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.'"

92 of 488 comments (clear)

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

    Sounds like it will be a bomb!

    -Sj53

  3. 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.

  4. 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 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.

    3. 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!?"

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

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

      Hmmmm...no BBQ for them then.

    8. 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!?"

    9. 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.

    10. 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
  5. 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.

  6. 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 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?

    3. 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. :)
  7. 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."

  8. 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 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 ;)

    2. 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
    3. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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
  11. 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 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.

    2. 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..
    3. 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.

    4. 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

    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 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.
    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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...
    10. 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.
    11. 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.

    12. 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
    13. 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.

    14. 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?

    15. 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.

    16. 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.
    17. 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.

    18. 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?

    19. 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
    20. 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.

    21. 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
    22. 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!
    23. 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?

    24. 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.

    25. 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.
    26. 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?

    27. 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.

    28. 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."

    29. 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
    30. 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.

    31. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.
  16. 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"
  17. 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
  18. 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?
  19. 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.
  20. 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.

  21. 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

  22. 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/)
  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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...

  28. 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.

  29. 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
  30. 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.

  31. 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.

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

    Rape of Nanking

    "Troubling" he says...

  33. 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

  34. 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.

  35. 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.

  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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...
  39. 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.