Was the Nuke really necessary? - Page 13




 
--
 
July 7th, 2004  
Mark Conley
 
 
following the topic of the usefulness of the nuke in the modern age: i support the opinion we really don't need them anymore.

There have been so many developments in weapons that don't require massive destruction to be effective. There may be Electro-magnetic Pulse (EMP) or Radio-Frequency (RF) Pulse type weapons to ruin communications, computers, and essentially disestablish control waiting in the wings.

Shoot, can you imagine a weapon that kills just by radiation exposure without harming the buildings? Thats what a neutron bomb could do in the 70s. Think they are not made? its just a simple conversion process to bring them back.

How about a radio-frequency weapon thats tuned to heat and disrupt the molecues of water in your body, but passes right through other material without effect? Battlefield microwave your enemys..amaze your friends.

Can you Imagine having one weapon that just wipes the major data bases of bank of America, the federal reserve system, or any major financial system clean? You don't need to kill people anymore: just their electronic world. Look at what they did in Kosovo. They killed the electric power plants with weapons that destroyed the generator without killing their operators. Once the electricity went, the water stopped too.

Can you imagine the effect of chopping off a major power grid in the the US on any major city? You wouldn't need a bomb to kill the people: the lack of air conditioning, non-spoiled food, and water would wreck havoc on a major city. not to mention the riots..and law of the jungle time.

No folks, we don't need the nukes as much as anyone thinks anymore: there are even more evil things waiting in the wings for us in the future.
July 8th, 2004  
Italian Guy
 
 
Yeah but - hey, nobody was aying the Nukes are the only problems. Neither that terrorists are trying to find that EXCLUSIVELY.
Still, they're trying to find it and it would not be all roses and flowers.
You know how much attention we pay to your posts, Mark, so now, honestly, would you feel safer if your country totally and suddenly dismantled its nuclear armaments ? Or would you feel less safer? Honestly.
July 8th, 2004  
Mark Conley
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Italian Guy
Yeah but - hey, nobody was aying the Nukes are the only problems. Neither that terrorists are trying to find that EXCLUSIVELY.
Still, they're trying to find it and it would not be all roses and flowers.
You know how much attention we pay to your posts, Mark, so now, honestly, would you feel safer if your country totally and suddenly dismantled its nuclear armaments ? Or would you feel less safer? Honestly.
the answer is no...maybe you can make a more kinder gentler way...but the nukes still provide a means of horror and destruction so devastating that most countries back off from those that have them. So in retrospect, i guess Nukes have their place in the world...i mean whos going to be affraid of a battlefied microwave weapon? doesnt even sound bad...why i have one of those things in kitchen...
--
July 9th, 2004  
Italian Guy
 
 
Well you should watch out, Mark. Microwave ovens have taken over in Europe at least 8 yrs ago. They retain control over the people and they are planning on waging war against their counterparts in North America.
Mexican washers and Cuban irons said they will fight against american ovens..
July 9th, 2004  
Uncle_Sam
 
 
Nooooooooooo..............
July 9th, 2004  
Mark Conley
 
 
its the rise of the machines folks...the horror! the Horror!
July 12th, 2004  
Azur
 
The idea that i get reading this post is that by dropping the nukes in Japan a lot of lives have been saved if you compare with the eventual casualties in case of classic warfare.

I belive this is not true. And this is because the after effects of the bombs are on a very long term, resulting in genetical alteration of humans. And I am not talking about first 50 years after the attack but for 100s of years from now on. You must understand that the gamma radiation are one of the most nocive and unseen danger in our history.
It was purely stupidity and lack of real perspective that lead to the double disaster.
The USA should have demonstrate first the power and not apply it directly. You usually do that when you want to give a chance. And 3 days is not enought between the bombs. I think 2 weeks would have been more effective.
I belive they wanted to test both bombs since they where different. One was to be more damaging with radiation and the other with the shear power of explosion. One for humans, other for buildings and infrastucture. One with U235 and the other with Pu.
(http://mothra.rerf.or.jp/ENG/A-bomb/...y/Damages.html)

To be cinical: It was just a test to confirm the first experiment.
July 12th, 2004  
Mark Conley
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azur
The idea that i get reading this post is that by dropping the nukes in Japan a lot of lives have been saved if you compare with the eventual casualties in case of classic warfare.

I belive this is not true. And this is because the after effects of the bombs are on a very long term, resulting in genetical alteration of humans. And I am not talking about first 50 years after the attack but for 100s of years from now on. You must understand that the gamma radiation are one of the most nocive and unseen danger in our history.

Yes, gamma radiation is very long term. I wonder if anyone has really and effectivly studied the amount or number of abberiations that have developed in the people of the two citys since then. However, when you talk about genetic alteration..are you talking about the positive or the negative? Along with what we conceive the negative to be (four eyes, multi-limbs, and such) has their been any positive spin-offs in the genetic structure? Maybee more radio-energy resistant cells? greater ability to produce red and white blood cell countering agents? Id like to know that too.

It was purely stupidity and lack of real perspective that lead to the double disaster.

I dont know if Id call it a disaster. And i do belive they had all the perspective at the time to consider it nothing more than a very large way of doing what they were doing one 500 pound bomb at a time.

The USA should have demonstrate first the power and not apply it directly. You usually do that when you want to give a chance. And 3 days is not enought between the bombs. I think 2 weeks would have been more effective.

I agree. a demonstration would have been in order. Even showing them copies of the films made of the trinity experiment may have been in order. There was talk of doing this, but it went absolutely no where.

The three days between bombs? I believe that the soviets entering into war finally with japan had something to do with the rush. It would seem that the rush was on to get them to capitulate as quickly as possible, before too much terrotoriy was taken by the soviet forces.


I belive they wanted to test both bombs since they where different. One was to be more damaging with radiation and the other with the shear power of explosion. One for humans, other for buildings and infrastucture. One with U235 and the other with Pu.

(http://mothra.rerf.or.jp/ENG/A-bomb/...y/Damages.html)

Well, they were both just as powerful: didnt seem to make a difference as to how the energy of the atom is released, except one: They had just enough U-235 to make exactly one bomb, after 3 years of trying. It was inncredibly hard to seperate U-235 from U-238 but worth it in the long run because they knew it was going to work. They had finally produced enough plutonium in one year to make 3 weapons: One was tested in New Mexico, one dropped on Nakasaki, and the parts to the third were within 2 days of being delivered to tinnian when the japanesse capitulated.

To be cinical: It was just a test to confirm the first experiment.

Which first experiment was it? The trinity test? that just tested to see if the implosion method and plutonium fuel combination would work.


You have some very good points. its a fine post, thanks for doing so.
July 12th, 2004  
Uncle_Sam
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azur
The idea that i get reading this post is that by dropping the nukes in Japan a lot of lives have been saved if you compare with the eventual casualties in case of classic warfare.

I belive this is not true. And this is because the after effects of the bombs are on a very long term, resulting in genetical alteration of humans. And I am not talking about first 50 years after the attack but for 100s of years from now on. You must understand that the gamma radiation are one of the most nocive and unseen danger in our history.
It was purely stupidity and lack of real perspective that lead to the double disaster.
The USA should have demonstrate first the power and not apply it directly. You usually do that when you want to give a chance. And 3 days is not enought between the bombs. I think 2 weeks would have been more effective.
I belive they wanted to test both bombs since they where different. One was to be more damaging with radiation and the other with the shear power of explosion. One for humans, other for buildings and infrastucture. One with U235 and the other with Pu.
(http://mothra.rerf.or.jp/ENG/A-bomb/...y/Damages.html)

To be cinical: It was just a test to confirm the first experiment.

I would say a trillion of years, if it's Uranium or Plutonium!
July 13th, 2004  
SAINT
 
Nukes are actually power of nature unleashed.. it's just like electricity. But they are being made into weapons. And electricity.. hmmm so there's the EMP (electro magnetic pulse) bombs.. something new made from old scientific theories..

Can't avoid nukes being made.. it's natural from the scientific point of view that sooner or later, nukes will be made as science progresses...even if they weren't made or 'invented' at the end of WW2.