U.S. Offers Glimpse at Manhattan Project Facility 488
jonerik writes "According to this article from the Associated Press, the US government is this week permitting the public a rare glimpse of its high-security Y-12 nuclear weapons plant as part of Oak Ridge, Tennessee's annual Secret City Festival, which is being held this coming weekend. Although the plant is still associated with ongoing nuclear weapons work, members of the public will be permitted to see parts of the facility associated with its work on the Manhattan Project's 'Little Boy' bomb, which was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945. The facility produced the uranium-235 which was used in the device using 1,152 massive calutrons across nine separate buildings in 1944 and 1945. 'Don't you know the people in Knoxville wondered what in the world was going on out here,' Department of Energy guide Ray Smith said on Monday. 'All this material was coming in, truckload after truckload, and nothing ever left.'"
First thing I saw... (Score:5, Funny)
Scary in relevance to this.
Re:First thing I saw... (Score:5, Funny)
The Mayor of Hiroshima begged to differ, reminding
the gathered media of his off-touted phrase
(just after the explosion) "What the f*** was that?"
Secret City Festival? (Score:5, Funny)
-Sj53
OMG SOMEONE SET UP US THE BOMB (Score:5, Funny)
Re:OMG SOMEONE SET UP US THE BOMB (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, the Japanese.
Mmm... yummy... (Score:2, Funny)
Will the festival include a barbeque?
Re:Mmm... yummy... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Mmm... yummy... (Score:5, Funny)
What do you have something against super heroes? Do you like crime? Or just jealous you won't be getting any super powers from being exposed to uranium as a child? You are a sad, sad man.
Re:Mmm... yummy... (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sorry if this is a flame. It's just that those kinds of statements basically kill whatever shred of hope I had left in humanity.
Oh, and to stave off the "We *did* it for the sake of humanity" comments, we very well may have. But it we did it at the cost of humanity, and I'm not just
Re:Mmm... yummy... (Score:5, Informative)
Just because I'm blessed and cursed with a pedantic bent and a masochistic one, respectively, I'm going to futilely attempt to enlighten you, Anonymous Coward.
I direct your attention to Operation Downfall [wikipedia.org], the proposed plan for the United States' invasion of Japan. The estimated casualties for United States forces alone were estimated to be nearly one million men to take the island.
When you consider at the time that Japanese soldiers and even civilians who had been forced to retreat to caves refused to surrender, fought to the death, and had to be flame-throwered in the caves because they would have done everything in their power to kill American Soldiers, combined with the fact that virtually everyone in Japan who would have been able to wield any form of weapon would have made resistance, you are looking at not only the deaths of 1 Million US Service personnel, but practically the total elimination of the Japanese Population.
So, in short, yes, I think 100,000 lives were worth it. I happen to like Japan, and am glad that we dropped the bombs on them, because if we hadn't I doubt very much Japan would be around today.
Re:Mmm... yummy... (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, it turns out that there were actually more than just two options, and these were options seriously considered by Truman.
The first option was conditional surrender. The Japanese actually requested conditional surrender, with the main concession they want
Re:Mmm... yummy... (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, I do. I hate babies. They grow up into people, who breathe my precious, precious oxygen.
My oxygen.
Re:Mmm... yummy... (Score:3, Insightful)
Not sure what the story over the environment is but if it's just a few acres of trees destroyed, then I'm appalled at the logic: we kill scores of human beings (even if they are the enemy) and everyone is worried about the poor trees.
Re:Mmm... yummy... (Score:3, Informative)
What's in a name [wikipedia.org]?
Re:Mmm... yummy... (Score:5, Informative)
Results are 'remarkably similar' to using napalm [signonsandiego.com]
By James W. Crawley
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
August 5, 2003
American jets killed Iraqi troops with firebombs - similar to the controversial napalm used in the Vietnam War - in March and April as Marines battled toward Baghdad.
[...]
Mark 77 Firebomb
"We napalmed both those (bridge) approaches," said Col. Randolph Alles in a recent interview. He commanded Marine Air Group 11, based at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station, during the war. "Unfortunately, there were people there because you could see them in the (cockpit) video.
I don't think that's such a good idea. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I don't think that's such a good idea. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I don't think that's such a good idea. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not so timely news (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not like we find any reason to visit Tennessee these days...
Re:Not so timely news (Score:4, Informative)
However, I can tell you that Oak Ridge is a wonderful city. Those of us who grew up there find it a little bit boring, but in all honesty, I miss it a whole lot.
If you end up visiting, I'd suggest stopping at Big Ed's for dinner. And if you like BBQ, check out Buddy's BBQ anywhere in Tennessee. It's insulting what passes for barbecue out here in California.
Re:Not so timely news (Score:4, Informative)
Also, last I heard ORNL is still run by a combo of The University of Tennessee and Battel (sp?) so your kids will likely qualify for reduced tuition at UT when they get to college age. UT's an excellent school. :) Oh yeah, on that vein, hope you like Orange, you'll see a lot of it, everywhere. The UT fans here are quite, ahh, intense. :)
Huh? Is this new? (Score:2, Informative)
A few years ago I went on a 'bizzare places' tour round the states and this was one of the places on the agenda.
Unfortunately I didn't get a chance to go on the tour round Y-12, but they were doing daily trips from the science & technology museum in nearby oakridge.
Re:Huh? Is this new? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? Is this new? (Score:3, Informative)
The reason why they chose Washington state for plutonium work was a low density of population, with no major towns downwind. Also plenty of water for cooling and a cheap hydro. During war, the graphite reactor design went from the initial Chicago pile through one mid-size prototype to several large reactors (built at the same time as the prototype). Since the possibility of a catastrophic event was rather high, they considered a reactor fire/expl
Re:Huh? Is this new? (Score:2, Funny)
good luck getting in without a badge any time other than this event
This sounds dumb...but (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This sounds dumb...but (Score:5, Insightful)
The war in the Pacific Rim was not just between the USA and Japan. That is a horrible, horrible simplification. Japan invaded all its neighbours!
By bombing Japan, the US avoided having to clean up hundreds (if not thousands) of islands and hundreds of cities, over an immense area.
Ask any Chinese or Korean person to explain the history to you and whether they think ending the war quickly was a good idea or not.
Japan had a bunch of religious nutcases in control and the bombs shocked everyone back to reality.
Re:This sounds dumb...but (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This sounds dumb...but (Score:4, Insightful)
You men like at Nanking? Forget that, or are you just incredibly ignorant?
Re:This sounds dumb...but (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This sounds dumb...but (Score:3, Interesting)
That all sounds wonderfully simple -- until you remember that before the bombing, the Japanese were working through multiple other countries to surrender.
As for the Japanese armies in China and on mainland Asia, they were already defeated by both the Chinese communists and by Russia's Red Army.
Remember, before we nuked Japan, the US could park battleships only a couple
Re:This sounds dumb...but (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't tell you how sick and disgusting I think it is to "justify" the incineration of thousands and thousands of civilians in order to make moves on a global chessboard of what you think some other country might do.
Russia rarely expanded after the Second World War.
Especially compared to the US!
Who's the real empire here? How many times did the USSR invade the US? None. But the US and other western countries occupied parts of the USSR for years (from W
Re:This sounds dumb...but (Score:2)
Why not have parties in honour of the inventions of mustard gas, sarin or suicide bombings as well?
Re:This sounds dumb...but (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This sounds dumb...but (Score:3, Insightful)
The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs where serious war crimes. BTW I think was more a demonstration for the Soviet Union than the Japanese.
Re:This sounds dumb...but (Score:2)
The Soviets were our friends! Our bestest pals! Communism is just super-democracy! And we love democracy! Uncle Joe is a great man, not like that Mussolini fellow at all!
Well, at least till they invaded Czechoslovakia.
Re:This sounds dumb...but (Score:4, Informative)
Check into Operation Olympic vs. Ketsu-go [ibiblio.org], the invasion of Japan vs. the Japanese defense. Casualties would have been HUGE, in the hundreds of thousands, on the Allied side alone.
Re:This sounds dumb...but (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This sounds dumb...but (Score:2, Insightful)
You've missed a word there, "American" lives. It killed around 140 thousand Japanese civilian lives.
Perhaps one day the US will understand that the world we live in, hatred, war and violence included, is one of their making.
You're not the World's Police Force, nor do you have the sensitivity to become it.
Re:This sounds dumb...but (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps one day, you will understand that the world is still governed by the aggressive use of force, and that it's only the right people winning armed conflicts that allows us to simulate otherwise.
Re:This sounds dumb...but (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This sounds dumb...but (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to point out that you're not entirely correct. Okay, maybe the first bomb was justifiable, if terrible and horrifying, in the name of ending the war.
What you fail to realize is that 1) The US originally had many more targets on their list, including Kyoto, which has a large historical significance (the Heian period was a very peaceful time), and 2) They issued an ultimatum, dropped the first bomb, and dropped the second bomb before the time was up.
They could've dropped the first bomb and had the same result. The fact that they chose to drop two bombs is troubling.
Re:This sounds dumb...but (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea was brought up but, if I remember correctly, quickly abanonded by the Truman administration for the reasons you mention. If it was still on the list by the time Hiroshima was bombed, it was very far down the list. It had little military signifigance, unlike Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were still pumping out munitions.
"2) They issued an ultimatum, dropped the first bomb, and dropped the second bomb before the time was up."
However, the bombings weren't exactly simultaneous. Three days seem long enough to verify exactly what had happened to Hiroshima (it was obvious that the damage was done by a single catastrophic blast rather than a carpet-bombing campaign). And even after Nagasaki, it took six more days of waffling on the part of the Japanese government to get around to surrendering.
During those six days there was an attempted military coup aimed at preventing the emperor from surrendering, even after both bombs. Oh, and the Soviets declared war, and all this takes place months after the US submarine force set up a near-total blockade of the home islands, dooming Japan to slow starvation in any event.
Even after all this, when a sizable chunk of the Imperial Army was still willing to continue the war, why do you think the "same result" would have been acheived after just the first bomb?
Re:This sounds dumb...but (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This sounds dumb...but (Score:5, Insightful)
Fair enough...I'm American.
They could've dropped the first bomb and had the same result. The fact that they chose to drop two bombs is troubling.
Hmmm...the fact that they didn't immediately surrender makes it far less troubling in my not so humble opinion.
It's difficult for us that weren't alive during that time to have a true perspective on the moods of both nations at the time. So I wouldn't want to be the one to try to pass judgement on either side. I've visited both cities, and seen the museums with body parts in jars...a true eye opener that will hopefully never become necessary in a third location.
Re:This sounds dumb...but (Score:3, Insightful)
You have to remember... in 1945, such destruction being caused by one bomb was unimaginable. The almost total destruction of the city, the lack of available couriers, and the frying of outbound telecommunications lines (those that were left after months of US bombing), all contributed to it taking days just for reliable word of what had happened to reach the powers-that-be... it's not at all unre
Re:This sounds dumb...but (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This sounds dumb...but (Score:3, Insightful)
I think people should spend more time learning for past mistakes instead of playing an apologist for them, but that's just me.
Three Words (Score:3, Insightful)
"Troubling" he says...
Re:This sounds dumb...but (Score:2, Interesting)
Ah, it's because of messages like yours that I have "insightful" set to score "-2."
You do know that the "unconditional" surrender that Roosevelt accepted (keeping the emperor on the throne) was essentially the same as the rejected offer the Japanese had previously made, right?
Re:This sounds dumb...but (Score:3, Interesting)
You do know that there was no previous offer of surrender, right?
You do know that the actual surrender was, in fact, unconditional, right? We allowed the Emperor to stick around as a figurehead; it wasn't required.
And as far as the calculus: on one side, we have the people killed by the bomb directly. Many of them were "civilians", as much as that existed in wartime Japan.
On the other side, we have the entirety of the US armed forces, PLUS the
Re:This sounds dumb...but (Score:5, Interesting)
I live in Nagasaki (temporarily) as an American ex-pat (ex like external, not ex-wife). I sat through all the same lessons you did in school. I know the Western perspective.
They say the victor of war gets to define "history". Well, current "history", whoever the victor, isn't looking too keen on the American atomic bombing. There are several stories that the Japanese Emperor looked for a way to conditionally surrender, but the American president found that unacceptable -- the Emperor must give up his throne and tell his people he was not a god. (For this culture, that was not negotiable.) Additionally, the Japanese appeared to be postponing invasion long enough to surrender to the Soviets, who were making steady progress accross China at this time, and were supposedly 2 weeks away. The Soviets, as the theory goes, would accept a war-ending surrender that left the Japanese Emperor his throne and some dignity left. There was no realistic way the Japanese could surrender to the Americans if they believed any of them would still be alive to meet the Soviets -- the Americans knew this and were desperate to save the Japanese from the Communists.
I've been to the Nagasaki Peace Park and the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum. My grandfather was a US Navy fighter pilot in World War II. Every fiber of my being wants the Americans to have been justified in wiping out 150,000 civilians in two blinks of an eye, and perhaps tenfold (or more) than that in the decades to follow.
I'm not a historian, but I've read some history books (and watched The History Channel do its story on the end of WW2 in the Pacific). I don't claim to know what's right, but I want to offer these other perspectives for you to consider before making your bold claim that killing that many people was an effort to "save lives". Please take a look at both [wikipedia.org] sides [wikipedia.org] on Wikipedia (although it's clear you're pretty up on the proponents' side, the opposition is quite interesting to consider). We can't know for sure what happened 60 years ago. Maybe, even if the atomic bombs ended up costing more lives and Japan fell to the Russians, the world political landscape would have been different, causing World War 3 or the something like the Cuban Missile Crisis to play out differently so the long term cost in life would have been much higher. Maybe not.
Re:This sounds dumb...but (Score:2)
the American president found that unacceptable -- the Emperor must give up his throne and tell his people he was not a god. (For this culture, that was not negotiable.)
Frankly (even if this is true), that isn't sufficient. That's getting close to the finish line and then stopping. The fact that the Emperor had god-like powers was a major problem with Japan, and the war would have re-surfaced if the job were left unfinished. See Germ
Re:This sounds dumb...but (Score:5, Insightful)
That is a misunderstanding of the emperor, frankly. The Emperor has always been "a god", and still is, owing to the fact that the family ostensibly are the direct heirs of Amaterasu (who is the real deal, godwise). That doesn't change by a declaration on radio.
On the other hand, while the Emperor has always been a god, so are, in a way, all Japanese once they die. Shinto is polyteistic/animistic, and being a god isn't as hugely special as it is for a monoteistic religion.
And with that godness has pretty much never followed any actual, political power. The imperial household has pretty much throughout history been a political formality - someone for people to look up to, and to rubberstamp whoever is actually wielding political power at the moment (and if you didn't want to endorse the man of the moment, well, you're not the only member of your family and accidents do happen so easily...).
The problem was not, and have never been the imperial family. The causes were really rooted in a militaristic, nationalistic tradition that valued strength at arms and national ambition over things like cooperation and peace.
That's an important point (Score:4, Interesting)
While not _completely_ innocent of a Machiavelllian scheming (what is, in politics?) the effort to NOT seek revenge by punishing the enemy, and instead to do everything possible to rebuild their economies and get them back on their own, *independant* feet, I think was one of the wisest political decisions made in human history. The contribution to the stability and well-being of the world since is incaluable.
The sad thing is that it appears that the lesson learned there has been forgotten. Can you imagine what the world would be like today, if the US had, instead of invading Iraq, chosen to bring the Marshall Plan to Afganistan?
Not only would the quality of life for hundreds of thousands of people been improved (an absolute good in of itself) an America that chose to treat Afganistan benevolently, that rebuilt industry and infrastructure and got the country cleaned up and back on its feet, would have torn the heart out of the support base for the people who attacked the US in the first place. It's hard to get people to hate the guy whose making your life better....
Ah well.
DG
Canadian Involvement (Score:5, Informative)
But your comment "I don't think Canada would have had that level of involvement without US cooperation" is well off the mark.
Historically, Canadians don't give a fig about what the US does when it comes to going to war. We are our own independant country, and we make our own decisions.
We joined WW1 and WW2 within a couple of days of both wars starting, and in both cases Canadians were busy fighting and dying well in advance of any American involvement.
Even in the case of war material Canadians have gone it their own if they had to. In WW1 we brought the Canadian made Ross rifle (sadly, a steaming hunk of shit and a political boondoggle) and we started WW2 with our own tank, the Ram (design elements of which eventually made it into the vastly superior Sherman) When US material, usually much cheaper to obtain rather than building it ourselves, became availble we'd use it, but having access to US equipment was never a precondition to Canada going to war.
In fact, it's interesting to see which wars Canada has chose to get involved in, and which ones it chose to avoid. I think we have a pretty good batting average when it comes to finding the just ones:
WW1, WW2, Korea, Gulf War 1, and Afganistan we all get into immediately. Vietnam and Gulf War 2 we purposely pass on.
And then there's all those UN peacekeeping missions: Cyprus, the Golan Heights, Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti....
Anyway, thanks for noticing our proud military heritage. We think we've done OK over the years.
DG
Re:This sounds dumb...but (Score:3, Insightful)
"the Japanese were trying to trade the lives of several thousand of their soldiers in order to surrender to the Soviets, whom they believed would be more lenient and accepting of their culture"
The KNEW they would have to surrender, yet CHOSE not to, because they WOULDN'T accept the terms.
So, thank you for admitting I was correct.
"If you want to start telling me that the Japanese are the ones who deser
Re:This sounds dumb...but (Score:3, Informative)
The Japanese offered to surrender...
What?
Japanese soldiers out of supplies and hope for victory often ran off nearby cliffs and even, in some cases, resorted to cannibalism rather than surrender.
For the Japanese, submitting in battle was the worst humiliation possible. Only the realistic prospect of utter annihilation would (and did) convince them to surrender.
What a waste of human life.
Agreed. Unfortunately, war often confronts us with difficult situations that require less than ideal a
Re:This sounds dumb...but (Score:2)
Wow, it's the battle of the straw men. Better not light a match there, sonny. Your whole worldview might go up.
Re:This sounds dumb...but (Score:3, Insightful)
propaganda (Score:3, Funny)
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Japanese
Re:propaganda (Score:2)
Still Trying (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, a torrent. (Score:5, Informative)
Early Soviet nuclear work at Mayak (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=so
"expensive apparatuses were more valuable than the people who operated them"
"it was common to clean up spills of radioactive solutions by hand. It seems strange now, but the possibility of spills was not anticipated, and there was no way to collect spilled solution safely. We had only wash cloths, buckets, and sometimes, rubber gloves. We collected the spilled solution and poured it into big glass bottles--it was a very expensive compound and we were expected to recover every drop."
"leaks happened there they sometimes lost as much as three tons of highly radioactive product. To collect those spills with wash cloths was impossible."
"several hundred kilograms of freshly irradiated nuclear fuel got stuck--men from everywhere in the plant were called out, and one after another they used long steel rods to push the elements into the apparatus. The only protection they had was cotton overalls and gloves"
Enjoy
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=so
Should be interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
For those of you in the UK (Score:3, Interesting)
Hack Green [aeroflight.co.uk]
Home page [hackgreen.co.uk]
Not quite on the scale of this one but I thought someone here might find this of use.
Nick
Grow a thicker skin, people. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm surprised that these people aren't ashamed of being human or living in the country they do, because after all, humans fought their way to the top of the food chain and their ancestors surely took the country they live in by force from someone else. Fighting, natural selection- it's all part of nature. No matter how evolved people think they are, they still cannot break free of the most simple rules of mother nature.
Mostly BS and PR-- the real story: (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Mostly BS and PR-- the real story: (Score:3, Informative)
Unlike most ChemE, where research leads to pilot plant which leads to production plant (step 4, profit), the Manhattan Project often skipped the pilot plant stage and went directly from research to production facility. Small pilot plants allow you to determine which of several alternatives might be the most economically feasible. The Manhattan Project did not have the time to figure out which way was best, so they simply built all of the alternatives as full
My (grandfather's) Oak Ridge story. (Score:3, Interesting)
Grandfather (a civilian) actually wanted to enlist in the regular military, but was always told by the temporary military commander of this civilian school, "Uncle Sam needs you right here, teaching these cadets." Finally he gave up, decided they were right, and resigned himself to what he was best at, being a small-town physics teacher.
Immediately he starts getting draft notices in the mail. In frustration he showed the notices to the commander, who telephoned his own superiors and according to my grandfather, "Just started cussing." After five minutes, he hangs up.
The next thing my grandfather knows, he receives another notice, no return address, telling him to take a train from Murray to a town he'd never heard of near Knoxville, and not to tell anybody where he was going.
Grandfather arrived at Oak Ridge, which in his telling was hardly a town, with knee-deep mud in the streets. He asked where the town hall was (this is where he was supposed to meet his contact) but no one would say a word to him. Finally he joined in a boy's game of marbles, and found out from the children where the place was.
From the town hall, he was whisked into the nascent Oak Ridge plant, and interviewed for some hours about his background, and his knowledge of physics (which I remember was heavy on practical knowledge, but medium on sophisticated theory.)
After the meeting was over, they wouldn't let him leave the plant for several more hours, as his paperwork had gone missing during the interview.
Grandfather decided that Oak Ridge was no place to raise my three year-old father, took the train back to Murray, and went straight back to teaching those Navy cadets (and then the GI Bill veterans, after the war, and then their children.)
He died in 1996, without ever knowing the job description for which he'd been so meticulously interviewed.
Now the story about the class of graduating cadets "replacing" his entire set of "civilian" demonstration apparatus by standing at attention and presenting him with a chalkboard eraser tied to a piece of string will have to wait for another Offtopic post....
RIP, Granddaddy.
Re:good idea? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:good idea? (Score:5, Insightful)
When I was growing up, here in the UK, we had terrorist attacks from the IRA every so often (bombings, shootings, etc. mainly in London). The thing that the politicians always said was "If the terrorists change they way we live our lives and restrict what we can do then they have won" (or words to that effect). Then a bunch of people flew a plane into a building in the US and it seems the terrorists have won since everything is now being restricted to prevent terrorism... how times change.
Re:good idea? (Score:2, Insightful)
So they pile on restrictions, security checks, etc. all with the claim of "making things safer", when what they really mean is "keeping people scared". Nothing like lots of visible security to remind people that the world is a daaaaangerous place and only republicans are willing (cawf cawf) to protect the population by force.
Of course, we all know that a determined terrorist can get through ANY security with enou
Re:good idea? (Score:5, Insightful)
the difference is that they were not exploited in order to create a climate of fear completely disproportional to the actual events. incidentally that is exactly the point of terrorist tactics--but we see today that those tactics can be effectively turned around and made more useful for the (supposed) target of the attacks than for the attackers...
Re:good idea? (Score:2)
What do you suggest? A police state where the government is given unlimited power?
The US is not the only country to suffer from terrorism, the UK has had it for decades, I don't talk to many English men who run around constantly scared about whether or not something will strike though.
Re:good idea? (Score:2)
I think it's a good thing to keep in mind when dealing with things like nuclear bombs.
What do you suggest? A police state where the government is given unlimited power?
No, but I do think it's wrong to jump on people who ask questions as the original poster asked.
The US is not the only country to suffer from terrorism, the UK has had it for decades
I don't want to end up in that boat. Stamp it out now. Don't give them opportuniti
Re:good idea? (Score:3, Insightful)
"I don't want to end up in that boat. Stamp it out now. Don't give them opportunities to do more harm."
Hell no, I *refuse* to let the American public have any say at all in the Northern Ireland issue.
Marching in guns blazing will not be a solution with NI. Terrorism in the UK was dealt with slowly, carefully and for the most part effectively. It is now primarily only within Ireland and N. Ireland that bombings still oc
Re:good idea? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, the intelligence to run by the library and pick up a good book, that you might need.
Re:good idea? (Score:2)
http://www.worldnewsstand.net/4fun/bigbang.htm [worldnewsstand.net]
Re:good idea? (Score:2)
Re:good idea? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:sigh... (Score:2)
Re:sigh... (Score:2)
Re:sigh... (Score:2)
Yea and that logical thinking stopped the army from invading Iraq how? You should really be seeking to limit, with in reason for a national defence force, these peoples power. Not encouraging them to build weapons designed to inflict massive civilian casualities. Weapons designed with the sole intent, of destroying entire cities, women, children, combatant or not.
Re:sigh... (Score:2)
I just see no justification for weapons which aren't even targeted against enemy soldiers but rather enemy cities, packed as I mentioned, with CIVILIANS.
Re:sigh... (Score:3, Informative)
Pu is a toxic waste from energy production perspective and should be burried, not re-made into nuclear fuel.
Re:sigh... (Score:2)
I forgot--perhaps you can refresh my memory: How many nukes did we use in the most recent Iraq war?
-Grym
Re:sigh... (Score:2)
I think you can safely say that the US has killed more people with nukes than Iraq... Just because the US hasn't used a nuclear weapon recently shouldn't give them the right to tell other countries that they can't do the same - only when the US has decomissioned all it's weapons of mass destruction would it be non-hypocritical to tell other people they shouldn't have weapons of mass destruction.
Infact, giv
Re:sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nomatter who you're talking about, I don't see what gives the right for one country who has weapons of mass destruction (and has used them in the past) to tell another country that they can't develop their own. If the US decomissioned it's weapons of mass destruction then it would be in more of a position to make that point. Like it or not, the US is _not_ the most morally superior and trustworthy country in the world.
Re:sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone wanting to join the UN has to agree to this and not develop nuclear weapons. In return they get access to nuclear theory and technology to make (for example) nuclear energy reactors.
If you're a country and you want to develop nukes, then you're in for some serious trouble. If you're a member of the UN then you're breaking the rules, so everyone gets pissed off at you. If you're not a member of the UN then you're considered to be the bad guys, so everyone gets pissed off at you.
The problem is that as a country you can't really afford to have everyone pissed off at you because you face things like international pressure, political sanctions and pre-emptive strikes. In today's globalised interdependent economy, these things really matter.
Re:sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:sigh... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:sigh... (Score:3, Informative)
I think you meant to say permanent members of the Security Council...
Re:sigh... (Score:5, Funny)
Tell me about it. I did a nuclear strike in Persia in Civ III, and suddenly everybody went bananas on me.
fallacy (Score:5, Insightful)
to extrapolate from individual characteristics (even culturally shared ones) to political/military outcomes, or even aggregate behaviour, is a fallacy.
this is like the old story of people saying that we have wars because it's 'human nature', when in fact while 'human nature' may give us the capacity to be soldiers (as well as to not be), it is ultimately *politicians* who start wars, not average people--average people just participate in them (and can escalate them through their participation).
equally, while you may say that because of some shared cultural characteristic japanese soldiers were less likely to give up the fight once they were involved in it, this does not imply that the japanese political/military elite would have had incentives to continue fighting no matter what. you cannot treat all japanese as if they had the same incentive structure.
the average japanese soldier was motivated by a belief in the emperor, the japanese nation, following orders and carrying out his duty. but what was the emperor motivated by? what were the generals motivated by? and when you put them all together, what is the systematic behaviour? it's not the same thing.
japan did in fact realise that it was losing, and while it is true that the average soldier probably would have fought to the death (just as many people would fight to the death defending their country, or what they see as their country's right), this does not imply that people making decisions would have taken them on the basis of 'death before defeat'. clearly this was shown not to be the case by the japanese surrender. there is absolutely nothing in the history that indicates that they would not have surrendered had it not been for the atomic bomb being dropped. what makes the atomic bomb somehow override japanese people's supposed character of wanting to fight to the death, where other means do not?
Re:fallacy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I feel special (Score:2)
He's going to have a lot of explaining to do when he wakes up and sees a bunch of Japanese tourists taking his picture.
Re:Big Ed's Pizza (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I won't be able to visit (Score:5, Insightful)
And, having grown up in Oak Ridge, I can tell you that no one forgets what the bombs did. No one in Oak Ridge ever tries to cover up what happened. Quite frankly, I'm disappointed that you are so willing to dismiss a city and project that has had an immeasurable impact on history. Should we celebrate the death of more than one hundred thousand civilians? Certainly not. But neither should we ignore the contribution that the workers, engineers, and scientists of Oak Ridge made toward the ending of the most horrible war that we have ever seen. Many of the workers from Oak Ridge made tremendous sacrifices to serve their country in the way that they could, and the honor in those sacrifices should be respected, regardless of the end result, especially since most of the workers were unaware of the nature of the project.