If Iran wants nukes, should we send them some?

[Kuciwalker]

FYI GePap alpha particles fall under ionizing radiation.

[Kuciwalker]

I forgot neutrons. Those aren't ionizing radiation but have roughly the same effect [on people].

[Drake Tungsten]

You are wrong to think that because the aim is to terrorize the population, you have to do it by killing the most people. The uS did imagine an aftermath to the war, a rebuilng of Japan. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were major cities, but in a sense better to make examples off than a more densely populated City. Besides, as statedby Deity Dude both of those Cities has avoided any significant bombing prior to being hit by nukes. What better target for a new weapon than "virgin cities"?

Kyoto was a "virgin city" that also happened to be more populous than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. It also held a special place in the conciousness of the nation as it had been the capital of Japan for over a millenium and was a veritable museum of Japanese history and culture.

Hiroshima and Kyoto were both on the preliminary lists of potential targets for the A-bombs. That being the case, why in god's name would US planners take Kyoto off the list and decide to attack Hiroshima (location of the Army headquarters responsible for the defense of southern Japan and an important communications and logistical hub), Kokura (the intended target for the bomb that was eventually dropped on Nagasaki, the site of an important aresenal, an industrial center and the main transportation link between Honshu and Kyushu) and Nagasaki (one of the largest and best ports in southern Japan and an important industrial center) if their only concern was terrorizing the Japanese population rather than striking at military targets?

Christ, this is an atom bomb we're talking about; terrorizing the population is a given. Might as well use it on an important military target and kill two birds with one stone...

If those targets were of significant military importance they could have long before been laid waste with B-29 raids, which would have killed tens of thousands of civilians anyways.

I know you don't know much about Japan, but there are a lot of cities here. It's a little silly to believe that the USAF would've destroyed every city and target of military significance in just 7 months of firebombing...

edit: Preliminary targeting recommendation, for those who are interested...

http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Kyoto was a "virgin city"

Not anymore.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


You don't have it divvied up quite right. What matters is how much of it ends up as ionizing radiation, how much ends up as heat/non-ionizing radiation, how much ends up as MW or RF radiation (your "EMP"), how much ends up as the shock wave, and how much ends up as radioactive byproducts (and how long their half-lives are). This is what I learned about nuclear reactors. But a fission bomb is similar (and hydrogen fusion bombs aren't that different)

The last element is generally what people talk about when they mention clean or dirty bombs.

nuclear reactions (I'm reaching here, it's been a long time) release alpha radiation, beta radiation, neutron radiation, gamma radiation, neutrinos and anti neutrinos, and fission products (which are generally radioactive such as Cesium etc).

The radiation is released immediately. It's the fission products that contaminate everything. Contamination (or fallout) is the long term radation threat.

[Lancer]

If Dis will do some reaching I can too...

"War is bad for children and other living things"

For those of you not around yet that's from a '60s anti war poster. You could pick one up in a psycadelic shop at the mall along with a new bong and tie dyed shirt. All for $1...

[Dis]

but they make good movies

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


Christ, this is an atom bomb we're talking about; terrorizing the population is a given. Might as well use it on an important military target and kill two birds with one stone...

So what is your point? Terroring the population was still the main point, and tens of thousands of civilians were going to die anyways.

Is killing 70,000 Civilians less a war crime than 100,000 in the end?

That was a lot of words to say nothing....

[Dis]

and to the final point. The use of atomic bombs in Japan may have prevented any further use of them. It's good the U.S. never used them on another enemy since then. Had we not seen the devastating effects of the bombs on human population centers, would we have refrained from using them in Korea or Vietnam? It's impossible to say for sure. And it doesn't ease the suffering of those unfortunate souls who had to go through that.