Originally posted by mario_ragucci
"The use of atomic weapons took on new meaning for me when I realized just what an atomic detonation is. Unless you know just what happens, it may not seem so bad. Once you do understand, you would have to be nuts to even think about their use."
Mario, I understand, and have understood for a long time exactly what an atomic detonation is. Of course, I do not advocate the use of atomic weapons. However, I am not willing to equate the US use of the atomic weapons in Japan with terrorism. That is jingoism at its worst, and ignores facts. Lets move on.
"kmchugh - the 9-11 events did not produce energy. Now I'll talk science. Energy is released when an atom is split. No atoms split at the WTC. The points of implact were 600 MPH, based on the max speed of the jets, but I don't think anything accelorated after impact. It's ok not to understand what occurs after a detonation - just make sure your wearing welders glasses, and are not looking in the direction of ground zero. The two planes that delivered two atomic detonations over the japanese cities in 1945 caused 100x more loss of human life than 9-11. They are different events!"
Generally, your science is correct. In the end though, that science lesson you are trying to give me (at a pretty simplistic level, by the way) means very little to the victims of the attacks at the WTC. In fact, the end result to the victims of 9/11 at point of impact and Hiroshima at ground zero are pretty much the same, though the end point was reached by different means. The heat generated by the impact of the jet aircraft, and by the burning of their fuel, was enough to melt the buildings, as well as effectively vaporize the victims. Same same. Lets move on.
"I don't want to debate WWII because it is all hindsite, as you point out. To think a 20kton device detonated 500m over two densely inhabited cities is not terror, jeez."
What an interesting tactic. Accuse the US of the worst terror attack of all time, then when called on your comments, tell me you "don't want to debate it." Sorry, but from my view it is more likely that you are unable to intelligently debate it. Yes, I am angry, but I get that way when foolish comments are made that equate the US with terrorists. I spent 10 years in the US Army, working in a anti-terrorist role. I have seen the effect of terrorism. You clearly have no idea of the concepts you are trying to debate.
"How's the world look like wearing a blindfold :-( Plus, there was no threat to us from atomic weapons during that time because no other country had a B-29 that could fly a 3000+ mile round-trip with an 8ton payload. I don't want to get into it too much."
Again, "I don't want to get into it too much, because I don't want my precious world view screwed up with facts." The only reason there were no other powers at the time with atomic weapons is because the allies made a concerted effort to halt Hitler's bomb program. Again, study your history before making foolish comments. As to ability to deliver such weapons, if you study history (I know, all that studying gets in the way of pontification, but if you study, you will appear more intelligent) you would find that in addition to the bombing of Pearl Harbor, the Japanese successfully bombed the forests of Oregon and Washington State. They just found a different way to accomplish what we did with our long range bombers, and did it significantly earlier than we were able to routinely and reliably hit the Japanese mainland.
"It's okay to be proud of your country, right or wrong. It's respectful to recognize wrong. It's not cool to deny what actually happened. Your logic is all what if. And it's this logic that is disrespectful to the human life lost on those August days :-("
I am proud of my country, and I do recognize when it is wrong. Discuss Vietnam with me sometime for a discussion of wrongness. However, I deny nothing that happened, but unlike you, neither do I deny the probable (almost certain) consequences of not using atomic weapons. Yes, what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was terrible. What happened in Tokyo prior to that (if you don't know, look it up) was even more terrible in terms of loss of life. What happened in China, Korea and Indonesia at the hands of the Imperial Japanese Army was also terrible. What happened at Midway, Coral Sea, Guadalcanal, and Pearl Harbor was also terrible. War, and loss of life is a terrible thing. However, the probable outcome of a forced landing on mainland Japan would have been far more terrible than anything you can imagine.
I really mean what I am about to say. I am not trying to flame you. Mario, sometimes you must look at all sides of an issue, and understand that issue in historical perspective. Otherwise, you are simply spouting a party line, looking like an unthinking computer, that can only repeat what it has been told. Your arguments then are based on emotion rather than fact. And your arguments cannot be supported.