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.'"

39 of 488 comments (clear)

  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. 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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

  3. 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.

  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. 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 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.

    3. 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..
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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...
    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    9. 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
    10. 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.

    11. 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?

    12. 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.

    13. 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
    14. 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.

    15. 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?

    16. 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!

    17. 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.

    18. 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.
    19. 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?

    20. 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.

    21. 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.
  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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?
  9. 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
  10. 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.

  11. 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?

  12. 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...

  13. Three Words by ifwm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Rape of Nanking

    "Troubling" he says...

  14. 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.