60th Anniversary of the Atomic Bomb

Word on whether the birthday child will attend? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-07-15 21:51 · Score: 2, Funny

It's going to be the bomb!

Note by simonharvey · 2005-07-15 21:54 · Score: 5, Interesting

For thoes people who are interested in building their own, here is a primer

Good Luck

Re:Note by beacher · 2005-07-15 22:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

I actually found this atom bomb instruction set to be a little more detailed. Any instructions that include
"Please remember that Plutonium, especially pure, refined Plutonium, is somewhat dangerous. Wash your hands with soap and warm water after handling the material, and don't allow your children or pets to play in it or eat it."
or "Now hide the completed device from the neighbors and children. The garage is not recommended because of high humidity and the extreme range of temperatures experienced there. Nuclear devices have been known to spontaneously detonate in these unstable conditions. The hall closet or under the kitchen sink will be perfectly suitable."

definately have the end user in mind. It's these thoughtful tips that make this probably the best DIY WMD kit! /sarcasm>
Re:Note by Elkboy · 2005-07-15 22:56 · Score: 4, Funny

"If it does detonate, remember to duck and cover." "Afterwards, shadows burned into walls will make great conversation pieces at parties. Arming your car and grow a crazy Mad Max-hairdo will help you and your family prosper in the nuclear wasteland."
Re:Note by roman_mir · 2005-07-16 04:03 · Score: 1

straight out of those instructions:
Now get about 100 pounds (220 kg) of trinitrotoluene (TNT). Gelignite is much better, but messier to work with. Your helpful hardware man will be happy to provide you with this item.
- I am not sure I would trust instructions on making a nuclear weapon that are so wrong about imperial to metric unit conversions.

100 pounds is about 45.36kg.
220 kg is about 485 pounds.

possibly it is just the names of the units that are mixed up, after all 220 pounds is about 99.8kg.

Still, how would you know of no other serious mistakes were made there?

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Note by spruce · 2005-07-16 04:32 · Score: 2, Funny

"If you've become a radiation mutant with a deformed hand, remember to close the window. No one wants to see that."

US Deparment of Laughts

End of an era by LividBlivet · 2005-07-15 21:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

In some sort of crude sense, which no vulgarity, no humor, no overstatement can quite extinguish, the physicists have known sin; and this is a knowledge which they cannot lose. JRO

Re:End of an era by pcmanjon · 2005-07-15 22:54 · Score: 1

"I am in no way ashamed of what I had done in any way, shape, matter or form. I did what I was told to do. I did it to the best of my ability."

Frequent user on Slashdot PCMANJON was a professional hitman for 20 years, killing over 1024 people before being sent to prison. The slashdot news crew visited him and got some comments:

"I am in no way ashamed of what I have done in any way shape or form... I mean, I did what I was told to do, right? And I did it to the BEST of my ability."

Somhow I think most people would be thinking about PCMANJON "What a discusting peice of scum" "That guy is really morbid and wrong"

But if it's an ex gov't employee -- kudo's to him, and the government. That's completley different. It is, really!

My opinion stands the guy in the article to me, for what you people would think of me if I happened to be that professional hitman interviewed by slashdot.
Re:End of an era by toddbu · 2005-07-15 23:40 · Score: 1

I see some merit in your argument, but will respectfully disagree. I fall into the camp that says that building a weapon and using it are two different things. Actually, there are three categories - those who build it, those who use it, and those who order its use. Building a weapon is neither right nor wrong, primarily because any technology can be used for good or evil. Advanced nuclear weapon design has had both positive and negative benefits.
Those who use weapons bear responsibility for their misuse when their actions are unlawful. Put a gun in the hands of a soldier and he's ok as long as he's following lawful orders. But even a soldier is expected to disobey an unlawful order when he knows that it is such. Carrying this over to a civilian context, it's ok for a cop to shoot a bad guy during the commission of a crime, but a hit man would not be operating lawfully.

Finally, there are those who order the use of weapons. They have the greatest responsibility to get it right. No matter how you feel about our President (whom I support), I think that he bears a great deal of the responsibility of the use of arms in Iraq and that he should be held accountable for the current war there.

The one reason that I have sympathy for your argument is that I feel that an entire nation is responsible for its actions, so a nuclear physicist is just as responsible for the construction and use of a nuclear weapon as any other citizen of that country. The notion of "innocent civilians" absolves a nation of any responsibility for the actions of its leadership. In a Republic such as ours where we actively elect our leaders, we cannot and should not place the sole blame on others who do our bidding. This means that in every war since the inception of our country, we all bear some responsibility for the deaths of those whom our soldiers have killed. Some of those deaths have been justified while others have not. That doesn't necessarily make us all hit men, it just means that we all need to make very, very sure that pulling the trigger is the right thing to do.

--
If you don't want crime to pay, let the government run it.
Re:End of an era by calidoscope · 2005-07-16 04:05 · Score: 1

The one reason that I have sympathy for your argument is that I feel that an entire nation is responsible for its actions
That would imply that the entire nation of Japan was responsible for the "Rape of Nanking" thus justifying killing of Japanese civillians. More civilians were killed in Nanking than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

--
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
Re:End of an era by Nos. · 2005-07-16 05:16 · Score: 1

I see your point, but I must disagree. Doing something that you believe is wrong, even though you are told to do so buy your (parents|employer|superior officer|other) is as wrong in my mind as doing it of your own free will. In essence, you are doing it of your own free will. You always have a choice, and sometimes dignity and pride should be chosen over a pay check. I risked my job once by not doing what I was told. I didn't lose my job over it, but that action was at least partly responsibly for ending my career with that employer, and I'm proud of it.
Re:End of an era by maxpublic · 2005-07-16 06:33 · Score: 1

That would imply that the entire nation of Japan was responsible for the "Rape of Nanking"

In general I'd say that's true. The government is the responsbility of its citizenry; if the government does something evil then the citizenry are also to blame, at least indirectly. This applies to both people who support that government and people who sit on the sidelines thinking that inaction somehow absolves them from blame (e.g, "a crime of omission is no crime at all").

Max

--
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Re:End of an era by ggvaidya · 2005-07-16 07:05 · Score: 1

the physicists have known sin

Good, so now they're on par with politicians (killed Socrates, numerous wars and killing rival kings), businessman (drove companies to bankruptcy, poverty and death, while making profits), scientists (invented, heck, every weapon ever), architects (constructed unsafe building to save money), and every other profession in the world.

sin != sinner.
Re:End of an era by toddbu · 2005-07-16 08:03 · Score: 1

Oh, I totally agree with your point. I *did* lose a job by telling a boss that I wouldn't do something illegal.
So the scientist in this case didn't think that he was doing anything illegal or immoral. I would agree. He was doing science. Blaming a nuclear scientist for creating a bomb would be like blaming Phil Zimmerman for creating PGP which was used by terrorists in the 9/11 attacks. Phil was under tremendous pressure for a while, both from outside groups as well as his own conscience. But Phil also recognizes that PGP can be used for good, and this letter demonstrates that it can even be used to save lives.

We can't blame technology or those who create it for the bad stuff that goes on in our lives. We have to accept responsibility for own actions. Remember that "guns don't kill people, people kill people".

--
If you don't want crime to pay, let the government run it.
Re:End of an era by toddbu · 2005-07-16 08:29 · Score: 1

I'd never advocate the slaughter of "innocent civilians" as a means of retribution. I'd like to think that we didn't bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima because of Japanese atrocities against the Chinese people. History tells us that we nuked Japan to prevent larger numbers of deaths in a conventional conflict.
I've thought long and hard about whether using nuclear weapons in WWII was the right thing to do. After all, if we had wanted to prove that we had a mighty weapon then why didn't we drop the bombs off the coast of Japan near Tokyo so that Japanese citizens could see the bomb in action without killing anyone? I wish the answer was just that easy, but the more I learn about the second World War, the more I see that there were no easy answers. Risking the use of two nuclear weapons in a limited arsenal could have had the reverse effect of balkanizing the Japanese population and drawing out the war even further. It was really a judgment call. What I can say that we should be proud of is our response to Japan after the war. Rather than following in the same path as most victors ("the spoils go to the victors"), we chose instead to punish the true criminals and help the Japanese build a strong economy. I think that it's a real blessing that instead of living in a shattered world like we did after World War I, we instead live in a world where our former enemies like Japan and Germany are now our allies. A little grace can go a long way in helping nations heal old wounds.

I guess what I'm saying is that we shouldn't have a cavalier attitude when it comes to the use of lethal force. We really need to feel that our backs are against the wall, and then when we use it there should only be enough force to accomplish the task. Of course the terms "backs against the wall" and "enough force to accomplish the task" will be interpreted differently by different people. Collectively we decide when the time has come to use force, and collectively we bear responsibility for its use.

--
If you don't want crime to pay, let the government run it.
Re:End of an era by Thomas+Shaddack · 2005-07-16 09:39 · Score: 1

The dice were thrown in December 1938 by Otto Hahn. When the fission was discovered, together with its energy bilance, there was no way back - the only things that could've been different were names and dates. Weaponizing of fission was impossible to be prevented - perhaps delayed by few years. If it won't be Oppenheimer, it'd be Kurchatov, or somebody else.
And then once one has it, everybody must have it.
Re:End of an era by LividBlivet · 2005-07-16 10:30 · Score: 1

actually it's the bullets that kill people.
Re:End of an era by pcmanjon · 2005-07-16 19:15 · Score: 1

"So the scientist in this case didn't think that he was doing anything illegal or immoral. I would agree. He was doing science. Blaming a nuclear scientist for creating a bomb would be like blaming Phil Zimmerman for creating PGP which was used by terrorists in the 9/11 attacks. Phil was under tremendous pressure for a while, both from outside groups as well as his own conscience. But Phil also recognizes that PGP can be used for good, and this letter [philzimmermann.com] demonstrates that it can even be used to save lives."

I still think it's different. If you're building an atomic bomb, you're not building it to demolition buildings or move tree stumps. You're doing it as a weapon of mass destruction.

Phil made PGP for uses like LexisNexus SHOULD have used. He didn't intend it to be used for child porno communication or other things.

If the scientists who made the bomb thought "This will change the world, someone will never find a treestump they can't uproot again" then they were truely near sighted.

A A-BOMB has:
* A wide explosion radius
* Large amounts of the entire radioactive spectrum are emitted
* Widespread destruction ensues

You cant use it to:
* Move a treestump in your front yard
* Clear out a town so you can rebuild it (why bother, the after radation will kill you)
* Mow the lawn when it grows too high

What in the world could they have used it for good? No matter where you drop the bomb you'll kill thousands of people, a huge radius, and make an area unsuitable to live for a very long time.

What good could come out of a weapon like this?
Re:End of an era by toddbu · 2005-07-17 10:52 · Score: 1
I was wondering how I was going to get rid of those old tree stumps :-) Interestingly enough, Operation Plowshare did research into using A-bombs to dig ditches. They even did a proof-of-concept blast.
Well, there are tons a great things that came out of the program to create nuclear weapons:
- Nuclear power - The nuclear power industry has benefited greatly from the development of nuclear weapons. Much of the research was directly applicable, because keeping N-plants from exploding is a key start to building safe and affordable power.
- Conventional weapons systems - Nuclear powered aircraft carriers and subs grew from bomb research. The first polar crossing under the ice was accomplished by the nuclear powered sub Nautilus.
- Nuclear pulse propulsion - Although never built, there are designs for spacecraft driven by atomic bombs capable of lifting upwards of 8 million tons (or about 2,300 fully loaded, fully fueled Space Shuttles.) This isn't sci-fi, but real systems that could not receive political approval. Imaging getting material into orbit at 32 cents per pound. (Shipping costs to orbit for the entire ISS would be about $320,000, or the cost of a moderate one-family home.) My hope is that some day we lose our fear of nuclear power and build devices like this.
- Deep space research - Deep space would be unreachable without RTGs. (Ok, you could get there, but couldn't do anything useful.) Like the other forms of nuclear power, research include nuclear weapons helped initiate peaceful uses of nuclear energy like RTGs.
- Numerous lives saved - Estimates are that 1,000,000 or more men and women would have been killed in a Japanese invasion. Tragically, somewhere around 250,000 people died directly and indirectly in the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The net result, however, was around 3/4 million people who didn't die if conventional methods had been pursued to end the war. Personally, I would have loved to have seen a peaceful, negotiated end to the War in the Pacific, but the Japanese military would never have let that happen.
- World stability - I saved this one for last because it's probably the most controversial, but I'd argue that since the development of the atomic bomb, the world has been a more stable place. At age 42, I clearly remember the concerns of the 60's, 70's, and much of the 80's when we were worried about a Soviet nuclear attack. (I didn't include the 50's in my list above because I wasn't alive then.) Regardless of the fact that we worried a lot about a nuclear exchange, the real fact of the matter is that nuclear war never came about. This wasn't accidental, but rather because world leaders (or in some cases, those around them) realized that a widescale nuclear exchange would have been disastrous not only for the defender but also the offender.
  Not only did nuclear weapons keep a cap on nuclear warfare, but on conventional warfare as well. The Soviet Union was on a mission to spread Communism throughout the world, and with a foothold in Eastern Europe it wouldn't have taken much to use those ambitions to move westward throughout post-War Western Europe. Without the threat of another widescale world war (often referred to as "World War III"), the Soviets may have been tempted to use their large conventional forces to completely change the political landscape throughout the European continent.
I hope that I've answered your question on how nuclear weapons research can be used for good. Whether or not the scientists were thinking about this when they built their weapons doesn't really matter. If it did, then everyone who ever created a technology that is used in any way for an evil purpose must be held directly accountable for its use.
--
If you don't want crime to pay, let the government run it.

As it hasn't been said yet... by RRRussian · 2005-07-15 21:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

WTF!!!

Lehr said it is unfortunate the bombs were used for war.

Sooo, what were you expecting, thermonuclear noisemakers?

Seriously, whenever someone tries to justify something truely horrific, it always comes out as the most asinine comment one could make, under those circumstances.

Much like this one...

Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by Anonymous Coward · 2005-07-15 21:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

They could have put all the politicians and lawyers in one place and used it there.
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by Ziviyr · 2005-07-15 22:00 · Score: 1

Yeah, its a bit over the top for instant popcorn purposes...

--

Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by kaosrain · 2005-07-15 22:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

Most of the people on that team did not want the bomb actually used before Japan was given a chance to see the capability that it gave the United States. The majority believed that this would be the case--the mere display of such power would get Japan to surrender, not getting a firsthand perspective by being hit twice.
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by Mahou · 2005-07-15 22:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

unfortunate and unexpected are two totally different things

--
if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
...te?
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by dafoomie · 2005-07-15 22:37 · Score: 1

Sooo, what were you expecting, thermonuclear noisemakers?

How about as a deterrent to war, like they've been since?
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by quarkscat · 2005-07-15 22:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Sooo, what were you expecting, thermonuclear noisemakers?"

Actually, thermonuclear weapons have been considered for use in civil engineering construction (like digging canals, mining, and underground cisterns) to aerospace (like spacecraft propulsion). Of course, that was back in days while the USA was still conducting above ground nuclear tests -- when nuclear radiation was compared to "sunshine units". Uncle Sam had an impressive "spin machine" back then.
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by BrynM · 2005-07-15 22:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sooo, what were you expecting, thermonuclear noisemakers?
The big debate is example. Imagine if the US had blown up a small ghost town or uninhabited island - maybe even right next to Japan and said "surrender now or this will happen to you." There's a peaeful means to every quetion. Flame me for that if you want, but it's a simple truth.

--
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by Punboy · 2005-07-15 23:28 · Score: 1

However, doing that would have allowed the Japanese time to prepare to repel the airplanes that dropped the bomb. You have to remember, this is prior to any ICBM's, and the bomb HAD to be dropped directly onto its target by an airplane.

--
If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by Zarhan · 2005-07-15 23:42 · Score: 4, Informative

Nope. B-29 was the first bomber that could fly really high (indeed, USAF discovered jet stream when they first flew at those heights), and japanese had no AA equipment that could deal with them at 30000+ feet.

Altough, actually most of the air raids with B-29's were done at low altitudes - japanese had 88 mm AA cannons, so they could not turn fast enough for low-altitude bombing. This saved fuel and allowed for higher payloads (and also prevented some engine troubles - flying at high altitudes caused overheating problems).

So yeah, that demo could have been done without any problems for subsequent real droppings.
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by ch-chuck · 2005-07-15 23:49 · Score: 1

I know it's very hard to understand the situation from this distance in time, but the 'Japs' were fighting beyond reason - in all the land battles, Okinaha, etc, even when demonstrably beaten they would fight on to the bitter end of the last man. This was the time of the kamakazi suicide pilots, etc. It's not unreasonable to expect a demonstration would be a waste of time and effort. Heck, even after the bomb, many of the Bushido warrior Japanese still didn't want to capitulate, it's just not part of thier code. But saner heads prevailed and realized that there wouldn't be a Japan if they didn't surrender.

--
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by rsynnott · 2005-07-16 00:18 · Score: 1

The correct way to justify nukes is of course that they prevent war. Without nuclear weapons, there'd likely have been a WW2-style land war between the Soviet Union and America, and probably also between the Soviet Union and China. The fear of those bombs saved a lot of lives.

--
Me (Blog)
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by zenyu · 2005-07-16 00:24 · Score: 1

Imagine if the US had blown up a small ghost town or uninhabited island - maybe even right next to Japan and said "surrender now or this will happen to you."

This would have almost certainly avoided the cold war and saved millions more lives than the A-Bomb purportedly saved in WWII.

The cold war might have still happened just because we probably still wouldn't have shared the nuclear info after the USSR saved our asses in WWII. Which was stupid then as now, only lies and trivia can be hidden, physical truths like how to build a nuke are always discovered. Especially after you advertise their existance with the murder of tens of thousands of civilians.

I don't think I would agree with you that the non-violent means is always better, but do I wish our rulers at least considered the long term damage to America when they murder small children or commit other war crimes. But don't put too much blame on the A-Bomb, we were firebombing Tokyo before we had the A-Bomb.
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by Phil06 · 2005-07-16 00:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

Politicians are compromisers. To get anything done in a democracy requires compromise. If you think compromise is a weakness, go try authoritarianism.
If everyone just agreed, we wouldn't need lawyers, or politicians.

--
"...and yet, I blame society" Duke - Repo Man
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by gregh76 · 2005-07-16 00:49 · Score: 1

That's absolutely right. Some considered assasinating the Emperor, which only would've made every last man, woman and child fight to the death under any and all circumstances. Hell, it took two of these bombs to convince the powers that be to cease. The Emperor got on the radio (hardly anyone ever heard him speak before) and told the Japanese people that it would not be in their best to continue the War. In fact, many of them thought they won the War! The claims that they were just about to surrender are completely and entirely false.
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by TheoMurpse · 2005-07-16 01:01 · Score: 2, Funny

I agree with you. Lately, it seems they have had to compromise their morals:

Do I stay honorable and defend the public, or do I get insanely wealthy by selling out to the corporations? Well, I think I'll sell out!

See? There's compromise right there!
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by TheoMurpse · 2005-07-16 01:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

What planet do you live on? They did see the effects once and still didn't surrender. That's the US had to use a second bomb!
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by TopShelf · 2005-07-16 01:17 · Score: 1

I don't think I would agree with you that the non-violent means is always better, but do I wish our rulers at least considered the long term damage to America when they...

You don't think they "at least considered" those factors? That's one of the saddest things I've ever read here, and that's saying something.

--
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by Fred_A · 2005-07-16 02:04 · Score: 1

For popcorn, you use high altitude lasers of course !
(older readers will remember the reference)

--

May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by justins · 2005-07-16 02:17 · Score: 1

The big debate is example. Imagine if the US had blown up a small ghost town or uninhabited island - maybe even right next to Japan and said "surrender now or this will happen to you."

Shit. Imagine if the US had blown up Hiroshima, said "surrender now or this will happen to another city," and actually gave the Japanese time to surrender.

The state Japan was in, with half-mad military leadership and having already been bombed back to the stone age by our conventional bombing, three days simply wasn't enough time for them to get their shit together and say "we surrender." It has always seemed to me the Nagasaki bombing was immoral, but the Hiroshima bombing was at least defensible.

--
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by FhnuZoag · 2005-07-16 02:24 · Score: 1

See Operation Plowshare. These aren't just idle words. For a while, people really believed that nuclear technology was going to change the world for the good. In part, it was denial. In part it was idealism. In part, it was seeking a sort of redemption for the roles they each had. (The life of Edward Teller is a good example.
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by KDR_11k · 2005-07-16 02:39 · Score: 1

He was just trying to get those little bubbles into the beer!

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by manwal · 2005-07-16 02:39 · Score: 1

Actually, the Japanese civilian leaders wanted to surrender even before the bombings, but without the military agreeing on anything else than to fight, they didn't stand a chance to negotiate anything even though some tried. That's until the Hiroshima bombing, when they actually started to get some real attention. IMHO, the US could've waited at least a few more days to see how everything evolved politically in Japan, before bombing Nagasaki.

Besides that, why demonstrate the power of the bomb on populated and mostly civilian targets?
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by TheoMurpse · 2005-07-16 02:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

Don't you mean the Mitsubishi Shipyards at Hiroshima? I'll give you Nagasaki, as the original target was Kokura, but there was cloud cover, so the target was changed. Still, Nagasaki had huge shipyards, and, thus, a great port that could be used for military purposes.
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by PakProtector · 2005-07-16 02:49 · Score: 1

The US could have waited for another year, and Japan still would not have surrendered. Surrender was unthinkable. It took the second atomic bomb, dropped on Nagasaki, to change the minds of the Japanese Leadership, and even then the military staged a coup.

In the end, the bombings save more lives than they cost. I claim this due to the estimates for the number of US Service Personnel who would have been casualties, along with the fact that the Japanese had, virtually to the man, fought to the death and refused surrender. When you consider the fact that women and children, and pretty much anyone else who was able to bear any other kind of make-shift weapon, was being conscripted and trained to put up resistance to the planned invasion of the Home Island, you're looking at not only the deaths of a great deal of Soldiers, US and Japanese, but of a great deal of the Japanese Civilian Population itself.

--
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by roror · 2005-07-16 02:54 · Score: 1

He did not say he was surprised, he said it was *unfortunate* that it was used. Makes sense to me.
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by PakProtector · 2005-07-16 03:00 · Score: 2, Informative

Also, as I forgot to add before I hit the submit button, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not 'mostly' civilian targets. They would be like saying Colorado Springs is a Civilian Target when it sits practically ontop of NORAD.

"At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of considerable military significance. It contained the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops." That's straight from the wikipedia page Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a page often cited by persons arguing against the dropping of the bombs.

And Nagasaki itself was a valuable military target, quoting again the same wikipage: "The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials."

The fact was that a good deal of people were evacuated from the city before the atomic bombing due to a previous bombing on the First of August of more conventional explosive ordinance.

--
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by timeOday · 2005-07-16 03:32 · Score: 1

Not really. Good or bad "fortune" implies chance. Nobody considers it fortunate that the sun rose this morning.
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by Wyatt+Earp · 2005-07-16 03:36 · Score: 1

No, most of the people on the team wanted it used on the Germans but that theatre quit before the bomb was finished.

There was alot of talk on using it for a demonstration, but is was rejected because popping it at sea or in the air wouldn't illustrate it's power effectivly and if it failed to go off or failed to go off properly wouldn't do any good towards ending the war.
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by Wyatt+Earp · 2005-07-16 03:42 · Score: 1

No, actually, the civilian leaders didn't want to surrender. Some of them, a handful actually, wanted to but don't make it sound like they all did.

At the end, Prince Konoe thought the Soviets would kick them out of China and be on the side of the US and UK While Hirohito thought the Soviets would go head to head with the West and thus thought Japan was in a position of power.

And another thing to remember is that in 1944-45 the Japanese were actually getting better at killing Americans on Pacific Islands and so they didn't think they were losing the war. They thought that as soon as the Americans landed on the Japanese Home Islands that they could attrite the American Forces to the point they'd negoitate with Imperial Japan.
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by grassy_knoll · 2005-07-16 05:03 · Score: 1

Imagine if the US had blown up a small ghost town or uninhabited island - maybe even right next to Japan and said "surrender now or this will happen to you."

Since the "example" we used was Hiroshima and they still didn't surrender I don't think the outcome would have been any different.

And as for:
There's a peaeful means to every quetion. Flame me for that if you want, but it's a simple truth.

That only seems to be true if you're dealing with resonable people, perhaps not even then. I'm thinking of 'Hotel Rwanda'.. the hotel owner tells a hutu soldier he can't kill all the tutsti, the soldier responds with "why not?" . Point of fact, the hutu did a fair job of wiping out the tutsi. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwanda_genocide for more.

Sometimes conflict is the only logical way to maintain existance. Perhaps you consider letting yourself be killed 'peaceful', but that strikes me more as suicide.

--
A Human Right
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by stonedonkey · 2005-07-16 06:00 · Score: 2, Informative

I like this wiki better. It talks about how Japan was already devastated by firebombing, a fact which Robert S. McNamara finally admits in the recent Fog of War documentary.

"The first firebombing raid was on Kobe on February 3, 1945, and following its relative success the USAAF continued the tactic. Much of the armor and defensive weaponry of the bombers was also removed to allow increased bomb loads; Japanese air defense in terms of night-fighters and anti-aircraft guns was so feeble it was hardly a risk. The first such raid on Tokyo was on the night of February 23-24 when 174 B-29s destroyed around one square mile (3 km) of the city. Following on that success 334 B-29s raided on the night of March 9-10, dropping around 1,700 tons of bombs. Around 16 square miles (41 km) of the city was destroyed and over 100,000 people are estimated to have died in the fire storm. The destruction and damage was at its worst in the city sections east of the Imperial Palace. It was the most destructive conventional raid of the war against Japan. In the following two weeks there were almost 1,600 further sorties against the four cities, destroying 31 square miles (80 km) in total at a cost of only 22 aircraft. There was a third raid on Tokyo on May 26."

There was plenty enough conventional massacre by the time Fat Man and Little Boy rolled around, my friend. Japan wasn't a virgin isle of paradise when the two nukes dropped. It was a war-torn, bombed out nation. Fog of War documents it to numbing effect.

There's a lot of history that America doesn't teach its children.
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by CargoCultCoder · 2005-07-16 06:12 · Score: 1

Imagine if the US had blown up a small ghost town or uninhabited island - maybe even right next to Japan and said "surrender now or this will happen to you."

Please tell us why you think that would have been more effective than what happened historically. Japan didn't surrender after the first bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. A coup attempt nearly derailed their surrender efforts after Nagasaki was hit. Why on earth do you think they would have surrendered more readily had The Bomb been dropped on a bunch of fish instead? That makes no sense.
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by arbitraryaardvark · 2005-07-16 06:55 · Score: 1

Nagasaki was a center for Japanese christians, who were a persecuted minority during the war. They hoped the americans would come and rescue them.

New Mexico quickly surrendered after the first bomb was dropped, but the bombing of Nevada continued for another generation. John Wayne is one of many americans who was killed by the bombs.

*insighfully informative flamebait*
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by PakProtector · 2005-07-16 07:26 · Score: 1

Oi! John Wayne's not dead - he's frozen. And as soon as we find the Cure for Cancer we're gonna thaw out the duke and he's gonna be pretty pissed off. You know why?
Have you ever taken a cold shower?
Well multiple that by 15-million times, that's how pissed off the Duke's gonna be.

I'm gonna get the Duke and John Cassavetes...

Parent Poster: Hey.

and Lee Marvin

Parent Poster: Hey.

and Sam Pekinpah

Parent Poster: Hey!

And a case of Whiskey and drive down to Texas...

Parent Poster: Hey, you know you really are an asshole?

Why don't you just shut-up and sing the song pal!

--
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by geekee · 2005-07-16 12:21 · Score: 1

"Do I stay honorable and defend the public, or do I get insanely wealthy by selling out to the corporations? Well, I think I'll sell out!"

The Soviet Union sold out corporations to defend the public. Look how that turned out. Liberals in the US routinely sell out corporations for labor union cash. Trial lawyers get insanely wealthy extracting money from doctors over frivolous lawsuits. It cuts both ways.

--
Vote for Pedro
Re:As it hasn't been said yet... by DerekLyons · 2005-07-16 18:13 · Score: 1

Sooo, what were you expecting, thermonuclear noisemakers?
The big debate is example. Imagine if the US had blown up a small ghost town or uninhabited island - maybe even right next to Japan and said "surrender now or this will happen to you." There's a peaeful means to every quetion. Flame me for that if you want, but it's a simple truth.

Sadly, it's not a simple truth - but self delusion. Japan (prior to the bombs being dropped) had already had numerous cities erased from the face of the Earth - with no apparent change in their attitudes. They had one bomb dropped on them - with no apparent change in their attitudes. They had a second bomb dropped on them - with no apparent change in their attitudes.
Finally, the Russians invaded, and they couldn't surrender to the US fast enough.

Nothing in the historical record indicates any reason to believe they would have given up after a demonstration.

His moral? by scarlac · 2005-07-15 21:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's strange to see how he's arguing that he doesn't feel ashamed (a moral feeling) and he argues that he was instructed to do so, so that makes it morally legitimate? He must be a bureaucrat.

Re:His moral? by sznupi · 2005-07-15 22:02 · Score: 1

Philip ZImbardo would say something about it...

Basically, if you feel instructed, have support, etc. of authority, you'll do much "worse" things that by yourself.

--
One that hath name thou can not otter
Re:His moral? by sznupi · 2005-07-15 22:07 · Score: 1

And experiment of Milgram would also apply (although, counter-intuitevelly, not as much)

--
One that hath name thou can not otter
Re:His moral? by October_30th · 2005-07-15 22:23 · Score: 1

I find it strange that some people feel a scientist should feel ashamed about taking part in the Manhattan Project. Understanding and harnessing the power of the atom is one of the great achievements of the human kind. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was certainly a tragedy in human terms, but on the other hand the application of nuclear power in civilian power production and the fundamental knowledge of nature balance the books to some extent.
But most important of all, I also feel that the first use of nuclear weapons and subsequent development of even more horrific weapons signaled the coming of age for the human race: for the first time in the history we, as a species, are able to effect self-annihilation. As someone who grew up expecting to die in a nuclear holocaust before I turn 18, I have begun to appreciate it how the insanity of an all-out nuclear war and the impossibility of winning it has actually kept major world powers from (directly) waging war against each other and setting off another world war.

--
The owls are not what they seem
Re:His moral? by William+Robinson · 2005-07-15 23:09 · Score: 1

Yeah, you are right. At this age, he should be having some sympathy for innocent children.
But let's face it.

The nuclear weapons have played their role of bringing the mankind face to face with the reality of war. If the weapons have caused deaths of innocent people, they have played as role of deterrent for rest of the history. In a way, he has played his role of enlightening the bad effects of war to rest of us.

The awareness is the key. Saying "No" to war is the key. Respecting other civilizations is the key. Lets hope for it.

--
hilarious
Re:His moral? by cinnamon+colbert · 2005-07-16 01:33 · Score: 1

most people have great powers of self justification; it is a rare person indeed who can admit, without threat of jail, that they did wrong
Re:His moral? by ScentCone · 2005-07-16 01:38 · Score: 1

The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was certainly a tragedy in human terms

Though nothing like the tragedy "in human terms" that would have happened if we had not done it. The Japanese had already shown a willingness to tolerate unspeakable destruction (firebombing in their large cities) and loss of life, even down the man on large islands. A boots-on-the-ground invasion of the Japanese mainland would have been far, far deadlier for everyone involved. The tragedy is that the Japanese started the war in the first place. That is the sole tragedy to consider. Everything else is consequence, and such consequences as we reduced by showing them, dramatically, how they would lose if they didn't give it all up.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:His moral? by aminorex · 2005-07-16 14:23 · Score: 1

Um, yeah. If by doing wrong you mean doing something that is like to land you in jail.

There's no law against insipid tautology where you come from?

--
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Re:His moral? by aminorex · 2005-07-16 14:25 · Score: 1

Tell me why we bothered to occupy the big islands? Japan already lost. It was a waste of time, money, and a whole hell of a lot of lives.

--
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-

60? by JeiFuRi · 2005-07-15 21:57 · Score: 1

Geez such a random number, why not just celebrate it every year *rolls eyes*. Its JUST the atomic bomb, 10 fine, 50 fine, 100 ok - but not 60 :P

Re:60? by joke_dst · 2005-07-15 22:19 · Score: 5, Funny

Hey! Don't look down on 60 just because of your "hey, I've got ten fingers! let's use a decimal system"-thinking!
60 happens to be the base of the Babylonian number system and the second Unitary perfect number. You insensitive clod.
Re:60? by SpinJaunt · 2005-07-16 07:51 · Score: 1

I prefer the number Eight :)

--
/. is good for you.
Re:60? by MavEtJu · 2005-07-16 13:44 · Score: 1

such a random number

Just because it doesn't perfectly fit on your fingers, doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. For example, 60 years plus the average age of the person who worked there is far above the average age of a person, making it most likely the last one where they are alive.

--
bash$ :(){ :|:&};:

Whenever I play a game of Civilization by John+Seminal · 2005-07-15 21:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

Whenever any civilization completes the Manhatten project, the game pretty much sucks. Everyone wants to nuke everyone else. It becomes hard to build a nation when every city must hault production on whatever it was doing to build a Star Wars Defense system.

I wonder what will happen in the next 50 years, as most countries should have nukes by then. It will not matter how wealthy a country is, their diplomats will smile and say "Defended by Nuclear Weapons". We are already there with North Korea, all that is missing for them is long range missles to deliver those Nukes to far away places.

Imagine smaller nations nuking each other. Does anyone think that Iran and Iraq would not have nuked each other in the 1980's when they had a decade long war? Or what about Israel, how many different nations want to nuke them?? And how would foriegn policy of Israel be different if the palestinians had Nukes? Would the Israeli government treat them any better?

And I can see former soviet union states getting Nukes. It could get to be messy. What country keeps setting off bombs in Moscow? Uzbekestan or is it Checkizstan. The Chenyans I think. I am too lazy to look it up at the moment, but I believe they are the ones who took a theater filled with people hostage and then killed a bunch of them, and the same people who took a school of 1000+ hostage and killed half the elementary school kids. They held a bunch of 6 to 11 year olds for 4 or 5 days without water or food. If someone can torture another human like that, setting off a nuke probably would make them loose sleep.

Will there be no wars in the future if everyone has nukes, because everyone will be scared of starting a major conflict? Or will it be like the game Civilization where as soon as everyone has nukes, they use them?? At least our leaders have deep bunkers. In 20 years when the radiation clears, they can come out of the bunkers and start the game all over.

--

Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by dabigpaybackski · 2005-07-15 22:03 · Score: 1

At least our leaders have deep bunkers. In 20 years when the radiation clears, they can come out of the bunkers and start the game all over.
One can hide from one's war, but there's no hiding from one's Hereafter.

--
"OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by space_dude_27 · 2005-07-15 22:32 · Score: 1

What country keeps setting off bombs in Moscow? Uzbekestan or is it Checkizstan. The Chenyans I think.

Perhaps you're thinking of Chechnya? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya)
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by Scarblac · 2005-07-15 22:33 · Score: 1

You're absolutely right, all warring or oppressive nations on this planet are Muslim, barring, say, China, North Korea, the US, the UK, Russia, Cuba, India, much of ex-Yugoslavia, Israel, Zimbabwe, ...

--
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by Ugly+American · 2005-07-15 22:34 · Score: 1

I can't see nuclear weapons becoming ubiquitous; they're expensive to build and maintain, technically challenging to produce, and the facilities required to produce them are difficult to hide. I'd be more concerned about wack jobs playing around with nerve gas or deadly diseases.

--
For sale: one sig space, gently used. Inquire for details.
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by Ronald+Dumsfeld · 2005-07-15 22:36 · Score: 1

"Defended by Nuclear Weapons"
Which are absolutely bloody useless against terrorists.

Anyway, who is to blame nasty places like North Korea being desperate to get nukes? As far as they are concerned they need your proposed sign on the border to keep the US out.

Anyway, I only posted so someone can comment on my .sig.

--
Where's the Kaboom?
There's supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom.
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by SlightOverdose · 2005-07-15 22:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

"What country keeps setting off bombs in Moscow? Uzbekestan or is it Checkizstan. The Chenyans I think. I am too lazy to look it up at the moment, but I believe they are the ones who took a theater filled with people hostage and then killed a bunch of them"

Chechnya
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by ezzzD55J · 2005-07-15 22:42 · Score: 1

Which are absolutely bloody useless against terrorists.
Who's talking about terrorists?

(waiting cowboy)
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by Black+Tezcatlipoca · 2005-07-15 23:19 · Score: 1

Dont forget New Zealand. They're the most oppressive of the lot.
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by frostman · 2005-07-15 23:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

What country keeps setting off bombs in Moscow? Uzbekestan or is it Checkizstan. The Chenyans I think.

You have a point, but the above quote says a lot too. Even for someone who presumably has some interest in history and international politics (you are playing Civilization), these conflicts are just vague blips on your radar.

The Chechens in Chechnya don't have it easy, and the kind of sick extremist terrorism that gave us the school bombing in Russia is the only thing you (sort of) remember.

This is unfortunately a pretty typical attitude when the conflict is far away. Is it any wonder everyone wants The Bomb?

By the way, until Prague is relocated far to the east, you can get an overview at WikiPedia.

--
This Like That - fun with words!
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by MvD_Moscow · 2005-07-16 00:18 · Score: 2, Informative

Typical American view on 'conflicts that don't involve me'. While the terrorist acts committed by the Chechen rebels are certainly monstrous, you must consider that the Russian forces in Chechnya a re no better. Of course, systematic abuse by Russian forces doesn't get on to prime time TV, but that doesn't make it any less horrific. The real terrorists are the Russian forces and Russian society that is unable and/or unwilling to oppose the government and defy their bullshit propaganda.
http://www.fidh.org/europ/rapport/2002/che328a.pdf - a nice overview of Russian crimes in Chechnya.

P.S. Before posting, try understanding who/what you are talking about. Confusing Uzbekistan and Chechnya (and making up 'Checkizstan') is pathetic.
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by MvD_Moscow · 2005-07-16 00:27 · Score: 1

I don't support the view that all Muslim's are evil, but you got to admit that they are doing no where near enough to uphold their image in the west. How come major muslim clerics don't condemn terrorist attacks (liberals worldwide criticize dubya, neo-cons and other shitheads like Putin).
Most of the nations mentioned in your post are involved in conflicts due to muslim extremism. So it don't really hold up.

Russia - Chechnya
India - Pakistan + Pak terror groups
Ex-Yugoslavia - muslims involved again
Israel - why should Israel cooperate with Palestine if they keep bombing their citizens?

Your argument against oppression doesn't hold as well. While USA, Russia and NKorea are pretty messed up places they don't compare to places like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Again I am not against Islam as such, I am just pointing out that as such moderate muslims aren't doing shit to legitimiza themsleves as non-terrorist in front of the west (remember the dancing kids in Palestine after 9/11?).
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by ThreeE · 2005-07-16 01:20 · Score: 1

Like the average Checkizstani knows the difference between West Virginia and Kentucky...
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by roror · 2005-07-16 03:04 · Score: 1

that is why building a country takes more intelligence than playing civilization.
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by Anonymous Coward · 2005-07-16 03:54 · Score: 1, Insightful

I am too lazy to look it up at the moment

No offense, but that one line just about sums up your entire post.

Are you really trying to do real-world political analysis based off your experiences in a computer game? Sheesh.
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by demachina · 2005-07-16 04:21 · Score: 1

"The Chenyans I think. I am too lazy to look it up at the moment, but I believe they are the ones who took a theater filled with people hostage and then killed a bunch of them..."

Others have hit on most of the flaws in your post, you really should learn to use Google it would make your posts sound a little more informed.

Chechnyans did sieze control of a theater, they killed 2 hostages, and wounded 2 others. But the Russian police killed more than 100 of the hostages when they pumped a gas containing a potent narcotic or nerve agent, possibly supplied by the U.S, in to the theatre to disable the hostage takers. Unfortunately they overdosed many of the hostages. It wouldn't have been so bad but they made bad plans, or no plan at all, to quickly get the hostages out of the gas, to treat them on scene or get them to hospitals. Slow treatment multiplied the death toll.

What Chechan terrorist do is bad, but what the Russians have done to Chechnya is far worse. They've pretty much bombed the entire country in to the stone age, killed an untolled number of civilians and liberally tortured many more. Russian= has been trying to suppress a nationalist and Islamic revolt there for year and they have used the most same brutal tactics they used in Afghanistan(their war in Afghanistan also led to the creation of Al Qaeda which in those days was funded and armed by the CIA because back then they were killing Russians. The Russians failed in Afghanistan and they will probably fail in Chechnya. As in Afghanistan and Iraq, an infidel nation savaging a Muslim population is a very effective recruiting poster for Al Qaeda, Islamic extremists, suicide bombers and terrorists. These wars create Muslim extremism they don't stop it.

--
@de_machina
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by demachina · 2005-07-16 04:27 · Score: 1

Don't mind Threeep, he is also your average, arrogant, stuck on himself and his country, American. Other great comments he's made this weak:

- Suggested Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Vietnam are better places thanks to the U.S. (apparently Threeep considers it a form of urban renewal to bomb places to the ground, kill all the women and children so they can start fresh)

- Referred to India or was it Pakistan as "Smellistan"

- Suggested Russian prostitutes need to work harder and turn more tricks to fund the Russian Space Agency.

People like Threeep and the parent in this thread give American's a bad name, a really bad name.

--
@de_machina
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by ThreeE · 2005-07-16 04:56 · Score: 1

I'm being stalked on Slashdot! lol.
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by crack_vial · 2005-07-16 05:06 · Score: 1

excellent post.
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by crack_vial · 2005-07-16 05:10 · Score: 1

meaning parent post = John Seminal (698722)
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by zx75 · 2005-07-16 05:10 · Score: 1

Its Chechnya, a place and a conflict that has gone on far too long and people with blood on their hands on both sides.

--
This is not a sig.
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by crack_vial · 2005-07-16 05:16 · Score: 1

It's a good reply for the fact that John Seminal (698722)is putting in terms that a dolt (like me) can relate to. Not everyone cares about Chechnya. Some care about cutting the grass, feeding the kids, keeping a job.
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by Mechcozmo · 2005-07-16 06:16 · Score: 1

Or what about Israel, how many different nations want to nuke them?? And how would foriegn policy of Israel be different if the palestinians had Nukes? Would the Israeli government treat them any better?

Israel is surrounded by a number of countries less than friendly. Syria for example. Iran. Lebanon. Israel has been attacked by chemical weapons before by the countries above but death and injury was limited due to the fact that every single person had a gas mask, knew how to use it, as well as a properly sealed room in their house. Israel has actually developed anti-SSBN devices that work, because there is too much to loose.

And Israel does quite a bit to help Palestinians. Yasser Arafat was nice enough to keep refugees in camps, turning their life into hell, and then turning them into members of the intifada. Nice guy, really. A number of Palestinians are quite happy with Israel. However the ones on the news are the ones you hear about. http://www.honestreporting.com/ is a good link to see for more information on my points.
A good first article to check out should be this one.
Plus their server has never been Slashdotted :-p
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by demachina · 2005-07-16 14:55 · Score: 1

In this instance you are being stalked by your own off the wall posts. I could see how that would bug you, heh.

One of you more offense ones happens to be on topic here since its about Hiroshima and you seem to think nuking Hiroshima was a gift from the U.S. to the people who lived there.

--
@de_machina
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by ThreeE · 2005-07-16 16:19 · Score: 1

I do. It was either that or fire-bombing. And I think that Japan (and certainly the world) is better off now than it would be under its "Emperor-god." But hey -- your milage may vary.
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by demachina · 2005-07-16 16:49 · Score: 1

Well that is a sick calculus, to debate whether it was better to kill women and children with burns or suffocation from a fire storm or slow death by radiation poisoning or burns from a nuke. Yes the ones that were close enough to be vaporized by the nuke could be considered lucky in the minds of a sick f**k like yourself. You are a poster child for how sick some Americans have become after 50 years of empire and militarism, kind of like the Japanese were in the first half of the 20th centurt.

The key point is the U.S. could have easily forced Japan into capitulation by nuking military targets, or at least stopping after Hiroshima. Nuking Nagasaki was purely blood thirsty "terrorism", it was designed to terrorize the Japanese and the Russians. Its history but its real hard for the U.S. to be all holier than though about "terrorist" killing civians when American hands are as bloody as just about anyone.

Bottomline not many of the women and children of Hiroshima had a chance to experience your better life after the Emporer, they are dead.

--
@de_machina
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by ThreeE · 2005-07-16 16:53 · Score: 1

Both bombs were dropped on military targets: centers of industrial production. And the Japanese didn't surrender after the first bomb because they thought we only had one. The emperor even tried to continue to fight after the second one but quickly found out that his people did have a limit.

You are really engaging in some revisionist history with your viewpoint.
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by demachina · 2005-07-16 17:35 · Score: 1

Weak attempt to rationalize Threeep. Classic American targeting, well there was a military target in there, pay no attention to the hundreds of thousands of women and children, homes and schools in the bomb sight.

I think I was proposing a military target that wasn't in the middle of a hundred thousand civilians, and if two military targets didn't work, do 3 or 4, they would have gotten the hint and American hands would be slightly less historicly bloody. As obsessed as Americans are over Pearl Harbor and Bataan, at least those were military targets.

"You are really engaging in some revisionist history with your viewpoint."

This statement makes absolutely no sense applying it to what I just said, though I guess you thought using the the term "revisionist" made you sound intelligent.

--
@de_machina
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by 0111+1110 · 2005-07-16 17:43 · Score: 1

The key point is the U.S. could have easily forced Japan into capitulation by nuking military targets, or at least stopping after Hiroshima.

So you think dropping the nuke on Hiroshima was a good idea then? As far as 'easily' goes, I don't know what history books you have been reading but I guarantee you they are heavily biased. They all are. You were not there. You cannot get inside the heads of the decision makers at the time. So you cannot know their motives. Period. They were military decisions. And Japan was no ordinary foe. They were not the kind of folks to surrender easily.

I personally believe that dropping the bombs was a mistake. But I wasn't alive then, and I am guessing that you weren't either. All we can go by are biased second hand accounts of biased second hand accounts of biased second hand accounts. Finding the real story that way is not easy. So maybe you should check that certainty of yours at the door.

The only thing I am certain of about that war is that Adolf Hitler and those willing to directly follow his orders were some of the most evil (not in a religious sense) human beings ever to be born on this planet. Unfortunately it is all too easy to justify almost any number of civilian deaths when fighting against such people. A tendency that may have carried over to the Japanese. The fact that some Japanese soldiers were also responsible for killing unarmed civilians in horrible ways is beside the point. I don't see how so many civilian casualties can be justified by the valid military targets. Conventional bombings should have sufficed. Although lots of civilians would still have died. Welcome to war. It isn't pretty.

It is actually a friggin' miracle (no, not in a religious sense) that Germany and Japan did not just take over the entire world. It is difficult to think of two more difficult foes. War was practically a religion in Japan and had been for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years. And Germany had always been a leader in science and technology. And both cultures were known for their willingness to follow orders and for intense discipline and strong work ethics. With so much energy, intelligence, and ingenuity devoted exclusively to waging war, they were an awesome force.

--
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by demachina · 2005-07-16 18:14 · Score: 1

"So you think dropping the nuke on Hiroshima was a good idea then?"

No, didn't say that, I just said the second was clearly questionable. The first bomb is just somewhat easier to defend than the second. Only thing about the first one is they should have probably picked military targets that weren't in the middle of cities. Cities smacked of revenge and terrorism.

I saw an interview with the daughter of Oppenheimer on Charlie Rose recently. She just wrote a book about that era. She claims most of the lead scientists, her dad in particular, were willing to except the necessity of Hiroshima but they were completely appalled when Nagasaki followed so quickly. For the scientists who were still fence sitters on the ethics of their weapon, the second one pushed many of them to be anti, Oppenheimer included. I imagine most of them felt it showed Truman was overly enamored with his new found power, and was showing it off at the expense of a hundred thousand dead, many women and children. In particular he probably sacrificed all those Japanese to send a message to Stalin more than Hirohito.

--
@de_machina
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by fingerfucker · 2005-07-16 19:49 · Score: 1

What country keeps setting off bombs in Moscow? Uzbekestan or is it Checkizstan. [emphasis mine]

Maybe if you stop making up countries, your critical thinking might actually get some attention.
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by mtve · 2005-07-16 20:58 · Score: 1

that't pure bullshit.
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by tokul · 2005-07-16 21:32 · Score: 1

Whenever any civilization completes the Manhatten project, the game pretty much sucks. Everyone wants to nuke everyone else.

Not an issue in FreeCiv. Nukes are expensive to build, they can be used only once and nuclear fallout has to be cleaned later. It is easier to raid main land with howitzers and mechs.

Only immature or desperate players build bombs and nuke opponents.
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by blahplusplus · 2005-07-16 22:16 · Score: 1

But wasn't the computer game inspired by the real world? Where there are real wars and real nuclear weapons?
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by MvD_Moscow · 2005-07-17 07:51 · Score: 1

Thank you for complementing on my intelligence! As you might have noticed I never implied that all conflicts I mentioned above justify the belief that all muslims are terrorists. For your information I actually support Palestinians and Chechens in their fight for freedom. My only problem is the methods that they use. For instance, why did the terrorist take children hostage in Beslan (don't forget that Beslan is a Christian state)? Why not take a bunch of military generals hostage? They deserve it a lot more. Same goes for Palestine, why the hell do they attack civilians (I mean two year old children - is that normal). Even in Yugoslavia, considerable amount of serbs were murdered (nowhere near to the number of muslims though). All I was pointing out that some base defects in Islam make it very easy to use it for 'destroying all no believers'. The fact that every conflict involving muslims involves cowardly deliberate attacks on civilians just proves my point.
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by mfrank · 2005-07-18 08:11 · Score: 1

Well, if you've ever read "The Prize", you'd know why the Allies beat the Axis. The Allies had access to oil. The Axis didn't.

Oil was one of the main reasons Germany invaded the USSR. It was the reason Japan attacked the US.

Something to consider when you watch the news...
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by MvD_Moscow · 2005-07-20 05:17 · Score: 1

Well then that wasn't what I wanted to state. What I wanted to state was that in times of conflict muslims are easily influenced to commit terrorism. Even outside conflicts base defects in Islam allow for completely stupidity. I mean, how can you issue a Fatwa? No normal religion in our time would involve itself in such stupidity.
You right in saying that previously Islam wasn't all that radical (although I don't agree with your statement that atheists involved themselves in terrorism? When? How? Communists don't count, they replaced jesus with Lenin/Stalin and most of the population still believed in god). But that doesn't really matter. What matters is that in the present context muslim radicals are going over the top. The way IRA uses and terrorism and the way muslim terrorist operate are completely different. Islamic terrorists have no consideration for human life and whats worse muslim moderates don't do shit about it. Remember all those dancing Palestinians after 9/11? Come on if radicalism is only a minority thing then why are whole streets full of people rejoicing over the deaths of other people?

Stop being an apologist for Islam. Whether you like it or not Islam promotes sexism, is homophobic, shortsighted and in general isn't very tolerant other people. Other religions could (or have been) be just as bad, but that doesn't make Islam any better. Until Islam allows for things such as Fatwa and does not integrate with the rest of the world (other religions/conclusions are not ok and no exceptions) I will not consider it to be a 'normal' organization.
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by MvD_Moscow · 2005-07-20 23:18 · Score: 1

Rather then considering fatwa a separate thing, consider it in a general context. I was simply using the fatwa as an example to demonstrate that Islam can very easily be exploited and manipulated to allow for stupidity. Doesn't really effect how muslims live at large? I think it does! The fact that the spiritual leader of one of the biggest Islamic countries issues a fatwa for writing a book that criticizes Islam sends a message to the western population that something is not exactly right about Islam. Especially considering the book in question.
OK these are common traits for all religions? Does that make those things any better? Does it change the world and Islamic countries more moderate? Does it stop islamic nation from being the most homophobic cultures on this planet? However, you wan to look at it, Islamic nations are the leaders in terms of limiting civil liberties and choice, period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_laws_of _the_world

Just take a look at the link above and tell me if you notice any pattern (hint: the death penalty for homosexuality and islamic nations). Doesn't that strike you as strange? Forget the past and how other religions used to be, objectively look at islamic nations in the world today. Furthermore, did I ever say that all muslims do not follow humanistic values? Stop putting words in my mouth. I've told you in my second post that I don't believe that islam is evil, all I believe is that islam is easier to manipulate and at present islam is a bigger thread to civil liberties and civilization then other religions.

Nihilists of Russia? Who exactly? Social Revolutionaries at the end of th 19th century? They targeted government officials and Tsarist supporters... I don't approve of such actions, but there is a huge difference between that and modern islamic terrorism. I fail to remember any incidents where the SRs took children hostage and demanded that the Tsar step down. Their focus was bringing down the system and in general they did get normal people involved. Its not like the Tsarist system was nice, the Tsar was a nutcase. His stupidity and inflexibility allowed Lenin and company to come to power. Furthermore, you can't say atheist perfected terrorism as atheism is not an organization or cult. Its personal thing, one atheist might have one view of the world and another would have a different view.

Stalin was idolized to the point where he was a semi-god. A bunch of old farts writing a long boring fairy tale doesn't make a good either. If anything Stalin was real, all the other gods are just imaginary friends. If I wrote a book about invisible pink unicorns ruling the world, it would be just as relevant as the bible is.

I didn't sympathize with them. I thought they were full of shit. I thought "nice going guys, this why you will never get any support from the west - you guys just know how to dig your own grave." I agree with you that the USA is simply a lesser evil and they have their own set of problems (conservative christians and other assholes), but that doesn't make islam any better. Thats the point you fail to grasp.
Re:Whenever I play a game of Civilization by MvD_Moscow · 2005-07-21 08:53 · Score: 1

gay bar? LOL! An normal one will do....
Its funny that a good friend also lives in Turkey and he doesn't think its so liberal.. But hey, he came there from Moscow, which is FAR from liberal, but you can do whatever you want.

Anyway thanks for the discussion!

Lehr is right by Travoltus · 2005-07-15 21:59 · Score: 4, Insightful

Had the US not developed and deployed the bomb, someone else would have been the first to use it.

Questions about our righteousness in nuking Japan (who themselves slaughtered even more civilians in Nanking than we killed with 2 A-bombs) will never die, but I'm confident that the US getting the bomb before China, the USSR and other nations, made it possible for us to scare everyone into not using them again.

We sure as heck could not have ended the war with harsh insults in Japanese... a direct invasion would have cost millions of lives and left Russia open to join in. Ask the Germans what happened when the Soviet men came into Berlin, and overlay that disaster onto Tokyo...

This isn't meant as a troll or flamebait, seriously, I think millions of lives were saved, perhaps billions.

--
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!

Re:Lehr is right by Max_Abernethy · 2005-07-15 22:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

1. Set off bomb in an unpopulated area where it will be seen but not kill so many people.
2. Explain to emperor hirohito that he has to cut this shit out or the next one is dropping on a city.

I don't understand why it was necessary to actually kill all those civilians. The whole point was to make a show of force, wasn't it? I think a warning shot would've been enough.
Re:Lehr is right by Black+Tezcatlipoca · 2005-07-15 23:23 · Score: 1

At the height of the cold war the Soviets tested 'The Czar', with a TNT equivalent of 10 times everything used in WWII, Hiroshima and Nagasaki included.

They were predicting 100MT at full yield. Half of that was to come from fission, which would have released more fallout than every atmospheric test performed in the 1950's combined.
Re:Lehr is right by Morky · 2005-07-15 23:29 · Score: 1

That's what I thought once, except that the US dropped the first one on a city and Hirohito still didn't make a move. A demonstration would have been even less moving.
Re:Lehr is right by lachlan76 · 2005-07-16 00:52 · Score: 1

He had already been making a move to surrender, but Japan pulled out when the Emperor's position was no longer guaranteed in the treaty.
Re:Lehr is right by vandan · 2005-07-16 01:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is the common excuse for dropping 2 nuclear weapons on cities full of civilians, yes.

Unfortunately it's about as full as truth as everything else that comes out of the US government.

The Japanese were crushed 6 months prior to the end of WWII. They had no energy. They were desperately trying to negotiate an unconditional surrender. The US govt, however, saw this as a dandy opportunity to assert their absolute military supremacy on the international stage.

But even if we ignore the fact that Japan were more than ready to surrender, I still find it absolutely absurd that people ( and usually American people - there is a particular irony here of course ) argue that they have the right to drop atomic weapons on civilians to bring 'peace' to the world, yet other countries aren't even allowed to possess nuclear weapons.

The thing about rules is that they have to be applied equally. Following your argument to it's logical conclusion, and assuming that all people are 'created equal under God', then the Iraqi people had every right to possess nuclear, chemical and biological weapons ... for the same reasons as the US can possess them.

Now I'm not meaning to come down on you particularly hard ... you at least admit that there is controversy surrounding the US nuking fest. I'm just pointing out that you have to take a clear, principled stance on the issue, and defending the US's 'right' to use nuclear weapons, while being wrong in itself, also opens a very ugly can of worms when the argument is projected onto others.

Had the US not developed and deployed the bomb, someone else would have been the first to use it.

I certainly have to take issue with this argument. This is exactly the argument companies like BAE Systems, Raytheon etc want to hear people put forward. Proliferation. It won't do us any good. Sure someone *could* always build a bigger, 'better' weapon. But who always does? And what good does it do the world? Look around you at your civil liberties being eroded in the name of the 'war on terror' - and of course the hundreds of thousands of innocent people that are killed, locked up, tortured, etc. This is a direct result of the incredible inequality between the US's weapons and everyone elses ... combined of course with the US's foreign policy. Are bigger weapons doing us any better on this front? No. Is the world more dangerous with nuclear proliferation? I don't think anyone who seriously thinks this through can say proliferation makes the world a safer or better place.
Re:Lehr is right by whopis · 2005-07-16 01:22 · Score: 1

Japan didn't surrender even after a bomb was dropped on a populated area. What makes you think that they would have surrendered if a bomb was dropped on an unpopulated area?

In fact, Japan didn't surrender after two bombs were dropped on populated areas, or even after the subsequent bombing raids. Japan only surrendered when Russia started to invade.

One of the problems at the time was that the Japanese intelligence was sure that the USA did not have more than one atomic bomb (until Nagasaki, then they claimed that the USA didn't have more than two). Thus a demonstration on an unpopulated area would likely have had no influence on Japan's decision.
Re:Lehr is right by justins · 2005-07-16 02:11 · Score: 1

Questions about our righteousness in nuking Japan (who themselves slaughtered even more civilians in Nanking than we killed with 2 A-bombs) will never die, but I'm confident that the US getting the bomb before China, the USSR and other nations, made it possible for us to scare everyone into not using them again.

First, if you're going to make these "evilness by number of civilians killed" calculations, you ought to remember that we killed far more people in Japan with firebombing than we did with nukes. Second, those kinds of calculations are stupid crap.

a direct invasion would have cost millions of lives and left Russia open to join in. Ask the Germans what happened when the Soviet men came into Berlin, and overlay that disaster onto Tokyo...

That doesn't make any sense at all.

--
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
Re:Lehr is right by Anonymous Coward · 2005-07-16 02:54 · Score: 1, Interesting

Are you seriously suggesting that the German populace would be better off if you had dropped a nuclear bomb or two on us, saving us from "the barbarous Red Army"?

Consider East Germany and Japan in, say, 1980. Which population was better off?
Re:Lehr is right by swillden · 2005-07-16 03:11 · Score: 1

They were desperately trying to negotiate an unconditional surrender.

Umm, that makes no sense, as well as being wrong. You don't "negotiate" an unconditional surrender, you just offer it. If you're negotiating the terms of a surrender, then the offer to surrender has terms which means it is, by definition, a conditional surrender.

Further, the Japanese cabinet included military hardliners who consistently refused to surrender except upon terms that weren't much different than a simple cease fire in place plus some strategic withdrawals. The Allies obviously could not accept such terms, since they would just enable the Japanese to rest and rebuild before striking out again. Since the Japanese constitution required unanimous agreement of the cabinet for surrender, and since prior to the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki no agreement could be obtained, any negotiations with the Allies were premature, at best.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Lehr is right by malvo · 2005-07-16 06:49 · Score: 1

"Questions about our righteousness in nuking Japan (who themselves slaughtered even more civilians in Nanking than we killed with 2 A-bombs) will never die" Yes, most of the women and children that were nuked had much to do with those atrocities.
Re:Lehr is right by Shihar · 2005-07-16 13:22 · Score: 1

It is all well and good in hind sight to say that is what should have been done. In hind sight it can even be argued that the nukes never had to be used. What it ignores was the reality of the time. The world had been at war for six years. The US had been at war for almost four years. Casualties in the fighting with Japan actually accelerated UP as the end came closer. The US took its worse losses of the war at the END. Every other atrocity had already been committed by every single side. Nukes aren't even worth getting worked up over when you put them next to the genocidal fire bombings the Americans committed or the wholesale rape and genocide that the Japanese committed on the ground to civilians. Further, both sides were considering using chemical weapons for the coming battle on the Japanese mainland. Europe was a mess and needed to be rebuilt. Convincing the few allied military powers still standing to travel half way around the world and fight some more would have been insane.

The world was at a point where every atrocity had already been committed. Not many people blinked at committing one more if it meant ending the war. Further, that one atrocity was a lesser atrocity then ones that had already been committed. The world was tired and had no desire to sustain war any longer. No one was going to listen to arguments that such a weapon shouldn't be used if it meant that everyone's sons could home, no one else would have to die after, and the rebuilding could begin.

So, you can smugly look back and claim your moral superiority in this pristine age where the worst you have to worry about is getting whacked by a car crossing the street. Or you can try and sympathize with a nation and a world that was weary of war, tired of sacrificing their sons to fight wars over seas, and ready to begin picking up the shattered pieces of the world.
Re:Lehr is right by ckaminski · 2005-07-16 17:49 · Score: 1

Hirohito was barely in control of his own country at the end of the war. His generals ended up holding him prisoner at the end. It was only through luck that we got his surrender message, via RADIO broadcast, no less.
Re:Lehr is right by lachlan76 · 2005-07-17 22:51 · Score: 1

The majority of his country considered him to be a God, and would not have tried to stop him.
Re:Lehr is right by Travoltus · 2005-07-17 23:38 · Score: 1

Actually, Tojo was the war criminal. And, IIRC, he was hung.

--
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!

Recommended books by October_30th · 2005-07-15 22:00 · Score: 2, Informative

To anyone who is interested in the history of the atomic and hydrogen bomb, I'd recommend the following books by Richard Rhodes:

"The Making of the Atomic Bomb" ISBN 0-684-81378-5

and

"Dark Sun - The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb" ISBN 0-684-82414-0

Both books are fascinating, containing depictions of both human elements and the physics/engineering side of the atomic weapons. As an example of the former, I found it very interesting to read about SAC nuts like LeMay and his concept of a Sunday Punch strategy.

--
The owls are not what they seem

Re:Recommended books by Ann+Elk · 2005-07-15 23:30 · Score: 1

"100 Suns" by Michael Light (ISBN 1400041139) is an excellent collection of "terrifyingly beautiful" nuclear test photographs.
Re:Recommended books by Tackhead · 2005-07-16 02:22 · Score: 2, Informative

>> To anyone who is interested in the history of the atomic and hydrogen bomb, I'd recommend the following books by Richard Rhodes:
>>
>>"The Making of the Atomic Bomb" ISBN 0-684-81378-5
>>and
>>"Dark Sun - The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb" ISBN 0-684-82414-0
>
>"100 Suns" by Michael Light (ISBN 1400041139) is an excellent collection of "terrifyingly beautiful" nuclear test photographs.
I'll see you those three books and raise you one museum.

The next time you're in Las Vegas, go to the Atomic Testing Museum. Unlike Trinity Site (and unlike the Nevada Test Site), the museum is open to the public at all times. No prior arrangements are necessary to visit.

Admission is the geekiest $10 you'll spend in Vegas. There's also an incredible bookstore (which has all three of the books mentioned, plus the entire set of Peter Kuran DVDs) on the way out.

The pictures on the museum's website give you the general idea. Although you can (and if they're old enough to understand what atoms are, you probably should) take your kids, this is primarily a museum made by, for, and on behalf of engineers.

If you held certain clearances, and you wanted to show your family what you did within the limits of your oath, this museum is a good place to show them. If your parents or spouse never talked about their work before they died, and you always wondered what they were doing and why they were doing it, this museum is a good place to find out.

And if you hold no clearances at all, but are just a random geek who wants to appreciate the engineering genius of those who did, this museum is perhaps the only place to do so.

The politics are kept to an absolute minimum; it's about the history and the technology.

obligatory Ozzy quote by Stormwatch · 2005-07-15 22:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

"Thank God for the Bomb"
Ozzy Osbourne

--------------------

Like moths to a flame
Is man never gonna change
Time's seen untold aggression
And infliction of pain
If that's the only thing that's stopping war

Then thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb

Nuke ya nuke ya

War is just another game
Tailor made for the insane
But make a threat of their annihilation
And nobody wants to play
If that's the only thing that keeps the peace

Then thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb

Nuke ya nuke ya

Today was tommorow yesterday
It's funny how the time can slip away
The face of the doomsday clock
Has launched a thousand wars
As we near the final hour
Time is the only foe we have

When war is obsolete
I'll thank God for war's defeat
But any talk about hell freezing over
Is all said with tongue in cheek
Until the day the war drums beat no more

I'll thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb
Thank God for the bomb

Nuke ya nuke ya

--------------------

(Ozzy Osbourne/Jake E. Lee)

--
Circumcision is child abuse.

Einstein by Malfourmed · 2005-07-15 22:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

Herb Lehr has no regrets, which is his right. On the other hand Einstein said

"I made one great mistake in my life... when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made."

and

"The release of atom power has changed everything except our way of thinking...the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker."

--
a world in progress...

Re:Einstein by BrynM · 2005-07-15 22:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

The lesser of all evils, eh?
"Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity," Einstein once remarked, "and I'm not sure about the former." Something for your pipe. Smoke it well.

--
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Re:Einstein by PsiPsiStar · 2005-07-15 22:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

And maybe we'd all be speaking German and drinking Schnapps. Or sake.

While I'm not going to say that the use of the atomic bomb was immoral, given the circumstances, the construction of the atomic bomb was not what caused Japan or Germany to lose the war. As advanced as it was, I really don't believe that Japan's atomic bomb project would have been able to offer Japan any kind of shot at victory.

Perhaps the bomb ended the war a little faster.

Perhaps if the resources that went into building cyclotrons had gone for conventional bombs and planes instead, the war would have ended quicker.

Probably without nukes at the end of WWII, the cold war would have proceeded differently.

The US would have wanted to enlist the help of the Chineese and Russians in invading Japan, which those nations would have eagerly given after all the death and shame Japan had visited upon them.
More than anything, without the bomb the Japanese would probably be speaking Pu Tong Hua or Russian.

Things could have gone differently, sure.

But the bomb was not what made Japan or Germany lose the war.

--

___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Re:Einstein by dedazo · 2005-07-15 22:45 · Score: 1

Ah, idealism. The drug of choice of Generation Grunt.

--
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
Re:Einstein by Malfourmed · 2005-07-15 22:48 · Score: 1

And maybe we'd all be speaking German and drinking Schnapps. Or sake.
Maybe, maybe not.

--
a world in progress...
Re:Einstein by John+Seminal · 2005-07-15 22:54 · Score: 1

If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker
And maybe we'd all be speaking German and drinking Schnapps. Or sake. Einstein did not have a monopoly on brilliance.

It would not be that bad, to be German.

Think about it for a second. A 35 hour work week, no forced overtime. Everyone gets 5 weeks of paid vacation time. Schooling is free. Everyone has health insurance. Government cares about the homeless and the less fortunate, they have places to sleep and food to eat, and not some crappy shelter. For a middle class family, which is what 75% of the USA is, life would be better under Germanys system of living. The only ones who would not like Germanys social system are the top 10% richest Americans, because Germany controls greed (Has Germany had an Enron which destroyed thousands of employees pensions? No).

The only hard part of being German is learning their language, it is one of the hardest in the world. Unlike French or Spanish, or romance languages, German is filled with odd idioms and rules with more exceptions than the case. Mandarin is much more simple than German, except for the 4 tones.

But hey, we could learn the language while drinking some really good beer and flirting with a german Geschlechtsymbol. Those brunettes are so sexy!

And we would all drive BMW's and Mercedes Benz. Not a bad life at all.

--
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Re:Einstein by BrynM · 2005-07-15 22:58 · Score: 1

Ah, idealism. The drug of choice of Generation Grunt.
Actually, if you read it right, it's fatalism.

--
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Re:Einstein by dedazo · 2005-07-15 22:59 · Score: 1

The Japanese empire sacrificed almost a million and a half soldiers and civilians defending a few worthless piles of volcanic rock in the middle of the Pacific, all of which were at least a few thousand miles from Tokyo.
And yet there are people who theorize that they would have welcomed the US with open arms and flowers and happily surrendered the instant a couple of Marines set foot on the beaches of their homeland and went "boo!"

Excellent logical conclusions, if you ask me.

--
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
Re:Einstein by beelsebob · 2005-07-15 23:17 · Score: 1

You do realise that the war in Europe was already over when the bombs were dropped? It stunned the Japanese into surrender, the Germans were already beaten.
Re:Einstein by Black+Tezcatlipoca · 2005-07-15 23:26 · Score: 1

While I'm not going to say that the use of the atomic bomb was immoral It was immoral. They should have been demonstrated on a landmark like Mount Fuji or on a military base, not in the middle of a city against civilians.
Re:Einstein by PsiPsiStar · 2005-07-15 23:28 · Score: 1

Of course. That's why my comment focused on Japan.

I'm not sure that the grandparent poster understood that, though, or else he wouldn't have suggested that we might be speaking German without The Bomb.

--

___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Re:Einstein by Registered+Coward+v2 · 2005-07-16 00:33 · Score: 1

It was immoral. They should have been demonstrated on a landmark like Mount Fuji or on a military base, not in the middle of a city against civilians.

Hiroshima was a military target - it housed the Japanese Army's southern command, and was a staging area for troop deployments.

You don't want a city hit, keep your military and industry elsewhere.

Given that Japan didn't surrender after the first bomb and its devastation, a demo would likely not impress them very much. We were already destroying their cities and it was clear it was not a matter of, but when, Japan was defeated. Given the choices of invasion with massive casualties, a blockade of Japan and letting them slowly starve and be bombed into oblivion whle their troops fight on elswehere, or tryng to end it quickly, it's not hard to see why the bomb was used as it was. A fundemental calculus of war is that you maximze enemy caualties and minimize your own. Or, "Life sucks, and then I make you die."

--
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Re:Einstein by bmgoau · 2005-07-16 00:54 · Score: 1

Without th development of the Nuclear bomb i believe the second world war would have have eventually been won by allied forces regardless, the only difference the bomb made was the way on which it was won.

In that VE day in europe would still have occured on the same day and in the same manner, but from a pacific perspective things would be very different.

It is possibile that allied forces namely Australian and majorly American/Soviet forces would have eventually overwhelmed Japanese forces and quite a few possibilities arrise: The japanese were in a state of mind that made them come to suicide to defeat their own enimies and on part of the bombs use it caused them to loose that state of mind through sheer terror.

Without the use of the bomb 3 possibilites arrise: With continued fire bombing and a grim outlook the japanese would eventually surrender just as they did, but it would have taken longer, and cost more japanese lives. Or a invasion could have begun on part of allied forces in which the other two possibilites occur: That japan is totally occupied by soviet and american forces creating a east-west europe style terratorial oganisation for the mid pacific or (and this is less likely) the suicidal tendancies of the japanese soldiers and casualties in the possible 10's to 100's of millions on both sides might have forced allied forces and japan into a deadlock in which the civilian casualties and military casualties far outweighed any thurther need for military action, and i say ths is unlikely because the soviet union just as it showed in the european theater quite possibily would have pushed on regaurdless.

In two ways the moral implications for making the nuclear and its subsiquent use can be justified: 1. The bomb would have eventually been made anyway as is the sad truth and infact it would have eventually been used. On this part the use of the bomb as it was or its hypothetical use in a reality where is was not initially used on japan offered humanity with a deep realisation of our path, and i strong believe that the use of the bomb and its bad publicity imbued on every subsequent generation has forced somewhat of a buffer on the minds of at least much of wester society. In other words, it taught us a lesson that in some way helped us avert the disaster which could have been the cold war. 2. More practically speaking either through continued bombings or a major invasion, without the use of the two bombs many more lives would have been lost to what goes down as the most devestating and exponential war man-kind has ever seen.

Let us also not forget that disreguarding the horrific dark side of nuclear technologies much of the research that was done throughout World war 2 helped in some way to accelerate our technological progress and riase the standard of liveing for the majority of man-kind in large and small ways. It is no justification to our morals, but combined with the defeat of "evil" and the subseqent eventual peace between democracies i doupt anyone would feel the need to say World War two was not justified on the allied part. And as is the nature of the universe the evil was eventuallu destroyed and it trully showed both the best and worst in humanity, and what many fail to realise is that World War 2 showed that the good in humanity can outweight the bad.

Without the bomb, more people would have died, and the relative peace that, arguably, ensues the worlds Western population could not be guarenteed.
Re:Einstein by damiam · 2005-07-16 01:35 · Score: 1

Current Germany != Nazi Germany.

--
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Re:Einstein by Detritus · 2005-07-16 02:51 · Score: 1

That's assuming you have a life. How many people alive today wouldn't exist because one or both of their parents would have ended up in a concentration camp or death camp. I know that I wouldn't be here.

--
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Re:Einstein by PsiPsiStar · 2005-07-16 03:42 · Score: 1

"You don't want a city hit, keep your military and industry elsewhere."

You just legitimized the attacks against the WTC, with that single comment.

Care to explain how the WTC was a millitary target?

--

___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Re:Einstein by Neoprofin · 2005-07-16 06:01 · Score: 1

Einstien was also clearly of the opinion that the use of atomic bombs would be problematic much the way that dynamite had been in Europe.

Neither ended war, but nuclear weapons have hardly served to make the war more brutal and bloody than it was before, or reduced us to sticks and stone as Einstien thought.

I guess there's still time.
Re:Einstein by KarmaMB84 · 2005-07-16 06:44 · Score: 1

I'm sure there were armed guards there! Surely those count, right? Right? Oh, nevermind...
Re:Einstein by PsiPsiStar · 2005-07-16 13:17 · Score: 1

I didnt say industry. That was a different poster.

And even if you included industry, financial institutions are a far cry from the factories where bombs or poison gas or nuclear weapons are made. If UBL had attacked one of the plants out in Arizona where tomahawk missles were made, I could see that as being a 'millitary' target. But a bank? Money is fungible. Destroying a bank eliminates no tangible assets. It's done purely for the purpose of terrorism. And you know this.

You're really really stretching here.

But of course, that was perpetrated by the good o'le USA, so flag-waving and cheering is supposed to go with that, right?

I'm not flag waving or cheering any loss of human life. But take a look at the situation. Look at some of the atrocities the Japanese committed against Chinese civilians, and civilians in other Asian countries and continued to commit throughout the course of the war. The Japanese were on par with the Nazis in their disregard for civilians. When you calculate your civilian death toll, please consider what a delayed end to the war would have meant in terms of all civilian casualties, not just those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don't believe that bombing Mt. Fugi would have had the same effect.

But most importantly, if Japan were invaded by the Chinese and Russians, I can promise you that the civilian death toll would have been much higher. There was not a choice between dropping the atomic bombs and not dropping them. The US had a choice between dropping the bombs and conducting a bloody invasion in concert with two other nations which had endured a litany of Japanese atrocities and wanted revenge.

Excoriate the US for the civilians that died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But I can't imagine an ending to the war which ultimately did more to preserve Japanese civilian life than a quick end and an exclusively US occupation.

--

___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
Re:Einstein by aminorex · 2005-07-16 14:31 · Score: 1

Why invade? The U.S. already won.

--
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Re:Einstein by mfrank · 2005-07-18 08:51 · Score: 1

You're right. We didn't need to invade. Or use the bomb. It was over.

Thing is, though, the Japanese food supply kind of relied on coastal shipping, which by then had pretty much been sunk. And what little rail capacity they had (mostly to and from the ports; their internal trade was by ship) was being destroyed. And winter was coming.

As it was, surrendering when they did, over a hundred thousand Japanese died from starvation/malnutrition that winter. If the war hadn't ended when it did, with Allies occupying the country, *millions* would have starved.

That fall, McArthur had to go before Congress and shame them into providing food relief for the Japanese. He pointed out that we were executing Japanese officers for war crimes involving starving occupied people.

Yeah, we didn't need to invade. We'd already won.

Do what you are told to do by Anonymous Coward · 2005-07-15 22:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

How I hate the sentence "I did what I was told to do". Everybody should check the orders against his conscience, no matter where they come from.

It is this attitude that made WWII, or better the nazi regime, possible in the first place. And everyone living with that attitude is, in my eyes, a coward, who is too afraid to think for himself.

How else could you explain that, by order of the DOD, soldiers were forced to remain close to the detonation to check for its impact on human beeings, while it was well known for years that there were long-term illnesses caused by it.

Re:Do what you are told to do by Ann+Elk · 2005-07-15 23:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

How I hate the sentence "I did what I was told to do". Everybody should check the orders against his conscience, no matter where they come from.

It's easy to get self-righteous when you have the benefit of 60 years hindsight.
Re:Do what you are told to do by slavemowgli · 2005-07-16 00:25 · Score: 1

It's also easy to say "I can't know for sure that my decision not to participate in these things is 100% right, so I'll do it anyway".

What exactly did he think would happen? If you work on any bomb, atomic or not, then you'll have to expect that it'll get used, and in the case of an atomic bomb, there are no civil uses (as is the case with conventional explosives), so it's hard to justify what you're doing.

The only actual attempts at justification I've ever seen are along the lines of "sure, we'll kill a lot of people, but if we don't, then even more people will get killed, so it's the lesser of two evils". Of course, that isn't actually a justification, because you don't actually KNOW what would've happened otherwise, but it's at least an attempt, and an admission that there are, in fact, moral dilemmas involved.

Saying that the scientists working on the bomb weren't aware of these dilemmas, and, even more, couldn't have been at that time, is stupid. Of course they did - but they chose to work on it, anyway, so it's interesting to hear their reasoning and debate with/about them.

But don't give us that kind of "it didn't occur to them that the atomic bomb would be used to kill people" bull.

--
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Re:Do what you are told to do by Eol1 · 2005-07-16 01:06 · Score: 1

Bah, nothing suggests in the entire interview that he had ethical or moral issues with it (against his conscience). I actually applaud him for his honesty and non post revisionist political correct fluff. You ever notice how any German you talk to in Germany that lives W.G. always fought on the E. Front and all the Germans living in E.G. always fought on the West Front even though if you think about it, this doesn't really make sense. How nobody over that age of 50 ever supported US segregation, how every S. African you talk to was against apartheid. These are the folk I despise. I am fine with folk changing their opinion but to deny you had one in the first place bothers me to no end. The man felt what he did was right and doesn't need to apologize for it regardless of the modern PC movement.

As for thinking this attitude brought the Nazi regime or made WWII possible, give me a break and go read some history books. The repression of Germany by France and England brought about WWII more than anything the Nazi's did. The general population of Germany supported the Nazi's, just like folk supported Stalin, the Japanese Emperor, and Lincoln.

As for your last comment, not quite sure I understand what you are asking or how it applies to the do what you are told argument. Soldiers get paid to die, it is what they do. Nobody anywhere involved in the planning for those tests felt bad for the soldiers at the time. The felt those soldiers lives were worth the greater medical good and containing communism. As a good argument on the morality of this, read the article by Carlos Escude titled "Reflections on Cultural Superiority and the Just War: A Neomodern Imperative" (http://ideas.repec.org/p/cem/doctra/278.html"). While I don't agree with the conclusion (he would call me a follower of Prop A) it makes a good read and argument on why these actions (DoD exposing its own soldiers to radiation, being happy you made the bomb) might be moral.

--
De Oppresso Liber
Re:Do what you are told to do by firewrought · 2005-07-16 05:49 · Score: 1

(GP:) How I hate the sentence "I did what I was told to do". Everybody should check the orders against his conscience, no matter where they come from.

(P:) It's easy to get self-righteous when you have the benefit of 60 years hindsight.

We humans have a few thousand years of hindsight on this. If this species is to survive past its adolecense, we need get past this inherent flaw and take responsibility for our own actions. As the GP post pointed out, "I did what I was told" (IDWIWT) seems like something of an excuse to defray this responsibility.

We can condemn or exonerate the individuals who built and dropped the bomb... it doesn't really matter. What matters is: how would you make the decision in a similar situation with incomplete and unreliable data? How would you check this out with your own conscience? IMO, people with well-developed moral reasoning skills validly reached both conclusions ("drop the bomb"/"don't drop the bomb"). Let's learn from their experiences so that we can become stronger moral fibers in the fabric of our own generation.

--
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
Re:Do what you are told to do by aminorex · 2005-07-16 14:49 · Score: 1

It's also easy to get self-righteous when you have a FUCKING BACKBONE.

--
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-

Nuclear weapons were an inevitable development. by leereyno · 2005-07-15 22:04 · Score: 1, Insightful

The development of atomic and nuclear weapons was inevitable. The only question was who would develop them first. I'm glad we did, when we did. A land invasion of Japan would have have resulted in horrific casualties on both sides. We're just lucky that Hitler was too much of a fool to understand the military and strategic value of the bomb. Instead he had people like Werner Heisenberg working on fission reactors to produce power. Things could have turned out very differently.

Lee

--
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.

Re:Nuclear weapons were an inevitable development. by Knome_fan · 2005-07-15 23:05 · Score: 2, Informative

"The development of atomic and nuclear weapons was inevitable." Says who? You? Why? Besides: Judge, if I hadn't done it someone else would won't get you to far in court. "A land invasion of Japan would have have resulted in horrific casualties on both sides." Ah, the old narative of how dropping the bomb saved lives. The only problem is that it's nowhere near certain that an invasion would have been necessary and the question of how many people such an invasion would have killed is very much up for debate, to put it mildly.
Re:Nuclear weapons were an inevitable development. by Tackhead · 2005-07-16 02:46 · Score: 1

> "The development of atomic and nuclear weapons was inevitable." Says who? You? Why?
Says me.

Because you learned that molecules were made of atoms, that mass is conserved in chemical reactions, and that the atoms themselves don't change.

Because you when you watch a chunk of uranium closely enough, you see things that you can't explain.

Because you revise your theory to say that mass and energy aren't as separate as they once were, and that atoms aren't as unchangeable as you once thought.

Because you knew that the atomic masses of most elements aren't integers - therefore, some atoms of every element must be heavier than other atoms of the same element, and you wondered if that might be important somehow.

Because when you separated some elements into their isotopes, the chemistry was subtly different in a few cases. But the stuff you couldn't explain with chemistry got really interesting.

Because your observations showed that the stuff you couldn't explain by means of chemistry could be explained by a simple equation about the equivalence of mass and energy. And because that equation (and your experiments) confirmed that we were talking about lots of energy.

Because you have a new, extremely powerful and compact source of energy.

Because for the past 13,000 years, the first thing every human civilization has done when it discovers a powerful and compact source of energy is to make things go "thud", "twang", or "boom".

It's a long way from the club to the 3-wood. It's a long way from the arrowhead to the laser scalpel. It's a long way from gunpowder to Alpha Centauri.

"I did what I was told to do." by under_score · 2005-07-15 22:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

Poor excuse, not acceptable in war crimes trials. Read some of the quotes here.

--
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.

Re:"I did what I was told to do." by dedazo · 2005-07-15 22:22 · Score: 1

Germany lost the war. That's how it works. You rolls your dice and you pays your money.
Oh, and of course the United States did not systematically annihilate 6+ million human beings on purpose. I almost forgot that small detail.

--
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
Re:"I did what I was told to do." by dedazo · 2005-07-15 22:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes, yes. Excellent parallel. Depleted uranium, yes. Identical to concentration camps, industrial genocide, etc. Yes.
Thank you, I hadn't thought of it that way.

--
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
Re:"I did what I was told to do." by kronocide · 2005-07-15 23:13 · Score: 1

I was about to post exactly the same. I might have been convinced that he actually felt he didn't do anything wrong if it hadn't been for that phrase. Very defensive.
Re:"I did what I was told to do." by /dev/trash · 2005-07-15 23:56 · Score: 1

See, war crimes trials are for the LOSERS.

+++
Husi is where's it at
Re:"I did what I was told to do." by Anonymous+Cowpat · 2005-07-16 03:37 · Score: 1

sadly, "Because your giving me an order to do it wouldn't get me off the hook on a war crimes charge" isn't acceptable in a court martial. You lose either way.

--
FGD 135
Re:"I did what I was told to do." by dedazo · 2005-07-16 05:00 · Score: 1

LOL, and this is actually modded up.
What a great group of people Slashdork is.

--
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo
Re:"I did what I was told to do." by khallow · 2005-07-16 11:39 · Score: 1

That was a couple centuries prior to the Second World War (and prior to the existence of the US). And it was a UK official to boot.
Re:"I did what I was told to do." by Just+Another+Poster · 2005-07-16 11:40 · Score: 1

This quote from early american history suggests efforts were made to reduce the native american tribes: "Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them" - Lord Amherst, (1763)
Suggested by a British general at a time when there was a state of war between the Indian tribes and the British. You realize that the US did not exist in 1763, don't you?

There aren't many groups that wiped out a whole continent.

Declaring a moral equivalence between the die out of the American Indian through disease and war, and the systematic, industrialized extermination of 6 million passive, unarmed people is beyond mentally deranged.
Re:"I did what I was told to do." by aminorex · 2005-07-16 14:34 · Score: 1

What do you call aboriginal Americans? Subhuman animals?

--
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Re:"I did what I was told to do." by dedazo · 2005-07-16 16:28 · Score: 1

To quote another reply:
Declaring a moral equivalence between the die out of the American Indian through disease and war, and the systematic, industrialized extermination of 6 million passive, unarmed people is beyond mentally deranged.

I know it's fashionable to bash the United States nowadays. Why don't you bash Spain as well? After all, they killed +20M people in Central and South America. And the Portugese? French? The English probably killed more North American indians than the US as a country ever did, mostly through introduction of disease.

I know, let's convict all living Mongolians. They killed an estimated 30 million people before they stopped at the edge of Western Europe.

Hey, maybe we can also prosecute rats. After all, rats spread the bubonic plague, which killed about 100 million people over the course of half a century.

Dumbass.

--
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by bogaboga · 2005-07-15 22:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

An interesting read. I wish I had mod points. On another note, the USA does not want other nations to have the nuclear capability because they (the USA) does not have a means to disable or defend itself against the weapon. We simply cannot stop a nuclear bomb's devastating effects. So we pump up the rhetoric to prevent others from acquiring these weapons. Remember, we do not destroy our own. By the way, is it true that the most deadly nuclear weapons are actually produced by Russia?

Richard Feynman by John+Seminal · 2005-07-15 22:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

Lehr said it is unfortunate the bombs were used for war.

Seriously, whenever someone tries to justify something truely horrific, it always comes out as the most asinine comment one could make, under those circumstances.

This is a question that I have wondered for some time, as I have read his books.

It seems that many of the people who helped build the atomic bomb were later pushed out of any talk about how the bomb was to be used. Oppenheimer lost his top secret clerance and was labled a communist by the FBI. Some in government wanted to jail or kill him, they were worried he would defect to the Soviet Union in the 1960's. I think Senator McCarthy had public statements about wanting to see Oppenheimer jailed.

If there is a team of 3 or 4 that is 90% responsible for building the worlds worst weapon, should they have a say if it is used? Or do they lose that right when the finish making it? Without them, the bomb could never have been made. It seems like a huge burden to have for life, knowing your creation killed so many people.

And why did the USA need to drop 2 bombs on Japan? Didn't the first one do enough to scare the crap out of them? How far was Truman ready to go? Kill every Japanese person on the earth.

And didn't the USA during WWII jail every American citizen that looked Japanese by force, even if they never broke any laws?

--

Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

Re:Richard Feynman by b17bmbr · 2005-07-15 22:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

There's is, and there's going to be more here, historical revisionism. Suffice to say there were several reasons:

1) marianas, iwo jima and okinawa. a friend's dad served on iwo and saipan. hell would be a gentle term. plus, i've read volumes. the fighting was unlike anything in the history of warfare. we'd have had 100X worse on japanese mainland. we expected 1 million allied casualties, and probably 10-20 million japanese. so it's lincoln's "terrible arithmetic" multiplied by 100.

2) russia. sure, we were their ally, but we all knew what they were, what they were going to do, and we wanted to send a message. if the rosenbergs (yes they were soviet spies) not given up the bomb, we'd have been in a totally different situation. we had to let them know they were well behind the curve. and yes we allowed many nazi scientists off the hook, that's not the point.

3) japan didn't surrender after bomb #1. and in fact, didn't after bomb #2. remember, the bombs were aug. 6 and aug. 9, they surrendered after the soviets invaded sakhalin and not until aug. 15. in fact, if you check, we actually had a bomber raid on aug. 10, and i believe aug. 12. ironic is that the communications were severed between the emperor (who wanted to surrender) and the military (who didn't). the militray was actualyl coming to the palace to arrest the emp and hold him so he couldn;t surrender. we didn't know this until much later. however, two nukes, two more B29 raids, and still no surrender.

4) politics. we were getting really tired of the war. europe was well over, domestic life was returning to normal, and yet 10,000 were dying on okinawa. how many more thousands were the public going to send? truman knew the war must end. and soon.

most of the second guessing has come from succeeding generations that had the luxury of self-relection that on;y peace can bring. like the greeks, it is our freedom that allows to us to be hyper-critical of ourselves (like a sophocles or aristophanes). we did much that we view as oppressive (japanese internement) yet at the time was wholly palatable by the large body of people. times change and so do cultures. but i think it is poor history and a worse morality play to go back and make assumptions about the bomb. look at japan today. not that 2 nukes are a tradeoff for a peaceful and free society (ah moral equivalency), but consider this:

40 years after the sedan the french were screaming revanche and we got ypres and verdun. 40 years after hiroshima, the japanese were not and we got toyotas.

--
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Re:Richard Feynman by Barromind · 2005-07-16 01:03 · Score: 1

It's the same as the pharaohs did: kill the architect after the work is done.
Re:Richard Feynman by TheoMurpse · 2005-07-16 01:07 · Score: 1

If there is a team of 3 or 4 that is 90% responsible for building the worlds worst weapon, should they have a say if it is used?

If that doesn't have DMCA written all over it. Here, let me change a few things:

If there is a team of 300 or 400 that is 90% responsible for building a popular video game system, should they have a say how it is used?

So, by your logic, I shouldn't be able to mod my X-Box!
Re:Richard Feynman by TheoMurpse · 2005-07-16 01:16 · Score: 1

The US didn't do that to anyone other than West Coast people, as far as I know. I definitely know that it didn't happen to Hawaiian-born Japanese (and they were citizens, just like Puerto Ricans are citizens now). That's what my History of US-Japan Relations class just finished studying (finals on Tuesday). It is also pertinent to note that Canada did this, too. It was a very, very sad thing, I believe. I'm just pointing out some extra information.

And why did the USA need to drop 2 bombs on Japan? Didn't the first one do enough to scare the crap out of them?

I dunno. Why don't you ask the Japanese government at the time? After all, they didn't surrender after the first bomb.
Re:Richard Feynman by TheoMurpse · 2005-07-16 01:19 · Score: 1

40 years after the sedan the french were screaming revanche and we got ypres and verdun.

I literally have no idea what you are talking about there. Can you please explain this "revanche", "ypres" and "verdun"?
Re:Richard Feynman by Bios_Hakr · 2005-07-16 01:20 · Score: 1

>>And why did the USA need to drop 2 bombs on Japan? Didn't the first one do enough to scare the crap out of them?

Apparently, it didn't. I just came back from a visit to Hiroshima. The city was virtually leveled. Oddly enough, the main structures to survive were the ones closest to the hypocenter. Particularly touching was a elementary school building (massive 3-story concrete structure) less than 500 meters from the blast. The walls of the rooms had glass embedded in them. It didn't kill all the children. The ones who died were lucky.

I'm willing to admit that the blame for Hiroshima rests equally on the shoulders of the Japanese and US governments. But for thoes fuckers to see what took place in Hiroshima and not surrender? There is a government completely out of touch with reality.

Every death in Nagasaki will be marked agianst the Japanese government for not surrendering.

>>How far was Truman ready to go? Kill every Japanese person on the earth.

Yes. That's the point of war. You kill the enemy.

That's why we won WW2. It's why we drew in Korea. It's why we lost Vietnam. It's why we will lose Iraq.

Modern society just doesn't have the taste for obliterating the enemy. We aren't willing to live with the memories of the dead.

And that's why war is obselete.

>>And didn't the USA during WWII jail every American citizen that looked Japanese by force, even if they never broke any laws?

Agian, it's about having the will to do what it takes to win. If you are at war with Japanese, watch the Japanese Americans closely. If you are at war with Muslims, watch them closely.

Today, the ACLU wouldn't tolerate us suspending the rights of Muslims. But if Sep 11-style attacks persisted beyond a few isolated cases, the outcry from the public would quickly drown out the ACLU's lobying.

You can try and say it was a differnet time and a different place and thoes things were accepted. But that's not true. It's just that you haven't been put in a situation to make that choice.

And if you were, could you?

--
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
Re:Richard Feynman by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2005-07-16 01:41 · Score: 1

I literally have no idea what you are talking about there. Can you please explain this "revanche", "ypres" and "verdun"?

A while back, in another thread, someone was asking "why does history matter?" I think comments like this are a perfect example.

Revanche

Ypres

Verdun

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:Richard Feynman by Bios_Hakr · 2005-07-16 02:05 · Score: 1

An obvious troll...

Well, Germany's count is, what, 9 million civilians? At least.

What's the US body count?

--
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
Re:Richard Feynman by learn+fast · 2005-07-16 02:40 · Score: 5, Informative

most of the second guessing has come from succeeding generations that had the luxury of self-relection...

"Prof. Albert Einstein... said that he was sure that President Roosevelt would have forbidden the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had he been alive and that it was probably carried out to end the Pacific war before Russia could participate." --Einstein Deplores Use of Atom Bomb, New York Times, 8/19/46, pg. 1

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..." -- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate for Change

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." -- Dwight Eisenhower, Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

On August 8, 1945, after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, [Herbert] Hoover wrote to Army and Navy Journal publisher Colonel John Callan O'Laughlin, "The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul." -- quoted from Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 635.

"MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed. ... When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor." -- Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.
Re:Richard Feynman by Fishstick · 2005-07-16 02:43 · Score: 1

he's talking about WWI -- how does the saying go?

those that are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it (?)

The Battle of Verdun is considered the greatest and lengthiest in world history. Never before or since has there been such a lengthy battle, involving so many men, situated on such a tiny piece of land. The battle, which lasted from 21 February 1916 until 19 December 1916 caused over an estimated 700,000 casualties (dead, wounded and missing). The battlefield was not even a square ten kilometres. From a strategic point of view there can be no justification for these atrocious losses. The battle degenerated into a matter of prestige of two nations literally for the sake of fighting

--
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
Re:Richard Feynman by TheoMurpse · 2005-07-16 02:59 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, every US History class I've ever taken focused on the concepts of "powder keg" and "Balkanization" and not at all on battles during the war. World History classes...I can't remember taking one of those since junior high school, and it's not required in college (especially not for a math major). Perhaps I should do some outside reading, but I have had little chance to do it yet.

This is a failing of the US system of education, that we view that nothing after 1900 is "history" yet, so it doesn't warrant studying.

WWII is covered only because of the Holocaust and the Bomb. WWI is covered as a speed bump that Germany got the raw deal and got pissed enough to fight WWII.

those that are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it

I'll make sure to remember that next time I become president of the US or a 4-star general ;)
Re:Richard Feynman by b17bmbr · 2005-07-16 03:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

From what I've read, Japan was training women and children with wooden spears, farm implements, anything they could get their hands on. They were preparing to wage a guerilla war that would make the insurgency in Iraq look like child's play. Imagine the propects of 19 y/o Marines having to machine gun women and children. Remember the Japanese island straegy after the fall of the marianas and the beginning of bombardment from the 20th AF. It was a fatalistsic, "we can't win, but we can make them bleed dearly for every inch" strategy. The cost in lives was mounting island by island. They were willing to trade life for life. They were planning on making us bleed to death. I'm sorry, I know Ike and many others were squishy over othe bomb, but I still think it was justified.

consider this as well: we killed far more in March over Tokyo with the firebombings than we did at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In fact, it was LeMay who said that give him another month or two of bombing and there'd be nothing left in Japan to bomb. Now, we could have conceivably killed another 200,000 or more with more firebombing, and we'd not have the stigma of the atomic bomb. Fine. But I do think it's a little presumptuous for us to think that there lots of alternatives. I just don't there were many. Japan's moved on, perhaps we should too.

--
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Re:Richard Feynman by b17bmbr · 2005-07-16 03:05 · Score: 1

p.s. I'm a high school history teacher. and yes, the Balkan powder keg was part, but did you read about Germany's Weltpolitik and fear of encirclement? Anyways, I teach history not social studies. Nice point!!

sadly, many students in college get little or no history, and that which they do get is watered down, politicized and turned into -studies courses, completely unrelated to actual history. You are right, what a sad state of affairs public education is in today.

--
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Re:Richard Feynman by timeOday · 2005-07-16 03:36 · Score: 1

It seems that many of the people who helped build the atomic bomb were later pushed out of any talk about how the bomb was to be used.... If there is a team of 3 or 4 that is 90% responsible for building the worlds worst weapon, should they have a say if it is used?
Then learn from this: scientists and engineers are tools.
It's the same in industry; who profits from an invention? Whoever had the money to pay somebody to invent it.

It's the money and power that count, not the brains.
Re:Richard Feynman by calidoscope · 2005-07-16 03:43 · Score: 1

consider this as well: we killed far more in March over Tokyo with the firebombings than we did at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
A couple of factoids:

Truman first found out about the extent of firebombing in June 1945 - and ordered that it be stopped immediatefly. Truman, unlike Roosevelt, did see combat in WW1.

A third bomb was being shipped on August 14th - the plane carrying it was told to stop in northern California.

I haven't met anyone who served in the Pacific theater during WW2 who wasn't grateful that the bombs were used.

--
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
Re:Richard Feynman by Fishstick · 2005-07-16 03:54 · Score: 1

yep - most of what I know about history did not come from history classes. I agree that the US education system, as I experienced it, fails to impart any useful history.

those that are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it

I'll make sure to remember that next time I become president of the US or a 4-star general ;)

I could argue that it is not just the leaders at the top who benefit from a useful knowledge of history's failures.

--
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
Re:Richard Feynman by Wyatt+Earp · 2005-07-16 03:55 · Score: 1

The team at Los Alamos designed the weapons, but they didn't design all the systems, remeber that the explosion 60 years ago was simply the culmination of a vast system of factories, labratories and systems. The scientists were just the tip of a huge pyramid for the Manhattan Project, so they were not 90% responsible for building it.

And when one looks at terrible weapons, I don't think nukes are the "worst". I think Chemical Weapons might well be the "worst" weapon system developed.

Why did the US drop two weapons? Because it took two weapons to get Japan to surrender. Had the Japanese not surrendered, the US would have stockpiled devices for Operation Olympic and used the nukes against massed Japanese Troops and Civilians on the Home Islands.

No, the US didn't jail every American Citizen that looked Japanese.

"The Japanese American internment refers to the exclusion and subsequent removal of approximately 112,000 to 120,000 Japanese and Japanese Americans, officially described as "persons of Japanese ancestry," 62 percent of whom were United States citizens, from the west coast of the United States during World War II to hastily constructed housing facilities called War Relocation Camps in remote portions of the nation's interior. The U.S. government officially apologised for this action in the 1980s and paid reparations. (Note: Reparations had in fact already been paid in 1948, and Congress passed eight more compensation-related laws between 1951 and 1978.)
Similar internments occurred across Canada as well."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_internment

The camps weren't prisons, nor concentration camps, and many Japanese settled outside of the camps after initial processing and many young males served in Europe in a number of Regimental Combat Teams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_Regimental_Comb at_Team

A good sized number of Italians and Germans in the US were also intered.
Re:Richard Feynman by TheoMurpse · 2005-07-16 04:08 · Score: 1

I never heard about Weltpolitik, but I am vaguely aware of the fear of encirclement because I have an idea of what it means from seeing the phrase -- Germany was afraid of being surrounded by powerful countries.

Unfortunately, reading "Weltpolitik" as "world politics" yields fewer hints about what it means, but a nice wikisearch brings up this, and it turns out that it was a policy of Germany's that sought it's "place in the sun" since it was a rising industrial power. Makes sense.

Thanks for the tips, and I still wonder when I'll have time to brush up on my WWI history, something I have recognized as severely lacking for a couple of years now (whenever I read a Red Baron comic in Peanuts ;)
Re:Richard Feynman by 3263827 · 2005-07-16 04:10 · Score: 1

Nice factoids, except they're lacking in both fact and corroboration. First of all, the atomic bombs were not shipped by plane. Yes they were dropped by plane, but they were shipped by truck/rail and by ship. The Indianapolis was responsible for delivering the first two to Tinian.

Do you have any links to support Truman stopping the fire raids on Tokyo?

Your third point matches my anecdotal encounters.
Re:Richard Feynman by mckyj57 · 2005-07-16 04:29 · Score: 1

And why did the USA need to drop 2 bombs on Japan? Didn't the first one do enough to scare the crap out of them? How far was Truman ready to go? Kill every Japanese person on the earth.

Because the Japanese had shown that they weren't giving up easily despite the
chance that they had ZERO chance of winning the war or affecting the US demand
for unconditional surrender.

With what had happened to their infrastructure, another winter would have left
their civilian population starving, not to mention the hundreds of thousands
of deaths that would have occurred in an invasion.

And didn't the USA during WWII jail every American citizen that looked Japanese by force, even if they never broke any laws?

Nice hindsight -- another person expecting the people of generations ago to
behave as we would today.

Compared to the opposition in the war the U.S. behaved in a fairly civilized
fashion.
Re:Richard Feynman by Neoprofin · 2005-07-16 05:56 · Score: 1

Thomas Jefferson didn't support a standing army. Andrew Jackson tried his hardest to destroy the National Bank. Abraham Lincoln was not an abolitionist. It's easy to go back in time and find people who dissent, people in power who you would think should have some say, but history still played out as it did. Were these people, or the scientists who didn't support using the bomb wrong? We'll never know, but that doesn't mean they're right.
Re:Richard Feynman by line.at.infinity · 2005-07-16 06:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

1) marianas, iwo jima and okinawa.

After the battle of Okinawa killed off 30 percent of the civilian population there, the US had already secured Okinawa, marianas, and Iwojima. Dropping the atomic bomb came months afterwards.

2) russia. sure, we were their ally, but we all knew what they were, what they were going to do, and we wanted to send a message. if the rosenbergs (yes they were soviet spies) not given up the bomb, we'd have been in a totally different situation.

The rosenburgs could not have been used as part of the reasoning or justification for the use of the bomb when they were discovered to be spies after the war ended. Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill seem to have an awfully big grin on their faces in a joint photo that they've taken..

3) japan didn't surrender after bomb #1...

The fact that the bombs didn't have the power to bring Japan to immediate surrender (e.g. next day surrender) seems to go against one of the few touted strategic benefits of it, which is that it brings a rapid end to war by showing off military might. If the US could wait as they did after the Nagasaki detonation, couldn't they have waited more after the Hiroshima detonation and perhaps seen the war come to an end without the city of Nagasaki and the thousands of innocent civilians in it incinerated? And couldn't they have dropped it on a place with little to no civilian population instead of Hiroshima, if the main objective of using it was to show US military might?

4) politics. we were getting really tired of the war.

Yeah, and Hitler was really getting tired of Jews and homosexuals...

40 years after the sedan the french were screaming revanche and we got ypres and verdun. 40 years after hiroshima, the japanese were not and we got toyotas.

Even if US victory was good, that doesn't justify the use of the atomic bomb.

The US always says remember Pearl Harbor, remember 9-11, but neither were attacks on residential zones or as sustained an attack as ones experienced in other parts of the world. The US is the world's single super power yet it has not been the target of the the same level of tragedy it is capable of inflicting.

The sorry thing about nuclear weapons is that they're not useful strategically because conventional explosives already can be used effectively on strategic targets. Nuclear weapons now thousands of times more powerful than the one dropped on Hiroshima are only good for genocide.
Re:Richard Feynman by jbridge21 · 2005-07-16 06:23 · Score: 1

If there is a team of 3 or 4 that is 90% responsible for building the worlds worst weapon, should they have a say if it is used? Or do they lose that right when the finish making it?

Without saying anything about "rights this" or "rights that", it's pretty clear that they lost the ability to have a say in its use when they agreed to construct it for someone else, namely, a military-industrial-congressional complex actively involved in massive amounts of killing.
Re:Richard Feynman by maxpublic · 2005-07-16 06:54 · Score: 1

I agree with most of your points, but Japanese Americans are Japanese AMERICANS. You might as well say that during war you should watch ALL your citizens closely because you never know who's going to sell you out. Just because one of your citizens has epicanthic folds doesn't make it any more likely that he's going to be the douchebag who does the deed.

And terrorism isn't monopolized by towel-headed religious fanatics. Terrorism is a weapon of FANATICS - period. Fanatics of all kinds, of all stripes. Just ask Timothy McVeigh who, prior to 9/11, held the record for body count within the United States. If you want to make a point here it isn't that Americans who happen to be Muslims should be watched, it's Americans who've been identified as fanatics - especially religious fanatics, *regardless of what religion they supposedly support*. And yes indeedy, that includes Christians.

Max

--
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Re:Richard Feynman by jafac · 2005-07-16 07:05 · Score: 1

I guess we'll know soon enough how bad a mainland invasion of Japan would have been. My guess is, sometime in the next 20 years, China will be doing that. Or maybe they'll just use nukes like we did.

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Re:Richard Feynman by timeOday · 2005-07-16 07:35 · Score: 1

I wonder why the above was moderated flamebait? Since no WMD were found, we've concentrated on the humanitarian benefits of the invasion - bringing freedom to Iraq by ousting Saddam. So it's logically inconsistent to suggest 'winning' Iraq by "killing every [Iraqi] on earth."
Re:Richard Feynman by b17bmbr · 2005-07-16 08:18 · Score: 1

The reason I mentioned the german word, weltpolitik, was that it had a special resonance with the kaiser much like lebensraum had for hitler. the word meant far more than the translation. what the kaiser wanted was to be a naval and imperial power with colonies to match the british. why I'll never know, fo rhe never truly conveyed his thoughts to his closest friends or to paper.

encirclement, and i've forgotten the german word, was the fear of the franco-russian alliance. i.e. surrounded on two sides. thus the schlieffen plan, knock out france early, then go east.

there were many reasons for WW1, and the balkans were truly a small part, much smaller than history books claim. much like anything else, it's the easiest and simplest solution. which is why i don't use the textbook in my class!!

there were two balkan wars in 1912 and 1913 which did not lead to world war. why did the third balkan war? well, you'll have to read tuchman, keegan, gilbert, and my favorite kagan for starters. suffice to say it was a series of errors coupled with hubris. i cringe when i read what is being taught as "history" today. some around here don't like my particular point of view on things, as is their right. fine. but point of view is one thing, history is entirely another. if you get a chance, seriously, pick up a high school text book and read about the great depression. chances are they'll mention a few reasons, none that actual economists conclude. for instance, if you find one HS textbook that mentions farming failures, rural bank failures, price deflation, and fed monetary policy i'll give you $1 million.

--
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Re:Richard Feynman by Bios_Hakr · 2005-07-16 08:49 · Score: 1

You can't rationalize war.

If you have an enemy and that enemy has a leader, it's easy to bomb them till they are tired of being bombed. Then they will surrender.

That's not what happened in Iraq.

We went in virtually unopposed. We never really beat the fight out of the enemy. That's why they are still resisting us.

We need to either leave, or kill the enemy.

--
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
Re:Richard Feynman by Bios_Hakr · 2005-07-16 08:58 · Score: 1

I agree. But identifying fanatics can be hard. Especially on short notice.

--
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
Re:Richard Feynman by NoOneInParticular · 2005-07-16 09:09 · Score: 1

What's the US body count
Increasing.
Re:Richard Feynman by nukenerd · 2005-07-16 11:02 · Score: 1

"... we'd have had 100X worse on japanese mainland. we expected 1 million allied casualties ..."

It never seems to have occurred to anyone in the west, then or now, that Japan did not need to be invaded. They had already lost the war by July 1945. Japan has no natural resources (except fish). Its external communications were closed. its navy sunk, its aircraft all destroyed. Only its armies abroad were still active, but they could have easily been defeated after letting them stew for a bit, as they ran out of supplies.

There was no need to set foot on the Japanese homeland, which could have been isolated and monitored for any military rebuilding - any of which could have been nipped in the bud by targeted bombing of factories and shipyards as necessary. Peaceful trade could have been allowed, to prevent starvation.

Unfortunately the US attitude (then and now) of wanting to draw a line under an episode, to bring home the boys, and the myth of a golden future, made this politically impossible in the US. The US could not resist the chance to end it all with a big bang. They wanted and got a surrender ceremony.

The US also wanted an ally, or at least a trading partner, in the Far East to counterbalance those of the European Great Powers. Japan had always been in US sights for this. The politicians also knew that the average person in a victim nation soon forgets even the most fearsome atrocities. Within months of the bombs Japanese girls were marrying GIs.

In contrast, the British have an acceptance of the need for open ended policing of the world. British people are not fazed by the idea of their sons being stationed the opposite side of the world for months on end, even if being shot at. This is a well trodden path and based on hard-won experience in the British Empire for 300+ years. It was (and still is) more realistic and effective, and leads to fewer casualties all round.
Re:Richard Feynman by aminorex · 2005-07-16 14:04 · Score: 1

This "1,000,000" number is a fabrication created after the war to help justify the slaughter. The war department estimated losses during an invasion of the big islands at 60-70,000, before the fact.

--
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Re:Richard Feynman by aminorex · 2005-07-16 14:06 · Score: 1

> I haven't met anyone who served in the Pacific theater during WW2 who wasn't grateful that the bombs were used

I haven't met anyone who died of radiation poisoning in Nagasaki who didn't regret that the bombs were used.

--
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Re:Richard Feynman by aminorex · 2005-07-16 14:13 · Score: 1

Several times that.

--
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Re:Richard Feynman by aminorex · 2005-07-16 14:17 · Score: 1

> Compared to the opposition in the war the U.S. behaved in a fairly civilized
fashion.

With the notable exception of the mass-murder conducted in Germany after the end of the war, and depopulation fire-bombing of major cities in Europe and Japan, sure. Those are some hellacious exceptions, however.

The allies won because they were more vicious, ruthless, and bloodthirsty than their enemies. It generally works that way.

--
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Re:Richard Feynman by calidoscope · 2005-07-16 14:38 · Score: 1

For the story about the third bomb - see Richard Rhodes "Making of the Atomic Bomb" - Rhodes specifically said that the third bomb was being shipped by air (this was after the disaster with the Indianopolis - another reason was to get the third bomb there ASAP).
For the story about Truman, see the "New Dealers' War" by Thomas Fleming. FDR had kept Truman in the dark about many things (including the A-bomb work).

THere was an article in "Trains" magazine a couple of years ago about a fellow riding with Truman in 1961 - Truman had stated that they were estimating 95% casualties for the initial assaults on the Japanese homeland - the fellow writing the article would have been on one of the initial assaults.

--
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
Re:Richard Feynman by gbjbaanb · 2005-07-17 02:36 · Score: 1

40 years after the sedan the french were screaming revanche and we got ypres and verdun. 40 years after hiroshima, the japanese were not and we got toyotas.

and 40 years after Ypres and Verdun, the French are screaming 'boom bang a bang, tilly-willy boom bang'. Sometimes, I think the Eurovision Song contest is just too high a price to pay. :-)
Re:Richard Feynman by learn+fast · 2005-07-17 16:12 · Score: 1

Did you miss the part of my post where I quoted the parent poster as saying "most of the second guessing has come from succeeding generations that had the luxury of self-relection"?

Whether this "second-guessing" was or was not justified, there were indeed dissenting opinions at the highest possible level (among them Supreme Allied Commander Eisenhower) and so the GP poster's point was demonstrably false.

I don't really know whether MacArthur, Eisenhower and Einstein were right, but I beleive their opinions were based on the premise that Japan was already on the verge of surrendering, regardless of all that scorched-earth stuff they may have planned at some point. I don't really know which premise is more credible but I only posted with the goal of demolishing that one part of the GP poster's post, not trying to make a larger point about whether the bomb was justified or not.
Re:Richard Feynman by pesky25 · 2005-07-18 02:22 · Score: 1

But it was ok to target civilians by fire bombing the shit out of them in other cities, etc?
Or maybe we should have dropped a fire bomb in the desert, showed them a picture of it and 'waited' (meaning sending/letting more allied soldier die.) Also, morality in war?

And as for being far from certain that the bomb was the fastest way to end the war. Big deal if it wasn't, it was far from certain that d-day would work, etc. If that bomb saved 1 us soldier from dying, then drop it.
Re:Richard Feynman by JavaLord · 2005-07-18 08:01 · Score: 1

And why did the USA need to drop 2 bombs on Japan?

Yes, and the good guys won.

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by Anonymous Coward · 2005-07-15 22:16 · Score: 4, Informative

The actual physics involved in building a bomb will be covered by any standard undergraduate physics course. Thats not the tricky bit. It gets difficult when the recipe called for a few kgs of U235 or Pu-239. Even if you could get your hands on some Uranium you would still have to process it to extract the fissile U235 from the U233, requiring all kinds of highly restricted and monitored hardware.

Oh dear... by speights_pride! · 2005-07-15 22:18 · Score: 1

... and the world is a better place?

One Big Birthday Candle by Quirk · 2005-07-15 22:21 · Score: 3, Funny

They have set us up the bomb all your base are belong to us

--
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by SlightOverdose · 2005-07-15 22:23 · Score: 1

Theres nothing in that article that you wouldn't find in your average high school physics textbook. Building a nuclear bomb from that would be like building a car based on a description of how a 4 stroke engine works.

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by John+Seminal · 2005-07-15 22:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

So we pump up the rhetoric to prevent others from acquiring these weapons. Remember, we do not destroy our own. By the way, is it true that the most deadly nuclear weapons are actually produced by Russia?

There was a news program on TV, maybe nightline, which went to Russia to ask how much of their nuclear program has been dismantled. The anwser was not much. It is expensive to take apart nuclear missiles and store the rods. Plus, it is an attractive target for thieves. It can get good money on the black market. Look at Osama, he is worth how much money? 100 million dollars. I am sure he would buy nuclear material if he could. How tempting is that for someone who works for Russia, you get your boss, maybe a security gaurd and another worker together, and split 60 million dollars 3 ways. Could someone who sold a nuclear rod, with 20+ million dollars dissapear off the face of the earth, to some carribian resort to live out their lives sipping mixed drinks while suntanning?

I don't think the USA will destroy their nukes in our times. But I think the USA nukes will become a problem. How are they controlled?? It takes an order from the president to launch an attack, but how is that order communicated? If someone figures that out, could there be an accidental launch? What if at a silo, a crazy Air Force colonel decides to take his silo into lockdown, no communication in or out. He then conveys a presidential order to launch. Can he get away with it? And what about nukes that are on air force jets, how are they launched? Could the pilot decide to launch his nuke? Or on a submarine. We have many of them with nukes. Remember the movie where the one sub gets its communications broken, but the skipper believes he is ordered to launch a nuke? Could that happen?

For every nuclear bomb the USA has, it must be very expensive maintaining that nuclear bomb and keeping it secure.

--

Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by rjh · 2005-07-15 22:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

What was the name of that chinese scientist who got sent to jail??

Wen Ho Lee. The case against him crumbled in a major way. He plead guilty to one minor count, and the government quickly trumpeted this as a victory. At sentencing, Dr. Lee was sentenced to time served and was released with the court's apologies. The judge was clearly of the opinion that Dr. Lee had been treated shamefully by the prosecution.

I remember reading that most of the Uranium in the world was in Africa

Don't believe everything you read. Uranium is found damn near everywhere: granite, gravel... uranium is cheap and available from many different sources.

How difficult is [refining] to detect?

Short answer: very. We didn't know the North Koreans were refining plutonium until they claimed to have a nuke. We didn't know about the Iranian refining program until Iranian exile groups came forward with the information.

War criminal by DoktorTomoe · 2005-07-15 22:31 · Score: 1, Insightful

I am in no way ashamed of what I had done in any way, shape, matter or form. I did what I was told to do. I did it to the best of my ability.

Those KZ guys also thought thisd "excuse" would wash them from their evildoings...

--
Screw the FSM - Real geeks believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn

Re:War criminal by DoktorTomoe · 2005-07-16 01:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes, I happen to be german. So what? Last time I checked, there were no german war crimes committed after the day I've been born, and so I cannot possibly be a part of those non-existant crimes. I therefore do not see how my nationality should change the way I think about war crimes. Especially if they are targeted at civilians.

--
Screw the FSM - Real geeks believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn
Re:War criminal by Just+Another+Poster · 2005-07-17 08:38 · Score: 1

Those KZ guys also thought thisd "excuse" would wash them from their evildoings...
My grandfathers bombed centers of military and industrial production for the purpose of stopping an enemy who threatened the lives of people all across the Pacific.

Your grandfathers rounded up and systematically exterminated millions of passive, unarmed people for the "crime" of being Jewish.

Now, tell me whom are the evil ones?

oh no! by Jetboy01 · 2005-07-15 22:33 · Score: 2, Funny

Herb Lehr set up us the bomb!

Re:oh no! by dabigpaybackski · 2005-07-16 00:43 · Score: 1

For great justice!

--
"OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"

Pictures by J.+Random+Luser · 2005-07-15 22:37 · Score: 1

of the Trinity test can be found at the Nuclear Weapon Archive, and Trinity site, and even the DOE is trying to make a buck on the side by selling the movie.

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by rock_climbing_guy · 2005-07-15 22:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm fond of a certain commentator's comment that despite all of the "disarmament agreements" we've had, the only way to get rid of nuclear weapons is to use them.

--
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???

But you are wrong by Knome_fan · 2005-07-15 22:47 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Had the US not developed and deployed the bomb, someone else would have been the first to use it."

Ah, what a nice "argument". You can't of course know if someone else would have used it, but stating it as a fact seems such a great justification for US action, doesn't it?

Besides, I hope you never have to stand before a court of law, because believe me, these hypothetical arguments are not going to impress the judge.

"Questions about our righteousness in nuking Japan (who themselves slaughtered even more civilians in Nanking than we killed with 2 A-bombs) will never die, but I'm confident that the US getting the bomb before China, the USSR and other nations, made it possible for us to scare everyone into not using them again."

Gee, it's great that you are confident about it. I'm sure those who died because of the bombs would be delighted to hear it.

"We sure as heck could not have ended the war with harsh insults in Japanese... a direct invasion would have cost millions of lives and left Russia open to join in."
Jesus, at least get your facts straight. Russia did join the war against Japan which prompted Truman to his famous words, that that meant: Finis Japan!

About the bombs saving millions of lives, this argument has been refuted so many times already that it's really embarassing to bring it up again. The first problem with your argument is that it doesn't take the situatuion at the time into account. Japan was already trying hard to find a way to surrender. This was one of the reasons that people like Eisenhower thought it was a grave mistake, to say at least, to drop the bombs.

It also doesn't take into account that the estimates on which those who decided to drop the bombs operated in no way support the notion that millions would be killed should an invasion indeed occur. It's in fact quite funny that the estimates at the time were speaking of thousands of deaths (terrible enough, but not millions), then after the war the number of half a million lives saved was the official justification, only to be extended to a million and now to several millions.

"Ask the Germans what happened when the Soviet men came into Berlin, and overlay that disaster onto Tokyo..."
As I'm German myself I'm well aware of what happened when the Soviets came into Berlin and though a lot of things were terrible you can rest assured that people in Germany consider themselves very lucky to not have been subjected to the bomb.

Also, what does that have to do with the atomic bomb? Nothing?

"This isn't meant as a troll or flamebait, seriously, I think millions of lives were saved, perhaps billions."
Jesus, its not often that one has to read so much bullshit in one sentence. Billions? Yeah, sure....

Thanks mods for modding parent up, it really was an impressive posting.

Re:But you are wrong by Morky · 2005-07-15 23:51 · Score: 1

You're a German arguing about American morality in World War II? You don't think Japan or Germany or the USSR would have used the bomb if they had it first? Stalin would have made Germany a smoking crater.
Hindsight is 20/20. The U.S. was in a World War that it didn't start and wanted to end as quickly as possible. The bomb didn' t yet have the stigma is has now, because it had never been used. It was seen as simply another, better weapon.
I don't know where you got your source on Japan trying to surrender, but I doubt its veracity. It was pretty easy for them to surrender after Nagasaki. And you think only thousands would have died in a mainland invasion of Japan? Think of Dresden (which I agree was a war crime) and then multiply that by a few dozen large Japanese cities.
You may have thought the post was simplistic, but yours was hardly better.
Re:But you are wrong by Knome_fan · 2005-07-16 00:33 · Score: 1

"You're a German arguing about American morality in World War II?"
No, I'm a German arguing about history. If you read what I wrote again, I never gave a moral judgment about the bombings, I just pointed out that the historical narative of the parent poster was wrong. History tends to be a little more complicated.

"You don't think Japan or Germany or the USSR would have used the bomb if they had it first? Stalin would have made Germany a smoking crater."
Again, I fail to see where I argued that they wouldn't have done it. But as they didn't arguing about it is pretty irrelevant.

"Hindsight is 20/20. The U.S. was in a World War that it didn't start and wanted to end as quickly as possible. The bomb didn' t yet have the stigma is has now, because it had never been used. It was seen as simply another, better weapon."
Why do people feel the urge to tell a simplistic story of what happened? Claiming that the atomic bomb was seen as just an other weapon simply isn't true. This doesn't have anything to do with hindsight, this has to do with the documents of the time clearly showing that this was not the case.

"I don't know where you got your source on Japan trying to surrender, but I doubt its veracity."
Sources?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hi roshima_and_Nagasaki
This gives a pretty good run down of the arguments from both sides. If you really want to get into the matter:
- Gar Alperovitz: The Decision to use the Atomic Bombs.
- Michael J. Hogan: Hiroshima in History and Memory
- Kai Bird and Lawrence Lifschultz: Hiroshima's Shadows

"And you think only thousands would have died in a mainland invasion of Japan?"
Ehm, that's not what I said. I pointed out that the military estimates of how many people woud get killed were nowhere near the millions that are now frequently mentioned in the discussion.

"You may have thought the post was simplistic, but yours was hardly better."
How so?
Re:But you are wrong by TGK · 2005-07-16 00:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why do people feel the urge to tell a simplistic story of what happened? Claiming that the atomic bomb was seen as just another weapon simply isn't true. This doesn't have anything to do with hindsight, this has to do with the documents of the time clearly showing that this was not the case.

As a trained historian and scientist, this disturbs me. Very little was understood of radioactive substances in the 1940s. What was understood was that exposure to large quantities of exotic substances caused a kind of sickness - little more. This does not translate, scientifically or historically, into an understanding that a detonation would result in radiation deaths.

Without radiation deaths, the atomic bomb is just a really big bomb. That's it -- and that's what it was seen as by the US military and by Truman (who, if you'll recall, wasn't really in on the day to day goings on of the Roosevelt administration).

US troops on the ground after the detonations didn't know what the weapon did. Radiation poisoning was called "Disease-X" and we had no idea where it came from or how to stop it.

Ultimately, World War II was a total war. In such a war, great powers seek to destroy each other absolutely with whatever means are within their reach. Debating the morality of the atomic bomb in such a context is a historical error called anachronism - judging the actions of the past by the political, social, and scientific mores of the present. Debate the morality of total war all you like - but the atom bomb was just the latest and greatest in a series of hellish weapons developed by mankind.

Name one weapon before the atomic bomb - any weapon, so horrible that its use in warfare was taboo before it was ever deployed. Why should this case be different? What should have fired off in Truman's head saying that obviously this weapon is worse than poison gas, incendiary bombs, biological weapons and countless other innovations of human kind?

History is about more than just reading about the past -- it is about seeing the events and people of an era through their own eyes. If you fail to do that, you're not a historian.

--
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
Re:But you are wrong by Da+Fokka · 2005-07-16 01:22 · Score: 1

You're a German arguing about American morality in World War II? You don't think Japan or Germany or the USSR would have used the bomb if they had it first? Stalin would have made Germany a smoking crater.

I think it's pretty safe to assume that even although he's german, this guy was no wehrmacht officer/ss ubersturmfuhrer or concentration camp guard. So him being german should not be a factor in judging his post.
Re:But you are wrong by Knome_fan · 2005-07-16 01:43 · Score: 1, Insightful

"As a trained historian and scientist, this disturbs me."

As a trained historian disturbing you really disturbs me. And btw., a BA in history and training for a BS in computer science does sound a lot more modest than trained historian and scientist, not to mention the fact that appeal to authority is only a very bad substitute for a coherent argument.

What even disturbs me more is that you are building up a strawman argument. Nowhere did I mention that the effects of atomic bombs were fully understood. However, contrary to what you imply not fully understanding the effects doesn't mean that the people weren't aware of the special nature of the atomic bomb. This can, and I can only repeat myself here, clearly be shown by the discussion that led to using the atomic bombs. That you'd like to dismiss the historic records as irrelevant as they don't fit your agenda doesn't change that.

"Ultimately, World War II was a total war. In such a war, great powers seek to destroy each other absolutely with whatever means are within their reach. Debating the morality of the atomic bomb in such a context is a historical error called anachronism - judging the actions of the past by the political, social, and scientific mores of the present."
Hm, first off, and I have to repeat myself here yet again, I didn't even debate the morality or made a moral judgement, I just pointed out that the poster I answer was making a lot of factual mistakes, to put it mildly.
Further about the issue of anachronism, as I didn't judge them that is a moot point anyway, but as I repeatedly pointed out you and others are overlooking that at the time, not now, the issue was hotly debated and there were many people, Eisenhower was just one example, who in the context of the time held the opinion that using the atomic bombs was unjustifiable, unjustified and morally wrong. How is pointing this out anachronistic?
Re:But you are wrong by charyou-tree · 2005-07-16 04:05 · Score: 1

I'm sure those who died because of the bombs would be delighted to hear it.

They were Japanese people. Japan started the war. Japan declined to surrender. Boom. Then, boom again.

Fuck 'em. I don't give a shit what they might or might not have been delighted to hear. The survivors should count themselves lucky we chose to help them rebuild rather than sow their fields with salt and leave no two stones atop one another.

When you pick a fight and lose, you don't get to complain about the manner by which you got your ass kicked. I don't know why this is such a difficult concept for so many people.
Re:But you are wrong by TGK · 2005-07-16 06:14 · Score: 2, Insightful
Allright -- fine. You seem to see yourself as authoritive on this subject matter, so I'll defer to you on this.

owever, contrary to what you imply not fully understanding the effects doesn't mean that the people weren't aware of the special nature of the atomic bomb.

Please supply
- Documentation on the "special nature" of the atomic bomb from pre 1946
- A concise explanation of what your personal thoughts are on the morality of the atomic bombing -- since you obviously disagree with mine
Further about the issue of anachronism, as I didn't judge them that is a moot point anyway, but as I repeatedly pointed out you and others are overlooking that at the time, not now, the issue was hotly debated and there were many people, Eisenhower was just one example, who in the context of the time held the opinion that using the atomic bombs was unjustifiable, unjustified and morally wrong. How is pointing this out anachronistic?

None of the objections raised in the wikipedia article you provide deal with the "special" nature of the bomb, including Eisenhower. If your judgements are tinged by your modern knowledge of nuclear weapons - that's anachronism. Again, please provide these vaunted documents discussing the "special" characteristics of the atomic bomb.
--
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
Re:But you are wrong by KarmaMB84 · 2005-07-16 06:41 · Score: 1

Destroy cities full of citizens?? Oh my, how could they use the atomic bomb for that? How dare they!! We had perfectly usable incendiary bombs that we were already using for that purpose. The atomic bombs were not special cases of the slaughter of civilians in World War II. Both sides were already doing that with fire bombs. Nuclear bombs simply did it faster.

Demonstration? Best case scenario: Japanese see a big blinding flash. OOOOOhhhh, fireworks! But can it destroy anything? Worst case scenario: Bomb blows itself apart and fails to go nuclear and Japanese go back home laughing their asses off and prepare to slaughter the idiot Americans on the beaches.
Re:But you are wrong by maxpublic · 2005-07-16 07:28 · Score: 1

I don't know why this is such a difficult concept for so many people.

These are the same people whose sheltered existence has somehow led them to believe that war can in some bizarre way be a 'civilized' activity, and that certain classes of people (e.g., civilians) should never be targeted or that certain types of weapons (in this case, nukes) should never be used. To them war is an abstract, a game of Warcraft gone bad.

War is about winning. It's about destroying the other guy's ability to continue the conflict. You do this not only by killing as many of his soldiers as you possibly can, but also by killing the civilians involved in the production of war materials. There are no 'non-combatants' in a war zone, and to insist otherwise is liberal naivete.

The bomb, in this case, was an attempt to convince the Japanese government that the only alternative to surrender was horrible death from the skies. The fact that they'd already come to that conclusion (re the massive U.S. conventional bombardment of Japan) wasn't entirely apparent to the U.S. leadership. Right or wrong, they saw the bomb as ultimately saving American lives, and in war the only lives that count are those of your own citizens.

The armchair generals who think that kicking ass in a game of "Hearts of Iron" somehow makes them qualified to discuss the topic and to vomit up obnoxious 20-20 hindsight criticisms of the people who dropped the bomb will never understand the reality of war, nor even the reality of that particular war. They just won't get it until they find themselves in some nasty little shithole trying to breathe through their mouth to keep out the smell of intestines rotting in the noon sun.

Max

--
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Re:But you are wrong by TwentyLeaguesUnderLa · 2005-07-16 07:34 · Score: 1

"When you pick a fight and lose" However, the entire reason for this discussion, is that the bomb kills people that were never part of the fight - it kills CIVILIANS, who did not pick the fight at all but merely happened to live in a country whose leaders did. If the Bomb merely destroyed those that picked the fight - the military and the politicians - then this discussion probably wouldn't be happening.
Re:But you are wrong by aminorex · 2005-07-16 14:38 · Score: 1

You want to take out Tojo and Hirohito, go for it. You want to kill 2 million poor suckers who happened to live in the country they seized? I'm going to remove your liver with a putty knife, or die trying.

Assassination is the only decent mode of warfare.

--
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Re:But you are wrong by aminorex · 2005-07-16 14:40 · Score: 1

Name one city burned to the ground by the Germans or the Japanese. Just one. Please.
Or by "both sides" did you mean the Americans and the British?

--
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Re:But you are wrong by arkane1234 · 2005-07-16 14:45 · Score: 1

Name one city burned to the ground by the Germans or the Japanese. Just one. Please.

Well, Stalingrad was pretty much annihilated.. not burned, but damn close to it.

The Germans and the Japanese were by no means humanitarians, if that's what you're trying to muster up.

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Re:But you are wrong by charyou-tree · 2005-07-16 15:57 · Score: 1

However, the entire reason for this discussion, is that the bomb kills people that were never part of the fight - it kills CIVILIANS, who did not pick the fight at all

The only true innocents were kids. The adult civilians supported their leaders (or they chose not to rise up against them), they worked in factories that built things for the war effort, they worked in fields that grew food for soldiers, they gave aid and comfort to their military, they cheered their nation's victories and mourned its losses.

"Civilian" is a nice term, and our ability to avoid targetting civilians yet still win wars is a modern luxury borne of trivial details like precision munitions and overwhelming military superiority.

Hey, every death is tragic, but I don't lose any sleep over those deaths. They were part of the fight - directly or indirectly - by supporting the war effort in the ways noted above. Those Japanese civilians who lacked the courage to stand up to their leaders are not more deserving of life than the American Marines, airmen, sailors, and soldiers who would have died during an invasion of Japan. I will not apologize for their deaths, and I am disgusted by Americans who think we should apologize or somehow feel guilt or shame about nuking the Japanese.

If the Bomb merely destroyed those that picked the fight - the military and the politicians

Bah. Next you'll be arguing that since the privates and corporals didn't pick the fight then it's (a) unethical to kill hordes of enemy soldiers, and (b) the only ethical way to wage war is to target sergeants and above. This is, of course, crap.

And it is also crap, also of course, to suggest that it was wrong or unethical to seize a golden opportunity amidst a long, bloody war to blast the hell out of an enemy city and scare a few Russians while risking essentially no allied lives.
Re:But you are wrong by charyou-tree · 2005-07-16 16:12 · Score: 1

You are now implicitly allowing the terrorists to have their way with us. Good job.

No. I think we should be ruthlessly exterminating them too.

I don't believe 'War On Terror' is a particularly helpful label, but I do believe that we are at war, and I expect to take casualties in this war. I expect to see more friends get hurt and killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. I expect the enemy to eventually get through and kill more Americans on US soil. In fact, I expect a lot more Americans to get killed.

That's why I'm going back to the Middle East next month with about 1000 of my closest friends. We will bleed, they will bleed more, the world will change, and in the end, we will win.

The fact that I believe the terrorists will hurt us again, and again, and again before this is all over does not mean I'm going to allow them to do it. I'm willing to spend a lot of time away from home, at some risk to myself, to support my nation's attempts to reshape the part of the world that gave birth to violent Islamic extremists.

WTF do you do, besides posting whiny strawmen arguments on Slashdot?
Re:But you are wrong by mfrank · 2005-07-18 08:35 · Score: 1

Well, about the only way they could get someone with a rifle close enough to Tojo or Hirohito to off them was to kill a few million people they've got between you and them.

Maybe you can share with us your clever plan for getting an assassin close to Kim Il Jong.
Re:But you are wrong by aminorex · 2005-07-21 05:26 · Score: 1

I am willing to assassinate Kim Il Jong for expenses + 10%. I will design a plan with failback contigencies in accordance with the allocated budget. I require cash on account in advance for the expenses, and payment on death for the profit margin. If you place at least $75,000 in escrow, I will submit a plan for approval within one month. Warning: Higher budget allocations will result in more reliable plans.

Anyhow, Tojo and Hirohito were much easier to hit than Kim Il Jong.

--
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-

Sounds familiar by Anonymous Coward · 2005-07-15 22:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

I believe many Nazi officers commiting war crimes answered exactly the same, amazing that such a clever man cannot think for himself:

I am in no way ashamed of what I had done in any way, shape, matter or form. I did what I was told to do.

A group of artists has planned to commemorate by mezzman · 2005-07-15 22:50 · Score: 1

Simulation of the mushroom cloud via high pressure kerosene: http://www.simnuke.org/

Re:Way to go USA!! by matt21811 · 2005-07-15 23:07 · Score: 1

Wikipedia disagrees.

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

Even the term WMD was invented 7 years before the Nuclear bomb.

Who would mod the parent insightful?

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by Fenresulven · 2005-07-15 23:10 · Score: 5, Informative

Natural uranium contains U-238, U-235 and a TINY amount of U-234. U-233 is an isotope of uranium created by neutron bombardment of thorium and is not present in natural uranium. Above should read seperating the U-235 from the U-238.

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by Black+Tezcatlipoca · 2005-07-15 23:11 · Score: 2, Informative

Well, the USSR's Tsar Bomba has the biggest yield of all bombs. At 27 tons though, it was damn hard to deliver. Anything large enough to carry it would be easily shot down well before it made the target. The deadliest is probably the Trident II. It has eight compact half megaton warheads and decent range.

Re:Fsck Yeah! Let's celebrate this!!! by makomk · 2005-07-15 23:11 · Score: 1

Here's a fun fact: Very little was known about what the actual effect of an atomic explosion would be prior to its actual detonation. There was one theory, for instance, which suggested the detonation might spark a chain reaction that would burn up the entire atmosphere of the planet Earth, instantly and horrifically killing the entire human race in one fell stroke (and just about every other living thing as well).

Ah yes, the "may ignite all the nitrogen in the atmosphere" theory. Still, if it was a choice between us wiping out all life on Earth*, or the Germans doing the same, I'm sure we needed to get there first.

* well, practically all

Hams: special event station by zeke-o · 2005-07-15 23:15 · Score: 1

A bunch of NM hams are running a special event station at the site all day today. Details at http://www.zianet.com/qrp/Special/TRINITY_PR.jpg

Glad it Happened by Anonymous Coward · 2005-07-15 23:16 · Score: 1, Insightful

As the son of a marine who fought in the Pacific, I'm glad we did it. The projected casuality rate
was at least 750,000 marines, sailors, and soldiers.

Not to mention the hundreds of thousands or even millions of civilian casualties that the Emporer would have sacrificed in defending the homeland.

Guess it's okay if their Emporer kills them, but not us.

Most of the men fighting in the Pacific wept with joy when the found out what happened. They knew they were going to live.

Why are their lives worth so much less then the lives of the civilians that where killed?

Re:Glad it Happened by KarmaMB84 · 2005-07-16 07:18 · Score: 1

Occupation does not dictate the value of a human life. Any American civilian during WWII would probably have probably considered any American soldier to be worth more than multiple Japanese at the time.

If the military tied the Emperor's hands, what better way to untie them to show the military that resistance is futile?

Re:The Nucular Age by Mahou · 2005-07-15 23:18 · Score: 1

Good to hear that some people get satisfaction out of a job well done. Who needs a conscience when you have the stone tools, bronze tools, iron tools, steel tools, gunpowder, dynamite, microbiology, etc.? There is no excuse for trying to belittle scientific achievement just because you think that somehow you would have acted in some great righteous way that would have created world peace and unicorns jumping over rainbows.

--
if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
...te?

Re:Stop being childish by kronocide · 2005-07-15 23:26 · Score: 1

Aggressive much?

You're a little inconsistent too. What does it matter that development of the A-bomb was "inevitable" if using it was a good thing (that you would have done sooner)? Then its development was desireable, which makes its inevitability a moot point.

Anyway, as big a war crime as nuking Japanese civilians was, those crimes sort of get lost in the endless firebombing of civilian targets. After all, the reason Tokyo wasn't nuked was that it had already been obliterated by firebombs (which killed more people than the nukes did, as did the Dresden bombing). So the atomic bombs were only a small part of American war crimes during WWII.

Don't get your panties in a bunch now, deliberatly killing civilians is a war crime, regardless of what revisionist excuses one might conjure up. (Maybe it was America's "manifest destiny" to burn hundreds of thousands of civilian men, women, and children alive?)

Re: yes, a warning shot by jamesh · 2005-07-15 23:29 · Score: 1

across their nose, not up it!

(thanks spaceballs)

Ok, lets review people... by Punboy · 2005-07-15 23:36 · Score: 1

Ok, before everyone goes bashing him for saying that he doesn't feel bad, lets think. The Manhattan Project gave way to tons of other discoveries, discoveries that have saved many more lives than were lost to nuclear attack. The concepts of using radiation in medicine, in power generation, etc, were born from the Manhattan project. So yes, while the direct result of these technologies and discoveries were the deaths of millions of Japanese civilians, many more people have been saved by technology behind the nuclear bombs. Also, in my opinion, the nuclear bomb has in some ways help avert another major world war. If you doubt this, think about it... without the nuclear bomb, there would be no worry about destroying the planet, causing nuclear winter, and rendering land unusuable for decades. But, with the nukes, people must consider what may happen if nuclear weapons are used again. If there were a third world war, chances are there would be so many nuclear weapons fired that the earth would experience massive devastation. Nobody wants that, not even power-hungry dictators and terrorists (Hussein, Bin Laden, Bush).

--
If you like what I've said here, and want to read more, go to http://www.krillrblog.com

"Projections" .... by kronocide · 2005-07-15 23:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

Every defense of the use of the atom bomb is built on "projections" of how many soldiers and civilians would have died otherwise, and on hypotheses about what the Japanese would have done.

These projections are made from unpublished source material, use unknown models, and those who make them have a strong need to publish projections that are at least a little worse than the actual reality that they themselves created (while sometimes not reminding people of the details of that reality).

The success of these defenses also depend on the dogmatic belief among their audience that since we are the Good Guys, when we burn thousands of children alive in their homes, we must be doing it for a good reason, while if the Bad Guys (e.g. Hitler, Saddam) were to do the same, there is no conceivable reason good enough to justify such actions.

I wish some people would be a little more critical and ask themselves were those projections come from, if their authors might have a strong bias toward a particular conclusion, how credible the theories about what the Japanese would have done are, and how good the moral defense of the mass murder of civilian families really is.

Re:"Projections" .... by kronocide · 2005-07-16 01:15 · Score: 1

So unless I can perform my own research project I must blindly believe everything someone else says? That's silly. If these theories had conformed to normal scientific standards (published sources etc.), if the authors hadn't had such a vested interest in the results, and if hundreds of thousands of lives hadn't been at stake, there might have been less reason to be sceptical...
Re:"Projections" .... by ScentCone · 2005-07-16 01:55 · Score: 1

I wish some people would be a little more critical and ask themselves were those projections come from, if their authors might have a strong bias toward a particular conclusion, how credible the theories about what the Japanese would have done are, and how good the moral defense of the mass murder of civilian families really is

Incredible. Do you have no sense of context? The Japanese were involved in a brutal (just Google Nanking) war of territorial aggression and oppression. We were a potential irritant, so they decided to take a poke at the US Navy, too. The deaths suffered by the Japanese as their own war was shut down around them are not matters of dogma - they happened in a context. It is the same when people died because of Hitler's, or Saddam's similar aggressions. Let's assume that the projections about which you're so critical are three times too high. Or five times. It doesn't matter. We saved lives, even if just our own, putting that war, which we did not start, to an end. Your moral relativism, or your own bias in seeking a way to make the US the bad guy no matter the context, is embarassingly transparent.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:"Projections" .... by kronocide · 2005-07-16 02:24 · Score: 1, Insightful

Incredible. Do you have no sense of context?

So you are saying that sometimes there is good reason to burn hundreds of thousands of civilians alive? That you can't really judge that act without knowing the context? Then this must also be true for gassing 6 million Jews, or "merely" gassing a few thousand villagers (as Saddam did). You can't really know if what the Nazis or Saddam did was wrong without carefully examining the context. Do you know why Saddam gassed those villagers? No? So then you don't know if it was wrong. Maybe the Nazis had a reason too, that deserves some examination before we pass judgment on them.

No, massacring innocent people is wrong, period. We don't need any other information to establish that. It is wrong in and of itself. To claim that context matters is the road toward moral relativism, and means you can't pass summary judgment on anyone who has committed atrocities though history, because there might be a context, a good reason, that you're not aware of.
Re:"Projections" .... by kronocide · 2005-07-16 04:07 · Score: 1

I'm amazed that you are so convinced of the absolute truth of these theories that you are willing to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people on the basis of them. Scary stuff. Also see this response:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=156041&cid=130 81022
Re:"Projections" .... by YrWrstNtmr · 2005-07-16 06:28 · Score: 1

Which is 'more moral'?
A) Killing 100,000 to end the war.
B) Killing 1,000,000 to end the war.
C) Rolling over and letting the agressor have his way, potentially killing many, many millions more in the coming years, and dooming your country's way of life.

There is no D)

As President/Emperor/world leader, those are the choices you might have when you sit in the big chair. Select one.

Is it always wrong to kill another human being? I'd like to say yes, it is. But sometimes...it's either you or them. And I'll do everything in my power to not be me.

One day, the collective human existence will realize that there is no 'us and them', there is only 'us'. We're not there yet.
Re:"Projections" .... by kronocide · 2005-07-16 06:55 · Score: 1

YrWrstNtmr,

Sometimes, when your guesses about the future and your projections are uncertain, and the consequences of your actions are enormous, all you can do is try to act morally in the most obvious and direct sense. You have no idea what would have happened if there had been no firebombing of Tokyo and no atom bombs over Japan. No one does. We can guess and speculate, but those speculations will never justify killing innocent people. We're just not that clever, and those who think they are need to get some perspective on themselves.

There is also another point of view, that says that regardless of what theories you subscribe to you have no right to kill others for them. No one has given you that right and it's criminal to take it. (It is actually literally criminal, but also from a simply moral perspective.) Those civilians didn't volunteer to sacrifice their lives to test your theory about whether Japan would capitulate or not, and it's their lives. They are not yours to decide over, just as no one has the right to decide over your life.

One day, the collective human existence will realize that there is no 'us and them', there is only 'us'. We're not there yet.

And you are not really helping. Refusing to commit atrocities, whatever the excuse may be, would be a start.
Re:"Projections" .... by KarmaMB84 · 2005-07-16 07:30 · Score: 1

It has been suggested that it was the firebombings which decimated the Japanese workforce/cities that really brought them to the brink of surrendering. Your attitude would probably be vastly different if we had abstained from bombing and tried to invade the mainland and ended up fighting through thousands and thousands of Japanese civilians to get at the military targets in their cities. War itself is a crime against humanity, but once one commits to war, morals get jumbled up. There was no precision bombing in World War II and the only moral thing to do would've been to surrender to the Japanese if your moral code is to be followed.
Re:"Projections" .... by maxpublic · 2005-07-16 07:52 · Score: 1

No, massacring innocent people is wrong, period.

There are no innocents in war. The other guy is your enemy - period. And it's up to you to destroy his will to engage in war as quickly as possible, with as few casualties to *your own* citizens as possible.

What about this do you not understand?

Max

--
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Re:"Projections" .... by t_allardyce · 2005-07-16 07:57 · Score: 1

The Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was _purely_ for show. In fact you could say it was terrorism. There's no reason another place couldn't have been chosen or perhaps a demonstration arranged for the world. There's absolutely no reason to bomb civilian cities just because they contained factories (lets not forget, conventional bombing raids would have been able to take out those factories and leave many homes intact). It wasn't a case of needing to take them by surprise - a dummy bomb could have been dropped to prove a point. Purely military targets could have been chosen, why were little kids burnt to their clothes? Why were innocent people shredded with flying glass? Why were 1000's of people blinded just because they were looking in the wrong direction? It might have been necessary to use the threat of the bomb to end WW2 but it could have been done another way. Remember this is the age where black people sat at the back of the bus, its not a far cry to imagine war planners saying "who cares about the jap kids, let the little bastards burn"

--
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Re:"Projections" .... by kronocide · 2005-07-16 08:43 · Score: 1

There are no innocents in war.

Everyone who is not guilty of something is innocent. Mothers and children and grandparents who are trying to live normal lives, threatening no one and having no influence on national policies or the movement of armies are innocent. Especially if that country is not even a democracy. What part of that are you having problems with?

Your argument justifies terrorism and the gassing of 6 million Jews as well. No one is innocent in war. I think I heard a Hamas leader say that recently.
Re:"Projections" .... by kronocide · 2005-07-16 08:55 · Score: 1

You are assuming some very uncertain things about history. Cases have been made that Japan were at the brink of surrendering after having their asses thoroughly kicked out of China by the Soviets, watching Germany fall, and stalling in South Asia. We can't know what would have happened. Ultimately, we are responsible for our own actions. Should we burn these hundreds of thousands of civilians alive or should we not do that? That is our most immediate responsibility.

You might also reason as I suggest above, that this isn't even a choice you get to make. You don't get to decide who must die to save someone else. Assuming that you have that right is already a crime.
Re:"Projections" .... by ScentCone · 2005-07-16 11:04 · Score: 1

So you are saying that sometimes there is good reason to burn hundreds of thousands of civilians alive?

No, I'm saying that sometimes you have to act in order to stop that, only more of it, from happening.

To claim that context matters is the road toward moral relativism

You've got it exactly backwards. Claiming that all acts the same no matter what is moral relativism.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:"Projections" .... by kronocide · 2005-07-16 11:22 · Score: 1

No, I'm saying that sometimes you have to act in order to stop that, only more of it, from happening.

So you are saying that sometimes the right thing to do is to burn thousands of children alive. Sorry if I'm putting it very bluntly and in a way you're not comfortable with, but that is exactly the consequence of what you are saying. Sometimes that is justified. It is possible to imagine a good reason for killing civilian families in the thousands and thousands. That's what you're saying.

You've got it exactly backward. Claiming that all acts the same no matter what is moral relativism.

Not at all. Some acts are morally despicable, regardless of reasons and contexts. That is the very definition of absolutism. That is how we know that some are bad and some are less bad. That's what made Hitler bad; not that he gassed the wrong 6 million people, or that he gassed 6 million people for the wrong reasons, but that he gassed 6 million people, period. If you don't know that, you are morally lost at sea.
Re:"Projections" .... by ScentCone · 2005-07-16 14:54 · Score: 1

So you are saying that sometimes the right thing to do is to burn thousands of children alive.

What I'm saying is that in the 1940's, opposing a hostile attacker famous for irrationally fighting even in the face of obvious defeat in conventional conflict (such as the huge destruction and deaths through fire and explosions in the "conventional" attacks on other key cities there, or the overpowering of their forces on a series of islands), we didn't have the option. It was either kill lots of our people, and many, many more of theirs, or kill fewer while also impacting strategic factory and naval targets used by their military. The purpose was to save lives by ending the conflict, including the sparing of countless children from the grinding, fiery conflict that would have accompanied an invasion in the absence of the surrender. The right thing to do was to avoid the long, drawn out deaths of untold more people, and instead take out two key strategic pieces of the military's support system (factory capacity and port facilities) while showing them that places like Kobe or Tokyo would be next without their capitulation. They got it. The children you're worried about were, as a result, saved.

That's what made Hitler bad

But what he did was in a context. He was trying to exterminate a race as a side-bar project along with his larger effort to rule, at least, Europe. That's a plan. That's context. That was why we had to stop him from doing more of it, and in the 1940s there weren't very many ways of doing that. The only thing that did stop him was large-scale brutality that absolutely did kill some innocent people. But those deaths prevented many, many more.

Sorry if I'm putting it very bluntly and in a way you're not comfortable with,

The only thing I'm not comfortable with is your approach to dealing with the Hitlers or Hirohitos of the world. Throwing your hands up in the air and allowing them to slaughter people because you're afraid to do what you have to do is moral cowardice. Now we have vastly more precise weapons, and don't have to be as widely brutal as we used to in order to stop people like that - but applying today's combat standards to the situation facing the world in the 1940s is some pretty lame rhetoric, and makes one question your agenda.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Re:"Projections" .... by charyou-tree · 2005-07-16 16:36 · Score: 1

Mothers and children and grandparents who are trying to live normal lives, threatening no one and having no influence on national policies or the movement of armies are innocent. Especially if that country is not even a democracy. What part of that are you having problems with?

Children are innocent.

Mothers and grandparents are at best enablers of the war effort. Where was grandpa 20 years ago when the dictator seized power? Why isn't mom speaking out? Why isn't dad joining or organizing some kind of resistance to his evil leader's policies?

Oh, I get it. They're civilians, and they're more deserving of life than our servicemen who had the courage to stand up and be counted. They live in a dictatorship, some place where it's dangerous to speak out, so that absolves them of any responsibility to act.

So they go on living their lives, growing food, stitching uniforms, assembling rifles, washing the floor at the bar where their soldiers relax, driving the trucks that keep their nation's wartime economy going ...

... while our Marines are dying by the thousands taking places like Iwo Jima, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Wake Island.

Those Japanese civilians chose the easy path of supporting their government rather than the difficult path of resisting it. And yet you'd rather an American Lance Corporal died invading Japan than see Grandpa Coward killed by a nuke ... because Grampa's a civilian.

That's the part I'm having a problem with.

Your argument justifies terrorism and the gassing of 6 million Jews as well.

Terrorism, perhaps. Genocide, of course not. Get a clue, and quit constructing absurd strawman arguments.

I can't fault someone for fighting the only way he can - maybe that's 'terrorism' or striking at soft targets to influence the will of the enemy 'civilians' supporting the war effort. I can, and do, fault him for choosing to fight in the first place. And I can, and will, try to kill him first.
Re:"Projections" .... by 0111+1110 · 2005-07-16 18:17 · Score: 1

"who cares about the jap kids, let the little bastards burn"

I can see that that is exactly what you are thinking. But you have zero evidence in support of that. Sure both the Japanese and the Germans were hated. As they hated Americans along with the British and Australians. It's called war. You are letting your anti-American prejudice cloud your judgment and logic. Ask yourself if you would feel the same way if a more sympathetic country had been the first to invent the bomb. Think they wouldn't have used it because it was 'wrong'? Think again.

--
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Re:"Projections" .... by t_allardyce · 2005-07-16 21:46 · Score: 1

I would feel the same way if my own country had been the first. Its not an anti American thing its just how the world was back then - if not then why did they do it? why didn't they use the bomb another way?

--
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Re:"Projections" .... by kronocide · 2005-07-16 22:29 · Score: 1

If you agree that your defense also works for Hamas suicide bombers, then at least you are consistent, and I can't say too much about it. It works for genocide as well, depending on your theories about the enemy. I'm sure the Nazis did not think the Jews were innocent, and their argument probably sounded a bit like yours.
Re:"Projections" .... by kronocide · 2005-07-16 22:53 · Score: 1

It was either kill lots of our people, and many, many more of theirs, or kill fewer while also impacting strategic factory and naval targets used by their military.

Sorry, I don't buy this dichotomy. I don't think firebombing dozens of civilian cities and nuking two was the only option. I'm not the only one with this opinion, there are enough historians who agree with me.

But what he did was in a context. He was trying to exterminate a race as a side-bar project along with his larger effort to rule, at least, Europe. That's a plan. That's context.

So if he had gassed 6 million people in some other context, it might not have been bad? The context matters? Can you give an example of a context in which it had been a good thing?

Now we have vastly more precise weapons, and don't have to be as widely brutal as we used to in order to stop people like that...

And still tens of thousands of civilians have been massacred in Iraq. And this time it was the US who was the aggressor. Iraq hadn't even threatened an attack on the US. That's the real difference to WWII.
Re:"Projections" .... by charyou-tree · 2005-07-17 02:22 · Score: 1

If you agree that your defense also works for Hamas suicide bombers

Not quite. My argument concerns tactics, not ideology. You may as well be saying that I'm an advocate for barbecuing live kittens because I don't object to the use of lighter fluid.

Hamas is an organization that needs to be crushed. They're not evil because of their tactics; they're evil because of their goals and reasons for fighting in the first place.

Or consider the Iraqi insurgents (well, they're non-Iraqi foreigners, for the most part) who bomb people lining up to be police officers. They aren't evil because they killed some people with a car bomb instead of a rifle; they're evil because they're trying to thwart the will of the Iraqi people so they can either (a) return to the Baathist days or (b) set up a Taliban-style theocratic dictatorship or (c) something worse.

Or consider the Nazis you brought up. They weren't evil because they chose to set the ovens at 2000 degrees instead of 1900; they were evil because they chose to kill the Jews in the first place.

When passing judgment on others, the how isn't nearly as important as the why.
Re:"Projections" .... by kronocide · 2005-07-17 03:06 · Score: 1

You make less and less sense. So forcing someone to live in an Islamic state is worse than blowing them up? And the people who fight for the same things as Hamas but through peaceful means are just as bad as those who blow up civilians? And, most importantly, if you blow up civilians for a good reason, it's fine!

I suspect that this is one of the worst consequences of when a nation commits atrocities. Since many of its citizens will force their world view into whatever warped shape that's necessary to defend the actions of their country, it will lead to many very morally confused individuals, who will be more ready to accept other atrocities in the future, leading to more moral confusion, and so on. (You seem to be prime terrorist material yourself, considering you don't disapprove of terrorist methods.) It's a kind of cultural trauma, and it constitutes an argument against excess violence all in itself.
Re:"Projections" .... by Just+Another+Poster · 2005-07-17 09:30 · Score: 1

This is because you are capable of rational thought.
You and the poster you are replying to are not displaying rational, or even sane thought.
Re:"Projections" .... by mfrank · 2005-07-18 09:29 · Score: 1

In August 1945 the Japanese Army was killing civilians at the rate of about 100,000 a month, and they'd been doing it for, oh, about 10 years. If it took vaporizing a few cities to get them to stop, I have no problems with that.

*Those* civilians didn't volunteer to sacrifice their lives to test *your* theory about whether Japan would capitulate if we'd only say "pretty please".
Re:"Projections" .... by kronocide · 2005-07-18 13:09 · Score: 1

In August 1945 the Japanese Army was killing civilians at the rate of about 100,000 a month...

Source please? I'm guessing the brunt of victims were in China, where the Soviets were already on their way to kick them out. Their loss there had nothing to do with the atom bombs.

*Those* civilians didn't volunteer to sacrifice their lives to test *your* theory about whether Japan would capitulate if we'd only say "pretty please".

I don't recall presenting such a theory. But in any case, you are still resting on that dichotomy that it was firebombing innocents or nothing. I'm sorry, I'm never going to accept that eradicating innocent life is the only way. There are always alternatives.

I'll try to help you see it from my perspective. I'm going to assume that since you people who defend these actions are probably a fairly patriotic bunch, you will assume that the commanders of these operations were competent and intelligent people. However, had they been French or, say, Iraqi, you would probably have had no problem imagining that they were incompetent bastards until evidence proved otherwise. Now, since I'm not American... well, you get my drift. I see no reason to believe that what they did was the intelligent thing to do simply because that's the alternative they chose. They might simply have been belligerent and hating the Japs. Check out McNamara's documentary, it's interesting.
Re:"Projections" .... by mfrank · 2005-07-19 08:50 · Score: 1

For the source read "Downfall" by Richard Frank. It's about the end of the war in the Pacific. Sure, we didn't need to firebomb them. We'd already destroyed their coastal shipping, so they couldn't get their harvest to the cities. Winter was coming, and millions of Japanese would have starved if the war hadn't ended when it did *and* Allied occupation troops were on the ground to provide food relief. As it was, over a hundred thousand Japanese starved that winter anyway.

And I've seen "Fog Of War". All it does is reaffirm Sherman's statement "War is Hell".

As far as the Soviets are concerned, as it was they captured over a half a million Japanese soldiers, most of whom died in captivity. If the war had gone on a few more weeks there wouldn't be a North and South Korea, and there would probably be a North and South Japan. And you can damn well bet food relief wouldn't be high on their list of things to do.

Truman wasn't an idiot. He knew whatever territory Stalin grabbed would become a slave state, and he wanted the war over as quickly as possible, ideally before the Soviets even got involved.

Curtis LeMay was told to force the Japanese to surrender. He chose to do it in a way that messed them up as much as possible as fast as possible. Funny how ending the war as quickly as possible kept the body count down on both sides.

And as far as questioning the competence of the American commanders, since you've seen "Fog Of War" you should know how competent they were at their task.
Re:"Projections" .... by kronocide · 2005-07-19 10:33 · Score: 1

I guess you didn't read my other two posts after yours. They sort of wrap it up, so I feel done here. I feel satisfied with Eisenhower on my side, regardless of what you think about things.

Re:Stop being childish by hilaryduff · 2005-07-15 23:46 · Score: 1

in the uk we do acknowledge the war crimes we commited, dresden for a good example. the japanese refuse to apologize for what they did to POW's etc. the americans simply cant bring themselves to admit the blatantly obvious war crime of nuking cities. yes, we know the arguments for doing it.. you can agree or disagree with those, but it doesnt change the fact it was a war crime by any definition.. weapon of mass destruction on civilian targets. unless people can say 'it was a war crime and it was wrong' they cant lecture anyone else about not having nukes, about WMD, about war crimes etc. its the 'its no torture because we're doing it' mentality of the current U.S. there's never a justification for war crimes and illegal acts.

Re:Way to go USA!! by gatkinso · 2005-07-15 23:48 · Score: 1

Not true - Germany developed and used the first chemical weapons in WW1.

As far as atomic bombs go, Manhattan Project was a joint effort between the United States and England (I believe Canada was also involved). We just edged out the Germans - interesting how that country gets mentioned twice.

--
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.

Arms race by ntufar · 2005-07-15 23:50 · Score: 1

If they refuces to work on the program somebody else would have done the nuke before them because the idea was floating in the air, as they say. And if these otheres were Nazis or Russians the world would have been quite a different place with America most likely on bottom instead of on top as it is now.

These people are heroes. Who is only wrong is the journalists having morbid pleasures asking poor scientist these kind of questions.

The Crazies are out in force today!! by gelfling · 2005-07-15 23:57 · Score: 1

Yeah let's UNINVENT all sorts of things we don't like because that will be like, you know, cool.

Re:The Crazies are out in force today!! by XaN-ASMoDi · 2005-07-16 00:52 · Score: 1

Yeah let's UNINVENT all sorts of things we don't like because that will be like, you know, cool. i agree lets just wipe organ transplant and artifcilal organs, remove all the silicon circuitry from your computer and live in the dark and watch millions, let's just do away with technology and bear witness to more suffering than hiroshima and nagasaki comined

--
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.

Re:Way to go USA!! by Ihlosi · 2005-07-15 23:58 · Score: 1

Not true - Germany developed and used the first chemical weapons in WW1.

Nice try, but still not the first use of a WMD. Diseases have been used as such for centuries.

Re:Way to go USA!! by Kumkwat · 2005-07-16 00:00 · Score: 1

At least you had the guts to not post AC. I don't know why its so hard to comprehend the fact that if it wasn't the US, it was going to be the Soviets. If not the Soviets, the british, french etc.. The development of the A-Bomb was inevitable. At question was only who would get there first. I for one am glad it was the US as opposed to the Soviets, and I'm not American.

One more thing by kronocide · 2005-07-16 00:08 · Score: 1

Someone said, about killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians:

"Guess it's okay if their Emperor kills them, but not us."

That is an incredibly weird thing to say; the point is of course that it's not okay for anyone to kill them, but while we are directly responsible for our own actions, we are not directly responsible for the actions of others.

But anyway, that's the same defense as, "if we hadn't killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, Saddam might have killed them anyway."

The difference is the difference between people being hypothetically dead and people being actually dead. Being actually dead is a much worse fate, and we actually killed them.

Re:One more thing by kronocide · 2005-07-16 01:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

"If they are fighting a war with us it is okay to kill them."

Nope. It's both immoral and illegal to kill civilians, even if you are at war with their country. That is sort of the first law of war.

"Whoever said it was better we had killed Iraqi civilians then Saddam?"

Someone from the Bush administration who was being interviewed in BBC's Hard Talk a few months after the Iraq war started said that, yes, thousands of civilians had been killed, but if America hadn't attacked those people might have been killed by Saddam anyway (so basically it doesn't matter). I realize that this excuse is so stupid it doesn't really demand or deserve a response, but since it appeared again in this thread ("if we hadn't killed hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians, their Emperor might have killed them anyway"), I thought it worth a mention.
Re:One more thing by maxpublic · 2005-07-16 07:44 · Score: 1

That is sort of the first law of war.

There are no laws in war. Which is something naive little liberals will never, ever understand.
War is not, and can never be, a 'civilized' activity. It's horrible, it's brutal, it's insane; it can't be anything other than what it is. To try to impose some bullshit 'rulebook' on war is astoundingly stupid - or a sop to civilians who just don't and will never get it.

Max

--
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Re:One more thing by kronocide · 2005-07-16 08:32 · Score: 1

They exist in law books, so there are definitely laws of war. (And they have nothing to do with liberals, they evolved between European nations as a matter of self-preservation. It's not about making war "nice.") That you refuse to acknowledge the laws doesn't make them go poof. It just means you are more likely to become a war criminal. And there is lots of precedence for trying and convicting those.
Re:One more thing by maxpublic · 2005-07-16 08:36 · Score: 1

That you refuse to acknowledge the laws doesn't make them go poof.

Yes, it does. Any soldier knows that "war crimes" occur on a regular basis in the field. No soldier gives a fuck about "war crimes" when it comes to getting the job done, or keeping himself and his buddies alive. That's the way things are, whether you happen to like it or not.

It just means you are more likely to become a war criminal.

Only if you lose.

Max

--
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Re:One more thing by kronocide · 2005-07-16 09:01 · Score: 1

Yes, it does.

No it doesn't. :-)

Only if you lose.

I don't pine quite as badly for a morally corrupt society as you do. I'm a poor liberal who actually believes that people can behave morally and not even hurt themselves particularly in the process. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Re:One more thing by maxpublic · 2005-07-16 19:39 · Score: 1

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Which is liberal-speak for "shut the fuck up".

No, we don't have to "agree to disagree". If you can't face up to the simple reality that soldiers commit what you think of as "war crimes" on a regular basis and are never reported, tried, or imprisoned, then go ahead - live in your little delusional world. To a soldier two things are more important in the field than everything else combined: getting through the day alive, and doing the job. If a "war crime" has to be committed to accomplish either goal *then it will be committed*. You just won't hear about it.

There's nothing "morally corrupt" about this situation. It's the insanity you engage in to survive what's inherently an insane environment. Expecting 'civilized behavior' in a war zone is one of the big, steaming piles of horseshit dished up to convince the naive civilians back home that your soldiers are 'the good guys', and therefore the war should be supported.

Max

--
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Re:One more thing by kronocide · 2005-07-16 22:44 · Score: 1

There's nothing "morally corrupt" about this situation.

So raping women, torturing civilians, and robbing and stealing private property is really necessary to stay alive in war? Those are the usual war crimes committed by soldiers. And you know, we actually know about them because every now and then some are actually convicted of those crimes. It happened in Yugoslavia, and it happened in Iraq. Might still happen in Afghanistan, since deaths of prisoners are still being investigated. We also know of war crimes committed in Vietnam because there were hearings. So it seems we do hear about it.

Which is liberal-speak for "shut the fuck up".

Well, I do try to be polite. ;-)

You seem to be continually confusing "is" with "ought." We were talking about what is moral behavior. That is, how people ought to behave. That has very little to do with how people actually behave. Or do you think that how people actually behave is the measure for moral behavior? So if people set off bombs in the subway, that's not really an immoral thing to do? Or whatever happens to go on at the moment, that must be okay? If you don't think this, then start talking about your moral standard, if you have one, and stop talking about all the sad shit that happens to be going on around the world.

atomic pollution by Anonymous Coward · 2005-07-16 00:25 · Score: 1, Informative

How do you do.
I'm Japanese.
I'm not good at English. So, I can not understand this arguments very much.
But, I have what to say.
Please know the atomic bombs' pollution.
I can not understand whether the bomb is good or bad. I'm not good at history very much. I don't know how long and to how heaevy extent Japan would keep fighting.
But, An atomic bomb brought long lasting disease. This is the fact.
Please know the atomic bombs' pollution.
Some people want to conseal this from everyone.
I think this is not good act.
Please know the facts as it is.
( Alomost people may knows the facts. If so, I'm sorry about this saying. )

Re:atomic pollution by XaN-ASMoDi · 2005-07-16 01:03 · Score: 1

This is the fact. Please know the atomic bombs' pollution. Some people want to conseal this from everyone. and japan skirts round it's imperialistic atrocities so we're all in no position to lecture anyone else http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4411 771.stm

--
Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened.

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by YrWrstNtmr · 2005-07-16 00:30 · Score: 2, Informative

How are they controlled?? It takes an order from the president to launch an attack, but how is that order communicated?

Your scenario has little merit. It literally takes 2 people to do it. In subs and silos, 2 people must perform an action simultaneously. Turn keys, for instance. Seperated by a dozen feet or so. 1 person physically can't do it. And that is only after getting the proper codes from the NCA(National Command Authority. President or Joint Chief, etc).
In aircraft, it would take dozens of people. They're not flying around loaded anymore, so you'd have to get the weapons out of storage, load them, take off, etc. And then still have to get the proper arming codes from the NCA.

A rogue colonel can't do it, because he doesn't have the proper codes. It's far more than the president calling someone up and saying "Launch".

We will never know. by TapeCutter · 2005-07-16 00:51 · Score: 1

I think the shame is that they didn't at least try that approach, thier apparent willingness to use nukes against japaneese cities and the diliberate firestorming of Dresden tell's us something about human nature nobody wants to belive.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.

Re:Way to go USA!! by dabigpaybackski · 2005-07-16 01:03 · Score: 1

Not true - Germany developed and used the first chemical weapons in WW1.

Check your chronology there, G Money. This website indicates otherwise. Looks like France gets the blue ribbon. And as for chemical attacks specifically targeted against civilian populations, the winner is glorious enlightened Great Britain.

Here's a choice bit by Winston Churchill on the practice of dropping gas bombs on Kurds: "I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes." Go Winnie and Saddam!

--
"OH SHIT, THERE'S A HORSE IN THE HOSPITAL!"

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by YrWrstNtmr · 2005-07-16 01:10 · Score: 3, Interesting

On another note, the USA does not want other nations to have the nuclear capability because...

...pretty much everyone signed the NPT. Including N. Korea and Iran. There are provisions for a country to back out of it, but N. Korea is the only country to ever do so.

No country has the ability to defend against a nuclear attack. Not just the USA is in that position.

Lehr's enthusiasm sounds a bit forced by hey! · 2005-07-16 01:17 · Score: 1

In a lot of respects I felt as if I had done something worthwhile. I am in no way ashamed of what I had done in any way, shape, matter or form. I did what I was told to do. I did it to the best of my ability.

Wow.

Sounds like a man who's spent 60 years defending an action that, if he isn't quite ashamed of, he can't quite muster genuine pride over. Lehr's defense here amounts to "I did what I was told and despite the fact it was technically difficult I did a realy good job." What kind of justification is that? I'm not saying what he did was even wrong. I'm saying is this kind of reasoning is faulty. An in any case it sounds like after the fact justification. That's the human condition: life goes by to quick to make justifiable decisions, so we justify after the fact.

There are two things which keep us out of trouble most of the time: comparing our behavior to those around us, and experience. Naturally, the less experience you have, the more you count on what other people are doing. Lehr was only 23 years old when he was in the famous series of photos with the bomb initiators and core. Lots of young engineers were doing defense work, and this was the biggest project of all. It must have seemed like a great decision for the first couple of years he had to live with it.

J Robert Oppenheimer was 37 when the proejct started up and about 41 at the bomb detonation. He not only had more actual life experience, but a lifetime of imagination counts towards experience as well. Oppenheimer was the kind man who could quote for the Bhagavad Gita decades before most of his countrymen had even heard of it. But, older and wiser he may have been, in the end made the same decision. The difference is that it embroiled the rest of his life in controversy and struggle.

So, maybe it is best for us if we don't think too deeply over things that have happened in our pasts. But we should think more about the consequences of our next action.

--
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.

consider the alternatives by fea · 2005-07-16 01:34 · Score: 1

Here in Oak Ridge, TN there was a celebration of this milestone. In many ways, Oak Ridge, while it has diversified dramatically over the years, still is a product of the advent of the atomic age. One interesting side note: as part of this celebration a learned speaker on the subject came and gave a talk on how Nazi Germany was also simultaneously pursuing an atomic bomb. I had not realized how indeed the US was in a race against the Germans toward this goal more so than the intent to actually use the weapon against the Japanese. If not for a few fundamental mistakes the Germans had made, and an attitude of complacency that they had in the early 40s (they actually thought they had already won the war), and of course key German scientists coming to the US side, the world may have been a far different place today. Anyone who does not recognize that the advent of the atomic bomb, while not something anyone would cherish as a good thing, is not also responsible for the free world as it stands today should take a closer look at their own historical perspective.

Uhh by tornadothrasher · 2005-07-16 01:36 · Score: 1

If I remember correctly, the scientists didn't really know 100% what the project was going to be in the end, so maybe he did just do what he was told. THey didn't all sit in one big room and put it together. He might have done one part of the project without knowing what the other parts consisted of.

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by twiddlingbits · 2005-07-16 01:36 · Score: 2, Interesting

Nukes do NOT have "rods". They have highly machined components of Plutonium, the exact size, shape, weight is classified. The first bomb had two hemispherses of Uranium that were polished smooth.

LOL, the Russian mob is more likely to sell you the material than the boss/workers concept. Anyway, after the material was transferred I doubt there would be anyone left alive to tell the world what the deal was. No witnesses means no messy loose ends that lead back to the source of the funds.

There are all sorts of sites out there that describe launch procedures, and it's a lot more complicated than you think. Accidental launches CANNOT happen with an armed warhead. This was all figured out in the 1950's and 60's . If the missle is launched w/o pre-arming the weapon all you have is MAYBE a "dirty bomb" where the impact would spread radioactive materials but no detonation of the weapon would occur.

60th Anniversary? by gamer4Life · 2005-07-16 01:38 · Score: 1

Is there something special about the 60th?

Does this mean we'll have another article in 10 years and then 20, 30 years after?

I can imagine commemorating 1, 10, 50, 100, 500, etc...

but every 10 years is too much.

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by twiddlingbits · 2005-07-16 01:43 · Score: 2, Informative

A lot of Uranium is actually found in Copper Mines. The problem is you are looking for Uranium ore that has a high percentage of the fissle U-235 that can be seperated. The normal ratio is about 500:1 but some ores are higher. Uranium is found many places in the world, Africa, the former Soviet Union and even in the USA. Read about the projects and technologies they used to seperate U-235 and U-238, it is interesting how they did it then had to scale it up 1000 fold to get enough for ONE bomb. This was before they learned to bombard the leftover U-238 with neutrons to turn it into Pu-239 which is what "breeder reactors" did. The Pu-239 was a much better bomb material.

Re:Way to go USA!! by ScentCone · 2005-07-16 01:44 · Score: 1

USA made the first weapon of mass destruction. Way to go USA!! You made the world a better place!!

Other than the fact that you're wrong about history (I'd say that burning down whole cities or poisoning water supplies with plague carcasses count as WMDs, and people in Europe were doing that for centuries), I'd say that yes, the US did make the world a safer and better place. The sort of large-scale, inconceivably miserable state that the world experienced in World Wars 1 and 2 (thanks, mostly to European attitudes and territorial snots) would never be seen again - too much at stake.

--
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.

I am alive because of the atom bomb by Nice2Cats · 2005-07-16 01:44 · Score: 1

As one of the Americans whose grandfather would have most certainly died on the shores of Kyushu during Operation Downfall, I would like to send the men and women of the Manhattan Project my heartfelt thanks. Like me, millions of Americans, and -- though they would like to pretend they oh-too-cool samurai to care -- even more millions of Japanese would not be here today if the bombs had not been developed and used. It saved friend and foe from at least two more years of war, in the course of which more Chinese would have died under Japanese occupation than perished in Hiroshima and Nagasaki put together; it saved "us" and "them" from what would have been the most bloody landing attempt in history, probably including the use of chemical weapons. And tell me, why would gassing half of Kyushu and the Tokyo Plain have been better than nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

The aim of the atom bombs was to end World War II quickly and with relatively little bloodshed. In both points, it was a fantastic success. The decision to use the bombs was a tough one to make, but if we hadn't, and if the war had dragged on, the same people who are complaining about the bombs now would be asking us why on earth we didn't use them to stop the carnage early when we had the chance. Would Einstein really have felt better if he had watched the body bags of further 250.000 American soldiers come back? Watched two more years of B29 unleashing hell over every Japanese city, not just two?

No. Today, the very same people would be claiming that Japan would have surrendured immediately after the first bomb, and that we were criminal not to try to stop the dying quickly, and we would be wondering if doubling or even tripling our war dead couldn't have been avoided by one act of moral courage.

The moral, in fact, is a different one: If you start a war of aggression, you will reap what you sow. If you go ahead with it, don't come crying that people fight back any way they can.

Re:I am alive because of the atom bomb by kronocide · 2005-07-16 05:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

As one of the Americans whose grandfather would have most certainly died on the shores of Kyushu during Operation Downfall, I would like to send the men and women of the Manhattan Project my heartfelt thanks.

I'm sure that one of the millions of potential children and grandchildren of those who were burned alive by American firebombs would love to give their opinions on this, but alas... That's one of the upsides with killing people: you don't have to hear them complain afterwards.

The moral, in fact, is a different one: If you start a war of aggression, you will reap what you sow.

Not quite. Rather, if political leaders start a war of aggression those ordinary people who happened to be born in that country will face the consequences while those leaders might at worst be deposed after spending some time confined to an apartment watching TV. Or they may never face any consequences at all.

If it's righteous to burn Japanese civilians alive because Japan had gone to war, then it must also be righteous to blow up Israeli civilians if you believe that the Israeli government is occupying Palestinian land. But of course, this idea that civilians are just targets in warfare is in complete opposition of ethics and international law. Let's hope it stays that way. But that means some people need to come to terms with their history.
Re:I am alive because of the atom bomb by DeathPenguin · 2005-07-16 06:00 · Score: 1

Same here--I'm rather biased in favor of the use of the atomic weapons because my grandfather was on a boat waiting to land in southern Japan, so I can't really look at this from an unbiased perspective. The odds of him surviving the invasion were dismal, it would've been even more of a bloodbath than Operation Overlord. Fatman and Little Boy were the fastest way of ending the war, sparing the most American lives, and coincidentally also saving the most Japanese lives and countless Chinese lives.

Yes, the Japanese government used civilians to do a lot of the dirty work, as any government does when a war is being fought on its homeland. Yes, there were atrocities on both sides. And yes, a lot of civilians were killed. But at least the atomic weapons brought a swift end to much of the struggle (There were many, including POWs, who suffered for long after the war). Incendiary bombing, invasion, and occupation would've brought far more death and destruction across more of Japan than two bombs ever could.
Re:I am alive because of the atom bomb by kronocide · 2005-07-16 10:25 · Score: 1

That obviously says a lot more about your preconceptions than about me. But just out of curiosity, what does Hamas have to do with "the Bomb"?

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by r2q2 · 2005-07-16 01:47 · Score: 1

You are kidding right? This stuff is common knowledge. The last time the courts came in and tried to challenge nuclear weapons designs being published was ages ago. And they didn't succede because I believe the defendant was able to show that it was common knowledge already. Uranium is still able to be mined obviously. Its half life allows it and we haven't gotten rid of it from all of the nuclear weapons. The things that are actually classified are the fusion bombs.

--
My UID is prime is yours?

Different Scientists Had Different Reactions by thelizman · 2005-07-16 01:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

J Robert Oppenheimer was interviewed years later, and he talked about how everyone reacted differently. Some people cheered, others began to cry, but most stood in stunned silence over the aftermath of the detonation. Oppenheimer himself was very disturbed, recalling the Hindu scripture which states "I am become death, destroyer of worlds."

In one of his memoirs, Richard Feynman recalled learning from John Von Neumann the notion that you are not responsible for the world you're in. That sustained him during the Manhatten Project years, but after he returned to civilian life as an instructor for Cornell, he went into a nihilistic type of depression:

"I can't understand it anymore, but I felt very strongly then. I sat in a restaurant in New York, for example, and I looked out at the buildings and I began thinking, you know, about how much the radius of the Hiroshima bomb damage was and so forth ... How far from here was 34th Street? ... All those buildings, all smashed -and so on. And I would go along and I would see people building a bridge, or they'd be making a new road, and I thought, they're crazy, they just don't undersand, they don't understand. Why are they making new things? It's so useless." "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feinman", p 136

The best quote comes from Kenneth T. Bainbridge on the morning of the Trinity test. After congratulating project leader Oppenheimer on the spectacular success of the project, he then stated "Now we are all sons of bitches."

Re:Different Scientists Had Different Reactions by kronocide · 2005-07-16 01:59 · Score: 1

Nice post, thanks. (Where are those moderator points when you need'em?)

Everyone likes atom bombs now? by kronocide · 2005-07-16 01:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Almost every post here is a defense of the nuclear attack on Japan or of atom bombs in general (while almost every one is written as if this was a very radical and unique position). It gets me a little worried. Slashdoters used to be computer nerds and computer nerds used to be humanitarians. Does everyone also believe that making "small, tactical nukes" is a good idea? After all, terrorists could make a devastating attack on a major city and kill millions, so according to that projection, killing a few tens of thousands of people to prevent that would be more than worth it. You can always conjure up some "projection" to defend any number of casualties...

Re:Everyone likes atom bombs now? by dhazard · 2005-07-16 05:32 · Score: 1

Slashdoters used to be computer nerds and computer nerds used to be humanitarians.

You shouldnt generalize us all in one group, every 'geek' is built diffrent, sort of like everyone else.

Whats wrong with small tactical nukes? Its a 'tactical' nuke, its sole purpose was to be used in a dire situation when there is only one choice left.

In my opinion we shouldnt bash how we play war its not whats wrong, its war thats wrong.
Re:Everyone likes atom bombs now? by CargoCultCoder · 2005-07-16 07:03 · Score: 1

Almost every post here is a defense of the nuclear attack on Japan or of atom bombs in general (while almost every one is written as if this was a very radical and unique position). It gets me a little worried.

I'm seeing a fairly equal number of posts claiming that Japan was "trying hard" to surrender and that a simple demonstration of the bomb over water would have been more effective in bringing about the end of the war.

