Happy Hiroshima go BOOM Day!

[dbackjon]

Cheers to the hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese lives saved!

[Pwns]

Cheers to the hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese lives saved!

Try to imagine a world where it's not possible or just not practical to make atomic bombs and we're stuck making only conventional weapons.

I think you would've seen another world war with all of Europe fighting the Soviets with Mao's China and Japan probably joining them and wreaking havoc on their neighbors. Meanwhile in the US we'd be too occupied fighting commie dictators in South and Central America to help much. It would've been even bigger in scale and casualties than WW2 IMO.

If you're person that generally thinks war is more about profit and power instead of principles I don't see how you can be adamant that nuclear disarmament is a good thing.

[CID1990]

Cheers to the hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese lives saved!

Try to imagine a world where it's not possible or just not practical to make atomic bombs and we're stuck making only conventional weapons.

I think you would've seen another world war with all of Europe fighting the Soviets with Mao's China and Japan probably joining them and wreaking havoc on their neighbors. Meanwhile in the US we'd be too occupied fighting commie dictators in South and Central America to help much. It would've been even bigger in scale and casualties than WW2 IMO.

If you're person that generally thinks war is more about profit and power instead of principles I don't see how you can be adamant that nuclear disarmament is a good thing.

The existence of nuclear weapons are THE reason that human war deaths proportional to population have dropped exponentially since the end of WWII. We had a discussion about this a few months ago here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dbackjon]

Cheers to the hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese lives saved!

Try to imagine a world where it's not possible or just not practical to make atomic bombs and we're stuck making only conventional weapons.

I think you would've seen another world war with all of Europe fighting the Soviets with Mao's China and Japan probably joining them and wreaking havoc on their neighbors. Meanwhile in the US we'd be too occupied fighting commie dictators in South and Central America to help much. It would've been even bigger in scale and casualties than WW2 IMO.

If you're person that generally thinks war is more about profit and power instead of principles I don't see how you can be adamant that nuclear disarmament is a good thing.

Good chance you are correct - the fear of nuclear war has done a great deal to keep the peace.

So in the short term, it has been a success. The fear is WHO has them. A nuclear war could end up killing billions. Or nuclear arms in the hands of the wrong actor could reek havoc on a country that no conventional weapon could do.


And make no mistake, regardless of nuclear/no nuclear, war is always about power and profit.

[AZGrizFan]

Try to imagine a world where it's not possible or just not practical to make atomic bombs and we're stuck making only conventional weapons.

I think you would've seen another world war with all of Europe fighting the Soviets with Mao's China and Japan probably joining them and wreaking havoc on their neighbors. Meanwhile in the US we'd be too occupied fighting commie dictators in South and Central America to help much. It would've been even bigger in scale and casualties than WW2 IMO.

If you're person that generally thinks war is more about profit and power instead of principles I don't see how you can be adamant that nuclear disarmament is a good thing.

Good chance you are correct - the fear of nuclear war has done a great deal to keep the peace.

So in the short term, it has been a success. The fear is WHO has them. A nuclear war could end up killing billions. Or nuclear arms in the hands of the wrong actor could reek havoc on a country that no conventional weapon could do.


And make no mistake, regardless of nuclear/no nuclear, war is always about power and profit.

If that were true, there would have been zero impetus to drop one, let alone two, onto Japan.

[JohnStOnge]

Honestly, I agree that the bombs meant less overall loss of life. But I wish the technology did not exist. I wish the principles of physics that allow it to exist were not real. But they are.

phpBB [video]

[dbackjon]

Good chance you are correct - the fear of nuclear war has done a great deal to keep the peace.

So in the short term, it has been a success. The fear is WHO has them. A nuclear war could end up killing billions. Or nuclear arms in the hands of the wrong actor could reek havoc on a country that no conventional weapon could do.


And make no mistake, regardless of nuclear/no nuclear, war is always about power and profit.

If that were true, there would have been zero impetus to drop one, let alone two, onto Japan.

You aren't making a valid point. I stated in the OP that there was valid reasons to drop the first and second (ever, so no one REALLY knew what the impact would be).

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Try to imagine a world where it's not possible or just not practical to make atomic bombs and we're stuck making only conventional weapons.

I think you would've seen another world war with all of Europe fighting the Soviets with Mao's China and Japan probably joining them and wreaking havoc on their neighbors. Meanwhile in the US we'd be too occupied fighting commie dictators in South and Central America to help much. It would've been even bigger in scale and casualties than WW2 IMO.

If you're person that generally thinks war is more about profit and power instead of principles I don't see how you can be adamant that nuclear disarmament is a good thing.

Good chance you are correct - the fear of nuclear war has done a great deal to keep the peace.

So in the short term, it has been a success. The fear is WHO has them. A nuclear war could end up killing billions. Or nuclear arms in the hands of the wrong actor could reek havoc on a country that no conventional weapon could do.


And make no mistake, regardless of nuclear/no nuclear, war is always about power and profit.

Every country needs nuclear weapons. There is no reason only a few of us do. It's as ridiculous as only law enforcement having access to guns.

Cops are the last people that need guns, they need to be more like the local law enforcement in France and not carry side arms

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

Good chance you are correct - the fear of nuclear war has done a great deal to keep the peace.

So in the short term, it has been a success. The fear is WHO has them. A nuclear war could end up killing billions. Or nuclear arms in the hands of the wrong actor could reek havoc on a country that no conventional weapon could do.


And make no mistake, regardless of nuclear/no nuclear, war is always about power and profit.

Every country needs nuclear weapons. There is no reason only a few of us do. It's as ridiculous as only law enforcement having access to guns.

Cops are the last people that need guns, they need to be more like the local law enforcement in France and not carry side arms

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

This might be your most incomprehensible post ever. Have you been into the Lucky Lager today?

[dbackjon]

Every country needs nuclear weapons. There is no reason only a few of us do. It's as ridiculous as only law enforcement having access to guns.

Cops are the last people that need guns, they need to be more like the local law enforcement in France and not carry side arms

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

This might be your most incomprehensible post ever. Have you been into the Lucky Lager today?

And that is saying a lot

[Pwns]

Good chance you are correct - the fear of nuclear war has done a great deal to keep the peace.

So in the short term, it has been a success. The fear is WHO has them. A nuclear war could end up killing billions. Or nuclear arms in the hands of the wrong actor could reek havoc on a country that no conventional weapon could do.


And make no mistake, regardless of nuclear/no nuclear, war is always about power and profit.

If that were true, there would have been zero impetus to drop one, let alone two, onto Japan.

We were the only ones that had the nuke. I dont think there's another country in the world that was within a couple of years of having one. Maybe Germany, but by 1945 they were pretty much wrecked.

I agree they aren't completely without dangers, but as long as we keep them from nihilistic Islamocrazies the risks are minimal.

[Pwns]

Honestly, I agree that the bombs meant less overall loss of life. But I wish the technology did not exist. I wish the principles of physics that allow it to exist were not real. But they are.

phpBB [video]

I would completely and entirely disagree.

If CO2 emissions are going to ruin the planet (and I think you'd admit it's at least possible) nuclear energy is the only way to get off of fossil fuels in a timely way (and of course there are other good reasons to get away from them). It's easily the scariest form of power generation, but in terms of death per units of power generation, it beats every form of energy there is.

Nuclear reactions may also be the only way to get meaningfully large cargos into space. If you want to get cargos with construction materials and equipment and life-sustaining equipment into space like Elon Musks wants you'd need a preposterously large spacecraft that creates all kinds of practical problems if you were using combustible fuels.

[JohnStOnge]

If CO2 emissions are going to ruin the planet (and I think you'd admit it's at least possible) nuclear energy is the only way to get off of fossil fuels in a timely way (and of course there are other good reasons to get away from them). It's easily the scariest form of power generation, but in terms of death per units of power generation, it beats every form of energy there is.

I do not view CO2 emissions as a threat to ruin the planet. I do believe they are having an effect on the climate. I believe that the planet is warmer now than it would be if not for fossil fuels use and I believe it will be warmer in the future. However, I believe we are capable of managing the situation.

I also think renewable energy technology is advancing rapidly. As an aside this past Sunday while on a trip to a conference I stopped by the home of an old colleague of mine. He's kind of a survivalist and I don't know about that but he lives in the middle of nowhere. He generates all of his own electricity with solar power. Stores the excess so he's got power when the sun isn't shining.

Just looked it up and saw that as of 2018 the share of US energy generated through renewables has doubled since 2018. It was at 18%. Obviously that's far short of overall demand. But it's a lot. And it's a lot more than 10 years ago. 10 years from now it'll be a lot more.

There are certain things that renewables can never do. At least I can't see it. Like jet aircraft. But I don't see nuclear energy as doing that either.

Since nuclear energy potential does exist I think we should use it. But I'd rather that the physics that allow it to exist weren't as they are.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Every country needs nuclear weapons. There is no reason only a few of us do. It's as ridiculous as only law enforcement having access to guns.

Cops are the last people that need guns, they need to be more like the local law enforcement in France and not carry side arms

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

This might be your most incomprehensible post ever. Have you been into the Lucky Lager today?

Nope, All I have been doing today is jet boating and fishing

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[css75]

My father in law was training for the Japanese invasion when we dropped the big one. I am sure my life would have been different without the bomb. Casualty estimates for taking Japan were off the charts.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk