"Anything you can do all at once, you could do with incremental changes," said Robert Kahn, who helped design the architecture for Arpanet, the precursor to the internet.
Kahn agrees with you, you both are against a clean sheet redesign, right?.
The thing is, although incremental improvements are easier to stomach, the question is always this: just where do we want to be? A clean sheet redesign gives us a target for successive inremental improvements, and allows a very direct cost/benefit analysis.
The question I have for you: What's the harm? Are you against digital video simply because it was a clean break from analog video?
Nagasaki was one big warship manufacturing plant, which certainly made it a target under the rules of war- both then and now. Your characterization "with some military facilities and a bunch of civilians who worked at them along with their grandparents, parents, children is plainly wrong.
Now if you want to say that yes, OK, it was a munitions and weapons manufacturer that was bombed, but the people were all untouchable civilians and their untouchable families, then say that.
I think (just my opinion) that you see that the US was not restricted by the rules of war to targeting people in uniform. People directly and actively assisting the war, whether young or old, in uniform or not, were targets in that war, and they knew it and expected nothing less. By 1945 that was the way it was on both sides.
Your statement, that Nagasaki was "a city like most others in wartime, with some military facilities and a bunch of civilians" doesn't come close to describing Nagasaki in the summer of 1945.
I'll be delighted to entertain your conclusions, and the facts and logic you use to derive them.
If you conclude that the bombing was unwaranted, please offer a real justification for your conclusion, based on accurate descriptions of the ground truth.
In my view, the bombing was as ugly as ugly gets. It was not the only ugly act of that war, let alone the first. That much, I hope we can agree on. But I've never heard anyone who fought it, not anyone on either side, say that Nagasaki was some sort of haven that should not have been targeted by military force. Not anybody. If you want me to believe that, tell me why. Explain why a city dedicated to building warships should have been spared military action.
What is left then, in my view, is the argument that the US was obliged to forgo the use of the A-bomb. I believe we both know that both sides were engaged at that point in unrestricted warfare: unrestricted military targets, and unrestricted weapons. Ugly, but there it is. And the unrestricted military operations policy was put in place by the Japanese, years befor they attacked the Americans. War is an ugly, ugly undertaking. That war at least as much as any other. You may not know it now, but they all knew it then. They all knew how ugly it was, and they all kept at it. God help those who forget it this day.
Loose dirt protects against cosmic rays and micrometeorites. Structural concrete can do the same, but actually does worse at protecting against impacts. A high speed impact causes a shock wave in a solid structure, which cracks the structure, and causes the back face to spall off as shrapnel. With loose dirt the energy is absorbed near the face, rather than being transfered as a shock wave. Due to the low gravity, very little structural material is needed to hold up the dirt blanket.
Well, I've been to Japan a few times, and I have found that many Japanese young people, though seemingly hazy on the details of the war, have much the same view that I have: Their country was in the hands of a military/industrial elite, and they were engaged in empire building. They are recognize that their military forces were incredibly brutal to civilians and prisoners. And so on... More to the point, they seem acutely embarrassed by the conduct of their nation, their military, and their leaders.
I have come to realize that they only seem to be hazy on the details. They are in fact better informed than they let on. I've seen shows on Japanese TV, in prime-time, shows with huge viewership that go into the awful details, and have panel discussions on the same. The panelists are popular people from varied backgrounds: Singers, artists, movie stars, TV personalities of all stripes. These same documentary & panel discussion shows focus on varied subjects: sometimes it's African wildlife, other times it's deep-sea sport fishing, or scuba diving in Mexico, or driving Route 66. But a few I saw were on WW2. They don't mince words. So I believe that the facts are known, but their peculiar culture prevents them from talking about it the way we are doing here. They are very resolute in their determination not to go down the path of brutality and war again. And they are feel deeply ashamed of what was done.
I think there are a few dyed-in-the-wool ultra-nationalist-militarists, just as there are in every country that I've been to. But most people, young and old alike are deeply aware of the lessons learned, although they don't show it the way you and I would, or the way the Germans or Italians would.
So yes, they put on the silly tourist face, with the giggly girls giving peace signs for their snapshot photo albums. But inside, they know. And they would rather look like brainless nitwits than show their shame and sorrow openly. I weep for them, and with them. And when they stand in the Peace Park in Hiroshima, and show their sorrow, they have come there to do that; it may be the only place were they can show their sorrow. They can't speak their shame, but everybody knows. Everybody knows.
By the way, Otaru City, Hokaido was just outside the range of the fire bombers, so it's one of the very few cities where pre-war wood structures remain in large numbers. That city is also a tourist center now. I've been there, too, and I've often found people regarding the wood structures in a very thoughtful way. I have a feeling I know what they are thinking. There's more, but I can't say some of the rest.
By the way, were you aware that Nagasaki was the only Christian city in Japan? 85% Christian. The Portugese, and later the Dutch had trading posts there, all throughout the period where Japan was "closed to the world". Nagasaki was their "window to the world". So ironic. So heartbreaking.
You say: Nagasaki was a city like most others in wartime, with some military facilities and a bunch of civilians who worked at them along with their grandparents, parents, children,
Actually, Nagasaki was a fleet headquarters, with huge shipyards, and supplier factories all over the city. And the workers in all those factories ranged from children to the elderly, along with large numbers of slave labor prisoners pulled from all over the Far East. The city was one big military shipyard. Some estimates are that 90% of the non-military population was manufacturing war goods.
You say: "Of course it was a civilian target, just the same as any other city would be", but the facts say otherwise.
which while brutal and unjustified certainly didn't "kill millions".
The Japanese intentions can hardly be argued; they were preparing large scale deployments of chemical and biological weapons. In fact, large scale tests were conducted in China, and killed or maimed ten of thousands.
Are you trying to knock over a straw man? The Japanese had lots of killing potential left in their war machine, with more on the way. They also used, and intended to use, every nasty capability that they possessed.
Japanese tourists visit the infamous "Bridge Over the River Kwai" in large numbers. The tourist train that goes from Bangkok to Singapore makes a side trip to the real bridge, just for the tourists. That railway claimed the lives of huge numbers of prisoners of all nationalities and that is made plain at the site itself. Japanese tourists don't go there to celebrate "their past glory and victory against the might United States", not by any stretch of the imagination.
and "The second bomb was dropped before the Japanese government had actually made any official response"
The official response was Japan's continuation of hostilities. No Cease-Fire. Just more shooting.
There were Japanese officials in the War Council who had been to Hiroshima, and they wanted an immediate surrender, and said so in the War Council. They were overruled, and the War Council decided to "wait and see" rather than surrender. They decided to keep fighting. All this was before the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.
In fact, after the second bomb (Nagasaki), some of the same "wait and see" officials tried to capture the Emperor and grab power, just so that the war could continue. Thank God they were stopped.
Therefore the demonstration of the atom bomb and it's effects for the USSR was also a part of the desission for Truman when he ordered the use of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In major policy discussions of that type, every possible view comes up for analysis. So sure, the effects on the USSR came up. We should hope that to be the case.
But you suggest that it is the only, or at the very least a primary reason for A-bombs use. Truman said, in public, and on every reported private occasion, that the purpose was to bring an immediate end to hostilities. He was not only considering the impending invasion of the home islands of Japan, but also the continued mayhem and death being wrought throughout the Far East. For example, a delay of one month could easily have made mass starvation possible in both Korea and northern China.
The US didnt even give enough time to the Japanese to go on-site to the Hiroshima disaster area, assess the situation and surrender.
Japanes officials who saw the Hiroshima devestation were in Tokyo, and discussed the matter in the War Council. The War Council, folowing the discussion, decided not to surrender. Recent memoirs from senior Japanese officals make this quite clear. Some in the war council pooh-poohed the devestating effects. Others thought that there weren't more bombs. But the simple fact is that they discussed it and decided to continue the war. It was a bad move, and had ugly, ugly consequences.
let's discuss the plan to nuke all the defenses on Kyushu before sending servicemen in to prevent another Normandy, shall we? At least 7 bombs would have been ready by 1 November.
Ok, let's discuss the Japanese defences. Okinawa and Iwo Jima were defended primarily from underground fortifications. Japanese home island defenses were similar, but stronger. Nothing that suggests that seven A-bombs would have been enough to allow an unopposed or easy landing by US forces. New evidence shows that Japanese military strength in the Kyushu landing zones was five times the strength planned for by US invasion planners. It is quite conceivable that 200,000 would have died in the first days of an invasion, with or without A-bombs. And after that, what then?
What about retribution killings of POW's for which the Japanese were famous? What about Japanese reprisals against the populations of China and Korea? And let's not forget both chemical and biological WMD. Japanese military units in Korea and Manchuria (China) were experimenting with those on POWs and civilians, and preparing to deploy them both against soldiers and civilians.
I don't notice that you acknowleged any of those facts, let alone discussed them in a cogent manner.
IMHO the only thing that saved non-Japanese Asian civilians from mass bio-weapon and chem-weapon deaths was the shock in Tokyo at their own people's vulnerability. They only caved in when they faced their own demise.
I wish you would choose to consider the realities with the same cold eye that they were forced to use. War is an ugly, ugly thing.
The pre-war Japanese military-industrial foces took over Korea, and then Manchuria for coal and ron ore. They took over Malaya for rubber, and for oil the grabbed Java and Sumatra. They were blunt about intentions to form an empire, and they thought war was OK, because it was not going to be in Japan itself. Bad guess on their part. Long before they attacked Pearl Harbor, they knew that war is ugly. They just didn't expect to get a taste of the same.
War is ugly, ugly, ugly. The Germans, Italians, and Japanese miscalculated, and paid an ugly, ugly price.
General Patton once said something like 'no dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country--the trick is to make the other dumb bastard die for his.'
I think that the Japanese could have read this quote in American history books:
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want." - General William T. Sherman
Understanding that one American maxim could have saved them a lot of grief.
As a matter of fact, Imperial Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, who designed the attack on Pearl Harbor, studied at Harvard University opposed going to war with the US. He also served in Washington, DC as Japanese Naval Attaché to the United States in 1925-28. His statement, when he was told of the attack on Pearl Harbor was "We have awakened a sleeping giant and have instilled in him a terrible resolve."
Yes, their leader was one of the very, very few pacifist Japanese in the 30's, and right through the war. He was jailed, and badly mistreated in jail. After the war, that gave the organization a really good name. A lot of Japanese politicos joined. It's a Budhist sect.
"Nine Who Survived Hiroshima and Nagasaki" by Trumbull [1957] documents the stories of nine refugees from the Hiroshima bombing. These poor sods wound up in Nagasaki. Got bombed again there, and lived to tell the story. An incredible read.
Also, please read "Nine Who Survivied Hiroshima and Nagasaki", the accounts of nine refugees from Hiroshima, who went to Nagasaki, and survived that as well. A sobering read.
The early end of the war also saved the lives of countless numbers in China, Malaysia, Korea, Thailand, Burma, and elsewhere. Those people did nothing to start the war. Those people are grateful for the early end of the war. And given the horrible Japanese actions they saw, it's not surprising that they don't object to the use of the A-bombs. I've traveled a lot over there, and never heard a word of complant outside of Japan. Never. Not once.
Elements of the Japanese leadership almost kept the war going after the second bomb! There is no evidence that Japanese forces were about to call it quits. There is lots of evidence that civilians would have fought to the death on the home islands.
That having been said, the effects of these bombs are shocking. The shock is so great, people are willing to do anything to avoid these bombs. That's what makes them attractive as weapons of war, but also makes them targets for banning.
Read eyewitness accounts like "Nine Who Survived Hiroshima and Nagasaki" by Trumbull [1957], and you won't need pictures. Well-written eyewitness accounts are plenty sobering. Try it, and see if you don't agree.
I read the book back in the 60's and still find the images gut-wrenching.
Ilford HPs film was my choice. Much, much better than Tri-X from Kodak. And when you pushed it, it kept a nice smooth range. I only used grade 6 Kodak paper for the junk going into the newspaper.
