, and has many, many historical U.S. documents that show very clearly why the bombs were dropped. (Here's a hint: It's not the reason you think it is.) The other is at Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo, which gives a pretty good insight into the history of WW2 that most Americans (evidently including you) don't know.

      Even accepting your argument as true, there's a rather disturbing calculus of the value of human life (foreign civilian v. domestic military) you're employing. We're seeing it in the popular American perception of Iraq, where Americans basically don't give a damn about how many Iraqi civilians are killed. I can at least understand that. The whole reason a war with Iraq was politically possible in the first place without any kind of provocation is that Americans basically don't like "those kinds of people" very much.

      But given that WW2 happened 60 years ago, America was equally at war with Germany and Japan. amd Japan is one of America's closest economic and strategic allies today, the fact that you would still consider killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians to be negligible compared to "saving" hundreds of thousands of American military suggests you have deep prejudicial issues. I'm not going to call you racist, but it sure seems that you are.

      --
      With great power comes great fan noise.
    14. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Dance_Dance_Karnov · · Score: 1

      using 2 nukes so quickly was to show the soviet union what we could do. ie don't fuck with us, we have lots of these.

    15. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason the second bomb was dropped was to make the world believe they had many many more.

    16. Re:This sounds dumb...but by XanC · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Ah, we have the amazing "jizmonkey" to enlighten us!

      You do know that there was no previous offer of surrender, right?

      You do know that the actual surrender was, in fact, unconditional, right? We allowed the Emperor to stick around as a figurehead; it wasn't required.

      And as far as the calculus: on one side, we have the people killed by the bomb directly. Many of them were "civilians", as much as that existed in wartime Japan.

      On the other side, we have the entirety of the US armed forces, PLUS the population (civilian and otherwise) of Japan. The dictum was total war, by any means necessary, complete devotion to the Emperor until everybody on one side or the other was dead.

      The correct choice was to end the war ASAP.

      The fact that, as you say, "Japan is one of America's closest economic and strategic allies today," shows that we did everything right. What if, after the war, the island had been a wasteland, with 75% of the population dead?

      The fact that you can't see that ending the war was a Good Thing shows you have deep anti-American issues. I'm not going to call you an idiot, but it sure seems that you are.

    17. Re:This sounds dumb...but by CortoMaltese · · Score: 1

      Recommended reading for you (and all Insightful modders, for that matter): Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century by Jonathan Glover.

    18. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah yes, i remember high school. how is it there? happy to have summer vacation finally?

    19. Re:This sounds dumb...but by chrysrobyn · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Besides, this is not just a bomb that killed thousands of people. It's a bomb that saved hundreds of thousands of lives. By forcing the Japanese into surrender, a months-long, duke-it-out, land invasion of Japan became unneccessary.

      I live in Nagasaki (temporarily) as an American ex-pat (ex like external, not ex-wife). I sat through all the same lessons you did in school. I know the Western perspective.

      They say the victor of war gets to define "history". Well, current "history", whoever the victor, isn't looking too keen on the American atomic bombing. There are several stories that the Japanese Emperor looked for a way to conditionally surrender, but the American president found that unacceptable -- the Emperor must give up his throne and tell his people he was not a god. (For this culture, that was not negotiable.) Additionally, the Japanese appeared to be postponing invasion long enough to surrender to the Soviets, who were making steady progress accross China at this time, and were supposedly 2 weeks away. The Soviets, as the theory goes, would accept a war-ending surrender that left the Japanese Emperor his throne and some dignity left. There was no realistic way the Japanese could surrender to the Americans if they believed any of them would still be alive to meet the Soviets -- the Americans knew this and were desperate to save the Japanese from the Communists.

      I've been to the Nagasaki Peace Park and the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum. My grandfather was a US Navy fighter pilot in World War II. Every fiber of my being wants the Americans to have been justified in wiping out 150,000 civilians in two blinks of an eye, and perhaps tenfold (or more) than that in the decades to follow.

      I'm not a historian, but I've read some history books (and watched The History Channel do its story on the end of WW2 in the Pacific). I don't claim to know what's right, but I want to offer these other perspectives for you to consider before making your bold claim that killing that many people was an effort to "save lives". Please take a look at both sides on Wikipedia (although it's clear you're pretty up on the proponents' side, the opposition is quite interesting to consider). We can't know for sure what happened 60 years ago. Maybe, even if the atomic bombs ended up costing more lives and Japan fell to the Russians, the world political landscape would have been different, causing World War 3 or the something like the Cuban Missile Crisis to play out differently so the long term cost in life would have been much higher. Maybe not.

    20. Re:This sounds dumb...but by XanC · · Score: 1
      You have an interesting perspective, and it's fun to play "what if."

      the American president found that unacceptable -- the Emperor must give up his throne and tell his people he was not a god. (For this culture, that was not negotiable.)

      Frankly (even if this is true), that isn't sufficient. That's getting close to the finish line and then stopping. The fact that the Emperor had god-like powers was a major problem with Japan, and the war would have re-surfaced if the job were left unfinished. See Germany, post World War I. The "culture" to which you refer needed to be torn down and rebuilt. I'd say MacArthur and the Japanese people did a damn good job of it.

      the Americans knew this and were desperate to save the Japanese from the Communists.

      You make this sound like a bad thing. I think they're doing pretty well without having been a Soviet satellite. We saw what Nazi Germany + Japanese Empire did. Picture the Soviet Union + Japanese Empire for the next several decades. No, thanks.

    21. Re:This sounds dumb...but by apocalypse76 · · Score: 0

      How can you even say or think that the US is evil, take a look at these publicly available numbers.

      WWI
      489,540 Americans killed, 2 million civilians killed cost 300 billion 1920 American Money.

      WWII
      1,017,350 Americans killed or wounded, 5 million casulties cost 2 trillion dollars 1945 American Money.

      Now all those "evil" Americans died so you can have freedom of speech, religion, and many other freedoms you take for granted each and every day.

      Why don't you stop being a weak little "i'm only 26", grow up and quit taking your entire lifestyle for granted. You can lay your thanks on the graves of Americans who died for OTHER countries freedom along with ours around the world.

      How can anyone be so naive to think the US is evil.

    22. Re:This sounds dumb...but by technos · · Score: 1

      No.. It was a demonstration for the Germans.

      The Soviets were our friends! Our bestest pals! Communism is just super-democracy! And we love democracy! Uncle Joe is a great man, not like that Mussolini fellow at all!

      Well, at least till they invaded Czechoslovakia.

      --
      .sig: Now legally binding!
    23. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that the Emperor had god-like powers was a major problem with Japan

      This is a huge misunderstanding in what the Japanese term "god" and what Westerners consider a "god". The term is more animistic than theistic. Trees are embodied by gods, as are rocks, rivers, mountains, and even little strips of paper with priestly incantations written on them. The Japanese do not bow down to a "God" like the Westerners do. They recognized the Japanese emporer as the embodiment of the Japanese spirit, the soul of Japan. (MacArthur recognized this and opposed the unconditional surrender policy at the time, seeing as the removal of the Emporer was very problematic in creating a peaceful, viable post-war Japan. Which is why, at his behest, the Emporer was not removed from "office".)

      I'd say MacArthur and the Japanese people did a damn good job of it.

      And they did it with Hirohito still enthroned as the head of the Japanese state.

      In a sense, the Iraqi overthrow has failed in large part because there is no single focal point which can turn the peoples' minds. Hirohito, by his embodiment of the Japanese spirit, was able to lead the way to peace through his surrender. The Japanese people, thoroughly demoralized by the war, could finally accept defeat only by accepting that the Japanese spirit had been overcome.

      It would have been a different post-war situation if Hirohito had been dethroned after the surrender. The anti-American sentiment would have run much higher and the resolve to fight for the honor of Japan would have been much stronger. With Hirohito still in power, working with the new leaders (at least in image) rather than the new leaders acting as oppressors, the Japanese people were much more willing to accept their defeat and work together with the Americans to rebuild their country.

      MacArthur did all the right things when it comes to nation re-building. The ill-conceived pre-surrender policies notwithstanding.

    24. Re:This sounds dumb...but by HermanAB · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not dumb - troll...

      The war in the Pacific Rim was not just between the USA and Japan. That is a horrible, horrible simplification. Japan invaded all its neighbours!

      By bombing Japan, the US avoided having to clean up hundreds (if not thousands) of islands and hundreds of cities, over an immense area.

      Ask any Chinese or Korean person to explain the history to you and whether they think ending the war quickly was a good idea or not.

      Japan had a bunch of religious nutcases in control and the bombs shocked everyone back to reality.

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    25. Re:This sounds dumb...but by ROFLMAObot · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but people visit concentration camps in rememberance of the people that suffered at those places, to pay their respect, etc.. When people visit concentration camps they think and remember that that is the place where people were shamelessly murdered. But, when people visit the Y-12 facility, the last thing they are going to think is "damn, those innocent civilians"

    26. Re:This sounds dumb...but by JanneM · · Score: 1

      And having a festival is really weird.

      Why not have parties in honour of the inventions of mustard gas, sarin or suicide bombings as well?

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    27. Re:This sounds dumb...but by XanC · · Score: 1
      Why not have parties in honour of the inventions of mustard gas, sarin or suicide bombings as well?

      Because this invention brought an end to the most destructive conflict ever?

    28. Re:This sounds dumb...but by JanneM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fact that the Emperor had god-like powers was a major problem with Japan, and the war would have re-surfaced if the job were left unfinished.

      That is a misunderstanding of the emperor, frankly. The Emperor has always been "a god", and still is, owing to the fact that the family ostensibly are the direct heirs of Amaterasu (who is the real deal, godwise). That doesn't change by a declaration on radio.

      On the other hand, while the Emperor has always been a god, so are, in a way, all Japanese once they die. Shinto is polyteistic/animistic, and being a god isn't as hugely special as it is for a monoteistic religion.

      And with that godness has pretty much never followed any actual, political power. The imperial household has pretty much throughout history been a political formality - someone for people to look up to, and to rubberstamp whoever is actually wielding political power at the moment (and if you didn't want to endorse the man of the moment, well, you're not the only member of your family and accidents do happen so easily...).

      The problem was not, and have never been the imperial family. The causes were really rooted in a militaristic, nationalistic tradition that valued strength at arms and national ambition over things like cooperation and peace.

      --
      Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    29. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that the Emperor had god-like powers was a major problem with Japan, and the war would have re-surfaced if the job were left unfinished. See Germany, post World War I. The "culture" to which you refer needed to be torn down and rebuilt. I'd say MacArthur and the Japanese people did a damn good job of it.

      While there's some truth to what you say, the situation in Germany post World War I was entirely different. The Versailles treaty left them with massive debts and penalties and a republic that was so weak as to be quite ineffective, which made fascism seem a lot more attractive, which is quite a different mistake than an overly lenient solution that fails to completely address the problem. Which is why things were done differently there after WWII, with much more success.

    30. Re:This sounds dumb...but by lachlan76 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But Japan's request to surrender conditionally had been rejected by the Allies. They would have surrendered, had the item in the treaty guaranteeing the emperor's position not been removed.

    31. Re:This sounds dumb...but by tempestdata · · Score: 1

      why is there this expectation that war should be civilized and that enemy casualties should be minimized? I dont understand it. War is not fair. War isn't about being nice to the enemy. There is NOTHING civilized about war fare. War is a big death party where you are supposed to defeat the enemy. Thats it. There is no honour or life saving. Its absurd to talk about saving lives while you are busy working out how to kill people. It is definitely a bad thing.. what we need to figure out is how to stop fighting wars, and not how to "kill as few people as possible".

      So I say.. its silly for people to go about talking about the japanese lives lost in hiroshima and nagasaki. Stop whining.. if the japanese didn't want to suffer the casualties of war they shouldn't have ATTACKED in the first place. Its not like they were busy farming rice and suddenly the bad evil Americans started bombing them with nukes you know.

      Btw. I'm not American.

      --
      - Tempestdata
    32. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Kjella · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In short, you had a choice between striking a civilian target, or suffer military losses. They picked the former. What would you call that? Yes, it was easier. It was also easier to hit WTC than to take on the US military. It was more effective to nuke the Japanese. Using planes against civilian buildings were also more effective than to hit bunkers. In short, you use the ends to justify the means. If [from an Al-Quaida members point of view] you believe to have a legitimate grievance against the USA, what is to stop them from justifying it exactly the same way you justify bombing Japan?

      In November 2004, a UN panel described terrorism as any act: "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act". [2] This does not define what would count as an "intention" to cause death or injury to non-combatants. A controversy exists over whether this proposed definition would include an action like the American nuclear bombing of two Japanese cities at the end of World War II. (source)

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    33. Re:This sounds dumb...but by tempestdata · · Score: 0

      BTW, sorry to reply to my own post. But I just wanted to clarify that I have nothing against the japanese either. I respect them as a people. Their feats of heroism in WW2 need no mention. The way the rebuilt themselves afterwards is obvious. My only point is that war is ugly business.. period.

      --
      - Tempestdata
    34. Re:This sounds dumb...but by grimJester · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Many of them were "civilians", as much as that existed in wartime Japan.
      On the other side, we have the entirety of the US armed forces, PLUS the population (civilian and otherwise) of Japan. The dictum was total war, by any means necessary, complete devotion to the Emperor until everybody on one side or the other was dead.


      How can anyone still believe in propaganda like this? That the entire population of a country is evil, that they are freedom-hating fanatics who will fight to the last man, woman and child?

      Every evening, the father of the house comes home from his evil job (probably cooking nerve gas or clubbing cute baby seals) and beats up his evil wife (because he's evil). Then they have a family dinner of clubbed baby seals (killed in front of the evil children just to make them cry). Then the evil kids are sent to bed without dessert, after a severe beating, just because they're evil.

      Killing hundreds of thousands innocent civilians is bad, but it's ok if they are evil civilians.

    35. Re:This sounds dumb...but by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      This is an interesting link to a petition to stop the display of the Enola Gay.

      http://www.ne.jp/asahi/hidankyo/nihon/english/enol agay-peti.html

      Some of witness statements on this site are very interesting to read.

    36. Re:This sounds dumb...but by CleverNickedName · · Score: 1

      They have tours of things like concentration camps, don't they?

      But Auschwitz is no longer being funded by the government to continue doing what it did. This place is.

      --


      Unfortunately, I am not Wil Wheaton
    37. Re:This sounds dumb...but by BJH · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Er, hello... the "total war" crap was put around by the members of the US government that were hot to test their new weapon. Many other people in the government kept trying to point out that their own intelligence was telling them that the Japanese government was willing to surrender under certain terms, but these guys had no intention of letting that interfere with the chance to use things that go boom.

    38. Re:This sounds dumb...but by doyen2000 · · Score: 1

      Apart from showing they had the big stick in the playground by dropping two bombs, they also tested the two different mechanism for ignition.

    39. Re:This sounds dumb...but by tempestdata · · Score: 1

      So then the Americans are terrorists (nukes. The japanese and Nazi germany are also terrorists. Ofcourse the Soviets and the chinese (tiananmen square) are terrorists too. The french, polish and other partisans fighting nazi germany were terrorists too. The British terrorized people in their Indian colonies (the revolts crushed in punjab/sindh). etc.. I think that definition sucks personally. Especially the last bit "to do or abstain from doing any act" .. ANY act? absolutely ANY act? So the israelis are terrorists for assasination Hamas leaders? Hmm...

      also.. "with the purpose of intimidating a population".. well thats kind of hard to know now isn't it? The bombing of German cities was an act of terrorism too then.. but the Allies maintained that they were only trying to knock out Germany's infrastructure. But then again.. you never know! :)

      Isn't it better to intimidate a population into ending a war quickly, rather than dragging out the atrocities of war for many more months? Intimidating the enemy is really standard procedure.. the "Shock and awe" stunt in Iraq would be considered terrorism too then.. because you could argue that it "intended to cause death or seriously bodily harm to civilians" (well you ARE dropping bombs in a heavily populated city...) "with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act" (would that include building weapons of mass destruction?)

      I dont think it comes down to that definition of terrorism really. Its more on who is doing the interpretting. There is no such thing as a "good clean war". You shouldn't expect one.. war is inherently about killing people. The one who is better at it.. wins.

      --
      - Tempestdata
    40. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Guppy06 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "1) The US originally had many more targets on their list, including Kyoto, which has a large historical significance (the Heian period was a very peaceful time),"

      The idea was brought up but, if I remember correctly, quickly abanonded by the Truman administration for the reasons you mention. If it was still on the list by the time Hiroshima was bombed, it was very far down the list. It had little military signifigance, unlike Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were still pumping out munitions.

      "2) They issued an ultimatum, dropped the first bomb, and dropped the second bomb before the time was up."

      However, the bombings weren't exactly simultaneous. Three days seem long enough to verify exactly what had happened to Hiroshima (it was obvious that the damage was done by a single catastrophic blast rather than a carpet-bombing campaign). And even after Nagasaki, it took six more days of waffling on the part of the Japanese government to get around to surrendering.

      During those six days there was an attempted military coup aimed at preventing the emperor from surrendering, even after both bombs. Oh, and the Soviets declared war, and all this takes place months after the US submarine force set up a near-total blockade of the home islands, dooming Japan to slow starvation in any event.

      Even after all this, when a sizable chunk of the Imperial Army was still willing to continue the war, why do you think the "same result" would have been acheived after just the first bomb?

    41. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Self-serving bullshit on your part.

    42. Re:This sounds dumb...but by incabulos · · Score: 1

      Yeah because murdering thousands of innocent people makes you a TRUE hero, take a bow!

      To hell with medical research, food aid, relief supplies, clean water and emergency shelters - Bombs for everyone, because they all save lives!

      Odd how you refer to the taking of hundreds of thousands of lives as a necessity, there was a german chap who used to feel the same way back in the 40's, whatever happened to that heroic moral crusader of virtue and peace anyways?

    43. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "War crimes" would require deliberately targeting civilians. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen for their military value (IIRC, Hiroshima was still pumping out munitions and Nagasaki was still an important port for the Imperial Navy). These certainly weren't the Dresden bombings.

    44. Re:This sounds dumb...but by chris_sawtell · · Score: 1

      The tour is of the place where the separation of the uranium isotopes took place exactly 60 years ago. The Calutron technology has long since been replaced by other more efficient methods, so it's no longer a military secret. It may seem odd to you to expose one of your nation's major industro-military complexes to the public view, but I do not see it as strange for a nation to display any history changing facility on it's significant anniversary. The bomb itself was built at Los Alamos and finally assembled on the Pacific island called Tinian, btw.

    45. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're talking about the US bombing of Japanese civillians at the end of WWII here. In WWI, the Japanese were on the same side as the Americans (they declared war on Germany in 1914, as an ally of Great Britain). Hence, none of the dead Americans listed in your first statistic were killed by Japanese soldiers, and in fact WWI has nothing to do with the present discussion whatsoever.

      Incidentally, it's pretty dumb to reason that just because America lost a lot of lives and dollars in WWII America isn't evil. You know the Nazis lost a lot of lives and dollars in that war too, right?

    46. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Informative

      "You've missed a word there, "American" lives. It killed around 140 thousand Japanese civilian lives."

      You do realize that Japan at that point was training schoolgirls how to use spears, with the intent on using them against a perceived US landing, correct? Well, at least the ones that hadn't already thrown themselves off a cliff to avoid the ravages of the filthy gaijin invaders...

      The Japanese military was more than willing to continue a conventional war to the last Japanese civillian. The atomic bombs saved Japanese lives through a show of force that left no room for an "honorable" death in defending a lost cause. There was no hope for forcing the US into at phyrric victory.

    47. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Muttley · · Score: 2, Informative

      I challenge this. Who was it exactly out of the 489,540 Americans killed in WW1 that died protecting your freedom of speech, and expression of religion?

      WW1 was a war fought between empires, that was the beginning of the end of imperialism, it had nothing to do with fighting for freedom, or fighting against oppression.

      The US made a lot of money in the first 2 years of the war selling arms and goods to both sides.

      Don't get me wrong, WW1 is a very serious historical event, that I would equate with the death of the notion of a 'noble war' (perhaps the 1914 Christmas armstice is the last instance of this) . I have had 95 year old french women come up and thank me just for being Australian and for my ancestors defending their village of Villers-Bretonneux at a cost of 10,000 Australian lives, something that I found quite intense. But I cringe at revisionist history of our intent in WW1. Of course, laud mateship, comraderie, sacrifice and bravery, but do not believe for a second that the allies were the 'just' party in WW1, or that it was a war that defended our essential freedoms. It was a war of attrition, pitting empire against empire, and whilst the minds and bodies of many men were sacrificed for this cause, it was not in the name of liberty.

      M.

      Out of interest, the russian casualties in WW1 were 775,400, and they only fought for 3 years. In WW2 the numbers are even more ridiculous. Thus there are lots of people from "OTHER countries" who died for your freedom too.

      --
      M.
    48. Re:This sounds dumb...but by BJH · · Score: 1

      What?

      Japanese soldiers out of supplies and hope for victory often ran off nearby cliffs and even, in some cases, resorted to cannibalism rather than surrender.

      For the Japanese, submitting in battle was the worst humiliation possible. Only the realistic prospect of utter annihilation would (and did) convince them to surrender.


      You seem to have trouble distinguishing between individuals and governments. (Not to mention that the image of Japanese as relentless fanatics was only partially true, but it was convenient for the US to promote that image. A relative of mine was in the Tokkotai (aerial suicide corps), but he was quite happy that Japan surrendered before he had to take his final flight...)

