Re: Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements

[me]

(Polybus) wrote in message >...
> Dear Friend,
>
> A committee of scholars, veterans, clergy, activists, students, and
> other interested individuals is now forming to challenge the
> Smithsonian's plans to exhibit the Enola Gay solely as a "magnificent
> technological achievement." The planned exhibit is devoid not only of
> historical context and discussion of the ongoing controversy
> surrounding the bombings,

Which presumes there is a "controversy".

> but even of basic information regarding the number of casualties.

None of the war planes on display list the casualties
associated with their use.

> We have formulated the following statement of
> principles, which we plan to circulate widely. The statement makes
> clear that we are not opposed to exhibiting the plane in a fair and
> responsible manner,

Which presumes that it is not.

> but that we fear that such a celebratory exhibit
> both legitimizes what happened in 1945

Which implies it has not already been "legitimzed". If anything
their is a current effort to "delegitmize" what happened in 1945.


> and helps build support for the
> Bush administration's dangerous new nuclear policies.


That's a stretch. The nuclear attacks of 1945 are a well
known historical fact. Not much one is going to say either
way about them that is going to change that. Bushes bombs
are different, we're different, the enemies are different,
even the most casual observers will have trouble drawing much
parallels here. Actually, casual observers will be the LEAST
able to do so.

> We, in fact,
> welcome and intend to initiate a national discussion of both the 1945
> bombings and of current nuclear issues.

Fine, but what does that have to do with displaying one of the
more famous individual aircraft in the world in it's historical
context (i.e. with alot of other aircraft of the same era).

> But before we launch a public
> campaign and officially contact the Smithsonian, we seek endorsements
> of the statement from a small number of prominent individuals who can
> help the effort gain credibility


So, you admit you currently have little to no credibility and
yet you throw around expressions like "legitimize" and "controversy".
Be honest, you're trying to CREATE those things.

> and attract media attention. More
> active participation is, of course, welcome and desirable. Most
> immediately, though, please let us know if we can add your name
[snip]

No.

[mrtrav3]

Polybus wrote:
> Dear Friend,
>
> A committee of scholars, veterans, clergy, activists, students, and
> other interested individuals is now forming to challenge the
> Smithsonian's plans to exhibit the Enola Gay solely as a "magnificent
> technological achievement." The planned exhibit is devoid not only of
> historical context and discussion of the ongoing controversy

Is the display of this aircraft any less devoid of historical context
and discussion than any other exhibit? My understanding is that the
musuem wants to treat this like any other aircraft on display.
It's not a political exhibit, it's a technological one.

Your crossposting to food and celebrity newsgroups is very odd......

[A.T. Hagan]

(Polybus) wrote in message >...
> Dear Friend,
>
> A committee of scholars, veterans, clergy, activists, students, and
> other interested individuals is now forming to challenge the
> Smithsonian's plans to exhibit the Enola Gay solely as a "magnificent
> technological achievement."

GOOD.

I'm glad to hear the Smithsonian has finally come to its senses and
stopped acting ashamed of an important part of our national history
that we have NO reason to be ashamed of.

Unlike a good number of people who seem to be educated beyond their
intelligence.

Not that this topic has anything at all to do with rec.food.cooking
which is where I read the thing.

......Alan.

[Peter Aitken]

"A.T. Hagan" > wrote in message
om...
> (Polybus) wrote in message
>...
> > Dear Friend,
> >
> > A committee of scholars, veterans, clergy, activists, students, and
> > other interested individuals is now forming to challenge the
> > Smithsonian's plans to exhibit the Enola Gay solely as a "magnificent
> > technological achievement."
>
> GOOD.
>
> I'm glad to hear the Smithsonian has finally come to its senses and
> stopped acting ashamed of an important part of our national history
> that we have NO reason to be ashamed of.
>
> Unlike a good number of people who seem to be educated beyond their
> intelligence.
>
> Not that this topic has anything at all to do with rec.food.cooking
> which is where I read the thing.
>
> .....Alan.

You and others are missing the point. If the B-29 is a "magnificent
technological achievement" fine, display one. But why does it have to be the
Enola Gay? That specific plane is unavoidable associated with dropping the
A-bomb on a civilian target with all the resulting horrors. You may support
the dropping of the bomb or you may be against it, but there's no denying
that displaying *this* B-29 rather than another one makes the exhibit seem
like a celebration of the bombing rather than the bomber. No matter how
necessary and justified you think the bombing was, it is nothing to
celebrate.

Peter G. Aitken

[BUFDRVR]

>No matter how
>necessary and justified you think the bombing was, it is nothing to
>celebrate.
>

Unless you're one of the countless thousands (Japanese and American) who life
was saved because the war ended in August 1945 vis August 1946.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[MLenoch]

Just a factual question: was there ever a statistic of the number of deaths via
fire bombing vs. the nuclear bombs? Just wondering. Thx,
VL

[Cub Driver]

>You and others are missing the point. If the B-29 is a "magnificent
>technological achievement" fine, display one. But why does it have to be the
>Enola Gay

Because it was the most important B-29 ever built?


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Peter Aitken]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >You and others are missing the point. If the B-29 is a "magnificent
> >technological achievement" fine, display one. But why does it have to be
the
> >Enola Gay
>
> Because it was the most important B-29 ever built?
>

It was important because it dropped the bomb - my exact point.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

[Stephen Harding]

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
>>planned exhibit and that President Truman's use of atomic weapons will
>>legitimize the Bush administration's current effort to lower the
>>threshold for future use of nuclear weapons.
>
> This is rather far-fetched. While I think Bush' current nuclear
> plans are immoral, stupid, and counter-productive, I am not
> in the least afraid that the opinion of the American public
> will be swayed by the Enola Gay exhibition. We are not
> talking about the latest Coca-Cola commercial, this is an
> aeroplane on display in (yuck) a museum.

You almost threw me there Emmanuel!

In reading your defense of the American use of the atomic bomb, and
the refutation of some of the lefties claims of the evil nature of
American leadership (over the entire history of the nation), I thought
perhaps you weren't quite the anti-American ideologue I'd pegged you as.

For a moment I thought you were actually standing up in defense of
the American public. You know, basic goodness and common sense that
over time, keeps the country on track.

But alas, they are in reality the dimwits that intellectual Euros
(and lefty Americans) stereotype them as. Oblivious of history, and
concerned only with the next deal at Costco.

Thank you for not disappointing me.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

mrtrav3 wrote:

> Is the display of this aircraft any less devoid of historical context
> and discussion than any other exhibit? My understanding is that the
> musuem wants to treat this like any other aircraft on display.
> It's not a political exhibit, it's a technological one.

I think that is an excellent point.

Surely there should be mention of the B-29 being the mule that
delivered the first atomic bomb, and even how many people that one
bomb killed compared to that of the thousands of fire bombs these
aircraft dropped earlier on Japan.

The application of the atomic bomb in areal warfare is as significant
as crossing the Atlantic, or going around the world without refueling,
or breaking the speed of sound. So its mention is certainly a requirement
of any display of the B-29.

Making the display a focal point for a political debate on the
appropriateness of atomic weaponry, the arms race, or neo-conservativism
threats to world peace and harmony doesn't seem to be proper to me.

> Your crossposting to food and celebrity newsgroups is very odd......

Wondered about that myself.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

Peter Aitken wrote:

> You and others are missing the point. If the B-29 is a "magnificent
> technological achievement" fine, display one. But why does it have to be the
> Enola Gay? That specific plane is unavoidable associated with dropping the
> A-bomb on a civilian target with all the resulting horrors. You may support
> the dropping of the bomb or you may be against it, but there's no denying
> that displaying *this* B-29 rather than another one makes the exhibit seem
> like a celebration of the bombing rather than the bomber. No matter how
> necessary and justified you think the bombing was, it is nothing to
> celebrate.

Well there aren't lots of B-29s floating around these days. It's not
so easy to just "grab one" for a display.

Most importantly, the Enola Gay is an historic aircraft, and the
Smithsonian "Air and Space *Museum*" is a *museum*! It's a very
good example of a B-29 to be displayed!

If you want to think of the display as a "celebration" of nuclear
murder of innocents, feel free to think so. If someone else wants
to think of the aircraft as a pristine example of the height of
propeller driven bomber technology *ever*, then let them.

Despite what you may possibly think, the government is not monitoring
your thoughts while you peruse the Udvar-Hazy facility displays...

Well...actually it is supposed to be state of the art. Maybe those
sneaky CIA/NSA types snuck someone into the construction crews and...


SMH

[Tarver Engineering]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Aitken wrote:
>
> > You and others are missing the point. If the B-29 is a "magnificent
> > technological achievement" fine, display one. But why does it have to be
the
> > Enola Gay? That specific plane is unavoidable associated with dropping
the
> > A-bomb on a civilian target with all the resulting horrors. You may
support
> > the dropping of the bomb or you may be against it, but there's no
denying
> > that displaying *this* B-29 rather than another one makes the exhibit
seem
> > like a celebration of the bombing rather than the bomber. No matter how
> > necessary and justified you think the bombing was, it is nothing to
> > celebrate.
>
> Well there aren't lots of B-29s floating around these days. It's not
> so easy to just "grab one" for a display.
>
> Most importantly, the Enola Gay is an historic aircraft, and the
> Smithsonian "Air and Space *Museum*" is a *museum*! It's a very
> good example of a B-29 to be displayed!
>
> If you want to think of the display as a "celebration" of nuclear
> murder of innocents, feel free to think so. If someone else wants
> to think of the aircraft as a pristine example of the height of
> propeller driven bomber technology *ever*, then let them.
>
> Despite what you may possibly think, the government is not monitoring
> your thoughts while you peruse the Udvar-Hazy facility displays...
>
> Well...actually it is supposed to be state of the art. Maybe those
> sneaky CIA/NSA types snuck someone into the construction crews and...

I think the story could be told, with the final sentence containing, "and it
was a very bad thing". I think we can all agree that the millions killed in
WWII was all a bad thing.

[Stephen Harding]

Peter Aitken wrote:
> "Cub Driver" > wrote in message
>
>>>You and others are missing the point. If the B-29 is a "magnificent
>>>technological achievement" fine, display one. But why does it have to be
> the
>
>>>Enola Gay
>>
>>Because it was the most important B-29 ever built?
>
> It was important because it dropped the bomb - my exact point.

You're point seemed to be that the display was a "celebration" of
killing people by nuclear means.

It is simply the most famous aircraft of WWII, which seems a good
reason for its display in a museum.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

MLenoch wrote:

> Just a factual question: was there ever a statistic of the number of deaths via
> fire bombing vs. the nuclear bombs? Just wondering. Thx,

Yes there have been some such stats, but they vary a bit.

There is the issue of how many people died during the explosion
versus days/weeks/months after.

Firebombing (or any sort of bombing) can produce lingering, or
drawn out deaths, but the nuclear bombing this was more pronounced.

I've read that some "counters" in Japan continue to add to the death
toll of Hiroshima/Nagasaki as people who were there and survived that
day finally start to die off. Basically *everyone* in those towns
becomes part of the death toll eventually for these types of counters.

The numbers I've come across, with some [maybe] small percent variation
due to faulty memory, are something like this:

Hiroshima: 85,000 (I've read stats going up over 100,000)
Nagasaki : 65,000 (max I've seen is around 80,000)

One night firebombing of Tokyo by LeMay and company: 120,000-150,000.


SMH

[Stephen Harding]

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

> Bombardments with high explosives killed far fewer people;
> the common estimate was about one death per ton of bombs.
> (About 2,000 tons of incendiaries were dropped in the Tokyo
> raid.) No doubt in part because HE was used more against
> factories or military installations, while firebombs were used
> against dense population concentrations, but also because the
> firestorms set up by intense firebombing amplified the scale
> of the destruction many times.

Can't remember where I'd read some of the methodologies for
bombing during WWII. Perhaps Art could elucidate if he sees
this.

Someone mentioned that on some raids in Germany, bombers dropped
a range of bombs over several different "waves" of attacking
aircraft.

One wave would drop high explosive to destroy buildings. Later
waves might have more anti-personnel oriented weaponry to kill
the firemen fighting the fires, while delayed HE might be designed
to sink deeper into the ground before exploding, thus rupturing
gas and water lines, for more devastating effect.

I doubt this was done for every major attack on a city. Certainly
Art's sort of bombing was more tactical against bridges and railroads.

But what about the B-17/B-24 and Lanc guys? Were they very regularly
doing this sort of thing?

Today we would regard this as "barbaric" and too directed towards
"innocent civilians". But back then, "tough luck"! You're with
"them" and you pay.

A very different mind set than today.


SMH

[Kevin Brooks]

SNIP Cooking group

"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
.com...
> "A.T. Hagan" > wrote in message
> om...
> > (Polybus) wrote in message
> >...
> > > Dear Friend,
> > >
> > > A committee of scholars, veterans, clergy, activists, students, and
> > > other interested individuals is now forming to challenge the
> > > Smithsonian's plans to exhibit the Enola Gay solely as a "magnificent
> > > technological achievement."
> >
> > GOOD.
> >
> > I'm glad to hear the Smithsonian has finally come to its senses and
> > stopped acting ashamed of an important part of our national history
> > that we have NO reason to be ashamed of.
> >
> > Unlike a good number of people who seem to be educated beyond their
> > intelligence.
> >
> > Not that this topic has anything at all to do with rec.food.cooking
> > which is where I read the thing.
> >
> > .....Alan.
>
> You and others are missing the point. If the B-29 is a "magnificent
> technological achievement" fine, display one. But why does it have to be
the
> Enola Gay? That specific plane is unavoidable associated with dropping the
> A-bomb on a civilian target with all the resulting horrors.

A "civilian target"? Now would be a good time to revisit the whole issue of
"total war", within the context of the time this occurred (as opposed to
trying to apply modern standards to it)...but I am sure it would be a waste
of both your and my time.

You may support
> the dropping of the bomb or you may be against it, but there's no denying
> that displaying *this* B-29 rather than another one makes the exhibit seem
> like a celebration of the bombing rather than the bomber. No matter how
> necessary and justified you think the bombing was, it is nothing to
> celebrate.

I don't know. The guys in my dad's outfit (330th BG/314th BW) who were in
the midst of conducting missions at the time thought it was well worth
celebrating. As did a lot of ground troops who breathed a collective sight
of relief when they found that Olympic/Coronet were not needed.

Brooks

>
> Peter G. Aitken
>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
. ..
> I don't know.

Of course. :)

[Kevin Brooks]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > I don't know.
>
> Of course. :)

Take a note, Tarvernaut. Not everyone around here claims to know everything;
those like you who do just provide the laughs for the rest of us.

Brooks
>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> > > I don't know.
> >
> > Of course. :)
>
> Take a note, Tarvernaut. Not everyone around here claims to know
everything;
> those like you who do just provide the laughs for the rest of us.

I intentionally provide laughs for quite a few, get a clue.

[[email protected]]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>
>I think the story could be told, with the final sentence containing, "and it
>was a very bad thing". I think we can all agree that the millions killed in
>WWII was all a bad thing.
>

Jesus no John...can you just imagine...everything used in warfare
with that stupid tagline on it? "So folks here's an example of a
musket used in ancient wars. It was much more lethal than the
clubs and spears used up till then. It could actually kill a man
at 100 feet every 1.5 minutes!, and it was a very bad
thing"...good God.

Just put the Enola Gay in there with a sign indicating that it
was a technological leap both in aircraft and armament design. It
was used to drop the first of two atomic bombs which ended WW2

-Gord.

"I'm trying to get as old as I can,
and it must be working 'cause I'm
the oldest now that I've ever been"

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> >I think the story could be told, with the final sentence containing, "and
it
> >was a very bad thing". I think we can all agree that the millions killed
in
> >WWII was all a bad thing.
> >
>
> Jesus no John...can you just imagine...everything used in warfare
> with that stupid tagline on it? "So folks here's an example of a
> musket used in ancient wars. It was much more lethal than the
> clubs and spears used up till then. It could actually kill a man
> at 100 feet every 1.5 minutes!, and it was a very bad
> thing"...good God.

The musket has other uses that are a good thing. The nuke only does things
we would as soon not do.

> Just put the Enola Gay in there with a sign indicating that it
> was a technological leap both in aircraft and armament design. It
> was used to drop the first of two atomic bombs which ended WW2

Havn't we already tried that?

[Emmanuel.Gustin]

Stephen Harding > wrote:

: In reading your defense of the American use of the atomic bomb, and
: the refutation of some of the lefties claims of the evil nature of
: American leadership (over the entire history of the nation), I thought
: perhaps you weren't quite the anti-American ideologue I'd pegged you as.

And you were right -- I am not an anti-American ideologue.

I do condemn and resent, however, those -- on the left; but
also people on the right, like you -- who somehow want to
lump together the historical decision to use the bomb against
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with the intentions of the current US
governments to develop nuclear weapons that are explicitly
intended for first-strike use in limited warfare. Different
context, different leaders, different goals and different
consequences: Let us decide each case on its own merit.

Truman's decision, seen in the context of 1945, was an
understandable one, rationally defensible and morally not
worse than many other acts perpetrated in this war, by friend
and foe alike. It is very hard to attach any kind of approval
to this decision; but perhaps it is sufficient to say that
certainly most of the arguments that are used to condemn it
don't survive closer scrutiny.

The Bush nuclear policy is not defensible, not on moral
grounds and not on grounds of self-interest. It is a prime
example of ideology-driven boneheadedness.

--
Emmanuel Gustin

[Emmanuel.Gustin]

Stephen Harding > wrote:
: Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

: One wave would drop high explosive to destroy buildings. Later
: waves might have more anti-personnel oriented weaponry to kill
: the firemen fighting the fires, while delayed HE might be designed
: to sink deeper into the ground before exploding, thus rupturing
: gas and water lines, for more devastating effect.

Firebombing of cities appears to have involved, in general,
heavy HE bombs to break windows and improve the opportunity
of fires to spread; fire bombs to start fires; and delayed-
action anti-personnel bombs to hinder the activities of
firefighters and rescue-workers.

: Today we would regard this as "barbaric" and too directed towards
: "innocent civilians". But back then, "tough luck"! You're with
: "them" and you pay.

Actually, it was certainly regarded as barbaric targeting
of innocent civilians in 1939-1940. At the time there were
almost as many concerns about "collateral damage" as today,
perhaps even more. For example, the British government banned
the bombing of enemy warships in port because it feared that
the civilian population would be hit.

As the war progressed, mentalities hardened, but not to the
extent that the targeting of cities was ever unquestioned
or unchallenged. Nor was it openly acknowledged by wartime
governments that the essential target of such operations
was the civilian population itself. Moral objections against
the policy existed then as much as today; but the struggle
for survival took priority and they were set aside. A good
deal of plain hypocrisy was involved, and many people who
actively supported the policy during the war saw fit to
express their doubts when the war was won -- Churchill, for
example.

--
Emmanuel Gustin

[Matt Wiser]

Lyle > wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:17:14 +0100, "Emmanuel
>Gustin"
> wrote:
>
>>"Polybus" > wrote
>in message
om...
>>
>>> 70,000 deaths. And as many scientists warned
>in advance would happen,
>>> and as President Truman clearly understood,
>the incineration of
>>> Hiroshima and Nagasaki initiated a nuclear
>arms race that threatened
>>> to bring about the annihilation of the human
>species, a danger that
>>> persists today.
>>
>>This is, to put it mildly, a non-sequitur.
>The use of the nuclear
>>bomb did not trigger the nuclear arms race.
>That would have
>>happened regardless of the use of the bomb,
>in fact it had
>>already started.
>>
>>> Dailey's remarks are particularly shocking
>in light of the criticism
>>> of the bombing by General Dwight Eisenhower
>and the questions raised
>>> by so many other WWII military leaders, sentiments
>best reflected in
>>> the haunting comments of Admiral William
>Leahy, Truman's wartime chief
>>> of staff who chaired the Joint Chiefs of
>Staff, who poignantly
>>> observed, "the use of this barbarous weapon
>at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
>>> was of no material assistance in our war
>against Japan. The Japanese
>>> were already defeated and ready to surrender....in
>being the first to
>>> use it, we adopted an ethical standard common
>to the barbarians of the
>>> Dark Ages."
>>
>>With all respect for the late admiral Leahy,
>his claims are
>>incompatible with the historical facts, and
>the learned
>>signatories of this declaration ought to know
>that. The Japanese
>>were certainly not ready to surrender. They
>were ready to
>>seek favourable peace terms, which is not the
>same.
>>
>>Surely the A-bomb was a barbaric weapon, but
>I fail to see
>>what the moral difference is between killing
>people with a
>>nuclear weapon and killing the same people
>with conventional
>>incendiary bombs. Which would have been the
>fate of Hiroshima
>>and Nagasaki, if these cities had not been
>'reserved' as nuclear
>>targets. Large-scale, indiscriminate killing
>of civilians was
>>already a feature of WWII well before Hiroshima
>and Nagasaki.
>>If the these nuclear bombings had not happened,
>and the war
>>would ave continued for more weeks or months,
>the USAAF
>>would have continued its systematic fire-bombing
>of Japanese
>>cities, and probably more Japanese civilians
>would have been
>>killed.
>>
>>I think it is fair enough to point out that
>Leahy was an admiral
>>and Eisenhower an army general, and that because
>of interservice
>>politics, they had a motive to claim that the
>war would have been
>>concluded without this -- air force -- action.
>>
>>> We are not, however, opposed to exhibiting
>the Enola Gay. Much to the
>>> contrary, we welcome any exhibition that
>will spur an honest and
>>> balanced discussion of the atomic bombings
>of 1945 and of current U.S.
>>> nuclear policy.
>>
>>The problem is, above statements are neither
>honest nor
>>balanced. Of course everybody has the right
>to form a
>>pressure group to advocate his of her views,
>but if the
>>signatories seek to enhance to reputation of
>the USA,
>>they should begin by being less selective in
>the facts they
>>choose to consider and more rigorous in their
>logic.
>>Professors they may be, but they are barely
>up to the
>>standard expected of high school students.
>>
>>> planned exhibit and that President Truman's
>use of atomic weapons will
>>> legitimize the Bush administration's current
>effort to lower the
>>> threshold for future use of nuclear weapons.
>>
>>This is rather far-fetched. While I think Bush'
>current nuclear
>>plans are immoral, stupid, and counter-productive,
>I am not
>>in the least afraid that the opinion of the
>American public
>>will be swayed by the Enola Gay exhibition.
>We are not
>>talking about the latest Coca-Cola commercial,
>this is an
>>aeroplane on display in (yuck) a museum.
>>
>>> We intend to use this exhibit, the presidential
>elections, and the
>>> upcoming 60th anniversary of the atomic bombings
>to stimulate a
>>> national discussion of U.S. nuclear history
>and current policy and to
>>> work with like-minded groups in other nations.
>>
>>In other words, the noble science of history
>will be pimped
>>again to acquire a public stage for a political
>goal. In the
>>end, of course, truth will be neither here
>nor there, and the
>>Smithonsian will come to regret once more the
>day that it
>>decided to put Enola Gay on display.
>>
>>> Given the seriousness of the current nuclear
>crisis, should the
>>> Smithsonian not accede to this request for
>a fair and balanced
>>> presentation and a reasoned discussion of
>the many profound issues
>>> involved, we will join with others in this
>country and around the
>>> world to protest the exhibit in its present
>form and to catalyze a
>>> national discussion of critical nuclear issues.
>>
>>So the Smithonsian will be blackmailed into
>providing
>>a platform for a protest of current policy?
>I hope the
>>institution will resist this firmly and condemn
>it in
>>clear words. While I symphatise with the protest
>against
>>the nuclear policy of this US government, I
>think it is an
>>appalling idea to drag an institution like
>this into politics.
>
>here is my $0.02
>
>1.fire bombing of Tokyo killed more then the
>Atomic bomb.
>
>2. by dropping it then, we saved lives, cause
>we got first hand
>knowledge of what it was capable of, and thereby
>preventing nuclear
>war in the future. imagine what would happen
>if we dropped it in Korea
>war?
>
>3. the people against the exhibit chances are
>did not live during this
>time. people were getting tired of war, and
>if dropping one a-bomb
>would save thousand lives it would be worth
>it.Otherwise Truman would
>have been lynched by the mothers and wives of
>this country for the
>needless deaths of their sons/husbands.
>
>4. and i dont buy your veterans response either
>cause they probably
>were not going to be in the invasion force.
>Talk to a grunt who was,
>and he will Kiss Trumans ass if he were still
>alive for dropping the
>bomb.
>
>just my .$02.
>
>
Good post, Lyle. 15 Kt on Hiroshima and 20 Kt on Nagasaki is a lot better
than having U.S. 6th Army storm the beaches of Kyushu.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Matt Wiser]

