比较OCaml和Haskell的开发效率

为了比较OCaml和Haskell，这位blogger在3个月内用这两种语言各自实现了一个编译器（从EasyLanguage到C#）,结论是OCaml获胜，按作者的话：“OCaml is the practical Haskell.”

clipped from wagerlabs.com Who let the dogs out? May 26th, 2007 Why Ocaml? Why not Haskell? I'll list the pros and contras below, in no particular order. I'll write up a summary first, for those of you not interested in reading the whole post. Tenerife Skunkworks

计算机语言家族树

推荐编程nerd们珍藏这张图。语言的历史沿革，亲缘关系是一目了然，图里还藏着不少八卦.

clipped from www.digibarn.com

Ocaml资源补遗：OCaml! My Caml!

一个介绍OCaml的Presentation，可能太短了，几个Ocaml资源站上都没有收这个的link。今天上午写了一个Eratosthenes筛法的OCaml程序，想搜索看看有没有更好的实现，结果看见了这个简介里的实现（关于筛法，它给了 Imperative approach和 Functional approach两种实现……但我还是比较喜欢我自己的两次尾递归方案，多出来的一次是因为没有用标准库的List.filter）

clipped from youngbloods.org OCaml! my Caml! A brief introduction to Objective Categorical Abstract Machine Language by Kats Rogo and Carl Youngblood

2007语义技术大会——谁还关心语义网？

看到一条新闻，2007 Semantic Technology Conference（2007 语义技术大会），发现出席者里不乏业界大公司，但说真的，谁还关心语义网？



Semantic Web（语义网），Ontology（本体论），Personal Agent(个人代理)，Multi-Agent System（多代理系统）....这些概念从90年代末起就在学术圈里名声遐迩，被教授们看作解决当前Web信息发现瓶颈难题的救星，是下一代WEB的关键技术，等等..什么是语义网？最简单的说法，就是网页上将不再只有有人能理解的自然语言，还将补充各种机器能理解的语义信息。（毕竟让机器理解汉语或英语在可预见的将来还是高难度的任务）在一个充满语义信息的网络上，无需理解人类语言这种高难度技能，机器Agent就能为人做很多事，学术界为语义网设想了大量充满未来色彩的应用场景，但可惜建构语义数据是开销巨大的生意（会OWL的知识工程师只怕比会Haskell的程序员还稀有），语义网也就从没实用过。



眼看着Web 2.0被Start-ups和VC们喊得震天响，这个2.0版的web里却完全没有ontology，没有agent，当然更没有语义网什么事。当初Tim Berners-Lee（这位不用介绍吧，就是他发明的Web）可是在W3C上宣布语义网是下一代Web的. 自Berners-Lee提出这个设想起，语义网就被看作下一代web，但它不幸走上了知识工程的长征路，眼看接近胜利的时候，社区的人际传播网络加强版突然就红了，然后现在说起web 2.0，业界想到的是blog，rss，tag，AJAX, SNS社区，学术界继续默默的向电子商务推销自己被冷落的语义技术，希望能找到应用场合。看看这次2007语义技术大会的出席者，有Stanford，NASA, US Air Force这些研究单位，有 Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Sun, Google这些IT巨头，有Walmart. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Ford Motors这些工商业巨头，呵呵，就是没有那些火热的web 2.0 新贵。这对一个声称是下一代网络核心技术的会议来说实在有些讽刺。



难道语义网要成商用技术？只能说太可惜了。现在的tags和OWL比起来，连玩具都不是。



最后推荐Tim Berners-Lee在W3C发布的一个关于Web Science的Presentation. The Two Magics of Web Science

尝试一个不错的新服务：clipmarks

支持从网页中随意选取需要保存的段落: save，email，blog，print....下面这段就是从clipmarks.com摘取下来的，呵呵，用起来很方便啊

clipped from clipmarks.com Save your clips privately or add them to the public library Use ClipSearch to find what you or others have clipped Post clips directly to your blog with Clip-to-Blog™ Email clips to your friends Print just the pieces of the page you want Watch the demo on the right to see how it works, or keep reading to learn more... Watch the demo

Powered by ScribeFire.

