Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Is This A Fair Argument?

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Guest View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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?

Back to Top
tadamson View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
  Quote tadamson Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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..
Back to Top
Guest View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guest Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.

Back to Top
tadamson View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
  Quote tadamson Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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..
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10106
  Quote red clay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
red clay View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
Tomato Master Emeritus

Joined: 14-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10106
  Quote red clay Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Jan-2006 at 04:00
Well they did have an idea after Hiroshima but they bombed Nagasaki anyway.

Edited by Raven
Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
  Quote Maju Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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!
Back to Top
tadamson View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 25-Jul-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 451
  Quote tadamson Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post 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..
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.234 seconds.