--- On Sat, 3/7/09, Frederick Noronha <[email protected]> wrote: As for the 'positive benefits' of nuclear weapons, we all know of places called Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Of course, the spin doctors then told us that the dropping of the bombs ended WWII speedily. In hindsight, it was perhaps meant more to overawe the US's European still-colonial allies into accepting the reality that the post-WWII reality would be US, and not European, dominated. --- It is very clear that Japan would have continued fighting to the very end were it not for the use of nuclear weapons. The fact that Japan refused to surrender after the first nuclear strike is testament to that. If Truman really wanted true US hegemony, he would not have stopped in Japan, but would have continued onto Moscow. Of course, Germany had already been defeated by then, so, nuking the fatherland was moot by then. With respect to India and its long term geopolitical stability, I think it should have considered launching a full scale military attack on Pakistan, with the intent to annexing it as soon as it acquired nuclear capability in 1974.
--- On Sat, 3/7/09, Frederick Noronha <[email protected]> wrote: My wider point is that we need not worry too much about the personal beliefs of anyone, provided it doesn't affect the public order or threaten other citizens. I fail to see how cow's urine could do any of this. It's specially easy to laugh at the beliefs of others which seem odd to us. But, I guess, our beliefs seem equally ludicrous to others. FN --- But what if it does threaten others in terms of becoming a vector for diseases or ailments? Contrary to what Fr Ivo may claim, rational and scientific conclusions, free of personal values can be applied to many decision making processes. Marlon