      The US had military intelligence available to them from interceptions of secret Japanese communiques that indicated the Japanese government would be willing to surrender as long as the US would guarantee that the Emperor would not be held responsible for war crimes; this was mainly fuelled by the pressure the government was under to do something before the Russians reached the Japanese mainland.

      Unfortunately, a certain section of the US government felt that this gave them an excellent opportunity to test out their newly-developed nuclear weapons; an opportunity that they'd lose if Japan surrendered first.

      Believe me, the world isn't as simple as you think it is.

    49. Re:This sounds dumb...but by BJH · · Score: 1

      If "number of combatants killed or wounded" is how you determine who is in the right, then I think you'd better give Russia credit for your freedom, considering their casualties were far higher than the US's...

    50. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Additionally, the Japanese appeared to be postponing invasion long enough to surrender to the Soviets, who were making steady progress accross China at this time,"

      Against whom? Stalin signed a non-aggression pact with Tokyo and stuck to it, ending it according to the terms of the treaty, with the proper warning and waiting the required period. The Soviet Union did not declare war against Japan until a few hours after the Nagasaki bomb.

    51. Re:This sounds dumb...but by G�tz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sure there's a principle of commensurability regarding collateral damage (hell, I hate that word). Killing 70,000 civilians for destroying a military target IS a war crime.

    52. Re:This sounds dumb...but by tgd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you are Japanese, surely you know the firebombing of other cities in Japan killed more people than either nuclear bombing. You do know that, right?

    53. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was the first bomb that had the new experimental mechanism, the second one (Fat Man) had a simpler mechanism that was known to work based on previous tests. The idea was that if the first one failed, the second one would definitely work. But Little Boy did work.

    54. Re:This sounds dumb...but by dcw3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Disclaimer: I am Japanese.
      Fair enough...I'm American.

      They could've dropped the first bomb and had the same result. The fact that they chose to drop two bombs is troubling.

      Hmmm...the fact that they didn't immediately surrender makes it far less troubling in my not so humble opinion.

      It's difficult for us that weren't alive during that time to have a true perspective on the moods of both nations at the time. So I wouldn't want to be the one to try to pass judgement on either side. I've visited both cities, and seen the museums with body parts in jars...a true eye opener that will hopefully never become necessary in a third location.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    55. Re:This sounds dumb...but by jnhtx · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The fact that Japan of that time did not have the slightest regard for the lives of the many countries they invaded and occupied was troubling. The fact that Japan routinely comitted mass murder was troubling. The fact that Japan enslaved hundreds of thousands of people and worked them to death was troubling. The fact that the U.S. suffered 12000 dead and 30000 wounded, and the Japanese about 5x those numbers, in order to occupy one half of the island of Okinawa, which is only 2 miles wide and 50 miles long is troubling.

      Most troubling is the fact that people in Japan today would dare to question to any action that civilized nations took to stop their evil dictatorship.

    56. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because people fight to the death for their country does not make them evil.
      In fact some people think being patriotic is a good thing.
      so without the bomb should america have invaded the mainland and kill and fight until japan was exhasted and surrendered or just fight until japan was in poverty and leave them that way?.

    57. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which Iraqis? The ones Saddam killed on a regular basis? Funny how they seem to be forgotten in all of the vitriolic grandstanding from the far left.

      Instead of living in the peaceful fear of Saddam, the Iraqis now live in violent fear of insurgents/US troops. Instead of Iraqi secret police shipping people off to Abu Ghraib without asking questions, the Americans now produce the same result. The methods of torture and violence are the same, only now it's the Shi'ites doing it to anyone perceived as "pro-Saddam". People are already fleeing Iraq because of arbitrary justice and torture.

    58. Re:This sounds dumb...but by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      What you fail to realize is that 1) The US originally had many more targets on their list, including Kyoto

      Also Niigata and Yokohama. Kokura as well which IIRC was at least a big military value but due to cloud cover had to resort to Nagasaki. I often wondered if that bomb reduced the number of Christians in Japan. I met a person from there once, and she gave up the faith after her twin sister died but being spaired oddly enough by being under water at the time. Kyoto was on the list simply because it had not been bombed before, and what better city to hit to demoralize a people.

      But needless to say I agree with you, and often wonder if either bomb was nessicary after of Battle of Okinawa. I wasn't alive at the time and can't judge. I live near McNeil island which was one choice other than Leavenworth of prisons to send Japanese-American refusing to be drafted, refusing for the reasons of their familys being shuttled off to concentration camps. I can see films from that time, from Christmas 1942 where families spent their life savings on their children, color film, and how to learn Japanese books as after one year of war it looked like we were fucked. I can see film of the CV-6 comming in to Bremerton with with it's dirty "Enterprise vs Japan" hanger sign. We still looked fucked but there was a glimmer of hope. And I can talk to people who were here at this time who saw all this, and were long great debates whether the first bomb was nessicary. But even among those who lived with the fear factor of losing everything west of Omaha, even those who who lived through Kamikaze raids, but not a single one can think of any reason for the second one other than to evoke terror and how shamefuly we acted. By that time with the threat of invasion gone there simply was no excuse.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    59. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Plus, everyone convieniently forgets how many Chinese civilians Imperial Japan killed directly & thru starvation.

      Jaysyn

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    60. Re:This sounds dumb...but by m50d · · Score: 1
      Wars are important, but the one thing that separates us from the animals is that we have rules of war. It's about force and death, but there are points where we say that's too far. Attacks on civillians are one of those points. If they were carrying weapons and fighting fair enough, but they weren't. They were civillians and it was wrong to kill them.

      I don't think it would come down to total war with everyone dying, but even if it did that is /their right/. But until they take up arms, they are civillians, and you *do* *not* *kill* *civillians*.

      --
      I am trolling
    61. Re:This sounds dumb...but by m50d · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The reason they shocked is they were an atrocity. Eating a thousand Japanese babies would have had the same impact.

      --
      I am trolling
    62. Re:This sounds dumb...but by bint · · Score: 1
      Most troubling is the fact that people in Japan today would dare to question to any action that civilized nations took to stop their evil dictatorship.


      One of the cornerstones of a free society is that you can question the actions of others. And this idea that "they started it and they're the bad guys so we have the right to do anything we want" is just childish. If you justify the bombing by claiming that it was the quickest/safest/whatever way to stop the war, that's fine, but just by declaring them evil is silly.

    63. Re:This sounds dumb...but by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 3, Informative
      Oh, my. Here comes the flamewar.

      Check into Operation Olympic vs. Ketsu-go, the invasion of Japan vs. the Japanese defense. Casualties would have been HUGE, in the hundreds of thousands, on the Allied side alone.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    64. Re:This sounds dumb...but by cletus.the.wonder.sl · · Score: 1

      True! I returned recently from a trip to China and the discussion of how Japan slaughtered millions in China was rather more frequent than I would have anticipated. There is no love loss. They also acknowledge that we put a stop to it by way of Fat Man and Little Boy. Their memories are very long in China.

      --
      For I am Cletus.The.Wonder.Sloth IPv6.5
    65. Re:This sounds dumb...but by kurbchekt · · Score: 1

      You think that's morbid? Try taking the tour at Hiroshima... They even sell shirts with mushroom clouds on them...

    66. Re:This sounds dumb...but by ifwm · · Score: 1

      "but not a single one can think of any reason for the second one other than to evoke terror and how shamefuly we acted. By that time with the threat of invasion gone there simply was no excuse"

      Sure there was, Japan hadn't surrendered. In fact, they dragged their feet after the second bomb too. THEY could have saved THEMSELVES by surrendering more promptly.

      So if you plan to spend your life blaming someone for an unnecessary second bomb, blame the slow acting Japanese.

    67. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but that would have taken longer.

    68. Re:This sounds dumb...but by ifwm · · Score: 1

      "There are several stories that the Japanese Emperor looked for a way to conditionally surrender, but the American president found that unacceptable -- the Emperor must give up his throne and tell his people he was not a god. (For this culture, that was not negotiable"

      So, what you're saying is that Japan could have surrendered unconditionally, and saved many lives.

      The fact that they CHOSE not to is no ones fault but theirs.

    69. Re:This sounds dumb...but by ifwm · · Score: 1

      Civilians in a military town, directly contributing to the war effort (making bombs, sewing clothes etc) are FAIR GAME according to the rules of war. They were not civilian targets, they were civilians near a MILITARY target. It's an important difference.

      But of course, your goal isn't enlightenment or rational discussion, but simply to spout anti-american tripe.

      I half expected a "gitmo=auschwitz" comparison.

    70. Re:This sounds dumb...but by ifwm · · Score: 1

      I love the Hitler comparison.

      It allows me to dismiss your opinions in the future, as you are clearly a moron.

    71. Re:This sounds dumb...but by ifwm · · Score: 1

      Why is this modded insightful?

      Newsflash

      YOU DON'T GET TO SET THE TERMS WHEN YOU LOSE.

      If they chose to accept the terms, then many lives would have been saved. The blood is on Japanese hands.

    72. Re:This sounds dumb...but by ifwm · · Score: 1

      So, should I hack this idiotic argument to pieces, or are you willing to admit you're trolling?

    73. Re:This sounds dumb...but by bogado · · Score: 1

      If it was just to end the war, why not use a scare tatics? Just throw it in a military target that is in an sparsely populated area, where everyone could see the damage and potency, and then threat to use it in a city.

      Using one bomb in a city in a country that was already loosing the war is already unjustified (in my account at least). But why two bombs?

      This is much more like "take that you filthy yellow bastards, now you will learn not to play with us might americans" then the "We must end this war quickly". Well sure it had this component also, but it was certainly not the major component.

      --
      []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

      ^[:wq

    74. Re:This sounds dumb...but by ifwm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "The reason they shocked is they were an atrocity"

      You men like at Nanking? Forget that, or are you just incredibly ignorant?

    75. Re:This sounds dumb...but by incabulos · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So whats your insightful critique and analysis of why genocide and mass killing of japanese civilians is utterly different ( and morally correct ) compared to genocide and mass killing of jewish civilians? I'm sure an Ubermensch like yourself can fill my poor ignorant self in on the subtle differences.

      Maybe for an encore you can explain why blowing people up with bombs is a noble and compassionate act too?

      I eagerly await your pearls of wisdom, Oh enlightened one!

    76. Re:This sounds dumb...but by caudron · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Japan had a bunch of religious nutcases in control and the bombs shocked everyone back to reality.

      Correction. The first bomb shocked them back into reality. The second was because we wanted to use our cool new toys.

      I'm not naive enough to think the bomb wasn't a necessity, but dropping two on them was overkill, pure and simple.

      I'll leave the final note to Reinhold Niebuhr:

      "Our dreams of a pure virtue are dissolved in a situation in which it is possible to exercise the virtue of responsibility toward a community of nations only by courting the prospective guilt of the atomic bomb."

      Sad, really.

      --
      -Tom
    77. Re:This sounds dumb...but by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      The fact that Japan of that time did not have the slightest regard for the lives of the many countries they invaded and occupied was troubling.
      I would argue that the same applies to all participants of WWII, as carpet bombings and especially firebombings are nothing but giving no reguards for the lives of civilians in other countries. Though I agree that the Axis countries engaged in atrocities to a greater extent.
      The fact that the U.S. suffered 12000 dead and 30000 wounded, and the Japanese about 5x those numbers, in order to occupy one half of the island of Okinawa, which is only 2 miles wide and 50 miles long is troubling.
      It troubles you that Japanese were willing to fight and die for their country?
      Most troubling is the fact that people in Japan today would dare to question to any action that civilized nations took to stop their evil dictatorship.
      Why wouldn't they, when they were slaughtered by thousands in the name of "stopping their evil dictatorship"?
    78. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You seem to have trouble distinguishing between individuals and governments. (Not to mention that the image of Japanese as relentless fanatics was only partially true, but it was convenient for the US to promote that image. A relative of mine was in the Tokkotai (aerial suicide corps), but he was quite happy that Japan surrendered before he had to take his final flight...)

      Which I assume he would have taken if is govt. had told him to?

      The US had military intelligence available to them from interceptions of secret Japanese communiques that indicated the Japanese government would be willing to surrender as long as the US would guarantee that the Emperor would not be held responsible for war crimes; this was mainly fuelled by the pressure the government was under to do something before the Russians reached the Japanese mainland.

      So he was not guilty of war crimes?

      Unfortunately, a certain section of the US government felt that this gave them an excellent opportunity to test out their newly-developed nuclear weapons; an opportunity that they'd lose if Japan surrendered first.

      I thought this weapon had already been tested at the Trinity test site.

      Believe me, the world isn't as simple as you think it is.

      I believe it's you that has the simplistic world view.

    79. Re:This sounds dumb...but by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Asking them to remove the Emperor would have been like asking the Vatican City to remove the the Pope.

      They had accepted the terms up until we changed them to remove the guarantee of the Emperor's position.

    80. Re:This sounds dumb...but by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      If you haven't read this... you should. Very interesting, and there are many good points about the idea of Sanctuary during wartime, and how it is violated (thus forfeited).

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
    81. Re:This sounds dumb...but by bornyesterday · · Score: 1
      I hate to be an ass but...

      in order:

      1. Japan attacked Pearl Harbor
      2. Japan issued an ultimatum/declaration of war
      3. Japan continued attacking
      at least America can say they got the order correct.
    82. Re:This sounds dumb...but by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      By this definition, all civilians in the enemy country are "fair game", as they all directly or indirectly contribute to war effort. The way bug wars are fought, the entire economy of the country is used to support them.

    83. Re:This sounds dumb...but by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      By that logic, the death of British civilians by the Germans was the UK's fault, because we could have unconditionally surrendered (and then, having lost, it would be true that as losers we "don't get to set the terms").

      Yes, it is true that deaths could also have been avoided if Japan unconditionally surrendered, and perhaps they were stupid not to, but the blood is on the hands of those who commit the act when peaceful alternatives were available.

    84. Re:This sounds dumb...but by joelsanda · · Score: 1

      That doesn't really wash. First, I doubt we have access to anyone who would have 'been in the know' regarding the state of Japanese senior government officials during tha time. And the bombs we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while nuclear, didn't kill as many people as the fire bombing. In many instances, (see Bradley, Flyboys, for some great references) we warned people we were going to burn their city with napalm dropped from B-52s. And what "certain terms" were there? They get to finish off the last Chinese person alive? They force just one more island to stand between them and our troops?

      --
      The Luddites were ahead of their time.
    85. Re:This sounds dumb...but by chrysrobyn · · Score: 1
      So, what you're saying is that Japan could have surrendered unconditionally, and saved many lives. The fact that they CHOSE not to is no ones fault but theirs.

      Troll much?

      The United States was attacked in Pearl Harbor. If we had just surrendered instead of entering World War II, Britian could have fallen to the Nazis, all the American soldiers could have been saved and all the people they shot wouldn't have been killed. The war would have been pretty quick without North American involvement (Canadians did more than pull their own weight at Normandy, and I don't think Canada would have had that level of involvement without US cooperation).

      If you want to have a conversation about the idiocy, pointlessness and stupidity of war, let's meet at the local coffee shop some time and we'll agree with each other cup after cup. If you want to start telling me that the Japanese are the ones who deserved to have hundreds of thousands of civilians to die because they didn't unconditionally surrender, I'll put down the caffeine in order to stay calm.

      From one perspective, yes, the Japanese could have unconditionally surrendered they day they attacked Pearl Harbor. How many lives (Japanese and American) would that have saved? What I've started to read about is that the Japanese were trying to trade the lives of several thousand of their soldiers in order to surrender to the Soviets, whom they believed would be more lenient and accepting of their culture-- the idea of an unconditional surrender without the perceived threat of atomic bombing the entire civilian population is beyond consideration. They lost that gamble when the first atomic bomb struck. In the ensuing days, there was a lot of handwringing over what the heck just happened and how to react. The second bomb hit and there was no room for question -- there was more than one of these horrific weapons and it was time to make sure no more of them came.

    86. Re:This sounds dumb...but by mazarin5 · · Score: 1

      Additionally, if the allies had to send in infantry, it would have likely been the russians who made the first move. We had a strong incentive to not let this happen, because we believed that if russia took it, it would likely have tried to keep it.

      --
      Fnord.
    87. Re:This sounds dumb...but by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      The japanese and Nazi germany are also terrorists.
      Definitely.
      Ofcourse the Soviets and the chinese (tiananmen square) are terrorists too.
      Soviets - yes. Chinese - usually "state terrorism" (that is, directed by the state against its citizens) is not classified as such. However, their actions in Tibet definitely fall under the definition of terrorism.
      The french, polish and other partisans fighting nazi germany were terrorists too.
      They often were. Guerilla warfare and terrorism generally go hand-in-hand.
      So the israelis are terrorists for assasination Hamas leaders?
      You could argue that Hamas leaders don't fall in the "civilian population" category. However, when in such an assassination non-combatans are killed, then, yes, it is indeed a terrorist act (and they were in fact labeled as such by other countries, just not mentioned in pro-Israeli media)
      Isn't it better to intimidate a population into ending a war quickly, rather than dragging out the atrocities of war for many more months?
      By your logic, the first thing US should've done in Iraq was to napalm-bomb, say, Tikrit. Specifically in such a way as to maximize civilian casualties. Then continue with other towns until Iraqis surrender. Do you feel comfortable with such an idea? Because this is precisely what you're defending...
    88. Re:This sounds dumb...but by radish · · Score: 1

      Do you even question whether the rules are correct? Or is your entire moral code based on "the rule book says it's ok, so it is"? Think for yourself.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    89. Re:This sounds dumb...but by The+GooMan · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget Pearl Harbor. All the liberals around this place act like Japan was a peaceful nation and the big, bad, mean USA just nuked them for no reason at all.

    90. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Maestro4k · · Score: 1
      There are two very good museums in Japan you'd learn a lot at. One is in Hiroshima, and has many, many historical U.S. documents that show very clearly why the bombs were dropped. (Here's a hint: It's not the reason you think it is.) The other is at Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo, which gives a pretty good insight into the history of WW2 that most Americans (evidently including you) don't know. I'm open to learning things I don't know about, but am highly suspicious of remarks likes yours above that say "you don't know the whole story" but doesn't bother to offer to explain any what we're supposedly missing. That generally means the info doesn't exist. So, put up or shut up. Right now you look like a troll. Feel free to prove me wrong, I'd like the opportunity to learn what I'm missing, if indeed there is any info I'm missing. Even accepting your argument as true, there's a rather disturbing calculus of the value of human life (foreign civilian v. domestic military) you're employing. We're seeing it in the popular American perception of Iraq, where Americans basically don't give a damn about how many Iraqi civilians are killed. I can at least understand that. The whole reason a war with Iraq was politically possible in the first place without any kind of provocation is that Americans basically don't like "those kinds of people" very much. You know what they say about assuming things don't you? Well you're proving it. I'm an American, born here, lived here all my life. I haven't supported the war on Iraq at all, ever. I'm profoundly disturbed by the civilian deaths. I'm even more disturbed that the "insurgents" are seemingly causing more civilians deaths that the US military is. It's pretty sad when your own people are killing you in the name of fighting off the "invaders". At least get your targets straight guys. As for not liking "those kinds of people", well I'm sure some people don't, but did you happen to pay attention when all the stink arose about Abu Gharib? The majority of American citizens were outraged we were doing that to "those kinds of people", or any people. You conveniently have left this out of your calculations. But given that WW2 happened 60 years ago, America was equally at war with Germany and Japan. amd Japan is one of America's closest economic and strategic allies today, the fact that you would still consider killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians to be negligible compared to "saving" hundreds of thousands of American military suggests you have deep prejudicial issues. I'm not going to call you racist, but it sure seems that you are. Question for you, where do you think replacements for all those thousands of military deaths would have come from? Don't know? Well I'll tell you -- drafted civilians. So being concerned about losses of military was the same as being concerned about civilian losses. As it was entire communities were decimated in the US because of the huge military casualties during WWII. (Russia fared much worse to be fair, but it's the same for every country, civilians have to replace the dead military or you lose the war.)

      So I'll actually call you what you are -- a troll. You haven't thought anything through, you've provided no facts and you've assumed the worst for no apparent reason.

    91. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Lisandro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All sides did terrible things during WWII - yes, Americans, Japanese and Germans. Everyone hands are dirty.

      I think people should spend more time learning for past mistakes instead of playing an apologist for them, but that's just me.

    92. Re:This sounds dumb...but by albanac · · Score: 1

      Because propaganda like that is the current MO of the US government and media? "The entire population of a religion is evil, they're freedom-hating fanatics who will fight to the last man, woman and child?" Sounding familiar?

      ~cHris
    93. Re:This sounds dumb...but by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you're looking at WWII through the lens of our current military capabilities, which are magically surgical by comparison. Hiroshoma and Nagasaki were vital military targets (for industrial and naval port reasons). Imperial Japan had already demonstrated that loss of civilian life wasn't going to do anything to end their attempt to hold onto the territory they'd be trying to seize - think in terms of the huge loss of civilians in the fires that ravaged Tokyo because of conventional weapons use there - the destruction could be said to have been far uglier than in Hiroshima.

      Having to plow ahead and get the Japanese rulers to give up their war the old fashioned way (pummeling targets spread out all over their [at the time] fortress-like country, manned by people demonstrably willing to fight to the last), would have made a train wreck of the entire country. Hundreds of thousands more (than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki) would have died on both sides, over a much longer and consumptive period. And yes, saving American lives first is by itself a reasonable pursuit (remember who started the conflict, and the misery they spread throughout the entire Pacific rim, including the systematic rape, starvation, and enslavement of untold innocents in China and throughout the southern islands), so the fact that less conflict in areas populated by Japanese civilians was a result of the two bombings is just frosting on the cake, and lucky for the Japanese civilians at the time.

      Is it a shame that anyone who wasn't actively supporting the Emporer's conflict was killed in those two cities? At least as much of a shame as the deaths of all those that he had killed elsewhere (including in Hawaii). But with the entire might of the US military bearing down on Japan, the examples that the Japanese military showed is in Okinawa, Iwojima, and so on gave US military planners no indication that Japan would be less defensive of their main ancestral island.

      I'm actually sort of amazed sometimes that some people suggest that they'd rather see even more people slowly ripped to shreds and burned alive through weeks of "conventional" conflict than the abrupt, localized, and completely effective end that the two other fission bombs put to things.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    94. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Maestro4k · · Score: 1
      Which Iraqis? The ones Saddam killed on a regular basis? Funny how they seem to be forgotten in all of the vitriolic grandstanding from the far left. You missed some, don't forget all the Iraqi civilians being killed daily by "insurgent" attacks and suicide bombings. While I know the news is biased on what it reports, it seems that the number of civilian casualities caused by insurgents may equal, or even surpass, that inflicted by US forces now.

      Pretty sad when your own people are killing you in the name of fighting off the invaders. Of course I don't think most of the insurgents are really Iraqis, but simply Al Qaida members there just to cause problems. If that's who it is, it shows that Al Qaida really has no regard for human life, not just American, but even fellow Muslims. Jihad is never to be waged against other Muslims, but I guess Al Qaida missed that part of the Koran ehh?

    95. Re:This sounds dumb...but by dont_think_twice · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yea, we should just try and forget our history. That way, we will never have to worry about repeating it. Right?

    96. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grow a brain and try understanding what you read. Sheesh.

    97. Re:This sounds dumb...but by BJH · · Score: 1

      Then you're admitting your argument is just as stupid?

    98. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You've missed a word there, "American" lives. It killed around 140 thousand Japanese civilian lives.

      Perhaps one day the US will understand that the world we live in, hatred, war and violence included, is one of their making.


      And if wiping the Japanese islands out completely would have saved 100,000 allied troops, go for it I'd say. Welcome to the real world Sparky.. might (be it economic or outright destructive capability) is right.

      Oh, and you can get off of that high horse since you've got an au domain hanging up there on your url. You dumb bastards followed us to the wrong-headed Viet Nam war because you were afraid of your neighbors and needed big brother to be engaged on your behalf if need be. Add to that your complicity in testing UK nuclear weapons and you've lost all moral authority. Oh yes, and I so loved how you begged the UK for the bomb in the 1960's. What a joke.

      You're not the World's Police Force, nor do you have the sensitivity to become it.


      Indeed. Many of us here in the states could give a rat's ass. Our biggest should be competing economically with China. Our foreign policy should be tailored as such. No foreign aid, and no military intervention unless it suits our interests. Places like Somalia and Bosnia shouldn't even be a blip on our radar.
    99. Re:This sounds dumb...but by ifwm · · Score: 1

      "Asking them to remove the Emperor would have been like asking the Vatican City to remove the the Pope"

      So, either this is WORSE for them than being nuked, and we did the right thing, or it's BETTER than being nuked, and it's their fault they didn't do it.

      Boy, you sure didn't think that one through.

      "They had accepted the terms up until we changed them to remove the guarantee of the Emperor's position."

      That, simply stated, is a lie. Check your facts (you haven't it is obvious) then come back when you're more well read.

    100. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's what I understand: I understand it took two atomic bombs to lay the smack down on Japan.

      If it were me, I'd run the ol' white flag up the pole in time for lunch on August 6.

      But I'm just an anonymous "coward" who's not as fanatical as the Japanese were.

    101. Re:This sounds dumb...but by ifwm · · Score: 1

      "By that logic, the death of British civilians by the Germans blah blah..."

      No. Japan surrendering a war THEY STARTED would have ended hostilities.

      Britain surrendering in a war they were forced to fight because they were attacked would have ended NOTHING except the immediate fighting.

      "but the blood is on the hands of those who commit the act when peaceful alternatives were available"

      Right, which is why the war JAPAN STARTED by BOMBING PEARL HARBOR is their fault. Everything that happened as a result (including the nukes) can be directly traced to need to fight Japan. So, as you freely admit, they spilt the blood, so it's thier fault.

      I like how you came around to the correct side on this.

    102. Re:This sounds dumb...but by jnhtx · · Score: 1
      I would argue that the same applies to all participants of WWII, as carpet bombings and especially firebombings are nothing but giving no reguards for the lives of civilians in other countries. Though I agree that the Axis countries engaged in atrocities to a greater extent.

      That gets the award for massive understatement!!!!!!

      The Japanese held competitions to see who could behead the most Chinese in the shortest amount of time. These were featured in newsreels shown all over the country to the "innocent civilian" Japanese.

      The Japanese starved whole populations in the Phillipines as they proceeded to systematically loot the country.

      The Japanese kidnapped thousands of Koreans, forcing the women to work as sex slaves and the men to be worked to death in mines.

      There is no equivilence between the actions of the Allies and the Axis in World War II.

    103. Re:This sounds dumb...but by ifwm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, what was the point of your post other than to accuse me of trolling, then support my point by saying

      "the Japanese were trying to trade the lives of several thousand of their soldiers in order to surrender to the Soviets, whom they believed would be more lenient and accepting of their culture"

      The KNEW they would have to surrender, yet CHOSE not to, because they WOULDN'T accept the terms.

      So, thank you for admitting I was correct.

      "If you want to start telling me that the Japanese are the ones who deserved to have hundreds of thousands of civilians to die because they didn't unconditionally surrender, I'll put down the caffeine in order to stay calm"

      Is that some pathetic threat? Get over yourself. Yes they deserved it, because they STARTED it. Don't complain when the other guy finishes it, and you don't like how it turns out.

      "The second bomb hit and there was no room for question"

      Which is why they surrendered immediately after the second bomb. What's this? They DID question? They DIDN'T surrender immediately? But what about what you said...

      Stop accusing people of trolling when your post is full of contradictions and factual inaccuracies. You won't look like so much of a jackass.

    104. Re:This sounds dumb...but by ifwm · · Score: 1

      "Think for yourself"

      Ok, I THINK that if I'm in a war against another country, and they have already shown the propensity for unprovoked violence aginst other country's civilians (pearl harbor, nanking) and their goal is to completely conquer and subjugate other country's people, then they should be stopped. And if it takes bombing them into oblivion, so be it.

      Your turn, what was the alternative, allow Japan to become a Soviet satellite? Lose hundreds of thousands of lives in ground combat? How many fewer died because we only had to use the two nukes? Ever think of that?

      Of course not.

    105. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Phanatic1a · · Score: 1

      Wrong.

      Little Boy, the first bomb, was a gun-type device using highly-enriched uranium. It was so simple, and so overengineered, that they felt they didn't need to test it at all.

      It was the plutonium implosion-triggered bomb that was considerably more complex that it required a test first.

    106. Re:This sounds dumb...but by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 1

      It is not for the vanquished to dictate the terms of surrender. The Japanese started the war with the attack on Pearl Harbor -- before officially declaring war on the United States. The first bomb that fell had a Japanese serial number on it, and the thing it fell on had a U.S. Navy serial number on it.

      They picked the fight, and a few years later they were reaping what they sowed. The moral of the story? If you don't want to be the recipient of a "total war" campaign, don't start one with someone else bigger and more powerful than you.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    107. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Jarnis · · Score: 1

      No, it's actually a petition to make them acknowledge the results of the nuking of Hiroshima, right next to the plane, so it is displayed in proper context - OR alternatively cancel the plans to display the plane.

      I personally think that it would be dumb NOT to display the plane. It's a major piece of last century's history. However, I can see the argument that it should be displayed in the right context ('Dropping a nuke to hiroshima caused 100k+ dead. It was bad.'). Current plans seem to be to just display the plane, as a plane, with it's performance information etc. Plus a footnote of 'oh, by the way, this plane dropped the atomic bomb to hiroshima'.

    108. Re:This sounds dumb...but by ifwm · · Score: 1

      Ok, easy.

      Japan started a war. Had they not started that war, there would have been no need for killing any of them.

      By contrast, the Jews did NOTHING, yet were killed anyway.

      So, as I said, you're a moron, and the fact that I had to PROVE it is even worse for you.

    109. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I think that people today lack the understanding of what war was like back then.

      These days we send a few reservists off to war, and maybe everybody knows somebody at their workplace that they otherwise barely know, or they might have a cousin in the armed forces. A few of them (a few dozen per state) die in really bloodly conflicts like Iraq. In most of these conflicts a few dozen people die total.

      In WWII - everybody had brothers/sons/neighbors/etc in the war. Everybody personally knew somebody who died, or close to it. We're talking deaths in the millions. People weren't just concerned about some war on the other side of the planet - they were concerned that sooner or later if left unchecked they'd be watching tanks drive down their own streets - particularly in Europe, but even in America.

      A bombing run back then might target a several block radius with some degree of precision - but certainly nothing more surgical than that. If a squad of bombers was off course at night when they dropped their bombs then some random village in the middle of nowhere would be wiped off the map. Nobody was talking restraint since the factories being targetted were running triple shifts and then some churning out tanks which were being used to shoot at people the average voter could identify with.

      By the time the war had gone on for a few years, and everybody was getting tired of losing cousins/brothers/sons/etc, people were willing to do whatever it took to end the war.

      The nature of war is to continue until one side loses the will to fight. When a 30-year-old is fighting a 5-year-old, you find restricted combat where the adult basically pins the kid down until he stops squirming and behaves, and nobody is hurt. When two 30-year-olds are fighting for their lives you find gouged eyes, missing hair, bruised organs, etc. Likewise, the US vs Iraq allows for restricted use of arms since the US can bide its time knowing with certainty that it will win without resorting to leveling cities.

      People always play fair unless they stand to lose. Even somebody prone to cheat won't do so if they don't need to. The same goes for war.

      Most people have no experience with unrestricted warfare, so it becomes difficult to understand the end of major wars. McCarthur was famous for his "keep on killing japs" line - which seems horrific by today's standards, but he would have been ticker-tape paraded in any US, European, or Asian city (aside from those in Japan) in his day.

      War is not a good thing, and it is to be avoided at all costs. Hiroshima only illustrates the reason why it is not wise to toy with war. There is nothing different between the people who flew the Enola Gay and your next door neighbors.

    110. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Procrastin8er · · Score: 0

      The question I have wondered for some time is if Japan had an atomic bomb (They didn't, but they did have a small Uranium enrichment effort)would they have hesitated to use it?

      --
      Slashdot - Where the slash is most definitely to the left.
    111. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. I now realize the US did Japan a favor by nuking them.

      But that makes me confused. The soviets were preparing to do the US a favor by building so many nukes?

    112. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Jarnis · · Score: 1

      The reason for bomb 2 had nothing to do with Japan.

      US had to demonstrate to OTHERS, including Russia, that Hiroshima wasn't just an one-off super-special. Yes, Russia was still officially an ally at that point, but the relationship was quickly deteriorating.

      Drop one bomb, and potential future enemies think 'yeah, yeah, they spent $gazillion and produced one bomb. nice, but I doubt they even have more of these, and I bet it takes ages to make one'.

      Two bombs in rapid succession tells potential enemies 'There's more where that came from...'.

      Yes, you can find major faults in such logic, but to US military decisionmakers, that was a GOOD idea. It beat the Japanese to submission so troughoutly that there was no doubt about their surrender, AND it told everyone else that US is the King of The Hill(tm), and anyone not happy with that would have to take into account their new toy.

      One could argue that dropping the second bomb might have actually PREVENTED a followup bash in europe (US/UK/France vs. Russia). Russia couldn't try anything due to superior US weaponry (with proof that US could manufacture multiple bombs), and by the time Russia had 'enough' nukes, both had so many, that it suddenly became clear that any further unrestricted war would leave a huge pile of radioactive wasteland for the 'winner' (if any). Also the introduction of nuclear submarines meant that you could not 'surprise attack' the opposing side's whole arsenal off the map - you would always have to take the load from the untraceable nuclear subs to the dome even if you could nuke everything land-based on the first strike... and then we had cold war, with both sides arming to the teeth, but unable to really use that arsenal, because the end result would be a pretty fucked up planet.

      So, while it's sad that lots of Japanese got killed, and arguably the second bomb was unneccessary, it might have actually contributed greatly to further stability and peace. There was a a very real risk that Russia would have overrun the whole Europe after Germany was beaten into submission...

    113. Re:This sounds dumb...but by intnsred · · Score: 2, Interesting

      By bombing Japan, the US avoided having to clean up hundreds (if not thousands) of islands and hundreds of cities, over an immense area.

      That all sounds wonderfully simple -- until you remember that before the bombing, the Japanese were working through multiple other countries to surrender.

      As for the Japanese armies in China and on mainland Asia, they were already defeated by both the Chinese communists and by Russia's Red Army.

      Remember, before we nuked Japan, the US could park battleships only a couple of miles off the Japanese coast and shell at will without resistance. Japan was militarily defeated.

      Japan could have put up some resistance in case of a US invasion of their home islands, but the much quoted "million American casualties" is an out and out lie. The US military calculated estimated casualties from an invasion as around 200,000. Horrendous, yes, but your comment seems to imply that the Japanese still had a viable and functioning military -- they didn't.

      The real reason for the nuking of Japan?

      As WWII journalist and author Studs Terkel put it, "Why did we drop [the atomic bombs]? So little Harry could show Molotov and Stalin we've got the cards. That was the phrase Truman used. We showed the goddamned Russians we've got something and they'd better behave themselves in Europe. That's why it was dropped. The evidence is overwhelming. And yet you tell that to 99 percent of Americans and they'll spit in your eye."

    114. Re:This sounds dumb...but by intnsred · · Score: 1

      Many other people in the government kept trying to point out that their own intelligence was telling them that the Japanese government was willing to surrender under certain terms,

      Quite true. And it should be pointed out that the only hard Japanese "term" was that they wanted assurances that their Emperor could stay in power.

      The US refused, then dropped the bombs.

      Then the US signed a peace treaty which did assure the Japanese that the Emperor could remain in power.

    115. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That report was written by Jack Bauer!

      Maybe they should make a season of 24 about this paper... 24 hours of writing about Operation Olympic!

    116. Re:This sounds dumb...but by m50d · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh yes, because once one side has committed an atrocity they're no longer human, and anything is justified. That's the kind of logic that keeps bitter ethnic conflicts going for 30 years, children living their whole lives knowing nothing but getting them because of what they did to us, and then they'll get us because of what we just did to them. An atrocity is an atrocity is an atrocity, no matter what the other side did.

      --
      I am trolling
    117. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure the attack on Pearl Harbor had nothing to do with the Naval Blockade of their OIL and other resources!

    118. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, you will not be anywhere near the building that the bomb was made in. That particular building is not at Y12, it is actually being torn down as we speak.

    119. Re:This sounds dumb...but by uncqual · · Score: 1
      I don't think it is entirely accurate to state that "War is not fair." -- war is just played by a different set of rules than "polite society" (whatever that is!) normally plays by and it is "fair" in the context of war. Just as it is okay (and expected) to mislead your friends when playing poker with them but not when selling them used cars because the notion of "fair" is different in the two contexts (it's not, of course, okay to mark cards in poker though).

      "what we need to figure out is how to stop fighting wars" is a nice idea but the problem is that out of nearly 6.5 billion people on the earth, some will chose to use force to get their way. Some of these people will end up becoming leaders of societies and even countries. When faced with someone who chooses to wage war for unjust purposes (think Hitler & Europe, Saddam & Kuwait, ...), one has two choices. One can chose to not fight a war and yield to the one threatening to wage war (and hence just let Hitler et al rule and pillage substantial portions of Europe and Saddam rule and pillage Kuwait). Alternatively, one can choose to fight (and perhaps win) to result in what many believe is a more moral result. Note that if one chooses option one, this just delays war because eventually most areas of the world would be ruled by various ruthless leaders who have much less interest in avoiding war and will end up in wars with each other as each attempts to gain more control, power, and resources from the others.

      I think it's unrealistic to think that we (humans) will figure out how to stop waging wars unless and until we can figure out how to alter the human race (through genetic engineering or natural selection) to change the fundamental nature of humans -- we really are rather nasty animals by nature. Of course, taking steps that tend to reduce the number and scope of wars is a more realistic goal. In some cases, I fear, this would require early forceful intervention but this is unfortunately very difficult to get worldwide support for (remember that the US was criticized by many for attacking Afghanistan -- although that's generally forgotten now as it has been overshadowed by criticism over their invasion of Iraq).

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    120. Re:This sounds dumb...but by m50d · · Score: 1
      They were not military targets. They were industrial targets, and the ones who did most of the dying were civilians. I'm not saying conventional attacks like Dresden or Kobe were better - they weren't - but an attack on civilians is never legitimate, even if it's in the interest of shortening the war.

      The Chinese and other asians might have a claim to justification in terms of revenge, but nothing much had happened for the Americans, and it wasn't as if the US was particularly fond of those people (you were happily dropping napalm on them a few decades later). The number of civillians killed in those two attacks is comparable to the US's total casualties over the entire war in both theaters.

      It may have resulted in less deaths, but in my view deaths of soldiers are acceptable in war, wheras death of civilians isn't. The attacks have killed about 100000 people who weren't even born at the time. If that's not innocent, I don't know what is.

      --
      I am trolling
    121. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leaflets were dropped. The nips had plenty of time to get out of town. Let's see...did they drop leaflets on Pearl Harbor before attacking? Point is, we didn't ask for the war, they did. Tough fucking shit for them.

    122. Re:This sounds dumb...but by kc0re · · Score: 1

      Then explain to me, why, when I go the Arizona Memorial in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.. (and I've been there about 4 times) that there are always Japanese people in the museum, and during the little movie they show before you go to see the memorial, the Japanese people are always snikering when they are showing scenes of the zero's bombing our ships and killing our servicemen?

    123. Re:This sounds dumb...but by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Then explain to me, why, when I go the Arizona Memorial in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.. (and I've been there about 4 times) that there are always Japanese people in the museum, and during the little movie they show before you go to see the memorial, the Japanese people are always snikering when they are showing scenes of the zero's bombing our ships and killing our servicemen?

      I've been there too, and saw no such thing. I'm not sure what your post has to do with the one you replied to (mine), but I'll mention that I have see a little of what you did while visiting Japan on vacation...watching a drunken old man singing karaoke to a video of kamikaze bombers! He was old enough to have been around during those days, so I wasn't surprised. When you've developed a hatred, it doesn't go away just because someone signed some papers on the deck of a ship. Out of curiosity, I'd like to know if the folk you saw appeared to be old enough to have lived during the war?

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    124. Re:This sounds dumb...but by uncqual · · Score: 1
      The whole reason a war with Iraq was politically possible in the first place without any kind of provocation is that Americans basically don't like "those kinds of people" very much.

      Since you were not clear, I will assume from context that you refer to residents of the United States of America as "Americans". You have made a categorical statement about approximately 296 million people sharing one belief - but offer no reference to support this rather surprising conclusion (in my experience, it is hard to get even 20 software developers to agree to something, let alone 296 million people). Do you have a reference?

      No, wait, never mind... I know your statement is incorrect since I can disprove it via contradiction. I live in the United States of America (and am a citizen of same), and don't 'basically don't like "those kinds of people" very much' (sorry about the double negative). There are a number of aspects of the situation in Iraq that trouble me, but IMHO, at this point one of the few saving graces is that the Iraqi population is being given a better chance at self determination than they had under Saddam and I can assure you that if I disliked "those kind of people" I would be unwilling to continue to expend US resources (money and lives) on the effort.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    125. Re:This sounds dumb...but by crabpeople · · Score: 1
      And as a cross enlightenment, bring forth the XANC troll.

      AS pointed out by others, japan had agreed to surrender untill the Allies took out the clause that stated the emperor would be free of war crimes. they then dropped the bomb because they realized this was there one big chance to test it. After perl harbour , it was easy to think of them as evil.

      but they weren't evil, and your country murdered them. It is the victors who write the textbooks that you so happily follow.

      BUt i guess, like so many brainwashed tools posting in these threads, you troll the party line. Time to get smacked with a cluestick

      from http://www.essays.cc/free_essays/a1/lpf224.shtml

      The desire of the Emperor for an end to the war never came true until both atomic bombs had been dropped on two of Japan's key industrial cities, as the Emperor never formally expressed this desire. In the samurai tradition, the Emperor is held at a God-like status and therefore, is considered above politics, so therefore he never intervenes, and was never expected to intervene in political issues, his role was to sanction decisions made by the Cabinet, whether he personally approved of them or not. For this reason, the Emperor never expressed his desire for peace to the Cabinet; it was an unprecedented act (Long).

