PDA

View Full Version : A Successful Japanese Atomic Bomb Test?



Nickdfresh
01-29-2009, 08:14 AM
I don't know if this has been discussed here, but...
http://www.reformation.org/atlanta-constitution2.jpg
In a series of articles written by ex-US Army CID investigator turned postwar journalist David Snell, for the Atlanta Constitution, it is claimed that the Japanese conducted a successful nuclear test in Korea shortly before the end of the War in 1945. The articles and claims were quickly forgotten and evidence was difficult to corroborate because the test area was in the Soviet zone in what is today North Korea:


Japan Developed Atom Bomb;

Russia Grabbed Scientists

Copyright 1946 by the Atlanta Constitution and David Snell.

Actual Test Was Success

Japan developed and successfully tested an atomic bomb three days prior to the end of the war.

She destroyed unfinished atomic bombs, secret papers and her atomic bomb plans only hours before the advance units of the Russian Army moved into Konan, Korea, site of the project.

Japanese scientists who developed the bomb are now in Moscow, prisoners of the Russians. They were tortured by their captors seeking atomic "know-how."

The Konan area is under rigid Russian control. They permit no American to visit the area. Once, even after the war, an American B-29 Superfortress en route to Konan was shot down by four Russian Yak fighters from nearby Hammung Airfield.

I learned this information from a Japanese officer, who said he was in charge of counter intelligence at the Konan project before the fall of Japan. He gave names, dates, facts and figures on the Japanese atomic project, which I submitted to United States Army Intelligence in Seoul. The War Department is withholding much of the information. To protect the man that told me this story, and at the request of the Army, he is here given a pseudonym, Capt. Tsetusuo Wakabayashi.

The story may throw light on Stalin's recent statement that America will not long have a monopoly on atomic weapons. Possibly also helps explains the stand taken by Henry A. Wallace. Perhaps also, it will help explain the heretofore unaccountable stalling of the Japanese in accepting our surrender terms as the Allies agreed to allow Hirohito to continue as puppet emperor. And perhaps it will throw light new light on the shooting down by the Russians of our B-29 on Aug. 29, 1945, in the Konan area.

When told this story, I was an agent with the Twenty-Fourth Criminal Investigation Department, operating in Korea. I was able to interview Capt. Wakabayashi, not as an investigator or as a member of the armed forces, but as a newspaperman. He was advised and understood thoroughly, that he was speaking for publication.

He was in Seoul, en route to Japan as a repatriate. The interview took place in a former Shinto temple on a mount overlooking Korea's capital city. The shrine had been converted into an hotel for transient Japanese en route to their homeland.

Since V-J Day wisps of information have drifted into the hands of U.S. Army Intelligence of the existence of a gigantic and mystery-shrouded industrial project operated during the closing months of the war in a mountain vastness near the Northern Korean coastal city of Konan. It was near here that Japan's uranium supply was said to exist.

This, the most complete account of activities at Konan to reach American ears, is believed to be the first time Japanese silence has been broken on the subject.

In a cave in a mountain near Konan, men worked against time, in final assembly of genzai bakuden, Japan's name for the atomic bomb. It was August 10, 1945 (Japanese time), only four days after an atomic bomb flashed in the sky over Hiroshima, and five days before Japan surrendered.

To the north, Russian hordes were spilling into Manchuria.

Shortly after midnight of that day a convey of Japanese trucks moved from the mouth of the cave, past watchful sentries. The trucks wound through valleys, past sleeping farm villages. It was August, and frogs in the mud of terraced rice paddies sang in a still night. In the cool predawn Japanese scientists and engineers loaded genzai bakudan aboard a ship in Konan.

Off the coast near an inlet in the Sea of Japan more frantic preparations were under way. All that day and night ancient ships, junks and fishing vessels moved into the anchorage.

Before dawn on Aug. 12 a robot launch chugged through the ships at anchor and beached itself on the inlet. Its passenger was genzai bakudan. A clock ticked.

The observers were 20 miles away. This waiting was difficult and strange to men who had worked relentlessly so long who knew their job had been completed too late.
...


More here after "OBSERVORS BLINDED BY FLASH" (http://www.cabotia.com/atlanta-constitution.html)

pdf here (http://i.daresay.com/pdf/Tangents/japan%20atomic%20bomb.pdf)

Rising Sun*
01-29-2009, 09:10 AM
Sounds like a lot of hot cock to me.

Long on journalistic devices, short on verifiable fact, or any fact.

I'm not aware of Japan having any capacity during WWII to produce atomic weapons, or even any great interest in doing so.

pdf27
01-29-2009, 09:45 AM
There was a Japanese nuclear weapons project during WW2, which got as far as correctly calculating critical mass and some small-scale (lab) experiments with Uranium enrichment - so significantly more advanced than the German project. When the guy running the testing tried to get permission to take things further, he was told he should use some other metal instead of Uranium as it was too hard to produce. Not very long afterwards his lab was burned down in a B-29 raid.

This story is remarkably similar to one about Germany in mid-1945 where a similar event was reported on the Baltic coast. In both cases it is claimed that a "small" nuclear weapon was tested, with the implication that this was a really crude device and so within the technical capabilities of the Germans/Japanese. The reality of course is that small devices are actually significantly harder to manufacture than 20kT ones - thus showing the story was cooked up by someone with an overactive imagination and no grasp of physics.

namvet
01-29-2009, 03:52 PM
history net claims they did.


JAPAN’S SECRET WAR: JAPAN’S RACE AGAINST TIME TO BUILD ITS OWN ATOMIC BOMB
‘Shortly after World War II had ended,” writes Robert K. Wilcox in the introduction to his reissued book Japan’s Secret War:Japan’s Race Against Time to Build Its Own Atomic Bomb (Marlowe & Co., New York, 1995, $12.95), “Americanintelligence in the Pacific received a shocking report: The Japanese, just prior to their surrender, had developed andsuccessfully test-fired an atomic bomb.”

story (story)

im not buying it. kinda hard to keep a nuke explosion secret?????? they were trading with the Nazi's for nuke material. but forced to bring in by submarine. I just don't think they enough of or enough time

Chevan
01-30-2009, 04:00 AM
The story is absurd.
Soviets did never use the Japanes datas in our Nuclear project.
They were only getting data from ..USA.

pdf27
01-30-2009, 05:42 AM
That's a little harsh - the Soviets had some awfully bright nuclear physicists who worked the majority of it out on their own. The US data only really reduced the amount of work they had to do by a small amount, largely through telling them what didn't work before they found out the hard way by themselves.

Nickdfresh
01-30-2009, 09:32 AM
I looked around a bit and even Wiki called the articles "sensationalistic." They may be based on hearsay regarding a real weapon's project or an even that happened, but I doubt it was a test of a nuke...

Major Walter Schmidt
01-30-2009, 10:03 AM
The only way Japan was to get Uranium in large amounts was from Germany, and the submarine was captured when Germany fell, and Japan had no way of delivering such a device to the "Kichiku-Bei Ei" (sorta translates to beastly and demon-like English and Americans), or most anybody else besides the Chinese, Koreans, or maybe the Russians.

Chevan
01-31-2009, 04:23 AM
That's a little harsh - the Soviets had some awfully bright nuclear physicists who worked the majority of it out on their own. The US data only really reduced the amount of work they had to do by a small amount, largely through telling them what didn't work before they found out the hard way by themselves.
Yes yo're right.
I just was meaning that the Soviet scientists never mentioned the "Japan trace" in Soviet nuclear program.

Cojimar 1945
02-04-2009, 12:04 PM
I seem to recall reading that there was some evidence of some sort of German nuclear test in March 1945. It was claimed that Soviet intelligence had reported a massive explosion whose cause was unknown.

pdf27
02-04-2009, 01:06 PM
The reporter is one Rainer Karlsch, who has written a rather implausible book which makes a number of outlandish claims - that particular explosion being among them. Perhaps the most outlandish is that Germany actually succeeded in making a Teller-Ulam fusion device work using a shaped charge rather than a fission bomb as the trigger.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,346293,00.html

Uyraell
02-04-2009, 08:57 PM
Yes yo're right.
I just was meaning that the Soviet scientists never mentioned the "Japan trace" in Soviet nuclear program.

You are correct, in as far as I'm aware regarding the Russian nuclear program. However, while it is indeed unlikely the Russians captured Japanese nuclear physicists, they did kidnap both British and French nuclear scientists and force them to work on an atomic bomb project for 4 years. As far as I know, two sources support this. Airey Neave is said to have made reference to the above in a radio interview in the late 1960's early 1970's; and Chapman Pincher refers to the kidnappings of the French and British nuclear scientists in at least two of his many books.
While I agree it likely that one of the above sources may be apocryphal, it is unlikely that both are, in my view.

Regards, Uyraell.

Cojimar 1945
02-07-2009, 02:43 PM
I'm certainly not suggesting that all the claims in the book are authentic but it sounded like there was some evidence to support the claim of the test on March 3, 1945. For example, if there were really contemporary reports of the explosion this would prove it was not something that was made up many years later.

pdf27
02-08-2009, 09:28 AM
Ummm.... remembering that this was wartime, large explosions were really rather common - even inordinately large ones. The RAF for instance had one estimated at around 4kT (so larger than the ones Karlsch claims) at Fauld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Fauld_Explosion) in November 1944. There was a similar sized explosion in Halifax harbour in December 1917 when an ammunition ship exploded, causing a huge number of casualties.

Secondly, because so few people had experienced really large explosions (and none of his witnesses had any experience of them at all), how accurate are their yield estimates? If there really was a nuclear yield it will have shown up on seismographs across the world (this is one of the ways the CTBT is enforced) - indeed, even a big conventional explosion will have shown up clearly. I have little doubt that such seismograph records exist somewhere - so have to question why he hasn't dug them out and pointed to them.

Carl Schwamberger
02-12-2009, 02:46 AM
There are several good books on the subject. Richard Rhodes 'The Making of the Atomic Bomb' is very good and still easily available on the used book market.

One of the weaker points in these tales is the lack of refrence to where or how the weapons grade Uranium or Plutonium was made. To refine or seperate the hot or weapons grade Uranium isotope from the more stable isotope requires a massive industrial plant. Thousand of meters of tubes for gas diffusion seperation Many large powerful electomagnets and millions of kilowatts power for magnetic seperation.

Plutonim manufactor first requires a functional atomic pile and the ability to control the sustained reaction.

The German and Japanese had the ability to produce flyspeck size quantitys of the proper Uranium isotope under laboratory conditions. A few micrograms after several weeks work. Their understanding of slow controled reactions never progressed to the point of even the crudest atomic piles. So, no Plutonium breeder reactor.

I've never seen anyone present the slightest shred of believable evidence such a manufactoring plant was built.

royal744
12-22-2009, 01:23 PM
Sounds like a lot of hot cock to me.

Long on journalistic devices, short on verifiable fact, or any fact.

I'm not aware of Japan having any capacity during WWII to produce atomic weapons, or even any great interest in doing so.

Actually, Rising Sun - irony of ironies - the Japanese did have two simultaneous nuclear research teams working on the bomb at the same time. One was sponsored by the army; the other by the navy. This rivalry should be familiar by now. We do know they were both working on the problem. It has been well documented. There is little evidence that they got far enough to running an actual test - slim to none, but they were trying to develop a nuclear device which givesd a bit of the lie to all the Japanese pleadings about the cruel allies uring one on them. If they had had one, they would have used one without compunction.

Rocketbaby
06-08-2010, 06:56 AM
Might be worth keeping one's eyes out for a book about to be published by Bill Hilfer about the Soviet forcing down of a B-29 called Hog Wilde over Konan in September 1945. Bill whom I correspond with has uncovered about five new sources independent of David Snell that will cross corroborate the story from both US sources, British and Australian POWs held at Konan by the Japanese and surprisingly through former Soviet sources. Bill also tracked down and interviewed former OSS men in Korea who were with Snell and who corroborate what Snell said in the Atlanta Constitution.

Several people may need to eat humble pie when Hog Wilde is published.

Incidentally although uranium was being shipped to Japan via U-boat few people seem to realise that the town which japan called Konan is now Hungnam and that the nuclear laboratory is today actually the site of a uranium mine in North Korea. I don't think the Japanese lacked for uranium supplies.

Rising Sun*
06-08-2010, 07:51 AM
Might be worth keeping one's eyes out for a book about to be published by Bill Hilfer about the Soviet forcing down of a B-29 called Hog Wilde over Konan in September 1945. Bill whom I correspond with has uncovered about five new sources independent of David Snell that will cross corroborate the story from both US sources, British and Australian POWs held at Konan by the Japanese and surprisingly through former Soviet sources. Bill also tracked down and interviewed former OSS men in Korea who were with Snell and who corroborate what Snell said in the Atlanta Constitution.


I'm always willing to eat humble pie, but not until I'm convinced I'm wrong.

What does the end of the Hog Wild's flight prove about Japan's alleged nuclear program and explosion?

Where is the evidence that Japan had the technological sophistication and industry, not to mention considerable other resources, devoted to such a long term project to produce a successful atomic weapon?

Or did Japan manage to do it on a shoestring in Konan while America had to employ the vast human, technological and industrial resources of the Manhattan Project?

If so, why did it take the USSR, with its considerable human, technological and industrial resources, another four years to detonate its own bomb after acquiring the rich resources of Japan's successful nucelar program in Konan?

Firefly
06-10-2010, 02:28 PM
I'm always willing to eat humble pie, but not until I'm convinced I'm wrong.

What does the end of the Hog Wild's flight prove about Japan's alleged nuclear program and explosion?

Where is the evidence that Japan had the technological sophistication and industry, not to mention considerable other resources, devoted to such a long term project to produce a successful atomic weapon?

Or did Japan manage to do it on a shoestring in Konan while America had to employ the vast human, technological and industrial resources of the Manhattan Project?

If so, why did it take the USSR, with its considerable human, technological and industrial resources, another four years to detonate its own bomb after acquiring the rich resources of Japan's successful nucelar program in Konan?

In the absence of any firm evidence whatsoever I am very much on the side of RS and reality check here. If the Japanese had the ability to do this then they would have used it I think. No I don't think it was possible at all and Ive read nothing to the contrary.

Uyraell
06-12-2010, 11:38 PM
I take the view that the research was being done, but that the experimentation and refining techniques were well behind anything the Allied nations had achieved. In common with the German Atomic Research Program, the research was most likely on-going, but not progressing at any great rate, despite the near-frantic pace at which the relevant personnel were working.
I do not see that a "successful" Atomic Weapon detonation test could have or would have taken place. I *do* acknowledge the barest chance that some sort of accidental explosion may have happened in remote laboratories well away from the "main" research facilities in the case of both Japan and Germany. Such an explosion, *if* it had happened in either case would account for the alleged "records" of such explosions that supposedly came to light many years after World War Two.

Regards, Uyraell.

Rising Sun*
06-13-2010, 08:02 AM
Assuming for the purpose of argument that Japan had developed an atomic weapon capable of detonation, why would it test it in a place of no military or strategic significance instead of testing / using it offensively against the rapidly advancing Soviets on the same land mass?

It just doesn't make sense that, facing certain defeat from the advancing Allies on all fronts, Japan would test in the middle of nowhere the only weapon it had which might have improved its negotiating position with the Allies.

Why would Japan cave in after Hiroshima and Nagasaki when it had the opportunity to say to the Allies: So what? We have a nuclear weapon too.

Japan's nuclear capacity never figured in its increasingly desperate negotiations for surrender, which demonstrates that Japan had no nuclear capacity.

royal744
06-28-2010, 01:22 PM
Sounds like a lot of hot cock to me.

Long on journalistic devices, short on verifiable fact, or any fact.

I'm not aware of Japan having any capacity during WWII to produce atomic weapons, or even any great interest in doing so.

Actually, Rising Sun, both the Imperial Navy and the Imperial Army had active nuclear mob programs. They didn't get the resources they needed to bring this to a conclusion and I don't believe a test was ever conducted.

Kiwiguy
08-14-2010, 06:26 PM
Assuming for the purpose of argument that Japan had developed an atomic weapon capable of detonation, why would it test it in a place of no military or strategic significance instead of testing / using it offensively against the rapidly advancing Soviets on the same land mass?

It's worth pointing out that at this time in the war Japan had no strategic bombers and was starved of fuel.



It just doesn't make sense that, facing certain defeat from the advancing Allies on all fronts, Japan would test in the middle of nowhere the only weapon it had which might have improved its negotiating position with the Allies.

Why would Japan cave in after Hiroshima and Nagasaki when it had the opportunity to say to the Allies: So what? We have a nuclear weapon too.



Actually the Japanese Government did not cave-in after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Ozawa recommended to the Cabinet holding out. the Royal family however sent peace feelers to Russia insisting that Japan would only surrender conditional that:

1) The Royal Family retained their position
2) The Japanese Government remained in full sovereign control
3) War Crimes trials be conducted by Japan on Japanese soil
4) Japanese armies would be disarmed only by Japanese officers



Japan's nuclear capacity never figured in its increasingly desperate negotiations for surrender, which demonstrates that Japan had no nuclear capacity.


Why show a trump card?

Deaf Smith
08-14-2010, 10:33 PM
Heck,

I wish the Ruskies had of used the German or Japanese data. I suspect they would still be trying to build one today if they had.

Deaf

Wizard
08-16-2010, 05:30 PM
...Actually the Japanese Government did not cave-in after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Ozawa recommended to the Cabinet holding out. the Royal family however sent peace feelers to Russia insisting that Japan would only surrender conditional that:

1) The Royal Family retained their position
2) The Japanese Government remained in full sovereign control
3) War Crimes trials be conducted by Japan on Japanese soil
4) Japanese armies would be disarmed only by Japanese officers


The "peace feelers" which Japan transmitted to the Soviet Union were sent weeks before Hiroshima and Nagasaki were attacked with atomic bombs.

The Soviet Union declared war on Japan the day before the Nagasaki atom bomb attack, but the news did not reach Tokyo until just a couple of hours before the news of the second atom bomb being dropped on Nagasaki.

The Japanese government did not "cave in" after the atom bomb attacks; in fact, the military, which controlled the Japanese government at that point, still wanted to continue the fight. But key elements of the leadership, including Hirohito, and several senior Army commanders realized that there would now be no American ground invasion of Japan, and thus the last chance to inflict devastating casualties on the enemy, and gain negotiating leverage, was lost.

Hirohito directed that the Potsdam Declaration be accepted, but tried one last negotiating ploy; that a condition be attached that he be allowed to remain a sovereign ruler. This condition was implicitly rejected by the US in the State Department reply to the Japanese message, which stated that the Emperor would be subject to the orders of the Occupation authorities.


Why show a trump card?

Because it's not a "trump card" (more appropriately "ace in the hole") unless the other side actually believes you have it.

Case in point: The Japanese initially rejected the Potsdam Declaration because they thought the sentence, "The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction." was just bombastic Allied rhetoric. It wasn't until the atomic bombs were demonstrated at Hiroshima and Nagasaki that the part about "utter destruction" was understood to be an accurate statement.

Kiwiguy
08-21-2010, 07:30 AM
Because it's not a "trump card" (more appropriately "ace in the hole") unless the other side actually believes you have it.


....or alternately as you yourself put it unless the trump card was the element of surprise



But key elements of the leadership, including Hirohito, and several senior Army commanders realized that there would now be no American ground invasion of Japan, and thus the last chance to inflict devastating casualties on the enemy, and gain negotiating leverage, was lost.


I think you just answered your own question.




These references may shed extra light on the question:

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/01/120_56715.html

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3655253

http://www.my-jia.com/The_Flight_of_the_Hog_Wild/index.htm

Quebecor
05-30-2012, 11:29 AM
Yes yo're right.
I just was meaning that the Soviet scientists never mentioned the "Japan trace" in Soviet nuclear program.

This was the start the cold war (@ end of WWII). Russia didn't trust us or many other countries. They're certainly not going to "share" any knowledge of Japanese traces (or about Russia invading Japanese held parts of China and Korea and kidnapping Japanese nuclear scientist).

Uyraell
05-31-2012, 05:10 AM
Most of the information/data the Russians employed in their Atom Bomb Project was acquired, one way and another, from Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.
The Russians *DID* kidnap and employ various British and French Nuclear Scientists between 1946 and 1950: this is amply documented in many and varied sources.

Later information that fell into Russian hands was confirmed as reasonably accurate by the father-son-mother team arrested by the FBI in about 1987: the son had been a Lieutenant in the US Navy, and most of the Russian interest in his information related to submarine propellers, with occasional diversions into the nuclear missiles/warheads topic.

Did the Russians kidnap and employ British and French Nuclear scientists? Yes: that makes most sense: Stalin and Beria being at the height of their powers and consequent paranoeias. However: I do not believe that even that much extra "help" gave the Russians more than 6 to 8 months advance on that which Soviet Nuclear Scientists already knew or were aware of.
Granted: the Soviet Nuclear Bomb Project *WAS* a "crash program"; I can't see any room for debate there.
But even so: by 1952 at the latest; Soviet Nuclear Scientists unaided would have had the ability and know-how to produce a usable Nuclear Bomb. And that was Stalin's aim.

A successful Japanese or German Nuclear Weapon Test Detonation would have required from either Nation resources that, by the time the alleged Test detonation took place; simply did not exist.

That the Russians *may* have to some minute degree profited from either Japanese or German Research is not beyond the realms of reason. Nor is it a guaranteed fact. The Russians, by Stalin's Directive, were gathering all and any Nuclear data they could find.

I do not believe either Japan or Germany ever conducted a proper Atom Bomb test Detonation.
I do believe it to be within realm of reason that some form of unplanned or accidental detonation took place for either Japan or Germany (or both), and that it was closer to a "Dirty Bomb" detonation than a true, verifiable Atom Bomb detonation.

Kind and Respectful Regards, Uyraell.

royal744
06-20-2012, 02:57 PM
My readings on the subject indicated that both the Japanese army and navy had active nuclear bomb programs, neither of which got very close to producing a weapon of any sort. It would be typical of army-navy rivalry in Japan that parallel "programs" existed. I'm familiar with the destruction of a primary lab during a B-29 raid. I also read somewhere that even after the 2 bombs were dropped on Japan, that a leading Japanese scientist sought permission to continue to conduct research with the aim of producing an atomic weapon. This is sketchy, I know, and am drawing on memory, but I find it rather ironic in light off Japan's virtuous protestations to the contrary that they had their own nuclear weapons program which, if successful, they would have used in a New York minute on whoever was closest to hand. can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-I-t-e?

mtclimber
06-22-2012, 12:36 AM
In Richard Rhodes book on the making of the a-bomb (for which he won the Pulitzer Prize), he asserts that the Japanese didnt pursue their Atomic Bomb programs, in large part, because they felt that no other country would be able to successfully produce one before the war ended. And in commenting on what country stole or used whoever elses data, keep in mind that in the 20s-40s when fission was first being speculated on, and later proven, there were probably only 1000 or so nuclear physicists in the whole world, and due to the need to cross borders for education, many of the leading physicists new each other often quite well. Teller was friends with the chief Russian physicist; Fermi, Szilard and Bohr were friends with Heisenburg who ran the German a-bomb program.
What really scares me, the principal behind the fusion bomb was already understood before the war, and Teller was actively campaigning for the Hydrogen Bomb (the Super), to be the end goal of the Manhattan Project.

photografr7
07-16-2012, 05:35 AM
Yes yo're right.
I just was meaning that the Soviet scientists never mentioned the "Japan trace" in Soviet nuclear program.
Have you been to any of the Soviet archives? They are open to the public for research during the WWII-period.

photografr7
07-16-2012, 05:56 AM
Might be worth keeping one's eyes out for a book about to be published by Bill Hilfer about the Soviet forcing down of a B-29 called Hog Wilde over Konan in September 1945. Bill whom I correspond with has uncovered about five new sources independent of David Snell that will cross corroborate the story from both US sources, British and Australian POWs held at Konan by the Japanese and surprisingly through former Soviet sources. Bill also tracked down and interviewed former OSS men in Korea who were with Snell and who corroborate what Snell said in the Atlanta Constitution. Several people may need to eat humble pie when Hog Wilde is published
By "Bill Hilfer" do you mean "Bill Streifer," yours truly? Actually, small portions of The Flight of the Hog Wild have already been published in the OSS Society Journal and the American Intelligence Journal, and more are forthcoming. They dance around the subject of a Japanese nuclear program in Konan. Instead, they discuss OSS mission to rescue Allied POWs in Manchuria and Korea, and the downing of B-29 "Hog Wild" over Konan on August 29, 1945.

The mission of the Hog Wild, by the way, was to deliver 10,000 pounds of food and medical supplies to British and Australian prisoners at a camp in Konan. If you believe the Soviet explanation for the downing of an ally aircraft on a "mercy mission" to a POW camp (an "error"), I have a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. The Russians never made errors... Everything they did with cold calculation. The difficult part is determining that calculation.

My co-author is a Russian journalist, so I was very pleased to learn that the Soviet archive (during the WWII period) is open to all (who speak Russian). Their intentions in downing an American bomber is revealed in the Soviet archives, and the Japanese/Soviet nuclear program in Konan is revealed in the U.S. archives.

Kiwiguy
01-25-2014, 05:27 AM
My readings on the subject indicated that both the Japanese army and navy had active nuclear bomb programs, neither of which got very close to producing a weapon of any sort. It would be typical of army-navy rivalry in Japan that parallel "programs" existed. I'm familiar with the destruction of a primary lab during a B-29 raid. I also read somewhere that even after the 2 bombs were dropped on Japan, that a leading Japanese scientist sought permission to continue to conduct research with the aim of producing an atomic weapon. This is sketchy, I know, and am drawing on memory, but I find it rather ironic in light off Japan's virtuous protestations to the contrary that they had their own nuclear weapons program which, if successful, they would have used in a New York minute on whoever was closest to hand. can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-I-t-e?

Richard Rhodes may say the Japanese didn’t pursue their Atomic Bomb programs, but that was not the view of those Japanese scientist involved in the project:
On 15 October 1946 for example the New York Times published an interview by an ABC reporter who interviewed Prof Arakatsu Bunsuku. At page 4 of the article it was reported that Arakatsu claimed he was making "tremendous strides" towards making an atomic bomb and that Russia probably already had one.

Here’s another example:



JAPANESE PHYSICIST, 83, SAYS JAPAN TRIED TO BUILD AN ATOMIC BOMB
—Associated Press, dateline Tokyo, 20 July 1995.

Japan’s World War II atomic research team had no ethical qualms about its goal—building an atomic bomb and unleashing it on America, a team leader said Wednesday. “We had no doubts about using it if we could. No one ever contemplated how terrible it would be,” physicist Tatsusaburo Suzuki, 83, said Wednesday. “We were just doing our best to put it together.”

Suzuki was a leading researcher in Japan’s wartime effort to construct an atomic bomb. He spoke Wednesday in a rare and candid explanation of Japan’s World War II atomic bomb research.

Scientists in Japan developed theories of how to build a bomb, he said, but never came close to actually making one because they lacked money and materials.

So desperate were they for parts that military officials discussed scrapping a battleship and using the steel for the atomic experiments, Suzuki said.

“I was confident at the time we could have built a bomb if we had better equipment,” he said.

The projects was supported by Japan’s imperial household, and the emperor’s brothers were among the leaders who inspected and encouraged their work, he said.

Suzuki was part of a team of 50 scientists culled from Japan’s army and top universities to work on developing the bomb. They made about 11 pounds of enriched uranium, he said—far short of what would have been needed to produce an atomic weapon.

Americans found evidence of the project after the war and dumped the research equipment into Tokyo Bay. But few Japanese have provided detailed descriptions of the program, and the Japanese army destroyed all records of the project.

He said none of the scientists working with him on the Japanese atomic bomb ever mentioned any ethical concerns about their project.

His attitude changed, he said, when he visited Hiroshima and Nagasaki shortly after they were devastated in August 1945 in the world’s only atomic attacks.

He was not clear about his reasons for calling a news conference now, almost 50 years after the end of the war, to describe in detail the effort to build an atomic bomb.

Japanese officials had discussed targets including US air bases that were being used to bomb Japanese cities.



Bunsaku Arakatsu, whilst Head of Particle Physics at Taipei, constructed a Cockcroft-Walton accelerator in Taiwan and conducted nuclear experiments using it for the first time in 1933. In 1936 Arakatsu moved back to Japan, to became a Professor of Kyoto University. At Kyoto, he performed several experiments on nuclear reactions with neutrons from D-D (Deuterium) reaction and γ-rays from Li + p reaction with a Cockcroft-Walton accelerator both before and during WWII. One of the most significant experimental results was determining the average number of neutrons produced in the fission chain reaction of Uranium 235 induced by slow neutrons as 2.6, which was the most accurate value obtained before the War.

In 1934, Tohoku University Professor Hikosaka Tadayoshi's paper on atomic physics theory was released. Hikosaka pointed out the huge energy contained within the atomic nuclei and a possibility that both nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons could be created.

As early as 1934, therefore, the Imperial Japanese Navy was intrigued enough to sponsor investigation into the feasibility of producing a "super-weapon" based on Dr Enrico Fermi's theories of atoms. From 1937, Osaka Imperial University professor Asada Tsunesaburo gave lectures at the Naval Technical Research Institute advocating the development of an atomic bomb.

By about Sept/Oct 1944 Germany had transferred to Japan technology to construct a 1kt boosted fission warhead based on the Schumann-Trinks concept. Technology was also transferred for the construction of V-2 rockets at Mukden in Manchuria which the Japanese intended to use nuclear warheads with. Corroboration can be found in a 1945 US Navy Intelligence report "German Technical Aid to Japan: a Survey", 15 June 1945, held by the Combined Arms Research Library, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, USA, reference 3-1695-00561-5885,

Rising Sun*
01-25-2014, 07:46 AM
Richard Rhodes may say the Japanese didn’t pursue their Atomic Bomb programs, but that was not the view of those Japanese scientist involved in the project:
On 15 October 1946 for example the New York Times published an interview by an ABC reporter who interviewed Prof Arakatsu Bunsuku. At page 4 of the article it was reported that Arakatsu claimed he was making "tremendous strides" towards making an atomic bomb and that Russia probably already had one.

Here’s another example:


JAPANESE PHYSICIST, 83, SAYS JAPAN TRIED TO BUILD AN ATOMIC BOMB
—Associated Press, dateline Tokyo, 20 July 1995.
Scientists in Japan developed theories of how to build a bomb, he said, but never came close to actually making one because they lacked money and materials.

So far as all arguments about Japan actually building an atomic weapon, let alone detonating one as suggested by the article at the start of this thread, is concerned, I'm happy to accept Tatsusaburo Suzuki's confirmation that Japan never came close to making one.

photografr7
01-25-2014, 08:01 AM
Richard Rhodes may say the Japanese didn’t pursue their Atomic Bomb programs, but that was not the view of those Japanese scientist involved in the project: On 15 October 1946 for example the New York Times published an interview by an ABC reporter who interviewed Prof Arakatsu Bunsuku. At page 4 of the article it was reported that Arakatsu claimed he was making "tremendous strides" towards making an atomic bomb and that Russia probably already had one.

Richard Rhodes certainly didn't say that. In fact, he quotes from 1943-1944 conversations between Dr. Yoshio Nishina and a Japanese General, urging him to develop the atomic bomb.

Regarding Dr. Bunsaku Arakatsu and "tremendous strides," Kiwiguy is correct. In my recently copyrighted manuscript, I explain in great detail the nature of Arakatsu's "tremendous strides." [Arakatsu was not boasting or lying] Upon publication, I will include the actual experiments that Arakatsu conducted, and show that his calculations were more or less in line with the work done by Manhattan Project scientists. By the way, my co-author is a Stanford-educated particle physicist... and a hell of a nice guy.

Bill Streifer

photografr7
01-25-2014, 08:05 AM
So far as all arguments about Japan actually building an atomic weapon, let alone detonating one as suggested by the article at the start of this thread, is concerned, I'm happy to accept Tatsusaburo Suzuki's confirmation that Japan never came close to making one.

Tatsusaburo Suzuki was in no position to know. The Japanese Army and the Japanese Navy had their own atomic programs, and they only consulted ONCE (concerning uranium). If you want to know how far Japan got, read what Arakatsu and Arakatsu's students have said.

Kiwiguy
01-25-2014, 08:26 AM
So far as all arguments about Japan actually building an atomic weapon, let alone detonating one as suggested by the article at the start of this thread, is concerned, I'm happy to accept Tatsusaburo Suzuki's confirmation that Japan never came close to making one.

Well you're wrong because Suzuki was part of the research group at Kyoto University with Arakatsu and he commented after the war that he was bitter that he and his F-Go teammates were excluded by Nishina from participation in F-NZ which was the project reborn in Korea under the Imperial 8th Army laboratory headed by General Kawashima so Suzuki by October 1944 was no longer in a position to know either way.

What happened in October 1944 was that the Japanese switched efforts from uranium enrichment to developing Uranium 233 from Thorium found in ten mines all commissioned by the Japanese in October 1944. At the same time a Thorium refinery was built in the port of Konan (now Hungnam) and a powerful cyclotron was installed in a mine on hill slopes above the town. Konan was an industrial centre with a large Ammonia fertiliser plant converted for production of explosives and heavy water in WWII. It also had a large Tungsten Carbide plant with electric arc furnaces.

The cyclotron was used for conversion of Thorium 232 into Uranium 233 via Protatcinium. How do we know that fact today?

Because in 2005 the Russians declassified KGB archives revealing correspondence from the Soviet garrison commander for Konan, Maj Gen Shytkov with his boss, one certain Josef Stalin about the Uranium 233 production facility they captured intact from the Japanese when they captured the city by paratrooper landings on 24 August 1945.

Indeed the Soviets were so impressed they used six Japanese scientists and a number of Japanese chemical engineers to keep the Thorium/Uranium project running until the end of 1947. The Soviets sent relays of submarines to Konan to collect small crates of the precious Uranium 233 for Russia's own atomic bomb project. (there was no railway connection to Russia until 1951-52). Soviet interest in U233 waned by 1949.

We also know this from a Japanese chemical engineer who stole a small fishing boat in 1946 and fled Soviet captivity to the south. He was questioned by American Intelligence and confirmed the Japanese did successfully test a nuclear weapon in 1945.

Anybody wishing to check for themselves can consult US intelligence reports NA, RG 224, Box 3 interrogation of Otogoro Natsume 31 October 1946 by Dr Kelly “Further questioning the newspaper story about Atomic bomb explosion in Korea” with T/4 Matsuda present as interpreter.Natsume escaped on small sailing boat in December 1945.

Rising Sun*
01-25-2014, 10:08 AM
Tatsusaburo Suzuki was in no position to know.

So you're saying that Kiwiguy's source is worthless?


The Japanese Army and the Japanese Navy had their own atomic programs, and they only consulted ONCE (concerning uranium). If you want to know how far Japan got, read what Arakatsu and Arakatsu's students have said.

How about you tell us what the IJA and IJN had in their own atomic programs, as you're the one putting that forward?

namvet
01-25-2014, 11:03 AM
So you're saying that Kiwiguy's source is worthless?



How about you tell us what the IJA and IJN had in their own atomic programs, as you're the one putting that forward?

this may help explain it


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESoFyHEMFro

photografr7
01-25-2014, 11:06 AM
So you're saying that Kiwiguy's source is worthless?

No, I am not saying that. ALL information has value. How you interpret that information is key. The credibility of the source and other factors must be taken into account. Also keep this in mind: When the Manhattan Project concluded their investigation in September 30, 1945, they concluded that the Japanese military and government had no program to produce an atomic bomb. Do you believe that is true? Have we learned nothing about Japan's two atomic programs in the past 70 years?

Regarding Tatsusaburo Suzuki:

Did he tell the truth?
Did he lie?
Did he intend on misleading?
Where did he obtain this information?
Does his information agree with other information obtained from other sources?
Was he familiar with both Nishina's and Arakatsu's programs?
Did he have an axe to grind?

I am an author on intelligence matters.
I have to do this sort of analysis every time I quote a supposedly knowledgeable source.

Can I tell you what the IJA and IJN accomplished? No, sorry.

Here's an article I wrote about the father of North Korea's nuclear weapons program you might enjoy. It's not unrelated to David Snell's October 3, 1946 report on Japan's atomic program at Konan:
http://www.nknews.org/2013/05/do-sang-rok-the-father-of-north-koreas-nuclear-weapon-program/

- Bill Streifer

photografr7
01-26-2014, 06:20 AM
Speaking of Tatsusaburo Suzuki, I'd like to share an interesting story.

In 1997, my friend and colleague in Tokyo, a Japanese-American and WWII veteran, visited a chemical school associated with the Japan National Army Defense Agency (Army). He requested and obtained permission to go through documents that might shed new light on Japan's atomic program. There, he found an article written in 1963 by Tatsusaburo Suzuki, who by that time was a Brigadier General. He explained how Ni-go began, how it ended, and everything in-between. There are no huge revelations -- any that I am at liberty to share, anyway -- but Suzuki's account contains some interesting, never-before-revealed, details. The Chemical School wouldn't permit photo copies, so my friend had to transcribe each page by hand. And later, he typed it up.

In 1997, he sent a copy to his friend Arnold Kramish (the author of Atomic Energy in the Soviet Union) and in November 2013, he sent me a copy. We now know that the Japanese and Soviet nuclear programs are linked by way of Konan, so this story has come full-circle.

Rising Sun*
01-26-2014, 06:55 AM
Speaking of Tatsusaburo Suzuki, I'd like to share an interesting story.

In 1997, my friend and colleague in Tokyo, a Japanese-American and WWII veteran, visited a chemical school associated with the Japan National Army Defense Agency (Army). He requested and obtained permission to go through documents that might shed new light on Japan's atomic program. There, he found an article written in 1963 by Tatsusaburo Suzuki, who by that time was a Brigadier General. He explained how Ni-go began, how it ended, and everything in-between. There are no huge revelations -- any that I am at liberty to share, anyway -- but Suzuki's account contains some interesting, never-before-revealed, details. The Chemical School wouldn't permit photo copies, so my friend had to transcribe each page by hand. And later, he typed it up.

In 1997, he sent a copy to his friend Arnold Kramish (the author of Atomic Energy in the Soviet Union) and in November 2013, he sent me a copy. We now know that the Japanese and Soviet nuclear programs are linked by way of Konan, so this story has come full-circle.

Be all that as it may, the fact remains that Japan didn't have a working atomic weapon by August 1945 when the Americans used the only working atomic weapons then or since on enemy targets.

As with discussion in another thread about Germany supposedly having an atomic bomb or weapon in April 1945, the fact remains that in both Germany and Japan when they had their backs to the wall and were down to the level of throwing roof tiles at the Allies, they didn't detonate their supposed atomic weapons.

The reason they didn't detonate them is because they didn't have anything to detonate. Whether they were days or years away from that point is irrelevant, but in Japan's case Japan would have delayed surrender discussions longer if it thought it had the faintest chance of using an atomic weapon.

As for the supposed Japanese atomic test, read the earlier part of this thread for cogent reasons why it is nonsense.

As for the Soviet nuclear program being linked to Konan, the Soviets derived important information more from spies in America than anything gained from relatively rudimentary Japanese efforts.

photografr7
01-26-2014, 08:20 AM
As for the supposed Japanese atomic test, read the earlier part of this thread for cogent reasons why it is nonsense.

The claim that Japan conducted an atomic test is not nonsense for the following reason (I could go into detail for each, but I won't). What I will say is that my information was derived from numerous sources in Japanese, Russian, Korean and English, as well as numerous archives throughout the world. And my colleagues include a Russian journalist, a Russian physicist, a Japanese physicist and an American particle physicist... to name but a few:

1. The U.S. military didn't believe it was nonsense. Following publication of David Snell's article, they carried out an extensive investigation in Japan and in Korea.

2. David Snell is a distinguished journalist.

3. The U.S. military interviewed a Japanese chemist and a Japanese security officer from Konan even before Snell became aware of Konan.

4. The source of Snell's story is one of the top six scientists (chemists) who was captured and tortured by the Russians before he managed to flee to Seoul, and the head of intelligence and security at the facility. If an atomic test never happened, they are lying. How you can accuse them of lying without knowing all of the facts is beyond me.

5. The Russians believed that Japan was carrying out some sort of nuclear research at Konan. That is why five of the six Japanese scientists were tortured and transported to Russia. If the explosion was a conventional explosive or Z-stoff, the Russians wouldn't have cared less.

6. No one is aware of the full extent of nuclear-related activities at Konan, during and after the war. U.S. Intelligence knows, but you don't.

7. No one is aware of the progress that Japanese scientists made toward the development of an atomic bomb during the war. U.S. Intelligence knows, but you don't.

8. No one knows the relationship between nuclear activities at Konan and nuclear activities on the Japanese mainland. The Japanese know, but you don't.



As for the Soviet nuclear program being linked to Konan, the Soviets derived important information more from spies in America than anything gained from relatively rudimentary Japanese efforts.

You clearly don't know what role spies played in the Soviet atomic program, and you also clearly believe that Soviet nuclear capability in 1945 was greater than Japanese nuclear capability in 1945. For one, did you know that Japan's nuclear weapons program began in 1941 or 1943, and that the Soviet nuclear weapons program didn't begin until after WWII ended? Then read the following: Szulc, Tad. “The Untold Story of How Russia ‘Got the Bomb’,” Los Angeles Times, Aug. 26, 1984, p. D1, 3.

Nickdfresh
01-26-2014, 09:18 AM
The claim that Japan conducted an atomic test is not nonsense for the following reason (I could go into detail for each, but I won't). What I will say is that my information was derived from numerous sources in Japanese, Russian, Korean and English, as well as numerous archives throughout the world. And my colleagues include a Russian journalist, a Russian physicist, a Japanese physicist and an American particle physicist... to name but a few:

1. The U.S. military didn't believe it was nonsense. Following publication of David Snell's article, they carried out an extensive investigation in Japan and in Korea.

2. David Snell is a distinguished journalist.

3. The U.S. military interviewed a Japanese chemist and a Japanese security officer from Konan even before Snell became aware of Konan.

4. The source of Snell's story is one of the top six scientists (chemists) who was captured and tortured by the Russians before he managed to flee to Seoul, and the head of intelligence and security at the facility. If an atomic test never happened, they are lying. How you can accuse them of lying without knowing all of the facts is beyond me.

5. The Russians believed that Japan was carrying out some sort of nuclear research at Konan. That is why five of the six Japanese scientists were tortured and transported to Russia. If the explosion was a conventional explosive or Z-stoff, the Russians wouldn't have cared less.

6. No one is aware of the full extent of nuclear-related activities at Konan, during and after the war. U.S. Intelligence knows, but you don't.

7. No one is aware of the progress that Japanese scientists made toward the development of an atomic bomb during the war. U.S. Intelligence knows, but you don't.

8. No one knows the relationship between nuclear activities at Konan and nuclear activities on the Japanese mainland. The Japanese know, but you don't.




You clearly don't know what role spies played in the Soviet atomic program, and you also clearly believe that Soviet nuclear capability in 1945 was greater than Japanese nuclear capability in 1945. For one, did you know that Japan's nuclear weapons program began in 1941 or 1943, and that the Soviet nuclear weapons program didn't begin until after WWII ended? Then read the following: Szulc, Tad. “The Untold Story of How Russia ‘Got the Bomb’,” Los Angeles Times, Aug. 26, 1984, p. D1, 3.

Then why did they surrender? Why didn't they seed Japan with such bombs and use them as landmines on the Downfall invasion areas that the Japanese had quite correctly surmised? Or The Tokyo Plane?

And I am a "former CIC Agent" that dealt with nuclear details at certain points, I can tell you that Snelling was way in over his head and level of education...

And precisely who was "US Intelligence?" Which agency?

photografr7
01-26-2014, 10:03 AM
By the way, Arnold Kramish was a member of the Manhattan Project.

First of all, congratulations. All Americans should be proud of the fine work the CIC has done over the years to protect the United States. The following is from a 1947 CIC report concerning Hamhung, the next town over from Hamhung (known as Konan by the Japanese):

According to a 971st Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC) report, a Soviet Intelligence training school (service unknown) was located in Hamhung in 1945. There, Korean students learned espionage and sabotage. A Soviet captain was said to be on the teaching staff. Each course was taken by 200 students. This information was obtained by two of the students who had been arrested. One was arrested in 1946. The school reportedly graduated 500 student, 300 of whom were sent to South Korea to gather information regarding U.S. troops, the political situation, and on missions involving terrorism. To qualify for admission to the school, the applicant had to be a middle school graduate, between the ages of 19 and 28 of either sex. Upon graduation, the student becomes a "collaborator" with the Soviet Intelligence organization and a propaganda agent.


First a small correction. Also, it's Snell, not Snelling. If you are going to criticize him, at least you can spell his name right. By the way, I'm writing his biography, so I know a little about him. He was a reporter, not a scientist. He asked questions and wrote the answers down. He didn't make the story up or add his own commentary, except (if I remember correctly) perhaps the last 2 or 3 sentences at the end of his article. Before publication, Snell discussed the story with the XXIV Corps (G-2), Col. Cecil Nist, and the Commanding General of the XXIV Corps, Lieut. Gen. John R. Hodge. According to a report by the XXIV Corps, basic atomic research began in Japan and the development of a bomb or other weapon was carried out at Konan, and the Russians grabbed some of the equipment (but I can't tell you which parts).

Here's a brief outline of my book, so you know where I'm coming from: http://www.my-jia.com/The_Flight_of_the_Hog_Wild/preview.htm

Now back to your question:

Which intelligence agencies investigated Japan's atomic program at Konan? First and foremost it was the U.S. Army's XXIV Corps G-2 based in Seoul. Then there was the 971st Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC). ALSOS (which took part in missions to demolish Germany's nuclear program) was entirely unaware of Japan's nuclear weapons program on Japan, let alone in Korea. They were completely clueless. The OSS, SSU, X-2 and the MIS were also involved in an investigation into Japan's atomic program, none of which has been published to date. That's what I'll be writing about.

photografr7
01-26-2014, 10:16 AM
Why didn't Japan use their atomic bombs on the enemy, or on invading Soviet forces? Here's the Readers' Digest version. The Japanese plan was to load their atomic bombs on Kamakazi (suicide) planes against an invading U.S. fleet. But the Russians declared war on Japan on August 8th and began their invasion of northern Korea the next day. Officially, the Russians didn't occupy Konan until late-August, but Snell said the Russians were "hours away" when the Japanese conducted their atomic test on August 12th. I haven't been able to reconcile those two dates yet, and I may never.

Why didn't the Japanese load other atomic bombs onto planes and attack the U.S. or the Soviet Union? Three reasons: 1) They didn't have any more weapons available after their August 12, 1945 test 2) The device was more than likely some type of nuclear weapon but not a "bomb," one that you could drop from a plane. 3) They simply ran out of time when the Russians invaded. So no, they didn't have an arsenal of nuclear weapons, but they may have conducted one and only one atomic test, a test which may not have been entirely successful.

photografr7
01-27-2014, 09:36 AM
You asked for U.S. intelligence agencies that investigated Japan's atomic program. I left one out. While not technically an intelligence organization (it's more of a quasi-police force), the Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC) was also involved.

- Bill Streifer

herman2
04-30-2014, 06:07 AM
The question is not weather or not they could have had the Atomic Bomb back then, but rather if they could have it today! I recall reading from a very informative source not to long ago, that apparently the Japanese are building up their navy and converting their defensive ships into aggressive ships, apparently to attack China. Although I believe this to be far fetched and ludicrous, but since someone I know claims this to be a fact, then perhaps it goes on the same premise that Japan is Currently building the Atomic Bomb and we don`t know about it, and perhaps its to attack China, with all those ships Japan is converting, once again, to attack China.

Kilroy
04-30-2014, 09:06 AM
Well I believe that they may have had some minor problems in which held of their plans to fully use it... In which they may have never set it off at all or fact never even had one. After all they often lied and exaggerated their reports to the officials. Now on this I may be in corrected since my knowledge is little when it comes to Japanese military..

pdf27
04-30-2014, 12:10 PM
The question is not weather or not they could have had the Atomic Bomb back then, but rather if they could have it today! I recall reading from a very informative source not to long ago, that apparently the Japanese are building up their navy and converting their defensive ships into aggressive ships, apparently to attack China. Although I believe this to be far fetched and ludicrous, but since someone I know claims this to be a fact, then perhaps it goes on the same premise that Japan is Currently building the Atomic Bomb and we don`t know about it, and perhaps its to attack China, with all those ships Japan is converting, once again, to attack China.
The problem with that is that most types of ship are dual-purpose - only a very few (amphibious warfare and ballistic missile submarines, off the top of my head) are really single-purpose. Given their rather strained relationship with Japan, it is entirely plausible that parts of the Chinese blogosphere would interpret just about any type of ship as being offensive in nature.

So far as nuclear weapons go, Japan is definitely a threshold state - they both enrich uranium and reprocess spent fuel (all under IAEA safeguards). If they decided to build a weapon it would be pretty easy for them - they've got all the industry and the physics base to do so. However, doing so would also cause a domestic political firestorm to make Fukushima look like a firecracker, not to mention the effect on the wider region. The Chinese would be very angry indeed, as would the US, and the South Koreans would probably build their own nuclear weapons in response.

herman2
05-01-2014, 04:22 PM
Did Germany not send vital data to Japan before end of ww2?, What about Albert Sweizer who left Germany and went to Japan to continue with his atomic blueprint plans?

pdf27
05-02-2014, 01:20 AM
Did Germany not send vital data to Japan before end of ww2?, What about Albert Sweizer who left Germany and went to Japan to continue with his atomic blueprint plans?
Not sure, but it's unlikely to have helped very much - the Japanese actually understood the requirements of an atomic bomb rather better than the Germans. They had calculated the critical mass of U-235 correctly for instance, which the Germans never did. The problem with the Japanese was industrial - they never had the wherewithal to build one.

herman2
05-03-2014, 05:47 AM
I understand that after the war a lot of German scientists went to America to continue with their atomic and rocket science. I wonder if they actually immigrated OR if they were arrested and forced to work in America. I saw a black and white movie once where the American public was appalled that the Nazi scientists were allowed to bring their families to USA and live like kings all because USA wanted to pick their brains to perfect the atomic bomb and make it better than the original. What happened to the Japanese scientists? Why did they or how come they were never induced to come to America to continue with their research? Makes you wonder.

herman2
05-03-2014, 06:06 AM
Didn't we discuss this a few years ago where you stated that it's in the Japan constitution that they are forbidden to develop nuclear armament?So how would it be easy for them? thats like saying Slavery can be reintroduced in America. Its impossible. The Americans would not allow it. STRAINED relationship with Japan. I don`t think so. Not at all. In fact China imports more from Japan than any other country in the entire world, AND Japan exports to China is Number 3 in the world. http://atlas.media.mit.edu/profile/country/chn/
So, if their relationship was so strained then why are they so interwoven in trade. If my limited knowledge on economics serves me right, then I think I remember learning that the first signs of strained relationships between 2 countries, is the economic trade agreements between the countries. As far as I can see, Japan and China have Great trade agreements and China loves Japan because it imports from them more than anyone else. Houyea!

Ardee
05-03-2014, 12:21 PM
So, if their relationship was so strained then why are they so interwoven in trade. If my limited knowledge on economics serves me right, then I think I remember learning that the first signs of strained relationships between 2 countries, is the economic trade agreements between the countries. As far as I can see, Japan and China have Great trade agreements and China loves Japan because it imports from them more than anyone else. Houyea!

By this thinking, I guess Germany, Poland, the Baltic States, and most of Eastern Europe all have a strain-free relationship with Russia at the moment, because they have such active trade going on in the energy sector? Japan and China have a long history of "strain" between them. The pragmatics of trade don't necessarily engender blind love, herman2. I'm sure you can think of a variety of historical issues (e.g., Comfort Women, territorial disputes, trade of rare earth elements) that have made international news in the recent past.

Ardee
05-03-2014, 12:31 PM
I understand that after the war a lot of German scientists went to America to continue with their atomic and rocket science. I wonder if they actually immigrated OR if they were arrested and forced to work in America. I saw a black and white movie once where the American public was appalled that the Nazi scientists were allowed to bring their families to USA and live like kings all because USA wanted to pick their brains to perfect the atomic bomb and make it better than the original. What happened to the Japanese scientists? Why did they or how come they were never induced to come to America to continue with their research? Makes you wonder.

The US did make use of defeated Japanese scientists in weapon research, just as it did of Germans. It is not as well publicized, for any number of possible reasons, including but not limited too the racism of the times. I'm not sure what you're implying with your "wonder." Probably one of the main reasons post-war German scientists have gotten so much attention is solely due to their role in the US Space Program and subsequent lunar landings. Individuals' roles in weapons development are understandably kept a bit quieter, under most circumstances.

herman2
05-03-2014, 01:15 PM
Ardee why are you still a Staff Sergeant? I come back after 4 years and your still not an officer. Anyways if USA did make use of Japanese scientists then name one? I don't know any but i know lots of German ones.Racism I wonder about. Do you really think they were racist against Japanese when/if they had knowledge beneficial to the state? I would think USA would shake hands with the devil if it meant prospering ahead.

pdf27
05-03-2014, 01:41 PM
Do you really think they were racist against Japanese when/if they had knowledge beneficial to the state? I would think USA would shake hands with the devil if it meant prospering ahead.
They did - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiro_Ishii

herman2
05-03-2014, 01:50 PM
WOW, that is some secret cool stuff on that link. Thx for enlightening me. Your the Bomb PDF!..(get it? the bomb?..anyways I thought it was funny)

Ardee
05-03-2014, 09:41 PM
Ardee why are you still a Staff Sergeant? I come back after 4 years and your still not an officer. Anyways if USA did make use of Japanese scientists then name one? I don't know any but i know lots of German ones.Racism I wonder about. Do you really think they were racist against Japanese when/if they had knowledge beneficial to the state? I would think USA would shake hands with the devil if it meant prospering ahead.

If I recall correctly, "rank" is dependent upon how many posts you make here, and I spend most of my time in the photo section. I certainly *hope* you don't confuse habitual posting a lot here with other qualities like knowledge, thought, or other intangibles...?

Re Japanese scientists' names: pdf already gave you one name. No, their names don't spring readily to mind, which was kind of my point about when scientists are drawn into weapons research. I have read enough to know it happened, though my major interest in the ETO. And yes, racism: for years we'd been flooding propaganda into the civilian market about Tojo's cruel little monkey-like soldiers and people -- surely you can see why our use of such people might not be well publicized in the war's aftermath?

So far as hand-shaking goes...your comment sounds *almost* like a moral aspersion, given the way you singled the US out. If so, it would be interesting to see *your* list of nations that would NOT do exactly what you suggest to get an edge in a dangerous international environment such as existed in the aftermath of the war...or perhaps any other time. Please, do try to keep the conversation serious, shall we?

herman2
05-04-2014, 06:34 AM
I singled out the US because I meant to. Why can't I single out the US? Is it a crime to say US?.As for my list if nations that would NOT do exactly what I suggest, I can mention lots. : Lichtenstein, Ice land, Tasmania, Tanzania, Central Republic of Africa, Zanzibar, Canary Islands.....as for Intangibles, all I Know is that I am an officer and your not,,,BUT as they say in the Army, Officers know diddly squat and the real credit goes to the hard working men under the Officers, so I credit you for your tangible input as I try to achieve tangible goals.

Rising Sun*
05-04-2014, 06:38 AM
Just as a matter of interest, let's assume that Japan had an atomic bomb or several in July / August 1945.

How would they deliver it to anywhere that mattered as the Allies closed in on Japan from the Pacific and the USSR?

Ground delivery or air delivery?

Logistics / planes / etc for each type of delivery and resources available for such delivery?

herman2
05-04-2014, 06:57 AM
Just as a matter of interest, let's assume that Japan had an atomic bomb or several in July / August 1945.

How would they deliver it to anywhere that mattered as the Allies closed in on Japan from the Pacific and the USSR?

Ground delivery or air delivery?

Logistics / planes / etc for each type of delivery and resources available for such delivery?

To boost moral and instill fear of the unknown into the Allied forces, I would say the goal would not be to deliver the weapon straight to the mainland of US (hope I can say US freely), or England, but rather deliver the bomb short range to one of the nearby islands or main lands where there would be high concentration of Allied forces or Naval ships. It would have to be far enough to exclude harm of fallout coming back to Japan, but that would be one goal I think would be tangible. This way long range planes and fuel supplies would not be an issue. Groundburst if you could sneak it onto a ship and sail it towards a naval base. Maybe if the Japanese Kamikazes pretended to be defectors so the Allied forces could pull the ship into the naval base(hiding the bomb) then once its in the naval base. Kaboom!

Rising Sun*
05-04-2014, 07:04 AM
So far as hand-shaking goes...your comment sounds *almost* like a moral aspersion, given the way you singled the US out. If so, it would be interesting to see *your* list of nations that would NOT do exactly what you suggest to get an edge in a dangerous international environment such as existed in the aftermath of the war...or perhaps any other time. Please, do try to keep the conversation serious, shall we?

Never mind after the war, what about before it?

The USSR and the evil of communism was something that was anathema to America, Britain, and the British Commonwealth countries before 1941, but come 1942 they're pouring everything they can manage into Uncle Joe's hands to support his war against their common enemy (with which the USSR a couple of years earlier had completed a non-aggression pact as well as carving up bits of eastern Europe in agreement with the Nazis after the war started).

All nations act in naked self-interest. They're not like people, who sometimes put honour and duty above self-interest.

Rising Sun*
05-04-2014, 07:09 AM
To boost moral and instill fear of the unknown into the Allied forces, I would say the goal would not be to deliver the weapon straight to the mainland of US (hope I can say US freely), or England, but rather deliver the bomb short range to one of the nearby islands or main lands where there would be high concentration of Allied forces or Naval ships.

Did Japan have anything capable of reaching the US or England by that stage?

Bear in mind that the US couldn't deliver its atomic bombs to Japan until it got its bombers within range by taking the islands close to Japan.

Did Japan have any bombers with the necessary load capacity?

herman2
05-04-2014, 07:15 AM
Oh please of course NOT. And besides with Radar developed in the US, they would have been pegged off before they got close to the mainland. The only landmass closest to Japan was Pearl Harbor. Wasn't their Internment camps set up there with their own people. Would they not be killing their own kind as a set back to their plan. The Japanese absolutely had no long range bombers capable of delivering the atomic bomb to the US. A submarine could snek through as they did in San Francisco but implosion is not the same as explosion. I stand by my reply. The logistics would be Impossible. The only way would be to detonate it nearby where there would be a considerable Allied Naval Base (Preferably US) (US) (US).\
http://pacificstorm.net/en/articles/jp_bombers1.php
Japan’s lack of heavy long-range bombers, as they were understood by the western strategists, who were conducting an all-out aerial war by means of carpet bombing of industrial centers, military bases and residential areas in cities – the Japanese had no four-engine “flying fortresses,” capable of delivering several tons of ordnance over thousands of miles while flying at extremely high altitudes without fighter escort.

Ardee
05-04-2014, 11:46 AM
I singled out the US because I meant to. Why can't I single out the US? Is it a crime to say US?.As for my list if nations that would NOT do exactly what I suggest, I can mention lots. : Lichtenstein, Ice land, Tasmania, Tanzania, Central Republic of Africa, Zanzibar, Canary Islands.....as for Intangibles, all I Know is that I am an officer and your not,,,BUT as they say in the Army, Officers know diddly squat and the real credit goes to the hard working men under the Officers, so I credit you for your tangible input as I try to achieve tangible goals.

Herman2, I confess, I have no recollection of you before your recent return -- I guess you didn't make much of an impression on me back then, either. You offer up a short list of seven "nations" that includes three that aren't even nations. I bow to your intellectual prowess.

As RS* pointed out, any nation (including Canada) will act in its own self-interest. Your reply also suggests you're a tad confused about the difference between those which "would" do something if they had the chance, versus those which actually had such chances. The concepts are just a little different, as most readily grasp. And BTW, since you seem to enjoy fantasy, may I suggest you go read The Mouse that Roared? You might find the novel germane.

And you can certainly single out the US when that singling out is justifiable. But outside of your own mind, that doesn't seem to apply in this case.

So far as being an officer here goes -- well, you're welcome to all the empty honorifics for your loud empty talk that you care to garner. Enjoy!

Ardee
05-04-2014, 12:08 PM
Just as a matter of interest, let's assume that Japan had an atomic bomb or several in July / August 1945.

How would they deliver it to anywhere that mattered as the Allies closed in on Japan from the Pacific and the USSR?


Well, the Japanese had successfully determined where MacArthur planned to launch Operation Olympic. In theory, they could have buried one or more bombs there for remote detonation as the landings came in, risking the bombs and their means of detonation would survive any pre-landing shelling. Any civilians who hadn't fled the area would be of course just be viewed as making sacrifices for their emperor.

Rising Sun*
05-05-2014, 05:52 AM
Any civilians who hadn't fled the area would be of course just be viewed as making sacrifices for their emperor.

Puts them on the same basis as the Allies IIRC, as consideration was given to tactical use of atomic weapons in Olympic in the knowledge that Allied (being primarily and perhaps exclusively American) troops would suffer from radiation.

Again IIRC, there were times specified for Allied troops to move through atomic bombed areas after detonation to reduce radiation harm to them.

herman2
05-05-2014, 07:10 AM
Pl use of atomic weapons in Olympic in the knowledge that Allied (being primarily and perhaps exclusively American) troops would suffer from radiation.
A.

It could of also been Brave Australians RS. Don't forget about them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
"The Australian government requested the inclusion of Australian Army units in the first wave of Olympic, but this was rejected by US commanders."
......The Australians are always the first to put their lives on the table . If Operation Olympic did go as planned the Lieutenant General Leslie Morshead would have been given a bums steer as he was obviously more qualified for the job than British officer, Lieutenant-General Sir Charles Keightley. Australian lives would be at risk from the fall out since i know they would have convinced Keightey to give the lead to Morshead. Morshead is an Australian officer in case you didn't know of him.

Rising Sun*
05-05-2014, 08:42 AM
In theory, they could have buried one or more bombs there for remote detonation as the landings came in, risking the bombs and their means of detonation would survive any pre-landing shelling.

I have no technical expertise in this area, but my understanding is that the destructive power of the American atom bombs dropped on Japan was in part related to being air bursts at carefully calculated heights to spread the damage across a wide area, which in turn was a compromise to allow sufficient fall to allow the bombers to get out of range of the blast.

If Japanese atomic bombs were buried at whatever was sufficient depth to protect them from pre-landing bombardments, to what extent would that reduce their range?

Would it be the case that the deeper they were buried, the less effective they became in blast damage over a given radius?

I have in mind an effect something like the well known WWI land mine explosion shooting a vast quantity of earth into the air in a fairly narrow funnel shape limiting the above ground damage (although that wasn't the purpose of the WWI mine) to a small area.

pdf27 might like to comment on this.

Ardee
05-05-2014, 09:40 AM
I have no technical expertise in this area, but my understanding is that the destructive power of the American atom bombs dropped on Japan was in part related to being air bursts at carefully calculated heights to spread the damage across a wide area, which in turn was a compromise to allow sufficient fall to allow the bombers to get out of range of the blast.

If Japanese atomic bombs were buried at whatever was sufficient depth to protect them from pre-landing bombardments, to what extent would that reduce their range?

Would it be the case that the deeper they were buried, the less effective they became in blast damage over a given radius?

I have in mind an effect something like the well known WWI land mine explosion shooting a vast quantity of earth into the air in a fairly narrow funnel shape limiting the above ground damage (although that wasn't the purpose of the WWI mine) to a small area.

pdf27 might like to comment on this.

I'm no technical expert either. You are correct about the air burst, and the depth of burial, being important factors. I would imagine the type of soil it was buried in would matter too. But at what point does it become "not worth" doing at a tactical level in a relatively small area? When the bomb losses 50% of its power? 75%? I can't guess. I had been envisioning a shallow burial, protected/camouflaged by a relatively empty beach, more than any "bunker," buried or otherwise. How much shelling is done to an empty beach, versus inland targets, especially given Japanese tactics during other recent invasions?

Under those circumstances, I don't know what impact the shock wave would have on a nearby fleet, but suspect it might have been hard on landing craft at the least. I can't count radiation as they really didn't grasp the long-term ramifications yet.

The Japanese had a range of new conventional weapons that they held in reserve for defense of the home islands. Why would they treat this any differently? Waiting for the enemy to come to you would likely save dwindling resources and solve the logistical issue of getting the bomb to the enemy. Culturally, it also embraces a jujitsu-type philosophical approach, using the enemy's concentration of strength against him. I doubt there would be another single point in time where so much was concentrated so tightly as during a landing, and if it did have major impact on the fleet, it could have bought Japan a major chunk of time. Or not, if the Soviets still came knocking.

Rising Sun*
05-05-2014, 10:12 AM
I'm no technical expert either. You are correct about the air burst, and the depth of burial, being important factors. I would imagine the type of soil it was buried in would matter too. But at what point does it become "not worth" doing at a tactical level in a relatively small area? When the bomb losses 50% of its power? 75%? I can't guess. I had been envisioning a shallow burial, protected/camouflaged by a relatively empty beach, more than any "bunker," buried or otherwise. How much shelling is done to an empty beach, versus inland targets, especially given Japanese tactics during other recent invasions?

Under those circumstances, I don't know what impact the shock wave would have on a nearby fleet, but suspect it might have been hard on landing craft at the least. I can't count radiation as they really didn't grasp the long-term ramifications yet.

The Japanese had a range of new conventional weapons that they held in reserve for defense of the home islands. Why would they treat this any differently? Waiting for the enemy to come to you would likely save dwindling resources and solve the logistical issue of getting the bomb to the enemy. Culturally, it also embraces a jujitsu-type philosophical approach, using the enemy's concentration of strength against him. I doubt there would be another single point in time where so much was concentrated so tightly as during a landing, and if it did have major impact on the fleet, it could have bought Japan a major chunk of time. Or not, if the Soviets still came knocking.

My inclination is that the ideal ground based weapon against an amphibious invasion would be a Claymore type of shaped weapon.

Whether that would have been possible with the atomic bombs at the time, and the amount of concrete shaping behind it, is beyond me.

pdf27
05-05-2014, 01:32 PM
I have no technical expertise in this area, but my understanding is that the destructive power of the American atom bombs dropped on Japan was in part related to being air bursts at carefully calculated heights to spread the damage across a wide area, which in turn was a compromise to allow sufficient fall to allow the bombers to get out of range of the blast.

If Japanese atomic bombs were buried at whatever was sufficient depth to protect them from pre-landing bombardments, to what extent would that reduce their range?

Would it be the case that the deeper they were buried, the less effective they became in blast damage over a given radius?

I have in mind an effect something like the well known WWI land mine explosion shooting a vast quantity of earth into the air in a fairly narrow funnel shape limiting the above ground damage (although that wasn't the purpose of the WWI mine) to a small area.

pdf27 might like to comment on this.
Very quick answer because I'm knackered:

The Effects of Nuclear Weapons gives 35 PSI as the overpressure at which those exposed will start dying, with lung haemorrhage starting at 15 PSI.

A 16kT airburst (Hiroshima) will give 35 PSI at 0.32 miles and 15 PSI at 0.36 miles.
The same weapon for a surface burst will give 35 PSI at 0.24 miles and 15 PSI at 0.29 miles.

Hence, an optimal airburst is 78% more effective at killing unprotected soldiers and 54% more effective at injuring them. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were IIRC given drogues to slow down their fall in order to give the (heavily stripped out - all armour and most guns were removed) B-29s time to escape; to the best of my knowledge the burst height was chosen without consideration of whether it would enable the crews to escape or not.

Ardee
05-05-2014, 08:31 PM
Thanks for the input, pdf. One of the things I'm still curious about is the effect of a ground blast on/near water. Underground nuclear devices can have "earthquake effects" and I'm wondering how that may work in a seaside situation, with shockwave potentially creating something like a tsunami. Especially for Higgins boats, which have never struck me as being especially nimble, I would think the risk of being swamped might be high, between the wind blast and waves. Even if troops survived and got ashore, resupply without landing craft might be daunting. Does your resource give any hint of that? I suspect most big boats would be too far out to sea to be roiled by the blast, but....

RS, another "mine" model to consider might be a bouncing Betty. With the ocean being basically flat, would the bomb need much height to get the impact of a blast at higher altitude?

Of course, Olympic was coming in on three beachheads, and the Japanese would need either a lot of bombs or very accurate placements for any of this to be worth anything....

pdf27
05-06-2014, 12:41 PM
An airburst is defined as the height at which the fireball does not touch the ground (if it does, energy is wasted digging out a crater rather than destroying things on the surface - so ground bursts are only used where you have something very tough you need to dig out). At 16kT the fireball has a radius of 0.13 miles, i.e. a minimum height of ~800 feet - can't find the formula for calculating optimal airburst height offhand right now.

The BAKER test at Bikini gave the following wave heights:
Distance (yards) Wave Height (feet)
330 94
660 47
1330 24
2000 16
2700 13
3300 11
4000 9

From what I've read, the ships generally showed that they would have remained afloat until after their crews had died of radiation poisoning...

Ardee
05-06-2014, 09:35 PM
Thanks pdf. Even at a mile out, you're getting 16 foot waves. I did try to find some info on how stable Higgins boats were -- all I found was that their lead competitor in Navy testing for landing craft (The "Bureau Boat") got swamped by 4-foot waves...leading directly to the choice of the Higgins.

I had thought the power of the airburst was related more to something like LOS with the explosion -- straight lines, with the blast's height removing deflecting obstacles, depressions, etc. I appreciate the clarification.

pdf27
05-07-2014, 01:16 AM
Thanks pdf. Even at a mile out, you're getting 16 foot waves. I did try to find some info on how stable Higgins boats were -- all I found was that their lead competitor in Navy testing for landing craft (The "Bureau Boat") got swamped by 4-foot waves...leading directly to the choice of the Higgins.
The book goes on at some length about shockwaves travelling rather well through water and bursting hull seams rather more effectively than the equivalent pressure wave from a chemical explosive (because it hit along the entire length of the ship, rather than only one bit). That probably isn't a factor with small IC engine powered boats however, since they're relatively immune to shock damage when compared to a steam plant and are liable to be swamped rather than crack seams.
It's frustratingly unspecific about how pressure waves travelled (probably because that's relevant to how effective a nuclear depth charge would be, and seems to be heavily influenced by the sea bed topography), but the impression I get is that all ships within relatively close range would be mission killed for certain and probably have their crews die over the course of a few days from radiation sickness. However, it would probably take a week or so for most large ships who weren't sunk outright in the explosion to sink even without any damage control - Saratoga was only 450 yards away from the initiation point and took 7 1/2 hours to sink. Nagato was 770 yards away and sank 5 days later.


I had thought the power of the airburst was related more to something like LOS with the explosion -- straight lines, with the blast's height removing deflecting obstacles, depressions, etc. I appreciate the clarification.
Sort of, but that's counterbalanced by the fact that it's simply further away. This really comes into play when selecting the optimum airburst height, rather than choosing between a ground or air burst - the optimum airburst height is rather larger than just "fireball does not touch the ground" and is really a balance between overpressure required directly over the target, device size and how much damage you want to do at a distance. I'll see if I can dig out some stuff on that later.

Rising Sun*
05-07-2014, 08:48 AM
No doubt an overly simplistic idea based on my very limited grasp of physics, but one of the few things I recall from school is that water is incompressible.

Does it follow that an explosion at a sufficient depth is pretty much fully contained by the water column (e.g. equivalent of a 500lb aerial bomb at 5,000 metres) but when it is nearer the surface the incompressible force is dissipated into the atmosphere by forcing the water column into the air (e.g. equivalent 500lb bomb in 3 metres of water)?

If so, would a very large explosion, be it nuclear or conventional, in shallow water such as that typically found in amphibious landings be less effective in bursting hull seams on surface ships than at deeper depths, such as 5,000 metres, where it might destroy a submarine (yes, I know crewed naval subs can't go to 5,000 metres, but the Japanese didn't have atomic weapons to explode in the sea or anywhere else, so this is all just speculation)?

Ardee
05-07-2014, 09:49 AM
Altight, I'm not going to say how long ago I took high school physics, but you're starting to get out of my depth. ;) I did take pdf's informative post and looked up the fate of the Saratoga. It was sunk during Operation Crossroads, specifically held to test nuclear blast effects on ships. The Saratoga survived the first of two tests, but was sunk by the second. Details as per the ever-convenient if not always definitive Wiki:


A fleet of 95 target ships was assembled in Bikini Lagoon and hit with two detonations of Fat Man plutonium implosion-type nuclear weapons of the kind dropped on Nagasaki, each with a yield of 23 kilotons of TNT (96 TJ).

The first test was Able. The bomb, named Gilda after Rita Hayworth's character in the 1946 eponymous film, was dropped from the B-29 Superfortress Dave's Dream of the 509th Bombardment Group on July 1, 1946, and detonated 520 feet (158 m) above the target fleet. It caused less than the expected amount of ship damage because it missed its aim point by 2,130 feet (649 m). The second test was Baker. The bomb, known as Helen of Bikini, was detonated 90 feet (27 m) underwater on July 25, 1946. Radioactive sea spray caused extensive contamination.


The bomb that sank the Saratoga wasn't that deep. I suspect the deeper the submerged blast, you not only get the distance factor pdf raised for airbursts, but also the increasingly diverse ocean floor topography (i.e., the deeper it is, the more diverse) would come into play to deflect the shockwave. also -- the greater density of the water might help transmit the shockwave, but wouldn't the greater weight of the water also consume the energy faster? I have some vague recollection of some such from a discussion of tsunamis and underwater quakes (which I could easily have gotten now confused). Certainly, shallow water amplifies the tsunami-generated wave....

pdf, it never even occurred to me to think of the blast blowing a ship's seams. I thought of the blast effects of melting steel, but that's at relatively short distances. It seems likely there's a bunch of other things that at least this "armchair bomb expert" isn't thinking of.

