 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —David Eaton
|
| | | (...) From what I heard from a US history teacher, the question was being considered as to whether or not to test on an uninhabited island. We were considering "demonstrating" on the island to other nations, but were worried that "What if the tests (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | (...) Why was there no demo explosion in an uninhabited island to convince the Japanese of the power of the bomb? What would be lost? If it failed - nobody would know. If the real thing failed, the Japanese would have a bomb (or at least bits of (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) No, the idea was that they'd invite other nations to send representatives to witness the event-- not that we couldn't have merely recorded the event anyway. At least such was my understanding. I don't remember if it was explicitly said, or (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) I'd question that part. Not too many years earlier a good chunk of the US populace believed we were being invaded by Mars. Even today, credulous lout believe that the moon landings were faked, so if we'd simply shown a film of our nuclear (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) True-- although mainly I think it would be evidence provided twofold-- I.E. "Here are before and after shots of this island, here's a videotape of us blowing it up, and here it is now. Go to the island and verify yourself if you don't believe (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
