Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No offense to colonel Seeman, but he seems to be in the minority - and I have not been able to find a source for his statement.
For instance, this article from the Federation of Atomic Scientists beg to differ: Stockpile article
Another, more detailed article (if Google Books is recalcitrant, try searching "Bulletin of the atomic Scientists, May 1982". Article by David Rosenberg).
Pertinent bit(s) - my transcription, so if there are errors, I am happy to be corrected:
So - I'll eat crow on there being one, the number appears to have been two.
Later in the article, the author lists the weapons available on June 30, 1946:
I'd also suggest picking up a copy of "Command and Control" (good book) and read David Lilienthal's shocked reaction on taking over as head of AEC shortly post-war. Short version: There wasn't a stockpile. Perhaps one bomb could be built at short notice. Nuclear weapons in 1945 were science experiments fit in steel casings. Handcrafted, unique, no interchangeable parts - put together by people who knew they were implementing something very much on the edge of their knowledge.
And before you argue that bunch of civilians wouldn't know, recall that the Manhatten project was put under the control of the DoE immediately after WWII, which makes them the custodians of the archives. And, of course, if there were indeed seven cores ready in the fall of 1945 - where did they go?
It is not just one man saying something. The entire invasion of Japan, headed by Marshall was based around nuclear weapons. The link I posted explains that along with other details on the invasion. They didn't need more cores once Japan surrendered. They are talking about a 6 month period between surrender date and the proposed invasion date.
It is not just one man saying something. The entire invasion of Japan, headed by Marshall was based around nuclear weapons. The link I posted explains that along with other details on the invasion. They didn't need more cores once Japan surrendered. They are talking about a 6 month period between surrender date and the proposed invasion date.
<shrug> That would be in direct contradiction of the figures any Manhattan Project historians have been able to locate. Olympic was supposed to start in November 1945, correct? That's 3 months to provide an additional 5-6 cores. Sorry, sounds unlikely. Someone may have been overselling - or someone confused desired capability with actual capability.
What Obama was saying is that Mankind should outgrow both the desire and need for war. That there are other ways of settling issues between countries. The reason for war does not matter, they should all be stopped before they get started.
So what do you recommend doing when some country doesn't follow your version of what mankind needs? Should we shrink in horror from actually doing anything because we need to abjure war?
What Obama was saying is that Mankind should outgrow both the desire and need for war. That there are other ways of settling issues between countries. The reason for war does not matter, they should all be stopped before they get started.
This after bombing 7 Arab countries. Syria, Libya, and Yemen were all wars of "choice" on Obama's part.
So what do you recommend doing when some country doesn't follow your version of what mankind needs? Should we shrink in horror from actually doing anything because we need to abjure war?
As it turns out, nobody suggested that. Except that straw man you just erected, and damn, you beat the stuffing out of him!
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty
This after bombing 7 Arab countries. Syria, Libya, and Yemen were all wars of "choice" on Obama's part.
He's not a very good secret Muslim, is he?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3~Shepherds
I think as the President who was embarrassed of the United States Flag........our President looks LOST!
You follow up a swing-and-miss regarding President Obama's whereabouts on Veteran's Day (he was at Arlington, to recap) with a photo from - 2007? Do "57 states" next, it's almost as old and always guaranteed to please the crowd around here.
I think as the President who was embarrassed of the United States Flag........our President looks LOST!
Impressive. After reading the one comment that made it known Obama did in fact make it to Arlington Cemetery, I thought to myself wouldn't it be impressive if people like you and all the others that also complained about Obama being there rather than here on such a day, wouldn't it be impressive if y'all at least went "oops!" Even better maybe admit being mistaken about Obama, yet again. Note you're want to criticize regardless the facts, even before the fact, mostly not knowing what you are going on about...
Instead, I now come to this comment about Obama looking "lost." Most impressive indeed.
How tempted I am to really make known who the lost ones are, but I'll remain polite and just leave this crapola speak for itself...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
