Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
that is an argument for building a bomb,I watched the documentary about The War, and in that, the point was made about the atom bomb. The Germans were well on the way to producing one, and also the Japanese. It was a race to whoever got there first.
not one for how, why and when or where or whether to use it
the V2 warhead was about 2000 lbs with 200 mile range
Abombs were about 10,000 lbs
you mean they were designing/inventing a delivery system?
the US used graphite to moderate the ''reactor''
the Germans did not
the Germans were not that close to an Abomb and/or a delivery system
The Nazi Nuclear Program – How Close Were the Nazis to Developing an Atomic Bomb?At best this would have been far less destructive than the atomic bombs dropped on Japan
.....remember--the Allies are not snowmen just sitting there = the bombing of Germany starts to get effective/sizable/sustained/etc into 1944 and 1945 = much harder for the Germans to do anything efficiently/significantly
I watched the documentary about The War, and in that, the point was made about the atom bomb. The Germans were well on the way to producing one, and also the Japanese. It was a race to whoever got there first.
that is an argument for building a bomb,
not one for how, why and when or where or whether to use it
What is your point?The Japanese were not going to surrender. Not even at the thought of that bomb.
Generals committing suicide, people jumping off cliffs. Kamikaze pilots destroying American ships. Hundreds of civilian prisoners of war trapped in horrendous internment camps.
the V2 could not have carried a 10,000 lb warheadthe V2 warhead was about 2000 lbs with 200 mile range
Abombs were about 10,000 lbs
you mean they were designing/inventing a delivery system?
the US used graphite to moderate the ''reactor''
the Germans did not
the Germans were not that close to an Abomb and/or a delivery system
The Nazi Nuclear Program – How Close Were the Nazis to Developing an Atomic Bomb?At best this would have been far less destructive than the atomic bombs dropped on Japan
.....remember--the Allies are not snowmen just sitting there = the bombing of Germany starts to get effective/sizable/sustained/etc into 1944 and 1945 = much harder for the Germans to do anything efficiently/significantly
The V2 with nuke warheads could have brought down England, and stopped the strategic bombing campaign. That could in itself changed the outcome of the war, and yes Germany was developing a longer range guided, ballistic missile. That technology directly contributed to us getting to the Moon.
the US only developed TWO bombs by August 1945the V2 warhead was about 2000 lbs with 200 mile range
Abombs were about 10,000 lbs
you mean they were designing/inventing a delivery system?
the US used graphite to moderate the ''reactor''
the Germans did not
the Germans were not that close to an Abomb and/or a delivery system
The Nazi Nuclear Program – How Close Were the Nazis to Developing an Atomic Bomb?At best this would have been far less destructive than the atomic bombs dropped on Japan
.....remember--the Allies are not snowmen just sitting there = the bombing of Germany starts to get effective/sizable/sustained/etc into 1944 and 1945 = much harder for the Germans to do anything efficiently/significantly
The V2 with nuke warheads could have brought down England, and stopped the strategic bombing campaign. That could in itself changed the outcome of the war, and yes Germany was developing a longer range guided, ballistic missile. That technology directly contributed to us getting to the Moon.
saw the movies. not new news LOL...as a matter of fact I'm reading The Winter Fortress: the Epic Mission to Sabotage Hitler's Atomic Bomb right now....this was the mission to destroy the heavy water the Germans used
..of course the book talks about the German on how close the Germans were to building a bomb
I watched the documentary about The War, and in that, the point was made about the atom bomb. The Germans were well on the way to producing one, and also the Japanese. It was a race to whoever got there first.that is an argument for building a bomb,
not one for how, why and when or where or whether to use it
What is your point?The Japanese were not going to surrender. Not even at the thought of that bomb.
Generals committing suicide, people jumping off cliffs. Kamikaze pilots destroying American ships. Hundreds of civilian prisoners of war trapped in horrendous internment camps.
Maybe a little clarification here? You stated others were trying to a build a bomb too. This in the context of a debate over whether Truman should have used a bomb, or was a bad man for having used the bomb.
You stated others were trying to a build a bomb too.
