A personal question

[QUOTE][B]What agencies, like the CIA, weren't telling the USA is that during the 20 to 30 years before the fall of the USSR that it was little more than a third world nation itself and really not the big threat they had made it out to be. There was much profit in hating, and fearing, the USSR.[/QUOTE][/B]So the Soviet Union wasn't dangerous because of its financial status? Hmm, 22,000 warheads in an economically stable, coup-free government with well-payed scientists and adequate means of accounting for those weapons vs. 22,000 warheads in an unstable, coup-threatened nation where the scientists barely can keep food on the table and that cannot afford to keep up with their weapons?

[QUOTE][B]ANyway, wasn't the Taliban made in USA? They were part of the Communist-battling troops sponsored by AMerica to fend off Soviet troops, as a puppet of the Cold War. No wonder they were put up again as another puppet, this time to make Islam seem anachronistic and cruel[/QUOTE][/B]No, the Taliban is a product of extreme Islamic schools in Pakistan. As I understand it they were even backed by Pakistanis during the Afghan coup of 1996.Osama is one of the Mujahadeen(sp?) who received US backing to fight the Soviets during their invasion in the 80s. Saddam Hussein was also one of our boys in his war against Iran, during which he actually tested chemical weapons against his own people.

[QUOTE][B]Actually, no, it was not neccessary at all.[/QUOTE][/B]Right now there is some speculation about that but hindsight is always 20/20. Like I said, the war has been over for a long time and you might have had a different opinion if you had been drafted and were in a boat waiting on a very bloody invasion of Osaka.It also flies in the face of Japanese military culture in 1946, that surrender=shame and those that surrender were not worthy of humane treatment (hence the summary execution of downed American aviators, the Bataan Death March, and dozens of other atrocities).We had to gave them two heavy-duty doses of reality before they were ready to sign the treaty. And doing so is no more cowardly than when we use airpower to hit Iraq, it saves our troops from getting killed in the process.Quite the contrary, I think the decision to drop the bomb was a brave one because it might have failed to detonate and then the prize of the Manhattan Project would then be in enemy hands. There is strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that Japan had been attempting a crash nuclear program, with help from Germany. [QUOTE][B]The Japanese were willing to surrender with only one condition, that they be allowed to keep their emperor as leader.[/QUOTE][/B]The Japanese were unwilling to surrender before the nuking began.You might notice one obvious point, we had to drop TWO of them before they started talking to us. The reason being they hoped that maybe we only had one bomb and they could still beat us at a war of attrition on the ground in Japan. [QUOTE][B]The Americans wanted a totally unconditional surrender and wouldn't accept even this small request.[/QUOTE][/B]Actually we did grant them this request, they retained their emperor in the post-war government. [QUOTE][B]The two targets had no military value at all, in fact they were choosen for that very fact.[/QUOTE][/B]That's also incorrect. Hiroshima had quite a bit of military infrastructure. This is from the official homepage of the City of Hiroshima:"Army troops deployed around Hiroshima Castle, which was the center of Hiroshima as a military city, were nearly annihilated."Also:"In Hiroshima, a center of military affairs since the Sino-Japanese and the Russo-Japanese wars, military installations were expanded and various heavy industries developed rapidly."And as for Japan surrendering without the bombings, we have this:"However, after Japan, which had been victorious in the early stages of the war, lost the battle of Guadalcanal in 1943, the military situation grew steadily worse, and it appeared that the mainland of Japan would be turned into a battlefield. The army hurriedly prepared for a decisive battle on the mainland. With these preparations Hiroshima was to take on a new role."In other words, the Japanese war machine was planning to repulse an American invasion, rather than to surrender.http://www.city.hiroshima.jp/...ho/toukei/History-E/c03.htmlAlso, I think it should be added the Truman recorded in his personal diary and also in a speech announcing the bombing of Hiroshima, that Hiroshima was "a military base". Apparently he was misinformed but the fact remains it was a military target. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the first cities in the war to be bombed to destroy military infrastructure, they were only the first to be hit with atomic weapons.And as for Nagasaki, it was not the primary target but it also was of military significance:"Like Hiroshima, Nagasaki was chosen as a target because it was a major naval and shipbuilding center. In fact at the time of the bombing, the Nagasaki shipyards were the largest privately-owned shipyards in Japan." — I've deliberately tried to use Japanese sources but I'm going to suggest the following link as well, which lists the factors used in determining the targets:Page Not Found | Yale University

Originally posted by gene90:So the Soviet Union wasn't dangerous because of its financial status? Hmm, 22,000 warheads in an economically stable, coup-free government with well-payed scientists and adequate means of accounting for those weapons vs. 22,000 warheads in an unstable, coup-threatened nation where the scientists barely can keep food on the table and that cannot afford to keep up with their weapons?What they didn't tell you was that many of those missile tubes were empty. And much of their capabilities was mostly propaganda. What I had meant was that the USA didn't really have to worry about an all out nuclear strike from the USSR.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:No, the Taliban is a product of extreme Islamic schools in Pakistan. As I understand it they were even backed by Pakistanis during the Afghan coup of 1996.Of course they were formed on their own. He was saying that the USA (CIA) helped them out with weapons to fight the Soviets and as a result they were able to take over Afghanistan.

Originally posted by gene90:Right now there is some speculation about that but hindsight is always 20/20. Like I said, the war has been over for a long time and you might have had a different opinion if you had been drafted and were in a boat waiting on a very bloody invasion of Osaka.In that case why don't you nuke Iraq. It sure will save a lot of American lives.It also flies in the face of Japanese military culture in 1946, that surrender=shame and those that surrender were not worthy of humane treatment (hence the summary execution of downed American aviators, the Bataan Death March, and dozens of other atrocities).They also did whatever their emperor said to do since he was their living god.We had to gave them two heavy-duty doses of reality before they were ready to sign the treaty. And doing so is no more cowardly than when we use airpower to hit Iraq, it saves our troops from getting killed in the process.They were not given enough time to respond before dropping the second one. Plus, you must remember that it wasn't like it is today, the Japan of then was still quite primative.Quite the contrary, I think the decision to drop the bomb was a brave one because it might have failed to detonate and then the prize of the Manhattan Project would then be in enemy hands. There is strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that Japan had been attempting a crash nuclear program, with help from Germany.The Nazis were not about to share such things, even with their "allies", afterall there was after the war if they won.The Japanese were unwilling to surrender before the nuking began.I know that American history education is as bad as their science education, but it is a fact that they were ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped.You might notice one obvious point, we had to drop TWO of them before they started talking to us. The reason being they hoped that maybe we only had one bomb and they could still beat us at a war of attrition on the ground in Japan.See above.Actually we did grant them this request, they retained their emperor in the post-war government.But he is not their absolute ruler, and not concidered their living god. He is nothing more than a figurehead.That's also incorrect. Hiroshima had quite a bit of military infrastructure. This is from the official homepage of the City of Hiroshima:By the time of the bombings the infrastructure of Japan was in near chaos. The main reason why these cities were chosen was not because of what military potential they had, but because of the size and the shape of the city was suited to the destructive power of the A-bombs. Because Hiroshima had not been bombed, ascertaining the effects of the A-bomb on buildings and a large civilian population would be relatively easy.That is why a purely military target such as a base, and the like, was not chosen as well. The civilian population was a major factor in their choice.Another reason why the bombs were used was;At the Yalta Conference in February 1945 the USSR had secretly agreed to join the war against Japan within three months of Germany's surrender. The USA wanted to force Japan to an unconditional surrender before the USSR could enter the war to secure a stronger political position in the area as they did in Europe.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-18-2002]

[QUOTE][B]In that case why don't you nuke Iraq. It sure will save a lot of American lives.[/QUOTE][/B]Because we can use precision conventional weapons to neutralize Saddam's regime. Because Iraq does not yet possess nuclear weapons it is not a significant threat to the United States and there is no need for total war. Warfare has changed since the second World War. While we still use dumb bombs to kill enemy troops in huge numbers we no longer have to drop dumb bombs and incendiary weapons on cities to get the job done and hope they get near the target.In the war against Japan they had nothing but dumb bombs (conventional or otherwise) and a very large, relatively unskilled, draft army. Today we have a highly skilled, relatively small professional army that is capable of very rapid deployment almost anywhere. They would not have had that capability in a hypothetical ground war in Japan (no helicopters). We can get in and out of Iraq very rapidly and destroy targets even in densely populated areas with near surgical precision.However if Saddam were to use a nuclear weapon against the United States or otherwise pose a serious threat to US sovereignty I would advocate immediate use of nuclear weapons against Iraq.Note that WWII was a total war and all wars since have been restrained wars.One more thing: when we hit Iraq it will almost certainly be a route, perhaps even a massacre. Most US casualties will probably be friendly fire. [QUOTE][B]They also did whatever their emperor said to do since he was their living god.[/QUOTE][/B]Theoretically but who was calling the shots, the emperor or the generals? As I understand it the generals were, they attacked the US after having promised the emperor that no American bomb would ever fall on Japan (they would have elminated our carriers at Pearl). [QUOTE][B]They were not given enough time to respond before dropping the second one. Plus, you must remember that it wasn't like it is today, the Japan of then was still quite primative.[/QUOTE][/B]They had telephones and they had teletype machines. They also had a considerable shortwave radio broadcasting capability that they used to wage a propaganda war against American servicemen.In fact that is how the surrender came through. While the cabinet debated the emperor secretly (fearing his own subordinates) recorded a surrender message and broadcast it on August 14. That night there was an attempt at a coup to continue the war but it failed, the US acceptance came the next day. So it took about 24 hours for the actual surrender.The bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6. The second was dropped on Nagasaki on August 9, three days later.Clearly the Japanese had ample time to surrender first. [QUOTE][B]The Nazis were not about to share such things, even with their "allies", afterall there was after the war if they won.[/QUOTE][/B]Then why, in March of 1945, was a U-boat (number 234, in fact) intercepted en route to Japan carrying V-2 rocket parts, jet fuel, and approximately 1,200 pounds of uranium oxide? By the way, that uranium may have eventually reached Japan, after having been confiscated by the United States and used to produce the bombs we dropped there.Besides you are only speculating. By this time it was obvious to everyone that there would be no "after the war" for the Third Reich. [QUOTE][B]I know that American history education is as bad as their science education, but it is a fact that they were ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped.[/QUOTE][/B]Repeating yourself isn't going to make your position true. And you might notice that I've been using primarily Japanese references, not American.And actually I think it is Canadian education that is failing this test, having fallen prey to political correctness and revisionist history.But I digress... [QUOTE][B]But he is not their absolute ruler, and not concidered their living god. He is nothing more than a figurehead.[/QUOTE][/B]Irrelevant, he was still there, we didn't drag him out in front of a war crimes tribunal and hang him like we wanted to, he lived until 1989. This despite forcing ten-year-old girls to work in brothels and his complicity in the atrocities his nation committed during the war."The postwar Occupation authorities prevented Hirohito from being hauled before a war crimes tribunal to avoid provoking resistance among the populace, who had viewed the emperor as a living god."ForbiddenWe (MacArthur actually) spared him. [QUOTE][B]By the time of the bombings the infrastructure of Japan was in near chaos.[/QUOTE][/B]That contradicts my previously cited references, including the official website of the City of Hiroshima, which explicitly pointed out that the city was being prepared to play a significant role in a major campaign on Japanese soil. You can't pull things like this out of thin air when I'm using sources and you are not. (Again, Canada's educational system fails. In the US students are taught to cite sources in this sort of thing.) [QUOTE][B]The main reason why these cities were chosen was not because of what military potential they had, but because of the size and the shape of the city[/QUOTE][/B]Size and shape of the city had nothing to do with it. In fact Nagasaki was a lousy target because its topography prevented maximum
destructive yield. However it was a major shipyard and needed to be
destroyed. Hiroshima was a tactical center stuffed full of military installations. Both were tactically significant. This is pointed out on their official website, which I previously cited. [QUOTE][B]Because Hiroshima had not been bombed, ascertaining the effects of the A-bomb on buildings[/QUOTE][/B]Not being bombed was a factor, as was the type of buildings involved.
I'll give you that because it was included in one of my prior cites (therefore you are attacking a strawman).However, it was primarily an issue of tactical significance and demoralizing Japan. Again, two really big reality checks. [QUOTE][B]and a large civilian population would be relatively easy. [/QUOTE][/B]If we had wanted to kill the largest number of civillians possible we would have hit Tokyo instead.Now, if the Japanese were falling over themselves to surrender, why did it take TWO bombs? [QUOTE][B]That is why a purely military target such as a base, and the like, was not chosen as well. The civilian population was a major factor in their choice.[/QUOTE][/B]What evidence do you have of that? I have Truman's diary and speech that say that he intended for the target to be exclusively military, therefore implying that the civilian casualties were incidental (as happened in Dresden and several other cities during the war). [QUOTE][B]At the Yalta Conference in February 1945 the USSR had secretly agreed to join the war against Japan within three months of Germany's surrender. The USA wanted to force Japan to an unconditional surrender before the USSR could enter the war to secure a stronger political position in the area as they did in Europe.[/QUOTE][/B]Uh yeah. We nearly fought WWIII over Berlin and had we built a wall in Tokyo we might not be around to type this today.By the way you need to check your history. We did NOT force Germany to an unconditional surrender, we left that to the Soviets and so we had to divide Germany. We took care of Japan ourselves and didn't have to give half of them over to communism.[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-18-2002]

