But that is what the article at rense.com is implying. That of the two ships at the dock, the Quinault Victory was loaded with a U-235 bomb intended for use against Japan in 1944. Records show that the destination was Tinian, the same island that the Hiroshima bomb was sent to a year later in 1945. Read all the text to the end for corroborating information.
2. From your link: "According to the US Department of Energy Oak Ridge records, 74 kilograms of U-235 was available by December 1943, 93 kg by December 1944 and 289 kg by December 1945."
I see two problems with this: 1. If they already had 74 kg by the end of 1943, it does not make sense that they only produced another 19 kg in the following year. 2. According to Wikipedia, there were only 50 kg available by July 1945 and it was all used in the Hiroshima bomb.
You surely can't believe Wikipedia versus recently declassified documents stating facts. Regardless of how much U-235 was produced, they actually had enough by July 1944 to make 6 minimum yield nuclear bombs, as 15.5kg was the minimum required for one bomb. The actual Hiroshima bomb was of a much higher yield, I believe about 60kg was used (according to government documents, 289kg available in late 1945).
Whether or not it is believed to be a nuclear blast at Port Chicago in 1944, you have to wonder about the blast yield being far in excess of the ordnance stored in the ships and dock. Or that it formed a crater on the seabed far larger than that of the ordnance but matching the characteristics of a nuclear underwater blast. Or that the cruiser Indianapolis shipped out of Port Chicago in 1945 under similar circustances to the Quinault Victory in 1944. Both loaded with two mysterious boxcars and nothing else, destined for Tinian. However, the Indianapolis made it to Tinian (but was sunk just after delivery), and the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. I don't know what to believe, but the evidence is very suspicious.
“Or that it formed a crater on the seabed far larger than that of the ordnance”
The problem with that is that Port Chicago is way up the Sacramento River from SF Bay. Riverbed, not seabed.
“Or that the cruiser Indianapolis shipped out of Port Chicago”
Really? They got the Indianapolis way up the river to Port Chicago, turned it around, and got it downstream again? Now that’s some seamanship.
The United States did not even control Tinian until after the Battle of Tinian which began after the Port Chicago explosion. Even after the battle, it took months of work to create US military bases on the island.
You surely can't believe Wikipedia versus recently declassified documents stating facts. Regardless of how much U-235 was produced, they actually had enough by July 1944 to make 6 minimum yield nuclear bombs, as 15.5kg was the minimum required for one bomb.
1. I can believe Wikipedia any day over Rense.com or some old articles from the Napa Sentinel. Your article makes claims but has no links to the supposed "recently declassified documents" that prove the accuracy of the stated figures.
2. You claim that there was enough material in July 1944 for six bombs and that one blew up at Port Chicago. Why didn't we just use the other five? We could have dropped one on Berlin and ended the European War many months earlier. That's another thing wrong with this story: the supposed bomb was going the wrong way.
Whether or not it is believed to be a nuclear blast at Port Chicago in 1944, you have to wonder about the blast yield being far in excess of the ordnance stored in the ships and dock.
1. There were thousands of tons of ordinance being loaded onto the ships at Port Chicago. The Hiroshima bomb had a yield of 15 kt. These numbers are in the same ballpark.
2. The survivors said nothing about the loading of anything other than normal bombs. Since they were being court-marshaled and sentenced to long prison terms, as well as being blamed for the blast, they would have had reason to bring this up.
3. You should read the Wikipedia page on the Port Chicago disaster as it has a section on the "nuclear bomb theory". It says: "After failing to find hard evidence to support his theory, Vogel abandoned it in 2005."
4. Finally, this story passes the classic test for conspiracy theories: For it to be true tens of thousands of people would have had to be lying and have successfully maintained those lies for their entire lives.