1. Why August 6th? The weather was clear over the target, we had the bomb ready to go, why wait?
2. Why did we drop the second bomb three days later? Because we had given Japan that time to surrender and they had not done so. How long were we supposed to wait? The only reason we waited as long as we did was likely to gauge the amount of damage the first one had done to properly drop the second..
3. Germany was defeated by the time we had the first bomb ready. Japan on the other hand had not.
Did Russia even have a Pacific fleet up tot the task of mounting an invasion?
Operation Olympic, the invasion of Kyūshū, was to begin on "X-Day", which was scheduled for 1 November 1945. The combined Allied naval armada would have been the largest ever assembled, including 42 aircraft carriers, 24 battleships, and 400 destroyers and destroyer escorts.
Once you factor in the externalities, such as frying planet Earth in a greasy, crackling skillet of carbon, and the 58,000 annual premature deaths from vehicle emissions each year, plus 25,000 from coal emissions, and add back the taxpayer subsidies to coal and gasoline, the fossil forms of energy don't seem so cheap.
Yes they do, damn cheap. Once all the numbers are in fossil fuels are still king.
Jeez, whatever happened to the days when a kid could:
Spend his adolescent summers just screwing around with bottle rocket and frogs and spend every Saturday morning planted in front of the TV;
Spend his summers at the pool as a lifeguard, nights smoking weed and getting laid;
Graduate with a B- average and be accepted to a "good" school;
Graduate in four years with a liberal arts degree and no debt to speak of...
...And still be mobbed by multiple lucrative offers of employment;
Buy a well sized home and provide for a stay at home wife and 3-4 kids
Work for 40 years at the same company at a 40-45 hr workweek steadily rising through management.
Put those kids through college
Retire comfortably at 65 with a nice nest egg and then some to spoil the grandkids with.
Die at 95 without ever having to have eaten cat food.
Just imagine if a terrorist attack killed over a hundred children in America. We would be demanding the nuclear annihilation of the country behind the terrorist attack. Well, when America attacks civilians and kills 200 children, America is the terrorist and its victims want blood every bit as much as we would and for the exact same reasons.
I don't have to imagine it. There have been roughly 300 school shootings since the invention of the atomic bomb with 281 fatalities since 1990 alone. Not a single nuke has been dropped, not even a figurative one.
We don't want to hurt anyones children, because children are innocent. We just want to hurt the terrorists. The terrorists, obviously want to target and hurt our children.
What is wrong with you? To even suggest we want to hurt children is sickening.
Do yourself a favor then. Don't talk to veterans who served in front line combat. Don't talk to anyone who was in Vietnam or Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere children are weaponized (which is pretty much anywhere.)
Never, ever talk to special forces sharpshooter who while covering an explosive ordinance team were under orders to eliminate ANYONE with a cellphone, man, woman or child. Or a veteran who was faced with a child rushing toward his squad screaming "help me GI!"
I'm sure the Soviets were thinking the same thing - after all they love children too - when they dropped millions of these on Afghanistan against the taliban mushahadeen:
So if the Soviets targeted children in Afghanistan we would have been guilty of the same crime in Laos. Officially this mine was not targeted towards children but its design was purely dictated by aerodynamics.
IMO it does resemble a maple leaf which would have the desired aerodynamic properties. It also looks like something a poor third world kid might think to play with.
I'll let the conspiracy theorists here mull that one over.
That person confessed to 16 murders and is estimated to be responsible for up to 300 murders over a 16 year career which works out to 0.9-18 or so a year. That's not even a blip in the face of 195,000/yr total. Do you have any evidence of further malfeasance here or was this an isolated event?
I haven't heard back from @bob2356, who never admits mistakes anyway, so I plan to delete his comments because they're patently false and serve no purpose other than to incite combat over the obvious failures of his narcotic addled memory being unable to keep track of who said what, or to remember "San Diego" and "Davis" are separate UC institutions located 1,000km apart.
IWOG has been successful in quoting such posts and using them as proof of trollishness later. I see you use a similar tactic but use hyperlinks to the original quote. It would be easier for an interested observer if you would quote the original offending remark and then delete the original. It was IWOG's methodical quoting (which can't be edited or deleted) and citing of hard evidence which helped me convince others here on PatNet that Renting For Half The Cost was a pathological liar, not to be listened to.
CIC didn't actually state that, and the image doesn't either. It says, "You are SIX HUNDRED TIMES MORE LIKELY to DIE by using your OBAMACARE, than by a semi-automatic rifle."
Actually what the chart says is you are six hundred times more likely to die by what presumably is an AR-15 (323 deaths). According to the FBI the total number of homicides in the USA by firearms for 2011 was 8,583
And that's just the homicides. That puts homicides by firearms just below drunk drivers. Wonder what happens when you add in accidental deaths - a fair comparison considering few drunk drivers or doctors intend to cause death
1. I did not read the brochure at all. The SUV is a requirement because towing requirement and I often have 6-7 people in my car, 1-2 days every other week. Keeping another dedicated car for each purpose wouldn't make any sense: 3 cars (a daily driving sedan, a minivan and a pickup) would cost far more, plus parking and insurance costs. A used passenger van would be getting 9-10mpg instead of the 27mpg that I'm getting with the MDX.
2. Given SUV is a requirement due to towing and passenger count, having Torque-Vectoring AWD is a huge plus. It turns out to be able to corner with much less lean than conventional sedans. Also, given the rapid growth of CUV sales at the expense of coupes and sedans, riding in a sedan may not be a wise choice in the near future due to risk posed by other drivers and their higher riding vehicles.
3. "Driving like an ass" sometimes is a necessity due to the need to avoid people suddenly cutting into your lane. I considered the Toyota Land Cruiser, but it was crossed off the list precisely because the risk of roll-over in collision avoidance situations.
4. Autonomous driving techs are helpful for reducing driver fatigue during long distance driving. I have been able to stay alert for about 3x longer driving the MDX on long distance trips compared to previous cars.
5. The rear seat entertainment package was a mandatory combination at the time when the full autonomous driving suite was selected. I would not have otherwise bought the rear entertainment. However, it turned out to be very popular with the kids, along with the rear shades, extra thick acoustic glass, etc. That mandatory combination was actually the biggest hold-back for me during the purchase. However, considering the economy of scale Acura was achieving by making all the "Advance" packages alike, the overall combination was a good deal, probably cost a lot less than would have been if production had to be carried out separately for individual custom orders. I'd probably have lost the rear entertainment system and then some, and still pay the same if not more at the BMW or Porsche dealers with their individual options; that is, hypotehtically they had a comparable car to sell.
I dunno, still seems like a lot of overkill. At least your not here trying to rationalize a corvette Z06 as a daily commuter.
That 0.1% to 0.01% of the driving time when collision avoidance and crash worthiness are put to use, that's when I'd regret not putting in the other $53,000. Torque-Vectoring AWD is quite a step beyond conventional AWD. It makes vehicle much more stable in rapid turns, a very helpful technology when driving an SUV. Unlike conventional cars relying on the suspension to generate the centripetal force, Torque-Vectoring drives individual wheels at different speed and use the outside rear wheel's extra accelearation to turn the car! The result is a completely flat cornering! No roll-overs.
Wow, did you memorize the entire brochure? How about not driving like an ass? That'll turn that 0.1%-0.01% to damn unlikely, if ever. Or how about not buying an SUV with an inherently high center of mass?
How about anyone who bought a Lexus when a Toyota with a nice trim package would have been the exact same car for thousands less
Sure, I'd buy a Camry instead of an ES, a Highlander instead of an RX (actually did that a decade ago); however, there are some models like the LS, GS and IS that have no comparable Toyota models in the US market. I'm currently driving an Acura MDX because the new generation Pilot sharing the platform was/is not out yet, and I was in an urgent need to replace a car last summer. Lexus and Acura do still deliver decent value.
Yet you can still get 90% of your daily needs out of a $1500 used Subaru, or 99% out of a $4000 used WRX. Both will have the AWD you probably don't really need (I've known plenty of Swedes who did just fine with sub 100 HP RWD Volvos) and the WRX will have far more power than you can possibly use on a day to day basis.