Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#4871
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 19:55:15 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
>In article <ura1svkpd7mrucq1ca84p1b64iet1pisj2@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Well, in the USA the gasoline infastructure is going to be difficult
>to overcome. Gasoline has such an economy of scale that any alternative
>is going to cost more provided there is an equal level of taxes applied.
>(Yes, I know that in some regions of the country electricity is so cheap
>that an electric car charging in the garage is cheaper, but those
>estimates generally road count taxes against gasoline but not electricity)
>
>That said, keep in mind that production hybreds despite low or negative
>profit margins are now at the performance levels of cars of the middle
>1980s. My guess is in another 5-10 years they will have respectable
>performance numbers even without a breakthrough in battery technology.
The problem with electric cars is that the present infrastructure
can't handle it.
Can you imagine commuters in, say, LA coming home & plugging their
cars in to recharge?
Even using load leveling, the generating capacity just isn't there,
and even if it were, can you imaging the jump in electricity prices?
The number of industrial plants that operate now at night to use the
'surplus' electricity wouldn't be able to operate.
Yet, I see no one bringing this up. The cost to switch to electric
cars will be enormous.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <ura1svkpd7mrucq1ca84p1b64iet1pisj2@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Well, in the USA the gasoline infastructure is going to be difficult
>to overcome. Gasoline has such an economy of scale that any alternative
>is going to cost more provided there is an equal level of taxes applied.
>(Yes, I know that in some regions of the country electricity is so cheap
>that an electric car charging in the garage is cheaper, but those
>estimates generally road count taxes against gasoline but not electricity)
>
>That said, keep in mind that production hybreds despite low or negative
>profit margins are now at the performance levels of cars of the middle
>1980s. My guess is in another 5-10 years they will have respectable
>performance numbers even without a breakthrough in battery technology.
The problem with electric cars is that the present infrastructure
can't handle it.
Can you imagine commuters in, say, LA coming home & plugging their
cars in to recharge?
Even using load leveling, the generating capacity just isn't there,
and even if it were, can you imaging the jump in electricity prices?
The number of industrial plants that operate now at night to use the
'surplus' electricity wouldn't be able to operate.
Yet, I see no one bringing this up. The cost to switch to electric
cars will be enormous.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#4872
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 19:55:15 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
>In article <ura1svkpd7mrucq1ca84p1b64iet1pisj2@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Well, in the USA the gasoline infastructure is going to be difficult
>to overcome. Gasoline has such an economy of scale that any alternative
>is going to cost more provided there is an equal level of taxes applied.
>(Yes, I know that in some regions of the country electricity is so cheap
>that an electric car charging in the garage is cheaper, but those
>estimates generally road count taxes against gasoline but not electricity)
>
>That said, keep in mind that production hybreds despite low or negative
>profit margins are now at the performance levels of cars of the middle
>1980s. My guess is in another 5-10 years they will have respectable
>performance numbers even without a breakthrough in battery technology.
The problem with electric cars is that the present infrastructure
can't handle it.
Can you imagine commuters in, say, LA coming home & plugging their
cars in to recharge?
Even using load leveling, the generating capacity just isn't there,
and even if it were, can you imaging the jump in electricity prices?
The number of industrial plants that operate now at night to use the
'surplus' electricity wouldn't be able to operate.
Yet, I see no one bringing this up. The cost to switch to electric
cars will be enormous.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <ura1svkpd7mrucq1ca84p1b64iet1pisj2@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Well, in the USA the gasoline infastructure is going to be difficult
>to overcome. Gasoline has such an economy of scale that any alternative
>is going to cost more provided there is an equal level of taxes applied.
>(Yes, I know that in some regions of the country electricity is so cheap
>that an electric car charging in the garage is cheaper, but those
>estimates generally road count taxes against gasoline but not electricity)
>
>That said, keep in mind that production hybreds despite low or negative
>profit margins are now at the performance levels of cars of the middle
>1980s. My guess is in another 5-10 years they will have respectable
>performance numbers even without a breakthrough in battery technology.
The problem with electric cars is that the present infrastructure
can't handle it.
Can you imagine commuters in, say, LA coming home & plugging their
cars in to recharge?
Even using load leveling, the generating capacity just isn't there,
and even if it were, can you imaging the jump in electricity prices?
The number of industrial plants that operate now at night to use the
'surplus' electricity wouldn't be able to operate.
Yet, I see no one bringing this up. The cost to switch to electric
cars will be enormous.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#4873
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 19:55:15 GMT, tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
>In article <ura1svkpd7mrucq1ca84p1b64iet1pisj2@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Well, in the USA the gasoline infastructure is going to be difficult
>to overcome. Gasoline has such an economy of scale that any alternative
>is going to cost more provided there is an equal level of taxes applied.
>(Yes, I know that in some regions of the country electricity is so cheap
>that an electric car charging in the garage is cheaper, but those
>estimates generally road count taxes against gasoline but not electricity)
>
>That said, keep in mind that production hybreds despite low or negative
>profit margins are now at the performance levels of cars of the middle
>1980s. My guess is in another 5-10 years they will have respectable
>performance numbers even without a breakthrough in battery technology.
The problem with electric cars is that the present infrastructure
can't handle it.
Can you imagine commuters in, say, LA coming home & plugging their
cars in to recharge?
Even using load leveling, the generating capacity just isn't there,
and even if it were, can you imaging the jump in electricity prices?
The number of industrial plants that operate now at night to use the
'surplus' electricity wouldn't be able to operate.
Yet, I see no one bringing this up. The cost to switch to electric
cars will be enormous.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
wrote:
>In article <ura1svkpd7mrucq1ca84p1b64iet1pisj2@4ax.com>, Bill Funk wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Well, in the USA the gasoline infastructure is going to be difficult
>to overcome. Gasoline has such an economy of scale that any alternative
>is going to cost more provided there is an equal level of taxes applied.
>(Yes, I know that in some regions of the country electricity is so cheap
>that an electric car charging in the garage is cheaper, but those
>estimates generally road count taxes against gasoline but not electricity)
>
>That said, keep in mind that production hybreds despite low or negative
>profit margins are now at the performance levels of cars of the middle
>1980s. My guess is in another 5-10 years they will have respectable
>performance numbers even without a breakthrough in battery technology.
The problem with electric cars is that the present infrastructure
can't handle it.
Can you imagine commuters in, say, LA coming home & plugging their
cars in to recharge?
Even using load leveling, the generating capacity just isn't there,
and even if it were, can you imaging the jump in electricity prices?
The number of industrial plants that operate now at night to use the
'surplus' electricity wouldn't be able to operate.
Yet, I see no one bringing this up. The cost to switch to electric
cars will be enormous.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#4874
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 23:56:11 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3F7065DE.E4845B3@mindspring.com...
>>
>>
>> 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
>
>Fair enough. Though, I think Truman understood that it was important that
>the Japanese be defeated 100%. The Japanese could have (and probably did)
>sue for peace many times towards the end.
There is no evidence to support this.
The state records of Japan show the opposite; the government was very
opposed to surrender.
There were *some* Japanese officials who wanted to end the war (just
like in *any* government of the time [and the present, too]), but
that's not "the Japanese."
>The problem with less than 100%
>victory is illustrated in Iraq, where Hussein was left in power after the
>first "victory" making a second "victory" necessary. That victory won't be
>100% until Hussein and his crowd are dead or in jail.
>
>I'm sure the Japanese were quite willing for the war to end and everyone
>just go home.
The Japanese government wasn't so sure about that.
I'm not guessing here; the documents exist. The Japanese documents.
>It should be obvious, though, that that would have been the
>wrong thing to do. The bomb did what no other weapon or stategy had done up
>to that point.
>
Exactly; the Bomb convinced the Japanese government that they could
not win.
Until the Bombs were dropped, the government of Japan had no such
conviction.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3F7065DE.E4845B3@mindspring.com...
>>
>>
>> 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
>
>Fair enough. Though, I think Truman understood that it was important that
>the Japanese be defeated 100%. The Japanese could have (and probably did)
>sue for peace many times towards the end.
There is no evidence to support this.
The state records of Japan show the opposite; the government was very
opposed to surrender.
There were *some* Japanese officials who wanted to end the war (just
like in *any* government of the time [and the present, too]), but
that's not "the Japanese."
>The problem with less than 100%
>victory is illustrated in Iraq, where Hussein was left in power after the
>first "victory" making a second "victory" necessary. That victory won't be
>100% until Hussein and his crowd are dead or in jail.
>
>I'm sure the Japanese were quite willing for the war to end and everyone
>just go home.
The Japanese government wasn't so sure about that.
I'm not guessing here; the documents exist. The Japanese documents.
>It should be obvious, though, that that would have been the
>wrong thing to do. The bomb did what no other weapon or stategy had done up
>to that point.
>
Exactly; the Bomb convinced the Japanese government that they could
not win.
Until the Bombs were dropped, the government of Japan had no such
conviction.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#4875
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 23:56:11 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3F7065DE.E4845B3@mindspring.com...
>>
>>
>> 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
>
>Fair enough. Though, I think Truman understood that it was important that
>the Japanese be defeated 100%. The Japanese could have (and probably did)
>sue for peace many times towards the end.
There is no evidence to support this.
The state records of Japan show the opposite; the government was very
opposed to surrender.
There were *some* Japanese officials who wanted to end the war (just
like in *any* government of the time [and the present, too]), but
that's not "the Japanese."
>The problem with less than 100%
>victory is illustrated in Iraq, where Hussein was left in power after the
>first "victory" making a second "victory" necessary. That victory won't be
>100% until Hussein and his crowd are dead or in jail.
>
>I'm sure the Japanese were quite willing for the war to end and everyone
>just go home.
The Japanese government wasn't so sure about that.
I'm not guessing here; the documents exist. The Japanese documents.
>It should be obvious, though, that that would have been the
>wrong thing to do. The bomb did what no other weapon or stategy had done up
>to that point.
>
Exactly; the Bomb convinced the Japanese government that they could
not win.
Until the Bombs were dropped, the government of Japan had no such
conviction.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3F7065DE.E4845B3@mindspring.com...
>>
>>
>> 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
>
>Fair enough. Though, I think Truman understood that it was important that
>the Japanese be defeated 100%. The Japanese could have (and probably did)
>sue for peace many times towards the end.
There is no evidence to support this.
The state records of Japan show the opposite; the government was very
opposed to surrender.
There were *some* Japanese officials who wanted to end the war (just
like in *any* government of the time [and the present, too]), but
that's not "the Japanese."
>The problem with less than 100%
>victory is illustrated in Iraq, where Hussein was left in power after the
>first "victory" making a second "victory" necessary. That victory won't be
>100% until Hussein and his crowd are dead or in jail.
>
>I'm sure the Japanese were quite willing for the war to end and everyone
>just go home.
The Japanese government wasn't so sure about that.
I'm not guessing here; the documents exist. The Japanese documents.
>It should be obvious, though, that that would have been the
>wrong thing to do. The bomb did what no other weapon or stategy had done up
>to that point.
>
Exactly; the Bomb convinced the Japanese government that they could
not win.
Until the Bombs were dropped, the government of Japan had no such
conviction.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#4876
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 23:56:11 GMT, "David J. Allen"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3F7065DE.E4845B3@mindspring.com...
>>
>>
>> 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
>
>Fair enough. Though, I think Truman understood that it was important that
>the Japanese be defeated 100%. The Japanese could have (and probably did)
>sue for peace many times towards the end.
There is no evidence to support this.
The state records of Japan show the opposite; the government was very
opposed to surrender.
There were *some* Japanese officials who wanted to end the war (just
like in *any* government of the time [and the present, too]), but
that's not "the Japanese."
>The problem with less than 100%
>victory is illustrated in Iraq, where Hussein was left in power after the
>first "victory" making a second "victory" necessary. That victory won't be
>100% until Hussein and his crowd are dead or in jail.
>
>I'm sure the Japanese were quite willing for the war to end and everyone
>just go home.
The Japanese government wasn't so sure about that.
I'm not guessing here; the documents exist. The Japanese documents.
>It should be obvious, though, that that would have been the
>wrong thing to do. The bomb did what no other weapon or stategy had done up
>to that point.
>
Exactly; the Bomb convinced the Japanese government that they could
not win.
Until the Bombs were dropped, the government of Japan had no such
conviction.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
<dallen03NO_SPAM@sanNO_SPAM.rr.com> wrote:
>
>"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3F7065DE.E4845B3@mindspring.com...
>>
>>
>> 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
>
>Fair enough. Though, I think Truman understood that it was important that
>the Japanese be defeated 100%. The Japanese could have (and probably did)
>sue for peace many times towards the end.
There is no evidence to support this.
The state records of Japan show the opposite; the government was very
opposed to surrender.
There were *some* Japanese officials who wanted to end the war (just
like in *any* government of the time [and the present, too]), but
that's not "the Japanese."
>The problem with less than 100%
>victory is illustrated in Iraq, where Hussein was left in power after the
>first "victory" making a second "victory" necessary. That victory won't be
>100% until Hussein and his crowd are dead or in jail.
>
>I'm sure the Japanese were quite willing for the war to end and everyone
>just go home.
The Japanese government wasn't so sure about that.
I'm not guessing here; the documents exist. The Japanese documents.
>It should be obvious, though, that that would have been the
>wrong thing to do. The bomb did what no other weapon or stategy had done up
>to that point.
>
Exactly; the Bomb convinced the Japanese government that they could
not win.
Until the Bombs were dropped, the government of Japan had no such
conviction.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
#4877
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"David J. Allen" 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.
> >
> > Ed
>
> How so? I'm curious to hear the argument for it being a mistake. Where
> might we be today had those 2 bombs not been dropped?
No way we can know.
Ed
#4878
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"David J. Allen" 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.
> >
> > Ed
>
> How so? I'm curious to hear the argument for it being a mistake. Where
> might we be today had those 2 bombs not been dropped?
No way we can know.
Ed
#4879
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
"David J. Allen" 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.
> >
> > Ed
>
> How so? I'm curious to hear the argument for it being a mistake. Where
> might we be today had those 2 bombs not been dropped?
No way we can know.
Ed
#4880
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 21:33:05 GMT, "C. E. White"
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>It is hard to figure out what the wackos want. The only thing I am sure
>that will work is population control and a reduction in the total number
>of humans on the planet.
Have you thought this through? The Chinese use some fairly brutal
methods of birth control and they have had limited success.
Just think of what that world would be like. Who provides, who
divides, who's the king?
Use the resources to expand our civilization into the rest of the
universe. The 16th century Europeans faced a similarly discouraging
trip into a forbidding wilderness, yet it brought the greatest bounty
civilization has ever seen.
<cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>It is hard to figure out what the wackos want. The only thing I am sure
>that will work is population control and a reduction in the total number
>of humans on the planet.
Have you thought this through? The Chinese use some fairly brutal
methods of birth control and they have had limited success.
Just think of what that world would be like. Who provides, who
divides, who's the king?
Use the resources to expand our civilization into the rest of the
universe. The 16th century Europeans faced a similarly discouraging
trip into a forbidding wilderness, yet it brought the greatest bounty
civilization has ever seen.