Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#4881
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.
#4882
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.
#4883
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brent P wrote:
>
> In article <vObwb.12341$Gj.11749@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:
>
> > I'm sure the Japanese were quite willing for the war to end and everyone
> > just go home. 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.
>
> No. The preparations and fight-to-the-death willigness to defend the home
> islands would have made invasion of japan would have made D-day look like
> a walk in the park.
This is the argument that has always been presented by the politicians
who made the decision and most of the people who write the history
books. I am not at all sure it is true. Of course there is no way to
what would have happened the atom bombs have not been used, or used in a
demonstration on an uninhabited island. No doubt the destruction at
Nagasaki and Hiroshima was spectacular, but it was not greater than the
damage inflicted on Tokyo or other Japanese cities by conventional air
raids and incendiary raids.
Suppose the Japanese had called our bluff and not surrendered after
Nagasaki? We didn't have another bomb readily available. And if we did,
do you think Truman was prepared to obliterate all of Japan?
As I see it, the important thing was a clear admission of defeat by the
Japanese Emperor. Now maybe the dropping of the atom bombs was the
overwhelming event that he required in order to surrender with a clear
conscious. I personally don't think this was the case, but I wasn't
there at the time and the historical record is debatable. We (being
American) tend to give credence to the evidence that supports the
position that the dropping of the bombs was necessary to save lives.
This may actually be the case, but I think it would be wise to consider
the possibility that other less far reaching decisions would have
achieved the same results.
Personally I am glad the war ended when it did. My Father was stationed
on a picket destroyer that would have been involved in the invasion.
Ed
#4884
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brent P wrote:
>
> In article <vObwb.12341$Gj.11749@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:
>
> > I'm sure the Japanese were quite willing for the war to end and everyone
> > just go home. 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.
>
> No. The preparations and fight-to-the-death willigness to defend the home
> islands would have made invasion of japan would have made D-day look like
> a walk in the park.
This is the argument that has always been presented by the politicians
who made the decision and most of the people who write the history
books. I am not at all sure it is true. Of course there is no way to
what would have happened the atom bombs have not been used, or used in a
demonstration on an uninhabited island. No doubt the destruction at
Nagasaki and Hiroshima was spectacular, but it was not greater than the
damage inflicted on Tokyo or other Japanese cities by conventional air
raids and incendiary raids.
Suppose the Japanese had called our bluff and not surrendered after
Nagasaki? We didn't have another bomb readily available. And if we did,
do you think Truman was prepared to obliterate all of Japan?
As I see it, the important thing was a clear admission of defeat by the
Japanese Emperor. Now maybe the dropping of the atom bombs was the
overwhelming event that he required in order to surrender with a clear
conscious. I personally don't think this was the case, but I wasn't
there at the time and the historical record is debatable. We (being
American) tend to give credence to the evidence that supports the
position that the dropping of the bombs was necessary to save lives.
This may actually be the case, but I think it would be wise to consider
the possibility that other less far reaching decisions would have
achieved the same results.
Personally I am glad the war ended when it did. My Father was stationed
on a picket destroyer that would have been involved in the invasion.
Ed
#4885
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Brent P wrote:
>
> In article <vObwb.12341$Gj.11749@twister.socal.rr.com>, David J. Allen wrote:
>
> > I'm sure the Japanese were quite willing for the war to end and everyone
> > just go home. 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.
>
> No. The preparations and fight-to-the-death willigness to defend the home
> islands would have made invasion of japan would have made D-day look like
> a walk in the park.
This is the argument that has always been presented by the politicians
who made the decision and most of the people who write the history
books. I am not at all sure it is true. Of course there is no way to
what would have happened the atom bombs have not been used, or used in a
demonstration on an uninhabited island. No doubt the destruction at
Nagasaki and Hiroshima was spectacular, but it was not greater than the
damage inflicted on Tokyo or other Japanese cities by conventional air
raids and incendiary raids.
Suppose the Japanese had called our bluff and not surrendered after
Nagasaki? We didn't have another bomb readily available. And if we did,
do you think Truman was prepared to obliterate all of Japan?
As I see it, the important thing was a clear admission of defeat by the
Japanese Emperor. Now maybe the dropping of the atom bombs was the
overwhelming event that he required in order to surrender with a clear
conscious. I personally don't think this was the case, but I wasn't
there at the time and the historical record is debatable. We (being
American) tend to give credence to the evidence that supports the
position that the dropping of the bombs was necessary to save lives.
This may actually be the case, but I think it would be wise to consider
the possibility that other less far reaching decisions would have
achieved the same results.
Personally I am glad the war ended when it did. My Father was stationed
on a picket destroyer that would have been involved in the invasion.
Ed
#4886
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Matt Osborn wrote:
> 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.
I'm game. Warm up the warp drive.
I suspect the Incas, Myans, Cherokees, etc., might not be as
appreciative of the expansion of Western Civilization as you are. Also,
despite the people who left Europe to come to America, I don't think the
population of Europe decreased as a result.
Ed
#4887
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Matt Osborn wrote:
> 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.
I'm game. Warm up the warp drive.
I suspect the Incas, Myans, Cherokees, etc., might not be as
appreciative of the expansion of Western Civilization as you are. Also,
despite the people who left Europe to come to America, I don't think the
population of Europe decreased as a result.
Ed
#4888
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety canbe misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
Matt Osborn wrote:
> 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.
I'm game. Warm up the warp drive.
I suspect the Incas, Myans, Cherokees, etc., might not be as
appreciative of the expansion of Western Civilization as you are. Also,
despite the people who left Europe to come to America, I don't think the
population of Europe decreased as a result.
Ed
#4889
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3F70FF3F.168B95B8@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> No. The preparations and fight-to-the-death willigness to defend the home
>> islands would have made invasion of japan would have made D-day look like
>> a walk in the park.
> This is the argument that has always been presented by the politicians
> who made the decision and most of the people who write the history
> books. I am not at all sure it is true
See the 'The rising Sun" by John Toland(sp?) he goes over the attempt
to overthrow the emperor and fight on.
>. Of course there is no way to
> what would have happened the atom bombs have not been used, or used in a
> demonstration on an uninhabited island.
How do you do this when you have *TWO* bombs if doesn't work?
> No doubt the destruction at
> Nagasaki and Hiroshima was spectacular, but it was not greater than the
> damage inflicted on Tokyo or other Japanese cities by conventional air
> raids and incendiary raids.
Exactly, conventional bombing by hundreds of B29s had the same effect.
The idea was to make it appear as if B29s would be droping atom bombs
by the 100s.
> Suppose the Japanese had called our bluff and not surrendered after
> Nagasaki? We didn't have another bomb readily available. And if we did,
> do you think Truman was prepared to obliterate all of Japan?
If any of German Uranium oxide made it through, San francesco would have
been hit by a dirty bomb.
> As I see it, the important thing was a clear admission of defeat by the
> Japanese Emperor. Now maybe the dropping of the atom bombs was the
> overwhelming event that he required in order to surrender with a clear
> conscious. I personally don't think this was the case, but I wasn't
> there at the time and the historical record is debatable. We (being
> American) tend to give credence to the evidence that supports the
> position that the dropping of the bombs was necessary to save lives.
> This may actually be the case, but I think it would be wise to consider
> the possibility that other less far reaching decisions would have
> achieved the same results.
I've been over this subject many times and have read articles saying
the bombs did not have to be dropped. But using the information those
authors use, it still comes out on the side of using the Abomb. Generally
all one needs to do is add up the estimations of japanese dead. Even
low invasion predictions are higher than the high A-bomb estimates.
> Brent P wrote:
>> No. The preparations and fight-to-the-death willigness to defend the home
>> islands would have made invasion of japan would have made D-day look like
>> a walk in the park.
> This is the argument that has always been presented by the politicians
> who made the decision and most of the people who write the history
> books. I am not at all sure it is true
See the 'The rising Sun" by John Toland(sp?) he goes over the attempt
to overthrow the emperor and fight on.
>. Of course there is no way to
> what would have happened the atom bombs have not been used, or used in a
> demonstration on an uninhabited island.
How do you do this when you have *TWO* bombs if doesn't work?
> No doubt the destruction at
> Nagasaki and Hiroshima was spectacular, but it was not greater than the
> damage inflicted on Tokyo or other Japanese cities by conventional air
> raids and incendiary raids.
Exactly, conventional bombing by hundreds of B29s had the same effect.
The idea was to make it appear as if B29s would be droping atom bombs
by the 100s.
> Suppose the Japanese had called our bluff and not surrendered after
> Nagasaki? We didn't have another bomb readily available. And if we did,
> do you think Truman was prepared to obliterate all of Japan?
If any of German Uranium oxide made it through, San francesco would have
been hit by a dirty bomb.
> As I see it, the important thing was a clear admission of defeat by the
> Japanese Emperor. Now maybe the dropping of the atom bombs was the
> overwhelming event that he required in order to surrender with a clear
> conscious. I personally don't think this was the case, but I wasn't
> there at the time and the historical record is debatable. We (being
> American) tend to give credence to the evidence that supports the
> position that the dropping of the bombs was necessary to save lives.
> This may actually be the case, but I think it would be wise to consider
> the possibility that other less far reaching decisions would have
> achieved the same results.
I've been over this subject many times and have read articles saying
the bombs did not have to be dropped. But using the information those
authors use, it still comes out on the side of using the Abomb. Generally
all one needs to do is add up the estimations of japanese dead. Even
low invasion predictions are higher than the high A-bomb estimates.
#4890
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - a Liberal Scam?, (was Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers)
In article <3F70FF3F.168B95B8@mindspring.com>, C. E. White wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> No. The preparations and fight-to-the-death willigness to defend the home
>> islands would have made invasion of japan would have made D-day look like
>> a walk in the park.
> This is the argument that has always been presented by the politicians
> who made the decision and most of the people who write the history
> books. I am not at all sure it is true
See the 'The rising Sun" by John Toland(sp?) he goes over the attempt
to overthrow the emperor and fight on.
>. Of course there is no way to
> what would have happened the atom bombs have not been used, or used in a
> demonstration on an uninhabited island.
How do you do this when you have *TWO* bombs if doesn't work?
> No doubt the destruction at
> Nagasaki and Hiroshima was spectacular, but it was not greater than the
> damage inflicted on Tokyo or other Japanese cities by conventional air
> raids and incendiary raids.
Exactly, conventional bombing by hundreds of B29s had the same effect.
The idea was to make it appear as if B29s would be droping atom bombs
by the 100s.
> Suppose the Japanese had called our bluff and not surrendered after
> Nagasaki? We didn't have another bomb readily available. And if we did,
> do you think Truman was prepared to obliterate all of Japan?
If any of German Uranium oxide made it through, San francesco would have
been hit by a dirty bomb.
> As I see it, the important thing was a clear admission of defeat by the
> Japanese Emperor. Now maybe the dropping of the atom bombs was the
> overwhelming event that he required in order to surrender with a clear
> conscious. I personally don't think this was the case, but I wasn't
> there at the time and the historical record is debatable. We (being
> American) tend to give credence to the evidence that supports the
> position that the dropping of the bombs was necessary to save lives.
> This may actually be the case, but I think it would be wise to consider
> the possibility that other less far reaching decisions would have
> achieved the same results.
I've been over this subject many times and have read articles saying
the bombs did not have to be dropped. But using the information those
authors use, it still comes out on the side of using the Abomb. Generally
all one needs to do is add up the estimations of japanese dead. Even
low invasion predictions are higher than the high A-bomb estimates.
> Brent P wrote:
>> No. The preparations and fight-to-the-death willigness to defend the home
>> islands would have made invasion of japan would have made D-day look like
>> a walk in the park.
> This is the argument that has always been presented by the politicians
> who made the decision and most of the people who write the history
> books. I am not at all sure it is true
See the 'The rising Sun" by John Toland(sp?) he goes over the attempt
to overthrow the emperor and fight on.
>. Of course there is no way to
> what would have happened the atom bombs have not been used, or used in a
> demonstration on an uninhabited island.
How do you do this when you have *TWO* bombs if doesn't work?
> No doubt the destruction at
> Nagasaki and Hiroshima was spectacular, but it was not greater than the
> damage inflicted on Tokyo or other Japanese cities by conventional air
> raids and incendiary raids.
Exactly, conventional bombing by hundreds of B29s had the same effect.
The idea was to make it appear as if B29s would be droping atom bombs
by the 100s.
> Suppose the Japanese had called our bluff and not surrendered after
> Nagasaki? We didn't have another bomb readily available. And if we did,
> do you think Truman was prepared to obliterate all of Japan?
If any of German Uranium oxide made it through, San francesco would have
been hit by a dirty bomb.
> As I see it, the important thing was a clear admission of defeat by the
> Japanese Emperor. Now maybe the dropping of the atom bombs was the
> overwhelming event that he required in order to surrender with a clear
> conscious. I personally don't think this was the case, but I wasn't
> there at the time and the historical record is debatable. We (being
> American) tend to give credence to the evidence that supports the
> position that the dropping of the bombs was necessary to save lives.
> This may actually be the case, but I think it would be wise to consider
> the possibility that other less far reaching decisions would have
> achieved the same results.
I've been over this subject many times and have read articles saying
the bombs did not have to be dropped. But using the information those
authors use, it still comes out on the side of using the Abomb. Generally
all one needs to do is add up the estimations of japanese dead. Even
low invasion predictions are higher than the high A-bomb estimates.