      The retention of the Emperor was crucial to the surrender, as the Japanese believed their Emperor was a god, the heart of the people and the culture (Long). This Japanese belief is a part of a tradition that dates back to 660 B.C. when the first Japanese Emperor, Jimmu, who according to legend was a descendant of the sun god, Amaterasu. So there fore, according to the tradition, the emperor during this time, Hirohito, was said to be a divine being. It is for this reason that the Japanese sued for peace based on the "Atlantic Charter of 1941" that was drafted up by Roosevelt and Churchill on August 4th, 1941.

      According to the "Atlantic Charter," every nation could choose its own form of government, thus, if Japan were to surrender based on these terms, they would be able to retain the emperor, their God (Alperovitz). However, when the United States offered a peace agreement based on "Unconditional Surrender," the Japanese refused this offer as no provisions had been made for their Emperor. As Leon V. Sigal states, "...one point was clear to senior [United States] officials, regardless of where they stood on war termination... the critical condition for Japanese surrender was the assurance that the throne would be preserved" (Alperovitz 31). It turns out that the unconditional surrender clause of the peace agreement was the major factor that hindered Japanese surrender at this point in the war. According to the surrender agreement, "the authority that deceived the people into embarking on world conquest must be eliminated from Japan" (Long). To the Japanese this sounded like a threat being made to their Emperor. This to the Japanese would almost be like the crucifixion of Jesus in the Christian faith. The Japanese feared that if they surrendered based on these terms, first of all, they would loose their Emperor, and second, it sounds as if the Emperor would be treated as a war criminal. The Japanese officials and people were not willing to take such a risk.

      "The correct choice was to end the war ASAP."
      Fear. Fear and Uncertanty and doubt. Thats all it takes to kill millions. Iraq, communists in vietnam, japan. I sense a recuring theme. We are talking weeks not years of negotiations. you say fucking ASAP. asap.. asap = hundreds of thousands dead. waiting, and treating peoples perceived GOD fairly. Do you think a peaceful surrender could not have been achived? when the japanese were willing to negotiate?

      But when would america ever care about what dem crazy foreigners think, when we just got all these nice new toys to play with. (yes i do think the mil

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    126. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think that originally that the United State intended to 'string up' the Emperor and rule Japan with the kind of brutality common in their other Imperial possessions. However, as the war ended they realized that the problem of Red Japan could exist, and wanting to avoid that instead of tearing the country down they built it up and let it have some prosperity.

      Otherwise, I imagine Americans benevolence in Japan would resemble America's benevolence to American Indians.

    127. Re:This sounds dumb...but by ifwm · · Score: 1

      "Oh yes, because once one side has committed an atrocity they're no longer human, and anything is justified"

      Way to miss the point.

      The point, so you don't miss it twice, is that once a SOCIETY allows ATROCITIES such as those at NANKING, there should be no reason for them to be shocked when other atrocities occur as a result.

      Nice try with the straw man though.

    128. Re:This sounds dumb...but by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      They were not military targets. They were industrial targets

      Japan's entire industrial complex was, at that point, dedicated to bolstering their military capabilities. They sure as hell should have surrendered by then already, as badly as we were depleting their ships, planes, munitions, etc. But they were either convinced they could still win, or felt bound to making their defeat as difficult as possible... and so they continued to steer all of their industrial resources into the production of war-related items. Both of the final targets were chosen explicitly because of the degree to which their activities helped power the empire's offensive capabilities.

      Of course some poor bastard working in a factory in Nagasaki wasn't very in charge of his own fate, since one year he was making, say, bicycles or girders for new buildings, and by the time we struck those factories, he was building Zeros, AA guns, mines, and other things that were killing Allied solidiers. At that point, pretty much every plane they were producing was going to pointlessly be used in mostly suicidal attacks on Allied servicemen and women. Denying the Japanese their Navy's use of the port and factory facilities involved couldn't have been a more important strategic and tactical task. And it was done without landing thousands of troops into a meat grinder (or having to deploy them as a meat grinder to march across all of Japan).

      it wasn't as if the US was particularly fond of those people (you were happily dropping napalm on them a few decades later

      Fondness doesn't have a lot to do with it, either way. We certainly weren't fond of the concept of sprawling communism, but those places (China, and the Soviets) were a secondary threat, compared to the Axis. Of course, "a few decades later" the expansionist, opressive nature of those regimes became abundantly clear as they sought to take places like Vietnam by force. And I'd hardly call disrupting North Vietnamese supply lines and marching troops by the most effective jungle methods (like napalm) the same as "happily" dropping napalm on "those people." We were in Korea and Vietname specifically to protect and promote anti-communist interests for "those people."

      The number of civillians killed in those two attacks is comparable to the US's total casualties over the entire war in both theaters.

      If the Soviets hadn't lost millions of people pushing back the Nazis, we would have had to have done it. Are you taking those numbers into account as you do your Hiroshima/Nagasaki math? And if we had had to slog through mainland Japan in the same way that we did Saipan, Okinowa, Iwojima, and every other ferociously defended scrap of land, many, many more Japanese would have died, including civilians in that densely populated country. You're selectively leaving out what would have been hundreds (plural) of thousands of deaths just to make the destruction of those two targets sound worse than they were by describing them out of any context.

      attacks have killed about 100000 people who weren't even born at the time

      How many people do you suppose would have been born to all of those that were killed by the Japanese, had they not started the aggression? The thousands killed at Pearl Harbor alone would have had more children and grand children than that, never mind the thousands that died as young men during the ensuing conflict. That's whole generations and family trees cut off by the war the Japanese started.

      It may have resulted in less deaths, but in my view deaths of soldiers are acceptable in war

      You're pretty twisted, then. When is it ever "acceptable" for our soldiers to be killed? Are they just trash to you? Disposable? They put their lives at risk to do what they do, but they don't sign up to die. Deaths are deaths. These were nations at war, not armies at war. The Empire Of Japan attacked the United States, which includes its citizens. Citizens by the m

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    129. Re:This sounds dumb...but by intnsred · · Score: 1

      I think that originally that the United State intended to 'string up' the Emperor and[...]

      I've never read anything like that.

      I have read repeatedly that the US knew that the Emperor was manipulated by strongmen in the military and the military-industrial complex of Japan. The US view was generally that he was a weak Emperor who had bent to the desires of the military.

    130. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you get that kind of thing when you only read American history books.

    131. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Intetsu · · Score: 1

      For a very unique perspective of living through a nuclear attack read "Black Rain" - Fantastic, tragic book... and a good movie too. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0870 11364X/qid=1118949579/sr=8-2/ref=pd_csp_2/002-4076 997-4001631?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

    132. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Samlind1 · · Score: 1
      I'm doing this very late so I doubt that it will be modded at all - but here's what I found in my personal investigation of something that has interested me since 1962.

      In 1962, during the Cuban missle crisis my father who had faught in the Phillipines and Okinawa told me his eyewitness story of the results of the Hiroshima bombing. That was a lot for a 12 year old to swallow. Even though he had been a combat veteran, and had killed Japanese soldiers and had friends killed by them, after seeing Hiroshima he was profoundly sympathetic to the Japanese people who had suffered so much during the war. He was not sympathetic to the Japanese military leadership and felt they were criminals, and that too few were prosecuted after the war, Hundreds or thousands should have been, but only a handful were.

      This leadership was convinced that if they caused enough US casualties, the US would give them better terms for surrender. Their goal was to surrender conditionally, and the condition was there was to be no change in the polity of Japan, the Emperor was to remain head of state, and there would be no occupation of Japan by foriegn troops. But changing that polity was exactly what we had in mind, and occupation was a necessary step to do it.

      The bomb gave the lie to this strategy. The Emperor started to question the strategy, but for many years he had sat silent and not spoken in the the Privvy Council and had signified assent by his silence - an interesting tradition. In any event after the first bomb, the Emperor had not found his voice. With the second bomb, he did. With a most courageous act he announced his decision to end the war. He had no idea whether he would be obeyed, and indeed there were those who would have killed him for it, but the recording was made, and carefully hidden to protect it from those who took over the palace that night to find it and destroy it. When the morning came, it was played to the Japanese public.

      From the view of the Americans, the Japanese Army was still full of fight, and despite Tojo's resignation, the Americans didn't believe there was any fundimental change in the Japanese governement. There more contacts to start negotiations, but at this point the only negotiations the US was willing to entertain were for unconditional surrender since it had been decided the the Imperial polity had to change. Please note - there was a Japanese Army of 5.5 million men still in the field - most of whom had not been defeated, and who's offensive spirit was undimmed. Even with the carpet bombing of the cities, the government's was leading the civilian population to believe that victory was possible, and anti-invasion training was widespread. The American's looked at this and decided the fight was to the finish, and acted accordingly.

    133. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Swedgin · · Score: 1

      According to the Atomic Bomb Museum in Hiroshima (and some of my own history research) one of the primary reasons for choosing Hiroshima was that the Japanese 5th Army was located there.

      Add to that the fact that Mitsubishi had a production facility there didn't make it any less of a target.

      The second target of Nagasaki was chosen in part because it was a major port city and because most of the major cities on the main island of Honshu had been destroyed by conventional bombs.

      Kyoto was considered a target, but passed over due to its position as a historical center and as such it was not a priority - (much like Rome was protected in Italy). Beyond that, Kyoto was not a military target...there was no measurable industry there contributing to the Japanese war effort. Finally, Truman and his staff had the impression that an attack on this cultural center of Japan would only strengthen the resolve of the Japanese to continue fighting to the last man.

      The timeline was accelerated from later in August to the first part of August due in large part to reports that Russia had decided to focus on the Pacific theater after the war in Europe had come to an end, and it's impossible to determine if Stalin would have shown restraint once the Russians crossed 400 miles of the Sea of Japan.

      Truman made a decision based on the information he had at the time...a decision which has left an indelible impression on military strategies the world over for decades.

      I'm not saying it was the right decision or the wrong decision, but he had to make some decision...and days later the Japanese signed a declaration of surrender which ended the war. Perhaps the war could have reached the same end, but it's doubtful that it could have been done in the same timeframe and with as few casualties as were incurred (to either side).

    134. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you know your history, and with todays Kuril islands as a backdrop, if the Soviets (Josef Stalin) were to have invaded and occupied Japan, All likelihood suggests the thousands (if not millions)of deaths would still have occured, though at a proportionally skewed Japanese to Soviet ratio. Such a southernly strategic launching point for Soviet cold-war aggression would also have very negative consequences for all Far-Eastern countries.

    135. Re:This sounds dumb...but by kc0re · · Score: 1

      Answer to question: Yes, and No. (I think I just replied arbitrarily (sp), don't know if it had something to do with yours)

    136. Re:This sounds dumb...but by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but the Russians already knew that the US had working nukes. They knew about the tests in Nevada and they had their own sysmic records. The US didn't have to prove it to them. It was only the crazies in Japan that needed convincing - they were not serious about surrender - they were stalling for time, until the US made it clear that the 3rd bomb will be on Tokyo. Anyhoo, all those nut cases (on all sides) are gone now...

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    137. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Strontium-90 · · Score: 1

      About 15 years ago my family (in Oak Ridge) hosted two Japanese college students. There was something that we were shocked to learn: They had no clue about the significance of Oak Ridge hosting Japanese exchange students! As far as they knew, there had never been a war between the US and Japan, and there certainly hadn't been any atomic bombs used. When we asked them about things, they asked us whether Japan had been our allies in WWII. Perhaps the students we hosted simply hadn't payed attention in history class, but it appears that at that point the Japanese education system was simply ignoring that WWII had happend, and that is a frightening prospect. We hosted another student a few years later that actually knew about the war, but it frightens me that Japan would try to erase that part of history, even though they appear to not be doing that anymore. It truly makes me wonder what would have happened had the war not been ended so conclusively.

    138. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      There has always been a standard doctrine in military conflict - give the enemy incentive to surrender.

      In ancient days when the army rode up to the city walls, the people inside had the choice of opening the gates or leaving them closed. Either way they would lose, but the attacking army would take huge losses storming the city. The standing policy as a result was that if the city was taken by force, few if any would survive. Cities quickly learned to think twice before resisting.

      Japan demonstrated a willingness to kill thousands of soldiers over what was essentially a trivial principle. The Americans demonstrated that they were willing to kill thousands of civilians over the same principle. It is hard to say that one was right, and the other was wrong. Neither side put much value on the lives of its opponents (as seen in both the Japanese treatment of the Chinese and POWs, and the American treatment of its own Japanese-decended citizens).

      Stuff like this always happens in big wars. They start out nice, but they get ugly real fast. Once you've paid in blood it is hard to back down...

    139. Re:This sounds dumb...but by khallow · · Score: 1
      I don't get it. Do you want to pretend it didn't happen?

      Something happened here that lead to the death of more than a hundred thousand people. The last sixty years have seen a peace based on the threat of unimaginable destruction. And this is one of the places where it started.

      Now what does an art musuem have over such a place of history?

    140. Re:This sounds dumb...but by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      No. Japan surrendering a war THEY STARTED would have ended hostilities.

      They did offer to surrender.

      With the same conditions (keeping their emperor) that were originally accepted, if the other posts in this thread are to be believed.

      Speaking more generally, whilst we might want the starter of the war to surrender, I don't think it follows that they should do so along with whatever conditions the winning side requests - it's all very well wanting revenge, but it's the civilians who end up suffering, and I think wanting revenge creates more problems long term (consider what happened after World War 1).

      Right, which is why the war JAPAN STARTED by BOMBING PEARL HARBOR is their fault.

      Sure, ultimately everything can also be traced back to those who started the war, but that still doesn't excuse unnecessarily killing innocent civilians - they had no part in starting the war.

    141. Re:This sounds dumb...but by khallow · · Score: 1
      As WWII journalist and author Studs Terkel put it, "Why did we drop [the atomic bombs]? So little Harry could show Molotov and Stalin we've got the cards. That was the phrase Truman used. We showed the goddamned Russians we've got something and they'd better behave themselves in Europe. That's why it was dropped. The evidence is overwhelming. And yet you tell that to 99 percent of Americans and they'll spit in your eye."

      Actually, that alone is a pretty good reason. Russia rarely expanded after the Second World War. The atomic bombs used on Japan probably prevented further global wars between the USSR and the Free World.

      I sympathize with the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but it appears to me that most of the evils of that time have become undone or are unraveling.

    142. Re:This sounds dumb...but by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      So if you plan to spend your life blaming someone for an unnecessary second bomb, blame the slow acting Japanese.

      And we don't use Atomic weapons anymore because???

      IIRC correctly their goverment was starting to fall apart. Hardly the best time to expect a swift definitive reply to an ultimatium. Making a choice to bomb basicly a civilian target is wrong in any book. And the hope that world opinion was on their side is like likely cause to any pussy footing about a final surrender.

      Kokura was at least a nice military target that would have reduced their chance to make war. That and a nice submarine blockade would have at least been honorable. But no dropping the last atomic bomb was more cost effective and damn anyone who happened to be in the blast.

      The blame is held by the people who ordered the trigger pulled. There were options available, this is what they picked.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    143. Re:This sounds dumb...but by intnsred · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, that alone is a pretty good reason.

      I can't tell you how sick and disgusting I think it is to "justify" the incineration of thousands and thousands of civilians in order to make moves on a global chessboard of what you think some other country might do.

      Russia rarely expanded after the Second World War.

      Especially compared to the US!

      Who's the real empire here? How many times did the USSR invade the US? None. But the US and other western countries occupied parts of the USSR for years (from WWI into the 1920s) trying to overthrow the young Bolshevik gov't.

      Who knows what the USSR might have evolved into without that aggression against it. But that is just conjecture.

      We do know that the US encircled the USSR with bases, illegally flew spy planes over its territory, rigged industrial accidents, and used every dirty trick in the book in a war of aggression known as the "Cold War."

      No matter how you figure it -- numbers of interventions, number of outright invasions, numbers of gov'ts overthrown and replaced by puppet regimes -- it is clear who the world's aggressor nation is. It is the US. The aggression of the US around the world in the past century dwarfs anything the USSR dreamed of, or anything achieved by the British, or other, empires.

      That might not be pleasant for us to acknowledge, but facts are facts.

    144. Re:This sounds dumb...but by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      So if Iraq were to nuke the USA, that would all be the fault of the US?

    145. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Cervantes · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Hmmm...the fact that they didn't immediately surrender makes it far less troubling in my not so humble opinion.

      You have to remember... in 1945, such destruction being caused by one bomb was unimaginable. The almost total destruction of the city, the lack of available couriers, and the frying of outbound telecommunications lines (those that were left after months of US bombing), all contributed to it taking days just for reliable word of what had happened to reach the powers-that-be... it's not at all unreasonable that it took days more before they could finally believe that such a superweapon existed, and that this wasn't an exaggeration, a deception by those who wanted the war to end, or some sort of hoax by the US forces. Really, the US dropped the second bomb because they wanted to test out it's effectiveness before the Japanese had a chance to surrender, and perhaps they wanted to impress the Russians as well. Either way, an honourable adversary would have stood by his deadline.

      --
      If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
    146. Re:This sounds dumb...but by koko775 · · Score: 1

      Know your history. Japan's diplomat was outside Roosevelt's door when the attack began.

    147. Re:This sounds dumb...but by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It all pretty much boils down to this. Axis countries killed a lot of innocent people. Allied countries killed a lot of innocent people. Axis killed more. It doesn't mean that Allies were good - just that Axis were worse. Simple as that.

    148. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Xyrus · · Score: 1

      Uh...why would you want tour around a place that authorized the use of force that killed 100,000 people (White House, then and now).

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
    149. Re:This sounds dumb...but by jnhtx · · Score: 1
      It all pretty much boils down to this. Axis countries killed a lot of innocent people. Allied countries killed a lot of innocent people. Axis killed more. It doesn't mean that Allies were good - just that Axis were worse. Simple as that.

      Wrong wrong wrong!

      The allied countries were minding their own business when they were invaded by the Axis countries. The Axis countries practiced orgainized genocide and slavery on a huge scale. The Allied powers liberated the camps and freed the slaves.

      There is no moral equivilance between the Axis and Allied powers in World War II. Japan, Germany, and Italy were as close to pure evil as any three countries in history.

    150. Re:This sounds dumb...but by jnhtx · · Score: 1
      I'm sure the attack on Pearl Harbor had nothing to do with the Naval Blockade of their OIL and other resources!

      Did you support the boycott of South Africa under the former all white goverment? That goverment was a democractic paridise compared to Japan in the 30s.

      Japan was under an embargo because they were invading other countries to bring them in to the Japanese "co-prosperity sphere".

      And WTF do you mean "their oil"? They didn't have oil dude.

    151. Re:This sounds dumb...but by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      The allied countries were minding their own business when they were invaded by the Axis countries.
      Last I checked, it was UK and France who declared war on Germany, not the other way around. Now, they had good reasons to believe that the war was imminent, so they might as well do it first and not wait to be attacked, and they had a legal reason as well, namely, the mutual assistance treaty with Poland. But the fact still remains that their territory was not attacked by Germany when they decided to declare war. So who's minding whose business there?
      The Axis countries practiced orgainized genocide and slavery on a huge scale.
      Soviet Union far surpassed Germany in that regard. UK and especially US also had their share of concentration camps; of course, the number of victims was much smaller, but a crime remains a crime: whether you murder one or ten people, you are still a criminal.
    152. Re:This sounds dumb...but by incabulos · · Score: 1

      So what exactly is this great and pressing need for killing all the Japanese.. The kids and families incinerated by those bombs were just as innocent and blameless as any child of the Warsaw ghettos. If you are using war as an excuse to throw any standards of humanity away and embrace barbarism and savagery, hey Germany was at war too right?

      Do you realise you come across as an apologist for some of the most warped and evil behaviour the human race has ever committed against one another? Thats pretty sad, I hope you get over all the hate one day because theres more than enough of that in the world without it being added to.

    153. Re:This sounds dumb...but by m50d · · Score: 1

      Then why was it shocking? It can't have been the death, the Japanese society had killed 10x as many. It can't have been the destruction of the cities, the Japanese society had destroyed plenty of cities.

      --
      I am trolling
    154. Re:This sounds dumb...but by ifwm · · Score: 1

      "So what exactly is this great and pressing need for killing all the Japanese.."

      Because they would have killed us if we hadn't. Seems like the BEST POSSIBLE reason for killing someone. How you could ask such an incredibly stupid question... You do KNOW what happened in WW2 right? From your post it seems you have no idea the Japanese were the aggressors.

      "The kids and families incinerated by those bombs were just as innocent and blameless as any child of the Warsaw ghettos"

      No, this is a lie.

      The Japanese people were building bombs, guns, planes and ships. The Jews were too, but they were being held at gunpoint. Big difference.

      Do YOU realize you come off as another uneducated liberal peacenik who thinks that wars are won by dancing better than the other guy?

      People like you are so sad, living pathetic do nothing lives won with the blood of brave soldiers who were willing to do what you never would, because it HAD TO BE DONE.

    155. Re:This sounds dumb...but by m50d · · Score: 1
      If the Soviets hadn't lost millions of people pushing back the Nazis, we would have had to have done it. Are you taking those numbers into account as you do your Hiroshima/Nagasaki math? And if we had had to slog through mainland Japan in the same way that we did Saipan, Okinowa, Iwojima, and every other ferociously defended scrap of land, many, many more Japanese would have died, including civilians in that densely populated country. You're selectively leaving out what would have been hundreds (plural) of thousands of deaths just to make the destruction of those two targets sound worse than they were by describing them out of any context.

      Then let the soviets take the decision to drop the nukes. I said the Chinese might have a justification in terms of revenge. The Americans, plain and simple, didn't.

      How many people do you suppose would have been born to all of those that were killed by the Japanese, had they not started the aggression? The thousands killed at Pearl Harbor alone would have had more children and grand children than that, never mind the thousands that died as young men during the ensuing conflict. That's whole generations and family trees cut off by the war the Japanese started.

      There were whole generations cut off by the nukes. Pearl Harbour was an attack on naval ships, it was meant to kill naval forces, the civilian deaths were never an aim. The admiral even called off the third wave of bombers, which would have struck at docks and fuel stores rather than ships themselves, for reasons he never explained to his superiors. It may have just been tactics and nothing to do with what was thought to be a genuine target, but the attack on Pearl Harbour was legitimate in a way those on Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't.

      You're being very selective about the history here. Japanese attacked the US, always the aggressors, just because they felt evil. Didn't have any reason, US didn't do anything to contribute to it, oh no, it was just being evil.

      You're pretty twisted, then. When is it ever "acceptable" for our soldiers to be killed? Are they just trash to you? Disposable? They put their lives at risk to do what they do, but they don't sign up to die. Deaths are deaths.

      Soldiers have signed up to risk death. They know some of them, maybe even all of them, will die, and they accept that. The bloke in the factory hasn't, and doesn't. Deaths are deaths, but there's a qualitative difference between deaths of soldiers and deaths of civilians.

      Stopping the Japanese war machine, and all of the infrastructure (including factories and ports) that was supporting it was not only acceptable, it was mandatory. By doing so, hundreds of thousands of lives were saved. That's not complicated, nor ethically difficult to grapple with.

      If the aim of the US was to save lives, you could have just surrendered at the start. Attacks on civilians are not an acceptable way to fight a war, no matter what the motives are.

      --
      I am trolling
    156. Re:This sounds dumb...but by bornyesterday · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know, on his way to deliver the declaration of war. But because they were taking apart their office to leave as soon as they delivered said message. That message was coming in encrypted, and American cryptanalysts decoded it and passed it up the chain of command before the Japanese diplomats finished decoding it and headed out to the White House. Our fore-knowledge of their intention to attack, doesn't change the fact that they delivered the declaration after the attack began.

    157. Re:This sounds dumb...but by swillden · · Score: 1

      Then explain to me, why, when I go the Arizona Memorial in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.. (and I've been there about 4 times) that there are always Japanese people in the museum

      Because Pearl Harbor is a very significant event in their history. It's much more important in Japanese history than it is in American history, actually. It began a chain of events that completely changed the structure of their society.

      and during the little movie they show before you go to see the memorial, the Japanese people are always snikering when they are showing scenes of the zero's bombing our ships and killing our servicemen?

      I've been there three times and never seen anything like that. The Japanese tourists always seemed very respectful to me.

      I suspect you were just offended to see them there at all and misinterpreted something else as snickering. I'm sure there are those who would snicker, just like there are Americans who would chuckle over the effects of the bombs, but it seems unlikely to me that you ran into them four times consecutively.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    158. Re:This sounds dumb...but by jnhtx · · Score: 1
      Soviet Union far surpassed Germany in that regard. UK and especially US also had their share of concentration camps; of course, the number of victims was much smaller, but a crime remains a crime: whether you murder one or ten people, you are still a criminal.

      The U.S. did intern people, but there were no "concentration camps" as the term applies to the death camps operated by Japan and Germany. Nobody held by the U.S. or U.K. was starved, raped, tortured, or worked to death.

      Words mean things.

    159. Re:This sounds dumb...but by kc0re · · Score: 1

      So, because you've never seen it, you must assume that I am lying?

      and no.. I didn't misinterpret them. I turned around and looked at them.

    160. Re:This sounds dumb...but by swillden · · Score: 1

      So, because you've never seen it, you must assume that I am lying?

      Pretty much. To be precise, I must assume that you're *probably* lying. I can't say for certain.

      From a statistical perspective, if we assume that the incidence of snickering Japanese tourists is random (sometimes they are present, sometimes not), then we can estimate the odds that your four visits would coincide with theirs every time, and my three visits would never coincide with theirs. If we assume that the incidence of snickering Japanese is around 57% (since we have four positive samples and three negative samples), then the probability of you always running into them and me never running into them is about 0.8%.

      So, since I know I'm not lying, I have to conclude that the odds are very good that you're lying, or at least being imprecise in what you say. Supposing you'd said that one of your "about" four visits coincided with snickering Japanese, then we could estimate the incidence of snickering Japanese at around 14%, and the odds of my never meeting them in three visits work out to around 63%. That I can buy.

      There are all kinds of things wrong with these very rough numbers, but they illustrate the point that it's very unlikely that you saw them all four times and I missed them all three times, unless there are other factors. Maybe you went four times in a few-day period when some Japanese convention of America-haters was on the island?

      Another possibility is that they were there when I was, but I didn't notice. I discount that, though, because I'm interested in their reactions and pay close attention. On my second and third visits I paid more attention to the other people than to the film (since the film didn't change).

      and no.. I didn't misinterpret them. I turned around and looked at them.

      All four times?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    161. Re:This sounds dumb...but by kc0re · · Score: 1

      LOL! You bring up some solid points. (Mathmatically backed I may add... ;) I would also have to say that I perhaps haven't seen it /every/ time. But I remember distinctly two seperate times. One time I was in uniform and attended through Unit function, and i heard it. Then again on my Honeymoon.

    162. Re:This sounds dumb...but by John+Harrison · · Score: 1

      Add to that the fact that unless this guy speaks Japanese and is familiar with the culture, would he even know what their snickering looks like? Maybe they were saying, "What a terrible thing to do! I am full of shame!" Who knows?

    163. Re:This sounds dumb...but by swillden · · Score: 1

      I would also have to say that I perhaps haven't seen it /every/ time.

      That would fit my experience much better. It's also possible that there was unnoticed snickering during my first visit, when I was more focused on the film.

      As for your original question, I would summarize my answer as: Some people are assholes. It's certainly true in the US, and there's no reason to expect the Japanese to be any different.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    164. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that attacking Pearl Harbor could possibly have been viewed as a defensive pre-emptive strike to avoid naval conflict with the US? You do know that in 1940 the United States had already greatly increased the naval presence at Pearl Harbor and started training for war there, halfway between the US and Japan?

      Oh, and not to mention that Pearl Harbor was a military installation, while Hiroshima and Nagasaki were entire cities. And Japan had already offered UNCONDITIONAL surrender before the second bomb was dropped. We just wanted to "make sure."

      Or maybe the war was started in Germany by a people left desperate enough by the terms of their treaty after world war I that an insane dictator with megalomaniac and racist ideas came to power? (In fact, anti-semiticism was a common sentiment at the time. Henry Ford even publically supported Hitler's ideals, untill war started.)

      No, I am not saying that the US is totally at fault. No, I am not saying that Germany was the entire cause of the war. But Japan can not be held strictly liable for world war II. Then again, the bombings of Hiroshima/Nagasaki were not all that devestating in terms of initial body count. Sure there were unforseen long term effects of the high dosage of radiation and toxic materials, but the death toll from our fire bombing of Dresden was higher than both nukes combined. The main difference is the sheer awe that came from Hiroshima/Nagasaki being obliterated from one bomb apiece. And we did offer reparations after the war which helped Japan rise to become one of our most powerful economic allies, even though (or possibly aided by the fact that) they were not allowed to create a standing army.

    165. Re:This sounds dumb...but by ajs · · Score: 1

      "However, the bombings weren't exactly simultaneous. Three days seem long enough to verify exactly what had happened to Hiroshima (it was obvious that the damage was done by a single catastrophic blast rather than a carpet-bombing campaign). And even after Nagasaki, it took six more days of waffling on the part of the Japanese government to get around to surrendering."

      This was a result of the fact that the Japanese had little real data to go on. Today, we might find this fantastic, but imagine if you will that no one has cell phones; there are not satelite images; most people who try to survey the damage don't come back; most everyone in the city proper is dead; you're in the middle of running a war; and there are a whole lot of very confused people running around.

      As you can imagine, there's more than 3 days of figuring out what the hell is going on to be done. It could have been that a large earthquake just struck, and the US is trying to take advantage of that fact to get you to surrender under false pretenses. It could be that the US was just using conventional explosives, and reports are wrong. You need to confirm that before you hand the welfare of your citizens over to your enemy.

      We should have waited a week and offered to test a second bomb with Japanese observers as a condition to surrender, but we did not, and I for one am glad that Truman did end the war if for no other reason then the US was butchering Japan's citizens, and it NEEDED to stop. We (the US) had gone completely insane, and forcing a Japanese surrender was the only thing that I could see stopping us. It's a horrible, horrible blot on our already tainted history as a nation, but at least Japan still exists.

    166. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Today, we might find this fantastic, but imagine if you will that no one has cell phones;"

      They had telegraphs, telephones and even radio. Wires going through or near Hiroshima were noticed to be down within minutes of being destroyed, and radio queries went unanswered. It was clear that "something happened."

      "there are not satelite images;"

      There were airplanes.

      "most people who try to survey the damage don't come back;"

      According to Wikipedia, the person the Imperial Army sent in to investigate the situation was able to radio back just fine.

      "you're in the middle of running a war;"

      You give them too much credit. Thanks to the US blockade, the home islands were more spectators to the war at that point. They could talk to their forces still occupying mainland Asia, but they could neither offer nor expect relief thanks to American submarines. All there was left for them to do at that point was to shore up the islands' defenses and whip the civillians into a proper suicidal frenzy.

      "It could have been that a large earthquake just struck,"

      They had seismographs. Earthquakes and catastrophic explosions are very distinctive.

      "It could be that the US was just using conventional explosives, and reports are wrong."

      They had radar. A large bombing force would have been seen and reacted to long before they were within bombing range. They knew that there was no such massive air assault over Japan at the time.

      "You need to confirm that before you hand the welfare of your citizens over to your enemy."

      It was already in the hands of the US due to the submarine blockade I mentioned previously. The IJA was well aware of it by that point.

      You seem to be forgetting that they weren't Western. The "welfare of their citizens" wasn't quite as high on their list of priorities as you seem to think it was. Many in the IJA wanted to fight to the last Japanese civillian, hence the attempted coup I mentioned.

      "We should have waited a week and offered to test a second bomb with Japanese observers as a condition to surrender, "

      As I tried to point out, the week after a second nuclear attack was almost not enough to bring about a Japanese surrender. Why do you believe that such a bloodless demonstration would have been as marginally effective?

    167. Re:This sounds dumb...but by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      The U.S. did intern people, but there were no "concentration camps" as the term applies to the death camps operated by Japan and Germany
      It doesn't. It applies to any kind of facility used to detain the somehow suspect civilian population to prevent them from aiding the enemy. See e.g. Google's definition. Not to mention that the term was first invented by the British. Of course, ever since Germany (incorrectly) applied it to their "death camps" to conceal their true nature, other countries have been used euphemisms such as "internment camps" in US, and "labor camps" in USSR.

      Anyway, I don't think you get the point. I am not trying to somehow prove that Allies did things equally bad to what Axis did. Merely that many of their actions also can and should be considered crimes against humanity. Yes, I know that Nazi death camps were much worse than American internment camps. This does not mean that American Japanese interment was not a crime.

    168. Re:This sounds dumb...but by jnhtx · · Score: 1
      Anyway, I don't think you get the point. I am not trying to somehow prove that Allies did things equally bad to what Axis did. Merely that many of their actions also can and should be considered crimes against humanity. Yes, I know that Nazi death camps were much worse than American internment camps. This does not mean that American Japanese interment was not a crime.


      The net effect of this "see no evil" head-in-the-sand refusal to see evil when it confronts is very sad. Had this kind of thinking been popular in 1941 the net effect would be that today the world would be one giant prison camp, administered from Berlin and Tokyo.

    169. Re:This sounds dumb...but by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      "See no evil"?? I was trying to point out the evil done by both sides, and you call it "head-in-the-sand" refusal? An interesting way of thinking, for sure.

    170. Re:This sounds dumb...but by khallow · · Score: 1
      I can't tell you how sick and disgusting I think it is to "justify" the incineration of thousands and thousands of civilians in order to make moves on a global chessboard of what you think some other country might do.

      Given that moves on that global chessboard killed (IIRC) at least 100 million people in the first half of the 20th Century, I agree that this game is sick and disgusting. Recall that the USSR particularly under Joseph Stalin was responsible for a large portion of that body count.

      Who's the real empire here? How many times did the USSR invade the US? None. But the US and other western countries occupied parts of the USSR for years (from WWI into the 1920s) trying to overthrow the young Bolshevik gov't.

      At the time, the Bolsheviks weren't the obvious government of Russia and given how they came to power, they didn't have any obvious legitimacy. Also, I think there was this crazy combination of hysteria over socialism combined with some hatred and spite for the people that took Russia out of the First World War.

      It's also pretty obvious that the USSR had a lot more control over its "empire" than the US did or does.

      Who knows what the USSR might have evolved into without that aggression against it. But that is just conjecture.

      Yes. It could have been a lot worse. After all, look at how many countries got sucked up by the end of the Second World War (I think there was somewhere around twenty countries pulled into either the USSR or the Eastern Bloc). Remember, Stalin split Poland with Nazi Germany, then by the end of that war, had half of Europe. All that expansion suddenly stopped. The only reason I can see is nuclear weapons.

      Remember, the USSR acquired its members by force and even went as far as to put down protests and such in the Eastern bloc member states (eg, the end of the "Prague Spring" in Czechoslovakia in 1968). The US, for example, did deal harshly with some political and labor movements in the years right after the end of the war, but later the US didn't intervene or retaliate when, for example, the French formed a new republic in 1958 (or earlier when the French pulled out of Indochina).

      Even now, the more dire consequences for France for actively opposing the US invasion of Iraq appears to be a potential decline in the onsumption of French wines by US customers. That's how real empires quell disent.

      No matter how you figure it -- numbers of interventions, number of outright invasions, numbers of gov'ts overthrown and replaced by puppet regimes -- it is clear who the world's aggressor nation is. It is the US. The aggression of the US around the world in the past century dwarfs anything the USSR dreamed of, or anything achieved by the British, or other, empires.

      I'm sorry, but I can't take this paragraph of fantasy seriously on several points. First, the USSR clearly had dreams far beyond the current power of the US and clearly demonstrated aggression and brutality far greater than the US. And I find your ignorance of history to be disturbing. Many empires have a history of aggression far exceeding that of the US.

    171. Re:This sounds dumb...but by mink · · Score: 1

      "Nobody held by the U.S. or U.K. was starved, raped, tortured, or worked to death."

      True, but they were only treated slightly better then Native Americans were in the past.

      White people came and took their houses, businesses and all other posessions.

      Actions speak louder then words.

      --
      Well I've wrestled with reality for thirty five years doctor, and I'm happy to say I finally won out over it.
    172. Re:This sounds dumb...but by bogado · · Score: 1

      The KNEW they would have to surrender, yet CHOSE not to, because they WOULDN'T accept the terms.


      The US KNEW they would surrender if they would only relax the term, yet they CHOSEN not to and bomb two (not one, but two) cities out of the map to force them into surrender in the "American way".

      Yes they deserved it, because they STARTED it.


      According to wikipedia there were 68 civilian casualities in pearl harbor, out of a total of 2,403. Sure it is not a small number, but it is a military only target.

      in same wikipedia: the atomic bomb strike killed "at least 100,000 civilians outright and many more over time".

      It is my belief that this kind of revenge is unjustified by it self, and that even if the Americans wanted to use their weapons of mass destructions, just because they were the new toys, they could have used them more with sense and killed much less civilians.

      As this have played out it was more like "oh you stepped on my feet? So now I will come down and kill your hole family so you can see with whom you're talking."
      --
      []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

      ^[:wq

    173. Re:This sounds dumb...but by StrongAxe · · Score: 1

      Asking them to remove the Emperor would have been like asking the Vatican City to remove the the Pope

      If the Vatican had, under Papal command, invaded the U.S. without warning or provocation, and lost, it would have been the duty of the United States to remove the Pope as a war criminal and head of state. This is totally separate from his position as religious leader.

    174. Re:This sounds dumb...but by Mark+of+THE+CITY · · Score: 1

      One reason: to spread revulsion of such activities, so that they will never happen again.

      --
      The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
  13. Which Secret City? by professorfalcon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Did someone say Secret City?

    Draw draw draw!

    1. Re:Which Secret City? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dude

  14. Re:OH YEAH! by utnow · · Score: 0

    haha. 22 posts in the time it took me to type "bomb builds you". ::high-five:: for trying. ;)

  15. First relevant slashdot link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic
  16. Creepy by Papay-Noel · · Score: 0

    This site is only missing a picture of this guy (http://radiation.szm.com/Killian/Images/falloutbo y.gif).

  17. I feel special by forceflow2 · · Score: 1

    I actually know someone who works at that facility (well, he started there a number of months ago). Wonder what he thinks of this...he's asleep right now :-(

    1. Re:I feel special by MoonFog · · Score: 1

      Wonder what he thinks of this...he's asleep right now

      He's going to have a lot of explaining to do when he wakes up and sees a bunch of Japanese tourists taking his picture.

  18. what we thought... by nilbog · · Score: 1
    With all the trucks coming in and never leaving, we figured they were just putting up rosanne bar and the trucks were full of twinkies...

    seriously though, it's not like the trucks drove there and stayed. They left, and unless they were uncovered, people couldn't tell what was coming and going.

    --
    or else!
    1. Re:what we thought... by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

      And the ones that did raise questions were.....not seen again.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    2. Re:what we thought... by halltk1983 · · Score: 1

      They must have looked like twinkies...
      Poor bastards...

      --
      Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
  19. propaganda by RichLooker · · Score: 3, Funny

    - we all know the U235 came from the German sub U-234, originally destined for Japan. If it had made it there, the japs would have had the bomb first.

    http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Japanese- atomic-program

    --
    "And you are dying so slowly, you believe to be living" - Bertrand Besigye
    1. Re:propaganda by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Why go to this "nationmaster.com" site when you can go straight to the source? You get a more up-to-date version of the page, plus the talk page, for free.

    2. Re:propaganda by luchaugh · · Score: 1

      ...the japs?
      wtf.

  20. ALL YOUR NUCLEAR WEAPONS PLANT ARE BELONG TO US! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Same here.

  21. Still Trying by Elitist_Phoenix · · Score: 5, Funny

    Looks like they're still trying to draw attention aways from the real issues like Roswell and The Kennedy Assassination. However I must be brief even as I type people are homing in on me, the only thing stopping them from finding me is my Aluminum headware.

    --
    "I'm going to f***ing bury that guy, I have done it before, and I will do it again. I'm going to f***ing kill Google"
    1. Re:Still Trying by chihowa · · Score: 1
      the only thing stopping them from finding me is my Aluminum headware.


      Your fatal mistake. Only hearwear of the tin variety really works...

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  22. I won't be able to visit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Little Boy' bomb, which was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945 ...and killed approximately 70,000 people.

    The article is so full of technical description that it tends to forget the main purpose of a bomb, that's frightening. Whatever the bomb indirectly acquieved (peace), I'm not sad that I won't be able to attempt the visit.

    1. Re:I won't be able to visit by Strontium-90 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One thing that you don't realize is that while the initial purpose of Oak Ridge and the Manhattan Project was to end World War II, almost everything that has come after that has been devoted to peace and the betterment of mankind. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory is a major institute for the advancement of dozens of areas of science including cleaner sources of energy, biology, environmental cleanup, particle physics, material science, mathematics, and more.

      And, having grown up in Oak Ridge, I can tell you that no one forgets what the bombs did. No one in Oak Ridge ever tries to cover up what happened. Quite frankly, I'm disappointed that you are so willing to dismiss a city and project that has had an immeasurable impact on history. Should we celebrate the death of more than one hundred thousand civilians? Certainly not. But neither should we ignore the contribution that the workers, engineers, and scientists of Oak Ridge made toward the ending of the most horrible war that we have ever seen. Many of the workers from Oak Ridge made tremendous sacrifices to serve their country in the way that they could, and the honor in those sacrifices should be respected, regardless of the end result, especially since most of the workers were unaware of the nature of the project.

  23. Yes, a torrent. by dj245 · · Score: 4, Informative

    History Channel's Modern Marvels: The Manhattan Project

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  24. mankind can be proud of bombing each other.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    big lifetime achievment of developing more and more weapons and mankind developing more and more evil feelings and actions towards each other...

    big news, mankind is more savage than ever before...

    you can really be proud. humanity doesnt deserve any better.

    kill kill kill ... the only thing mankind brought to perfection

    1. Re:mankind can be proud of bombing each other.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still think there's room for improvement.

    2. Re:mankind can be proud of bombing each other.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back to your granola, hippie!

  25. Re:Big Ed's Pizza by Strontium-90 · · Score: 2, Informative

    (I grew up in Oak Ridge and can vouch that this is actually a very on-topic post). For those not in the know, Big Ed's Pizza is probably the biggest attraction in Oak Ridge outside of the Oak Ridge National Labs and Y-12/K-25 complexes. Many of my friends have been walking around various cities around the world while wearing a Big Ed's t-shirt and had people come up to them asking if they were from Oak Ridge and then relating their own stories of eating at Big Ed's. I was driving through Alabama a few years ago and met someone who was in the Marines with Big Ed. (Big Ed was, quite appropriately, a World War II veteran. He was also quite large of heart, supporting the local Boys' and Girls' Club, various clubs at Oak Ridge High School, and providing employment for many teenagers in Oak Ridge.) Big Ed's Pizza is indeed still there. Big Ed himself, unfortunately, is not (he passed away in 1998). But there are still massive crowds there most of the time, especially after football games at Blankenship Field. I usually have dinner or lunch there with some of my high school friends when I'm in town.