[QUOTE][B]Of course they were formed on their own. He was saying that the USA (CIA) helped them out with weapons to fight the Soviets and as a result they were able to take over Afghanistan.[/QUOTE][/B]Well he is wrong. The Taliban did not exist prior to the 1990s. They are a product of Pakistan, possibly the Pakistani government.The people they overthrew were the Mujahadeen, the people the CIA trained to fight the Soviets.http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9610/05/taleban/

[QUOTE][B]What they didn't tell you was that many of those missile tubes were empty. And much of their capabilities was mostly propaganda. What I had meant was that the USA didn't really have to worry about an all out nuclear strike from the USSR.[/QUOTE][/B]Are you making this up or do you have sources?Look, the current treaties we're tossing around are to reduce both Russian and American warheads down to no more than 4,250 per side before January 1, 2003.Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START II) How many Americans do you think can be killed with 4,250 hydrogen bombs? And that's a current goal of arms reduction. How many do you think there were during the height of the Cold War?Well, according to this (Japanese) site:"It follows from this that the Soviet Union had outstripped the U.S. in the number of nuclear weapons by the end of the 1970's."http://www.cnfc.or.jp/plutonium/pl10/sympo.e.html[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-18-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
If (for example) Delshad believes that God prodded evolution at arbitrary steps, at some point this begs the quesiton - maybe God just created everything. It is a slippery slope to that creationism thing!

---

Actually, rather than being a "slippery slope", it is a very large leap to go from "evolution occurrs", to "Godidit".One is evidence-based, observable by anyone regardless of religious belief, and the rest is faith-based and not dependent upon any evidence at all.BELIEF that the evidence points to God does not count as evidence.

quote:

---

But what I do believe is that (please Nos482, dont feel offended, you dont have to reply this statement) whatever motives he has it cannot be anything of what we have imagined, all speculations of his intentions are sure to lead nowere.He is beyond and the Master of time, He is the All-knowing great in His Magnificence.
Therefore, comments like , "why did he use evolution, it seems like a slow process, losses its meaning.
Perhaps He created or, perhaps He had planned evolution and knew the outcome right from the start, or then again perhaps he guided it into what he whants, who can know for sure.
Whatever way He used, isnt going to be found as evidence out there, because then everyone would be religous and there would be no test.

---

Interestingly, Delshad, these views of yours are not so different from mine, although I have no belief in God, being an Agnostic.I do not know if God exists or not, and in fact, I do not think that it is possible for anyone to know.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Delshad

​

You are wondering whether pschologically and spiritually we have begun to think of ourselves as related to animals in parallel, or because of, Darwinism.

​

The answer would probably be yes and no.

​

Even though the modern world is full of talk of evolution, when everyone gets home and plays with their children or switches on the TV the similarity of us to animals is probably far from their mind.

​

I think most people know deep down that we are not animals despite the dogma. At least in the US an incredible majority still believe in God and a very large minority do not beleive in evolution. Sophisticated, educated people beleive that is becasue of a lack of education. I beleive it is becasue of conscience as well as a lack of brainwashing by mainstream science in that subset of the population.

​

What interests you about your question?

---

Um, how is it that we are not animals when we play with our children?Ans since when does the number of people who do or do not believe in something have any bearing, whatsoever, on it's truth?And how paranoid and insulting for you to say that the only reason people accept the scientific evidence supporting Evolution is because they are "brainwashed"?"Brainwashing" doesn't fight genetic disease or develop more productive and nutritious cultivars of grain to feed the hungry. "Brainwashing" does not make the HIV research on Chimpanzees valid for humans, nor does it somehow make pig heart valves actually work in human hearts.All of these things work not because of empty, dogmatic claims that scientists have made up about humans being animals, very similar to other animals.Humans ARE animals. Why else would a pig heart valve work in a human heart?Brainwashing does, however, lead people to truly believe that they will go directly to heaven if they fly a plane into a building.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Delshad:
[B]Thanks for the reply Tranquility Base

​

Sometimes I have the feeling that in the western world , there is a belief that lower educated people are more compassionate and caring because of ignorance and the higher educated are usually cold and selfish because of knowledge.[/QUOTE]

​

Actually, it is my experience that the impression in the US is that less-educated people tend to be more narrow-minded and more fearful of difference and change.

​

quote:

---

Before I go any further I wish to tell you this: The human body isnt suited for selfishness or competiveness,

---

​

Sure it is. Have you never watched small children interact? A group of toddlers cannot generally be together in a room with one toy for more than a few minutes before one grabs the toy for themselves and jealously guards it from the others, caring not a whit about the cries of the others.

​

Humans are very selfish and have to be taught to share. This does, to a point, make sense evolutionarily.

​

quote:

---

nor is it suited for anger or rage, nor stress or greed.

---

​

Anger can be very useful from a survival standpoint. Adrenaline, in small, high doses, seems to stimulate the immune system. However, long-term high levels of stress hormones are detrimental, it's true.

​

quote:

---

Of course feelings as above do appear but they are all hazardous to our health and to our surrounding environment ,this is a fact.

---

​

Not true, as explained above.

​

quote:

---

Instead, feelings as love and closeness coincide with the physical and psycological structure of of the human body, that is also a fact.

---

​

ALL feelings have an evolutionary basis, and all have a benefit under the right circumstances (AKA environmental conditions). They can also be detrimental under certain conditions.

​

quote:

---

Despite that, the majority of the scientists tend to approach issues with a cold negative mind, here are 2 examples of looking at the relationship between women and child.

---

​

Perhaps you meant to say detached, fact-based", not "cold and negative". The first phrase is not value-laden, and the second is heavily value-laden.

​

[QUOTE]If we have made the assumtion that self-interest controls every human behaviour then the infant works as a perfect example as a "proof" of the validity of the theory .At birth the child seems programmed with only one thing in mind, that is to satisfact his own needs, food, closeness, safety and so forth, but if we set aside the fundamental assumtion about egoism a new picture is starting to appear.We could just as well say that a child is programmed for only one thing, and that is the ability and the intention to give others pleasure and satisfaction.

​

Both of the examples above are based on facts but in textbooks the former is written, despite the fact that the latter coincides with our social and human structure.
Science is worthless alone, it is only in the hands of us that it becomes effective and thus the latter way of thinking should be embraced by all humans.
And to Nos482, the above said includes another level to science, spirituall and physical, and it isnt by any means resembling "pseudo-science" because everything above are based on facts.

​

[/B]

---

Yes, but you seem to be faulting science for not being soft and fuzzy and reinforcing your spiritual needs and feelings.If so, why do you expect science to do this?

quote:

---

Large minority? That's an oxymoron.

---

No it isn't.A small minority would be, say, 2% of a group.A large minority would be, say, 49% of a group.

quote:

---

As long as they are of our own group. The Other is always a threat to be dealt with. Animals only kill when they are either hungry or feel threatened. Humans are one of the few animals who kill for sport or pleasure, and even prey on their own.

---

Lots of animals will eat their own offspring.Animals such as weasels, fishers, raccoons, dogs and cats all kill for pleasure.It's not terribly uncommon.