65 years ago

[shotdown 8]

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.

 

I might be wrong, but I think it was a nuclear bomb. The explossion wasn´t big because they managed to damage the bomb enough to make it impossible to work as it was intended.

[+Brain32 265]

My 1$,45C.

 

1. Nukes killed more people than they should because of lack of today's knowledge, drinkin' black rain? No thx.

 

2. Many German and even Japaneese cities saw major destruction by massive bombing, the so called "terror bombing", same thing although with conventional weapons but that makes it OK I guess...

 

3. The world was sick and tired of the most brutal war ever fought in history of mankind, EVERYBODY wanted it to end - ASAP.

 

4. You don't teach women and children to use guns if you plan to surrender, you don't teach people to put on some explosive crawl under a tank and blow themselves to pieces taking the tank with them.

Sure I completely believe that certain elements in Imperial Japan wanted to end it painlessly, but certain elements are often not enough, you either surrender or you don't. Nobody will wait for ages until you make up your mind especially at the end of WW2.

 

5. Stalin started the war together with Hitler, they splitted Poland in half, made some war crimes, you know, the usual stuff. It was always a curiosity to me how quickly has that been forgotten, not to mention brutal war crimes done by Red Army in Germany in 1945 did anybody in the West even flinch on that? The primary mission of every soldier in Germany in late spring 1945 was running in direction of the Americans, hint - not to attack

 

Conclusion being a big superF'inpower in a war is great as everything you do is quickly and easily forgotten, if you are small everybody will step on you even if you are just defending yourself.

Go figure why everybody and their mother want's to have nukes today...hehe, NOBODY on international political scene will take you for much more than a dirt under your fingernail if you don't have it...

Edited August 17, 2010 by Brain32

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Interesing quote, but I'm not so sure now. It sounds true.

 

 

“Any country which renounces for itself the development of nuclear weapons, without certain knowledge that its adversaries have done the same, is likely to find itself in the position of the Polish army in 1939, fighting tanks with horses.”

 

- Professor Freeman J. Dyson, “The Future Development of Nuclear Weapons”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 38, No. 3 (Apr., 1960), pp. 457-464.

 

glasstone blog ~> http://glasstone.blogspot.com/

 

Perhaps as important as nucs is if a non-nuc nation's citizens are responsible and fully armed personally. I keep thinking back to how the nucs dropped on Japan didn't do anything new, except for being novelty bombs which I'm guessing gave the hardcore a way out to surrender. Limited fallout from high airbursts not withstanding. Also of importance is if non-nuc states have friends, and together can economically isolate a bully nuc state.

Edited August 17, 2010 by Lexx_Luthor

[Silverbolt 104]

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.

 

Nuclear fallouts, enviroimental problems the nuclear cloud can fly trough atmosphere, causing cancer and other nuclear related diseases , the soil gets unfertile,water gets poisioned and you have to keep hide in case of rain also the defense chance is lower in a nuclear bombardment.

also, nobody would like to be hit by one....i wouldn't like to have São Paulo Nuked, Nor you would like to have NYC nuked.

Back in the day people had no idea of what nuclear weapons were capable of in a city, but now we have some notion and i think that's an international concern that Nuke somebody is not a good thing to do, at least it's not 'human' , but hell, everybody uses chemical weapons also.

Chemical warfare got the same repulse after WWI that nuclear weapons got after WWII.

 

it's an evil weapon by definition, dresden/tokyo incenriary bombardments weren' t worse because of the side effects caused by ratiation.

[+Dave 2,322]

Nuke them till the glow, shoot 'em in the dark.

[eugeni 0]

Nuke them till the glow, shoot 'em in the dark.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwPWw3K6imo

anti aircraft rocket launcher Tor-M1 from Busher nuklear center(frendly fire)