Look: While I believe that of the available options the atomic bomb was the best option for bringing a quick end to the war, that doesn't mean that I "like" atomic bombs or think they are the solution to every diplomatic problem. They were and are horrible weapons, and it was a tragedy that they were ever used in anger. But the entire war was a tragedy. Any sort of understanding of what happened in the Pacific and -- of more significance in terms of human catastrophe -- what happened on mainland Asia in the 1930's-40's seems to be very scarce these days. For example, the war in the Pacific was just part of the conflict that Japan was embroiled in. At the time of her surrender, the majority of her army was still active on the Asian mainland, where its aggression was causing roughly 100,000 non-combatant deaths a month through the first half of 1945. While Japan's navy had been all but destroyed, relatively little pressure had been exerted on her army in the field. How many people know that today? Heck, how many people have ever heard of Guadalcanal and know that it wasn't a canal? And how many people know of the Potsdam Declaration, when it was delivered, what its import was, and what response Japan -- which some say was "trying hard" to surrender -- gave to it? Precious few, I'm willing to bet.

So if the argument that the bombs were a tragic necessity seems to be presented as if it was "a very radical and unique position", that might be because those presenting the argument know that they are having to make it in the face of a huge amount of ignorance about the scope and history of the war, and the context in which the bombs were dropped. The bombs weren't dropped in a historical vacuum. They had been preceded by a dozen years of war in Asia, entirely due to Japanese aggression, millions of war-related deaths in mainland Asia -- never mind combatant deaths in the Pacific and southwest Asia -- a very bloody campaign marked by the unwillingness of Japan's fighting forces to surrender even when the situation was hopeless, etc. None of that suggests that someone who thinks the atomic bombs were appropriate in the context in which they were used thinks that they should be used whenever the going gets tough.

If reminders of what the context in which the bombs were used make you a little worried, then you have some idea of how reminders of the sheer amount of ignorance about Japan's war make others feel.

(BTW: in fairness, Japan did have an envoy in Moscow who was trying pretty hard to start surrender talks. Unfortunately, his superiors in Tokyo were being very unsupportive of his efforts. This envoy was trying hard to bring about a surrender: unfortunately, his goverment was not.)
Re:Everyone likes atom bombs now? by maxpublic · 2005-07-16 08:01 · Score: 1

computer nerds used to be humanitarians.

Right. Computer nerds are some more 'humanitarian' than some other random stereotypical subset of people. Good call.

You can be a humanitarian and still be in favor of using whatever force you can bring to bear in a war. The humanitarian in this case will do everything reasonable to avoid the war in the first place, but once the situation devolves to open conflict he'll choose logic over emotion and try to end the conflict as quickly as possible - in HIS favor.

Unless your definition of 'humanitarian' translates to 'self-destructively pacifistic'.

Max

--
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by Alioth · 2005-07-16 01:57 · Score: 1

No single LCF (launch control facility) or single person can launch an ICBM.

An enable code must be put in at both LCFs (which are the capsules with two personnel inside - see "The Day After" for how one would be used), both keys must be turned simultaneously in the LCF, and a second LCF must do the same. One missile crew taking over an LCF *cannot* launch a missile.

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows

wrong and disgusting but interesting by Knome_fan · 2005-07-16 01:58 · Score: 1, Flamebait

That people like the parent get modded up in every discussion about the atomic bombs is on the one hand disgusting as he is simply repeating untruth, that have been shown to be untruth again and again, like the alledegedly millions of lives that were saved (funny btw. that the number grow over the decades. While Stimpson spoke of half a million and a few years later in his autobiography Truman spoke of a million, George Bush Sr. spoke of 2 million decades later and now we finally have arrived at 10-20 millions in the new century).

On the other hand it's incredibly intersting to watch what a sore point the fact that the US used the bombs seems to be for many Americans that they feel the need to mod people up who make those wrong and outragous claims. (For example, someone modded insightful in this discussion claimed it had potentially saved a billion lives...)

I think that only shows that Americans, or a large part of the American populace, are unable to look at their country's history in anything but black or white. Even suggesting that the stories of what led up to the atomic bombs being used might have been a little more complicated than the dominant but false narrative assumes will inevitably leed to angry reactions.

The notion that America no matter what happened always were and are the good guys has to be defended no matter what and the thought that some action by the US might have been wrong, or at least debateable or in a morally grey area has to be shouted down immidiately.

Certainly disgusting but also really, really fascinating to watch.

Re:wrong and disgusting but interesting by Neoprofin · 2005-07-16 05:51 · Score: 1

Or maybe, just maybe, and I may be going out on a limb here: Many American beleive that we did the right thing. It's not easy to say that whiping two cities off the map in a heartbeat is the "right thing" but they beleive that at that time, in that situation, it was a better solution.

America glosses over many things. Little time is spent in our history books discussing much of the horrors against the native population, or the terrible condition inside of Japanese internement camps and so on. On the other hand, all of these thing are mentioned, maybe not at the length they deserve but no one is hiding the truth, unlike certain governments who try to tell their people that WWII was all the fault of the greed imperialist Americans and their terrible sanctions .
Re:wrong and disgusting but interesting by 0111+1110 · 2005-07-16 17:00 · Score: 1

The notion that America no matter what happened always were and are the good guys

Well my favorite defense of dropping the bombs on Japan is: "You started it". To me that's all that needs to be said. If the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbor, the US may not have entered the war at all.

I think many Americans, in 20/20 hindsight, disagree with the decision. Just remember that (1) there was a very nasty war on with heavy casualties on all sides and (2) many of the nasty effects of radiation were not fully understood at that time, especially by most of the politicians involved. It was a brand new invention. Everything was theoretical.

I assume that you are not arguing that the Germans and Japanese were the good guys? Sorry but you have to choose sides. Who would you like to have won that war?

I think that only shows that Americans, or a large part of the American populace, are unable to look at their country's history in anything but black or white.

How does that follow? Have you ever even been to the US? How many Americans have you discussed these issues with? I call bullshit. If most Americans are so much dumber than the rest of the world, how is it that this country along with the UK and Germany are responsible for like 90% of the post industrial revolution inventions that you take for granted. Why do so many people from other countries flock to our universities (like MIT and Caltech for instance)?

All statements like this do is show your own ignorance. If you yourself had any real insight or intelligence and you had actually travelled a fair bit you would be able to see that most people around the world are basically the same despite some significant cultural differences.

The US is a country of immigrants. So blame all of the countries we came from, which are mostly Europe but also Asia. My grandparents were from France, Poland and Russia for instance. No doubt I am genetically similar to people in those countries. Your unwarranted generalizations, blanket statements about millions of people that you have never met, are no better than racism.

--
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
Re:wrong and disgusting but interesting by strikethree · 2005-07-19 08:16 · Score: 1

I am an American. I have lots of complaints about my government. I do not like how my government has killed many people for not very good reasons. I have no problems at all with the fact that we dropped nukes on Japan in WWII. It was a declared war. What difference does it make if the people died from bullets, knives, or nukes? I really fail to understand why people make such a big deal over those bombs... other than "wow, that was an impressive bomb!".

strike

--
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen

The Bomb was inevitable by Quiet_Desperation · 2005-07-16 02:04 · Score: 1

It would have come about eventually.

Science fiction authors were already dropping the things, and physicists were openly speculating about atomic bombs in the 1930s.

One SF author got so close to reality he was questioned by government agents.

http://www.asimovs.com/_issue_0310/ref.shtml

What a great day by NeedleSurfer · 2005-07-16 02:07 · Score: 1

Wow of all the thing we could be today, we are on the anniversary of the nuclear weapon creation. How great, i feel so good that humanity has achieved this level of civilization and I for one congratulate this incredible scientist which gave its mind to the enlightment of mankind.

Tomorow: the creation of AIDS, another milestone in scientific research, the birth of a new era...

Ozzy? How about Tom? by meringuoid · 2005-07-16 02:08 · Score: 1

"We Will All Go Together When We Go"
-- Tom Lehrer

When you attend a funeral,
It is sad to think that sooner or'l
Later those you love will do the same for you.
And you may have thought it tragic,
Not to mention other adjec-
Tives, to think of all the weeping they will do.
(But don't you worry.)

No more ashes, no more sackcloth,
And an arm band made of black cloth
Will some day nevermore adorn a sleeve.
For if the bomb that drops on you
Gets your friends and neighbors too,
There'll be nobody left behind to grieve.

And we will all go together when we go.
What a comforting fact that is to know.
Universal bereavement,
An inspiring achievement,
Yes, we will all go together when we go.

We will all go together when we go.
All suffused with an incandescent glow.
No one will have the endurance
To collect on his insurance,
Lloyd's of London will be loaded when they go.

Oh we will all fry together when we fry.
We'll be french fried potatoes by and by.
There will be no more misery
When the world is our rotisserie,
Yes, we will all fry together when we fry.

Down by the old maelstrom,
There'll be a storm before the calm.

And we will all bake together when we bake.
There'll be nobody present at the wake.
With complete participation
In that grand incineration,
Nearly three billion hunks of well-done steak.

Oh we will all char together when we char.
And let there be no moaning of the bar.
Just sing out a Te Deum
When you see that I.C.B.M.,
And the party will be come-as-you-are.

Oh, we will all burn together when we burn.
There'll be no need to stand and wait your turn.
When it's time for the fallout
And Saint Peter calls us all out,
We'll just drop our agendas and adjourn.

You will all go directly to your respective Valhallas.
Go directly, do not pass Go, do not collect two hundred dollahs.

And we will all go together when we go.
Every Hottentot and every Eskimo.
When the air becomes uranious,
We will all go simultaneous.
Yes, we all will go together
When we all go together,
Yes we all will go together when we go.

--
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.

Decision by American Military in 1945 by reporter · 2005-07-16 02:29 · Score: 1

The American military faced the following three choices just before the end of the war in the Pacific.

Case I (which actually happened): Drop the 2 A-bombs. Washington terminates the war immediately. (1) The suffering of the Asians brutalized by the Japanese ends immediately. (2) American lives are spared. (3) The Japanese bear the cost of the human lives in the final stages of the war.

Case II (what might have happened): Do not use the 2 A-bombs. Washington allows the war to drag on for 6 more months. (1) The suffering of the Asians brutalized by the Japanese continues for 6 more months. (2) Many Americans lives are lost in an invasion of Japan. (3) The Japanese share the cost, in human lives, with the Americans.

Case III (what might have happened): Do not use the 2 A-bombs. Washington allows the war to drag on for 6 more months. (1) The suffering of the Asians brutalized by the Japanese continues for 6 more months. (2) Few Americans lives are lost as the they blockade the island and use conventional bombs to destroy what is left of Japan. (3) The Japanese bear the cost of the human lives in the final stages of the war as they either starve to death from the blockade or die from the rain of bombs.

Case I is the optimum choice because it minimizes the overall suffering for everyone: Japanese (though relatively more Japanese, compared to other Asians and the Americans, die and suffer in Case I), other Asians, and the Americans. Advocates of Case II or Case III ignore the fact that the war was not merely between Japan and the USA. Rather, the war was also between Japan and Asia -- the exception being Taiwan. Advocates of Case III are probably right in that the least number of Japanese and Americans would die in Case III, but the advocates ignore the suffering of the Asians -- of whom many were languishing in the biological labs maintained by the Japanese.

War is horrible. There is no clean and tidy way to end it.

Today, the nation that most resembles pre-World-War-II Japan is China. Its population is highly nationalistic, and the majority of Chinese support the occupation of Tibet. The matter is not an issue of government censorship, for both Chinese students in the USA and the general population in Hong Kong have full access to Western media and still support the occupation of Tibet.

Did anyone notice the repeated Chinese demands for apologies from Japan even though Tokyo apologized numerous times and even though

the Beijing has never apologized to the Tibetans, the Uighurs, the North Korean refugees (whom Beijing deports back to Pyongyang to certain death and/or imprisonment), and all other direct victims of Chinese brutality. Yet, Beijing continues to accelerate the expansion of its military forces when Beijing has no enemies

.

Re:Decision by American Military in 1945 by Detritus · 2005-07-16 03:56 · Score: 1

I believe there was serious consideration given to the use of chemical weapons if the US had invaded Japan. American casualties in a conventional invasion would have been enormous.
If the bomb had not been used, there is a good chance that Truman would have been impeached. I don't think too many people were concerned about how many Japanese might die in the final stage of the war, they just wanted a successful end to the war, quickly, and without massive allied casualties.

--
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Re:Decision by American Military in 1945 by quarkscat · 2005-07-16 07:47 · Score: 1

"Yet, Beijing continues to accelerate the expansion of its military forces when Beijing has no enemies ..."

There was a very recent "deja-vu" incident in Beijing, with a PRC general threatening to nuke L.A. if the USA interceded in any conflict between the PRC and Taiwan. The same thing happened 4 years ago when the USA nixed the PRC purchase of the Port of Long Beach, CA.

It has become increasingly evident that the PRC has been using North Korean nuclear weapons development as a threat to South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. Since 80% of all foreign aid going to North Korea comes from the PRC, it is hard to imagine that the PRC could not, if they so chose, "encourage" North Korea to abandon their WMD. North Korea is a client state of, and proxy for the imperial expansionist goals of the PRC.

Just as the recent attempt, thus far not consumated, of the PRC purchase of UNOCAL. This
purchase would provide direct energy blackmail to Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, since UNOCAL supplies most of their LNG from gas fields in Malaysia and Indonesia. The PRC government (not
some hawkish general) warned the US Congress not to interfere with their purchase of UNOCAL.

Whatever "military adventures" the PRC has in mind against Taiwan (and US interests in the Pacific), they are well on the way towards those preparations for war, using Western balance of trade deficits and technology transfers. And since Beijing is the site for the 2008 Olympics, it would be my guess that whatever they intend to do militarily, they expect to be victorious before their Olympics "showcase".

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by KDR_11k · 2005-07-16 02:29 · Score: 1

I'm not convinced they couldn't modify one of the bombs to blow up where it is, though. Would still be pretty effective in the weapons storage of an aircraft carrier, especially one that's going to dock for maintenance.

--
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.

Comparison to Auschwitz by Sephiro444 · 2005-07-16 02:30 · Score: 3, Insightful

Link.

Man can render unspeakably terrible things to his own kind. Death walls and gas chambers are only ghastly instruments that remind us of what mankind is capable. Is it some twisted part of the human condition? Is our psychology so simple to manipulate? Is this capacity for moral distortion within each of us?

Atrocities are not unique to the Nazis. My father likes to remind me of Japanese war crimes committed against POWs. There is no cause so noble or philosophy so infallible that human cruelty has not made a foundation from it. Even today well meaning people of conscience are drawn to polar opposites and debate whether President Bush is a righteous man or a war criminal.

The scale and efficency of the Nazi killing machine is what shocks us so, but it reenforces what we already know: this kind of holocaust can never happen again. Even though it does, and like lemmings we turn a blind eye. Rwanda? Somalia? And how many people are unconsciously hardening their hearts against Americans on one side and Arabs on the other, or the Israelis against the Palestineans? If the dam were to break, would we again see organized slaughter of the Nazi kind?

I think far more dangerous than the mind-numbing horrors of which the preserved Nazi implements of death remind us are the horrors that even reasonable men justify. One and a half million people died in Auschwitz and Birkenau, but more than four hundred thousand human beings died in blast and fallout from the American atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is tragedy in every life lost, but where they differ is in how they are both seen fifty years later.

Aside from a few isolated fools, the Holocaust is condemned by every soul the world over. But sentiment on the two bombings remains divided, even met with passioned approval by entirely reasonable people. War is a harsh thing, and military strategy is a long way from genocide. But tell me, were the women in line at the bank in Hiroshima and the children in the schoolhouse in Nagasaki any less innocent than those who perished in the gas chambers?

Re:Stop being childish by kronocide · 2005-07-16 02:33 · Score: 1

"People are badgering a guy because he helped make a practical Atomic bomb, the simpering little boys on /. think "Oh what a bad man, Atomic Bombs are so bad that this man is tainted and is equal to the Nazis because he did"

Actually, everyone here is busy defending nukes and their use on Japan, the "simpering little boys" you refer to seem to not exist.

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by maotx · 2005-07-16 02:36 · Score: 1

Accidental launches CANNOT happen with an armed warhead.

Would you like to play a game?

--
I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by Adult+film+producer · 2005-07-16 02:42 · Score: 1

come on, stop taking all the fun out of it :)

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by twiddlingbits · 2005-07-16 02:47 · Score: 1

LOL...War Games...I'm surprised anyone here believed that. It was good fiction but there is ALWAYS a "man-in-the-loop" to lauch weapons, even little ones :) Take it from someone who knows and has been there. It can't happen.

Ooh, a numbers game! by DruggedBunny · 2005-07-16 02:49 · Score: 1

I think millions of lives were saved, perhaps billions

Why is it always a numbers game?

Consider this hypothetical situation: your parents, siblings, uncles, aunts, cousins, grandparents and friends are based in Hiroshima, for whatever reason (ridiculous, of course, but that's not the point). It's up to you to decide if Hiroshima should be bombed to save millions of "the enemy's" lives: do you give the go-ahead to kill your entire extended family?

I think most people would have trouble doing this if it came to killing the people they hold dear -- maybe a demonstration of the power would be better, after all -- yet they have no problem whatsoever justifying doing it to other people and their families.

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by YrWrstNtmr · 2005-07-16 02:53 · Score: 1

It would be incredibly hard for one person, or even two people, to gain access long enough to actually modify a weapon enough for it to be exploded with a nuclear yield.

You can't just waltz in with a bag of tools and start dismantling one of them. Access lists, cameras, armed guards, background checks, etc.

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by Fenresulven · 2005-07-16 02:53 · Score: 3, Informative

The first bomb had two hemispherses of Uranium that were polished smooth.

This is slightly inaccurate the first bomb (Gadget) did indeed consist of two hollow hemispheres, but it was two nickel plated plutonium hemispheres (with some gold foil added to smooth it out after the nickle blistered) and not uranium hemispheres.

The first uranium bomb (Little Boy) was a gun type system with a cannon firing a bullet of uranium into a barely subcritical mass of uranium.
This is not to say that a bomb can't be made with two hemispheres of uranium, but this was not done with either the first bomb or the first uranium bomb. The idea of converting the Little Boy bomb into an implosion design (with two hemispheres of uranium) was raised after the Gadget test as it would permit more efficent use of the uranium, but it was decided not to as this would delay the use of the weapon.

As a young physicist, by indig0 · 2005-07-16 03:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

... I strongly identify with the attitude and goals of the people of Los Alamos during the Project. The interviewed scientist has my sympathy for having to endure a lifetime of harassment from those who condemn the creation of technology and progress.

Many of the comments here demonstrate a disturbing lack of forethought... The Bomb would have been built eventually, by somebody, no matter what. Scientific progress is, in itself, not a moral matter. The bureaucrats and politicians that made the decision to use the weapon upon two intentionally preserved non-military cities are the ones you should be pointing fingers at... The physicists were left out of the decision making process; even Oppie was quickly hustled out of the government when he was no longer necessary to them.

Scientific progress brings no evil. Evil uses scientific progress for its means, as it always has. This is not a logically valid reason to suppress innovation... (.i.e. think of all the incredible research that cascaded out of the Project that contributed to our greater understanding of the Universe.)

Ranting aside, I'd highly recommend the movie "The Day After Trinity" (title based on an Oppie quote). It's easy to find and provides a lot of insight into the people and politics associated with Los Alamos.

Additionally, I'd recommend that you make an effort to visit Trinity Site in NM/USA. I visited last year and it was an awe-inspiring experience.

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by Detritus · 2005-07-16 03:08 · Score: 1

The first bomb (little boy) had two parts. One was a cylinder with a cylindrical hole in its center, the other was a cylindrical bullet that was fired into the hole in the other cylinder.

--
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat

Who modded it insightful? by poszi · 2005-07-16 03:10 · Score: 2, Informative

Come on. The linked article is a joke. It's from "The Journal of Irreproducible Results". At the end, they have a reference to other "instructional articles"

PREVIOUS MONTH'S COLUMNS

1. Let's Make Test Tube Babies! May, 1979

2. Let's Make a Solar System! June, 1979

3. Let's Make an Economic Recession! July, 1979

4. Let's Make an Anti-Gravity Machine! August, 1979

5. Let's Make Contact with an Alien Race! September, 1979

--

Save the bandwidth. Don't use sigs!

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by secolactico · 2005-07-16 03:19 · Score: 2, Funny

What if at a silo, a crazy Air Force colonel decides to take his silo into lockdown, no communication in or out. He then conveys a presidential order to launch. Can he get away with it? And what about nukes that are on air force jets, how are they launched? Could the pilot decide to launch his nuke?

Then you''ll just have to send the recall code prefixed by a combination of the letters "POE". And if *that* fails, there's always the limestone mineshafts you can flee to in order to preserve the human race.

--
No sig

do they have rose-colored glasses there? by YesIAmAScript · 2005-07-16 03:32 · Score: 1

Like we have a great supply of here?

Germany has their share of corporate scandals that hurt the average person.

http://www.neue-einheit.com/english/is/is2001/is20 01-19e.htm

And I don't believe private pensions (i.e. employee benefits) are as big in Germany because the government pays a lot bigger pension (like our Social Security) of course they pay for it with higher taxes. The government cut this pension quite a bit 2-3 years ago, which surely hurt pensioners.

Finally, you'd be more likely to drive a VW. Of course, VW is another of those totally angelic German companies you speak about http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Bribery_Scandal_Engu lfs_Vol_0706.html.

--
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95

Guilt Isn't My Department by Doc+Ruby · 2005-07-16 03:47 · Score: 1

That's the conscience of denial: "I was just following orders, so I'm not guilty". It lets people feel good, without even having to answer whether they produced something worth the cost. There was a lot of that going around in the 1930s-1940s, especially in Germany. And of course it's still popular today.

--

--
make install -not war

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by Basehart · 2005-07-16 03:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

"It literally takes 2 people to do it. In subs and silos, 2 people must perform an action simultaneously. Turn keys, for instance. Seperated by a dozen feet or so. 1 person physically can't do it."

Phew, thank goodness we live in a World where crimes are always ever commited by one person.

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by jimhill · 2005-07-16 04:00 · Score: 1

They won't take it from you. There's something about a nuclear weapons thread that brings out staggering levels of bullshit from folks who read a novel and saw a movie. Remember, those who know don't talk. Those who talk don't know.

/knows, doesn't talk.

--
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus

Do not confuse your conscience with selfishness by Shivetya · 2005-07-16 04:09 · Score: 1

Also be wary of applying your thoughts and ideals to people who lived in different times. It is very easy to pass judgement on people who made decisions or comments that you do not agree with. The problem comes down to the fact that no matter how much you read about the situation you cannot truly understand how it was to experience it when it did occur.

That attitude you despise not only makes possible regimes like the Nazi's but also provides the means to end them as well. There are many times that obediance must take precendance over one's conscience.

FWIW, the Nazi's were not made possible by that sentence "I did what I was told to do". They came about because others did not act to stop them when they had the chance. We see similar situations even to this day, the best example is Iran. We all know they are sponsors of terrorism and are pursuing the atomic bomb. The innoculate their citizens that leave to visit foreign countries against smallpox; a disease the is essentially erradicated. Yet what is being done? For the most part the same activities that allowed the Nazi's come to power are being replayed in a slightly different fashion.

We then may end up later villifying people 50 years from now for actions they took to solve problems that should never have arisen.

--
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.

Re:Do not confuse your conscience with selfishness by maxpublic · 2005-07-16 07:36 · Score: 1

There are many times that obediance must take precendance over one's conscience.

Not in a free country.

Max

--
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Re:Do not confuse your conscience with selfishness by charyou-tree · 2005-07-16 16:45 · Score: 1

There are many times that obediance must take precendance over one's conscience.

Not in a free country.
Not in any country.

If you live in a dictatorship and are given a morally repugnant order, you can choose to risk death by standing up to your evil leaders, or you can choose to risk death by becoming a willing slave to their will and fighting their enemies. It's an unpleasant choice, but it must be made.

Humans don't always get to choose a happy and safe life, but all humans can choose to die honorably.

In defense of nukes...no I'm not crazy by Simonetta · 2005-07-16 04:15 · Score: 1

Nuclear weapons have made an enormous change in the way that the world works. A change that is very slowly infusing public awareness.

Nuclear weapons have made the military obsolete. The primary reason for having an Army, Navy, and Air Force is to prevent people outside your country or homeland from coming to your homeland and killing your males, raping your females, enslaving your children, and stealing all your resources and property. To do this, the militaries have traditionally called upon young men kill the other young men in the invading army and to be killed themselves. When one army is skillful enough at employing violence at another army, they have succeeded in protecting the homeland. In reality, conventional wars with conventional armies go back and forth until both sides run out of money and solders. Then everyone goes home, fucks, farms, and rebuilds for a generation and the process begins again. It's an endless cycle of murder and revenge.

But with nuclear weapons, the military is powerless to prevent another military from destroying the cities of the homeland. Regardless of how many tanks, guns, money, and solders that they have, they simply can not prevent the other side's military from destroying the country. The only way to win a nuclear war is to not have one. The defense of the country shifts from the military to the diplomats and those that control the nuclear weapons. Because it has now become impossible for the military to actually do what they have traditionally done, the military has become obsolete and redundant. Since it can't protect the country, it is no longer needed to protect the country. This realignment of the importance of the military became apparent during the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962. The entire Vietnam war was simply an attempt for the US military to justify its continued existence as a conventional organization of bodies, ships, and guns.

Today, thirty years after the defeat of the conventional military in Vietnam, the US military plays a different role in the USA. It is no longer concerned with defending the homeland from external enemies. This function is done by the people who control the nuclear weapons. I doubt that those people consider themselves as part of the traditional guns and troops military. It's certainly possible that they will at sometime in the next 50 years decide to separate from the control of the US government and become a sovereign state unto themselves supported by global corporations. Nothing on earth could stop them from doing this.
The function of the traditional military in the USA today is:
1) To provide a framework for the continuous transfer of billions of dollars in 'Defense contracts' from taxpayers to corporations.
2) To provide systematic application of violence in developing countries in order to force their leaders to adhere to the policies that primarily enrich global corporations.
3) To provide a way to kill off surplus working- class young people who have no function in the new gentrified Disney-Baby Gap yuppie American middle-class economy.

By breaking the endless cycle of institionalized murder and destruction caused by the war cycle of the traditional military structure, nuclear weapons have done more than any other development to bring about an era of permanent peace and prosperity in the developed world since the end of World War Two. The internet and the continuing communications revolution of the 1990s will prevent the nuclear weapons from being used in 'Dr. Strangelove' omnicidal war.

Re:In defense of nukes...no I'm not crazy by blahplusplus · 2005-07-16 22:11 · Score: 1

Actually Nuclear arms do not make the military redundant, it takes war back to the "old way" of doing things because no one wants to destroy the planet so they have to war the old fashioned way. Or do it through economic means or through sheer population expansion.

It's better to lose to an enemy and survive then to destroy the entire planet and have none of your kin, knowledge, idealogies, etc, survive.

USA! by JK1150 · 2005-07-16 04:16 · Score: 1

YEA! GO USA!

1024 people... by Eunuch · 2005-07-16 04:34 · Score: 1

I caught that. Do that myself. Powers of 2 for everything!

--
Transcend Humanity. Please.

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by justNoperator · 2005-07-16 04:54 · Score: 1

The military takes the security of nuclear weapons extremely seriously, that whole "Deadly Force Authorized" thing. They have a very strict two man (person) rule, it doesn't matter if you are the CO of the carrier, squadron or GW himself, no one will not be allowed access to the weapon alone, period! Even if you have the clearence and the required second person you will not be with the weapon unless you have an authorized purpose and it fits with the current status. No "we're just here to move things for the exercise" or "we're just gonna get an early start on some maintenance" no movement or maintenance scheduled, start kissing deck or you will get shot. Besides I think that carriers unload even the conventional stuff before going in for maintenance, makes things a bit safer and in '91 Bush Sr. removed all tactical nukes from surface ships http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/papers/1991/9 1092704.html ~18th paragraph down or just Google tactical nuclear weapon surface ship but don't ask http://neds.daps.dla.mil/Directives/5721e1.pdf cause they won't tell.

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by YrWrstNtmr · 2005-07-16 05:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

yeah. This is just a leetle bit harder than two guys deciding to rob a bank.

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by Zordak · 2005-07-16 05:45 · Score: 2, Informative

By the way, is it true that the most deadly nuclear weapons are actually produced by Russia?

Russia built and tested the 100MT beast "Tsar Bomba." Some people believe that there was also a 150 MT detonation, but nobody can verify it. The problem with Tsar Bomba was that it was so friggin' huge, it couldn't be weaponized. They had to cut out the belly of the bomber that carried it, and it didn't have enough fuel to get anywhere. Basically, the only "enemy" territory they might maybe have gotten it to was in non-Soviet eastern parts of Europe, but it still would have been close enough to cause damage in the western parts of the Soviet Union. So basically it was just a pissing match. We probably had the technology to build a beast like that, but there was no reason to do it. We were too busy hatching plans to detonate a nuke on the moon.

The biggest detonation by the U.S. and her cronies was the 15 MT Castle Bravo shot, which was actually an accident. It was only supposed to be about a quarter of that. Because it was bigger than it was supposed to be, it created a fallout disaster, including dosing up some Japanese fishermen on a vessel ironically named "Fifth Lucky Dragon" (it appears to have been fatal to one of the fishermen). Marshallese islanders also got heavy doses.

--

Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by kurzweilfreak · 2005-07-16 05:55 · Score: 1

Or for that matter, just skip the nuclear stuff altogether. Anti-matter bombs are the way to go... but photon torpedos will work in a pinch if you're pressed for anti-matter.

--

kurzweil_freak

5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

I think... by Mechcozmo · 2005-07-16 05:57 · Score: 1

If the nuclear bomb hadn't been invented, then after WWII, what would have stopped the US and the USSR from going all-out? Nothing really. But with the threat of "We die together" (aka, Mutually Aassured Destruction) the Cold War started.

He sounds like your average nazi did after WWII! by IdleTime · 2005-07-16 05:58 · Score: 1

What I'm hinting at is this quote from him "I did what I was told to do. I did it to the best of my ability."

That was the standard defence from nazis after WWII and Nueremberg tribunal did not accept it then either, so why should we accept such bullshit now?

--
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by mgw1181 · 2005-07-16 06:16 · Score: 1

You extract Uranium-235 from the much more plentiful Uranium-238. Uranium-233 is not present in natural Uranium, but can be produced by bombarding Thorium-232 with neutrons. Uranium-233 is fissile, and is the basis of a Thorium fuel cycle in a nuclear reactor.

We're geeks! Disassemble! Tweak! by PhYrE2k2 · 2005-07-16 06:25 · Score: 1

Please- we're mostly geeks here. We all know that while there is probably some keypad on the front, it really just completes a circuit somewhere inside. So get out your trusty screw driver and open that puppy up, change around some of the wiring, hook up your wrist-watch mission-impossible style and run. :)

The launch codes may prevent someone casually doing it, or prevent someone from accidentially doing something, but we all know very well, it just needs a bit of tweaking!

-M

--

when you see the word 'Linux', drink!

Atomic Bombs by Oshkoshjohn · 2005-07-16 06:26 · Score: 1

Wasn't it TOM LERHER who wrote, "Good-bye, Mom; I'm off to drop the bomb..."

--
Goddamned kids! Get off my lawn!

Re:Stop being childish by KarmaMB84 · 2005-07-16 07:13 · Score: 1

Can something be a war crime if it was the rule of war at the time rather than the exception? If I'm not mistaken, wasn't Dresden hit simply because it was swollen with refugees for maximum casualties? At the time of World War II, normal production was converted for military purposes and would commonly be located within cities which then became targets for total destruction (why just destroy the factory when they'll just move across the street?). As it happened in Japan, a significant portion of the population worked rather directly to support the Japanese war effort. Both cities that were hit with atomic bombs were examples of such cities.

Perhaps we should round up all them World War II veterans and charge them with war crimes for crimes that had no precedent at the time? Let's execute those criminals!

W5MPZ by leighklotz · 2005-07-16 07:14 · Score: 2, Informative

The Sandia National Laboratories ham club is operating a special event station from the site. I just talked to them using 35 watts.

See here.

I'm waiting for Aug 6th & 9th to celebrate by p51d007 · 2005-07-16 07:22 · Score: 1

The test site anniversary is fine, but I'm holding my party on Aug 6th & 9th to celebrate. The test is fine, but the actual dropping of the bomb, which helped end WW2 would be a better way to celebrate!! Hey, what's that bright light.......

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by jadavis · 2005-07-16 08:25 · Score: 1

I just watched "Dr. Strangelove". It looks like you did, too.

At the beginning of the movie it tells you how the events in the movie are not possible because of all the safeguards.

One person can't launch a U.S. nuke, except maybe the president, and even he would probably need to convince some submarine captain or something.

I don't see any reason at all that we should try to destroy our nuclear arsenal.

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.

Visiting the Trinity Site by DickeyWayne · 2005-07-16 08:42 · Score: 2, Informative

They also open the Trinity Site on the first Saturdays in April and October. It's an interesting place to visit. As in today's event, there is no program and no speakers. There are, however, souvenir vendors there. The WSMR folks will give you this brochure at the gate.

A few tokens of my tourist experience:

1. There is a rock shop right outside the gate, with a big sign advertising "Trinitite for Sale." If you are a rockhound, they have a nice shop, with lots of interesting stuff, but their prices are a little high. You can get Trinitie cheaper on Ebay all day long.

2. Removing Trinitite from the Trinity site is considered theft of government property, but they don't watch you too closely. :) There's still quite a few chunks of it around the back fence.

3. If you see old people visiting the site, there's a good chance that they are locals, who remember the blast. Seek them out and talk to them.

4. To me, there really wasn't all that much to see there, and yet, there was an amazing sense to just *be* there. The most impressive physical sight to me was the bowl-shaped depression in the soil, a few hundred yards in circumference, caused by the force of the blast compressing the soil.

5. Try to get a room in Socorro. When they say that the site is "near Alamogordo," they lie. You will enter from the NORTH side of WSMR.

Re:Visiting the Trinity Site by PipianJ · 2005-07-16 11:41 · Score: 1

I visited today.

As for Trinitite, several issues:

a) Don't trust the shops, unless you've got a geiger counter. ^_-
b) Please don't steal the Trinitite. Why do you think they no longer have the window viewing through the filled-in-crater open? Probably because people would steal the trinitite in there. If people keep stealing the trinitite, noone would be able to see any on the ground any more...

4 and 5 are absolutely true.

Re:Communication Lags by Bios_Hakr · 2005-07-16 08:45 · Score: 1

They did have telegraph and photographs.

--
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.

Re:Stop being childish by hilaryduff · 2005-07-16 08:46 · Score: 1

the children in hiroshima and nagasaki werent actively helping in the war effort

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by abradsn · 2005-07-16 08:58 · Score: 1

The only countries that even pretend to abide by this treaty already have at least 10 or more nuclear weapons stockpiled, and or they are under the nuclear umbrella of a larger nuclear power.

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by Crisavec · 2005-07-16 09:59 · Score: 3, Informative

Not quite. The Nuclear weapons Archive story about it has this to say.

The Tsar Bomba (referred to as the Big Bomb by Sakharov in his Memoirs [Sakharov 1990]) was the largest nuclear weapon ever constructed or detonated. This three stage weapon was actually a 100 megaton bomb design, but the uranium fusion stage tamper of the tertiary (and possibly the secondary) stage(s) was replaced by one(s) made of lead. This reduced the yield by 50% by eliminating the fast fissioning of the uranium tamper by the fusion neutrons, and eliminated 97% of the fallout (1.5 megatons of fission, instead of 51.5), yet still proved the full yield design. The result was the "cleanest" weapon ever tested with 97% of the energy coming from fusion reactions. The effect of this bomb at full yield on global fallout would have been tremendous. It would have increased the world's total fission fallout since the invention of the atomic bomb by 25%.

There was some bickering as to weither it had a yield of 50 or 57MT. The designed yield was 50MT, but the americans believed it was 57 based on what fallout they managed to sample, and shortly thereafter the soviets started using this figure as well.

Good Points but Taiwan is Allied with China by reporter · 2005-07-16 10:53 · Score: 1

You raise some good points, but Taiwan is allied with China, economically if not politically. The Taiwanese joined the Chinese in exporting weapons technology to Iran. This matter was noted by the 2005 Federal Register of the American government. Washington has slapped economic sanctions against the offending Taiwanese company.

On another note, the Taiwanese actually accelerated investments into China when we tried to slap sanctions against Beijing to punish it for the Tiananmen Square Incident. The Taiwanese aren't friends. We should not sacrifice our lives to defend these Taiwanese.

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by AstroDrabb · 2005-07-16 10:59 · Score: 1

I would think that _any_ nuclear weapon is deadly. However, The USA has the most "nukes" followed by Russia. Here are the nations that have "nukes" and how many. Country Number Year of first test -------------- ------- ------------------ United States 10,240 1945 Russia 8,400 1949 China 390 1964 France 350 1960 United Kingdom 200-300 1952 India 60-90 1974 Pakistan 30-52 1998 North Korea 0-18 not yet? More info can be found on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co untries_with_nuclear_weapons

--
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison

We don't need rose-colored glasses by Ogemaniac · 2005-07-16 11:35 · Score: 1

The numbers given to Truman ranged from around 20 thousand to 500 thousand dead Americans (depending on the length, nature, and location of the invasasion and bombing campaigns) and dead Japanese numbering in the hundreds of thousands up to the millions. These did not include Japanese that would have been killed by famine or lack of health infrastructure, which was becoming a massive concern at the time.

It is obviously impossible to prove that the course of action Truman chose save human life. But is obvious from the records that this was Truman's ultimate calculation. Given what we know now, he was probably right - more people would have died in any alternative course of action.

Even after the two bombs, the Japanese military did not want to surrender. They adamantly supported a plan to defend the island of Kyuushuu (closest to Korea and easiest to invade) to the man, and force such a high price upon us that we would let them keep their sovereignty. Fortunately, the emperor over-ruled them and avoided the attempted coup.

The Japanese have gotten over this. Perhaps we should, too

I am so amazed by the depths of your doubts by Ogemaniac · 2005-07-16 11:42 · Score: 1

concerning the obvious that you are willing to let MILLIONS die because of them. The projects were made by some pretty crude comparisons with various other islands we had to kick the Japanese from followed by extrapolation. Of course, you wind up with a pretty wide range but by any count the numbers were in the hundreds of thousands to millions - not counting deaths by famine and disease. It is extremely unlikely that conventional bombs plus invasions of kyuushuu and kanto (the alternative plan) would have killed fewer people. There was no serious peace offer anywhere in sight, despite the claims of modern peaceniks. Yes, a few Japanese were whispering about it by they did not have power. Saying they offered a viable surrender option before the bombs is therefore meaningless.

Re:I am so amazed by the depths of your doubts by kronocide · 2005-07-16 12:33 · Score: 1

"...concerning the obvious that you are willing to let MILLIONS die because of them."

Well, that's a theory you have. I on the other hand am talking about actual deaths by actual American firebombs. That's the difference.

Er by kahei · 2005-07-16 11:49 · Score: 1

Ultimately, World War II was a total war.

You're a 'trained historian' but you think that.

--
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by aminorex · 2005-07-16 13:59 · Score: 1

anything except maybe an energia rocket booster.

--
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-

why we fight with nukes by Oshkoshjohn · 2005-07-16 14:03 · Score: 1

When undertaking a war, the aggressor HAS to win by whatever means are available. Only total commitment is acceptable. Failure means ass-kicking and subjugation for the losers. After reading about the Japanese occupation of Manchuria, I an saddened that the bombing stopped at two. If I had been a WW2 veteran, I would have been disgruntled at not getting a Japanese POW for a slave after the war.

--
Goddamned kids! Get off my lawn!

US not such a bad superpower by typical · 2005-07-16 14:10 · Score: 1

Seriously, if there was one country that was going to have to get nukes before anyone else, the US isn't *such* a bad choice. It's nicely isolated from most of the rest of the world, it's enough of a mix of peoples that ethnic extremism tends to get tamped down (sure, maybe 5% of your population *really* hates Lithuanians, but the other 95% really doesn't care and doesn't like bombing Lithuania for no apparent reason), and it's (in recent memory) been fairly stable and wealthy (so you don't have desperate coups with nukes floating around).

I mean, yes, US world dominance not so good, but would, say, Spanish world dominance be better?

--
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by 0111+1110 · 2005-07-16 16:02 · Score: 1

Is showing how to build a nuclear bomb a national secret?

This isn't the 1940s anymore. Lots of countries know how to build them and almost everyone already has access to the information in that wiki article. That information is not detailed enough to actually build one anyway. I was looking for information on building a centrifuge, but it wasn't there. Plutonium does not occur naturally, but U-238 does. Converting the U-238 to U-235 is the main problem for amateur nuke experiments. There is some information on centrifuge building on the web, but I have not located any instructions detailed enough for a non-professional to get started with.

Once you have a sufficient quantity of U-235 or Plutonium, building a crude nuke is trivial, especially if you are willing to die in the explosion. I think I read that simply clicking together two sub-critical masses with your hands would not be sufficient. I am not sure if you have to hold them together with some significant force or not. It would be an interesting experiment to see what the crudest possible nuke would consist of. Clearly it would be less efficient than a more sophisticated design. I'd love to play around with building a uranium centrifuge, but I've heard they are pretty technical despite the simplicity of the basic idea. What we really need are some detailed plans or a kit. Anyone have a link? The holy grail for an info-anarchist like myself would be to release that forbidden info on freenet.

--
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.

Recent Interview with someone who worked on it by Prien715 · 2005-07-16 16:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

I recently heard an interview with the youngest person on the manhatten project (he's now 85). Reminds me of hearing techno-babble on Star Trek except this stuff is real.

It can be found here

There's also a legnthy discussion about the life of times of the father of the A-bomb, Oppenheimer.

--
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.

Re:We're geeks! Disassemble! Tweak! by 0111+1110 · 2005-07-16 16:06 · Score: 1

We all know that while there is probably some keypad on the front, it really just completes a circuit somewhere inside.

There's a course you may be interested in. It's called Reality 101. OTOH maybe you are joking.

--
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by Doc+Ruby · 2005-07-16 16:38 · Score: 1

The US did go to war over African uranium. Even though the US doesn't own it, or its mining rights, and even though the uranium didn't exist. Bush claimed that the US had to invade Iraq immediately, because Iraq was trying to buy uranium ("yellowcake") from Niger. That was a lie, but it was enough to convince Americans and Congressmembers that Iraq was an "immediate WMD threat", combined with all the other lies Bush and company told about Iraqi WMD - which didn't exist.

If you've forgotten the details, just keep up with current events. It's those lies about Niger uranium for Iraq that are pointing indictment at Karl Rove, Bush's chief political advisor. Because he helped orchestrate them, and work the coverup to take revenge when they were debunked, by leaking the debunker's wife's CIA job, controlling WMD, to the press. This whole story about African uranium, war, treason and spies is running all over the country right now.

--

--
make install -not war

How about Truman? by Knome_fan · 2005-07-16 20:11 · Score: 1

"We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark"

Truman in his diary July 25, 1945.

Nothing special?

Re:How about Truman? by TGK · 2005-07-17 03:53 · Score: 1

Once again -- where is Truman telling us that this bomb is any different than other bombs? Ok -- it's big. Big bombs are very well and good, but not categoricaly different than a large number of smaller bombs.

If you seek to differentiate the atomic bombing of Japan from the firebombing of Japan (which killed more people by the way) you must do so on the basis of something other than scope - at least if you want to establish the use of nuclear weapons as any more repugnant than another other form of warfare.

So yea -- still waiting for those vaunted documents.

--
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by Doc+Ruby · 2005-07-17 02:50 · Score: 1

Oh, right: an Anonymous Bushworshipping Coward posts a link to the lying hater, Coultergeist, pretending that Wilson didn't go back to Niger. Right. And conveniently skipping the fact that the CIA stopped Bush from lying about the Niger uranium in a speech prior to the State of the Union's "sixteen words", but Bush insisted on lying to Congress and America anyway, despite the CIA saying it wasn't worth repeating. Dick Chaney, get away from the keyboard: you've got to stay focused on your meetings with your lawyer to stay out of jail. Slashdot is a well-known distraction. We need you in office, so the Coultergeist has an anonymous source to get her lies from.

Traitorous pigs.

--

--
make install -not war

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by AceM2 · 2005-07-17 04:01 · Score: 1

Ad hominem attacks really don't help your argument out a whole lot. I can call you a blathering idiot all day long, but that won't prove you're wrong. I don't worship Ann Coulter or anything, but calling her names isn't going to do much other than amuse the people who already agree with you. If you really want people to take your side, maybe you should try arguing the facts like an adult.
If we're going to call anyone a liar, don't you think it should be Joe Wilson since he cannot even seem to get his facts straight about why he went to Africa or who sent him there? There's also the little issue of him pretending to be bipartisan even though we know he's a registered democrat who enjoys making monetary contributions to their party. So we have a democrat getting orders suggested by his wife to go to Niger and he comes back unable to prove anything new. Somehow this doesn't do a lot for me... Even if you overlook the bias, it doesn't surprise me one Ambassador couldn't dig up any information in such a short amount of time. It'd be like me throwing a needle in a haystack and saying you have five minutes to find it or apparently it's not there.

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by Doc+Ruby · 2005-07-17 04:20 · Score: 1

Let's see, where's the ad hominem attack I made? Unless you're criticizing my mockery of an Anonymous Coward, describing my reasoned post as "ranting", throwing the kindergarten attack "Bush hater" at me. And calling Coulter a liar is only citing her record.

Now, let's see, the CIA is a Democrat front, which sent Wilson to Niger to... defend Saddam Hussein? Because Wilson is a Democrat? The "new information" he dug up was that the Niger/Iraq uranium document was a forgery, a lie. Which Bush was told was probably the case by the CIA, but he used it in the State of the Union speech anyway, to send us to war. Which itself found no WMD - is that another "needle in a haystack" argument? Why doesn't that fraud bother you? Because you don't care about America's security. You only care about protecting Bush, Rove, and the Republican Party that has thrown our security out the window.

Cut the crap. You're a Bushite, you're flailing for any excuse to protect Rove, without whom your boy can't find his way to the Oval Office every morning without falling off his bike or choking on a pretzel. Don't instruct me on how to "help my case" with people like you. You're a lost cause - after years of obvious fraud, tricks and scams that have destroyed our country's credibility with Americans and our allies, you're still looking for excuses for these liars. You'll be begging for pardons when they're convicted, or, Nixon/Ford style, without their conviction, merely as PR to save your next generation from inheriting another discredited Republican Party run into the ground by the criminal thugs who took it over. You want to give lectures on credibility, give it to your RNC bosses, who should at least have the strategic sensibility to cut off Rove before he sinks their whole ship, like Bush Sr did to Nixon when he saved the Republicans a generation ago from their last Crook in Chief.

--

--
make install -not war

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by DanAnderson26 · 2005-07-17 04:55 · Score: 1

Wow, where do I start...

The website is by no means a plan for a atom bomb. It is a very generic description of the mechanisms used.

People do get locked up for disclosing national secrets. The Chinese guy probably deserves more then he got. The national labs are a mess (shitty mgmt, lack of oversite and training).

There is a practically unlimited amount of Uranium, only the absolute best sources are being tapped and accounted for on "reserve" calculations. Right now these are the most cost effective, and as such very limited uranium exploration has taken place. As the price of uranium goes up the number of places where it is economically feasible to mine for uranium goes up exponentially.

As far as who is mining the uranium, it is mostly a non-issue. Hell, in the mid 80's a French company (Cogema) bought several mines in the US including one in Wyoming where my father worked. As I recall they own a bunch in Australia too (the biggest current producer). Simply owning the mines and deposits does not trump the "host nation's" right to control how/where the exports go.

While I wouldn't consider many of the governments in Africa overly enlightened, I doubt the term "tribal government" is really appropriate to describe any of them since the colonial period.

Dan

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by AceM2 · 2005-07-17 05:30 · Score: 1

It's difficult, but I'll ignore most of your silly attacks and try to focus on the actual argument. Next time, do me a favor and try to stick with facts instead of pretending you know anything about who I am. Your attacks against the Republican party and the childish namecalling might impress your friends, but it's not going to help you much in a real debate with calm intelligent people.

Now, let's see, the CIA is a Democrat front, which sent Wilson to Niger to... defend Saddam Hussein? Because Wilson is a Democrat?

Who even said that? Is your rage really making you that blind? His WIFE got him assigned to go on this fact-finding mission. They're both registered democrats who regularly donate to the Democrat party. Why did I mention this? Because Joe Wilson lies and pretends to be bipartisan. Never did I say anything about a CIA conspiracy - I'll leave it up to you to come up with the conspiracy theories. The point here is Wilson has been hiding how/why he got sent, and then lies about his affiliations. Your taking that as trying to say he's protecting Saddam just shows me how suspicious it actually is.

The "new information" he dug up was that the Niger/Iraq uranium document was a forgery, a lie.

What are you basing this on? More of Wilson's lies? He even told the Senate Intelligence Committee he may have misspoke to reporters about what he found. The best he could do was claim that some dates and names on the documents were wrong. Of course, he hadn't even seen those names and dates - something you usually have to do in order to prove they're incorrect.

"I never claimed to have 'debunked' the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa." - Joe Wilson

Which Bush was told was probably the case by the CIA, but he used it in the State of the Union speech anyway, to send us to war.

Last I checked, other intelligence organizations still stand by reports that Iraq attempted to buy uranium. We also know that Iraq was at least interested in it and wanted to buy the yellowcake. The Nigerians stated Iraqis tried to bring it up, but they weren't willing to deal due to UN sanctions. This is all not to mention you act as if the entire war was based on the yellowcake argument. Half the people in this country don't even know what it is, and more than that wouldn't know if it wasn't for democrats screaming about it. Give me a break.

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by Doc+Ruby · 2005-07-17 05:48 · Score: 1

Look, it's obvious that you're a Bush apologist. I'm not going to "debate" you any more, because you're just trying to drag me into a calm, reasonable parsing session to exonerate Rove outing a CIA agent, regardless of whether that turned out to be harmless (we'll never know how harmful), or whether he had "reasons" (he doesn't have the authorization). Why does your status matter? Because this is a complex story that is consuming months, years of professional prosecutors and a grand jury. So we can squabble all we want. Especially if you're going to parrot Republican spin, like "Wilson's wife sent him", which is wrong, or if you're going to suggest that the CIA sent him on a Democratic mission, then deny you're suggesting the CIA is fronting for the Democrats - I'm not going to pretend that's a "reasonable" debate, even if you are.

The CIA had a fake Niger uranium document that it didn't believe. It tried to stop Bush from using it to justify war with Iraq. Bush insisted on doing that anyway, in the State of the Union. The CIA sent Wilson to Niger, where he was able to prove the fake document was fake. Rove attacked Wilson by at least confirming that his wife worked for the CIA. That is a story of treason at the top. Since you don't care about that, since you're just looking for a way to kill the messenger (Wilson) in allegiance to Rove, you're in league with the traitors. Neither of us should be calm about that, because it's a grave threat to our - yours and mine - security. But since you just want to calmly parse convenient lies about Wilson, manufactured by Rove, there's nothing more to talk about. We'll see how they fare in court. Have fun sleeping at night 'til then, knowing that Rove values his own skin more than your security.

--

--
make install -not war

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by twiddlingbits · 2005-07-17 06:25 · Score: 1

Thanks for the correction. I recall they had all sorts of issues with the implosion design firing the high explosives in the right sequence and timing the firings correctly to implode and not explode.

Re:Stop being childish by Just+Another+Poster · 2005-07-17 08:42 · Score: 1

the children in hiroshima and nagasaki werent actively helping in the war effort

But their parents were.

It's not our fault they used their children as human shields.

Re:Stop being childish by Just+Another+Poster · 2005-07-17 08:57 · Score: 1

in the uk we do acknowledge the war crimes we commited, dresden for a good example. the japanese refuse to apologize for what they did to POW's etc. the americans simply cant bring themselves to admit the blatantly obvious war crime of nuking cities. yes, we know the arguments for doing it.. you can agree or disagree with those, but it doesnt change the fact it was a war crime by any definition.. weapon of mass destruction on civilian targets. unless people can say 'it was a war crime and it was wrong' they cant lecture anyone else about not having nukes, about WMD, about war crimes etc. its the 'its no torture because we're doing it' mentality of the current U.S. there's never a justification for war crimes and illegal acts.

You acknowledge such bombings as "crimes" only because the British people are now a populace of pacified sheep.

Bombing militarily defended cities that serve as centers of operation and production for said military cannot be considered a "war crime" by any rational mind.

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by AceM2 · 2005-07-17 09:25 · Score: 1

I'm glad you don't wish to debate it any longer. Actually, it never was a debate since it's obvious you are incapable of rational intelligent conversation. I'm not a Bush apologist, but I will apologizing for attempting to make you argue a point beyond namecalling and labeling.

You don't escape responsibility by by Ogemaniac · 2005-07-17 10:22 · Score: 1

sticking your head in the sand. We had several choices. All of them were bad. We used the correct logic and chose the course of action that appeared least-bad. It is impossible to know without any doubt if we were right, because one cannot replay history in order to test alternate events. However, even with the benefit of hindsight it appears likely that what we did WAS the best course of action. All others lead logically to a prolonged war in which almost assuredly more people died, as well as political disasters such as a hostile Japan or a Japan split like Korea. Either way, Truman used the correct, moral reasoning, whether or not his choice turned out to be right.

Re:You don't escape responsibility by by kronocide · 2005-07-17 10:59 · Score: 1

We had several choices.

Indeed.

We used the correct logic and chose the course of action that appeared least-bad.

You keep repeating this but you give me no reason to change my mind. I remain unconvinced.

However, even with the benefit of hindsight it appears likely that what we did WAS the best course of action.

No it really doesn't. A few hundred thousand dead people and their unborn descendants would probably agree with me.

All others lead logically to a prolonged war in which almost assuredly more people died...

Again, repeating yourself. Again, making assertions over and over is not a reason for me to believe that you are right. And just for the record, they don't lead "logically" anywhere. Don't bring logic into this, it's inductive reasoning at best.

Some people claim that they had a theory that not firebombing civilian cities and nuking a few would lead to maybe MILLIONS of deaths. Maybe they didn't even believe that themselves and just constructed it as a justification after the fact. Who knows? That's after all how it usually is. In any case, there is no way that I have seen evidence and details for this theory that justifies BURNING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE ALIVE for it. In fact, I'm not sure it's possible to present such a theory. There's a little too much hinging on human fallibility there.

I'm amazed at how poor the US is at dealing with their own sordid past, while playing the big Holier Than Thou around the world. Was it also the "manifest destiny" of those British colonizers to wipe out the native population of the land they were colonizing? I'm sure there was nothing wrong with slavery either when you think about it...
Re:You don't escape responsibility by by Ogemaniac · 2005-07-26 17:06 · Score: 1

"You keep repeating this but you give me no reason to change my mind. I remain unconvinced." I refer you to Truman's diary and notes, which are not hard to find. His logic was to minimize casualties. This is the correct logic. "No it really doesn't. A few hundred thousand dead people and their unborn descendants would probably agree with me." And millions of Japanese who DIDN'T wind up under the communist boot, DIDN'T starve in a prolonged blockade, DIDN'T get killed in prolonged invasions and firebombings will agree with me. Think about this. Okinawa is to Japan what Hawaii is to the US. Over 200,000 people died when we captured it, more than 50% civilians. Now, extrapolate. Even take a 90% rounding error in your favor. You still wind up with far more deaths than the bombs. And then you can start to include American deaths on top of that. "Some people claim that they had a theory that not firebombing civilian cities and nuking a few would lead to maybe MILLIONS of deaths. Maybe they didn't even believe that themselves and just constructed it as a justification after the fact. Who knows?" Anyone who has studied history. Truman wrote aplenty. This logic clearly not only existed prior to the use of the bombs, it was the primary driving force. Or, for most recent examples, Time mag just had an article about quotes from the surviving members of the bomb crews. This was their justification as they pulled the trigger. The war will be over. Lives will be saved.

A different story by kronocide · 2005-07-18 23:25 · Score: 1

'Apart from the moral questions involved, were the atomic bombings militarily necessary? By any rational yardstick, they were not. Japan already had been defeated militarily by June 1945. Almost nothing was left of the once mighty Imperial Navy, and Japan's air force had been all but totally destroyed. Against only token opposition, American war planes ranged at will over the country, and US bombers rained down devastation on her cities, steadily reducing them to rubble.

[...]

Even before the Hiroshima attack, American air force General Curtis LeMay boasted that American bombers were "driving them [Japanese] back to the stone age." Henry H. ("Hap") Arnold, commanding General of the Army air forces, declared in his 1949 memoirs: "It always appeared to us, atomic bomb or no atomic bomb, the Japanese were already on the verge of collapse." This was confirmed by former Japanese prime minister Fumimaro Konoye, who said: "Fundamentally, the thing that brought about the determination to make peace was the prolonged bombing by the B-29s."

[...]

Months before the end of the war, Japan's leaders recognized that defeat was inevitable. In April 1945 a new government headed by Kantaro Suzuki took office with the mission of ending the war. When Germany capitulated in early May, the Japanese understood that the British and Americans would now direct the full fury of their awesome military power exclusively against them.

[...]

In April and May 1945, Japan made three attempts through neutral Sweden and Portugal to bring the war to a peaceful end. On April 7, acting Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu met with Swedish ambassador Widon Bagge in Tokyo, asking him "to ascertain what peace terms the United States and Britain had in mind." But he emphasized that unconditional surrender was unacceptable, and that "the Emperor must not be touched." Bagge relayed the message to the United States, but Secretary of State Stettinius told the US Ambassador in Sweden to "show no interest or take any initiative in pursuit of the matter."

[...]

By mid-June, six members of Japan's Supreme War Council had secretly charged Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo with the task of approaching Soviet Russia's leaders "with a view to terminating the war if possible by September." On June 22 the Emperor called a meeting of the Supreme War Council, which included the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister, and the leading military figures. "We have heard enough of this determination of yours to fight to the last soldiers," said Emperor Hirohito. "We wish that you, leaders of Japan, will strive now to study the ways and the means to conclude the war. In doing so, try not to be bound by the decisions you have made in the past."

[...]

Summarizing the messages between Togo and Sato, US naval intelligence said that Japan's leaders, "though still balking at the term unconditional surrender," recognized that the war was lost, and had reached the point where they have "no objection to the restoration of peace on the basis of the [1941] Atlantic Charter." These messages, said Assistant Secretary of the Navy Lewis Strauss, "indeed stipulated only that the integrity of the Japanese Royal Family be preserved."'

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

Oh, and Eisenhower's opinion by kronocide · 2005-07-18 23:36 · Score: 1

'During his [Stimson's] recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of "face."'

Looks like Eisenhower agrees with me.

Re:So much for stopping nuclear proliferation. by sfm · 2005-07-19 10:18 · Score: 1

And Isreal appears surprisingly absent from the list ???

LeMay? by kronocide · 2005-07-19 11:40 · Score: 1

Is that the same Curtis LeMay who said: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war"?
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html

I really didn't expect so much of US military high command to agree with me, but wherever I look there are people with insight into every detail of the situation who are of the opinion that the nuclear bombs were totally unnecessary to end the war with Japan. It's been educational.

The education continues by kronocide · 2005-07-19 11:59 · Score: 1

Sorry about the multiple posts, but this is too good to leave out. Some kind soul reviewing Frank's book on Amazon, mentioned this:

'Although Frank endorses the premise that the Bombs of August were a "military necessity," he does not associate hardly any high-ranking WWII military man with this notion. Why not? Because virtually everybody at the top, with the waffling exception of General Marshall, did not buy it.
In three exhaustive chapters in his 1995 book, The Decision To Use the Bomb, Gar Alperovitz documented the dissents of Army, Navy, and Air Force leaders. In addition to Leahy, Eisenhower, and MacArthur, Alperovitz cited chief of Naval Operations Admiral Ernest J. King, Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, Rear Admiral Lewis L. Strauss, commanding general of the U.S. Army Air Forces Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, General Claire Chennault of the Flying Tigers, Army Strategic Air Forces Commander Carl Spatz, and Army Air Force General Curtis E. Lemay, who directed the firebombing of Japan. Even the government's own 1946 study--the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey--concluded that the bombs were unnecessary:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."'

It's like... clouds parting... mist clearing... reality appearing. :-)

Slashdot Mirror

60th Anniversary of the Atomic Bomb

407 of 559 comments (clear)