The day the sun rose twice

"My god, it's beautiful." "," No," It's terrible." "I Knew the world would never be the same again." -Dorthy Mckibben

I.I. Rabi:
"I realized what this meant for the future of humanity. Up until then, humanity was, after all, a limited factor in the evolution and process of nature. The vast oceans, lakes and rivers, the atmosphere, were not very much effected by the existence of mankind. The new powers represented a threat not only to mankind but to all forms of life: The seas and the air. One could foresee that nothing was immune from the tremendous powers of these new forces.
▼ ▼ ▼ ▼

On Monday, July 16, 1945, at 5:29:45 A.M., mountain War Time, the bomb ignited. The explosion created a brilliant flash that was seen in three states. It lit up the sky like the sun, throwing out a multicolored cloud that surged 38,000 feet into the atmosphere within about seven minutes.
The heat at the center of the blast approximated that at the center of the sun, and the light created equaled almost twenty suns!
The blast of heat was felt ten miles away.
The crater was a half mile across, fusing the sand into glass.
Everything living within the radius of a mile was annihilated - plants, animals, everything. The stench of death lingered about the area for three weeks. :P

This excerpt taken from a book I just completed reading: The day The Sun Rose Twice - Ferenc Morton Szasz

Thoughts on Nuclear - weapons, arsenals, power, etc, etc.

I am become death, destroyer of worlds.

There is an area here in Ottawa Ontario called the Mer Bleu. A swampy land with a few houses. You're not allowed to pick raspberries there. But they don't tell you why.

It's because in the 50's the states was testing tactical nukes there. There are a few houses in that area that are owned by the the government (they rent them), and they jack the rent up every year so that nobody can afford to live there more than a few years.

They don't want anyone living there there that long because it's not a healthy place to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Cusp

I am become death, destroyer of worlds.

---

Indeed, From the Bhagavad Gita

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Cusp

There is an area here in Ottawa Ontario called the Mer Bleu. A swampy land with a few houses. You're not allowed to pick raspberries there. But they don't tell you why.

It's because in the 50's the states was testing tactical nukes there. There are a few houses in that area that are owned by the the government (they rent them), and they jack the rent up every year so that nobody can afford to live there more than a few years.

They don't want anyone living there there that long because it's not a healthy place to be.

---

Some of the information I have read in this book and others scare me. What they do NOT tell us really scares me.

Was it a necessary evil?

When they dropped the first bomb, they didn't know for sure if there would or wouldn't be a nuclear chain reaction that would destroy the whole world.

That's nice, isn't it?

Nuclear weapons, they were inevitable, whether you like it or not... When you think about it, we really got the best possible scenario. The Allies develloped the atomic bomb before the axis during WW2 and we managed to avoid turning the Cold War hot. Nuclear weapons have only ever been used twice in anger, a move which probably saved more lives than the opposite. I just hope our luck keeps up...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Cusp

There is an area here in Ottawa Ontario called the Mer Bleu. A swampy land with a few houses. You're not allowed to pick raspberries there. But they don't tell you why.

It's because in the 50's the states was testing tactical nukes there. There are a few houses in that area that are owned by the the government (they rent them), and they jack the rent up every year so that nobody can afford to live there more than a few years.

They don't want anyone living there there that long because it's not a healthy place to be.

---

You have got to be kidding me. Does it really make much sense to you that the US would conduct nuclear tests right next to Canada's capital? Think about it, there would be craters, deadly radiation, reports of something; the place would be worse than Chernobyl. Mer Bleu is in a freaking parc, you can go there for a bike ride if you want, something you can't really do at the Nevada test range...

Tactical nukes, ****** Small ones.

The information is available under the freedom of information act. Look it up.

There is a reason you're not allowed to pick the raspberries.


This from wikipedia...

"The value of this unique wetland was not always recognized. During World War II, the Royal Canadian Air Force used this area for bombing practice. Now, this area has been designated as a Wetland of International Significance under the Ramsar Convention since October 1995."

OK smart guy, bombing practise during WW2, makes sense; nuclear weapons, no go.

Lets examine the difficulties with this situation, shall we?


Tactical nukes were created in the utmost secrecy during the late 50s and put into service in the 60s. Does it make any sense that the States would use a marsh next to one of Canada's most populated cities to do nuclear testing? No, that would create endless political problems and they have some perfectly good spots in their own country (the massive, secluded Nevada desert for one) where the logistics would be much simpler.

The smallest tactical nukes still have a yield of about 10 tons of TNT. Do you have any idea how powerful that is? It would shatter windows miles away and would make a boom that would burst the ear drums of everyone in the city. Not to mention the accompanying earth tremors and a flash of light what would outshine the sun. 22 000 lbs of TNT leaves a pretty big crater too... Small nukes or not, they're still more powerful than any conventional bomb.

