Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 August 13

= August 13 =

Michael Phelps
I know he is retired so is that means he will never come back to play the Olympic games? Is that means he won't ever swim in any races? And why is he retired as such a young age? I mean he could have at least swim for the US for the next 2 Olympic games with his age right now.Pendragon5 (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's nothing stopping him coming out of retirement if he wanted to, like Ian Thorpe tried to do for the London olympics. As to all the other questions, you're not going to get much more then personal opinions, it's not really a question for the ref desk.. It's not unusual for athaletes to want to retire on a high note, he really doesn't have much left to acheive. Performing as an elite athalete is a very hard job and just getting gold medals might not be enough motivation to continue after you have fifty something of them. Vespine (talk) 03:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He didn't achieve 50 medals yet. He only got 22 lol. He still can achieve more medals. That's something right? That is still a big motivation.Pendragon5 (talk) 09:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Vespine. Training for the Olympics for four whole years in an extremely hard and intense job, and considering that he already won a huge number of gold medals he is probably set for life financially-wise due to his ability to appear in commercials and documentaries. If I was in Michael Phelps's shoes right now I would probably retire as well. I mean, you can't spend all your life training and being in the Olympics. You have a lot of other hobbies and fun activities that you want to do throughout your lifetime. Futurist110 (talk) 04:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying he should spend his all life doing swimming. I totally agree that he should do something else that is more fun than intense swimming. But look he is only 27. Even if he choose to retire after 2 more Olympic games, he will only be 35 by then. At the age of 35, it is when you started to get a lot weaker as you age compare to your 20's (I mean you're still strong but you're getting old and weak). By the way, 35 is still a young age. Some people don't even start any business until 30 or 40 or even older. Personally, I think he made a bad choice. He stopped doing something he was born to do. He was obviously gifted swimmer. He can still make huge money out of swimming career. Plus business is risky. He may lose all his money if something goes wrong. If I was in Michael's shoes. I would swim until I'm not strong enough to compete anymore.Pendragon5 (talk) 09:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand that training to swim is far more time-consuming (and fatiguing) than a full-time job. Furthermore, if he swam at an Olympics and didn't win any medals, he would merely be "tarnishing his own brand"... AnonMoos (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Most Reliable Pre-1948 Unemployment Rate Estimates for the United States?


Which unemployment rate estimates for the U.S. before 1948 are considered to be the most reliable, say, by academics and economists? Futurist110 (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I personally was under the impression that Stanley Lebergott's estimates for 1930-1947 were the most reliable ones to use, but that Christina Romer's estimates for 1890-1929 are the most reliable ones to use. As for 1889 and before, I genuinely don't know.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:4WS4p-RAH4kJ:www.nber.org/chapters/c2644.pdf+u.s.+unemployment+1931+lebergott&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShjLi1nuTEUHwriXRT9_isyLgCVQfzT6ggQfU5NQX9fMCzOvmY5-JK9RoACa58zmFcfT-F2dadZyqflOVo63f_JpzQfGak82OnOjef5HfRv0wgwJiTrSEkvSV0hZ3n3fyYZviHO&sig=AHIEtbR83iyTmq3xGRogz3q4tr_kVlb9XQ

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:WhV8pLvaE9EJ:www.minneapolisfed.org/research/events/1985_10-24/Romer_UnemploymentData.pdf+Spurious+Volatility+in+Historical+Unemployment+Data&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjU1AJGKkZaQxWD645Qc0fDLMEf8gcu427pCmyhwdQhy1DXpwXn0jrHvleIkNUDMZgdHK_kr7oQcbPIu1P7jZSVFiMh1V7Y5n0SegXYenmZnYgA08pL5i3BLiOt56-U-MtIEFgU&sig=AHIEtbS6nR_x1qS-PGfJh6DrF7DvgyVU4g


 * See Romer, C. (1986) "Spurious Volatility in Historical Unemployment Data" Journal of Political Economy 94(1):1-37 and Coen, R.M. (1973) "Labor Force and Unemployment in the 1920's and 1930's: A Re-Examination Based on Postwar Experience" Review of Economics and Statistics 55(1):46-55. 75.166.207.214 (talk) 08:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Lebergott's numbers for the Great Depression must be modified as by Michael Darby in his paper, "Three-and-a-half Million U.S. Employees Have Been Mislaid", cited by Romer, to count WPA and other government workers, which Lebergott wrongly counted as unemployed. See a couple of tables in our New Deal for the Darby numbers. Unfortunately Lebergott's unmodified numbers, which give a grossly inaccurate picture of the 30s, are still the most commonly seen & used, even here, for instance.John Z (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Nazis with atomic weapons
A quick hypothetical question. Say that Nazi Germany had gained enough knowledge of nuclear weaponry to successfully create an atomic bomb, say similar to that of Fat Man, in 1942. Would the Germans be legally/morally obligated to not bomb major cities such as London, New York City, Washington D.C., Moscow, etc.? 64.229.153.184 (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * They probably weren't morally obligated to bomb anywhere with any kind of bomb, but it was war. HiLo48 (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think the Nazi's were that worried about legal/moral obligations. I think it safe to say that they would have used the bomb if they had it. Blueboar (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure they had any way to deliver a bomb to the US. I doubt they would have had any moral or legal objections, though. Both sides were perfectly happy to use enormous numbers of conventional bombs on civilian populations, including incendiaries that can destroy large areas of cities very quickly. The damage done to Dresden (see Bombing of Dresden in World War II) by the Allies in one night of conventional bombing was comparable with the damage done to Hiroshima and Nagasaki (at least in terms of the initial blast - once you include deaths from radiation in the days and weeks following, there were probably a lot more deaths from the nuclear bombs). I don't see why the Nazis would have had a problem with returning the favour using a single bomb. The idea that you shouldn't target civilians in war didn't seem to exist at the time. --Tango (talk) 17:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know if they had a way to deliver a bomb via air, but they could have used a submarine for any coastal city. --NellieBly (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Any count of the casualties shows the atomic bombings far exceed Dresden. (25,000 - 35,000 at Dresden compared to 150,000 - 250,000 initial deaths from two atomic bombs, not counting delayed radiation deaths). Rmhermen (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I meant the two cities individually. And I think those numbers are including delayed deaths. Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki gives those numbers and says about half were on the first day. That gives 45,000-83,000 in Hiroshima and 30,000-40,000 in Nagasaki. That is comparable with 25,000-35,000. (The reason I'm excluding delayed deaths is because I'm not sure it was known at the time just how many of them there would be - the long term effects of radiation exposure were little understood.) --Tango (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * As for delivery, there was the Amerika Bomber project, the nearest to reality was the Junkers Ju 390. Reports of an actual trial flight to New York by one or two Ju 390s have never been verified. The Luftwaffe was still bombing London with conventional aircraft up to May 1944, see Operation Steinbock, the "Baby Blitz". Alansplodge (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Legality and morality wouldn't make one bit of difference to the government that attempted to conquer the world and exterminate non-Aryans. Look at the Battle of London as an example of indiscriminate bombing that the Nazis did.  Why would they hesitate any less with nuclear bombs? -- Activism  1234  18:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to be fair to the Germans, the Luftwaffe were initially under orders to avoid bombing London, however on 23 August 1940, some bombs were accidentally dropped on Harrow, a suburb of NW London. Together with raids on industrial areas of provincial towns which had caused civilian casualties, this prompted a retaliatory night raid by by 81 RAF bombers on Berlin. Night bombing at that time involved scattering bombs in a wide area around the target (within 3 miles was considered a "hit" but there weren't too many of those) and there were civilian deaths in Berlin. From then on, the gloves were off. I suspect that the initial reluctance to bomb London was out of fear of the RAF's large bomber fleet rather than scruples about civilian casualties; the Luftwaffe had bombed the centres of Rotterdam and several other cities during the earlier Battle of the Netherlands. Alansplodge (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I know you're trying to be fair, not that you support the Nazis or anything, but then I can go and mention 10 other despicable war-related crimes or relentless attacks (not even including the Holocaust) that the Nazis did, starting from their unwarranted invasion of Poland and harassment of Belgium. -- Activism  1234  21:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No argument there. Alansplodge (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * A now deceased British friend of mine was a Lancaster bomber crew member in World War Two. He said that the fighter pilots who shot at them were very gentleman like, always aiming for the engines and not the fuselage. His impression of the Germans was that they were more concerned with preventing bombs from hitting their families than causing destruction and loss on the other side. That was, until he was shot down and captured by the Volksturm. They weren't so gentleman like. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The only thing that would prevent the Nazis from using atomic bombs is if they were afraid they would then be targeted by them, too. This would require that the US or another allied nation either have the bomb, or be on track to having it soon, and the Nazis would have to both be aware of that and be unable to prevent it.  They had utter contempt for the technical abilities of the US, so wouldn't believe it without proof, like a demonstration bomb.


 * Once both sides had the bomb, presumably a cold war would ensue, with the front lines frozen. StuRat (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If two sides had developed nuclear weapons while already in a state of total warfare, I'm not so sure a cold war would have been the result. It took the USA and USSR some time to realise all the strategic implications of their new weapons. That time wouldn't be available during war, so they may have acted without fully understanding the consequences. Also, mutually assured destruction requires a lot of very large nuclear bombs - a handful the size of the ones dropped on Japan wouldn't do it. --Tango (talk) 20:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The retaliatory threat doesn't have to be total destruction. If the Nazis knew that nuking London would result in Berlin being nuked, they might very well back off. StuRat (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * A quick hypothetical question. Say that Capitalist America had gained enough knowledge of nuclear weaponry to successfully create an atomic bomb, in 1945. Would the Americans be legally/morally obligated to not bomb major cities such as Hiroshima or Nagasaki?  Tom Haythornthwaite 21:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs)


 * How does that moral question compare with the moral question of not using it and thus having tens or hundreds of thousands more Americans die in the alternative, i.e. a D-Day style invasion? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * False dicotomy. They didn't have to do either. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * This was war, not a garden party, and they had two choices, militarily. They chose the path that would kill as few Americans as possible, and hopefully end the war immediately. Which it did. The third choice was for Japan not to have attacked Pearl Harbor. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The logistics of the Germans being able to deliver a nuke to the US would have been astonishingly difficult (there's a reason the Blitzkrieg never made it to Manhattan). London would have been a far more likely target.


 * As to the legal/moral thing, I think others have answered this better than I can. They were legally obligated not to invade and occupy half of continental Europe, but that didn't seem to stop them. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 21:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Better to let Europe get destroyed and have Hitler focus his sights on other countries? Give me a break.  The "occupation" of parts of Europe by the United States was short-lived (as well as Japan), and was meant like that, unlike some of the colonial European powers after WWI who received mandates and territories.  Also remember that stuff like this, such as status of Berlin, was negotiated in agreements, and was split amongst the European powers, with only the U.S. being the non-European power who occupied Berlin, and even that was short-lived.  -- Activism  1234  22:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * That reads like American paranoia. You know, it's not always about the USA. Evanh2008's comment was clearly referring to Germany. HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Not really? And who said I'm American? I read his comments wrong, struck it out.  My mistake. -- Activism  1234  23:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed, HiLo. Thanks for clarifying. Evanh2008 (talk&#124;contribs) 04:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * On the question of international law, it is highly likely that, if the Nazis did use such a weapon but did not win the war, they would have been tried by the Allies as war criminals for these activities. Specifically, the wanton targeting of civilians (a massacre) is usually classified under "war crimes," and the use of toxic weapons is explicitly prohibited. If the Nazis had used the weapons and won the war, they would obviously have not prosecuted themselves for war crimes. As for morality, I have no doubt the Nazis would claim that it was in the interest of speeding up the end of the war and thus averting more deaths. (I don't want to put to fine a point on it, so I should just say that I think the similar policies undertaken by the Allies were also war crimes, and would have been treated as such had the Allies not won. Which only goes so far as to tell you what use designating things as "war crimes" are, since the winners are always the judges.)
 * As for delivery, there are many ways to deliver a nuclear weapon to the United States. If I were the Nazis I would simply find a way to get it on a submarine and then detonate it in a harbor. New York would be particularly vulnerable to this sort of attack, just as Einstein warned in his 1939 letter. It would be comparatively easy for the Germans to bomb European capitals. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The harbours were protected against that kind of thing. And detonating a nuke underwater doesn't do much good - the water absorbs and dissipates too much of the explosion. You want to detonate it in the air above a city to get the most damage possible. Also - the Allies prosecuted the Nazi's for war crimes anyway. One more charge added onto the bottom of the list wouldn't make much difference. --Tango (talk) 22:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Detonating a nuclear weapon actually does quite a lot if you're trying to contaminate things and kill plenty of folks. See Crossroads Baker for a nice vivid example — if something like that went off south of New York it would have caused a lot of physical damage, health issues (short and long term) and economic damage, to say nothing of panic. As for harbors — even, as now, there are a million ways to smuggle things through them. Don't overestimate their impregnability. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Correct - consider the fate of HMS Royal Oak (08), safely tucked away in Scapa Flow. Alansplodge (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I suppose, if they could deliver it, they could place the atomic bomb in a weighted device designed to keep it on the bottom of the harbor until the sub left the area, then drop the weights and float to the surface, where it would detonate. Releasing compressed air into a balloon to lift it to the surface might also be needed.  Launching it above the surface would be a more difficult technical problem, at the time (the size of the rocket needed would make it too big to fit on a sub).  StuRat (talk) 22:35, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In 1942, yes, but it would be a lot harder by 1945. Without bases to refuel and take on supplies, and with enemy vessels and planes scanning the seas, using sonar and visual, it would be difficult to get to NYC.  They didn't have nuclear subs, after all, which can stay down for months.  Subs of that era needed air to run their diesel engines, except for short periods during combat, when they ran on batteries.  The schnorkel made later models a bit less obvious when pulling in air, but they would still leave a wake, if moving. StuRat (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Nazis were rightly tried for war crimes after WWII, nuclear weapons or not. In fact, that's where we get so much of international law today, from the Nuremberg Trials.  Not all Nazis were tried there, some were tried later (such as the Eichmann Trial, and some escaped.  But the trials provided a basis for international designation of war crimes, and much of the Geneva Accords as well. -- Activism  1234  22:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What did the Nuremberg trials have to do with the Geneva Accord (or Geneva Accords (1988))? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Blaaaah meant Geneva Conventions. -- Activism  1234  04:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's worth remembering that the Allies were very ready to ratchet up the level of warfare and return to using weapons that had been banned only a short time ago, i.e. chemical and I would presume also biological. To see how ready, consider the Air raid on Bari, not an uninteresting article, especially as this bombing was the origin of perhaps the most widespread class of chemotherapy drugs, alkylating antineoplastic agents.  I suspect that had the Nazis started nuking cities and the Allies couldn't retaliate with nukes, they'd turn to these weapons.  (Indeed, I suspect the Japanese would have done the same, given their extensive interest in biological weapons, except that by the time the nukes were dropped they had very poor access to the U.S. to attack with them) Wnt (talk) 23:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally, I suspect that if the Nazis had started nuking the UK in 1942, they likely would have won over there, turned around, beaten the USSR, and then come to some kind of arrangement with the United States. But this is, again, just in the realm of fantasy. I just want to emphasize that the US desire to liberate Europe from the Nazis was only contingent on the actual feasibility of doing it, and nuclear Nazis taking the UK and USSR would have made it a pretty difficult if not impossible thing to do. Why we are debating this only in terms of the Nazis versus the Americans is a little beyond me. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Back to the question of delivery - see The U-Boat Rocket Program about a plan for a U-Boat to tow V-2 ballistic missiles across the Atlantic in vertical-launch containers. Alansplodge (talk) 01:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The USSR and USA couldn't minaturized nukes enough to fit into rockets until long after World War 2, but as long as we're assuming they had the technical abilites to do things that they could not, sure...and maybe they could just teleport the nukes into the oval office. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Good point, well presented. Alansplodge (talk) 02:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

A quick hypothetical pass over this looks like if the Germans had subcontracted delivery to Japan, using an American weapon design (using Canadian uranium, we can war-crime right up there with anyone), an attack on New York might have been feasible. Little boy is 4400 kg, plus a delivery vehicle is needed, the simplest of which is an airplane. The Japanese had a I-400 Sentoku that could carry three Aichi_M6A's at 3300 kg dry weight apiece, so that is room for a bomb and 5500 kg worth of aircraft, plus whatever those aircraft would have been carrying, so theoretically about 8000 kg of airplane. So the only question is whether an 8000 kg aircraft could lift a 4400 kg load (which I dunno) and whether you could fold that whole plane up into the sub. Surfacing just offshore the US at night would not be a huge problem, nor would be the splash of petrol you'd need to get the vehicle off the water. And unlike the Enola Gay, you don't need extra bulk for long travel, returning safely from the mission, or extra bomb-casing for a high-altitude drop. Luckily a whole bunch of those factors didn't materialize (and unluckily for the subject populations, nuclear weapons were used against human beings :( Whatever the justification, we should mourn that loss ). Franamax (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * (Just a factual thing: there was no extra bomb casing on Little Boy because of the altitude. The bomb detonated well above the ground; it did not have to survive the fall. Little Boy was heavy because was full of very heavy components. The Germans were as capable of everyone else as designing a gun-type bomb; that's easy stuff. They had plenty of their own uranium. And I still think London and Moscow would have been the targets, not New York. If you knock out them, the likelihood of a US invasion would have been pretty low.) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's worth remembering that when the USA and USSR did develop better nuclear weapons and the rocketry to deliver them in the years after WWII, it was with considerable help from German scientists. HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Since legality and morality is decided by the victors, it would depend upon whether they would have won the war. Ssscienccce (talk) 03:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * A Tom Lehrer song is running through my head now. " 'Vonce ze rockets are up / Who cares vhere zey come down? / Zat's not my department!' / Says Wernher von Braun." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The Nazis, as the aggressors, would be morally responsible (if that means as few casualties/destruction as possible) to end the war as soon as possible and as peacefully as possible, which would have meant surrendering back in 39. The difference between the US nuking the Japanese is that the aggressor role is reversed. 65.95.22.16 (talk) 12:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * So because Japan attacked first, the US got carte blanche to do anything they wanted? That's not how war crimes work. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I note that the OP didn't ask "would this be feasible and how could it have been done", although everybody answered that question anyway. I also note that replies along the lines of "the nazis wouldn't respect law or morality" are so obvious that I'd like the OP to clarify the question. Legally or morally by whose law or morals? If you mean our culture's morality as it stands now, our best guess at the true morality, then the Nazis would be morally obliged to stop fighting completely, and stop being Nazis; so that can't be what you meant. Card Zero (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, FDR managed to extract pledges from the combatants at the inception of the war in Europe to not engage in the kind of bombing of civilians that everyone including the USA eventually engaged in. See Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II, International Law on the Bombing of Civilians and Aerial bombardment and international law.John Z (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think "stop being Nazis" and "stop fighting completely" are both too simplistic. Firstly, Nazism is a complex package of views, not all of which would have to be abandoned, but mostly I agree. "Stop fighting completely" is more difficult; unless you're saying that all wars are immoral (which you might be, but it's a contentious point). - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 14:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Good points. They would be obliged to become nice Nazis, and fight only in defense. Even so, this still makes the question "would we morally disapprove if they nuked some major cities" such a no-brainer that I think the details of the question must have been different. Perhaps the question is about Nazi morality. (I can't imagine what law the question was asking about.) Card Zero  (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's arguable that under their worldview they were fighting in self-defense against a global conspiracy of Jews, capitalists and communists. There's also the issue of lebensraum that they saw themselves as entitled to (and therefore justified in "defending").203.27.72.5 (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Fighting capitalists ? The Nazis always seemed rather capitalist to me, regardless of their name and propaganda (but then, so does the Chinese Communist Party). StuRat (talk) 04:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

French Directory
Were people like Paul François Jean Nicolas, vicomte de Barras elected to the French Directory of the 18th century, or were they simply appointed? I didn't see information on the page that really specified. Thanks, 64.229.153.184 (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * French Directory states the directors were "chosen by the Ancients out of a list sent to them by the Five Hundred." Clarityfiend (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)