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.
Hmmm. Extended WW2 as we'd have had to carpet bomb completely and then invade Japan. Then WW3 as we'd have had to chase Russia out of Europe( if we could) and China would have had all of Southeast Asia. I guess there would be many millions more casualties, maybe tens of millions.
Nuclear weapons have saved far more lives than they've taken but let's pray we never have to use them again.
Hmmm. Extended WW2 as we'd have had to carpet bomb completely and then invade Japan. Then WW3 as we'd have had to chase Russia out of Europe( if we could) and China would have had all of Southeast Asia. I guess there would be many millions more casualties, maybe tens of millions.
Nuclear weapons have saved far more lives than they've taken but let's pray we never have to use them again.
Hmmm. Extended WW2 as we'd have had to carpet bomb completely and then invade Japan.
The fire-bombing of Tokyo killed more Japanese people and also injured more people than either of the nuclear devices used.
You could have carpet bombed Japan without invading it.
Of, course about 65% of the Japanese people would have perished in the bombings and another 20% to 25% more in the aftermath, but who cares, except for maybe bean-counters.
In that case, Japan today would have roughly the same population as California
[quote=Icy Tea;38859956] Then WW3 as we'd have had to chase Russia out of Europe( if we could)....quote]
What?
You could have ended the war in the first week of February.
That would have violated Churchill's agreement with Stalin at the Yalta Conference, but who cares?
You could have attacked the Soviets and been victorious in less than 60 days had you pressed the attack from May onward.
Remember that War is Real Life, not a Video Game.
You just can't drive your tank over a flower and get re-fueled or capture a floating disc and get more ammo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drishmael
I think that Ahmadinejad was a figurehead and much of what he said .....
...was mistranslated by America's non-native-Farsi-speaking-Lebanese-Christian-Arabs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo
I think the presence of nuclear weapons has been largely responsible for keeping the major powers from entangling themselves in widespread wars.
It was Collective Security, not nuclear weapons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drishmael
Per our current understanding of physics,...
....the fissioning of any atom yields 180 MeV of energy.
Any atom.
That includes Oxygen. Carbon. Aluminum.....
The fusion of any atoms yields ~16 or so (more or less).
....the fissioning of any atom yields 180 MeV of energy.
Any atom.
That includes Oxygen. Carbon. Aluminum.....
The fusion of any atoms yields ~16 or so (more or less).
What will you do about the Oxygen Bomb?
What about the Iron Bomb?
What about fused Carbon?
Ooops....
Mircea
its not about the fissioning of the atom that is the key here, its the resulting chain reaction that produces the explosive yield. so yes splitting an oxygen atom will produce a certain yield, but it wont produce a chain reaction that is required for a massive explosion. now add an accelerant with that oxygen, and you have a fuel/air explosive, and the biggest one so far is 15,000lbs known as the M.O.A.B.
Yes we would be better off, the amount of money that is wasted on nuclear facilities, the danger even in civilized countries of a mishap and the proliferation to the point where many countries will have the power does not give optimism.
They have not prevented any wars and there is always the danger of starting one.
Just count the missile silos in the US alone and imagine if that money went to something more productive.
How can you possible know if it has prevented any wars? Are you from a parallel universe that had no nukes?
its not about the fissioning of the atom that is the key here, its the resulting chain reaction that produces the explosive yield. so yes splitting an oxygen atom will produce a certain yield, but it wont produce a chain reaction that is required for a massive explosion. now add an accelerant with that oxygen, and you have a fuel/air explosive, and the biggest one so far is 15,000lbs known as the M.O.A.B.
Not sure what you are trying to say here. You are comparing a nuclear reaction to a chemical reaction. The physics is completely different. The resulting explosions are vastly different.
The 600lb W19 nuclear shell, only 11 inches in diameter and just over 4 ft tall, has a yield of ~18Kt. Or when compared to the M.O.A.B, 36,000,000lbs. i.e. it's equal to 2400 M.O.A.Bs
The W19 is a small nuke, meant to be fired from a cannon. Yet fire it into a battle field and you completely eliminate all ground troops within a mile, destroy all the tanks, and take down anything flying in the immediate area.
Not sure what you are trying to say here. You are comparing a nuclear reaction to a chemical reaction. The physics is completely different. The resulting explosions are vastly different.
The 600lb W19 nuclear shell, only 11 inches in diameter and just over 4 ft tall, has a yield of ~18Kt. Or when compared to the M.O.A.B, 36,000,000lbs. i.e. it's equal to 2400 M.O.A.Bs
The W19 is a small nuke, meant to be fired from a cannon. Yet fire it into a battle field and you completely eliminate all ground troops within a mile, destroy all the tanks, and take down anything flying in the immediate area.
ok now tell me something i dont know. my point was, if you had some reading comprehension, is that while you can split any atom, you need a chain reaction to get a nuclear detonation, and splitting an oxygen atom doesnt provide that chain reaction. keep up please.
Not sure what you are trying to say here. You are comparing a nuclear reaction to a chemical reaction. The physics is completely different. The resulting explosions are vastly different.
The 600lb W19 nuclear shell, only 11 inches in diameter and just over 4 ft tall, has a yield of ~18Kt. Or when compared to the M.O.A.B, 36,000,000lbs. i.e. it's equal to 2400 M.O.A.Bs
The W19 is a small nuke, meant to be fired from a cannon. Yet fire it into a battle field and you completely eliminate all ground troops within a mile, destroy all the tanks, and take down anything flying in the immediate area.
Fire it on the battlefield (assuming Germany) and wait. Within a half hour a nuclear armed Scud missile will be launched from Poland or an SS-20 IRBM launched from Belarus or the Ukraine or even Western Russia and will deliever a Soviet nuclear weapon and annihilate you your position and most of your military unit where the stand. The Russians will use a bigger bomb and for good measure will also strike your base any weapons stockpiles and Supreme Allied HQ (NATO) to disrupt NATO response and to make the USA Britain and France think twice about escalating this war and seeing nuclear strikes spread to North America or west of the Rhine River to civilian targets. Since NATO HQ is outside of Brussels a little collateral damage would be done. Too bad for the Belgians!
Last edited by mwruckman; 03-18-2015 at 08:03 PM..
How can you possible know if it has prevented any wars? Are you from a parallel universe that had no nukes?
Wars that didn't get out of hand due to nuclear weapons:
Greek Civil War 1947
Berlin Crisis 1948
Korean War 1950
Suez Crisis 1956
Hungary 1956
Quemoy and Matsu 1958
Berlin Crisis 1961
Cuban Missile Crisis 1962
Vietnam War 1960s-1975
3rd Arab-Israeli War 1967
Sino-Soviet Clash on the Amur (1969)
The 1970 Clash between Egypt and Israel 1970
1971 Indo-Pakistan War
The 4th Arab-Israeli War (Yom Kippur War) 1973
The Oil Embargo 1974
1979 Invasion of Afganistan 1979
The Iranian Revolution 1979 and Hostage Crisis
The Iran-Iraq War 1981
The Israeli Strike against Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor being built by France 1982
Israeli invasion of Lebanon 1982
The First Gulf War 1990-1
American invasion and occupation of Afganistan
Second Gulf War 2003
Any one of the above could have triggered a third World War like either WW1 or WW2.
History is still out concerning the war with The Islamic State of Syria and the Levant. or the potential Crimean War of the 21st century.
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.
