Results 1 to 29 of 29

Thread: Nuclear Bombs

  1. #1
    Humanist Senior Member Franconicus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Trying to get to Utopia
    Posts
    3,482

    Default Nuclear Bombs

    http://service.spiegel.de/cache/inte...367260,00.html
    This may be interesting. I red his book. It is great, but very frightening!

  2. #2
    Corporate Hippie Member rasoforos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Athens, Greece
    Posts
    2,713

    Default Re: Nuclear Bombs

    Wow. I m surprise that this article didnt attract any attention.

    A very logical and no-nonsence approach to nuclear weapons, their use and their reasons of existence. Not afraid to discuss north korea and the US in an unbiased way too. It wont appeal to those who believe in 'good and evil' countries and other hollywood like nonsence, but I learnt a lot from it.

    Thnx for posting this
    Αξιζει φιλε να πεθανεις για ενα ονειρο, κι ας ειναι η φωτια του να σε καψει.

    http://grumpygreekguy.tumblr.com/

  3. #3
    Lord of the House Flies Member Al Khalifah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Golden Caliphate
    Posts
    1,644

    Default Re: Nuclear Bombs

    Its an old argument (and debate topic) that goes:
    Nuclear weapons are the greatest tool of world peace ever invented (discuss).

    And you have to think, perhaps they are right.
    Cowardice is to run from the fear;
    Bravery is not to never feel the fear.
    Bravery is to be terrified as hell;
    But to hold the line anyway.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Nuclear Bombs

    yes - as long as they arent used
    Common Unreflected Drinking Only Smartens

  5. #5
    Humanist Senior Member Franconicus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Trying to get to Utopia
    Posts
    3,482

    Default Re: Nuclear Bombs

    I read his book when I was still doung my physics studies. It starts with a description of the first experiments with radioactvity (Hahn, Rutherford, Fermi, ...), to the first theretical models (Bohr ...). Then they describe very detailed the researche done for the Alamo project, the difficulties there and why they started it so on. Very clear, without emotions. Then the bomb trops on Japan. How thes chose the target, the conditions, describtions of the people that survived. I have to admit that I did not sleep very well that week.
    After that I started my conscientious objection.

  6. #6
    Senior member Senior Member Dutch_guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Holland.
    Posts
    5,006

    Default Re: Nuclear Bombs

    Quote Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
    Its an old argument (and debate topic) that goes:
    Nuclear weapons are the greatest tool of world peace ever invented (discuss).

    And you have to think, perhaps they are right.
    yes perhaps they are... no country is likely to attack with nuclear force if the other country can do it back, milions of lives will fall on either side.
    That is also of course what makes those countrys who have ( or can produce ) nuclear weapons so powerfull, and why we fear those who can built those weapons and who are part of that ''Axis of Evil ''
    If Iraq had A-boms ( and was capable of firing on short notice ) then the US ( and other country's ) would have definatley taken second thought about invading Iraq and the public would have too.

    I'm an athiest. I get offended everytime I see a cold, empty room. - MRD


  7. #7

    Default Re: Nuclear Bombs

    The main reason for invasion (the public was led to believe) was in fact, beacause Iraq was thought to have WMDs. Luckily, that wasnt true.
    Common Unreflected Drinking Only Smartens

  8. #8
    Lord of the House Flies Member Al Khalifah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Golden Caliphate
    Posts
    1,644

    Default Re: Nuclear Bombs

    The irony being that if Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction then invasion would have been almost impossible.
    Cowardice is to run from the fear;
    Bravery is not to never feel the fear.
    Bravery is to be terrified as hell;
    But to hold the line anyway.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Nuclear Bombs

    exactly
    Common Unreflected Drinking Only Smartens

  10. #10
    Shadow Senior Member Kagemusha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Helsinki,Finland
    Posts
    9,546

    Default Re: Nuclear Bombs

    I think that without nuclear weapons we would have allready faced two or three world wars more.Nuclear weapons guarantee peace between most powerfull countries in the world.Thats why im very concerned about US missile shield program.If US gets it working properly,its only matter of time when the techique will spread all over the world.Then we are again in square one.
    Ja Mata Tosainu Sama.

  11. #11
    Alienated Senior Member Member Red Harvest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Searching for the ORG's lost honor
    Posts
    4,657

    Default Re: Nuclear Bombs

    Quote Originally Posted by kagemusha
    I think that without nuclear weapons we would have allready faced two or three world wars more.Nuclear weapons guarantee peace between most powerfull countries in the world.Thats why im very concerned about US missile shield program.If US gets it working properly,its only matter of time when the techique will spread all over the world.Then we are again in square one.
    I seriously doubt that. A missile shield would always be very risky. A single weapon getting by is a powerful deterrent when it comes to nukes. Facing multiple launches, even a very good defense is likely to let some birds slip through.

    Plus, as we found in a discussion in the monestary, you will find it difficult to name any mature democratic nations attacking one another. (Facist style takeovers, and splintering of former democratic nations being special cases.)
    Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.

  12. #12
    Shadow Senior Member Kagemusha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Helsinki,Finland
    Posts
    9,546

    Default Re: Nuclear Bombs

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Harvest
    I seriously doubt that. A missile shield would always be very risky. A single weapon getting by is a powerful deterrent when it comes to nukes. Facing multiple launches, even a very good defense is likely to let some birds slip through.

    Plus, as we found in a discussion in the monestary, you will find it difficult to name any mature democratic nations attacking one another. (Facist style takeovers, and splintering of former democratic nations being special cases.)
    You are right about the missile shied.It would be very hard to make it un-penetraple.But it still worries me.About world wars,im sure that the Warsaw pact would have attacked in 50┤s without Nukes.
    Last edited by Kagemusha; 08-05-2005 at 17:41.
    Ja Mata Tosainu Sama.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Nuclear Bombs

    Only prob with nukes is that _eventually_ they will also get into the hands of people that are less than... mature (democracy-wise). It's really only a matter of time. As technology evolves, fissionable stuff will only become easier to get/transport/hide/etc...

    Sure, the US and the others will keep a watchful eye, and that's good, but they will never be able to spot everything on time...and one slip is enough.

    So I agree with the fact that nukes are the best peace-keepers, but only as long as they are almost impossible to obtain by everybody. Once crazy idiots get them, you can start looking for lots of cans and dig underground shelters... and note that for the reasons already mentioned, it's less likely that a country actually use them, than an organization; a country can (and will be) retaliated against; how do you target an organization that nukes your ass ?
    Therapy helps, but screaming obscenities is cheaper.

  14. #14
    Alienated Senior Member Member Red Harvest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Searching for the ORG's lost honor
    Posts
    4,657

    Default Re: Nuclear Bombs

    Quote Originally Posted by Al Khalifah
    The irony being that if Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction then invasion would have been almost impossible.
    No, it wouldn't. There are a couple of misconceptions apparent in what you've just said so I'll reply with the following:

    1. A suspected active WMD program was part of the justification (wrong, exaggerated, whatever, but that was part of it.) Had such a program existed in the hands of Saddam, action would be the prudent course, waiting would be foolish. Kicking out the weapons inspectors was a HUGE mistake by Saddam.
    2. Even the worst case WMD (nuke program) would have had trouble working as a deterrent to invasion for Saddam, because it would have been difficult to actually deploy it while being invaded--with the level of tech he had, since he had never even detonated a device. This is an example of keeping the problem in his own backyard. Besides, we have the Israeli's to thank for setting Saddam back by destroying his French reactor back in the '80's. That operation was an excellent example of wise use of pinpoint pre-emptive action.
    3. Invasion was clearly possible, whether or not Saddam had WMD. The U.S. military could cope in the case of chemical weapons attack. Saddam had chemical weapons in the first war (and had used them in several instances prior to it), but he didn't use them in the first war. As such the deterrent aspect was gone. (The fear of them falling into the hands of others was not.)

    The WMD concern was completely wrong about what he still had or what was still active. However, a more reasonable assumption was that once restraints were gone, he would resume some programs. This is most likely true, and was not worth risking. After 9/11 there was also an understandable concern that such weapons could be used overseas against civilian targets. Since a number of nations were starting to work to remove the constraints (especially those nations that actually opposed the eventual U.S. action), the U.S. hand was becoming forced.

    My beef is still in the WMD justification given. Dubya has done a poor job with the war (and the justification of it), but something clearly had to be done eventually. We've spent decades in Korea as the result of failing to resolve a situation with a similar aggressor. Walking away was not an option.
    Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.

  15. #15
    Lord of the House Flies Member Al Khalifah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Golden Caliphate
    Posts
    1,644

    Default Re: Nuclear Bombs

    1. A suspected active WMD program was part of the justification (wrong, exaggerated, whatever, but that was part of it.) Had such a program existed in the hands of Saddam, action would be the prudent course, waiting would be foolish.
    The argument given was that a programme existed. A programme does not mean NCBs, it merely means that he was actively developing them.
    2. Even the worst case WMD (nuke program) would have had trouble working as a deterrent to invasion for Saddam, because it would have been difficult to actually deploy it while being invaded--with the level of tech he had, since he had never even detonated a device.
    Saddam was a genocidal maniac. I doubt he would have had much concern ordering the detonation of such a weapon in a civilian centre as an act of defiance.
    Your first argument about the justification for the war contradicts this point. Part of the justification for going to war in Iraq was that Saddam had or was developing weapons of mass destruction AND that he was able to deploy them within 45 minutes ('the 45 Minute Claim') at intermediate range targets. Therefore, according to the justification he could have used such weapons against an invading force.

    My point was that the justification given for the war, if true, would have made the war itself much more difficult for the Coalition to 'win' without the use of extreme force. Such methods would have required measures that would have caused great civilian collateral casualties. If Saddam had been armed with chemical weapons, the Coalition military would have suffered greater casualties, but the real losers would have been the civilian population of Iraq.
    Cowardice is to run from the fear;
    Bravery is not to never feel the fear.
    Bravery is to be terrified as hell;
    But to hold the line anyway.

  16. #16
    Alienated Senior Member Member Red Harvest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Searching for the ORG's lost honor
    Posts
    4,657

    Default Re: Nuclear Bombs

    Your original point implied that had he possessed WMD the attack would not have happened. That is clearly not the case. He had them during the first war afterall, and we still invaded Iraq as part of the campaign in Kuwait. His previous WMD program even then lacked deterrence against a prepared superpower *in his own country*. Even your example of nuking his own people wouldn't have helped him much...and probably wouldn't have killed all that many U.S. personnel at the time.
    Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.

  17. #17
    Could be your God Member Abokasee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    N/A
    Posts
    1,486

    Default Re: Nuclear Bombs

    Quote Originally Posted by kagemusha
    I think that without nuclear weapons we would have allready faced two or three world wars more.Nuclear weapons guarantee peace between most powerfull countries in the world.Thats why im very concerned about US Missle Sheild Program.If US gets it working properly,its only matter of time when the techique will spread all over the world.Then we are again in square one.


    hmmmm i wonder whos doing that...people at area 51 one and all maybe?
    Now with transparent layers!

    Lost on the Internet? Go back to start.

  18. #18
    Shadow Senior Member Kagemusha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Helsinki,Finland
    Posts
    9,546

    Default Re: Nuclear Bombs

    Here is a link Abokasee.
    Ja Mata Tosainu Sama.

  19. #19
    Member Member bmolsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Jakarta, Indonesia
    Posts
    3,029

    Default Re: Nuclear Bombs

    Historically, only one nation, a democratic one, have ever used nukes against civilian targets, even though some of the most evil states have possessed it as well.....

  20. #20

    Default Re: Nuclear Bombs

    It was estimated a million peole would die with an invasion, nuking japan was justified.
    Formerly ceasar010

  21. #21
    Member Member bmolsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Jakarta, Indonesia
    Posts
    3,029

    Default Re: Nuclear Bombs

    Quote Originally Posted by ceasar010
    It was estimated a million peole would die with an invasion, nuking japan was justified.
    Doesn't change the fact that no other nation ever used it against civilians, does it ?

    Now assume that the Chinese estimate that 100 million would die at an invasion of US, would it be accepted if they nuked LA instead ?

  22. #22
    Alienated Senior Member Member Red Harvest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Searching for the ORG's lost honor
    Posts
    4,657

    Default Re: Nuclear Bombs

    Quote Originally Posted by bmolsson
    Historically, only one nation, a democratic one, have ever used nukes against civilian targets, even though some of the most evil states have possessed it as well.....
    That's because: 1. We were smart enough to do it first to save lives (our own, and Japanese.) 2. We put authoritarian regimes on notice that we would use nukes to win a war once it began.
    Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.

  23. #23
    Alienated Senior Member Member Red Harvest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Searching for the ORG's lost honor
    Posts
    4,657

    Default Re: Nuclear Bombs

    Quote Originally Posted by bmolsson
    Doesn't change the fact that no other nation ever used it against civilians, does it ?

    Now assume that the Chinese estimate that 100 million would die at an invasion of US, would it be accepted if they nuked LA instead ?
    Intellectually dishonest comparison. Japan had been the aggressor vs. the U.S., China, and the allies. To even get on the same basis you would have to assume that a state of war existed and U.S. had already launched a large pre-emptive military campaign vs. China--and also assume that as part of the campaign the U.S. had brutally sacked the areas it occupied.

    By the way, the cities hit did have military targets as well. In fact, the cities had been preserved from the strategic bombing campaign to serve as demonstration targets.
    Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.

  24. #24
    Member Member bmolsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Jakarta, Indonesia
    Posts
    3,029

    Default Re: Nuclear Bombs

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Harvest
    That's because: 1. We were smart enough to do it first to save lives (our own, and Japanese.) 2. We put authoritarian regimes on notice that we would use nukes to win a war once it began.
    A rather biased view, which the victims have no say in....

  25. #25
    Member Member bmolsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Jakarta, Indonesia
    Posts
    3,029

    Default Re: Nuclear Bombs

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Harvest
    Intellectually dishonest comparison. Japan had been the aggressor vs. the U.S., China, and the allies. To even get on the same basis you would have to assume that a state of war existed and U.S. had already launched a large pre-emptive military campaign vs. China--and also assume that as part of the campaign the U.S. had brutally sacked the areas it occupied.
    US is defending a Chinese break-out province and have clearly declared that they will defend it with violence. Further more, US is representing a political system that is seen as aggressive and a threat.
    The comparison is only dishonest if you assume that the western way of life is the only correct one. Again you have a biased view.

    Quote Originally Posted by Red Harvest
    By the way, the cities hit did have military targets as well. In fact, the cities had been preserved from the strategic bombing campaign to serve as demonstration targets.
    Demonstration target = 200,000 civilians killed ????

    In another view, it could be seen as the only reason to use the bomb was because US could.......

  26. #26
    Feeding the Peanut Gallery Senior Member Redleg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Denver working on the Railroad
    Posts
    10,660

    Default Re: Nuclear Bombs

    Quote Originally Posted by bmolsson
    Demonstration target = 200,000 civilians killed ????

    In another view, it could be seen as the only reason to use the bomb was because US could.......
    We have had this discussion before - and like before you are incorrect in your comments.

    If you need the link to the previous discussion - I will gladly provide it for you. Your history and understanding of the Atomic weapons is still faulty.

    Because I am a smartass today - I will just provide the link for those who care - anyway.

    https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...3&page=2&pp=30

    Red Harvest is going to wish he was not ignoring my comments on this one - LOL
    Last edited by Redleg; 08-12-2005 at 06:48.
    O well, seems like 'some' people decide to ruin a perfectly valid threat. Nice going guys... doc bean

  27. #27
    The Black Senior Member Papewaio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    15,670

    Default Re: Nuclear Bombs

    Quote Originally Posted by bmolsson
    Demonstration target = 200,000 civilians killed ????

    In another view, it could be seen as the only reason to use the bomb was because US could.......
    200,000 or 5 million which would you choose?

    At least a demonstration to end the war is better then 300,000 slaughtered for fun...
    Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
    Quote Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
    Pape for global overlord!!
    Quote Originally Posted by English assassin
    Squid sources report that scientists taste "sort of like chicken"
    Quote Originally Posted by frogbeastegg View Post
    The rest is either as average as advertised or, in the case of the missionary, disappointing.

  28. #28
    Alienated Senior Member Member Red Harvest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Searching for the ORG's lost honor
    Posts
    4,657

    Default Re: Nuclear Bombs

    Quote Originally Posted by bmolsson
    US is defending a Chinese break-out province and have clearly declared that they will defend it with violence. Further more, US is representing a political system that is seen as aggressive and a threat.
    The comparison is only dishonest if you assume that the western way of life is the only correct one. Again you have a biased view.
    You might want to look of the history of Taiwan a bit more. Taiwan is actually the remnant of Nationalist China in a modern sense, and it has a democracy that is determining its own fate. There is no reason that Taiwan should be compelled to become part of mainland China. Mainland China has not possessed Taiwan since 1895 when it was ceded to Japan. The Taiwanese formed their own govt. and resisted the Japanese briefly.

    The "way of life" view has zippo to do with this. Your basis was inaccurate at the start. Now you are grasping at straws.


    Demonstration target = 200,000 civilians killed ????

    In another view, it could be seen as the only reason to use the bomb was because US could.......
    You could kid yourself into believing it. Just don't read the history of what was going on at the time if you want to believe that. Japan was told of a terrible new weapon, and surrender demands were weakened to make it more palatable. Ironicially, this was taken as a sign of weakness and the terms were rejected.

    Anyway, a signficant number of those folks would have been killed in bombing raids anyway, had the target zones not been preserved. Other cities were spared as a result...

    The Japanese high command intended to murder ~150,000 allied prisoners, the orders had been prepared and delivered and they were only awaiting the invasion to execute them. The bombs saved their lives. Some of those prisoners were civilians by the way, who had the misfortune of falling into Japanese hands before and after Pearl. Is there some sort of secret equation for how many friendlies are allowed to be killed for a given number of enemy? Please, enlighten me. I would have no qualms over dropping those bombs to save even a thousand allied lives and end the war.

    Do you have any inkling how many Japanese would have died from starvation or invasion had they not capitulated rapidly? Obviously you don't. And 200,000 was only about 1% of the casualties that resulted from Imperial Japan's war. Get some perspective.

    War is Hell, and you should get it over with expeditiously.
    Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.

  29. #29
    Member Member bmolsson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Jakarta, Indonesia
    Posts
    3,029

    Default Re: Nuclear Bombs

    Quote Originally Posted by Redleg
    We have had this discussion before - and like before you are incorrect in your comments.

    If you need the link to the previous discussion - I will gladly provide it for you. Your history and understanding of the Atomic weapons is still faulty.

    Because I am a smartass today - I will just provide the link for those who care - anyway.

    https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...3&page=2&pp=30

    Red Harvest is going to wish he was not ignoring my comments on this one - LOL
    It's not only today you are a smart ass.....

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO