G
GKMotley
Guest
If we had unleashed Patton, it would have been a mess. Personal opinion.
- Status
2
2towers
Guest
You have to wonder if how the Red Army behaved in their sector of Berlin during the initial invasion factored in Japan’s decision to surrender to the US, or was it simply the fact the Soviets could be in western Japan in ten days time.
G
GKMotley
Guest
The Japanese and Reds had a history of head-knocking. The Soviets handed the Japanese their heads at Nomonhan/Khalkhin Gol and they wanted as little to do with the Soviets as possible, afterwards. It was one reason the Strike North faction of the Japanese Army struck out so decisively to the Strike South team in 1940/1941. But if the Soviets had made it (somehow) onto the Home Islands in 1945, the resistance, under the Ketsugo plan, would have been the same as what we would have faced.
Last edited:
D
daverod
Guest
Nuclear Forces…
Daniel 11:38
“But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.”
The major application of uranium in the military sector is in high-density penetrators. This ammunition consists of depleted uranium (DU) alloyed with 1–2% other elements, such as titanium or molybdenum. Uranium - Wikipedia
Nuclear force
The nuclear force (or nucleon–nucleon interaction or residual strong force) is a force that acts between the protons and neutrons of atoms. Neutrons and protons, both nucleons, are affected by the nuclear force almost identically. Since protons have charge +1 e, they experience an electric force that tends to push them apart, but at short range the attractive nuclear force is strong enough to overcome the electromagnetic force. Nuclear force - Wikipedia
A nuclear weapon is an explosive device that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions, either fission (fission bomb) or from a combination of fission and fusion reactions (thermonuclear bomb). Nuclear weapon - Wikipedia
Nuclear power: Nuclear power is the use of nuclear reactions that release nuclear energy[5] to generate heat, which most frequently is then used in steam turbines to produce electricity in a nuclear power plant. The term includes nuclear fission, nuclear decay and nuclear fusion. Presently, the nuclear fission of elements in the actinide series of the periodic table produce the vast majority of nuclear energy in the direct service of humankind, with nuclear decay processes, primarily in the form of geothermal energy, and radioisotope thermoelectric generators, in niche uses making up the rest. Nuclear power - Wikipedia
General U.S. Nuclear Info
U.S. electricity from nuclear energy in 2016: 19.7 percent, with 805.3 billion kilowatt-hours generated. Statistics
List of countries by uranium production
Uranium production (2015) (tonnes U) Uranium Production (2011) (thousands pounds U3O8) Percentage of World Production (2015)
World 60,496 (tonnes U) 139,513 (Thousands pounds U308) 100 (percent)
1 Kazakhstan 23,800 (tonnes U) 46,284 (Thousands pounds U308) 39.3 (percent)
2 Canada 13,325 (tonnes U) 25,434 (Thousands pounds U308) 22.0 (percent)
3 Australia 5,654 (tonnes U) 15,339 (Thousands pounds U308) 9.3 (percent)
4 Niger 4,116 (tonnes U) 10,914 (Thousands pounds U308) 6.8 (percent)
5 Russia 3,055 (tonnes U) 1,516 (Thousands pounds U308) 5.0 (percent)
6 Namibia 2,993 (tonnes U) 11,689 (Thousands pounds U308) 4.9 (percent)
7 Uzbekistan 2,385[3] (tonnes U) 6,239 (Thousands pounds U308) 3.9 (percent)
8 China 1,616[3] (tonnes U) 2,150 (Thousands pounds U308) 2.7 (percent)
9 United States 1,256 (tonnes U) 4,316 (Thousands pounds U308) 2.1 (percent)
10 Ukraine 1,200[3] (tonnes U) 2,210 (Thousands pounds U308) 2.0 (percent)
en.wikipedia.org
Daniel 11:38
“But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.”
