4,444 karma · joined November 18, 2019
Here's a link to the original obit they ripped off, albeit paywalled and in German:
https://www.heise.de/news/He-who-touched-it-last-owned-it-Zu...
An odd thing to say, given that he was assigned to the General Staff to assist in long-range planning for both theaters immediately after Pearl Harbor. And it wasn't like being a Supreme Allied Commander kept him in an information bubble in regard to matters outside of Europe.
Eisenhower was neither a Japanese cabinet official,
Did we hear you correctly? Is that even an argument?
They were outvoted or simply not listened to, you mean.
Otherwise, the argument becomes circular: "Clearly there was no significant possibility that the Japanese Cabinet would have agreed to surrender had not the first two bombs been dropped. As evidenced by the fact that the bombs were dropped, and they did, after all, surrender."
Or pretends to, at any rate.
As per the incentive structures they may be presumed to enjoy at that payscale.
But it does seem strange to say they were not in a position to make a "meaningful" entry by that point, given the order of battle employed in the Manchuria campaign (per WP):
1,577,725 troops
27,086 artillery pieces
1,152 rocket launchers
5,556 tanks and self-propelled guns
3,721 aircraft
Mongolia:
16,000 troopsYou can believe that if you want of course - but it seems simplistic at best to ignore other factors, such as the planned Soviet entry into the war on August 15. And some believe even that wouldn't have been necessary:
Asked in 1945 for his opinion on dropping the atomic bomb, General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower replied: “I was against it on two counts. First the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon.” Fleet Admiral William Leahy, chief of staff to both Roosevelt and Truman, flatly declared that “the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.” Even the official US Strategic Bombing Survey concluded unequivocally that “Japan would have surrendered if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”
But at least you care - that's what really matters.
Which makes his current silence all the more telling.
As if Rogan's programs "pierce the veil of our own simplified reality".
Sounds like you'd be a natural pick to run a company with 270,00 employees.
Do you find the act of holding a knife against the throats of 40m people to persuade compliance with this demand to be also ... "fairly reasonable"?
To say this about the media without making the same critique about the actions of the current leadership your host country -- which is very obviously the party doing the "pushing" here -- smacks of cognitive dissonance, or worse.
That may be "the important part", but the article is very clear about the fact that, in you know, actual reality -- the workers at this company definitely are not receiving meaningful support.
Of course over time, these same people learned to program better, and its looseness and general wackiness grew into a liability.
But the important point here is: language design decisions (just like product decisions) aren't so much intrinsically right or wrong; but right or wrong at certain times.
In its heyday, Perl was, for many people, definitely the right way to go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUxkFCBPgx4
Which seems to find new relevance in the current moment.
What he said was that that would be likely happen if Ukraine joins NATO and "attempts to retake Crimea by force" -- which would be a rather different set of circumstances than simply "joining NATO".
Strictly speaking, he said that bad things you're talking about would happen "if Ukraine joins NATO and tries to retake Crimea by military means." Not, as you seem to imply, just for the fun of it.
The U.S. has also threatened, or considered first-strike nuclear attacks several times (albeit not publicly) numerous times, as recently as 1997. Usually against smaller countries (the usual suspects) but also against the Russians in the event of an attack on Berlin during the 1961 crisis:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/10/jfks-fir...
So say what you want about the petulant madman - but really he was just pulling a move from Kennedy's playbook, essentially.