Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
ModelsRailroadsRockets
Radio Controlled
Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater Models
ModelGeeks.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Model Forum / General / Rockets / February 2006



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

I want a pair!

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
shockwaveriderz - 25 Feb 2006 17:58 GMT
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11501081/

shockie B)
Tater Schuld - 25 Feb 2006 18:58 GMT
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11501081/
>
> shockie B)

I saw a replica of the fat boy at Oshkosh. those are too shiny!
Bob Kaplow - 25 Feb 2006 22:45 GMT
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11501081/

PMC!

Signature

 Bob Kaplow   NAR # 18L   >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
   www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/    www.nira-rocketry.org    www.nar.org

    S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver!

Alan Jones - 26 Feb 2006 00:13 GMT
>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11501081/
>
>PMC!

I don't think that qualifies.  But on a historical note, what was the
first missile to be armed with a nuclear warhead, Thor?
Tater Schuld - 27 Feb 2006 04:30 GMT
>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11501081/
>>
>>PMC!
>
> I don't think that qualifies.  But on a historical note, what was the
> first missile to be armed with a nuclear warhead, Thor?

thought it was the Redstone. atomic warhead with a range of five miles. your
opinion?
hiltyt@weinerboy.org - 27 Feb 2006 15:10 GMT
>>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11501081/
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>thought it was the Redstone. atomic warhead with a range of five miles. your
>opinion?

Corporal was the first "guided" missile authorized to carry an atomic
payload...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_missile

tah

--

Tod A. Hilty
Hilty Information Systems

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room."

Do not look in the direction of the flash...
Curl up in a ball as you hit the ground...

CAUTION: The Mass of This Product Contains the Energy Equivalent
of 85 Million Tons of TNT per Net Ounce of Weight

Please replace weinerboy dot org with adelphia dot net for reply.
Alan Jones - 28 Feb 2006 00:58 GMT
>>>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11501081/
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>thought it was the Redstone. atomic warhead with a range of five miles. your
>opinion?

My opinion is that all the missiles mentioned in this thread are
better modeling subjects than gravity bombs, and in some cases are
even good PMC candidates.  Redstone had a range of about 180 miles. It
was essentially an uprated V2.  Thor was more of a clean sheet design
IRBM  with a range of about 1000 miles, and it later evolved into the
Delta.
The Rocket Scientist - 26 Feb 2006 06:34 GMT
<rant>

One of my pet peeves is about the way commentators (including Mr. Jones)
wax so eloquently about the "horrors" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  I
would remind these folks that dropping the bomb on Japan was perhaps the
most humane act in the annals of warfare.  These two bombs convinced a
nation prepared to fight to the last man, woman, and/or child that they
just might want to reconsider.

Mr Jones makes the mistake of thinking that the Japanese of WWII had the
same values as we did.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The
Japanese Bushido code held that the greatest disgrace one could
experience was to lose or to be captured in battle.  A soldier should
kill himself before surrendering, and any soldier (or for that mater,
any civilian) who either surrendered or allowed himself to be captured
was beneath contempt.  (Just ask the folks who survived the Bataan death
march.)

On researching the subject of the bombing of Hiroshima, I discovered the
diary of a physician who survived the bomb and described the horrible
aftermath.  (I don't remember the name of the book, something like
"Hiroshima Diary.")  What I found most astonishing was that, even amid
the carnage of a nuclear explosion, this doctor was devestated when the
Emperor announced the surrender.  How could he disgrace the Japanese
people this way?  Surely this was a mistake!

Look at it another way.  The Japanese were a warlike military power
determined to conquer the Pacific and eventually the world and wipe out
all the Yankee Dogs they could in the process.  Two nukes later, they
were pacifists who wanted to sell us cars and electronics, and they are
our best buddies in the world.

Condemn the bomb?  Thank God for the bomb!

> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11501081/
>
> shockie B)

Signature

Ad Astra!

Bill Sullivan

========================================

In Franklin's tower the four winds sleep
Like four lean hounds the lighthouse keep
Wildflower seed on the sand and wind
May the four winds blow you home again.

Robert Hunter

tai fu - 26 Feb 2006 17:25 GMT
I heard from a teacher in high school that the Japanese were about to
surrender but the USA decided to drop the bombs to scare the Russians....

I kind doubt it because after seeming "The Last Samurai" I think most
Japanese soldiers would rather kill themselves than surrender in battle.

Imp not sure if Taiwan being liberated from Japan is a good thing, some old
generation said that we owe our higher education standards to the Japanese,
and they said the KIT messed it up cause of the 228 incident...

--
TAI FU
Tweak - 27 Feb 2006 16:44 GMT
> <rant>
>
> One of my pet peeves is about the way commentators (including Mr. Jones)
> wax so eloquently about the "horrors" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Nuclear tragedy?  Poor taste?  

Would he rather they make models of incendiary bombs?  Aircraft
carriers?  How about that marvel of engineering known as the machine
gun.

War is a horror of death and tragedy, the rest is just difference in
delivery.  The a-bombs were simply efficient at delivering that horror,
because make no mistake, in one form or another that horror was coming.

Signature

Tweak

Dave Grayvis - 27 Feb 2006 17:07 GMT
>><rant>
>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> delivery.  The a-bombs were simply efficient at delivering that horror,
> because make no mistake, in one form or another that horror was coming.

Not only that, the Japanese Themselves had a nuclear bomb program.  They
would not have hesitated to use it on Us.  Had we not had the bomb,
invasion of Japan itself was our next step and like You said, "in one
form of another that horror was coming".
George Ball - 28 Feb 2006 12:41 GMT
plus didn't the fire-bombing of Tokyo kill far more civilians than both
atomic bombs combined??

> <rant>
>
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
>>
>> shockie B)
Tweak - 28 Feb 2006 13:50 GMT
> plus didn't the fire-bombing of Tokyo kill far more civilians than both
> atomic bombs combined??

Don't go bringing facts like that into the discussion.

Signature

Tweak

Me - 28 Feb 2006 13:57 GMT
> plus didn't the fire-bombing of Tokyo kill far more civilians than both atomic bombs combined??

...and far fewer than the numbers of innocent civilians throughout Asia
that were slaughtered directly at the hands of Japan's military.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.