  26. Early Soviet nuclear work at Mayak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has a great view of early Soviet nuclear work at Mayak starting in the late 1940's
    http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=so9 9larin

    "expensive apparatuses were more valuable than the people who operated them"
    "it was common to clean up spills of radioactive solutions by hand. It seems strange now, but the possibility of spills was not anticipated, and there was no way to collect spilled solution safely. We had only wash cloths, buckets, and sometimes, rubber gloves. We collected the spilled solution and poured it into big glass bottles--it was a very expensive compound and we were expected to recover every drop."

    "leaks happened there they sometimes lost as much as three tons of highly radioactive product. To collect those spills with wash cloths was impossible."

    "several hundred kilograms of freshly irradiated nuclear fuel got stuck--men from everywhere in the plant were called out, and one after another they used long steel rods to push the elements into the apparatus. The only protection they had was cotton overalls and gloves"

    Enjoy

    http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=so9 9larin

  27. Duh... by jchuillier · · Score: 1

    You should be more afraid of the local Homer Simpson visiting the facility....

  28. Re:Big Ed's Pizza by Tourney3p0 · · Score: 1

    I can vouch for the awesomeness that is Big Ed's Pizza. I'm living in Oak Ridge right now, but I grew up in Clinton.. Big Ed's house was about a quarter mile from where I lived. It was a sad day when he passed.

  29. Should be interesting by Tourney3p0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I live about half a mile from the Y-12 facility. Some guys from work and I got together to tour their place a few weeks ago to view their network infrastructure. They've got a HUGE room full of Crays. It was pretty loud in there, as to be expected. One of the less polite of the guys I was with had the nerve to ask one of their network admins what he made.. 37 grand and no benefits, because very few of them actually work for Y-12. That was a surprise. From what I saw, most everything there is AMD and Nvidia. Their preferred Linux is SuSE for some reason.. to each their own I suppose. For anyone who may want to make the trip, drop me a line and I'll let you know of some other interesting things to do around here. For anyone bringing their family, there's a park (Commerce Park, I think it's called) right next to Y-12 with a nice little picnic/fishing area. I'm rambling.

    1. Re:Should be interesting by dauthur · · Score: 1

      Right next to Y-12 with a fishing area? What can you catch? Quadravision bass and triped frogs? I'll pass.

      Though, I live in Greenwich and I'm probably going to take up the offer for the tour...

    2. Re:Should be interesting by 59Bassman · · Score: 1

      Crays at Y-12? Are you sure you weren't at X-10? (Also known as Oak Ridge National Lab) Y-12 doesn't allow tour, specifically of its network stuff to the best of my knowledge. I've been to ORNL, and I've seen a large room with the new Cray towers (as well as the IBM Cheetah, the SGI Altix system, and that multi-Petabyte tape silo). Y-12 is a totally different animal from X-10, FWIW.

    3. Re:Should be interesting by rwrife · · Score: 1

      Commerce Park is an industrial park that has several private businesses and some federal run facilities. Including BWXT Y-12's Advanced Technologies group (they change the name about every 8 months) where they do Windows, Linux, and some lame SAP stuff....I used to work there for a little while. There's no real "park" there either. There is however Clark's Park which is down the road (1-2 miles) toward's Bethel Valley Road & ORNL. You can picnic there....but I'm 99% certain that the water in the area has the typical "No Fishing & Avoid Contact With Water" signs you see near most water in Oak Ridge.

    4. Re:Should be interesting by rwrife · · Score: 1

      The "network" stuff isn't really centrally located at Y-12, there are dozens (if not hundreds) of "server rooms" some of which contain very large computers...some are physically protected, some are not. So there is a chance he/she may have seen either some other large computer system (that may look like a cray) or a Cray that wasn't fully online (ie in a testing phase).

    5. Re:Should be interesting by heir2chaos · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and I knew some dumb ass who found a raft in some of that mercury infested water off of Melton Lake, and pushed himself around to a dock... Oh wait that was you :)

    6. Re:Should be interesting by heir2chaos · · Score: 1

      You say you live a half mile away and that you believe Commerce Park is a recreation area? I'm not trying to be rude, but Commerce Park is a Technology and research park. Also, no one really works for Y-12, the work for BWXT-Y12, which does have good benefits, and pay is based on education. Are you sure you didn't visit X-10(ORNL) or K-25(ETTP). They are relatively close (especially X-10). X-10 has lots of high tech computer gagedtry now, especially with the spallation neutron source.

    7. Re:Should be interesting by rwrife · · Score: 1

      You jumped on it too after I clearly indicated that part of it was starting to sink.

    8. Re:Should be interesting by heir2chaos · · Score: 1

      What's your point? It was clear to that you weren't going to jump for shore at that point, even after I had gotten you close enough to do so. My only option was to jump on and get you to safety. My wife could see us at that point and could tell the coroner that the puddles of goo were you and me if we didnt make it.

  30. fallacy by karzan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the parent writes: 'Keep in mind this is the japanese we are talking about not the french, they will die before they surrender. They are still finding japanese soldiers who refused to surrender.'

    to extrapolate from individual characteristics (even culturally shared ones) to political/military outcomes, or even aggregate behaviour, is a fallacy.

    this is like the old story of people saying that we have wars because it's 'human nature', when in fact while 'human nature' may give us the capacity to be soldiers (as well as to not be), it is ultimately *politicians* who start wars, not average people--average people just participate in them (and can escalate them through their participation).

    equally, while you may say that because of some shared cultural characteristic japanese soldiers were less likely to give up the fight once they were involved in it, this does not imply that the japanese political/military elite would have had incentives to continue fighting no matter what. you cannot treat all japanese as if they had the same incentive structure.

    the average japanese soldier was motivated by a belief in the emperor, the japanese nation, following orders and carrying out his duty. but what was the emperor motivated by? what were the generals motivated by? and when you put them all together, what is the systematic behaviour? it's not the same thing.

    japan did in fact realise that it was losing, and while it is true that the average soldier probably would have fought to the death (just as many people would fight to the death defending their country, or what they see as their country's right), this does not imply that people making decisions would have taken them on the basis of 'death before defeat'. clearly this was shown not to be the case by the japanese surrender. there is absolutely nothing in the history that indicates that they would not have surrendered had it not been for the atomic bomb being dropped. what makes the atomic bomb somehow override japanese people's supposed character of wanting to fight to the death, where other means do not?

    1. Re:fallacy by Frogbert · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know why Americans are always bitching about the French surrendering, I mean towards the start of German occupation thousands upon thousands of frenchmen were dying each day on the front lines. There is a big difference between getting your arse handed to you and then giving up and surrendering for no good reason. Really the French and Japan had exactly the same reasons for surrendering an agressor, had killed hundreds of thousands of their army. So they surrendered and the killing stopped.

    2. Re:fallacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They bitch about the french surrendering because the french didn't support the war on terror and publically said it was about oil.

      Of course the proper response would be to politely disagree and point out that the french had vested interests in iraqi oil.

      But no, in the land of the free (federation for restriction of everything and everyone) its apparently better to dig up 50 year old fallicies and keep throwing them in the attempt they will stick.

    3. Re:fallacy by jamesborr · · Score: 1

      That the French needed to surrender is purely a problem with the French leadership. France had equal numbers of tanks with the Gremans (in fact, the French tank equipment was generally acknowledged as superior). They were just very poorly led.

    4. Re:fallacy by Dobeln · · Score: 1

      "to extrapolate from individual characteristics (even culturally shared ones) to political/military outcomes, or even aggregate behaviour, is a fallacy."

      Since when? I'm getting plain tired of this ever-expanding and ever-fuzzier list of "fallacies".

      Of course, any absolutist treatment of one factor as being the sole determinant of complex chains of events is not to be advised.

      Still, that doesn't mean that a single fact cannot be illuminating.

      The fact that there was a long-standing hypermilitarism and fanaticism ingrained not only into the common soldier of the IJN/IJA, but into the military leadership as well certainly should be part of the equation when you try to figure out the chances of Japanese surrender. This is especially so as it was largely the military that controlled the government of Japan.

      Hell, when the government tried to surrender *after* Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the military launched an all-out coup attempt, seizing the imperial palace and launching a wave of assassination attempts on government officials.

      For more information on Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan scheduled for November 1, 1945, there are many sites on the net, such as this one:

      http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8141/dow nfall.html

    5. Re:fallacy by karzan · · Score: 1

      'Since when? I'm getting plain tired of this ever-expanding and ever-fuzzier list of "fallacies".'

      the american heritage dictionary says that a 'fallacy' is (among other things) a 'false notion' or 'incorrectness of reasoning or belief; erroneousness'. i did not say that it was a logical fallacy.

      what i was saying was not on the level of logic but on the level of social scientific methodology: you simply cannot say that because many individuals were disposed to behave in a certain way on an individual level, that therefore macro events will look as if the whole aggregate were a big individual acting in that way. for example, the case of unintended consequences, or 'crowd behaviour' (used to be called 'mass psychology'), or the behaviour of a corporation.

      maybe everyone in a corporation has a similar motive to make money, but can we extrapolate that the corporation is therefore going to try to make money? not if some people in that corporation have secretly invested in the competitor. etc etc, there are loads of possible examples.

      what i called a fallacy was the previous poster saying that, because we know that japanese soldiers just keep fighting (and he gave the example of survivors fighting on for decades), we can therefore say that the japanese empire *as a whole* would keep on fighting. this is a fallacy--i.e. erroneous reasoning. *it may have been a facilitating factor*, but it cannot be seen as the sole causal factor, nor can it be seen as the only causal factor, and the burden of proof is on the person doing the explaining to show what the link is between cause and effect.

    6. Re:fallacy by minus_273 · · Score: 0

      Honestly, do you even know what you are talking about? that post really made me suspicious. look at how many people fought to the death in iwo jima when it was invaded. Almost the entire island comitted suicide even civillians. And this is just a tiny island of not much importance. It was this battle that made the US drop the bombs.
      from Wikipedia
      " "With their customary bravery, most Japanese soldiers fought to the death. Of over 21,800 defenders, only 200 were taken prisoner. The Allied forces suffered 26,000 casualties, with nearly 7,000 dead. Over a quarter of the Medals of Honor awarded to marines in World War II were given for conduct in the invasion of Iwo Jima."
      now imagine a battle for the main islands. Almost every man woman and child would have been killed. In comparison, the A-bomb gave the japanese leadership and excuse to surrender.

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    7. Re:fallacy by Dobeln · · Score: 1

      Of course, interpreting his point in that manner (I.e. - the fanaticism of the army should be the absolutely only factor to take into account) requires a not insignificant degree of bad faith on behalf of the reader.

      It's an important factor - if you feel that it's insufficient, it's better to build on it, rather than to tear it down just because it alone does not have an R-squared of 100%.

    8. Re:fallacy by minus_273 · · Score: 0

      my argument was not that the japanese soldier fight to the death therefore the empire would, it was that the leadership in japan was "the japanese soldier" ie they had the same mentality and the people believed in an honor system like the soldier. In the end the people who make up the empire decide for it and if they dont surrender, then the empire wouldnt either.

      to understand imagine the Bush administration was led by marines and composed mostly of marines. US marines tend to share the death before surrender idea. Then add on top of that imagine most the population was taught a similar idea ever since they were children and didnt rebel against the idea.

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    9. Re:fallacy by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      It's because of ignorance and a willingness to pick on anybody it's popular to pick on. Plus, I'll admit, the French deserve it. :)

      But yeah, you're right. In The Great War the French held off the Germans for years, and fed millions of young men into the meat grinder that was trench warfare in order to do it. In WWII, they were fighting Nazi Germany who overnight revolutionized warfare and waltzed across Europe. The only reason Americans can act snooty and superior about the French surrendering to the Wermacht is because we had the Atlantic Ocean protecting us from their panzers. If it hadn't been for the English Channel Britain would have been toast as well. Really, in both cases the only fault you could lay on the French was that they made the mistake of having a really long land border with Germany. If it was the U.S. with a long land border with Germany, the French would be mocking us instead.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    10. Re:fallacy by jnhtx · · Score: 1
      So they surrendered and the killing stopped.

      No, the killing increased. It just became cleaner and neater because the victums were rounded up and taken away in boxcars, never to be seen again. No messy explosions, just the steady hum and warmth of european ovens going 24x7.

  31. what's going on?! by kipsate · · Score: 1

    'Don't you know the people in Knoxville wondered what in the world was going on out here'

    The USA way of saying "Wir haben es nicht gewusst"?

    --
    My karma ran over your dogma
    1. Re:what's going on?! by doyen2000 · · Score: 1
      I think people forget that running the complex would have employed a large number of civilians from nearby areas. A lot of effort was placed on making the interface of equipment to the controllers to be as far as removed from the actual task as possible. That way people would not get an insight into the process or reverse engineer what was going.

      So even if you worked there you still would not have clue what was going on.

      Cheers, A.

    2. Re:what's going on?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So even if you worked there you still would not have clue what was going on."

      Hey that sounds like the US congress to me... ;)

      Lupo

  32. War and 'civilian' casualties. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    How can anyone still believe in propaganda like this? That the entire population of a country is evil, that they are freedom-hating fanatics who will fight to the last man, woman and child?

    Not being a 'civilian' doesn't equal being Evil. You're the one bringing archetypes into the deal. I'm military. I don't necessarily consider my opponents evil, though I'd kill them just the same, because they're the enemy.

    On the other hand, there are videos and documentation showing arms-caches and propaganda aimed towards using the populace(including women and older children) to repel invasion.

    Oh, and according to the conventions, even civilians are legal targets if they're contributing to the war effort. To that end, if you're producing bullets, bombs, arms, vehicles, etc, you're a legal. You're still legal even if you're producing food, clothing, etc for military use.

    Thus, the point that the cities were being used for military purpose made them targets.

    Whether, in hindsight, it was needed or not, well, I'd have to say that in this case, not even hindsight is 20/20. There's been just too much spin-doctoring on both sides.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:War and 'civilian' casualties. by grimJester · · Score: 1

      Oh, and according to the conventions, even civilians are legal targets if they're contributing to the war effort. To that end, if you're producing bullets, bombs, arms, vehicles, etc, you're a legal. You're still legal even if you're producing food, clothing, etc for military use. Thus, the point that the cities were being used for military purpose made them targets.

      A saner perspective, IMO, than labeling an entire country. Making the jump from individuals contributing to a war effort to the entire city where they live is still not ok with me.

    2. Re:War and 'civilian' casualties. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Making the jump from individuals contributing to a war effort to the entire city where they live is still not ok with me.

      Welcome to the realm of target discrimination. The problem becomes one that back then, especially with the japanese's style of having distributed light industry, they couldn't discriminate targets at that range. They didn't have any 'smart' bombs at all, and even the targeting sights was such a hit or miss that they sent fleets of planes to hit one factory, and still had a good chance of not taking out the factory. Today we send one plane to take out 5-6 targets.

      Ever read about the firebombings of some Japanese cities? Just about as bad, it's just that the heavily loaded planes couldn't fly above the air defenses, thus were highly vulnerable, leading to high losses.

      Sorry, so sad, but people should realize that the last half a dozen or so wars/actions fought by the USA since Vietnam have been fought so differently, with such accuracy, that it's turned a new page in history.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  33. Re:Big Ed's Pizza by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's unfortunate that Big Ed's Pizza sucks now that he's passed away as does the rest of Oak Ridge. People there are still living in the past and think the government will come back and give everyone jobs again.

  34. Re:Big Ed's Pizza by Renraku · · Score: 1

    Only if you're prepared to go fishing daily. And catch more with the net than the line.

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
  35. For those of you in the UK by polyp2000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is the coolest place to go visit - would have been a seat of government for the uk during a nuclear war scenario. Lots of cool stuff to see.

    Hack Green

    Home page

    Not quite on the scale of this one but I thought someone here might find this of use.

    Nick ...

    --
    Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
  36. Grow a thicker skin, people. by i41Overlord · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Some of the people on here are so liberal that they're offended by the realities of everyday life. There's nothing wrong with having pride in your country and admiring its war machines.

    I'm surprised that these people aren't ashamed of being human or living in the country they do, because after all, humans fought their way to the top of the food chain and their ancestors surely took the country they live in by force from someone else. Fighting, natural selection- it's all part of nature. No matter how evolved people think they are, they still cannot break free of the most simple rules of mother nature.

    1. Re:Grow a thicker skin, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't the true nature of man to overcome these base animalistic urges? Otherwise, I might as well commit rape at will, eat the neighbours dog, and shit wherever I damn well want. We'll know when natural selection has truly peaked when we no longer have to invoke natural selection. It's over. Darwin can go home. We won.

      Now let's evolve our minds and spirits, which is what I think these "liberals" are trying to do. I'm proud of my country's past, too, but I see no reason to repeat it (or glorify it). We've evolved as individuals, now we're evolving as societies.

    2. Re:Grow a thicker skin, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ahh, but remember, if you try those things, our society will severly punish you and make your life unenjoyable, causing other people who would try to act as dumb to do have second thoughts. a form of evolution, no?

    3. Re:Grow a thicker skin, people. by smcavoy · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children who lost their skin as well as their lives when the pride and joy of the Manhattan project was dropped on them.
      What does natural selection or fighting a war have to do with the slaughter of innocent civilians?
      Pride in ones country does not mean blindly endorsing everything it ever did?

    4. Re:Grow a thicker skin, people. by radish · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised that these people aren't ashamed of being human

      Sometimes, I am.

      or living in the country they do

      Frequently, I am.

      and their ancestors surely took the country they live in by force from someone else

      Rubbish. I am British, I live in the US. Someone else's ancestors took the country I live in from my ancestors. But that isn't the point. The point is that if we consider ourselves above animals (and, in my experience, most people do) then surely it is our responsibility to try an behave in a civilized manner. Otherwise, why not just run wild? Who needs law & order? Survival of the fittest. Personally, that's not the kind of environment I want for myself or my family.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    5. Re:Grow a thicker skin, people. by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

      The point is that if we consider ourselves above animals (and, in my experience, most people do) then surely it is our responsibility to try an behave in a civilized manner. Otherwise, why not just run wild? Who needs law & order? Survival of the fittest. Personally, that's not the kind of environment I want for myself or my family.

      You have an idealistic, yet shortsighted point of view. Such a point of view is only afforded to people whose ancestors have already done the dirty work for them. If you were unfortunate and hungry I'm sure you'd see the worth of fighting to attain what you want.

      No matter how you try to slice it, there are many people who want a limited amount of resources. Not everyone can have those resources. Conflict is inevitable.

      While this may not be an acceptable reality in today's politically correct world, it is reality. You can either live in a fantasy land and pretend that you'll always be able to maintain your standard of living without having to fight for it, or you can realize what you need to do and fight for it. I'm sure that many people would rather have you disarm and keep your idealistic, nonviolent beliefs. That means you'll put up less of a fight when they go to take what you have :-)

    6. Re:Grow a thicker skin, people. by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

      Tell that to the tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children who lost their skin as well as their lives when the pride and joy of the Manhattan project was dropped on them.

      I can't- they're dead.

    7. Re:Grow a thicker skin, people. by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

      Isn't the true nature of man to overcome these base animalistic urges? Otherwise, I might as well commit rape at will, eat the neighbours dog, and shit wherever I damn well want. We'll know when natural selection has truly peaked when we no longer have to invoke natural selection. It's over. Darwin can go home. We won.

      If only it were so easy.

      There are times when we should overcome those urges. But there are other times that we suppress urges that we shouldn't be suppresing. I have no desire to do the things you mentioned.

      When you say that societies are evolving, it depends on the direction you want them to go. Some people want to get rid of capitalism and live in a socialist society. In their mind, that is evolution. I disagree.

      I believe in being able to outcompete the masses and reap the rewards from your own hard work. I like capitalism. I don't feel any obligation to help out those who refuse to carry their own weight.

    8. Re:Grow a thicker skin, people. by khallow · · Score: 1
      Rubbish. I am British, I live in the US. Someone else's ancestors took the country I live in from my ancestors. But that isn't the point. The point is that if we consider ourselves above animals (and, in my experience, most people do) then surely it is our responsibility to try an behave in a civilized manner. Otherwise, why not just run wild? Who needs law & order? Survival of the fittest. Personally, that's not the kind of environment I want for myself or my family.

      So what are you trying to say? What's a "civilized manner"? If I chose to talk with my mouth full, am I implicitly advocating that we should go back to the wild and all that?

    9. Re:Grow a thicker skin, people. by smcavoy · · Score: 1

      so instead glorify their slaughter?

    10. Re:Grow a thicker skin, people. by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

      You seem to think emotionally, I think logically.

      I could go to Japan and look at their war machinery, and admire it for the engineering and effort it took to build it. I wouldn't get carried away thinking about the fact that it might have killed Americans. I look at it for the machine itself.

      And don't forget that those people weren't all innocent. Many worked in the factories that were producing war machinery. They would have done the same thing if they had the bomb first. No doubt. After seeing what they did to China, there's no doubt in my mind that they would have used it on us without remorse. That makes me glad that we developed and used it first.

