Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
11-23-2003, 10:31 AM
#4821
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
> It's not a case of developing new energy technologies. I really wish it
were that simple. The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being
used to develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away. What is
constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil fuels, with no
actual replacement technologies available. Obviously, this will cause a
major change in almost every aspect of our lifestyles.<
Given the current geo-political situation, particularly wrt the middle east,
if the so-called "replacement technologies" were in any way viable on a
large scale they'd be deployed on a fast track. Radical environmentalists
have made it virtually impossible to expand usage of current clean
technologies, such as hydroelectric and insist wind and solar are the
answer. Yet no one will accept massive deployment of wind turbines nor is
space available to deploy huge solar collectors.
Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient, and
replacement of the internal combustion engine with fuel cells is not even in
the Model-T stages of development. Therefore, unless humanity is willing to
accept a massive economic upheaval conversion a slow conversion using bridge
technologies such as hybrids is the only viable path to follow. Naturally
the fanciful enviros will whine....
were that simple. The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being
used to develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away. What is
constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil fuels, with no
actual replacement technologies available. Obviously, this will cause a
major change in almost every aspect of our lifestyles.<
Given the current geo-political situation, particularly wrt the middle east,
if the so-called "replacement technologies" were in any way viable on a
large scale they'd be deployed on a fast track. Radical environmentalists
have made it virtually impossible to expand usage of current clean
technologies, such as hydroelectric and insist wind and solar are the
answer. Yet no one will accept massive deployment of wind turbines nor is
space available to deploy huge solar collectors.
Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient, and
replacement of the internal combustion engine with fuel cells is not even in
the Model-T stages of development. Therefore, unless humanity is willing to
accept a massive economic upheaval conversion a slow conversion using bridge
technologies such as hybrids is the only viable path to follow. Naturally
the fanciful enviros will whine....
11-23-2003, 10:31 AM
#4822
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
> It's not a case of developing new energy technologies. I really wish it
were that simple. The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being
used to develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away. What is
constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil fuels, with no
actual replacement technologies available. Obviously, this will cause a
major change in almost every aspect of our lifestyles.<
Given the current geo-political situation, particularly wrt the middle east,
if the so-called "replacement technologies" were in any way viable on a
large scale they'd be deployed on a fast track. Radical environmentalists
have made it virtually impossible to expand usage of current clean
technologies, such as hydroelectric and insist wind and solar are the
answer. Yet no one will accept massive deployment of wind turbines nor is
space available to deploy huge solar collectors.
Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient, and
replacement of the internal combustion engine with fuel cells is not even in
the Model-T stages of development. Therefore, unless humanity is willing to
accept a massive economic upheaval conversion a slow conversion using bridge
technologies such as hybrids is the only viable path to follow. Naturally
the fanciful enviros will whine....
were that simple. The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being
used to develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away. What is
constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil fuels, with no
actual replacement technologies available. Obviously, this will cause a
major change in almost every aspect of our lifestyles.<
Given the current geo-political situation, particularly wrt the middle east,
if the so-called "replacement technologies" were in any way viable on a
large scale they'd be deployed on a fast track. Radical environmentalists
have made it virtually impossible to expand usage of current clean
technologies, such as hydroelectric and insist wind and solar are the
answer. Yet no one will accept massive deployment of wind turbines nor is
space available to deploy huge solar collectors.
Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient, and
replacement of the internal combustion engine with fuel cells is not even in
the Model-T stages of development. Therefore, unless humanity is willing to
accept a massive economic upheaval conversion a slow conversion using bridge
technologies such as hybrids is the only viable path to follow. Naturally
the fanciful enviros will whine....
11-23-2003, 11:25 AM
#4823
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Matt Osborn wrote:
> >However, I think the use of the atom bomb was probably an unfortunate
> >mistake. I doubut the poeple who made the decision understood the
> >magnitude of what they did.
>
> They saved lives, Ed, ours and theirs. What's wrong with that?
Well that is debatable and has been. Supposedly the Japanese were
willing to surrender as long as we guaranteed to not depose the Emperor.
We said no conditions, so the Japanese wouldn't surrender. We dropped
the bombs, they surrenders, and we didn't depose the Emperor. The
assumption was that we said under the table we wouldn't depose the
Emperor and they publicly said they were unconditionally surrendering.
Both sides maintained "face." We don't know what would have happened if
we hadn't dropped the bombs so anything anyone says is pure speculation.
I just think if Turman had really understood the power and after effects
of atom bombs, he would not have authorized them to be dropped. Of
course that is just speculation as well. I don't blame anyone for the
decision, it was a war, people were dying everyday. The Japanese had
started the war and had ample opportunities to sue for peace before we
ended it.
Ed
11-23-2003, 11:25 AM
#4824
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Matt Osborn wrote:
> >However, I think the use of the atom bomb was probably an unfortunate
> >mistake. I doubut the poeple who made the decision understood the
> >magnitude of what they did.
>
> They saved lives, Ed, ours and theirs. What's wrong with that?
Well that is debatable and has been. Supposedly the Japanese were
willing to surrender as long as we guaranteed to not depose the Emperor.
We said no conditions, so the Japanese wouldn't surrender. We dropped
the bombs, they surrenders, and we didn't depose the Emperor. The
assumption was that we said under the table we wouldn't depose the
Emperor and they publicly said they were unconditionally surrendering.
Both sides maintained "face." We don't know what would have happened if
we hadn't dropped the bombs so anything anyone says is pure speculation.
I just think if Turman had really understood the power and after effects
of atom bombs, he would not have authorized them to be dropped. Of
course that is just speculation as well. I don't blame anyone for the
decision, it was a war, people were dying everyday. The Japanese had
started the war and had ample opportunities to sue for peace before we
ended it.
Ed
11-23-2003, 11:25 AM
#4825
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Matt Osborn wrote:
> >However, I think the use of the atom bomb was probably an unfortunate
> >mistake. I doubut the poeple who made the decision understood the
> >magnitude of what they did.
>
> They saved lives, Ed, ours and theirs. What's wrong with that?
Well that is debatable and has been. Supposedly the Japanese were
willing to surrender as long as we guaranteed to not depose the Emperor.
We said no conditions, so the Japanese wouldn't surrender. We dropped
the bombs, they surrenders, and we didn't depose the Emperor. The
assumption was that we said under the table we wouldn't depose the
Emperor and they publicly said they were unconditionally surrendering.
Both sides maintained "face." We don't know what would have happened if
we hadn't dropped the bombs so anything anyone says is pure speculation.
I just think if Turman had really understood the power and after effects
of atom bombs, he would not have authorized them to be dropped. Of
course that is just speculation as well. I don't blame anyone for the
decision, it was a war, people were dying everyday. The Japanese had
started the war and had ample opportunities to sue for peace before we
ended it.
Ed
11-23-2003, 11:59 AM
#4826
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:31:46 -0700, "Jerry McG"
<gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>> It's not a case of developing new energy technologies. I really wish it
>were that simple. The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being
>used to develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
>these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away. What is
>constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil fuels, with no
>actual replacement technologies available. Obviously, this will cause a
>major change in almost every aspect of our lifestyles.<
>
>Given the current geo-political situation, particularly wrt the middle east,
>if the so-called "replacement technologies" were in any way viable on a
>large scale they'd be deployed on a fast track. Radical environmentalists
>have made it virtually impossible to expand usage of current clean
>technologies, such as hydroelectric and insist wind and solar are the
>answer. Yet no one will accept massive deployment of wind turbines nor is
>space available to deploy huge solar collectors.
>
>Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient, and
>replacement of the internal combustion engine with fuel cells is not even in
>the Model-T stages of development. Therefore, unless humanity is willing to
>accept a massive economic upheaval conversion a slow conversion using bridge
>technologies such as hybrids is the only viable path to follow. Naturally
>the fanciful enviros will whine....
>
Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
who screw up, not the technology).
Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
<gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>> It's not a case of developing new energy technologies. I really wish it
>were that simple. The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being
>used to develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
>these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away. What is
>constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil fuels, with no
>actual replacement technologies available. Obviously, this will cause a
>major change in almost every aspect of our lifestyles.<
>
>Given the current geo-political situation, particularly wrt the middle east,
>if the so-called "replacement technologies" were in any way viable on a
>large scale they'd be deployed on a fast track. Radical environmentalists
>have made it virtually impossible to expand usage of current clean
>technologies, such as hydroelectric and insist wind and solar are the
>answer. Yet no one will accept massive deployment of wind turbines nor is
>space available to deploy huge solar collectors.
>
>Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient, and
>replacement of the internal combustion engine with fuel cells is not even in
>the Model-T stages of development. Therefore, unless humanity is willing to
>accept a massive economic upheaval conversion a slow conversion using bridge
>technologies such as hybrids is the only viable path to follow. Naturally
>the fanciful enviros will whine....
>
Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
who screw up, not the technology).
Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
11-23-2003, 11:59 AM
#4827
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:31:46 -0700, "Jerry McG"
<gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>> It's not a case of developing new energy technologies. I really wish it
>were that simple. The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being
>used to develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
>these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away. What is
>constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil fuels, with no
>actual replacement technologies available. Obviously, this will cause a
>major change in almost every aspect of our lifestyles.<
>
>Given the current geo-political situation, particularly wrt the middle east,
>if the so-called "replacement technologies" were in any way viable on a
>large scale they'd be deployed on a fast track. Radical environmentalists
>have made it virtually impossible to expand usage of current clean
>technologies, such as hydroelectric and insist wind and solar are the
>answer. Yet no one will accept massive deployment of wind turbines nor is
>space available to deploy huge solar collectors.
>
>Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient, and
>replacement of the internal combustion engine with fuel cells is not even in
>the Model-T stages of development. Therefore, unless humanity is willing to
>accept a massive economic upheaval conversion a slow conversion using bridge
>technologies such as hybrids is the only viable path to follow. Naturally
>the fanciful enviros will whine....
>
Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
who screw up, not the technology).
Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
<gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>> It's not a case of developing new energy technologies. I really wish it
>were that simple. The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being
>used to develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
>these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away. What is
>constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil fuels, with no
>actual replacement technologies available. Obviously, this will cause a
>major change in almost every aspect of our lifestyles.<
>
>Given the current geo-political situation, particularly wrt the middle east,
>if the so-called "replacement technologies" were in any way viable on a
>large scale they'd be deployed on a fast track. Radical environmentalists
>have made it virtually impossible to expand usage of current clean
>technologies, such as hydroelectric and insist wind and solar are the
>answer. Yet no one will accept massive deployment of wind turbines nor is
>space available to deploy huge solar collectors.
>
>Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient, and
>replacement of the internal combustion engine with fuel cells is not even in
>the Model-T stages of development. Therefore, unless humanity is willing to
>accept a massive economic upheaval conversion a slow conversion using bridge
>technologies such as hybrids is the only viable path to follow. Naturally
>the fanciful enviros will whine....
>
Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
who screw up, not the technology).
Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
11-23-2003, 11:59 AM
#4828
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:31:46 -0700, "Jerry McG"
<gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>> It's not a case of developing new energy technologies. I really wish it
>were that simple. The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being
>used to develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
>these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away. What is
>constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil fuels, with no
>actual replacement technologies available. Obviously, this will cause a
>major change in almost every aspect of our lifestyles.<
>
>Given the current geo-political situation, particularly wrt the middle east,
>if the so-called "replacement technologies" were in any way viable on a
>large scale they'd be deployed on a fast track. Radical environmentalists
>have made it virtually impossible to expand usage of current clean
>technologies, such as hydroelectric and insist wind and solar are the
>answer. Yet no one will accept massive deployment of wind turbines nor is
>space available to deploy huge solar collectors.
>
>Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient, and
>replacement of the internal combustion engine with fuel cells is not even in
>the Model-T stages of development. Therefore, unless humanity is willing to
>accept a massive economic upheaval conversion a slow conversion using bridge
>technologies such as hybrids is the only viable path to follow. Naturally
>the fanciful enviros will whine....
>
Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
who screw up, not the technology).
Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
<gmcgeorge.REMOVE@frontier.net> wrote:
>> It's not a case of developing new energy technologies. I really wish it
>were that simple. The fact is that such money (and more) is currently being
>used to develop new energy technologies, and has been for a long time, yet
>these technologies always seem to remain "just a few years" away. What is
>constantly being advised is a (much) lowered use of fossil fuels, with no
>actual replacement technologies available. Obviously, this will cause a
>major change in almost every aspect of our lifestyles.<
>
>Given the current geo-political situation, particularly wrt the middle east,
>if the so-called "replacement technologies" were in any way viable on a
>large scale they'd be deployed on a fast track. Radical environmentalists
>have made it virtually impossible to expand usage of current clean
>technologies, such as hydroelectric and insist wind and solar are the
>answer. Yet no one will accept massive deployment of wind turbines nor is
>space available to deploy huge solar collectors.
>
>Fact is wind & solar are incredibly expensive and inefficient, and
>replacement of the internal combustion engine with fuel cells is not even in
>the Model-T stages of development. Therefore, unless humanity is willing to
>accept a massive economic upheaval conversion a slow conversion using bridge
>technologies such as hybrids is the only viable path to follow. Naturally
>the fanciful enviros will whine....
>
Nuclear works, is economically feasible, and is safe (it's the people
who screw up, not the technology).
Of course, the ecos don't want it, either.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
11-23-2003, 12:15 PM
#4829
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 16:25:43 GMT, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Matt Osborn wrote:
>
>> >However, I think the use of the atom bomb was probably an unfortunate
>> >mistake. I doubut the poeple who made the decision understood the
>> >magnitude of what they did.
>>
>> They saved lives, Ed, ours and theirs. What's wrong with that?
>
>Well that is debatable and has been. Supposedly the Japanese were
>willing to surrender as long as we guaranteed to not depose the Emperor.
While this has been reported, it's wrong.
*SOME* in the Japanese gov't were willing, but the emperor and most of
the rest of the gov't weren't.
Otherwise, a surrender would have been easy to work out, since we had
already decided to not depose the Emperor, knowing the extremely high
position he held with the populace. While he was allowed to stay, he
was reduced to a figurehead.
>We said no conditions, so the Japanese wouldn't surrender. We dropped
>the bombs, they surrenders, and we didn't depose the Emperor. The
>assumption was that we said under the table we wouldn't depose the
>Emperor and they publicly said they were unconditionally surrendering.
>Both sides maintained "face." We don't know what would have happened if
>we hadn't dropped the bombs so anything anyone says is pure speculation.
Hardly; we know full well that the Japanese would have defended the
home islands with every means available, to include farm tools.
We know this beacuse they have said so themselves, and were in the
process of arming the civiliam populace to resist invasion.
>I just think if Turman had really understood the power and after effects
>of atom bombs, he would not have authorized them to be dropped. Of
>course that is just speculation as well. I don't blame anyone for the
>decision, it was a war, people were dying everyday. The Japanese had
>started the war and had ample opportunities to sue for peace before we
>ended it.
>
>Ed
It's very hard to read the future. You may be very right; with an
ability to see the future, Truman may have not used the Bomb.
The tradce-off would have been extremely costly in human lives,
though.
And it's not just the lives of the Japanese, Americans, British,
Austrailians, New Zealaners, and other allies who were fighting in the
South Pacific. The Chinese also have to be considered; Japan still
occupied vast areas of China, and were being especially brutal there.
Very few people have even heard of Nanking, yet the Japanese took
brutality to new levels there.
http://journalism.missouri.edu/~jsch...troduction.htm
gives a report from a Japanese student.
Did Truman know about Nanking? I can't find info one way or the other.
Did the Bomb save lives? There's not really much dispute there.
if we hadn't used the Bomb in Japan, would the Cold War not have
happened? I can't see why not; Russia developed the Bomb shortly after
WW II. Even if we hadn't used it, we still had it. The presence of the
Bomb on both sides wasn't the cause of the Cold War, merely one of the
weapons that could have been used.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Matt Osborn wrote:
>
>> >However, I think the use of the atom bomb was probably an unfortunate
>> >mistake. I doubut the poeple who made the decision understood the
>> >magnitude of what they did.
>>
>> They saved lives, Ed, ours and theirs. What's wrong with that?
>
>Well that is debatable and has been. Supposedly the Japanese were
>willing to surrender as long as we guaranteed to not depose the Emperor.
While this has been reported, it's wrong.
*SOME* in the Japanese gov't were willing, but the emperor and most of
the rest of the gov't weren't.
Otherwise, a surrender would have been easy to work out, since we had
already decided to not depose the Emperor, knowing the extremely high
position he held with the populace. While he was allowed to stay, he
was reduced to a figurehead.
>We said no conditions, so the Japanese wouldn't surrender. We dropped
>the bombs, they surrenders, and we didn't depose the Emperor. The
>assumption was that we said under the table we wouldn't depose the
>Emperor and they publicly said they were unconditionally surrendering.
>Both sides maintained "face." We don't know what would have happened if
>we hadn't dropped the bombs so anything anyone says is pure speculation.
Hardly; we know full well that the Japanese would have defended the
home islands with every means available, to include farm tools.
We know this beacuse they have said so themselves, and were in the
process of arming the civiliam populace to resist invasion.
>I just think if Turman had really understood the power and after effects
>of atom bombs, he would not have authorized them to be dropped. Of
>course that is just speculation as well. I don't blame anyone for the
>decision, it was a war, people were dying everyday. The Japanese had
>started the war and had ample opportunities to sue for peace before we
>ended it.
>
>Ed
It's very hard to read the future. You may be very right; with an
ability to see the future, Truman may have not used the Bomb.
The tradce-off would have been extremely costly in human lives,
though.
And it's not just the lives of the Japanese, Americans, British,
Austrailians, New Zealaners, and other allies who were fighting in the
South Pacific. The Chinese also have to be considered; Japan still
occupied vast areas of China, and were being especially brutal there.
Very few people have even heard of Nanking, yet the Japanese took
brutality to new levels there.
http://journalism.missouri.edu/~jsch...troduction.htm
gives a report from a Japanese student.
Did Truman know about Nanking? I can't find info one way or the other.
Did the Bomb save lives? There's not really much dispute there.
if we hadn't used the Bomb in Japan, would the Cold War not have
happened? I can't see why not; Russia developed the Bomb shortly after
WW II. Even if we hadn't used it, we still had it. The presence of the
Bomb on both sides wasn't the cause of the Cold War, merely one of the
weapons that could have been used.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
11-23-2003, 12:15 PM
#4830
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
On Sun, 23 Nov 2003 16:25:43 GMT, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Matt Osborn wrote:
>
>> >However, I think the use of the atom bomb was probably an unfortunate
>> >mistake. I doubut the poeple who made the decision understood the
>> >magnitude of what they did.
>>
>> They saved lives, Ed, ours and theirs. What's wrong with that?
>
>Well that is debatable and has been. Supposedly the Japanese were
>willing to surrender as long as we guaranteed to not depose the Emperor.
While this has been reported, it's wrong.
*SOME* in the Japanese gov't were willing, but the emperor and most of
the rest of the gov't weren't.
Otherwise, a surrender would have been easy to work out, since we had
already decided to not depose the Emperor, knowing the extremely high
position he held with the populace. While he was allowed to stay, he
was reduced to a figurehead.
>We said no conditions, so the Japanese wouldn't surrender. We dropped
>the bombs, they surrenders, and we didn't depose the Emperor. The
>assumption was that we said under the table we wouldn't depose the
>Emperor and they publicly said they were unconditionally surrendering.
>Both sides maintained "face." We don't know what would have happened if
>we hadn't dropped the bombs so anything anyone says is pure speculation.
