Recent content by oralloy

Bombs do cause a lot of collateral damage -- especially strategic nukes.

I'd prefer the one with less collateral damage. But that wouldn't change the fact that both attacks were aimed at military targets.

"The maximum estimates of dose due to fallout are 0.01-0.03 Gy in Hiroshima and 0.2-0.4 Gy in Nagasaki. The corresponding doses at the hypocenters are believed to be only about 1/10 of these values." http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa12.html . 0.4 Gray would equal 40 Rads. I'm not...

We didn't have today's precision conventional weapons back then. But even if we could have achieved the same destruction with conventional weapons back then, that wouldn't change the fact that the A-bombs were being aimed at targets with military value.

They understood the dangers of radiation. Radiation was discovered in the late 1800s, and people were receiving injuries from it throughout the first decades of the 20th century. By 1927, enough data was available for Hermann Joseph Muller to present a paper on the hazards of radiation, for...

We did know what would happen and how devastating it would be. The Trinity test pretty much removed all doubt about how powerful the A-bombs were. ---------- There is no such thing as a weapon which doesn't kill civilians. ---------- Since they didn't surrender after Hiroshima, I...

The black rain was only mildly radioactive. The radioactivity from the rain wasn't strong enough to be a serious problem. Pointing out the truth may well be patriotic, but the truth doesn't really count as BS.

You are mistaken. We couldn't have. We were suffering from war fatigue, and so was Europe for that matter. That said, the war wouldn't have continued for a few more years. We would have invaded Japan by the end of 1945, at a massive cost to both American and Japanese lives. We didn't...

The A-bombs were aimed at military targets. And had the war dragged on into an invasion, far more civilians would have died.

Your calendar is miscalibrated. Japan asked to surrender "with a guarantee for the Emperor" on August 10. The A-bombs were dropped August 6 and August 9. It is true that we insisted on unconditional surrender, and on August 14 Japan gave in, but no A-bombs were dropped in the period...

Hiroshima was targeted because it was a major military center. Nagasaki was targeted because it was an industrial center devoted to manufacturing weapons. Both kinds of targets are legitimate. ------------- No, they knew there was no chance of that happening. They also knew exactly...

Before you run around falsely accusing people of not knowing what they are talking about, perhaps you should take the time to learn about the subject yourself. Note this term in the study titles you cut-n-pasted: "exposed in utero". Those studies refer to fetuses that were exposed to...

No, both were airbursts. Airbursts do all that. How is it that scientists have not found any altered DNA or increase in cancer in the offspring of the survivors?

Not sure the people of eastern Europe would agree much with the view of Russia as some sort of peaceful and/or benevolent power.

No, both were airbursts. A dirty bomb is one were a contaminant has been added to provide long-term toxic contamination of an area. The contamination does not have to be radioactive, although it usually is. I've seen proposals for dirty bombs based on dioxin instead of radioactive...