Debatforum

Quote: ChrisMaiden
Helt rigtigt... Den famøse robert var meget generøs ved at give os dette fantastiske våben .|.. :mad: :flame: Men ja.. Vores egen Niels Bohr eller hvordan det staves var jo også med så vidt jeg husker...:(

Quote: Tina
ja men Bohr var mest interesseret i en fredelig brug af atom energy... fra Wikepedia: Later years, death, and legacy In 1941, during the German occupation of Denmark in World War II, Bohr was visited by Heisenberg in Copenhagen (see next section). In 1943, shortly before he was to be arrested by the German police, Bohr escaped to Sweden, and then traveled to London. He worked at the secret Los Alamos laboratory in New Mexico, USA, on the Manhattan Project, where, according to Richard Feynman, he was known by the assumed name of Nicholas Baker for security reasons. His role in the project was important. He was seen as a knowledgeable consultant or "father confessor" on the project. He was concerned about a nuclear arms race, and is quoted as saying "That is why I went to America. They didn't need my help in making the atom bomb." [1]. Bohr believed that atomic secrets should be shared by the international scientific community. After meeting with Bohr, J. Robert Oppenheimer suggested Bohr visit President Franklin Roosevelt to convince him that the Manhattan Project should be shared with the Russians in the hope of speeding up its results. Roosevelt suggested Bohr return to England to try to win British approval. Churchill opposed the idea.[1] After the war he returned to Copenhagen, advocating the peaceful use of nuclear energy. He died in Copenhagen in 1962. He is buried in the Assistens Kirkegård in the Nørrebro section of Copenhagen. The element bohrium is named in his honor. He is pictured on the 500 kr. Danish bank note. In 1965, three years after Bohr's death, the institute of physics at the university of Copenhagen changed its name to the Niels Bohr Institute.

Quote: AgentOrange
Det er ikke nødvendigvis negativt, at man opfandt atombomben, i hvert fald er der mange der mener, at den "mutual assured destruction", som atomvåbnene skabte, var med til at holde både USA og Sovjetunionen borte fra direkte konfrontation under den kolde krig (selv om de så havde en del proxy krige andre steder...) At brugen af atomvåben mod Japan var den eneste og billigste (målt i amerikanske liv) løsning på krigen er i bedste fald en noget tvivlsom konklusion. Selv hvis dette havde været den primære motivation, kan man nok undre sig over, hvorfor man kastede ikke en, men to bomber, og at man kastede dem på mål, der havde nærmest ingen militær betydning.

Quote: Ole Foget
Hvis USA ikke havde smidt mindst 1 bombe over Japan, så var det ikke sikkert at vi var kommet gennem den kolde krig uden at der var blevet trykket på et par røde knapper.