-archimedes-

Touché...yet, I counter, cheating is a proclivity devised solely of human immorality, a character flaw per se, whereas suffering is a necessary predisposition of living and learning, neither of which requires cheating. p.s. Well played, BTW.

The point that I'm attempting to make is that everyone should be morally obligated to play by the rules as doing so benefits the one just as much as it does all equally, albeit even more so for the individual as they'll know in advance what to expect going into any given situation, thereby allowing them to extrapolate the benefits of doing so well in advance. Rules are rules for a reason, that being (in this instance) for the sake of fairness/to level the playing field whereat the only allowed deviation is the skill level that the player, the individual, brings to the game. How else is man to recognize/acknowledge his achievement above and beyond those that have gone before him? Having rules that are loosely/never enforced pays little but lip service to the institution that devised the rules, an institution that was built upon character, honesty, fairness, fellowship, pride, gamemanship and opportunity...opportunity for those willing to make the sacrifices demanded by the given sport, to take what has been given to all others and to achieve more with it not by breaking the rules, but by beating them at their own game by adhering to the rules. Therein lies the true sense of accomplishment, of achievement, of self-improvement because anyone can win by cheating, but the true victor wins merely by playing the game better.

Granted, though I feel that you're merely being facetious as I fail to see how anyone benefits from criminality, save for the criminals themselves...or law enforcement officials such as yourself("?"). Perhaps you'd like to provide us with a synopsis of the benefits of criminality for the law enforcement community by way of substantiating your ongoing contentious behavior? All of this is your just being argumentative/refusing to acknowledge the benefits of a society free of criminality by way of supporting a career choice in the field of law enforcement, albeit even if it puts people such as yourself out of a job (at least state side anyways as I can think of any number of countries that could stand a good bit of policing for those officers so insistent on steadfastly clinging to employment in law enforcement to forsake retraining for another career)? In short, I've accused you of nothing other than dodging the point and no amount of your waving your board Moderator status credentials around via veiled, albeit direct, threats of repercussions for anyone who challenges you/your contentions will change that. If you're wrong, you're wrong. This is not a legal forum, this is a public discussion forum and as such such nuances of contextual specifics are not required to forward/support an opinion/ideology/argument, especially since all that one is attempting to convey is an idea of common morality/ethics. True, one could argue that continued/free reigned criminality validates employment in law enforcement, but such an argument would be spurious at best as the core tenet of law enforcement is the stopping/elimination of crime and the protection of the public/law abiding citizens from the same. Irregardless, it all boils down to whether or not laws governing the use of PED's by athletes exist, which they do...and whether they were broken, which they were. Thereafter it becomes a matter of plausible deniability and demonstrable responsibility of sporting commission associates and officials/the delegation of authority amongst the ranks thereof, which will all boil down to just whom is responsible for what, after all, why do you think that so many government officials have been jumping ship under the current presidency?

Lol! I've covered all of your contentions/objections elsewhere in my replies found in the above two posts directed at others here...apologies for your having drawn the short straw this time around. The one point of contention of your post not previously touched upon by others is the "...intrinsic merit of discussing the wrong side" of a question/debate, ergo, the intrinsic merit is to be found in un-raveling/covering all potential aspects/facets/perspectives of an issue and addressing each in turn to insure that each has been duly considered, noted and debunked so that one is left with but one or two possible scenarios for any given situation/reply to a question. Here's a question for you, DO, and others here, one I've mentioned earlier but all have chosen to ignore (see Post #13): If the only way that you can win is by cheating, is that really winning?

Moral, ethically and economically (I'll get to this latter in a moment). Is it not in my "self-interest" to keep criminality out of my home, my neighborhood, my business? Is it not in my "rational self-interest to eliminate it from our World? Is not criminality antithetical to self-interest, to capitalism itself (granted, except for those capitalists who've endeavored to earn a penny or two by producing anti-crime products like handcuffs, alarms, tasers and what have you)? Surely you can realize the personal/financial benefits of living in a low/no crime home &/or neighborhood, or working for a company that isn't ransacked by it's employees for whatever materials or equipment that is at hand? I mean, do I really have to explain the rational best/self-interests of these benefits you someone such as yourself? We're really just mincing words here, each intent on championing their version of their perspective on this subject, all the while over-shadowing the main issue when we both know (especially you, officer) that criminality is wrong regardless of the degree, manner or methodology in which it is employed...is any of this contextual enough for you to now understand in order to make your determination or do you intend to continue to be vague and obscure in your rationalization of the issues presented here?

Granted, but...is your own morality/common sense/sense of self-preservation/decency/humanity "20/20", or are those traits of civility also something one perceives as being something to review in retrospection? No doubt, "[t]he criminal is the cause", whereas the "witness" is merely the perpetuator of said criminality...at least those whom witness yet chose not to inform the local authorities. I made use of the analogy as it is one more readily perceived by the general public as we all cannot be World Series baseball players/athletes, but we can all understand/relate to/have experienced some form of criminality in our lives or the lives of those with whom we associate, and I believe that it served well my needs of conveying the ideology I intended. As for there being no real "victims" in the case of athlete steroid/drug usage other than the user themselves, I'd invite you to argue that premise with the other players, e.g., those that were also interested in matching and surpassing the "Home Run King's" record, but saw a futility to their dreams given the apparent ease in which certain other so-called "team players" attained those very goals; or how about any of the patrons or fans, fans that show up wearing their teams colors (be they color-coded/team franchised clothing or body-painted on) who frequent and support this or that team out of a sense of pride, spirit and awe at being able to have first-hand experience of the personal accomplishments of physical abilities and triumphs of the human soul irregardless of whatever meteorological inclement or however far down in points that the team may be or even just to be able to say "he came from my town" with a sense of dignity; or how about the fathers &/or mothers out there intent on teaching their children how to play the "all time greatest American sport", only it's not so 'all time' or 'greatest' anymore but yet another aspect of our ever de-evolving society that's being debased thanks to drugs? Just as you're free to say that there are no other victims, I'm as free to say you're wearing blinders.

Hmm...I believe that I competently covered the rationale for Japan's efforts in the War, as well as the necessity for America's usage of not one, but two, bombs. Perhaps you didn't bother to read the information contained either in my post or the links that I provided which would have adequately provided the reviewer with a look into the mindset/ideology governing, compelling, and motivating the Japanese, i.e., the Bushido Code. Admittedly, while the oversight is on my part over the perceived confusion about the "demonstration" as I directed my comments primarily at the/your title question, i.e., "Was Dropping the Atomic Bomb Necessary for Ending the War with Japan?", due to my perception of it being the more pertinent topic as it recalled one of, if not the, darkest periods in the civility and developmental humanity of the World, I feel that a review of their ideology would reveal that it really wouldn't have mattered and likely would have only prompted the Japanese to devise a tactic even more so sinister that the surprise bombing of Pearl Harbor which, as you know, is what prompted America's involvement. All of the information is there if one only takes the time to read it, but then, it is one thing to have read something and to be able to say 'yeah, I read it', and yet another entirely to be able to say that you've read something and understood it.

Seconding RB's reference to "user error"....

This statement alone warrants termination of employment for the author of such comments, albeit the revocation of GM's license to produce/market vehicles, and slashes at the heart of capitalists worldwide (or at least those with investments in GM) as the loss of lives through faulty/non-modernized safety engineering R&D practices reduces the consumer base through product support attrition.

Now back to the players; I'd like the opportunity to ask them a question, i.e., if the only way that you can win is to cheat...is that really winning?

The context was intended to serve a two-part function wherein the first part was to make note of the overtly obvious one-sided discussion and secondly, as a rhetorical axiom utilized as validation for my usage of the term "facet" by way of emphasizing that members here had presented and were championing but one aspect of a topic that consisted of at least two(2) sides...a little way of expressing that all sides of a topic must be considered, contemplated and mulled over in order to form a complete perspective of the topic(s) under debate before any opinions are formed and commented upon. Call it intellectual license. Granted, definitely "less guilty", yet guilty nonetheless...yes?! Why...? Because you could have said or done something that may have caused the perpetrator to cease and desist in their grievous actions, or you could have contacted the authorities and relayed information to them that could have lead to the capture and arrest of this person, thereby bringing them to justice and preventing them from harming another (I'll get back to this point momentarily). LOL!! No...no it wasn't fair at all. Anyway... I'll respond by answering your questions with one of my own since you appear to have missed the point I was attempting to relate entirely, i.e., while I understand that it's common practice for people to place the lives of loved ones above those of what we define as mere strangers, tell me, how is it going to feel to have to live with the knowledge that when you had an opportunity to take the person that you saw (but chose to keep silent about) rob the convenience store clerk off of the streets, you instead chose to ignore that anything was happening, turns out to be the very person who showed up on your 49 yr. old sister's doorstep to mug her?!?!?!? I meant that in a purely "figurative speaking" sense.

If I may pose a slightly different perspective on the matter, if but for the sake of adding another facet to the apparently one-sided jewel of a discussion everyone is having here, i.e., Edmond Burke is recorded as once having said that "the only thing required for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing...." In viewing the comments of Mr. Mitchell from this angle, one is readily able to discern the method from what others here have construed as being the madness of Mr. Mitchell's comments. I'll explain with some more readily relatable examples: while no, you're not the one who mugged the little ol' lady for the contents of her purse, are you no less guilty for having looked the other way and pretending that nothing happened/failing/refusing to provide the police with a description of her assailant? Or how about the grocery store clerk you see through the window of the convenience store being held at gunpoint by some robber while you're outside pumping gas...are you no less guilty for lying and saying that you didn't see who did it? Then, how is it that you console yourself at some time later in life when it turns out to be your Grandmother that gets mugged, or you or your teen-aged son or daughter that gets held up while they're working the register at a convenience store...why is it that the relevance of your guilt in a situation by keeping quite/looking the other way/ignoring what is happening right in front of you, is only apparent to you when it's you or someone you know or love, involved? Granted, the incidents of player doping are far from such onerous behavior as mugging or robbery, but to this end, could the players then be guilty for seeing or knowing of their bud's use of PED's* (*Performance Enhancing Drugs) and not saying something to them or reporting them excuse then from the guilt of the act? Could the player's association be any less incriminated in the player's use of PID's after reviewing a notable increase in the player's performance records or having heard rumors of the same and not investigating? As for the club officials and the commissioners, well, if not them then just whose job is it anyway in the world of baseball to keep an eye on everyone to insure in the continued integrity of a World renown sporting activity, albeit an ingrained historical past time of American youth, culture and societal venue? Just whose responsibility for minding the sheep is it but the herders?!? Is anyone responsible? Is there any "responsibility" to be had at all? You all may disagree with my rationality now but, I wonder, just what will you have to say when it comes knocking on your door? Will you continue to look the other way when you no longer can...?

Obama is not who we need in the White House, he is too green/wet behind the ears irregardless of his education, intelligence, or eloquent locution abilities.

By "demonstration blast" I presume you're (inappropriately) referring to Hiroshima, which I would not classify as a "demonstration" as I do not feel that we intended to "demonstrat[e]" our military/technological might to the Japanese, rather, I believe that we were hoping to put an end to all of the bloodshed, human & financial sacrifice & waste, and acted out of desperation for an end to the rationally perceived madness of the Japanese. On the other hand, if your intended meaning was a "demonstration" to the world of our military might by way of circumventing any other potential threat to the U.S. from other Japanese allied countries (e.g. Germany) then, yes, it was a good idea, but one at great expenditure, both financially and humanely. Let's review: World War II’s basic statistics qualify it as by far the greatest war in history in terms of human and material resources expended. In all, 61 countries with 1.7 billion people, three-fourths of the world’s population, took part. A total of 110 million persons were mobilized for military service, more than half of those by three countries: the USSR (22–30 million), Germany (17 million), and the U.S. (16 million). For the major participants the largest numbers on duty at any one time were as follows: USSR (12,500,000); U.S. (12,245,000); Germany (10,938,000); British Empire and Commonwealth (8,720,000); Japan (7,193,000); and China (5,000,000). Most statistics on the war are only estimates. The war’s vast and chaotic sweep made uniform record keeping impossible. Some governments lost control of the data, and some resorted to manipulating it for political reasons. A rough consensus has been reached on the total cost of the war. In terms of money spent, it has been put at more than $1 trillion, which makes it more expensive than all other wars combined. The human cost, not including more than 5 million Jews killed in the Holocaust who were indirect victims of the war, is estimated to have been 55 million dead—25 million of those military and 30 million civilian. The U.S. spent the most money on the war, an estimated $341 billion, including $50 billion for lend-lease supplies, of which $31 billion went to Britain, $11 billion to the Soviet Union, $5 billion to China, and $3 billion to 35 other countries. Germany was next, with $272 billion; followed by the Soviet Union, $192 billion; and then Britain, $120 billion; Italy, $94 billion; and Japan, $56 billion. Except for the U.S., however, and some of the less militarily active Allies, the money spent does not come close to reflecting the war’s true cost. The Soviet government has calculated that the USSR lost 30 percent of its national wealth, while Nazi exactions and looting were of incalculable amounts in the occupied countries. The full cost to Japan has been estimated at $562 billion. In Germany, bombing and shelling had produced 4 billion cu m (5 billion cu yd) of rubble. The human cost of the war fell heaviest on the USSR, for which the official total, military and civilian, is given as more than 20 million killed. The Allied military and civilian losses were 44 million; those of the Axis, 11 million. The military deaths on both sides in Europe numbered 19 million and in the war against Japan, 6 million. The U.S., which had no significant civilian losses, sustained 292,131 battle deaths and 115,187 deaths from other causes. The highest numbers of deaths, military and civilian, were as follows: USSR more than 13,000,000 military and 7,000,000 civilian; China 3,500,000 and 10,000,000; Germany 3,500,000 and 3,800,000; Poland 120,000 and 5,300,000; Japan 1,700,000 and 380,000; Yugoslavia 300,000 and 1,300,000; Romania 200,000 and 465,000; France 250,000 and 360,000; British Empire and Commonwealth 452,000 and 60,000; Italy 330,000 and 80,000; Hungary 120,000 and 280,000; and Czechoslovakia 10,000 and 330,000. The comments in my initial post in this thread which you might have misinterpreted, thereby prompting your authoring your post, were intended to express the sorrow, shame, embarrassment & disgust over the unavoidable fact that the supposedly intelligent races on this planet acted in such an unintelligent, brutish, Neanderthal fashion, trashing several thousands of years of evolution, intellectual, technological and moral, not to mention obliterating hundreds of years of architectural history, that codifies my perspective on both the Japanese and American actions in WWII, not to mention the rest of the world...war should never be a means to an end for intelligent, civilized people because we should never have to sacrifice our humanity for the sake of a concept, an ideology, as shallow as pride, or greed, or over a squabble over land use rights or passage. Hmm, I beg to differ and offer a somewhat condensed review of the war and the Japanese interaction with American/other forces during WWII: It began in 1939 as a European conflict between Germany and an Anglo-French coalition but eventually widened to include most of the nations of the world. It ended in 1945, leaving a new world order dominated by the United States and the USSR global military conflict that, in terms of lives lost and material destruction, was the most devastating war in human history. It began in 1939 as a European conflict between Germany and an Anglo-French coalition but eventually included most of the nations of the world. It ended in 1945, leaving a new world order dominated by the U.S. and the USSR. More than any previous war, World War II involved the commitment of nations’ entire human and economic resources, the blurring of the distinction between combatant and noncombatant, and the expansion of the battlefield to include all of the enemy’s territory. The most important determinants of its outcome were industrial capacity and personnel. In the last stages of the war, two radically new weapons were introduced: the long-range rocket and the atomic bomb. In the main, however, the war was fought with the same or improved weapons of the types used in World War I. The greatest advances were in aircraft and tanks. In the meantime, American relations with Japan continued to deteriorate. In September 1940 Japan coerced Vichy France into giving up northern Indochina. The U.S. retaliated by prohibiting the exportation of steel, scrap iron, and aviation gasoline to Japan. In April 1941, the Japanese signed a neutrality treaty with the USSR as insurance against an attack from that direction if they were to come into conflict with Britain or the U.S. while attempting to take a bigger bite out of Southeast Asia. When Germany invaded the USSR in June, Japanese leaders considered breaking the treaty and joining in from the east but, making one of the most fateful decisions of the war, they chose instead to intensify their push to the southeast. On July 23 Japan occupied southern Indochina. Two days later, the U.S., Britain, and the Netherlands froze Japanese assets. The effect of that move was to prevent the Japanese from purchasing oil, which would, in time, cripple its army and make its navy and air force completely useless. Until December 1941 the Japanese leadership pursued two courses: They tried to get the oil embargo lifted on terms that would still let them take the territory they wanted, and they prepared for war. The U.S. demanded that Japan withdraw from China and Indochina, but would very likely have settled for a token withdrawal and a promise not to take more territory. After he became Japan’s premier in mid-October, Gen. Tojo Hideki set November 29 as the last day on which Japan would accept a settlement without war. Tojo’s deadline, which was kept secret, meant that war was practically certain. The Japanese army and navy had, in fact, devised a war plan in which they had great confidence. They proposed to make fast sweeps into Burma, Malaya, the East Indies, and the Philippines and, at the same time, set up a defensive perimeter in the central and southwest Pacific. They expected the U.S. to declare war but not to be willing to fight long or hard enough to win. Their greatest concern was the U.S. Pacific Fleet, based at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. If it reacted quickly, it could scramble their very tight timetable. As insurance, the Japanese navy undertook to cripple the Pacific Fleet by a surprise air attack. A few minutes before 8 am on Sunday, Dec. 7, 1941, Japanese carrier-based airplanes struck Pearl Harbor. In a raid lasting less than two hours, they sank four battleships and damaged four more. The U.S. authorities had broken the Japanese diplomatic code and knew an attack was imminent. A warning had been sent from Washington, but, owing to delays in transmission, it arrived after the raid had begun. In one stroke, the Japanese navy scored a brilliant success—and assured the Axis defeat in World War II. The Japanese attack brought the U.S. into the war on December 8—and brought it in determined to fight to the finish. Germany and Italy declared war on the U.S. on December 11. In the vast area of land and ocean they had marked for conquest, the Japanese seemed to be everywhere at once. Before the end of December, they took British Hong Kong and the Gilbert Islands (now Kiribati) and Guam and Wake Island (U.S. possessions), and they had invaded British Burma, Malaya, Borneo, and the American-held Philippines. British Singapore, long regarded as one of the world’s strongest fortresses, fell to them in February 1942, and in March they occupied the Netherlands East Indies and landed on New Guinea. The American and Philippine forces surrendered at Bataan on April 9, and resistance in the Philippines ended with the surrender of Corregidor on May 6. According to the Japanese plan, it would be time for them to take a defensive stance when they had captured northern New Guinea (an Australian possession), the Bismarck Archipelago, the Gilberts, and Wake Island, which they did by mid-March. But they had done so well that they decided to expand their defensive perimeter north into the Aleutian Islands, east to Midway Island, and south through the Solomon Islands and southern New Guinea. Their first move was by sea, to take Port Moresby on the southeastern tip of New Guinea. The Americans, using their ability to read the Japanese code, had a naval task force on the scene. In the ensuing Battle of the Coral Sea (May 7–8), fought entirely by aircraft carriers, the Japanese were forced to abandon their designs on Port Moresby. A powerful Japanese force, nine battleships and four carriers under Adm. Yamamoto Isoroko, the commander in chief of the navy, steamed toward Midway in the first week of June. Adm. Chester W. Nimitz, who had taken command of the Pacific Fleet after Pearl Harbor, could only muster three carriers and seven heavy cruisers, but he was reading the Japanese radio messages. Yamamoto, the architect of the Pearl Harbor raid, had planned another surprise. This time, however, it was he who was surprised. Off Midway, on the morning of June 4, U.S. dive-bombers destroyed three of the Japanese carriers in one 5-minute strike. The fourth went down later in the day, after its planes had battered the U.S. carrier Yorktown, which sank two days later. Yamamoto ordered a general retreat on June 5. On June 6–7 a secondary Japanese force took Kiska and Attu in the Aleutians, but those were no recompense for the defeat at Midway, from which the Japanese navy would never recover. Their battleships were intact, but the Coral Sea and Midway had shown carriers to be the true capital ships of the war, and four of those were gone. Meanwhile, despite the Germany-first strategy, the Americans were moving toward an active pursuit of the war against Japan. The U.S. Navy saw the Pacific as an arena in which it could perform more effectively than in the Atlantic or the Mediterranean. Gen. Douglas MacArthur, who had commanded in the Philippines and been evacuated to Australia by submarine before the surrender, was the country’s best-known military figure and as such too valuable to be left with an inconsequential mission. The Battle of Midway had stopped the Japanese in the central Pacific, but they continued to advance in the southwest Pacific along the Solomons chain and overland on New Guinea. On July 2, 1942, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) directed the naval and ground forces in the south and southwest Pacific to halt the Japanese, drive them out of the Solomons and northeastern New Guinea, and eliminate the great base the Japanese had established at Rabaul, on New Britain in the Bismarck Archipelago (now in Papua New Guinea). Operations against Japan in the Pacific picked up speed in 1944. In the spring, the JCS projected advances by MacArthur through northwestern New Guinea and into the Philippines and by Nimitz across the central Pacific to the Marianas and Caroline Islands. The Japanese, on their part, were getting ready for a decisive naval battle east of the Philippines. After making leaps along the New Guinea coast to Aitape, Hollandia, and Wakde Island in April and May, MacArthur’s troops landed on Biak Island on May 27. Airfields on Biak would enable U.S. planes to harass the Japanese fleet in the Philippines. A striking force built around the world’s two largest battleships, Yamato and Musashi, was steaming toward Biak on June 13 when the U.S. Navy began bombing and shelling Saipan in the Marianas. The Japanese ships were then ordered to turn north and join the First Mobile Fleet of Adm. Ozawa Jisaburo, which was heading out of the Philippines toward the Marianas. On June 19 and 20, Ozawa met U.S. Task Force 58, under Adm. Marc A. Mitscher, in the Battle of the Philippine Sea. The outcome was decided in the air and under the sea. Ozawa had five heavy and four light carriers; Mitscher had nine heavy and six light carriers. On the first day, in what was called the Marianas Turkey Shoot, U.S. fighters downed 219 of 326 Japanese planes sent against them. While the air battle was going on, U.S. submarines sank Ozawa’s two largest carriers, one of them his flagship; and on the second day, dive-bombers sank a third big carrier. After that, Ozawa steered north toward Okinawa with just 35 planes left. It was the end for Japanese carrier aviation. Mitscher lost 26 planes, and 3 of his ships suffered minor damage. U.S. forces landed on Saipan on June 15. The Americans had possession of Saipan, Tinian, and Guam by August 10, giving them the key to a strategy for ending the war. The islands could accommodate bases for the new American long-range bombers, the B-29 Superfortresses, which could reach Tokyo and the other main Japanese cities at least as well from the islands as they would have been able to from bases in China. Moreover, U.S. naval superiority in the Pacific was rapidly becoming sufficient to sustain an invasion of Japan itself across the open ocean. That invasion, however, would have to wait for the defeat of Germany and the subsequent release of ground troops from Europe for use in the Pacific. The regular bombing of Japan began in November 1944. Although the shift in strategy raised some doubts about the need for the operations in the Carolines and Philippines, they went ahead as planned, with landings in the western Carolines at Peleliu (September 15), Ulithi (September 23), and Ngulu (October 16) and in the central Philippines on Leyte (October 20). The invasion of the Philippines brought the Japanese navy out in force for the last time in the war. In the 3-day Battle for Leyte Gulf (October 23–25), the outcome of which was at times more in doubt than the final result would seem to indicate, the Japanese lost 26 ships, including the giant battleship Musashi, and the Americans lost 7 ships. Although Japan’s position was hopeless by early 1945, an early end to the war was not in sight. The Japanese navy would not be able to come out in force again, but the bulk of the army was intact and was deployed in the home islands and China. The Japanese gave a foretaste of what was yet in store by resorting to kamikaze (Jap., “divine wind”) attacks, or suicide air attacks, during the fighting for Luzon in the Philippines. On Jan. 4–13, 1945, quickly trained kamikaze pilots flying obsolete planes had sunk 17 U.S. ships and damaged 50. While the final assault on Japan awaited reinforcements from Europe, the island-hopping approach march continued, first, with a landing on Iwo Jima on February 19. That small, barren island cost the lives of 6800 U.S. Marines before it was secured on March 16. Situated almost halfway between the Marianas and Tokyo, the island played an important part in the air war. Its two airfields provided landing sites for damaged B-29s and enabled fighters to give the bombers cover during their raids on Japanese cities. On April 1 the U.S. Tenth Army, composed of four army and four marine divisions under Gen. Simon B. Buckner, Jr., landed on Okinawa, 500 km (310 mi) south of the southernmost Japanese island, Kyushu. The Japanese did not defend the beaches. They proposed to make their stand on the southern tip of the island, across which they had constructed three strong lines. The northern three-fifths of the island were secured in less than two weeks, the third line in the south could not be breached until June 14, and the fighting continued to June 21. The next attack was scheduled for Kyushu in November 1945. An easy success seemed unlikely. The Japanese had fought practically to the last man on Iwo Jima, and hundreds of soldiers and civilians had jumped off cliffs at the southern end of Okinawa rather than surrender. Kamikaze planes had sunk 15 naval vessels and damaged 200 off Okinawa. The Kyushu landing was never made. Throughout the war, the U.S. government and the British, believing Germany was doing the same, had maintained a massive scientific and industrial project to develop an atomic bomb. The chief ingredients, fissionable uranium and plutonium, had not been available in sufficient quantity before the war in Europe ended. The first bomb was exploded in a test at Alamogordo, N.Mex., on July 16, 1945. Two more bombs had been built, and the possibility arose of using them to convince the Japanese to surrender. President Harry S. Truman decided to allow the bombs to be dropped because, he said, he believed they might save thousands of American lives. For maximum psychological impact, they were used in quick succession, one over Hiroshima on August 6, the other over Nagasaki on August 9. These cities had not previously been bombed, and thus the bombs’ damage could be accurately assessed. U.S. estimates put the number killed in Hiroshima at 66,000 to 78,000 and in Nagasaki at 39,000. Japanese estimates gave a combined total of 240,000. The USSR declared war on Japan on August 8 and invaded Manchuria the next day. On August 14 Japan announced its surrender, which was not quite unconditional because the Allies had agreed to allow the country to keep its emperor. The formal signing took place on September 2 in Tokyo Bay aboard the battleship Missouri. The Allied delegation was headed by Gen. MacArthur, who became the military governor of occupied Japan. It was at this signing that Emperor Hirohito explained his now famous reasoning for ending their war with America that I mentioned in my previous post which, as you can no doubt discern from it's tone, was definitely begrudgingly conceded, albeit with reservations. In short, they were not going to stop and they were bent on domination of more than just the Asiatic territories. Apologies for that, try these: The Bushido Code defined - http://arvigarus.bravehost.com/bushido_002.htm Some additional background that led to the codification of what came to be known as "The way of the Warrior" - http://www.shotokai.cl/filosofia/06_ee_.html http://samurai.in-history.com/Bushido.html

The very first time that I actually read Rand, other than in passing of certain passages that were relevant to a given situation at a particular time, was when a certain someone here* (names have been omitted to protect the guilty) loaned me their paperback copy of Atlas Shrugged one day when they ran into me while I was at a local garage/tuner's shop that I use to hang out at (and still sometimes frequent on the rare occasion), and asked me to read it in order to give them my impression/thoughts/perspective on the ideals conveyed. I would later read other issues of Rand's publishings (as I've mentioned elsewhere on this forum) on my own accord in order to glean a deeper understanding of the ideology that she was attempting to convey/garner additional insight/seek further clarification by way of validating my then pre-conceived, now solidified, perceptions of her philosophy. *hint-hint

That time in the history of our World, particular the aspect of it that concerns America's interaction with Japan and their with ours, is an unfortunately horrendous debacle fraught with the sacrifice of morality, sensibility, and conscience which was (and to a greater/lessor part may still be for the Japanese) a truly tragic event for both countries...a veritable "black mark" on the records of our (both theirs and ours) very humanity. With this said (as it needed to be), I'll now address your queries: Yes. This answer is particularly apparent now with our in-depth understanding of the ideology that governed the Japanese mindset during WWII (See the Bushido Code - http://www.bigbearacademy.com/bushido-code.html/ ). After all, how else is one to stop an opponent bent on the annihilation and overthrow of your entire race? Even at their own demise? An opponent that just would not stop? Are you aware that they even redoubled their efforts after the first bomb was dropped...which brings us to your next question: After review of the above, you should now be able to understand that the second bomb was, indeed, as necessary as the first. If not, then allow me to ask whether you are aware that even in announcing their surrender their then governing authority, Emperor Hirohito, was reticent to admit the futility of continuing further military actions against America, passing off their concession with the retraction: "The war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage...." They were not going to stop...plain and simple.

Drinking to the point of drunkenness is a temporary, excessive, ever fleeting, self-defeatist, escapist vehicle ladened with overly negative side-effects practiced by those mentally incapable of rationalizing their self-scripted, degenerate encounters with their environment/others/the machinations of their own minds/as a means of compensating for their ill-defined social interaction skills.... Why would a self-professed/practicing O'ist engage in such a vice? Well...even Atlas Shrugged.

I was unaware that the topic starter is "gay"...I am aware now though (thanks), and to this end it is that I would again request their perspective on my inquiry as it concerns their (not yours or another's) feelings towards whether or not they (again, not you or someone else) feel/believe that Objectivism is a philosophy/codex of principles specifically formulated for "homosexuality", not to mention their elaboration on the whole bit about whether they "...attribute the core principles of Objectivism to encouraging 'selfish[ness]' as a means of 'happiness', even at the expense of one's own '...friends, family, co-workers, and church or religious institution.' ???" In short, inasmuch as this individual has espoused (syn.) these opinions/ideals, I would appreciate additional elucidation on these matters from this individual's individual outlook so that I may better grasp their individual perspective. After all, if the core of Rand's philosophy is about nothing else that could be so clearly, so easily perceived, it is about the pursuit/expression of one's individualism...is it not?!

Also, in addition to the points of interest pointed out by KendallJ, as they relate to "...the economics of the situation", I'd also like to point out the "economics" of the increased costs of health care costs/medical services that would be prompted by widespread use of diesel as a means of fueling our vehicles as the combustion of diesel fuel produces twice to three times the amount of harmful/deadly environmental/atmospheric emissions as gasoline/petrol-based fuels, as I've reiterated above.

I'm just going to borrow an earlier post of mine from a different thread ("Hydrogen Cars") to express my impressions on the subject matter here, i.e.: This, of course, is all to say that "diesel" is not the way.

I'm encountering a couple conflicts in reviewing this thread's subject material in that I'm unable to determine whether the ultimate goal of your action here is merely to utilize this forum as a vehicle to feel out the waters for you to "come out"; that it is your stance that Objectivism is specifically designed for homosexuality; or that you attribute the core principles of Objectivism to encouraging "selfish[ness]" as a means of "hapiness", even at the expense of one's own "...friends, family, co-workers, and church or religious institution." ??? I'd appreciate the opportunity to entertain additional insight.

Hmm, other than temporarily downloading 1/2 of your drive onto a storage disk to free up enough space to allow defragmentation, I've one other option for you...a satellite/peripheral defragmentation program that can be downloaded, installed and ran, complete with a "results" report, all for free. Give this a try: http://www.auslogics.com/disk-defrag Good luck. Oh, and why not shove a couple extra sticks of RAM into the motherboard, or doesn't it support expanded memory?

With partial reference to my previous reply to Thales to address the first part of your post and a nod to your referencing the market-ready infrastructure for the use of LNG and LPG as fuel sources (just need to overcome that whole exploding fuel cell during an accident issue), may I ask for your perspective on full electric powered automobiles?

A Tesla, a fully electric automobile, can do 0 - 60 in 4 secs. with a top speed of 130mph (so far), and an Eliica (another fully electric automobile) can do 0-60 in 4.2 secs. with a top speed of 230mph (again, so far), both with zero emissions...that spanks a Porshe, and then some, plus, the "environmentalists" staunchly approved the mass-production of either of these automobiles. I mentioned the BMW-H7 because that was the topic of discussion ("hydrogen"-fueled automobiles) in this thread and provided it as a real-world reference for the OP (and any others interested) should they care to research it further though I, too, would not hesitate to buy a Veyron, or even a Koenigsegg (the most powerful and fastest production car on the road today), had I the funds on hand...a internal combustion to electric conversion is not that hard at all I would imagine. I believe that you, as well as everyone else in the world by now, are well versed in the personal & global implications of CO2/particulate matter emissions so I'll side-step the obvious, misplaced barb in favor of clarifying that our present-day increased life expectancy is due in large part to the preservatives that we put in our food products/improvements in medicine/the medical field/diagnostic procedures, and the like but no, particulate matter emissions have nothing to do with our increased life expectancy...how you could have even considered such a concept, let alone proposing it on this site, escapes all manner of reason/rationale for me. Suffice it to say that you know better.

I'd like to respond to your assertions with two(2) words, i.e., "particulate matter". You see, diesel is as diesel does, my momma always say-id. And the simple facts of the matter are that for the same load and engine conditions, diesel engines spew out 100 times more sooty particles than gasoline engines. As a result, diesel engines account for an estimated 26 percent of the total hazardous particulate pollution (PM10) from fuel combustion sources in our air, and 66 percent of the particulate pollution from on-road sources. Diesel engines also produce nearly 20 percent of the total nitrogen oxides (NOx) in outdoor air and 26 percent of the total NOx from on-road sources. Nitrogen oxides are a major contributor to ozone production and smog. http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=36089 Granted, I'm all for utilizing bio-diesel fueling sources by way of lessening the burden on our overall fuel/oil supply/reserves but...particulate matter is still particulate matter even if that large plume of noxious black smoke you see rolling out of the stacks/exhausts of those transit authority/school buses/sixteen wheelers/dump trucks/concrete haulers/heavy equipment machines/etc., etc., etc. (albeit even that little diesel powered daily commuter of yours) smells like waffles/french fries...it's still having a major impact on our environment and our lives. The long and short of it is that we need to fully develop and employ alternative fueling/powering sources other than those we currently employ, and apologies for any offense my post may cause for you, but diesel still stinks irregardless of whatever perfume you put on it (damn, now I've got a craving for waffles...sheesh!).