A civil defense defender said an atomic explosion will never vaporized a human body
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-09-2013, 02:26 AM
 
RE: A civil defense defender said an atomic explosion will never vaporized a human body
(12-09-2013 09:41 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(12-09-2013 08:14 PM)Mike Wrote:  Regarding the aftermath of Hiroshima after the atomic bombing, this is the photo of it. The blog author, Nigel Cook said even at the ground zero there are still many buildings that are still standing. The rubbles are also there and didn't got vaporized. The bridge, Aioi bridge is also unaffected. But from what I've known, however, the bomb is not detonated on the ground level. It was an air burst.

[Image: 2.JPG]

From http://glasstone.blogspot.com/2011/05/de...posed.html

So?

You'll forgive me if I utterly fail to see the point in this line of questioning.

Little Boy was 'just' a bomb. It made an explosion. It was not a sufficiently powerful explosion to obliterate literally everything. Furthermore it was a single explosion, and the air pressure effects would prevent a firestorm near the centre. The aftermath is utterly explicable in light of the target, the bomb, and the prevailing conditions.

What is the point?

Now I understand. Not to mention if we compared the Hiroshima-Nagasaki atomic bombs to the modern thermonuclear weapons that we have nowadays, the modern weapons are million times more powerful than the previous atomic weapons.

Other than nuclear weapons, what kind of conventional weapons that can make the same effect such as "vaporizing" human bodies into an unidentified remains or leaving no remains?
Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2013, 01:22 PM
RE: A civil defense defender said an atomic explosion will never vaporized a human body
(13-09-2013 02:26 AM)Mike Wrote:  Other than nuclear weapons, what kind of conventional weapons that can make the same effect such as "vaporizing" human bodies into an unidentified remains or leaving no remains?

A plutonium device would kill living organisms while leaving a majority of inanimate structures intact.

However nuclear weaponry is not conventional weaponry, it is strategic weaponry - a very different thing than the tactical weaponry utilized in conventional warfare.
***

Tactical weaponry = finite body count / used in conventional warfare (definable devastation)
Strategic weaponry = infinite body count. / horrific and unethical (exponential devastation)

There are only 2 kinds of strategic weaponry: nuclear and biological. Biological weaponry is not to be confused with chemical weaponry, which is a tactical weapon - it is somewhat predictable and devastation is definable.

Biological weaponry would be something like virus and like nuclear weaponry, it's body count is completely uncontrollable, unpredictable, and therefore infinite.

Humans are "in control" of tactical weaponry but with strategic weaponry, nature takes over and everyone dies. And continues to die.

I'm not sure what this line of questioning is about. It doesn't matter how it is phrased; death is death.

What's your point? Drinking Beverage

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2013, 01:54 PM
RE: A civil defense defender said an atomic explosion will never vaporized a human body
(13-09-2013 01:22 PM)kim Wrote:  
(13-09-2013 02:26 AM)Mike Wrote:  Other than nuclear weapons, what kind of conventional weapons that can make the same effect such as "vaporizing" human bodies into an unidentified remains or leaving no remains?

A plutonium device would kill living organisms while leaving a majority of inanimate structures intact.

However nuclear weaponry is not conventional weaponry, it is strategic weaponry - a very different thing than the tactical weaponry utilized in conventional warfare.
***

Tactical weaponry = finite body count / used in conventional warfare (definable devastation)
Strategic weaponry = infinite body count. / horrific and unethical (exponential devastation)

There are only 2 kinds of strategic weaponry: nuclear and biological. Biological weaponry is not to be confused with chemical weaponry, which is a tactical weapon - it is somewhat predictable and devastation is definable.

Biological weaponry would be something like virus and like nuclear weaponry, it's body count is completely uncontrollable, unpredictable, and therefore infinite.

Humans are "in control" of tactical weaponry but with strategic weaponry, nature takes over and everyone dies. And continues to die.

I'm not sure what this line of questioning is about. It doesn't matter how it is phrased; death is death.

What's your point? Drinking Beverage

I think you mean a Neutron Bomb here as opposed to a plutonium device.

Strategic weapons are designed for use against an enemies urban, industrial and logistic centers, tactical weaponry to be used against battlefield targets in a theater of war. The definition here has nothing to do with destructiveness or killing power of the weapon.

Nuclear weaponry can take on both forms. The US inventory still maintain the B83 and B61 free fall tactical thermonuclear weapons, which can be set for megaton range yields prior to launch of the sortie. All USAF Air Combat Command fighters and bombers as well as USN/USMC carrier based combat aircraft are wired to carry these tactical nukes. It's believed that the Nimitz-class carrier USS George Washington based out of Yoksuka, Japan carries tactical nuclear weapons and contingency plans to use them in the event of a nuclear conflict in the Pacific rim.

In addition chemical and biological weapons can be used for both strategic and tactical purposes as well.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2013, 02:13 PM
RE: A civil defense defender said an atomic explosion will never vaporized a human body
Confused So, the ROTC Strategy and Tactics course I took, was either bogus or they've completely change their categorization of weaponry. It was quite a long time ago... so, things are probably quite different.

Then again, maybe they were just trying to entice me into their fold by insincerely appealing to my sense of ethics. Undecided

***
However, like I stated before, dead is dead. That part doesn't change. Dodgy

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2013, 08:00 PM
 
RE: A civil defense defender said an atomic explosion will never vaporized a human body
What are the conventional weapons that can make a similar effect like say, the atomic bomb or a smaller thermonuclear device? Is it sufficient to vaporize human bodies and then there are no remains leave? Someone said actually many victims at the 9/11 incident are indeed vaporized and only half of the total victims were found, leaving only remains of bone while the others leaving no remains.
Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2013, 08:05 PM
RE: A civil defense defender said an atomic explosion will never vaporized a human body
(13-09-2013 08:00 PM)Mike Wrote:  What are the conventional weapons that can make a similar effect like say, the atomic bomb or a smaller thermonuclear device? Is it sufficient to vaporize human bodies and then there are no remains leave? Someone said actually many victims at the 9/11 incident are indeed vaporized and only half of the total victims were found, leaving only remains of bone while the others leaving no remains.

Define 'vaporize'.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
13-09-2013, 08:10 PM
 
RE: A civil defense defender said an atomic explosion will never vaporized a human body
(13-09-2013 08:05 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(13-09-2013 08:00 PM)Mike Wrote:  What are the conventional weapons that can make a similar effect like say, the atomic bomb or a smaller thermonuclear device? Is it sufficient to vaporize human bodies and then there are no remains leave? Someone said actually many victims at the 9/11 incident are indeed vaporized and only half of the total victims were found, leaving only remains of bone while the others leaving no remains.

Define 'vaporize'.

Rendered the victims to ashes, gaseous form or even becoming atom or plasma.
Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2013, 08:26 PM
RE: A civil defense defender said an atomic explosion will never vaporized a human body
(13-09-2013 08:10 PM)Mike Wrote:  Rendered the victims to ashes,

That's called burning.
Thumbsup

(13-09-2013 08:10 PM)Mike Wrote:  ... gaseous form or even becoming atom or plasma.

To what extent? Such that the remains are not individually identifiable? Such that the remains are not identifiable as human? Such that there aren't even any identifiable remains?

Each of those would necessitate a certain (different) amount of energy. So there you go!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2013, 04:22 AM
RE: A civil defense defender said an atomic explosion will never vaporized a human body
(13-09-2013 08:26 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(13-09-2013 08:10 PM)Mike Wrote:  Rendered the victims to ashes,

That's called burning.
Thumbsup

(13-09-2013 08:10 PM)Mike Wrote:  ... gaseous form or even becoming atom or plasma.

To what extent? Such that the remains are not individually identifiable? Such that the remains are not identifiable as human? Such that there aren't even any identifiable remains?

Each of those would necessitate a certain (different) amount of energy. So there you go!

And not just energy, but a process.

People were incinerated and then the remains were pulverised by tons of falling steel and debris.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2013, 05:00 AM
 
RE: A civil defense defender said an atomic explosion will never vaporized a human body
(14-09-2013 04:22 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-09-2013 08:26 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That's called burning.
Thumbsup


To what extent? Such that the remains are not individually identifiable? Such that the remains are not identifiable as human? Such that there aren't even any identifiable remains?

Each of those would necessitate a certain (different) amount of energy. So there you go!

And not just energy, but a process.

People were incinerated and then the remains were pulverised by tons of falling steel and debris.

Yes. IIRC the heat released by the jet, or conventional weapons are less than the heat produced by an atomic explosion.

How about in the case of an atomic explosion? After the bomb is detonated, are there really any remains leave after the explosion? Such as bone fragments, skulls, burned charcoals, etc. ?
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: