# Atomic Bomb Opinions

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by loosewire, Mar 29, 2009.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### loosewire Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

Apr 25, 2008
1,584
435
I lived with it in Oak ridge ,Tenn. I have a picture of what was
the center, that you had to go to for everything you needed
in the restricted area. My sister died from it years later from
exposure.I had a Japanese exchange student use rice paper that
they carry with them always and printed my name in three dialecs.
I did not tell her that my father worked on the A-bomb.

Last edited: Apr 1, 2009
2. ### beenthere Retired Moderator

Apr 20, 2004
15,815
286
It saved my father from having to invade Japan. I had to live with the certainty of being vaporized if the atomic war happened - living less than 15 miles from the Pentagon. They are fascinating and scary as anything can be.

3. ### Wendy Moderator

Mar 24, 2008
20,871
2,649
I hope they are never used again, but given the circumstances, I don't think the USA had any choice, nor how we handled them during the Cold War. I don't think they're going away any time soon, since there will always be some country out there willing to build them and possibly use them themselves.

4. ### wr8y Active Member

Sep 16, 2008
232
1
The bomb saved a lot of lives in WWII and the research done to achieve it has paid off in the development of nuclear energy. Eventually, we even developed nuclear medicine.

While I don't trust certain governments with the bomb - I do not fear the bomb as much as many people do, and I can see the "other side" as well.

5. ### SgtWookie Expert

Jul 17, 2007
22,189
1,741
During WWII, the Japanese were a most fanatical and determined foe. I can't even begin to do the story justice. If you want to get an idea of what it was like from the experiences of a junior Marine enlisted man, read "With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa" by E. B. Sledge. Another book to read is "Flyboys: A True Story of Courage" by James Bradley, which does a very credible job in establishing the mindset of the people of the time.

While the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was indeed a tragedy for the hundreds of thousands of Japanese who were killed, maimed and wounded, the planned "Operation Olympic" would have been far worse - for both sides. US casualties were estimated to have been somewhere around a million; the Japanese casualties would've been much higher.

The Japanese generals and admirals remaining knew that there was no chance of a Japanese victory. The Japanese Navy was virtually wiped out, and Japanese Naval Aviation practically ceased to exist during the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot/Battle of the Phillipine Sea, where they lost around 400 aircraft and pilots in a single day, and altogether around 600 aircraft.

Their "bushido code" was to die before surrendering.

It is my opinion that at the time, our leaders really didn't have much of a choice but to go ahead and use it.

However, I have no doubts that if the Japanese or the Germans had perfected a nuclear weapon before the United States did, they would have used it against the Allieds immediately.

6. ### beenthere Retired Moderator

Apr 20, 2004
15,815
286
Knew I had this on file - I came across this in a collection of B-52 nose art on display at the Air Force Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, OH.

I am pretty sure the pilots who flew the SAC bombers knew the outcome was going to be beyond imagination. This pretty well sums it up.

File size:
31.5 KB
Views:
27
7. ### scythe Active Member

Mar 23, 2009
49
5
The problem with weapons of mass destruction is that they are too effective. It puts unimaginable destructive power into the hands of a few people. Imagine what it would have been like if Hitler had had some intercontinental thermonuclear warheads available to him in his final hours. Just a matter of time before similar situations occur again. I think it to be something that can be delayed or prolonged, but is nonetheless inevitable. Hopefully it will be centuries rather than decades...

8. ### wr8y Active Member

Sep 16, 2008
232
1
A sobering thought, scythe. A suicidal enemy with an atomic weapon could spell the end that we feared so much in the 60's. (Believe me, we did fear, I was there.)

9. ### loosewire Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

Apr 25, 2008
1,584
435
I think the power plant help break up the soviet union,intelligeent
people in the back ground doctors,scientist were not allowed to leave.
I think they a got a dose of nuclear energry ,It not over there land that
can't be use for thousands of year.That what one extra electron can do.
Government leaders have family,that why we don't have more action.

Last edited: Apr 1, 2009
10. ### beenthere Retired Moderator

Apr 20, 2004
15,815
286
Chernobyl was a horrible accident. I recall a Scientific American article that showed projected fallout plumes for commercial nuclear plants in Europe that had been struck with nuclear weapons. About 1/3 of Europe was essentially sterilized past the point where even cockroaches could survive.

11. ### loosewire Thread Starter AAC Fanatic!

Apr 25, 2008
1,584
435
The heat triangle-An atom, it get spilt into that creates friction,
the friction creates heat and burns oxygen,that burns fuel.Any
thing that exsist in the shockwave path,leaving a radiation
atmosphere in all directions.Guys ,this is open for correction.

12. ### Mark44 Well-Known Member

Nov 26, 2007
626
1
For someone who grew up at Oak Ridge as you said in one of your first posts, I'm surprised at this statement. When an atom splits ("fissions"), friction doesn't enter into things at all. When the nucleus of a heavy element splits to form one or more lighter elements plus neutrons and photons, the mass of the end products is sometimes less than the starting products. The decrease in mass becomes energy according to Einstein's $E = mc^2$ equation.

13. ### Mark44 Well-Known Member

Nov 26, 2007
626
1
One extra electron? Elements trade or share electrons all the time as ions. And the flow of electricity through a copper wire wouldn't be possible if the copper atoms weren't able to let go of an outer-shell electron. Nuclear energy comes from energy released as the mass of an atom's nucleus changes, not from electrons gained or lost from the shells.

14. ### Mark44 Well-Known Member

Nov 26, 2007
626
1
There's a new book out, Terrestrial Energy, by William Tucker. The Mar. 9 issue of National Review has a review, and discusses the section of the book on Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

Chernobyl is described as a worst-case scenario for a nuclear accident -- no shielding, appalling lack of regard for safety by the operators, and a botched response effort. Granted it was a disaster for those nearby, but the effects produced ended up nowhere near what was predicted at the time.

According to the review, there were 60 deaths, a moderate number of treatable cancers (Mark: no information in the review as to how big a number "moderate" is), and no vast radioactive wasteland.

In the US, TMI was the worst nuclear reactor event in our history - no deaths, no health effects, but a very large cleanup bill.

Due to the popularity of the film, "The China Syndrome," there have been no new nuclear reactors in the US, and several (such as the Trojan reactor near Portland, OR) have been decommissioned. In contrast to the US, France gets something like 85% of its power from nuclear energy, and reprocesses its spent fuel so that its final waste products amount to 10 g. per French citizen, an amount that fits into one room (according to the review).

Last edited: Apr 2, 2009
15. ### beenthere Retired Moderator

Apr 20, 2004
15,815
286
Of course it is. Our reactors are mostly 1950's designs, just a bit beyond the Chernobyl design. Canada has several innovative designs to compete with the French ones. Much safer and more efficient than the boiling water types.

We seem to be a nation of Luddites in this respect. Give old Jane Fonda credit - for an airhead, she has managed to influence the entire country's view of a war and of nuclear power.

16. ### leftyretro Active Member

Nov 25, 2008
394
2
I tend to disagree with most of your statements and 'facts'. The movie you site did our country a disservice by spreading so much misinformation, fear and turning a technical subject into a political food fight where solutions are not allowed just blind acceptance to the politically correct agenda. I personally believe that nuclear power would be the best overall solution to minimize green house gas emissions and lessen our dependency on foreign oil.

17. ### beenthere Retired Moderator

Apr 20, 2004
15,815
286
I believe you may have misinterpreted my statements. I cited Jane Fonda as an ignorant and politically influenced person. As far as I can see, she has been nothing but detrimental to the interests of the U.S. and it's welfare. Recall that her best movie performances are the ones where she plays a prostitute.

Frankly, not going to as close to exclusively nuclear power generation is against the long- and short range interest of the country.

Global warming? I have no firm data on how much we influence it. But there is lots of data on the destruction caused by coal mining, burning, and acid rain. There was a recent news article mentioning damage done to some homes and a river in Tennessee when a coal plants sludge pond had a major leak.

Lots of nukes might even allow the nation railroads to be electrified. I do not see any limitations to the benefit of nuclear power.

18. ### Nanophotonics Active Member

Apr 2, 2009
365
3
The atomic bomb was a great development from a scientific point of view but its devastating power is certainly no good to humanity. At the time the bombs were dropped on Japan, even Americans didn't expect it would cause such damage, as that was the first time the bomb was being tested, and the U.S used it as a last resort after the catastrophic loss of Pearl Harbour. It was a desperate move to save U.S.A from further threat. However, what happened has happened and there is no going back unfortunately, but we can change the future (Yes We Can!). I believe that science should be used for civilian applications even though its military applications are very interesting. But for the sake of peace and prosperity, the atomic bomb is a real threat to a better future. I agree that we need to defend ourselves against enemies, but it would be much better to understand each other and make friends instead of enemies. And hopefully, we'll reach a future where there won't be war which is currently causing so much pain around the world, whether it's in Afghanistan, Iraq, USA, India, Pakistan, etc. Verily, only those who have been through hell really know what hell is like, but let's forgive and look ahead for peace. Killing is Killing, as there is no such so-called "collateral" damage. A single life loss is not coming back.
Sometimes, it's difficult to take decisions, but the better we use a pen, the smarter we shall be! Nuclear reactions can be used for power generation and further research will enhance efficiency and operational security. As for global warning, strictly speaking, it has always existed, otherwise the Earth would be an icy planet today. But what we need to do is to control its effect by looking to solutions to reduce it if it is really on the rise. There are many options and it's not too late.

Thanks and Peace.

19. ### jpanhalt AAC Fanatic!

Jan 18, 2008
5,699
910

You might like this photo snapped of a MiG21:

It's tail art, so to speak.

John

File size:
39.9 KB
Views:
45
20. ### Mark44 Well-Known Member

Nov 26, 2007
626
1
You should brush up on your history. The A-bomb was tested at White Sands, NM before it was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Granted, this isn't a lot of testing, but it was tested.
The US lost many ships at Pearl Harbor, but the aircraft carriers happened to be out at sea. The stated reason for dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to prevent the extremely large losses of life on both sides that were forecast, based on the fighting in places like Iwo Jima, where the Japanese fought to the last man. It was thought that the Americans would lose at least a million troops in Okinawa, which is not even in the main group of Japanese islands.
That's a very nice thought, but it assumes that everyone can "just get along," which has never happened for very long in human history.
There were quite a lot of people with similar thoughts in 1938, when Neville Chamberlain met with Adolf Hitler in Munich, and returned to England saying that he had achieved a "peace for all time." Sometimes there are people out there who have no intention of making friends.
In fact, the global temperature has gone up and down, with ice ages and warm periods. Most recently (in geologic terms) the earth has experienced the Medieval Warm Period, from about 900 AD to about 1300 AD, followed by the Little Ice Age, between about 1650 AD to about 1850 AD. It was during the Medieval Warm Period that Vikings sailed across the Atlantic Ocean and founded colonies in Greenland, which was warm enough at the time to support some agriculture. And during that period, England is reputed to have been warm enough for wine grapes to grow. I believe that it has been too cold there in the last several centuries for this to happen.

Last edited: Apr 2, 2009