65 years ago

[Fubar512 1,350]

Okay, if you think Wiki is always rubish, then read following lines. They are from the US Department of Energy.

 

"Prior to the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, elements existed within the Japanese government that were trying to find a way to end the war. In June and July 1945, Japan attempted to enlist the help of the Soviet Union to serve as an intermediary in negotiations. No direct communication occurred with the United States about peace talks, but American leaders knew of these maneuvers because the United States for a long time had been intercepting and decoding many internal Japanese diplomatic communications. From these intercepts, the United States learned that some within the Japanese government advocated outright surrender. A few diplomats overseas cabled home to urge just that."

 

The nuke attacks were not neccessary for ending WW2. They were to show the soviets the big stick.

 

I don't think so, Michael. Most of the stories regarding the Japanese surrender qualify as myths. The fact remains that the Japanese did not respond to the Potsdam Ultimatum. And that's a well documented historical fact, not a myth.

 

Surrender Chronology

 

 

This is taken from our daily chronology pages -- more of specific Russian interface may be added later.

 

 

May 8 . VE Day. Germany surrenders

May 18. Japanese ambassadors in Europe warn of transfer of troops and material to the Pacific is underway.

June 6 . Japanese government begins 3-day conference with Emperor to discuss the war.

June 8 . Imperial Conference with Emperor : "the nation will fight to the bitter end."

June 9 . Keeper of Privy Seal, Kido, begins search for "peace with honor" within civil government.

June 24. Japan asks Soviets to extend Neutrality Pact.

June 29. Japan offers Soviets fishing concessions for oil.

July 12. Japanese inquire of Russia about terms. Not forwarded.

July 17. Potsdam Conference begins.

July 21. Allies radio Japan : "Surrender or be destroyed."

July 22. First troops from Europe arrive Philippines. Spies, no doubt, report this.

July 26. Potsdam Ultimatum to Japan : surrender unconditionally or face 'utter destruction.'

July 27. Japanese cites "bombed" with leaflets telling to surrender or be destroyed.

July 28. Japan rejects Potsdam Declaration by silence.

Aug 2 . Potsdam conference ends.

Aug 6 . Hiroshima -- one plane destroys a target.1

Aug 8 . Japanese Supreme Council demands : 1. keep Imperial family , 2. disarm own troops , 3. no war crimes , 4. limited occupation of Japan. USSR invades Manchuria [per Yalta agreement]; declares war on Japan.

Aug 9 . Nagasaki A-bombed.2

Aug 10. Emperor concludes to Cabinet the time had come to "bear the unbearable".

August 11-12. Radio and diplomatic notes seeking terms.

Aug 13. Allied firm response. General Ohnishi plea made to commit twenty million lives (kamikaze) to victory.

Aug 14. Japan accepts the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration and starts diplomatic process to surrender. Coup attempt within Japanese government put down.

15Aug. (Aug 14 in U.S.3) Emperor speaks to the nation: "... the enemy has recently made use of an inhuman bomb4 ..." Second strike of morning is canceled while en route; pilots jettison their ordnance and return to carriers. Four former enemy were shot down as background while Halsey read his "the war is ended" speech to the fleet. Three more attacking bombers were downed later in the day.5

 

Source: http://www.ww2pacific.com/surrnote.html

[+Dave 2,322]

The nuke attacks were not neccessary for ending WW2. They were to show the soviets the big stick.

 

Now who is spouting off cold war propganda? Too much time under the East German flag has rotted your brain.

 

DOE can't even gets it's nuke count right. I worked nukes and during a tour I had to correct a DOE display of a MIRV that was mislabeled. So much for them knowing what they are talking about.

[Ruggbutt 45]

One of the main reasons the Japs signed the surrender papers was because we allowed the Emperor to remain in power. He was seen as a living god and that was one thing the Japanese had to have remain in place. Would we have allowed Hitler to live had he not killed himself? Mussolini (same thing)? Doubtful. We knew that an invasion of Japan meant at least 250k casualties on our side. Their will to fight was as strong as it ever was and they were prepared to murder and sacrifice every thing they had to resist us. The bombs and allowing the Emperor were a face saving measure.

