Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi Guys,

    6th of August is the 64th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing. I know that there are different opinions on this subject but i guess i'm just seeking the sympathetic ears over this one.

    I've linked in a video. it is 10 minutes long but a very worthwhile watch as it gives accounts of those who were 'fortunate' enough to survive the atomic blasts.

    Hiroshima Bomb

    I'd like you all to support the CND (or any other 'ban the bomb' group). They also have a facebook group and even just adding their page can make a difference - I have. Remember bad things happen when good people do nothing (although you're not a bad person if you think nukes are a needed evil)

    Please don't turn this into a 'yanks are terrorists LOLZZ' thread or any other rubbish. This is meant as a thread to highlight an issue on a day many normal civilians died. Thank you
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The dead are dead they don't know what happens after them why do people make such a fuzz about the dead and respecting them
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stratos)
    The dead are dead they don't know what happens after them why do people make such a fuzz about the dead and respecting them
    Missing the point there dude.

    It's about reflecting on what humanity is capable of and remembering the devastating and perverse power that we hold. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan could very well be the prelude to our own deaths, or the destruction of humanity as we recognise it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chidona)
    Missing the point there dude.

    It's about reflecting on what humanity is capable of and remembering the devastating and perverse power that we hold. The atomic bombs dropped on Japan could very well be the prelude to our own deaths, or the destruction of humanity as we recognise it.
    Thank you. Someone sees it
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alan_Johnson)
    I'd like you all to support the CND (or any other 'ban the bomb' group). They also have a facebook group and even just adding their page can make a difference - I have. Remember bad things happen when good people do nothing (although you're not a bad person if you think nukes are a needed evil)
    How naive and idealistic.

    Yes, why don't we abolish our nuclear arsenal, I am sure unstable, dangerous countries will also follow suit and we won't be practically defenseless and open to attack. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Its still affecting people today, in more ways than one. It was absolutely terrible. If you go there you see how bad it was from meeting the people etc. It will make you see it differently if you believe it was not bad or ''whats done is done'.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    It was a highly regrettable event, but it's a case of the lesser of two evils. Had Little Boy not been dropped, Japan would have persevered in its fight against the Allies and WWII would have been drawn out many years longer.

    In the case for CND, I can see the benefits if everyone disarmed completely, but as long as countries like Iran and North Korea continue to develop them, we shouldn't - and can't - get rid of ours.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    There arguements that say the number of people that died due to the 2 bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved more lives as it brought about the end of the war. I'm not sure if that's right or not, but it seems that way. The Japanese were determined. They refused an unconditional surrender (Potsdam Declaration). The people in charge of Japan were incredibly ignorant in the first place to launch the attack, they evidently were prepared to take risks and let citizens die. But after the Atomic Bomb they knew they would never make it out alive, so they had to surrender. I assume this would've saved many lifes in the long run.

    But all these 'ban the bomb' campaigns are opperating in vain. It's too late now. All countries would have to agree to destroy their bombs. This is never going to happen with rogue states like North Korea and Iran. If anything, the UK needs to preserve their nuclear arsenal as if they remove the deterant they become open to attack from anybody. For all we know anybody could come attack, and if they had nukes there would be a clear winner, with the UK in surrender.


    If anything Nuclear Weapons prevent wars between nations these days. If there was no nuclear weapon would the USSR and USA actually had gone to war?
    Offline

    2
    good thread, sir.
    video embed here



    largest nuke ever built, Tsar Bomb. quoted from youtube-

    The blast yield was equal to that of a blast of 57,000,000 Tonnes of TNT....or to put that into context: The weight of 270 Empire State Buildings worth of TNT. This makes the Tsar the most powerful nuclear device ever detonated in history. Think of the destruction at Hiroshima. The Tsar was 3800 times more powerful than Hiroshima.

    The bomb's weight was 27 tonnes, and its dimensions were: 8 meters (26ft) in length, and 2 meters (6.5ft) in diameter.

    It was air-dropped, from a modified Tupolev Tu-95 Bear, and it used a nylon parachute to slow its decent to give the crew time to escape.

    The bomb was dropped from an altitude of 34,500 feet AGL (10,500 meters), and it detonated a little over three minutes later at an altitude of 13,100 feet AGL (4,000 meters). In this time: The Tu-95, travelling at a ground speed of 480kts (552mph, 864kph), travelled into the safe zone (about 45km from ground zero) and was therefore 79km away from the blast.

    When the bomb detonated, immediately the temperature directly below and surrounding the detonation would have risen to millions of degrees. The pressure below the blast was 300 pounds per square inch, over three times the pressure in a car tyre. The light energy released was so powerful that it was visible even at 1000km (621 miles), with cloudy skies. The shockwave was powerful enough to break windows at even up to 900 kilometres (560 miles) from the blast. The shockwave was recorded orbiting the earth 3 times. The mushroom cloud rose to an altitude of 64,000 meters (210,000 feet) before levelling out. The thermal energy from the blast was powerful that it could cause 3rd degree burns to a human standing 100 km (62 miles) away from the blast.

    The radius of the fireball was 2.3 kilometres (1.4 miles). The blast radius (area in which total destruction ensured) was 13km (8 miles).

    The most important thing to note is that this bomb was designed as a 100 Megaton device (Yield equivalent of 0.1 billion tonnes of TNT). If detonated, everything within a 48 kilometer (30 mile) diameter would be vaporised. Everything within a 195 kilometer (120 mile) diameter would be incinerated in a fireball. This would ensure total destruction of a large city like New York, Paris or London, as well as devastation on its outskirts.

    Look at my other video to get more information about the test history.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RexRegina)
    How naive and idealistic.

    Yes, why don't we abolish our nuclear arsenal, I am sure unstable, dangerous countries will also follow suit and we won't be practically defenseless and open to attack. :rolleyes:
    Well, South Africa did it.

    EDIT:
    HHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA, WHAT

    (Original post by RexRegina)
    Has anyone considered the fact that nuclear weapons may have potential for use, other than indiscriminate murder?
    And you have the sheer audacity to call us naive?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Has anyone considered the fact that nuclear weapons may have potential for use, other than indiscriminate murder?

    There's any number of scenarios where they could be used, including an alien invasion. :p:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moneyballs2)
    There arguements that say the number of people that died due to the 2 bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved more lives as it brought about the end of the war. I'm not sure if that's right or not, but it seems that way.
    Do you think the Americans could have simply bombed a couple of large military bases and still receive the same outcome, or did they HAVE to bomb two cities?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RexRegina)
    Do you think the Americans could have simply bombed a couple of large military bases and still receive the same outcome, or did they HAVE to bomb two cities?
    Well, these are Americans, and it was President Truman that ordered it, so realistically, no, they would always want to send the message as hard as possible.

    From what I know Japan did nothing after the Hiroshima attack in the way of surrender, so you could argue that attack military bases and injuring soldiers wouldn't of made a big enough impact... I'm starting to play Devil's Advocate here, there are so many possibilities for what could've been done differently and the consequence of that action. I'm still undecided whether it was the best course of action, but it did work...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chidona)
    And you have the sheer audacity to call us naive?
    How is that naive, exactly? Or are you childishly mimicking my own language, in an attempt to spew your own malignant diatribe?

    There's been numerous recordings of asteroids which have impacted on Earth's surface, and more predictions have been made for the future. Scientists widely recognise that nuclear weapons would be the most likely form of deflection.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:


    This thing kept us free for 35 years. Be thankful for it.
    Offline

    2
    remember that whether it was the correct choice or not, the USA has had over 50 years to teach us that it was. would one MILLION Americans really have been killed invading Japan as I was taught at school?

    Either way, conflict and tensions between the USA and USSR had already begun in Europe - the USA needed to show the commies where the big dawgs were at. The USA *****es. Japan was the perfect place to hold the first round of the who-has-the-bigger-**** show that would dominate the following decades.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RexRegina)
    How is that naive, exactly? Or are you childishly mimicking my own language, in an attempt to spew your own malignant diatribe?

    There's been numerous recordings of asteroids which have impacted on Earth's surface, and more predictions have been made for the future. Scientists widely recognise that nuclear weapons would be the most likely form of deflection.
    Wouldn't mind seeing some decent references for that claim there. Besides, in the case of a decent sized asteroid, we'd all be bricked anyway. You shoot nukes at it, al you're doing is breaking a big asteroid into slightly smaller chunks that will still kick our collective ass.

    Nuclear weapons exist for the sole reason to kill and destroy. Countries don't keep nukes in case of asteroid impacts, but will use them in a 'kitchen sink' scenario, essentially. Trying to validate the existence of nuclear weapons by pointing out the non-combat uses is a weak and naive standpoint. It is also fascinating you call me childish, yet it is you who quite recklessly decided to hand out personal insults to anyone not sharing your point of view.

    As for the thread, it is also quite important to consider the speech that Obama made in Prague, earlier this year. Where he talked of a World without Nuclear weapons. he then went to the Kremlin and laid the framework for a replacement to the START II treaty, which will require a cutting of nuclear weapons. The anti-nukes movement is gaining credibility at the very highest authority in the Western World, so perhaps CND isn't as hopeless as you may feel it appears to be.

    That's all I wanted to say, I shall quit this thread now for fear of repeating myself/getting into a tiresome flame war.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    It would be nice to scrap them but tbh that's not going to happen. Even if it did you know the west would put in some rule were they are allowed a small stash..."just in case". We all a few countries unstable so wont let them have nuclear power, let alone let them make nukes, but we trade with these countries every day, we rely on them, they rely on us, you think Iran is going to launch a nuke at say New York? Even if they could they know that's one city, and our retaliation would be a blinding flash to the east and no more Iran. Everyone knows where they stand, we all have them, but who ever uses them isn't going to exist the next day either, I doubt even extremists are THAT dumb.

    The ideal scenario would be no single nation has nukes and no the US of A isn't allowed a special "stash for democracy" of some other BS they'd pull. Then we'd create an organisation like the UN but involving every country no matter what their world views. Basically in case we need it for Earth's defence, yeah the chance we'd need nukes capable to entering orbit is slim to nil but I still think we should have a stockpile of them along with a satellite network which allows for automated tracking in the space around our planet, just in case.

    Thing is it isn't an ideal world and countries will always be making them in secret. I mean Israel supposedly doesn't have them, but it's basically a public secret they probably do, the USA is suspicious enough.:rolleyes:. I sometimes wonder what other weapons nations, especially advanced ones like the USA, are researching into, already got microwave weapons, not really used but burning people alive isn't nice, probably a lot of nasty stuff in secret.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RexRegina)
    How naive and idealistic.

    Yes, why don't we abolish our nuclear arsenal, I am sure unstable, dangerous countries will also follow suit and we won't be practically defenseless and open to attack. :rolleyes:

    The technology would still be there to build a bomb to retaliate if need be. at the same time if a rogue nation is going to attack it will regardless.

    All the time there are nuclear weapons that are armed there is a possibility that one will go off by mistake.

    Also, i did politely ask that this thread stay sensible and that i respected everyone of their opinions so didn't really need you coming in with some disrespectful crack did we? you could have just stated your point in a manner that other people in this thread have managed to and put across perfectly good well reasoned points
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    some incidences that nearly led to nuclear war but really shouldn't have
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.