01-02-2005 12:24									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by jefftest And Okinawa wasn't even a home island - the Japanese will to defend the homeland was incredible.

Not that incredible, if the Soviet victory in Manchuria is any guide.

quote: Originally posted by jefftest The cheerful Japanese slogan that summer was: "One Hundred Million Will Die for the Emperor and Nation".

That's just propaganda.

	01-02-2005 12:27									#32
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by jefftest What a bunch of mushy thinking and hindsight revisionism. 63000 was one estimate at one point by Marshall of US casualties just for Olympic. It was based on a serious under-estimate of Japanese strength on Kyushu, which was triple what the US had been planning for. General Marshall: "will not cost us in casualties more than 63,000 of the 190,000 combatant troops estimated as necessary for the operation". Well, there turned out to be 790,000 Japanese troops on Kyushu alone. At Okinawa, it took over 50,000 US casualties to defeat roughly 150,000 Japanese troops. More realistic estimates were in the neighborhood of 250,000 US casualties for Olympic alone. (note that casualties = killed+wounded, you seem to be mixing casualties and deaths above) Also remember, Olympic was only phase one to seize Kyushu as a staging area, it would be the much larger Operation Coronet to actually seize the Kanto plain and Tokyo. The estimate for the 2 operations was generally around 1 million US casualties, which is where the American Legion gets its figures. As evidence that this was a more serious estimate, look among other things at the extra million Purple Hearts the US ended the war with, the bulk of which were ordered in preparation for the invasion of Japan. Thankfully, they were not necessary for WWII, but are still being distributed even today, after having been enough for Korea, Vietnam, Gulf Wars I & II and all other minor military actions over the last 60 years. And this totally leaves out any Japanese casualties - look at the carnage on Okinawa, just concluded in April: 107,000 soldiers killed and 24,000 sealed in caves or buried by the Japanese themselves; 10,755 captured or surrendered. Civilian losses are hard to estimate, as a lot hid in caves where they were buried by the Japanese. The lowest estimate is 42,000 killed, with another 145,000 wounded. And Okinawa wasn't even a home island - the Japanese will to defend the homeland was incredible. The cheerful Japanese slogan that summer was: "One Hundred Million Will Die for the Emperor and Nation". 38 million civilians were enrolled in the Japanese militia program, and training to make massed charges against the American lines at night. The Japanese had been hoarding fuel and planes for a huge wave of suicide attacks, which had been proven quite effective at Okinawa. Probably even more serious, the US air forces were less than 2 weeks away from beginning destruction of the Japanese transportation system to prepare for the invasions. This was to hinder troop movements, but would have had an even worse effect, due to the geography of Japan - most of the rice was grown in the north, and the bulk of the population was in the south. The 1945 rice harvest was already known to be bad - and Japanese civillians were *already* on a near starvation diet. Some estimates say that over 10 MILLION civillians would have starved due to problems in transporting the rice that would be available, even if the Japanese had surrendered immediately afterward. Even with the August surrender, rations were extremely low in 45/46, and mass starvation was very narrowly averted. So what are the alternatives here? Invasion? Millions of casualties, followed by more millions starving. Blockade? Millions starving. Negotiation? OK, this one is a bit trickier. It's the hardest to really dismiss, as *everybody* wishes it had been possible. But for evidence against it, look what actually happened. Before summer 45, the cabinet had still not been able to even articulate their terms, or determine even approximately what to have the few, inept peace feelers communicate. And note that these were only explorations, not coming anywhere NEAR a "surrender attempt". Note too that the US would be extremely skeptical of apparent attempts to "negotiate" from a country that had already pulled diplomatic skulduggery while their sneak attack force was sailing across the Pacific... In fact every prior peace feeler was shut down by Tokyo immediately as it was discovered. Finally in summer 45, an envoy was sent to the Russians, with nebulous instructions, and receiving increasingly bizarre telegrams from Tokyo. I'll quote the Wall Street Journal article here: "Marshall then learned from the Magic Summaries, just before the Potsdam Conference convened on July 17, 1945, about behind-the-scenes negotiations between Japan and the Soviet Union. From June 3-14, 1945, Koki Hirota, a Japanese envoy with Emperor Hirohito's blessing, had met with the Russian ambassador to Tokyo to propose a new relationship between the two countries. Japan proposed to carve up Asia with the USSR. According to the Magic Diplomatic Summaries of July 3, 1945, Hirota told the Russian ambassador: "Japan will increase her naval strength in the future, and that, together with the Russian Army, would make a force unequaled in the world...." The Magic Summaries further revealed that throughout June and July 1945, Japan's militarist leaders were adamantly determined that they would never surrender unconditionally to the British and the Americans." Then, even AFTER the first bomb, the cabinet is still deadlocked over surrender. After the SECOND bomb, the cabinet still dithers for days, is convinced only by the personal intervention of the emperor, and then a part of the military even starts a coup to try to overturn the government for THAT! Yeah, sure sounds like they were "ready to surrender" long before that :P There was no "telegram from the emperor to the US on July 18th" - either you grossly misread this or the source is total BS. Near that date, Truman read a Magic intercept of the Japanese cabinet's instructions to the Moscow envoy, and it was in no way shape or form "peace at basically any price". If they were sooo ready to surrender, then why didn't they respond to the Potsdam demand of July 26th? (This had the loosening of terms to "unconditional surrender of the armed forces" vs the previous Cairo phrasing "unconditional surrender of Japan") Oh, wait, they did, the published response of Premier Suzuki (and he was in the *peace* faction of the cabinet!) was that the Potsdam Declaration was "a thing of no great value", and "We will simply mokusatsu it". The main meaning of mokusatsu is "take no notice of; treat (anything) with silent contempt; ignore". US Strategic Bombing Survey "would have surrendered anyway" - gee an Air Force study says that the Air Force was gonna finish winning the war alone. This document was part of the post war jockeying between the branches of the armed forces for funding and influence. It's definitely not a completely unbiased source. Oh, by the way they firebombed Tokyo again the evening of August 9th, after the Nagasaki bomb. *This* was how they planned to continue until Japan surrendered. And 100,000 killed in this firebombing is sooooo much better than 100,000 killed in an atomic bombing exactly how? Even if the Japanese intentions had been to genuinely move quickly towards surrender, how long do you want to allow this process to drag on? November? December? Remember Japan is still brutally occupying large amounts of territory with huge populations in China, Indonesia, Dutch East Indies, Manchuria, etc. Thousands of civillians in these countries are dying *each day*. Shortening the war even by a few months arguably saves more civillian lives here alone than lost in the bombings. This is the context. Now, at this point, Truman has a shot at ending the war quickly and decisively, using what they think of at the time as basically just a really big conventional bomb. What realistic alternative do you see? No argument the a-bombings were terrible. I think only 60 years of hindsight of "eeeevil nuclear weapons" is making them seem more terrible than the alternatives. Because it's just oh so much worse to die in a blast or of eeeeevil radiation, than to starve to death slowly over the course of several months with your belly distended, helplessly watching your family slowly die too. Or from third degree burns over half your body or suffocation in the course of a "normal" firebombing. The guys peddling these alternative lines are mainly trying to be controversial to sell books, and/or to push their own agendas. I have read a lot on both sides of this, and reluctantly conclude it was the least horrible of a lot of pretty horrible alternatives.

	01-02-2005 12:30									#33
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Not that incredible, if the Soviet victory in Manchuria is any guide.

Manchuria = Foreign occupation with severe supply problems

Japan = My home and family and I'll kill you even if the only thing left I have to fight with is my teeth

quote: That's just propaganda.

Which works, and worked extremley effectivley in 1945

Also witness the invasions of places like Iwo Jima which have already been mentioned and the casualty figures add up.

	01-02-2005 12:33									#34
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Besides, do any of us know what the Soviet forces were capable of transporting by water during 1945?

	01-02-2005 13:02									#35
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

The fact that the Atom Bombs played a large part in the Japanese surrender is a long-held myth. I've actually done quite a bit of study of World War II from the Japanese perspective in my day (which is quite interesting in how different they view the war than us, for them it was always all about China, but I digress). Anyway, at the time they were used, the feelings of the Japanese generals toward the bombs were "we can live with it". They made the rather sound arguement that the atom bombs were less effective than the fire-bombing campaigns that had killed and displaced so many millions. Also, they (correctly) assumed that since it was such a technology the Americans couldn't have more than two or three bombs (they were right).

The real reason the Japanese surrendered was the ruthless campaign of fire-bombings, which showed that the Allies would kill every last Japanese person if necessary, and the Soviet campaign in Manchuria. Remember, it was always about China to them. Even until late in the war, they believed that if they could just settle "the China incident", they could turn the tide on the westerners. The Atom Bombs did not do much to bring the Japanese to surrender. it is unfortunate that this myth is so well-ingrained in the American psyche.

	01-02-2005 13:11									#36
	Remove this text

IIRC the Japanese Govt released records of the debates in their political leadership following the twin bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki a few years ago.
Even after the second bomb was used they were still bitterly divided over the surrender issue, and barely agreed to it.
The whole first article seems to be a bit of a joke as far as factual info is concerned. It positively reeks of the nonsense that was coming out of the FAS attempt at revisionism a few years ago. Add in the bit about the home islands being defenseless and you have it down almost to the letter ...

100-130k US casualties is indeed made up. Actual estimates were around the 1 million mark (total casualties btw, including wounded as well as dead) and up to 10x that on the Japanese side (only in the fighting mind you. The aftermath was another matter still) in the absence of a quick surrender.


If this is what's being taught in US schools these days then I'm inclined to agree with those who bash the US education system at every possible opportunity ...

	01-02-2005 13:33									#37
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker Besides, do any of us know what the Soviet forces were capable of transporting by water during 1945?

A little bit less than not much.

	01-02-2005 14:28									#38
	Get a bigger avatar today!

The Soviet campaign in Manchuria was a classic of blitzkreig warfare. The Kwantung Army, one of the best equiped Japanese forces, was destroyed in a matter of days. At the same time, the Soviets landed in the Kuril Islands and on Sakahlin Island, where traditional Japanese defensive tactics gave them more trouble.

The point is, the Japanese were more freaked by the Soviet attack than by the atomic bombings. Manchuria was the remaining source of raw materials, and despite heavy shipping losses, was still accessable.

The Japanese were already prepared to negotiate a surrender before either the A-bombing or the Soviet blitz. It was just a matter of getting around the "unconditional" demand which Roosevelt had committed the Allies to, for domestic political reasons. Another week or two, and a negotiated end to the war was likely.

	01-02-2005 14:44									#39
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker Manchuria = Foreign occupation with severe supply problems Japan = My home and family and I'll kill you even if the only thing left I have to fight with is my teeth

Not so. Manchuria was a production base for Japan. They were making the stuff locally.

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker Also witness the invasions of places like Iwo Jima which have already been mentioned and the casualty figures add up.

Does that mean the Soviets fought better than the Yankees?

	01-02-2005 15:03									#40
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Not so. Manchuria was a production base for Japan. They were making the stuff locally.

Manchukuo was still 'occupied territory'.

If anyone wants to understand the mindset of the Japanese defending what they felt to be 'home' territory, then a brief glance at their tactics and propaganda produced during the siege of Saipan should put any doubts about the willingness of even Japanese women civilians to kill themselves and their babies rather than be captured by Allied forces.

Ironically enough, Japanese propaganda said that the Americans and other Allied personnel would cannibalize the Japanese. Materials and evidence (partly suppressed after the war) discovered in the latter part of the 20th Century showed that the only people cannibalizing anyone (and not habitually through dire need either) were the Japanese.


And before people get into the whole 'well you wouldn't have used the A Bomb on Caucasians' schtick, take time to remember that the Asian people who were supposedly liberating Asian colonies from European occupiers tortured, experimented upon, raped and mass murdered Asian Korean, Chinese, Indonesian, Indian, Burmese, Viet Namese and Malaysian and also Pacific Islander civilians.

I have yet to work out how the Rape of Nanking was 'liberating' the Chinese population there.

I have yet to understand how the firebombing of Lubeck, Hamburg and Dresden and the firestorms created thereby, are less 'racist' than atomic bombs. Yes, death by radiation poisoning is excruciatingly unpleasant, and there are lingering long term after effects.

But what on earth do you imagine the after effects of Japanese germ warfare experimentation on Chinese prisoners was like?

Or protein and vitamin deficiency and other dietary diseases on impressed 'coolies' and Allied prisoners?

Death by boiling alive in hot water or being dry roasted or suffocating in a Hamburg cellar isn't exactly pleasant.

	01-02-2005 15:11									#41
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by molly bloom I have yet to work out how the Rape of Nanking was 'liberating' the Chinese population there.

That's what they said. We knew they were bad guys all along. Japanese efforts in invasion, annexation, or disruption of daily activities had been in full swing since some point during the Ming dynasty, with the first 100 years or so of the Qing dynasty an exception, when the power of Imperial China was at its peak.

	01-02-2005 15:37									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger That's what they said. We knew they were bad guys all along. Japanese efforts in invasion, annexation, or disruption of daily activities had been in full swing since some point during the Ming dynasty, with the first 100 years or so of the Qing dynasty an exception, when the power of Imperial China was at its peak.

You have to admire the sheer gall and 'face' of the Japanese right wing politicians and militarists though- as if the Chinese population and government weren't already aware of what Japan's behaviour was likely to be from their earlier occupation and conduct in Korea, and the occupied ports in the Manchu Empire and Tsarist Occupied China.

Their attitude towards Subhas Chandra Bose's Indian forces was quite mercenary too, and they seemed to have had little real regard for him.

I'd like to read more about how the government and people of Siam felt during WWII.

Like the feeling of sitting on the lip of a volcano, I suspect, especially after what the Japanese did to Burmese and Viet Namese civilians.

	02-02-2005 01:56									#43
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Not so. Manchuria was a production base for Japan. They were making the stuff locally.

Irrelevent, like was already mentioned, it was foreign held territory. In Japan, that's where the homeland was, and where things would be the most heavily defended.

quote: Does that mean the Soviets fought better than the Yankees?

Poor troll attempt. The Soviets did not do any island hopping except one. The victory at Manchuria was no astonishing feat, and the Soviets would have been completely inept if they had not succeeded there.

The island hopping the Americans did, on the other hand, was a logistical and brutal campaign that amounted to us having more stuff and more people and the ability to make it and move it faster than they could. Transporting millions of men and equipment far from home is exponentially harder than moving a land based force basically next door.

	02-02-2005 01:58									#44
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by techumseh It was just a matter of getting around the "unconditional" demand which Roosevelt had committed the Allies to, for domestic political reasons. Another week or two, and a negotiated end to the war was likely.

The whole revisionist argument all depends on speculation. Would've, could've and should'ves.

	02-02-2005 02:44									#45
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by monkspider The fact that the Atom Bombs played a large part in the Japanese surrender is a long-held myth. I've actually done quite a bit of study of World War II from the Japanese perspective in my day (which is quite interesting in how different they view the war than us, for them it was always all about China, but I digress). Anyway, at the time they were used, the feelings of the Japanese generals toward the bombs were "we can live with it". They made the rather sound arguement that the atom bombs were less effective than the fire-bombing campaigns that had killed and displaced so many millions. Also, they (correctly) assumed that since it was such a technology the Americans couldn't have more than two or three bombs (they were right). The real reason the Japanese surrendered was the ruthless campaign of fire-bombings, which showed that the Allies would kill every last Japanese person if necessary, and the Soviet campaign in Manchuria. Remember, it was always about China to them. Even until late in the war, they believed that if they could just settle "the China incident", they could turn the tide on the westerners. The Atom Bombs did not do much to bring the Japanese to surrender. it is unfortunate that this myth is so well-ingrained in the American psyche.

If the atom bombs were less harmful than the firebombings then they do not deserve any special attention for their use. How can we condemn the US government for switching from a more harmful weapon to a less harmful one?

Furthermore, if the atom bombs were less harmful than the firebombings and the US populace believed that atom bombs were so terrrible that they could end a war all bythemselves how is this horrible? It was precisely this fear of atom bombs which prevented ww3 and I doubt anyone sees that as a bad thing.

In the final analysis if everything in your post is correct none of it makes a whit of difference. Use of the atom bombs was at worst no more immoral than the firebombs and in any case the war ended right after they were used.

So far Monkspider has revealed the truth about two widely believed myths.

1. The Mongols did not exist.
2. the atom bombs had no effect on the decision of the japanese government to surrender.

Such insights! Where can I find out aout the other misconceptions you have discovered?

	02-02-2005 02:54									#46
	Support Apolyton

I do wonder why people still believe the atom bombings were unjusitfied and just for the US to have a bit of fun or something. I do wonder if they have seen the divided nature of the Japanese even after the second bomb (as stated before by someone) and the carnage at Iwo Jima and Okinawa?

	02-02-2005 02:56									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

People questioning if we should of used the A-bomb has more to do with our horror of nukes TODAY than anything else.

	02-02-2005 02:58									#48
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Odin People questioning if we should of used the A-bomb has more to do with our horror of nukes TODAY than anything else.

I do have to agree. Though that horror did serve us well by (probably) preventing a World War 3.

	02-02-2005 03:02									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

We should not do anything until 20 years after the fact so we can put every action into the proper perspective

Even hindsight is blind every now and then.,

	02-02-2005 03:07									#50
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui I do wonder why people still believe the atom bombings were unjusitfied and just for the US to have a bit of fun or something.

Well, that's a strawman of the arguments if I ever heard one. I think the OP mentioned several of the other reasons for the a-bomb droppings, none of which were for "fun."

	02-02-2005 03:45									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by molly bloom Manchukuo was still 'occupied territory'. If anyone wants to understand the mindset of the Japanese defending what they felt to be 'home' territory, then a brief glance at their tactics and propaganda produced during the siege of Saipan should put any doubts about the willingness of even Japanese women civilians to kill themselves and their babies rather than be captured by Allied forces. Ironically enough, Japanese propaganda said that the Americans and other Allied personnel would cannibalize the Japanese. Materials and evidence (partly suppressed after the war) discovered in the latter part of the 20th Century showed that the only people cannibalizing anyone (and not habitually through dire need either) were the Japanese. And before people get into the whole 'well you wouldn't have used the A Bomb on Caucasians' schtick, take time to remember that the Asian people who were supposedly liberating Asian colonies from European occupiers tortured, experimented upon, raped and mass murdered Asian Korean, Chinese, Indonesian, Indian, Burmese, Viet Namese and Malaysian and also Pacific Islander civilians. I have yet to work out how the Rape of Nanking was 'liberating' the Chinese population there. I have yet to understand how the firebombing of Lubeck, Hamburg and Dresden and the firestorms created thereby, are less 'racist' than atomic bombs. Yes, death by radiation poisoning is excruciatingly unpleasant, and there are lingering long term after effects. But what on earth do you imagine the after effects of Japanese germ warfare experimentation on Chinese prisoners was like? Or protein and vitamin deficiency and other dietary diseases on impressed 'coolies' and Allied prisoners? Death by boiling alive in hot water or being dry roasted or suffocating in a Hamburg cellar isn't exactly pleasant.

An interesting tidbit relating to the firebombings of Germany.
The US never engaged in it. The US spent the entire war (that they participated in) conducting precision bombing, during the daytime, over occupied Europe. The British condoned firebombing because they argued that precision bombing was impossible, and yet, the US proved that to be a lie. Why then, did the US conduct such a heavy firebombing campaign in Japan?

FDR, in one of his many forays beyond the constitution, ordered that all Japanese americans be put into internment camps. He ordered this, and it seemed reasonable to Americans, because Japanese might still have a connection with their homeland, and hence try to hinder the US war effort. Why weren't Germans interned? The Commander of the US airforce, Hap Arnold, was rather German in heritage, why was he allowed to continue in his position? For that matter, the US wasn't fighting Germany. The US was fighting the Nazis. Yet, there was no distinction between Nazi Germany, and Germany. There was no credible resistance movement, or anything. So, why were we fighting Nazi Germany, but just Japan? Why did the Los Angelos Times say, regarding interment of the Japanese, that "A viper is nonetheless a viper regardless of where it is hatched?" Why did General Blarney, in an interview on the front page of the NYT, say, "We must exterminate the Japanese. We are not dealing with humans as we knew them. We are dealing with something primitive. Our troops have the right view of the Japs. They regard them as Vermin?"
No, racism had absolutely nothing to do with it.

	02-02-2005 03:52									#52
	Increase Your PM Length

In response to various speculation that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagaski was necessary to end the war, you are missing the point. It may have been necessary to drop the bombs, but why was it necessary to drop them on cities? The destructive power of the bomb could be easily demonstrated without the need to kill 100k+ civilians.

	02-02-2005 03:58									#53
	Tired of ads?

quote: No, racism had absolutely nothing to do with it.

It may also have been because the Japanese actually attacked US soil in a sneak attack? Nah...

quote: In response to various speculation that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagaski was necessary to end the war, you are missing the point. It may have been necessary to drop the bombs, but why was it necessary to drop them on cities? The destructive power of the bomb could be easily demonstrated without the need to kill 100k+ civilians.

Yeah, hey look at how big and bad it was. Now, you'll surrender, right? You have to demonstrate that your threat to drop the bombs on every Japanese city is credible.

Hell, why didn't we and the Brits just firebomb forests to show the destructive power?

	02-02-2005 04:35									#54
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Does that mean the Soviets fought better than the Yankees?

Their equipment and tactics for mobile warfare were superior to those of the British and Americans, who were more casualty averse and overly dependent on airpower. The Red Army had fought the Germans for 5 years and were proficient in blitzkrieg tactics.

In Aug 1945, the Japanese had 49 divisions and 2000 aircraft facing the Soviets. The Red army had a 1.2:1 edge in manpower and a 5:1 superiority in tanks and a 2:1 edge in aircraft. The attacked on Aug 8, and the Kwantung Army began surrendering on the 18th. During this time a very rapid advance liberated most of Manchuria and killed up to 80,000 Japanese combatants. Nearly 600,000 prisoners were taken. 8,000 Soviets were killed. The area taken was about the size of France and Germany put together and had much more primitive communications.

So Ted's statement

quote: "The victory at Manchuria was no astonishing feat, and the Soviets would have been completely inept if they had not succeeded there."

is inoperative.

	02-02-2005 05:36									#55
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by techumseh Their equipment and tactics for mobile warfare were superior to those of the British and Americans, who were more casualty averse and overly dependent on airpower. The Red Army had fought the Germans for 5 years and were proficient in blitzkrieg tactics. In Aug 1945, the Japanese had 49 divisions and 2000 aircraft facing the Soviets. The Red army had a 1.2:1 edge in manpower and a 5:1 superiority in tanks and a 2:1 edge in aircraft. The attacked on Aug 8, and the Kwantung Army began surrendering on the 18th. During this time a very rapid advance liberated most of Manchuria and killed up to 80,000 Japanese combatants. Nearly 600,000 prisoners were taken. 8,000 Soviets were killed. The area taken was about the size of France and Germany put together and had much more primitive communications. So Ted's statement is inoperative.

The red army did a superb job in manchuria, but how do you back up your claims that the allies were less effective at blitzkrieg? The allies blitzkreiged through western europe even faster than did the soviets through eastern europe despite the fact that the soviets had greatly superior tanks to the allies throughout the war.

I doubt we could be sure which was truly better at that type of warfare in the absence of any battles that pitted the one against the other.

	02-02-2005 05:45									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo It was precisely this fear of atom bombs which prevented ww3 and I doubt anyone sees that as a bad thing.

How do you know what prevented something that didn't happen, and doesn't exist?

	02-02-2005 05:47									#57
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by rah We should not do anything until 20 years after the fact so we can put every action into the proper perspective Even hindsight is blind every now and then.,

It shouldn't take hindsight to know that blowing thousands of people up is a bad thing.

	02-02-2005 05:51									#58
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd How do you know what prevented something that didn't happen, and doesn't exist?

since all things which are prevented do not by definition exist, your logic would seem to imply that nothing is ever prevented.

	02-02-2005 05:52									#59
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd It shouldn't take hindsight to know that blowing thousands of people up is a bad thing.

wow you're the last person I would expect to say this!

	02-02-2005 05:56									#60
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo since all things which are prevented do not by definition exist, your logic would seem to imply that nothing is ever prevented.

I was trying to make the distinction that WW3 didn't happen, there is no real reason to believe that WW3 was going to happen, or even what WW3 would of been if it did happen. So how can you say with any certainty what stopped WW3, when WW3 can not even be defined?