But since we're talking about hypotheticals here -- thinking strictly of wave effects, and we have possibly multiple Japanese bombs -- what if two or more bombs went of simultaneously on different sides of a bay? From what I recall of wave interaction (is "harmonics" the proper term?), that would result in places where the effects of the two blasts would be canceled out -- and also places where it would be doubled. Utterly impossible for the Japanese to predict where ships would be ahead of time, so the doubling/canceling/all points in between relative to ships would be a crap shoot. I don't know if wind/air pressure shock waves would behave quite the same way, but I daresay you still wind up with a big mess. (Is there a prize for understatement?)

pdf27
05-07-2014, 12:04 PM
No doubt an overly simplistic idea based on my very limited grasp of physics, but one of the few things I recall from school is that water is incompressible.
Liquid water is incompressible. Applying a rather large amount of energy to it means you have a gas bubble at high pressure which is not incompressible.


Does it follow that an explosion at a sufficient depth is pretty much fully contained by the water column (e.g. equivalent of a 500lb aerial bomb at 5,000 metres) but when it is nearer the surface the incompressible force is dissipated into the atmosphere by forcing the water column into the air (e.g. equivalent 500lb bomb in 3 metres of water)?
Not sure (shattered and not going to dig through The Effects of Nuclear Weapons for the answer just yet). I think it's fairly clear that if the fireball breaches the surface you will lose quite a lot of energy which could otherwise be put into the water from the expanding steam bubble, but I'm less clear if this is actually very destructive - it might form quite a soft pulse.


If so, would a very large explosion, be it nuclear or conventional, in shallow water such as that typically found in amphibious landings be less effective in bursting hull seams on surface ships than at deeper depths, such as 5,000 metres, where it might destroy a submarine (yes, I know crewed naval subs can't go to 5,000 metres, but the Japanese didn't have atomic weapons to explode in the sea or anywhere else, so this is all just speculation)?
Two separate questions here:
1) Surface ships will always need lower overpressures to burst seams than submarines - the water pressure they're designed to face is tiny compared to that a submarine is designed for, so by and large the safety margin will be smaller too.
2) So far as how pressure wave generation and propagation goes, I have no idea. That may be in the book somewhere.

pdf27
05-07-2014, 12:07 PM
pdf, it never even occurred to me to think of the blast blowing a ship's seams. I thought of the blast effects of melting steel, but that's at relatively short distances. It seems likely there's a bunch of other things that at least this "armchair bomb expert" isn't thinking of.
The most obvious one is the steam plant. That's already known to be vulnerable to shock from nearby exploding bombs, and has a direct path from the seawater into it (the condensers). I would not want to be in the engine room of a steam-powered ship taking that kind of shockwave.

burp
05-08-2014, 09:16 AM
Considering the geology of Japan, I suppose that pressure waves from digged atomic explosion can create several problems to the invading force (earthquakes, tsunami, and so on). With a fragile equilibrium, a small amount of telluric energy can bring serious effect.
This, ignoring the fact that on long terms, use of atomic bombs inside national borders it's a real kamikaze tactic.

pdf27
05-08-2014, 04:39 PM
Considering the geology of Japan, I suppose that pressure waves from digged atomic explosion can create several problems to the invading force (earthquakes, tsunami, and so on). With a fragile equilibrium, a small amount of telluric energy can bring serious effect.
It's a staple of thriller-writers, but there isn't actually any evidence to show it will happen unless you bury the bomb so deeply underground (and near a fault) that it will have no effect on the surface. Nuclear weapons are powerful, but compared to the energies involved in the earth itself they're popguns.


This, ignoring the fact that on long terms, use of atomic bombs inside national borders it's a real kamikaze tactic.
Not really - very little of the radiation produced by the bombs of the era was very long-lived. The overwhelming majority of radiation sickness cases (>99%) were due to exposure to the prompt radiation of the blast itself (X and Gamma rays, Neutrons) rather than to the small amount of fallout produced. It is only when they moved on to Fusion weapons and started doing groundbursts with them to take out very hard targets that fallout (mostly soil and rock that had been through the fireball and hence was very heavily irradiated and attached to bomb residue) started to become a problem. Crudely, in an airburst the small amount of fallout (basically the unreacted mass from the bomb) is spread over such a wide area that it becomes insignificant. When attached to rock and soil it falls out of the sky much closer, causing local radiation hotspots which can be lethal.

tankgeezer
05-08-2014, 05:04 PM
This is a bit off the trail, but would you know about how much of the Little Boy core went as you put it, unreacted? Always been curious about that..

burp
05-09-2014, 10:21 AM
It's a staple of thriller-writers, but there isn't actually any evidence to show it will happen unless you bury the bomb so deeply underground (and near a fault) that it will have no effect on the surface. Nuclear weapons are powerful, but compared to the energies involved in the earth itself they're popguns.
For my little knowledge of geology, the deep explosions are worst, because they are near the fault lines in places like Japan. Put pressure on an instable fault lines can cause a lot of earthquake.
Considering particular conditions of Japanese island, that can bring to really destructive scenario, like partial collapse of japanese mainland.

pdf27
05-10-2014, 03:46 AM
This is a bit off the trail, but would you know about how much of the Little Boy core went as you put it, unreacted? Always been curious about that..
See http://www.atomicheritage.org/index.php/component/content/article/42/146-fat-man-and-little-boy-bombs.html - about a 140lb core of which 1.38% actually fissioned. The actual amount of mass destroyed is somewhere under one gramme, the rest of the fissioned material forming decay fragments (usually highly radioactive).

Rising Sun*
05-10-2014, 05:25 AM
For my little knowledge of geology, the deep explosions are worst, because they are near the fault lines in places like Japan. Put pressure on an instable fault lines can cause a lot of earthquake.
Considering particular conditions of Japanese island, that can bring to really destructive scenario, like partial collapse of japanese mainland.

Earthquakes result from the movement of tectonic plates, which are massive areas of the earth's mantle moving at glacial pace under immense forces way beyond anything that nuclear weapons could impose.

The 2011 Japanese earthquake / tsunami occurred at a depth of about 24 kilometres. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=49621 , which is about two and a half times the altitude above earth of the 1945 American nuclear bombers.

I expect that placing an atomic bomb in the Japan Trench to affect the tectonic plates would have been a very much hit and miss operation when allowing for currents and water densities through about 24 km, not to mention many other technical challenges.

As pdf 27 said, on my commonsense rather than scientifically educated basis, I'm inclined to think that even if the most powerful nuclear weapon could be delivered at the optimum point above the tectonic plates it would still be a popgun.

If not, there should be evidence that the earth has shifted on its axis due to the many atmospheric and underground nuclear tests over the past 60 or so years.

burp
05-10-2014, 06:08 AM
Thank you for the corrections :).

pdf27
05-10-2014, 06:09 AM
Earthquakes result from the movement of tectonic plates, which are massive areas of the earth's mantle moving at glacial pace under immense forces way beyond anything that nuclear weapons could impose.

The 2011 Japanese earthquake / tsunami occurred at a depth of about 24 kilometres. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=49621 , which is about two and a half times the altitude above earth of the 1945 American nuclear bombers.

I expect that placing an atomic bomb in the Japan Trench to affect the tectonic plates would have been a very much hit and miss operation when allowing for currents and water densities through about 24 km, not to mention many other technical challenges.
Enough nuclear weapons in the right place could no doubt cause enormous earth movements (if nothing else, if you suddenly vapourise half the rock along the fault line it's going to break free and move). Problem is getting to the right place. As of 1974 the deepest hole in the world was the Bertha Rogers hole in Oklahoma, which reached just under 10km in depth and really challenged the drilling technology of the day. The best I can find for 1945 is the record for the British Empire & Commonwealth, at 3.8km. That just isn't deep enough to get anywhere close to the depths required in the crust to cause this sort of earthquake.

herman2
05-10-2014, 10:14 AM
Could an underground atomic bomb test in todays age cause enough disruption to put the earth off its rotation? I understand North Korea is undertaking another test (them bastards), so if they were to make the test so powerful could it do this? Also, what about the ground water run off? Does it not contain radiation..or what about the enzymes, worms etc that get radiated...dont they cause harm to the birds or fish that eat them. I was wondering about this and worried at the same time!!

Rising Sun*
05-10-2014, 01:16 PM
Could an underground atomic bomb test in todays age cause enough disruption to put the earth off its rotation?

No. http://www.livescience.com/32120-can-a-nuclear-blast-alter-earths-rotation.html

Disrupting the planet's rotation is a different issue to my earlier comment about shifting the earth off its axis, as the angle of rotation is different to the speed of rotation.

pdf27
05-10-2014, 04:02 PM
Could an underground atomic bomb test in todays age cause enough disruption to put the earth off its rotation?
By how much? It's simple Newtonian Mechanics - to stop the earth's rotation outright you need to transfer the angular momentum currently possessed by the earth to some other body. Essentially, that means chucking enormous amounts of rock out into space at massive speeds - given the engineering involved, you're probably looking at maybe 1% of the speed of light as the optimum (!). Possible, maybe, but no point. The other way of doing it is to hit the earth with a very large rock - basically a small planet - arriving at the right angle and speed. I don't much fancy that option, as it would probably lead to the extinction of life on earth.
To change the rotation of the earth is very easy. As an example, spin yourself around on a swivel chair and then move your legs in and out. You'll speed up when you pull your legs in, and slow down when you move them out. The same with the earth - moving weight upwards (e.g. building dams or mining) slows down the rotation of the earth by a tiny amount.


I understand North Korea is undertaking another test (them bastards), so if they were to make the test so powerful could it do this? Also, what about the ground water run off? Does it not contain radiation..or what about the enzymes, worms etc that get radiated...dont they cause harm to the birds or fish that eat them. I was wondering about this and worried at the same time!!
I wouldn't worry about it - unless you happen to live right next to the test site, your equivalent dose will be less than you'd get from eating a banana.

herman2
05-30-2014, 05:21 AM
Where does North Korea get its fusion material? From China? NK has been doing too many underground tests, and I don't like it. I sometimes think the reason we have such strange weather is because of these atomic explosions. How can this isolated country be so advanced? I think china is involved and I don't understand how we let China get away with this. I know China on the surface condemns NK for doing its tests but at the same time, I bet they are supplying NK with fusion material. Maybe it is time that Japan get the Atomic bomb, so it can defend itself from NK.

pdf27
05-31-2014, 02:32 AM
Note:
Fusion = banging light atoms together to make heavier ones. It's what I do for a living, and how Hydrogen bombs work.
Fission = breaking up heavy atoms to make lighter ones. This is how bog-standard nuclear bombs work, and is what the North Koreans are up to.

So far as the Chinese supplying the North Koreans with fissile material, no chance at all. They want a nice, pliant client state that will do what it is told to. If they had nuclear weapons, they might start getting ideas above their station.

herman2
05-31-2014, 06:19 AM
Are you saying YOU do the same stuff that Oppenheimer did? Have you ever been to Los Alamo's? Are you doing second generation Manhattan Project stuff we don't know about?
I think its really cool what you do.

pdf27
05-31-2014, 04:22 PM
Not exactly, no. At the risk of outing myself, I work on this (http://www.efda.org/jet/) machine.

tankgeezer
05-31-2014, 05:35 PM
Not exactly, no. At the risk of outing myself, I work on this (http://www.efda.org/jet/) machine.

I've heard that this machine operates on highly enriched Haggis..

flamethrowerguy
05-31-2014, 11:30 PM
Not exactly, no. At the risk of outing myself, I work on this (http://www.efda.org/jet/) machine.

The link doesn't work for me. I only see red dots and colorful lines. :D

tankgeezer
06-01-2014, 04:42 PM
Shhh, thats just what they want you to see.....

herman2
06-01-2014, 05:11 PM
Where is the machine? Why cant we see it? How can I admire the work you do when I can not see the Link? P.S. Are you not afraid of radiation with the type of work you do?

tankgeezer
06-01-2014, 11:11 PM
Using the vast resources of my employing Agency,and under the authority of my unmentionably secret security clearance, I have secured at great peril to the entirety of Humanity, an image of PDF's machine.

pdf27
06-02-2014, 01:19 AM
Where is the machine? Why cant we see it? How can I admire the work you do when I can not see the Link? P.S. Are you not afraid of radiation with the type of work you do?
I have to wear a dosimeter whenever I'm on site. My total dose over 4 years is 0.00 mSv. The machine itself is encased in ~2m of radiation-hardened concrete, and just getting permission to work on it when it isn't operating (and hence not generation radiation) is a bit of a pain. I was actually doing the course to act as Engineer in Charge of the machine a year or two back, but wasn't selected.
As for where it is, if you scroll down and follow the link at the bottom left called "Visiting JET", you get full details on how to visit for free, a map and even a roadsign pointing to it.


Using the vast resources of my employing Agency,and under the authority of my unmentionably secret security clearance, I have secured at great peril to the entirety of Humanity, an image of PDF's machine.
Best external photo I can find - still looks at least 10 years old, we've added bits since.
7078


The link doesn't work for me. I only see red dots and colorful lines. :D
Scroll down you dingbat, and you'll find some text and links.

herman2
06-03-2014, 06:00 AM
PDF, Why the hell did the USA not make it mandatory for American combat troops to wear a Dosimeter (like the one you wear to work), when they were in Afghanistan. I understand the cost would have been relatively cheap, around $20 per soldier. The Americans used depleted Uranium in their bullets so it would pierce through better than standard bullets and subsequently when the bullets hit the object it slammed into, the heat developed or friction would have resulted in vapor mist of Uranium and subsequently when thousands of these types of bullets are shot off, it would make the area more unsafe due to radiation potential. Having the American troops exposed to this type of environment for so many years will have an impact on their health. It is like breathing in asbestos and we all know the long term effects of that!. I am very upset over this. But what I am more upset over than that, is the fact that Canada has been allowing the Afghanistan toothless refugees with 18 children come into Canada as reffugees, sucking the life out of our economy and subsequently having to need free health care to combat their radiation issues. Oh brother, oh my oh me.
Oh and RS,,,,this is for you...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-01/afghan-refugees-who-helped-defence-resettled-in-australia/5492380

More than 500 Afghans resettled in Australia after helping Defence Force....and apparently they all have jobs and contributing so beautifully to the Australian economy. Despite a 5.8% unemployment rate in Australia http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/unemployment-rate.....there is still room for hard working refugees...

Rising Sun*
06-03-2014, 07:39 AM
But what I am more upset over than that, is the fact that Canada has been allowing the Afghanistan toothless refugees with 18 children come into Canada as reffugees, sucking the life out of our economy and subsequently having to need free health care to combat their radiation issues. Oh brother, oh my oh me.
Oh and RS,,,,this is for you...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-01/afghan-refugees-who-helped-defence-resettled-in-australia/5492380

More than 500 Afghans resettled in Australia after helping Defence Force....and apparently they all have jobs and contributing so beautifully to the Australian economy. Despite a 5.8% unemployment rate in Australia http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/unemployment-rate.....there is still room for hard working refugees...

I'll leave it to Canadians to comment on such matters affecting Canada internally despite its well deserved international reputation as being a generous country in accepting refugees, but so far as Australia is concerned I'm glad that we've repaid the loyalty of some Afghans who took great risks in assisting our forces in their country.

It's a lot better than we did for some Iraqis in another not so distant war, and in Vietnam previously, and in Papua New Guinea in a different way from WWII.

I don't find it unreasonable that people in Afghanistan or Iraq whose countries were destroyed by our and other Coalition forces, who had nothing to do with the corrupt leaderships in their countries which brought our destructive military involvement, right or wrong, into their lives should expect us to pick up part of the tab for destroying their lives and countries. Compared with what the Allies poured into Germany and Japan after WWII, the little we're doing now doesn't qualify as even mean spirited.

As for hard working genuine, as distinct from economic, refugees from any place of conflict or political or racial or caste oppression which places their lives in danger or causes them to have a well founded fear of persecution, which is distinct from repaying our debt to those who assisted our forces in Afghanistan or elsewhere by taking them and their families to our country to preserve their lives, I'm all in favour of giving as many of them as we can accommodate a home here. They're the sort of people who've made a major contribution to building this nation over a couple of centuries, unlike some of our local dole bludgers (look it up on google) etc who are parasites on the rest of us, including hard working refugees who contribute a lot more to everything of value in this nation than local dole bludgers etc.

As for your figures on unemployment, they're the same sort of bullshit our national governments have been using for decades to conceal the true level of unemployment, which is higher than the 'official' figure.. Here's our official government definition of employment:
Employed persons comprise all those civilians aged 15 years and over who worked for one hour or more in the reference week or who had a job from which they were absent. Work is taken to mean work for one hour or more during the reference week, undertaken for pay, profit, commission or payment in kind, in a job, business or farm, or without pay in a family business or farm.
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/featurearticlesbyCatalogue/C35049FCB841741BCA256A1F0002C384?OpenDocument

If you're employed for at least one hour a week (see link), you're not counted in our unemployment statistics.

Working for one hour a week is not employment. It's not even a hobby. And calling someone who works for only an hour or few a week as employed is insulting to them if they want full time work, and demonstrative of the bullshit our national governments of both major parties use to try to persuade us that a steaming turd is a piece of tasty chocolate, and that the government should be congratulated for delivering the supposed chocolate.

Rising Sun*
06-03-2014, 07:56 AM
PDF, Why the hell did the USA not make it mandatory for American combat troops to wear a Dosimeter (like the one you wear to work), when they were in Afghanistan. I understand the cost would have been relatively cheap, around $20 per soldier. The Americans used depleted Uranium in their bullets so it would pierce through better than standard bullets and subsequently when the bullets hit the object it slammed into, the heat developed or friction would have resulted in vapor mist of Uranium and subsequently when thousands of these types of bullets are shot off, it would make the area more unsafe due to radiation potential. Having the American troops exposed to this type of environment for so many years will have an impact on their health. It is like breathing in asbestos and we all know the long term effects of that!. I am very upset over this. But what I am more upset over than that, is the fact that Canada has been allowing the Afghanistan toothless refugees with 18 children come into Canada as reffugees, sucking the life out of our economy and subsequently having to need free health care to combat their radiation issues. Oh brother, oh my oh me.


Do you see a degree of inconsistency, and inhumanity, between wanting radiation protection for American troops allegedly exposed to depleted uranium in a country they invaded and your complaint about supposed burdens on the Canadian health care system in caring for refugee Afghan civilians who had nothing to do with the reasons for the invasion and no ability to protect themselves from the radiation health problems you say those civilians supposedly suffer?

pdf27
06-03-2014, 03:12 PM
PDF, Why the hell did the USA not make it mandatory for American combat troops to wear a Dosimeter (like the one you wear to work), when they were in Afghanistan. I understand the cost would have been relatively cheap, around $20 per soldier. The Americans used depleted Uranium in their bullets so it would pierce through better than standard bullets and subsequently when the bullets hit the object it slammed into, the heat developed or friction would have resulted in vapor mist of Uranium and subsequently when thousands of these types of bullets are shot off, it would make the area more unsafe due to radiation potential.
Err.. no. Quite apart from the fact that soldiers are overloaded as it is (infantry in Afghanistan carry some of the heaviest loads infantry have ever had to in wartime and still be expected to fight - 90 to 100 lb loads are common, while WW1 infantry were criticised as overloaded for carrying 60lbs), a dosimeter doesn't confer any protection - if developed regularly it lets you know that you have been exposed and alerts the Health Physics guys to investigate the source of exposure so that nobody else gets dosed by it. In a military context, it would take ridiculously hot doses (many billions of times higher than you would get from depleted uranium) to impede operations and hence benefit from dosimetry.
Which brings me to my other objection. Depleted uranium really, really isn't very radioactive - it's only about 100 times more radioactive per unit weight than Brazil nuts. Brazil nuts are frequently marketed as a health food and sold in supermarkets, while depleted uranium is really only an exposure hazard when you're exploring a target hit with DU rounds (mostly armoured vehicles) and so get a lungful.


Having the American troops exposed to this type of environment for so many years will have an impact on their health. It is like breathing in asbestos and we all know the long term effects of that!. I am very upset over this.
Actually, it isn't. The primary threat is heavy metal toxicity rather than lung cancers - so much like living in a city before the introduction of unleaded petrol.

Nickdfresh
06-03-2014, 07:39 PM
Aside from all this -- I doubt very many DU rounds were fired in Afghanistan, say perhaps after the initial pummeling of the Taliban since there was very little armor faced by Coalition/NATO forces since the outset of the war in 2001.

herman2
06-04-2014, 05:15 AM
Aside from all this -- I doubt very many DU rounds were fired in Afghanistan, say perhaps after the initial pummeling of the Taliban since there was very little armor faced by Coalition/NATO forces since the outset of the war in 2001.

I don`t know NickÉ..This doctor guy below claims that Americans are still using DU over there....An Afghan activist reveals the US is still using horrific depleted uranium weapons in Afghanistan, creating graveyards of people who die of cancer and other unusual diseases, Press TV reports."These weapons are still used. In fact, a US aircraft called A-10 warthog, normally, even if it doesn't use a uranium projectile in the machine gun, every third projectile is a uranium projectile and that's the working horse of the US army in Afghanistan. They use it left and right," Dr. Mohammad Daud Miraki said in an interview with Press TV.
http://www.presstv.com/detail/224165.html

I realize the true tragedy is with the residents and not only the soldiers (RS was correct in a prior statement)..but I am not feeling altruistic today. All I can say is I would rather pay more taxes to shoulder the burden of the health effects this has taken on our soldiers and the soldiers who did not know about the health effects . Its not their fault they were over there. They were simply following orders and for that we owe them what ever it takes because I did not go over there. They did. They protected me and for that I owe them and tip my hat off for them.Its like another Agent Orange, all over again!!God Bless Our Vets!And God Bless America! We owe our Vets Big Time!

Rising Sun*
06-04-2014, 08:00 AM
I don`t know NickÉ..This doctor guy below claims that Americans are still using DU over there....An Afghan activist reveals the US is still using horrific depleted uranium weapons in Afghanistan, creating graveyards of people who die of cancer and other unusual diseases, Press TV reports."These weapons are still used. In fact, a US aircraft called A-10 warthog, normally, even if it doesn't use a uranium projectile in the machine gun, every third projectile is a uranium projectile and that's the working horse of the US army in Afghanistan. They use it left and right," Dr. Mohammad Daud Miraki said in an interview with Press TV.
http://www.presstv.com/detail/224165.html

I was cautious not to accept that depleted uranium caused any cancers because I was uncertain whether it was capable of doing so, which may be unlikely in view of pdf27's comments, and because I doubted that there was much use for it Afghanistan, for the reasons Nick outlined. The following article supports pdf27's and Nick's views, and contradicts Dr Miraki's specific claims about Warthog munitions in Afghanistan.



Scientific American


This article is from the In-Depth Report The Specter of Chemical and Biological Weapons

Is Karzai's Accusation That Coalition Forces Are Polluting Afghanistan with Nuclear Material Accurate or an Over-Reaction?

Afghan President Hamid Karzai's recent comment that U.S. and NATO-led forces use weapons with "nuclear components" may be a reference to depleted-uranium munitions, whose health impact is still being studied

Jun 25, 2011 |By Larry Greenemeier


President Obama has called for the withdrawal of 33,000 U.S. troops from Afghanistan over the next year and the remaining 68,000 by the end of 2014, but questions linger regarding what the troops are leaving behind after more than nine years of combat. In particular, Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai has accused U.S. and NATO-led coalition troops of littering his country with weapons that use "nuclear components."

Karzai made this comment last week during an address to the Afghanistan Youth International Conference, throughout which he broadly criticized coalition forces and pointed out that the U.S. has been in negotiations with the Taliban in an attempt to end the fighting set off by the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, during an appearance June 19 on CNN's State of the Union news program, confirmed such negotiations had taken place. Less clear, however, are exactly which weapons Karzai was referencing and their long-term impact on the Afghani people and their country.

Karzai's comments likely refer to ammunition that uses depleted uranium (DU) to pierce armor or, conversely, to strengthen armored vehicles, according to scientists as well as intelligence and policy analysts. They also note that DU is not "nuclear" in the sense that brief exposure to it would not cause radiation sickness or cancer in the way that fallout from a nuclear warhead or meltdown would. DU, the main by-product of uranium enrichment, is a chemically and radiologically toxic heavy metal that is "mildly radioactive," with about 60 percent of the activity of natural uranium, according to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

"In short, DU munitions are not even remotely on the same scale of danger as having a war in the first place," says Jeffrey Lewis, director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies and publisher of the ArmsControlWonk blog, which addresses disarmament, arms control and nonproliferation.

U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), a Unified Combatant Command unit of the U.S. armed forces whose territory includes the Middle East, claims that no DU weapons are currently being used in Afghanistan, although a spokesman acknowledges that "DU-type munitions were used in Iraq in anti-tank and anti-armor weapons." The U.S. military itself has reported on its use of Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II jet fighter aircraft in Afghanistan. Whereas the A-10's standard 30-millimeter rounds normally contain DU, CENTCOM says that the A-10s in use in Afghanistan are not using DU munitions.

Why use DU?
"Wherever we send our A-10s, soon enough we hear reports of uranium contamination thanks to depleted uranium," says Chris Bronk, an information technology policy research fellow at Rice University's James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy and a former U.S. State Department diplomat. Still, it is unclear how much DU ammunition has actually been used in Karzai's country (either by the U.S. or its NATO allies) and the long-term impact of DU on the environment, he adds.

DU kinetic-energy rounds are an effective way of penetrating armored vehicles. "You want something dense, and DU is denser than lead, something on the order of 1.6 times the density of lead," says Kristian Gustafson, deputy director of the Brunel Center for Intelligence and Security Studies (BCISS) at West London's Brunel University. "You've now upped your energy transfer by significant quantity." Still, U.S. and NATO air-strike targets in Afghanistan are more likely to be mud–brick buildings than armored vehicles, and DU rounds "are useless for anything other than smashing armor," he adds.

DU is used in anti-tank shells because it is a heavy metal that can slam through shielding plates on armored vehicles, agrees Hans Kristensen, director of the Federation of American Scientists' Nuclear Information Project.

How dangerous is DU?
The DU used in munitions is neither the same as natural uranium ore nor the radioactive uranium used in a nuclear reactor. DU is mostly composed of the isotope uranium 238 (U238); its more radioactive content, U235, is at least three times less than that of natural uranium, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). "Natural uranium ore contains almost entirely U238 but also a small amount of U235," Kristensen adds.

The reason for this breakdown, as well as the different isotopic proportions found in uranium used as fuel, has to do with nuclear physics: U235 can fission, U238 cannot easily fission. "During enrichment of uranium, to turn it into reactor fuel or highly enriched nuclear weapons material the enrichment process increases the amount of U235 to 3 percent in reactor fuel and more than 90 percent in weapons," Kristensen says. "The leftover U238 is referred to as depleted uranium."

Because DU contains much less U235 than natural uranium, it is less of a health threat, in terms of radioactivity, than both natural and fuel-grade uranium.

U238 is not radioactive in and of itself, but naturally decays and transforms to other elements, including lead, over time. "Some of those elements are radioactive, and one of them, radon (a gas), can be problematic because it can be inhaled and emits alpha particles, which, if embedded in the lungs, can cause cancer," Kristensen says. Still, U238 decays slowly—half of the material decays in 4.5 billion years—so the trace elements are miniscule."

WHO notes that the kidneys are most likely to be damaged from depleted uranium's chemical toxicity. Such damage would more likely result from ingestion of food and water containing uranium isotopes and inhalation of uranium-contaminated dust. External gamma exposure is generally not a major concern because uranium emits only a small amount of low-energy gamma radiation, and beta exposure is only of concern for direct handling operations, according to a study (pdf) produced in 2001 by the U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory.

Health questions persist
The health effects resulting from DU exposure depend on the route and magnitude of exposure as well as the metal's characteristics, such as particle size, chemical form and solubility, according to UNEP, which has studied the use of this material in armed conflicts in Kosovo (pdf), Serbia and Montenegro (pdf), and Bosnia and Herzegovina (pdf). The three studies concluded that, whereas radiation can be detected at DU sites, the levels are so low that they do not pose a threat to human health and the environment.

At the same time, however, the studies identified a number of remaining scientific uncertainties that should be further explored. These include the extent to which DU on the ground can filter through the soil and eventually contaminate groundwater, and the possibility that DU dust could later be resuspended in the air by wind or human activity, with the risk that it could be inhaled. These assessments of the Balkan wars were made two-to-seven years after NATO air strikes using DU weapons.

"Although our assessments to date, under conditions prevailing in the Balkans, have concluded that DU contamination does not pose any immediate risks to human health or the environment, the fact remains that depleted uranium is still an issue of great concern for the general public," former UNEP Executive Director Klaus Toepfer said in a statement in 2003.

Given the U.S. military's claims that it is no longer using DU weapons in Afghanistan and a lack of clear evidence that DU poses immediate and severe health risks, Karzai's comments are more likely politically motivated than grounded in science. "Domestically he has to shore-up his constituents by making a show of not toadying to the Americans," Gustafson says. "At the international level, he has to extract the best deal possible from NATO and the Americans. This means putting on the pressure in ways that he can to get his way with them, whilst ensuring they keep supporting him."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/afghanistan-karzai-us-depleted-uranium/

pdf27
06-07-2014, 04:42 PM
I don`t know NickÉ..This doctor guy below claims that Americans are still using DU over there....An Afghan activist reveals the US is still using horrific depleted uranium weapons in Afghanistan, creating graveyards of people who die of cancer and other unusual diseases, Press TV reports."These weapons are still used. In fact, a US aircraft called A-10 warthog, normally, even if it doesn't use a uranium projectile in the machine gun, every third projectile is a uranium projectile and that's the working horse of the US army in Afghanistan. They use it left and right," Dr. Mohammad Daud Miraki said in an interview with Press TV.
Er, Press TV is the English-Language service of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting corporation, an organisation owned by the Iranian state and with close links to the Revolutionary Guards. If they said that Barack Obama was the US President I'd double check them - they have a long, long history of saying nasty things about the US.

Incidentally, there is no way they'd use every third round as DU. The ballistics of DU and conventional rounds would be very different, so the A-10 would be hitting two different aiming points at once. Given how scarily close they are called in (I've talked to people who've had A-10 fire called in the other side of a mud-brick wall from them, no more than 10m away) there is no way on earth two aiming points would be accepted. Either all the rounds are DU, or none are.

herman2
06-09-2014, 05:30 AM
I was cautious not to accept that depleted uranium caused any cancers because I was uncertain whether it was capable of doing so, which may be unlikely in view of pdf27's comments, and because I doubted that there was much use for it Afghanistan, for the reasons Nick outlined. The following article supports pdf27's and Nick's views, and contradicts Dr Miraki's specific claims about Warthog munitions in Afghanistan.



http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/afghanistan-karzai-us-depleted-uranium/

Are you saying that depleted uranium does not cause cancer? There are so many articles on increased birth deformities in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are also many articles on American service men coming back and having cancer later. I saw a big Expose on History Channel about it. I don't know why you don't accept the possibility. If it is possible, then we must research it more out of respect to our vets. The History Chanel said its a big cover up and they exposed the truth. There are also too many articles on the net that indicate it, despite your link saying there is not. There are just as many scientists that say there is Global Warming than there are scientists that say there is not. SO, in the end, possibilities should not be ignored.

Although depleted uranium may not pose an immediate threat, because it is both radioactive and toxic, some action is warranted. Klaus Toepfer, executive director of the UNEP, sums up the recommendations made by the Balkans Task Force in 1999: "Highest priority should be given to finding pieces of depleted uranium and heavily contaminated surfaces. Measures should be taken for the secure storage of any contaminated material recovered.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-the-silver/........It say's the Highest Priority, so we should not be so ready to dismiss the possibility. We must act now to prevent harm in the future.It's called being Pro-Active.

Also, you should read the research undertaken by Dr. Helen Caldicott . You should know her. She is from Australia and I think she won the Nobel Peace Prize. She does not say DUI does not cause cancer. She says we must look at our options to the possibility. She is a doctor and from Australia and I saw her also on the History Chanel speaking once, so proof is in the pudding.

pdf27
06-09-2014, 11:22 AM
Are you saying that depleted uranium does not cause cancer?
No idea about RS*, but I'm saying that you would have to get a very large dose for it to be likely to cause cancer in an individual. That in turn means that given the dose rates seen (very small unless you are inside an armoured vehicle hit by it - and there are a small number of survivors of that) the percentage of the population getting cancer as a result will be exceptionally small.


There are so many articles on increased birth deformities in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are also many articles on American service men coming back and having cancer later. I saw a big Expose on History Channel about it. I don't know why you don't accept the possibility.
You're conflating two things here:
Depleted uranium munitions were fired in the Second Persian Gulf War.
In the years after the war, a high number of birth defects have been reported.
It would take careful statistics (which, given the state of Iraq and the way child deaths were exaggerated and obfuscated in an attempt to undermine the sanctions regime probably do not exist) to be sure that birth defects have increased after the war, and to associate them with areas in which DU was used. The problem then is linking it to DU specifically, and that's much harder. You may not remember the aftermath of the war, but one major feature of it was horrendous air pollution after the Iraqi troops oil wells throughout Kuwait while withdrawing.
7082
The chemicals released when crude oil is burnt with insufficient oxygen and heat (as here) are known to be very nasty indeed, and the entire population plus the troops involved in Desert Shield/Storm will have been exposed. Awkwardly, the population most exposed will also be those potentially most exposed to DU - but because the oil well fires were set by the Iraqis not the Evil Americans™ the press and those interested in shouting about DU aren't interested.
Then we come on to the really nasty stuff. During the First Persian Gulf War (aka the Iran-Iraq war) Iraq is known to have used large quantities of both Mustard Gas (Yperite) and Organophosphate nerve agents (mostly Tabun, but some Sarin as well and possibly others). These are roughly a million times more toxic than DU, and were used in far larger quantities along the Iran-Iraq border and on rebellious towns inside Iraq. Which also happens mostly to be the south of the country, where the DU exposure would have been.
So while we aren't denying that it's possible, Occam's Razor suggests that it is far from the most likely cause.


If it is possible, then we must research it more out of respect to our vets.
What are you going to cut to fund it? The biggest killer among former soldiers is suicide - if you want to spend money on anything, donate it to somewhere like Combat Stress (http://www.combatstress.org.uk/) where it will do far more good than lining the pockets of scaremongering researchers.


The History Channel said its a big cover up and they exposed the truth. There are also too many articles on the net that indicate it, despite your link saying there is not. There are just as many scientists that say there is Global Warming than there are scientists that say there is not. SO, in the end, possibilities should not be ignored.
They laughed at Columbus. They also laughed at Coco the Clown. Some possibilities should be ignored because they're total bullshit. This is one of them

Ardee
06-09-2014, 09:59 PM
I saw a big Expose on History Channel about it. I don't know why you don't accept the possibility. ... There are just as many scientists that say there is Global Warming than there are scientists that say there is not.

Alright, I have a premonition that I'll regret chiming in here, but herman2 actually seems to be interested in learning? If not, feel free to skip this message, especially since I'll technically be wandering off topic.

I'll touch on two topics: first, and of least significance, and just a "be careful" comment -- the History Channel isn't a reliable source for anything, and is more geared towards entertainment and commercial programming than actual history. I realize you enjoy their programs, and that's fine, but you can't trust anything on it as being accurate without independent (multiple meanings on that word) confirmation.

The second point is more meant to illustrate how games are played with facts and statistics. I'm sure you've heard the expression: There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics. Your last statement in the quote above is a prime example of my meaning, if you meant it with ANY degree of seriousness.

People play games with numbers. If you go on-line and look up how many scientists believe/disbelieve in climate change, you might get a wide range of numbers, with values all over the place depending on your search engine and the terms used. And probably *several* of those wildly divergent numbers will be *true,* despite being wildly different.

How is that possible? Well, if somebody wants to "prove" scientists are split 50-50 on climate change, they'll pick a broad enough time period to make sure it's true. Going off the top of my head -- I've worked with climate scientists and scientists in general and don't feel like wading through Internet manure to get a current example -- one example was measuring opinions of scientists using opinion data going back into the 1980s, with no allowance for opinion change, consideration of additional data, etc. In other words, if way back in 1990, a scientist answered he didn't find the evidence to be sufficiently convincing, that becomes a "no" vote, and the guy playing with the stats may or may not care that the scientist in question has since changed his/her mind. People will often start throwing "facts" like this around without ever reading -- or even checking for the existence of -- fine print.

Another part of the game is to muddle the terminology. What's the difference between climate change (aka "Global Warming") and Man-made Global Warming/human caused climate change? Actually, there's a huge difference that I hope I don't need to elaborate on after having pointed it out. And I won’t even get into what games can be played with surveys by changing the wording or order of questions, not to mention the filters used in analyzing the data.

In addition, you also have to watch out for good ol' fashioned disinformation. A couple of years ago, those with a specific political agenda made a big deal about a "report" being "suppressed" by the Obama administration. It seems a US Environmental Protection Agency had a scientist on staff who wrote an opinion paper denying climate change! And it was being suppressed for political reasons! Oh my! Hot stuff, scandal, etc, etc! ... Until you find out the scientist involved was not a climatologist, nor even a practitioner of a hard science -- he was, in fact, an Economist, and totally unqualified to deal with the issues from a climate perspective.

To make a long story short: the actual number of climate scientists who *currently* believe in climate change is (depending on variables) usually given as being between 97 and 99% (numbers are admittedly off the top of my head). If you change the question a bit, and ask how many believe in human-caused global warming, you will probably get numbers from between maybe 75% (relatively few current sources would be on this low end) to probably about 91%.

Except in the minds of certain politicians and the uninformed, there's really no debate about climate change. If you watched the news as often as you watched the History Channel, you'd know about the partial collapse of the Antarctic ice sheet, the melting of Greenland's ice cap, rising sea levels, droughts, greater storm activity, and much else. There's MORE debate about whether things are caused by a natural cycle or by us humans, but I think that every day there are fewer and fewer scientists who doubt human causation/contribution (Economists aside). http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Given the vast amount of history we have about what usually happens when climate changes (rising seas, crop failures, drought, economic upheveal, etc., resulting in displacement of human populations and limited access to dwindling resources – in other words, the roots of WAR), you might want to worry less about DU ammo in Afghanistan, and more about what your local pols are spouting. I think it is more likely for you to thus successfully have a greater, long-lasting impact on both yourself and the planet. JMHO.

And maybe I've tossed out something at least to think about concerning statistics and how malleable they are, and how you should consider the source of the info and their biases (as pdf also so ably suggests).

And in advance, I'll just say I will follow the example of newspapers like the LA Times, which recently decided on a policy of no longer printing letters that deny the reality of climate change. I won't respond to denials of the facts if people won't look into the facts honestly. Reality really doesn't care what you or I or anybody else thinks -- but it's helpful if you at least look at the evidence.

Rising Sun*
06-10-2014, 08:22 AM
Are you saying that depleted uranium does not cause cancer? There are so many articles on increased birth deformities in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are also many articles on American service men coming back and having cancer later. I saw a big Expose on History Channel about it. I don't know why you don't accept the possibility. If it is possible, then we must research it more out of respect to our vets. The History Chanel said its a big cover up and they exposed the truth. There are also too many articles on the net that indicate it, despite your link saying there is not. There are just as many scientists that say there is Global Warming than there are scientists that say there is not. SO, in the end, possibilities should not be ignored.

Although depleted uranium may not pose an immediate threat, because it is both radioactive and toxic, some action is warranted. Klaus Toepfer, executive director of the UNEP, sums up the recommendations made by the Balkans Task Force in 1999: "Highest priority should be given to finding pieces of depleted uranium and heavily contaminated surfaces. Measures should be taken for the secure storage of any contaminated material recovered.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-of-the-silver/........It say's the Highest Priority, so we should not be so ready to dismiss the possibility. We must act now to prevent harm in the future.It's called being Pro-Active.

Also, you should read the research undertaken by Dr. Helen Caldicott . You should know her. She is from Australia and I think she won the Nobel Peace Prize. She does not say DUI does not cause cancer. She says we must look at our options to the possibility. She is a doctor and from Australia and I saw her also on the History Chanel speaking once, so proof is in the pudding.

pdf27 and Ardee have covered it better than I could.

herman2
06-15-2014, 06:20 AM
I learned a lot from your essay Ardee. The next time I want to know if its going to rain tomorrow, Ill just ask you. If there is anyone that needs to learn, its the pessimists that don't believe in Depleted Uranium having the potential to cause cancer. If you read Properly I said we should look into the possibility. Its on line 3 of my previous comment. Do you understand what the word means? If it was not possible then why would Republican Senator Jim Mcdermott be able to successfully pass a bill in the Us Senate (which the President approved and passed), requesting more research into the possibility. Why did Belgian pass legislation banning DUI. Why did the German government push for a ban on DUI. What about the moratorium on military use of DUI that many countries and agency's are pushing for? I guess we should just listen to Ardee and PDF (no offence to PDF's intelligent input, as I value what he says--just moving forward with my persuasion input), and not listen to what the world community is saying. It is too early to throw in the towel on this subject. It needs to be looked into more. The world community is concerned and I am concerned. I also think funding issues on protecting our vets should not be an issue. If we had billions of dollars to spend on going to war, then please lets have the decency to protect our vets. They say there is no cure for cancer, yet the Cancer charities have millions of dollars which it spends on research. I think money spent on research is in order. We don't throw in the towel on Cancer research and say its not worth investing because there is no cure. No. We move forward and demand all possible answers to a cure. I don\t know why you guys can't give it a possibility. Senator Jim Mcdermott saw the possibility. It's people like him that care enough to look into possibilities. One day a vet will read my comment and concur with me. Peace Out and God Bless our DUI casualty of war Vets!!!

tankgeezer
06-15-2014, 09:22 AM
Just to clarify for you Herman, Depleted Uranium munitions are known as "DU". Driving a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs, or alcohol is known(among other things) as "DUI" . Also, the "Senator" you cite is not in fact a Senator, nor is he a Republican. The Democrat Congressman is also not a reliable source authority. You really should pay closer attention to your facts.

Rising Sun*
06-15-2014, 09:39 AM
I learned a lot from your essay Ardee. The next time I want to know if its going to rain tomorrow, Ill just ask you.

Don't trouble Ardee.

Weather forecasts are related to the same science and modelling which predicts climate change. If you don't accept climate change, don't waste your time consulting weather forecasts which must be equally unacceptable and baseless, despite their high accuracy as far as a week ahead nowadays.


If there is anyone that needs to learn, its the pessimists that don't believe in Depleted Uranium having the potential to cause cancer. If you read Properly I said we should look into the possibility. Its on line 3 of my previous comment. Do you understand what the word means? If it was not possible then why would Republican Senator Jim Mcdermott be able to successfully pass a bill in the Us Senate (which the President approved and passed), requesting more research into the possibility. Why did Belgian pass legislation banning DUI. Why did the German government push for a ban on DUI. What about the moratorium on military use of DUI that many countries and agency's are pushing for? I guess we should just listen to Ardee and PDF (no offence to PDF's intelligent input, as I value what he says--just moving forward with my persuasion input), and not listen to what the world community is saying. It is too early to throw in the towel on this subject. It needs to be looked into more. The world community is concerned and I am concerned.

Nobody is discounting the possibility that depleted uranium (DU, not DUI which usually refers to Driving Under the Influence and has a well proved statistically higher probability of causing harm) might cause cancer, as might just about everything else on the planet including your luminous watch and dental fillings. Certainly there is evidence that DU munitions when fired may cause various illnesses. What is being disputed is your sweeping assertions that because you say there are many unidentified articles claiming the DU causes cancer, birth defects etc then it is clear that DU does such things.

You don't advance your case by referring selectively to, for example, the Belgian ban on DU. That ban relates essentially to its use as a weapon, along with land mines and other things curiously thought unsporting in a world which allows all sorts of other magnificently destructive and damaging, in the short and long term, weapons in war. Strictly, the Belgian ban on DU is limited to inert DU ammunition and armour plate on Belgian territory. It's hardly a demonstration of Belgian commitment to stopping the use of radioactive materials which might cause cancer and other nasty consequences of nuclear war, such as being fried on the spot by a thermonuclear weapon. The Belgian law carefully avoided banning the nuclear weapons held on a US air base in Belgium which, in the event of a major European war, the Belgian legislators so concerned with possible risks from DU are apparently happy to see dropped on people to their east in a magnificent display of nuclear death and destruction which would make Hiroshima look quite modest.

Rising Sun*
06-15-2014, 10:07 AM
Just to clarify for you Herman, Depleted Uranium munitions are known as "DU". Driving a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs, or alcohol is known(among other things) as "DUI" .

You was posting while I was typing.

Nickdfresh
06-15-2014, 10:45 AM
DU can't cause birth defects or cancer where it was never used, or used sparingly like a decade ago...

tankgeezer
06-15-2014, 02:38 PM
You was posting while I was typing. We were just thinking the same thing at the same time. ;) :)

Ardee
06-16-2014, 11:18 PM
I learned a lot from your essay Ardee.

Sadly, evidently not.

herman2
06-17-2014, 08:28 PM
Just to clarify for you Herman, Depleted Uranium munitions are known as "DU". Driving a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs, or alcohol is known(among other things) as "DUI" . Also, the "Senator" you cite is not in fact a Senator, nor is he a Republican. The Democrat Congressman is also not a reliable source authority. You really should pay closer attention to your facts.

I thought a Congressman was a Senator. How should I know. Anyways whatever he is, he is "The Man". How can you say that a Congressman is not a reliable source of authority? What next? Obama is not an Authority to rely upon? I love Obama and anyone who puts him down I just don't know about. As a Canadian I believe that Obama and his people are doing a fine job and if Jim says that there is something to fear about du bullets then I think he knows what he's taking about. I have trust in our leaders and Jim is to me a very reliable source of insight. At least he took the opportunity to have the bill passed by Obama. So in fact even Obama believes in Jim, and subsequently, since the U.S voted for Obama, then the people should have trust in Obama and Jim and don't push off the possibility that there is concern about du bullets. Where are my supporters? Somebody PLEASE, throw me a bone and support me on this. The Mod posse's are hanging me high on this. Where are my peeps when I need them for support......

tankgeezer
06-17-2014, 10:25 PM
You thought a bit wrong Herman, Although they are called the two houses of Congress, the Congress, and Senate are distinct bodies. And you don't know the difference between a Democrat, and a Republican? Really? Your response only serves to reinforce the fact that you do not bother checking facts, or details, and information when posting, and you just dig yourself in deeper. Too often your posts more resemble the Headlines of those Tabloids sold at the Shell Station next door. There is no Posse out to get you Herman, the situation you so often find yourself in is largely of your own making.
I personally have no interest in removing DU munitions from the NATO inventory, which act would serve only to diminish NATO's conventional capability against a future enemy. If you haven't been in the military, in a combat arm, you may not understand that point of view. When in my younger days, my only concern was to destroy the enemy we may face as quickly as possible, and take any advantage available in the process. When I laid the gunner on target, I wanted that target destroyed, in a single shot if possible. If DU makes that dream come true in the present time, great lets have more. I wish we had DU in our basic loads, it would have been very welcome. War is not a time to worry over if's or maybe's, the enemy will not care about the environmental impact of the weapons that they,or we use. No troops will live long enough to get sick if they are killed on the battle field for lack of proper equipment due to even more political meddling. The alternative is limited to Tactical, or Theater Nuclear munitions, my preference among those being the neutron warhead. Some small possibility of contamination by DU munitions is far better an option than the aftermath of Nuclear deployment. Operations on the Nuclear Battlefield are standard training in NATO.
There is far more to consider than just what the alarmist, or disinformation media outlets serve up in steaming piles on their websites.

pdf27
06-18-2014, 12:01 AM
Herman, you need to remember that most of the mods have spent time serving in the armed forces of their various countries, although I think only Nick was unfortunate enough to have people shooting at him at the time (I certainly never went on an Op Tour, although I have many friends who did including one who was killed in Afghanistan). That unavoidably colours our perception somewhat. Here, with DU munitions you have two options:

1) Use a DU penetrator on that tank coming right at me. It's got a 5" gun and god alone knows how many machine guns all pointing at me, but DU will kill it right away.
2) I use something else which isn't as effective on the tank. That means the tank will probably kill me right now, but hey, at least I've marginally reduced my risk of cancer in 30 years time!

Remember also that politicians are experts in one thing, and one thing alone: getting elected. That means when they say things like this, it isn't coming out of some deep expertise in the subject but because they think it'll assist with their next re-election campaign. DU is quite handy here - it's got all the right buzzwords ("veterans", "cancer", "nuclear", etc.) and the politician in question is seen to be doing something. Better yet, you need a reasonable level of education and reading to understand that it's 99% bullshit, and just to make it perfect you can't prove it isn't true. The whole subject is a political wet dream.

pdf27
06-18-2014, 12:06 AM
The alternative is limited to Tactical, or Theater Nuclear munitions, my preference among those being the neutron warhead. Some small possibility of contamination by DU munitions is far better an option than the aftermath of Nuclear deployment. Operations on the Nuclear Battlefield are standard training in NATO.
Actually, I think the more modern smart weapons have pretty much made tactical nuclear weapons obsolete. Back in the bad old days, they were either used for very hard targets or for area targets such as attacking tank divisions. With weapons like Brimstone you can just give the smart weapon a kill box and they'll destroy all armoured vehicles in the box, while the number of targets too hard for a modern penetrating smart bomb is tiny. These are all weapons you can use without political issues or risk of reprisal, while nuclear weapons bring all sorts of political interference and furthermore inhibit your own operations. So while they were great back in the day, I'd actually say they're pretty much obsolete now.

Rising Sun*
06-18-2014, 03:18 AM
How can you say that a Congressman is not a reliable source of authority?

Experience.

On the specific topic of politicians not being reliable on matters nuclear, there is no better example than Bush Jnr, Blair, the then Prime Minister of my country, and many other national leaders assuring their peoples that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that we had to go to war because of it.

Rising Sun*
06-18-2014, 04:35 AM
Here, with DU munitions you have two options:

1) Use a DU penetrator on that tank coming right at me. It's got a 5" gun and god alone knows how many machine guns all pointing at me, but DU will kill it right away.
2) I use something else which isn't as effective on the tank. That means the tank will probably kill me right now, but hey, at least I've marginally reduced my risk of cancer in 30 years time!


The environmentally responsible and Cancer Council approved choice is (2).

Personally, I'd pick (1), but that's only because I'm a selfish ***** and I want to survive the immediate threat to my life and at that moment I couldn't care less about what might, just possibly, happen to me or anyone else in an uncertain future.

Same way I'd sow landmines and anything else I could get my hands on that improved my defensive or offensive capacity in a given situation, despite the fact that I know now that landmines cause terrible injuries to civilians long after the conflict is over, although that wasn't a consideration during the Vietnam War era which was my focus. But so does other unexploded ordnance, and there's none I wouldn't use if available at the time if it gave me an advantage or preserved me.

herman2
06-18-2014, 06:31 AM
ok ok. I didn't know Tank Guy and Nick went on combat in Nam. I guess they know more from real life experience. Unless I find something really incriminating on DU I won't persist anymore, out of respect for Tank, Pdf , Nick , but no one else. P.S> I thought Democrats meant that Republicans are democratic. Like I said before Tank guy, I don't hear those terms that often so how should I know. If I threw out words like PC,Liberal and NDP, I bet You wouldn't know what they mean in Canadian politics...but anyways thank you for the correction nonetheless....

Rising Sun*
06-18-2014, 08:48 AM
ok ok. I didn't know Tank Guy and Nick went on combat in Nam. I guess they know more from real life experience. Unless I find something really incriminating on DU I won't persist anymore, out of respect for Tank, Pdf , Nick , but no one else. P.S> I thought Democrats meant that Republicans are democratic. Like I said before Tank guy, I don't hear those terms that often so how should I know. If I threw out words like PC,Liberal and NDP, I bet You wouldn't know what they mean in Canadian politics...but anyways thank you for the correction nonetheless....

You are being purposely obtuse, or you are certifiably stupid.

Either way, you are not contributing anything worthwhile to this forum with your moronic posts.

Keep it up and your time here is limited.

tankgeezer
06-18-2014, 08:50 AM
Morning Herman, I do know the meanings of the Political terms you've used. The reason that I do is simple really, I took all of 3 minutes to look them up, and learn what they were. (Wherein lies the hint ) The U.S. Democrat Party is like your NDP,though perhaps more Liberal, and is reviled by many U.S. Citizens as the very Wellspring of Villainy. The U.S. Republican Party is like your PC Party though perhaps more conservative, and is reviled by many U.S. Citizens as the very Wellspring of Villainy. If I were to label myself Politically, I would be closer to a Libertarian. A little research goes a long way, something important for you to reflect upon.

Ardee
06-18-2014, 09:35 AM
...I won't persist anymore, out of respect for Tank, Pdf , Nick , but no one else.

herman, a good therapist might, with your diligent effort, help you to at least include yourself in the above list.

Please know we'll all be pulling for you! Good luck and best wishes!

herman2
06-18-2014, 05:01 PM
herman, a good therapist might, with your diligent effort, help you to at least include yourself in the above list.

Please know we'll all be pulling for you! Good luck and best wishes!
Ardee, I did not know that you represented all the hundreds and hundreds of members on the forum when you said:"We" Do you get self satisfaction from your boring life to criticize and complain about me just because I have the balls to not accept conformity in life? I only convey discussion. Forums are meant to discuss issues. I and many others learn from discussion. If no one ever ever ever objects then is that not what Hitler would have wanted? Ardee, Personal Insults are not conducive to our relationship. Can we please discuss our issues professionally and forgive us that may not be as war smart as our Mods..thx Ardee...

Now I accepted your apology once before but I won't be so

tankgeezer
06-18-2014, 06:30 PM
Ardee, I did not know that you represented all the hundreds and hundreds of members on the forum when you said:"We" Do you get self satisfaction from your boring life to criticize and complain about me just because I have the balls to not accept conformity in life? I only convey discussion. Forums are meant to discuss issues. I and many others learn from discussion. If no one ever ever ever objects then is that not what Hitler would have wanted? Ardee, Personal Insults are not conducive to our relationship. Can we please discuss our issues professionally and forgive us that may not be as war smart as our Mods..thx Ardee...

Now I accepted your apology once before but I won't be so

Herman, you complain when Ardee says "we'll all", and then a couple sentences further on, you do much the same thing in using the words "I, and many others". Sorry Herman, you can't have it both ways. You didn't seem to take in the warning given by RS* in post #130, so I will repeat it for your edification,do please be sure that you let your non conformist "balls" know as well." you are not contributing anything worthwhile to this forum with your moronic posts.
Keep it up, and your time here is limited. " This warning now comes from both of us. You have in the past received a great deal of leeway here, after your last couple vacations, that leeway has run out. Understand this Herman,and mark it well.

Ardee
06-18-2014, 06:46 PM
Ardee, I did not know that you represented all the hundreds and hundreds of members on the forum when you said:"We" Do you get self satisfaction from your boring life to criticize and complain about me just because I have the balls to not accept conformity in life? I only convey discussion. Forums are meant to discuss issues. I and many others learn from discussion. If no one ever ever ever objects then is that not what Hitler would have wanted? Ardee, Personal Insults are not conducive to our relationship. Can we please discuss our issues professionally and forgive us that may not be as war smart as our Mods..thx Ardee...

Now I accepted your apology once before but I won't be so

herman, I am *shocked* at your attitude. I merely noted that by your own words, you seemed to be lacking self-respect in your decision making. While I appreciate the possible reasons for your self-assessment, I would like to assure you that life is much richer if you can muster at least some self-respect, and I was trying to kindly encourage you to get the help you need.

So far as my choice of the word "we" goes, I confess you have me puzzled. So far as I know, "we" means more than one, and could be as small a number as, say, two. *I* was taking it for granted, that out of the "hundreds and hundreds of members" here, that *at least one other person* besides myself would wish you well. I can only assume it's your lack of self-respect that might be leading you to have doubts about that. I realize you may also have been mislead by my use of the word "all," but I can assure you (without getting into too deep a discussion of English language and word modifiers) that whatever the number of well-wishers "we" turns out to be, we will, in fact, all be wishing you well.

Your plea to discuss issues "professionally" is an expression on your part that perhaps captures exactly what the last two pages of so of this thread has been about -- though I think "substantively" or other words might have been a better choice. You don't really seem to understand the concept of credible, unbiased sources of information, for instance. We have been trying to help you achieve exactly the learning you claim to desire, and your response has been consistently combative, insistent on the correctness of your preconceptions and misinformation, and, in fact, a demonstrated total *UN*willingness to learn. Right down to the last, you refuse to admit any error or lack of understanding on your part, stating only that you "won't persist" in your insistence on being correct. And honestly, that's pretty sad.

If you are feeling that others besides yourself are showing you a lack of respect, you might wish to scroll back through all the pages of this thread since you joined in, and try to identify where such practices began. I think you may then find your finger to be pointing at yourself. For example, my initial posts to you were quite polite and proper, while your relies were...less than that. As was advised above, you shouldn't try to blame others for messes you put yourself into. If you behave in an abrasive manner, don't be surprised when others reciprocate.

And you are welcome for my well-wishes and educational services, and I hope you do get yourself under control before the above warning by RS* comes to fruition. I would, however, advise you not to complain too much about his choice of words, which are certainly much more direct and to the point than mine.

Good luck herman, and I sincerely hope you get your troubles straightened out, with help, or by yourself. Tootles!

Ardee
06-18-2014, 06:59 PM
Tankgeezer, you posted while I was typing. Sorry if I wound up beating the point into the ground.

herman2
06-18-2014, 07:03 PM
ok Ardee..point taken.and as for RS, if he bans me again for lively discussion, then I guess that will bring the membership from 5, down to 4..and we all know 5 is better than 4, so i apologize if it means preventing RS from being trigger happy as usual. p.s. Whats with the Tootles..its not exactly manly..maybe you mean Peace out or maybe catch you on the Flip Side..or Maybe Once In Awhile Crocodile (I think the later, RS would like)

herman2
06-18-2014, 07:06 PM
OK OK Tank Guy!!!.In fact I will not contribute anymore EXCEPT for the Off topic threads..Is that ok with youÉ Am I allowed to post in there if It doesn`t bother you..and subsequently will you visit me once in awhile over there....É..I think my offer is fair. But mark my words, don`t feel lonely if you don`t see me around lately! I know I will be missed!

tankgeezer
06-18-2014, 08:39 PM
OK OK Tank Guy!!!.In fact I will not contribute anymore EXCEPT for the Off topic threads..Is that ok with youÉ Am I allowed to post in there if It doesn`t bother you..and subsequently will you visit me once in awhile over there....É..I think my offer is fair. But mark my words, don`t feel lonely if you don`t see me around lately! I know I will be missed!
Sorry Herman, but playing at being the victim isn't going to work for you. Your behavior determines your future here, continue as you have in this thread, and you won't have one.

Ardee
06-18-2014, 08:57 PM
p.s. Whats with the Tootles..its not exactly manly..

Well, herman, I freely acknowledge your greater knowledge and expertise about what constitutes being "unmanly." Since the expression seems to have aroused your interest, I'll explain I used the phrase the same way it often is: a humorous way of saying good-bye, laughing at you, and dissing you at the same time. Sorry if that disappoints you.

Your inability to take the point you claim to have taken is quite amusing. I do wonder, when you were growing up, how many times your momma had to tell you the stove was hot before you stopped touching it. I don't think you'll be with us very long: you just can't seem to help yourself, can you?

Good luck with life, herman. I've enjoyed laughing, but I doubt I'll bother with you any more. Tootles!

Rising Sun*
06-19-2014, 05:15 AM
Well, herman, I freely acknowledge your greater knowledge and expertise about what constitutes being "unmanly."

:mrgreen:

Rising Sun*
06-19-2014, 05:30 AM
herman,

I am perfectly serious when I say that your posts display a seriously disordered mind which suffers from an intellectual disability or a mental disease.

There is a consistent lack of rational connection between your posts and the posts to which your respond.

You make little sense much of the time, and revel in portraying yourself as a victim rather than recognising that it is your own conduct which causes mods and other members to rebuke or criticise you.

You also display a consistent lack of remorse.

These features used to be labelled sociopathic, but nowadays are called a borderline personality disorder.

If you're not an intentional troll or troublemaker on this board but think that your conduct is within normal bounds, you should seek treatment from a qualified psychologist or psychiatrist.

That said, this board isn't equipped to deal with your intellectual or mental problems or, if this is the case, your trolling and troublemaking, so it's time to shape up or ship out.

JR*
06-19-2014, 06:29 AM
Well, I hope it will be "shape up". I really don't like seeing people banned. The trouble is that what amount to invitations to debate often seem to be followed by non-sequitur replies or provocative, often personal abuse. Not that I have been a target myself (yet) but I can understand why those who have get pretty offended. And not to mention that the abuse aspect is clearly contrary to Forum rules. Also, why not put aside the resentment about former bans ? Peppering contributions with sarcastic digs at the Mods is, not only sterile and unproductive, but likely to provoke further bans. Even the Mods are human (I think ...). Best regards, JR.

Rising Sun*
06-19-2014, 07:01 AM
Well, I hope it will be "shape up". I really don't like seeing people banned.

Me neither.

It's the equivalent of gaol for repetitive minor to moderate offences in my, and probably your, legal system.

There just comes a time when all other corrections and punishments have been tried in the face of mounting misbehaviour and, in a regretful exercise of judicial exhaustion, it's gaol. Or, here, a permanent ban.


Even the Mods are human (I think ...). Best regards, JR.

Well, I am, but there's a question mark over one or two of the others. ;) :D

pdf27
06-19-2014, 01:12 PM
ok ok. I didn't know Tank Guy and Nick went on combat in Nam. I guess they know more from real life experience.
Nope, Vietnam was (almost) Rising Sun*'s war - Tankgeezer isn't the only old fart on here. Nick was the Gulf war, and I somehow dodged both Iraq and Afghanistan this time around.

Oh, and before your victim complex kicks in any decisions about moderator sanctions which may be applied to you are discussed in the War Room at great length by all the mods. Your very own personal thread is now up to 4 pages.

photografr7
03-07-2016, 07:50 AM
So far as all arguments about Japan actually building an atomic weapon, let alone detonating one as suggested by the article at the start of this thread, is concerned, I'm happy to accept Tatsusaburo Suzuki's confirmation that Japan never came close to making one.

Suzuki lied, and I can prove it. When I showed my evidence to a British journalist with New Scientist, he agreed. I'll soon be publishing all of this, including a statement by that reporter who said Suzuki lied to the international community regarding the fate of Arakatsu's equipment to enrich uranium. I have more well-documented proof that Japan got further than anyone has previously reported; but I'm saving that for my book (which is being co-authored by a nuclear physicist). In other words, stay tuned!

7669

Nickdfresh
03-07-2016, 10:31 AM
Suzuki lied, and I can prove it...stay tuned!



http://www.animated-smileys.com/emoticons/animated-smileys-eating-drinking-010.gif

tankgeezer
03-07-2016, 12:50 PM
I believe we'll need more Popcorn.. (and perhaps some dramatic music to play when he spills the beans, maybe something from Spike Jones.. ) : )

Rising Sun*
03-08-2016, 03:20 AM
Suzuki lied, and I can prove it. When I showed my evidence to a British journalist with New Scientist, he agreed. I'll soon be publishing all of this, including a statement by that reporter who said Suzuki lied to the international community regarding the fate of Arakatsu's equipment to enrich uranium. I have more well-documented proof that Japan got further than anyone has previously reported; but I'm saving that for my book (which is being co-authored by a nuclear physicist). In other words, stay tuned!

7669


I look forward to your book.

In the meantime, agreement by an anonymous British journalist who is going to make a statement supporting your views does nothing to alter my views based on historical fact as currently understood.

photografr7
03-08-2016, 05:45 AM
I can't say more yet (as I've already explained). But in the meantime, ask yourself this: What is the origin of those "historical facts"? In other words, you[ve heard it said many times: "Japan lacked uranium." or "Japan lacked heavy water," or "Japan didn't have a nuclear program in Korea," etc., etc. etc.

Did you learn these facts from 5-10 published documents OR did those statements originate from one or two people and then get repeated thousands of times? In my view, only those original comments matter, not the multiple regurgitations.

Then ask yourself this: a) How credible are those original sources? b) Would a Japanese scientist have any reason to lie about Japan's wartime nuclear program? c) Didn't Nishina order all documents destroyed? Why is that? d) Might there be contrary opinions out there that you may not have heard from before? e) might there be documents out there (in Japanese, perhaps), that no one has ever seen and had translated? f) might there be U.S. or British Intelligence reports out there that either remain classified or are buried away in some archive that has yet to be discovered?

Those are the things that I ask myself every day. And then I rely on Japanese-language and nuclear experts to analyze what we find. Yes, it's a hard job, but somebody's got to do it. Oh, one more thing: Later today, a former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (under George Bush, Jr. and Rumsfeld) is calling me on the telephone to discuss my book and my evidence. We'll probably talk for an hour. Then I'll quote him, perhaps on the back cover of my book...

In the meantime, I've sent one of the documents we've uncovered to the CIA. Since it should have been classified top-secret at the time, I thought the CIA (which didn't exist between 1943 and 1947) should see them. I didn't want another Hillary-gate.

JR*
03-08-2016, 07:34 AM
That the Japanese had an embryonic programme aimed at producing an A-Bomb I can believe. After all, the basic theory was not really a secret; in fact, it had some currency in general scientific circles by the late-1930s. Public experiments, such as Fermi's "reactor" experiment, meant that this was inevitable. I remain to be convinced that the Japanese got very far with this programme. As compared with the US (or even Germany), Japan lacked the expertise and resources required to come close to producing a practical nuclear device. Of course, if credible new evidence emerges to contradict this, well, I remain to be convinced. Best regards, JR.

Rising Sun*
03-09-2016, 03:38 AM
Why would Japan have been preparing its citizens to defend Japan with sticks and stones against the last Allied assault when it had an atomic weapon it had already tested?

I'd suggest that the main reason Japan didn't put too much effort into an atomic weapon program, apart from lack of necessary materials, knowledge and skill, was that it was inconsistent with the dominant Bushido philosoply about 'spirit' overcoming every enemy and adversity.

The Japanese were in some critical respects very slow learners during WWII, one simple but critical example being a failure to abandon lengthy IJN pilot training programmes to match the Allies, notably the Americans', ability to produce pilots in a very much shorter time. This was doubly critical as, from mid-1942 onwards, IJN pilot losses grew at an accelerating rate.

photografr7
03-09-2016, 05:34 AM
Why would Japan have been preparing its citizens to defend Japan with sticks and stones against the last Allied assault when it had an atomic weapon it had already tested?

This statement shows a misunderstanding in two areas:

1) nuclear weapons are difficult to make.
2) nuclear weapons are not like traditional weapons.

Here's what I mean:

1. An atomic test is just that, a test. It's conducted to see if it actually would work. Suppose Snell was correct and that Japan conducted a successful "test." That simply means that their design worked, nothing more than that. If and when the Americans conducted a full-scale invasion months from now, they might have one or two more weapons at their disposal. But even an atomic bomb would not have done much against an invasion of 500,000 men and equipment, conducted over many waves and a landing on many beaches. Yes, 150,000 might die, but the Americans expected 150,000 to die anyway.

2. An atomic test doesn't mean you have an arsenal of nuclear weapons ready for use. Suppose the ATF is preparing to raid a home (like the Americans or Russians ready to invade Japan). And as they approach, the home owner fires off one round of a shotgun. "Oh my God," they think. "He's got a weapon and ammunition. And if we bust down the door, he'll keep firing and kill all of our agents." That's how shotguns work, not how atomic bombs work. Just because Japan conducted an atomic "test" doesn't mean they have many more nuclear weapon ready to go; Maybe in a month they will, or three months, but not immediately. So having conducted a test doesn't mean all is well and the Japanese population doesn't have to prepare for an Allied invasion.

P.S.

Deborah Shapley contacted me yesterday and said she was surprised what new information about Japan's capability I had discovered.

I also received a phone call from the author of this book http://www.amazon.com/Technology-Security-National-Power-Winners/dp/1412862671. He's a former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense under George Bush, Jr. and Donald Rumsfeld. Morley Safer of the CBS program “60 Minutes,” said, "Dr. Bryen was the Pentagon's top cop, the man whose job it was to ensure that sensitive technology would be kept from enemies, potential enemies and questionable allies."

Stephen Bryen said I've uncovered more about Japan's wartime nuclear program than he did, and wants to talk to me again today. He agrees with Deborah Shapley that Japanese scientists pulled a curtain of silence over their nuclear program at the end of the war, and that there are aspects of their program which have yet to be revealed to the public. That's what my upcoming book intends to do, co-authored by a Ph.D. nuclear physicist from Stanford.

Why do you think Dr. Yoshio Nishina ordered all documents destroyed?
But the cover-up goes a lot deeper than that.

Rising Sun*
03-09-2016, 06:17 AM
This statement shows a misunderstanding in two areas:

1) nuclear weapons are difficult to make.

Really?

I never knew that. :shock:

I thought that the title "Manhattan Project" just meant that Groves and Oppenheimer went to a Manhattan drug store and bought a Little Boy and a Fat Man off the shelf and shipped them off to the Pacific so they could be dropped on Japan by a loadmaster kicking them out the side door of a DC3 about 1,000 feet above the target.

Boy, how stupid and embarrassed do I feel now that I've been informed that nuclear weapons are difficult to make?

http://media2.fdncms.com/nashville/imager/watson-defends-monkey-bill-aclu-tn-responds-monkeys-smack-their-heads/u/original/2837784/1334149078-frustrated-monkey.jpg




2) nuclear weapons are not like traditional weapons.

Really? I didn't know that either. :shock:

I thought they were just like a pike, halberd, flail etc but with a really big and damaging flashlight / laser thingy on the end, the WWII Japanese version being made with heaps of glowworms on the end of broomsticks designed to defeat the invading Allies with light rays.



P.S.

Deborah Shapley contacted me yesterday and said she was surprised what new information about Japan's capability I had discovered.

I also received a phone call from the author of this book http://www.amazon.com/Technology-Security-National-Power-Winners/dp/1412862671. He's a former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense under George Bush, Jr. and Donald Rumsfeld. Morley Safer of the CBS program “60 Minutes,” said, "Dr. Bryen was the Pentagon's top cop, the man whose job it was to ensure that sensitive technology would be kept from enemies, potential enemies and questionable allies."

Stephen Bryen said I've uncovered more about Japan's wartime nuclear program than he did, and wants to talk to me again today. He agrees with Deborah Shapley that Japanese scientists pulled a curtain of silence over their nuclear program at the end of the war, and that there are aspects of their program which have yet to be revealed to the public. That's what my upcoming book intends to do, co-authored by a Ph.D. nuclear physicist from Stanford.

Why do you think Dr. Yoshio Nishina ordered all documents destroyed?
But the cover-up goes a lot deeper than that.


I have no idea who Deborah Shapley and Stephen Bryen (apart from your link promoting his book) are, but that's probably because I have no idea who are today's outstanding nuclear physicists as unfortunately I've limited my knowledge to military history primary and secondary sources about WWII.

Perhaps you could illuminate Shapley and Bryen's qualifications as experts in this area, so the rest of us can consider their competence. As part of Rumsfeld's crew, I assume that Bryen is about to confirm your exposition of the unknown knowns about Japan's atomic bomb, or perhaps the known uknowns, or the known unknown knowns, ad infinitum. Or ad nauseam.

Be all that is it may, your consistent failure to present anything to support your assertions which contradict known history suggests that you are just putting out teasers to help the sales of your widely anticipated book.

If not, why don't you put your evidence forward now?

EDIT: Thanks to the marvel of Google, I now have some understanding of Bryen's analytical ability in the area of weapons of mass destruction when he was supposedly fully informed at the time as an analytical genius on these matters rather than looking back to Japan's atomic weapons program about which he was, necessarily, less well informed as you say that all documents were destroyed on the orders of Dr Yoshio Nishina and that the Japanese pulled a curtain of silence over their atomic program after WWII.

In a January 2002 article for National Review Online, Bryen pushed the erroneous thesis that Iraq had maintained a well-developed biological weapons program since the first Gulf War in 1991, making it the "leading threat" to "global survival." He argued: "Over the next few years the United States will be searching for ways to handle the anthrax threat, and threats from other biological weapons. But is that enough? Countries that build biological weapons whose effects can't be controlled or even predicted are engaged in global terrorism. That is one reason why the United States ended its offensive biological-warfare program years ago. Countries with a demonstrated capability and willingness to use chem-bio weapons, and who continue to develop nastier forms of biological-terror weapons, are a potential threat to global survival. Iraq, from all the evidence available including recent defectors, is the world's leading threat."[11]

Even prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Bryen was part of a core group of foreign policy hardliners and neoconservatives who pushed for overthrowing Saddam Hussein. In February 1998, for example, he joined the likes of Richard Perle, Richard Allen, Frank Gaffney, Douglas Feith, Robert Kagan, Paul Wolfowitz, and David Wurmser in signing his name to an "open letter" to President Bill Clinton produced by the Committee for Peace and Security in the Gulf—a precursor letterhead group to the more infamous Project for the New American Century—which advocated overthrowing Saddam Hussein. The letter, part of a broad neoconservative campaign that championed a new post-Cold War U.S. foreign policy aimed at overturning rogue regimes and aggressively pushing democracy, argued that "containment" of Iraq was not viable because of its purported weapons of mass destruction programs. "Only a determined program to change the regime in Baghdad will bring the Iraqi crisis to a satisfactory conclusion," the letter said.[12]
- See more at: http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/bryen_stephen#sthash.CaFwfHXO.dpuf

tankgeezer
03-09-2016, 09:24 AM
......

JR*
03-14-2016, 09:03 AM
Nuclear (and later thermonuclear) weapons are probably the most important development in weapons evolution ... since the long pike and halberd. Reason being that they were a huge game-changer in the world of weapons, extending across the significance of other weapons and tactical systems, more important even than muskets, rifles, quick-fire artillery, machine guns and conventional ground-to-ground missiles. Actually, flint-headed spears and arrows might rank in the same bracket.

More recent posts in this thread have done little more than to persuade me that the notion of advanced Japanese nuclear programmes are no more than another emanation of "interested" conspiracy-fantastical notions, not far off the notion of Nazi flying saucers. Unless proved otherwise. Which, I think, is unlikely. Yours from Ice Station Zero, JR.