In the 50s and early 60s, nuclear tests were atmospheric, so that raises the question of fallout. Now fallout doesn't stay in a zone limited to ground zero, it moves with the wind. You can bet that if nuclear testing was conducted in Ottawa (i.e. multiple explosions), all land between Toronto and Montreal would be irradiated to deadly levels.


I'll go on if you want me to, but come on, think logically, what you are saying is totally unfeasible. What next, the Parliement's roof is green because it was zapped by martians :roll:?

It must be nice not to have to do any work or research because you can deduce everything with logic. You're arguments aren't logical, they're arrogant. Besides, when has anything the government done ever been logical?

Fill out the forms and make a request for the information. You can reason it out all you like, but if you're not willing to even look, that's your problem.

And this is the last time I bother responding to your ignorant posts.

Edit: I did some asking around today on the Mer Bleu area. The government expropriated all the land and houses in the 50's. They rent the remaining houses that haven't been torn down, and the people who stay there aren't allowed to stay for more than three years. They're not even allowed to drink the water from their own taps! Nor are they allowed to plant gardens. The NCC has to change the water filters in these houses every two months! There are craters everywhere, but being swamp land, they've filled in somewhat over time. Everything was dead there for years, no wildlife of any sort.

Dudes, lets all try not to nuke each other with direct comments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

When they dropped the first bomb, they didn't know for sure if there would or wouldn't be a nuclear chain reaction that would destroy the whole world.

That's nice, isn't it?

---

That was the talk for a great while.
after extensive research, the physicists working on the project had concluded that this could and would not happen.

Even to have to examine a question like this seems a bit startling.

I don't see where Spartiate's post are that ignorant. What is he saying that is so untrue?

I often go backpacking in an area called Dolli Sods wilderness area in W.VA. One of the most remote regions in the east.
They have signs cluttered through out warning you about WW ll bombing ordinance that may have not gone off.

Our government has always been in the spotlight and we still act very reckless. Only to quantify our actions through means of war.
I often have wondered how incautious some of these experiments from other impervious nations have been. :wooo:

Oh, my point is, you should not pick the raspberries there either. :wink:

Einstein on Peace - worthy read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pj

Einstein on Peace - worthy read.

---

I do know that Einstein, being a major role player in the advent of "the bomb" had in many ways regretted giving mankind this power. I believe he also suggests that if he had not been afraid of Adolf Hitler getting the atomic weapon first, he would have abandoned his efforts.
Is that true pj?
Also, is that a general remark or a book? :P

It is a book - out of print but still readily available for cheap.

Einstein on Politics is another worthy read.

Yes, it is true - and Einstein wasn't the only of that group who expressed profound regrets. At the same time, they recognized they were in a race and that the side that got there first was going to be THE global superpower for the foreseeable future.

Did you know that in the 50s and 60s, the US was seriously considering nuclear pulse propulsion for deep space voyages? The idea was that you had a big flat metal shield at the back of the spaceship, connected to it by shock absorbers, and you blew up small nuclear warheads behind it. With no force opposing the spacecraft, it would be able to travel at tremendous speeds. Apparently, you could reach Mars in 4 weeks (rather than the current 12 months) and the closest stars in less than a century. It still remains one of the most advanced space drives that can currently be constructed with our technology.

A bomb with the capacity to whipe out entire metrolopis cities...What is that good for? I mean even if we humans are as unsocial and uncivilised to engage in war in the first place, Nuclear bombs are for warriors without a heart. As an integre army you send in armed Men, Groundvehicles/Artillery, Airplanes, even Cruisemisiles, but you try as hard as you can to spare as many civil lives as you can.

The Nuclear bomb was obviously designed by someone who couldn't care less that, allthough it would deliver a devastating blow to the enemy, many many 1000s of innocent, harmless civilians will be whiped out and many more to die or be born diseased/deformed as a cause of Nuclear Radiation which spreads from the whiped out Impact zone and lingers for more than 10 years.

And today to Send a Nuclear bomb somewhere also means to recieve one in Return. All this weapon could possibly do is trigger a panicky, wrathfull chainreaction of Button-bashing by well dressed assholes leading to the ultimate end of us all. No I don't like the Nuke at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

That was the talk for a great while.
after extensive research, the physicists working on the project had concluded that this could and would not happen.

---

They didn't know for sure until they actually did it.

I agree with Ska. Nothing that evil is necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

They didn't know for sure until they actually did it.

I agree with Ska. Nothing that evil is necessary.

