Sharks in the Septic Tank Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Solon who wrote (42245)	1/15/2002 2:12:35 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 82486

The report is not making the assumptions: you are. I was pointing out that the report was not making that assumption (that the bombing would stop). The bombing had been heavy but the Japanese while in a hopeless position still where not destroyed. You say the bombing campaign had run through the list of targets but for many targets that is meaningless. The targets where bombed but some where still intact and other had been rebuilt or could be rebuilt if the bombing stopped or was greatly reduced. In many ways the blockade caused more problems then the bombing. They could rebuild a lot of production ability that we had bombed (I don't have hard stats on Japan but Germany which was similarly bombed did not go below its prewar military production capability until big chunks of Germany territory where lost to invading armies), but it could not replace the flow of raw materials that had been cut off by the blockade. If the Germans had decisively won (instead of lost) the Atlantic sub/anti sub war they could have caused similar problems for the UK. I remember reading somewhere that this was Churchill's biggest worry. That is ridiculous. Nuclear bombs strategically dropped would have killed everyone--either directly, or through radiation poisoning. They practically levelled the whole country in 9 months. Having removed all resistance, how much longer do you think it would take if the goal was simply to obliterate life? Try to be sensible, Tim. We did not have a great number of nukes until the 50s. We had devastated the cities, but still many millions still lived in the cities. The countryside was almost untouched. If we had actually made it our goal to kill all of the Japanese in the 40s it would have been extremely time consuming and difficult to do so. The bombing to that point even including the atomic bombing only killed a small percentage of the Japanese population. Its easy to kill a lot of people with bombs but its hard to kill everyone or almost everyone in a large country. If all you have is WWII bombers and a handful of nukes it would be almost impossible. The real reason time travel doesn't exist is because the future doesn't exist. I'm not sure it is all that clear. That's the traditional view of time, but the assumptions behind it are questioned by some scientists. In any case travel to the future is not the problem. We are doing that constantly at a rate of one hour per hour. Its quite possible to travel to the future at a faster subjective rate. Time dialition does that easily, there may be other ways to do it that have not yet been discovered. Its travel to the past that seems to be impossible. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next