The Atomic Bomb: Crash Course History of Science #33
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 січ 2019
- The story picks up where we left off last time, with Einstein writing the president of his new homeland, the United States, urging him to build a nuclear weapon before Hitler. This is the tale of the most destructive force humans have ever unleashed. The Atomic Bomb.
***
Crash Course is on Patreon! You can support us directly by signing up at / crashcourse
Thanks to the following Patrons for their generous monthly contributions that help keep Crash Course free for everyone forever:
Eric Prestemon, Sam Buck, Mark Brouwer, Naman Goel, Patrick Wiener II, Nathan Catchings, Efrain R. Pedroza, Brandon Westmoreland, dorsey, Indika Siriwardena, James Hughes, Kenneth F Penttinen, Trevin Beattie, Satya Ridhima Parvathaneni, Erika & Alexa Saur, Glenn Elliott, Justin Zingsheim, Jessica Wode, Kathrin Benoit, Tom Trval, Jason Saslow, Nathan Taylor, Brian Thomas Gossett, Khaled El Shalakany, SR Foxley, Yasenia Cruz, Eric Koslow, Caleb Weeks, Tim Curwick, D.A. Noe, Shawn Arnold, Malcolm Callis, Advait Shinde, William McGraw, Andrei Krishkevich, Rachel Bright, Jirat, Ian Dundore
--
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / youtubecrashcourse
Twitter - / thecrashcourse
Tumblr - / thecrashcourse
Support Crash Course on Patreon: / crashcourse
CC Kids: / crashcoursekids
Just came back to watch this video after watching Oppenheimer and its so cool that i know all the scientist you are talking about thanks to the movie
bet it can't beat the emus
maybe 9000 of them can .just maybe
If you've never listened to the podcast "Do Go On" I highly recommend their episode on "The Great Emu War."
- Nick J.
Your profile picture nailed it. :)
Who gets the joke from oversimplified
Like if u do
What did it mean?
Oppenheimer's recording sounds perfect for some dope Techno samples...
Considering the Japanese military high command still did not want to surrender after the atomic bombings, and there was an attempted coup against Hirohito when he announced he was going to force Japan to surrender, and there is strong evidence to suggest Operation Downfall was not only going to fail, but make Iwo Jima and Okinawa look like child's play in terms of intensity and casualty loss, it's hard to argue US success was still certain. Japanese strategy had shifted towards keeping allied forces off the island and waiting until their resolve had diminished, as they had done in the past with groups like the Mongols. The High command was willing to sacrifice everyone in Japan to this goal.
RomanianJ96 No Japan couldn’t win. We’d just blockade them and starve them out.
Bad Beard Bill We already were blockading them and they still weren’t giving up. All of Japan was starving and the high command had decided they didn’t care how many Japanese died or how long it took. As long as the Allies never successfully invaded the home islands they felt they could just wait out the Allies.
@@RomanianJ96Except they couldn't. They needed the resources of other lands, otherwise they wouldn't have even built their empire. They relied on those resources. Their people were starving. Eventually they all would've died, leaving a dead island chain.
Bad Beard Bill And the Japanese high command were willing to pay that price. I’m not arguing over whether they would have won World War 2, that was impossible even after Pearl Harbor. I’m arguing about their resolve. If Hirohito hadn’t strong armed the military high command into capitulating, we would see Operation Downfall happen, which MacArthur wanted to use nukes to soften up the beaches. These landings would’ve most likely failed since it was a 1:1 ratio when the Japanese surrendered between invader and defender, and the Japanese were not even done fortifying Kyushu. The blockade would’ve taken years and Truman was worried about the American public losing interest in carrying out this expensive war. Plus, he was worried about letting the Soviets expand their influence into East Asia just as they had done in Europe.
There were no good or easy decisions to be made. Starving out an entire country is a hard and bloody task to achieve. Especially when you’re starving out a people who are willing to suffer whatever it takes to force you to end the war somewhat favorable to them.
@@RomanianJ96The high command may be willing to fight but they don't matter. The people do. If they refuse (and they likely would eventually) then it doesn't matter if the leaders are willing to pay that price. What matters is whether or not the people are. Sure, some wouldn't. But many would.
And even if they don't refuse the Japanese Empire had enormous trouble just feeding their soldiers. Feeding their people would be even more difficult and their entire population would be effectively useless as combatants.
Yeah... history (and really, really simple game theory) very clearly show that showing off a super weapon to your enemies does *not* carry the message “you should fear us.” Almost always the received message is “you should get some of these as quickly as possible.”
And should also help your enemy get one ASAP. Whole point of M.A.D to have both sides weapons so powerful that open conflict is out of questions and you can get back to normal peaceful lives (no point in waging war anyway)
Though Truman didn't know this at the time. Stalin knew far more about the Atomic bomb even at Potsdam that Truman ever did. I'm not exactly sure that the two statements are mutually exclusive though. 'It's fear us while we have this superiority, try to acquire it asap to level, and then escalate, the field.' Which looking at extant declassified records from the CCCP is pretty much how it was actually taken.
Yeah but the enemy at the time simply couldn’t. Then the Russians got some...
@@SK_2521Those times are over. Military Analysists came to conclusion that 90% of the American Military Staff thinks they can win a Nuclear War. Also there are mutch more voices in Favour to use NBC weapons then 30 years ago.
2:23 Slight correction. The atom had already been split by Rutherford in 1917.
A man with a Nuclear Energy Technology degree here. First off no radiation leaked at three-mile island and according to OHSA and IAEA Nuclear plants are the safest places to work even safer than solar plants and wind farms. Also, you receive more radiation exposure flying from NY to LA than the avg American nuclear worker. Just wanted to remind people how safe Nuclear plants are after the ending of the above video. If anyone has a question about civilian nuclear power comment below, I will try and answer some of them.
What about the Japanese plants that blew up?
Yes ask the man whose livelihood and career depend on you thinking Nuclear plants are safe... A world run on reactors is entirely impossible without constant meltdowns. The numbers are just not on your side.
@@user-eq2re6df4v Japan had a very weak regulatory culture and the company ignored the safety recommendations of the manufacturer and the government.
What would you personally see as the most viable current or near-future reactor design if you got the chance to commission the building of one?
If you could elaborate a little that would be great, Reactor design has always been interesting to me but i´m obviously far from an expert on the subject.
ciaphas cyne By that logic any scientist cannot be judged as an expert in their field.
‘This was science at war.’
That hit me harder than
‘Avengers, Assemble.’
Same
Great episode as always Hank. Do you plan on covering Alan Turing, his team's codebreaking and the first computer? He isn't appreciated nearly enough here in the UK, even after that official apology.
Watching this before Oppenheimer bc
Not nearly as deadly as....
*THE MONGOLS*
The Mongols were the A-bomb of the 13th century. Just like the Huns in the 5th. In fact, the entire churning ocean of the steppe peoples has always fascinated me as a counterweight to coastal civilization. At least until the widespread use of firearms. : \
@@BubblewrapHighwayIt actually got interesting after the invention of firearms. Before that Empires would conquer and rule over territories much much longer.
@
This might actually be true.
Wiki estimates the fatalities from the Hiroshima & Nagasaki bombs to be 226,000 at most, and fatalities from the Mongol empire are measured in the millions.
Its kinda terrifying that one of the factors to drop the bomb was "to justify spendings"
Using NBC weapons because you dont want to loose soldiers (in WAR) is the dumbest excuse ever.
Almost ALL war is, to an extent, all about spendings (Hell, Extra History made a great mini-series about how WW2 was greatly influenced by resources and logistics rather than simple good-vs-evil).
Even so, it worked.
Riccardo S millions of civilians would’ve died in a mainland invasion of Japan
7:52 "And now there's an opera about him" - it's called Doctor Atomic by John Adams. The whole script is compiled from journals, letters, and de-classified documents from the actual people involved. It's a bit fragmented and jagged, but then again... so is war.
Came here after watching Oppenheimer
I'm sure no one else will get this recommended around this time. . .
Just got recommended this video after seeing Oppenheimer
We live in a fallen world
I love Crash Course but I have to agree with a lot of the commentors about the one-sidedness of this particular episode. I'm not qualified to have an opinion as to whether the bombing of Japan in WW2 actually saved lives by shortening the land-war. However, just listing nuclear incidents of the 20th century without mentioning the advantages and widespread stability of nuclear power in general was a very slanted view of a complex subject.
This sorta reminded me of the original SciShow GMO episode. GMOs, Nuclear Power, and Anti-Vax seem to be the three big anti-science boogeymen that are quite popular in liberal circles (that doesn't mean they aren't popular in conservative circles as well). While he hasn't fallen for the anti-vax nonsense, he did fall for the anti-GMO nonsense until his video gave him a rude awakening, and this video reveals at least a slight anti-nuclear bias as well.
Destroyer of worlds.
Dreeeee dodo wubwubwub dreeeee dodo wubwubwub dreeeee dodo wubwubwub.... Destroyer of worlds
No i
Guys, guys, we ALLL know who is the destroyer of worlds....ME
I kinda object to the use of that flag for Germany in this instance. Use the Imperial flag if you don't wanna have a swatstika, at least
@@MMenyan That is also the imperial Germany war flag. You don't gain anything by using it. If you insist on not showing swatstikas, pixel it. Everybody knows what symbol has to be there.
Agree here. Primary because German Reich and modern Germany are two completely different states. And showing modern flag in this video's contexts undermine the fact that germans repented their sins
"Ribbons and flags are symbols and I leave symbols to the symbol-minded." -George Carlin
i got excited when you said 'B-movie' because I thought you were making a 'Bee Movie' joke.
Wait, how did Three Mile Island make the list of "terrible accidents"? Wasn't Three Mile Island basically a harmless accident? Noteworthy, but definitely not "terrible".
It didn't leak much, but I wouldn't call a meltdown harmless.
@@FreeOfFantasy Fair, although I'm under the impression no one was harmed. Would you call it "terrible"?
@@dawarmage Three Mile Island was an example of proper safety protocols preventing a disaster. It most definitely was not a disaster.
@@FreeOfFantasy it was harmless. It harmed no one. It released less radiation than someone living in Santa Fe receives in a day.
The only people it harmed were the people who invested money in the plant. They received tremendous damage to their wallets.
As a student of history, and especially of military history, the only reason there wasn't a third world war in the 20th century was the existence of nuclear weapons. It's a huge gamble, but so far nukes have prevented wars. How long this will be the case is another question.
Well said. It's a bit nerve wracking, but I didn't die in a trench war before my 21st birthday. So there's that.
The problem with this, if it is indeed true, is that with nuclear weapons one slip is already too much. As horrible as it was we could recover from the second World War.
It is doubtful whether we could recover from a nuclear war.
You better watch the documentation the Antrax Dealers, it will give you goosebumbs when you see that the US has vaccinated every Soldier,Doctor;Policemen,Nurse and Firemen against Antrax. Seems like preparations for me
Great video, big fan of the channel. thank you for always providing great content. PS nice job walking on shells on this one
The units of success to the cold war also included atomic bomb delivery capabilities (rockets). Bombs aren't a useful show of force, unless you can put them where you want to... Or at least convince the world that you can. This fact directly contributed to the space race and some of the more tense moments of the cold war like the Cuban missile crisis.
I sense there's a bit of fear-mongering about nuclear fission and fusion going on in this video.
Nuclear physics did not displace the bikini atoll people. Politics did. People did. A hammer does not hit a nail. A person does.
Can you tell this to the people trying to ban guns?
Neither should you leave hammers near children
The fact that you can't show a swastika as an educational program, and the fact that you probably endorse that, is enlightening on a whole 'nother level.
Watching this in 2023 after Oppenheimer lol
He left out a critical thought of Truman's. Essentially, "What if we lost thousands of Americans during the invasion of Japan and the American people found out that we had a bomb that could have ended the war, and I decided not to use it."
"Most historians agree." Come on, Hank.....
Tracy Ward That struck out to me too
That probably depends on what country are you from.
No mention of the casualty figures for invading Japan? No mention of the limited control Truman had over the use of the bomb?
hmmmmmmmmmm trying to figure out why this suddenly came up in my recommended hmmmmmm
Such strange coincidences
Thanks for making this, Crash Course team. It really elevated my history lesson.
Fear of nuclear is setting us back. It's going to be our next positive step toward truly clean energy.
7:53 and now there’s a movie about him!
We can thank Openheimer for Spongebob Squarepants
Who are "most historians"? I would really like to see the sources used here.
Yeah, I was like “what?” I think it’s generally agreed that dropping the bomb, saved millions of lives, both American and Japanese.
Do Historians agree? I found the Gar Alperovitz articles, but he's one guy and while his points may be sound, he doesn't represent "historians" as a whole. I found a good article here though (search Washington Post "How the Hiroshima Bombing is Taught"). It has links to public opinion (in the US and around the world), and how history textbooks are taking more evidence into consideration. Evidence like dissenting voices at the time of decision, and the effect it had on the victims.
Personally I think that restricting how we talk about the bomb as a "necessary evil" is incredibly stupid. We need to take into consideration whether there were alternatives, and all the facts at the time. Not just the facts that preserve the belief that all our decisions were correct. If you have evidence that this is an open and shut case, I'd love to hear it.
Joseph Ramirez I think it’s a little of both. A bit cause it was better than invasion and a bit as a way to show it off to the Soviets. Basically there was no one reason but a multitude reasons they dropped the bomb
@@Nostripe361 Yes, I agree. There are many factors which affected the creation and use of the atomic bomb. This is not so black and white as some like to portray it. Alperovitz is one of the foremost revisionists on this topic and it is good to have historians examining this event from all different points of view. But one voice does not a majority make.
I generally like John Green and I find his Crash Course series informative and generally reliable. However, we have to be careful, as historians, not to speak in absolutes too easily. "Always" "most" "never".....these are hard to prove. And if you make these statements, you need to back them up with solid sources.
@@christophermiller1703 History is almost always a murky gray. Even the most evil men of history have done a few good things even if outweighed by the evil they have wrought. And likewise even greatest hero of the past has dark sins in their closest. Not to mention alot of it will always be inference based on what we have as evidence.
However people and historians don't like that. They want easy answers that can be viewed as 100 percent true. Which is why you should look at all historical viewpoints
The algorithm suggesting this the week Oppenheimer was released 😅
Thank you for the subtitltes!!!
I heard a couple of years ago of two other types of nuclear reactor, one which uses standard nuclear waste as fuel and another that uses the waste from the second reactor as fuel, the end result being much safer than nuclear waste for additional energy production
I wish you had also talked about Farm Hall and the reactions of the scientists of the German Nuclear Program to the usage of nuclear bombs in Japan
Well done presentation, thanks.
The death count from the bombs were tiny when compared to the fire bombing campaigns.
@jaydee040 It was aimed at the govt, by wiping out it's people and their resolve.
Your presentation inflections/voice have improved much...this is good
I'd like to see Hank and Kyle Hill discuss Nulcear Energy.
Great video, thank you.
Awesome episode, guys and gals
Can't help but feel you came on very harsh on nuclear. Putting the debate of dropping the bombs on Japan (which I think you should have explained arguments on both sides), for nuclear energy production, simply compare the number of people who have died from fossil fuel pollution, and many more will die from global warming, compared to a handful of nuclear accidents (mainly caused by incompetence more than the technology itself).
I can't help but feel like Hank here came down too hard on the anti Truman side of the debate without providing enough of a counter argument to the estimated cost of an invasion of mainland Japan.
Yea. The invasion would've taken far more lives than the bombs did.
@@alexanderwasley5105 Possibly but that is also why it is still so hotly contested today. Japan as a nation was prepared to continue fighting to the bitter end but a nation is not an individual person and the war was already taking a toll on those very persons. By spring 1945 it was well understood that if the war continued, the Japanese would eventually see American boots on the Japanese mainland which in itself was terrifying but also terrifying was a united front of America and the USSR as they understood that while America might be somewhat civil (wartime atrocities not-withstanding) the soviets might not be so clean in their fighting.
This was not only on the minds of the Japanese gov't but also on the minds of the soldiers and civilians who would have to endure the invasion, bombings, and ultimately street fighting. Would the Japanese just completely surrender once allied troops landed? Obviously not; but would a prolonged multi-year conflict with hundreds of thousands of US casualties and a million Japanese casualties occur like is publicly theorized? Most likely not. The Japanese resources were drained, their weapon stocks dwindling, their navy nearly entirely annihilated, and a sort of pseudo-blockade was already in place to prevent outside aide; and probably most telling, their morale was fading quickly and the will to fight of the everyday citizen was getting lower and lower.