      Killing someone is never good. But when they're trying to kill you, killing them is the more favorable option.

    11. Re:Grow a thicker skin, people. by smcavoy · · Score: 1

      fine to be wowed by engineering, but to go on to justify such a slaughter with "they weren't all innocent" is wrong.
      Many worked in factories that created ammo, bombs, etc.
      many also worked just to live, provide for families etc.
      I see no point in rejoicing that the americans developed it first and decided to use it to kill so indiscriminately.
      that would seem to be the same "logic" used on sept. 11th, when innocent civilians were slaughtered by cowards that thought they'd make a point.

    12. Re:Grow a thicker skin, people. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i like to fuck the dead childrens' corpses and cum on their smouldering faces.

    13. Re:Grow a thicker skin, people. by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

      If you re-read my post, I made no moral judgement on the dropping of the bombs. I merely stated that I admire the machinery.

      From a warfare standpoint, the conventional bombings killed even more people than the atomic bombings. But conventional bombings usually are something that the enemy will endure... it won't make them surrender. The atomic bombings convinced them that they have no chance. Had we destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with conventional bombing missions, I doubt that would have made Japan surrender. The firebombing of Tokyo killed more people than the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, yet it didn't seem to break their will. The atomic bombings did.

    14. Re:Grow a thicker skin, people. by mhollis · · Score: 1

      I'm going to assume everyone who is re-hashing the "we should have" vs. the "We should not have" dropped the Bombs wasn't around during WW II. I wasn't.

      Did Harry Truman give the "go ahead" because he wanted to impress the Russians? The best biography I have read on him suggests that was not the case (I say this with apologies to Mr. Terkel who was around during WW II). Did he do it because there was no hope for ending the war with Japan? That same biography clearly points out that the Japanese Government had made overtures at least a month beforehand

      I think the true answer lies somewhere in between. Americans, at that time, were pretty jingoistic. We had to have been if we locked up thousands of law-abiding Americans with Japanese ancestry in concentration camps. Our military seemed pretty terrified of the Japanese commitment to the war effort, with kamakaze attacks on our capital ships, common Japanese soldiers fighting ours until they were killed and Japan's lack of "respect" for the "Western 'rules' for warfare."

      In other words, you really have to put your mind into the mindset of the times, else you cannot really understand why we risked the lives to build atomic weapons and ended so many other lives in using two of them in war.

      I suppose one could say that it's bad form to rape the female citizens of a foreign power against whom you are at war, but it happened all the time during the middle ages by "civilized" nations. Later, when the Europeans found that the American Natives used ritual torture to determine the manliness of captured European prisoners, they were horrified, while they in turn were burning so-called 'witches' at the stake and hanging them on a gallows by hoisting them (and not dropping them so that they would die almost instantly).

      To understand these actions is not a product of a thick skin, it's a product of a fuller understanding of the times. Those whom do not study and learn by history are doomed to repeat it.

      --
      Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
  37. Mostly BS and PR-- the real story: by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 4, Informative
    I hate to be a party pooper, but:
    • This may bell be just a PR campaign to make the place look better. Lots of things you won't hear on the tour:
    • The calutrons were basically a FAILURE-- they only put out about 10% of the expected U235-- the rest they smeared all over the place, and not in the collection bucket. Once the gas diffusion plant got running the calutrons were relegated to secondary status. Being extremely expensive and inefficient to boot, they were shut down ASAP after the war.
    • They were built mostly due to Lawrence's reputation in building the cyclotron, not on any technical merit.
    • Ask about when the building had most of the world's mercury flowing through its pipes. And how much got lost. A DOE report says: "A 1983 study by USDOE estimates that 733,000 pounds of elemental mercury were released to the environment in the 1950s and 1960s around the Y-12 Plant. Most of the contamination around Y-12 is confined to the upper 10 feet of soils and fill. Additional studies revealed that some 170,000 pounds of mercury are contained in the sediments and floodplain of about a 15-mile length of East Fork Poplar Creek (EFPC), which has its headwaters at Y-12, and that some 500 pounds of mercury annually leave this watershed." ( i.e.: don't smoke the grass)
    • Ask about the nearby sites where they dumped tons of radioactive waste right into the creeks and hollers.
    Just MHO but his would be one of the LAST places on Earth I'd care to visit.
    1. Re:Mostly BS and PR-- the real story: by Skjellifetti · · Score: 2, Informative

      The calutrons were basically a FAILURE ...

      Unlike most ChemE, where research leads to pilot plant which leads to production plant (step 4, profit), the Manhattan Project often skipped the pilot plant stage and went directly from research to production facility. Small pilot plants allow you to determine which of several alternatives might be the most economically feasible. The Manhattan Project did not have the time to figure out which way was best, so they simply built all of the alternatives as full scale production plants (OK, they also had nearly unlimited funds). In the end, IIRC, the calutrons were used as a first stage feeder plant to the K-25 gaseous diffusion plant. Today, the ORNL Fusion Energy Division is physically located in Y-12 since it needs huge amounts of electricity for its experiments and Y-12 was wired for it in order to run the calutrons.

      As to the pollution, John Googin used to argue that the arsenic coming out of the coal mines in the Cumberland Mountains above Oak Ridge was probably a greater threat than the what was escaping from Oak Ridge.

      Just MHO but his would be one of the LAST places on Earth I'd care to visit.

      I grew up in OR. It has a 1st rate school system and very reasonably priced housing (a home that might cost 3/4 mil in the Bay Raea can be had for <150K in OR). Within an hour of OR in almost any direction is some of the best backpacking, climbing, caving, canoeing, and mt biking in the Eastern US. If there were any jobs, I'd move my family back there in a heartbeat.

    2. Re:Mostly BS and PR-- the real story: by killproc · · Score: 1


      I worked in environmental remediation in OR for about 6 years. It may be true that back in the dark ages people made some serious mistakes about containment and storage, but during my tenure there were great strides made in remediation processes and technology. ORNL pioneered techniques such as Soil Vitrification, contaminant tracking and mapping, and enhanced water purification processes.

      OR is really a nifty place to work if you like to play on the cutting edge of technology.

      --
      When you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness. So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.
    3. Re:Mostly BS and PR-- the real story: by advocate_one · · Score: 1
      A DOE report says: "A 1983 study by USDOE estimates that 733,000 pounds of elemental mercury were released to the environment in the 1950s and 1960s around the Y-12 Plant. Most of the contamination around Y-12 is confined to the upper 10 feet of soils and fill. Additional studies revealed that some 170,000 pounds of mercury are contained in the sediments and floodplain of about a 15-mile length of East Fork Poplar Creek (EFPC), which has its headwaters at Y-12, and that some 500 pounds of mercury annually leave this watershed." ( i.e.: don't smoke the grass)

      well, that site would make a pretty good mine for mercury in the future...

      --
      Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    4. Re:Mostly BS and PR-- the real story: by Strontium-90 · · Score: 1

      All of the contaminated and radioactive areas are well contained, monitored, and in the process of cleanup. The cleanup itself has led to many new technologies for environmental cleanup in other parts of the world, so it is actually having a positive impact now. None of the contamination affects the drinking water in Oak Ridge. Nor is any of it airborne.

      A lot of foolish things were done back during the Manhattan Project, but they also knew a lot less. We're paying for those mistakes, but given the new techniques and technologies we've gained, I'd say it's a good tradeoff.

      Basically, if you are smart and stay out of areas that are marked off-limits, there is absolutely nothing to worry about. Basically, you're allowing FUD to prevent you from visiting a nice town and a very important and extremely interesting historical site.

    5. Re:Mostly BS and PR-- the real story: by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1

      More BS! Please explain how they're cleaning up the mercury in the soil and water and sediments. AFAIK there's no way to do so. Do they have the whole creek roped off? The one estimate I've seen says 500 lbs per year are washing off into the creek. That's still an awful lot. Seeing as there are advisories many places about eating lake fish that have excessive mercury form power plant emissions, what are the advisories about fishing in the Oak ridge area? What are the mercury levels in the fish? 776K tons of mercury is a whole lot. BTW the foolish things with mercury were in the 1950's, not during WWII, so the hot-war excuse is not applicable.

    6. Re:Mostly BS and PR-- the real story: by Strontium-90 · · Score: 1

      Most of the mercury is isolated in one place and there is a 24 hour reclaimation process going on to get it back out of the soil (Yes, there are ways to do so. I don't know the details, but have seen the equipment.) The contaminated watersheds are indeed roped off, with cleanup techniques being applied. People know what lakes and rivers are okay for fishing, swimming, etc. The problem is not trivial, but does not pose a significant danger to the public. After all, there are 30000 people living in Oak Ridge with thousands more in surrounding areas. It's not as if the whole city is radioactive and full of mercury with no one doing anything about it; the contamination is isolated into specific areas with active cleanup operations going on. I would suggest checking out this site before crying "BS!". Perhaps fire off some emails asking for details about the cleanup process.

      Also, I never used the war as an excuse. I simply stated that foolish things were done during the Manhattan Project, which didn't just disappear as soon as the war was over. The Manhattan Project simply redirected partially into new directions. Were stupid things done in the 50's too? Sure. Are things being done to clean up Oak Ridge? YES! Just because you don't know of methods to get mercury out of soil doesn't mean that there aren't any. I may not know the details, but I know people that have worked on the problem. And let me reiterate that the contaminants that wash into the creek have a ways to go before reaching water that can be used by the public. Are the toxins in that first lake used by the public higher than normal? Yes, but it's not as if no one has told the residents how to safely deal with it. Would you rather nothing be done about the contamination?

      This is what it boils down to: (1) The contamination is there, whatever the cause -- stupidity, ignorance, lack of foresight. (2) The danger to the public is minimal, especially if they stay away from the contaminated areas, which they should do anyway since going to those areas would constitute federal trespassing. (3) Cleanup of the contaminated areas is ongoing. In fact while the cleanup proceeds, ORNL is using the unique opportunity of actually having contaminated sites to develop new techniques. This is much better than trying to develop a technique in theory with nothing to test it on until there actually is a problem.

      None of this has anything to do with the historical importance of Oak Ridge. For better or worse, it is undeniable that the operations that went on in Oak Ridge had a great impact on the world at large. Why should some mistakes in the past and a few hot zones (that you won't be allowed near) prevent you from visiting an important historical site and a very fine town? I can assure you that visiting the Y-12 plant will not shorten your lifespan. It will not make you complicit in some evil government coverup. What it will do is educate you on what happened in the past and what is going on now. Hopefully it will instill some national pride in you, as well. Despite its mistakes, and regardless of your views on whether the atomic bombs should have been used, I fail to see how anyone can deny the amazing acomplishment that was the Manhattan Project. Armed with nothing but a theory and some empty farmland, we produced a monumental (if terrible) achievement in less than a decade. The pace at which Oak Ridge itself was built has probably never been equalled.

      So, I beg of you, talk to some people involved in the Oak Ridge cleanup, some of the researchers who have taken technology that was used to make a bomb and have turned it into something that makes drugs that may oneday save your life, or some of the residents of Oak Ridge (of which I am one). Do this before you start crying "Evil!", "BS!", "PR COVERUP!". In fact, go on the tours of Y-12, X-10, and K-25. Ask questions. If the answers aren't to your liking, do some investigation and come back and report back to us.

    7. Re:Mostly BS and PR-- the real story: by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1

      Sorry to be such a Grumpy Gus about this. I have plenty of respect for the people and projects. tht's not the issue. The issue in my mind is that history has shown that human nature has a strong tendency to ignore, deflect, and even mislead when it comes to investigating mistakes and misdeeds. In soooo many cases, the real extent of the problems have been minimized and downplayed, often by huge factors. Just one example from this subject-- the Oak Ridge Boys would take water samples from the creek, and measure the mercury concentation with various extremely inadequate devices and processes. Everything measured jsut fine! Then a local yokel happened to mention "Ahem, but you can SEE actual droplets of mercury on the creek bottom!" "Ohhhhh, we're not instructed to take BOTTOM samples!". The tendency in any big organization is of course, to keep the organization going at all costs. So there's every effort made to not see the problems, to fund studies that will look in the wrong places, to classify studies as "national security" that look bad, to mandate reforms that are never funded, to implement token cleanups, you all know the drill. For example, as to actual cleanups, googling shows very little going on. Some mercury was removed from a sump. A big story in the paper about "cleanup finished", if you read the fine print, reveals that only 1/100th of the estimated $ amount was funded, and eventually only 13 acres had some lacadaisical scraping. And the scraped dirt wasnt cleaned! It was just moved to another site. Now maybe a HUGE cleanup was done, but funny that Google doesnt catch it, and the DOE didnt publicize it. It's nothing personal, but I just hate to see all the BS the still surrounds issues like these. Regards, A_H

    8. Re:Mostly BS and PR-- the real story: by Skjellifetti · · Score: 1
      I grew up in OR and my reaction to the announcements in 1980s of what had been done was similar to yours. But since I knew many of the people responsible, let me offer up their defense:
      • Mercury comes in many forms, some are deadly, some fairly inert. The stuff in the creek in OR is the inert sort.
      • It is lying on the bottom. Often it is even worse for the environment to dig it up than to just let it be. Similar problems are found in the Hudson River in NY and many other places with PCBs. Just let it get covered over with sediment and monitor it rather than stirring it up during a cleanup.
      • No one cared about the environment in the 1950s. How many superfund sites are there in the US dating from that era? Remember, Rachel Carson's Silent Spring that is regarded as the start of modern environmentalism wasn't published until 1962.
      • The creek in OR with the mercury is basically just a drainage ditch at its Y-12 head. It has many miles to go before it hits the Clinch River. The amount of mercury being discharged from Y-12 is a very different amount from what is making its way into the Clinch River. And there aren't any eadible fish in the creek, just minnows, IIRC.
      • Sure, it could be cleaned up. But at what cost? Maybe there are more dangerous things being emmited into the environment and we should be spending our money cleaning those first. Which is more dangerous, the mercury in the creek in OR, or the lead, arsenic, and mercury being discharged from 100s of abandoned mines and piles of tailings in Colorado?
    9. Re:Mostly BS and PR-- the real story: by Strontium-90 · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that Google is not the authority on environmental cleanup. Also keep in mind that you're dealing with the Department of Energy, which is a very secretive organization, often for a variety of good reasons. But even with their natural tendency not to disclose information, there have been many meetings in Oak Ridge for the public to come and ask questions about the cleanup and get straight answers.

      I agree with you about the tendencies of big organizations and the government to downplay and cover up issues, but this is a situation where coverup and downplay was impossible, and as a result the government is now dealing with the issue. The cleanup will take a long time and lots of money, but the work is being done. I've seen some of it with my own eyes and talked to people working on it.

      You might be right in that BS generally surrounds issues like these. However, in Oak Ridge things have moved past the BS stage and are now into the getting shit done stage. I think you're allowing your expectations, your distrust of big organizations and the government, and your ignorance of this particular situation (and I don't mean this in a derogatory way) lead you to an incorrect conclusion. General trends cannot be applied to all situations.

      Again, I would suggest that you should talk to people involved in the cleanup projects rather than relying on Google before you draw your conclusions. I think that you are trying to come to a conclusion with insufficient information.

  38. What we really want to see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is Israel's nuke facility! :D

  39. Three Words by ifwm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Rape of Nanking

    "Troubling" he says...

    1. Re:Three Words by koko775 · · Score: 1

      Yes, troubling. And not wholly relevant. The Rape of Nanking was wrong and it's pretty damn stupid for the Japanese government not to admit it. The difference is that you probably won't find a great many people nowadays who support the Rape of Nanking, whereas plenty will think that the second bomb was justified.

    2. Re:Three Words by ifwm · · Score: 1

      You missed the point.

      I'll never accept any argument from anyone about the necessity of the bombs. We were at war, Japan hadn't surrendered.

      The point was, Japan doesn't get to play victim in regards to the war. Ever. They don't get to be shocked, or "troubled", or have penetrating insight into the need for nuclear bombings.

      THEY STARTED IT. They have no right to complain about how others were forced to finish it.

    3. Re:Three Words by koko775 · · Score: 1

      You confuse me. Are you saying that when ending wars, we should be as hostile and uncompromising as the other side? That we should kill tens or hundreds of thousands or millions of civilians EXTRA to make a point, even though those deaths aren't really necessary to end the war?

      I disagree. The Japanese have every right to complain about how others were "forced" to finish it, just as how the US has every right to complain about how Japan forced them into hostilities. Complaining that they started it and at the same time saying they can't do the same with regards to how it ended is extremely one-sided.

  40. Would you like to play a game? by Pointdexter · · Score: 1, Funny

    Watch out for suspicious looking teenagers joining your tour party and smuggling themselves onto the bus.

    --
    Party Time: Excellent
  41. Oak Ridge is a very important city to East TN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I also grew up in a community surrounding Oak Ridge. The government facilities there provided many jobs for my grandfather and his generation after they returned from WW2. These jobs had an extreme impact upon the surrounding communities in that they provided the very poor families in East TN jobs and the ability to escape poverty and move up to middle class status. This opportunity has lasted even until now. My grandfather and others like him died from exposure to the materials produced in Oak Ridge. The government is now providing families of those men and women restitution for their services. My wife's family alone recieved well over $200k from the government. Not only did the work that went on in Oak Ridge put an end to the greatest war ever waged, it also gave many families a chance for survival. Now ORNL is working on many things, even Glassy Steel! http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/v38_1_05/artic le17.shtml

  42. With Islam, where do we bomb? by crovira · · Score: 1

    Your quote strikes a chord "Japan had a bunch of religious nutcases in control and the bombs shocked everyone back to reality."

    But who is shocking whom?

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  43. Quote at the bottom of the page by cybersaga · · Score: 2, Funny

    Even more relevant:
    "America may be unique in being a country which has leapt from barbarism to decadence without touching civilization." -- John O'Hara

    1. Re:Quote at the bottom of the page by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Do whiney self important people who say such things even know the true definitions of the words they use?

      If the US was really decadant we would have not stopped with bombing two Japanese cities.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    2. Re:Quote at the bottom of the page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll



      You are a complete idiot. Please go away.

    3. Re:Quote at the bottom of the page by cybersaga · · Score: 1

      Yes, I even looked it up after I read it the first time, before I had plans on posting it. I still agree with it.

      I'm not self important. I'm observant.

  44. unexpected air attack by karzan · · Score: 1

    I think a contributing factor was that the whole of the French defensive system (most famously the Maginot line) was designed, after the first world war, without expecting air attacks. The whole of the German 'blitzkrieg' strategy was based on starting with concerted air bombardment, and therefore flew right over the French defenses.

    French tanks may have been superior, but the German strategy was based on a combined air/ground war, while France was not anticipating the air aspect.

    1. Re:unexpected air attack by jamesborr · · Score: 1

      Completely concur, however, the problem was still the French leadership chain, which was old and still stuuck on WWI. They had not invested much, if any intellectual capital during the interwar years, and the results of the 1940 campaign show this. It wasn't that that hadn't spent money and built equipment/fortifications, but rather, they failed to keep their tactics (i.e. a function of leadership) current and relavent. The interesting thing about this failure, is that they executed it in the near perfect knowledge that the Germans would attack. The same could be said about the U.S. in the current war. After so many preceding events (the first Trade Center bombing, the African embassy blasts,the USS Cole, the Khobar towers blasts), there should have been no doubt that continued and escalating attacks would take place, courtesy of the islamofacists. And yet, the U.S. preceding on like it wasn't in danger. To be honest, it isn't a question of if the U.S. will be attacked by a nuclear device, but a question of when -- although to be honest, a clandestine strike might occur somewhere else first.

  45. IRA Attacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Long after the Republic of Ireland gained its independence, despite the fact that the vast, vast majority of northern ireland citizens wanted to remain part of the UK, the IRA, 'fighting' for a united ireland by murdering civilians, was *still* viewed as 'freedom fighters' by many Americans, and much of its funding came (and still comes) from America.

    I think its interesting that it wasn't until after someone bombed the US that Americans started getting really anti-terrorist, but before that, they were, in many ways due to their support of the IRA, pro-terrorist. I remember the bombing of canary warf... not so different from the bomb attack on the WTC, eih?

  46. Re:Big Ed's Pizza by rwrife · · Score: 1

    Big Ed's pizza isn't anything special besides the fact that they replace the tomato sauce with molten lava. This leaves you with a typical Big Ed's 3rd degree burn in your mouth and you can't eat anything for several days. They're also really paranoid about security...they have 15-20 security cameras for the 15 tables in the restraunt.

  47. Re:Big Ed's Pizza by rwrife · · Score: 1

    I think a better restaurant in Oak Ridge WAS Buffalo Grille....their Y-12 hot wing sauce was arguably the hottest food you can probably get at a restaurant anywhere....definitely a legal liability on their part. That stuff burned going in you and would burn for days coming out.

  48. Re:Tennessee Has Da Bomb...! by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    I don't know why you are trying to insult me for. You can't hurt my feelings. You're just wasting your time and proving that you're fat-loving /. retard.

  49. removed from context? by m0llusk · · Score: 1

    This argument is too abstract. The battles on and around Midway and Iwo Jima involved extreme difficulties and high casualty rates because the Japanese forces really did fight often to the last which is unusual and notable. Fire bombing raids on other cities such as Tokyo had actually caused even bigger atrocities already by igniting firestorms. The expected alternative was an invasion beginning at Okinawa that was projected to have a vast cost in money, material, and human life.