The major application of uranium in the military sector is in high-density penetrators. This ammunition consists of depleted uranium (DU) alloyed with 1–2% other elements, such as titanium or molybdenum. Uranium - Wikipedia
Nuclear force
The nuclear force (or nucleon–nucleon interaction or residual strong force) is a force that acts between the protons and neutrons of atoms. Neutrons and protons, both nucleons, are affected by the nuclear force almost identically. Since protons have charge +1 e, they experience an electric force that tends to push them apart, but at short range the attractive nuclear force is strong enough to overcome the electromagnetic force. Nuclear force - Wikipedia
A nuclear weapon is an explosive device that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions, either fission (fission bomb) or from a combination of fission and fusion reactions (thermonuclear bomb). Nuclear weapon - Wikipedia
Nuclear power: Nuclear power is the use of nuclear reactions that release nuclear energy[5] to generate heat, which most frequently is then used in steam turbines to produce electricity in a nuclear power plant. The term includes nuclear fission, nuclear decay and nuclear fusion. Presently, the nuclear fission of elements in the actinide series of the periodic table produce the vast majority of nuclear energy in the direct service of humankind, with nuclear decay processes, primarily in the form of geothermal energy, and radioisotope thermoelectric generators, in niche uses making up the rest. Nuclear power - Wikipedia
General U.S. Nuclear Info
U.S. electricity from nuclear energy in 2016: 19.7 percent, with 805.3 billion kilowatt-hours generated. Statistics
List of countries by uranium production
Uranium production (2015) (tonnes U) Uranium Production (2011) (thousands pounds U3O8) Percentage of World Production (2015)
World 60,496 (tonnes U) 139,513 (Thousands pounds U308) 100 (percent)
1 Kazakhstan 23,800 (tonnes U) 46,284 (Thousands pounds U308) 39.3 (percent)
2 Canada 13,325 (tonnes U) 25,434 (Thousands pounds U308) 22.0 (percent)
3 Australia 5,654 (tonnes U) 15,339 (Thousands pounds U308) 9.3 (percent)
4 Niger 4,116 (tonnes U) 10,914 (Thousands pounds U308) 6.8 (percent)
5 Russia 3,055 (tonnes U) 1,516 (Thousands pounds U308) 5.0 (percent)
6 Namibia 2,993 (tonnes U) 11,689 (Thousands pounds U308) 4.9 (percent)
7 Uzbekistan 2,385[3] (tonnes U) 6,239 (Thousands pounds U308) 3.9 (percent)
8 China 1,616[3] (tonnes U) 2,150 (Thousands pounds U308) 2.7 (percent)
9 United States 1,256 (tonnes U) 4,316 (Thousands pounds U308) 2.1 (percent)
10 Ukraine 1,200[3] (tonnes U) 2,210 (Thousands pounds U308) 2.0 (percent)
List of countries by uranium production - Wikipedia
Last edited:
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
Seems like your interest is in words.
“NUCLEAR” IS TERRIBLE.
OMG WHAT IS “NUCLEAR”???
Another poster [daverod, above] has described nuclear in some detail. [Nuclear is a lot of things, but not exclusively a nuclear WEAPON.]
But “nuclear WEAPONS” and the decision to use them and under what circumstances … involves an entire calculus … and that calculus includes Ballistic Missile Defense and many other factors.
“NUCLEAR” IS TERRIBLE.
OMG WHAT IS “NUCLEAR”???
Another poster [daverod, above] has described nuclear in some detail. [Nuclear is a lot of things, but not exclusively a nuclear WEAPON.]
But “nuclear WEAPONS” and the decision to use them and under what circumstances … involves an entire calculus … and that calculus includes Ballistic Missile Defense and many other factors.
Last edited:
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
So, nuclear is not evil.
And weapons is not evil.
And some nuclear weapons can be so small so as to be almost un-noticeable.
So those are not evil either.
So, what words are you deciding are evil?
And weapons is not evil.
And some nuclear weapons can be so small so as to be almost un-noticeable.
So those are not evil either.
So, what words are you deciding are evil?
A
amaez51
Guest
Hi Monte. Thanks again for the lesson.
Did you see the first question that was asked to Ed?
I don’t believe I mentioned the word “nuclear.”
The question was about Evil striking first. He mentioned it twice.
Looking forward to the next lesson! :0)
Did you see the first question that was asked to Ed?
I don’t believe I mentioned the word “nuclear.”
The question was about Evil striking first. He mentioned it twice.
Looking forward to the next lesson! :0)
Last edited:
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
Please repeat the question.
