Search results for query: *

The historical evidence makes a case that Truman just didn't know that the target was Hiroshima the entire city. He effectively had no role in the decision making process and wouldn't have even known Hiroshima was the actual target until after the bombing. I think the part people don't often...

I think its better to understand the atomic bombings in the context of the US' overall strategy. Those options you listed were never on the table for operational and strategic reasons.

They never tested a Little Boy type device and were well off in their casualty estimates because they had no real baseline. It should be noted that Hiroshima was supposed to be the test. Targets were picked based on their lack of damage and spared from firebombing in order to provide an ideal...

Demonstrating them to the soviets was a fringe benefit, but it needs to be said that the US was entirely caught off guard by the surrender. The idea that the US knew that the bombs would do the trick isn't grounded in history.

The nukes were primarily dropped as part of the US's shock strategy, which was focused on ending the war (with the terms the US was offering) as quickly as possible, and by extension saving US lives. It wasn't meant to do save Japanese lives, that's arguably an unexpected accident, historically...

There's no consensus among historians that Japan was about to surrender, and there were significant deal breakers between the US position and Japanese position in surrendering. Most of the stuff you're citing isn't actually contemporary evidence, and a lot of post-event hindsight. Note that...

What threat are these hundreds or thousands of employees under?

It's very doubtful that the Russians would have been able to seriously gain a foothold in Japan with how minimal their sealift capabilities were, even after the US lent them ships. That was also months, if not closer to a year away. All at a time when Japan was entering famine. It's also a...

When do you think Japan was going to surrender?

There was never really an alternative. A lot of people incorrectly assume that the Manhattan Project and military had our modern conception of nuclear weapons and the taboo of WMDs. They didn't. In their minds, the atomic bomb was like a new model of a bomb or a new warship or rifle. You make it...

What purely military target still existed, and which one's were still untouched (this was a non-negotiable requirement for targeting, a "clean slate" city to assess damage) And yes, you are correct that on overall attitudes, but those weren't what primarily drove that particular set of events...

It was never seriously considered because of practical concerns (Japan would write it off as propaganda and the likelihood of a dud). Not to mention as far as the military was concerned, they just had another bomb on their hands, nothing special. Just more destructive. Also shout out to the TS...

Menedez took a book out of Duncan Hunter's page.

Right. Which is how a well functioning market works. How would a non-compete have prevented the PlayStation launch situation? They had agreed to work together on a a console and had multiple contracts. Sony didn't read the fine print, that's on them. Because you can't tell your company "hey...

So for a little context, I work in the consumer electronics industry and have worked with Samsung a good amount. Your marketing exec from Samsung almost certainly came from another electronics company. It's a big merry go around. All of this is covered by NDA. PMs move from manufacturer to...

Agree to disagree on multiple points lol I mean...ndia should absolutely note be a single country given its size, population, geography and internal dynamics. That it's a functioning country, let alone it was a democracy for while, is incredible.

Like I said, people can define democracy as they want. I just think it's insane to argue that the US was a democracy in 1800 when about 20% of the adult population could vote and they didn't even vote on Senators or the president.

I do think you really need to add some context that it has to be a a decent chunk of eligible members of the state. Otherwise you end up with an oligarchy or guided democracy, etc. Which aren't democracies in the modern sense I think most would say. More or less the same as yours, with the...

I agree with a lot of this actually, but the thing is a lot of Americans have this inherent bias that the Founding Fathers nailed it and no advancement have been made in democracy or governance in the following 250 years. Which is mind-blowing and like arguing that economics peaked in the late...

I believe this all started when I said that America didn't become a democracy until fairly recent. I stand by that given like I said, most people don't have a good definition of democracy, yet they're convinced a slave society where the majority couldn't vote was a democracy So I'm asking you...