Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Redstreblo on July 03, 2010, 08:03:35 am
-
The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a very controversial thing. Some say that if the war had gone on more and more lives would be lost and fewer people actually died from the bombs than would have died with an invasion. Others believe that the bombings accomplished nothing but death and destruction.
Here is a thread and poll about nuclear weapons in general. I would like to know peoples opinions on the matter 60 years later, when the existence of nuclear weapons has actually caused wars (Iraq... where were those again? :nervous: ) and is a source of fear (OMG what if terrorists nuked NYC?!). Is the number of lives saved in WWII greater than the number of lives lost fighting over the weapons?
Iraq war stats:
100,000 civilians killed (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/)
4,800 Casualties (http://www.icasualties.org/iraq/index.aspx)
-
Both sides in WW2 committed horrible atrocities. One side's atrocities just seemed to be more highly publicized than the other's.
-
hmm, i don't remember putting nukes are sexy option up there...
Is there a ghost in here with us? :shaking:
-
Agreed.
I have to say, however, that the sacrifice of those Japan citizens who lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved the lives of who knows how many other Japanese people. I heard of Japanese citizens committing suicide as the Americans were getting close so I can only barely imagine what an invasion would have led to. :(
EDIT: No Snuffleupagus?
-
Is there a ghost in here with us? :shaking:
You have to remember that Nuke is a moderator on this board. xD
I have to say, however, that the sacrifice of those Japan citizens who lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved the lives of who knows how many other Japanese people. I heard of Japanese citizens committing suicide as the Americans were getting close so I can only barely imagine what an invasion would have led to. :(
The mass bombing of civilians, in any theater, is not justified IMO.
-
Yeah, I know it can't be justified but, at the end, it's the number of human victims that counts. The sacrifice of those unfortunate Japanese citizens literally saved most of the others; if the Japanese were already known for committing suicide as the Americans approached their lands, try to imagine what would have happened in case of invasion. How many hundred thousand Japanese citizens would have died before the declaration of peace?
-
Both sides in WW2 committed horrible atrocities. One side's atrocities just seemed to be more highly publicized than the other's.
the exposure of the public to knowledge about the worst aspects of war comes down to two things geography and politics, for example I understand that there is a greater awareness of Japanese acts in Asia than there is in Europe and i imagine its opposite regarding the European war. the the same time i understand there is or was heavy restrictions on educating kids in Japan about the pacific war.
To be honest my opinion of dropping of the nukes over Hiroshima and Nagasaki were evil acts that should have resulted in war crimes tribunals for the deliberate targeting of civilians. At the same time though if they hadn't been dropped we wouldn't have had the stark demonstration of the unforgivable power of these weapons thus it would had made it easier for politicians to order their launch during some periods of the Cold War and where would we be then.
-
Douglas MacArthur is also a douche. Seriously. Nuke happy ****dick. Drop bombs on China why don't you.
-
Douglas MacArthur is also a douche. Seriously. Nuke happy ****dick. Drop bombs on China why don't you.
isnt karajorma over there atm????
-
Yeah.
(Douglas MacArthur wanted to drop nukes on Chinese cities to stop them helping the North Koreans during the Korean war)
-
See? With the existence of nuclear weapons lots of people are talking about using them as a first strike weapon. Lets solve our problems by nuking China or Korea. This is exactly why nuclear weapons are bad, they promote killing lots of innocent civilians to try to get a war done and over with quickly. I don't think people realize all the consequences involved with nuking another country. Not only do you pose the risk of the country using its own nuclear arsenal against you, but there is also nuclear fallout to consider. With nuclear weapons, just like with war, there are no winners. Only losers.
-
That's why MacArthur got sacked. Because Truman wasn't retarded.
-
Ahhhh!! nuke! leave the damn poll alone!! :hopping: :mad: :lol:
-
rofl
-
I am just going to point out that in war you fight to win. If people die, they die. That is what war is. Civilians are the perfect target.
Is there a ghost in here with us? :shaking:
You have to remember that Nuke is a moderator on this board. xD
I have to say, however, that the sacrifice of those Japan citizens who lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved the lives of who knows how many other Japanese people. I heard of Japanese citizens committing suicide as the Americans were getting close so I can only barely imagine what an invasion would have led to. :(
The mass bombing of civilians, in any theater, is not justified IMO.
-
and people voted for the bogus answers :sigh: I thought that maybe people would take a topic like this a little more seriously. :doubt:
-
I try to be apolitical.
-
see we have this little thing called mutually assured destruction. you nuke us we nuke you and we have so many of them the world will end. i credit it for preventing WW3. unfortunately it had the side effect of making people not want to fire their warheads. in terms of war casualties the nuke is dwarfed heavily by the ak-47. and the weapon that racked up the greatest number of american kills ever was probably the rifled muskets used in the civil war. sad really.
-
What about helicopters
-
most helicopters are used for transport. attack helicopters are mostly just used to take out tanks. helicopters dont really have the loiter capability for close air support. but there's a plane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II) for that.
-
What about helicopters
:nervous:
-
see we have this little thing called mutually assured destruction. you nuke us we nuke you and we have so many of them the world will end. i credit it for preventing WW3. unfortunately it had the side effect of making people not want to fire their warheads. in terms of war casualties the nuke is dwarfed heavily by the ak-47. and the weapon that racked up the greatest number of american kills ever was probably the rifled muskets used in the civil war. sad really.
there are three notable differences between nukes and conventional weapons.
1 is time
2 is target
3 is aftermath
time is time taken to kill x number of people, a nuke MIRV equipped ICBM can kill in one go today what it has taken decades for weapons like the AK47.
target the same nuke MIRV equipped ICBM is good for only one thing, hitting large areas which means you are going to hit a lot of civilians especially if you aim at political targets like seats of government (which was in both NATO and Warsaw Pact target lists). Yes a rifle can and have been aimed at civilians but it is not unavoidable.
Aftermath, you fire a rifle there is a loud bang, a few fumes are released, some one dies (if aimed propperly) and that's it, you detonate a nuke and you smother a large area with dangerous levels of radiation which takes anywhere from months (for a really little tactical weapon) to years or decades to dissipate to safe levels. anyone unable to leave this area is doomed to near guaranteed cancer, radiation sickness, infertility and other radiation related/affected illnesses
-
I am just going to point out that in war you fight to win. If people die, they die. That is what war is. Civilians are the perfect target.
Are you (indirectly or not) putting Coventry, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the same level? If so, I think you completely missed the point.
The former (Coventry and Dresden) were almost completely useless for the war effort. Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended a war and, despite being two horrible episodes of human history, prevented many other Japanese people from losing their lives. Not to mention the Americans and, who knows, even the Russians who may have lost their lives during the invasion of Japan.
-
To whom it may concern
Topic: New poll options
Whoever is adding the poll options *cough* Nuke *cough* take this: :snipe: :headz:
EDIT: ok, maybe this is a little extreme, but this was a serious topic... all poll edits finished now? All sillyness stays in the replys area? thanks! :hammer:
-
Anyone who has ever studied the Japanese and American plans surrounding Olympic and Coronet cannot doubt the wisdom of the decision to annihilate Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In most basic terms, the nuclear weapons were a nearly pointless exercise. The Air Force nighttime incendary bombing campaign against Japan caused many times the casualities and destruction. I am fully of the belief that LeMay should have been tried for war crimes for these acts. He doesn't even have the marginal defense RAF Bomber Command did. By the time the incendary raids were launched, the war was essentially over, with only how much it was going to cost both sides yet to be assigned.
However despite its relative damage to the Japanese nation and people being very small, the bomb represented a paradigm shift radical enough to bring home the hopelessness of the war to the Emperor. Before the nuclear weapons, but after the firebombing campaign, it was very clear Japan intended to fight to the end. It would ultimately be for naught by default, but it would have cost the United States heavily and resulted in effective racial suicide for Japan. By preventing both these things the bomb saved countless lives and ensured the continuation of the Japanese culture and Japanese state.
The real horror is when one considers what was intended for the nuclear weapons if they were not used the way they were. They would have been used in tactical support of the landings in Coronet. This would have resulted in huge casualities on both sides; the Japanese directly, the Americans due to radiation exposure.
time is time taken to kill x number of people, a nuke MIRV equipped ICBM can kill in one go today what it has taken decades for weapons like the AK47.
I'm fairly sure you can make an excellent argument that more people die alochol-related deaths every day world-wide then you could kill by setting off a nuclear device every day. Where's your moral outrage for that?
-
[edit]I started writing this when there were no replies, I hit submit, "there are 24 new replies" this should be understood in the context of addressing the OP and no one else.[/edit]
well, seance you brought up one bad thing that happened in WW2, let's put it into perspective of the other things that had happened. WW2 is a classical example of what is known as Total War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war), a class of warfare defined by one or both sides of the conflict putting the entirety of there resources into destroying the fighting capacity of the other. in this form of war industrial targets are considered valuable because they are were ammunition and weapons are manufactured, workers are considered valid targets cause they build the weapons, ammunition or in some other way contribute to the economy that is fueling the war effort trying to kill you. for similar reasons wearing down the productivity of workers via any means, including psychological trauma is also considered helpful.
Now, because everyone already hates Nazis I won't bother mentioning much from Europe, but stratigic bombing did happen in the European theater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II), many cites were reduced to almost complete rubble. also your question is in a vacuum because if we hadn't developed the bomb it does not mean other nations would not have, the Nazis were working on it too.
But the main interest here is US vs Japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Japan).
obviously the first thing to mention is that they started it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_on_Pearl_Harbor), with an extremely effective first strike that crippled the US pacific fleet. following this raid Japan had domination over all of asia india and the vast majority of the pacific.
"Over this vast expanse of waters Japan was supreme and we everywhere were weak and naked" - Winston Churchill
Japan made good use of it's monopoly on power and the US's decision to focus on Europe. Japan managed to get ahold of, Korea a good sized chunk of China and after the pearl harbor attack they gained control of the Philippines. in the countries Japan occupied they did many many nasty things, they enslaved, raped, and slaughtered everyone they defeated. to this day China and Korea _HATE_ Japan for the **** they did in the first half of the 20th century. but this is about the US bombing Japan. well for my money I'd put the fire bombing campaigns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo) on a higher plane than the nuking. under similar campaigns cities like Toyama, Tokushima, and Fukuyama were pretty much completely destroyed. even after all this devastation, the Japanese would not surrender, which in spite of all the nastiness they did, I must give them some props for. however, this meant that it was going to take a land invasion of japan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall) in order to win the war. that was going to result in a vast death toll, a literal ocean of blood, for both sides. there was no question at this point if the US was going to win or not, the only question was how much blood was it going to cost. personally I think what happened was the best resolution to the situation, the death toll was a quarter of a million IIRC, a full scale land invasion would have easily killed 16 times as many people, and I'm not even including the US deaths here.
-
Some say that if the war had gone on more and more lives would be lost and fewer people actually died from the bombs than would have died with an invasion.
In a moral sense that's a false dichotomy though; without the nukes, no one would have needed to kill any invaders and no one would have needed to invade anyone in the first place. You can't know what the other guy would decide to do if you don't nuke them first, therefore speculation on what they might do if you don't nuke them first is no moral justification for nuking them first.
-
I like your comment, Bobboau.
In most basic terms, the nuclear weapons were a nearly pointless exercise. The Air Force nighttime incendary bombing campaign against Japan caused many times the casualities and destruction. I am fully of the belief that LeMay should have been tried for war crimes for these acts. He doesn't even have the marginal defense RAF Bomber Command did. By the time the incendary raids were launched, the war was essentially over, with only how much it was going to cost both sides yet to be assigned.
RAF Bomber Command. Three words which can get me angry very quickly. :doubt:
-
What I don't like even more than the acts themselves is the fact that these mass-murderers are glorified.
-
It was the singular symbol of the US winning WW2, obviously its going to be glorified.
however I can't think of any situation where the nukeings them selves were shown as great things, unless it was done out of sarcasm.
-
time is time taken to kill x number of people, a nuke MIRV equipped ICBM can kill in one go today what it has taken decades for weapons like the AK47.
I'm fairly sure you can make an excellent argument that more people die alochol-related deaths every day world-wide then you could kill by setting off a nuclear device every day. Where's your moral outrage for that?
the difference is in who inflicts that death. where the death is self inflicted then I am of the belief that though tragic it's that person own stupid fault. where the death is caused by another then there is plenty of outrage here as that is the result of someone else has taken action to end that persons life.
-
I don't care what the rationalization is, you don't nuke cities full of civilians. Ever. For no reason. Also, Snuffleupagus.
-
Horse. Fire. Barn Door.
-
The alternative would've been exponential losses on both sides, and I daresay that civilians would've again copped the brunt of it as they always do in urban combat.
I don't perhaps agree with nuking a city full of civilians, but I can't think of many other ways that would've driven the point home to Hirohito. Fighting a war on Japanese soil would've been a brutal, bloody exercise, and I don't think the decision to deploy nuclear weapons was one taken lightly by the US.
And besides, why didn't Japan surrender after Hiroshima? If you want to take a bit of a cold look at it, that contributed to Nagasaki. If Hirohito had given up the "CALL MEEH GOD" crap after hearing about Hiroshima, Nagasaki didn't have to happen, and wouldn't have happened.
The Japanese weren't squeaky clean either... As most Chinese people may remember.
-
I think the distinction here is the nuking wasn't "the right choice". It wasn't even the lesser of two evils. It was just another way to kill a lot of innocent people that happened to have the side-effect of ending the war.
-
See? With the existence of nuclear weapons lots of people are talking about using them as a first strike weapon. Lets solve our problems by nuking China or Korea. This is exactly why nuclear weapons are bad, they promote killing lots of innocent civilians to try to get a war done and over with quickly. I don't think people realize all the consequences involved with nuking another country. Not only do you pose the risk of the country using its own nuclear arsenal against you, but there is also nuclear fallout to consider. With nuclear weapons, just like with war, there are no winners. Only losers.
During that time China didn't have any nuclear weapons.
-
I think the distinction here is the nuking wasn't "the right choice". It wasn't even the lesser of two evils. It was just another way to kill a lot of innocent people that happened to have the side-effect of ending the war.
The intention wasn't to kill a whole lot of people just to kill a whole lot of people, it was always to end the war. I thought it was a matter of "Nuke it or invade"?
-
I think the distinction here is the nuking wasn't "the right choice". It wasn't even the lesser of two evils. It was just another way to kill a lot of innocent people that happened to have the side-effect of ending the war.
The intention wasn't to kill a whole lot of people just to kill a whole lot of people, it was always to end the war. I thought it was a matter of "Nuke it or invade"?
The purpose of detonating of a nuclear bomb is to kill people.
The side-effect of this is that the war ends.
The detonation of the nuclear bomb itself didn't end the war.
-
See? With the existence of nuclear weapons lots of people are talking about using them as a first strike weapon. Lets solve our problems by nuking China or Korea. This is exactly why nuclear weapons are bad, they promote killing lots of innocent civilians to try to get a war done and over with quickly. I don't think people realize all the consequences involved with nuking another country. Not only do you pose the risk of the country using its own nuclear arsenal against you, but there is also nuclear fallout to consider. With nuclear weapons, just like with war, there are no winners. Only losers.
During that time China didn't have any nuclear weapons.
I wasn't talking about WWII era here, I was responding to the replys above it, which were about using the nukes to defeat china or Korea.
-
The purpose of detonating of a nuclear bomb is to kill people.
"It's a device, not a bomb, and it initiates, not explodes."
Even when nuclear weapons were being dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, people understood that your assertion is absolutely untrue. Parallels can also be found in Bomber Command's area campaign and the US firebombing of Japan. These actions killed many, many people, but that was not their purpose. They were efforts to end or shorten the war by triggering a civilian morale collapse. This was of course bungled badly, but that does not distract from the salient point: they were designed and executed for a strategic goal, the altering of the course of the war on a grand scale, rather than a mere tactical one such as killing people.
Nuclear weapons, no matter what anyone tells you, are not tactical and hence not really for killing specific targets. They are very good at that, but this does not make them suited for the role. Nuclear weapons will always be strategic. The reasons for this are manifold and mostly political, in that very few men wish to stare long at what lies beyond the edge of the nuclear release order abyss. Because they destroy on such a grand scale, a nuclear weapon is always going to kill people, but it's rarely pointed at people for the mere sake of killing them for that same reason. There are easier, less dangerous, more sound methods of merely killing.
-
If they only needed to detonate a nuclear bomb, and not kill anyone, why didn't they just invite Hirohito to some uninhabited island and drop a bomb there?
-
I voted for everything!
-
If they only needed to detonate a nuclear bomb, and not kill anyone, why didn't they just invite Hirohito to some uninhabited island and drop a bomb there?
cause we had two of them at the time, a third was on the way. besides that's a militarily stupid move, you don't let the enimy know what cards you have.
I don't care what the rationalization is, you don't nuke cities full of civilians. Ever. For no reason.
I hope you are leading the nation we next go to war with, it'll be a really easy victory for us.
-
Did someone change the poll results? lolwtf
-
That's it!
*resets poll*
-
Aww but nukes are sexy and I want to hump them! :(
-
I can't ever say that using a nuke is a good thing, but it certainly isn't the most evil thing ever done. the existence, if not the use of, nuclear weapons is a very good thing. MAD might be scary as **** (or was back in the cold war that I wasn't alive during), but it works. I wish there was a way to know how many wars didn't happen and how many people didn't die because of MAD.
-
How does the fact that we live in constant danger of utter destruction make the existence of nukes a good thing? :wtf:
I don gets
-
How does the fact that we live in constant danger of utter destruction make the existence of nukes a good thing? :wtf:
I don gets
second :yes:
-
How does the fact that we live in constant danger of utter destruction make the existence of nukes a good thing? :wtf:
I don gets
second :yes:
By some lines of thought, nuclear weapons are the reason for the vast dropoff in armed conflict since World War II.
If there's a risk of a fight leading to bombpocalypse, you don't start a fight.
-
How does the fact that we live in constant danger of utter destruction make the existence of nukes a good thing? :wtf:
I don gets
second :yes:
By some lines of thought, nuclear weapons are the reason for the vast dropoff in armed conflict since World War II.
If there's a risk of a fight leading to bombpocalypse, you don't start a fight.
I assume then that you voted for option one where nukes are a deterrent to war?
-
By some lines of thought, nuclear weapons are the reason for the vast dropoff in armed conflict since World War II.
Wait, there was a vast dropoff in armed conflict after WW2?
Cool...
-
How does the fact that we live in constant danger of utter destruction make the existence of nukes a good thing? :wtf:
I don gets
We're in constant danger of utter destruction with or without the existence of nukes.
Don't panic! ;)
Edit: Now that I think about it, I hope that we do end up deflecting a dangerous asteroid via nukes, because then nukes would be praised for being the awesome saviors of humanity. xD
Edit2: Dammit Kosh! Beat me to it.
-
Recently come across this (http://www.physorg.com/news196958310.html)
According to Dearborn, the sheer power of a nuclear explosion may make it the most practical and cost-effective option for deflecting or fragmenting asteroids, compared with alternatives such as chemical fuel or laser beams. For one thing, a nuclear explosive would be cheaper to launch into space due to its large amount of energy per unit mass. In contrast, a non-nuclear blast might require several launches for an equivalent amount of power.
Also, the nuclear option could be implemented in a short amount of time; a detonation just 15 days before impact could fragment or divert the course of a 270-meter asteroid (the size of Apophis, which has a 1 in 250,000 chance of striking Earth in 2036) to avoid a collision. On the other hand, a laser such as one at the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore would take 6,000 years to sufficiently divert the course of the same size asteroid.
As far as the radiation released from a nuclear explosion in space, Dearborn said that you wouldn’t even be able to measure the difference on Earth. The explosion would occur millions of miles out in space, where there is already an intense radiation environment.
-
How does the fact that we live in constant danger of utter destruction make the existence of nukes a good thing? :wtf:
I don gets
second :yes:
By some lines of thought, nuclear weapons are the reason for the vast dropoff in armed conflict since World War II.
If there's a risk of a fight leading to bombpocalypse, you don't start a fight.
I assume then that you voted for option one where nukes are a deturrent to war?
Why would you make an assumption like that? Did you miss the clause by some lines of thought?
How do you have any idea that what I said represented my opinion?
Recently come across this (http://www.physorg.com/news196958310.html)
According to Dearborn, the sheer power of a nuclear explosion may make it the most practical and cost-effective option for deflecting or fragmenting asteroids, compared with alternatives such as chemical fuel or laser beams. For one thing, a nuclear explosive would be cheaper to launch into space due to its large amount of energy per unit mass. In contrast, a non-nuclear blast might require several launches for an equivalent amount of power.
Also, the nuclear option could be implemented in a short amount of time; a detonation just 15 days before impact could fragment or divert the course of a 270-meter asteroid (the size of Apophis, which has a 1 in 250,000 chance of striking Earth in 2036) to avoid a collision. On the other hand, a laser such as one at the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore would take 6,000 years to sufficiently divert the course of the same size asteroid.
As far as the radiation released from a nuclear explosion in space, Dearborn said that you wouldn’t even be able to measure the difference on Earth. The explosion would occur millions of miles out in space, where there is already an intense radiation environment.
That's not news, we've known that for ages. Didn't you see that godawful Bay movie Armageddon?
-
Recently come across this (http://www.physorg.com/news196958310.html)
According to Dearborn, the sheer power of a nuclear explosion may make it the most practical and cost-effective option for deflecting or fragmenting asteroids, compared with alternatives such as chemical fuel or laser beams. For one thing, a nuclear explosive would be cheaper to launch into space due to its large amount of energy per unit mass. In contrast, a non-nuclear blast might require several launches for an equivalent amount of power.
Also, the nuclear option could be implemented in a short amount of time; a detonation just 15 days before impact could fragment or divert the course of a 270-meter asteroid (the size of Apophis, which has a 1 in 250,000 chance of striking Earth in 2036) to avoid a collision. On the other hand, a laser such as one at the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore would take 6,000 years to sufficiently divert the course of the same size asteroid.
As far as the radiation released from a nuclear explosion in space, Dearborn said that you wouldn’t even be able to measure the difference on Earth. The explosion would occur millions of miles out in space, where there is already an intense radiation environment.
so... nukes aren't the cause for our doom, instead they are the key to our survival? :confused:
-
How does the fact that we live in constant danger of utter destruction make the existence of nukes a good thing? :wtf:
I don gets
second :yes:
By some lines of thought, nuclear weapons are the reason for the vast dropoff in armed conflict since World War II.
If there's a risk of a fight leading to bombpocalypse, you don't start a fight.
I assume then that you voted for option one where nukes are a deturrent to war?
Why would you make an assumption like that? Did you miss the clause by some lines of thought?
How do you have any idea that what I said represented my opinion?
actually yes I did miss that clause. whoops.
-
Recently come across this (http://www.physorg.com/news196958310.html)
According to Dearborn, the sheer power of a nuclear explosion may make it the most practical and cost-effective option for deflecting or fragmenting asteroids, compared with alternatives such as chemical fuel or laser beams. For one thing, a nuclear explosive would be cheaper to launch into space due to its large amount of energy per unit mass. In contrast, a non-nuclear blast might require several launches for an equivalent amount of power.
Also, the nuclear option could be implemented in a short amount of time; a detonation just 15 days before impact could fragment or divert the course of a 270-meter asteroid (the size of Apophis, which has a 1 in 250,000 chance of striking Earth in 2036) to avoid a collision. On the other hand, a laser such as one at the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore would take 6,000 years to sufficiently divert the course of the same size asteroid.
As far as the radiation released from a nuclear explosion in space, Dearborn said that you wouldn’t even be able to measure the difference on Earth. The explosion would occur millions of miles out in space, where there is already an intense radiation environment.
so... nukes aren't the cause for our doom, instead they are the key to our survival? :confused:
I doubt that very much.
-
Recently come across this (http://www.physorg.com/news196958310.html)
According to Dearborn, the sheer power of a nuclear explosion may make it the most practical and cost-effective option for deflecting or fragmenting asteroids, compared with alternatives such as chemical fuel or laser beams. For one thing, a nuclear explosive would be cheaper to launch into space due to its large amount of energy per unit mass. In contrast, a non-nuclear blast might require several launches for an equivalent amount of power.
Also, the nuclear option could be implemented in a short amount of time; a detonation just 15 days before impact could fragment or divert the course of a 270-meter asteroid (the size of Apophis, which has a 1 in 250,000 chance of striking Earth in 2036) to avoid a collision. On the other hand, a laser such as one at the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore would take 6,000 years to sufficiently divert the course of the same size asteroid.
As far as the radiation released from a nuclear explosion in space, Dearborn said that you wouldn’t even be able to measure the difference on Earth. The explosion would occur millions of miles out in space, where there is already an intense radiation environment.
so... nukes aren't the cause for our doom, instead they are the key to our survival? :confused:
where's Bruce Willis where you need him :D
-
Recently come across this (http://www.physorg.com/news196958310.html)
According to Dearborn, the sheer power of a nuclear explosion may make it the most practical and cost-effective option for deflecting or fragmenting asteroids, compared with alternatives such as chemical fuel or laser beams. For one thing, a nuclear explosive would be cheaper to launch into space due to its large amount of energy per unit mass. In contrast, a non-nuclear blast might require several launches for an equivalent amount of power.
Also, the nuclear option could be implemented in a short amount of time; a detonation just 15 days before impact could fragment or divert the course of a 270-meter asteroid (the size of Apophis, which has a 1 in 250,000 chance of striking Earth in 2036) to avoid a collision. On the other hand, a laser such as one at the National Ignition Facility at Lawrence Livermore would take 6,000 years to sufficiently divert the course of the same size asteroid.
As far as the radiation released from a nuclear explosion in space, Dearborn said that you wouldn’t even be able to measure the difference on Earth. The explosion would occur millions of miles out in space, where there is already an intense radiation environment.
so... nukes aren't the cause for our doom, instead they are the key to our survival? :confused:
where's Bruce Willis where you need him :D
More like harrison ford and a lead refrigerator!
-
I voted for everything!
I am Florida!
-
I voted for everything!
I am Florida!
well, if you voted for everything I guess that's the same as voting for nothing... so that's ok.
Please lets try to change gendiscs habbit of going crazy in serious topics and causing lockage. Please??? :P
-
I am Florida too!
-
so... nukes aren't the cause for our doom, instead they are the key to our survival?
Yes. Asteroids are big rocks and changing its course takes a lot of power, something a nuke can provide.
-
As well as the whole "sail + explosion = thrust" thing for possible future spacecraft.
-
If they only needed to detonate a nuclear bomb, and not kill anyone, why didn't they just invite Hirohito to some uninhabited island and drop a bomb there?
Do you honestly think he would have gone? Or that he would have believed it?
-
As well as the whole "sail + explosion = thrust" thing for possible future spacecraft.
except there are no shockwaves in space. that is a science-fiction idea. same principle for asteriods too. you can't deflect one, you'd have to destroy it. and then you have thousands of very large asteroids rather than one unbelievably large one.
-
As well as the whole "sail + explosion = thrust" thing for possible future spacecraft.
except there are no shockwaves in space. that is a science-fiction idea. same principle for asteriods too. you can't deflect one, you'd have to destroy it. and then you have thousands of very large asteroids rather than one unbelievably large one.
Not quite true. You can use nuclear weapons to deflect asteroids by blowing them up in close proximity - energy will be imparted. And you can use a 'sail', i.e. a giant plate, as propulsion by detonating nuclear bombs beneath it (see the Orion spacecraft design.)
-
Please lets try to change gendiscs habbit of going crazy in serious topics and causing lockage. Please??? :P
No one is serious in Gendisc unless they are enraged. Shoulda tried trolling.
-
i just read the 4th of july thread and this one makes a lot more sense now.
-
Am I the only one who's going to point out that Fat Man and Little Boy were primitive atom bombs and totally different than any multi-stage nuclear weapon deployed today?
First though, this poll is idiotic (and I'm not just referring to the misspelling of deterrent, even though it's annoying me). Fission-based weaponry was in development long before the decision to use it on Japan, and the research was in place well before the Second World War even began. The war accelerated the process by virtue of the Manhattan project (and the simultaneous studies going on in the USSR and Germany), but fission-based weaponry was inevitable, and the development of modern thermonuclear weapons was a logical next step. The technology itself is neither good nor bad; it just is. The uses to which it have been put have a moral component, but considering the massive leaps in technological development the nuclear arms race of the Cold War catalyzed, I would argue it's had nothing but a positive influence.
Second, the use of the primitive atomic devices on Japan has arguably been the reason they have not been used on a population since - frankly, the results were so horrific that every leader since has been unwilling to bear the cost (especially considering the development of the MAD doctrine in the Cold War).
Third, Japan was warned - twice - about the imminent deployment of both weapons and given the option to surrender. The leadership refused. The estimated cost in Allied lives to invade Japan was 1 million+ soldiers. This does not take into account the casualties that would have resulted had the Russians also invaded, a plan for which was in the works. Think of what happened in Germany post-1945 and consider the effect if the same had occurred in Japan. It's very well and noble to think that the mass bombing of civilians is never justified, but the fact of the matter is that World War 2 was the largest total war before or since and it's conclusion was the priority on all sides - all options are on the table. Those of us who have never lived through a state of total war find it difficult to grasp the concept, but the entire economy and society of the largest nations on Earth was dedicated to nothing but the war effort. That's an enormous psychological shift from the world we live in today; one that most people can't make without a serious understanding of the historical context (something high school history fails to teach entirely).
Lastly, nobody knew what the effects of prolonged exposure to nuclear radiation were. Even the Manhattan project scientists who worked with it (there's an interesting story about how they nearly caused a fission reaction in the middle of New York) had little idea of what kind of power they were actually working with. When Truman ordered the deployment, nobody knew what a long impact it would have on Japan.
The atrocities committed by Japan (and they were many, brutal, and unforgivable) don't even factor into the equation. With the information at hand in 1945, the use of the atom bombs was fully justified and necessary - and it has probably saved countless more lives since. Imagine the carnage if a modern thermonuclear weapon was ever deployed on a civilian population.
That said, nuclear technology was inevitable. The war simply accelerated it by a decade at absolute most.
As an aside, reading some of the responses in this thread makes me think that the quality of history instruction is severely lacking in a lot of places. There are some very odd, simplistic, and in some cases downright looney interpretations of actual events and "what-ifs" going on here. Anyone who thinks we live under constant threat of global nuclear annihilation hasn't looked honestly at the geopolitical state of the world in the last 10 years. We're at the lowest likelihood of nuclear war since the Soviets tested their first device in 1949.
You want to have a discussion about the place of nuclear technology in 20th century history, then by all means I'm game (I don't think Battuta has called me a 'threadwinner' in several months now, I'm losing my touch :p). Facile one-line poll questions that don't even begin to capture the complexities involved are pointless.
Oh yeah, and while I'm at it, Iraq was never accused of having nuclear weapons, it was accused of having "weapons of mass destruction." This includes all CBRNE threats (chemical, biological, radioactive, nuclear, environmental), though Iraq was known to have previously deployed chemical weapons. Not saying the WMD possession accusation was justification for invasion, just that nuclear weapons were not a necessary component of the purported WMD hunt. Iraq and Afghanistan are also very small-scale conflicts compared to the general history of modern warfare. The number of troops currently in Iraq and Afghanistan combined don't even come close to the number of troops stationed in West Germany immediately following the cessation of hostilities in WW2, nevermind the actual numbers of combat troops involved in the invasion of Germany itself. 22 million civilians died in the Soviet Union alone between 1941 and 1945, as opposed to 100,000 (maybe) in Iraq from 2003 to 2010. Much as the loss of any life is tragic, the fact of the matter is that Iraq and Afghanistan are minor conflict in terms of strictly numbers, and totally irrelevant to any discussion concerning nuclear weaponry.
-
yeah, more people would die in a single WW2 battle than do in during the entirety of most modern "wars".
-
...referring to the misspelling of deterrent...
Fixed :D :yes:
-
What MP-Ryan said.
-
22 million civilians died in the Soviet Union alone between 1941 and 1945, as opposed to 100,000 (maybe) in Iraq from 2003 to 2010.
Not to side track the discussion, but even larger is the amount that disappeared in peace time. For a reason or the other, I tend to be suspicious of any statistics coming from Soviet Union.
The time surrounding WWI and WWII are unfathomable for me at least. Human kind should really learn from those mistakes, something what I think has not happened.
-
Well, we've learned that globally encompasing wars are bad, haven't we?
-
What MP-Ryan said.
So basically what I said put in a more eloquent but slightly less accessible manner. :p
Not ragging on you Ryan, but you do have a tendancy to bury opposition under text walls rather than be accessible for debate and hence education...
-
(http://www.amberweinberg.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/austin-powers-shagadelic.jpeg)
At least they are not as scary as carnies baby, yeah.
-
What MP-Ryan said.
So basically what I said put in a more eloquent but slightly less accessible manner. :p
Not ragging on you Ryan, but you do have a tendancy to bury opposition under text walls rather than be accessible for debate and hence education...
if someone is too lazy to read the entirety of his post, they don't need to be debating.
-
The only "good" thing about those bombings was that now everyone knows what that **** is all about. Better it was found out sooner than later, as harsh as it sounds.
-
Not ragging on you Ryan, but you do have a tendancy to bury opposition under text walls rather than be accessible for debate and hence education...
I know; it's because I'm usually so frustrated after reading the 2-10 pages before I get around to posting that I don't want to leave any wiggle room. I guess that can be a little off-putting for the people who could actually benefit from reading it ;)
-
Not to side track the discussion, but even larger is the amount that disappeared in peace time. For a reason or the other, I tend to be suspicious of any statistics coming from Soviet Union.
The time surrounding WWI and WWII are unfathomable for me at least. Human kind should really learn from those mistakes, something what I think has not happened.
Didn't the Nazis also keep statistics?
As bad as that time was, unfortunately it was the latest in a long line of vicious, brutal wars that had plagued Europe throughout its history. The 30 years war for example resulted in massive population losses, not as high in number terms, but in terms of percentages it was much worse. But, with the exception of the Yugoslav balkanization wars, that period is behind them. European military numbers are at an all time low (down from the typical million+ man armies of 1915) and defence spending is only a small percentage of their GDP. Hard to imagine how different our grandparents world was.
-
What MP-Ryan said.
So basically what I said put in a more eloquent but slightly less accessible manner. :p
Not ragging on you Ryan, but you do have a tendancy to bury opposition under text walls rather than be accessible for debate and hence education...
No way, man. MP-Ryan's got clearer prose delivery than just about anybody else on the forum. His posts are lovingly constructed and a pleasure to read, utterly transparent.
I prostrate myself.
-
Yeah, I do enjoy lurking in the longer/more serious threads and reading what he and a few other people have to say.
He did also bring some previously unmentioned **** to the table, such as the lack of knowledge on the long-term effects of radiation, etc. But yeah, he did summarise what NGTM-1R, myself, and a few other people (you know who you are) said, in one post.
-
What MP-Ryan said.
So basically what I said put in a more eloquent but slightly less accessible manner. :p
Not ragging on you Ryan, but you do have a tendancy to bury opposition under text walls rather than be accessible for debate and hence education...
No way, man. MP-Ryan's got clearer prose delivery than just about anybody else on the forum. His posts are lovingly constructed and a pleasure to read, utterly transparent.
I prostrate myself.
Yeah if you have enough patience to go all the way through it. :P Seriously, I did find it highly informative and well spoken. Good to read.
-
I said "no [...] death of the planet" (or whatever it said), but really I would've preferred some other 'no' option. If we hadn't invented nukes we wouldn't have gotten into the damn Cold War. Assuming of course that by "we" I mean everybody, not just the United States... And not just the cold war, but the whole arms race, the prolonged fear of "the reds", communism, and socialism. Not to mention how big all that stuff has led the military-industrial complex to become... Eisenhower warned us!
-
I said "no [...] death of the planet" (or whatever it said), but really I would've preferred some other 'no' option. If we hadn't invented nukes we wouldn't have gotten into the damn Cold War. Assuming of course that by "we" I mean everybody, not just the United States... And not just the cold war, but the whole arms race, the prolonged fear of "the reds", communism, and socialism. Not to mention how big all that stuff has led the military-industrial complex to become... Eisenhower warned us!
Yes but the alternative to getting into the Cold War may have been getting into the Hot War, World War III.
The argument that has been made again and again is that nuclear weapons prevented major states from getting into large-scale armed conflict, saving millions of lives.
-
A conventional war between Warsaw and NATO, especially in the 40s-50s would have made the first and second world wars look like a skirmish with an eventual victory by the Soviets quite possible. MAD kept the war cold and eventually allowed NATO to economically defeat the USSR. Granted today the United States has to live with the repercussions of the Cold War but thats a reflection on the containment policy rather then nuclear weapons.
-
Hm... true, that.
Although it looks like Russia isn't quite over it's itch for global domination... *cough*Putin*cough*
-
and people voted for the bogus answers :sigh: I thought that maybe people would take a topic like this a little more seriously. :doubt:
The fact is, many fewer people died of atom bombs than fire bombs or gunshots during the war.
-
Aww but nukes are sexy and I want to hump them! :(
/me whacks snail with a louisville slugger.
-
and people voted for the bogus answers :sigh: I thought that maybe people would take a topic like this a little more seriously. :doubt:
The fact is, many fewer people died of atom bombs than fire bombs or gunshots during the war.
Those firebombing raids used many tons of bombs with dozens of heavy bombers on each raid. The atomic bomb did even more destruction with just one plane and one bomb. That's what makes them so scary.
-
I think I once read somewhere that a B-52 carries more ordnance than an entire squadron of B-17s. Even conventional weapons are quite devastating these days.
-
I think I once read somewhere that a B-52 carries more ordnance than an entire squadron of B-17s. Even conventional weapons are quite devastating these days.
A B-52G can carry in the range of about 70 750lb bombs. (The H could actually carry more for some reason.) That works out to about 52,500lbs.
A B-17 could carry, at maximum, 17,600lbs but it wasn't going to fly very far with that. A "Germany and back" load was more in the range of 4,500lbs. A B-17 squadron consisted of between 12 and 20 aircraft so...
That actually doesn't appear to work out. 54,000lbs for a squadron.
-
Oh, righto then.
-
A-10's can carry more ordinance than WWII bombers.
-
They're also VERY large.
A-10:
Length: 53 ft 4 in (16.26 m)
Wingspan: 57 ft 6 in (17.53 m)
Height: 14 ft 8 in (4.47 m)
B-17:Length: 74 ft 4 in (22.66 m)
Wingspan: 103 ft 9 in (31.62 m)
Height: 19 ft 1 in (5.82 m)
The A-10 is fully 70% as long as the B-17. While, granted, the wingspan is only a bit bigger than half as big, nearly all of the A-10's ordinance is carried on wing mounts, while the B-17 didn't use any wing-mounts, instead carrying all ordinance internally.
Actually, B-17s just plain aren't as big as most people think they are. Yeah, they look gigantic next to the tiny fighters of WWII, but modern fighters are nearly as long, if without the huge wingspans. For example, an F-14 is only 3 meters shorter than a B-17. That's only an advantage of 15% in the B-17's favor. Not all that much.