Subject:
|
Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 Oct 2001 14:52:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
474 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> > 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:
> >
> > http://www.doug-long.com/
> >
> > Its actually pretty extensive and not something one can just skim over, but
> > makes a sharp argument and worth reading.
>
> 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"?
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 author appears to have collected a lot of material.
Apparently there is a lot of material TO collect as this appears to have
been studied in some depth. But his bias shows through in his writing, (it
is an advocacy site, which is fine, nothing wrong with that, just be careful
not to view it as balanced) so I can't comment on how complete his biblio
is. He may or may not have omitted things that contradict or undermine his
findings. Who knows without a similar endeavour of similar depth. (and he
has apparently spent a *great* deal of time on this, it's his hobby and has
been for 7 years. ANYTHING we say here will necessarily be less thorough)
That said, the author draws conclusions that differ from Dan's conclusions
in several significant areas. I say that partly to reemphasise that it does
NOT invalidate Dan's use of it as source material. We all cite things or
people that do not 100% agree with our own standing on things and we should
not disparage a source because it is not in 100% agreement with the citer's
views. But I also brought it up *to* highlight that the conclusions the
author draws are different than Dan's!
In fact based on that site's material I draw yet another set of
conclusions... the same ones I held before I went there, plus a few more,
non contradictory ones. The site's evidence *can* be construed that way
without any solipsism.
++Lar
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | 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 (23 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 (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
|
| (...) 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)
|
133 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