I stated that the above statement is an argument for building a bomb. Not one for how, why and when or where or whether to use one.
So again, what is your point?
LBJ lost 2 wars for US, the war in Vietnam and the War on Poverty. The last one has cost US 22 trillion dollars and many black lives in the inner city. Could that be similar with LBJ sending the troops to a war overseas that couldn't be won either? I must speculate on this.....Wow! Revisionist bs!LBJ sent Troops to Vietnam on a faked bogus "crisis". The knee jerk media backed him at first like they back all democrats and he set the rules so that the U.S. could win every battle and still lose the war. Just when it seemed that the strategy of wearing down the V.C. might be working, LBJ quit the effort and gave General Giap breathing room and recruiting opportunities. Meanwhile unelected and unappointed clerks in the CIA were in charge and the Generals stood back and took the flack.
It was the media that exposed his deceit . and he was still a great man and a great president
and facts are it was the CIA that warned about a losing battle to win the war,.
get yer facts straight troll man
Make the world safer, like the UN? Bwaaaahhaaaaaahhaaaaa.especially the ones on the ground who argue military strategy and tactics, as if being in a uniform is equivalent to having attended West Point. LOLYou fellas are more clever than me, but i do remember the old saying "you had to be there". People who were in or around during the war have a unique perspective.
Many are the very same arseholes who will say (on a stool at the end of the bar at Vets club with cheap beers) "What we need is a war" when talking about tough economic times. And some of the same ones who voted for Trump and support pulling troops out of nations and backing pulling out of alliances that have made the world safer - not safe - against all advice of experienced diplomats foreign service personnel and military leaders
Interesting. You must be very young, or had any deep interest in history. Okay.I watched the documentary about The War, and in that, the point was made about the atom bomb. The Germans were well on the way to producing one, and also the Japanese. It was a race to whoever got there first.that is an argument for building a bomb,
not one for how, why and when or where or whether to use it
What is your point?The Japanese were not going to surrender. Not even at the thought of that bomb.
Generals committing suicide, people jumping off cliffs. Kamikaze pilots destroying American ships. Hundreds of civilian prisoners of war trapped in horrendous internment camps.
Maybe a little clarification here? You stated others were trying to a build a bomb too. This in the context of a debate over whether Truman should have used a bomb, or was a bad man for having used the bomb.
You stated others were trying to a build a bomb too.
I stated that the above statement is an argument for building a bomb. Not one for how, why and when or where or whether to use one.
So again, what is your point?
To end the war with Japan, because it was dragging on too long.
And also to be ahead of the game with nuclear. I wasn't aware of that 'race' till I watched the documentary. Opened up another way of thinking about those past events. For me at least.
You fellas are more clever than me, but i do remember the old saying "you had to be there". People who were in or around during the war have a unique perspective.
especially the ones on the ground who argue military strategy and tactics, as if being in a uniform is equivalent to having attended West Point. LOL
Many are the very same arseholes who will say (on a stool at the end of the bar at Vets club with cheap beers) "What we need is a war" when talking about tough economic times. And some of the same ones who voted for Trump and support pulling troops out of nations and backing pulling out of alliances that have made the world safer - not safe - against all advice of experienced diplomats foreign service personnel and military leaders
Please do not confuse safe with safer. Don't be a complete fool. Try responding to what is posted, not something you make up. Stop being a trollMake the world safer, like the UN? Bwaaaahhaaaaaahhaaaaa.
UN peacekeepers accused of killing and rape in Central African Republic
So the war on poverty was lost before 1968?LBJ lost 2 wars for US, the war in Vietnam and the War on Poverty. The last one has cost US 22 trillion dollars and many black lives in the inner city. Could that be similar with LBJ sending the troops to a war overseas that couldn't be won either? I must speculate on this.....
What is the point of the book? The title is off putting, as it starts with "Lie" as a conclusion. Is it a conclusion in search of premises ?A Bright Shining Lie by Vann is a very good read on the Vietnam War/corruption/etc
so two full pages on track? That's the Gold Standard here.This could have been a great thread about the Vietnam War and the social unrest the country went through because of it.
But unfortunately it went way off course by the third page. ....
