My father did a summer internship at Oak Ridge a few years after the war. His only "war story" was that his car broke down on the way from MIT to Tennessee, so he got there a couple of days late. He missed the in-processing for interns, so the admin folks treated him like a regular new employee, and he got the full all-access security badge instead of the limited-access one for interns. This became a status symbol, since the other interns figured he must be working on some kind of special super-secret project with the grownups. From this I took the lesson that being late for work creates an air of mystery and enhances your reputation. That strategy did not work out as well for me, though.
While there aren't many people who would argue that the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima (August 6) and Nagasaki (August 9) were irrelevant to the end of the war in the Pacific, just how much a role they did make remains open to debate. Firstly, LeMay's incendiary bombing campaign against Japanese cities from February 1945 onwards did considerably more damage and caused more loss of life than the atomic bombs, making them at least appear less significant in that regard. Indeed, by the start of August, there simply weren't many cities left to bomb. Secondly, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria (also August 9) quickly demonstrated that Japan would not be able to hold onto its mainland possessions for long (or southern Sakhalin, for that matter). To this could be added the unthinkable, the risk of a Soviet invasion of Hokkaido. Whichever of these general points is the more significant, it is clear that Japan's negotiating position was rapidly deteriorating and her best interests would be served by a timely surrender. If Japan had no idea how many more atomic bombs were at US disposal and the next one might even land on Tokyo then arguably they wouldn't have waited until the 15th to officially surrender. It is also very significant that the Americans were prepared to permit the condition that Hirohito could remain as emperor. This certainly made it easier for Japan to accept American occupation. While American sympathy for the Japanese civilians lessened as the war dragged on, it could easily be argued that if the atomic bombs did precipitate the end of hostilities they also saved many Japanese lives - possibly into the millions. Japan relied heavily on imports for foodstuffs and fuel and by August 1945, thanks to US submarine action and aerial minelaying, Japan no longer had a merchant navy of which to speak. Consequently, if the war had been prolonged into 1946 or longer then many would have starved to death and bear in mind that by August 1945, 8.5 million Japanese were homeless.
i did just wanted to mention this, from what i understand, the japanese high command didndt even meet, after the bombs, it was only after the invasion of the islands by the soviets that they meet and maybe discuss surrender. and then they surrendered to the americans because they would give them better terms. the bombs where not the main cause of surrender, but they may have helpt in the deciscion, and it gave the emperor a nice excuse to tell the people, if you want to keep up the idea that the emperor is divine and the army is strong, and you get posed with 2 options "the enemy have a superweapon" or "the enemy has a stronger army", the superweapon soudns like a better excuse to keep the divine idea.
I just discovered your channel and love the content. Nuclear energy has been a great fear of mine since I was a child playing sim city mainly because I had no understanding as to why a meltdown was so "bad". Since then I starting watching all the documentaries and movies I could about Nuclear energy but only with a "bomb go boom" understanding. Listening to your further explanation of the physics of Nuclear energy has been incredibly interesting. Thank you very much for the content! I would like to suggest more nuclear news and also a reaction/explanation of your take on what happened at Fukushima.
You're quite welcome! Yes, video games like Sim City and such definitely contributed to getting me interested in nuclear things as well. More nuclear news - and Fukushima - coming! I just moved cities a month ago and wrapped up a very busy project at work, so I'm itching to get back into videos.
I have a movie for you to look and review The Manhattan Project -1986 With John Lithgow and Christopher Collet Where --the plot revolves around a gifted high school student who decides to construct an atomic bomb for a national science fair
Two movies I would like to see you review are probably ones you have never heard of. First is Silkwood (1983), with Cher, Meryl Streep, and Kurt Russel. The second one is The Manhattan Project (1986) with John Lithgow and Cynthia Nixon. Silkwood is based on actual events and you could go over the manufacturing of Uranium pellets and the exposure issues that contaminated Karen Silkwood. The Manhattan Project is good science fiction but you could elaborate on the real risks that the kid would be putting himself in and the general public from radiation exposure.
At around time 9:15 minutes, the discussion turns to the complexities in decision making and in historical judgement concerning the actual use of the atomic bomb. And it is stated by Jared Frederick that *"from a military standpoint"*, it was the quickest way to end the war and the best way to minimize US losses. I find this statement, even with caveats, to be exceedingly problematic, especially given the release of many government documents not in Gar Alperovitz's 1995 book "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth," the top-secret "Magic" intercepts of Japanese communications, and full translations from the Japanese of accounts of high level meetings and discussions in Tokyo leading to the Emperor’s decision to surrender. With this material, the view that the Japanese surrendered solely due to the atomic bombs is exceedingly problematic, especially since the Soviets, *as promised* (Stalin promised at the Yalta Conference in February, 1945, to declare war 3 months after Germany surrendered), not only declared war on Japan, but the *attacked* them in the areas around Manchuria only minutes after midnight of August 9, 1945 (hours *before* the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki). Furthermore, in books like "Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan" (2005) by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, its concluding chapter entitled "Assessing the Roads Not Taken" brings together many plausible opportunities to coordinate political decisions with the Soviets entering the war to maximize the chances the Japanese would surrender. Thus, even from a "military standpoint," it is not at all clear that dropping the atomic bomb minimized anything, especially as the fire bombing of Tokyo resulted in far greater damage so that there is a real question regarding the shock effect the atomic bomb had on the Japanese leadership. Of course, a natural question is, since we knew the Soviets were going to declare war on August 8, 1945, why didn't we wait for them to do so and try to push them toward surrender instead of (prematurely) dropping the bomb on August 6, 1945?
from what we know now, the bombs didnt end the war, they probably did help in the descission to surredner to the americans, because of better terms and a better excuse the emperor could give to the people, keeping the divine emperor idea and still loosing because the enemy has a superweapon.
In season either 6 or 7 (I think it’s 7) of West Wing they have a scenario where a nuclear reactor goes into meltdown and its from the perspective of what’s going on in the administration as the crisis unfolds. I’d love your reaction to it. I think a lot of it was based on the 3-mile island incident.
I had a relative that was a lawyer near Knoxville TN which was the nearest big town around the Manhattan project in Oak Ridge. I remember he talked about the time, "We didn't know what they were doing at the Clinton project. All I knew was that every weekend they came down here to get drunk. Then the MPs would collect them up from the drunk tank at the start of the week."
One thing that stuck out to me in the trailer is when they mention the phrase "world War 2" when I'm almost certain that name wasn't coined by historians until after the events of the war
Actually, there are a number of citations for the use of the phrase during WW2 and at least one from before, as early as 1919. If you think about it, this makes sense. While the First World War was predominantly called The Great War while it was raging, many people felt that the peace afterwards wouldn't last (from Versailles onwards) and so they were concerned about a possible (or likely) 'future World War 2'. And, similarly, once we got into The Cold War many people expressed concern about the likelihood of World War 3, which thankfully hasn't started yet.
On September 11, 1939, Time Magazine began its cover article with the words "World War II began last week at 5:20 a. m. (Polish time) Friday, September 1, when a German bombing plane dropped a projectile on Puck, fishing village and air base in the armpit of the Hel Peninsula." Six years later on September 11, 1945, "World War II" became the official government designation. FDR had begun to use the phrase "Second World War" in 1941, and the phrase appeared in peer-reviewed journals at early as 1942 [e.g., "Economic Demobilization in Great Britain After the First World War" by Albert T. Lauterbach in "Political Science Quarterly," Vol. 57, No. 3 (Sep., 1942), pp. 376-393 - "The budgets of 1919 and 1920 exceeded ..., a trifling amount compared with the annual costs of the second World War but a terrific burden to those who still thought in terms of pre-war budgets."].
nice! it's going to be several weeks longer for the breakdown, until the movie comes out on streaming (I still haven't seen it yet, just got over being sick)
@TheAtomicAgeCM Never mind my baited breath then. Just heal fully.👍🏻 I took my father to see this. Honestly I'm not sure if IMAX added anything. To me, "immersive" doesn't have to mean "bone-rattling loud."
you should review the series " the days" a docu/series made from the fukushima incidents reports and books from the people who stood there found it very good and acurrate, hope you can review it
So awesome seeing Reel History on here! I love his channel. Have you seen the IMAX exclusive trailer? It's super minimalist and way more intense but you can only find rips of it that got leaked online unfortunately. They did the same thing with Interstellar but thankfully once the movie came out someone who'd seen it actually re-created it. Hopefully someone does the same with Oppenheimer
My father did a summer internship at Oak Ridge a few years after the war. His only "war story" was that his car broke down on the way from MIT to Tennessee, so he got there a couple of days late. He missed the in-processing for interns, so the admin folks treated him like a regular new employee, and he got the full all-access security badge instead of the limited-access one for interns. This became a status symbol, since the other interns figured he must be working on some kind of special super-secret project with the grownups.
From this I took the lesson that being late for work creates an air of mystery and enhances your reputation. That strategy did not work out as well for me, though.
hahaha, what a cool story about your dad and a great personal comment too, thank you!
Thanks for having us Charlie! Can't wait til the movie comes out. See you then.
You're welcome, thanks for doing this, it was awesome! See ya then.
While there aren't many people who would argue that the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima (August 6) and Nagasaki (August 9) were irrelevant to the end of the war in the Pacific, just how much a role they did make remains open to debate. Firstly, LeMay's incendiary bombing campaign against Japanese cities from February 1945 onwards did considerably more damage and caused more loss of life than the atomic bombs, making them at least appear less significant in that regard. Indeed, by the start of August, there simply weren't many cities left to bomb. Secondly, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria (also August 9) quickly demonstrated that Japan would not be able to hold onto its mainland possessions for long (or southern Sakhalin, for that matter). To this could be added the unthinkable, the risk of a Soviet invasion of Hokkaido. Whichever of these general points is the more significant, it is clear that Japan's negotiating position was rapidly deteriorating and her best interests would be served by a timely surrender. If Japan had no idea how many more atomic bombs were at US disposal and the next one might even land on Tokyo then arguably they wouldn't have waited until the 15th to officially surrender. It is also very significant that the Americans were prepared to permit the condition that Hirohito could remain as emperor. This certainly made it easier for Japan to accept American occupation.
While American sympathy for the Japanese civilians lessened as the war dragged on, it could easily be argued that if the atomic bombs did precipitate the end of hostilities they also saved many Japanese lives - possibly into the millions. Japan relied heavily on imports for foodstuffs and fuel and by August 1945, thanks to US submarine action and aerial minelaying, Japan no longer had a merchant navy of which to speak. Consequently, if the war had been prolonged into 1946 or longer then many would have starved to death and bear in mind that by August 1945, 8.5 million Japanese were homeless.
i did just wanted to mention this, from what i understand, the japanese high command didndt even meet, after the bombs, it was only after the invasion of the islands by the soviets that they meet and maybe discuss surrender. and then they surrendered to the americans because they would give them better terms. the bombs where not the main cause of surrender, but they may have helpt in the deciscion, and it gave the emperor a nice excuse to tell the people, if you want to keep up the idea that the emperor is divine and the army is strong, and you get posed with 2 options "the enemy have a superweapon" or "the enemy has a stronger army", the superweapon soudns like a better excuse to keep the divine idea.
I just discovered your channel and love the content. Nuclear energy has been a great fear of mine since I was a child playing sim city mainly because I had no understanding as to why a meltdown was so "bad". Since then I starting watching all the documentaries and movies I could about Nuclear energy but only with a "bomb go boom" understanding. Listening to your further explanation of the physics of Nuclear energy has been incredibly interesting. Thank you very much for the content!
I would like to suggest more nuclear news and also a reaction/explanation of your take on what happened at Fukushima.
You're quite welcome! Yes, video games like Sim City and such definitely contributed to getting me interested in nuclear things as well.
More nuclear news - and Fukushima - coming! I just moved cities a month ago and wrapped up a very busy project at work, so I'm itching to get back into videos.
I have a movie for you to look and review The Manhattan Project -1986 With John Lithgow and Christopher Collet Where --the plot revolves around a gifted high school student who decides to construct an atomic bomb for a national science fair
Having recently re-read 'The Making of the Atomic Bomb' I will be curious too see this movie.
Two handsome experts discussing one of my favorite historical events! Happy Wednesday indeed 😊
Two movies I would like to see you review are probably ones you have never heard of. First is Silkwood (1983), with Cher, Meryl Streep, and Kurt Russel. The second one is The Manhattan Project (1986) with John Lithgow and Cynthia Nixon. Silkwood is based on actual events and you could go over the manufacturing of Uranium pellets and the exposure issues that contaminated Karen Silkwood. The Manhattan Project is good science fiction but you could elaborate on the real risks that the kid would be putting himself in and the general public from radiation exposure.
At around time 9:15 minutes, the discussion turns to the complexities in decision making and in historical judgement concerning the actual use of the atomic bomb. And it is stated by Jared Frederick that *"from a military standpoint"*, it was the quickest way to end the war and the best way to minimize US losses. I find this statement, even with caveats, to be exceedingly problematic, especially given the release of many government documents not in Gar Alperovitz's 1995 book "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth," the top-secret "Magic" intercepts of Japanese communications, and full translations from the Japanese of accounts of high level meetings and discussions in Tokyo leading to the Emperor’s decision to surrender.
With this material, the view that the Japanese surrendered solely due to the atomic bombs is exceedingly problematic, especially since the Soviets, *as promised* (Stalin promised at the Yalta Conference in February, 1945, to declare war 3 months after Germany surrendered), not only declared war on Japan, but the *attacked* them in the areas around Manchuria only minutes after midnight of August 9, 1945 (hours *before* the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki).
Furthermore, in books like "Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan" (2005) by Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, its concluding chapter entitled "Assessing the Roads Not Taken" brings together many plausible opportunities to coordinate political decisions with the Soviets entering the war to maximize the chances the Japanese would surrender. Thus, even from a "military standpoint," it is not at all clear that dropping the atomic bomb minimized anything, especially as the fire bombing of Tokyo resulted in far greater damage so that there is a real question regarding the shock effect the atomic bomb had on the Japanese leadership.
