- #36
Pengwuino
Gold Member
- 5,123
- 20
Quick answer stoned: From what I remember, the military's buildings and tokyo city's buildings were pretty much at the same place i believe so you would have just nuked Tokyo instead. Also, weather was a factor. Also, it had to be an almost guaranteed run (you have 1 nuke per mission, 1 chance, lucky fighter or a few AAA guns hitting their mark meant a billion dollars falling 20,000 feet out of the sky). There were about 11 targets designated and one was tokyo (which was actually going to be the third target). Japan was also not defeated. If they were defeated, they would have surrendered immediately after the first nuke and even immediately after the 2nd. There is also a huge amount of evidence saying hte japanese were going to "fight to the death". Surrender for teh Japanese was like... it was like disobeying God himself. They also had a sizeable and scarily modern airforce hidden in their mountain ranges. Many of the airplanes were jet-powered but thankfully, most were not completed. Also, you are getting too deep into the attitute that dropping an a-bomb is some sort of unholy act. Also, they were not simply civilian targets. Along with that, civilian targets had been fair game in the European theatre. The firebombing of Dresden is a regretable example of that (which actually was worse in some peoples eyes then the a-bombs... imagine having your city slowely burn to the ground vs. being vaporized in 1/2 a second).
Long answer: that's off topic, let's talk about Einstein.
What i don't understand, and what one of my professors was curious about, is to why scientists are held in such a super high regard when it comes to non-science matters. He noted that "whenever someone asks me about politics, they always assume that since I am a physicist, my word is the absolute truth when in fact, i probably know much less about other subjects such as politics then your average person. I don't know why people do it".
Long answer: that's off topic, let's talk about Einstein.
What i don't understand, and what one of my professors was curious about, is to why scientists are held in such a super high regard when it comes to non-science matters. He noted that "whenever someone asks me about politics, they always assume that since I am a physicist, my word is the absolute truth when in fact, i probably know much less about other subjects such as politics then your average person. I don't know why people do it".
Last edited: