Newsgroups: rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: D&D, religion, politics, etc (was Re: D&D and Christianity)
From: seawasp@vm2.cis.pitt.edu (Sea Wasp)
Date: 7 Jan 93 13:23:08 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Originator: seawasp@unixd3.cis.pitt.edu

In article <C0H6p6.39@news.cso.uiuc.edu> tgt33358@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Thanatos) writes:
>In article <1993Jan6.205531.4833@spcvxb.spc.edu> 6anthony_m@spcvxb.spc.edu writes:
	I write:
>>> 	The nuclear bomb was developed by the US as a sort of self-defense
>>> measure; we had reason to believe Germany was developing the thing itself,
>>> and later we used it in an attempt (right or wrong is irrelevant in this
>>> case) to reduce the amount of bloodshed and destruction which the 
>>> continuation of the Pacific campaign was sure to bring. 

	Now, I'll reply to both:

>>Boy, you sure buy their excuses.  The pacific campaign, could have never
>>destroyed as many lives as the bomb.  The bomb was used to flex the US 
>>Goverments muscles. Kinda' lettin everyone know who is boss.

	You're buying the "excuses" on the other side, jack. Look at how 
many people were killed in the war, then look at how many people were killed
in the two A-bombings. A continued campaign in the pacific theatre could have
cost millions of lives, not to mention even more destruction and physical
costs. Conventional war can do MORE damage than atomic, it just TAKES longer.

>to the Japanese, but to the whole world.  When the first bomb was triggered
>at Los Alamos, there was a large group of physicists who felt that the 
>resulting energy would be sufficient to ignite the Nitrogen in the air, 
>bringing a total holocaust to the world.

	Only among those who hadn't done the proper calculations. This myth
was exploded over on several of the other newsgroups (r.a.sf.science, 
r.a.folklore.urban, etc). The scientists in charge would NOT have just taken
a risk like that. They examined the physics involved when the concern was 
brought up, and the calculations showed that the reaction was virtually
impossible.

>	America could have flexed its muscles by boming an atoll.  It could
>have flexed its muscles by dropping one bomb.  But no, foolishly America 
>chose to drop its wad,

	Whether it was foolish or not is a matter of very debatable opinion.
Our number of bombs was extremely limited at the time. What if the Japanese
HADN'T been impressed? We might have needed ALL of the ones we had.

	Dropping two bombs was a dual strategy: 1, show the Japanese that 
not only COULD you wreck them, you WOULD if necessary, and 2, demonstrate
that it was NOT just a one-shot thing -- that you had more than just the
one prototype bomb.

>>Education is used to keep the poor in check.  If your parents arent rich, then 
>>you dont go to a good college and become rich either.  Of course there are a 
>>few exceptions to this rule, but for 90% of the people it is correct.

	This is utter bilge. The thing that prevents many people from 
seeking education, as Thanatos points out, is the societal ATTITUDE towards
education. IF you've got the drive and potential, you CAN and WILL get into
a college. Do you think *I* am paying for college, or that my parents were?
Think again. My parents could never have afforded to pay my way through
any "good college". I, and a high proportion of the students in ANY "good
college", am being funded by the college itself.


                                 Sea Wasp
                                   /^\
                                   ;;;