[Updated on: Tue, 22 July 2003 17:26]

Report message to a moderator

Quite interested in this myself, but the link doesn't seem to work
I'll try again later on and make a few of my own comments maybe.

Report message to a moderator

the webpage works, but you have to copy paste..


Ash

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

It would appear that some souls are either severely misguided, or that they are not taking your poll seriously. I'm shocked!

Yes, atomic fission and hydrogen fusion bombs are both termed "nuclear", since the explosions are the result of atomic-level processes.

The bombs used on Japan were both basically prototypes of two different types of fission bombs, where the splitting of heavy atom nuclei resulted in the release of energy. The first bomb, dropped on Hiroshima, was a uranium-based bomb termed the "Little Boy". The second bomb, dropped on Nagasaki, was named the "Fat Man" and was a plutonium implosion-type weapon.

Official statistics involving the use of atomic weapons on Japan during WWII.

On July 16, 1945, at the Big Three conference at Potsdam, the U.S., the Soviet Union, and Great Britain drafted the Potsdam Declaration, telling Japan to surrender unconditionally or face "prompt and utter destruction."

The Japanese rejected the offer on July 29, 1945.

Hiroshima: August 6, 1945, the uranium bomb, Little Boy, exploded at 8:16 a.m. Hiroshima time, 43 seconds after it left the B-29 Enola Gay, almost 2,000 feet above the ground. It had a yield equivalent to 20,000 tons of TNT. Everything within four square miles was destroyed.

Instantly Killed:
70,000
Instantly Injured:
70,000
December 1945 total death toll:
140,000
1950 total death toll:
200,000

Nagasaki: August 9, 1945, the plutonium bomb, Fat Man, exploded 1,650 feet above Nagasaki at 11:01 a.m after it left the B-29 Bockscar. It had a force of 21,000 tons of TNT. Everything within three square miles was destroyed.

Instantly Killed:
40,000
Instantly Injured:
60,000
January 1946 total death toll:
70,000
1950 total death toll:
140,000

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki caused just a fraction of the casualties of WW II. The March 1945 fire bomb raid on Tokyo (using conventional incendiary devices) killed nearly 100,000 people and injured over 1,000,000, and

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Here again I am going to stick my neck out in the open:
I study nuclear physics at the uni and so you could probably class me as a "specialist"

A-Bombs are all the fission nukes
H-Bombs are all the fussion or thermonuclear nukes
Dirty bombs are the chemexp radioisotope dispencers
Dirty nukes are all the nukes that are "salted" to give more lethal fallout
Clean nukes are all nukes where fallout radiation is minimized.
Note this also includes all non-salted AM triggered Nukes, though LiD2 nukes of this type are much cleaner.

Generally modern ICBM nukes have exp eqx of 0.1-0.3 Mt TNT
Ballistic missiles on subs, twice that
Bomber cruise missiles = about 1Mt
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were 0.015-0.02 Mt
Nukes of 10, 20 and even 30 Mt has been tested but they are so cumbersome and 1/r^2 rule make them less effective economicaly and almost useless militarily.
The only military use of nuke more powerful than 1.5 Mt TNT I know of is the great big "dirty" hostage nuke in US. It is calculated if that device was detonated the resulting fallout would be sufficient to make all of the earth's surface uninfabbitable to all higher forms of life. I don't think that anyone else but Americans has such a Doomsday Device.

From where I stand exploding those early A-Bombs is a crime 10 times more severe than exploding the most powerfull H-Bombs for it is roughly by how much less the modern H-nukes produce of the fallout material. This is the case because today we use almost pure plutonium/LiD2 mix. It requires ten times less fissionable material to initiate and induced ground radiation is not that much of the drama as everybody paints it. Mainly because most of the nukes will go airbust not ground detonation.

To conclude, I'd like to mention that 10-13 yrs after the Cold War the United States Gov produces roughly 3-4 new nukes every day.

Report message to a moderator

alexdstewart wrote on Sat, 02 August 2003 23:18

....I'd like to mention that 10-13 yrs after the Cold War the United States Gov produces roughly 3-4 new nukes every day.

Well, hooray for us.

I happen to think nukes under the control of the US government is a good thing.

Good post, informative. Thanks.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[quote title=gible wrote on Mon, 04 August 2003 12:34]How clean are the clean nukes?
quote]

clean nuke = contradictio in terminis IMO. Fall-out is less, not zero. Furthermore, due to the fact that more and more countries have these things (and that the global political arena is getting more worisome by the day), it's going to be on a scale not comparable to WWII if they're ever to be used again.

No need to worry in that case, chances are pretty good you or I won't see the nuclear winter.

<slapping his head to get rid of this negativity>
And there are people that think I'm a pessimist

Luckily I've got a huge faith in mankind. Soon they will come to the conclusion, nukes are not the answer; now just hope they will see that *before* they will use them ever again,

BR

Report message to a moderator

Cheer Up Guys!
Here are some of the facts I'd like you to know:
A coal powerstation RELEASES about the same amount of uranium as the same power nuclear powerstarion consumes and stores as a nuclear waste.
Clean nukes aren't that clean that's for sure, but it is my conviction that fission activated nukes are soon going to be the thing of the past.
AM nuke is a device that uses stored ice antimatter to initiate the high temperatures needed to kick start thermonuclear reaction of the surrounding LiD2.
Calculations indicate that U need about 2-10 ng of AM to initiate ANY nuke. Say hello to 100 Mt portable nukes
With the present tech, producing antimatter is expencive. But the technology needs only a few magnitudes of efficiency improvement to become cheaper than plutonium-LiD2 nukes of today.
Now when an AM nuke explodes it leaves only two radioactive substance in the fallout: He3 and T. Both are of little concern as one of them decays rapidly and the other is fairly low energetic with long Half-Life. Induced radiation by neutrons of such a nuke is still and issue but it depends heavily on compostion of the soil near Ground Zero. In general, yes they are safe enough to use in civil engeneering. But advances in cancer treatment are needed to metigate the issue complitely.

Today's nukes require extrimely expensive maintance since their main components T and Plutonium decay fairly quickly and the nukes are 'refueled' every few yrs to keep them operational.

Report message to a moderator

nice sig btw, very uplifting

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Which weapon type was more cost effective in WWll, a nuke or a nerve gas bomb? You'd be surprised, it was the nerve gas, at least for Germans... They were the only ones to posses the technology to manufacture the first type of nerve gas in 1942. A V-1 or V-2 rocket loaded with these is much more effective that allied bombers. Germany had the capability to eradicate many times more people than they did. Why didn't they use it? Because they assumed that their adversaries had at least some sence of nobility and didn't use nerve gas of their own because it was such a terrible weapon, so they feared reprisals. In reality none of their enemies had anything close to a nerve gas agent.
We know now that Chechen rebels have many dirty bombs,(we know this because they gave one of the spare bombs to us!) why don't they use it? Cause they fear reprisal, as a use of such weapon would spell their sure eradication.
Now what did the American Gov do when they got their hands on their first nukes? They bombed the industrial centers, namely Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Where was their fear of reprisal then?
I fear I would rather trust a nuke in hands of most terrible dictators and most atrocious armed bands than in the hands of United States Gov.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

[Updated on: Sun, 21 September 2003 23:21]

Report message to a moderator

(Warning notice inserted by Ron)
--- Warning: The following post contains the personal opinions of the author, and in no way expresses the opinions of the Moderators or the Administrator of this forum. The opinions below are quite strong and derogetory in nature towards certain cultures and governments. If such things offend you, please skip this post.

If this post creates a flame-fest with hateful speech and racial remarks, I'll have to delete both this post and replies to it. The server containing this forum is owned by a private religious university and I guarentee that I'll have to do something if this gets out of hand.

To the individuals involved: you may want to consider carrying on this debate/arguement/conversation via Private Messages. ---



LIBERALS!

Peace is what happens after you beat the snot out of the guy who hurts you. Once he can no longer fight, then you have peace. Never before. Strength and the judicious use of it makes peace. Mindless restraint and cowardly appeasement get you nowhere that you want to be.

Look to the Israelis to see what appeasement and restraint get you. The more restraint they show and the more concessions they make to the "Palestinian" leaders, the more women and children the "Palestinians" kill. All those so-called "Palestinians" (boy, is that ever a misnomer - the Israelis are the TRUE Palestinians) are not truly a race; rather, their origin is a collection of arabs disenfranchised by the failing arab dictator governments around them, who have been brainwashed into thinking the Israelis are the problem, and that there's a special place in heaven with 72 virgins for those of them who kill the Jews. How do you fight that with concessions? You can't. Before there will ever be peace in that region, one side is going to have to annihilate the other. I'm rooting for the Jews. They are a democratic and free country, who build and create things of beauty and contribute medical research to the betterment of civilization as

[Updated on: Tue, 23 September 2003 22:50] by Moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

As regards the actions of the USA I stand firmly behind the actions in Iraq as well as Afghanistan. I stand behind any nation that helps others to find relief from oppression. I applaud the courage of the leaders of my country and those countries who supported the cause to take action against evil in a time where evil is showing its ugly head everywhere. I don't even care if the reasons for freeing the people of Iraq would be stated different. The result is what is important. The evil of Saddam's regime was enough justification for any compassionate nation to go in and remove that scourge IMO. After all, if we don't have compassion for others what good are we? If something bad happens to us wouldn't we want some help?

As far as I am concerned the action was delayed for too many years in the first place, as the people of these countries suffered many atrocities for decades under the powers that dominated them against their will. There have always been and still are many evil deeds in many parts of the world that have been allowed to continue for much too long without the rest of the world stepping in to put a halt to this horror. IMO this disgusting apathy among too many of the worlds leaders to show compassion for other human beings that are suffering is in itself disgusting.

The people of Iraq and the people of Afghanistan are most certainly appreciative of those countries that used their resources to help them overcome this oppression. And not surprising many of the nations supporting the USA in this action are countries which have themselves experienced the pains of subjection to oppressing government. If you want to listen to the voice of truth, listen to the victims, both past and present, and then ask yourself if the world should lift a finger to help.

Sure there are voices advertised in the media that speak out against the USA and those who joined them. There are also many bad sources of information, even more so now that the Internet has reached out to more and more computers. There is a lot of bad information on the INTERNET along with the good sources. It can be difficult to distinguish the difference. With cautious study this is possible. You have to use the truth as a tool for tuning and often the fruits of their labors will eventually expose them for the frauds they are. Many are deceived just as the gates of hell are wide open and many are rushing to meet their master as is evidenced by their actions, but only a few find the entrance to the kingdom of God and eternal life. It appears to be much more difficult to try to be good than to try to be bad or evil in this world.

There are always voices that speak out against anything anywhere anytime. It doesn't matter what you do, there will be opposing voices against an action. This is the nature of the beast. There are two forces in this world. Good and evil. This has been so since the dawn of mankind and will continue until the midnight hour and the birth of God's new world. The difference between now and then will be the absence of evil. Until that time comes there will continue to be wars and pestilence and all faces of evil will show their ugly heads. The two forces will continue the struggle no matter how many United Nations there are. The problem is not in the guns and talks and this or that. The problem is in the hearts of men. Enough of that, if I don't stop that topic I will still be typing next week.

No matter what law you pass or what action you take you will have opposition to it. There are always two or more sides that will disagree. For example, if the Congress of the US meets and discusses an issue concerning war, or health care, or taxes, or you name the subject, there will always be opposing sides. It is extremely rare to see 100% agreement anywhere on an issue about anything. Even in discussions about Stars! you will rarely find unanimous agreement on anything.

This also is the case with Iraq. I do not doubt the motivation of opposing views is merely a selfish motivation to promote an agenda, as is usually the case. Total disregard for the concern of the millions of lives under discussion. If one side wins, the other side brings out all the negative points they can conjure up to reduce the effect of their loss. This is part of the problem. Politics. Too much politics and not enough compassion. One humorist once noted that poly means many and ticks are blood sucking pests, thereby you get politics. Many humans are more concerned about their stature more than right and wrong. What's in it for me? Will this make me look bad? Will I lose power? If the other side succeeds will I lose reelection because their success will degrade my chances? And on and on goes the endless list of human selfishness. Total appearance of disregard of the virtues. Are we going to allow these people to suffer much longer? Do they need some outside help to ease the pain? Is this evil regime really good for anyone but themselves? Would the world not be better of without this atrocious dictator? IF we leave him to grow stronger is there any possible good that will come of it?

I am German born and still have many German relatives living today. I, for one, am deeply disappointed in the actions of the German and French response to the US attempt to resolve this Iraqi problem. Of all countries, you would think Germany and France would know the meaning of suppression and evil after having experienced the evils of Hitler's regime, and the relief offered by the USA in the final moments of countering the Iraqi regime should have been praised by all free nations, not just some. Instead the bickering continues even in the United Nations about this or that and the wheel slowly turns ever onward in a disgusting display of politics as usual.

Bottom line, what would you have wanted if you were living under the likes of Hussein and his henchmen? Would you have preferred more stalling tactics by some nations, or would you have preferred some relief to the suffering? No, sorry, but for whatever the motivation, I praise my country's liberation of yet another nation, and pray that there will be more in the future as there are yet many suffering people's. Evil regimes are not the only scourge in this world. There are also criminals. For example, as President Bush just reminded the UN there is a very large slave trade in the world. Many young females in their teens are being sold for sex. The levels of what some will do for money continues to amaze me. Would the UN and the nations of the world put out an immediate credible effort to stop this horror, or are we going to listen to years more of debate about this or that. Debate is a good thing, but of little value if not followed up by appropriate actions. Again I am reminded of the saying: "You talk the talk, but do you walk the walk?" Talk and knowledge is worthless without follow up actions. Talk is merely the beginning of ideas. Actions are required to bring these ideas to fruition. So all you politicians out there, do you talk or do you also walk the walk? I see much talking worldwide, but little action beyond arguments back and forth. If you ask me we should fire all these procrastinators and get a new force in office to mend the problems. And keep firing them until we do. Because if we continue to reelect people who do not accomplish much good there will never be an end to the problems everyone has of one form or another. But that is never going to happen. Because voters don't walk the walk either. They often vote by party instead of for who is truly the best man for the work that needs to be done. Pathetic isn't it? It is like many humans are sucked in by this vacuum of stupidity and ignorance for the most part of their lives. Common sense is a good start. Now if we could only get at least a third of the people of the world to have common sense.

There is always more than one opinion, which is good, to hear all sides in order to possibly come up with the best solution. But what is bad is the motivations behind those opinions. For example, our president has done quite well in governing the nation and its security issues concerning terrorism above all. In truth he has done better than most. Yet, in an effort to raise political goals the opposing government party does nothing but degrade his accomplishments in every way possible. This is the ugly face of politics. Knowing full well that they are deceiving not only the public but themselves. Their goal is purely selfish. Their goal is to get elected. Nothing more. To me these sorts of people give the appearance that they don't give a hoot about the welfare of the people, as is their primary constitutional duty in the first place. All they care about is their agenda, to get elected by any means necessary no matter what action is required to achieve this goal. Forget honor and truth, let's just get elected in whatever manner it takes. Disgusting! The height of hypocrisy. And it appears to have reached an all-time zenith at this moment in history.
This is also the problem among many nations, and likely has always been. United Nations meetings almost always have opposing views that are counterproductive to the speedy resolution of the problem. This is purely political selfishness among representatives of the nations. They only care about what they can get, whereas for the benefit of mankind they should be concerned about the people that are the victims as was the case in Iraq, and Afghanistan.
If you know that a nation like Iraq is suffering from numerous atrocities and do not put their relief as an urgent priority above all other issues what good are you to them or to humanity as a whole? You are just a thorn in the foot of progress. You are not the solution, you are part of the problem. You worry about your pocket book, or power, or political stature, or whatever other selfish desire motivates you, while mass numbers of people are being suppressed, murdered, tortured, stripped of basic human rights and more... What possible justification can a diplomat have to not provide immediate police action in such a matter above any other concern? If a neighbor of yours has his entire family under control by an evil gang and they are murdering and torturing them, would you go to a city council meeting and discuss such things like lets wait another month and give the gang time to prove that they really have dangerous weapons that might be used against us? Or would you rather have the police and all available resources go in immediately and try to rescue and help this poor family?

Even now there are many evil regimes imposing nothing but misery on their people.
History shows no shortage of evil despots imposing their sick and perverted philosophies on multitudes of innocent humans. And causing much death upon many mostly innocent people who want nothing more than to live a decent life. There have been many many wars causing many millions of deaths since the beginning of mankind, and likely this will go on for some time. The questions is why? Why are there not enough good rulers or nations of power to stop this plague? Why for example is the United Nations talking about this and that, but doing little to change the reality? 18 resolutions? When do you say enough is enough, it is time to take action and get some good results? Why are so many evil despots like the rulers of North Korea, Iran, yes even China, Cuba, and many more allowed to stay in the position of power they are in without active counter movements by the rest of the world? What possible good reason can some nations have to not remove this injustice from the face of the earth in an effort to promote justice and good for mankind and relieve the suffering of millions, yes millions of people who are just like you and me, and want nothing more than to be able to live a decent life?

World War II you say? What about World War III, the war against terrorism? Brain washed killers who will stop at nothing and respect no life in any form to kill for the political agenda of their deranged leaders? Maybe it takes a few of their hits in Paris or Frankfurt to open the eyes of some politicians of the free world? New York city opened some eyes. But only a couple years later many nations gives the appearance of myopia once again. Sad. Very sad. Nonetheless in the future the graves will yield the testimony of the victims before the throne of God almighty and justice will be served. You can take that to the bank! Some things are destined to happen whether you believe it or not. And judgement day will come, whether you believe it or not. For your sake I pray you are on the right side of the struggle when that time comes. Eternity is a long long time.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator