Debate : 13973


Off-Topic / Debate / 13973

Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Daniel Jassim

I posted earlier in a different thread regarding this but now I'm thinking it should have been a separate thread. Here is some background research regarding the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan: (URL) actually pretty extensive and not (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Scott Arthur

I have not read your link, but I think it was unnecessary to bomb Japan to win the war. I expect your link will say that the USA knew that the Japanese wanted peace as they had broken Japanese codes, and that dropping the bomb was all about (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Typo-Was It Necessary? —Ross Crawford

(...) Just couldn't let this one get past. I prefer walnuts with my ridicule!! 8?) ROSCO FUT: fun (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —David Eaton

(...) I haven't yet read the site (I dunno if I will-- depends I guess), but it really leads me to wonder whether anyone out there actually *DOES* believe it was "necessary"? And on a related note, I also didn't see the movie Pearl Harbor. And I (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) No time to dig into this in depth but I should point out that I have, in this very group, already taken the stance that *both* bombings were necessary. I spent a little time at that site late last nite (early this morning, actually). The (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —David Eaton

(...) 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 (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Scott Arthur

(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —David Eaton

(...) 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 (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Scott Arthur

(...) Why was there no demo explosion in an uninhabited island to convince the Japanese of the power of the bomb? What would be lost? If it failed - nobody would know. If the real thing failed, the Japanese would have a bomb (or at least bits of (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —David Eaton

(...) No, the idea was that they'd invite other nations to send representatives to witness the event-- not that we couldn't have merely recorded the event anyway. At least such was my understanding. I don't remember if it was explicitly said, or (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Dave Schuler

(...) I'd question that part. Not too many years earlier a good chunk of the US populace believed we were being invaded by Mars. Even today, credulous lout believe that the moon landings were faked, so if we'd simply shown a film of our nuclear (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —David Eaton

(...) True-- although mainly I think it would be evidence provided twofold-- I.E. "Here are before and after shots of this island, here's a videotape of us blowing it up, and here it is now. Go to the island and verify yourself if you don't believe (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Daniel Jassim

(...) <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 (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yes indeed, very thoughtful of you. However rest assured I still have some questions for you which I will be posting soon. (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) (sorry, forgot the Sarcasm on and Sarcasm off warnings)... that is, unless you plan to *never* post about any of the topics you've posted about already. I guess I am *shocked* that you'd try to stifle discussion that way, Dan. But I can see (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Daniel Jassim

(...) I feel my sarcasm was well placed since your initial response made it clear that you already stated your stance on this topic in previous discussions in this group, hence nothing that has been presented ever since has swayed your opinion. So (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Yep, completely closed minded, that's me. (URL) admitting that my arguments might not be 100% water tight or that I might be wrong about anything. Oh wait, you were talking about yourself there, and not me, weren't you, since you've never ever (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Daniel Jassim

(...) You said it, not me. (...) How grand of you, we're truly blessed (sniff sniff). And what exactly am I supposed to change my mind about? (...) You jump, I jump. Each time somebody wants to throw support toward Israel, I'm here for the reality (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Frank Filz

(...) By "harshest" do you mean more harsh criticism than against any other? I would agree that Israel needs harsh criticism of some of it's tactics. You've got a lot to do to convince me that the government Israel is worse than the government of (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Palestinians & Israeli occupation (Again) (was Re: Hiroshima... ) —Scott Arthur

(...) He tried that with me, it did not wash either. Further, I fail to see why Israel is not a friend of the USA? They look pretty loyal to me. Certainly not an enemy? I also fail to see what this has to do with Hiroshima? (...) No, but the killing (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Sarcastically. (1) That's distortive because you snipped the cite. At the same time you were composing your post accusing me of being closed minded, I was composing a post acknowledging a serious hole in the argument I advanced. That's not the (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Dan Boger

(...) no argument there from me - one question though. what if, fearing the canadians, you abandon your land for 30 years? do you still own it, and everything that has been built on it since? it's possible to contend that whoever settled the (now (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Scott Arthur

(...) But you did once say one side was “far worse”. You never retracted that comment, but you never justified it either. As far as I can remember? (...) I hear what you are saying Larry, but I'm sure to most people it does look like you defend (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Daniel Jassim

(...) No, you said "completely" closed minded, not me. I don't recall saying "completely." (...) Sobs of utter appreciation, my friend, that the Great and Powerful Lar would so generously grace us with his fair hand of understanding. I am beset with (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Ross Crawford

(...) I've gotta pull you up on that one, Larry. Just as not all US citizens are "good" or support the current war, I see it as impossible to make such a huge generalisation about Japanese civilians (no matter where they happened to live / work) in (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Scott Arthur

(...) Yep, that is correct: (URL) A (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —David Eaton

(...) Ok, I looked. I can't find it. I tried various search strings on the off-topic.debate(1), read through 90% of the results (skimming the other 10% admittedly) and I can't find any place (where you partook) other than the thread starting around (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Either is possible. (...) No, my argument is more of a "if you're at war, use the appropriate weapon for the job", as I tend to reject "might makes right" in what I hope is a pretty consistent way and welcome being called on it if I ever lean (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Nope, it was definitely a thread. My post on the subject, which includes why I think it was both political and necessary, is here: (URL)Honestly, it sounds like you were making a rather "might-makes-right" (...) The most devastating war in ALL (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Ross Crawford

(...) That is open to argument, but I don't have enough knowledge of politics at the time, so I'll bow to your greater knowledge. But though it's changing the subject of the thread, I still believe the acts of dropping the bombs were terrorism, no (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) By that definition, *any* act taken in a military conflict is "terrorism." The major difference is that the civilians of Japan had no basis for an *expectation* of safety--especially when you consider what happened to Tokyo in March, and (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Ross Crawford

(...) the (...) I see no definition there, only opinion. (...) I've made my distinction several times before - attacks on *military targets* I don't consider terrorism. (...) Compared to what? (...) ????? So what???? What has their "expectation of (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Kirby Warden

<snip> But though it's changing the (...) <snip> I love trying to define words. I also can't stay out of this forum. Anyhow, for what it's worth, here's my take on the definition of terrorism... I consider *war*, in general, to be a terrible thing. (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Dave Schuler

(...) Well, that's a little hasty. I consider Bionicle to be terrible, but LEGO isn't a terrorist organization as a result. I would suggest that, rather than trying to define words (which, to me, suggests an effort to identify with relative (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Kirby Warden

(...) No, what I am doing is returning the word to its base definition... it's original meaning. Terror Terrorize Terrorist Terrorism Terrible All of the above mean; to frighten For you to say that the bionicles are *terrible* is fine, unfortunately (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Dave Schuler

(...) That's fine, but your method is also somewhat arbitrary and could border on pedantic. Elsewhere in this debate dozens of posts have been devoted to exactly the problem of dictionary definitions relative to the real world; on paper, the (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Kirby Warden

the overall point here is that several people in this debate could not agree with eachother's definition of terrorism. It was my intention to show that there is actually one definition that does apply. in an earlier post a few months ago, I (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Dave Schuler

(...) The actual overall point is that one definition does not apply to both; it it did, there would be no debate. The only way that a single definition of "terrorism" can be made to apply is by reaching into the word's history, rather than by (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Kirby Warden

Atomic bombs on cities Hijacked planes into towers In my opinion both are equally terrifying. I will stand by my analysis of the word *terror* and apply it to both acts. We praise the pilots as patriots who flew over Japan. We denigrate the (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Tore Eriksson

I have already disclosed my poor knowledge of the English language with emarrasing results, but yet I can't stay off this definition debate. The words terror and terrorism are obviously from the same root, but to me, they have different meanings. I (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) I think you've defined, although in your opinion, that the bombings were terrorism. That's actually a pretty good analogy--the word "terrorism" has a semantic load, as does "definition." Is it a subjective or objective term? I'm not making a (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Ross Crawford

(...) I gave Aug 45 as an "example" of terrorism. No attempt at definition. I've *never* considered "definition" a subjective term, however, I *do* consider "terrorism" subjective (as I outlined here (URL) if you consider terrorism a subjective (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Dave Low

(...) Ross was referring to the murder of 35 people in Tasmania in 1996. There's a comprehensive collection of links at (URL) . --DaveL (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Yeh, he pointed that out. I'd forgotten that the town was named that--I just refer to it as the Tasmanian mass murder (which, of course, betrays my geographical US-centrism). best LFB (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Ross Crawford

(...) The use of a 767 on Sep 11 was probably deemed effective and appropriate by the perpetrators - with a little investment in pilot training, and without the need to carry into the country any explosives or risk discovery by building their own, (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Dave Schuler

(...) Let me see if I can paraphrase your position accurately: Regarding an enemy who not long before had made an unprovoked attack against US soil, an enemy that had been responsible for hideous medical experiments (not to mention the extermination (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) The problem is the hole I dug for myself here. We hold them to be terrorists but they do not hold themselves as such. Rather they see themselves as combatants in a war against evil (US) which they *have* declared, some time ago, and which they (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Ross Crawford

(...) how (...) It's easy to use words like "cowardly" in such situations - were the pilots flying the planes which dropped the bombs "cowardly"? No they were following orders (they may have even volunteered). Was Truman "cowardly" then - he wasn't (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Dave Schuler

(...) Let's not blur the issue here. What was cowardly about the Sept 11 terrorism was that it took no courage to hijack civilian aircraft during peacetime and steer helpless civilian passengers into buildings. That's hardly the same as the US (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Scott Arthur

(...) I don't view the terrorists as cowards. They may well have been deluded, but they were not cowards. The answer to Ross's Truman question is "no". Although, Truman did not drop the bomb personally, he is responsible for that action. It could be (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —David Eaton

(...) Yes, let's not blur the issue-- what part does being cowardly have in being a terrorist? Let's say they flew their own planes into our buildings. No longer a terrorist action? I don't think whether they/we were cowardly or not is really (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Dave Schuler

(...) It would still be cowardly for them to fly their own planes into the buildings because they would be making an unprovoked attack against innocent and unsuspecting civilians on the civilians' home soil during a time when the home nation was at (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —David Eaton

(...) Still, my point stands then? Whether or not they were cowardly is irrelevant to whether it was terrorism, yes? (...) !! Sure there is. Attempting to get someone/a group of people to do something by making them respond to terror that you induce (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Ross Crawford

(...) I would argue that it wasn't unprovoked. And why were the innocent civilians unsuspecting, when bin Laden had already given several warnings, and "declared war on the US" some 5 years earlier? And just for thought, how much warning did the (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Ross Crawford

(...) a (...) Yes ROSCO (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Are you satisfied with the reasoning you presented before in support of that? Has anything about it changed with Dave Eaton's presentation of his rationale? (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Ross Crawford

(...) I haven't presented any reasoning in support of that before. All my reasoning before has been about whether or not it was terrorism - nothing about morality in there. ROSCO (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Er, yes, there is. Read Dave's statement, to which you replied "Yes," again. You say, thus, that they *are* morally equivalent. The term isn't the problem (it hasn't been for most of the .debaters), it's the semantic baggage that goes with a (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Tangents (was: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?) —Ross Crawford

(...) morality (...) Lets take it back to another example (and no, it's not an analogy). If an escaped murderer breaks into my house, ties up my family and threatens to kill them, but I manage to evade him & get to where my gun is. What should I do? (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Me either. You're right, there's something a little off with that definition as written. As long as you assume that they felt they were on the side of good and their target was on the side of evil (that's the part that matters, not that GWB (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It terrorism (was: Necessary)? —Ross Crawford

(...) One way or another 8?( (...) I don't really look at it as valid - I'm not sure they (Al Qaida, whoever we're fighting...) view it that black & white either. But I would also ask, does it matter which side is "good" and which is "evil"? Does (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —David Eaton

(...) So.... how is that not "might makes right?" Or "Larry makes right" as the case may be. How is this subjective judgement any better than their subjective judgment of us? (...) By my book it only matters what the intentions are of those (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Well that's the crux of the hole in my argument. Unless it can be shown that it is NOT a subjective judgement (that is, that it's not just a morally relative judgement), we have to accept the outcome that they view themselves as evil and (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Larry Pieniazek

Typo alert! (...) This should say "we have to accept the outcome that they view themselves as good and us as evil as JUST AS VALID as our own finding of the opposite" Too many negatives and I got confused, I guess. Sorry about that, peeps. (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Dave Schuler

(...) Aren't you saying that it's not the case that you didn't know that what you hadn't said contradicted what he had said wasn't the case? Dave! (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I've never lived in MA so I have no idea if I am saying that or not. Besides I was up late last nite building and sorting so my brain is a bit mushy yet this morning. (note to Dan: I'm not talking to you and that was a humorous (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —David Eaton

(...) Yes, but not for the reasons you state, I think. The hole is that I don't think morality is necessarily tied to these events. Whether or not it was a moral action doesn't matter to whether it was "necessary" or not, unless your ends are (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I think we differ on this. You can't separate ends from means. Here's my view If the end was intended to be moral, but it is achieved by immoral actions (immoral in this usage means bad morals, not amoral) it comes out immoral anyway. If the (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Dave Schuler

(...) In your defense, though, I would assert that it's not necessary (possible?) to be completely moral. However, in a field of several choices, the greatest "net good" outcome is preferable to less "net good" outcomes. We can be criticized after (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —David Eaton

(...) Exactly correct-- my point was that I'm not sure I understand what ends you believe were intended. If the end was "to scare the Japanese" rather than "to have Japan surrender", then yes, I agree that the bombing may have been necessary. I just (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

broad brush terrorists (was Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?) —Scott Arthur

(...) I could, but I do not agree that terrorism is immoral. It depends on what the fight is against. There are instances where terrorists get broad based support for their actions where they are viewed as fighting against "immoral" regimes. If we (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —David Eaton

(...) Two parts then-- "war" and "appropriate". I think whether we were at war or not in this particular example is pretty gosh-darn settled. We *were* at war. But that comes into question more in the more recent Sept. 11th example. More on that (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Frank Filz

(...) Everything I have ever read about WWII Japanese suggests that there was pretty strong belief that they would likely have fought bitterly to the end had something overwhelming happened to make the entire populace recognize that further fighting (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —David Eaton

(...) Well-- two things. First off, you may be quite right-- I don't really know what our mentality was at the time. Perhaps that was the best information we had available, which would mean that an A-bomb hit MAY have been the only way to show that (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Just some minor picking while I try to think about that hole. (...) Dan's referenced site makes the case that it wasn't a "drop one, then decide to drop the other" plan. Both were dropped as part of the same plan, so you should take issue with (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —David Eaton

(...) Isn't that what I said? (...) Now you're the one who's going for the complicated explanation ;) I could draw it out further and say isn't one of Osama's major "justifications" with the US the fact that we dropped the Bomb on the Japanese as an (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) No, at least I don't parse it that way. Feel free to diagram the sentence though, so I can see it! (...) The world is a complicated place. Or would you rather Truman hadn't considered all those factors? You can handle the complexity, I think. (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —David Eaton

(...) Oh, that was just sarcasm about the last time you accused me of over-analyzing a situation down to many constituent parts and rating those parts as nigh on irrelevant. Hence the little ';)'. (...) You just hit the nail on the head, didn't you? (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I think I missed that the first time. It was my understanding that they surrendered about as immediately as could be possibly arranged given the circumstances. Can you restate why you feel they did not surrender immediately? (...) I fear a (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —David Eaton

(...) "As immediately as possible" I suppose you could question, but according to the timeline: - 8/6 Bomb #1 - 8/9 Bomb #2 - 8/14 Surrender There was more time inbetween the 2nd bomb and the surrender than between the 1st and 2nd bombs, in fact. (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Frank Filz

(...) I actually agree to a large extent that the tactic was to induce fear. That is in fact a legitimate war strategy at some level. The only way to win a war is to win the morale battle. You can't kill every single enemy. This is why a (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) There was, in fact, an attempted coup by high-ranking officers once the Emperor's wishes had become known. The problem with Fascist thinking was that it was seen as a struggle of civilizations; Hitler in fact articulated that if the German (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —David Eaton

(...) Especially evil? No, or at least, I wouldn't deem it as such. As I've said elsewhere, the fact that it employed fear doesn't necessarily make it immoral, and even if it does, it doesn't mean it's necessarily unjustified. (...) I'm highly in (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Oddball thoughts (was: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?) —Ross Crawford

(...) Here's another oddball thought: It's likely humanity will eventually cease to exist at some time in the future, anyway, so was it worth imparting such horror on the Japanese population, just to keep humanity going a bit longer? ROSCO (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Oddball thoughts (was: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Was that a serious question? What are the alternative values to weigh against? I see humanity as good for millions of years, actually. We may actually last all the way to the heat death of the universe, we're pretty clever. (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Oddball thoughts (was: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?) —Ross Crawford

(...) Nah, just an oddball thought. People seemed to be considering "what if"s, and that was my oddball "what if" taken to extremes 8?) (...) We'd have to come up with some sort of practical interstellar travel technique first - the solar system's (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Oddball thoughts (was: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) How do you figure? In part it depends on your definition of "we". Humanity has "stopped evolution" recently, and is poised to "take control of evolution" with genetic engineering of ourselves. I say "we" are what we make ourselves into, but (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Ross Crawford

(...) technique (...) When? No-one told me... (...) I don't totally agree. Evolution turned chimps into humans. We definitely don't consider them "humanity" though they may well consider us "chimpity"(tm). At some point, humans will likely evolve (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Me either! Wow, cool--LUGNET is the apex of evolution! :D (...) *HAHAHA* "Chimpity?" I love it! Oh, yeah, forgot the little ™ (Alt+0665 to make the spiffy extended-char trademark symbol) But, as a matter of point, evolution didn't turn chimps (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Too early to tell for sure but we as a species have in part stopped evolving because we have shut down most of the selection factors (disease, famine, the birth defect effect on reproduction) As for the survival of the race, we have to get (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —David Eaton

(...) I'm not quite sure I agree that those are the reasons we've put evolution on pause. After all, if a species is able to overcome certain challenges (disease, famine, etc), aren't they *not* selection factors? The birth defect thing and genetic (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Ross Crawford

(...) "in part stopped evolving". I don't get the meaning of that. Humanity is either evolving or not - and I disagree that we've made any significant differences in these areas. Oh, maybe a little in the western world... (...) Nah, just more so (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Scott Arthur

(...) Lets not bring athrax etc into this :) (...) This is an interesting point. It is a generaisation, but in the UK low income families tend to have more kids than higher earners. Many couples (married or otherwsie) decide to have only one or no (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Ross Crawford

(...) either (...) in (...) Is there a "wrong way"? ROSCO (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Optimization for local conditions can be suboptimal for global. I would hold that humanity's chief survival weapon is cleverness. Anything that selects against cleverness/intelligence/drive (the cited example, for instance) is bad for (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Ross Crawford

(...) However, many species manage to survive (& flourish) without cleverness, simply be breeding a lot. My point to Scott was I don't think right & wrong have any relevance to evolution - local populations may evolve in ways which are advantageous (...) (23 years ago, 24-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Tom Stangl

(...) I would think that most people with at least middling intelligence would tend to agree that decreasing the overall intelligence level of our species is the "wrong way". Do you have a reason to think that decreasing our species intelligence is (...) (23 years ago, 29-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Dave Schuler

(...) Though admittedly a generalization, this trend in intelligence:breeding rate is based on an evolutionarily insignificant stretch of time. Further, even in the hypothetical example, the judging of intelligence based on academic achievement (...) (23 years ago, 29-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Dave Low

(...) A couple of eminently debatable assertions. *Read Gould's "Mismeasure of Man" for a perspective on the furphy of IQ testing -- recent editions include a refutation of the premise and methodology that inform "The Bell Curve" c/ race /class. (...) (23 years ago, 29-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Ross Crawford

(...) to (...) "wrong (...) That may be so, but I would think that most people who have a middling understanding of evolution would agree that intelligence has little (if any) effect on it. (...) right (...) No. Read the question again. I was (...) (23 years ago, 29-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Except to stop it. Which we are in the process of doing, and which was my original point! ++Lar (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Ross Crawford

(...) of (...) tend (...) We may, in the end, cause our own extinction, in which case I guess you could say we're currently in the process of stopping our evolution, but I think it's a pretty big stretch. As I've said before, I think humanity will (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Dave Low

(...) I understood Larry's point differently, in that optimistically we might never go extinct (technology propelling us beyond the earth, the solar system, the galaxy, the universe...), but in terms of biological evolution we're more or less at a (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Scott Arthur

(...) 2030: designer human v5.0 The baby can change its own nappy. :) Scott A (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Right. Or at least closer. What I'm getting at is that evolution is a natural process that produces changes in organisms in response to changes in environment (including the changes that occur in other organisms) but that we are now choosing, (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Jennifer Clark

(...) to (...) Have you read the novels "Last and First Men" and "Starmaker" by Olaf Stapledon? They deal with exactly those issues but on a grand scale, and are *exceptionally* humbling reads. Highly recommended! Jennifer (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Dave Schuler

(...) Not a bad point, but it must be stipulated that since humanity is *part* of nature, then the traits we, as agents of nature, elect to favor will survive and be passed on in a manner exactly consistent with evolution. I'm not sure that the (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Scott Arthur

(...) I thought this was an interesting perspective: From the OU ==+== Infant mortality is a thing of the past, major diseases are treatable and natural disasters largely avoidable, so the merciless selective forces of nature are something of an (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Dave Low

(...) I think these points interact in an interesting way. (...) I'm no physiologist, and this is largely based on mediocre SF, but I think it's quite possible that humans will evolve rapidly as a response to low gravity conditions (if that's not a (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Tom Stangl

(...) I think one of the biggest shifts in our species "unnatural evolution" will come when we stop worrying about the effect of zerogee (ZG) on the human body and split into ZG and PlusG branches, where ZGs will have no DESIRE to visit planets and (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Dave Low

(...) <nit-pick> I think this is totally natural evolution. Our technology is an extension of our phenotype, just culturally expressed rather than genetically, and since it lets us access a new environment it makes biological sense that we adapt to (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Christopher Tracey

(...) I'll have to partially disagree. Humankind has done a lot to *lessen" selection pressure on ourselves but we, to my knowledge, have not found a way to eliminate an environmental factor (in the broad sense). However, humans will continue to (...) (23 years ago, 31-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Tom Stangl

(...) Yes, the total population outsystem won't really matter - as long as there are a few HUNDRED beings concentrated in one place (to handle rearing of crechebabies), and sufficient genetic stock stockpiled in many different places, we should be (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Dave Schuler

(...) "Dead end" has an air of finality that can't be declared with any confidence when speaking of evolution. It may be the case, though I don't think so, that we've created a temporary stall on evolution, but even then, it's not world-wide, and (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Macroevolution, yes. Microevolution, no. (which is why switching away from Ciprox is a good idea, hold it in reserve if we can) (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Is Larry a Creationist? 8^) Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Dave Schuler

(...) Ciprox in particular, but antibiotics in general are overused. But my understanding is that "macroevolution" is a straw-man term coined, or at least embraced, by Creationists. All evolution is microevolution except on the geologic scale, and (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is Larry a Creationist? 8^) Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Ack. I mean the surfacing of traits already in the population (and not newly mutation generated) when I said micro... and the longterm generation/selection of new traits (and speciation) when I said macro. Sorry if that was imprecise. I ain't (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is Larry a Creationist? 8^) Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Christopher Tracey

(...) Just to clarify. Microevolution is a change in allele frequences of pre-existing variants within a population, whereas mutation is the ultimate source of that variation. Onto Dave's point about the macroevolution being a strawman. I'm pretty (...) (23 years ago, 31-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Is Larry a Creationist? 8^) Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Christopher Tracey

(...) for an update: someone sent a digital watch (or alarm clock) through the mail and it started beeping for some reason. In other words: bomb scare. -chris (23 years ago, 4-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) God, how I hope you're right! But I'm less optimistic than you. Chris (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Dave Low

(...) I don't really think it's cause for "optimism" -- in my book the longer it takes before genetic manipulation of humans is commonplace the better! But a lot of these processes are technologically feasible today, which is why I put such a short (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Ross Crawford

(...) any) (...) it's (...) That's possible, but doesn't stop evolution within the species. (...) We'll need some fairly large colonies before earth becomes expendable (IMO). (...) "Do you hear that, Mr. Anderson? That is the sound of inevitability. (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Tom Stangl

(...) Not with technology advancing at the rate it is. You only need a colony large enough to help raise crechebabies in the case of major disasters, and a diverse enough genetic stockpile to avoid having to waste time working around genetic (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Scott Arthur

(...) Is it not our intelligence which separates from rest of the animals? Is that not the key to our evolution, or do you think it is incidental? Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Tom Stangl

(...) I dispute that. While there will always be people on the far edges of the bell curve no matter what the scale of the curve, I would tend to believe that having that curve shifted UP would increase the chance of our species surviving longer, (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Dave Low

(...) <snappy rejoinder> I think it's got a lot more to do with conscience than brains. It's because we're the smartest/most technological species that we're in a position to wipe ourselves out (see crechebaby thread for "extinction" scenario). (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Ross Crawford

(...) of (...) tend (...) bell (...) having (...) longer, (...) the (...) and (...) the (...) right & (...) makes (...) still (...) level (...) I don't agree with this. You're thinking cataclysmic events like a meteorite hit. I think it's more (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Ross Crawford

(...) Actually, I think the "mechanism" of eveolution is more to do with small genetic changes that may not show any external effect for many generations. And though we've started looking into such things, we're nowhere near being able to "shut them (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Oddball thoughts (was: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) horror (...) Humanity will blossom into many other things that will spread across the universe. It doesn't particularly matter if humanity as we see it now continues. I don't think that bombing Japan enabled the continuation of humanity (at (...) (23 years ago, 22-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Horst Lehner

(...) I still hold that one bomb would have been enough. And maybe, since the US weren't ready to drop the bombs sooner, dropping them became unnecessary by the time it became possible. There is some indication for that, to say the least. :wq Horst (23 years ago, 21-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Well, that's easy to say at this remove but second guessing is easy. I drew different conclusions from the same data. (...) Again, I drew totally different conclusions from the same data. (23 years ago, 21-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) It tends to be obscure, but there was never a decision to drop Bomb 1, a pause, and then a decision to drop Bomb 2. The decision was made to drop two bombs. Were both bombs necessary? Maybe not - they may have eventually surrendered anyway (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) It was interesting reading. Lots of work went into it. It failed to note that there was never a decision to drop one bomb, and then another decision to drop another (it was a decision to drop two bombs). It noted that the Japanese were looking (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)