Thread

1. kjander79 · 1790965857 · focus · HN ↗

   This is an awesome read, and likely correct in the narrative, but the cubes they have at hand to study have a bit of a provenance problem - how do we know they were the ones used for the German research?

   At any rate, getting a reactor running still was a long way from the industrial capacity the Americans used to get a working device. Industrial capacity Germany just didn't have late in the war. And after Afrika Korps' defeat, they weren't getting any easily accessible materials anymore.

   1. Lumich · 1790975208 · focus · HN ↗

      [dead]

      1. ajnin · 1791027618 · focus · HN ↗

         That's the second puzzling comment you've posted on this subject. Are you suggesting atom bombs don't exist?

         1. Lumich · 1791058062 · focus · HN ↗

            I've learnt that flat out statements aren't always the best way. I suggest curious minds consider the evidence laid out in Palmer's book, which is not only free but also a true pioneering work, to then “come to their own conclusions” (if they're into that kind of thing – not everyone is).

            I had never really understood why in the early 90s “nuclear weapons” ceased to be “a problem” (a media talking point) moreless overnight “when the Wall came down”, as the arsenals still existed. A dozen years later I realized the Russians kept talking about them, and I was worried about “stability”.

            And there were other things I couldn't make sense of – such as what does it mean for an aircraft to be “nuclear-capable”? I mean – there's a payload, and there's speed and altitude, and there may be safety concerns, but nothing really seems to fit when you look at what's considered “capable” and what's not.

            And why did we have barrages to stop tank armies entering “from the East”?

            And why spend so much on military in the first place when the bomb dwarfs everything? Why all this insanity?

            Another dozen years later I found that same Swedish naval engineer whom Palmer would later also find in the exact same way, and whom he mentions in the preface. It was a bit like “tolle, lege” although of course I don't compare to Augustine.

            And then the insanity started making sense again, but in a very different way.

            But there's something else that strikes me profoundly when I read discussions such as these. It's not about the topic, it's about the participants. It's the way they talk about it – the way “the Bomb” has become an object of both erudition and veneration. “The Bomb” is studied and idolized, intellectually hugged and worshipped – while the victims are a mere projection screen for the greatness of “the Bomb”.

            How can that be?

            To me, the psychology of things is often the most interesting aspect. And I think what we have here is a cover story, a self-serving cover story, and that is not an accident.

            1. ajnin · 1791075319 · focus · HN ↗

               A cover story for what ? We have eyewitnesses of Hiroshima. We have videos of atomic bomb tests. We have seismic recordings of underground blasts. Multiple countries claim to have independently developed the bomb. A coverup on a global scale, lasting for decades, implicating people from the military, scientists, everyday people from many countries, without a single person breaking secrecy. Why ?

               1. Lumich · 1791125514 · focus · HN ↗

                  I'd reply but it's pointless, all my comments are now stillborn, dead on arrival. It appears some people on HN, despite all the talk about “curiosity”, don't like seeing their topics of predilection and veneration challenged by views and evidence that could lead people to reconsider whether the establishment view is correct at all.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.