Using neutron bombs on taliban safehavens

Wow. Tumbleweed is so tough. When confronted with evil, he doesn't shy away like some intellectual would (picture the intonation of "intellectual" as akin to the way one would say, "that deuce you left in the can was revolting"). We don't have an avatar for him yet but when reading his courageous chest-beating and finger wagging I find it most appropriate to picture a cigar in his mouth.

Tumbleweed, may I suggest an avatar?

how about this one:

WChurchill-2.jpg
This one is much better:

Churchill_Tommy_gun_.jpg
 
Okay I get the idea. Dropping A bombs on Japan was a bad idea and Truman was a jerk for doing so. Maybe so but the guy was between a rock and a hard place and so is Obama . He cannot win no matter what course he takes, so screw that nice guy stuff, as Truman said. He's got to go for the bigger good, sacrificing some so that many will be saved. Hopefully it won't end up a Truman /MacArthur type confrontation.


the irony, your response has no relation to Hans Mustermann's post.

Truman dropped the bomb to scare the Reds, he did not do it to subjugate japan. japan had made repeated offers to the surrender we agreed to anyway.

Your kinda way off base here...
 
I would add that at the time when the bomb was dropped on Japan, it also wasn't entirely clear what it really means. For everyone in the military, it was just one Big Effing Bomb, nothing more. Not very much unlike the MOAB nowadays.

That radiation and fallout are scarier than the blast, it took a very long time to sink in.

Remember that at the time, there were Fluoroscopes (read, X-Ray machines) even in shoe stores, so people could see how their foot fits in various shoes. And they were not the modern low-radiation kind. The only light on the screen came from the X-Rays themselves exciting the coating, so to be usable in broad daylight, they pumped enough radiation through people's feet and shop employees to sometimes outright cause immediate radiation burns.

They kept being used willy nilly like that until well into the 50's.

The USA itself exposed some of its own troops needlessly to radiation and fallout, just to test its what-to-do-when-nuked tactics and partially just to see what happens.

It took a long time for the "radiation = effing scary" idea to sink in, and partially that's what made the cold war work when it did. Both powers were a lot more inclined to think of nukes as just freaking huge explosives in the beginning, and thought they can just tell their troops to duck and cover in the trenches. ETA: They even came up with ideas as dumb as _tactical_ nukes, really, small rockets or even artillery shells you'd lob at the enemy a couple of miles from your own position, at the time.

When it sunk in that radiation and fallout would screw you up anyway, that's when the doctrine of mutually assured destruction really started to work.

Basically Truman's choice was _not_ the "let's give them radioactive death" kind of choice that nuclear use nowadays means. For all Truman or any general knew, they were dropping something no worse than a conventional super-bomb.
 
Last edited:
the irony, your response has no relation to Hans Mustermann's post.

Truman dropped the bomb to scare the Reds, he did not do it to subjugate japan. japan had made repeated offers to the surrender we agreed to anyway.

That is a huge debate in itself.
 
I would add that at the time when the bomb was dropped on Japan, it also wasn't entirely clear what it really means. For everyone in the military, it was just one Big Effing Bomb, nothing more. Not very much unlike the MOAB nowadays.

That radiation and fallout are scarier than the blast, it took a very long time to sink in.

Remember that at the time, there were Fluoroscopes (read, X-Ray machines) even in shoe stores, so people could see how their foot fits in various shoes. And they were not the modern low-radiation kind. The only light on the screen came from the X-Rays themselves exciting the coating, so to be usable in broad daylight, they pumped enough radiation through people's feet and shop employees to sometimes outright cause immediate radiation burns.

They kept being used willy nilly like that until well into the 50's.

The USA itself exposed some of its own troops needlessly to radiation and fallout, just to test its what-to-do-when-nuked tactics and partially just to see what happens.

It took a long time for the "radiation = effing scary" idea to sink in, and partially that's what made the cold war work when it did. Both powers were a lot more inclined to think of nukes as just freaking huge explosives in the beginning, and thought they can just tell their troops to duck and cover in the trenches. ETA: They even came up with ideas as dumb as _tactical_ nukes, really, small rockets or even artillery shells you'd lob at the enemy a couple of miles from your own position, at the time.

hey lets not forget the Davy Crocket, a nulcear bazooka that couldn't fire the war head far enough so that the crew was out of the blast zone. So you had to jump in a fox hole after fireing it.
 
It's a "debate" just as much as the Holocaust or evolution are a "debate" for some people.

So there is historic consensus as to trumans motivations? I have never seen it.

It is easy to have historic consensus on what happened, but this is about why something happened, and that will always be more open to enterpretation than what happened.
 
His "motivations" are irrelevant, for all we know he could have bombed them because he didn't like his coffee that morning.

The surrender was on september 2nd, after Nagasaki, not before. That's what happened.
 
His "motivations" are irrelevant, for all we know he could have bombed them because he didn't like his coffee that morning.

The surrender was on september 2nd, after Nagasaki, not before. That's what happened.

Yes, but that does not mean that he didn't do it in large part to scare the russians or not.
 
How come people keep coming up with one step solutions to complex problems?

Step 1. Nuke them.
Step 2. World peace.

Nobody ever says, hey, lets cut off terrorist funding, pressure governments to crack down on fundamentalists and stop directing anger at the west to keep their people from being mad at them, fund scientific education as opposed to fundamentalist education etc.

No it's always the one step solution.

And as proof that it wouldn't work, if my government, that represents me, started nuking people or committing a genocide I'd probably become a militant trying to overthrow my government, (assuming I couldn't do it peacefully.)
 
Truman's motivations are irrelevant. Afghanistan does not resemble Japan.

Nobody except Tumbleweed, not even the generals in charge whom he wants us to consult, wants to drop any kind of nuclear weapon. As someone who has been generally pretty hawkish, I find his attempts to portray this discussion as hawk versus dove to be offensive. It is not. It is a debate between one person with an incredibly stupid idea and everyone else.
 
Truman's motivations are irrelevant. Afghanistan does not resemble Japan.

Nobody except Tumbleweed, not even the generals in charge whom he wants us to consult, wants to drop any kind of nuclear weapon. As someone who has been generally pretty hawkish, I find his attempts to portray this discussion as hawk versus dove to be offensive. It is not. It is a debate between one person with an incredibly stupid idea and everyone else.

Ziggurat wins the thread
 
Funny that it took a second one before they actually surrendered, though. :rolleyes:

That is a huge debate in itself.

Not really, our records show that the japanese had tendered offers of surrender, with the only condition was that the emperor would not be deposed. Now yes, i know the casuality estimates for Operation Coronet (3 million) and I know that there are some who say that the japanese did not offer to surrender until we dropped the bombs.

We just accepted the same offer they has made after we dropped the bombs. Now i think it was sort of inevitable given the money spent on the bomb, to want to test it against real targets.

But i don't beleive it was done to make the japanese surrender, they had already made the same offer that we accepted. It may have been done to enforce the surrender, or it may have been done to piss off the Reds. Or it may have been done to see what the bomb would do.
 
Last edited:
Not really, our records show that the japanese had tendered offers of surrender, with the only condition was that the emperor would not be deposed.

Did they speak for the Japanese government?

We just accepted the same offer they has made after we dropped the bombs.

Evidence?

Now i think it was sort of inevitable given the money spent on the bomb, to want to test it against real targets.

Speculation.
But i don't beleive it was done to make the japanese surrender, they had already made the same offer that we accepted.

Evidence that the US accepted any offer from a genuine Japanese authority?

It may have been done to enforce the surrender,

Empty speculation

or it may have been done to piss off the Reds.

Empty speculation

Or it may have been done to see what the bomb would do.

Empty speculation
 

Back
Top Bottom