We're gonna nuke Iran!
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Saturday, February 28, 2026 17:47
VIEWED: 4913
PAGE 5 of 7
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
..or even shown them in away that didn't irradiate innocent civilians.
Not 100% sure on this but if I remember correctly, at the time we had very little uranium, barely enough to make the bombs that we made (anyone not as lazy as me care to research this and back me up\correct me?).
If I'm right about that, then expending one in a demonstration that had no direct effect would probably be seen as incredibly wasteful. That being said a bomb landing outside of city might have made them surrender, but we will never know.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There were three devices built. The first (the Gadget) was detonated in New Mexico on the 16th of July.
Little Boy was a 'gun type' device, where a supercritical projectile is fired into a receptor. This type used U-235 (enriched Uranium) of which there was only enough to build one bomb at the time. This is why this design wasn't tested before being deployed.
Fat Man was an 'Implosion type' weapon similar to the Gadget, where a core is compressed to increase its density and cause it to go supercritical and results in a nuclear explosion. This type uses Plutonium, which was much more plentiful than Uranium, being a by-product of the atomic piles at Hanford, Washington, but Plutonium bombs are also more complex.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
There were three devices built. The first (the Gadget) was detonated in New Mexico on the 16th of July.
Little Boy was a 'gun type' device, where a supercritical projectile is fired into a receptor. This type used U-235 (enriched Uranium) of which there was only enough to build one bomb at the time. This is why this design wasn't tested before being deployed.
I think you mean "subcritical" projectile. The resulting mass (projectile + target) makes a critical mass and thus an explosion.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah you're right. The two subcritical components combine to become supercritical.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Nuclear Posture Review [Excerpts]
Submitted to Congress on 31 December 2001.
Building on the (QDR) this Nuclear Posture Review puts in motion a major change in our approach to the role of nuclear offensive forces in our deterrent strategy and presents the blueprint for transforming our strategic posture.
This report establishes a New Triad, composed of:
Offensive strike systems (both nuclear and non-nuclear);
Defenses (both active and passive); and
A revitalized defense infrastructure that will provide new capabilities in a timely fashion to meet emerging threats
People seem to have forgotten the Bush admin changed nuclear strategy from response to offensive a number of years ago. If you don't think that was preparation for this you're deluded.
Here's a good article by the "Nuclear Threat Initiative" on the NPR. It also has links to the public portion of the report.
http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_15a.html
...and about that triad? Per the article.
Quote:(emphasis mine)
U.S. strategic nuclear weapons have traditionally been organized in a triad of land (intercontinental ballistic missiles), sea (submarine launched ballistic missiles), and air (bombers) forces. The new NPR emphasizes that nuclear weapons will continue to play a fundamental role in war fighting. It outlines a new triad in which the old triad occupies part of the offensive strike systems leg. Improved conventional strike weapons round out this leg. The second leg includes active and passive defenses in which missile defenses are a fundamental component. Finally, the third leg focuses on developing a defense infrastructure that can respond rapidly to changes in the security environment. In essence, the new triad boils down to a repackaging of concepts from previous administrations.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
There were three devices built. The first (the Gadget) was detonated in New Mexico on the 16th of July.
I knew about this one but didn't count it because it was needed to prove that the bomb could be built. So they still only had enough U-235 at the time for the two bombs that were dropped.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
They only had enough U-235 for one bomb, which is why only one bomb (Little Boy, dropped on Hiroshima) used U-235. The other two devices used Plutonium and a different technique for causing it to go supercritical.
Plutonium is created by 'decaying' U-238 (which can be dug up from the ground) inside a Nuclear reactor. In the case of the Manhattan Project the Plutonium was supplied by the Atomic piles at Hanford.
In short the scarcity of U-235 was not an issue since Plutonium Bombs like the one dropped on Nagasaki could be produced.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That's the problem, you read things which aren't being said! I never said, or even implied that you Brits burned German cities. All I'm saying is that it was done , whether by both US/British raids in Europe or US raids in Japan.
I merely asked you to clarify your point, which frankly sounded like a snarky "you Brits burned German cities"
I get your point about a 'demonsration' use of the bomb, but even you acknowledge that it might not have worked. If you're going to use that big of a weapon, make sure the message gets sent.
Quote:It was war. Which 'experts' would that be? Those who made the bomb, or those who were in charge of ending the war ? I'll even conceed that the 2nd bomb should not have been used, but such was the fog of war, info doesn't always get to those who need it.
We didn't even try, despite the urgings of experts
It's funny how you revise history , while accusing others of doing the same. I ammended my own post, as I'm free to do, before I saw your reply. I didn't expect that you'd be hanging on my every post.
That you chose to comment on either post isn't an issue, but when you lie and distort the facts, that's when you beocme the most tedious. But it's important to your fragil psyche that your own little world not be troubled w/ things like facts or opposing points of view. That might explain you reading things which weren't written in the first place.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I disagree. At the time the British and Americans were well aware of what sort of man Stalin was
Yeah fair enough. I can't say for sure that this thought of using the bombs to show off to the Russians didn't cross the minds of the president and his staff, but that doesn't mean it made all of the difference (or even any) to the final decision.
And I'm sure the cold war would have happened anyway - didn't Stalin have spies who alerted him to the existence of these weapons after the successful New Mexico testing?
Quote:
It’s my understanding that the powers that be at the time believed the emperor wasn't really all that important.
I think it's widely accepted now that this view is the result of Allied propoganda, who wanted to spare the emperor and the japanese people. From the article I linked earlier:
Quote:
Japanese and American historians have also shown that at the centre of the military system was the Emperor Hirohito, not the hapless prisoner of militarist generals, the version promulgated by MacArthur in 1945 to save him from a war crimes trial, but an all-powerful warlord, who had guided Japan’s aggressive expansion at every turn. Hirohito’s will had not been broken by defeats at land or sea, it had not been broken by the firestorms or by the effects of the blockade, and it would certainly not have been broken by the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, something the Japanese had anticipated for months.
Perhaps the guy is exaggerating with "all-powerful warlord" I don't know, but it seems to me that he at least ought to have been tried. I would hazard a guess that this is what President Truman was thinking when he refused to give assurances of the emperor's safety in the surrender terms (It's in his uncompromising nature). In a sense he was 'right' to insist on full justice on those who deserved it, and all of a sudden had the power to enforce it. You say quite correctly that it was possible that hundreds of thousands could have been spared - it depends how much you value upholding justice. It's hard to put an acceptable figure on it, and you must remember that enemy civilian lives were quite cheap in the minds of military commanders at that point in time.
The devestation and number of casualties was not so much greater than the firebombing missions of other Japanese and German cities sanctioned by other presidents before him, so he already had a precedent. This whole Allied bombing strategy I would say was regrettable but understandable if you make an effort to get inside the heads of the people in charge at the time. I'd say we are rightly more sensitive to these things these days.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thought I'd address some of the obligatory patented AURaptor bullshit before we got down to the matter at hand 
:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
But it's important to your fragil psyche that your own little world not be troubled w/ things like facts or opposing points of view.
This is quite funny given that I've actually brought facts to this discussion and you've brought, erm, no I'm not sure you've really bought anything actually.
Though I think myself KPO and Fredgiblet have actually been having a discussion about this, so I'd wager that you're the one whose having the problems with alternate viewpoints
.Quote:
That's the problem, you read things which aren't being said! I never said, or even implied that you Brits burned German cities.
Now now AU I never said you did say that. However knowing the way you like to go on it sounded like that *could* be what you were trying to say, which is why I asked you to clarify your point because it wasn't at all clear.
You see I don't live in your head, thank god and it's plain to anyone I think that I don't think like you, thank god. So when you post something that's very open to interpretation and then throw a tantrum and refuse to clarify what you said don't be surprised if someone miss-interprets your words
.I asked you for clarification, you said If the point escapes you, I fail to see the need to draw you a conclusion. You don’t get to make a big thing when I draw my own conclusions when you’ve refused to tell me what you meant. Any of this getting through at all?
Quote:
It's funny how you revise history , while accusing others of doing the same. I ammended my own post, as I'm free to do, before I saw your reply.
Erm, where did I do that exactly? Oh and just so you know the edit thing is so you can make minor changes to your post, remove typos that sort of thing. Every now and then you can add more info, but it’s considered quite bad form to REMOVE entire passages. Oh and revising history is exactly what you did
. Now, you were going to back up your accusation, if you can…Quote:
I didn't expect that you'd be hanging on my every post.
I’m going to tell you a little story. It’s about a man (me) who owns a computer and checks his e-mails in the morning to find one in his inbox from notify@fireflyfans.net with the subject line: AURaptor has responded to your message!
Now here would be the contents of that e-mail:
AURaptor has responded to a message you posted
in the 'REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS FORUM'
with the topic 'WE'RE GONNA NUKE IRAN!'
You can go to the following URL to read the response.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=20374&m=298097#298097
http://www.fireflyfans.net
Now what does our hero do when he reads this mail? He valiantly clicks that link to find himself face to face with a post by our antagonist (antagonist in the writing: fiction sense
) AURaptor. He replies to this post, unaware that it had been posted only recently.Chalk one up too coincidence eh son.
Quote:
but when you lie and distort the facts, that's when you beocme the most tedious.
When you make baseless accusations without backing them up and spend more time doing it than making your meagre poorly reasoned point that’s when you reach your average every day level of tedium, for AURaptor that is
.Now on to the ‘meat’:
Quote:
It was war. Which 'experts' would that be? Those who made the bomb, or those who were in charge of ending the war ?
No the experts on Japanese culture who helped draw up the Potsdam Proclamation and told the powers that be that the Japanese would never accept the surrender if the Emperors status wasn’t assured. Do try to keep up please.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME