>>> Less than one kilogram of Plutonium-239 is required for a implosion nuclear device.
How come no terroristfags haven't yet succeeded in figuring out how to build the ultimate terror device. Is it because people like ISIS adhere only to Aryan physics and shit?
>>8165373
Pu 239 dosen't grow up on trees.
And you still need to build the motherfucking bomb properly, it's not just about putting a spoonful of plutonium in a suicide vest and doing the allahu akbar.
>>8165373
>less than 1kg
Nuclear engineer here, not true. Even weapons grade plutonium (~90% 239Pu) has a critical mass around 10kg
and the main safeguard against nuclear proliferation is how difficult to acquire/construct and expensive all the infrastructure to build a weapon is. With this is mind, it's more or less impossible to acquire a nuclear weapon through espionage unless you're a state actor, and typically one with outside support with the exception of Russia
>>8165378
Yeah building the bomb is pretty much placing the explosives correctly once you've stolen the plutonium from drunk russians. Then you can go allahu snakbar.
It's also possible to build a successful bomb (not just making it fizzle) out of pure reactor grade uranium. Then it'd be bigger though.
>>8165373
>How come no terroristfags haven't yet succeeded in figuring out how to build the ultimate terror device.
they have, Fat Man was one in fact. It killed between 40,000 and 80,000 civilians.
>>8165384
The critical mass required can be lowered with neutron reflectors, fusion boosting and by increasing densities temporarily with high explosives.
>>8165388
Reactor grade uranium is only about 2% enrichment. A nuclear bomb needs about 90% enrichment otherwise the chain reaction will not work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Atomic_Demolition_Munition
ITT people that have no idea how hard it is to make nuclear weapons
just lmao at how dumb these posts are
>>8165384
There is a reason one of the most highly guarded secrets of nuclear weapons design are the explosive lenses used for implosion devices.
>>8165434
indeed
>>8165434
So if this leaks out, we're all doomed?
>>8165483
No, still have to manufacture them.
>>8165432
What surprises me is that Terrorists haven't built dirty bombs yet. A Nuke might be hard, a dirty bomb isn't. It doesn't even take much to make a bomb dirty, just rip apart some old smoke detectors and throw the tiny bits of Americium into a conventional bomb. There's no nuclear bang but the Geiger Counters will go tick and that's enough to cause a panic.
>>8165541
Biological/chemical attacks are a serious threat in Europe : labs were broke into and searched, protective equipment was stolen.
>>8165541
Not very surprisingly, the kind of Islamic terrorists that are currently threatening Europe don't have the knowledge by far. Some of them have had higher education, but none of them have the technical or operative know-how to gather the necessary materials, and to build and deploy such a weapon effectively, without being detected by any of the security agencies.
Besides that, the only terrorist attack with advanced weapons that I can think of is the nerve gas attack in the Tokyo metro by that crazy Japanese cult.
>>8165701
>> gas attack
A purely radiological terror attack wouldn't probably differ that much from a chemical attack. All the crazy motherfucker would need to do is disperse some source of radiation like Am-241 in pulverized form to scare people and make geiger counters wild.
>>8165701
Never the less, even if pork haters are not dumb enough to learn how into physics and engineerng for physic-ing and engineering said devices, i bet my ass that being such knoweledge haram, they just won't use it, you know, because Allahu won't abide.
>>8165384
i like your duck image, i am going to save it
can you tell me where you got it, please?
>>8165541
>>8165545
>>8165701
Given how most Islamic terror organizations have funding from the US/Israel/Saudis/Russians/Turks/EU in some capacity or another I'd wager it's not so much a matter of "dumb mudslimes not being able to figure out nuclear" but rather "Agent Smith putting down Abdul al-Nu Kle Arallah so he doesn't fuckup a decades long puppet show to build a pipeline from Saudi Arabia to Europe or some such".
>>8166152
i think on /mu/ the other day, if not there somewhere here
cheers anon, i hope it comes in handy someday
>>8166162
that makes me sad, as i would like to have more nice walking duck images
thank you anyway
>>8165390
>Is it much harder than just mashing two 5kg pieces together?
Considerably. Basically, you'll get a fizzle unless either the pressures generated by the escaping energy serve to compress rather than disperse the critical mass, or you can assemble a *very* supercritical mass before a stray neutron sets the whole thing off.
It's pretty hard to find someone academically smart enough to do the math and practically smart enough to make the device match the math, without having a very convincing, very reasonable argument for why you should have nuclear weapons (including how you're going to pay them, and how your actions after they've built you a bomb will be consistent with them getting to enjoy their pay over a long, peaceful life).
These sorts of people aren't buttmad in a desert somewhere. They're largely free to live in whatever country they want, and get as rich and comfy as they want, while openly enjoying the esteem of their peers and respect of their community.
The production or other acquisition of plutonium isn't easy either. I don't doubt people try to get it all the time, and this is when most of them get caught.
>>8165384
>Nuclear engineer here, not true. Even weapons grade plutonium (~90% 239Pu) has a critical mass around 10kg
That's a bare critical mass at STP.
You mean "nuclear engineering student", right? Like... first year?
They do make boosted fission primaries with under 1 kg of plutonium. Density (and the reflector) matters a lot.
>>8166195
4th year but I'm not an expert, no. From what I was aware of the lowest critical masses for implosion type devices were around 4kg with reflection, 3 stage weapons have other engineering requirements. It was my understanding that you need a DT fusion source for such a small critical mass.
In any case I still think it's especially unlikely that a non-state actor could assemble any kind of functional nuclear weapon with under 1kg of Pu
>>8165384
>Nuclear engineer here
>>8166210
>It was my understanding that you need a DT fusion source for such a small critical mass.
There's nothing to set off the DT fusion fuel if the fission core doesn't go supercritical. It's not like it's magnetized target fusion starting with a hot fuel plasmoid in the middle. It's just a cold DT gas blend, put in the hollow center of a plutonium core.
It might be a pretty disappointing little bomb without the DT charge to sustain it as the minimal charge of plutonium is consumed and heated, but the fission detonation needs to be able to happen on its own first.
>>8166134
>Never the less, even if pork haters are not dumb enough to learn how into physics and engineerng for physic-ing and engineering said devices, i bet my ass that being such knoweledge haram, they just won't use it, you know, because Allahu won't abide.
Did pulling all of that out of your ass hurt?
>>8166195
>They do make boosted fission primaries with under 1 kg of plutonium. Density (and the reflector) matters a lot.
I'm definitely in no position to argue with those numbers, but wouldn't the kinds of tech needed to build "lightweight" bombs massively increase the complexity of the device?
>>8165389
Edgy
Is intergalactic travel even conceivable? We can't manage .1c, and Andromeda is 2.5M light years away
fug
>>8166514
maybe, we don't need light speed to send life to another galaxy. One day we will send an entire solar system in its youth over there unless humanity destroys itself which isn't so bad either.
>>8166210
It's unlikely that a non-state actor could assemble any kind of functional nuclear weapon, period.
Even for a nation state, you need a fairly high level of technological development, and be either reasonably wealthy or (as in the case of NK) willing to spend far too much of your GDP on it.
A gun-type device has as significantly lower technological requirement, but that's offset by needing a huge production and enrichment program. Little Boy used 64kg of 80%-enriched uranium, equivalent to ~7111 kg of non-enriched uranium or 1024 kg of 5% uranium (reactor-grade is typically 3-5%).
>>8166501
I dont think it means what you think it means.
>>8166501
I'm pretty sure Merica is the edgelord in this picture, not the person who dares to point out facts.
>>8165389
>>8165541
> just rip apart some old smoke detectors and throw the tiny bits of Americium into a conventional bomb.
Inverse square law.
Any Geiger counter far enough away not to get destroyed by the blast probably wouldn't even notice such a minuscule amount of radiation.
The source in a smoke detector is about the size of a grain of flour. If you actually want to scare people, you'd be better off burgling a hospital radiology department.
>>8166580
you think that killing 50k people is funny? What are you, 13?
>>8166587
Yeah man incredibly funny.
That's why we bombed the Japs. Thought it would just be hilarious.
>>8166612
it still was unnecessary.
http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/upfront/2016/05/hiroshima-atomic-bomb-160527065818628.html
>>8166617
Not according to military intelligence at the time.
This historical revisionism bullshit is fucking cancer.
>>8166612
>Bombing strategic targets
Bombing sure makes it sound more relatable to previous events, huh? Gotta choose them words carefully like a politician.
>Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen for their importance, bomber range, weather conditions.
No, they were chosen to strike so much fear as to prevent war. Range & weather conditions? Are you that stupid? That's completely tangential to the fact that they were nuclear weapons.
>Not to kill the most japanese.
That's just a bonus. As it always has been.
>>8166617
Are you one of those "Japan surrendered" memers
>>8166624
>No, they were chosen to strike so much fear as to prevent war. Range & weather conditions? Are you that stupid
Fuck off.
You clearly don't know shit about the topic.
>>8166617
A lot of actions seem unnecessary retroactively, especially after wars.
At the time and for the USA, it was judged necessary to nuclear bomb Japan. Was it catastrophic ? Yes. Should we do it ever again (on another country) ? Maybe. Is it moral ? No, and modern war isn't either.
But saying it's terrorism is wrong, the US didn't do it to kill people or allahu akbar.
>>8166630
>nuclear weapons have greater range and survive harsher weather conditions than classical bombs in the same shell
>going nuclear had nothing to do with scaring the shit out of the country and showing dominance
>>8165388
>pretty much placing the explosives correctly
if you mean "having extremely well understood, stable and homogeneous explosives, perfectly placed with high precision into a device with highly precise and durable neutron deflectors, connected with state-of-the-art extremely precise computer controlled timers for the state-of-the-art detonation mechanisms", then yeah, sure.
It's easy.
>>8166637
>nuclear weapons have greater range and survive harsher weather conditions than classical bombs in the same shell
What the fuck are you even talking about
>>8165373
Because Nuclear Bombs AREN'T REAL.
THEY DON'T EXIST. I'm being serious.
Don't even bother replying til you watch this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sULjMjK5lCI
>>8166645
>3 hours
Come the fuck on.
>>8166622
but it was. 5 out of 6 generals were against it.
>denial
>>8166643
The claims made. Follow the post chain brudder.
>>8166648
Just Youtube "Nukes Don't Exist" then
>>8166634
>At the time and for the USA, it was judged necessary to nuclear bomb Japan
it wasn't.
https://www.thenation.com/article/why-the-us-really-bombed-hiroshima/
still denying anon
it's ok to make mistakes.
>But saying it's terrorism is wrong, the US didn't do it to kill people or allahu akbar.
they did it because they wanted to see what it would do.
It's even worse.
>>8166648
Watch this 10 minute version then
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7jVHzYzYw0
NUKES DON'T EXIST.
NUCLEAR. BOMBS. ARE. A. HOAX.
>>8166659
FISSION AND FUSION AREN'T REAL
MY FUSOR IS A LIE
REACTORS ARE FAKE
THEY ARE FULL OF HAMSTERS IN HAMSTER WHEELS
>>8166653
They did it because they needed to show the Soviets they had the bomb, and because they needed the Japanese to firmly acknowledge defeat for the post war occupation. The amount of propagandising and brainwashing that took place would have made the occupation a nightmare and absolute disaster if the Japanese people thought there was still 'unfinished business' and that their government surrendered when they could have kept fighting.
Even after the bombs there was still a faction of the government that wanted to kill the Emperor to stop the surrender. That's the kind of irrational mindset they were dealing with.
Any sane leadership would have surrendered LONG before the atomic bombings.
>>8166653
>thenation
Literally fuck off
Noone really knows what would have happened, the fact is that the Japanese would've fought and Americans and Brits would have died. I'd rather sacrifice 100,000 of them than 10 of mine. Even Churchill supported the bombings (not American for retards).
I like how Japanese don't really care now and take it for what it was. But butthurt western lefties bitch about it constantly.
>>8166157
*tips tinfoil hat*
>>8165373
USA are a major terrorist state and they have a fuckton of nuclear weapons.
And isn't north korea trying to get nucular?
humanity has had nuclear weapons for less than 100 years. It's literally only a matter of time until a full blown nuclear war destroys most of the planet
>>8166674
>Noone really knows what would have happened
>the fact is...
shut the fuq up lamo
More Proof That Nukes Don't Exist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr-sx6NXkEs
>>8166688
>anger
>>8166669
>the camera must have been pretty close to record a picture appearing that close!
what are optics
would you like to point out your other complaints individually so i can laugh at them? are you a moon landing = hoax guy too because you don't understand that shadows fall on hills at a different angle than they fall on flat ground? and albedo is too hard to understand?
>>8166688
His argument was roughly that you contradicted yourself in a single sentence and therefore you are probably too stupid to breathe and type at the same time. Just helping out.
>>8166712
It's not a contradiction if you actually read the previous posts. Don't be so anal about it.
No one knows how the it would have turned out, what is known without a doubt is that people would have died either way.
>>8166712
You are either autistic or pretending
People would've died, that's my point. Would you sperg out too if I said that earth would orbit the sun?
Do you have a degree?
>>8166724
>bargaining
desu I don't even read your posts anymore, I just find keywords and respond with the correct stage of grief.
>>8166750
What's wrong with you?
>>8166746
>People would've died, that's my point.
That's cool. It's tangential to the entire point at hand, but cool.
>>8166750
You're arguing with at least two different people.
>>bargaining
You should seriously stop posting.
>>8166752
>anger
>>8166753
How so?
>>8166780
is there any more information to this than a shady youtube documentary full of just emotional appeal? articles, documents etc
>>8166780
Bullshit documentaries preying on emotions exist for everything. Show me data, studies, something not shady as fuck.
>>8166780
>cancer hoax
what does this have to do with nukes
>her urine was so toxic we had to wear gloves
nonsense
>WAKE UP SHEEPLE
I am skeptical of the government, but I am also skeptical of you as well.
All these conspiracy theories are often held by the same people and often portrayed in the same 2spooky4u format, walls of text or 2 hour long youtube videos. Seems to my like you all share a common mental illness.
>>8166835
>I am skeptical of the government, but I am also skeptical of you as well.
Just wanted to pop in to agree with this. The most infuriating argument from conspiracy theorists is "oh so you think the government would never do that?"
No, I don't have any such undying blind faith in the government. I simply am not persuaded by weak claims.
>>8166232
isn't that a chemist of a physicist?
>>8166844
>>nuclear engineer
>> nuclear technician
>> technician
>>8166473
>>They do make boosted fission primaries with under 1 kg of plutonium. Density (and the reflector) matters a lot.
>I'm definitely in no position to argue with those numbers, but wouldn't the kinds of tech needed to build "lightweight" bombs massively increase the complexity of the device?
I don't know that much.
I don't see nuclear bombs as complex devices, just very precise ones, made from very costly materials.
I expect it would be more difficult if you're working under a constraint like less plutonium.
>>8166844
he is just some nerd on 4chan at best
>>8167240
The lower the mass of plutonium used, the higher the mass of high explosives needed. The relation, of course, isn't linear. Nuclear bombs that would require small amounts of plutonium therefore wouldn't make really good warheads but were looked on by people like Ted Taylor for other purposes like nuclear pulse units for project Orion. When you're exploding 3000-4000 bombs under your spaceship, using less plutonium and more high explosives becomes more favourable due to the fact that plutonium-239 is expensive compared to rdx. Especially when the yield is pretty much constant in pulse unit purposes, no matter the amount of plutonium used.
In warhead design, small mass and volume is more desirable than small cost and therefore more plutonium and less explosives are used.
>>8166668
>They did it because they needed to show the Soviets they had the bomb
The jew in charge of the program was a communist, the Soviets were well aware of the bomb
>and because they needed the Japanese to firmly acknowledge defeat for the post war occupation.
Japan had been willing to surrender for years
>Any sane leadership would have surrendered LONG before the atomic bombings.
?
It was the allies who wanted war, it was the allies who insisted on unconditional surrender/other terms to drag out the war.
The only irrational mindset is brainwashed westerners defending the behavior of the allies during ww2.
>>8167447
>Japan had been willing to surrender for years
And yet they didn't.
>it was the allies who insisted on unconditional surrender
Sorry, but you don't get to start a war, get your ass handed to you, then demand favourable surrender conditions.
>>8167468
>trying to justify biggest war crimes
just stop embarassing yourself.
>>8167472
Who needs to justify it?
We won, now it's history.
>>8167447
>>8165373
because plutonium is the most guarded and controlled element on earth
>>8167472
The first bomb was a warcrime.
The second was Japanese arrogance.
>>8167738
The second bomb was dropped so that a third wasn't necessary.
>Sandpeople can't even reach 1940s era technology
Why do we even bother trying to civilize them
>>8169854
It's more a problem of economics than science/engineering.
Also the fact that someone bombs their facilities whenever they actually get close.
1 gram cost close to 5k usd
>>8169831
if the 2nd weren't dropped the 3rd would be the 2nd, what kind of kafkaesque logic is that
>>8166182
I keep hearing about the maths, what's so hard about the maths?
>>8165388
I wanna see that cat-shaped bomb go off.
>>8166637
You still need a way to get the bombs there in the first place, genius.
>>8166688
>ad hominem is an argument
>>8167447
>Japan had been willing to surrender for years
Then why didn't they surrender when they had the chance?
>>8170243
"Not willing to surrender under terms acceptable to the opposition" is not really "willing to surrender".
Just about anybody is willing to end hostilities under the right terms. It's not really surrendering unless you're giving the enemy what they want.
It's especially not surrendering when the enemy is at a clear advantage and you just want them to stop shooting while you make better weapons.
>>8170332
>Just about anybody is willing to end hostilities under the right terms.
Demonstrably false. Such hand-waving generalizations are childish.
>It's especially not surrendering when the enemy is at a clear advantage and you just want them to stop shooting while you make better weapons.
Rhetoric.
Imagine the number of civilizations in the Universe that figured out how to split the atom. What percentage of them do you think utterly destroyed themselves within the first century of the discovery?
Aren't we lucky to still be here?
>>8166617
Pantywaist faggot fuckface detected.
>>8170337
>>Just about anybody is willing to end hostilities under the right terms.
>Demonstrably false.
Fuck off. People walk away from the table when they know the terms they want won't be offered, and they don't want to waste time. War's a means to an end.
>Rhetoric.
Japan had launched a massive, entirely unprovoked war of aggression, and they were brutally cruel to prisoners of war and the people in occupied territory.
When you start shit like that, you don't get to just take your toys and go home when it starts looking like you might not win. Anyone with the least common sense is going to assume you'll rearm and try again as soon as it looks like you're more prepared than your enemies.
So no, wanting to keep their leadership and military was not being "willing to surrender".
>>8166612
>Bombing strategic targets in an act of war is not terrorism
The whole point was to strong arm Japan into surrendering. An act that was intended to produce terror among the Japanese.
Was it worth it? Probably. Most historical estimates say that a longer war would have resulted in millions more casualties. But don't give me this bullshit about how only people with towels on their heads can use military might to incite terror.
>>8166612
> bombing strategic targets is an act of war
ummm...you know this war was the war where they slipperly sloped what a "strategic target" was right?
>>8170439
>People walk away from the table when they know the terms they want won't be offered, and they don't want to waste time. War's a means to an end.
You seem to misunderstand. There are those who will keep hostilities until eradicating their enemies entirely.
>So no, wanting to keep their leadership and military was not being "willing to surrender".
We sure kept it from them for long, occupying for seven years and leaving.
>and they were brutally cruel to prisoners of war and the people in occupied territory.
>With the acceptance of the Allied occupation authorities, the Japanese organized a brothel system for the benefit of the more than 300,000 occupation troops. "The strategy was, through the special work of experienced women, to create a breakwater to protect regular women and girls."
>Dower states that "According to one calculation the number of rapes and assaults on Japanese women amounted to around 40 daily while the RAA was in operation, and then rose to an average of 330 a day after it was terminated in early 1946."
>Two weeks into the occupation, the Occupation administration began censoring all media. This included any mention of rape or other sensitive social issues.[52][53]
>According to David M. Rosenfeld: Not only did Occupation censorship forbid criticism of the United States or other Allied nations, but the mention of censorship itself was forbidden. This means, as Donald Keene observes, that for some producers of texts "the Occupation censorship was even more exasperating than Japanese military censorship had been because it insisted that all traces of censorship be concealed. This meant that articles had to be rewritten in full, rather than merely submitting XXs for the offending phrases."
Sure is easy to focus on the enemy and excuse our own war crimes.
>>8165373
you can't even get a kilo of plutonium from mining, you have to get it from laboratories that work with uranium
>>8165384
>Nuclear engineer
more like
>Larping as a nuclear engineer
Your full of shit and we all know it. The fucking davy crocket had quite a bit less than 1kg of fissile material and its from the fucking 50's
>>8166648
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/video-speed-controller/nffaoalbilbmmfgbnbgppjihopabppdk?hl=en
Your welcome. But also don't watch that lame ass video, its lame and not good, also its boring.
>>8170463
>according to one calculation
In other words, he cherry-picked a high guesstimate.
There's no reason to believe that rapes in Japan by US occupying troops have ever been at a higher rate than is typical of a population of young American men. Of course some US soldiers raped some Japanese women, just as they raped French women in France and American women in America. It wasn't organized. It wasn't encouraged or tolerated. It was a normal rate of criminal occurrences.
Certain elements in Japan who were and are opposed to the presence of US troops on Japanese soil have both exaggerated rape rates and unreasonably sensationalized individual cases, as anti-American propaganda measures. Naturally, the occupation force leadership had to suppress that propaganda.
Anyway, this is not about whether the Americans were nice people or not. This was about whether it was reasonable to expect the Allies to accept a surrender on terms that would give the Japanese the opportunity to rebuild their military strength under the same leadership that had just committed such extraordinary aggression.
Comparing the extremely reasonable treatment by America of Japan after the war to the needless aggression of Japan during the war is ridiculous. It's like a murderer bitching about the police being too rough with him. Don't start shit, you won't get hit.
>>8170332
>"Not willing to surrender under terms acceptable to the opposition" is not really "willing to surrender".
And when the terms in question are deliberately outrageous because they do not want Japan to surrender?
>>8170439
>Japan had launched a massive, entirely unprovoked war of aggression
The US embargo of Japan was unprovoked aggression, the attack on pearl harbor was Japan biting the bait that FDR provided.
The US government knew it was coming, that was the point of putting the fleet there(they had to remove the fleets commander, he knew the attack was going to come), along with the bomber force in the phillipines(which was destroyed on the ground).
>and they were brutally cruel to prisoners of war
A lot of this is very exagerrated, they had limited supplies and long supply lines, and certain cultural tendencies.
When the US spends the whole war bombing civilians, don't talk to me about Japans treatment of POW's or civilians in occupied countries.
>>8170442
>The whole point was to strong arm Japan into surrendering. An act that was intended to produce terror among the Japanese.
Jesus. Talk about stretching the definition of "terrorism" past the breaking point.
"Look at the uniformed soldier holding a gun on another uniformed soldier while telling him to surrender! He's using fear to get compliance! That's terrorism! Oh my God! He shot one who didn't surrender! That's double-terrorism!"
The point was to make it plain to Japan that they faced annihilation if they didn't surrender... and not in some kind of glorious last stand, but just helplessly watching themselves be wiped out by distant, vastly superior enemies, like stupid herd animals being shot with a rifle. A death as shameful and humiliating as any surrender could possibly be.
>>8166668
The only irrational mindset is the american people who really think america is still the good guy after bombing and radiating 2 citys full of innocent civilians.
Like serriously if you bomb someone you bomb solders who know shits gonna fly. Not mom and pop taking kid of Yukine celebrating his 5th birthday and then without warni------------------
>>8170697
> It wasn't encouraged or tolerated.
Unless they were black troops*
or colonial troops
>>8170711
>>Japan had launched a massive, entirely unprovoked war of aggression
>the attack on pearl harbor
That wasn't what I was referring to. The attack on pearl harbor was far from the beginning of their involvement in WW2.
>The US embargo of Japan was unprovoked aggression,
Stop handing ammunition to a murderer is aggression? Fuck off. It was an embargo, not a blockade. They just stopped supplying Japan, something they never had any obligation to do. If someone decides not to sell you shit, and you decide to rob them instead, you're the one committing an aggression.
These are some seriously bullshit rationalizations.
>the terms in question are deliberately outrageous because they do not want Japan to surrender?
>the attack on pearl harbor was Japan biting the bait that FDR provided.
Your head is full of conspiracy theory garbage.
>>8170714
>dehuminzing the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to animals getting hunted
Nice justification agenda
You fight solders, you dont kill innocent civilians.
Its terrorism.
>>8170723
>They just stopped supplying Japan
Stopped supplying Japan oil and steel which they were reliant on.
Then they ignored Japanese diplomats
Thats an act of war, but they knew what they were doing, as Germany wasnt going to give FDR his casus belli.
>If someone decides not to sell you shit, and you decide to rob them instead, you're the one committing an aggression.
If you are starving, and the person refuses to sell you food, everyone in the world would defend your moral right to steal it.
>>8170727
>You fight solders, you dont kill innocent civilians.
Civilians aren't innocent in an industrial war. Soldiers are just the tip of the knife. If someone's trying to stab you, you don't target the knife, you shoot them in the heart.
>>8170745
>If someones trying to kill you, you don't shoot them, you bomb their wives & children!
Totally moral and ethical.
And when we finally occupy their country, we must censor pornography!
>>8170739
>>They just stopped supplying Japan
>Stopped supplying Japan oil and steel which they were reliant on.
So. Fucking. What.
Japan didn't have any claim on that oil and steel. America could stop selling it to them for any reason they wanted, for instance if they preferred another customer or didn't like something Japan was doing. It's called sovereignty.
>>8170745
First you metaphor is convoluted
Second droping a nuclear bomb in the middle of a populated city does not target industry or factorys. It targets the average kid going to the park to play a game of baseball. That girl who just wants to get out of school and make fashion, that socialy innept NEET that just wants to watch that new episode of his favorite show.
You dont need NUCLEAR bombs to blow up a factory, bysides it wasnt industrial factory complex they droped it in. It was in the middle of a city. Why a highly populated city filled to the brim with innocent cilivans? To incite terror OF COURSE
Checkmate
>>8170739
>Thats an act of war
cancelling trade and expelling diplomats do not constitute an act of war.
now grovel before the pedantic neckbeards of /his/ show up and punish us all for your transgressions.
yes, I know we're a bunch of pedantic neckbeards too.
