Unedited footage of the bombing of Nagasaki

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
I hear what you are saying about the two being needed. BUT, is this your opinion, or is this the historic reason why the US decided to drop two? To make is unmistakable.

I wasn't in on the decision making process. I've never heard it put the way I did. I kinda just took it as a matter of common sense.

If the leaders of the US had no souls, they could've easily eliminated the entire Japanese population and then moved on to the Russians. They didn't. That says something.

I think we can all forgive them for what they did way back then. For the most part ... they're all dead anyway.

My 16 year old son watched part of the clip and just asked me if that Nagasaki bomb is the most powerful bomb every made. I think the bombs that we have today can wipe out an entire city the size of Nagasaki, instead of just part of it..right?

a reply to: carewemust

There are/were ones capable of taking out a an entire county. I believe smaller ones exist as well.

originally posted by: carewemust
My 16 year old son watched part of the clip and just asked me if that Nagasaki bomb is the most powerful bomb every made. I think the bombs that we have today can wipe out an entire city the size of Nagasaki, instead of just part of it..right?

The Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombs were equivalent to around 20,000 tons of TNT (or 20kt in nuclear weapon speak), they were fission bombs, that derived their power from splitting atoms.

I'm afraid to say that they pale in comparison with todays nuclear bombs. To give you an example, the largest and most powerful bomb, the Tsar Bomba was a 50Mt weapon, thats the equivalent of 50 MILLION tons of TNT. They wanted to make it 100Mt but scaled it down for fears of the damage it would do to the land it was detonated over. The newer weapons are Hydrogen bombs which derive their power from fusing atoms rather than splitting them. By the way, fusion bombs use fission bombs to initiate the fusion. Crazy eh?

Tsar Bomba

a reply to: carewemust



Oh, and just to show you, this GUN shot out a bomb of Nagasaki power.

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
I hear what you are saying about the two being needed. BUT, is this your opinion, or is this the historic reason why the US decided to drop two? To make is unmistakable.

I wasn't in on the decision making process. I've never heard it put the way I did. I kinda just took it as a matter of common sense.

If the leaders of the US had no souls, they could've easily eliminated the entire Japanese population and then moved on to the Russians. They didn't. That says something.

I think we can all forgive them for what they did way back then. For the most part ... they're all dead anyway.

Quoted for agreement.

And yes, i know you were not in on the decision you schmuck

a reply to: carewemust

That's one way to put it.

The largest can wipe out every borough of New York, and keep right on going for some miles.

As horrific as Nagasaki, and Hiroshima, were. As horrific as the Tokyo firebombings were. Imagine for a moment, a land invasion of Japan by the Commonwealth, and Americans in the spring or summer of 1946.

The cost in lives would have been staggering, far more than Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and Tokyo combined. Possibly as many as a million plus Japanese would have died...several tens of thousands of Allied soldiers and sailors, probably more, would have died.

The Home Islands would have been a blood soaked abattoir. Then comes the aftermath. Diseases. How many would have died then?

War vouchsafes many choices on us...all of them in varying shades of bad. The only good one, is when we decide it's over.

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
or is this the historic reason why the US decided to drop two?

The allies dropped the first bomb, Japan refused to surrender. They dropped the 2nd one, then there was a military coup by some in the military, then the emperor decided to surrender.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: 3danimator2014
or is this the historic reason why the US decided to drop two?

The allies dropped the first bomb, Japan refused to surrender. They dropped the 2nd one, then there was a military coup by some in the military, then the emperor decided to surrender.

Thanks for the info.

2nd

originally posted by: carewemust
I think the bombs that we have today can wipe out an entire city the size of Nagasaki, instead of just part of it..right?

Bombs (a bad term) are no longer designed quite that way. They're designed to go off in a pattern causing many factors of damage a single bomb cannot achieve.

Hopefully none of us will live to see another one of these used again. But i still say that their creation was inevitable and more good than bad came from them. Both scientifically and in terms of warfare. With that, im off to bed. Thanks for the good discussions, ill be back tomorrow.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

What we have now? It's been 60 years since the invention of the nuclear bomb, Surely we have something more diabolical malicious and evil than a bomb?

a reply to: 3danimator2014

Because the Emperor kept his throne at the mercy of the Imperial Army because of tradition. It was seen as important to keep him as figurehead but he was all but powerless until the entire nation saw what happened in August 1945. At that point he had the people on his side whereas prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki the entirety of Japan was fully behind the Imperial Army and their quest for regional dominance.

originally posted by: carewemust
My 16 year old son watched part of the clip and just asked me if that Nagasaki bomb is the most powerful bomb every made. I think the bombs that we have today can wipe out an entire city the size of Nagasaki, instead of just part of it..right?

Thanks to each of you who answered the above question. All we can say here is...WOW! It would probably be at least 1,000 years between a World War III and a World War IV. Let's hope the former never occurs!
-carewemust

originally posted by: brice
a reply to: 3danimator2014

What we have now? It's been 60 years since the invention of the nuclear bomb, Surely we have something more diabolical malicious and evil than a bomb?

Just have to answer you....science doesn't work like that. E=MC2 and there is only a certain amount of energy in a lump of matter. And we have not found a more impactful and instantaneous way of releasing it than a fission or fusion bomb.

That's if you want to stay in reality. If you want to talk about imaginary weapons that are supposedly being kept secret then i'm sure you will have a lot of people here on ATS who will keep you happy. I tend to believe that we have nothing as devastating as atomic bombs. Not because i believe that the government wouldn't lie to us, but because the science isn't there.

We have plenty of diabolical weapons, you just might have to wait a hundred years before you get your quark-gluon plasma weapon.

Sorry if this sounds stupid. I read somewhere that an atomic bomb fries circuitry and electronics from an EM pulse. Were the planes shielded against that? If not, how did they not get friend? Were they too high up?

About 20-30 years ago, I remember one of our U.S. Presidents attempting to get a bomb built that would destroy all the life in a city, but leave the buildings intact. Congress turned down the request because it was in-humane, or something to that effect. Why is it best to destroy property and people, vs. only people?

originally posted by: carewemust
About 20-30 years ago, I remember one of our U.S. Presidents attempting to get a bomb built that would destroy all the life in a city, but leave the buildings intact.

Not really....

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: 3danimator2014
Actually that is what was commonly called the "Long Tom" . It could either fire barrels of conventional explosives or very low yield atomic shells. Nowhere close to either as the two bombs were classified strategic and the Long Tom was considered tactical battlefield,

'I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.

Attributed to Albert Einstein