Neal Stephenson/Politics
Marcus Hammerschmitt
orientation of Neal Stephenson (author of "Snow Crash", "The
Diamond Age", et al.)? Having read Snow Crash now in English, I
have deeply mixed emotions about the book, although it is
outrageously well written. Stephenson misses to address two
key-myths of the american ideology, or rather promotes them:
1) It was necessary to nuke the Japs to save many an american
soldiers life. (Which is provably untrue. Truman had the Japs
nuked to show the russians his brandnew toy in action, as
anybody knows).
2) Uncle Enzo, a key character of Snow Crash and Vietnam Vet,
who happens to run the Cosa Nostra in the novel like a
multidiverted trust (which it actually is), offs the bad guy of
the story (Raven) in the end by virtue of applying his skills
acquired in Vietnam. Irony? Or is Stephenson serious about
that?
Furthermore, I'd like to know if it pays to read The Diamond
Age by the same author.
Marcus Hammerschmitt,
author of "Der Glasmensch" ("The man of glas") and "Hundherz"
(Dogheart).
Dylan Flynn Alexander
Hammerschmitt <marcus.ham...@student.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
}Does anybody out there know details on the overall political
}orientation of Neal Stephenson (author of "Snow Crash", "The
}Diamond Age", et al.)? Having read Snow Crash now in English, I
}have deeply mixed emotions about the book, although it is
}outrageously well written. Stephenson misses to address two
}key-myths of the american ideology, or rather promotes them:
}
}1) It was necessary to nuke the Japs to save many an american
}soldiers life. (Which is provably untrue. Truman had the Japs
}nuked to show the russians his brandnew toy in action, as
}anybody knows).
Heh. If this isn't the stinky bait it looks like, feel free to prove it.
}2) Uncle Enzo, a key character of Snow Crash and Vietnam Vet,
}who happens to run the Cosa Nostra in the novel like a
}multidiverted trust (which it actually is), offs the bad guy of
}the story (Raven) in the end by virtue of applying his skills
}acquired in Vietnam. Irony? Or is Stephenson serious about
}that?
He doesn't actually kill Raven. I think you're reading too much into this,
in any case.
--
Dylan Flynn Alexander
dy...@tamu.edu
Robert G. Buice, Jr
Hammerschmitt <marcus.ham...@student.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
> Does anybody out there know details on the overall political
> orientation of Neal Stephenson (author of "Snow Crash", "The
> Diamond Age", et al.)? Having read Snow Crash now in English, I
> have deeply mixed emotions about the book, although it is
> outrageously well written. Stephenson misses to address two
> key-myths of the american ideology, or rather promotes them:
>
> 1) It was necessary to nuke the Japs to save many an american
> soldiers life. (Which is provably untrue. Truman had the Japs
> nuked to show the russians his brandnew toy in action, as
> anybody knows).
This is not an American myth. It was a judgement call made at a certain
time. The American people have different opinions on it. Most of the
descriptions of America in the book are cynical exaggerations meant to
point out certain facets of American life, not to promote or debunk
anything. American ideology is not a homogeneous set, it is a widely
diverse and sometimes contradictory amalgam of things.
>
> 2) Uncle Enzo, a key character of Snow Crash and Vietnam Vet,
> who happens to run the Cosa Nostra in the novel like a
> multidiverted trust (which it actually is), offs the bad guy of
> the story (Raven) in the end by virtue of applying his skills
> acquired in Vietnam. Irony? Or is Stephenson serious about
> that?
I think it is insignificant to the story in any fashion metaphoricaly or
literaly.
> Furthermore, I'd like to know if it pays to read The Diamond
> Age by the same author.
>
> Marcus Hammerschmitt,
> author of "Der Glasmensch" ("The man of glas") and "Hundherz"
> (Dogheart).
--
Robert G. Buice,Jr supe...@pop.uky.edu
Analytical Spectroscopy Group Phone:(606) 257-5175
College of Pharmacy
University of Kentucky
PGP Key: http://kerouac.pharm.uky.edu/buice/rgbuice.html
rsf...@uncg.edu
>Does anybody out there know details on the overall political
>orientation of Neal Stephenson (author of "Snow Crash", "The
>Diamond Age", et al.)? Having read Snow Crash now in English, I
>have deeply mixed emotions about the book, although it is
>outrageously well written. Stephenson misses to address two
>key-myths of the american ideology, or rather promotes them:
>
>1) It was necessary to nuke the Japs to save many an american
>soldiers life. (Which is provably untrue. Truman had the Japs
>nuked to show the russians his brandnew toy in action, as
>anybody knows).
"as anybody knows."
I'm *so* glad that you've managed to prove something which has remained
unproven for so long. Have you published your findings?
Yes, it is possible to second-guess Truman, and to sit back and say "Sure, the
Japanese were fairly close to surrendering as it was, and sure, the Soviets had
just entered the war against Japan, so yeah, it makes sense that he nuked Japan
to mess with the Soviets." Yes. You *can* do that.
However, you can't *prove* that.
What you *can* prove is that Truman was handed information about a new and
different kind of weapon and told 'We have this. Do we use it?'
We can also prove that Truman had been given estimates of losses involved in an
assault on the home islands. We can prove that Truman knew of the losses taken
when U.S. forces assaulted, say, Iwo Jima. And we can prove that he really
didn't have a lot of time, all things considered, to make a decision.
So, based on what we CAN PROVE, we can say that, while a demonstration of force
against the Soviets might have been considered a good thing, the 'It'll save
American lives' concept is also a viable interpretation to put on Truman's
decision.
>2) Uncle Enzo, a key character of Snow Crash and Vietnam Vet,
>who happens to run the Cosa Nostra in the novel like a
>multidiverted trust (which it actually is), offs the bad guy of
>the story (Raven) in the end by virtue of applying his skills
>acquired in Vietnam. Irony? Or is Stephenson serious about
>that?
This is ... strange. This is *very* strange. This is so damn strange that I
question whether or not you read the book in the first place.
Uncle Enzo gets Raven by using two tools:
[spoiler]
One, the anti-glass concussion charge mounted on the front of a Snow-Crash era
high-end skateboard, and two, a straight razor. (Considering that Raven has a
*lot* of glass about his person, blasting that glass into shards (to say
nothing of the explosive effects on human flesh) can't have been a good thing
for Raven's continued existence.) So, we have a latest-and-greatest gizmo which
did NOT come from Enzo's experiences in Viet Nam, and a weapon which is hardly
army-issue. He may have used a straight razor in the army, but the razor
*clearly* derives from the mafiosi stereotype. So ... what the heck are you
talking about?
Now, to address the primary issue of your statement:
"Stephenson misses to address two key-myths of the american ideology."
Well, it ain't exactly good English, bwana, and there are two possible
interpretations of this statement. Either way, it's pretty goofy.
If we interpret your statement as meaning 'Stephenson *doesn't* address two
...', then your subsequent points where you indicate that he *does* are, well,
contradictory, shall we say. If we interpret your statement as meaning
'Stephenson doesn't address these 'key-myths' in a way that I like,' then I
have to laugh in your face. We'll look at the nuke bit first, as that's easier
to cope with.
A significant portion of America accepts the
nuking-of-Japan-so-we-wouldn't-have-to-invade concept. Hiro Protagonist, Raven,
Y.T., and most of the rest of the cast of _Snow Crash_ are from areas which are
loosely definable as 'America,' even though the political structure is wildly
different from present-day America. Therefore, a portrayal of Americans
accepting this explanation is not a flaw - it is *accurate*. Whatever *your*
politics are, to expect Stephenson to portray near-future Americans as
accepting the ulterior-motive explanation is ludicrious. You may not agree with
the invasion explanation, but it is reasonable to expect that the characters in
the book would.
And on the second point, you don't even really explain what 'key-myth' is
invoked in the Uncle Enzo bit, so I can't even address that.
>Furthermore, I'd like to know if it pays to read The Diamond
>Age by the same author.
"Pays"?
Well, I sincerely doubt that he'll pander to whatever axe you happen to have
ready for grinding, if that's what you're asking.
Rob F.
Chris Jones
supe...@pop.uky.edu (Robert G. Buice, Jr) wrote:
> In article <4k665b$h...@newsserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de>, Marcus
> Hammerschmitt <marcus.ham...@student.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
>
> > Does anybody out there know details on the overall political
> > orientation of Neal Stephenson (author of "Snow Crash", "The
> > Diamond Age", et al.)? Having read Snow Crash now in English, I
> > have deeply mixed emotions about the book, although it is
> > outrageously well written. Stephenson misses to address two
> > key-myths of the american ideology, or rather promotes them:
> >
> > 1) It was necessary to nuke the Japs to save many an american
> > soldiers life. (Which is provably untrue. Truman had the Japs
> > nuked to show the russians his brandnew toy in action, as
> > anybody knows).
>
> This is not an American myth. It was a judgement call made at a certain
> time. The American people have different opinions on it. Most of the
> descriptions of America in the book are cynical exaggerations meant to
> point out certain facets of American life, not to promote or debunk
> anything. American ideology is not a homogeneous set, it is a widely
> diverse and sometimes contradictory amalgam of things.
Seconded. And all things considered, I don't think Stephenson was
trying to make big fun of America. Consider the quote from his article in
_Wired_ on China:
"For an American to criticize Western culture is like an Earthling
criticizing the atmosphere on the grounds that it is sometimes windy, and
besides, Titan's is much prettier."
(Probably not totally accurate, as I don't have the issue in front of
me and was quoting from memory.) At any rate, I still don't think
Stepenson is anti-American, if only from the strong feelings about this
country that come through in _Interface_, even while it's being taken over
by the corporate elite. (Or whatever those guys were. Say, that's an
interesting question... What were Stephenson's views on the idea on an
elitist takeover of America "for its own good"?)
-Chris Jones
Mike Berro
wrote:
>Furthermore, I'd like to know if it pays to read The Diamond
>Age by the same author.
Yup. I think it is an even better book. However, it says little
about American politics.
ZODIAC, an "eco-thriller", may give you more insight on his
political beliefs (at least when he wrote it.)
---Mike Berro
Website Manager of "Compuserve Book and Magazine Catalogs" at
http://www.massmedia.com/~mikeb/
Website Manager of "Jack Vance Information" at
http://www.massmedia.com/~mikeb/jvm/info.html
Rick Cook
>>1) It was necessary to nuke the Japs to save many an american
>>soldiers life. (Which is provably untrue. Truman had the Japs
>>nuked to show the russians his brandnew toy in action, as
>>anybody knows).
>
>"as anybody knows."
>
>I'm *so* glad that you've managed to prove something which has remained
>unproven for so long. Have you published your findings?
>
--RC
Bill Newman
: Does anybody out there know details on the overall political
: orientation of Neal Stephenson (author of "Snow Crash", "The
: Diamond Age", et al.)? Having read Snow Crash now in English, I
: have deeply mixed emotions about the book, although it is
: outrageously well written. Stephenson misses to address two
: key-myths of the american ideology, or rather promotes them:
: 1) It was necessary to nuke the Japs to save many an american
: soldiers life. (Which is provably untrue. Truman had the Japs
: nuked to show the russians his brandnew toy in action, as
: anybody knows).
I'm no fan of the use of the A-bomb (or for that matter other
indiscriminate acts of war, e.g. firebombing Tokyo and Dresden) but
I'm don't think it's honest to say `provably untrue' here.
: 2) Uncle Enzo, a key character of Snow Crash and Vietnam Vet,
: who happens to run the Cosa Nostra in the novel like a
: multidiverted trust (which it actually is), offs the bad guy of
: the story (Raven) in the end by virtue of applying his skills
: acquired in Vietnam. Irony? Or is Stephenson serious about
: that?
I'm not sure about these `key-myths' (literal translation from
German?) , but I was weirded out by the way that a key figure/plot
device is a cable television magnate who manages to gain his
world-dominating power from the increased opportunity for monopoly
*now that government is out of the way*. The cable television
monopoly scene in the US, and to my knowledge in most countries, is
*currently* dominated by monopolies *imposed* by government
(`franchises' in a rather different sense than those that Stephenson
parodies). I find it a bit of a stretch to imagine that the result of
quasi-anarchy could increase monopoly power beyond this level. If
were to try hard enough to start/get alternative cable service where I
live, I'd go to jail -- how much more monopoly power can you get?
Anyone care to venture a guess whether Stephenson's tongue is planted
much more deeply in his cheek than I realize, or whether he thinks
this is a telling extrapolation a la his franchised jails with
three-ring binders for their operating procedures, or whether I'm just
missing the boat?
Bill Newman
wne...@netcom.com
P.S.: truly awesome book, though!
C. Chan
Dylan Flynn Alexander <dy...@tamu.edu> wrote:
>
>}2) Uncle Enzo, a key character of Snow Crash and Vietnam Vet,
>}who happens to run the Cosa Nostra in the novel like a
>}multidiverted trust (which it actually is), offs the bad guy of
>}the story (Raven) in the end by virtue of applying his skills
>}acquired in Vietnam. Irony? Or is Stephenson serious about
>}that?
>
>He doesn't actually kill Raven. I think you're reading too much into this,
>in any case.
>
>--
>Dylan Flynn Alexander
>dy...@tamu.edu
Raven gets away in the pizza-tank, to return in a sequel doubtless.
I think NS is a deft satirist of American society but believes in
many of its core values, such as the belief that the individual
human being, properly raised with the right combination of freedom
and discipline, is the keystone of history. He gets into this some
more in the Diamond Age.
--
C. Chan <ch...@alfrothul.uchicago.edu> | .chigless in Chicago
Justine Kingsbury
>In article <4k665b$h...@newsserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de>, Marcus
>Hammerschmitt <marcus.ham...@student.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
>> 1) It was necessary to nuke the Japs to save many an american
>> soldiers life. (Which is provably untrue. Truman had the Japs
>> nuked to show the russians his brandnew toy in action, as
>> anybody knows).
>This is not an American myth. It was a judgement call made at a certain
>time. The American people have different opinions on it.
True, and I certainly wouldn't throw out flame-bait the way this guy's
doing ("as anybody knows"! So *subtle*). But it's fair to say Americans
seem to give more credence to the "had to do it" argument than anyone
else does - or at least that's been my experience, as a non-American
in this country during the 50th anniversary of the bombings. There
are people here who'll even try to defend the bombing of Nagasaki.
Justine Kingsbury
Bruce Baugh
>1) It was necessary to nuke the Japs to save many an american
>soldiers life. (Which is provably untrue. Truman had the Japs
>nuked to show the russians his brandnew toy in action, as
>anybody knows).
And your irrefutable proof is...? You really should publish, since it
remains a hotly contested point, and I'm sure that the American
Historical Association would be grateful to anyone who can lay the
matter to rest. In the absence of peer-reviewed documentation combined
with rigorous response to all counter-evidence and argument, you'll have
to forgive those of us who remain sketpical.
--
Bruce Baugh <*> br...@aracnet.com <*> http://www.aracnet.com/~bruce
See my Web pages for...
Christlib, the mailing list for Christian and libertarian concerns
New science fiction by Steve Stirling and George Alec Effing er
Daedalus Games, home of Shadowfist and Feng Shui
rsf...@uncg.edu
(Justine Kingsbury) writes:
>True, and I certainly wouldn't throw out flame-bait the way this guy's
>doing ("as anybody knows"! So *subtle*). But it's fair to say Americans
>seem to give more credence to the "had to do it" argument than anyone
>else does - or at least that's been my experience, as a non-American
>in this country during the 50th anniversary of the bombings. There
>are people here who'll even try to defend the bombing of Nagasaki.
Well, the Japanese hadn't surrendered yet ...
(To diverge on this point - what always gets me about this is the hoo-raw made
about how utterly horrible the use of atomic weapons was - when the firebombing
of Tokyo did more damage, when Bomber Harris was gleefully annihilating entire
cities every week or so, when we had to start counting the number of firestorms
in double digits...)
(And, yes, compared to some of the shit the Allies pulled in Europe, the
bombing of Nagasaki was actually understandable. Maybe not defensible in the
light of subsequent knowledge, but understandable.)
Rob F.
Chris Jones
> (To diverge on this point - what always gets me about this is the
hoo-raw made
> about how utterly horrible the use of atomic weapons was - when the
firebombing
> of Tokyo did more damage, when Bomber Harris was gleefully annihilating
entire
> cities every week or so, when we had to start counting the number of
firestorms
> in double digits...)
All things considered, I'd probably qualify as one of the American
yahoos that have been attacked thus far for condoning, to an extent, the
Japanese A-bomb attacks. At the same time, though, I do see the concern
over the A-bombings as opposed to regular firebombings. Aside from the
fact that this was the only time a technology that could wipe man off of
the face of the earth has been used aggressively, an A-bomb is different
in that it lingers far longer. Tokyo and Berlin have been rebuilt quite
nicely, I understand, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki apparently have sky high
cancer rates and birth defects, and will for some time to come. Fifty
years later, the damage is still there.
-Chris Jones
This would probably qualify as one of the posts that would qualify for
rec.arts.sf.social, I suppose, if a social discussion group were the kind
of place you'd want to discuss the ethics of A-bombing someone.
Doug Tricarico
|> >Hammerschmitt <marcus.ham...@student.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
|>
|> >> 1) It was necessary to nuke the Japs to save many an american
|> >> soldiers life. (Which is provably untrue. Truman had the Japs
|> >> nuked to show the russians his brandnew toy in action, as
|> >> anybody knows).
|>
|> >time. The American people have different opinions on it.
|>
|> doing ("as anybody knows"! So *subtle*). But it's fair to say Americans
|> seem to give more credence to the "had to do it" argument than anyone
|> else does - or at least that's been my experience, as a non-American
|> in this country during the 50th anniversary of the bombings. There
|> are people here who'll even try to defend the bombing of Nagasaki.
|>
Interestingly enough, the teenage sister of one of my fellow coworkers
was not aware that the US had ever fought a war with Japan or Germany.
After reading the accounts of the attrocities committed by both Germany
and Japan, and hearing my uncle's stories about being a POW in Germany
(where he was relatively well-treated but starved nearly to death
anyway), I really am not bothered by the nuking of Japan.
Perhaps dropping the second bomb was a bit much, but when you sow the
wind, you reap the whirlwind, and only a fool grabs a sleeping tiger by
the tail. The Japanese were clearly fools in 1941. The moral is, of
course, "Don't start wars."
Isaac Asimov once said that he didn't like the A-bomb for its effect on
SF -- before that happened, Sf was wide open, and the day after there
was an emphasis on what he called "tomorrow fiction."
Doug
Josh Kaderlan
Chris Jones <cold...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> All things considered, I'd probably qualify as one of the American
>yahoos that have been attacked thus far for condoning, to an extent, the
>Japanese A-bomb attacks. At the same time, though, I do see the concern
>over the A-bombings as opposed to regular firebombings. Aside from the
>fact that this was the only time a technology that could wipe man off of
>the face of the earth has been used aggressively, an A-bomb is different
>in that it lingers far longer. Tokyo and Berlin have been rebuilt quite
>nicely, I understand, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki apparently have sky high
>cancer rates and birth defects, and will for some time to come. Fifty
>years later, the damage is still there.
>
Hiroshima and Nagasaki contributed heavily to the fact that nukes haven't
been used since. Also, did anyone know at the time that the A-bomb would
have those lasting effects? (My understanding is that they didn't. I
also seem to recall reading somewhere that the descendants of the
survivors actually *haven't* shown the ill effects expected. I could be
wrong, though.)
--Josh
Dylan Flynn Alexander
}True, and I certainly wouldn't throw out flame-bait the way this guy's
}doing ("as anybody knows"! So *subtle*). But it's fair to say Americans
}seem to give more credence to the "had to do it" argument than anyone
}else does - or at least that's been my experience, as a non-American
}in this country during the 50th anniversary of the bombings. There
}are people here who'll even try to defend the bombing of Nagasaki.
I'm rather confused as to what you mean by "actually" defend it. Hell,
I'd defend the nuking of several cities today for a variety of reasons,
including Houston, any spot in Serbia, and the whole nation of Bangladesh.
Eirik Nyhus
[snip]
> Aside from the
>fact that this was the only time a technology that could wipe man off of
>the face of the earth has been used aggressively, an A-bomb is different
>in that it lingers far longer. Tokyo and Berlin have been rebuilt quite
>nicely, I understand, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki apparently have sky high
>cancer rates and birth defects, and will for some time to come. Fifty
>years later, the damage is still there.
> -Chris Jones
I may be on somewhat thin ice here, but I remember recently reading
about a fairly new statistical study (I've lost the reference
unfortunately) showing that the increase in birth defects, cancer
rates etc. apply to those exposed to the initial high radiation levels
(the first few days?), and not to susequent generations. Anyone able
to corroborate or deny this?
--
Eirik Nyhus
Mark Hughes
>Dylan Flynn Alexander <dy...@tamu.edu> wrote:
>>He doesn't actually kill Raven. I think you're reading too much into this,
>>in any case.
>
Where did anyone get this idea? It's not spelled out blood drop by blood
drop, but I thought it was clear Enzo kills him on the tarmac after blowing
away all of Raven's glass knives and pulling out his straight razor... It's
not like Raven can run away, now is it?
There's no indication of who drives the truck away, probably one of Rife's
men or the President (how'd they get away from the Kouriers? Who knows...)
-Mark Hughes
"In headlines today, the dreaded killfile virus spread across the country
adding aol.com to people's usenet kill files everywhere. The programmer of
the virus still remains anonymous, but has been nominated several times for
a Nobel peace prize." -Mark Atkinson
Jeff Stehman
: >
: Surely you recognize can a troll when you see one?
Can-a-troll. Is that anything like Spam?
--
Jeff Stehman Senior Systems Administrator
ste...@southwind.net SouthWind Internet Access, Inc.
voice: (316)263-7963 Wichita, KS
URL for Wichita Area Chamber of Commerce: http://www.southwind.net/ict/
Justine Kingsbury
>After reading the accounts of the attrocities committed by both Germany
>and Japan, and hearing my uncle's stories about being a POW in Germany
>(where he was relatively well-treated but starved nearly to death
>anyway), I really am not bothered by the nuking of Japan.
Compare and contrast: after what the militias did in Oklahoma, it
really would not bother me if all militia members and their families
were taken out and shot.
Or how about: a man raped my sister once. All men should be castrated.
I've heard both statements uttered seriously by intelligent people,
so maybe neither bothers you. But the "some of them were evil, so let's
give cancer to as many of the inhabitants of two whole cities as we
can't kill outright" line of thinking certainly bothers ME.
Justine
Rick Cook
> Also, did anyone know at the time that the A-bomb would
>have those lasting effects?
They very clearly did not. That's why teams of scientists were sent
unprotected into the bombed areas almost as soon as the Americans arrived
in Japan. Nor did the physicists who worked on the bomb realize it. That's
why they were on those teams.
But this whole thing is a blatant troll and best ignored.
--RC
Robert Sneddon
br...@aracnet.com "Bruce Baugh" writes:
> In article <4k665b$h...@newsserv.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de>, Marcus Hammerschmitt
> <marcus.ham...@student.uni-tuebingen.de> wrote:
>
> >1) It was necessary to nuke the Japs to save many an american
> >soldiers life. (Which is provably untrue. Truman had the Japs
> >nuked to show the russians his brandnew toy in action, as
> >anybody knows).
>
> And your irrefutable proof is...? You really should publish, since it
> remains a hotly contested point, and I'm sure that the American
> Historical Association would be grateful to anyone who can lay the
> matter to rest. In the absence of peer-reviewed documentation combined
> with rigorous response to all counter-evidence and argument, you'll have
> to forgive those of us who remain sketpical.
>
As I understand it, plans were already well underway for Operation
Olympic, the opposed allied invasion of the Japanese Home islands
when the two bombs were dropped. They had gone as far as designing
a medal for the participants, and even making the medal ribbons
(I remember seeing pictures of this somewhere...) Estimated Allied
casualties were approximately one million (at a conservative ratio
of 1 dead to 4 wounded) but the first estimates said there would
be ten million Japanese killed (there would be practically no hospital
treatment available for any wounded Japanese). This was before the
post-battle evaluation of the Okinawa landings, where the Emperor
was not under threat of capture or death by the Allies.
There was another solution under consideration by Allied planners
not privy to the A-bomb project. This was to bomb and firestorm
Japan back into the Stone Age using the vast military manufacturing
capability of the US. Everything representing civilisation on the
Home islands would be attacked by high-altitude bombing and
low-level strafing of ports, fields, roads, houses, factories, bridges
and railways. This could be carried on at a low financial cost for
decades with virtually no Allied casualties. It would of
course lead to mass starvation, disease and tens of millions of
Japanese deaths, but it would have insured Japan could not
attempt to dominate the Pacific militarily again. I believe
the use of the A-bombs was more in the nature of a surgical strike
to shock the Japanese into surrendering, as they did; even then
the Emperor's party had to browbeat the militarists into accepting
the surrender terms offered by the Allies.
The use of the Nagasaki bomb was, I believe, to prove to the
Japanese the Hiroshima attack was not a one-off event - I think Oak
Ridge could not produce enough fissionable material to build another
bomb until late '45 or early '46, but the Japanese didn't know that.
As far as they could see, the Americans could send a single B-29 every
few days and obliterate a city, *and there was nothing they could do
about it.* This is what made Japan surrender, in my uneducated opinion.
If Harry S. wanted to impress the Russkies, why were there no Soviet
Allied observers present at the Trinity test in July '45? Close in,
say at G0 + 5 miles? Flash, bang, wallop...
Ahem, comments anyone?
(And yes, I know this is off-topic, and no, I can't directly
document any of my assertions, and if somebody has some hard facts
about some of the things I've said above, either for or against,
I wouldn't mind hearing them. We could take it to eMail if the
rest of the group objects to the dreaded scourge of
off-topicality...)
P.S. I have worked on nuclear weapons design (in my youth,
in a very minor capacity) and I never heard anyone I worked
with call them "toys". They scared me then, they scare me now...
--
"This self-destruct button doesn't work! I want my money back!"
Robert (nojay) Sneddon
Bruce Baugh
> As I understand it, plans were already well underway for Operation
>Olympic, the opposed allied invasion of the Japanese Home islands
>when the two bombs were dropped. They had gone as far as designing
>a medal for the participants, and even making the medal ribbons
>(I remember seeing pictures of this somewhere...) Estimated Allied
>casualties were approximately one million (at a conservative ratio
>of 1 dead to 4 wounded) but the first estimates said there would
>be ten million Japanese killed (there would be practically no hospital
>treatment available for any wounded Japanese). This was before the
>post-battle evaluation of the Okinawa landings, where the Emperor
>was not under threat of capture or death by the Allies.
Exactly. And this is all a matter of record, thanks to documents
declassified in the last ~ten years. Bits and pieces had been public
before, but now we've pretty well got the whole match, and the more of
it one examines, the more it becomes clear that a) nobody was
deliberately monkeying with the data to push a "nuke 'em all" agenda and
b) Truman's decision was a very reasonable one in light of those data.
>decades with virtually no Allied casualties. It would of
>course lead to mass starvation, disease and tens of millions of
>Japanese deaths, but it would have insured Japan could not
>attempt to dominate the Pacific militarily again.
Something similar was proposed for Germany as an alternative to the
Marshall Plan - a deliberate campaign to turn the whole nation into a
preindustrial/early industrial agricultural nation without the capacity
to ever make war again. I can't remember the proposer's name right now
(Rosenthal?), but someone will be along with that datum.
>The use of the Nagasaki bomb was, I believe, to prove to the
>Japanese the Hiroshima attack was not a one-off event
That was the original rationale, and it makes sense to me.
--
Bruce Baugh <*> br...@aracnet.com <*> http://www.aracnet.com/~bruce
See my Web pages for
New science fiction by Steve Stirling and George Alec Effing er
Christlib, the mailing list for Christian and libertarian concerns
Daedalus Games, makers of Shadowfist and Feng Shui
C. Chan
Mark Hughes <kami...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu> wrote:
>C. Chan <ch...@alfrothul.uchicago.edu> spake:
>>Dylan Flynn Alexander <dy...@tamu.edu> wrote:
>>>He doesn't actually kill Raven. I think you're reading too much into this,
>>>in any case.
>>
>>Raven gets away in the pizza-tank, to return in a sequel doubtless.
>
> Where did anyone get this idea? It's not spelled out blood drop by blood
>drop, but I thought it was clear Enzo kills him on the tarmac after blowing
>away all of Raven's glass knives and pulling out his straight razor... It's
>not like Raven can run away, now is it?
>
It's not like Enzo is in great shape to chase after Raven either.
There isn't any proof one way or the other. But ask yourself if you
were NS, would you kill off a character like Raven? Leave a little
loophole, just in case you want to write a sequel.
> There's no indication of who drives the truck away, probably one of Rife's
>men or the President (how'd they get away from the Kouriers? Who knows...)
>
> -Mark Hughes
Right, no indication. Could be anyone, so Raven isn't excluded.
Michael Jennings
Mark Hughes <kami...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu> wrote:
>C. Chan <ch...@alfrothul.uchicago.edu> spake:
>>Dylan Flynn Alexander <dy...@tamu.edu> wrote:
>>>He doesn't actually kill Raven. I think you're reading too much into this,
>>>in any case.
>>
>>Raven gets away in the pizza-tank, to return in a sequel doubtless.
>
> Where did anyone get this idea? It's not spelled out blood drop by blood
>drop, but I thought it was clear Enzo kills him on the tarmac after blowing
>away all of Raven's glass knives and pulling out his straight razor... It's
>not like Raven can run away, now is it?
>
>men or the President (how'd they get away from the Kouriers? Who knows...)
>
Michael.
--
Michael Jennings
Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics
The University of Cambridge.
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/mjj12 mj...@amtp.cam.ac.uk
"Much of what passes for quality on British television is no
more than a reflection of the values of the narrow elite which
controls it and which has always thought that its tastes are
synonymous with quality" - Rupert Murdoch
Rick Cook
science fiction -- and to provide additional documentation of a sort -- I'd
strongly recommend a novel called "The Burning Mountain", which is a
throughly researched look at what Operation Olympic would have been like.
The appendixes are especially interesting.
Also an exciting alternate-history novel.
--RC
Robert Sneddon wrote:
> As I understand it, plans were already well underway for Operation
>Olympic, the opposed allied invasion of the Japanese Home islands
>when the two bombs were dropped. They had gone as far as designing
>a medal for the participants, and even making the medal ribbons
>(I remember seeing pictures of this somewhere...) Estimated Allied
>casualties were approximately one million (at a conservative ratio
>of 1 dead to 4 wounded) but the first estimates said there would
>be ten million Japanese killed (there would be practically no hospital
>treatment available for any wounded Japanese). This was before the
>post-battle evaluation of the Okinawa landings, where the Emperor
>was not under threat of capture or death by the Allies.
>
> There was another solution under consideration by Allied planners
>not privy to the A-bomb project. This was to bomb and firestorm
>Japan back into the Stone Age using the vast military manufacturing
>capability of the US. Everything representing civilisation on the
>Home islands would be attacked by high-altitude bombing and
>low-level strafing of ports, fields, roads, houses, factories, bridges
>and railways. This could be carried on at a low financial cost for
>decades with virtually no Allied casualties. It would of
>course lead to mass starvation, disease and tens of millions of
>Japanese deaths, but it would have insured Japan could not
>attempt to dominate the Pacific militarily again. I believe
>the use of the A-bombs was more in the nature of a surgical strike
>to shock the Japanese into surrendering, as they did; even then
>the Emperor's party had to browbeat the militarists into accepting
>the surrender terms offered by the Allies.
>
>The use of the Nagasaki bomb was, I believe, to prove to the
Hound of Cullen
kami...@kuoi.asui.uidaho.edu (Mark Hughes) wrote:
:C. Chan <ch...@alfrothul.uchicago.edu> spake:
:>Dylan Flynn Alexander <dy...@tamu.edu> wrote:
:>>He doesn't actually kill Raven. I think you're reading too much into this,
:>>in any case.
:>
:>Raven gets away in the pizza-tank, to return in a sequel doubtless.
:
: Where did anyone get this idea? It's not spelled out blood drop by blood
:drop, but I thought it was clear Enzo kills him on the tarmac after blowing
:away all of Raven's glass knives and pulling out his straight razor... It's
:not like Raven can run away, now is it?
Potential spoilers for _Snow Crash_.
Go back and reread the ending. Stepheson describes Raven getting into the
a car and making a getaway. Besides, if Raven _did die, everyone else
would have too (remember that nuke he's got?). Stepheson took Raven out
the only way he could, cripple him so he's no longer as much of a threat
(he can't go running around knifing people anymore).
And if he returns in a sequel, I see him as one of those lacadasical,
cat-stroking, James-Bond-type supervillains.
Hound
Marcus Hammerschmitt
afterwards has a press conference, saying: I didn't know that a
scalpel could possibly have such lasting effects. Your're yo
cute. Oppenheimer DID know that all of them at the manhattan
project would go down as assholes in human history, in fact he
SAID so, with the first mushroom still climbing the sky (don't
nail me down for the "assholes", he might have said "bastards"
or something similar). But don't let's get sidetracked. Still
wanna know something about the politics of Mr. Stephenson. Does
anybody know something about that?
The Troll
LAL
re <the bomb>
> If Harry S. wanted to impress the Russkies, why were there no Soviet
> Allied observers present at the Trinity test in July '45? Close in,
> say at G0 + 5 miles? Flash, bang, wallop...
<CLIP>
Since they weren't absolutely sure the fission bomb would work the first
time (the betting was that it would work, with minority betting that 1) it
would fizzle or 2) it would ignite fusion in the atmosphere wiping out the
planet) it was prudent not to have Soviet observers present.
For comparison recall the Livermore Lab's 1950s design that did fizzle,
barely melting the top of the tower, and that the "atmosperic ignition"
consideration came up again during initial thermonuclear tests.
(I've always thought that a quick $1m bet against "atmospheric ignition"
was a safe route to wealth - no chance you'd ever have to pay off.)
>
> P.S. I have worked on nuclear weapons design (in my youth,
> in a very minor capacity) and I never heard anyone I worked
> with call them "toys". They scared me then, they scare me now...
not just you
AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN AMEN
--
Standard disclaimers apply. Nobody here ever agrees with me on anything.
Scott Colvin Beeler
zi...@aol.com (Hound of Cullen) writes:
>Potential spoilers for _Snow Crash_.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Go back and reread the ending. Stepheson describes Raven getting into the
>a car and making a getaway. Besides, if Raven _did die, everyone else
>would have too (remember that nuke he's got?). Stepheson took Raven out
>the only way he could, cripple him so he's no longer as much of a threat
>(he can't go running around knifing people anymore).
Well, he didn't explicitly get Raven in the car. Chapter 70 ends with
the standoff between Raven and Enzo. The only thing else we get is a
pizza car tearing out of the airport, with the Mafia "in hot pursuit."
This is good enough for me though. They wouldn't "pursue" Enzo, and all
the other important Bad Guys got trashed on the jet, so it pretty much
has to be Raven. Also, the nuke is pretty compelling evidence (unless
it's a fake, which is highly unlikely).
I also think it's unlikely Raven killed Enzo though. Although Enzo was
losing blood fast, he did have his razor, and Raven was down a leg and
weaponless. Enzo probably would have blacked out pretty soon, but the
Mafia cavalry was coming and Raven's not stupid enough to hang around
for that.
>And if he returns in a sequel, I see him as one of those lacadasical,
>cat-stroking, James-Bond-type supervillains.
Ooh, nice image... "No, Mr. Protagonist, I expect you to die!"
Scott
Brian A. Reiter
Did anybody notice a satyrical similarity between L. Bob Rife and L. Ron
Hubbard? Rife's raft and Hubbard's fleet, hokey religions, etc. Stephenson
may be saying something unkind about Scientology.
Brian A. Reiter
bare...@iastate.edu
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." --Albert Einstein
Ross Smith
> >C. Chan <ch...@alfrothul.uchicago.edu> spake:
> >>Dylan Flynn Alexander <dy...@tamu.edu> wrote:
> >>>He doesn't actually kill Raven. I think you're reading too much into this,
> >>>in any case.
