"The destruction caused by conventional attacks was huge. Night after night, all summer long, cities would go up in smoke. In the midst of this cascade of destruction, it would not be surprising if this or that individual attack failed to make much of an impression—even if it was carried out with a remarkable new type of weapon."
"A typical raid consisted of 500 bombers. This means that the typical conventional raid was dropping 4 to 5 kilotons of bombs on each city. (A kiloton is a thousand tons and is the standard measure of the explosive power of a nuclear weapon. The Hiroshima bomb measured 16.5 kilotons, the Nagasaki bomb 20 kilotons.)
The first of the conventional raids, a night attack on Tokyo on March 9-10, 1945, remains the single most destructive attack on a city in the history of war. Something like 16 square miles of the city were burned out. An estimated 120,000 Japanese lost their lives—the single highest death toll of any bombing attack on a city."
>> Between 1964 and 1973, the US dropped 2 million tons of bombs on Laos, nearly equal to the 2.1 million tons of bombs the US dropped on Europe and Asia during all of World War II, making Laos the most heavily bombed country in history relative to the size of its population; The New York Times notes this was "nearly a ton for every person in Laos"
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laos#Independence_and_communis...
I've noticed this pattern more and more in recent years - for people to draw upon past events, technology and ideas with this kind of pseudo enlightened retrospective to support their theories.. while either completely missing the point or missing huge pieces of it's context, and yet researching such things has never been easier.
Theodore Hall was never prosecuted, but his security clearance was revoked due to receiving a letter from a relative in the UK asking "I hear you're working on something that goes up with a big bang! Can you send us one of them for Guy Fawkes Day?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Hall#/media/File:Brot...
> Scientists whose work suddenly raises the red flag — for example, those whose work gets labeled “potential dual-use research of concern” — often balk at the imposition of restrictions and the requirement of deeper reflection.
I don't care what kind of obsession you have with a task—if you know the impacts of your research, disapprove, and research anyway, I don't give a flying fuck about your intentions. You're a shitty person who evidently approves of what you enabled.
FWIW, I think basically every defense project after this is far more interesting in terms of the morals of every day workers. The bombing of two cities was, possibly, justified by the people who made the bombs. What are the excuses of everyone who trailed this action? The Cold War seemed to set humanity back by a many decades, and I'm more than happy to put this on the workers that fulfilled the vision of nuclear (& chemical, cyber, whatever) warfare. Since the USSR collapsed this regression in technological advancement has become even more pronounced.
I think the threat of two new nuclear superpowers shocked Europe's non-Russian powers into an uneasy cohesion and resulted in a huge reduction in European warfare that had been rattling on and off for centuries. But I could totally follow and appreciate arguments to the contrary. This is why I think it's both unfair and unproductive to "put" anything on the people of the past. They did what they did, but they're gone. IMHO, no-one was a "shitty" person solely because they felt unease over working in the Manhattan Project.
compared to what, everyong holding hands and singing kumbaya under the watchful eye of the american hegemony? We've been "catching up" since the 90's and, well, look around.
The only bad thing about the bomb is people freaking out about atomic power by association.
Landing men on the Moon was just one of many battles fought in the Cold War.
If anything, the conclusion of the Cold War combined with all subsequent wars America was involved in just being some form of laundering money to the Military Industrial Complex has by far done the most damage with regards to technological regressions and stagnations.
Like it or not, wars are the best drivers of technology.