The world almost got nuked on at least 17 occasion

[Longinius 1]

Did you guys know that some 15 000 Americans and an unknown number of foreigners died because of the US test blasts with nukes? Thats pretty scary.

This according to a recent study...

Despite clamor, fallout study still unreleased

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/02/28/usat-nuke-sidebar.htm

[nordin dk 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Mar. 01 2002,12:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyway, the use of nukes should never be even discussed, as long as we are all sitting on this one planet with the fragile ecosystem keeping us alive.<span id='postcolor'>

I second that...

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

In 1957 german scientists for the first time in history showed a great sense of responsibility for their doing. It was the year when Germany intended to build nuclear waepons to be prepared for the strong enemy at border (DDR and USSR). The UK intended to develop their own H-bomb and France was going to have their own nuclear-waepons in 5 years from then. Those 18 very famous german scientists refused to develope that lethal weapon program and asked ever other scientist to show solidarity.

Strauss (former Cancelor of Germany) was furious, but what could he do. We saved a lot of money on that but the atomic weapons came anyway cause the US wanted to position theirs near to the USSR, what could be better have been a better location that Germany.

C'est la vie. But lets not forget that the Cold war was probably the most peaceful decades we ever had.

[WhoCares 0]

Strauss was never Cancelor, but minister of defence.

A funny little anekdote they showed yesterday in german TV:

The russians build some big A-Weapon bunkers ~30km north of Berlin. They stored there some nukes (called R1 I think, modified german V2s). The fuel for this rockets was ethyl alcohol. At a later inspections they found the rockets w/o fuel - the soldiers drank it all

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WhoCares @ Mar. 01 2002,16:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Strauss was never Cancelor, but minister of defence.

A funny little anekdote they showed yesterday in german TV:

The russians build some big A-Weapon bunkers ~30km north of Berlin. They stored there some nukes (called R1 I think, modified german V2s). The fuel for this rockets was ethyl alcohol. At a later inspections they found the rockets w/o fuel - the soldiers drank it all  <span id='postcolor'>

this mistake is embarassing enough, I should just edit it but that would be cheating. You are absolutely right (and believe me, I knew it) but I was just reading that long text and it was not realy about nuclear-weapons but Strauss effort to reach the top (to become cancelor). This is the kind of mistakes that happen if you copy-paste, read and think about the next sentence at the same time.

"Please believe me, I am not so dump as this mistake may show!

[WhoCares 0]

There is one thing that confuses me more then the cancelor thingy:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In 1957 german scientists for the first time in history showed a great sense of responsibility for their doing. It was the year when Germany intended to build nuclear waepons to be prepared for the strong enemy at border (DDR and USSR). <span id='postcolor'>

Since end of WW2 Germany has some restrictions on its military equipement, eg. no bigger ships than destroyers, submarines with very limited tonnage and such things. I always thought nuclear weapons were a crutial part of this restrictions...

However, that I never heard of the quoted incident doesn't mean, that it couldn't have happened (how could they discuss so interesting things w/o my knowledge ) Maybe it's because it took 16 more years till I saw the first light...

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

"Sowjetische Truppen standen in der Zone unmittelbar an den Grenzen der Bundesrepublik", schildert er (Adenauer) später seine Überlegungen, "und vor allem: Wir hatten freiwillig auf die Herstellung von Atomwaffen verzichtet." Leider sei der Vorschlag von US-Präsident Eisenhower nicht umgesetzt worden, unter amerikanischer Aufsicht den Nato-Verbündeten atomare Waffen zur Verfügung zu stellen.

No, I think you presume wrong. Germany did have the choice  to develope nuclear weapons. They themselves did proclaim that they will not do so.

But dont misinterpret the times. I think during these early decades many polticians looked at nuclear-bombs as simple improved artillery (Adenauer ((1957))"Die taktischen Waffen sind nichts weiter als die Weiterentwicklung der Artillerie").

The re-construction of the German army was a long process and especially interesting because Germany was the tool for the power-play between the USSR and the NATO.

And Andenauer (cancelor) used this strategic importance to bargain with both sides. Germany got its army when it pariticipated in the "Brüsseler treaty†of 1948, now called “Westeuropäischen Union†(WEU) and the NATO.  Then in 1954 the "treaty of Paris" was changed and because Germany now was a NATO and a WEU country it enjoyed full souverenity.

The great restrictions were after WWI

WAV: Adenauers speech after PARIS TREATY and souvereignity for Germany 1954

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WhoCares @ Mar. 01 2002,17:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is one thing that confuses me more then the cancelor thingy:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In 1957 german scientists for the first time in history showed a great sense of responsibility for their doing. It was the year when Germany intended to build nuclear waepons to be prepared for the strong enemy at border (DDR and USSR). <span id='postcolor'>

Since end of WW2 Germany has some restrictions on its military equipement, eg. no bigger ships than destroyers, submarines with very limited tonnage and such things. I always thought nuclear weapons were a crutial part of this restrictions...

However, that I never heard of the quoted incident doesn't mean, that it couldn't have happened    (how could they discuss so interesting things w/o my knowledge   ) Maybe it's because it took 16 more years till I saw the first light...  <span id='postcolor'>

Nope, you are thinking of the end of WW1, which Germany didn't lose by the way.

After WW2, and after Germany was "created" in 1949 (correct me if I'm wrong), Germany became one of the strongest armies in Europe. Germany's army was feared and respected. It was not built like France's or the UK's or the US's army, that were all capable of deploying quickly internationally. Germany's army had just one task: delay a possible Soviet advance as long as possible. And it was big and powerful enough to do that! After the SU fell, though, one of the bestest armies in the world deteriorated into...its state today. Pity really.

Annoying, though, that Germany's army washout material is being sold to Turkey, who are waging a war against the kurds and are willing to invade a NATO member and neighbour

[Wobble 1]

Did you guys know that some 15 000 Americans and an unknown number of foreigners died because of the US test blasts with nukes?

know how many russians died in their testing?.. me either.. they refused to answer that question any time asked..

the main reason people in the US got sick is because back then reliable and accurate understanding of irridation was still in its infancy.. it was accepted (globally) that if radiation doesent reach X amount then its ok to be there.. this of course has found to be untrue.. in fact the level of actual radiation is only a portion of the equation that makes up weather its safe or not..

there is:

A: dispersion.. is there lots of dust around?

b: wind.. if its really calm radioactive particles will stagnate in the air and be easer to inhale/contact

C: TIME.. how long you gonna be in the area.. its commin knowledge NOW that exposure to minor radiation can be very dangerous over extended time.. but back then it was generally accepted that if its not bad enough top harm you immediatley.. it wont hare you ever.

these ideas semm ludicris now of course.. but back then,, it was all brand new.. a whole new science.

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Mar. 02 2002,02:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Did you guys know that some 15 000 Americans and an unknown number of foreigners died because of the US test blasts with nukes?

know how many russians died in their testing?.. me either.. they refused to answer that question any time asked..

the main reason people in the US got sick is because back then reliable and accurate understanding of irridation was still in its infancy.. it was accepted (globally) that if radiation doesent reach X amount then its ok to be there.. this of course has found to be untrue.. in fact the level of actual radiation is only a portion of the equation that makes up weather its safe or not..

there is:

A: dispersion.. is there lots of dust around?

b: wind.. if its really calm radioactive particles will stagnate in the air and be easer to inhale/contact

C: TIME.. how long you gonna be in the area..  its commin knowledge NOW that exposure to minor radiation can be very dangerous over extended time.. but back then it was generally accepted that if its not bad enough top harm you immediatley.. it wont hare you ever.

these ideas semm ludicris now of course.. but back then,, it was all brand new.. a whole new science.<span id='postcolor'>

I remember seeing a video of what they was teaching people if a nuke went off.It was Duck and cover,duck and cover.THat some funny stuff.