Litkicks Message Board Archive

more from me

Posted to Poetry and Politics




The Japanese were working on A-Bombs of their own but they didn't quite know enough about nuclear fission at the time. They were definitely planning to use these bombs as soon as they had mastered the techonology, though. The co-founder of Sony was one chap who worked on the Atomic Bomb projects in Japan and he tells how he knew exactly what kind of bomb the Americans had dropped when he heard about the bright light and the big mushroom cloud, and was astounded at how far ahead the Americans were in terms of their nuclear research. Japan were at least five or six year away from developing one of these bombs, though, which was the only reason America didn't get a little taste of that particular kind of doom. I think I am right in saying they were the only other country close to it, apart from, of course the USA.

Japan walked out of the League of Nations (was it? my history is not on a par with you people) because the League of Nations (?) didn't like the whole Manchuria thing and what they were doing to China.

I knew about that whole arming the bomb in the air thing, which happened because a few of the B29s had crashed on take off and a crash on take off with an atomic bomb would have meant a catastrophe, obviously. I saw in a documentary about it that when the chap who was arming the bomb in the sky (a fellow named Peaks?) he didn't know exactly what would happen when he armed it because it had never been done before. It could have gone off in mid-air and the whole of history would be different. Which is neither here nor there.

The Japanese are a hardy race and do not surrender easily. They didn't want to surrender, even after the two atomic bombs were dropped. I do wonder though whether they might have surrendered, if, as someone above has suggested, a warning drop was made near Japan to demonstrate the awesome power of these killing technologies. But, then again, those killer-crazy-fucking-bombs cost near two billion dollars to make (in old money), so I don't think the American govt. would have been too keen to drop them in the ocean, unless they knew they would be guaranteed a surrender from the Japanese.

On the positive side of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, at least no more bombs have been used since, and there have been a whole lot of wars since. And on another positive note at least India and Pakistan are to have talks about the whole Kashmir crisis, so that's two nations who may not blow each other up, possibly (let's see how it goes).

Do you know, the hardest thing about history is that if you have a job and a girlfriend and friends and a family and other interests it is very hard to get as much factual information as one would like. I think, Elecartist, you should go a bit easier on some of us who have not got such a passion as you clearly have for politics and history. We are still entitled to our opinions, even if they are less well-informed than your own. I think you should, and I mean this, teach us or correct us, or advise us, in a kinder, less frustrated way. I mean, I am only twenty-nine and there are only so many books that I can get around to reading, and some of those names and dates and reasons are pretty hard to remember, and putting them all together to come up with something that makes sense (considering all sides of the argument) is the work of a lifetime and can be mightily disheartening, not to say depressing, at times. And I think you are a bit older than twenty-nine, considering the breakdown of the things you have seen and done. I am merely a child, although that is no excuse for some of my ignorance.

You have, on a lighter note, made me want to read more history, and I mean that.

Watched a documentary all about the "Black Hands" and that guy Gavrilo Princip (just nineteen) who started, in effect, the first world war. History is a difficult subject and I expect to have no real handle on it until I am at least forty or fifty.

Cheers. Peace. Noise.