Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (248390)	11/13/2007 3:08:10 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

10% is probably on the high side. But, we could have made a few bombs in the 1000 or so days we would be bogged down in Stalingrad and Leningrad. Of course, they may have been able to make one or two, also. BTW, I've read it wasn't the 2 bombs that made Japan surrender; it was Russia entering that war.

To: michael97123 who wrote (248390)	11/14/2007 12:46:40 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Stalin had the huge forces in 1946 so did we. The US alone had 16 million men in uniform. and US was sending troops home. obviously this wouldn't not have happened if the US had decided on war We had miniscule nuke force. Stalin didn't know that, did he? Nor was the force so miniscule - you don't need many. You don't need any if you've got your opponent convinced you have them. REmember a-bomb equalled 20K tons of tnt. That was the Hiroshima bomb. Already the Nagasaki one was bigger. The impact of the bomb wasn't in tnt equivalents, it was in the firestorm guaranteed with one bomb. Before, you needed a fleet of planes and atmospheric conditions just so. Now you could do it at will.