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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Taro who wrote (626100)	8/28/2011 6:00:54 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572605

"a good argument for dropping the 2nd bomb remains to be demonstrated by anybody." Nonsense, Taro. The bombs were different DESIGNS, using completely different methods of fission ignition, that needed to be tested on real populations and real targets. nuclearweaponarchive.org That, and that the Japs didn't immediately surrender after the first one. This book tells what the Americans had waiting for them if they invaded a Japan that hadn't surrendered - a Kamakazi populace: amazon.com We never admitted it, but the Kamakazis were very effective and took a fearsome toll on our ships. Just as we feared the AQ people willing to die for their cause, we feared the Japanese.

To: Taro who wrote (626100)	8/28/2011 7:19:20 PM
From: steve harris	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572605

Japan refused to surrender after the first bomb, believing that America couldn't have developed more than the one. Even after the second bomb, Japan refused to surrender. They didn't surrender until Hirohito became involved and made the decision to surrender August 12th. Refusing to surrender, Japan's military tried to kill Hirohito and continue the war. I clearly demonstrated why the second bomb was dropped and a third one was being readied. If I was running the war, and I had the capability, I would drop another one each morning the sun rose and Japan hadn't surrendered. Testing bomb's affect on humans is a ridiculous lie continued to be perpetuated as time goes by. If that theory was true, tell us who we dropped the first hydrogen bomb on to "test" it? No books are needed to counter unsubstantiated conspiracies.

To: Taro who wrote (626100)	8/28/2011 8:24:11 PM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572605

You truly believe any government (Obama????) would have been able to decide on an unconditional surrender - or anything else of any importance for that - within 72 hours??? Not sure about Obama. I think 72 hours was enough. You don't just put a war on hold waiting around to see whether the other side is convinced. Truman had estimates, that if an invasion of the mainland were required, that we could suffer 500k casualties and the Japanese could have twice that many. Truman believed an invasion would have extended the war by an additional year or more, which would have resulted in up to a million more US casualties total. As a matter of military strategy, I think it is fair to say that once you've knocked the enemy down you don't allow them time to get back up. And there was the knowledge that we only had ONE MORE bomb to work with. It had to be convincing. After the first bomb was dropped, a top Japanese military adviser is said to have not believed the weapon was an atomic bomb at all. After the second one, his attitude changed and he quickly came to believe we had 100s. At any rate, given the suffering that occurred in the Pacific War, I can see why it was done. There were American POWs starving and being tortured, and frankly, under those circumstances, pulling the trigger was totally reasonable.