American use of nuclear weapons against Japan

[Miz]

Well either u get blown up to ashes or deal with EXTREMELY painful burns. It still is very inhuman as a weapon.

Really any killing of any kind is inhumane, and I am sorry but killing each other is Human Nature.

Anyway, Yes it was bad, but you see. At least the US learned that it was bad, only the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were used in military combat, all others dropped were for testing purposes only. (and we don't even do that anymore...)

 

[TFlan]

I didn't feel like reading all of the thread but so far I haven't seen someone post this.

Bad idea coming into a debate with this many posts.

---

We all know killing is unmoral etc etc, lets get on topic.

---

We already covered that the US knew what would happen.

---

Enough with the negatives on the after effects, if I take a gun and shot your leg it hurts, if I pinch you it hurts, if I blow you to hell and back... it hurts. We know painful things... well hurt, notice the "painful".

Sorry to point out the obvious and sound aggressive there, but those "what if" posts are stupid.

---

Awesome, now that those are out of the way and hopefully done with.

Lets get some new points to the debate instead of bringing up old ones?

 

[TheDamien]

I didn't feel like reading all of the thread but so far I haven't seen someone post this.

Regarding what I've read saying the US didn't know the effects of a nuclear weapon; then think again.

During the Manhattan project, the US tested dozens of nuclear weapons in the Trinity weapon tests. The scientists in the project first thought it would blow up the world but realized it's destructive power. They understood it released radiation. They studied their tests through camera recordings in buildings and recorded radiational levels.

Trinity wasn't a series of tests, it was a single test, and a lone nuclear explosion in the desert doesn't provide you with enough data to correctly predict the extended effects of a nuclear attack on a populated city. The Manhattan scientists weren't prescient, you know.

 

[Battlemapsta]

Some people from what I've heard consider Trinity as a single nuclear test but in addition, the first dozen or so tests conducted before the 2 infamous bombings were put into what some call the Trinity Series Tests. People have their own opinion u know but one single nuclear explosion did not guarantee succession.

The US obviously conducted much more tests before the Japanese bombings.

And besides, the US was pressured by the war. They had no more time to worry about testing and were forced to load up the nukes on the Enola Gay flight. But even after the war, the US already conducted the Ivy Mike test/first hydrogen bomb test. Then we were back to experiement in the enormous power of the new nuke and it's after effects which vastly outpowered a normal fisson nuclear weapon. The thermonuclear age was a very big thing and a backwards turn in a way to understanding the true mechanics of a nuclear weapon.

If nuclear weapons never released fallout, we would've already created more powerful nukes. Forget the 50 megaton Soviet Tzar bomb and say hello to possibly 800 megaton thermonuclear devices or possibly, a new evolution of plasma devices.

 

[TheDamien]

There were no Trinity series tests. "Trinity" was the testing of a single nuclear device, taking place in July of 1945 shortly before the nuclear attack in August. Trinity wasn't even a weapons test.

 

[Battlemapsta]

Either way, it was not just one test that was launched during the Project before the actual bombings. This arguement is settled.

 

[TFlan]

Argument is not settled... you have obviously not been in a debate before.

There was one "test" done before Trinity yes, but that was to test the instruments used to observe the atom bomb explosion. Which was 100+/- tons of TNT I do believe, been awhile since I studied this. I you look at pictures of the site you can see a small crater, created by this, to the southeast of the hypocenter? of the test bomb.

Trinity was a SINGLE test. Nothing less, nothing more.

There were previous tests of the different components, but not in a "Trinity Series".

Stop playing this stupid "what if" game, its elementary, I feel like I'm arguing with a 3rd grader. Nuclear Explosions have fallout, deal with it.

No you wouldn't have a 800 Megaton bomb, there is a ban on how powerful nuclear devices can be made. There is even a ban on testing, weather in space, the atmosphere, underwater, and even underground.

Again, spend 30 seconds online or in a book (for once) and learn something.

Your third paragraph is even more off topic, we are talking about Fission explosions, in this case the bombs Fat Man and Little Boy.

Your fourth paragraph is the "what if" game. Stop it. Now. It's stupid and elementary.

----

ON TOPIC!

Title of the thread is this:

Debate: American use of nuclear weapons against Japan

Follow it, don't go on some tangent. If you must, make a new thread.

 

[TheDamien]

Either way, it was not just one test that was launched during the Project before the actual bombings. This arguement is settled.

Trinity was the only nuclear test before the actual bombings. Plenty came afterwards, though.

 

[hi_im_bob]

At the Trinity Test it was determined that a nuclear bomb would not destroy the earth. At that point they felt that they really didnt care how much destruction or damage it would cause as long as it would end the war. Do you realize how much money it was costing to run the war for the U.S? Today it would have cost 1.5 trillion dollars. The U.S. had to end the war in the pacific soon because it was going broke and was getting little support from its wartorn allies.

Also it approximatly 36 million civilians were killed during World War II, however 90,000 to 140,000 was the total deaths because of the atom bomb (including radiation).

So because of the monatary costs to the U.S. and the small percentage of civilian death in the greater scheme of things the U.S. was justified.

Please try and picture yourselfs after the European Theater was over. Millions of soldiers and civilians were dead. The Holocaust and other war attrocities had occured. The last thing that the US people and government wanted was another long drawn out conflict in Japan, when it was clear that Japan would not emerge victoriuos.

 

[Varine]

Well... it was that or use normal bombs which probably would have done the same amount of damage, if not more, over a longer period of time, not been as effective in ending the war, and the US would have invaded Tokyo, meanwhile the Soviet Union would have felt like Manchuria was their's and taken that and probably not given it back, and then the US and the Soviet Union would end up going to war and Japan wouldn't even be there anymore. So... yeah, it seems like it was a good choice to me.

90,000 to 140,000

No, there was 140,000 in Hiroshima. There were like 70,000 in Nagasaki.

No you wouldn't have a 800 Megaton bomb, there is a ban on how powerful nuclear devices can be made. There is even a ban on testing, weather in space, the atmosphere, underwater, and even underground.

No, there's a treaty that some nations have agreed to that restricts the use of testing them. But it's not like anyone's going to regulate it or it's impossible to withdraw from.

 

[tom_mai78101]

No, there's a treaty that some nations have agreed to that restricts the use of testing them. But it's not like anyone's going to regulate it or it's impossible to withdraw from.

So, under specific circumstances, nuclear bombings are allowed?

 

[Battlemapsta]

Hell no. We are trying to prevent it. The more we got to know about the nuclear fallout, the stricter regulation became. First we began nuclear testing with atmospheric testing. It soon became banned. Then people kept testing until the ban was enforced to only allow underground testing.

Later after that, underground testing was banned. Look in 2004 I think. North Korea attempted to test a nuclear device which failed and the all nuclear test ban was made in like the 1980s when all testing was banned.

We also saw Pakistan test a device which succeeded.

 

[Miz]

Yes but the only thing keeping the nukes in check is the fear of getting nuclear annihilation when you attack your enemy, and they get to you 1st.

 

[Battlemapsta]

Don't be too sure of that. There are people/terrorists under the public eye who would use them relentlessly. I believe that terrorists posessing nuclear weopons would lead to disaster.

 

[MasterOfABCs]

War is always Us Vs. Them.

So, in the name of good argument, let us commence experimentation.

Behold, what if no nukes hit Japan?

http://www.introversion.co.uk/defcon/downloads/index.html

 

[Miz]

I am talking about Countries with nukes, not extremist groups. But don't forget, These days we aren't completely defenseless when it comes to ICBMs... and if none of those work (which is highly unlikely), we do have these things.

 

[Battlemapsta]

Most of the shelters constructed in US are practically demolished or locked tight. They were built in the 1960s. We saw what the fisson weapons did to Hiroshima and Nagasaki but to think that a fallout shelter can save us from a thermonuclear device is highly controversial. The shelters aren't exactly reliable in a tense nuclear event but it's best to risk it then to die from radiation I say.

 

[Miz]

Yes but I am speaking in a sense if that all else fails; The Anti-ICBMs, The 2nd missile shield, The Intercepting Jet, Neutral Particle Beam, the Intercepting Chemical laser, The Missile that shoots out more missiles, etc.

Really the last resort, is that we fire everything we got at it... and hide in shelters.

Really that's alot you have to go through, also don't forget, launching a nuke also gives away one of your positions (or the area) at least.

Anyway back on topic

 

[Varine]

Don't be too sure of that. There are people/terrorists under the public eye who would use them relentlessly. I believe that terrorists posessing nuclear weopons would lead to disaster.

Thus, the infamous War on Terror. I might have been mistaken in what I was doing, but I'm pretty sure for my part I was being sure terrorists weren't attacking us. Except they did steal a missile once....

Yes but I am speaking in a sense if that all else fails; The Anti-ICBMs, The 2nd missile shield, The Intercepting Jet, Neutral Particle Beam, the Intercepting Chemical laser, The Missile that shoots out more missiles, etc.

Really the last resort, is that we fire everything we got at it... and hide in shelters.

Really that's alot you have to go through, also don't forget, launching a nuke also gives away one of your positions (or the area) at least.

Anyway back on topic

That's assuming they can track it. There are ways to circumvent the systems so that it can't be tracked via conventional means.

So, under specific circumstances, nuclear bombings are allowed?

No, I'm saying that no one is going to stop someone from trying to do so. The world would in all probability immediately condemn any use of nuclear weapons, but there's no group that's going around and being sure that everyone is complying with it.

 

[The Helper]

No Nukes! Hall of Fame!