Notices
Results 1 to 36 of 36

Thread: manhatttan project

  1. #1 manhatttan project 
    Forum Ph.D. Heinsbergrelatz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    994
    Ok so i was reading some pdf files on the manhattan project and my question is; "is it true that the war pacifist einstein urged the FDR to build the abomb?" if so then ummmmmm. . . Anyway what do you guys say about this?


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




    "Mathematicians stand on each other's shoulders."- Carl Friedrich Gauss


    -------------------
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: manhatttan project 
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Heinsbergrelatz
    is it true that the war pacifist einstein urged the FDR to build the abomb?
    Look for yourself:

    http://hypertextbook.com/eworld/einstein.shtml


    The short answer is, yes. Einstein later expressed regret for his role in this and the position he took.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,043
    Einstein really did no more than put his name to a letter to FDR urging him to develop an atomic weapon. Einstein was rightly concerned about the possibility of Hitler developing such a weapon first. In Einsteins place I would have done the same thing.
    From the Wiki; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstei...C3%A1rd_letter
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: manhatttan project 
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Heinsbergrelatz
    Anyway what do you guys say about this?
    The real challenge I see is finding that balance between performing research and doing certain work and controlling the undesirable outcomes of that work. In this instance, if we didn't do it, the Germans would have, and if not the Germans, then someone else we found unsavory. It's ultimately a very difficult choice between worse and worser options, really.

    Also, not sure this is a physics forum question. Perhaps General Discussion or History?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: manhatttan project 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Heinsbergrelatz
    Ok so i was reading some pdf files on the manhattan project and my question is; "is it true that the war pacifist einstein urged the FDR to build the abomb?" if so then ummmmmm. . . Anyway what do you guys say about this?
    Einstein signed a letter composed by Fermi Wigner and Szilard.

    They recognized the potential for the atom bomb and the possibility that the Nazis would develop such a device. Einstein agreed. Einstein provided the benefit of his reputation.

    As a result of the Manhattan Project many lives were saved.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    416
    as i have just recently finished debating the very topic of the pros and cons of america being the first nation to develop atomic bombs and only nation to use them i feel i should point out the countless thousands instantly killed when we dropped the bombs on hiroshima and nagasaki and the additional costs of using atomic weaponry including the irradiation of the areas surrounding the blast.

    although the men of the day did not have our current information it is in my mind desirable that we had not conceived the bomb as germany was defeated before we or they could complete the weapon, and it was in large part the tactics employed by the US in dropping the bomb(namely, not warning the russians that we had it and were going to use it on japan) that scared the russians with it and caused that nice little arms race.

    inow i agree, although i think it should qualify as a history topic and need not be moved to the general forum.
    physics: accurate, objective, boring
    chemistry: accurate if physics is accurate, slightly subjective, you can blow stuff up
    biology: accurate if chemistry is accurate, somewhat subjective, fascinating
    religion: accurate if people are always right, highly subjective, bewildering
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    162
    I agree that this is a topic for general discussion.

    Regarding how an area of research is applied by the military,well...the military has attempted to weaponize every possible area of scientific research since the discovery of fire.

    It would have been nice if Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, Hitler and Hirohito had stood out in front of their massed armies and clubbed each other into submission. Then their armies could all have gone home and the war would have been over with just three or four casualties. We wouldn't have to worry about what scientific research was used to make new weapons.

    This just isn't the way it works in the real world, though.

    Chris
    It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow.
    Robert H. Goddard - 1904
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by CSMYTH3025
    It would have been nice if Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, Hitler and Hirohito had stood out in front of their massed armies and clubbed each other into submission.
    I see the opportunity for a brilliant stage play here, wherein we are party to the pre-fight discussion between the protagonists. This would allow an exploration of the character of each leader, the reasons behind the war, and the nature of politcal morality. Whichever of you eventually writes this, please remember my 10% commission. (Alternatively, I'll take 3% of gross.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not militarily necessary, nor was invasion, blockade of Japan would have been sufficient and back-channel surrender negotiations through the Vatican were underway at the time.

    As the last Axis power with a destroyed military Japan was no longer a threat and these actions are WAR CRIMES, period.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince
    Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not militarily necessary, nor was invasion, blockade of Japan would have been sufficient and back-channel surrender negotiations through the Vatican were underway at the time.

    As the last Axis power with a destroyed military Japan was no longer a threat and these actions are WAR CRIMES, period.
    And how would you characterise the deaths that would have resulted through starvation and malnutrition and breakdown of infra structure if Japan had simply been blockaded?
    And why do you consider, apparently, that atomic bombing was more reprehensible than firebombing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    I think we consider it worse because of the horribly slow way it kills for those that survive the blast effects and the effects on the environment and people even decades later.

    Was it necessary? I think as you suggest it was probably better than the suffering that would have ensued from years of a blockage. Even after the two nukes, Japan only narrowly accepted its defeat.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Firebombing is equally reprehensible, and your inference is groundless. The Japanese position was untenable, the Allies knew it and so did the Japanese. Blockade would have been more humane than bombing. And were bombing necessary, something like the Berlin airlift would have been an option to convince them of our benign intentions and make them more amenable to surrender.

    One of the great national legends of Japan concerns the 47 ronin who avenge their wrongfully killed master- I think it was unwise to inflict such wanton cruelty on a people so enamored of revenge, but what is done is done and War Criminal Truman is safely in his grave- too bad all his apologists are not.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    It could be argued that the bombings prevented future deaths from battles with countries like Russia. You simply cannot state (and maintain any degree of credibility or validity) that more people died as a result of the bombing than would have without it.

    You don't know, nobody knows, and nobody can know... Period. The downstream implications are complex at best, and incomprehensible at worst. Those bombings may have prevented dictatorial leaders elsewhere from mounting attacks for fear of similar response from the US. The lack of those bombings may have caused the Japanese people to focus more on war than on medicine and technology, and millions could have died from that.

    I don't know. You don't know. You can disagree that it was the proper choice, but you cannot continue making such unequivocal statements and pretending that your opinion is fact while hoping to maintain any credibility in this discussion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    It could be argued that the bombings prevented future deaths from battles with countries like Russia. You simply cannot state (and maintain any degree of credibility or validity) that more people died as a result of the bombing than would have without it.

    You don't know, nobody knows, and nobody can know... Period. The downstream implications are complex at best, and incomprehensible at worst. Those bombings may have prevented dictatorial leaders elsewhere from mounting attacks for fear of similar response from the US. The lack of those bombings may have caused the Japanese people to focus more on war than on medicine and technology, and millions could have died from that.

    I don't know. You don't know. You can disagree that it was the proper choice, but you cannot continue making such unequivocal statements and pretending that your opinion is fact while hoping to maintain any credibility in this discussion.
    Following THAT line of logic, the Holocaust may have been a GOOD thing, and indeed it was for the Zionist cause. But I doubt you could get away with robbing a bank by telling the judge and jury, "I don't know. You don't know." whether or not it was for the best. I have not seen the entire trascript of the Nuremberg Trials, but I do not think this was one of the defenses put forward.

    Yeah, "credibility", could you define that, because it seems to have a different meaning here.

    Gee, maybe September 11th was a GOOD thing for the country, in some purely hypothetical way! Maybe a decade of wars with no end in sight depleting the Treasury and killing, killing, killing is just a SUPER thing, after all, "I don't know."

    AND YOU DON'T KNOW.

    I apologize for my digression from the topic, but I hope I have made the point clear. If, God forbid, at some point nuclear weapons are used on an American city, I think there will be little debate whether or not it might be a WAR CRIME.

    Parenthetically, at one point during the late Cold War, the American military was prepared to do exactly THAT. As goofy as it sounds, early antimissile technology was not good enough to directly intercept incoming warheads, so the airburst of a nuclear weapon over the target city was supposed to incinerate the incoming warhead and its (possibly) greater payload of mayhem and death. Incredible but true, and again I digress, and again I apologize.

    Thanks to all for these great forums!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince
    Following THAT line of logic, the Holocaust may have been a GOOD thing
    While I dislike the potential implications, you are rather correct. Despite the horrific implications of this logic, my central point remains, my premise sound, and my logic valid. Neither you nor I can know for sure how many people would have died were the bombs not dropped, nor what cascading and downstream implications the lack of a bomb drop may have had. The rest is just opinion, and opinion is not fact.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince
    But I doubt you could get away with robbing a bank by telling the judge and jury, "I don't know. You don't know." whether or not it was for the best.
    Very flawed analogy, and completely irrelevant to the simple point I was making.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince
    Yeah, "credibility", could you define that, because it seems to have a different meaning here.

    Gee, maybe September 11th was a GOOD thing for the country, in some purely hypothetical way!
    May I ask you, having read several of your posts to this forum, are you even capable of making a single argument which does not resort to an appeal to ridicule? I only ask because I have yet to see you do it.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince
    Maybe a decade of wars with no end in sight depleting the Treasury and killing, killing, killing is just a SUPER thing, after all, "I don't know."
    Quite correct, indeed. What is good and what is not good is very subjective and ultimately an observer based classification. It will vary depending on who you ask and when. Despite there being some vague underlying validity in your intended point, you remain inaccurate when presenting them due to your desire to assert the qualities of good and bad in absolute terms.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince
    AND YOU DON'T KNOW.

    I apologize for my digression from the topic, but I hope I have made the point clear.
    The primary clarity that you have provided us is that you post like a petulant child who is incapable of understanding a reasonable point.


    Let me summarize, in case you (like many on the internet often do) suffer from reading comprehension challenges. You can argue your opinion that to drop the bombs was the incorrect choice, and you can even argue that it was morally reprehensible and wrong. However, you cannot argue in any valid way how many people would have (or would not have) died if the bombs were not dropped. We simply don't know, we don't have enough information to be able to assert this with validity, and we never will.

    Let's please try to avoid putting words in my mouth when you respond next time, shall we?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    It is a matter of simple substitution, dotcomrade. What do you do with this "credibility" when you are not using it to justify mass murder?

    And do I detect a trace of petulance in your response?
    Nah, must be my imagination.

    You could not possibly be a sore loser, and you do make a valid point regarding unintended consequences, but using them to justify war crimes is a bit of a stretch.

    Substitute X for A and Y for B, it is logic.

    Anyway, I am more thinking like "satire" vs "ridicule", lighten up, it is nothing personal, this playing with ideas.

    War Criminal Truman is roasting in Hell alongside Hitler, just Anglophone history books have not caught up to this reality.

    Yet.

    And talking of words in another's mouth, did I ever make specific claim regarding death toll of various courses of action? If I did, same is retracted, but the proverbial flies are best caught with honey, not vinegar.

    Blockade + humanitarian aid vs nuclear bombing, mmmm, which would I choose to receive, quite a conundrum!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince
    Blockade + humanitarian aid vs nuclear bombing, mmmm, which would I choose to receive, quite a conundrum!
    A quite rediculous statement because that's what any nation would want. Why? Because you wouldn't be forced to surrender while your enemy continued to feed your people. And after watching blockages historically fail over and over even without aid to get a people to surrender it would have very unrealistic to expect Japan to do so.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Short rations until capitulation then. Plus you mean "ridiculous", dotcomrade, no charge for proofreading service, it is goodwill gesture, okay? Like you trying to correct me, only I am not wrong.

    Anyway, reading comprehension of Prince has been called into question, so to demonstrate competency in same, he notes:

    1.) Dotcomrade Lynx subscribes to false beliefs regarding lingering effects of radiation. It is established fact that most dangerous isotopes in terms of radiation have shortest half-lives- Hiroshima today is fully functional inhabited city, not creepy radioactive wasteland populated by lonely mutants, and Nagasaki is bigger and better than ever. Remaining radioactive fallout is washed away into ocean at rates consistent with actual rainfall. Incredibly, there are people who survived BOTH atomic war crimes, first identified such person lived to age 93 years! Amazing what one learns in the course of such discussions!

    2.) Dotcomrade Ophiolite suggests that the Prince is in favor of firebombing, not the case. The Prince instead subscribes to the view that actual use of nuclear weapons was unjustified by circumstances, was in fact a crime, agreeing with Japanese legal view, not surprisingly, and that it set a most dangerous precedent for future conduct of warring nations.

    3.) Dotcomrade inow correctly points out that future consequences of action are uncertain, curiously in this particular case, since apologists of WAR CRIMINAL TRUMAN routinely and confidently invoke staggering numbers of purely hypothetical deaths to justify said war crimes.

    Satisfied?

    It is an honor to be in such company, dotcomrades, thank you for playing!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    1.) Dotcomrade Lynx subscribes to false beliefs regarding lingering effects of radiation. It is established fact that most dangerous isotopes in terms of radiation have shortest half-lives- Hiroshima today is fully functional inhabited city, not creepy radioactive wasteland populated by lonely mutants, and Nagasaki is bigger and better than ever. Remaining radioactive fallout is washed away into ocean at rates consistent with actual rainfall. Incredibly, there are people who survived BOTH atomic war crimes, first identified such person lived to age 93 years! Amazing what one learns in the course of such discussions!
    Considering I didn't comment about the current dangers in those cities I'm not sure what you are referring to. For the intellectually curious however there are now dozens of studies which show the long shadow of increased cancer rates, even now, nearly seven decades after the initial exposure.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince
    Nah, must be my imagination.
    I agree that this is likely, and is supported by the way you seem to think I'm attempting to justify mass murder and war crimes.

    It's rather telling that you've arrived at this particular conclusion as a result of my accurate comment that neither you nor I can know nor assert with certitude how many people would have (or would not have) died if the bombs were not dropped.

    My point was about as objective as they come, and yet you continue reading into it something which is not there. This speaks well of neither your reading comprehension nor your posting intent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Very well, I stand corrected, thank you for your patience, dotcomrades.

    Is it radiation which is responsible for these increased cancer rates?

    It is known as the Prince has pointed out that most energetic isotopes decay quickly, consistent with well-known principles of conservation of matter/energy, and cancer is known to be having multiple etiologies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Logic alone is not often enough to rebut evidence. Ionizing radiation causes cancer.

    http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerc...ure-and-cancer


    and here


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation


    and here

    http://www.ccnr.org/ceac_B.html
    In the case of the German children given radium-224 injections (see B.8 ), bone cancers began to appear about four years after the initial injections. Shortly thereafter, in 1951, the injections were stopped. Since radium-224 has a half-life of only 2.64 days, we know that the offending material was gone from the children's bodies within a few months of the final injections. Nevertheless, new cancers continued to appear for two decades afterwards, illustrating the delayed nature of the carcinogenic effect.

    There is a certain period of time that apparently must elapse before the first radiation-induced cancers begin to occur. This minimum waiting time is called the "latency period". Once the latency period is past, the cancer rate increases and remains elevated not just for one or two years but for decades.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Of course, this is beyond controversy.

    Ionizing radiation also treats and diagnoses cancer, equally fact.

    Prince is wondering if this factor alone is responsible for greater incidence of cancer in observed areas.

    What is role of diet, genetic heritage, exposure to environmental factors other than radiation, etc., etc., etc., and so forth and so on and things of that nature?

    From map, one could conclude, erroneously, that speaking English causes higher rate of breast cancer.

    http://www.lemonland.org/09/wp-conte...worldstats.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24 Re: manhatttan project 
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    As a result of the Manhattan Project many lives were saved.
    I'm sure the Nazis would have used the same reasoning had they first developed the bomb and used it on British cities. Most people now, though, would consider such an act evil.

    Assuming the above, my question would be what's the difference between the Nazis utilising the bomb to save lives in protracted war, and the Americans doing so?
    The mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas - Tao Te Ching

    Fancy a game of chess?
    http://www.itsyourturn.com/
    Challenge me, Delphi, and join the Pythian games.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    926
    The Nazis were evil! The US had been attacked by Japan.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26 Re: manhatttan project 
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Prometheus
    what's the difference
    You're being objective. You're right.

    However, painful as this may be, fairness between the various nations may not be possible or even desirable. The UN operates on this understanding that nations will not deal fairly or objectively, but will deal at least as equal sovereigns, with equal right to stuggle for their own interests.

    Non Proliferation Treaty was a good example of that. The non-nuclear states entered an asymmetrical deal with the nuclear (weapon) states, in which all parties could be winners. It was an adequately reciprocal arrangement given unfair circumstances, and could have worked. Unfortunately the nuclear states utterly failed to keep their end of the bargain, while demanding (and mostly gaining) compliance from the non-nuclear states.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27 Re: manhatttan project 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by Prometheus
    what's the difference
    You're being objective. You're right.

    However, painful as this may be, fairness between the various nations may not be possible or even desirable. The UN operates on this understanding that nations will not deal fairly or objectively, but will deal at least as equal sovereigns, with equal right to stuggle for their own interests.

    Non Proliferation Treaty was a good example of that. The non-nuclear states entered an asymmetrical deal with the nuclear (weapon) states, in which all parties could be winners. It was an adequately reciprocal arrangement given unfair circumstances, and could have worked. Unfortunately the nuclear states utterly failed to keep their end of the bargain, while demanding (and mostly gaining) compliance from the non-nuclear states.
    Is true. Israel did not sign treaty and has nuclear weapons, merely having violated U.S. law to do so, not NPT. Accordingly, majority view of this is "good thing". Iran signs NPT, develops reactors, is SUSPECTED of violating terms of NPT, and this is seen as "bad thing".

    Of course Nazis were evil, this is why West put so many of them to work after Great Patriotic War, "Operation Paperclip", look it up, dotcomrade mathman.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman
    The Nazis were evil! The US had been attacked by Japan.
    An attack that the US engineered.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    926
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by mathman
    The Nazis were evil! The US had been attacked by Japan.
    An attack that the US engineered.
    Where did you get this idea??
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    It is well established that the the US in concert with others, especially the British, were imposing such restraints on Japan in terms of trade and access to resources that they would be left with little alternative but to engage in war. I am not discussing whether these political aims were justified or not, merely that the outcome was predictable and seen by Roosevelt, at least, as desirable.

    I am not stating that the blow on Pearl Harbour was specifically engineered, simply that pushing Japan towards war was a deliberate intent of the US government. Although there is a body of evidence pointing towards a more Machiavellian interpretation of events.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,043
    I'm not sure of the specifics, but I've heard scuttlebutt that intelligence concerning the impending Pearl Harbor attack was suppressed. In the interest of providing an impetus for the U.S. to enter the war.
    Much like the Bush Regime blatantly ignored intelligence concerning the impending attack of Sept. 11.

    There's also the Gulf of Tonkin incident; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

    Black and white hat's are a myth. We all wear grey suits.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    New York State
    Posts
    926
    Scuttlebutt can be wrong.

    As for the Bush admin. having any knowledge of impending Sep. 11 attack, the only real information seems to be that there were some low level FBI warnings that something was up (Arabs learning how to fly jetliners, but not interested in takeoff or landing), but these warnings never got high enough to affect action.

    I guess you got one out three right (Gulf of Tonkin).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,043
    http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...ush+about+9-11
    http://www.google.com/search?sourcei...nce+suppressed
    I guess I could have said "a significant amount of testimony and documentation", but "scuttlebutt" is such a fun word.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    482
    I thought the battle of the Alamo was similarly engineered.
    The mark of a moderate man is freedom from his own ideas - Tao Te Ching

    Fancy a game of chess?
    http://www.itsyourturn.com/
    Challenge me, Delphi, and join the Pythian games.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Behind the enlightening rod.
    Posts
    936
    Difficult to see relevance of Alamo to topic, but this site contains information about Pearl Harbor, http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/pha/invest.html

    Returning to Manhattan Project, as soon as initiated, observers would have noticed COMPLETE ABSENCE of discussion in scientific press of the day of nuclear fission and related topics. Is similar thing going on today, or is disinformation being circulated instead?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by The Finger Prince
    Returning to Manhattan Project, as soon as initiated, observers would have noticed COMPLETE ABSENCE of discussion in scientific press of the day of nuclear fission and related topics.
    This claim is false, and contradicts reality.

    Manhattan Project: 1942 to 1946
    # of articles referencing Fission during this time frame: 613


    Proof: that subset of all which are currently available online
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •