A mark 30% in a any of my final physics exam at my Uni (www.ukc.ac.uk) in the UK would fail you the module and hence the whole year (assuming you didn't do any coursework), and it's only half way up the UK league tables.
Actually in reply to 2), although the second bomb was blatently a show of force (to basically say to the USSR, look, we've got more!!), there was a lot of indicition as to what to do with the bombs to begin with, so field testing is not so unlikely.
The scientists on the manhattan project knew that the bomb had enormous power, but weren't sure how efficient it would be. Oppenheimer, the leader of the project, is quoted as saying on the eve of the drop, "I don't think the retched thing will work, or that we can get it to the target [safely] on anything but an oxcart'.
Also, remember that even after the war, in th 50s, the US exposed their own troops to nuclear weapon blasts to gauge the effect of radiation poisoning (to test the validity of battlefield nukes).
At first the US military were going to drop the bombs on the landing sites to clear the way for invasion, which would have irradiated the entire invasion force (not good). The way that Hiroshima and nagasaki have totally different terrain and that there were more valid industrial centres does suggest that once the US had decide to drop the bombs, they took other things into account apart from tactics when choosing their targets.
Don't forget that the russians invaded (and stil owns!) several large islands only a few miles from the northenmost japanese home island. They would have also invaded Japan, if only to stop the US from getting complete control.
Don't forget that Russia invaded (and still owns) several large island a few tens of miles north of Japan. They would have most likely also invaded mainland Japan, lest the US get full controll of it.
One of the possible reasons why the germans failed build a nuclear weapon that has been suggested (as they certainly had the capacity and the scientists to accomplish it at the beginning of the war, when they had actually started to develop it) was that the scientists on the team tried to slow down the project to the extent that Germany couldn't complete it.
Incidentally, the Manhattan project was based on early work by british scientists. It was handed over to the US as the british simply didn't have the cash to get further than the initial research. They got a little peeved when the US didn't tell them how to make one after the war.
>The probability of human extinction due to human >nuclear war is effectively zero -
However, a nuclear war would completely destroy modern civilisation, which would be mildly irritating for the 30% of us that managed to crawl out from the burning debris:)
Slashdot Mirror
A mark 30% in a any of my final physics exam at my Uni (www.ukc.ac.uk) in the UK would fail you the module and hence the whole year (assuming you didn't do any coursework), and it's only half way up the UK league tables.
If you're a Sci-fi fan, think Red Dwarf.
Actually in reply to 2), although the second bomb was blatently a show of force (to basically say to the USSR, look, we've got more!!), there was a lot of indicition as to what to do with the bombs to begin with, so field testing is not so unlikely. The scientists on the manhattan project knew that the bomb had enormous power, but weren't sure how efficient it would be. Oppenheimer, the leader of the project, is quoted as saying on the eve of the drop, "I don't think the retched thing will work, or that we can get it to the target [safely] on anything but an oxcart'. Also, remember that even after the war, in th 50s, the US exposed their own troops to nuclear weapon blasts to gauge the effect of radiation poisoning (to test the validity of battlefield nukes). At first the US military were going to drop the bombs on the landing sites to clear the way for invasion, which would have irradiated the entire invasion force (not good). The way that Hiroshima and nagasaki have totally different terrain and that there were more valid industrial centres does suggest that once the US had decide to drop the bombs, they took other things into account apart from tactics when choosing their targets.
Don't forget that the russians invaded (and stil owns!) several large islands only a few miles from the northenmost japanese home island. They would have also invaded Japan, if only to stop the US from getting complete control.
Don't forget that Russia invaded (and still owns) several large island a few tens of miles north of Japan. They would have most likely also invaded mainland Japan, lest the US get full controll of it.
One of the possible reasons why the germans failed build a nuclear weapon that has been suggested (as they certainly had the capacity and the scientists to accomplish it at the beginning of the war, when they had actually started to develop it) was that the scientists on the team tried to slow down the project to the extent that Germany couldn't complete it. Incidentally, the Manhattan project was based on early work by british scientists. It was handed over to the US as the british simply didn't have the cash to get further than the initial research. They got a little peeved when the US didn't tell them how to make one after the war.
>The probability of human extinction due to human
:)
>nuclear war is effectively zero -
However, a nuclear war would completely destroy modern civilisation, which would be mildly irritating for the 30% of us that managed to crawl out from the burning debris