Do some research on the bomber offensives and then tell me that you wouldn't have done the exact same thing in the shoes of the Allies.
Switching to morale bombing was a not a clever move. It cost the Germans the invasion of England, and didn't do much to British morale other than pissing them off royally and making them really determined to fight. By that time, the Allies should have realized that the way to bring a war machine to a halt it to keep trying to hit actual military and industrial targets instead of a nebulous concept like "morale". Can't really wage war if you're out of guns, ammo, tanks, planes and fuel, no matter how good or bad your morale is.
Germany surrendered because most of the country was occupied, not because morale was low. German industrial output of military goods actually peaked in 1944.
The only time morale bombing had its intended effect was the atomic bombings of Japan, mostly because of the "What the fscking shit was that?" effect.
I don't see anything in there about appeasement having to be an invasion or annexation, do you?
Now, wait a minute. You were the one comparing things to "a mini-prelude to World War II". And, hell yes, the prelude to World War II involved countries being invaded, occupied and annexed. The "border incidents" back then didn't involve a bunch of people getting killed, they involved whole countries forcefully disappearing off the map and people getting slaughtered in droves.
So now we are talking about WW2-era appeasement because you didn't know the right definition for a word I used... brilliant.;)
If you don't want to talk about WW2-era politics, don't use comparisons with the WW2 era in the first place, mmkay?
Sorry, I guess the answer to your question is still "none", but that doesn't seem to be the full story... or really, any part of the story at all. Thanks anyway.
During the time England conducted "appeasement" towards Germany, the latter annexed one whole country (Austria) and annexed part of another (Sudetenland, part of Czechoslovakia) and dissolved the rest.
And, towards the end of that period, Germany also had a small, err, fake border incident with Poland which, you guessed it, ended up in the country being invaded and occupied.
They regularly pull one off alert and transport it to Vandenberg AFB, CA for an OT&E launch, of course the warheads are replaced with dummies and instrumented with a destruct package (just in case ya know).
Well, yes. I wasn't asking about ballistic missile launches with dummy warheads. Looks like the Frigate Bird launch was a test that involved a ballistic missile with a live warhead.
The recent three decades of Korean history reads like a mini-prelude to World War II. Appeasement, appeasement, appeasement an infuriating number of times.
Remind me again which countries North Korea invaded and occupied in the recent three decades?
None? And if they ever attempt anything like that, I'm quite sure they won't be having much luck.
So far as I can gather, the Iowa class can still hit targets farther away than anything except a cruise missle or aircraft can reach.
With anti-ship missiles having 10 times the range of those cannons, a BB is just a big fat juicy target - unless it's escorted by an aircraft carrier, in which case it's redundant.
Dude, dihydrogen monoxide is _sooo_ 2008. Wake up, it's 2009. We now have two completely safe, environmentally friendly alternatives to dihydrogen monoxide: Oxidane, and hydrogen hydroxide.
By the end of WWII the Japanese were ready to fight to the last Japanese. Not the last Japanese soldier, the last Japanese.
As far as I heard, they were considering surrender under the condition that they may keep their emperor. Which was, of course, completely unacceptable to the Allies who wanted the surrender to be unconditional, period.
Of course, the two nukes still achieved their objectives - force unconditional surrender before the Soviets got any funny ideas, test not one, but two types (gun-type & implosion) of nuclear weapon, in actual combat, on actual targets, and keep the Soviets from getting any funny ideas (at least not until they could make their own nukes, which happened sooner than expected). Couldn't have done any of those without using nukes. Maybe the first and the last could have been accomplished with just one, but why not test two when you have the chance?
... or whatever these guys are called now. Maybe they haven't lost their copy of the plans yet. Of course, don't make a big buzz about it and bring a few suitcases full of gold in exchange for the favor.
The US hasn't actually built any nukes, stuck 'en on a rocket, fired them and had a successful BOOM for well over 40 years.
Has there ever been a "terrestrial" test of a combination of ICBM and nuclear warhead? I only recall detonating a few nukes in space to see what happens in that case...
There are only a few reasons for talented people to end up working a cash register...
[...]
Personality problems (liar / rude / bathing).
Wait a minute - what business owner in their right mind is going to let someone with these kinds of personality problems work the cash register (i.e. direct contact with customers)?
A more bogus statement is hard to find... How could McCain possibly switch to his own insurance -- or even display notable reluctance to do so -- if no such insurance plans are being offered to individuals, because no market exists for them, thanks to the decades of government's insistence, the insurance must go either through employers or, uhm, the government?
What, people who are self-employed or business owners cannot get health insurance?
Talk about bogus statements. Of course you can find individual plans, if you're willing to shell out the money for them.
Almost true. If the American population doubled in the next generation (it won't, it's barely increasing without immigration), we'd still have more space and resources per capita than most of the rest of the countries in the world.
America is consuming a quarter of the worlds crude oil production right now, and produces not even half of that.
I point out that China has a vastly larger population than we do, with less space, and fewer resources. They may be overpopulated, we aren't.
Oh, I'm sure if you can convince the Americans to reduce their standard of living to that of China, it might work for two or three generations. Good luck with that, though. Oh, and China consumes, what, less than 10% of the worlds crude oil production.
Does this mean we can increase in population without limit?
If you switch to a system where it's every family for themselves, you'll have to do that. Or deal with the consequences I described in my earlier post. Which do you pick?
No. But the fact that we can't increase in population without limit is completely irrelevant to the question of whether we're overpopulated right now, today.
Uh, did you read the whole thread before replying? I don't think you did. The thread was about what would happen if every family had to support their elderly by itself. That would require 5+ kids per family and basically doubling the population every generation. Pooling the costs would reduce the need for population growth, dictated by simple statistics, since the standard deviation of the cost per elderly person goes down.
An MRI doesn't diagnose a broken bone any better than an xray
Actually, the MRI will do _worse_. A doctor who wants to diagnose broken bones with MRI isn't just committing insurance fraud, but outright quackery. If anything, CTs are used for a better diagnosis of broken bones.
If you look at him, he is obviously very lean and muscular, but because of his body mass index the insurance company insists he and his pediatrician implement a weight management plan.
Go to the pediatrician, and have him write a letter to the insurance company to STFU because there's nothing wrong with the kid. Of course, they may feel free to consult other pediatricians as long as they pay for it, but most likely won't get a different answer.
When the Government is paying for all health care, how long will it be until they start refusing people care that the statistics do not favor?
Since the government doesn't need to maximize it's profits (unlike an insurance company), it's going to be quite a while before that happens. In fact, before something like that happens, they'll either pay the doctors less, or charge the population more. Both of these measured are significantly less unpopular than dumping a few grannies in the bad part of town (which would be all over the news and highly emotionalized by the press), and hence will be preferred by politicians.
Slashdot Mirror
Switching to morale bombing was a not a clever move. It cost the Germans the invasion of England, and didn't do much to British morale other than pissing them off royally and making them really determined to fight. By that time, the Allies should have realized that the way to bring a war machine to a halt it to keep trying to hit actual military and industrial targets instead of a nebulous concept like "morale". Can't really wage war if you're out of guns, ammo, tanks, planes and fuel, no matter how good or bad your morale is.
Germany surrendered because most of the country was occupied, not because morale was low. German industrial output of military goods actually peaked in 1944.
The only time morale bombing had its intended effect was the atomic bombings of Japan, mostly because of the "What the fscking shit was that?" effect.
... we lost the Illudium Q-36 explosive space modulator. No earth-shattering KABOOM today."
Now, wait a minute. You were the one comparing things to "a mini-prelude to World War II". And, hell yes, the prelude to World War II involved countries being invaded, occupied and annexed. The "border incidents" back then didn't involve a bunch of people getting killed, they involved whole countries forcefully disappearing off the map and people getting slaughtered in droves.
So now we are talking about WW2-era appeasement because you didn't know the right definition for a word I used... brilliant. ;)
If you don't want to talk about WW2-era politics, don't use comparisons with the WW2 era in the first place, mmkay?
During the time England conducted "appeasement" towards Germany, the latter annexed one whole country (Austria) and annexed part of another (Sudetenland, part of Czechoslovakia) and dissolved the rest.
And, towards the end of that period, Germany also had a small, err, fake border incident with Poland which, you guessed it, ended up in the country being invaded and occupied.
Well, yes. I wasn't asking about ballistic missile launches with dummy warheads. Looks like the Frigate Bird launch was a test that involved a ballistic missile with a live warhead.
Remind me again which countries North Korea invaded and occupied in the recent three decades?
None? And if they ever attempt anything like that, I'm quite sure they won't be having much luck.
With anti-ship missiles having 10 times the range of those cannons, a BB is just a big fat juicy target - unless it's escorted by an aircraft carrier, in which case it's redundant.
Dude, dihydrogen monoxide is _sooo_ 2008. Wake up, it's 2009. We now have two completely safe, environmentally friendly alternatives to dihydrogen monoxide: Oxidane, and hydrogen hydroxide.
As far as I heard, they were considering surrender under the condition that they may keep their emperor. Which was, of course, completely unacceptable to the Allies who wanted the surrender to be unconditional, period.
Of course, the two nukes still achieved their objectives - force unconditional surrender before the Soviets got any funny ideas, test not one, but two types (gun-type & implosion) of nuclear weapon, in actual combat, on actual targets, and keep the Soviets from getting any funny ideas (at least not until they could make their own nukes, which happened sooner than expected). Couldn't have done any of those without using nukes. Maybe the first and the last could have been accomplished with just one, but why not test two when you have the chance?
They sure "won" WWII pretty darn quick. They are meant to ensure everyone loses.
Only if everyone has them (and appropriate delivery systems). If not, see WWII. "I win, you lose, end of discussion."
... or whatever these guys are called now. Maybe they haven't lost their copy of the plans yet. Of course, don't make a big buzz about it and bring a few suitcases full of gold in exchange for the favor.
The US hasn't actually built any nukes, stuck 'en on a rocket, fired them and had a successful BOOM for well over 40 years.
Has there ever been a "terrestrial" test of a combination of ICBM and nuclear warhead? I only recall detonating a few nukes in space to see what happens in that case ...
Ask the barbarians that plundered the Roman Empire ...
This means:
1. THEY don't want the world to know the truth about global warming.
2. THEY know that Kepler will be pointed the wrong way anyway.
Dihydrogen monoxide? Oh you mean ozane.
Oxidane. Not ozane.
There are only a few reasons for talented people to end up working a cash register...
[...]
Personality problems (liar / rude / bathing).
Wait a minute - what business owner in their right mind is going to let someone with these kinds of personality problems work the cash register (i.e. direct contact with customers)?
success = talent && !bad_luck;
?
What, people who are self-employed or business owners cannot get health insurance?
Talk about bogus statements. Of course you can find individual plans, if you're willing to shell out the money for them.
What's next, cold spots on Venus (i.e. cold enough that lead is almost solid again)?
America is consuming a quarter of the worlds crude oil production right now, and produces not even half of that.
I point out that China has a vastly larger population than we do, with less space, and fewer resources. They may be overpopulated, we aren't.
Oh, I'm sure if you can convince the Americans to reduce their standard of living to that of China, it might work for two or three generations. Good luck with that, though. Oh, and China consumes, what, less than 10% of the worlds crude oil production.
Does this mean we can increase in population without limit?
If you switch to a system where it's every family for themselves, you'll have to do that. Or deal with the consequences I described in my earlier post. Which do you pick?
No. But the fact that we can't increase in population without limit is completely irrelevant to the question of whether we're overpopulated right now, today.
Uh, did you read the whole thread before replying? I don't think you did. The thread was about what would happen if every family had to support their elderly by itself. That would require 5+ kids per family and basically doubling the population every generation. Pooling the costs would reduce the need for population growth, dictated by simple statistics, since the standard deviation of the cost per elderly person goes down.
By calling it a fact, you have exposed your agenda. Do I have an agenda if I call gravity a fact? After all, there's _two_ theories on it out there.
Interesting. Incidentally, is it possible to overdose on placebo?
Of course. Even if it's just water, about six liters will kill you.
Actually, the MRI will do _worse_. A doctor who wants to diagnose broken bones with MRI isn't just committing insurance fraud, but outright quackery. If anything, CTs are used for a better diagnosis of broken bones.
Go to the pediatrician, and have him write a letter to the insurance company to STFU because there's nothing wrong with the kid. Of course, they may feel free to consult other pediatricians as long as they pay for it, but most likely won't get a different answer.
When the Government is paying for all health care, how long will it be until they start refusing people care that the statistics do not favor?
Since the government doesn't need to maximize it's profits (unlike an insurance company), it's going to be quite a while before that happens. In fact, before something like that happens, they'll either pay the doctors less, or charge the population more. Both of these measured are significantly less unpopular than dumping a few grannies in the bad part of town (which would be all over the news and highly emotionalized by the press), and hence will be preferred by politicians.