I’ve been a “movie buff” for many decades but at my age have more or less given up going to the cinema. BBC4 is currently repeating a 1980s serial of the same name, a much more straightforward telling of his story than the Christopher Nolan film which I understand goes in for spectacular cinematic special effects which I’m normally not a fan of. I’ve no problems with a 3-hour film though, I’ve sat through 4-hour films in the past!
1 Like
I thought that was relatively common knowledge, but then I’m oldish. But so is Rich (or what do you go by, @RichardG? ; - ).
Sorry, got confused over the difference. To be honest, after the Nuclear bombs I am surprised the H bombs were ever concieived. Maybe as part of the arms race? We got one better than yours?
You end up with the doomsday device of Planet of the Apes. To all intents and purposes the combined arsenals around the world are more than adequate to do the job. What’s one more?
I guess the only morality is whehtehr they are used or not?
Richard
I have no objection to “Rich”. I do not allow “Dick”. Only my great-grandfather was allowed to use that name because I was named after him Richard and he was known as Dick to his mates…
The movie reveals that the idea for the H bomb came almost immediately while they were working on the atomic bomb for their first test. But since the H bomb requires an atomic bomb to detonate the fusion explosion, it made more sense to work on the atomic bomb first.
2 Likes
Didn’t know that.
Fair enough
Still think once the fusion had been demonstrated all similar developments should have been outlawed. But I guess that is nanny mentality.
I wonder about the morality of the bomb that destroys flesh and keeps buildings intact?
Richard
That would be the so called neutron bomb which maximizes radiation rather than explosive blast. It seems most nations are reluctant to admit even testing such devices. It is known that U.S., France, and China have tested them however.
One redeeming feature of these neutron bombs is less residual radiation, so the land is safe for human habitation afterwards.
But what sort of a mind could conceive it? Can anyone justify the invention?
Richard
1 Like
The science is compelling in its own right, because it contributes to understanding the very make up of matter itself.
As a physicist it doesn’t seem so bad to me.
Far worse from my perspective is the work on chemical and biological weapons because the focus is directly upon effects on the human body.
Humans seem to have a fascination with explosions as testified by the worldwide use of fireworks for entertainment. I sometimes wonder at the attraction of all this noise and smoke.
1 Like
I am sorry but even scientists must understand the consequences of their work. Can you really be that detached?
And I fail to see the difference between chemical destruction and radiating destruction. The result is, well, destruction.
Richard
You are probably right.
People can be fascinated by very different things. And it seems likely that a biologist or chemist could say something similar for these other weapons. I think there is some degree of detachment inherent in all the work of science. But the human side of us does intrude eventually and we look at the human cost. Such was the case of Oppenheimer even though Truman told him face to face that the decision to kill those people in Japan was his not Oppenheimer’s (one of the interesting scenes in the film).
3 Likes
i thought that was a key scene as well. Truman pulling out his handkerchief for effect. One might conclude that Truman as well must have agonized over it but due to his position and also for his own sanity could not dwell on it or even face it directly, thus his harsh dismissal of Oppy. You have to have a bit of a sociopathic streak to be president and make those decisions, and it strikes me that Truman was a bit light in the sociopathic scale, thus he relied on denial and rationalization to survive. Oppenheimer did as well, as in his speech to the staff after the bombing, he spoke hard words but had nightmarish visions.
2 Likes
It would be useful to remember that no one had a real idea of how much damage the first atomic bomb would do. The plan was to drop the first one on August 3 or 4 and the second on August 10. But, a typhoon intervened and the first drop was delayed to August 6. Think about information. Planes flew over Hiroshima all day and took photos on Aug 6. The photos were developed there, then flown to Hawaii, flown to San Francisco, flown to Washington. Three days of flights. Another typhoon was coming, so the second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki before the leadership in Washington had any idea of the damage. After seeing the damage, President Truman halted the plan for a third bomb that was starting to make its way from Los Alamos to the Pacific. Remember, Truman was an artillery captain in WWI and had seen war first hand.
Time for another story about Kyoto. When the targeting committee was working on possible cities on which to drop the bomb, about half dozen were listed and conventional bombing stopped. The idea ws to be able to clearly observe the damage done by the atomic bomb. Secretary of War, Henry Stimson…whose great grandmother had recounted to him her conversations with George Washington…asked for the list. Only with great reluctance was that list provided. Stimson then ordered Kyoto removed from the list. His point was that in the reconstruction of Japanese society their shrines and history would be important, and should not be destroyed. This is called civilian control of the military. Stimson made it clear that HE was the ultimate authority. Kyoto was not bombed. We visited Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Kyoto within the last decade…and the only comment about the difference was that the public transportation in Kyoto was not as good in the other two. In Hiroshima, we learned that trams were running and power was restored in Hiroshima suburbs within 48 hours of the explosion.
1 Like
Ponder another line from the Gondoliers…“when everybody is somebody, nobody is anybody”.
2 Likes
If I am not mistaken, that scene was in the movie, with his stating to remove it as a target for its cultural value, and also mentioned he and his wife spent their honeymoon there. I was reading in one review that the movie was really a very accurate depiction of events.
1 Like
More relevant to many of the conversations here is
“Of that there is no manner of doubt;
No possible, probable shadow of doubt;
No possible doubt whatever.”
“No possible doubt whatever.”
3 Likes
Neutron bombs. I remember back some years there was quite the debate about the morality of those! There was an interesting idea put forth in a letter to the editor in a news magazine suggesting that once all the dead were cleared out of a city, the housing and shops could all be given to the poor, as though that somehow made the bombs more moral.
And less crap to clean up.
If you study nuclear physics even as limited as it was back then the idea is obvious; if you’re a politician who wants to keep cities intact if you’re going to conquer them, it’s attractive.
And the popularity of the ones that go “Boom!”
1 Like
And General Leslie Groves was unhappy with that decision – he wanted to drop another half dozen bombs!
(I learned about that from educational materials they used to have at the Hanford nuke plant).
1 Like
Thanks for the extra information, William. I learned something new from you.
1 Like