Anniversary of Hiroshima

Question: why were the nukes dropped on cities? why not military targets?

Answer: Thats the nature of total war.

Question: How many civilians and military personnel would have died in a mainland invasion of Japan?

[quote]wufwugy wrote:
Question: why were the nukes dropped on cities? why not military targets?[/quote]

“Japanese generals were preparing for total population war in which every man woman and child would be expected to fight to the death or commit suicide”

Answer: more than were killed by the nukes.

Question: why not nuke military targets? why nuke Japan’s cities instead of Japan’s largest military harbor and base?

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Let’s analyze[/quote]

Good idea.

[quote]
“This relation between mass and energy was made most obvious in the case of radioactivity, when one element changes into another - the masses tend to be different, and the energy released can be very large. The same applies to the nuclear fission and fusion reactions, where the energy released can be determined directly from the mass difference of the reactants. Now, this is actually [/quote]not really much different[quote] from the way in which the chemical energy of molecules changes when molecules join and break up - there would be an associated mass change as well. But the mass change for chemical energy changes [/quote]is so tiny that nobody had ever observed it[quote], while it is relatively easy to measure in the nuclear case.” [/quote]

You don’t use E=mc^2 when dealing with chemical reactions such as conventional explosives. The inefficiency is so staggering that it makes no sense at all.

1 kg of TNT (in fact, 1kg of anything), converted using E=mc^2, yields the equivalent of 21.5 megatons of TNT of energy.

1 kg of TNT, detonated thru chemical reaction, yields, well, 1 kg of TNT worth of energy. An efficiency of 0.00000000004%

[quote]
Mertdawg to Pookie:
So conventional/chemical weapons, and non-nuclear processes still derive their energy from E=mc^2.[/quote]

Find me a text on conventional explosive weapons (not a bad layman’s explanation of E=mc^2) that use E=mc^2 to calculate the energy output and we’ll talk.

[quote]
"Nuclear fallout
The residual radioactive contamination hazard from a nuclear explosion is in the form of radioactive fallout [/quote]and neutron-induced activity.[quote] Residual ionizing radiation arises from:

(part of text omitted)

[/quote]Neutron-Induced Activity.[quote] If atomic nuclei capture neutrons when exposed to a flux of neutron radiation, they will, as a rule, [/quote]become radioactive (neutron-induced activity)[quote] and then decay by emission of beta and gamma radiation over an extended period of time. Neutrons emitted as part of the initial nuclear radiation will cause activation of the weapon residues. In addition, [quote]atoms of environmental material, such as soil, air, and water, may be activated[/quote], depending on their composition and distance from the burst.

For example, a small area around ground zero may become hazardous as a result of exposure of the minerals in the soil to initial neutron radiation. This is due principally to neutron capture by various elements, such as sodium manganese silicon and aluminum in the soil. This is a negligible hazard because of the limited area involved." [/quote]

Just read what you posted. Other material can be irradiated and become radioactive. Those “waste” were not sitting inside the bomb waiting to be dispersed.

The way you described it in your first post, was the way a “dirty bomb” works. By dessiminating radioactive material using conventional explosives.

[quote]
Mertdawg wrote:
Second, I’ve seen estimates that the bomb saved more lives than were lost in all of World War II. [/quote]

I didn’t quote that part, but since the estimates are unverifiable, the point is moot. If your brother is as smart as you, don’t use him as a reference.

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
going to hell[/quote]

Maybe if you read less fairy tales about imaginary places and tried a physics 101 text, you’d understand what you’re talking about.

[quote]wufwugy wrote:
Answer: more than were killed by the nukes.

Question: why not nuke military targets? why nuke Japan’s cities instead of Japan’s largest military harbor and base?[/quote]

Many military and civilian targets were heavily bombed but by nuking two cities we were trying to scare the shit out of them…it was more phycological
than tactical.
Thats really the whole point of total war…break their will to fight.

[quote]Gregus wrote:
wufwugy wrote:
Question: why were the nukes dropped on cities? why not military targets?

“Japanese generals were preparing for total population war in which every man woman and child would be expected to fight to the death or commit suicide”[/quote]

that would explain it.

[quote]wufwugy wrote:
Gregus wrote:
wufwugy wrote:
Question: why were the nukes dropped on cities? why not military targets?

“Japanese generals were preparing for total population war in which every man woman and child would be expected to fight to the death or commit suicide”

that would explain it.[/quote]

Apparently the Japanese were not big on surrender.

An interesting article about it: Canada.Com | Homepage | Canada.Com

[quote]pookie wrote:
wufwugy wrote:
Gregus wrote:
wufwugy wrote:
Question: why were the nukes dropped on cities? why not military targets?

“Japanese generals were preparing for total population war in which every man woman and child would be expected to fight to the death or commit suicide”

that would explain it.

Apparently the Japanese were not big on surrender.

An interesting article about it: Canada.Com | Homepage | Canada.Com
“Second, I’ve seen estimates that the bomb saved more lives than were lost in all of World War II.”

It sounds to me like you are agreeing with this one now?

“They all work because of E=mc^2.”

How is this not true? ALL of the energy in a conventional weapon comes from a conversion of mass. Yes it’s a small amount but its not like Einstein’s equation suddenly starts working at the atomic level.

“Radioactive waste is not CAUSED by the nuclear explosions, but if it exists in the bomb it gets spread out by it.”

Look, my point is that you do not get a “radioactive world” for 100 years from fusion products. You get 1 round of neutron induced decays on the scale of a few days, versus decay products with half lives of thousands of years-very much in proportion to your nuclear versus chemical yield for TNT.

Allow me to play devil’s advocate.
Aside from all the comments that are of the “they deserved it” bent, or the “It shortened the war and sent a message to the Russians”, the way I heard it at the time the U.S. were preparing to drop the bombs Japan was nearly economically wiped out from the war and on the verge of collapse anyway.
Historians have thus debated whether it was even necessary to drop the bombs?
What say you?

If there wasn’t a Pearl Harbor, there wouldn’t have been a Hiroshima or Nagasaki. An invasion of the Japanese mainland would have cost God knows how many American lives. Oh, but we killed innocent civillians?? Yeah, well the Japanese massacred MILLIONS when they occupied China and other various countries, so that bleeding-heart, tree-hugger statement can be put to rest. While the loss of those many thousands of innocent civillians was tragic, to me it would have been way more tragic to add another few hundred thousand crosses to Arlington. Better them than us. That’s war. Yeah it’s ugly, but let’s face it, war was never meant to be pretty. The winners are usually those that can put their enemies in such a hurt locker that they lose all will to fight. We did that with the Japanese and many many American troops were able to come home and carry on with their normal lives because of it. By the way, the pilot of the Enola Gay (the plane that carried the nuclear weapons) feels no regret whatsoever, according to an interview a few years ago. RLTW

rangertab75

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
So conventional/chemical weapons, and non-nuclear processes still derive their energy from E=mc^2.
[/quote]

No. In conventional explosives, the energy that is released is energy that was stored in molecular bonds. E=mc**2 plays a role in converting a small part of this released energy into electromagnetic radiation. But conversion of mass is not where the energy of the explosion comes from. That comes purely from a chemical reaction, and it is mainly expressed as kinetic and thermal energy, not as radiation.

[quote]heimdall wrote:
Allow me to play devil’s advocate.
Aside from all the comments that are of the “they deserved it” bent, or the “It shortened the war and sent a message to the Russians”, the way I heard it at the time the U.S. were preparing to drop the bombs Japan was nearly economically wiped out from the war and on the verge of collapse anyway.
Historians have thus debated whether it was even necessary to drop the bombs?
What say you?[/quote]

If by collapse you mean mutiny or capitulation of their military, they were a far cry from collapse. The Japanese defenders of Okinawa were short on just about every tactical good. They still managed to make their defense of Okinawa plenty bloody and plenty lengthy. They had taken the time to dig in and prepare for a long, unequal, and guaranteed futile struggle. The situation on that island was beyond collapse, but that didn’t stop the bloodshed.

For a more contemporary example look at North Korea. It’s an economic basket case so our troubles are over, right?

Not. So I think you should get some new historians. Ones who properly appreciate the power of bloody-mindedness.

You guys… stop owning mertdawg. He’s down already.

PS Good to have you posting again, rangertab.

[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
So conventional/chemical weapons, and non-nuclear processes still derive their energy from E=mc^2.

No. In conventional explosives, the energy that is released is energy that was stored in molecular bonds. E=mc**2 plays a role in converting a small part of this released energy into electromagnetic radiation. But conversion of mass is not where the energy of the explosion comes from. That comes purely from a chemical reaction, and it is mainly expressed as kinetic and thermal energy, not as radiation.[/quote]

You are wrong and despite the retardation, Pookie will agree here. The relative movement of the atoms and electrons in the electric potential energy field during a chemical reaction equates to a minute change of mass which converts just as predicted by E=MC^2. I could tell that he did some research after reading the second post so he wouldn’t look stupid because he didn’t know that too.

[quote]pookie wrote:
Wow. It’s a rare feat when someone manages to be wrong in every sentence of a post.

Congratulations.
[/quote]

I apologize. Earlier today I made the following post:

My apologies as I failed to provide a Canadian translation for my retarded friends out there. You see, I care for retards who may lack the ability to contextualize or fill in the blanks.

Here is a “filled in” Canadian translation for tards out there. And remember to wipe.

People think of nuclear weapons as being real bad. I think that all bombs are real bad. A lot more people died during World War II from regular bombs than from nuclear bombs. People think that Albert Einstein came up with an idea that says that you can get energy out of the inside of an atom. It really says that you can get energy out of many things, but that you can get a diaper full out of the inside of the atom. Also, people think that because they are called nuclear bombs, they will make the world poison for a long time. Just because a bomb is a nuclear bomb does not necessarily mean that it will make the world poison for a long time. It is possible to have a nuclear bomb that only makes the world poison for a few days. When you have a nuclear bomb that makes the world poison for a long time, it is because there is a lot of poison metal around the explosion that was used to make the explosion get started. The actual explosion only make the world poison for a few days.

Japan is a big country made of tall mountains. The people who lived there never gave up when they fought you. There were millions of them. They all wanted to fight until they were dead. When less than a million of them died from a nuclear bomb, they finally decided that they didn’t all need to fight until they were dead any more.

Uh… I guess I was wrong about mert.

Mert, I hate to break this to you, but all chemical reactions are not the same as conversion of mass to energy. A fission chain reaction is not the same as simple combustion, pal. Honest. Stay down.

Anyway, I thought this thread was even more interesting when the guys who spent some time in Japan added their two. Especially the dude who had the Japanese folks ask him to apologize for the two atomic bombs, and then he said “Pearl Harbor.” That was pretty tight. Good thread, everybody.

Sigh. Once more, from the top.

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
First (and I’m not passionate here) there’s no real difference between nuclear and non-nuclear weopons (sic).[/quote]

No difference, huh? So I guess a hand grenade is a “nukular” weapon? How’bout a fertilizer bomb? C4? TNT?

Newflash genius: Just because a weapon is made of atoms doesn’t mean it’s an atomic weapon.

So all the radioactive metal, wood, soil, water, etc. that’s found near a detonation site was in the bomb? Gee, it must be hard to pack all that scenery in there.

Yes, and you’ve evidently accepted those estimates as hard facts. Which is wrong.

[quote]mertdawg wrote:
You are wrong and despite the retardation, Pookie will agree here.[/quote]

Wrong again.

Did some research? To correct you? Riiight.

Actually, I tried to use the (sucky) references you posted to show that you were refuting your own comments. Since it appears that reading comprehension is a problem for you, let’s try to make it clearer.

E=mc^2 is involved in nuclear reactions, either fission (splitting) or fusion (merging).

Conventional weapons operate through chemical reactions. Repeat slowly: che-mi-cal. Learning new words is fun, no?

Now, in chemistry, the most fundamental rule is the law of conservation of mass. That law states that there is no detectable change of mass during a chemical reaction. No atoms are split or fused. E=mc^2 is never invoked when explaining those reactions. You’ve got the same amount of matter after the reaction as you had before. Different molecules, yes; but same atoms.

If you still don’t get it, well I give up. Like the saying goes “Ignorance can be cured, stupid is forever.”