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: TimF who wrote (792476)	6/29/2014 4:13:23 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 1575429

I doubt it. We only had a very few atomic bombs. And we didn't have "small bombs". The yield was small compared to many deployed today, but there wasn't a separate category of small bombs and all of them were physically large. We had only the two we used, at the time. We kept that secret, for bluffing purposes. They were the most powerful we could build then. Later, we bluffed the Soviets into staying out of Iran when we had NO bombs.

To: TimF who wrote (792476)	6/29/2014 4:17:05 PM
From: Taro	1 Recommendation Recommended By steve harris Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575429

As fars as I recall, we had just 2 bombs: One on U-235 and one based on Plutonium. /Taro

To: TimF who wrote (792476)	6/30/2014 1:16:16 AM
From: RMF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575429

Yes, I understand that the science wasn't that evolved at the time to make specifically designed "small" atomic bombs. BUT, I believe that the invasion was going to take a while and they WERE planning to use atomic bombs in the coastal areas to "soften up" the Japanese defensives. You say it "never could have been a concrete plan"? REALLY? Do you know how many Americans died invading all those small islands on the way to Japan? Do you think our leaders would rather have lost another 500k men in an invasion rather than use this new weapon they had come up with?

To: TimF who wrote (792476)	7/29/2014 8:20:32 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575429

Hi TimF; Re: "I doubt it. We only had a very few atomic bombs."; No, the plan was to bomb near tactical military targets. Bombing had been used extensively in the invasion at Normandy and the use in Japan would be similar. While we used both bombs we had (they were basically prototypes), the industry was there and the production was gearing up to be very large. For the next few months we could only make 3 per month: Groves expected to have another atomic bomb ready for use on August 19, with three more in September and a further three in October. [83] On August 10, he sent a memorandum to Marshall in which he wrote that "the next bomb ... should be ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or 18 August." On the same day, Marshall endorsed the memo with the comment, "It is not to be released over Japan without express authority from the President." [83] en.wikipedia.org My recollection (from reading) is that they expected production to ramp up considerably in 1946. This is what you do with apex military weapons. Re: "And we didn't have "small bombs". The yield was small compared to many deployed today, but there wasn't a separate category of small bombs and all of them were physically large."; Yep. I'm sure they would have steadily improved deliverability one way or another. -- Carl