are you serious??? the Hydrogen bomb would have destroyed the world.
No No it wouldn’t. Not if it were a small Hydrogen bomb. Besides, the Americans were racing against the Soviets to develop the H-bomb anyways, so had the Hydrogen bomb been available, i am sure the U.S.A. would have used it, not just to pulverise the Japanese but to show Stalin that U.S.A is superior. The world would have been a more better place if the hydrogen bomb were used, in my opinion.
Hi everyone, I am an idiot troll that breathes a lot through my mouth and often soils myself.
Please just ignore me, like everyone in real life does…
[img]
so you mean small enough to nuke japan but not the world??? well it didn’t exist. can you imagine the hydro in the hands of scientists back then???
For those of you who want to know how much more a 100kt Hydrogen bomb hurts than a 100kT A-bomb, I suggest you make your own nuclear bomb effects calculator. Fun for all the family!
Yea, this is the first thing that must to have in any family:)
BTW as i do understand the 100Kt of trotil equivalent is an relative value of possible physical damage of a any kind of bomb.
So two bombs , that damaging power is equal , have the equal level of physical destruction.
The only difference is in the second-damaging factors like a radiation level after the explosion and emission of particles and radiation during this process, that cause the ray-illness.
So the equal hydrogen and uranian/pluton bomb are rather equal.
BTW where did you see the 100Kt hydrogen bomb?
Nowhere, I was taking the piss out of Hermann.
Believe it or not I actually have a copy of that book - in the 1960s the US department of Energy decided it would be a good idea if the general public understood nuclear weapons better, so published a book on the subject.
In any case, there really are very few pure fission bombs any more, and few that use almost pure fusion. The overwhelming majority use “boosted fission”, which has aspects of both and allows very efficient use of fissile material (up to 90%).
Must be remembered that the Luftwaffe dropped 36,000 tons on Britain during the blitz, and 60,000 tons over the length of the war, while the Allied bombing offensive dropped 2.7 million tons on Germany and occupied Europe.
No comparison.
As Harris said nothing of the scale [of the combined bomber offensive] had ever been tried before.
It was probably reasonable [at the time] to think that if a country is subjected to that kind of offensive, it’s chance of continuing to fight on a large organised scale is very limited…that it’s economy or it’s will to fight, or both, will eventually collapse.
And as soon as the Anglo- Americans shifted the centre of gravity of their operations to oil and communications within the Reich, Germany was mortally wounded, as Georg Feuchter says in his book…
Oil was always the achilles heel of the Wehrmacht, which could barely keep pace with demands, [German total production = 33.4 million metric tonnes[including 23.4 synthetic] U.S.= 833.2 million metric tonnes] any serious disruption in production would prove disastrous.
The survey concluded…
The German experience suggests that even a first class military power – rugged and resilient as Germany was [and Japan]-- cannot live long under full-scale and free exploitation of air weapons over the heart of its territory. By the beginning of 1945, before the invasion of the homeland itself, Germany was reaching a state of helplessness. Her armament production was falling irretrievably, orderliness in effort was disappearing, and total disruption and disintegration were well along. Her armies were still in the field. But with the impending collapse of the supporting economy, the indications are convincing that they would have had to cease fighting – any effective fighting – within a few months.
And more of the same would have finished a blockaded Japan.
It’s also worth remembering that the Luftwaffe nearly succeeded in breaking British morale in some cities (e.g. Southampton). The whole idea of a populace cheerfully willing to resist is largely an artefact of British wartime propaganda. On that basis, Harris also had good reason to expect the same of Germany, not expecting the effect of both their believing that “the British had withstood it and so could they” and the slow ramp up of Bomber Command.
I think the Brits actually was in constant fear, but not from Luftwaffe that since the 1941 reduced its Battle of Britan, but mostly becouse of periodical attack of V-1 and since 1943 V-2 missles.
Germans specially aimed in most populated areas , killed about several thousands of civils for 3 years of Rocket Terror.
Hardly it caused any damage in British war production, but the primary aim was effect on moral of civils.
So Germans did the same , bombed the Britain by missles, as the RAF bombed the Germany by the strategic aviation. The only difference was the SCALE ( but not moral) , as it has noticed mr Ashes.
German NEVER cared safety of enemy civils , especially in East. When the at first firebombed the Stalingrad in august 1942 , the almost entire of city , still full of civils, was destroyed and burned out.
I suggest that in WWII you could have bombed the crap out of any nation with conventional weapons but it wouldn’t bring the leadership to consider surrender until other factors on land and or sea demonstrated that the noose was tightened around their national neck to the point that they couldn’t suvive.
The bombing was important but by itself it couldn’t win.
Then again, without the bombing the land and or sea aspects would have had less effect.
It applies equally to Japan and Germany.
Similarly, if Britain had been bombed while German land forces were landing in Britain and Germany was pounding Britain on the seas, the German bombing would have had a lot more effect.
We didn’t even attempt such uplifting, morale building propaganda here, being a bit short of film of Aussies stoically bearing the Japanese bombing.
When Darwin was bombed early in Japan’s war by a force about the same size and composition as that which bombed Pearl Harbor, about half of Darwin’s remaining civilian population fled south while elements of the military joined them and otherwise covered themselves in disgrace, although other elements of the military performed courageously against overwhelming Japanese forces.
Air Force and military personnel did not, on the whole, feature well in many of the events immediately following the end of the bombing. Hundreds of Darwin civilians acted the way many people do under war conditions : they became refugees, leaving the town by any means they could. But many RAAF personnel also fled. Nearly 50 years later, the events of 19 February 1942 at the RAAF base are still not fully explained.
It seems that immediately after the bombing the commander, Wing-Commander Stuart Griffiths, gave an order for the men to “go half a mile down the road to Adelaide Waters and half a mile into the bush". Among many of the largely undisciplined and thoroughly scared airmen, this order was taken as ‘go bush’. Many did. One is reported to have kept going until he arrived in Melbourne thirteen days later.
http://www.battleforaustralia.org.au/2901/Overview/Bombing_Darwin
Darwin to Melbourne was about 3,800 road kilometres / 2,340 road miles. And much of the road then was a dirt track.
After such a shambles, the national government kept mum about the Darwin debacle during the war, to avoid spreading even more panic in the critical days of 1942.
Not our finest moment.
After the Japanese (not very) midget subs got into Sydney Harbour and did what was really very little damage there plus a bit of ineffective sub shelling along the coast http://home.st.net.au/~dunn/japsubs/midgetsubs.htm , houses were abandoned and property prices dropped dramatically in coastal areas around Sydney, as I believe also happened in parts of California around the same time.
I’m sure this makes good ‘Stand-up’. Just seems to lose its effect in type.
Hehehehehe! :mrgreen:
I didnt beleive 76% think the atomic bomb was not a war crime???
Man…
Who cares about the peoples who have families,womans,childrens,and who’s want’s a family?
Made a genetic trash?
That’s NORMAL???!!!
Kill your enemy,but don’t kill generations…
What makes the atomic bomb a war crime compared with other methods of killing people in WWII?
It was a necessary MUST that the Atomic bomb be blasted over Japan. It would be a war crime not to so so as it would of meant more innocent Americans would get killed fighting mainland Japan who had no value for life with their honor code. I think even the Japanese people are happy they got blasted so they didn’t have to continue fighting for their Emperor. I see pictures of Japanese people smiling when the war was over so they must have been content that some of Japan got blasted by the A-bomb, otherwise they know it would mean a continued long never ending war.
but mate…in this way of thinking, what makes the Nazi death-camps a war crimes compared with others methods of killing?
The scale of terror?
The scale of the bomber offensive was massive, over 1.4 Million bombing sorties over the ETO. By March '45, 8th AF had 7,100 bombers on line, and Bomber Command, 6,900 a total of 14,000 bombers, no wonder Germany was reaching a state of helplessness.
And on the second front, Japan suffered as much devastation in the last 6 months of the war, as Germany did in the last three years, and was forced to surrender without need for invasion.
Somebody wrote that the Vengeance Weapon V2 project was one of the worst cost-benefit ratio of all the operational weapon systems fielded in WW2. For the amount of man-hours, precious high-grade raw material and energy poured into these projects, the results were poor, with only a one ton warhead, and of course none of them were reusable, it was estimated that 10-12,000 fighters could have been built, or large numbers of SAMS.
Other war crimes aren’t better things,killing innocent old’s,childs, in a concentration camps or anywhere,but the atomic bomb was UNFAIR.Made a long lasting suffering(many various type of cancer,mutation,amputation etc.)for ANYBODY,and over and over for generations?
I cant understand this.
The atomic chemicals use for military actions,is the worst,thing that man ever do.
imi
- WW2 only avatars please
- The radiation release at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was overwhelmingly prompt radiation - i.e. gamma and X-rays released by the initiation of the weapon. Only those present at the time will have been exposed to them. The radioactive fallout from the weapon dropped on Hiroshima/Nagasaki was negligible, spread out over a wide area, and 99.9% will have decayed to safety within a month or so. Hence you’re point about over and over for generations is simply tripe - there is no mechanism by which this could happen.