champu

Well, your 4), 5), 7), and 8) are essentially the same question. And the answer is that between when the bombing raids started and when the target committee narrowed their choices, we had more important places to go after. Does that mean Hiroshima was crawling with troops and airstrips? No. Does it mean it was populated entirely by orphan koala bears who were trying to find a cure for cancer? No. To the targeting committee it looked like a good place to drop a bomb. As I said before, this list was made from calculated choices I wouldn't have wanted to have to make. There's another interesting piece of info I just read (on everyone's favorite reference site.) I had realized that Kokura (very large military arsenal) had been left untouched, just like the other potential targets, since the down-selection, but I didn't realize it was the secondary target for little-boy and the primary target of fat-man. Turns out it was clear over Hiroshima during the first mission and cloudy over Kokura during the second mission so it never got bombed. It's a funny thing, the weather.

The winds have calmed down noticeably, and with them so have a number of the fires. This afternoon was looking pretty promising. Hopefully in the next few days we'll see a conclusion to this. The sky is still orange and it's still raining ash in Los Angeles, but hopefully not for too much longer.

Here's the latest MODIS Imagery from yesterday afternoon. You can see the fires near San Diego flared up a bit from yesterday morning so I would say they're definitely not out of the woods yet. Also, the fire up by orange county is also a little worrisome as it looks like it has the potential to cause some serious damage if not contained somewhat early.

I'd say CIA is following the advice given in your signature line. Unfortunately I don't think the TSA has a sense of humor that they're aware of, so I would probably distance myself from the logo at airports.

I rarely fly anywhere so I prefer cash back myself. I'm also lazy and don't like to have to pay attention to miles expiring or anything like that. I have a Citibank World Dividend card which I really like. It has no fees, no spending limit, gives me at least 1% on everything, 2% on gas and groceries, and 5% on a whole mess of specific stores. On the rare occasion I do travel it gives me the extra lost bag insurance, extra rental car insurance, road-side assistance, etc. for free. The APR sucks, but I never carry a balance so I don't really care.

You've taken some liberties with your description of Hiroshima as a target as this thread has progressed. We've gone from post #78... to post #142... to post #152... to post #218... to post #231... And now I ask that you please stop with the theatrics. The bombing of Hiroshima was a calculated decision and one I wouldn't have wanted to have to make. To know what it would take to stop the war you had to know all the ins and outs of the different weapons you had available (a-bomb, conventional bombs, battleships, invading troops, etc.), all your targets (military depots, beachheads, ports, cities, etc.), and your enemy (the troops on the ground, the pilots in the planes, the leaders in the capitols, and yes even highly nationalistic citizens.) A choice was made, action was taken, and the war came to an end. Do the ends justify the means in this case? I have no idea. I don't know what would have happened if any of the other possible choices had been pursued, and frankly I don't think you should pretend to either. If you ask 10 experts you'll get 15 opinions. We can lament what we did, but maybe we did what we had to do to put an end to the war. The parallel you're obviously trying to draw, and the one I admitted I clearly saw, was of course the spectacular nature of the atomic bomb usage and the similar nature of terrorist attacks like those conducted against the World Trade Center on 9/11. Both certainly get people's attention, so much so that they often cast a shadow over other events that happened just prior or even concurrently. In time people start to overlook the lengthly island hopping campaigns and firebombing of Tokyo just like in time, I'm sure, people will overlook Flight 77 and Flight 93. But that's right about where the parallels diverge. The atom bombs were dropped to prevent further fighting, to bring an end to a war, and that's exactly what they did. What do you think the goals are of those who flew the planes into the buildings, planted the bombs in trains, and blew up those embassies? Was it to prevent further fighting? Was it to bring an end to a war?

If you feel it's simply "your style" to quote a post in its entirety at the top, and then re-quote each line while attacking it a piece at a time, and you're happy with that... fine, knock yourself out. But in this case you should know that you were too busy yelling at me to realize you're not even discussing the same point as I was, I was answering a question you asked. And on the point you were yelling at me about, I'm not even disagreeing with you. I see the same parallels you do when I read statements about having choose Hiroshima for producing the "greatest psychological impact", and I'm just as disgusted with the way we handled the radiation exposure cases. This whole WWII "debate" (and I take great liberty with the word in calling it that) is a tangent from the question, "What's so great about the US that we get nukes and Iran doesn't." I'll repeat myself. By stating that I don't wish to see nuclear weapons proliferate, I'm not suggesting that we (the United States as a country) are perfect, I'm suggesting that we (humans as a species) are imbeciles.

I've separated this out from my last posting because it has nothing to do with this particular discussion, and is not meant to say anything one way or the other in regards to any of the content you've added in any given post. Likewise, it is not intended to accuse you of being a troll or anything of that nature, I say this meaning all the best. Lucky... seriously... your posting style is atrocious and repulsive. You've rapid-fired almost a quarter of the posts in this thread and many contain vast quote blocks only to add a single line response. There's almost always a jungle of bold faced type, arrows, italics, white-space, broken quote blocks, urls, copied and pasted text, and text quoted multiple times in the same post waiting to the right of your name. Sometimes it's hard to tell what the heck you even wrote. When you combine that with statements that you take your opponents' silence to mean concession it's no wonder you "win" so many of your arguments around here.

I sincerely hope I'm missing your sarcasm. MAD does not produce a stable equilibrium, and the more circus performers you add to the balancing act, the more likely it is someone falls off the tightrope and takes others nearby with them. I'm speaking in ideology only, but what makes the US so responsible? We've misused our authority more than we've used it correctly, so what makes us so great with nuclear weapons? In some discussions the polar ideologies of the subject matter serve as useful baselines to aspire to, but in this case I don't think lengthly discussions about how we might or might not some day "get there from here" are worthwhile. I'm not going to go off on a tirade about why the United States is the best thing since sliced bread, and how that means we should be the ones with our finger on the button. As of today, we're one of the countries burdened with the responsibility that comes along with possessing a nuclear arsenal. Thus far we've proven to be "reasonably okay" at it. The more states that have them, the more leadership changes that happen, the more deployment and maintenance plans and facilities you end up with, the more chances you get for something to go wrong. By stating that I don't wish to see nuclear weapons proliferate, I'm not suggesting that we (the United States as a country) are perfect, I'm suggesting that we (humans as a species) are imbeciles.

I sincerely hope I'm missing your sarcasm. MAD does not produce a stable equilibrium, and the more circus performers you add to the balancing act, the more likely it is someone falls off the tightrope and takes others nearby with them. More worrisome still, MAD is only an unstable equilibrium when all entities involved have 303M or 143M or perhaps even just 70M people sitting around unknowingly in large clumps, not if one entity is 10s of thousands scattered around an entire region. To put a slight spin on the old saying, 1,000 nuclear weapons is a statistic, 1 nuclear weapon is the end all be all of asymmetrical warfare. It's bad enough that we already have to rely on several countries to maintain security over a nuclear arsenal (ourselves included.) but five weapons each in the hands of two countries is twice as risky as ten weapons in the hands of one country.

How does the saying go again about wishing in one hand and something else in the other? I gather you do a bit more than wish about such things, however, so here's to that.

The whole lecture is worth watching if you've got the time. (it's about 75 minutes, and 40 minutes of Q&A afterwards) I nearly laughed myself silly when he detailed the "find and replace" job creatio- I mean... proponents of intelligent design performed on Of Pandas and People back in 1987.

Race is an attribute. Your parents determine your attributes. However, culture plays pretty heavily into the reasons people get together and have kids, so it's definitely possible for different societies to produce pockets of people with particular enhanced traits right out of the starting gates. That said, whether you're talking about strength, intelligence, or charisma, you still have to grow these attributes as the individual grows if you want them to amount to anything. This is where the second, and larger imho, round of your culture's influence comes into play. Some societies are better equipped to grow different attributes than others.