    As for the Japanese mind set at the time, some people knew of problems, but that Japan was loosing was not broadly known. Also, there were various preparations for extreme reactions to invasion including civilian resistance and suicide when alternaves ran out. Ending the war with devastating force very likely saved Japanese lives.

    And let's be honest about the impact of nukes. Yes, some people got incinerated or poisoned by radioactivity, but with the introduction of nuclear weapons the impact of war, which had only ever grown worse over time, was for the first time not only reduced, but effectively minimized. Nuclear weapons are awful things, but they have tamed our thirst for conflict like nothing else before or since.

  50. You have to go through the gift shop to exit by raitchison · · Score: 1

    I highly doubt that they're going to give out plans on building your own nuke

    Of course thy won't be giving them away, the gift shop is planning boming revenues from these plans along with several other key products:

    • Build your own little boy (Uranium not included)
    • My First Geiger Counter
    • Dosimiters actually used by DOE personnel (ones showing lethal exposure cost extra)
    • Uranium pellet pressed into a commemorative shape (think of coin presses at amusement parks & zoos.
    1. Re:You have to go through the gift shop to exit by okvol · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I do remember in the early 1960's that the Atomic Engergy Museum in Oak Ridge had a Californium 252 http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele098.html / source in a tank of water, with a chute that would direct a quarter to the source, hold it for a few seconds, then let it roll on out. Cf252 is a stong neutron source, which activated the silver to a very short-lived isotope. We had fun running quarters through as fast as posible to see how hot we could get them. But, they had to shut it down in 1964, because the copper isotopes (US Treasury changed the quarter to a silver sandwich of copper) lasted much, much longer.

      --
      cabg x3 is a life changing event...
  51. FAT BOY, not little boy. by [l0l]Bobo · · Score: 1

    Wasn't it "Fat Boy", and then "Little Man"?

    The article called the bomb "Little Boy". America does need more history classes it seems.

    1. Re:FAT BOY, not little boy. by DrewBeavis · · Score: 1

      from Google: Fat Man and Little Boy

  52. Wrong on Water Problems by Nit+Picker · · Score: 1

    "Clark's Park" (actually Clark Center Park) has a swimming area and you can fish and swim all you wish. The restricted water is on the East Fork of Popular Creek, which originates in the plant and flows through town. The major concern is actually mercury, not radiation.

    1. Re:Wrong on Water Problems by rwrife · · Score: 1

      I think if you read this report http://www.radioactivist.org/ORR%20report%20pdfabl e.pdf (it's somewhat biased) you'll see that the problem isn't just mecury flowing down stream.

  53. Team America: World Police by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

    America....FUCK YEAH!!!!

    Perhaps one day idiots like you will understand that an attacked nation is under no obligation to risk any more of its citizens lives then is necessary to end a conflict. The atomic bomb both ended the war and saved American lives and thus its use was just.

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    1. Re:Team America: World Police by leecn · · Score: 1

      Wankers like you are the reason that lots of people in civilised countries despise Americans.

      By your logic, if Iraq had an atomic bomb, or powerful chemical/bio weapons, then they would have been justified in using those weapons to attack New York (which would be trivial).

    2. Re:Team America: World Police by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      I left out an important part of my resoning. The good guy/bad guy factor. In WWII the Japanese were the bad guys and the Americans were the good guys. Therefore what the Americans did was right.

      Consequently between Saddam controlled Iraq and the US, the US would still be the good guys unless in your hatred of America you seriously want to propose that America is somehow in equal evil footing with either Iraq or Imperialist Japan.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    3. Re:Team America: World Police by leecn · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, the famous good guy/bad guy factor. I'd say that one would stand up in a court of law allright...

      I dont hate America, just the imbeciles that can't take any criticism of their country without resorting to accusing the offender of 'hatred of America'

  54. Canadian Involvement by DG · · Score: 4, Informative

    As a Canadian, and a retired Canadian soldier at that, thanks for noticing our contribution at Normandy - and I say that without irony; the fact that Canada had a Normandy beach all to itself, and was in fact the only country to reach its D-Day objectives, is sadly often overlooked.

    But your comment "I don't think Canada would have had that level of involvement without US cooperation" is well off the mark.

    Historically, Canadians don't give a fig about what the US does when it comes to going to war. We are our own independant country, and we make our own decisions.

    We joined WW1 and WW2 within a couple of days of both wars starting, and in both cases Canadians were busy fighting and dying well in advance of any American involvement.

    Even in the case of war material Canadians have gone it their own if they had to. In WW1 we brought the Canadian made Ross rifle (sadly, a steaming hunk of shit and a political boondoggle) and we started WW2 with our own tank, the Ram (design elements of which eventually made it into the vastly superior Sherman) When US material, usually much cheaper to obtain rather than building it ourselves, became availble we'd use it, but having access to US equipment was never a precondition to Canada going to war.

    In fact, it's interesting to see which wars Canada has chose to get involved in, and which ones it chose to avoid. I think we have a pretty good batting average when it comes to finding the just ones:

    WW1, WW2, Korea, Gulf War 1, and Afganistan we all get into immediately. Vietnam and Gulf War 2 we purposely pass on.

    And then there's all those UN peacekeeping missions: Cyprus, the Golan Heights, Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti....

    Anyway, thanks for noticing our proud military heritage. We think we've done OK over the years. :) But please don't assume we're an American puppet state, militarily - we are not.

    DG

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
    1. Re:Canadian Involvement by chrysrobyn · · Score: 1
      thanks for noticing our contribution at Normandy - and I say that without irony; the fact that Canada had a Normandy beach all to itself, and was in fact the only country to reach its D-Day objectives, is sadly often overlooked.

      Sadly, even when it is mentioned, it is glossed over in favor of the other participants.

      But please don't assume we're an American puppet state, militarily - we are not.

      I do not assume Canada is a puppet state, militarily or otherwise. I've been unable to find out when Canada joined World War II. I've only read that Canada and the US typically have common goals and perspectives (Viet Nam being quite a notable exception). Given my limited data, I assumed that the US and Canada would choose to enter WWII at similar times -- if Canada had joined due to Pearl Harbor, I would not think it a puppet, only a nation concerned that the country to its south could use what help it could get.

    2. Re:Canadian Involvement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      But please don't assume we're an American puppet state, militarily - we are not.


      Not at all. Canada is a model democratic/socialist society (well, compared to us south of the border), and is to be respected. Seriously. Your soldiers are of extremely high quality. JTF-2 in particular is extraordinary from what I've read.

      But Canada is also a potentially dangerous economic adversary to the U.S. and must be treated as such. I just can't believe we've waited this long to start playing hardball with you guys.
    3. Re:Canadian Involvement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada joined when Britain joined in both WW's. WW1: because we were a fully British administered state. And as such had no choice in the matter, British garrisons finally left Canada in 1922(-/+ year or so), at which time we became a sovereign state, which Canada day is all about. (Mind you some people argue that Canada day is really confederation day)

      WW2 is another matter; Canada was its own country. Yes we had the monarchy on the back side of all our currency, and yes we still sang (at that time) "God save the King". But Canada was on its own, to govern! 10 Downey ST had no influence within Canada. Yet Canada still had military alliances with Britain, so when the *Commonwealth* declared war on Germany, Canada was dragged into it also.

      That's a very basic answer, and I'm sure following posts, will undoubtedly point that out. Hope it helps.

    4. Re:Canadian Involvement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "dangerous economic adversary", lol,in the sense of global trade, Canada cannot be considered a econimic threat to the US. One simple reason, population. A thousand of our best minds leave for the US everyyear, and due to our population size this country is as powerfull as maybe California(if it ever left the grand ole USA).

    5. Re:Canadian Involvement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we like to think of you as half of A decent sized state, with enough oil and mineral wealth to carry on as though you dont have to worry, and so indulge your more ridiculously "liberal" impulses. As for being an "American puppet state', well... nobody here much notices.

  55. Odd quote from the summary by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 1
    'All this material was coming in, truckload after truckload, and nothing ever left.'

    So what did they do with the 99% of the load they couldn't use? Is there a big mountain of it inside the facility?

    --
    When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
  56. That's an important point by DG · · Score: 3, Interesting

    One of the things I've always thought the Americans got right, and could be justifiably proud of, was how they rebuilt both Germany and Japan after WW2.

    While not _completely_ innocent of a Machiavelllian scheming (what is, in politics?) the effort to NOT seek revenge by punishing the enemy, and instead to do everything possible to rebuild their economies and get them back on their own, *independant* feet, I think was one of the wisest political decisions made in human history. The contribution to the stability and well-being of the world since is incaluable.

    The sad thing is that it appears that the lesson learned there has been forgotten. Can you imagine what the world would be like today, if the US had, instead of invading Iraq, chosen to bring the Marshall Plan to Afganistan?

    Not only would the quality of life for hundreds of thousands of people been improved (an absolute good in of itself) an America that chose to treat Afganistan benevolently, that rebuilt industry and infrastructure and got the country cleaned up and back on its feet, would have torn the heart out of the support base for the people who attacked the US in the first place. It's hard to get people to hate the guy whose making your life better....

    Ah well.

    DG

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
    1. Re:That's an important point by wronskyMan · · Score: 1

      The sad thing is that it appears that the lesson learned there has been forgotten. Can you imagine what the world would be like today, if the US had, instead of invading Iraq, chosen to bring the Marshall Plan to Afganistan?

      Not only would the quality of life for hundreds of thousands of people been improved (an absolute good in of itself) an America that chose to treat Afganistan benevolently, that rebuilt industry and infrastructure and got the country cleaned up and back on its feet, would have torn the heart out of the support base for the people who attacked the US in the first place. It's hard to get people to hate the guy whose making your life better....

      Hmm, true, I guess we have no effort by the military/govt to rebuild Iraq or Afghanistan; maybe the Iraqi/Afghani terrorists hate us because of their religion instead of the infrastructure improvements.

      --
      --- You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad- Neal (not Cowboy) Boortz
  57. Re:Big Ed's Pizza by killproc · · Score: 1


    ...and the Ostrich Burger was to die for...

    --
    When you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness. So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.
  58. Dirty yes, but those who started it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...had the dirtiest hands at the time. Japan picked the fight with the USA, and indeed suffered grave consequences for it, but look where the healing of time and the resulting postwar relationship with the USA has now positioned Japan in the world. Most Japanese that I know today however are thankful for the way things have turned out for them in the long run.

    Germany's hands are probably the dirtiest of all IMHO because of what they did to the Jews. FYI, I am half German, my dad was an American soldier in the war and my mother was German. They met at the end of the war during the occupation, so I am a direct product of WW2, without it I wouldn't even exist. My German side of the family were not nazis, or supporters of the party, but they certainly weren't active opponents either. In reality, they couldn't have done much to oppose the party either had they wanted to, they were simply there cuaght up in the midst of the turmoil. What burns me up most about the Germans however, is that today they are mostly thankless for the US keeping the Soviets from assimilating them during the years of the cold war. They even have their country back as a whole unit much more quickly that it would have eventually happened naturally, primarily because of Ronnie Raygun. Even my relatives who are living in Germany acknowledge this yet feel no gratitude toward the US, only disdain. Someday when the muslim problem (and it's definitely coming, have no doubt about that) begins to grow into serious grief for Germany (and France and the rest of western Europe) beyond what they can handle themselves, there will be much debate in America whether or not to help bail them out... but ultimately we will.

  59. Different areas by Tmack · · Score: 1
    As was said in another reply, other areas have been available, just not the secret areas of Y-12. I went on a tour of the graphite reactor area many years ago. Was very interesting. I was very young then (still in middle school I think), and found all the information and the tour exciting. It was the first reactor to produce electricity among other amazing things. A very worth-while trip, even though its a long drive through rural Tennessee to get there (about 4hrs from North Ga).

    tm

    --
    Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
  60. Feel-good Nostalgia to Justify Today's New Nukes by intnsred · · Score: 1

    Oh, what a romantic vision, those hard working people designing a bomb to kill Japanese civilians -- needlessly, when one considers that the Japanese gov't was frantically trying to make peace at the time of the bombing.

    But our nationalistic historical revisions never remember General Leslie Groves' words, the military commander of the WWII Manhattan Project: "There was never, from about two weeks from the time I took charge of this Project, any illusion on my part but that Russia was our enemy, and the Project was conducted on that basis."

    Or even WWII journalist and author Studs Terkel's comments: "Why did we drop [the atomic bombs]? So little Harry could show Molotov and Stalin we've got the cards. That was the phrase Truman used. We showed the goddamned Russians we've got something and they'd better behave themselves in Europe. That's why it was dropped. The evidence is overwhelming. And yet you tell that to 99 percent of Americans and they'll spit in your eye."

    Instead, we use such nostalgic "tourist attractions" to build up the PR for another new generation of nuclear weapons that the US is more eager than ever to use. :-(

  61. Betterment of mankind? Well, SOME of it. by mbkennel · · Score: 1


    The Oak Ridge Reservation comprises X-10, Y-12 and K-25 plants.

    Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) was a predominantly civilian research facility based at X-10, and a little bit of Y-12.

    The Y-12 Plant, as an institution, on the other hand, was predominantly concerned for decades with the manufacture of the fusion secondaries for thermonuclear weapons. It's the secondary (H-bomb) part which has the really secret and high tech bits.

    I worked at ORNL a number of years ago, and my office was in the unclassified Y-12 side.

    Inside the (electric security) fence was the nuclear bits. These days, it is the "Fort Knox" of highly enriched uranium.

    It does not at all look very "high tech", compared to any modern industrial engineering plant it seems pathetically ugly, dull and dreary, a cross between a chemical plant and a Soviet-style apartment block, and neither of which was updated since 1947 or so. One of the most unpleasant physical environments to work in.

  62. Nothing Ever Left by Dust'-_-'Worm · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Try toxic waste, fumes, etc. Then try cancer and death, then try thousands of people on the other side of the globe.

  63. Re:Nothing Ever Left - Some spelling mistakes by Dust'-_-'Worm · · Score: 1

    Try toxic waste, fumes, etc. Then try cancer and death, then try thousands of dead people on the other side of the globe.

  64. Sid and Marty Krofft by LouisvilleDebugger · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who got the Far Out Space Nuts reference? I thought so. And you people say you love Adam Quark.

  65. My (grandfather's) Oak Ridge story. by LouisvilleDebugger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    During WWII, my grandfather was teaching physics to Navy cadets at Murray State College in western Kentucky, as part of the War Department's "90-Day Wonder" program. They'd take cadets out of basic training who'd had some college experience, and give them technical training before putting them in charge of engineering battallions, or other technical posts.

    Grandfather (a civilian) actually wanted to enlist in the regular military, but was always told by the temporary military commander of this civilian school, "Uncle Sam needs you right here, teaching these cadets." Finally he gave up, decided they were right, and resigned himself to what he was best at, being a small-town physics teacher.

    Immediately he starts getting draft notices in the mail. In frustration he showed the notices to the commander, who telephoned his own superiors and according to my grandfather, "Just started cussing." After five minutes, he hangs up.

    The next thing my grandfather knows, he receives another notice, no return address, telling him to take a train from Murray to a town he'd never heard of near Knoxville, and not to tell anybody where he was going.

    Grandfather arrived at Oak Ridge, which in his telling was hardly a town, with knee-deep mud in the streets. He asked where the town hall was (this is where he was supposed to meet his contact) but no one would say a word to him. Finally he joined in a boy's game of marbles, and found out from the children where the place was.

    From the town hall, he was whisked into the nascent Oak Ridge plant, and interviewed for some hours about his background, and his knowledge of physics (which I remember was heavy on practical knowledge, but medium on sophisticated theory.)

    After the meeting was over, they wouldn't let him leave the plant for several more hours, as his paperwork had gone missing during the interview.

    Grandfather decided that Oak Ridge was no place to raise my three year-old father, took the train back to Murray, and went straight back to teaching those Navy cadets (and then the GI Bill veterans, after the war, and then their children.)

    He died in 1996, without ever knowing the job description for which he'd been so meticulously interviewed.

    Now the story about the class of graduating cadets "replacing" his entire set of "civilian" demonstration apparatus by standing at attention and presenting him with a chalkboard eraser tied to a piece of string will have to wait for another Offtopic post....

    RIP, Granddaddy.

  66. Look out for the frogs, though... by josquin00 · · Score: 1
    For a while, ORNL had a problem with radioactive frogs:

    LC Manley asked if there had been problems with frogs, especially at ORNL. Gordon Blaylock answered that frogs would get into pond 3513, a waste disposal pond, and reproduce. The sediment and water in the pond contained relatively high levels of radionuclides from the waste disposal system. As the frogs matured from tadpoles to adult frogs, they were exposed to relatively high levels of radionuclides. The adult frogs, which contained high body burdens of radionuclides would leave the pond and were run over in the street or stepped-on on the sidewalk.

    Quoted from http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/oakridge/meet/pha/m1_ 20_04.html

  67. Re:Feel-good Nostalgia to Justify Today's New Nuke by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

    Oh yeah the poor Japanese, they just wanted peace.

  68. Secret City by hubang · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I suppose they hand out a questioneer before letting you enter:

    1) Are you an agent of a foreign power? (y/n)
    2) Are you a terrorist? (y/n)
    3) Are you an IAEA inspector (y/n)
    4) Did you vote for Jimmy Carter (y/n)
    5) Have you ever read any works by Linus Pauling (y/n)

    If you resopnded 'Y' to any of the above, please step out of the tour line, and onto the bus for Gitmo. Thank you, and continue to write your congresssman for more WMDs.


    Brought to you by the government that used Smallpox to wipe out tens of millions of natives.

  69. Re:discusting by ronfar · · Score: 1
    Quote from crabpeople:
    "So, in short, yes, I think 100,000 lives were worth it. I happen to like Japan, and am glad that we dropped the bombs on them"

    spoken like a true american. the ends justify the means and i guess you can sort of rationalize the horror out of your past. in retrospect its far easier to say with certainty what COULD HAVE happened, because anything *could* have happened. thats the beauty of the word "could". what actually did happen was the murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians. then of course the next step is to jump up and down shouting, see see we actually *saved* lives by killing thousands! they should thank us!

    and i now recall the following words

    Myrick: "If you could cure cancer by killing one person, wouldn't you have to do that?" "Those men are heroes." Luthan: "But you chose for them." and "You're a doctor, not God." -extreme measures

    I am become death destroyer of worlds. and deep down you _know_ it, and in some sense it makes you proud. the sickness of the republic of the united states of america.

    Hmm... while I'll admit that it is written in an inflammatory style, I agree with the point about the word "could" used in this context. You can use "could" to support any argument. i.e. "I shouldn't shower, ever, because I could fall and kill myself."

    So why is it that "could's" are always used to support the incineration of children in Japan?

    I think it was modded down not because it was inflammatory but because our Gung-Ho "patriot" moderators were made uncomfortable by the argument.

    --
    All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
  70. Re:Feel-good Nostalgia to Justify Today's New Nuke by intnsred · · Score: 1

    Well, they did after their cities were firebombed and burned to the ground, their Navy sunk and the gains they made in the war largely reversed...

    The point is, they knew they were beaten and wanted to end the war. The US ended the war -- on the same conditions the Japanese were proposing through third parties -- but only after nuking two cities to show the Soviet Union how ruthless and "mighty" the US was.

  71. exactly. by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

    Would you have wanted to fight the Russians?

  72. MOD PARENT DOWN - REVIONIST SPECULATION by coopex · · Score: 1

    Wrong. Hirohito and the military knew about that city's destruction later that day, but were paralyzed by indecision. Hirohito did not meet with his supreme war council until about 11 a.m. Aug. 9, within minutes of when the second bomb fell on Nagasaki. Another choice quote: "The Japanese military did not want people to know about the atomic bomb," said Tsuia Etchu, founder of Nagasaki's Atomic Bomb museum. Etchu was an army officer in the city of Fukuoka when the bomb fell.

    It stands to reason that the military didn't want people to know that America had these superweapons, so that people would still have some delusion about fighting to the death and taking as many American's with them as possible.

    --
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  73. Re:discusting by PakProtector · · Score: 1

    Oh my god. I finally got a freak. My UID is 115173 and I FINALLY GOT A FREA

    Er. Sorry. Anyway:

    This is the problem with history: We only exist in one world-line. We are forever plagued by what might have been, what could have been, what should have been. However, when I look around, while I find that I do not live in the Best of All Possible Worlds, I find the one I'm in isn't too bad. There is work that could be done and it looks like it will get done, in time.

    Power and Wisdom must go hand in hand. To see an example of what happens when they do not go hand in hand, just look at our current President.

    However, wisdom is cold and calculating. Ideally, we use our hearts to see what should be done, and then we wisely choose a course, and use our power to make it so. We had to have Japan surrender, and unconditionally. No other option would truely get the point across. Cultural differences.

    --

    Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
    man: no entry for woman in the manual.
    "Qua!?"

  74. War plans by Mark+of+THE+CITY · · Score: 1

    There is an article here describing the various services' ideas as to how to end the war with Japan. It says the U.S. Army wanted to invade, and the U.S. Navy wanted to blockade and use U.S. Army Air Force strategic bombers to end the war. Note that the planners didn't know about the Manhattan Project, and made plans that didn't involve atomic weaponry.

    --
    The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton