Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Guest
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Is This A Fair Argument? Posted: 13-Jan-2006 at 19:18 |
My history teacher told the class "The americans didn't know what the true aftermath of the atom bomb drop on japan weapon would be". Is this a fair argument?
|
|
tadamson
Baron
Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Jan-2006 at 20:48 |
Originally posted by Guest
My history teacher told the class "The
americans didn't know what the true aftermath of the atom bomb drop on
japan weapon would be". Is this a fair argument? |
No, not really. Those who made the decision had a very good model
of what would happen re fallout, radiation sickness, etc...
|
rgds.
Tom..
|
|
Guest
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 13-Jan-2006 at 21:40 |
Originally posted by tadamson
Originally posted by Guest
My history teacher told the class "The americans didn't know what the true aftermath of the atom bomb drop on japan weapon would be". Is this a fair argument?
|
No, not really. Those who made the decision had a very good model of what would happen re fallout, radiation sickness, etc...
|
Thats exactly what I thought, my teacher is extremely bias but I tend to avoid conflict with her because she doesn't think I really know anything(Iam almost certain I could do a better job than her). She told the class the States had no idea about how bad the radiation sickness would be, and logicaly I thought that was probably untrue because of all the test and designing that went into creating it.
Anyways thanks.
|
|
tadamson
Baron
Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 15-Jan-2006 at 19:00 |
There was a fairly public debate in the 1930's and 1940's (and 50's for
that matter) about weather 'atomic' weapons would be deployed as 'super
bombs' or as 'permenant gas weapons'.
In fiction (early science fiction, popular in Britain, France Russia
and the US) most stories viewed radioactive dust as the most likely
superweapon, replacing specialy breed fighting animal or mutant soldier
armies..
|
rgds.
Tom..
|
|
red clay
Administrator
Tomato Master Emeritus
Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10226
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jan-2006 at 18:11 |
Originally posted by Guest
Originally posted by tadamson
Originally posted by Guest
My history teacher told the class "The americans didn't know what the true aftermath of the atom bomb drop on japan weapon would be". Is this a fair argument?
|
No, not really. Those who made the decision had a very good model of what would happen re fallout, radiation sickness, etc...
|
Thats exactly what I thought, my teacher is extremely bias but I tend to avoid conflict with her because she doesn't think I really know anything(Iam almost certain I could do a better job than her). She told the class the States had no idea about how bad the radiation sickness would be, and logicaly I thought that was probably untrue because of all the test and designing that went into creating it.
Anyways thanks. |
|
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
|
|
red clay
Administrator
Tomato Master Emeritus
Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10226
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Jan-2006 at 18:23 |
sorry about the blank, 1st time posting-
consider this, the first controlled nuclear reaction was achieved under a stadium in the middle of chicago! they only had enough material to test fire one bomb.
there is a view that the reason the bomb was dropped on a densely populated area and not an unihabited island as a warning was so the actual effects could be accurately asessed.
they did not have muchof an idea of what the full effects would be.
|
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jan-2006 at 04:00 |
Well they did have an idea after Hiroshima but they bombed Nagasaki anyway.
Edited by Raven
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jan-2006 at 07:49 |
Originally posted by Raven
Well they did have an idea after Hiroshima but they bombed Nagasaki anyway.
|
They actually planned to drop 9 bombs. But Japanese decided to surrender and that was all.
On the original question, I think that the Nordamerican government and
military experts had a fair idea of what would be the effects of The
Bomb. Yet they also wanted to experiment with living humans and bombing
Japan seemed the "adequate" thing to do. Still, they shadowed Hitler
criminal record in just 4 days.
|
NO GOD, NO MASTER!
|
|
tadamson
Baron
Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jan-2006 at 11:30 |
I repeat, they had a very good understanding of the effects, including the long term damage.
The bombs were dropped for several reasons.
#1 To force the Japanese to surrender, thus preventing the predicted 1,000,000+ casualties if they invaded Japan.
#2 To proove to the rest of the Allied command that a single
bomber attack could replace the 1000 bomber raids currently planned to
reduce other Japanese cities.
#3 To destroy important millitary centers.
#4 To show the Soviets that the immense Soviet forces could be matched by the US.
|
rgds.
Tom..
|
|