I have to be honest, your response here makes me call into question the legitimacy of your interest in this discussion. However, giving you the benefit of the doubt... There's more to a time line than a bulleted list of events. That's why it's called a time line. Saying a statement came 48 hours after an event when it came 8 months following an event is altering the time line of events... lying. This lie was told in order to fabricate a cause and effect relationship between the shooting and Heston's statements that simply was not there. Now, if you want to argue that displaying the text, "48 hours after Kayla Rolland was pronounced dead..." on the screen while talking about Heston's statement does not constitute, "saying a statement came 48 hours after an event" then you are more than welcome to do so. Though if you do, I will no longer grant you the benefit of the doubt regarding your intentions here.

Regarding time lines staying intact, I was referring to one of the scenes called out in the reference that kelpdiver posted, the one regarding the Flint Michigan shooting. If you care to, you can read about it there but I'll sum up the most egregious bit of "good editing." Moore claims, verbatim, that the NRA had a big pro-gun rally following Kayla Rolland's death. He shows a scene of himself with the school principal, then shows a clip of a speech made by Heston 8 months after the shooting at a presidential campaign, then shows a highlighted clip from an article that simply says, "48 hours after Kayla Rolland was pronounced dead..." (mind you, the article that this fragment was highlighted from had absolutely nothing to do with the NRA, it was actually saying 48 hours later, Bill Clinton went on the today show to discuss it.) There was no pro-gun rally following the event, let alone in response to the event. It never happened. It was completely conjured up out of thin air. That is not "good editing." That is a fabrication. That is lying.

I'm not sure how much "good editing" has to take place before you'd no longer consider a scene authentic, but rather fabricated. If the underlying time line doesn't survive the process the product deserves to be filed away with the National Enquirer.

This is an interesting attitude that I see in speakers corner a lot and, quite frankly, it's one I can't understand. You appear to be making the claim that everything Michael Moore says is true until someone proves otherwise in this little corner of the internet. I'll tell you right now, no one cares enough about what you believe to hold your hand through this. A couple people in this thread have given examples and references to further reading in the hopes that maybe you'll start taking what Michael Moore says with a grain of salt. That's all you can expect anyone to offer you in their spare time. In short, don't believe everything you read, and believe even less of what you watch.

The manner in which the release of the video was discussed last month by SITE (and other groups like it) would lead me to believe the IC had little to do with exposing their methods. As I understand it, SITE makes a habit of providing information to a rather lengthly list of subscribers.

This guy is a fuck up, not a hardened criminal. I'd rather save real-estate in prisons for those that are more grave threats to society. As for what to do with people like this? I really don't know, but I'm sure there's a well-intentioned and expensive social program that could fail miserably at helping them out.

Oh no... All I can picture is Andrew with that damn sombrero. "No no, we want reactions, but try and act normal." "uh... that's how he always is..."

I think an event like the moonshot proves a couple things about daunting technological challenges. First, if you throw enough money at the right people, you can accomplish just about anything. Second, the vast majority of the general public prefer to sit on the sidelines, cheer for a while, and then, after a very short period of time, get bored and take the accomplishments of others for granted, sometimes even becoming indignant over their lack of continued satisfaction. While I personally find the missile defense challenge incredibly interesting, I don't work on those programs because I feel there are more important things out there to have the general public take for granted and eventually grow indignant towards me about.

LNAs have come a long way since 1983. Still, I think we all can only hope that diplomacy is the solution that meets the "better, faster, cheaper" goal.

This is an illustration of my dislike for the non income based classifications. The Old Country Buffet comment actually made me laugh. Jim Gaffigan has a bit about valuing beautiful people in everyday language as evidenced by the phrase, "Looks like things are going to get ugly." "Well how are ugly people supposed to respond to this?" He asks, "Well, it doesn't affect me.... I'm headin' to Olive Garden." ...followed by his fake audience murmering... "Hey, I like Olive Garden. What's wrong with Olive Garden? All you can eat bread sticks!"

Exhibiting class is 10% being in control of the situation (via your wallet, physical build, education, etc.) and 90% being in control of yourself.

How about officials stop opening their damn mouths to the press about how close they believe they were, what they did or didn't know, and how our operations work? For crying out loud... Am I the only one who's sick of reading, "...an official told us under condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the subject matter" ? If you catch him, great... we'd all appreciate knowing. Until then...