|
RapierFugue -> RE: "No, but I served in a company of heroes." (1/16/2011 4:48:42 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Well thanks RF - I think :-)
You're welcome. I certainly wasn't attacking you, old sport, merely pointing out a couple of foibles I've noticed. No harm or offence intended.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
There is a school of thought though that had we not entered the theater, eventually the Nazis might have the bomb.
It's not a school attended by more than anyone with more than 3 functioning brain cells. The Germans lacked the theoretical know-how, and were at least 4-5 years behind getting it, as they'd killed, imprisoned or let flee a load of mathematical experts, on account of them being Jewish, and a load of chemical and manufacturing experts, for the same reasons. It's somehow oddly fitting that, if Hitler hadn't been an anti-Semite, he'd have been massively more dangerous. German scientists, interrogated post war by the Allies, were massively incorrect about both the quantities of Uranium 235 necessary to make a bomb (their chief scientific advisor considered that something in excess of 1.5 metric tonnes was required, whereas the amount is nothing like that much), and the processes necessary to make it reliably. And that’s in 1945/6, remember; even if they’d started from the same point as people like Oppenheimer (which they didn't), they wouldn’t have got there as quickly because they had made a number of errors in their initial calculations, and they’d also made some hideously inaccurate errors on the rest of the process as well (in other words, they started with wrong thinking and allowed it to continue to direct their ever more incorrect efforts); they believed that Uranium was the only workable isotope, having missed Plutonium completely (one theory for this is that Heisenberg deliberately misled his own nation concerning the maths around fissile isotopes, on account of wanting to sabotage, or at least stall, Germany’s nuclear programme, but more likely is that they simply missed it, on account of the fact that not one single German nuclear theorist of the era managed to work out that plutonium was fissile under everyday conditions) but worse they weren’t yet aware that the only isotope of uranium that “works” in a bomb-making capacity is uranium 235 – the Germans thought that any of several of the uranium isotopes they were working on (at least 4-6 years behind the Allies’ understanding, remember) would suffice were they ever to make such a device. They wouldn’t have. What they would do was make a fairly effective “dirty bomb”, and there’s strong evidence Germany did manage this, but a dirty bomb is a long way away from a useful weapon of war.
Next, Germany's ability to manufacture the components of a nuclear bomb, i.e. their capacity to weaponise fissile materials, was at least 3-4 years away from where they needed to be, because they'd been directed (again, from the top, i.e. der Führer and the military seniors) to concentrate on the mechanical engineering technologies necessary to make aircraft, ships, guns, tanks, etc. This technological approach (I call it the Krups Model, after the best exponent of it) was very good at making large-scale mechanical devices, but the manufacturing skills required to weaponise fissile materials are completely different; it’s like the difference between making a skyscraper and a Swiss watch – both are difficult technical challenges, but they're completely different in terms of manufacturing focus and skill-sets required.
Thirdly, courtesy of Heisenberg again, the Germans believed they were “only” about 18-24 months off having such a weapon in late 1942 and, as they thought at that point there was virtually no chance of losing the war (note that they didn't consider America’s entry to be any blocker to victory, which is your starter for 10), they actually shelved the project as being a) unnecessary and b) easily re-started if it should be required. By the time they realised they were in trouble, war-wise, they were also too far off having the theory, practice, manufacturing and weaponising skills required and, worse (from their POV of course, not ours) they didn't even realise just how far off they were.
Next, and (oddly) most tellingly; cost and resources. The Manhattan project, and the research preceding it, was one of the most costly and resource-hungry projects ever attempted at that stage in human history. At its peak it drew in something in the region of 150,000 technical or semi-technical personnel, and cost (in today’s terms) something in the order of $75-100 Billion dollars – Germany simply didn't have either the personnel to achieve this on its own, or the money. Britain (and I mean Britain on its own, not the Allies as a whole) had matched and then surpassed Germany’s manufacturing output as early as mid 1942, and the Germans were constantly on the back foot from then on, capacity-wise. Put simply, if they had have tried it they’d have starved or been unable to make much in the way of tanks, guns, ships, aircraft, etc, while they were doing it.
Next, security of research facilities; the Germans simply didn't have anywhere they could work in peace; they had a few subterranean facilities, but these were relatively shallow, and weren’t anywhere near big enough to allow work on an atomic device to be completed without severe disruption by Allied bombing attacks. As soon as the Allies noticed the build-up of personnel and materials (which they would have, having excellent photo-reconnaissance capabilities), they would have been able to disrupt the programme.
Next, delivery methods; the Germans didn't have a suitable vehicle for deployment – they had shelved development of a long range, heavy tactical bomber as early as 1942, as they felt that it would prove unnecessary – their thinking was that, once they’d conquered Russia and sorted out their natural resource limitation issues, they could deal with Britain and the rest of Europe in short order, and America would then be a fairly easy “mop up”; Hitler’s plan, as best we understand it, was to simply offer America peace terms, albeit at the point of a gun.
Next, ... oh I could go on all day on this one, sorry, but as I noticed yesterday that at least one of the mods are having one of their "on topic" drives (something I'm not personally in favour of as I enjoy and appreciate, and am educated by a lot of “thread drift”, but of course it’s not my call), I'm not going into more details. Read a book. Read lots of books. Study for, oh I dunno ... 20 years maybe? Then come to the understanding that America’s intervention in WWII, while it certainly capped the war to a 1945 conclusion that would probably have spun out to 1947-48 without them, wasn't actually intrinsic to an Allied victory. Don't get me wrong, I'm personally glad and grateful they did (not least because it’s unlikely my grandfather would have lived had the fighting gone on much longer), but this commonly held (and, as I'm given to understand, taught as fact in many American schools?) belief is sadly erroneous. If you remove the Chinese and other forces in the Pacific theatre then the Allies lose. If you remove Russia from the European theatre then the Allies lose, but you can remove America and what happens is that the war lasts longer, and costs more lives, but still isn't lost.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
And if deem me eccentric, I got news for you. That word is not strong enough. I have not found an adjective that fits as of yet.
I can think of a couple ;)
quote:
ORIGINAL: Termyn8or
Irked ? You betcha.
My point was, your degree of irked-ness is immaterial; trolls can’t be argued out of an idiotic position, because they're not about the facts, they're about the needle and the damage done, i.e. it’s the argument they want, and any response is fine by them – your reason, logic and understanding, such as it is, don't count. Until you get that you're always going to be dancing to their tune, not singing your own.
Are we learning yet?
|
|
|
|
