Presenting evidence that the US had no military need to use nuclear weapons against Japan, because it already knew that Japan was looking for a way to surrender while saving face.

President Truman later said that he did believe, when he made the decision, that the only choices were bomb or invade.

I wonder whether he was aware that most high-ranking US generals said that Japan would surrender soon anyway. Were those views transmitted to him? Perhaps his advisors kept him away from that idea.

One argument in the first article is that the use of nuclear weapons made little difference to Japan's willingness to surrender, because non-nuclear bombing had done far more damage. If we accept that as valid, what are its full consequences? There were US generals at the time who said conventional (non-nuclear) bombing of cities was an atrocity.

*The Censorship of 'Cancel Culture' May Ultimately Be Most Dangerous for Social Justice Champions.*

*How fiberglass boats have become a global pollution problem.*

I wonder, do we know of any safe way to dispose of fiberglass boats?

Sri Lanka seems to be trying hard to let people vote despite Covid-19, but its president has been increasingly autocratic.

When his brother Mahinda Rajapaksa was president, he had his critics murdered, including the famous journalist Lasantha Wickramatunga, who forecast he would be murdered.

(satire) *White House officials reportedly breathed a sigh of relief Tuesday after Tropical Storm Isaias gave them a simple, run-of-the-mill hurricane relief effort to fuck up.*