This is stunning, sad "Tens of thousands of people vanished in a fraction of a second" wow, that is ed up. But was it needed? And also, will this happen again?? and will the West be responsible?
DJ Shibby
Here are some photographs of four ginkgo trees that were near the epicentre of the atomic bomb that exploded over hiroshima.
If you aren't familiar with the story, it's a great one.
While almost every other living organism was vaporized, the ginkgos were able to regenerate. We threw an atomic bomb on them, and they said, " OFF, I WILL SURVIVE."
Some fun facts about the ginkgo...
- It's survived since the Jurassic period almost completely unchanged from its original evolutionary precursor.
- A single tree can survive upwards of 3000 years.
- Certain terpenids in the ginkgo, when consumed by humans, enhances blood flow to the brain, causing cognitive sharpness and memory efficiency. This is no doubt an attribute of the "spirit" of the flora's own longevity and wisdom.
ROMi - flowing crystals... sick track.
peace
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by LazFX
This is stunning, sad "Tens of thousands of people vanished in a fraction of a second" wow, that is ed up. But was it needed? And also, will this happen again?? and will the West be responsible?
at the risk of sounding flippant about it, would you have rather had, say, 1,000,000 dead from an allied invasion of the Japanese mainland. or a few hundred thousand starved to death with a blockade?
LazFX
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
at the risk of sounding flippant about it, would you have rather had, say, 1,000,000 dead from an allied invasion of the Japanese mainland. or a few hundred thousand starved to death with a blockade?
You see, I can see that side as well, To invade Japan would of cost 1000s if not 10s of thousands of lives on both sides. Sad really...
Q5echo
quote:
Originally posted by LazFX
You see, I can see that side as well, To invade Japan would of cost 1000s if not 10s of thousands of lives on both sides. Sad really...
in 1940 Japan's mainland pop. was 74 million. i think it's safe to say casualties would have been pretty severe either way.
DevilDogUSMC
quote:
Originally posted by LazFX
You see, I can see that side as well, To invade Japan would of cost 1000s if not 10s of thousands of lives on both sides. Sad really...
It's more like hundreds of thousands. Japan would
have been devastated and wouldn't have recovered
to the level it's at now. Great economy and very
into high-tech things. So it was the best of two
evils, tons of casualties and an entirely ruined
country or lose two cities and in less than 50 years
be a big player in the world economy.
Lilith
Within 10-15years, someones going to chuck one again as the first ones used in anger will have faded from living memory of the survivors and the people who used it. That and theres more countries now who have them, the russians missing some of them and tensions are rising to the point in th international community where people are liable to use one again.
Who? Anyone's guess really, US and a government funded terrorist organisations I think probably topping the choice as the US is or is considering making smaller ones capable of 'bunker busting' and theres plenty of dislike for the US for another country to surreptisiously palm one off to terrorists rather than directly use it themselves.
The War Game and When the Wind blows are two films people should watch at some point to have some idea of full scale nuclear war. I seriously doubt though that full scale nuke warfare like the US and USSR where verging on a couple of times is going to happen.
Fir3start3r
quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
at the risk of sounding flippant about it, would you have rather had, say, 1,000,000 dead from an allied invasion of the Japanese mainland. or a few hundred thousand starved to death with a blockade?
Not flippant at all Q5echo.
I remember watching a documentary on this, and this point you bring up was the exact reason they decided to do it.
I know this subject has been covered here before; its safe to say that many more lives would have been lost had they decided the invasion route not just because of the geography aspect, but the whole Japanese culture of honor and duty to the Emperor would have been hard to break on top of that.
occrider
Who the hell cares. Nearly 3 times as many have been killed in Darfur alone. I find it hard to contain my cynicism.
nrjizer
I seem to recall hearing that the US air-dropped leaflets over Hiroshima/Nagasaki warning people that the city would be destroyed, and to get the out. Can anyone confirm/deny this? I'm sure it's just on Wiki or something, but meh.
DevilDogUSMC
quote:
Originally posted by nrjizer
I seem to recall hearing that the US air-dropped leaflets over Hiroshima/Nagasaki warning people that the city would be destroyed, and to get the out. Can anyone confirm/deny this? I'm sure it's just on Wiki or something, but meh.
I'm not sure but I would say probably not. That would only
warn their defenses that there was a bomber inbound. I think
the lone nuclear bomber went in on a secret mission and snuck
up on them.
Dropping leaflets means more aircraft and the Japs would improve
their anti-air defenses to counter it and send fighters too.
Moongoose
quote:
Originally posted by LazFX
This is stunning, sad "Tens of thousands of people vanished in a fraction of a second" wow, that is ed up. But was it needed? And also, will this happen again?? and will the West be responsible?
They probably could have proved their point by other means. But levelling two cities to the ground is probably easier than sending the jap high command a message saying "on a certain date look closely at some location" detonate the bomb there, then send another message saying "We have plenty more of those, surrender now or the next time we wont be aiming for a mountain"
Cant say if it would have worked or not but its an idea.
