Sayonara

And then they take on the world?

If you're going to tell people that something like that is a myth, you should probably back it up with some solid evidence.

True, but then he wasn't trying to wage atomic war. Again, possible != feasible. Especially in the case of Japan in the final days of WWII, which is what we are discussing. But it didn't. The submarine was lost. Even if it had reached Japan, it would not have supplied them with the resources required to wage nuclear war. Remember the original comment that sparked this off was "If the war between America and Japan had dragged on eventually the Japanese might have developed atomic weapons of their own", the inference being that this would have evened the odds - which is simply not true. Even with an arsenal of nuclear weapons that came from nowhere, by that time the Japanese would have had no way to deploy them in a tactically useful fashion. The issue I have is that you are taking the oath to protect the emperor a lot more literally than the Japanese themselves, in order to create the impression that millions of combatants would have appeared from nowhere. The projected Japanese losses are not so much a reflection of the number of Japanese combatants that would be intentionally countering the US invasion, but rather an approximation of how much human damage the invasion would have to do in order to succeed.

Thanks for taking part in the experiment.

http://www.computerhope.com/nethlp.htm

Admins and moderators don't "screw with" things.

Yes. But it doesn't say how, it merely goes on to describe a related function. The Messenger service is not the same as the net send command in DOS, although the latter is apparently reliant on the former. Exploiting the RPC can be done over the net. Net send can't. The internet is a network of networks, which is not the same as a network per se. No PC on my network is aware of the identity of any of the PCs on your network in any way, except for when our two networks communicate, in which case only the IP address of the routers would be exchanged. Does that make more sense? I am sure it would be easier to understand if you knew how networks communicate, and if you knew what the tools you are trying to (ab)use actually do.

No they aren't.

I really don't think that's the only problem we'd come across to be honest. The whole prospect of being hunted down by the NSA or what have you isn't terribly appealing. I think you are attempting to use the word "possible" in place of "feasible". Considering the number of people who would have a vested interest in deploying such devices, the distinct lack of rogue nuclear weapons blowing parts of the world up over the past 60 years is a pretty good indicator that it is not practical to try and take the "home made" route. That's not really the ideal solution if you're intending to turn an already-raging war around, is it? You need to locate sufficient quantities, hold that location, transport it to wherever you need it to go, and perform the requisite refinement processes. This is - remember - for a country that is under attack from the air, and has expended most of its trade and diplomacy options, critical resources, military personnel and vehicles, and funds. No, those are not the only possible problems. Some others are: - Not having the people with the requisite skills and/or knowledge available, - Lacking the machining finesse required to make a device that will actually go off, - Lacking the funds and trade routes required to get hold of parts or tools that your country simply is not capable of fabricating, - Not having sufficient safety procedures to avoid detonating it ahead of time, or protecting staff from the dangerous materials involved, - Having the work subverted or sabotaged by enemy agents, - Having your facility pounded to dust by an enemy air raid, ...and so on. You really need to clarify that. I originally asked you why there would be millions of casualties, and you've moved from "infinite reinforcements" to vague allusions about oaths that are - in the face of war - going to be of little practical value since most Japanese citizens would regard them as they do any other part of their formal societal tradition.

Perhaps you should read that link again.

Ignoring for the moment the fact that you can't judge the value of a force that is intended to maintain peace by comparing it with your own force, which is designed to roll in and blow shit up, what has the effectiveness of the UN Peacekeeper forces got to do with whether or not the USA adheres to UN law and mandates?

Firstly, "you and I could", which is what you originally said, is not the same as "we and government sponsorship could". It's also barely relevant when you consider that the technology and infrastructure of most countries has moved on considerably since the 1940s, as has the availability of information on such subjects as the construction of nuclear weapons and the preparations required for such a task. Secondly, it's the quantities required that makes it difficult to obtain the materials you need. A country that has expended most of its viable resources in a war, is hemmed in by hostile forces, and has virtually no active allies left is not going to be able to suddenly produce these quantities out of a magic hat. And definitely not enough to wage nuclear war. Thirdly, again, the expertise and equipment were simply not there. You can't thow up a working nuclear bomb factory overnight, especially if you have enemy forces blowing the crap out of anything that looks like a piece of your war engine. Even assuming that all the Japanese took that oath and intended to see it through, women, elders, children and all, what does that have to do with Japan's inability to defend its skies?

Those messages don't use net send, they exploit the Remote Procedure Call function in windows, which anyone who keeps track of security issues will have disabled or secured.

Netsend is a network protocol. The internet is not your network. I'd appreciate it if you did not attempt to send information to the IP address of the machine this web site is hosted on without having a clue about what it is you're doing.

Stop making multiple threads on the same subject.

No, we really really couldn't. Japan didn't have time to flick through catalogues and wait for the parts to arrive, and they certainly did not have the required facilities. I'm not sure they even have them now, although if they never bothered to develop them it's understandable why. By this time in the war the Japanese were virtually defenseless. Allied planes were able to fly right over the mainland, bombing with impunity. Given the willingness of the US forces to kill Japanese soldiers in the most grotesque ways imaginable on the islands, whatever reinforcements Japan had left on the mainland would have been demoralised and short-lived.

Is this a known IP or did you just make it up?

I think it needs to be made more clear that this is because of the limitations of our detection technology, and not necessarily because no such planets are there.

Probably a plan by this point.

This no longer has anything to do with proxy servers.

If people won't stay in the channel because it's too quiet, it's never going to "worth getting on".

My intention was to illustrate that the Japanese were worlds away from being able to build nuclear weapons, however since you mention it I seriously doubt there could have been millions of casualties in a mainland invasion at that time. Firstly I don't believe the US navy had the capability to land that many troops in a single invasion, and secondly the Japanese forces would have lacked the capacity for killing that many people. But then I am not a historian.

Threads in the non-science forums do not show on the front page. Threads on the fornt page and in the "new posts" list are ordered newest post first. Bumping threads is not something we encourage, and spam is deleted as a matter of course.