Atomic Bombs from WWII

**Rodion Romanovich** · 04-24-2006, 13:05

Originally Posted by English assassin

That would make the decision to drop the second weapon one of the wosrt war crimes of WWII. Is there any evidence for this?

Afaik there were scientists' statements implying this, and there have been various books and documentaries on the subject as well. Truly a war crime, but the nation was tired of the war. And there's always some fire after the peace negotiation ends, for example there were even conventional bombing raids over cities after the peace negotiations had ended, as well as some Japanese in Burma or Thailand who kept fighting after the official surrender. Besides the Russians, at least initially, held a similar view on their nukes, but luckily enough weren't at war with anyone powerful enough to justify nuking, so they didn't end up committing that same crime, but it's very likely they would have, if they had been in the same situation. The Russian "peaceful coexistence" policy for nukes was probably not until after 1990 what it sounded like, but more like the American "massive retalliation" policy, which I'm unfortunately seeing developed even further in very recent times.

**Avicenna** · 04-24-2006, 14:08

The second bomb was a Plutonium bomb. This doesn't mean they could make a third in short time, as plutonium used is taken from uranium. Uraniums getting refined in the reactor produce plutonium, which is then used for the bombs. So, you could say that the supply of plutonium depends on uranium.

EDIT: legio, the USSR couldn't have nuked anyone, seeing how their first test of a nuke was only in late 1949.

**Rodion Romanovich** · 04-24-2006, 14:16

Originally Posted by Tiberius

EDIT: legio, the USSR couldn't have nuked anyone, seeing how their first test of a nuke was only in late 1949.

that's what I mean. But if they had had a chance sometime between 1949 and 1990, they could very well have taken it. Actually it's claimed that some people (not many, but still) were living in the areas they carried out some of their earliest nuke tests...

Luckily the current Russian regime, although hardly an example for others, are very moderate in their nuclear policy, and are actually living up to the motto of "peaceful coexistence".

**Avicenna** · 04-24-2006, 14:32

You mean unlike the French in Micronesia?

**Rodion Romanovich** · 04-24-2006, 14:42

like France, not unlike France...

**Avicenna** · 04-24-2006, 20:41

The French did testing of nuclear there and lots of people are complaining about the effects of radiation and demanding.. compensation I think, not sure.

**BigTex** · 04-24-2006, 21:18

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

As for effects on the world caused by radiation etc., I have to disagree with the people who claim it is as if it never happened today. For example all metals in the entire world today are still affected by the radiation from the nukes of 1945, and this has forced people to take metal from - guess what - the scuttled Hochseeflotte at Scapa Flow, which hasn't been affected by the radiation because the metal was below water at the time.

This is a major major exageration, with an obvious bias. There were only 2 bombs used, both were quite small. Since then there have been many many more powerful bombs tested above ground. In fact when did France stop atmospheric testing? To say 2 small bombs did more damage then the dozens that followed is a falsy, wherever you got that information from they need a good history book on the cold war.