Option 2 (reinstate the draft) won't happen. Because if it does, the people who "think that somebody other than themselves and their loved ones" should do the fighting will find their kids getting drafted, and they will all vote for the other guy come the next election.
The Republicans would rather destroy the Army and lose in Iraq than lose the next election.
Considering that Aussie troops would have been hitting the beaches alongside the American, Canadian, and British troops, Australia would have taken heavy casualties as well.
Is it worse to kill 250k with atomic bombs or with conventional bombs? Hiroshima+Nagasaki had as many total casualties as the bombing of Tokyo did. One conventional, one (the combo of two, actually)nuclear, both equally deadly.
We should have just bombed the entire country into the stone age with conventional weapons, and then invaded. Sure, several times as many Japanese civilians (and 100K+ more Allied soldiers) would have been killed that way, but at least we wouldn't have used nukes.
the new bomb they have developed, that kills all the people in a city
It's called the enhanced radiation weapon, or Neutron Bomb, and it's older than probably half the readership of this website, having been developed during the Carter administration back in the 1970's.
As far as the coup thing goes, have you never heard of the 2nd Amendment and the NRA?
Slashdot Mirror
What with all the references to Speedy Gonzales you'd think /. was a hotbed of White Power...
The US is now ... Now? You think this is new? Even online, it's not new. Read "The Hacker Crackdown" by Sterling about Operation Sundevil, circa 1994.
The Supreme Court is being very (small c) conservative these days.
and if it is, it shouldn't be.
The Republicans would rather destroy the Army and lose in Iraq than lose the next election.
By doing business with them. It's not their problem if you failed to read the entire page of disclosures that was printed in Flyspeck 3 font.
as it's dirt slow amd uses flash, which I haven't installed.
Considering that Aussie troops would have been hitting the beaches alongside the American, Canadian, and British troops, Australia would have taken heavy casualties as well.
I retired mine last month, after 15 years, and went digital. Film was just getting too expensive.
Is it worse to kill 250k with atomic bombs or with conventional bombs? Hiroshima+Nagasaki had as many total casualties as the bombing of Tokyo did. One conventional, one (the combo of two, actually)nuclear, both equally deadly.
We should have just bombed the entire country into the stone age with conventional weapons, and then invaded. Sure, several times as many Japanese civilians (and 100K+ more Allied soldiers) would have been killed that way, but at least we wouldn't have used nukes.
Most SF has been that way since HG Wells and Jules Verne were writing.
Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment ... like the body or the subject!)
as is the US Army.
the new bomb they have developed, that kills all the people in a city
It's called the enhanced radiation weapon, or Neutron Bomb, and it's older than probably half the readership of this website, having been developed during the Carter administration back in the 1970's.
As far as the coup thing goes, have you never heard of the 2nd Amendment and the NRA?
I'm working on development on a Zaurus C3000.
Would be a great picture viewer.
Everyone loves a log.
Is that I completely understood what you just said...
I'd use it. But Opera runs well.
with Mega-Maid.
any more than anti-spamming techniques such as server side filtering are harming the network.
of the inarticulate motherfucker.
Next step: Turning the old 386 into a MythTV based PVR.
For historical reasons. They go out over teletypes which have no lower case.