In May 2008, I made the following comment on CT

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: In May 2008, I made the following comment on CT

With all due respect to those in this thread, please consider the following:

1) Japan was very close to surrendering when the atomic weapon was dropped on Hiroshima. They would have surrendered regardless perhaps withing 48 hours; perhaps not. The Americans did not know if Japan had decided to surrender when the bomb dropped but they surely knew the Japanese were defeated and it was just a matter of time.

The US had other aims in bombing civilians. I've listed two key ones above. A little known fact is that the use of nuclear weapons on the helpless civilians of Hiroshima was the most studied bombing in history, before or since. The US wanted to know how "effective" the new weapon was.

2) The dropping of an atomic weapon on Hiroshima and Nagasaki constitute War Crimes as understood by today's standards. So too were the fire bombings of Dresden. So too were the attacks, by the Germans, on London. The fact is civilian populations were often and regularly targets.

This draws attention to the lack of prosecution of war crimes in the Pacific theatre. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were too large to ignore, or try to keep secret, and would have meant that the victors might also be prosecuted. This could not be allowed, not then, not ever. So the strange fact of no prosecution of the many obvious Japanese war crimes. The truth is that to this very day it is official US military doctrine that no outside body shall be allowed to prosecute US soldiers for war crimes and such offenses. They view themselves as above international law. Literally.

3) There was undoubtedly racism against the Japanese in the United States. But anti-Japanese sentiments aren't necessarily racist. Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, without declaring war. This was considered a grave crime in itself, even by some Japanese military. Japan's Prisoner of War camps committed both war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Except that it was racist because they interned into US (and Canadian) concentration camps Japanese-Americans who were loyal to the USA anyway. Why? Please explain. And tell David Suzuki, while you're at it, why it wasn't racist that his family was put into such camps in Canada.

4) The use of the atomic weapon on Hiroshima may possibly have sped up the Japanese surrender. It is clear, the second such usage on Nagasaki, sped this surrender process up. This may well have saved American lives - surely at a great cost in Japanese civilian lives. This is a prime responsibility of the American govt and it's President. A quicker ending to the war likely saved the lives of American soldiers.

This is the key claim and it is simply false. As Henri Nouwen put it, “The thought that human beings are considering saving lives by killing millions of their fellow human beings is so preposterous that the words 'saving life' have lost all of their meaning."

Furthermore, the justification of the use of nuclear weapons, on civilians as well as military targets, provides a basis for using them in the future. Again, current US military doctrine specifically includes the use of nuclear weapons as a first-strike option. No other country, not even Stalinist Russia, had such a doctrine. This is still US doctrine, by the way.

5) Japan may well have had some kind of biological weapons plan - but the point is irrelevant. Japan, by this time, had no fleet, and no means of delivering such weapons onto US soil.

6) It is believed the USSR planned to invade Japan. The Americans did not want this to happen. This is an alleged other reason for the use of atomic weapons.

I've not come across this claim before now. AFAIK, the Soviets had militarily defeated the bulk of the remaining Japanese army in the August War in Manchuria. As a result, the strategic rear of the Japanese was completely vulnerable. The Soviets had made treaties on both sides (with the Germans in 1939 and with Japan at another time) to ensure that they would not face wars on two fronts ... something the western countries (Churchill, eg) were keen to see. So the non-Soviet allies had to persuade the Soviets to join the war in the Pacific in order to defeat Japan; they successfully did so. The role of the Soviets in this war is even less know than the "Unknown War" (see Burt Lancaster's TV series).

7) Increasingly the USSR was being seen as a big threat and not an ally. The goings on in central Europe only served to support this view, as half the continent fell to Soviet rule. The use of atomic weapons some believe was a message to the Soviets.

Yes, this was the 2nd reason I noted above. After the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, what was not know at the time was that the USA had used up their supply of nuclear weapons for some time and could not quickly deliver a bomb anywhere. But the Soviets didn't know that.

Summary: The attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki can be called "unnecessary" in the sense that surrender would have happened anyway. But leaving it at that, is simply inadequate. As I said above, when would this surrender have happened? How many more Americans would have otherwise died? Would the Soviets have invaded? Would the surrender have been as unconditional as the one Macarthur negotiated and then implemented? For all these reasons, and I'm sure many others, the case for and against the use of atomic weapons here isn't quite so black and white. Regardless, it will count as a horrible chapter in history. Let's hope such weapons aren't used again against anyone.

When the past use of nuclear weapons on civilians are presented as legitimate, it provides a basis for their use in the future. This is partly why the argument is made in official circles in the USA despite the general agreement by scholars, including US scholars, that the bombing was unnecessary. You may be aware that in conflict situations the US Presidents are in the habit of saying that "all options are on the table". This refers to the use of weapons like nuclear weapons.

However, as William Shirer put it in his justly famous book ...

In our new age of terrifying, lethal gadgets, which supplanted so swiftly the old one, the first great aggressive war, if it should come, will be launched by suicidal little madmen pressing an electronic button. Such a war will not last long and none will ever follow it. There will be no conquerors and no conquests, but only the charred bones of the dead on and uninhabited planet.

from The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany

[Ken Craft]

Re: In May 2008, I made the following comment on CT

There were prosecutions in the Pacific theatre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...r_the_Far_East

[Nigel Hanrahan]

prosecution?

There were prosecutions in the Pacific theatre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interna...r_the_Far_East

It took me 5 seconds to discover the following criticism ...

This tribunal was only to punish powerless common persons.

The Emperor and his family were immune from prosecution, as were many others. The US in particular had other fish to fry. They were starting a new, Cold War right after the hot one.

[Jeff Verman]

Re: In May 2008, I made the following comment on CT

Responding:

1) You've suggested racism was a reason for the use of atomic weapons. While I acknowledged without a doubt the existence of racism, I have not agreed that racism was part of the equation of the use of the weapons. Internment camps were clearly partly motivated by straightforward racism. This isn't open to question. These camps existed in the United States and in Canada. I'm unaware of any evidence to suggest the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki were done for reasons other than what I've stated. I partially agree that the US wanted to see the impact of these new weapons as well. It's not like they didn't have a good idea of what to expect though....

2) People on all sides of the war evaded prosecution for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. The bombing of civilian London and other places in England fits the bill here just fine. This raises another obvious point in this discussion - the Axis powers engaged in War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity first; much more frequently; and with a ferocity nearly unimaginable. In a war, the will to play by the rules, when the other side personifies evil, can easily dissipate.

3) Let's also remember that weapons, then, lacked the precision of today's weapons. This is why these moral notions are ever evolving.

4) Yes - the US is not happy to submit itself to International Law. Their reasoning, though, is a little less blatant that the picture you paint. The US sees itself as a target where some might attack and then attempt to hide behind International Law as a means of protection. Recall also, Americans have a particular desire for complete independence from the rest of the world. This existed far before WW2. No country, though, is happy to submit its rulers to International Law procedures.

5) Worries about Soviet intentions were a constant theme. Stalin was viewed as an unreliable devil. Here's one link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable

Please note the concern Churchill has for a Soviet attack on Britain. Please also note that the US was preparing to invade Japan. It is unthinkable that such an invasion would have not resulted in the loss of lives for many American soldiers.

On July 26th, the Americans put out a declaration spelling out what Unconditional Surrender meant, and demanding it. On July 27th, Japan decided to ignore the declaration, treating it with official silence. It was clear to all the Americans were about to invade. Although the US did not specifically threaten an atomic attack, they did specifically threaten "prompt and utter destruction". This was a clear warning of something - but in war - all sides issue threats all the time.

But there was no doubt here. The US was planning to invade Japan (which would have killed many many more people - including many US soldiers) if Japan didn't capitulate. The US was prepared to invade within hours (or a few days) of the atomic attacks. They, by now, did not think Japan would surrender unconditionally.

By the time of the attack on Hiroshima, Japan had not agreed to an unconditional surrender. The Japanese were sophisticated enough to know atomic weapons were very hard to build - and even after Hiroshima, they weren't entirely convinced that this was such an attack. They also thought that if it were such an attack, they probably couldn't repeat - these weapons were too hard to build. Still no surrender. The Americans anticipated this - and attacked Nagasaki in preparation for the invasion.

Here were Truman's words: "Having found the bomb we have used it. We have used it against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor, against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans."

On August 9, even after the attack on Nagasaki, the Japanese govt. could not agree to surrender unconditionally. It is believed a third attack was planned for later that month - against Tokyo. By August 14, Truman directed a large attack against Japan due to the lack of surrender - and new concerns of a Japanese counter-attack.

Here is one interesting article on the motivations for Japanese surrender. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/id...der/?page=full

But my own point is/was a small one. A US invasion of Japan would surely have seen many Americans dead. Saving lives of Americas has got to be a motivation for the US govt. And Truman states this explicitly. How can you disagree?

3. The US could have had another bomb within 3 weeks.

4. Please understand, I have not argued that attacking civilians is "legitimate". I've attempted to state facts clearly and to put them into context. Guided missiles, that can turn at street corners did not exist then. When you're getting attacked - your civilians literally being invaded, tortured, bombed, etc., the tendency is to strike back with everything you can as quickly as you can - and the rules go out the window. The goal is to understand the attack, the multiple motivations for the attack, as well as the aftermath.

5. I'm well aware of the dangers of nuclear war and nuclear deterrence. Throughout history there are cases, though, where inaction was the wrong choice. Chamberlain's appeasement; American reluctance to enter the war - both ended up costing us many lives.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: prosecution?

To bring this back on topic, this has to be considered when ranking the U.S. presidents from worst to best. Truman is, in my opinion, up there with the worst.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

reply

Responding:

1) You've suggested racism was a reason for the use of atomic weapons. While I acknowledged without a doubt the existence of racism, I have not agreed that racism was part of the equation of the use of the weapons. Internment camps were clearly partly motivated by straightforward racism. This isn't open to question. These camps existed in the United States and in Canada. I'm unaware of any evidence to suggest the bombing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki were done for reasons other than what I've stated. I partially agree that the US wanted to see the impact of these new weapons as well. It's not like they didn't have a good idea of what to expect though....

Racism was used as a means to motivate the citizenry, including the soldiers. The Japanese were demonized in order to justify killing them. Contrast this with the anti-Nazi propaganda. There were no claims, as there were with anti-Japanese propaganda, that Germans were "inferior" or any of the other odious racist terms that I won't bother repeating. Racism wasn't just in the air; it was deliberately used to motivate.

2) People on all sides of the war evaded prosecution for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. The bombing of civilian London and other places in England fits the bill here just fine. This raises another obvious point in this discussion - the Axis powers engaged in War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity first; much more frequently; and with a ferocity nearly unimaginable. In a war, the will to play by the rules, when the other side personifies evil, can easily dissipate.

This reads like a high school essay. The Nuremburg Tribunal made it clear that those who could be identified as causing the war bore the consequences for the outcomes, such as 55 million dead. In any case, "evil" is a religious term, not a legal or ethical one, and has no place in legal arguments. You're welcome to make a religious argument but you then lose all those who don't share your religious views.

3) Let's also remember that weapons, then, lacked the precision of today's weapons. This is why these moral notions are ever evolving.

This is just silly. If you don't know the accuracy of your weapons, and civilians can be killed, then you are still responsible for killing civilians even if you didn't "mean to". When the USA bombed Belgrade in 1999 and killed people in the Chinese Embassy "by accident", this was a crime. It was, however, a crime that was unpunished, and still remains so.

4) Yes - the US is not happy to submit itself to International Law. Their reasoning, though, is a little less blatant that the picture you paint. The US sees itself as a target where some might attack and then attempt to hide behind International Law as a means of protection. Recall also, Americans have a particular desire for complete independence from the rest of the world. This existed far before WW2. No country, though, is happy to submit its rulers to International Law procedures.

No other country has such a doctrine as the US. Not one subscribes to the "right" to use nuclear weapons, nor says, in advance, that they will not abide by International Bodies that find Merricans guilty of war crimes. They are in a class by themselves.

5) Worries about Soviet intentions were a constant theme. Stalin was viewed as an unreliable devil. Here's one link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable

Please note the concern Churchill has for a Soviet attack on Britain. Please also note that the US was preparing to invade Japan. It is unthinkable that such an invasion would have not resulted in the loss of lives for many American soldiers.

Churchill was much more famous for his role in attacking Russia after the events of 1917. He was a key player in the development of the Cold War. I don't know where you got this Sov attack on the UK but serious scholarship doesn't treat the feverish fantasies of cold warriors with the same respect as you do. Maybe you could cite a source for some of the more outlandish claims.

By the time of the attack on Hiroshima, Japan had not agreed to an unconditional surrender.

This had lots to do with making the Emperor immune from being forced from his position or prosecuted for War Crimes. The US agreed.

Repeating Truman's lies doesn't make them true. No serious scholars agree with this crap anymore.

But my own point is/was a small one. A US invasion of Japan would surely have seen many Americans dead. Saving lives of Americas has got to be a motivation for the US govt. And Truman states this explicitly. How can you disagree?

By virtue of the defeat in the strategic rear. The Japanese were beat, they knew it; what they wanted was to be able to retain the monarchy or royal family - something that suited the US just fine.

Again, repeating what is now accepted as a falsehood doesn't make it true.

3. The US could have had another bomb within 3 weeks.

Source, please.

4. Please understand, I have not argued that attacking civilians is "legitimate". I've attempted to state facts clearly and to put them into context. Guided missiles, that can turn at street corners did not exist then. When you're getting attacked - your civilians literally being invaded, tortured, bombed, etc., the tendency is to strike back with everything you can as quickly as you can - and the rules go out the window. The goal is to understand the attack, the multiple motivations for the attack, as well as the aftermath.

The US was never in danger of an invasion. This is a non-sequitor.

5. I'm well aware of the dangers of nuclear war and nuclear deterrence. Throughout history there are cases, though, where inaction was the wrong choice. Chamberlain's appeasement; American reluctance to enter the war - both ended up costing us many lives.

This jives very nicely with the ideology of "shoot first, ask questions later". Again, killing hundreds of thousands of people can never be used as some means to "saving lives". It's self-evidently wrong, and, to use your own term, evil.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: prosecution?

To bring this back on topic, this has to be considered when ranking the U.S. presidents from worst to best. Truman is, in my opinion, up there with the worst.

Obama is now less popular than any other living US President.

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans view each of the four former living presidents more positively than negatively, while giving Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush higher favorable ratings than George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter. Current President Barack Obama has a net-negative favorable rating.

GAllop poll

[Gary Ruben]

Re: prosecution?

Obama is now less popular than any other living US President.

I think it's a bit early to be making such a popularity rating. One has to consider Carter and Bush Sr. were only able to win one presidential election. Obama has won twice. In the U.S. it appears an incumbent has to be pretty unpopular not to be given a second term.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: reply

The US was never in danger of an invasion. This is a non-sequitor.

Don't forget the Aleutian Islands. Part of Alaska.

[Jeff Verman]

Re: reply

Okay. I'll respond a bit - and not in order.

1. You wanted a source about my claim that the US was preparing a further atomic attack and would be ready in a few weeks. Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrend...Japanese_reply

2. You confuse using racism to motivate the public with the reasoning behind using an atomic weapon. I've granted you - not that this needed pointing out - that there was racism against the Japanese - the unprecedented and illegal and immoral attack on Pearl Harbour being a big cause of this. But this doesn't get you what you claimed - that it was part of the rationale of the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

3. The foundations on International Law are based on a (particularly Western) view of morality and value. Law, as properly understood, is the stuff of nations and their corresponding governments. That there are International Laws on War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity is due to what many hope are straightforward universal moral principles. Many countries flaunt International Law, contrary to your claim - recent cases include Israel and Zimbabwe. Serbia, Vietnam and other countries provide a long list of an unwillingness to abide to International Law. As we speak, many nations, including the US have accused the Russians of violating International Law. International Law is an umbrella with wide coverage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_law

4. The ability to control accuracy with weapons is crucial. You're wrong - bombing a munitions plant and having one bomb miss is not the same thing as bombing a civilian apartment building deliberately. You may find this point silly, but Americans, in attacking Germany, targeted every conceivable militarily significant location repeatedly time and time again. The Germans felt no such need for restraint, bombing military and civilian targets. The civilian targets were chosen to demoralize.

The Allied side becomes murky with the firebombing of Dresden. Even here, the Americans claim much of Dresden was a military target. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing...n_World_War_II. Clearly, though, we slide into the view that civilians are being targeted.

5. I won't even try to respond to you claim about Churchill and what he was famous for.

6. I've cited facts; articles. I've quoted. You're telling me about serious scholars and cited what, exactly?

7. The US was not in danger of being invaded. France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Britain - they were in such danger - and in fact were invaded.

8. Even until the moment of surrender, many key individuals in the Japanese govt. and military were opposed to surrender, preferring more destruction. One of the links I've given you also claims the Japanese weren't all overly concerned about the casualties from the atomic attacks.

9. I've cited two links - one, that Churchill was gravely concerned about a Soviet invasion; b) that the Soviets entering the war was a big part of the the unconditional surrender.

10. Ultimately, the Americans were actually amazingly good at accurately targeting locations of military significance. The ability for Japan to wage war, by the end, was almost zero. We know this in retrospect. Couldn't have been known at the time of the war.

11. Yes - when conditions are horrific, policies of "shoot first, and ask questions later" come into play. I'm hoping you don't find yourself in such conditions. It's not self-evidently wrong. It's a common occurrence when conditions change and there is no rule of law. This is Thomas Hobbes' point Leviathan. In a state of Nature it is a war of all against all. You're in a trench and can see the shadowy figures of people approaching from where the enemy was. You shoot. You empty your gun.

12. On quoting Truman: Repeating it doesn't make it true. Assuming this shows it is false is just bad reasoning. You've simply evaded the point about the cost in American lives of an invasion.

13. Let's use a metaphor: Debating is war. And with war, as you point out, there is International Law. Similarly with debate. The first rule of International Debating Law is that name-calling and labelling is tantamount to losing. "Reads like a high school essay", "just silly" is equivalent, in debating, to surrender. It's tantamount to losing, unless you do it well. And you didn't. You cite unnamed scholars; I cited actual links. You argue black and white. I've argued shades of gray. You always assume, in my words, the worst possible position - at one point calling my claim a non sequitur (note the spelling) because US was not in danger of invasion. Of course, the allies involved more countries than the US and you have to be aware of the many countries invaded by the Germans (and Japanese) in WW2. Assuming I was talking about the US only is using a fallacious straw-man argument. You, of course, have the right to view my position as nothing more than silly or high school-like. And if so, you won't find the need to respond.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

replies etc

... you won't find the need to respond.

Mostly. However to re-iterate: there aren't any serious scholars who support the fictional claim that the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki somehow "saved" lives. It is generally agreed that the use of these horrific weapons on hundreds of thousands of people - many of whom were vaporized in an instant - was motivated by: racist views, post-war positioning, a rich source of data about using such terrible weapons on defenseless human beings, Truman's political fortunes domestically and the need to justify the enormous sums spent on the Manhatten Project, and, well, practice. You can quote politicians, and other liars, till the cows come home, but if you want to convince serious people you have to refute what is generally accepted as true. You haven't done that.

Oliver Stone made use of some recent American scholarship on his research. Here is a link if you are interested.

Oliver Stone: why the USA was wrong to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[Paul Bonham]

Re: reply

13. Let's use a metaphor: Debating is war. And with war, as you point out, there is International Law. Similarly with debate. The first rule of International Debating Law is that name-calling and labelling is tantamount to losing. "Reads like a high school essay", "just silly" is equivalent, in debating, to surrender. It's tantamount to losing, unless you do it well. And you didn't. You cite unnamed scholars; I cited actual links. You argue black and white. I've argued shades of gray. You always assume, in my words, the worst possible position - at one point calling my claim a non sequitur (note the spelling) because US was not in danger of invasion. Of course, the allies involved more countries than the US and you have to be aware of the many countries invaded by the Germans (and Japanese) in WW2. Assuming I was talking about the US only is using a fallacious straw-man argument. You, of course, have the right to view my position as nothing more than silly or high school-like. And if so, you won't find the need to respond.

Hi Jeff,

Since you are relatively new here, I thought I'd help you out. Like you, I do believe in these rules of conduct and resolution in debating. But this is ChessTalk, otherwise knows as the Wild West. Such rules go out the window daily.

I've debated almost everyone here on ChessTalk, and I haven't found my match yet going by commonly accepted rules such as you describe. But there are many here who believe in the rule of the Last Word. You know that one: whoever gets the last word wins.

I see Nigel has already responded to your post, and as you can see, he shows utter disrespect to such rules. You did defeat him, any "serious scholar" would agree, but he ironically comes back with the serious scholars all on his side! And there's not a thing you can do about it.

It's too bad ChessTalk doesn't have a 'debate moderator'. Nigel Hanrahan would not even come close to qualifying for that, but then again, Larry Bevand who owns this site might appoint him.

Just to give you further insight into Nigel Hanrahan, our 'moderator', take a look at this thread:

http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/show...highlight=Rail

It starts off all nice and innocent, and Nigel hijacks it to spew his hatred for 'neo-liberals' and their deregulation. And yes, I mean hatred, in the strongest terms. Then he and Garland Best, an excellent debater in his own right, got into it over a train disaster in Quebec.

Nigel ends this by providing evidence of his claims that government deregulation led to the train disaster. And what is that evidence? It's an OP-ED!

Obviously the author of the op-ed had Nigel's viewpoint. But the only fact stated in the op-ed was this: "10 months after disaster struck the town of Lac-Mégantic, Québec government prosecutors laid criminal charges against three front-line employees of Montréal Maine and Atlantic Railway (MMA)".

So in support of his view, Nigel posts an op-ed which says there will be a trial against railway employees for criminal negligence. And then, of course, the author goes into a tirade that attempts to blackball the railways and the government together as totally responsible for the disaster.

None of what the author writes would be admissible in court. It's all high-handed opinion masquerading as fact. I was shocked that Garland Best let Nigel get away with this. Well, maybe Garland has better things to do than argue with... oh, I better stop there, Nigel will censor me.

Yes, that's another thing you should know. Nigel will censor you the more you disagree with him. He's been told he does this by many posters, most recently Roger Patterson (another very wise poster here IMO).

Recently Nigel censored a post by Sasha Starr as being innappropriate for childern, who do read posts here. But Nigel himself has posted equally vitriolic stuff that spew hatred and could equally influence such children to hate, and I mean HATE, all neo-liberals. That would be ok in Nigel's view.

Welcome to the Wild West, where might makes right. Nigel has the final authority and isn't afraid to use it to his advantage.

[Nigel Hanrahan]

Re: reply

lol. Still stinging from some well-deserved thumping you received? Poor widdle neo-liberal apologist. The litany of bitter grievances is particularly touching.

You're welcome to contribute to the "debate" Paul, but try to stick to the topic, huh, and refrain from character assassination, kay?


Yeah, I know. Thuggish moderator intervention.

[Garland Best]

Re: reply

I'm not sure it's worth the effort, but for reference, here is the result of a Senate study into rail safety matters (http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Co...p12aug13-e.pdf). I'll quote the relevant passages:
"I. Rail Safety Statistics
Until the Lac-Mégantic disaster, the overall safety record of cargo transportation by rail had been improving. From 2003 to 2012, train accidents in Canada declined by 25% and main track derailments decreased by 60%. Accidents involving dangerous goods have also been trending downward. In 2012, there were 118 accidents involving dangerous goods, a 48% decline from 2003."

[Nigel Hanrahan]

small consolation

... the overall safety record of cargo transportation by rail had been improving.

That's small consolation for the families of the people horrifically incinerated in downtown Lac-Mégantic, don't you agree?

I've already posted the following on the relevant thread but you seem to have missed it. Campbell has made very compelling arguments and the only reply I see is some reference to the market idolatry of the Fraser Institute in which it is pointed out that pipelines are allegedly safer. (What happens in the pristine waters of BC is beyond the scope of such studies, I suppose. But it is not beyond the scope of the people of BC.) None of Campbell's points have been addressed in that thread.

Did you want to continue the debate there or over here in an unrelated thread?


Lac-Mégantic: Suppressing the Truth Behind Regulatory Failure

en Français