Re: Copper theft
- From: kensmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Ken Smith)
- Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2006 13:19:30 +0000 (UTC)
In article <n7a8h21ndftn1hlfn20tg83fuv9k27n1ct@xxxxxxx>,
<gfretwell@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:28:04 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Ken Smith) wrote:
The first one may have nudged them
over the line toward surrender but the second one was just to push the
Russians back.
I disagree with that theory. The second one was to prove that the US
could do it more than once. Many people wanted there to be a
demonstration before the first one was used on a population center. The
idea was to blow up some small island somewhere and tell them to go take a
look at the results. This may have been a better way to go.
I doubt there would have been the "shock and awe" if they just blew up
an island somewhere. We purposly "saved" the two cities we bombed from
earlier conventional raids so the total effect was apparent.
I think the idea was to make it look like the US had bombs to waste as
well as make obvious that they were extremely powerful. They were after
more of a logical not emotional reaction.
--
--
kensmith@xxxxxxxxx forging knowledge
.
- References:
- Re: Copper theft
- From: Homer J Simpson
- Re: Copper theft
- From: Ken Smith
- Re: Copper theft
- Prev by Date: Hot Scammer In The Market!
- Next by Date: Re: Copper theft
- Previous by thread: Re: Copper theft
- Next by thread: Re: Copper theft
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|