Of course, a natural question is, since we knew the Soviets were going to declare war on August 8, 1945, why didn't we wait for them to do so and try to push them toward surrender instead of (prematurely) dropping the bomb on August 6, 1945?
from what we know now, the bombs didnt end the war, they probably did help in the descission to surredner to the americans, because of better terms and a better excuse the emperor could give to the people, keeping the divine emperor idea and still loosing because the enemy has a superweapon.
In season either 6 or 7 (I think it’s 7) of West Wing they have a scenario where a nuclear reactor goes into meltdown and its from the perspective of what’s going on in the administration as the crisis unfolds. I’d love your reaction to it. I think a lot of it was based on the 3-mile island incident.
Really? I've watched that show and I don't remember that haha thanks for the heads up! I'll have to look into that one.
So hyped for this movie 💜💜
I had a relative that was a lawyer near Knoxville TN which was the nearest big town around the Manhattan project in Oak Ridge. I remember he talked about the time, "We didn't know what they were doing at the Clinton project. All I knew was that every weekend they came down here to get drunk. Then the MPs would collect them up from the drunk tank at the start of the week."
LOL the good old times!
I still "American Playhouse: Oppenheimer" in 1982 was very well done, but I don't see it available to buy or rent.
Check out Jared's channel, Reel History, here: www.youtube.com/@ReelHistory !
Movie review of Pu-239? (I've not seen it - just became aware of it this second)
Seriously hope you do a review of the full movie 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
I like these collabs you've been doing recently, good stuff
you two reacting to the whole movie would be great!
Have you reviewed the Fukushima accident yet?
"The chances are near zero"
Very serious statement..
I have one question do we get turbine trips once a time of year
One thing that stuck out to me in the trailer is when they mention the phrase "world War 2" when I'm almost certain that name wasn't coined by historians until after the events of the war
Actually, there are a number of citations for the use of the phrase during WW2 and at least one from before, as early as 1919. If you think about it, this makes sense. While the First World War was predominantly called The Great War while it was raging, many people felt that the peace afterwards wouldn't last (from Versailles onwards) and so they were concerned about a possible (or likely) 'future World War 2'. And, similarly, once we got into The Cold War many people expressed concern about the likelihood of World War 3, which thankfully hasn't started yet.
On September 11, 1939, Time Magazine began its cover article with the words "World War II began last week at 5:20 a. m. (Polish time) Friday, September 1, when a German bombing plane dropped a projectile on Puck, fishing village and air base in the armpit of the Hel Peninsula." Six years later on September 11, 1945, "World War II" became the official government designation. FDR had begun to use the phrase "Second World War" in 1941, and the phrase appeared in peer-reviewed journals at early as 1942 [e.g., "Economic Demobilization in Great Britain After the First World War" by Albert T. Lauterbach in "Political Science Quarterly," Vol. 57, No. 3 (Sep., 1942), pp. 376-393 - "The budgets of 1919 and 1920 exceeded ..., a trifling amount compared with the annual costs of the second World War but a terrific burden to those who still thought in terms of pre-war budgets."].
@@robertjulianoph.d.1423 fair enough
Are you going to do a reaction on the movie?
Waiting with baited breath for your reaction vid to the actual movie, now that it's been out a couple weeks!
nice! it's going to be several weeks longer for the breakdown, until the movie comes out on streaming (I still haven't seen it yet, just got over being sick)
@TheAtomicAgeCM Never mind my baited breath then. Just heal fully.👍🏻 I took my father to see this. Honestly I'm not sure if IMAX added anything. To me, "immersive" doesn't have to mean "bone-rattling loud."
I hope you review the film when it comes out
We will be! But it won't be until the movie comes to streaming - it's only coming to theaters at first.
you should review the series " the days" a docu/series made from the fukushima incidents reports and books from the people who stood there
found it very good and acurrate, hope you can review it
109 East Palace... Great book, wonder if this or parts was adapted regarding this film?
oh yeah if you saw ANY trailer you basically already know ALL trailers.
I hear this film's a blast .
that's good! I was hoping it wouldn't be a bomb
I just stumbled across this channel by accident, man I love it! I know zero about nuclear energy but you make it fun. You earned my sub!
that's awesome! Glad to have you
Let's gooooo!
Looks like Magnus Carlsen
kinda yea
So awesome seeing Reel History on here! I love his channel.
Have you seen the IMAX exclusive trailer? It's super minimalist and way more intense but you can only find rips of it that got leaked online unfortunately. They did the same thing with Interstellar but thankfully once the movie came out someone who'd seen it actually re-created it. Hopefully someone does the same with Oppenheimer
Awesome!
I have not seen that, but I'll have to try and look for it. Definitely gonna see this movie in IMAX though