Update no.713

Update from the Heartland

No.713

10.8.15 – 16.8.15

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

To all,

            The follow-up news items:

-- Eurozone finance ministers approved an €86B (US$96B) bailout for Greece [704, 707, 709].  The lifeline for Greece keeps the country in the Eurozone, and requires financial, economic and societal reforms to reduce the nation’s massive debt to at least a more manageable level.

            ‘Tis the season, it seems . . . at least according to the calendar and the “On This Date” reminiscences in various source materials and sites.  One of the great, perpetual, public policy debates has been and will remain President Truman’s decision to employ the newly proven technology of a nuclear fission weapon.  Offering adequate context for the President’s decision is difficult to properly present in a large, non-fiction book, so clearly impossible in a puny weekly Blog.  I offer three related opinions for your discerning review.

-- “Debating the Morality of Hiroshima”

by George Friedman

Strategic Forecasting, Inc. (StratFor)

Published: AUGUST 11, 2015 | 08:00 GMT

https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/debating-morality-hiroshima?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Gweekly&utm_campaign=20150811&utm_content=readmoretext&mc_cid=31f2dba74c&mc_eid=1178924adb

-- “The Real Reason America Dropped The Atomic Bomb. It Was Not To End The War”

by Arjun Walia

collective-evolution.com

Published: May 9, 2015

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/09/the-real-reason-america-dropped-the-atomic-bomb-it-was-not-to-end-the-war/

-- “The Bureaucrats Who Singled Out Hiroshima for Destruction – How committee meetings, memos, and largely arbitrary decisions ushered in the nuclear age

by Paul Ham

The Atlantic

Published: AUG 6, 2015

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/08/hiroshima-nagasaki-atomic-bomb-anniversary/400448/

Let us try to place this controversial decision into a broader context.  Germany had just surrendered unconditionally, and the Manhattan Project team carried out a pre-cursor, calibration test, detonating a 0.1 KT cube-pile of Composition B conventional explosive material [7.May.1945].  After ascending to the presidency on the sudden passing of Franklin Roosevelt just two months earlier [12.April.1945], President Truman reviewed and approved the plans for Operation DOWNFALL [18.June.1945] – the invasion of mainland Japan – and involved two major phases: Operation OLYMPIC – the invasion of Kyushu [preliminary D-Day: 1.November.1945] – and Operation CORONET – the invasion of Honshu, near Tokyo and the Kanto Plain [preliminary D-Day: 1.March.1946].  The casualty estimates included one million Allied (mostly U.S.) killed and wounded and two million Japanese men, women and children.  While Truman reviewed and approved the plans for DOWNFALL, Operation ICEBERG – the Battle of Okinawa – was still grinding on, having begun on 26.March.1945, against a fanatical, suicidal enemy that resulted in 12,500 U.S. killed plus 55,000 wounded (with 77,000 Japanese soldiers killed and an estimated 150,000 civilians killed).  The prospect of even more horrific casualties to subdue Japan cast a rather dark cloud over pending operations under DOWNFALL.  After all, 16 square miles of Tokyo had been destroyed in a single, massive raid by the B-29’s of the 20^th Air Force [10.March.1945], and still, the Japanese government did not budge.  The Allied TERMINAL conference opened in Potsdam, Germany, on Sunday, 15.July.1945, while on the following day, the Manhattan Project team detonated the 20KT Trinity fission device in Alamogordo, New Mexico, to prove the science and engineering of the potential weapon.  The Allies issued the Potsdam Proclamation [26.July.1945] that demanded the unconditional surrender of Japan and concluded, “The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction.”  We can argue whether that warning was clear enough given the enormity of change in warfare that the fission device represented.  The Japanese government responded with silence.  Two days later, Japanese newspapers reported the government had rejected the Allied demands (and ignored the warning).  The order to execute the nuclear attack was issued on 2.August.1945.  Even after the first attack, the Japanese government still rejected demands for their unconditional surrender.  Three days later, the second attack occurred.  It took another five days, the Emperor’s rare, personal intervention, and a nearly successful but failed coup d’état for the Japanese to finally submit to Allied demands.  Given the context, President Truman did what had to be done to end the war and save lives.  History has proven and validated President Truman’s courageous decision.  To me, the decision and action were clearly justified.  To this day, I would argue for employment of nuclear weapons should similar situations be presented.  Further, as long as potential adversaries maintain nuclear weapons, the United States must retain its deterrent capability.  So it is, so it shall be.

            This week’s Supreme Court review focuses on King v. Burwell [576 U.S. ___ (2015); no. 14-114] – the latest and hopefully the last judicial pronouncement on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) [PL 111-148; 124 Stat. 119; 23.March.2010] [432].  This 6-3 ruling was not a high point of judicial proclamations, either.              As I understand this case, the entire decision hangs upon one article in one sentence that appears a half dozen times throughout the PPACA law – “an Exchange established by the State under [42 U SC §18031].”  [emphasis added].  The majority rejected the challenge to the law.

            I will chalk up this lackluster decision to a rather silly wordsmithing debate – the specific article ‘the’ versus the general, non-specific article ‘a.’ and upper case State versus lower case state.  The specific article ‘the’ in combination with the capitalized ‘State’ cannot mean a single state or even group of states as a subset of the generalized, broad reference to government, i.e., ‘the State.’  In contrast, use of ‘a state’ would clearly mean any number of compliant states.  If PPACA was meant to apply only to states that created health insurance exchanges and not to those citizens in states that refused to create exchanges and thus had to resort to the Federal exchange, the law would have little practical meaning or value.  To defeat the tax credit application would be to emasculate PPACA, which hardly seems to be the intent of Congress.  I have already spent more time on this case than it deserves.  ‘Nuf said!

            News from the economic front:

-- The People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the People's Bank of China (PBC) devalued their tightly controlled currency, as the world's second-largest economy continues to sputter.  While the PBC actions are apparently moves toward a market-base, floating currency, international market had not expected the move and reacted negatively, at least in the short term.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.712:

“What other 777s have gone missing or have lost a flaperon that the flaperon in question could be attributed to?   If the answer is none, then cannot a conclusion be drawn that the flaperon in question came from MH370?”

My reply:

            Indeed!  That is the popular reasoning.

            However, it must be noted that there are also spare parts, work in progress parts, et cetera.  The usual data plate bonded to the exterior rib web is missing.   Until the found-item can be absolutely and positively identified as installed on that particular B777, we must be cautious not to ascribe more significance than is justified by the physical data.  One more observation, I am surprised at how little damage there is on that part.

 . . . a follow-up comment:

“Is it possible there are nefarious covert activities at work—the planting of 777 flaperons in the ocean, in the hope of being found and attributed to MH370 and its demise—such that the real MH370 can be loaded with who knows what and flown to a demise of evil intention?

“I will grant you the following:

• ·      Serial numbers/data plates should allow the matching of the flaperon to the specific aircraft known as MH370.
• ·      I would expect to see more structural damage to the flaperon—enough force damage to have torn the flaperon from its wing.

“    Do you suppose intelligence gathering a la satellite imaging, etc., is continuing with trying to locate an intact MH370 on the ground somewhere in some remote location?”

      . . . my follow-up response:

John,

            Good Q’s.

            Re: “Is it possible there are nefarious covert activities at work?”  Possible, but to my knowledge, there is no evidence to even remotely suggest such a scenario.  I certainly could build a hypothetical like that into a plausible event.

            Re: “serial numbers.”  The normal external data plate for a major component like a flaperon would present the necessary identifying information.  However, as I said, the data plate is missing.  There are other assembly numbers contained inside.  Some of those might be accessible via a borescope, but I suspect disassembly will be required, and the investigators will not (or should not) do any alteration until all assembled tests have been completed and exhausted.

            Re: “damage.”  Ripping a flaperon from its place on the wing would leave substantial, definitive damage, e.g., twisting, distorting, fracturing of the metal components.  I’ve not seen the underside . . . where the attachments are.  Also, the damage to the trailing edge could be from other causes, e.g., environmental.

            Re: “Do you suppose intelligence gathering a la satellite imaging, . . . ground somewhere in some remote location?”  I have little doubt the IC professionals who do such work these days have been and will remain vigilant for any B777 size object that might appear in an unexpected location.

My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                        :-)