> >>
> >>Raven gets away in the pizza-tank, to return in a sequel doubtless.
> >
> > Where did anyone get this idea? It's not spelled out blood drop by blood
> >drop, but I thought it was clear Enzo kills him on the tarmac after blowing
> >away all of Raven's glass knives and pulling out his straight razor... It's
> >not like Raven can run away, now is it?
>
>
> There isn't any proof one way or the other. But ask yourself if you
> were NS, would you kill off a character like Raven? Leave a little
> loophole, just in case you want to write a sequel.
Surely the fact that the other characters are still alive proves Raven
is too? Remember why everyone was so respectful of him?
--
Ross Smith ........................................ Wellington, New Zealand
Home: <mailto:al...@netlink.co.nz> ... Work: <mailto:ross....@nz.eds.com>
"I keep my ear very close to the ground, and in consequence I listen to a
lot of dog crap." -- Alexei Sayle
Chris Jones
Reiter) wrote:
> Did anybody notice a satyrical similarity between L. Bob Rife and L. Ron
> Hubbard? Rife's raft and Hubbard's fleet, hokey religions, etc. Stephenson
> may be saying something unkind about Scientology.
>
Da, I always saw Rife as a cross between L. Ron Hubbard and H. Ross Perot.
Rife for President, anybody?
-Chris Jones
C. Chan
Hound of Cullen <zi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Potential spoilers for _Snow Crash_.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Go back and reread the ending. Stepheson describes Raven getting into the
>a car and making a getaway. Besides, if Raven _did die, everyone else
>would have too (remember that nuke he's got?). Stepheson took Raven out
>the only way he could, cripple him so he's no longer as much of a threat
>(he can't go running around knifing people anymore).
>
I've been thinking about the nuke. (Personally, I don't think
Hiro P. should've given up his dreams of being number 1 Badass
in the Whole Wide World. If a 10 megaton nuke is all you need,
considering the state of the Feds and probably the rest of
the world governments, nukes should be pretty easy to come by.)
The nuke is in Raven's sidecar, so where's the side car? He can't
lug it around. And was he still wired to it when taking some R&R
on board the Enterprise? Seems like something you'd turn off when
among friends or allies, no sense in having a heart attack and blowing
up your pals.
But I do think he's alive, nuke or no nuke.
>And if he returns in a sequel, I see him as one of those lacadasical,
>cat-stroking, James-Bond-type supervillains.
>
>Hound
>
I see him wielding harpoons with diamond blades this time...
Robert G. Buice, Jr
> Did anybody notice a satyrical similarity between L. Bob Rife and L. Ron
> Hubbard? Rife's raft and Hubbard's fleet, hokey religions, etc. Stephenson
> may be saying something unkind about Scientology.
>
>
> Brian A. Reiter
> bare...@iastate.edu
>
> "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." --Albert Einstein
That was one of those sublte literary comments where the author put large
neon signs on the page that flash "subtle comment on society here". Kurt
Vonnegut does this a lot.
--
Robert G. Buice,Jr supe...@pop.uky.edu
Analytical Spectroscopy Group Phone:(606) 257-5175
College of Pharmacy
University of Kentucky
PGP Key: http://kerouac.pharm.uky.edu/buice/rgbuice.html
Jan Besehanic
> Did anybody notice a satyrical similarity between L. Bob Rife and L. Ron
> Hubbard? Rife's raft and Hubbard's fleet, hokey religions, etc. Stephenson
> may be saying something unkind about Scientology.
Well, er, no, I didn't notice that. L. Bob Rife did remind me, however,
of John Malone, übercapo of TCI, inc. and alpha-male monopolist
extraordinaire.
There was no mention of whether or not L. Bob Rife had horns and hoofs,
though.
> "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education."
Amen.
--
But I'd rather be a free man in my grave
Than living as a puppet or a slave
- Jimmy Cliff
Robert G. Buice, Jr
wrote:
> Brian A. Reiter wrote:
> >
> > Did anybody notice a satyrical similarity between L. Bob Rife and L. Ron
> > Hubbard? Rife's raft and Hubbard's fleet, hokey religions, etc. Stephenson
> > may be saying something unkind about Scientology.
>
> I hadn't thought of that one; I suppose the fleet business does have a
> certain parallel. To me it was always obvious that L. Bob Rife was based
> on H. Ross Perot.
I never though for a second that L. Bob Rife could be andybody than L. R.
Hubbard, and certainly not H. Ross Perot. I don't see ANY similarity
there.
Ross Smith
>
> Did anybody notice a satyrical similarity between L. Bob Rife and L. Ron
> Hubbard? Rife's raft and Hubbard's fleet, hokey religions, etc. Stephenson
> may be saying something unkind about Scientology.
I hadn't thought of that one; I suppose the fleet business does have a
certain parallel. To me it was always obvious that L. Bob Rife was based
on H. Ross Perot.
--
Nancy Lebovitz
In article <4ko5m8$7...@opal.southwind.net>,
Jeff Stehman <ste...@jade.southwind.net> wrote:
>Rick Cook (rc...@BIX.com) wrote:
>: >
>: Surely you recognize can a troll when you see one?
>
>Can-a-troll. Is that anything like Spam?
>
but that's close enough for rasfw.
It's an excellent story.
Nancy Lebovitz (nan...@universe.digex.net)
12/95 updated calligraphic button catalogue available by email