Genausowenig wie heute - über die leisen und dauernden Auswirkungen von Abgasen, Pflanzenschutzmitteln, Reinigungsmitteln und dergleichen mehr - ich verstehe, das ist analog gleich.Pluto hat geschrieben:Niemand hatte damals eine Ahnung von den potentiellen Gefahren!
Ich denke du redest hier außerhalb deines Kompetenzbereichs.2Lena hat geschrieben:Genausowenig wie heutePluto hat geschrieben:Niemand hatte damals eine Ahnung von den potentiellen Gefahren!
Pluto hat geschrieben:Vorher dachte man, Atome bestünden aus kleinen positivgeladenen Klösschen, gespickt mit negativ geladenen Elektronen.
Magdalena61 hat geschrieben:Herzlichen Glückwunsch zum 103. Geburtstag. Atömchen!
LG
Abischai hat geschrieben:Ich wette das waren keine 13,8 Mrd, sondern nur schlaffe 13,7 Mrd Jahre. Die Entstehung des Atoms war exakt 387.520 Jahre danach, weiß doch jedes Kind!
Ich halte die Wette!Abischai hat geschrieben:Ich wette das waren keine 13,8 Mrd, sondern nur schlaffe 13,7 Mrd Jahre. !
ThomasM hat geschrieben:Ist schon interessant, wie die Erinnerung an ein (auch noch "falsches") Atommodell zu solchen Diskussionen führt. Hier mal ein paar Fakten: Aus amerikanischer Sicht war der Einsatz der Bomben ein Erfolg, da Japan nach deren Abwurf kapitulierte und daher den Amerikanern eine vermutlich höchst verlustreiche Eroberung der japanischen Hauptinseln ersparte.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, the Supreme Commander of the Allied forces in Europe and one of the architects of the
successful campaign against Germany, was one of the dissenters. After the war, Eisenhower recalled his position
in 1945, asserting that “Japan was defeated and… dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary.†Eisenhower’s objection was, in part, a moral one; as he noted, “I thought our country should avoid shocking world opinion by
the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.
It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of
'face.'" Eisenhower recalled that his objection found an unreceptive audience with Secretary of War Henry
Stimson. In Eisenhower's own words, Stimson was “deeply perturbed by my attitude, almost angrily refuting the
reasons I gave for my quick conclusions.â€
In a separate document, Stimson himself concurred with Eisenhower’s conclusion that there was little active American attempt to respond to Japan’s peace feelers to prevent the use of the atomic weapons:
“No effort was made, and none was seriously considered, to achieve surrender merely in order not to have to use the bomb.â€
The year after the Japanese surrender, the U.S. government released its own Strategic Bombing Survey, an effort
to assess the effectiveness of dropping bombs on civilian populations, including the firebombs used in Europe
and the Pacific, and the atomic weapons detonated over Hiroshima and Tokyo (see Primary Source U.S. Strategic
Bombing Survey [1946]). Its findings suggested that the bombs were largely superfluous, and that Japan’s
surrender was all but guaranteed even without the threat of invasion. “Based on a detailed investigation of all
the facts,†the SBS concluded, “and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it
is the Survey's opinion that . . . Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped,
even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.â€Quelle:teachinghistory.org
Meint ihr, der hätte damit was anderes getan, als die USA mit den ihnen derzeit zur Verfügung stehenden Atmbomben - übrigens zwei verschiedene Modelle, eines wurde in Hiroschima am lebenden Objekt und das andere in Nagsaki getestet - veranstaltet haben?Pluto hat geschrieben:Abischai hat Recht.
Man kann froh sein, dass nicht Hitler die Bombe in seine Hände bekam. Nicht auszumalen was in Europa geschehen wäre, hätte ein Psychopath wie er, eine solche Waffe besssen.
Ein Schelm der böses dabei denkt.Pluto hat geschrieben:Fakt ist... Niemand hatte damals eine Ahnung von den potentiellen Gefahren!
Vertrauen in die Naturwissenschaft sollte man schon haben (habe ich auch) - es gibt keine mir bekannte Disziplin, die methodisch besser organisiert ist.Pluto hat geschrieben:Ich finde es schade, dass durch die Fehler der Vergangenheit, so viele Menschen das Vertrauen in die Naturwissenschaft verloren haben.
Aber liebe 2Lena, das waren doch die GUTEN, die darfst du doch nicht dafür kritisieren, dass sie mit fadenscheinigen, widersprüchlichen Begründungen einige hunderttausend Menschen umgebracht oder zu einem lansamen Tod verdammt haben.2Lena hat geschrieben:Ist dir nicht bekannt, was die Amis damit TATEN?Abischai hat geschrieben:somit hat der dann die amerikanische Atombombe konzipiert,...
Nicht auszudenken, wenn dies den Nazis gelungen wäre, ...
[...]Over the years, he [Truman] gave different, and contradictory, grounds for his decision. Sometimes he implied that he had acted simply out of revenge. To a clergyman who criticized him, Truman responded, testily:
Nobody is more disturbed over the use of Atomic bombs than I am but I was greatly disturbed over the unwarranted attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor and their murder of our prisoners of war. The only language they seem to understand is the one we have been using to bombard them.88
Truman [...] on August 9, 1945, he stated: "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians."89
This, however, is absurd. [...] Hiroshima was a city, inhabited by some three hundred thousand people, which contained military elements. In any case, since the harbor was mined and the U.S. Navy and Air Force were in control of the waters around Japan, whatever troops were stationed in Hiroshima had been effectively neutralized.
On other occasions, Truman claimed that Hiroshima was bombed because it was an industrial center. But, as noted in the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey, "all major factories in Hiroshima were on the periphery of the city – and escaped serious damage."90 The target was the center of the city.
Moreover, the notion that Hiroshima was a major military or industrial center is implausible on the face of it.
The city had remained untouched through years of devastating air attacks on the Japanese home islands, and never figured in Bomber Command's list of the 33 primary targets.92
Thus, the rationale for the atomic bombings has come to rest on a single colossal fabrication, which has gained surprising currency: that they were necessary in order to save a half-million or more American lives. These, supposedly, are the lives that would have been lost in the planned invasion of Kyushu in December, then in the all-out invasion of Honshu the next year, if that was needed. But the worst-case scenario for a full-scale invasion of the Japanese home islands was forty-six thousand American lives lost.93 The ridiculously inflated figure of a half-million for the potential death toll – nearly twice the total of U.S. dead in all theaters in the Second World War – is now routinely repeated in high-school and college textbooks.[...]
Leo Szilard was the world-renowned physicist who drafted the original letter to Roosevelt that Einstein signed, instigating the Manhattan Project. In 1960, shortly before his death, Szilard stated another obvious truth:
If the Germans had dropped atomic bombs on cities instead of us, we would have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them.
The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a war crime worse than any that Japanese generals were executed for in Tokyo and Manila. If Harry Truman was not a war criminal, then no one ever was.
