<font color="cyan">I thought those were Atomic, not nuclear?

I believed there to be a difference, but I stand to be corrected?!?</font></font>[/QUOTE]Atomic and nuclear are synonymous. Fission and fusion are not.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit with fission bombs (powered by uranium). Modern fission weapons use plutonium, and modern fusion (so-called thermonuclear) weapons have a plutonium bomb as the trigger.

Would the world be better off without nukes?

Would it mean I'd have to give up my microwave?

I think you make a good point, daan.

BTW, 50 USC 47(f) provides a bit of insight on the Nuclear v. Atomic issue:

(a)
The term ''atomic energy'' means all forms of energy released in the course of nuclear fission or nuclear transformation.

(b)
The term ''atomic weapon'' means any device utilizing atomic energy, exclusive of the means for transporting or propelling the device (where such means is a separable and divisible part of the device), the principal purpose of which is for use as, or for development of, a weapon, a weapon prototype, or a weapon test device.

(c)
The term ''special nuclear material'' means plutonium, or uranium enriched in the isotope 233 or in the isotope 235, or any other material which is found to be special nuclear material pursuant to the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).

For lots of cool info and pics of nukes, go to this thoroughly invigorating site detailing Atomic Tourist Hotspots:
http://www.atomictraveler.com/AtomicMuseums.htm

Speculating on what Hitler may or not have done is kinda pointless. Nor do I think retaliation would have been a deterrent. WWII still went on after the Firestorms of Dresden (granted not much longer) and that was only a conventional attack. BTW, Dresden was the single most destructive sortie of WWII with over 150K civilian casualties, more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

Yes indeed. And a subject usually swept over more so, because there is no political axe to grind with the issue. ;)

The firebombing of Tokyo achieved similar results; Japan was ready to surrender after the first nuke - the second was just pure nastiness. The US dropped the second so they could tell the Russians they had no more in inventory.

I believe Sir Krustin has just made a remark that's going to derail this whole thread. Sit back and watch the fireworks go!! [img]graemlins/shooter18.gif[/img]

Here's a link that seems quite credible, and I admit I haven't read it all yet.
http://www.dannen.com/decision/

[ 01-08-2003, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

:D Just realized that, myself, TL.

It's a well-rehearsed thread around a few friends of mine, one of them a history major. We both believe that Jimmy Dolittle would have been executed as a war criminal had the tables been turned.

Back on topic ....

I think there are a number of technologies that the world sould be better off without (please don't take my engineers membership card!) - alot that are usually considdered good too. As for wether the world would be more peaceful with out "WoMD"? No I don't think so, as there are much deeper seeded problems than the "size of everyones weapon".

Because nukes gave us an incentive to develop the missile technology that was later used to go to the moon, I think I've decided we would not be better off without them.