Hardly; we know full well that the Japanese would have defended the
home islands with every means available, to include farm tools.
We know this beacuse they have said so themselves, and were in the
process of arming the civiliam populace to resist invasion.
>I just think if Turman had really understood the power and after effects
>of atom bombs, he would not have authorized them to be dropped. Of
>course that is just speculation as well. I don't blame anyone for the
>decision, it was a war, people were dying everyday. The Japanese had
>started the war and had ample opportunities to sue for peace before we
>ended it.
>
>Ed
It's very hard to read the future. You may be very right; with an
ability to see the future, Truman may have not used the Bomb.
The tradce-off would have been extremely costly in human lives,
though.
And it's not just the lives of the Japanese, Americans, British,
Austrailians, New Zealaners, and other allies who were fighting in the
South Pacific. The Chinese also have to be considered; Japan still
occupied vast areas of China, and were being especially brutal there.
Very few people have even heard of Nanking, yet the Japanese took
brutality to new levels there.
http://journalism.missouri.edu/~jsch...troduction.htm
gives a report from a Japanese student.
Did Truman know about Nanking? I can't find info one way or the other.
Did the Bomb save lives? There's not really much dispute there.
if we hadn't used the Bomb in Japan, would the Cold War not have
happened? I can't see why not; Russia developed the Bomb shortly after
WW II. Even if we hadn't used it, we still had it. The presence of the
Bomb on both sides wasn't the cause of the Cold War, merely one of the
weapons that could have been used.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>Matt Osborn wrote:
>
>> >However, I think the use of the atom bomb was probably an unfortunate
>> >mistake. I doubut the poeple who made the decision understood the
>> >magnitude of what they did.
>>
>> They saved lives, Ed, ours and theirs. What's wrong with that?
>
>Well that is debatable and has been. Supposedly the Japanese were
>willing to surrender as long as we guaranteed to not depose the Emperor.
While this has been reported, it's wrong.
*SOME* in the Japanese gov't were willing, but the emperor and most of
the rest of the gov't weren't.
Otherwise, a surrender would have been easy to work out, since we had
already decided to not depose the Emperor, knowing the extremely high
position he held with the populace. While he was allowed to stay, he
was reduced to a figurehead.
>We said no conditions, so the Japanese wouldn't surrender. We dropped
>the bombs, they surrenders, and we didn't depose the Emperor. The
>assumption was that we said under the table we wouldn't depose the
>Emperor and they publicly said they were unconditionally surrendering.
>Both sides maintained "face." We don't know what would have happened if
>we hadn't dropped the bombs so anything anyone says is pure speculation.
Hardly; we know full well that the Japanese would have defended the
home islands with every means available, to include farm tools.
We know this beacuse they have said so themselves, and were in the
process of arming the civiliam populace to resist invasion.
>I just think if Turman had really understood the power and after effects
>of atom bombs, he would not have authorized them to be dropped. Of
>course that is just speculation as well. I don't blame anyone for the
>decision, it was a war, people were dying everyday. The Japanese had
>started the war and had ample opportunities to sue for peace before we
>ended it.
>
>Ed
It's very hard to read the future. You may be very right; with an
ability to see the future, Truman may have not used the Bomb.
The tradce-off would have been extremely costly in human lives,
though.
And it's not just the lives of the Japanese, Americans, British,
Austrailians, New Zealaners, and other allies who were fighting in the
South Pacific. The Chinese also have to be considered; Japan still
occupied vast areas of China, and were being especially brutal there.
Very few people have even heard of Nanking, yet the Japanese took
brutality to new levels there.
http://journalism.missouri.edu/~jsch...troduction.htm
gives a report from a Japanese student.
Did Truman know about Nanking? I can't find info one way or the other.
Did the Bomb save lives? There's not really much dispute there.
if we hadn't used the Bomb in Japan, would the Cold War not have
happened? I can't see why not; Russia developed the Bomb shortly after
WW II. Even if we hadn't used it, we still had it. The presence of the
Bomb on both sides wasn't the cause of the Cold War, merely one of the
weapons that could have been used.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"