M
MPat
Guest
“Explication”? As in “explaining”? No, I do not see much “explaining” here. You just didn’t say what you added to get 140,000.
Instead, you kept giving “answers” that were completely irrelevant. About those numbers being estimates, about the books you have read etc.
And thus, there was “interrogation”, where it proved useful to point out that this imprecise, wordy, unclear, misleading, mostly irrelevant “explanation” actually ended up being false without clarifications.
It looks like you actually can be forced to be a little more helpful…
In fact, you mostly ended up talking not about history, but about yourself…
That is, somehow we can easily find out what books you read, and what genres you like, and how your work computer has died, and many other irrelevant things about you… But finding out what a number you give means objectively proved to be much harder.
Actually, all people tend to die - sooner or later. I’m sure you have noticed. Although it looks like your philosophy tries to ignore this fact…
If you do not know what “sunk costs” are, and why adding death by bombs here commits “sunk cost fallacy” (in addition to attacking the strawman), you only have to ask. Or read, let’s say, Sunk cost - Wikipedia.
“[T]he killing continues, at a steady pace”!?
Look at, let’s say, HyperWar: Army Battle Casualties and Nonbattle Deaths in WW II [Battle Casualties] (“Army Battle Casualties and Nonbattle Deaths in World War II Final Report 7 December 1941 – 31 December 1946”) - and show me where you find that “steady pace”.
I can see constant change there. Not “steady pace”.
And that’s what can be expected: merely being in a state of war kills no one. It is mostly fighting that results in deaths. And fighting happens in “bursts”, depending on what the sides do.
As in other wars. See, for example, WW1 Monthly Casualties by Fronts and Belligerents | R-bloggers or https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/photo/first-world-war-casualties-month.
Which is also why “ending the war quickly” is silly as a main goal.
Last edited:
G
GKMotley
Guest
Your trial subscription has expired. If you have any further interest in the factual history of the end game of the Pacific theater in WWII, post a question, for consideration. Any trolling topics will, at most, receive a suggestion of a randomly selected book on the general subject. Possibly.
Only such suggestion here, re: average deaths/month, Frank/DOWNFALL, pp. 160-165 and Newman/TRUMAN AND THE HIROSHIMA CULT, pp.137-139 (from a number of such sources available). By 1945, the deaths in the theater averaged somewhere between 100,000+ and 200,000-250,000/month. All deaths:military, civilian, Allied, indigenous folk, young,old, battle, atrocities, slave labor, executions, all, excluding Japs in some estimates. This is the background butchers’ bill that the surrender cut short.That would continue, until the surrender.
No need to thank me.
Only such suggestion here, re: average deaths/month, Frank/DOWNFALL, pp. 160-165 and Newman/TRUMAN AND THE HIROSHIMA CULT, pp.137-139 (from a number of such sources available). By 1945, the deaths in the theater averaged somewhere between 100,000+ and 200,000-250,000/month. All deaths:military, civilian, Allied, indigenous folk, young,old, battle, atrocities, slave labor, executions, all, excluding Japs in some estimates. This is the background butchers’ bill that the surrender cut short.That would continue, until the surrender.
No need to thank me.
Last edited:
A
Arkansan
Guest
Canon law dictates that communion is to be denied to one who obstinately perseveres in manifest grave sin. Since the details of our nuclear response plans are top secret, this would not be relevant to the question (note that the conditions where the faithful should refrain are not the same where denial is justified).
Obviously, since the direct killing of innocents is intrinsically evil, someone ordered to perform such an act (or order a subordinate to) is bound to refuse.
Obviously, since the direct killing of innocents is intrinsically evil, someone ordered to perform such an act (or order a subordinate to) is bound to refuse.
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
You do the best you can with what you have got at the time.
You do not look back 80 years and using today’s technology and today’s intelligence information and today’s knowledge and say “well, we could have done better”.
I think that is the heresy known as “historicism” … judging the past based on today’s knowledge.
This thread is about nuclear weapons. And an enormous amount of research has been done, thousands of nuclear devices have been designed and tested and scrapped as being inappropriate for various reasons.
You do not look back 80 years and using today’s technology and today’s intelligence information and today’s knowledge and say “well, we could have done better”.
I think that is the heresy known as “historicism” … judging the past based on today’s knowledge.
This thread is about nuclear weapons. And an enormous amount of research has been done, thousands of nuclear devices have been designed and tested and scrapped as being inappropriate for various reasons.
J
jfz178
Guest
As someone who has known some of our exact nuclear response plans back in the day (not now) I can say that while the public doesn’t know the details, they can know the parameters. The basic strategy is contained in a booklet and a website published by DoD and it is available to the general public. It is titled the “Nuclear Matters Handbook 2016.” It says our nuclear capability is to:
“…deter nuclear attack on the United States as well as its allies and partners…our nuclear forces deter strategic attack on the homeland and provide the means for effective responses, should deterrence fail.”
My experience back in the day was that the actual missions supported that. However, people still need to realize that even the most strategic attack on military capability will have more civilian casualties than military. It is very hard to draw a line against the “direct killing of innocents.” But our enemies have no problem with it and if we don’t deter them, we won’t be around to have these discussions. That’s not saying the end justifies the means. It is saying that is the hard reality.
“…deter nuclear attack on the United States as well as its allies and partners…our nuclear forces deter strategic attack on the homeland and provide the means for effective responses, should deterrence fail.”
My experience back in the day was that the actual missions supported that. However, people still need to realize that even the most strategic attack on military capability will have more civilian casualties than military. It is very hard to draw a line against the “direct killing of innocents.” But our enemies have no problem with it and if we don’t deter them, we won’t be around to have these discussions. That’s not saying the end justifies the means. It is saying that is the hard reality.
Last edited:
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
Historicism: the doctrine that each period of history has its own beliefs and values inapplicable to any other, so that nothing can be understood independently of its historical context
J
jfz178
Guest
Exactly. Just because we have always done something, doesn’t mean we always should.
Last edited:
A
Arkansan
Guest
I have no idea what you’re going on about.
A
Arkansan
Guest
My point about public knowledge was to refute the notion that “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” would apply.
There can be some edge cases, but it seems pretty clear that if most of the people in the immediate blast zone are innocents, it qualifies as a direct attack on innocents.
There can be some edge cases, but it seems pretty clear that if most of the people in the immediate blast zone are innocents, it qualifies as a direct attack on innocents.
J
jfz178
Guest
I don’t agree. Our enemies know how prey on our good, moral reluctance to hit civilians by putting their military targets in populated areas. The rules of engagement I favor is to concentrate on the purpose of the weapon use. If the purpose is to take out critical military, political or infrastructure targets and at least fair consideration of collateral civilian damage is taken, the planners have to go with that and everyone in uniform involved has to follow through or the whole thing won’t work.
You can’t have every service member deciding for themselves whether or not to follow orders and follow them with vigor. If someone can’t do that, they should never allow themselves to get into those positions to begin with. There is always an opt-out in the screening process. Personally, I think it is better that Catholics are represented. I would hate to think that some other denomination is left in full control. One thing a lot of people don’t realize is that more and more, the LDS church is dominating classified positions in the government.
You can’t have every service member deciding for themselves whether or not to follow orders and follow them with vigor. If someone can’t do that, they should never allow themselves to get into those positions to begin with. There is always an opt-out in the screening process. Personally, I think it is better that Catholics are represented. I would hate to think that some other denomination is left in full control. One thing a lot of people don’t realize is that more and more, the LDS church is dominating classified positions in the government.
Last edited:
A
Arkansan
Guest
We have smaller weapons. You can’t use an atomic bomb against to blow up an area many times the size of a military target, and claim that the damage to the surrounding area was unintentional. Note that I am not talking about the questions which often arise regarding our drone program and things like that, but specifically nuclear weapons use.
Orders should generally be obeyed, but if someone knows for a fact that the order he receives is morally evil, it is obviously out of the question to obey it.
Orders should generally be obeyed, but if someone knows for a fact that the order he receives is morally evil, it is obviously out of the question to obey it.
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
You do understand, I hope, that over the past 70 years or so, the size and scope of nuclear weapons have been dramatically changed, downsized, and reduced in numbers.
- Status