历史的扭曲和矫正，以及对矫正的扭曲。

中国互联网容易让我有尼采所谓永劫回归的错觉，一个新警察把一篇老帖子发上网后，必然不会缺少热心人将心目中的好文四处转贴。这次的“好文”就是我上一篇博客所提到的“美国空军少将查尔斯.斯文尼在国会听证会上的演讲”，

关于老帖子。这篇文章事实上可以追溯到2002年，是北京青年报所登载的《“原子杀手”的证词》，并注明“吕广祥编译”。

关于新警察。这篇文章在2007年5月29日再次出现在新浪网的萨苏博客上，然后被热心人大量转贴到各个网络论坛和博客上。我也是在某google group看到转载文才知道这篇老帖子又一次被炒热了。

Charles W. Sweeney少将当初的慷慨陈词是为了纠正被日本少数人所扭曲的历史观念，（他是为了说明当年这两颗原子弹对于结束战争的必要）但这篇文章漂洋过海而来，却没有避免被扭曲和利用的命运。

扭曲的始作俑者应该是“编译者”吕广祥，对照原文看下译文，你就会发现现在被四处转载的所谓“全文”被删了不少，提到美国是个自由世界的段落删了，并列中国和满洲的时候把满洲删了，提到斯大林滥杀的段落也被删了，ok，这些删除是为了政治因素，可以理解。可吕广祥还巧妙的删改了结尾，吕版翻译的结尾最后一句是：

"由于德国和日本法西斯被击败，世界变得更好了 证词结束。"

事实上，证词没有结束，后面还有一大段。
The world is a better place because German and Japanese fascism failed to conquer the world.
Japan and Germany are better places because we were benevolent in our victory.
The youth of Japan and the United States, spared from further needless slaughter, went on to live and have families and grow old.……
因为德国和日本法西斯没有能征服世界，世界变得更好了。（吕版翻译结束在这里）
因为我们宽厚于我们的胜利，日本和德国变得更好了，日本和美国的年轻人，免除了更多不必要的杀戮，去继续生活，建立家庭并进入老年。……(后面还有一个段落，感兴趣的去参考原文,我第三次提供这个链接:P)
很显然，Sweeney少将所抱持的对日本普通人的宽恕和同情并不为译者所理解。结尾被改了，文章中许多微妙的语气被翻译得相反了。Sweeney少将认为投下原子弹的必要性是为了尽早结束这场残酷的战争，也被扭曲成了投下原子弹是因为日本人活该。是的，从每一个转载者的留言里我们都能发现这样的判断：日本人挨原子弹活该。而且这活该还是一个美国少将帮他们说的。于是这篇文章红了。而原文里对日本人民的同情和人民群众这种朴素的幸灾乐祸是多么格格不入，于是译者体贴的做了适当的修正，包括让结尾嘎然而止在让“日本和德国变得更好”之前。
总之，对战争的悲悯，在中国被扭曲了，成了此起彼伏的“活该”，兴奋的人们转载这篇文章，为了证明日本人是活该被炸上两颗原子弹的。

最后我要指出，萨苏先生为这篇帖子所写的引言矫情到了罔顾事实的地步，当然了，这也未尝不可看作某种独特的幽默效果。萨苏这样形容这位Charles W. Sweeney少将, 他写到

"他的演讲正如他的身份，让我们仿佛看到一个身穿旧卡其布军服，手持步枪，老练而坚定地走过一片地雷原的老兵。"

这是在开玩笑吗？Mr.Sweeney从入伍到退休都是养尊处优的空军军官，当他在国会发表这个演讲的时候他已经是少将了。让他去干步兵趟地雷阵，你肯美国空军还不肯。把一个少将说成抱着步枪的普通老兵听起来更高尚？矫情矫到这份上，不做央视主持人可惜了。

美国空军少将查尔斯.斯文尼在国会听证会上的演讲原文

这位美国空军少将因为是参与投掷两颗原子弹的唯一人而成名，他于1995年5月11日参加了美国国会的一次特别听证会，少将先生在会上所发表证词的删改版以全本的名义在中文互联网上成了被不断转载的热门文章，这篇的原文却无法google，幸好能在美国国会图书馆的存档里找到，现在下面是Charles W. Sweeney此次演讲的原文：

补充信息1：
美国国会May 11,1995当天的全部听证会记录，其中包括Charles W. Sweeney参加的那一场

补充信息2：
可以在google book中收藏的美国国会听证记录中检索Charles W. Sweeney此次演讲的片段。但google book不提供全文。链接

Fulltext of Charles W. Sweeney's Hearing Before the Committee:
I am Maj. Gen. Charles W. Sweeney, United States Air Force, Retired. I am the only pilot to have flown on both atomic missions. I flew the instrument plane on the right wing of General Paul Tibbets on the Hiroshima mission and 3 days later, on August 9, 1945, commanded the second atomic mission over Nagasaki. Six days after Nagasaki the Japanese military surrendered and the Second World War came to an end.
The soul of a nation, its essence, is its history. It is that collective memory which defines what each generation thinks and believes about itself and its country.
In a free society, such as ours, there is always an ongoing debate about who we are and what we stand for. This open debate is in fact essential to our freedom. But to have such a debate we as a society must have the courage to consider all of the facts available to us. We must have the courage to stand up and demand that before any conclusions are reached, those facts which are beyond question are accepted as part of the debate.
As the 50th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki missions approaches, now is an appropriate time to consider the reasons for Harry Truman's order that these missions be flown. We may disagree on the conclusion, but let us at least be honest enough to agree on basic facts of the time, the facts that President Truman had to consider in making a difficult and momentous decision.
As the only pilot to have flown both missions, and having commanded the Nagasaki mission, I bring to this debate my own eyewitness account of the times. I underscore what I believe are irrefutable facts, with full knowledge that some opinion makers may cavalierly dismiss them because they are so obvious - because they interfere with their preconceived version of the truth, and the meaning which they strive to impose on the missions.
This evening, I want to offer my thoughts, observations, and conclusions as someone who lived this history, and who believes that President Truman's decision was not only justified by the circumstances of his time, but was a moral imperative that precluded any other option.
Like the overwhelming majority of my generation the last thing I wanted was a war. We as a nation are not warriors. We are not hell-bent on glory. There is no warrior class - no Samurai - no master race.
This is true today, and it was true 50 years ago.
While our country was struggling through the great depression, the Japanese were embarking on the conquest of its neighbors - the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. It seems fascism always seeks some innocuous slogan to cover the most hideous plans.
This Co-Prosperity was achieved by waging total and merciless war against China and Manchuria. The Japanese, as a nation, saw itself as destined to rule Asia and thereby possess its natural resources and open lands. Without the slightest remorse or hesitation, the Japanese Army slaughtered innocent men, women and children. In the infamous Rape of Nanking up to 300,000 unarmed civilians were butchered. These were criminal acts.
THESE ARE FACTS.
In order to fulfill its divine destiny in Asia, Japan determined that the only real impediment to this goal was the United States. It launched a carefully conceived sneak attack on our Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbor. Timed for a Sunday morning it was intended to deal a death blow to the fleet by inflicting the maximum loss of ships and human life.
1,700 sailors are still entombed in the hull of the U.S.S. Arizona that sits on the bottom of Pearl Harbor. Many if not all, died without ever knowing why. Thus was the war thrust upon us.
The fall of Corregidor and the resulting treatment of Allied prisoners of war dispelled any remaining doubt about the inhumanness of the Japanese Army, even in the context of war. The Bataan Death March was horror in its fullest dimension. The Japanese considered surrender to be dishonorable to oneself, one's family, one's country and one's god. They showed no mercy. Seven thousand American and Filipino POW's were beaten, shot, bayoneted or left to die of disease or exhaustion.
THESE ARE FACTS.
As the United States made its slow, arduous, and costly march across the vast expanse of the Pacific, the Japanese proved to be ruthless and intractable killing machine. No matter how futile, no matter how hopeless the odds, no matter how certain the outcome, the Japanese fought to the death. And to achieve a greater glory, the strove to kill as many Americans as possible.
The closer the United States came to the Japanese mainland, the more fanatical their actions became.
Saipan - 3,100 Americans killed, 1,500 in the first few hours of the invasion
Iwa Jima - 6,700 Americans killed, 25,000 wounded
Okinawa - 12,500 Americans killed, total casualties, 35,000
These are facts reported by simple white grave markets.
Kamikazes. The literal translation is DIVINE WIND. To willingly dive a plane loaded with bombs into an American ship was a glorious transformation to godliness - there was no higher honor on heaven or earth. The suicidal assaults of the Kamikazes took 5,000 American Navy men to their deaths.
The Japanese vowed that, with the first American to step foot on the mainland, they would execute every Allied prisoner. In preparation they forced the POW's to dig their own graves in the event of mass executions. Even after their surrender, they executed some American POW's.
THESE ARE FACTS.
The Potsdam Declaration had called for unconditional surrender of the Japanese Armed Forces. The Japanese termed it ridiculous and not worthy of consideration. We know from our intercepts of their coded messages, that they wanted to stall for time to force a negotiated surrender on terms acceptable to them.
For months prior to August 6, American aircraft began dropping fire bombs upon the Japanese mainland. The wind created by the firestorm from the bombs incinerated whole cities. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese died. Still the Japanese military vowed never to surrender. They were prepared to sacrifice their own people to achieve their visions of glory and honor - no matter how many more people died.
They refused to evacuate civilians ever though our pilots dropped leaflets warning of the possible bombings. In one 3-day period, 34 square miles of Tokyo, Nagoya, Kobe and Osaka were reduced to rubble.
THESE ARE FACTS.
And even after the bombing of Hiroshima, Tojo, his successor Suzuki, and the military clique in control believed the United States had but one bomb, and that Japan could go on. They had 3 days to surrender after August 6, but they did not surrender. The debate in their cabinet at times became violent.
Only after the Nagasaki drop did the Emperor finally demand surrender.
And even then, the military argued they could and should fight on. A group of Army officers staged a coup and tried to seize and destroy the Emperor's recorded message to his people announcing the surrender.
THESE ARE FACTS.
These facts help illuminate the nature of the enemy we faced. They help put into context the process by which Truman considered the options available to him. And they help to add meaning to why the missions were necessary.
President Truman understood these facts as did every service man and woman. Casualties were not some abstraction, but a sobering reality.
Did the atomic missions end the war? Yes...they...did.
Were they necessary? Well that's where the rub comes.
With the fog of 50 years drifting over the memory of our country, to some, the Japanese are now the victims. America was the insatiable, vindictive aggressor seeking revenge and conquest. Our use of these weapons was the unjustified and immoral starting point for the nuclear age with all of its horrors. Of course, to support such distortion, one must conveniently ignore the real facts of fabricate new realities to fit the theories. It is no less egregious than those who today deny the Holocaust occurred.
How could this have happened?
The answer may lie in examining some recent events.

The current debate about why President Truman ordered these missions, in some cases, has devolved to a numbers game. The Smithsonian in its proposed exhibit of the Enola Gay revealed the creeping revisionism which seems the rage in certain historical circles.
That exhibit wanted to memorialize the fiction that the Japanese were the victims - we the evil aggressor. Imagine taking your children and grandchildren to this exhibit.
What message would they have left with?
What truth would they retain?
What would they think their country stood for?
And all of this would have occurred in an American institution whose very name and charter are supposed to stand for the impartial preservation of significant American artifacts.
By canceling the proposed exhibit and simply displaying the Enola Gay, has truth won out?
Maybe not.
In one nationally televised discussion, I heard a so-called prominent historian argue that the bombs were nor necessary. That President Truman was intent on intimidating the Russians. That the Japanese were ready to surrender.
The Japanese were ready to surrender? Based on what?
Some point to statements by General Eisenhower years after the war that Japan was about to fall. Well, based on that same outlook Eisenhower seriously underestimated Germany's will to fight on and concluded in December, 1944 that Germany no longer had the capability to wage offensive war.
That was a tragic miscalculation. The result was the Battle of the Bulge, which resulted in tens of thousands of needless Allied casualties and potentially allowed Germany to prolong the war and force negotiations.
Thus the assessment that Japan was vanquished may have the benefit of hindsight rather than foresight.
It is certainly fair to conclude that the Japanese could have been reasonably expected to be even more fanatical than the Germans base on the history of the war in the Pacific.
And, finally, a present-day theory making the rounds espouses that even if an invasion had taken place, our casualties would not have been a million, as many believed, but realistically only 46,000 dead.
ONLY 46,000!
Can you imagine the callousness of this line of argument? ONLY 46,000- as if this were some insignificant number of American lives.
Perhaps these so-called historians want to sell books.
Perhaps they really believe it. Or perhaps it reflects some self-loathing occasioned by the fact that we won the war.
Whatever the reason, the argument is flawed. It dissects and recalculates events ideologically, grasping at selective straws.
Let me admit right here, today, that I don't know how many more Americans would have died in an invasion - AND NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE!
What I do know is that based on the Japanese conduct during the war, it is fair and reasonable to assume that an invasion of the mainland would have been a prolonged and bloody affair. Based on what we know - not what someone surmises - the Japanese were not about to unconditionally surrender.
In taking Iwo Jima, a tiny 8 square mile lump of rock in the ocean, 6,700 marines died - total casualties over 30,000.
But even assuming that those who now KNOW our casualties would have been ONLY 46,000 I ask -
Which 46,000 were to die?
Whose father?
Whose brother?
Whose husband?
And, yes, I am focusing on American lives.
The Japanese had their fate in their own hands, we did not. Hundreds of thousands of American troops anxiously waited at staging areas in the Pacific dreading the coming invasion, their fate resting on what Japanese would do next. The Japanese could have ended it at any time. They chose to wait.
And while the Japanese stalled, an average of 900 more Americans were killed or wounded each day the war continued.
I've heard another line of argument that we should have accepted a negotiated peace with the Japanese on terms they would have found acceptable. I have never heard anyone suggest that we should have negotiated a peace with Nazi Germany. Such an idea is so outrageous, that no rational human being would utter the words. To negotiate with such evil fascism was to allow it even in defeat a measure of legitimacy. This is not just some empty philosophical principal of the time - it was essential that these forces of evil be clearly and irrevocably defeated - their demise unequivocal. Their leadership had forfeited any expectation of diplomatic niceties. How it is, then, the history of the war in the Pacific can be so soon forgotten?
The reason may lie in the advancing erosion of our history, of our collective memory.
Fifty years after their defeat, Japanese officials have the temerity to claim they were the victims. That Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the equivalent of the Holocaust.
And, believe it or not, there are actually some American academics who support this analogy, thus aiding and giving comfort to a 50-year attempt by the Japanese to rewrite their own history, and ours in the process.
There is an entire generation of Japanese who do not know the full extent of their country's conduct during World War II.
This explains why they do not comprehend why they must apologize-
•for the Korean comfort women.
•for the Medical experimentation on POW's which match the horror of those conducted by the Nazi's.
•for the plane to use biological weapons against the United States by infecting civilian populations on the West Coast.
•for the methodical slaughter of civilians.
•and for much more.
In a perverse inversion, by forgetting our own history, we contribute to the Japanese amnesia, to the detriment of both our nations.
Unlike the Germans who acknowledged their guilt, the Japanese persist in the fiction that they did nothing wrong, that they were trapped by circumstances. This only forecloses any genuine prospect that the deep wounds suffered by both nations can be closed and healed.
One can only forgive by remembering. And to forget, is to risk repeating history.
The Japanese in a well orchestrated political and public relations campaign have now proposed that the use of the term "V-J Day" be replaced by the more benign "Victory in the Pacific Day". How convenient.
This they claim will make the commemoration of the end of the war in the Pacific less "Japan specific".

An op-ed piece written by Dorothy Rabinowitz appearing in the April 5 Wall Street Journal accurately sums up this outrage:
The reason it appears, is that some Japanese find the reference disturbing - and one can see why. The term, especially the "J" part, does serve to remind the world of the identity of the nation whose defeat millions celebrated in August 1945. in further deference to Japanese sensitivities, a U.S. official (who wisely chose to remain unidentified) also announced, with reference to the planned ceremonies, that "our whole effort in this thing is to commemorate an event, not celebrate a victory."
Some might argue so what's in a word - Victory over Japan, Victory in the Pacific - Let's celebrate an event, not a victory.
A say everything is in a word. Celebrate an EVENT!
Kind of like celebrating th opening of a shopping mall rather than the end of a war that engulfed the entire Earth - which left countless millions dead and countless millions more physically or mentally wounded and countless more millions displaced.
This assault on the use of language is Orwellian and is the tool by which history and memory are blurred. Words can be just as destructive as any weapon.
Up is down.
Slavery is freedom.
Aggression is peace.
In some ways this assault on our language and history by the elimination of accurate and descriptive words is far more insidious than the actual aggression carried out by the Japanese 50 years ago. At least then the threat was clear, the enemy well defined.
Today the Japanese justify their conduct by artfully playing the race card. They were not engaged in a criminal enterprise of aggression. No, Japan was simply liberating the oppressed masses of Asia from WHITE Imperialism.
Liberation!! Yes, they liberated over 20 million innocent Asians by killing them. I'm sure those 20 million, their families and the generations never to be, appreciate the noble effort of the Japanese.
I am often asked was the bomb dropped for vengeance, as was suggested by one draft of the Smithsonian exhibit. That we sought to destroy an ancient and honorable culture.
Here are some more inconvenient facts.
One, on the original target list for the atomic missions Kyoto was included. Although this would have been a legitimate target, one that had not been bombed previously, Secretary of State Henry Stimson removed it from the list because it was the ancient capital of Japan and was also the religious center of Japanese culture.
Two, we were under strict orders during the war that under no circumstances were we to ever bomb the Imperial Palace in Tokyo, even though we could have easily leveled it and possibly killed the Emperor. So much for vengeance.
I often wonder if Japan would have been shown such restraint if they had the opportunity to bomb the White House. I think not.
At this point let me dispel one of many longstanding myths that our targets were intended to be civilian populations. Each target for the missions had significant military importance - Hiroshima was the headquarters for the southern command responsible for the defense of Honshu in the event of an invasion and it garrisoned seasoned troops who would mount the initial defense.
Nagasaki was an industrial center with the two large Mitsubishi armaments factories. In both Hiroshima and Nagasaki the Japanese had integrated these industries and troops right in the heart of each city.
As in any war our goal was, as it should be, to win. The stakes were too high to equivocate.
I am often asked if I ever think of the Japanese who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
I do not revel in the idea that so many on both sides died, not only at those two places but around the world in that horrible conflict. I take no pride or pleasure in the brutality of war whether suffered by my people or those of another nation. Every life is precious.
But it does seem to me such a question is more appropriately directed to the Japanese war lords who so willingly offered up their people to achieve their visions of greatness. They who started the war and then stubbornly refused to stop it must be called to account. Don't they have the ultimate responsibility for all the deaths of their countrymen?
Perhaps if the Japanese came to grips with their past and their true part in the war they would hold those Japanese military leaders accountable. The Japanese people deserve an answer from those that brought such misery to the nations of the Far East and ultimately to their own people. Of course this can never happen of we collaborate with the Japanese in wiping away the truth.
How can Japan ever reconcile with itself and the United States if they do not demand and accept the truth?
My crew and I flew these missions with the belief that they would bring the war to an end. There was no sense of joy. There was a sense of duty and commitment that we wanted to get back to our families and loved ones.
Today millions of people in America an in southeast Asia are alive because the war ended when it did.
I do not stand here celebrating the use of nuclear weapons. Quite the contrary.
I hope that my mission is the last such mission ever flown.
We as a nation can abhor the existence of nuclear weapons.
I certainly do.
But that does not then mean that, back in August of 1945, given the events of the war and the recalcitrance of our enemy, President Truman was not obliged to use all the weapons at his disposal to end the war.
I agreed with Harry Truman then, and I still do today.
Years after the war Truman was asked if he had any second thoughts. He said emphatically, "No." He then asked the questioner to remember the men who died at Pearl Harbor who did not have the benefit of second thoughts.
In war the stakes are high. As Robert E. Lee said, "it is good that war is so horrible, or we might grow to like it."
I thank God that it was we who had this weapon and not the Japanese or the Germans. The science was there. Eventually someone would have developed this weapon. Science can never be denied. It finds a way to self-fulfillment.
The question of whether it was wise to develop such a weapon would have eventually been overcome by the fact that it could be done. The Soviets would have certainly proceeded to develop their own bomb. Let us not forget that Joseph Stalin was no less evil than Tojo or his former ally Adolf Hitler. At last count, Stalin committed genocide on at least 20 million of his own citizens.
The world is a better place because German and Japanese fascism failed to conquer the world.
Japan and Germany are better places because we were benevolent in our victory.
The youth of Japan and the United States, spared from further needless slaughter, went on to live and have families and grow old.
As the father of ten children and the grandfather of 21, I can state that I am certainly grateful that the war ended when it did.
I do not speak for all veterans of that war. But I believe that my sense of pride in having served my country in that great conflict is shared by all veterans. This is why the truth about that war must be preserved. We veterans are not shrinking violets. Our sensibilities will not be shattered in intelligent and controversial debate. We can handle ourselves.
But we will not, we cannot allow armchair second guessers to frame the debate by hiding facts from the American public and the world.
I have great faith in the good sense and fairness of the American people to consider all of the facts and make an informed judgment about the war's end.
This is an important debate. The soul of our nation, its essence, its history, is at stake.