As I recall from studying this is a college class, we had only the two atomic bombs available. Getting material for another was possible, but I think I recall that at the time we could only collect enough for one bomb every several months.

So, a HUGE aspect of this is that we had a pretty good hand of cards in the poker game, but felt that we had to bluff to suggest that it was even more overwhelming.

To me, the interesting part of the debate isn't blockade vs conventional bombing vs invasion vs A-bombs. I think it gets most interesting to consider alternatives that involve dropping one or more of the 2 A-bombs some place where their power would be demonstrated, but where casualties would be as low as possible.

Either option you mentioned would have been GREAT, if they worked (and forced surrender). But both had potential pitfalls also. Drop one on an unpopulated area, and they might have believed we were trying to take credit for some sort of natural event (German V2s blowing up in London were often attributed to sewage gas explosions early on). Staging a demonstration for scientists and leaders to witness might have hardened their resolve and/or made them question ours.

If I had been in Truman's shoes, I feel like I would have preferred to use ONE of the two bombs on something like one of your suggestions; either unpopulated drop or demonstration. Then, use the second on a target of military significance if/when they didn't surrender.

However, in hindsight that would have been a risky move -- they didn't surrender after the Hiroshima bomb, only after both. Would a demonstration and one "we mean business" bomb have been enough to elicit the same response? Who knows. At that point, consider how screwed we could have been if it HADN'T, and it would have taken months to build another bomb (plus keep in mind that we weren't 100% confident in the bombs working reliably, even after trinity and the first two drops). I guess that we could have maintained a blockade and said "we'll give you 3 months to come to your senses" while we made another bomb, but I think that would have legitimately resulted in Japan questioning our resolve quite a lot; we'd be showing our cards too early.

I guess that at the end of the day, I don't envy Truman for having to make that kind of decision. Given the givens, I think that he probably played it as safe as possible and went with the option that was the MOST likely to force surrender. Perhaps some other option would have worked as well but avoided some of the casualties, but Truman took the information available to him and made the decision that he felt was the best -- I think that is pretty much the best we can ask of our leaders.

The price of water is mostly for sewage and treatment of waste water. When you fill up a pool, you call the water company and tell them as such, and that it is not going down the drain. They then ignore that water amount on your bill, or discount it greatly.

I guess they'd never heard of hormones, antibiotics and force-feeding. Such primitive people.

As an aside. The largest pig-farm in America produces more sewage than the city of New York. Big pig farms aren't more efficient than the small ones, they're environmental disasters as well, but big pig farms can afford lobbyists to make rules more friendly for them, small pig farms cannot.

While I'm quite happy that there is a respectable distance between my mouth and my asshole. But I still question the wisdom of building the amusement park next to the sewage treatment plant.

@alcom

I hear you shinyblurry, but I feel that your argument meanders back to the original appeal to authority that most believers resort to when justifying their positions. I also find that the related video links provided by TheGenk provide a valid refutation of the idea that God is The One who put values of good and evil inside each of us.

There is always an appeal to authority, either to God or to men. There are either objective moral values which are imposed by God, or morality is relative and determined by men. If morality is relative then there is no good or evil, and what is considered good today may be evil tomorrow. If it isn't absolutely wrong to murder indiscriminately, for instance, then if enough people agreed that it was right, it would be. Yet, this does not cohere with reality because we all know that murdering indiscriminately is absolutely wrong. The true test of a worldview is its coherence to reality and atheism is incoherent with our experience, whereas Christian theism describes it perfectly.

If you feel the videos provide a valid refutation, could you articulate the argument that they are using so we can discuss them here?

In my mind, Zacharias' incoherence with the atheist's ability to love and live morally is influenced by his own understanding of the source of moral truth. Because he defines the origin of pure love as Jesus' sacrifice on behalf of mankind, it is unfathomable to him that love could be found as a result of human survival/selection based of traits of cooperation, peace and mutual benefits of our social structure. His logic is therefore coloured and his mind is closed to certain ideas and possibilities.

The idea of agape love is a Christian idea, and agape love is unconditional love. You do not get agape love out of natural selection because it is sacrificial and sacrificing your well being or your life has a very negative impact on your chance to survive and pass on your genes. However, Christ provided the perfect example of agape love by sacrificing His life not only for His friends and family, but for people who hate and despise Him. In the natural sense, since Jesus failed to pass on His genes His traits should be selected out of the gene pool. Christ demonstrated a higher love that transcends the worldly idea of love. Often when the world speaks of love, it is speaking of eros love, which is love based on physical attraction, or philial love, which is brotherly love. The world knows very little of agape love outside of Christ. Christ taught agape love as the universal duty of men towards God:

Luke 6:27 "But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
Luke 6:28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.
Luke 6:29 To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.
Luke 6:30 Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back.
Luke 6:31 And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.
Luke 6:32 "If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.
Luke 6:33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
Luke 6:34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount.
Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil.
Luke 6:36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

Indeed, moral foundations can and must change with the times. As our understanding of empathy, personal freedoms and the greater good of mankind develops with our societal and cultural evolution, so too must our standards of morality. This is most evident when concepts such as slavery and revenge (an eye for an eye) are seen as commonplace and acceptable throughout old scripture where modern society has evolved a greater understanding of the need for equality and basic human rights and policing and corrections as a measure of deterrence and rehabilitation for those individuals that stray from the path of greatest utility.

This is why slavery is no more, why racism is in decline and why eventually gay rights and green thought will be universal and our struggle to stifle the rights of gays and exploit the planet's resources to the point of our own self-extinction simply will be seen by future historians as sheer ignorance. Leviticus still pops up when people try to brand gays as deviant, even though most it is itself incoherent by today's standards. Remember that "defecating within the camp was unacceptable lest God step in it while walking in the evening." Well, today we just call that sewage management.

Some people, like Richard Dawkins, see infanticide as being the greatest utility. Some believe that to save the planet around 70 percent of the population must be exterminated. Green thought is to value the health of the planet above individual lives; to basically say that human lives are expendable to preserve the collective. This is why abortion is not questionable to many who hold these ideals; because human life isn't that valuable to them. I see many who have green thoughts contrast human beings to cattle or cockroaches. Utility is an insufficient moral standard because it is in the eye of the beholder.

In regards to the Levitical laws, those were given to the Jews and not the world, and for that time and place. God made a covenant with the Jewish people which they agreed to follow. The covenant God made with the world through Christ is different than the Mosaic law, and it makes those older laws irrelevant. If you would like to understand why God would give laws regarding slavery, or homosexuality, I can elucidate further.

In regards to your paraphrasing of Deuteronomy 23:13-14, this is really a classic example of how the scripture can be made to look like it is saying one thing, when it is actually saying something completely different. Did you read this scripture? It does not say that:

Deuteronomy 23:13 And you shall have a trowel with your tools, and when you sit down outside, you shall dig a hole with it and turn back and cover up your excrement.

Deuteronomy 23:14 Because the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp, to deliver you and to give up your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy, so that he may not see anything indecent among you and turn away from you.

Gods home on Earth was in the tabernacle, and because God dwelled with His people, He exorted them to keep the camp holy out of reverence for Him.

The rules that God gave for cleanliness were 2500 years ahead of their time:

"In the Bible greater stress was placed upon prevention of disease than was given to the treatment of bodily ailments, and in this no race of people, before or since, has left us such a wealth of LAWS RELATIVE TO HYGIENE AND SANITATION as the Hebrews. These important laws, coming down through the ages, are still used to a marked degree in every country in the world sufficiently enlightened to observe them. One has but to read the book of Leviticus carefully and thoughtfully to conclude that the admonitions of Moses contained therein are, in fact, the groundwork of most of today's sanitary laws. As one closes the book, he must, regardless of his spiritual leanings, feel that the wisdom therein expressed regarding the rules to protect health are superior to any which then existed in the world and that to this day they have been little improved upon" (Magic, Myth and Medicine, Atkinson, p. 20). Dr. D. T. Atkinson

What's interesting about that is that Moses was trained in the knowledge of the Egyptians, the most advanced civilization in the world at that time. Yet you will not find even a shred of it in the bible. Their understanding of medicine at that time led to them doing things like rubbing feces into wounds; ie, it was completely primitive in comparison to the commands that God gave to Moses about cleanliness. Moses didn't know about germs but God did.

Paedophilia will never emerge as acceptable because it violates our basic understanding of human rights and the acceptable age of sexual consent. I know this is a common warning about the "slippery slope of a Godless definition of morality," but it's really a red herring. Do you honestly think society would someday deem that it carries a benefit to society? I just can't see it happening.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_Ancient_Greece

I hear you shinyblurry, but I feel that your argument meanders back to the original appeal to authority that most believers resort to when justifying their positions. I also find that the related video links provided by TheGenk provide a valid refutation of the idea that God is The One who put values of good and evil inside each of us.

In my mind, Zacharias' incoherence with the atheist's ability to love and live morally is influenced by his own understanding of the source of moral truth. Because he defines the origin of pure love as Jesus' sacrifice on behalf of mankind, it is unfathomable to him that love could be found as a result of human survival/selection based of traits of cooperation, peace and mutual benefits of our social structure. His logic is therefore coloured and his mind is closed to certain ideas and possibilities.

Indeed, moral foundations can and must change with the times. As our understanding of empathy, personal freedoms and the greater good of mankind develops with our societal and cultural evolution, so too must our standards of morality. This is most evident when concepts such as slavery and revenge (an eye for an eye) are seen as commonplace and acceptable throughout old scripture where modern society has evolved a greater understanding of the need for equality and basic human rights and policing and corrections as a measure of deterrence and rehabilitation for those individuals that stray from the path of greatest utility.

This is why slavery is no more, why racism is in decline and why eventually gay rights and green thought will be universal and our struggle to stifle the rights of gays and exploit the planet's resources to the point of our own self-extinction simply will be seen by future historians as sheer ignorance. Leviticus still pops up when people try to brand gays as deviant, even though most it is itself incoherent by today's standards. Remember that "defecating within the camp was unacceptable lest God step in it while walking in the evening." Well, today we just call that sewage management.

Paedophilia will never emerge as acceptable because it violates our basic understanding of human rights and the acceptable age of sexual consent. I know this is a common warning about the "slippery slope of a Godless definition of morality," but it's really a red herring. Do you honestly think society would someday deem that it carries a benefit to society? I just can't see it happening.

It's a lab sink. They usually run through multiple filters that get rid of the dangerous stuff before being introduced into the sewage system.
(He probably should have mentioned that though.)

I thought "dissolved organic matter" was a euphemism for overspill from flooded sewage treatment plants?

yeah, that foam is composed of sea-water mixed with sewage. I'd stay the hell away from it.

Fear is fear, whether it's of Hell or of prison, it's still fear. You need to teach with positive reinforcement, empathy, to instill in the kids a proper sense or right and wrong. The Bible has some good lessons, the Golden Rule is one of the best, Do unto others as you would have done unto you. I think just that act of projecting yourself unto others can give you the perspective to not be a dick all the time. At no point does God need to be involved, just an understanding and appreciation of your fellow man. Good and responsible behavior doesn't start and stop with religion, and I can't stand it when religions try and claim a monopoly on morality, because it just isn't true.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You're not going to stop kids from sinning by yelling at them. It's not the fear of going to prison which is going to stop them from screwing up, it's the fear of the Lord. If you raise your kids correctly, to honor and reverence Almighty God, using corporal punishment when appropriate, you will end up with a child of honor, who will respect other people, and want to contribute something good to society. Of course this also requires ample doses of unconditional love, and sensitivity to the needs of your child. It requires a total commitment to preparing a child for life in this world and giving him all the tools he needs to succeed. Discipline is a necessary component of this, one that is often missing in many homes. The scripture says if you don't discipline your child you hate him. Godly discipline, to note, is not to tear a child down in anger, but build a child up with love, and teach him how to take responsibility for his actions and own his mistakes instead of passing blame on to others.
If a bad product is coming out of a factory, then you need to check the assembly line. It's bad parenting which is creating these children. Parents who constantly coddle their children, try to be their friends and buy them off instead of discipline them. Parents who raise them on television and r rated movies and violent video games and all of this raw sewage of a corrupt and depraved culture being pumped into their fragile young minds. Parenting, just like everything else in life, is a garbage in garbage out principle. I just read a story about 4 eight year old kids performing sex acts on one another because they had figured out how to access internet porn on their ipads. This wouldn't happen if their parents actually knew or cared what was going on in their kids lives.
There used to be a moral standard in this country founded on the bible, but America has rebelled against God and rejected His laws, and now we are reaping the harvest of our rebellion. Our children are growing up without a moral compass or godly role models and you even cannot begin to count this cost. The only way this situation will change is if we fall on our faces and repent of our wickedness:
2 Chronicles 7:14
If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

You're not going to stop kids from sinning by yelling at them. It's not the fear of going to prison which is going to stop them from screwing up, it's the fear of the Lord. If you raise your kids correctly, to honor and reverence Almighty God, using corporal punishment when appropriate, you will end up with a child of honor, who will respect other people, and want to contribute something good to society. Of course this also requires ample doses of unconditional love, and sensitivity to the needs of your child. It requires a total commitment to preparing a child for life in this world and giving him all the tools he needs to succeed. Discipline is a necessary component of this, one that is often missing in many homes. The scripture says if you don't discipline your child you hate him. Godly discipline, to note, is not to tear a child down in anger, but build a child up with love, and teach him how to take responsibility for his actions and own his mistakes instead of passing blame on to others.

If a bad product is coming out of a factory, then you need to check the assembly line. It's bad parenting which is creating these children. Parents who constantly coddle their children, try to be their friends and buy them off instead of discipline them. Parents who raise them on television and r rated movies and violent video games and all of this raw sewage of a corrupt and depraved culture being pumped into their fragile young minds. Parenting, just like everything else in life, is a garbage in garbage out principle. I just read a story about 4 eight year old kids performing sex acts on one another because they had figured out how to access internet porn on their ipads. This wouldn't happen if their parents actually knew or cared what was going on in their kids lives.

There used to be a moral standard in this country founded on the bible, but America has rebelled against God and rejected His laws, and now we are reaping the harvest of our rebellion. Our children are growing up without a moral compass or godly role models and you even cannot begin to count this cost. The only way this situation will change is if we fall on our faces and repent of our wickedness:

2 Chronicles 7:14

If my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

http://www.mcdonaldsindia.com/menu.html

In September 2013, India will have a 100% vegetarian McDemon's. They can only claim .5 million served daily there....They'd be in chapter 13 if the rest of the shit-eating world followed suit.

Mcdonald's represents to me one of the fundamental causes of why America can't get up off the mat and why otherwise beautiful people are inflated and miserable. Their food is sewage.

They also represent a NON-LIVING WAGE! They fuck their employees and the world.

Corporate Death Burger

Wannna impress the world??? Increase the number of Buffalo and Bison to pre-1840's populations and start using THAT meat in your shit-nasty burgers!...Oh and use the state of Utah to corral all those herbivores AFTER enslaving all Mormons to work the herds.

"Entertainment complex in the middle of a sewage system.." That's funny. Also feces instead of fetuses...

God designed our bodies such that raw sewage flows right through our amusement parks. I don't know who's worse.>> ^chingalera:

I mean, c'mon?? A frikkin' amusement park in the middle of the desert??

There's no nice way to say it. Boy, are you Trog-Lib-Dytes stupid. Any bit of propoganda the Obama campaign craps out their crusty, diseased sphincters you will run up to and dreamily start licking up and loudly proclaiming it is the most delicious chocolate ice cream you've ever had. You embarrass yourselves every time you start brainlessly running around, regurgitating whatever foamy diahrrea come back up after eating the DNC's sewage. Honestly - how can you guys really be this dumb? Do you really believe there is any commonanity in ANYTHING Reagan (one of the most aggressive tax cutters ever) ever said and anything Odumbo says? You're like a bunch of drowning men desperate for a life-preserver, who will grasp at an anvil because youv'e got nothing else to hold onto. Pathetic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obama-quoting-reagan-out-of-context/2012/04/11/gIQAaOsZBT_blog.html

"On a superficial level, Obama is echoing Reagan’s anecdotes when he speaks of the Buffett Rule and tax fairness. But it is misleading for Obama to suggest that Reagan was “pushing for the same concept” — and to label the Buffett Rule the “Reagan Rule”-- when the former president actually barnstormed the country to argue on behalf of a broad-based tax cut that reduced taxes for the wealthy, the middle class and the poor while greatly simplifying the tax system."

If Democrats are counting on the STUPID vote, you guys are a lock.