Here Is What A Small Nuclear Weapon Can Do

We don't know what we don't know. WWII could have actually been planned and started BEFORE WWI from several accounts that I have encountered. Do I know what is true? No. And neither do any of you. We just don't know. We can read, we can watch documentaries, we can research, but we really don't know the level of deceit that is being presented to us. We just don't know and we never will. I also fear DC is next. It's in my gut. I hope I'm wrong, but I do know, there will be something big. There has to be. Unfortunately. Believe me, I pray for a peaceful loving life and world, but I also have to be aware of what's happening to try to protect my blessed, beautiful family as best I can. So when I see destruction like what happened to those beautiful, loving people in Japan, I cry. My heart weeps. That is integrity. That is truth. That is how a human being reacts.

reply to post by Nonchalant


That is actually not the case. Japan was done and ready to surrender. Many high-ranking men of the military and government, including Eisenhower and Macarthur, knew that Japan would have surrendered and disagreed with the bombings.

"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima
and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.
The Japanese were almost defeated and ready to surrender...in being the
first to use it, we...adopted an ethical standard common to the
barbarians of the Dark Ages."
---Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy,
Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during World War II

MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

William Manchester, American Caesar: Douglas MacArthur 1880-1964, pg. 512.

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Norman Cousins, The Pathology of Power, pg. 65, 70-71.

www.doug-long.com...

Truman made a hard choice to authorize the bombings of Japan, not congress. Also there was a splinter group that was trying to continue the war in Japan even with Hirohito's surrender being recorded. The average rule of thumb was that an invasion of Japan wouldve cost America a million lives in soldiers because of how the citizens would not surrender. The bomb was used a deterrent to a continuation of the war, and also to scare the Soviet Union. Thats a big deal in the war was the American-Soviet relation after the war, drop a firebomb rule the world. I don't condemn America for it like everyone else does. A necessary evil I guess, I read the book a 1000 paper cranes, about a girl who got Lukemia because of the bombings. I was in 2nd grade, I also read a book about how a child was so thirsty after the bombings but wasn't allowed to drink the water do to the dead bodies in the water. Sad day in America history, massive retaliation at its fullest.

reply to post by gem_man


Thank you for the picture. The people responsible for this had negligent mothers.

reply to post by zroth


Your apparently not equipped to have an adult conversation. He was 100% correct. A think tank was put together to asses the current death count and the projected death count..

It was a very hard decision to make.. But the #'s showed that less would die from the bomb than a continued war.

Get off your high horse! Stop with the blatant lies. Stop pushing your emotional opinions as facts. Folks like yourself muddy the waters for logical debate. Please just stop. We get it.. You hate war.. your willing to lie on history to prove it.. I get it!

Originally posted by wrathofall
reply to post by sonofliberty1776

 

What's really bothering me is that they are now trying to harness the power of a supernova:

Supernova in a jar

Not really - I take it you didn't read the article at all?

The article describes a grad student using a chemical reaction as a gas dynamic model of a process that's thought to occur in some supernovae. It doesn't have any bearing at all on "making" a supernova - it's a way of studying gas flow in explosive wave fronts.

Originally posted by v1rtu0s0
The civilians were not responsible for their governments opression of other countries. Furthermore, this show of force could have been demonstrated in other ways besides hitting the heaviest innocent civilian area possible...

Actually, we actively avoided the "heaviest innocent civilian area possible" - Hiroshima was a manufacturing area. We purposely didn't nuke a number of sites in Japan that were brought up for consideration, because they had religious or historic significance to Japanese, or because they DIDN'T have a lot of military production.

Originally posted by bussoboy
reply to post by gem_man

 

While this topic is about necular bombs I thought I'd add this for those who are interested.

A former air line pilot from New Zealand by the name of Bruce Cathie discovered that necular bombs cannot be detonated at any ole time, that they can only be detonated when conditions are suitable.

To make a long story short, he started on the journey to this knolwedge as a result of noticing an airal in an airport which he could not recognise and no one in the airport could tell him what it was for.

Yeah - and ol' Bruce is full of crap. "Necular" weapons can be detonated anytime, anyplace.

If you're looking for interesting nuke trivia, though, only a certain percentage of weapons will actually fire, if it comes down to a large-scale use. You design a nuke to have a certain percentage chance of going off, to the best of your ability to influence this through design - other factors can dominate in an actual melee. Any one nuke has a design-spec likelihood of giving you a fizzle yield instead of detonating.

Originally posted by wrathofallSo when I see destruction like what happened to those beautiful, loving people in Japan, I cry. My heart weeps. That is integrity. That is truth. That is how a human being reacts.

How are you for the Chinese in Nanjing at the time? Ever cry for them?

And to all the people who fear this abomination - fear not - we know the whereabouts of an alien craft WITH WEAPONS - We can destroy buildings remotely - the mossad and cia know we are coming - TRUST US IT IS THEM WHO ARE AFRAID NOW....]

reply to post by Bedlam


I have seen this false argument so many times. The atomic bombs were not dropped to stop Japanese atrocities in China. And committing a war crime (the bomb) does not cancel out the earlier war crime (Nanjing).

The official story is they were dropped to stop the war faster. As my earlier post shows, this is not true either, though.

Japan was reluctant to surrender as they were ready to use their own nuclear weapons developed at Hungnam by the laboratories of the Imperial 8th Japanese Army.

Modern Japan cries victim but the truth is they were preparing to use nukes themselves.

Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki caused japan to consider surrender.

It was in fact the invasion of Manchuria/Korea. In particular the capture of Hungnam (Konan) and it's stockpile of nuclear facilities and nukes by soviet paratroops which forced Japan to quit

I look at that picture and wish they had the bomb years sooner, it might have prevented the Holocaust and German persecution of Jews, the invasion of Europe then the Japs attack on pearl harbour, china, indonesia and that other crap.

Of course we are also lucky Hitler didnt have it first.

But to give it the...how can they do that to those innocent people, they werent innocent, they were followers of a blind faith, they got what was coming to them, UK and USA didnt start it, Hitler did and the Japs thought they had backed a winner, they backed the wrong horse and paid and maybe some of those 'innocent deaths' will make amends for the millions killed in concentration camps, the burma death marches, the invasion of China and Hong Kong and Indonesia.

FK em all, Im not even religious so I dont believe that divine justice will be served when you die unfortunately but man I would love to see the faces of suicide bombers when they realise allah mohktada mushroom mohammed masala doesnt exis...oh ive wasted my life, BOOOM!!!

Originally posted by Skippy1138
reply to post by wrathofall

 

You do realize this was done in an attempt to STOP further "war and death" in this particular conflict,right? This was not a decision that was taken lightly....

I don't agree, that is precisely what the US propaganda machine gave as their reasons for dropping the 2 bombs when In fact Japan was on its knees and ready to surrender, the allies knew it. The bombs were dropped as a real live test and to create as much damage as possible....

The Germans were all but beat but Churchill continued to flatten Dresden with incendiaries, Its all about the Loans from the BIS and the lucrative rebuild contracts.... War is about incapacitating the enemy as quickly as possible then systematically demolishing as much infrastructure as possible so that the victors multinational companies can go in there and re build the place for obscene profit .....

PEACE,
RK

Originally posted by Skippy1138
reply to post by wrathofall

 

You do realize this was done in an attempt to STOP further "war and death" in this particular conflict,right? This was not a decision that was taken lightly....

You do realise they did this not once but TWICE...?

Hardly necessary, was it, to bomb not one but TWO cities and kill twice as many innocents in order to make your point...?

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
reply to post by BigTimeCheater

 

I absolutely agree. Hitting them with the 2 small nuclear devices was much better than the alternative for both sides.

Again, why the belief that two blasts were 'acceptible'? Two blasts was overkill! One over a populated area and another over the ocean off the coast of Tokyo would have been more than sufficient to make your point. Why the need to kill 140,000 innocents instead of 70,000?

You cannot justify it. This was a war crime.

Originally posted by Rigel Kent

Originally posted by Skippy1138
reply to post by wrathofall
[Japan was on its knees and ready to surrender,
RK

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree. They were ready to keep fighting down to the last man, woman and child.And are you aware that Japan was also working on atomic weapons? Do you think for one second that if they had succeeded that they would have hesitated to use them?
Propaganda? Nope.

Originally posted by wisdomnotemotion
Do not forget that USA continues to contaminate mother earth with Depleted Uranium bombs and Tactical Nukes on Iraq. Throughout history, It is the only country that preaches peace and yet commits the biggest murders and destruction.

The US does use DU for anti tank rounds.

Tactical nukes in Iraq? Opps, sorry, that hasn't happened.

Originally posted by wisdomnotemotion
I wish Karma come soon.

Care to elaborate?

reply to post by wisdomnotemotion


Care to post some video showing the U.S. using nukes in Iraq?