 | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) From what I heard from a US history teacher, the question was being considered as to whether or not to test on an uninhabited island. We were considering "demonstrating" on the island to other nations, but were worried that "What if the tests (...) (24 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
|
|
(...) And reform in this area is coming -- give it time. Even the two party system is slowly but surely under attack. Again, time will correct these issues. As far as the whole gun thing goes: Sorry to disappoint you but I believe that the ruling (...) (24 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) I think the evidence is against them being necessary to beat Japan (they were already beaten). Cynics will say that they provided a test for the new toy (I can't believe that). But I do wonder if they were deemed necessary simply to send the (...) (24 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) <snipped> That being said, it is reasonable to conclude that you have nothing new to contribute to this discussion and anyone interested in your opinions can check your previous posts. Thanks for pointing that out to us, I'm sure anyone (...) (24 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
|
(...) I must have missed that debate-- suffice to say that while I obviously don't have all the information, based on what I know, I don't think they were necessary or called for at all. Anyone want to point me somewhere to make me reconsider? DaveE (24 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