Several studies have show ways to use the good bits of technology. The solid rocket motors are a very cheap way to get very high thrust. The Shuttle Main Engines (SMEs) are extremely high performance and highly reliable. Both can be used in unmanned derivative designs.
I have seen reports of new designs based on these two rocket motors. The reports conclude that unmanned derivatives can loft 100,000 lb into low earth orbit, rather than 60,000 as the shuttle does. The risks in schedule, cost, and performance would be very low.
I'm not a fan of ISS either, but given that it's up there, I do favor it's continued use.
I'd like to see it added to by commercial ventures.
Several studies have show ways to use the good bits of technology. The solid rocket motors are a very cheap way to get very high thrust. The Shuttle Main Engines (SMEs) are extremely high performance and highly reliable. Both can be used in unmanned derivative designs.
I have seen reports of new designs based on these two rocket motors. The reports conclude that unmanned derivatives can loft 100,000 lb into low earth orbit, rather than 60,000 as the shuttle does. The risks in schedule, cost, and performance would be very low.
Slashdot Mirror
"Anything you can do all at once, you could do with incremental changes," said Robert Kahn, who helped design the architecture for Arpanet, the precursor to the internet.
Kahn agrees with you, you both are against a clean sheet redesign, right?.
The thing is, although incremental improvements are easier to stomach, the question is always this: just where do we want to be? A clean sheet redesign gives us a target for successive inremental improvements, and allows a very direct cost/benefit analysis.
The question I have for you: What's the harm? Are you against digital video simply because it was a clean break from analog video?
Now if you want to say that yes, OK, it was a munitions and weapons manufacturer that was bombed, but the people were all untouchable civilians and their untouchable families, then say that.
I think (just my opinion) that you see that the US was not restricted by the rules of war to targeting people in uniform. People directly and actively assisting the war, whether young or old, in uniform or not, were targets in that war, and they knew it and expected nothing less. By 1945 that was the way it was on both sides.
Your statement, that Nagasaki was "a city like most others in wartime, with some military facilities and a bunch of civilians" doesn't come close to describing Nagasaki in the summer of 1945.
I'll be delighted to entertain your conclusions, and the facts and logic you use to derive them. If you conclude that the bombing was unwaranted, please offer a real justification for your conclusion, based on accurate descriptions of the ground truth.
In my view, the bombing was as ugly as ugly gets. It was not the only ugly act of that war, let alone the first. That much, I hope we can agree on. But I've never heard anyone who fought it, not anyone on either side, say that Nagasaki was some sort of haven that should not have been targeted by military force. Not anybody. If you want me to believe that, tell me why. Explain why a city dedicated to building warships should have been spared military action.
What is left then, in my view, is the argument that the US was obliged to forgo the use of the A-bomb. I believe we both know that both sides were engaged at that point in unrestricted warfare: unrestricted military targets, and unrestricted weapons. Ugly, but there it is. And the unrestricted military operations policy was put in place by the Japanese, years befor they attacked the Americans. War is an ugly, ugly undertaking. That war at least as much as any other. You may not know it now, but they all knew it then. They all knew how ugly it was, and they all kept at it. God help those who forget it this day.
Loose dirt protects against cosmic rays and micrometeorites. Structural concrete can do the same, but actually does worse at protecting against impacts. A high speed impact causes a shock wave in a solid structure, which cracks the structure, and causes the back face to spall off as shrapnel. With loose dirt the energy is absorbed near the face, rather than being transfered as a shock wave. Due to the low gravity, very little structural material is needed to hold up the dirt blanket.
I have come to realize that they only seem to be hazy on the details. They are in fact better informed than they let on. I've seen shows on Japanese TV, in prime-time, shows with huge viewership that go into the awful details, and have panel discussions on the same. The panelists are popular people from varied backgrounds: Singers, artists, movie stars, TV personalities of all stripes. These same documentary & panel discussion shows focus on varied subjects: sometimes it's African wildlife, other times it's deep-sea sport fishing, or scuba diving in Mexico, or driving Route 66. But a few I saw were on WW2. They don't mince words. So I believe that the facts are known, but their peculiar culture prevents them from talking about it the way we are doing here. They are very resolute in their determination not to go down the path of brutality and war again. And they are feel deeply ashamed of what was done.
I think there are a few dyed-in-the-wool ultra-nationalist-militarists, just as there are in every country that I've been to. But most people, young and old alike are deeply aware of the lessons learned, although they don't show it the way you and I would, or the way the Germans or Italians would.
So yes, they put on the silly tourist face, with the giggly girls giving peace signs for their snapshot photo albums. But inside, they know. And they would rather look like brainless nitwits than show their shame and sorrow openly. I weep for them, and with them. And when they stand in the Peace Park in Hiroshima, and show their sorrow, they have come there to do that; it may be the only place were they can show their sorrow. They can't speak their shame, but everybody knows. Everybody knows.
By the way, Otaru City, Hokaido was just outside the range of the fire bombers, so it's one of the very few cities where pre-war wood structures remain in large numbers. That city is also a tourist center now. I've been there, too, and I've often found people regarding the wood structures in a very thoughtful way. I have a feeling I know what they are thinking. There's more, but I can't say some of the rest.
By the way, were you aware that Nagasaki was the only Christian city in Japan? 85% Christian. The Portugese, and later the Dutch had trading posts there, all throughout the period where Japan was "closed to the world". Nagasaki was their "window to the world". So ironic. So heartbreaking.
Actually, Nagasaki was a fleet headquarters, with huge shipyards, and supplier factories all over the city. And the workers in all those factories ranged from children to the elderly, along with large numbers of slave labor prisoners pulled from all over the Far East. The city was one big military shipyard. Some estimates are that 90% of the non-military population was manufacturing war goods.
You say: "Of course it was a civilian target, just the same as any other city would be", but the facts say otherwise.
The Japanese intentions can hardly be argued; they were preparing large scale deployments of chemical and biological weapons. In fact, large scale tests were conducted in China, and killed or maimed ten of thousands.
Are you trying to knock over a straw man? The Japanese had lots of killing potential left in their war machine, with more on the way. They also used, and intended to use, every nasty capability that they possessed.
Japanese tourists visit the infamous "Bridge Over the River Kwai" in large numbers. The tourist train that goes from Bangkok to Singapore makes a side trip to the real bridge, just for the tourists. That railway claimed the lives of huge numbers of prisoners of all nationalities and that is made plain at the site itself. Japanese tourists don't go there to celebrate "their past glory and victory against the might United States", not by any stretch of the imagination.
and "The second bomb was dropped before the Japanese government had actually made any official response"
The official response was Japan's continuation of hostilities. No Cease-Fire. Just more shooting.
There were Japanese officials in the War Council who had been to Hiroshima, and they wanted an immediate surrender, and said so in the War Council. They were overruled, and the War Council decided to "wait and see" rather than surrender. They decided to keep fighting. All this was before the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.
In fact, after the second bomb (Nagasaki), some of the same "wait and see" officials tried to capture the Emperor and grab power, just so that the war could continue. Thank God they were stopped.
In major policy discussions of that type, every possible view comes up for analysis. So sure, the effects on the USSR came up. We should hope that to be the case.
But you suggest that it is the only, or at the very least a primary reason for A-bombs use. Truman said, in public, and on every reported private occasion, that the purpose was to bring an immediate end to hostilities. He was not only considering the impending invasion of the home islands of Japan, but also the continued mayhem and death being wrought throughout the Far East. For example, a delay of one month could easily have made mass starvation possible in both Korea and northern China.
Japanes officials who saw the Hiroshima devestation were in Tokyo, and discussed the matter in the War Council. The War Council, folowing the discussion, decided not to surrender. Recent memoirs from senior Japanese officals make this quite clear. Some in the war council pooh-poohed the devestating effects. Others thought that there weren't more bombs. But the simple fact is that they discussed it and decided to continue the war. It was a bad move, and had ugly, ugly consequences.
Ok, let's discuss the Japanese defences. Okinawa and Iwo Jima were defended primarily from underground fortifications. Japanese home island defenses were similar, but stronger. Nothing that suggests that seven A-bombs would have been enough to allow an unopposed or easy landing by US forces. New evidence shows that Japanese military strength in the Kyushu landing zones was five times the strength planned for by US invasion planners. It is quite conceivable that 200,000 would have died in the first days of an invasion, with or without A-bombs. And after that, what then?
What about retribution killings of POW's for which the Japanese were famous? What about Japanese reprisals against the populations of China and Korea? And let's not forget both chemical and biological WMD. Japanese military units in Korea and Manchuria (China) were experimenting with those on POWs and civilians, and preparing to deploy them both against soldiers and civilians.
I don't notice that you acknowleged any of those facts, let alone discussed them in a cogent manner.
IMHO the only thing that saved non-Japanese Asian civilians from mass bio-weapon and chem-weapon deaths was the shock in Tokyo at their own people's vulnerability. They only caved in when they faced their own demise.
I wish you would choose to consider the realities with the same cold eye that they were forced to use. War is an ugly, ugly thing.
The pre-war Japanese military-industrial foces took over Korea, and then Manchuria for coal and ron ore. They took over Malaya for rubber, and for oil the grabbed Java and Sumatra. They were blunt about intentions to form an empire, and they thought war was OK, because it was not going to be in Japan itself. Bad guess on their part. Long before they attacked Pearl Harbor, they knew that war is ugly. They just didn't expect to get a taste of the same.
War is ugly, ugly, ugly. The Germans, Italians, and Japanese miscalculated, and paid an ugly, ugly price.
I think that the Japanese could have read this quote in American history books:
"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want." - General William T. Sherman
Understanding that one American maxim could have saved them a lot of grief.
As a matter of fact, Imperial Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, who designed the attack on Pearl Harbor, studied at Harvard University opposed going to war with the US. He also served in Washington, DC as Japanese Naval Attaché to the United States in 1925-28. His statement, when he was told of the attack on Pearl Harbor was "We have awakened a sleeping giant and have instilled in him a terrible resolve."
The firebombing set off a firestorm that was the largest of WWII. May 10, 1945.
Yes, their leader was one of the very, very few pacifist Japanese in the 30's, and right through the war. He was jailed, and badly mistreated in jail. After the war, that gave the organization a really good name. A lot of Japanese politicos joined. It's a Budhist sect.
"Nine Who Survived Hiroshima and Nagasaki" by Trumbull [1957] documents the stories of nine refugees from the Hiroshima bombing. These poor sods wound up in Nagasaki. Got bombed again there, and lived to tell the story. An incredible read.
Also, please read "Nine Who Survivied Hiroshima and Nagasaki", the accounts of nine refugees from Hiroshima, who went to Nagasaki, and survived that as well. A sobering read.
The early end of the war also saved the lives of countless numbers in China, Malaysia, Korea, Thailand, Burma, and elsewhere. Those people did nothing to start the war. Those people are grateful for the early end of the war. And given the horrible Japanese actions they saw, it's not surprising that they don't object to the use of the A-bombs. I've traveled a lot over there, and never heard a word of complant outside of Japan. Never. Not once.
That having been said, the effects of these bombs are shocking. The shock is so great, people are willing to do anything to avoid these bombs. That's what makes them attractive as weapons of war, but also makes them targets for banning.
I read the book back in the 60's and still find the images gut-wrenching.
Ilford HPs film was my choice. Much, much better than Tri-X from Kodak. And when you pushed it, it kept a nice smooth range. I only used grade 6 Kodak paper for the junk going into the newspaper.
Narrowly speaking, not a metal, as you say.
From his comment, BlueStraggler seems a boob to me... (though he/she may be very nice and so on...)
the guy is a boob
I have seen reports of new designs based on these two rocket motors. The reports conclude that unmanned derivatives can loft 100,000 lb into low earth orbit, rather than 60,000 as the shuttle does. The risks in schedule, cost, and performance would be very low.
I'm not a fan of ISS either, but given that it's up there, I do favor it's continued use.
I'd like to see it added to by commercial ventures.
I have seen reports of new designs based on these two rocket motors. The reports conclude that unmanned derivatives can loft 100,000 lb into low earth orbit, rather than 60,000 as the shuttle does. The risks in schedule, cost, and performance would be very low.