Atomic Bombing of Japan

[BigJKU316]

You are absolutely correct in saying that the scale was on a whole different level of warfare than ever seen before

Not really. The effects of the early nukes were nothing particularly special by the standards of the war, in that they obliterated cities. Sure, they were technically very impressive and destructive as individual weapons, but there was very little difference in the end result from a typical raid.

People tend to overestimate the effects of early nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons in general. That is why you get people assuming that the detonation of a suitcase nuke in downtown LA will obliterate the whole metro area.

[Captain Seafort]

Tell me about it. It's the same mentality that leads to stuff like "nuclear war = end of all life on Earth". It's not a fucking Base Delta Zero.

[Mikey]

There is a huge difference in scale, even compared to the fire-bombing of Dresden and the like. The difference is simple - at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, each time only required on bomb.

[Deepcrush]

Who are you responding to?

You. You are absolutely correct in saying that the scale was on a whole different level of warfare than ever seen before; but that still doesn't support some wing-nut who says that the primary purpose of dropping the bombs was anything other than trying to win a war.

Minus I didn't say any of that... so what are you talking about?

[Mikey]

You're mixing things up a bit. You said:

The difference is the scale of the weapon.

To which I said:

The scale is indeed different - but to call it business as usual for one weapon and a brutal experiment for another, regardless of scale, is disingenuous.

The first part was a direct response to what you said; the second, a conversational disqualification of using that idea to support the idiot which LH mentioned in the OP.

[Deepcrush]

So, why couldn't you say that before...?

[Mikey]

You mean, when I did?

[Uzume]

Lighty, that dude is stupid. Almost everyone was working on same/similar technology; we got lucky and beat 'em to the punch.

In short bombs win wars. Now, why can't we glass Afghanistan?

[Captain Seafort]

Lighty, that dude is stupid. Almost everyone was working on same/similar technology; we got lucky and beat 'em to the punch.

If by "got lucky and beat em to the punch" you mean "were the only country in the world with a snowball's chance in hell of developing nuclear weapons in that timeframe", you're right. If not then you're wrong.

[Uzume]

I meant luck of our circumstances at the time. We got there first cause we invested more in the technology. And we had Einstein.

[Captain Seafort]

I meant luck of our circumstances at the time. We got there first cause we invested more in the technology. And we had Einstein.

No, you got there first because you were the only country that had the industrial capacity to pull it off during a war. It took the Russians four years, in peacetime, with excellent access to US research. It took the UK another three years after that, with a lot of the blokes who had worked on the Manhattan Project. The German or Japanese ability to design and build a nuke was non-existent. Not "unlikely", but completely non-existent.

[Mikey]

Industrial capacity wasn't the telling factor at all. The CCCP had us matched or even beat in that regard. It was the proliferation of research and the acceptance of people like Oppenheimer that won that race.

[Captain Seafort]

Industrial capacity wasn't the telling factor at all. The CCCP had us matched or even beat in that regard.

Yes, it was, and no, they didn't during the war. They had somewhat more pressing concerns at the time. The US was the only country with enough spare electricity production capacity to produce the fissile material they needed, and even then it took a significant chunk of the national total (equivalent to about a third of Germany's total capacity IIRC, which is one reason they never had a chance of building the bomb).

[Mikey]

Really? OK. I'd be interested to see build totals of things like Shermans vs. T-series during the war. Russia's industrial capacity was just fine. If you're shifting to say energy-production capacity, then OK, but don't pretend like it's the same thing. Further, the U.S.' capacity in wither sense would have been absolutely meaningless without fostering the environment of research which we did.

[Mikey]

Really? OK. I'd be interested to see build totals of things like Shermans vs. T-series during the war. Russia's industrial capacity was just fine. If you're shifting to say energy-production capacity, then OK, but don't pretend like it's the same thing. Further, the U.S.' capacity in wither sense would have been absolutely meaningless without fostering the environment of research which we did.