>>8170751
This is most fucking stupid line of argument ever.
You don't win wars by treating human shields as inviolable, or anyone can beat you. If they intermingle their women and children with their strategic industry, you can't treat that any different from if they bring their women and children to the front line to hide behind while they shoot at you.
America didn't bomb any "women and children only, no contribution to the war effort" camps.
>>8170756
They were well aware that Japan was reliant on American oil
They were well aware that the embargo would force Japan into a situation of attacking the US/US allies
This is how you create the image of yourself being the "good guys".
Since you are the stronger force, you are able to let the other guy strike the first blow, securing the moral high ground while you murder millions, and hand half the world to communism.
>>8170778
At no point did strategic bombing in WW2 ever target industries
The whole POINT of it was to target women and children.
>>8170739
>>Stopped supplying Japan oil and steel which they were reliant on.
...for their war in Manchuria. During which some of the worst crimes against humanity were perpetrated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
>>8170783
>>They were well aware that the embargo would force Japan into a situation of attacking the US/US allies
the purpose of the embargo was to curb Japan's military aggression in Manchuria, they could have, you know just stopped invading China.
>>8170778
Its not about the gender or age of the solider but lets play with that idea of hiding behind woman and children.
>did the Japanese put children in the frontlines and hide behind them
No
>did the Japanese put house moms in the front lines and hide behind them?
No
Stop making up false situations to make your "argument" more convincing. Its painfully obvious we already have our awnser.
If this was Huston and Miami that was nuked im sure many of the people fighting for nuking would change their minds 180.
>>8170789
>>8170791
Incorrect
As we can tell from the timing, the embargo of oil & seizing of japanese assets occured 1 month after barbarossa, when FDR was desperate for his casus belli to enter WW2
Had nothing to do with anything Japan was doing, had only to do with the fact Japan was a German ally and were capable of being provoked into an attack.
Note: They had been trying to provoke Germany into an attack this whole time.
>>8170797
>>Huston
You mean Houston right? Houston is an overgrown cancer of a city, it's about time we nuke it to the ground and start over.
>>Miami
that's Florida, which is a horrible place in general, good riddance.
>>8170801
I don't know what the fuck you are talking about, Japan started invading North China in 1937 and trade sanctions were imposed in 1940.
The Nanking Massacre took place in 1937, trade sanctions were imposed in 1940.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Events_leading_to_the_attack_on_Pearl_Harbor
>>8170804
>lol I dont like thoes citys so its k
Just pic 2 city you do like its a comparison. I dont give a shit how you feel about Houston and miami personally.
>>8170816
Japan was a side issue to everything
The only importance of Japan to the US, was as a way of entering WW2
Literally says that on your wikipedia page
>"At least as early as October 8, 1940, ...affairs had reached such a state that the United States would become involved in a war with Japan. ... 'that if the Japanese attacked Thailand, or the Kra Peninsula, or the Dutch East Indies we would not enter the war, that if they even attacked the Philippines he doubted whether we would enter the war, but that they (the Japanese) could not always avoid making mistakes and that as the war continued and that area of operations expanded sooner or later they would make a mistake and we would enter the war.' ... ".
1940 scrap metal embargo being after Germany conquered France
Oil embargo in 41 being after Operation Barbarossa
>Thread about the use of plutonium
>degrades into ethical concern of if bombing innocent cilivans of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was in any way justifiable.
Good job /sci/
Historians will look at 4chan archives and think we're all idiots
>>8170840
1. I think you are all idiots now.
2. Nobody will keep this useless drivel except psychologists.
>>8166182
It's not as if very well educated men in western nations don't suddenly go bat shit crazy every now and again.
>>8170912
He was far from crazy anon
>>8169858
>> Not learning from the nazis and building all important infrastructure deep underground
>>8170826
You must be really young and naive anon. None of this pontificating about morality matters.
The Japanese were wrong and got what they deserved. Not because they waged a brutal war all across Asia that cost the lives of millions of civilians but because they lost the war.
You're putting too much thought into a very simple concept. If you lose a war you should be prepared to be treated as a loser. The only thing important about Japan's role in WWII was that they lost and were consequently treated as losers. Don't want your cities fire bombed or nuked? Simple solution, destroy your enemy's ability to do so. If you can't do that then either kill yourself or make the best out of subservience to a superior conqueror.
An entire nation got cucked and now some neckbeard on a Mongolian basket weaving message board is defending their honor. You're an even bigger loser than the Japanese during WWII.
>>8171089
Did you fail history? WWII set the precedent for nukes in the first fucking place. Jesus fuck you are uneducated and stupid.
>>8171089
> young and naive to not believe that the strong should rule over the weak
just gb2/pol/ if you can't handle other ideologies
>>8171089
Let me guess - you're a trump supporter. Right?
>>8171095
>WWII set the precedent for nukes in the first fucking place.
And? If Japan didn't want to get nuked perhaps they should have dropped a few nukes upon American cities to force the US to capitulate to their demands. Why didn't they?
>>8171098
>> young and naive to not believe that the strong should rule over the weak
Except that the strong should rule over the weak, this is how progress is made. Do you believe the world should be ruled by some barely literate lost tribe from the Amazon?
Also, its of particular irony that you would argue against the idea of the strong ruling over the weak in defense of Japan when the Japanese very much believed in this same ideology. Their racial/ethnic supremacy underlined a significant part of the war they waged in Asia. There's nothing inherently wrong with that aside from the fact that the Japanese overestimated their own superiority.
>>8171100
Not at all. I'm not American but even if I was I would not vote for either of the two primary candidates.
>>8171103
I am now unsure if you are an edgelord or terrifyingly stupid.
>>8171113
maybe you should stop replying to a fucking troll instead.
>>8171113
Care to explain what is either particularly edgy or stupid in my argument?
Both sides were guilty of war crimes, such is the nature of large scale warfare. The Allies certainly weren't without blame for the way they treated Japan in the preceding decades leading up to WWII and may even share some blame for Japan feeling they had to aggressively expand militarily.
But at the end of the day none of this matters. One side is not more moral than the other, but one side did win while the other lost. That is the only thing that matters. Had the Japanese had the ability to wage war, in particular nuclear war, within the borders of the US they certainly would have. The hypothetical morality of that is immaterial.
They overestimated their military/cultural supremacy and paid the price. Its really quite simple. No one needs to feel sorry for them or make excuses.
>>8166157
This.
>>8170840
I know, this has been one of the best threads I've seen on /sci/ in a long time. People are having an actual substantive discussion instead of just spewing memes about math vs engineering and whether or not free will actually exists.
>>8165373
Highschooler detected.
>>8166163
>>8166162
>>8166152
it's one of my favorites too
I have it saved on my phone and in the gallery app as you scroll left and right, it fades the other picture in from behind, so here I am, slowly scrolling through pictures (very slowly) and, behind whatever I was looking at, this wobbling duckhead starts to fade in from the blackness
lost my shit needless to say
>>8171103
Might makes right. The Domination shall yet rise!
Too bad South Africa got cucked tho.
>>8170716
Lol we bombed way more than 2 cities. People only care about Hiroshima and Nagasaki because muh atum bombs.
That's just the way war was.
Germans bombed civilians in the UK, the UK bombed civilians in Germany, the US bombed civilians in Japan, Japan bombed civilians in China. Everyone fucking did it.
>>8170711
>The US embargo of Japan was unprovoked aggression
>Japan invades half of Asia
>hurururr UNPROVEKD!!! glorius nippon dindu nuffin
>>8165373
Because terrorists are made up of low-T, low-IQ underachievers, and those that fund terrorism have no interest in total annihilation.
>>8171089
Either this is copypasta, or you're not an original thinker. I am getting absolutely uncanny deja vu right now.
>>8171100
Trump supporters are isolationists. If they were around in 1940, they would ask: "Why not sell the Japs all the oil they want? That Toojoo Hyedeeky may be a bad egg, but his money's green."
>>8166134
>In an effort to signal that I am not one of the ated enemy, I will deliberately underestimate their capabilities in a fashion that would be operationally dangerous if widely believed
Good call hero.
>>8172995
Weird. Its definitely not copypasta. As to not being an original thinker, not sure what I can say aside from I just quickly wrote that comment at 2am last night.
>>8172995
>Trump supporters are isolationists. If they were around in 1940, they would ask: "Why not sell the Japs all the oil they want? That Toojoo Hyedeeky may be a bad egg, but his money's green."
Better than FDR saying lets ruin european civilization and hand half the world to communism
All the problems we have today come from that time, him stuffing the supreme court with leftists was disastrous
>>8172932
It was the UK who started bombing civilians for the sake of mass murder
Germany attempted to respond but really wasn't capable of it.
Only the allies are such leftist animals that they think they can murder millions and be the good guys.
Democracy inevitably leads to ammoral psychopaths running things.
>>8173201
>Better than FDR saying lets ruin european civilization and hand half the world to communism
Yeah except WWII made Us the superpower it today is. While other countries were getting absolutely wrecked, US was expanding it's industrial output very fast. Unemployment went to zero during and after the war when the tank plants turned to produce cars. WWII was the real New Deal. Soviet Union never stood a chance. If Cuban crisis had gone nuclear, they would've been wrecked back to stone age due to american superiority in both numbers and quality of launchers and weapons. Soviet total stockpile was in 1962 about 1500 and US was over 20000 with 300 ICBMs to soviets couple launchers.
>>8165384
>Nuclear engineer here
>even weapons grade plutonium (~90% 239Pu) has a critical mass around 10kg
ayy lmao
first year or somethin?
>>8173374
WW2 is what made the US into the 50% white socialist hellhole it is today
>>8173387
The era of progressivism started when McKinley (I think it was McKinley) was shot and Teddy "Carry a Big Stick" Roosevelt was elected.
It was nearing it's end with FDR and Eisenhower.
>>8173401
*not elected...assumed the post.
forgive me, at 40 hours without sleep
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn-qE-h7s84
>>8169939
here comes the 404
>>8173201
>It was the UK who started bombing civilians for the sake of mass murder
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blitz
>but thu Nazis were actually the gud guys
Pathetic
>>8165373
because enriching uranium is an extremely energy intensive undertaking and requires large infrastructure to carry out.
>>8174909
Your own wikipedia article proves me right
>Pathetic
Meanwhile the daughters of brits are raped & abused in the tens of thousands by muslims
London just elected a muslim mayor who wants to install sharia law
But hey, those evil fking nazi's huh.
>>8174968
So you'd agree to allow the Luftwaffe to bomb London in exchange for deporting all Muslims from Britain? Is THAT what you're saying?
>>8174989
The luftwaffe bombed london because the brits started bombing German cities, since the brits were run by evil fucks like churchill
>>8167472
its only a warcrime if you lose the war m8.
>>8165545
sauce?
>>8174997
If the Brits are evil, the Nazis were both evil and stupid. Bombing London made it impossible to continue their campaign against the RAF and caused them to lose the battle of britain.
>>8165373
Plutonium 239 is manufactured not mined and enriched. You might as well ask why they don't go after Tritium, which would be far more devastating.
>>8177534
except tritium is much more difficult to obtain and handle
>>8177566
But I learned on Wikipedia that all you have to do is filter the water. Clearly something strange is going on!
>>8165373
there are a lot of unused opportunities for terrorism that are much simpler and still highly effective while surviving and not being caught
but even muzzies dont want to die. and those who actually do it tend to be so fucking stupid they dont manage to do anything better and more sophisticated than knife ot shoot up a place
>>8165373
Because they are goatfuckers with 80 IQ at maximun.
>>8171089
Becuase the Japanese killed many Chinese and people ruthlessly, that means you can justify killing jap citizens that have nothing to do with it?
So becuase of the many Holocausts by white europeans and slavery in America that black people and jews are allowed to kill non-jew white people as revenge?
GRAB YOUR GUNS MY BROWN AND JEW BROTHERS WE'RE GONNA REALLY HAVE WHITE GENOCIDE TONIGHT!
BETTER HIDE POL, YOU PREDICTED IT, NOW WE'RE COMMING!
>>8165373
because arabs are fucking retarded
how to make a nuke is public domain knowledge by now, I'm sure there are hundreds of journal articles and patents tangentially related to it enough that any physics/engineering Ph.D. can piece it together.
>>8179158
cum quick ;)
>>8171089
>American education
wew
>>8179158
>justify killing jap citizens that have nothing to do with it
I certainly believe that the citizens of a country are ultimately responsible for the actions of said country. If you as a citizen pay taxes or engage in any economic activity that pays for the state's war apparatus then you don't get to absolve yourself of any responsibility by simply saying "oh no, I didn't support the Nazi's" even though you funded their government. This holds true whether we're talking about Japanese civilians during WWII or American civilians today. I don't care if you didn't vote for Bush or protested against the Iraq war, if you engage in any economic activity that helps fund the US military then you are partially responsible for its actions. "Civilians" shouldn't just get a pass on the wars their governments wage simply because they aren't actively serving in the military.
>>8179158
>So becuase of the many Holocausts by white europeans and slavery in America that black people and jews are allowed to kill non-jew white people as revenge?
Some would argue that yes, this would be perfectly acceptable. The more important thing to consider is how the world would view such an event after Jews and blacks got their revenge. I would argue that if they did win such a confrontation they would have the ability to shape the post conflict narrative and their actions would be viewed favorably, and rightly so. History belongs to the winners.
>>8179158
>GRAB YOUR GUNS MY BROWN AND JEW BROTHERS WE'RE GONNA REALLY HAVE WHITE GENOCIDE TONIGHT!
This probably isn't a good idea since whites could rather easily exterminate all Jews and blacks off the face of the earth if they really felt compelled to. I say this as a non white.
>>8179312
I'm not American. I don't see how anything I said misrepresents the nature of war and how post war narratives are shaped by the winners.
>>8166612
>Strategic target
>Hiroshima
>Civilian city
>Nuclear bomb dropped near an elementary school
>Only strategic importance was it was the HQ of a relatively unimportant military garrison, with the vast majority of casualties being civilians
Sure thing buddy. But in all seriousness, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima was pure terrorism by definition. Drop a nuke on civilians in order to terrorize the whole country into unconditional surrender (Japan already offered conditional surrender but was refused by the US).
>>8166668
Japan sent Prince Konoe and other diplomats to the USSR in order to convince Stalin to help Japan with a peaceful negotiation of surrender with the United States. Japan made many offers of conditional surrender but the US refused them all.
In all honesty, and this is mostly how I see things, the bomb wasn't what made Japan surrender, the firebombing of Tokyo was much worse. It was the Stalin's declaration of war on Japan, and Japan losing it's last possible ally which made it surrender. In 1945, Japan's largest and most powerful army group, the Kwantung, was completely annihilated in a few weeks by it's only potential ally, the Soviet Union. An invasion of Japan by Russia was underway and Japan understood it was truly over at that moment. So yes, the atomic bombing weren't the decisive element in Japan's surrender.
>>8179389
All violence may as well be labeled as terrorism, the term is completely devoid of any meaningful definition not based on subjective political narratives of morality. The term "terrorism" is simply a buzzword used by those who gain an advantage in waging conventional warfare by representing those who use less conventional methods as automatically morally wrong.
US and coalition led bombing that results in civilian deaths in Afghanistan is no less a "terrorist" act than flying airplanes into the WTC.
>>8179389
>Drop a nuke on civilians
Again, I really dislike this view that "civilians" are somehow exempt from the actions of the governments they support.
>>8179389
>Japan already offered conditional surrender but was refused by the US
If you lose a war the victor is under no obligation to entertain your "conditional surrender". They get to set the terms, that's why its called winning. If you don't like those terms you could always try not waging, or subsequently losing a war.
>>8179405
>Japan made many offers of conditional surrender but the US refused them all.
While true this is ultimately unimportant. A country is obviously within its rights to try and surrender under more favorable terms but no one is under any obligation to accept such terms.
The real reason the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki is both those cities were centers of japanese christianity.
