Subject:
|
Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 Oct 2001 17:24:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
715 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > 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 one).
>
> 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.
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 tests, I expect that many would not have been convinced.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) 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)
|
133 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