 

Gepard, you're so wrong that you must be talking about a dream you once had. My grandparents either served or were in support services for the military during the war and they've all told me the same thing which is posted above. And the military at the time drew the same conclusions.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

ezlead::

At the time,most Americans hated the Japanese and the Germans.

Finally been reading up on Tura Satana. She spent time in the camps. There's one amazing lady. I never saw Pussycat movie but I'm ordering it now.

 

 

 

 

Another nuc would have been available for use by late August. Nuc Archive has some ideas on this...

 

8.1.5 Availability of Additional Bombs

 

The date that a third weapon could have been used against Japan was no later than August 20. The core was prepared by August 13, and Fat Man assemblies were already on Tinian Island. It would have required less than a week to ship the core and prepare a bomb for combat.

:

:

:

Production estimates given to Sec. Stimson in July 1945 projected a second plutonium bomb would be ready by Aug. 24, that 3 bombs should be available in September, and more each month - reaching 7 or more in December. Improvements in bomb design being prepared at the end of the war would have permitted one bomb to be produced for every 5 kg of plutonium or 12 kg of uranium in output. These improvements were apparently taken into account in this estimate. Assuming these bomb improvements were used, the October capacity would have permitted up to 6 bombs a month. Note that with the peak monthly plutonium and HEU production figures (19.4 kg and 69 kg respectively), production of close to 10 bombs a month was possible.

 

When the war ended on August 15 1945 there was an abrupt change in priorities, so a wartime development and production schedule did not continue. Development of the levitated pit/composite core bomb ground to a halt immediately. It did not enter the US arsenal until the late forties. Plans to increase initiator production to ten times the July 1945 level were abandoned.

:

:

etc etc... good read czech it out

 

~ http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq8.html#nfaq8.1.5

[+Gepard 11,295]

Now who is spouting off cold war propganda? Too much time under the East German flag has rotted your brain.

 

Dave, could it be that you was in a former life a Politcommisar or member of communist party? The words you use i have heared enough in the bad old times from the red side guys.

 

 

You say that the attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was intended to save the lifes of the US troops. It is an hounorable intention, that is true, no doubt. But ... Imagine you would be the US commander in Chief in August 1945. Which japanese targets you would attack to bring the enemy to surrender, if you has only 2 bombs?

I would strike military facilities, command (HQs) so far detected, or important points of armament industry, or the capital of Japan to behead the enemy. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not had really important armament industry, depots, military, etc.

Would you waste the bombs on unimportant targets? I wont.

 

The reason why both towns were selected as targets was, that they were undestroyed.

 

The best way to use the A-bomb to stop the war would have been to drop one over the Bay of Tokyo with the following message, that the next one would hit Japan. In combination with the soviet attack this threatening potential would surely have been enough to japanese surrender.

Edited August 10, 2010 by Gepard

[Derk 265]

 

The best way to use the A-bomb to stop the war would have been to drop one over the Bay of Tokyo with the following message, that the next one would hit Japan. In combination with the soviet attack this threatening potential would surely have been enough to japanese surrender.

 

That would have been an interesting option, but it would probably have killed the emperor too, thereby blocking at least a way out of the conflict . Loosing face is a most horrible thing in the Far East and the continuation of the Japanese empire under Hirohito was in the end one of the things that made the surrender bearable for the Japs.

 

Hou doe,

 

Derk

 

PS: I am still happy to be alive

[+hgbn 91]

Dave, could it be that you was in a former life a Politcommisar or member of communist party? The words you use i have heared enough in the bad old times from the red side guys.

 

 

You say that the attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was intended to save the lifes of the US troops. It is an hounorable intention, that is true, no doubt. But ... Imagine you would be the US commander in Chief in August 1945. Which japanese targets you would attack to bring the enemy to surrender, if you has only 2 bombs?

I would strike military facilities, command (HQs) so far detected, or important points of armament industry, or the capital of Japan to behead the enemy. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not had really important armament industry, depots, military, etc.

Would you waste the bombs on unimportant targets? I wont.

 

The reason why both towns were selected as targets was, that they were undestroyed.

 

The best way to use the A-bomb to stop the war would have been to drop one over the Bay of Tokyo with the following message, that the next one would hit Japan. In combination with the soviet attack this threatening potential would surely have been enough to japanese surrender.

 

Well if I were the US commander in Chief having 2 unknown super weapons at hand but not knowing the exact effect and destructive power. Then I definitely would have chosen 2 cities which haven't been bombed before to have a fair damage assessment. To know where to use the next bombs most effective. Furthermore sending the enemy the message. See you had 2 undamaged cities before. Now those are just rubble and ruins. With just 2 bombs used with more to come. So standby for total destruction or surrender.

[+Julhelm 266]

As for the moral question of the nuclear bomb, it really IMHO has only one, and that's that it will poison the land long after the war ends. Fire bombs, gas, conventional bombs, etc, have immediate but not long-lasting effects like radiation does.

That's not entirely true, since most nuclear detonations are airbursts and disperse only a minor amount of fallout as compared to a groundburst like Castle Bravo. If the radiation was such an issue I'm sure people wouldn't have bothered rebuilding the cities. Chemical weapons on the other hand can contaminate an area for weeks and even months after use and unlike radiation their lethality doesn't decrease over time.

[Fubar512 1,350]

That's not entirely true, since most nuclear detonations are airbursts and disperse only a minor amount of fallout as compared to a groundburst like Castle Bravo. If the radiation was such an issue I'm sure people wouldn't have bothered rebuilding the cities.

 

Anyone here own a Mazda? If so, guess were it was built...Hiroshima!

 

[JediMaster 451]

I'm talking more about modern, higher yield nukes as opposed to the WWII-vintage ones which would now be considered tactical nukes I believe.

 

Another reason you don't drop a nuke on Tokyo...who would surrender? The common mantra is "chop off the head and the body dies", but that's not how the Japanese military worked. They had their standing orders and if the top leadership was wiped out they would simply never surrender and fight till they won or died, like those forgotten on the islands in the Pacific and found years later. Chop off the head and the body would fight on and you'd need to kill every hand, foot, finger, elbow, and on and on. Only an order to stand down from their leaders would be honored, so those leaders needed to live.

[+Jug 99]

I do not understand the reasoning behind making nuclear weapons a moral question.there is no evil weapon only evil uses.What is the difference between droping thousands of conventional weapons on a city or one nuke? You can question the reasoning behind bombing "civilian" targets but it should not metter if it was a nuke or thousands of conventional weapons.I hate to say this but even if the only reason was to intimidate Stalin thats a good enough reason.The Soviet Union was one of the most evil intitutions man has made and anything that could have been tried to reign them in would be a good idea. you can't judge decisions made 65 years ago with our godlike hindsite,even if the japanese were ready to surender if we didn't have a way of knowing why take the chance? all side bombed the hell out of cities throuout the war to judge one of them at the end differently just because it was "a big scary nuke" dosn't make much sence to me.

Two things occur to me when looking back on the start of the nuclear age and the cold war it spawned.

 

1) Politicians don't like being first in line to be killed and, therefore, are very careful in their overseas adventurism as long as the other side has a nuc arsenal down which barrel they are forced to look.

 

2) A weapon needs to be used every once in a while to indicate a technological capacity to create it and the political will to use it.

 

Tehran beware!

 

Time has only moderately mellowed me.....................

[themightysrc 5]

"The nuke attacks were not neccessary for ending WW2. They were to show the soviets the big stick."

 

This is an essential truth of WWII. If you think otherwise, then it's useful to look at the Yalta conference in 1945 - hardly a basis for a well settled post war world. Also, consider that one of the issues that exercised the US military after the defeat of Germany was - guess what? - the rapid exit of Nazi scientists who'd worked on Hitler's rocket projects over to the States. One might quite reasonably ask why these scientists weren't asked to account for their activities at Nuremburg or in subsequent trials of lesser war criminals. Instead they found themselves deeply emeshed in the American nuclear/rocketry programmes.

 

Is this sinking in at all?

 

I'm happy to acknowledge - as a Brit - that Dresden was an appalling crime. I'm happy to acknowledge that the Soviet Army and high command committed massive atrocities across Europe, of which Katyn was but one. I think that the Nazis stand as a political grouping beyond redemption for the atrocities they commissioned and enacted. I happily acknowledge that Imperil Japan was a menace to its neighbours, and committed atrocities against all combatants, especially the Chinese people.

 

But I'm essentially a historian, and, as such I can see that the closing months of WWII were the lit touch paper of the Cold War, and that there were major antagonisms between the victors of that war that inevitably led to the post war paranoia that swept all areas of the globe for nigh on 40 years and happened to engender more major bloody wars all over the world.

 

Argue if you will about Hiroshima in the microcosm: you are ignoring a much bigger picture.

[MigBuster 2,884]

I realise people now have had a lot of time to analyse and pick apart WW2 as much as they can.

 

However....World War 2 was actually a real war with a lot at stake in every country - and in a real war people will do whatever they feel is right at the time to destroy the enemy - its that simple. If we ever found ourselves in another large scale conflict then anything termed as a war crime now will be used if its a matter of survival - that probably includes nuclear weapons!.

 

Forget war crimes - in a real war no one gives a **** - now in a war against Serbia for example where we are not threatened - we can decide who in the country should be tried for war crimes - good huh.

 

The winners determine what war crimes are - maybe if someone else wins next time they will make up a whole set of new rules to suit them.

[+hgbn 91]

I realise people now have had a lot of time to analyse and pick apart WW2 as much as they can.

 

However....World War 2 was actually a real war with a lot at stake in every country - and in a real war people will do whatever they feel is right at the time to destroy the enemy - its that simple. If we ever found ourselves in another large scale conflict then anything termed as a war crime now will be used if its a matter of survival - that probably includes nuclear weapons!.

 

Forget war crimes - in a real war no one gives a **** - now in a war against Serbia for example where we are not threatened - we can decide who in the country should be tried for war crimes - good huh.

 

The winners determine what war crimes are - maybe if someone else wins next time they will make up a whole set of new rules to suit them.

 

Totally agrees

[xclusiv8 35]

I realise people now have had a lot of time to analyse and pick apart WW2 as much as they can.

 

However....World War 2 was actually a real war with a lot at stake in every country - and in a real war people will do whatever they feel is right at the time to destroy the enemy - its that simple. If we ever found ourselves in another large scale conflict then anything termed as a war crime now will be used if its a matter of survival - that probably includes nuclear weapons!.

 

Forget war crimes - in a real war no one gives a **** - now in a war against Serbia for example where we are not threatened - we can decide who in the country should be tried for war crimes - good huh.

 

The winners determine what war crimes are - maybe if someone else wins next time they will make up a whole set of new rules to suit them.

 

I do not agree. It is people with your exact mentality that use nukes in the first place. Lets assume everyone thought that way, then we would have been f***ed years ago in a large nuke war between soviet and usa. And by using nukes as to destroy your enemy you are kinda screwing up your own life and survival. So how is it about survival when it actually can hurt you aswell?

[MigBuster 2,884]

I do not agree. It is people with your exact mentality that use nukes in the first place. Lets assume everyone thought that way, then we would have been f***ed years ago in a large nuke war between soviet and usa. And by using nukes as to destroy your enemy you are kinda screwing up your own life and survival. So how is it about survival when it actually can hurt you aswell?

 

 

Unfortunately you don't quite understand what I'm getting at - although as it says you are Swedish I guess I can let that pass this time.

 

1. Fact the winners decide what is a war crime and what is to be determined as such - things like the bombing of Dresden are not seen by us here as a war crime officially but an essential part of the war - was anyone ever tried for that - no they were heroes. Same goes for OIF - can you ever see G.Bush or T Blair ever getting charged with war crimes? I certainly cant even though many people might determine their actions to be so (they were not heroes btw).

 

2. The whole concept of determining something to be a war crime in a real war is to me laughable - when the **** hits the fan ANYTHING is possible as proved in WW2 - no side in WW2 fought totally to the rules - in fact you could even commend Nazi Germany for the way some officer POWs were treated even after trying to Escape multiple times.

 

Anyway the point being that WW2 should be shown as an example of how terrible war is and that ANYTHING goes regardless in reality. And conveniently the only war crimes acknowledged here were committed by the losers (the Axis powers).

 

I personally see WW2 as just one big disaster - and everything in it was a legitimate part of war on all fronts - Real war is a disaster and I'm really not sure at which point somebody thought that it was this nice fluffy thing that could be totally controlled.

 

In any major future war (which we can prey we are not part of) the rules again will be looked at and ignored or new ones made up to suit whoever.

Edited August 11, 2010 by MigBuster

[Capitaine Vengeur 263]

Unfortunately you don't quite understand what I'm getting at - although as it says you are Swedish I guess I can let that pass this time.

 

1. Fact the winners decide what is a war crime and what is to be determined as such - things like the bombing of Dresden are not seen by us here as a war crime officially but an essential part of the war - was anyone ever tried for that - no they were heroes. Same goes for OIF - can you ever see G.Bush or T Blair ever getting charged with war crimes? I certainly cant even though many people might determine their actions to be so (they were not heroes btw).

 

2. The whole concept of determining something to be a war crime in a real war is to me laughable - when the **** hits the fan ANYTHING is possible as proved in WW2 - no side in WW2 fought totally to the rules - in fact you could even commend Nazi Germany for the way some officer POWs were treated even after trying to Escape multiple times.

 

Anyway the point being that WW2 should be shown as an example of how terrible war is and that ANYTHING goes regardless in reality. And conveniently the only war crimes acknowledged here were committed by the losers (the Axis powers).

 

I personally see WW2 as just one big disaster - and everything in it was a legitimate part of war on all fronts - Real war is a disaster and I'm really not sure at which point somebody thought that it was this nice fluffy thing that could be totally controlled.

 

In any major future war (which we can prey we are not part of) the rules again will be looked at and ignored or new ones made up to suit whoever.

 

General Curtis LeMay, gravedigger of Tokyo and many other Japanese cities, once admitted that had the USA lost the War, he would have been tried as a war criminal. RAF Air Marshall Harris or Lt-Col Tibbets never took responsibility for being such.

 

About The Bomb regarding other war crimes in WW2, it must be said that in 1945, dozens of millions of Koreans, Taiwanese, Manchus, Chinese, Filipinos, Indonesians, Malays, Burmese... would have been happy to see the Japanese Islands and all of their population disappear once and for all underwater, had the Americans developed a weapon able to achieve such a result. Germany's repentance has made this country reputable again for its neighbours; it's still not the case for Japan.

[Derk 265]

 

Germany's repentance has made this country reputable again for its neighbours; it's still not the case for Japan.

 

And that is exactly what I am missing from the Japs. Even today schoolbooks on history are denying atrocities, convicted war criminals are honoured by the highest officials in shrines etc. etc.

It is a bloody shame.

 

Derk

[+Gepard 11,295]

In August 1945 nobody, not even the scientists, knows what nuclear weapons really was. All thought that a nuke is only a big bomb with a very big blast, that can flatten towns. Later it was learned, that a nuke was a weapon of mass destruction with very dangerous side effects and long time effects. In Hiroshima died around 90.000 people during the attack or short afterwards, but more than 110.000 people years and even decades later.

The best what you can say about the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is, that it became obviesly that this weapons should never used again. In 1945 President Truman decided to use the bomb but only 5 years later he had learned so much about nukes and their terrible effects that he denied the use of nuclear weapons in Korean War. And also later when high ranking militarys demanded the urgend use of nukes the demands were always denied. And i hope that nukes will never used.

And all people who thinking about using nuclear weapons should be banned into a nuclear poisend desert.

[JediMaster 451]

Which is why it's so dangerous for countries like N Korea and Iran to have them. They assume no one will ever nuke them (for the reasons you listed) but have no qualms about using them on those who oppose them, let alone giving them to unstable non-state entities.

 

If Iran gets it, then Hezbollah and/or Hamas gets it. Then a nuke will go off right on the Israeli border, north or south, and Iran will claim Israel did it itself (you know, just like those peaceful militant Islamist groups that claim responsibility for attacks are just making it up), despite the fact that Israel has had 40 years to use one and hasn't, to try and get all of its neighbors to attack Israel while denying they were responsible. Sure, a few Muslims would die in that attack, but they would be holy martyrs for their part in the beginning of the final war against Israel!

[TX3RN0BILL 3]

I thought that it was the extremely worrying and sad but real fact that intelligence agencies and analysts all around the world had reached a consensus that it is a matter of "when", not "if", that the world will see a nuclear explosion caused by a nuclear device set off by a "non-state-entity". The nr 1 timeline date to that seems to be the date by which Iran can produce a nuclear weapon - but recent evidence revealing concerns of cooperation between famous "non-state-entities" and the government of Pakistan makes me wonder why that country is still allowed to have nukes. I sincerely hope that the allies in the war against terror keep a sharp eye on those as well as Iran - and act before the time comes so that disaster can be prevented...

 

Putting things in perspective, there was this movie called "The Peacemaker" with George Clooney and Nicole Kidman. I never forgot the best phrase from that movie:

 

Kidman: "I'm not afraid of the man who wants ten nuclear weapons, Colonel. I'm terrified of the man who only wants one."

 

 

[JediMaster 451]

Yes, and in that movie it wasn't even a true nuke, it was just a dirty bomb. All the same after effects of a nuke without the up-front destruction, much easier to build (you just need to disperse the plutonium/uranium), and can be far lighter.

[themightysrc 5]

"Which is why it's so dangerous for countries like N Korea and Iran to have them. They assume no one will ever nuke them (for the reasons you listed) but have no qualms about using them on those who oppose them, let alone giving them to unstable non-state entities."

 

There's little danger in recognised states having them. The fact that they have them is, more or less, immaterial. Who are they going to fire them at, and what do they expect by way of recompense? Only the naive would see it differently.

 

"If Iran gets it, then Hezbollah and/or Hamas gets it. Then a nuke will go off right on the Israeli border, north or south, and Iran will claim Israel did it itself (you know, just like those peaceful militant Islamist groups that claim responsibility for attacks are just making it up), despite the fact that Israel has had 40 years to use one and hasn't, to try and get all of its neighbors to attack Israel while denying they were responsible. Sure, a few Muslims would die in that attack, but they would be holy martyrs for their part in the beginning of the final war against Israel!"

 

This is simply nonsense. The moment that an Iranian sponsored weapon went off anywhere in the vicinity of Israel, you would doubtless find that the (apparently non-nuclear) Israel just happened to have a few nukes to sprinkle over the only country that might have supplied any dissident groups with such a weapon. MAD. And that's exactly the reason why it won't occur. For one thing, Iran may rail against Israel, but that is unimportant in its efforts to become a regional superpower - efforts, I might add, that were only aided by the 2003 invasion, but I digress - since the Iranians have no reason not to play a long game and to wait until Western powers have fundamental social and economic problems to deal with.

 

Israel has not used nuclear weapons because they would be giving the game away. If I were the Israeli PM and had no nuclear weapons, I would hint strongly to the world that I did have them - what a diplomatic weapon! Anyway, it's apparent from the actions of Israel and the testimony of Mordechai Vanunu - jailed to the eternal shame of the Israeli state, I would contest - that such weapons do exist in Israel, so in effect the point you make is null. There is far more to Middle Eastern politics than is ever likely to be examined on such a superficial platform as a flight sim site, so let's just get back to what we know best here.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Awsim stuff mighty. Something I noticed: Every nation that got nucs suddenly developed responsible behavior with their new toys. Is this Correct Thinking?

 

I'd like to share a thought bubble: The nucs did nothing new to Japan that conventional bombing hadn't already done, so I can see the nucs as offering a "way out" so to speak for hardcore Japan to surrender and so stop the war. Also, an interesting thesis I had heard some time ago is the nucs were also hoped to demonstrate to all of Asia not to resist domination. Sam Cohen recalls that the nuc designers were hoping to use the bombs on Germany, but they were too late, and Japan had to do. Fascinating stuff all around.

 

Have you read Admiral Theobald's book Final Secret Of Pearl Harbor? I had faintly heard of this but never paid attention until I ran across the book's Foreword on the internet, which claimed I was required to read the book. So of course I ordered it immediately but I have not yet read. I already know FDR was *used* in the 1933 Emergency Banking Act to cause, with a flick of his pen, infinitely greater physical destruction to USA than the Wehrmacht and Combined Fleet together ever could do militarily in a thousand years. Given that FDR was used like this, I can very easily make space for Theobald's ideas.

[JediMaster 451]

Yes, of course, any topic we don't know comprehensively should simply never be discussed. After all, we wouldn't want our ignorance of some aspect to show and perhaps be enlightened in the process, that is madness.

 

We mods can make that the new policy here at CA if you like, any post by someone who is not an obvious expert on said subject will be summarily deleted as wasting space.