power of an atomic bomb
 

Just watching a program and they reference the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Whilst I am sure the figures differ here and there I also suspect the number is devastatingly high. 70,000 on the day and 70,000 due to injuries and radiation poisoning.

My god what a number of deaths.

macafee2

However far less than would have been lost on both sides should a land invasion been necessary. Awful though it may seem. It was only 15KT or thereabouts

Be careful if you read it. It does stick in your memory.

Not as much as what they did to the POWs and any other unfortunates they came across. Remember the Burma railway.

9–10 March 1945, is the single most destructive bombing raid in human history. Of central Tokyo. 16 square miles were destroyed, leaving an estimated 100,000 civilians dead and over one million homeless.

A really hard punch on the nose causes a change of mind to the playground bully. At the other end of the scale a single-minded aggressor can only be beaten by shock and awe. Better to drop a bomb on opposition HQ. Better still to not to start or take part in a battle.

Yes. The incendiaries dropped and all of the close packed wooden buildings resulted in a firestorm. More died than initially at Hiroshima.
The Japanese mentality at the time was by our modern standards unspeakably cruel. That cruelty was returned in spades. No-one can be proud of what happened. War is not a sensible way to solve political differences, especially for the cannon fodder the elite send in to settle their arguments and the collateral civilian damage that also results. The largest ever nuclear weapon tested was a 50 megaton (Russia) We now 100 megaton bombs which are over 6000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb:eek::eek::eek:. I really don't agree with anyone having a weapon like this. It's just wrong somehow.

you take your fists to a fight
next person takes a knife
and the next takes a gun

Would you pick a fight with any of the other 2? If not, then that is a reason for having a more powerful weapon. Does not mean you intend to use it but it is a deterrent from attack. Problem is when the person with the more powerful weapon strikes first.

War is not nice but sometimes you have to fight.
From a badge I bought over 40 years ago "Wars will cease when men refuse to fight"

macafee2

“The Railway Man” Is this the one where they become "friends"?
Similar film about an Olympic runner but his "torturer" would not meet him after the war.

macafee2

If we started slinging around 100 megaton nukes. it's a deterrent until it's not, and then what? Perish the thought and hope the reality never happens.

Lets hope that those that died from the Hiroshima atomic bomb have not died in vein but have given us the wisdom not to have a nuclear war.

macafee2

Good inference here, Take something that is current i.e. happing now.

China has taken over Tibet. Tibet has no armed forces (of any note) and thus becomes subjugated. International cries of foul are ignored and no hard ball is taken by international bodies.

A concientious objector states he/she will not fight. To retain their freedoms (speech, movement, religion etc) they have to rely on others otherwise they too will have to fall into line with forces they cannot contend with.

Knowing when to fight is the hard bit but being prepared is even more important. Lots of cannon fodder in 1914 and 1940/41 when resources were in short supply.

Very subjective this!
Kev