Another potential issue involved that very coalition. We already understood that the Soviet sphere of influence was going to increase with Germanys fall and not even a decade later we would see this with Korea, looking at it from today it would almost certainly end with a divided Japan with Soviet and US partitions just like Korea. This would have been a reason to get the US in as quickly as possible without allowing the soviets to get any footholds despite being an "ally". While there are other factors that were unique to Korea which ultimately culminated in the Korean War, notably the long standing issue of Korea (under Kim) wanting to stop the centuries long issue of constant invasion, it isn't hard to see an east/west germany or north/south korea issue developing in a divided occupied Japan.
While we will never know the true extent of such a conflict, If it is from purely a casualty perspective as many like to point out here is my issue: its believed that had an invasion occurred, the Japanese would have sued for peace after only a few months due to those issues listed above and so the question still stands of the risk-cost analysis of the aftermath: Was 200,000 Japanese casualties, the vast majority of which were non-combatant citizens, lower or higher than a proper conflict involving soldiers? Is a soldier worth more or less than a civilian when calculating this? War is already complicated enough both during and in the retrospect but once we opened pandoras box of the nuclear option it changed the paradigm in such a way that Oppenheimers quotation is even more pressing: We, humanity, have "become death", and we will have to contend with that and question our decision for the rest of human history if we plan to not finish his quotation and become the "destroyer of worlds".
True story. Imagine trying to explain to the families of all the Americans lost in the invasion that you had a war-ending superweapon and didn't use it.
He did, because he doesn't understand the perception people had at that time.
11:03. “Bigger…bomb.” Lol
I have to write a essay.. but nothing can keep my attention hopefully this can I love crash corse wish me luck💀
May we never find a use for this stuff. I’d love to know how to get rid of it because of how lethal it is
Whos here after watching Oppenheimer?😂
the one i've been waiting for
This series is gold
Anyone here after Oppenheimer?
You guys are doing a great job presenting complex histories in short videos. I love that you're doing a series on the history of science :D Oh, and don't let the armchair historians whinging about "revisionism" (without knowing what the term even means!) get to you - you're doing a good job!
great video
It was more than a little help from Canada, the Manhattan project was a joint British, Canadian and American programme, and built considerably off existing British nuclear weapons research (the Alloy tubes programme).
Some good stuff here but you had some omissions that made the video sound preachy and prejudiced.
needed:
The death toll of an invasion of japan
The death toll of 3 mile island
Safety advances in nuclear technology - Breeder / thorium reactors
Richard Feynman
Such a sad part of history
Probably, the most moving episode in the series.
At 8:45 Stanislav's face looks evil af, while Teller's resembles the penguin from batman ahah
I’ve been to the Atomic Bomb museum and Peace Park in Nagasaki. It’s something I sincerely wish everyone could do, most especially politicians. I can dream, but I’d like to believe we could actually move toward disarmament if this could happen. But being a realist, I don’t think it will happen in my lifetime.
A few issues I have with this video are there was no major issue at 3 mile island, nuclear energy and power plants are actually one of the safest forms of energy and cause very minimal amounts of pollution compared to many other methods.
Most importantly though is the US's justification for dropping the bombs. This video claims it was not to end the war. Yet even after the first and second bombs were dropped Japans government was refusing to surrender. It took the Emperor stepping in to end the war and even then the military tried to prevent Japan from surrendering thinking that someone was forcing the Emperor to surrender.
Had the bombs not had been dropped Japan would have forced us and our allies to land hundreds of divisions on Japan causing way more casualties then the bombs caused to both sides. And in the mean time while the invasion of Japan was planned the US and allies would have continued to bomb Japan causing way more casualties there then the nukes did. And then there also would have been all the fighting happening on the land on the islands of the Pacific and the mainland of Asia.
So not believing the US was justified in dropping the bombs to end the war is really ridiculous. If you disagree please let me know why you think that.
This is like, the third place ive heard cite Truman’s diary. Well played, Crash Course.
Educational!
Nice, no mention of Tsar Bomba. Well done CC.
Why should there be
@@DRsideburns because most powerful nuclear bomb
Good point, I was waiting for that and then forgot all about it.
There is also a book called Sadoko and the 10,00 paper cranes it’s about a girl who had lukukimia (sorry if I spelt that wrong) I really recommend it! :D btw great information XD
Queenie Keung omg I remember reading that in primary school as part of the curriculum
Queenie Keung oh and btw it’s spelt leukaemia
Oh thank you so much for the correction:D also Omg wow
Came to look for Hungarians correcting Hank's pronunciation of Szilárd. Was not disappointed
Just throwing it out there. What if we disposed of our nuclear waste by putting it on a one way ticket rocket and launching it into the sun?
In 2:24, the flag of Russia is the right one, but the German... Not so much
They're afraid of offending the snowflakes.
@@jvigil2007 more like youtubes algorithms. Why not just pixilate it?
If they show the Swasthik the video will be banned in Germany and other nations.
it's not the Russian flag, it's the USSR flag!
@@jvigil2007 or maybe they wouldn't want to risk having this video banned in germany? not everything is about snowflakes lmao
Diné, name for the Navajo Nation in the Navajo language.
It’s sort of misleading to describe thermonuclear weapons the way you did. Most thermonuclear weapons are very dirty because of a tertiary reaction of the usually uranium tamper which causes extra fission after the fission primary.
Just Leave The Nuts Hangin Out Yeah. But they can be made cleaner... by hurting their yields.
I dont know if you are speakin about Russian nukes, but im 100% sure US nukes use Tritium and Plutonium to get the biggest yelds. Wich happens to be a very clean Nuclear bomb.
The Teller-Ulam design is basically public knowledge now. Its on wikipedia.
6:57 or to put it simply, they just wanted to test their new toy.
A whole episode on nuclear fission, and no mention of Lise Meitner? Crash Course, I am disappoint.
This is about the weapon of the nuclear bomb, not the energy production.
Damn the new Oppenheimer movie looks great!
Hank, We love you...and the bomb.
Well considering the likely plan of defeating Japan without using nukes was either an invasion with an estimated death toll in the millions or the not creatively named operation starvation ... Oh and they planned on using nukes as tactical support weapons to soften the beaches defences. Also fun fact the b-29 actually cost more money to develop then the Mahantan project cost. Ideally none of these weapons or operationz should have been used or planned but we exist in an imperfect world
There was also negotiation. Japan had been making overtures since the loss of Iwo Jima, but that is a long story.
@@TheSmileMile not really, it basically comes down to the Allies demanding unconditional surrender and the Japanese refusing that.
@@jvigil2007 Except, they didn't actually surrender unconditionally. One of the provisions they wanted was that the Emperor would not be tried for war crimes, and that he would be allowed to remain as Emperor, though with drastically reduced authority. We didn't offer that provision in the Potsdam declaration, even though some of our military advisers said it was the only thing the Emperor would go for, but we did offer it unofficially after the usage of the Atomic bombs. The Emperor's will was absolute, if he told you to fight, you fought, but if he told you to surrender, you surrendered. Convincing the Emperor to give up was all that mattered.
@@TheSmileMile that's true, but there were other conditions that the Allies refused and the Japanese pushed for until they finally gave up after the bombs were dropped
I'm pretty sure it wasn't the potential Japanese casualties that had any impact on American decision-making. They were already readily firebombing Japanese cities by then, for the express purpose of killing as many people as they could ('demoralizing the enemy', as they probably justified it to themselves), after having just finished doing the same to the Germans. If there were any lives that concerned them, it was only their own.
My favorite bomb
my glorious leader
I liked your video now
Kim Jong-un what about tsar bomba?
You should try a Jägerbomb, you'll never go back.
@@MMenyan
Lol
10:45 What a title!
nice vid
I agree with the gentle person below. I have to say your mischaracterizations borderline on anecdotal instead of comparing all energy producing sources benefits, limitations, risks, and environmental dangers. Let alone the widespread knowledge out there on fourth generation fission power plants or the possibilities of fusion. And to say it's unnecessary I'd argue is a poor position to take as what other energy sources are going to next provide humanity with the ability to pursue more understanding about our universe? Long term space exploration along with keeping the lights on here are most effective and efficient with nuclear power. Do a video on how lithium is extracted as dirty as oil is from our Earth or how solar and wind power have damaged migrating bird populations. No energy is perfect but I'd like some more data with scientific history.
Props for saying Dine' properly!
The view of the atomic bombings as not primarily being militarily motivated was popular in the 70s/80s but modern analysis of Japanese, Russian & American military plans show operation downfall would have resulted at minimum several hundred thousand casualties between both sides and at worst well over a million.
Dennis Giangreco in his comprehensive study of these documents "Hell to pay" states that Japanese plans hinged on the idea that a conditional surrender could be salvaged by demonstrating a willingness to accept massive civilian casualties that the US army couldn't match.
In Hungarian, sz is the sound s, as in snake. So you don't pronounce the z in Szilard, for all intents and purposes it's Silard.
At 8:11, you use some very questionable logic to conclude that the atomic bomb was the cause of the Cold War. This ignores the LARGE amount of history that between the West and the USSR that made them distrust each other from the Prague coup to the allied intervention against the reds in 1918.
Uh dude, this's supposed to be a quick and roughly accurate video, not a totally percise one. Even if they include that in, there would be another guy who said that another piece of information should be in there, and this will never stop. It's much better to make videos like this that are roughly correct and interested audiences can look up deeper facts later on.
@@quangho8120 What an absolutely horrible opinion.
@@TheMattTrakker again, I said I think it's good to make roughly correct videos. If it's not roughly correct then yeah it's bad
The letter was worth goggling
I have to ask - Chernobyl and Fukushima's damage {and their depressing causes} is well documented. What were the consequences of Three Mile Island?
Anecdote 1: Slizard supposedly had the idea of a chain reaction by watching traffic light.
Anecdote 2: A spy was sent to a lecture by Heisenberg to determine if he was close to creating the bomb, and if so put a bullet in his head. The spy did not speak fluent german and thus spent the whole time with his hand on the gun in his pocket watching the lecture and debating whether or not to pull the trigger. He didn't
Imagine if we put our efforts into perfecting fusion technology to exploring our Solar system (and later, Interstellar space), instead of pointing it at our fellow humans...
One can dream.
Once is bad, twice is awful.
My teacher assigned this for e-learning day
I think something that videos miss is the context of bombing cities in WW2; an average of about a hundred thousand people were killed by each atomic bombing.... but about a hundred thousand were also killed when Tokyo was firebombed. And death-tolls in the tens of thousands happened on plenty of other occasions when cities were bombed; civilian populations were the workers feeding the enemy's war machine and seen as valid targets. WW2 was pretty horrific, and the atomic bombings were only uniquely so for the ability of a single weapons to do what once took a fleet of bombers(also arguably a new way of dying ala radiation but between burns and other injuries it's not like we were exactly lacking forms of horrific lingering death).
If only we could make a fusion bomb that doesn’t require a fission compression charge, we could have clean super weapons for daily use...
Imagine if the bomb produced a minature sun that lingers for decades after exploding.
Some interesting facts: 2/3 of the money spend in the manhatten project was spend on the Hiroshima Bomb "little boy" and the rest on the plutonium-bomb-production-series (600 million dollar) which produced around 40 bombs per year until 1945. This shows, that the manhatten project was never started to mainly finish the WWII, instead more to increase the own power in comparrison to the UDSSR and test the bombs.
My source is the german Physicist "Manfred Popp", who talked about that in a lecture. There is no english Wikiarticle about him, since he isnt that popular, but he is working for a science centre in Karlruhe, off duty Secretary of state and is doing research about the history of the German nuclear weapons program.
Better that they died instead of us. Truman made the right call.
He leaves out that the US just got done with the gruelling battle of Okinawa where there were 50k american casualties (12k dead) and 150k japanese killed. - Okinawa being a small island. The US saw just how ferocious and tenacious the Japanese could be and the US hadnt even reached the home Islands yet. Operation downfall (invasion of mainland Japan) had estimates ranging in the hundreds of thousands for the Americans and into the Millions for the Japanese.
You can still argue the ethics of dropping the bomb, but come on you have to at least mention war fatigue and the ethical argument of the real possibility more would die (both civilians and military) from an actual invasion. Not to mention public opinion of sending more young americans to die in a war they didnt start who didnt need to.
Also the Soviets were about to invade as well and the cold war was already brewing. A "quick resolution" and keeping it out of soviet hands played a major role outside of just the casualties. Dont mention just "justify cost" as the reason why. Again I respect both sides of the argument but at least try to be factual.