---

You can say that about anything. It was a theory. There may have been many. Like it creating a fire storm that would not extinguish.
They, the physicists had ruled out this assumption. Did they know 100%. Of coarse not. They did not even know if it was going to work at all.
We don't know if the Sun is going to burn out tomorrow.
We have enough relative data and information to rule certain things out.

I am glad you are bringing counter arguments and ideas to the table Moonbeam. I hope that because we keep butting heads, that you do not think it is personal?

Quote:

---

I agree with Ska. Nothing that evil is necessary.

---

To you and SKA.
If the next new innovative weapon of death were, let's say a taser? The Republic of China was well on its way to completing this weapon.
Would it then be necessary?
What you are implying is that we would be better off with out it?
Well we are NOT with out it!

Why is "it" evil? IT is not. "It' does not have to be solely a weapon. It is us humans who put these ideas to work for our own evil devices for war that make these things evil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howie

I am glad you are bringing counter arguments and ideas to the table Moonbeam. I hope that because we keep butting heads, that you do not think it is personal?

---

No Howie, I didn't even think we were butting heads; and I know you better than that.

It would have been a horrible decision to have to make. Of course I say it was pure evil and they shouldn't have done it; but if I had lived back then and thought the Nazis were going to get it first, who knows? I'm just glad I'll never be in a position to decide something like that; I couldn't live with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

No Howie, I didn't even think we were butting heads; and I know you better than that.

It would have been a horrible decision to have to make. Of course I say it was pure evil and they shouldn't have done it; but if I had lived back then and thought the Nazis were going to get it first, who knows? I'm just glad I'll never be in a position to decide something like that; I couldn't live with it.

---

I wonder how they ever came to the conclusion, how many variables that would have come into play, as they made the decision that the "bomb" would ultimately save more lives than if the war had been drug out.

So many people still argue this point.
Can there really ever be an answer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

It would have been a horrible decision to have to make. Of course I say it was pure evil and they shouldn't have done it; but if I had lived back then and thought the Nazis were going to get it first, who knows? I'm just glad I'll never be in a position to decide something like that; I couldn't live with it.

---

Would it really have been such a dilemma? That would be like having an enemy soldier in your sights, but holding fire until he picks up his rifle and shoots you.


I really think that all the hype about nuclear weapons is overrated. When we look bact to its origins, its use probably saved more lives than it killed. The US had a battle strategy for invading Japan, projected casualties on both sides totaled into the millions. The conventional incendiary bombings of Tokyo destroyed more property and killed more people than either A-bomb, so it`s not like its use was a drastic escalation of the war`s violence.

No nukes were used during the Cold War, so we can`t complain there. In fact, nukes were probably the only thing that prevented the Cold War from turning hot, WW3 would have been at least as devastating as WW2...

These days, the use of nuclear weapons by any of the recognized nuclear countries isn`t likely at all. The only danger comes from terrorist groups and rogue states, but we wouldn`t get a nuclear showdown that would bring us back to the Stone Age.

Nuclear weapons were just a natural outcome from scientific advancement; it was going to happen eventually, we`re very lucky that the "good guys" got it first. They revolutionised warfare, just like gunpowder did in the Middle Ages (gunpowder has killed way more people than nukes by the way...), they pretty much made the idea of total war extinct, since any war between superpowers now would mean mutually assured destruction. I would go so far as to say that the world is far more peaceful because of them.

I guess I just believe that then ends justify the means, which is probably why I disagree with some of you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Would it really have been such a dilemma? That would be like having an enemy soldier in your sights, but holding fire until he picks up his rifle and shoots you.

---

You think shooting someone who will kill you first if they get the chance is the same thing as dropping a nuclear bomb (or firestorming a city) and burning alive every one of the tens of thousands of men, women, and children; and horribly injuring tens of thousands more, none of whom are directly threatening you? That doesn't seem to be like just a little bit bigger decision to make?

The Nuclear bomb IS the selfish, dominant intention of some humans. The Nuclear Power as a source of Energy; A nuclear powerplant is the essence of the initial idea. Power from Nuclear Radiatoon, but....Power to do what? Power to provide a city with electricity? Or power to whipe a city and all of it's people off of the face of the earth?

In the end I don't think einstein and his collegue atomic scientists had much choice: I don't think their Atomic knowledge was safe in any other nations' hands. Those wicked minded politicians that would want to turn such a source of power into a source of powerfull destruction and mass murder are amongst all of us. Amongst high ranking authoritairian positions in all nations of the world these people are.


Also the Idea of a Nuclear powerplant that has cathastrophic consequences when the cooling system somehow fails built in land where people live is to me a ad idea. Also think of the radioactive waste it produces, the cancer-deathrate of people that work there and the potential mega disaster if the Cooling system fails and the reactor overheats or when it has a Melt DOWN (BIG trouble).

It's better to find safer and more maintainable ways of energy production.

Spartiate; Don't you think it is a little unsettling to know we live in a world where almost all nations of the world are armed with bombs that could completely whipe out the city you live in, sparing not 1 life, blowing houses away as if they were dust, bending all trees to the ground, incinerating everything and everyone alive, leaving the bombsite a surreal smoking valley of Death and piles of Rubble. And might you, somehow, have survived the innitial blast and shockwaves then soon radiationsickniss will bring you a slow and horrible death. Forget your mom. Dad. Brother. Sister. Friends. Girlfriend. Boyfriend. Pet dog. Pet Cat.. Forget em all cuz they are all gone. You'd best find some form of shelter to spend the night.


What I mean to make you see: Imagine being a civilian in a world where nations often violently collide. War is not my idea of a good time, and I hope y'all agree with me, but if my country's Governments one day decides that America should be Nuke'D today then guess who's in trouble when America finds out there's a Nuke heading for Washington? Me, all my friends and family, my dear 3 cats, my love. We're all gunna suffer the consequences for the Stupid decisions our Government makes.

And for you the same. Put yourself in the Shoes of a Citizen of Hiroshima at the moment he/she sees the bom falling down and impacting on the ground about half a mile away.
One thing that Nukes cannot: They can certainly not protect us. Only destroy us.

To Moonbeam: I understand what you're saying (I'm not cold hearted or anything, just practical :P), but it's really just a bigger example of the same problem. If you don't do it, then your enemy will drop a nuke that will kill thousands of your innocent civilians. It's not a choice to be taken lightly, but it's not a hard one either.



To SKA: Indeed I do find it unsettling, and I definately wouldn't want to be near one that went off, but that doesn't change the fact that they were created. I don't think any amount of ethics could have prevented their creation, and I can guarantee that something more powerful will be created eventually. You can't stop progress, even if the progress is in finding more efficient ways of killing people. Nuclear bombs accomplish exactly the same thing as conventional warfare, just much faster. My argument was that given their inevitability, the outcome of the nuclear age was pretty good.

An old military maxim comes to mind: "If you want peace, you must prepare for war."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKA

Also the Idea of a Nuclear powerplant that has cathastrophic consequences when the cooling system somehow fails built in land where people live is to me a ad idea. Also think of the radioactive waste it produces, the cancer-deathrate of people that work there and the potential mega disaster if the Cooling system fails and the reactor overheats or when it has a Melt DOWN (BIG trouble).

It's better to find safer and more maintainable ways of energy production.

Spartiate; Don't you think it is a little unsettling to know we live in a world where almost all nations of the world are armed with bombs that could completely whipe out the city you live in, sparing not 1 life, blowing houses away as if they were dust, bending all trees to the ground, incinerating everything and everyone alive, leaving the bombsite a surreal smoking valley of Death and piles of Rubble. And might you, somehow, have survived the innitial blast and shockwaves then soon radiationsickniss will bring you a slow and horrible death. Forget your mom. Dad. Brother. Sister. Friends. Girlfriend. Boyfriend. Pet dog. Pet Cat.. Forget em all cuz they are all gone. You'd best find some form of shelter to spend the night.


What I mean to make you see: Imagine being a civilian in a world where nations often violently collide. War is not my idea of a good time, and I hope y'all agree with me, but if my country's Governments one day decides that America should be Nuke'D today then guess who's in trouble when America finds out there's a Nuke heading for Washington? Me, all my friends and family, my dear 3 cats, my love. We're all gunna suffer the consequences for the Stupid decisions our Government makes.

And for you the same. Put yourself in the Shoes of a Citizen of Hiroshima at the moment he/she sees the bom falling down and impacting on the ground about half a mile away.
One thing that Nukes cannot: They can certainly not protect us. Only destroy us.

---

There are only seven or eight nations with nuclear capability dude.

They can and are protecting us as we type.

I would pay to have a list that shows where all the nukes are pointed to, might influence my next moving decision :P...

Ooh nuke discussion? Ok...

Those things are very, very powerful. 2 of them ended WW2! And it was horrible. People were vaporized, the cities were leveled, clothing patterns were burned onto the skin, freaking SHADOWS were burned to the sidewalk! And the guy that did it wasn't even GUILTY!

Nuclear energy, however, is a pretty good advancement in science. Using something bad (Hiroshima/Nagasaki) for good! (electricity) And we probably would have never came up with it if the A/H-bomb wasn't created.

I say, keep, but don't use. Do we really need to do THIS: http://www.unclenicks.net/bilderberg....org/hbomb.gif
.. to someone?