USA very hypocritical

sorry bud no they're not. look at this.http://people.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb1.htm
you will see they ar enot the same moron
Dont' come running to me when you cut your legs off with a lawnmower!!

They were nuclear bombs guy, It was fission bombs compared to Fusion bombs (the ones we used today) it was about 1000x less yeild than a hydrogen bomb. Regardless it was still a nuclear bomb.


We pay our debt sometimes.

a nuclear bomb fuses a nitrogen and hydrogen atom into one larger atom. an atomic bomb splits an atom.


Dont' come running to me when you cut your legs off with a lawnmower!!

Actually fusion fuses two hydrogen atoms together and fission splits Uranium atoms creating a cascading effect.


We pay our debt sometimes.

from the website:
'The first nuclear bombs were fission devices, and the later fusion bombs required a fission-bomb trigger. We will discuss the designs of the following devices:
Fission bombs (in general)
Gun-triggered fission bomb (Little Boy), which was detonated over Hiroshima, Japan, in 1945
Implosion-triggered fission bomb (Fat Man), which was detonated over Nagasaki, Japan, in 1945
Fusion bombs (in general)
Teller-Ulam design of a hydrogen fusion bomb, which was test-detonated on Elugelap Island in 1952'

That is a list of 'the first nuclear bombs' and includes both Little Boy and Fat Man. What more do you want...your own website just proved you wrong. Atomic and nuclear are used interchangably.
i ski for Head

Also fusions bombs are set off by a fission bomb. They are built in various layers, without the energy and heat created by a fission bomb, fusion would not be possible


We pay our debt sometimes.

^yeah, thats why scientist who are trying to build a fusion reactor need to be able to contain a one million degree reaction


-------------------

Nuclear bomb is just a generic term to refer to both fission bombs and fusion bombs (which are also known as hydrogen bombs.) Actually, strangly enough, if you read the Tom Clancy book Sum of all Fears, it goes into GREAT detail on how nuclear weapons work, down to the smallest details.
-Andy

---ppp---

discovery channel does a lot on it too. fusion much more power full, explodes inwards or somthing
Want a free ipod, click here
If you have any questions on how this works, send me a message or email me

Getting away from technicalities of calling a bomb a bomb...

First off, US ceased trading with Japan, cutting off petrol leaving Japan with only 2yrs reserve.
Japan then made that attack on Pearl Harbour, by General Yamamoto, who studied in the US and knew of its power. He developed the plan to bomb Pearl Harbour knowing they could not defeat the US.
Yes it was 'sneaky' but its not as devestating as everyone is making. It took, what 2mths to repair the ships? Another year to make many more...
The nuclear bombs dropped on Japan were not neccessary as Japan was in negotiations for a peace treaty. Only clause was that it wasn't considered 'unconditional surrender' just yet. Why 2 bombs and not just one? Made a big point with 1...or because the US were 'flexing their nuts' and scaring the world *cough* Russians into thinking they had an endless supply of Nukes. (those were the only 2 at the time)

It wasn't ONLY the US that made Japan surrender, as someone stated earlier, the Russians attacked Japan (Manchuria) exactly 3mths after the eastern front ended. Rolling its tanks into the country 'flexing their nuts' as they did have the largest land army in the world. So Japan, no where to go on land, and getting smoked by the Americans on the sea, surrendered.

by the way, 100,000people dead in the first atomic bomb that everyone is up in arms about...
50 Million people (civi and military) died in World War II.
20 Million of those people were Russian.


By the way, I really hate it when people say the americans saved the world. They joined 2yrs after the war started, and half heartedly then aswell. And why then? Because the German submarines prevented the US from trading with the Brits and was consequently losing money. Fresh troops, fresh supplies, the war would have been different if isolationists didn't have their way and the US came into the fight at the BEGINNING.

Lurk more noob. And read my earlier post. Japan was not in peace negotiations with the United States at the time, and the US had an extremely major role in World War 2, not 'half-hearted' as you state.


-Andy

---ppp---

Sorry posted under the wrong login.
You are a noob in comparison with I.

Recheck your research dude as Japan was in negotiations of peace with the United States.

United States took 2yrs to join the war and another 2yrs to do anything significant. If it weren't for the Russians fighting to the bitter end, there would not have been a world for the US to 'save.' Oh wait, I did forget, the US gave the Russian tanks, tanks they absolutly hated and thought of as death traps compared to the German tanks.

I forgot who said it, but World War II ended because Hitler lost the war, unfortunately not the Allies winning the war.
_______________________
Its not the size of the army, but the fury of its onslaught

hmm I agree with you for most part, accepted the 'half-hearted thing': two years till the Us had a significant role? Torch, the Anglo-American invasion of North Africa began somewhere november 1942 if I remember well. And they gave a lot of aid in supplies to the Brits before december 1941.

You're absolutely right about the US tanks being deathtraps tough, and the reason is fairly simple: then ran on gas, while the Germs ran on diesel fuel. The Germ tanks were also better in armor and armament, but the US's Shermans were produced in much larger numbers so...
Anyhow, that hasn't got anything to do with ethics & morality off course.

Sorry posted under the wrong login.
You are a noob in comparison with I.

Join date/member number doesn't mean you aren't a newbie (or acting like one).

Recheck your research dude as Japan was in negotiations of peace with the United States.

The Government of Japan was not in direct negotiations of peace prior to the second atomic bomb. Parts of the military were, but not the government itself.

United States took 2yrs to join the war and another 2yrs to do anything significant.

Midway in June of '42? Guadalcanal in August of '42? North Africa invasion in November '42? Invasion of Italy in '43? What?

If it weren't for the Russians fighting to the bitter end, there would not have been a world for the US to 'save.'

In an alliance, all the members are needed to accomplish a goal, its been argued that without a second front, or if Hitlers invasion of the USSR were timed a little differently, things would have had a very different outcome, and you might have wound up speaking German as a first language.

Oh wait, I did forget, the US gave the Russian tanks, tanks they absolutly hated and thought of as death traps compared to the German tanks.

So what? What does the technology of the times have to do with anything? German engineering was superior but the mass and willpower of the Russian forces were able to overpower the severly weakened German fighting machine because of their inability to fight in the winter.

I forgot who said it, but World War II ended because Hitler lost the war, unfortunately not the Allies winning the war.

A loss for the enemy is a win in my book. Just because Hitler made mistakes and thats why the Allies were enabled a swift win at the time doesn't make it any less of a war. Do you have any idea how many people were killed by that man's influence over his country? We're LUCKY he lost the war.


-Andy

---ppp---

he spelled innocent wrong...........
______________________________________



buy a hat, help a kid

Eh, flanker, I re read that first post and realized I was pretty much agreeing with you in a lot of points, sorry for jumping into it too quick, I got all excited there was a heated discussion on World War 2 I wasn't thinking straight, lol
-Andy

---ppp---

You're right, we are lucky we won the war.

Italian Invasion of 1943 would be 4yrs after the war began.

Where in my original post (ninja29) was I responding or acting like a newbie? You looked at the member number and 3 posts. You should get off your high horse of being a long time member or this site, and read the posts not member number.

I really like your statement of the Alliance and everyone having a part in winning the war. Now ask the average American and they (US) will say WWII was won without any help from outher nations.
Thats my main point to posting, there is much more that occured than what people are aware of.
_______________________
Its not the size of the army, but the fury of its onslaught

I'm also not attacking you personally, I just wish more people would actually comprehend the 'world' part of WWII.
_______________________
Its not the size of the army, but the fury of its onslaught

I was kidding about the noob thing, lol, but that statement does have SOME merit... I know lots of people with 4,000 plus posts who are complete noobs.


-Andy

---ppp---

i agree, there are a ton of people that have thousands of posts that just post complete shit. it seems like NS.com has become a sesspool of shitty posts.