Stephen Harding > wrote:
>MLenoch wrote:
>
>> Just a factual question: was there ever a
>statistic of the number of deaths via
>> fire bombing vs. the nuclear bombs? Just
>wondering. Thx,
>
>Yes there have been some such stats, but they
>vary a bit.
>
>There is the issue of how many people died during
>the explosion
>versus days/weeks/months after.
>
>Firebombing (or any sort of bombing) can produce
>lingering, or
>drawn out deaths, but the nuclear bombing this
>was more pronounced.
>
>I've read that some "counters" in Japan continue
>to add to the death
>toll of Hiroshima/Nagasaki as people who were
>there and survived that
>day finally start to die off. Basically *everyone*
>in those towns
>becomes part of the death toll eventually for
>these types of counters.
>
>The numbers I've come across, with some [maybe]
>small percent variation
>due to faulty memory, are something like this:
>
> Hiroshima: 85,000 (I've read stats going
>up over 100,000)
> Nagasaki : 65,000 (max I've seen is around
>80,000)
>
>One night firebombing of Tokyo by LeMay and
>company: 120,000-150,000.
>
>
>SMH
>
>
I used similar stats in my MA thesis on the Invasion v. bombs: more died
in the Tokyo fire raid that died in the two nuclear strikes put together.
Although I felt the U.S. casualty figure for Kyushu was too high-USSBS used
75-100,000, MacArthur's HQ (which I used) said 55,000 to 70,000, not including
Navy casualties. No figures available for CORONET: the plan was published
on Aug. 15th-the day of the surrender announcement-still incomplete.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Matt Wiser]

"Peter Aitken" > wrote:
>"A.T. Hagan" > wrote in
>message
om...
>> (Polybus) wrote
>in message
>...
>> > Dear Friend,
>> >
>> > A committee of scholars, veterans, clergy,
>activists, students, and
>> > other interested individuals is now forming
>to challenge the
>> > Smithsonian's plans to exhibit the Enola
>Gay solely as a "magnificent
>> > technological achievement."
>>
>> GOOD.
>>
>> I'm glad to hear the Smithsonian has finally
>come to its senses and
>> stopped acting ashamed of an important part
>of our national history
>> that we have NO reason to be ashamed of.
>>
>> Unlike a good number of people who seem to
>be educated beyond their
>> intelligence.
>>
>> Not that this topic has anything at all to
>do with rec.food.cooking
>> which is where I read the thing.
>>
>> .....Alan.
>
>You and others are missing the point. If the
>B-29 is a "magnificent
>technological achievement" fine, display one.
>But why does it have to be the
>Enola Gay? That specific plane is unavoidable
>associated with dropping the
>A-bomb on a civilian target with all the resulting
>horrors. You may support
>the dropping of the bomb or you may be against
>it, but there's no denying
>that displaying *this* B-29 rather than another
>one makes the exhibit seem
>like a celebration of the bombing rather than
>the bomber. No matter how
>necessary and justified you think the bombing
>was, it is nothing to
>celebrate.
>
>Peter G. Aitken
>
>
That B-29 in particluar, and it's sister ship Bock's Car did more to end
the war than the revisionsts want to admit. Which is cheaper? Ten crew on
a B-29 over Hiroshima or Nagasaki-or over a million soldiers, sailors, airmen,
and Marines (Both American and British) on the beaches and sea approaches
to Kyushu? And revisionists make me puke, as I have no use for them in any
way, shape, or form.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Matt Wiser]

"Sunny" > wrote:
>
>"Polybus" > wrote
>in message
om...
>> Peter Kuznick,
>> Professor of History and Director, Nuclear
>Studies Institute, American
>> University
>>
>> Kevin Martin
>> Executive Director, Peace Action
>>
>> Daniel Ellsberg
>> Author, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and The
>Pentagon Papers
>
>Questions :
>1. Do the three retards listed above, condone
>the cross posting to the
>groups listed ?
>2. Does Peter Kuznick really study History
>(or only his version of it)?
>3. Do any of the three realise that there
>was a World War on at the
>time?
>4. What would you have suggested, at the
>time, as the means to subdue a
>fanatical enemy, that had proved to demonstrate
>acts of barbarism that are
>still wondered at?
>
>
>
>
They all seem to think that if we had talked nicely to the Japanese, they
would have surrendered. Not bloody likely. There was a war on, a major invasion
planned of Kyushu in November, and ANY MEANS to prevent the bloodbath of
American, British, and yes, Japanese lives and END THE WAR ASAP is a viable
option. If that means incinerating two, three, or however many Japanese Cities
by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s, so be it.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Matt Wiser]

(John Savard) wrote:
>On 12 Dec 2003 06:23:46 -0800,
>(Polybus)
>wrote, in part:
>
>>a celebratory exhibit
>>both legitimizes what happened in 1945
>
>Anything *other* than a celebratory exhibit
>would legitimize what
>happened on December 7, 1941 and what happened
>on other dates in other
>times and places, such as the Japanese occupation
>of Nanking.
>
>An A-bomb is a tool. If it was used for wrong
>purposes, for aggression
>and world conquest, that would be bad. Achievements
>of science and
>technology that help free people to defend themselves
>from evil are to
>be celebrated.
>
>John Savard
>http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
Hear, Hear. I'd rather put 15 Kt on Hiroshima and 20 Kt on Nagasaki than
risk the lives of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines of both the U.S.
and Britain in storming Kyushu. And if they don't surrender after Nagasaki-Kokura's
next on August 16th. And Tibbets has been quoted in two books that if that
mission were necessary, he would lead that mission. And here's some irony:
Kokura was home to a major Japanese CW production plant-mustard and phosgene.
Aim point was just to the NW of the plant. It was a known chemical plant,
but not until after the war did the U.S. find out it was a CW plant.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Matt Wiser]

"Mycroft" <david > wrote:
>Look up the projected losses on both sides that
>an invasion of Japan would
>have caused then tell me how in-humane the A
>bomb was. Plus you forgot to
>mention that the fire bombing of Axis cities
>caused losses in some cases
>greater than both A bombs, war is hell but in
>the pacific the A bomb ended
>it.
>
>Myc
>
>
MacArthur estimated about 70,000 casualties for Kyushu. Given the firepower
the U.S. and British (British Pacific Fleet and RAF) had, the invasion of
Kyushu would have succeeded, but if the bomb doesn't work, or there are production
problems, the invasion HAS TO GO. I'd rather risk the lives of 7 B-29 crews
on the Hiroshima strike than the lives of 766,000 men in U.S. 6th Army, plus
the Navy's 3rd, 5th, and 7th Fleets in the Kyushu invasion. Truman made the
right decision based on the information HE HAD AT THE TIME. It was a quick
and brutal means to end a long war, but it got the job done.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[BackToNormal]

Peter Aitken > wrote:

> "Mycroft" <david > wrote in message
> ...
> > Look up the projected losses on both sides that an invasion of Japan would
> > have caused then tell me how in-humane the A bomb was. Plus you forgot to
> > mention that the fire bombing of Axis cities caused losses in some cases
> > greater than both A bombs, war is hell but in the pacific the A bomb ended
> > it.

> This overlooks two alternatives.
>
> 1) We could have dropped the bomb in a lightly populated area to show the
> Japanese that we had it and hopefully scared them into surrender.

They could have dropped the bomb on a big city too to show the Japanese
they had the bomb, and scare them into surrender.

Hang on a minute! They DID drop a bomb on a big city and DID show the
Japanese they HAD the bomb. Guess who didn't surrender?

ronh

--
"People do not make decisions on facts, rather,
how they feel about the facts" Robert Consedine

[Greg Hennessy]

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 09:30:25 +1300,
(BackToNormal) wrote:

>Peter Aitken > wrote:

>> 1) We could have dropped the bomb in a lightly populated area to show the
>> Japanese that we had it and hopefully scared them into surrender.
>
>They could have dropped the bomb on a big city too to show the Japanese
>they had the bomb, and scare them into surrender.
>

Never mind the inevitable japanese response to any such 'demonstration'
would have been to move allied POWs and internees into their key stragetic
locations and launch kamikaze attacks against every B29 which entered their
airspace from there on in.

Lone B29s upto that point were left alone precisely because they *werent*
deemed a threat.

greg

--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological
>achievements
>From: "Mark Jones"
>Date: 12/13/03 2:20 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: et>
>
>
>"Peter Aitken" > wrote in message
.com...
>> 1) We could have dropped the bomb in a lightly populated area to show the
>> Japanese that we had it and hopefully scared them into surrender. Note
>that
>> Hiroshima and a couple of other cities were spared conventional bombing so
>> the effects of the A-bomb could be studied - rather cold blooded don't you
>> think?
>Not even slightly. Truman did the right thing.
>
>


And if the Japanese ( or the Germans) rise again as a cruel and hostile
aggressor nations we will be back. And this time no more Mr. Nice Guy.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Mark Shaw]

Please keep this crap out of rec.food.cooking. Thanks.

[RFC removed from Newsgroups line, followups set to talk.politics.misc]

--
Mark Shaw contact info at homepage --> http://www.panix.com/~mshaw
================================================== ======================
Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish. - Euripides

[WaltBJ]

This revisionist bull**** keeps surfacing always from the 'usual
suspects'. most of them weren't around during WW2 and don't know
anything about how things were back then. I had an uncle - gone now -
who would have led his tank company ashore in March of 46 on Honshu.
There were no combat tasks for his company after three days. Why? They
would have all been wiped out by then. He was damn glad the bombs were
dropped. That meant he was going to live. He'd already been through
Saipan and Okinawa. Okinawa was where his M4 was hit by a Jap AT
shell. He lived through that, too.
Locate a book named "Operation Downfall" if you want to find out what
the invasions of Kyushu and Honshu would have been like. Read 'Typhoon
of Steel' or one of the other excellent books on Okinawa to see what
that battle was like. Then ask yourself - would you have been ready to
send your men in to repeat that - twice? Remember, Truman had been in
combat in WW1. It's the simplest thing in the world to
Monday-morning-quarterback, to say 'they should have done this - once
you know all the facts. Would I have dropped the bombs? Damn right I
would - they invaded MY country - I was born in Alaska and was living
there when the Japs invaded the Aleutians. FWIW I wouldn't trade the
life of a single American for a hundred enemies' lives - not then, not
now.
Walt BJ

[BUFDRVR]

>One wave would drop high explosive to destroy buildings. Later
>waves might have more anti-personnel oriented weaponry to kill
>the firemen fighting the fires, while delayed HE might be designed
>to sink deeper into the ground before exploding, thus rupturing
>gas and water lines, for more

This sounds somewhat like Dohet's philosophy. Douhet suggested three waves of
bombers seperated by 30 minutes. The first wave dropped HE to knock down
walls, or entire buildings. Wave 2 carried incendiary to set fire to what was
not knocked down. Wave 3 carried chemical weapons to prevent the fire fighters
from being able to extinguish the fires.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Matt Wiser]

(Richard) wrote:
>"Mycroft" <david > wrote
>in message >...
>> Look up the projected losses on both sides
>that an invasion of Japan would
>> have caused then tell me how in-humane the
>A bomb was. Plus you forgot to
>> mention that the fire bombing of Axis cities
>caused losses in some cases
>> greater than both A bombs, war is hell but
>in the pacific the A bomb ended
>> it.
>>
>> Myc
>
>The Japanese of the time were monsters. No
>one who had contact with them
>(other than the Krauts) was unscathed by violence.
> That "superior race"
>deserved to be exterminated.
>-Rich
Which is just what the USMC felt in an article in Leatherneck Magazine
circa May of 1945.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Alan Minyard]

On 13 Dec 2003 17:53:47 GMT, "Emmanuel.Gustin" > wrote:

>Stephen Harding > wrote:
>
>: In reading your defense of the American use of the atomic bomb, and
>: the refutation of some of the lefties claims of the evil nature of
>: American leadership (over the entire history of the nation), I thought
>: perhaps you weren't quite the anti-American ideologue I'd pegged you as.
>
>And you were right -- I am not an anti-American ideologue.
>
>I do condemn and resent, however, those -- on the left; but
>also people on the right, like you -- who somehow want to
>lump together the historical decision to use the bomb against
>Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with the intentions of the current US
>governments to develop nuclear weapons that are explicitly
>intended for first-strike use in limited warfare. Different
>context, different leaders, different goals and different
>consequences: Let us decide each case on its own merit.
>
>Truman's decision, seen in the context of 1945, was an
>understandable one, rationally defensible and morally not
>worse than many other acts perpetrated in this war, by friend
>and foe alike. It is very hard to attach any kind of approval
>to this decision; but perhaps it is sufficient to say that
>certainly most of the arguments that are used to condemn it
>don't survive closer scrutiny.
>
>The Bush nuclear policy is not defensible, not on moral
>grounds and not on grounds of self-interest. It is a prime
>example of ideology-driven boneheadedness.

It is an example of individuals with far more information than
you have making rational decisions based on US National
Security. So sorry that you Japanese Ubermench do not
run Washington (but not for lack of trying).

Al MInyard

[B2431]

>From: "Oelewapper"
>
>Dear friends,
>
>I'm really shocked, I have to say, to see how some members of what is
>essentially the U.S. military apparatus, and its fans and employees, have
>been working the numbers throughout this news-thread: Since when are we
>taking civilian casualties (the so-called "collateral damage") as a positive
>measure (rather than a negative one) for military planning (say "3 japanese
>children, women or elderly = 1 G.I."). And since when are fire-bombings
>that are (almost) exclusively aimed at civilian, urban populations a
>justified means of fighting a war? Since when is the A-bombing of Nagasaki
>(also executed for scientific reasons) a legitimate way of scaring a third
>country like the U.S.S.R., or making sure that the U.S. would occupy Japan
>before the Russians could? And since when is the mass destruction of cities
>and innocent civilian populations a justified means for a nation to make
>sure that it can win a war, even it is a world war? Isn't collective
>punishment a war crime according to the Geneva Conventions? Shouldn't
>nuclear weapons, or any other W.M.D., be used as a deterrent, a last resort?
>
<snip>

You are missing a few points. Just as in Britain, U.S.. and any other
industrialized country the people who work in factories or other valid military
targets live within close proximity to their jobs. Their families do too.
During WW2 there were no "smart weapons" to speak of so all sides accepted huge
civilian casualties as part and parcel of striking military targets which
frequently were in large cities. Take a look at bomb patterns for any mission
flown and you will see very few bombs actually struck their targets.

Given that fact would you have felt any better if the atomic bombings were
replaced with massive and multiple bombing raids with similar casualties?

If the bombs were not dropped then with the resulting surrender the war would
have gone on until at least April or May 1946 just with the planned invasions.
During that time Ishii Shiro could have perfected his biowarfare which he had
already used in China. Every so often there are outbreaks of disease in Red
China to this day that are attributed to his actions. Hirohito knew about his
program and I bet would have used the results on U.S. troops during the
invasions.

Even if the bioweapons were not used how many thousands of people would have
died during the bombing campaign, fighting in China etc next 8 months assuming
the invasions went off on schedule? Just as a SWAG I'd say well over the number
who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Cold hearted logic dictated they be used.

For an emotional reason how about the world was simply tired of a war the
Japanese had started a decade before? At some point it just had to stop.

Want another reason? The United States was running a 135% deficit and could
have gone bankrupt very soon at that rate. Britain's coffers, for example, were
empty or near empty.

I understand your emotional thoughts against the bombings, but you are looking
at the situation from 2003.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Stephen Harding]

Emmanuel.Gustin wrote:
> Stephen Harding > wrote:
>
> : In reading your defense of the American use of the atomic bomb, and
> : the refutation of some of the lefties claims of the evil nature of
> : American leadership (over the entire history of the nation), I thought
> : perhaps you weren't quite the anti-American ideologue I'd pegged you as.
>
> And you were right -- I am not an anti-American ideologue.
>
> I do condemn and resent, however, those -- on the left; but
> also people on the right, like you -- who somehow want to
> lump together the historical decision to use the bomb against
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with the intentions of the current US
> governments to develop nuclear weapons that are explicitly
> intended for first-strike use in limited warfare. Different
> context, different leaders, different goals and different
> consequences: Let us decide each case on its own merit.

Interesting observation, given that I don't believe I've ever
made a statement on this NG in support (or condemnation) over
current Bush nuclear strategy or policy, and certainly not using
1945 WWII context to justify modern nuclear policies.

You seem to be the one tending to "lump" all conservatives in
one negative grab bag.

> Truman's decision, seen in the context of 1945, was an
> understandable one, rationally defensible and morally not
> worse than many other acts perpetrated in this war, by friend
> and foe alike. It is very hard to attach any kind of approval
> to this decision; but perhaps it is sufficient to say that
> certainly most of the arguments that are used to condemn it
> don't survive closer scrutiny.
>
> The Bush nuclear policy is not defensible, not on moral
> grounds and not on grounds of self-interest. It is a prime
> example of ideology-driven boneheadedness.

I'm not up on the details of current Bush nuclear thinking. I
feel any "expansion" of the possible use of nuclear weaponry is
generally not a good thing. There may be tactical value in their
use, e.g. as "bunker busters" going after Bin Laden in the caves
of eastern Afghanistan, but the political baggage of their use
makes it not worth it IMO.

Best to leave nukes in the "too terrible to use" category of last
ditch national defense, although humanity is almost certainly
doomed to experience their use by *someone* at *some* time again.

I just hope it will not be the US that uses them for a third time.


SMH

[Kevin Brooks]

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> Emmanuel.Gustin wrote:
> > Stephen Harding > wrote:
> >
<snip>

> >
> > The Bush nuclear policy is not defensible, not on moral
> > grounds and not on grounds of self-interest. It is a prime
> > example of ideology-driven boneheadedness.
>
> I'm not up on the details of current Bush nuclear thinking. I
> feel any "expansion" of the possible use of nuclear weaponry is
> generally not a good thing. There may be tactical value in their
> use, e.g. as "bunker busters" going after Bin Laden in the caves
> of eastern Afghanistan, but the political baggage of their use
> makes it not worth it IMO.
>
> Best to leave nukes in the "too terrible to use" category of last
> ditch national defense, although humanity is almost certainly
> doomed to experience their use by *someone* at *some* time again.
>
> I just hope it will not be the US that uses them for a third time.

I am not sure that Mr. Gustin has accurately portrayed the situation vis a
vis the research into the feasibility and usefullness of the potential new
small nuclear weapons. From what I have read, the impetus behind this
research is to investigate their potential for use in a rather small niche,
which you accurately indicated is the destruction of very deep/hard critical
targets, especially those related to WMD's. Some claim that it is going to
be possible to develop a weapon that could be used against such targets with
relatively little collateral damage--relative, that is, to the alternatives.
These are: (a) strike with a non-nuclear penetrator, which may or may not be
successful, and even if it is may result in significant downwind
contamination (it would not be able to neutralize chemical agents, for
example); (b) conventional ground attack to seize the objective, again with
the potential of significant downwind contamination, not to mention the
attendant casualties accompanying the combat operations. A small nuclear
weapon *may* offer an alternative to these options that eliminates the
potential of downwind contamination while also ensuring that the strike
accomplishes its primary objective of destroying the target. Granted, that
is a big "may"--which is why the R&D effort is required, to determine the
feasibility of the option in the first place. Lest anyone think that such an
R&D effort is a concrete committment to production and deployment of such
weapons, they should be reminded that the US has conducted numerous R&D
efforts that never resulted in weapons deployment.

As to the relationship between this new effort and Hiroshima/Nagasaki--there
is none. For gosh sakes, if we wanted to go out and start hurling nukes
around at targets willy-nilly, we could do so right now--we already maintain
weapons that have selectable yields as low as point-three kilotons,
according to the Nuclear Weapons Archive. How many of them have we used in
anger? How many cities have we nuked post-1945? None.

Brooks

>
>
> SMH
>

[Matt Wiser]

"Oelewapper" > wrote:
>Dear friends,
>
>I'm really shocked, I have to say, to see how
>some members of what is
>essentially the U.S. military apparatus, and
>its fans and employees, have
>been working the numbers throughout this news-thread:
> Since when are we
>taking civilian casualties (the so-called "collateral
>damage") as a positive
>measure (rather than a negative one) for military
>planning (say "3 japanese
>children, women or elderly = 1 G.I."). And
>since when are fire-bombings
>that are (almost) exclusively aimed at civilian,
>urban populations a
>justified means of fighting a war? Since when
>is the A-bombing of Nagasaki
>(also executed for scientific reasons) a legitimate
>way of scaring a third
>country like the U.S.S.R., or making sure that
>the U.S. would occupy Japan
>before the Russians could? And since when is
>the mass destruction of cities
>and innocent civilian populations a justified
>means for a nation to make
>sure that it can win a war, even it is a world
>war? Isn't collective
>punishment a war crime according to the Geneva
>Conventions? Shouldn't
>nuclear weapons, or any other W.M.D., be used
>as a deterrent, a last resort?
>
>The overall, poorly-argumented criticism throughout
>this group, of the open
>letter by academics and intellectuals concerning
>the Enola Gay display, also
>appears to me to be very unwise. W.M.D., and
>nuclear weapons in particular,
>pose some very serious ethical questions indeed.
> And it's not just their
>use, to many people the very existence of nuclear
>weapons on the face of
>this earth is a very serious, virtually uncontroblable
>ecological danger, as
>well as a security threat that is difficult
>to contain. I wasn't around
>during the war, but I have visited Hiroshima
>a couple of years ago, and I
>would strongly advise all of you to do so too:
>the inferno caused by a
>nuclear bomb, cannot be compared to anything
>else in the world, in our
>entire human history; not even by the Nazi concentration
>camps. Therefore,
>the repeated 'shoot first, ask questions later'
>mentality throughout most
>postings of this thread, really strikes me;
>especially because - we're
>talking about a display in a museum here - scholars
>who ask questions or
>raise any criticism about these issues, are
>almost systematically treated
>like traitors or cowards who didn't dare be
>there...
>
>Frankly, you people are really, REALLY scaring
>me... Is this what the U.S.
>military complex is all about, and has been
>about for all those years? Are
>these the people that are occupying Iraq, because
>of its so-called W.M.D.
>(which were in fact be weather balloons), but
>are sitting on large amounts
>of nuclear and bio-chemical weapons themselves
>??? (with the capability to
>deliver them worldwide within a matter of minutes)
>
>Well then, let me ask you this. Following the
>hawkish ratio of the
>arguments that were put forward by most of you
>here. Wasn't Saddam's use of
>poison gas in places like Halabja (against those
>unruly, criminal Kurdish
>enemies, their cities and their populations),
>wasn't that a justified means
>of fighting the war, making sure that Saddam's
>troops would win without too
>much of a fight, teaching the enemy a lesson,
>also making sure the Turkish
>and Iranian armies would stay on their side
>of the border, collectively
>punishing the populations who had started the
>trouble in the first place,
>and keeping Iraqi casualties at an absolute
>minimum... ????? Wasn't the use
>of W.M.D's, many of whom where procured by Saddam
>in countries like Germany,
>the U.S.A. and the U.K., the most adequate and
>efficient way of dealing with
>'the situation', just like the United States
>had dealt with Japan by bombing
>Hiroshima and Nagasaki ???
>
>Sorry, but I think NOT !!!!! I think it's
>clear the victor was wrong on
>both occasions.
>
>Merry Christmas.
>In pace, Iustitia Omnibus.
>
>
>"Polybus" > wrote
>in message
om...
>> Dear Friend,
>>
>> A committee of scholars, veterans, clergy,
>activists, students, and
>> other interested individuals is now forming
>to challenge the
>> Smithsonian's plans to exhibit the Enola Gay
>solely as a "magnificent
>> technological achievement." The planned exhibit
>is devoid not only of
>> historical context and discussion of the ongoing
>controversy
>> surrounding the bombings, but even of basic
>information regarding the
>> number of casualties. We have formulated the
>following statement of
>> principles, which we plan to circulate widely.
>The statement makes
>> clear that we are not opposed to exhibiting
>the plane in a fair and
>> responsible manner, but that we fear that
>such a celebratory exhibit
>> both legitimizes what happened in 1945 and
>helps build support for the
>> Bush administration's dangerous new nuclear
>policies. We, in fact,
>> welcome and intend to initiate a national
>discussion of both the 1945
>> bombings and of current nuclear issues. But
>before we launch a public
>> campaign and officially contact the Smithsonian,
>we seek endorsements
>> of the statement from a small number of prominent
>individuals who can
>> help the effort gain credibility and attract
>media attention. More
>> active participation is, of course, welcome
>and desirable. Most
>> immediately, though, please let us know if
>we can add your name to our
>> list and how you would like to be identified.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Peter Kuznick,
>> Professor of History and Director, Nuclear
>Studies Institute, American
>> University
>>
>> Kevin Martin
>> Executive Director, Peace Action
>>
>> Daniel Ellsberg
>> Author, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and The
>Pentagon Papers
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------
>>
>> http://www.enola-gay.org/
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------
>>
>> Statement of Principles
>> Gen. John "Jack" Dailey, director of the Smithsonian's
>National Air
>> and Space Museum, the most widely visited
>museum in the world, has
>> announced plans to display the Enola Gay--the
>B-29 Superfortress that
>> dropped the atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima--as
>the centerpiece
>> of the museum's new Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center
>at Washington Dulles
>> International Airport. That August 6, 1945
>attack, according to recent
>> estimates, resulted in over 140,000 deaths.
>A second atomic bomb
>> dropped three days later on the city of Nagasaki
>caused an estimated
>> 70,000 deaths. And as many scientists warned
>in advance would happen,
>> and as President Truman clearly understood,
>the incineration of
>> Hiroshima and Nagasaki initiated a nuclear
>arms race that threatened
>> to bring about the annihilation of the human
>species, a danger that
>> persists today.
>>
>> Recognizing the momentous implications of
>the onset of the nuclear
>> age, in 1999 a national panel of distinguished
>journalists and
>> scholars voted the U.S. atomic bombings of
>Hiroshima and Nagasaki the
>> most significant news event of the 20th century.
>Yet, in a statement
>> reflecting extraordinary callousness toward
>the victims, indifference
>> to the deep divisions among American citizens
>about the propriety of
>> these actions, and disregard for the feelings
>of most of the world's
>> peoples, museum director Dailey declared,
>"We are displaying it [the
>> Enola Gay] in all of its glory as a magnificent
>technological
>> achievement." The plane, in fact, differs
>little from other B-29s and
>> gains its notoriety only from the deadly and
>history-altering nature
>> of its mission.
>>
>> Dailey's remarks are particularly shocking
>in light of the criticism
>> of the bombing by General Dwight Eisenhower
>and the questions raised
>> by so many other WWII military leaders, sentiments
>best reflected in
>> the haunting comments of Admiral William Leahy,
>Truman's wartime chief
>> of staff who chaired the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
>who poignantly
>> observed, "the use of this barbarous weapon
>at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
>> was of no material assistance in our war against
>Japan. The Japanese
>> were already defeated and ready to surrender....in
>being the first to
>> use it, we adopted an ethical standard common
>to the barbarians of the
>> Dark Ages."
>>
>> People throughout the world have already raised
>powerful objections to
>> the exhibit. Hidankyo, the main survivors'
>organization in Japan, and
>> Gensuikyo, the Japan Council Against A and
>H Bombs, have written to
>> Dailey, insisting, "The display rationalizes
>the bombing and as such
>> it is absolutely unforgiveable....Atomic bombs
>massacre civilians
>> indiscriminately and are weapons that cannot
>be justified in
>> humanitarian terms. Even now, many victims
>continue to suffer the
>> after-effects." Nor can Americans acquiesce
>to an exhibit that
>> implicitly celebrates the atomic bombings
>while avoiding all of the
>> crucial questions. By its mishandling of these
>issues in 1995, the
>> Smithsonian cast international doubt upon
>the integrity, decency, and
>> fairmindedness of American institutions. We
>hope to avert a similar
>> outcome this time. We have therefore formed
>an ad-hoc coalition of
>> religious leaders, veterans, scientists, historians
>and other
>> scholars, citizen activists, and students
>united by our conviction
>> that such an exhibit must not go forward as
>planned.
>>
>> We are not, however, opposed to exhibiting
>the Enola Gay. Much to the
>> contrary, we welcome any exhibition that will
>spur an honest and
>> balanced discussion of the atomic bombings
>of 1945 and of current U.S.
>> nuclear policy. Our greatest concern is that
>the disturbing issues
>> raised by the atomic bombings in 1945 will
>not be addressed in the
>> planned exhibit and that President Truman's
>use of atomic weapons will
>> legitimize the Bush administration's current
>effort to lower the
>> threshold for future use of nuclear weapons.
>Whatever the National Air
>> and Space Museum's conscious intention, any
>effort to treat the atomic
>> bombings of 1945 in a celebratory fashion
>or to display the plane that
>> dropped the first atomic bomb solely as a
>"magnificent technological
>> achievement" can only dishonor the museum
>and the nation and serve the
>> purposes of those who seek to normalize nuclear
>weapons and facilitate
>> their future use.
>>
>> We intend to use this exhibit, the presidential
>elections, and the
>> upcoming 60th anniversary of the atomic bombings
>to stimulate a
>> national discussion of U.S. nuclear history
>and current policy and to
>> work with like-minded groups in other nations.
>Most Americans remain
>> unaware of the policy changes adopted in the
>2001 U.S. Nuclear Posture
>> Review, which prompted the New York Times
>to editorially condemn the
>> U.S. as a "nuclear rogue" nation, and of the
>measures taken by the
>> Bush administration to produce a new generation
>of "more usable"
>> nuclear weapons. The significance has not
>been lost on international
>> leaders. In his stirring Peace Declaration
>on August 6 of this year,
>> Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba warned, "The
>nuclear Non-Proliferation
>> Treaty, the central international agreement
>guiding the elimination of
>> nuclear weapons, is on the verge of collapse.
>The chief cause is U.S.
>> nuclear policy that, by openly declaring the
>possibility of a
>> pre-emptive nuclear first strike and calling
>for resumed research into
>> mini-nukes and other so-called 'useable nuclear
>weapons,' appears to
>> worship nuclear weapons...." Or as Joseph
>Cirincione, the Carnegie
>> Endowment for International Peace's nuclear
>expert, noted, the Bush
>> administration is now "saying that nuclear
>weapons are no longer the
>> weapon of last resort..."
>>
>> To initiate this desperately needed national
>conversation on nuclear
>> arms policy, past and present, the Committee
>for a National Discussion
>> of Nuclear History and Current Policy calls
>upon Smithsonian
>> Institution Secretary Lawrence Small, John
>Dailey, and other leaders
>> of the Smithsonian to sit down with our representatives
>and those of
>> other interested organizations and to jointly
>plan a balanced exhibit
>> that places the bombings in their historical
>context, educates viewers
>> about the consequences of past nuclear weapons
>use, and explains the
>> controversy surrounding the use of the atomic
>bombs that antedates the
>> deployment of the Enola Gay itself.
>>
>> We also call on the Smithsonian to co-sponsor
>a joint conference or a
>> series of conferences that explore the atomic
>bombings of Hiroshima
>> and Nagasaki and the place of nuclear weapons
>in the modern world.
>> Given the seriousness of the current nuclear
>crisis, should the
>> Smithsonian not accede to this request for
>a fair and balanced
>> presentation and a reasoned discussion of
>the many profound issues
>> involved, we will join with others in this
>country and around the
>> world to protest the exhibit in its present
>form and to catalyze a
>> national discussion of critical nuclear issues.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>------
>>
>> Partial List of Signers*
>> Kosuzu Abe, Professor University of the Ryukyus,
>Okinawa, Japan;
>> Affiliate Researcher, Center for Puerto Rican
>Studies, City University
>> of New York, Hunter College
>> Elaine S. Abelson, Professor of History, New
>School University
>> Hafsat Abiola, Founder of the Kudirat Initiative
>for Democracy (KIND)
>> Frank Ackerman, Professor, Global Development
>and Environment
>> Institute, Tufts University
>> Rev. George Addison, Chaplain, Brock University,
>St. Catharines,
>> Canada
>> Jean-Christophe Agnew, Professor of American
>Studies and History, Yale
>> University
>> Wilbert H. Ahern, Professor of History, University
>of Minnesota,
>> Morris
>> Tadatoshi Akiba, Mayor, City of Hiroshima,
>Japan
>> Gar Alperovitz, Author, The Decision to Use
>the Atomic Bomb and Atomic
>> Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam; Bauman Professor
>of Political
>> Economy, University of Maryland, College Park
>> Benjamin L. Alpers, Professor, Honors College,
>University of Oklahoma
>> Donna Alvah, Professor of History, St. Lawrence
>University
>> Michihiro Ama, Department of East Asian Languages
>and Literature,
>> University of California, Irvine; Secretary,
>Higashi Hongwanji
>> Mission, Los Angeles
>> Lori E. Amy, Director, Women's and Gender
>Studies Program, Georgia
>> Southern University
>> Joyce Appleby, Professor Emerita of History,
>University of California,
>> Los Angeles
>> Anthony K. Arnove, Editor, Iraq Under Siege
>and Terrorism and War
>> Stanley Aronowitz, Professor of Sociology
>and Urban Education,
>> Graduate Center, City University of New York
>> John Ashbery, Poet; Professor of Literature,
>Bard College
>> Alan D. Attie, Professor of Biochemistry,
>University of
>> Wisconsin-Madison
>> Pat Aufderheide, Professor and Co-Director,
>Center for Social Media,
>> School of Communication, American University
>> Paul Auster, Writer; Filmmaker
>> Lawrence Badash, Professor Emeritus of History
>of Science, University
>> of California, Santa Barbara; Author, Scientists
>and the Development
>> of Nuclear Weapons
>> John S. Baick, Professor of History, Western
>New England College
>> Ellen R. Baker, Professor of History Columbia
>University
>> Peter W. Bardaglio, Professor of History,
>Ithaca College
>> Holly Barker, Embassy, Republic of the Marshall
>Islands; Author, Bravo
>> for the Marshallese: Regaining Control in
>a Post Nuclear,
>> Post-Colonial World
>> Michael A. Barnhart, Distinguished Teaching
>Professor, Department of
>> History, State University of New York-Stony
>Brook
>> Rosalyn Baxandall, Professor and Chair of
>American Studies, State
>> University of New York College, Old Westbury
>> David T. Beito, Professor of History, University
>of Alabama; Research
>> Fellow, The Independent Institute
>> Ruth Ben-Ghiat, Professor of Italian Studies
>and History, New York
>> University
>> Thomas Bender, Professor of History, New York
>University
>> Medea Benjamin, Co-founder, Global Exchange
>> Scott H. Bennett, Professor of History, Georgian
>Court College
>> Susan Porter Benson, Professor of History,
>University of Connecticut
>> Ira Berlin, Distinguished University Professor,
>University of Maryland
>> R. B. Bernstein, Adjunct Professor of Law,
>New York Law School;
>> Author, Thomas Jefferson
>> Kai Bird, Co-editor, Hiroshima's Shadow; Author,
>The Color of Truth:
>> McGeorge Bundy and William Bundy, Brothers
>in Arms
>> Herbert P. Bix, Professor of History and Sociology,
>Binghamton
>> University; Author, Hirohito and the Making
>of Modern Japan
>> Casey Nelson Blake, Professor of History and
>American Studies,
>> Columbia University
>> William Blum, Former State Department Official;
>Freelance Journalist;
>> Author, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's
>Only Superpower
>> John Bodnar, Chancellor's Professor of History,
>Indiana University
>> Julian Bond, Professor, School of Public Affairs,
>American University;
>> Department of History, University of Virginia
>> Paul S. Boyer, Merle Curti Professor of History
>Emeritus, University
>> of Wisconsin-Madison
>> Philip Brenner, Professor of International
>Relations, American
>> University
>> Karen Brodkin, Professor of Anthropology,
>University of California,
>> Los Angeles
>> Barbara Brooks, Professor of History, City
>College and the Graduate
>> Center, City University of New York
>> Anne Brophy, Professor of History, Georgia
>State University
>> John K. Brown, Professor of History and Technology,
>University of
>> Virginia
>> Rogers Brubaker, Professor of Sociology, University
>of California, Los
>> Angeles
>> Carolyn J. Bryan, Professor of Music, Georgia
>Southern University
>> Paul Buhle, Professor of American Civilization,
>Brown University
>> Terry Butler, Professor of Mathematics, Rutgers
>University
>> Robert Buzzanco, Professor of History, University
>of Houston
>> Christopher Capozzola, Professor of History,
>Massachusetts Institute
>> of Technology
>> Mina J. Carson, Professor of History, Oregon
>State University
>> Madeline H. Caviness, Mary Richardson Professor
>of Art and Art
>> History, Tufts University; President, International
>Council for
>> Philosophy and Humanistic Studies
>> Courtney B. Cazden, Charles William Eliot
>Professor of Education
>> Emerita, Harvard University
>> Jane Censer, Professor of History, George
>Mason University
>> Rev. Jerrye G Champion, National Board President,
>Church Women United
>> Julie A. Charlip, Professor of History, Whitman
>College
>> Una Chaudhuri, Professor of English and Drama,
>New York University
>> William F. Cheek, Professor of History, San
>Diego State University
>> Ira Chernus, Professor of Religious Studies,
>University of Colorado at
>> Boulder
>> Noam Chomsky, Institute Professor, Department
>of Linguistics and
>> Philosophy, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
>> Dick Cluster, Writer; Translator; Professor
>in Honors and Academic
>> Support Programs, University of Massachusetts
>at Boston
>> Ben Cohen, President, Business Leaders for
>Sensible Priorities;
>> Co-Founder, Ben and Jerry's
>> Lizabeth Cohen, Howard Mumford Jones Professor
>of American Studies,
>> Harvard University
>> Steven Cohen, Professor of Education, Tufts
>University
>> Barry Commoner, Director Emeritus, Center
>for the Biology of Natural
>> Systems, Queens College, City University of
>New York
>> William E. Connolly, Krieger-Eisenhower Professor
>of Politics, Johns
>> Hopkins University
>> Sandi E. Cooper, Professor of History, College
>of Staten Island
>> Edward Countryman, University Distinguished
>Professor of History,
>> Southern Methodist University
>> Susan Crane, Professor of Modern European
>History, University of
>> Arizona
>> Bruce C. Daniels, Professor of History, Texas
>Tech University
>> Lawrence R. Davidson, Professor of History,
>West Chester University
>> Natalie Zemon Davis, Henry Charles Lea Professor
>of History Emerita,
>> Princeton University
>> Alan Dawley, Professor of History, The College
>of New Jersey
>> Jane S. De Hart, Professor of History, University
>of California, Santa
>> Barbara
>> David De Leon, Graduate History Director,
>Howard University
>> Judith DeGroat, Professor of History, St.
>Lawrence University
>> Marie Dennis, Director, Maryknoll Office for
>Global Concerns
>> Matthew J. Dennis, Professor of History, University
>of Oregon
>> E.L. Doctorow, Author
>> Ariel Dorfman, Writer, Distinguished Professor,
>Duke University
>> Ann Douglas, Parr Professor of Comparative
>Literature, Columbia
>> University
>> John W. Dower, Professor of History, Massachusetts
>Institute of
>> Technology; Author, Embracing Defeat: Japan
>in the Wake of World War
>> II
>> Jonathan Dresner, Professor of East Asian
>History, University of
>> Hawai'i at Hilo
>> Ellen Carol DuBois, Professor of History,
>University of California,
>> Los Angeles
>> Mary L. Dudziak, Judge Edward J. and Ruey
>L. Guirado Professor of Law
>> and History, University of Southern California
>> Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, Professor of Ethnic
>Studies, California State
>> University, Hayward
>> Anabel Dwyer, Board Member, Lawyers' Committee
>on Nuclear Policy
>> Sally Eberhardt, Theaters Against War, New
>York, New York
>> Taner Edis, Professor of Physics, Truman State
>University
>> Carolyn Eisenberg, Professor of History, Hofstra
>University
>> Ivan Eland, Senior Fellow and Director, Center
>on Peace & Liberty, The
>> Independent Institute
>> Pat Elder, Co-founder, DC Anti-War Network
>(DAWN)
>> Geoff Eley, Sylvia L. Thrupp Collegiate Professor
>of Comparative
>> History; Professor of German Studies, University
>of Michigan
>> Daniel Ellsberg, Author, Secrets: A Memoir
>of Vietnam and The Pentagon
>> Papers
>> Tom Engelhardt, Author, The End of Victory
>Culture; Creator,
>> TomDispatch.com
>> Sara M. Evans, Professor of History, University
>of Minnesota
>> Samih Farsoun, Professor of Sociology, American
>University
>> Lane Fenrich, Deptartment of History, Northwestern
>University
>> Kirsten Fermaglich, Professor of History and
>Jewish Studies, Michigan
>> State University
>> Eileen Findlay, Professor of History, American
>University
>> Michael M.J. Fischer, Professor of Anthropology
>and Science and
>> Technology Studies, Massachusetts Institute
>of Technology
>> Robert P. Forbes, Lecturer in History; Associate
>Director, Gilder
>> Lehrman Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance,
>and Abolition,
>> Yale University
>> John M. Foster, Professor of Biology Emeritus,
>Hampshire College.
>> Elizabeth Frank, Joseph E. Harry Professor
>of Modern Languages &
>> Literature, Bard College
>> Marian C. Franz, Executive Director, National
>Campaign for a Peace Tax
>> Fund
>> George M. Fredrickson, Edgar E. Robinson Professor
>of United State
>> History Emeritus, Stanford University
>> Valerie French, Professor of History, American
>University
>> Max Paul Friedman, Professor of History, Florida
>State University
>> Michael Frisch, Professor of History/Senior
>Research Scholar,
>> University at Buffalo, State University of
>New York
>> Atsushi Fujioka, Professor of U.S. Economy,
>Ritsumeikan University,
>> Kyoto
>> Lloyd Gardner, Research Professor of History,
>Rutgers University
>> Sister Maureen Geary, OP, Promoter of Justice,
>Peace and Care for
>> Creation for the Grand Rapids Dominicans
>> Clifford Geertz, Professor Emeritus, Institute
>for Advanced Study,
>> Princeton, New Jersey
>> Joseph Gerson, Director of Programs, American
>Friends Service
>> Committee, New England Regional Office
>> James Gilbert, Professor of History, University
>of Maryland
>> John Gillis, Professor of History, Rutgers
>University
>> Todd Gitlin, Professor of Journalism and Sociology,
>Columbia
>> University
>> David Glassberg, Professor of History, University
>of Massachusetts,
>> Amherst
>> Natalie J. Goldring, Executive Director, Program
>on Global Security
>> and Disarmament, University of Maryland; Acting
>Chair, Executive
>> Board, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
>> Gary R. Goldstein, Professor of Physics and
>Astronomy, Tufts
>> University
>> James A. Good, Professor of History, North
>Harris College
>> Linda Gordon, Professor of History, New York
>University
>> Elliott J. Gorn, Professor of History, Brown
>University
>> Van Gosse, Professor of History, Frankin &
>Marshall College; Co-Chair,
>> Historians Against the War
>> Paul Gottfried, Professor of Humanities, Elizabethtown
>College
>> Loren Graham, Professor of History and History
>of Science,
>> Massachusetts Institute of Technology
>> Jonathan Granoff, President, Global Security
>Institute; CoChair,
>> American Br Association Committee on Arms
>Control and National
>> Security
>> Anne H. Griffis, Church Women United
>> Richard B. Griffis, United Church of Christ
>> Robert Griffith, Professor of History, American
>University
>> Elaine C. Hagopian, Professor Emerita of Sociology,
>Simmons College
>> Xanthe Hall, Program Director, International
>Physicians for the
>> Prevention of Nuclear War, Germany
>> David C. Hallin, Professor of Communication,
>University of California,
>> San Diego
>> Ronald Hamowy, Professor of History Emeritus,
>University of Alberta,
>> Canada; Research Fellow, The Independent Institute
>> Robert E. Hannigan, Dept. of History, Suffolk
>University
>> Laura Hein, Department of History, Northwestern
>University
>> Ira Helfand, MD, Co-founder and Past President,
>Physicians for Social
>> Responsibility
>> David R. Henderson, Professor of Economics,
>Naval Postgraduate School,
>> Monterey, California
>> Nancy M. Henley, Professor Emerita of Psychology,
>University of
>> California, Los Angeles
>> Margot A. Henriksen, Professor of History,
>University of Hawaii at
>> Manoa
>> Edward S. Herman, Professor Emeritus of Finance,
>Wharton School,
>> University of Pennsylvania
>> Neil Hertz, Professor of Humanities, Johns
>Hopkins University
>> Robert Higgs, Senior Fellow in Political Economy,
>The Independent
>> Institute; Editor, The Independent Review:
>A Journal of Political
>> Economy
>> Hosea Hirata, Professor, Director of the Japanese
>Program, Tufts
>> University
>> Wayne Hobson, Professor of American Studies,
>California State
>> University, Fullerton
>> Jennifer L. Hochschild, Henry LeBarre Jayne
>Professor of Government;
>> Professor of African and African American
>Studies, Harvard University
>> Martha Hodes, Professor of History, New York
>University
>> Stanley Hoffmann, Buttenwieser University
>Professor, Harvard
>> University
>> Rev. David J. Hogan, Roman Catholic pastor,
>retired
>> John P. Holdren, Teresa and John Heinz Professor;
>Director, Program on
>> Science, Technology, and Public Policy, John
>F. Kennedy School of
>> Government, Harvard University
>> Albert L. "Woody" Holton, III, Professor of
>History, University of
>> Richmond
>> Gerald Horne, Moores Professor of History
>and African-American
>> Studies, University of Houston
>> Gerald C. Horne, Professor of African-American
>History, Professor of
>> Communications Studies, University of North
>Carolina
>> Michael Hunt, Professor of History, University
>of North Carolina,
>> Chapel Hill
>> Lloyd A. Hunter, Professor of History and
>American Studies, Franklin
>> College
>> Adrienne Carey Hurley, Japan Studies Postdoctoral
>Fellow, Stanford
>> University
>> Amy Isaacs, National Director, Americans for
>Democratic Action
>> David Isles, Professor of Mathematics, Tufts
>University
>> William Issel, Professor of History, San Francisco
>State University
>> Maurice Isserman, William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor
>of History, Hamilton
>> College
>> Elizabeth Ito, Teacher
>> Bruce Jackson, SUNY Distinguished Professor
>and Samuel P. Capen
>> Professor of American Culture, University
>at Buffalo
>> Matthew Frye Jacobson, Professor of American
>Studies and History, Yale
>> University
>> Sheila Jasanoff, Pforzheimer Professor of
>Science and Technology
>> Studies, John F. Kennedy School of Government,
>Harvard University
>> Martin Jay, Sidney Hellman Ehrman Professor
>of History, University of
>> California, Berkeley
>> Robert Jensen, Professor of Journalism, University
>of Texas, Austin
>> John Jonik, Political cartoonist
>> Mitch Kachun, Professor of History, Western
>Michigan University
>> Michio Kaku, Professor of Theoretical Physics,
>City College and the
>> Graduate Center of the City University of
>New York
>> Michael Kammen, Professor of American History
>and Culture, Cornell
>> University; Former Member of the Smithsonian
>Council
>> Laura Croghan Kamoie, Professor of History,
>American University
>> Louis Kampf, Professor of Literature Emeritus,
>Massachusetts Institute
>> of Technology
>> Rhoda Kanaaneh, Professor of Anthropology,
>American University
>> Stanley N. Katz, Professor of Public and International
>Affairs;
>> Director, Center for Arts and Cultural Policy
>Studies, Woodrow Wilson
>> School, Princeton University
>> Ira Katznelson, Ruggles Professor of Political
>Science and History,
>> Columbia University
>> Gordon Kaufman, Mallinckrodt Professor of
>Divinity Emeritus, Harvard
>> University
>> Michael Kazin, Professor of History, Georgetown
>University
>> Joseph Kinner, Professor of History, Gallaudet
>University
>> Gregory T. Knouff, Professor of History, Keene
>State College
>> Barbara Koeppel, Investigative Journalist
>> Walter Kohn, Research Professor of Physics,
>University of California,
>> Santa Barbara, Nobel Laureate of Chemistry
>> Gabriel Kolko, Distinguished Research Professor
>Emeritus, York
>> University, Toronto, Canada
>> Dennis Kortheuer, Professor of History, California
>State University,
>> Long Beach
>> J. Morgan Kousser, Professor of History and
>Social Science, California
>> Institute of Technology
>> Joel Kovel, Professor of Social Studies, Bard
>College
>> Ron Kovic, Author, Born on the Fourth of July
>> Wendy Kozol, Professor of Gender and Women's
>Studies, Oberlin College
>> David Krieger, President, Nuclear Age Peace
>Foundation
>> Kenneth Kusmer, Professor of History, Temple
>University
>> Peter J. Kuznick, Professor of History, Director,
>Nuclear Studies
>> Institute, American University
>> Walter LaFeber, Professor of History, Cornell
>University
>> Ann J. Lane, Professor of History and Students
>in Women and Gender,
>> University of Virginia
>> Fr. Paul Lansu, Pax Christi International
>> Donald N. Lathrop, Professor of Peace and
>World Order Studies,
>> Berkshire Community College, Pittsfield, Massachusetts
>> Steven F. Lawson, Professor of History, Rutgers
>University
>> Norman Lear, Writer-Producer
>> Richard Ned Lebow, James O. Freedman Presidential
>Professor of
>> Government, Dartmouth College
>> Joel L. Lebowitz, Professor; Director, Center
>for Mathematical
>> Sciences Research, Rutgers University
>> Eric LeCompte, National Council Chair, Pax
>Christi USA: National
>> Council Peace Movement
>> Susan E. Lederer, Professor of History of
>Medicine, History, Yale
>> University
>> Steve Leeper, US representative, World Conference
>of Mayors for Peace
>> Mark H. Leff, Professor of History, University
>of Illinois at
>> Urbana-Champaign
>> Melvyn P. Leffler, Stettinius Professor of
>American History,
>> University of Virginia
>> Roger Leisner, Host, Radio Free Maine
>> Jesse Lemisch, Professor Emeritus of History,
>John Jay College of
>> Criminal Justice, City University of New York
>> Gerda Lerner, Robinson-Edwards Professor of
>History Emerita,
>> University of Wisconsin, Madison
>> Lawrence W. Levine, Margaret Byrne Professor
>of History Emeritus,
>> University of California, Berkeley; Professor
>of History, George Mason
>> University
>> Norman Levitt, Professor of Mathematics, Rutgers
>University
>> Robert Jay Lifton, Visiting Professor of Psychiatry,
>Harvard Medical
>> School; Co-author, Hiroshima in America
>> Susan Lindee, Professor of History and Sociology
>of Science,
>> University of Pennsylvania; Author, Suffering
>Made Real: American
>> Science and the Survivors at Hiroshima
>> Kriste Lindenmeyer, Professor of History,
>University of Maryland,
>> Baltimore County
>> Leon F. Litwack, A.F. & May T. Morrison Professor
>of History,
>> University of California, Berkeley
>> Alvaro Vargas Llosa, Research Fellow, The
>Independent Institute;
>> Author, Liberty for Latin America (forthcoming)
>> Doug Long, Hiroshima Scholar
>> Ronald G. Lora, Professor of History, University
>of Toledo
>> Bernard Lown, MD, Professor Emeritus, Harvard
>School of Public Healt
>> Staughton Lynd, Historian and Attorney
>> Vincent Lyon-Callo, Professor of Anthropology,
>Western Michigan
>> University
>> Mark H. Lytle, Professor of History, Bard
>College
>> Nancy MacLean, Professor, Deptartment of History,
>Northwestern
>> University
>> Graham MacPhee, Professor, University of Portsmouth,
>England
>> Mairead Corrigan Maguire, Nobel Peace Laureate
>> Arjun Makhijani, President, Institute for
>Energy and Environmental
>> Research
>> Leo Maley, III, Author of numerous articles
>on the atomic bombings of
>> Hiroshima and Nagasaki
>> Jane Mansbridge, Adams Professor, Kennedy
>School of Government,
>> Harvard University
>> Glenn Marcus, Documentary Producer; Adjunct
>Professor of
>> Communications, Johns Hopkins University
>> William F. Marina, Professor of Humanities,
>Professor of Business;
>> Former Director of International Studies,
>Florida Atlantic University
>> Norman Markowitz, Professor of History, Rutgers
>University
>> Kevin Martin, Executive Director, Peace Action
>> Eric S. Maskin, A.O. Hirschman Professor of
>Social Science, Institute
>> for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey
>> Paul H. Mattingly, Professor of History; Director,
>Program in Public
>> History, New York University
>> Jeremy Maxand, Executive Director, Snake River
>Alliance, Boise, Idaho
>> Elaine Tyler May, Professor of American Studies
>and History,
>> University of Minnesota; Author, Homeward
>Bound: American Families in
>> the Cold War Era
>> Joseph A. McCartin, Professor of History,
>Georgetown University
>> Robert W. McChesney, Research Professor of
>Communication, University
>> of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>> Kathleen McCluskey, CSJ, Executive Director,
>US Federation of Sisters
>> of Saint Joseph
>> Robert S. McElvaine, Elizabeth Chisholm Professor
>of Arts & Letters
>> and Professor of History, Millsaps College
>> J. Geeta McGahey, MD
>> J.E. McNeil, Executive Director, Center on
>Conscience & War
>> J.R. McNeill, Professor, School of Foreign
>Service, Georgetown
>> University
>> Brent Meeker, Science and Engineering Fellow
>of the Naval Air System
>> Command
>> William Mello, Professor of Labor Studies,
>Indiana University
>> Everett Mendelsohn, Professor of the History
>of Science, Harvard
>> University
>> Leisa D. Meyer, Professor of History and Director,
>Women's Studies
>> Program, College of William and Mary
>> Joanne Meyerowitz, Professor of History, Indiana
>University; Editor,
>> Journal of American History
>> Barton P. Meyers, Visiting Professor of Psychology,
>Bard College
>> Zia Mian, Program on Science and Global Security,
>Princeton University
>> Irene Michaud, Western Massachusetts American
>Friends Service
>> Committee
>> Howard G. Miller, Professor Emeritus of Psychology,
>North Carolina
>> State University
>> Richard H. Minear, Professor of History, University
>of Massachusetts,
>> Amherst, Translator of Hiroshima literature
>> Gregg Mitman, Professor of History of Science,
>Medical History, and
>> Science & Technology Studies, University of
>Wisconsin-Madison
>> Uday Mohan, Author of numerous articles on
>the atomic bombings of
>> Hiroshima and Nagasaki
>> Marian B. Mollin, Professor of History, Virginia
>Tech University
>> David Montgomery, Farnam Professor of History
>Emeritus, Yale
>> University
>> Rick Moody, Author Purple America and The
>Ice Storm
>> Regina Morantz-Sanchez, Professor of History,
>University of Michigan
>> Leuren Moret, Environmental Commissioner,
>Berkeley, California
>> Bradford Morrow, Author, Trinity Fields and
>Ariel's Crossing;
>> Professor of Literature, Bard College
>> Richard Moser, Ph.D., National Field Representative,
>American
>> Association of University Professors
>> Robert K. Musil, Executive Director and CEO,
>Physicians for Social
>> Responsibility
>> Pamela S. Nadell, Professor of History, American
>University
>> Sylvain Nagler, Professor, Empire State College
>> David Nasaw, Distinguished Professor of History,
>City University of
>> New York Graduate Center
>> Gary B. Nash, Professor Emeritus of History,
>University of California,
>> Los Angeles
>> Anil Nauriya, Advocate, Supreme Court of India,
>New Delhi, India
>> Bruce Nelson, Professor of History, Dartmouth
>College
>> Margaret Nielsen, Professor of Social Work,
>Michigan State University
>> Philip Nobile, Editor, Judgment at the Smithsonian
>> Howard Norman, Writer
>> Ronald L. Numbers, Hilldale Professor of the
>History of Science and
>> Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison
>> Arnold A. Offner, Cornelia F. Hugel Professor
>of History, Lafayette
>> College
>> Patricia Oldham, Lecturer Behavioral-Social
>Sciences Department Hostos
>> Community College, City University of New
>York
>> Alicia Ostriker, Professor, Department of
>English, Rutgers University
>> David S. Painter, Professor of History, Georgetown
>University
>> John O. Pastore, Professor of Medicine, Tufts
>University School of
>> Medicine; Director of Echocardiography, Caritas
>St. Elizabeth's
>> Medical Center; Former Executive Secretary,
>International Physicians
>> for the Prevention of Nuclear War
>> Orlando Patterson, John Cowles Professor of
>Sociology, Harvard
>> University
>> Philip J. Pauly, Professor of History, Rutgers
>University
>> David Penna, Professor, Department of Government
>and History,
>> Gallaudet University
>> Theda Perdue, Professor of History, University
>of North Carolina,
>> Chapel Hill
>> James Petras, Professor of Sociology, Binghamton
>University
>> Alan F. Phillips, M.D. and Joy Phillips, Founders,
>Anti-Nuclear-War
>> Fund, Project Ploughshares, Canada
>> Geoff Pingree, Professor, Cinema Studies and
>English, Oberlin College
>> Mark Pittenger, Professor of History, University
>of Colorado
>> Stephen J. Pitti, Professor of History, Yale
>University
>> John Polanyi, Nobel Laureate, Chemistry, 1986
>> Gareth Porter, Author, Perils of Dominance:
>Power Imbalance and the
>> Path to the Vietnam War
>> Theodore A. Postol, Professor of Science,
>Technology, and National
>> Security Policy, Massachusetts Institute of
>Technology
>> Lawrence N. Powell, Professor of History,
>Tulane University
>> Linda C. Raeder, Professor of Humanities,
>Palm Beach Atlantic
>> University
>> Ralph Raico, Professor of History, State College,
>Buffalo
>> James Michael Reaume, Jr. MD
>> Adolph Reed, Professor, Graduate Faculty of
>Political and Social
>> Science, New School University
>> Leo P. Ribuffo, George Washington Distinguished
>Professor, Department
>> of History, George Washington University
>> Robert J. Richards, Professor of History,
>Philosophy, and Psychology;
>> Director, Morris Fishbein Center for the History
>of Science and
>> Medicine, University of Chicago
>> Paul Craig Roberts, Research Fellow, The Independent
>Institute; Former
>> Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy, U.S.
>Department of the
>> Treasury
>> Dave Robinson, National Coordinator, Pax Christi
>USA
>> Jo Ann O. Robinson, Professor of History,
>Morgan State University
>> Lillian S. Robinson, Professor and Principal,
>Simone de Beauvoir
>> Women's Studies Institute, Concordia Univesity,
>Montréal, Canada
>> Hugh Rockoff, Professor of Economics, Rutgers
>University
>> Daniel T. Rodgers, Henry Charles Lea Professor
>of History, Princeton
>> University
>> Ruth Rosen, Professor Emerita of History,
>University of California,
>> Davis
>> Robert A. Rosenstone, Professor of History,
>California Institute of
>> Technology
>> Roy Rosenzweig, Professor of History, George
>Mason University
>> Andrew Ross, Professor of American Studies,
>New York University
>> Steven Ross, Professor of History, University
>of Southern California
>> Joseph Rotblat, Nobel Peace Laureate, 1995
>> Joshua D. Rothman, Professor of History, University
>of Alabama
>> Richard Rubenstein, Professor of Conflict
>Resolution and Public
>> Affairs, George Mason University
>> Anne Sarah Rubin, Professor of History, University
>of Maryland,
>> Baltimore County
>> Bruce Russett, Dean Acheson Professor of Political
>Science, Yale
>> University
>> Jonathan Schell, Author, Fate of the Earth
>> Cathy Schneider, Professor of International
>Studies, American
>> University
>> Eric Schneider, Associate Director for Academic
>Affairs, School of
>> Arts and Sciences, University of Pennsylvania
>> Ellen Schrecker, Professor of History, Yeshiva
>University
>> Michael Schudson, Professor of Communication,
>University of
>> California, San Diego
>> Robert D. Schulzinger, Professor of History,
>University of Colorado,
>> Boulder
>> Silvan S. Schweber, Professor of Physics and
>Koret Professor of the
>> History of Science Emeritus, Brandeis University
>> Nicole Schweizer, Art Historian, Switzerland
>> Joan W. Scott, Professor of Social Science,
>Institute for Advanced
>> Study, Princeton, New Jersey
>> Pete Seeger, Musician, Songwriter
>> Mark Selden, Professor of Sociology and History,
>Binghamton
>> University; Author, The Atomic Bomb. Voices
>From Hiroshima and
>> Nagasaki
>> Butler D. Shaffer, Professor, Southwestern
>University School of Law,
>> Los Angeles, California; Author, Calculated
>Chaos
>> Robert Shaffer, Professor of History, Shippensburg
>University of
>> Pennsylvania
>> Charles Sheehan-Miles, Veterans for Common
>Sense; Executive Director,
>> Nuclear Policy Research Institute
>> Martin Sheen, Actor; Director; Activist
>> Doris H. Sher, Professor of History, New Jersey
>Institute of
>> Technology, Rutgers University, Newark
>> Ann Sherif, Professor of East Asian Studies,
>Oberlin College
>> Michael Sherry, Richard W. Leopold Professor
>of History, Northwestern
>> University; Author, The Rise of American Air
>Power: The Creation of
>> Armageddon
>> Martin J. Sherwin, Walter S. Dickson Professor
>of English and American
>> History, Tufts University; Author, A World
>Destroyed
>> Francis R. Shor, Professor, Department of
>Interdisciplinary Studies,
>> Wayne State University
>> Chris Simpson, Professor of Communication,
>American University
>> Rev. William Sinkford, President, Unitarian
>Universalist Association
>> Kathryn Kish Sklar, Distinguished Professor
>of History, State
>> University of New York, Binghamton
>> Zach Sklar, Writer, Olivebridge, New York
>> Melvin Small, Professor of History, Wayne
>State University
>> Barbara Herrnstein Smith, Professor of Comparative
>Literature and
>> English, Duke University; Professor of English,
>Brown University
>> Damu Smith, Founder, Black Voices for Peace
>> Judith E. Smith, Professor of American Studies,
>University of
>> Massachusetts, Boston
>> Neil Smith, Distinguished Professor of Anthropology,
>City University
>> of New York Graduate Center
>> Mary Hembrow Snyder, Professor of Religious
>Studies and Chair,
>> Humanities Division, Mercyhurst College
>> Robert W. Snyder, Director, Journalism and
>Media Studies, Rutgers
>> University, Newark
>> Alan Sokal, Professor of Physics, New York
>University
>> Michael M. Sokal, Professor of History, Worcester
>Polytechnic
>> Institute
>> Clinton W. Spence, Pastor, United Methodist
>Church
>> Scott Spencer, Author
>> Paul Spickard, Professor of History and Asian
>American Studies
>> University of California, Santa Barbara
>> David E. Stannard, Professor of American Studies,
>University of
>> Hawaii, Honolulu
>> Christine Stansell, Professor of History,
>Princeton University
>> Peter Stearns, Professor of History, George
>Mason University
>> John Steinbach, Coordinator, Hiroshima-Nagasaki
>Peace Committee
>> Jean Stokan, Policy Director, Pax Christi
>USA
>> Oliver Stone, Filmmaker
>> Susan Strasser, Professor of History, University
>of Delaware
>> Dorothy Stroup, Author, In the Autumn Wind
>> Cathie Sullivan, Director, Los Alamos Museum
>Project
>> Ronald Takaki, Professor of Ethinc Studies,
>University of California,
>> Berkeley; Author, Hiroshima: Why America Dropped
>the Atomic Bomb
>> David Thelen, Professor of History, Indiana
>University
>> David J. Theroux, Founder and President, The
>Independent Institute;
>> Publisher, The Independent Review: A Journal
>of Political Economy;
>> Director, OnPower.org
>> John Whittier Treat, Professor of Japanese,
>Yale University; Author,
>> Writing Ground Zero: Japanese Literature and
>the Atomic Bomb
>> Nicholas Turse, Professor of Epidemiology,
>Columbia University
>> William M. Tuttle, Jr., Professor of American
>Studies, University of
>> Kansas
>> Charlotte A. Twight, Professor of Economics,
>Boise State University;
>> Adjunct Fellow, The Independent Institute
>> Nancy C. Unger, Professor of History, Women
>and Gender Studies, and
>> Environmental Studies, Santa Clara University
>> Steven W. Usselman, Professor of History,
>Georgia Institute of
>> Technology
>> Gore Vidal, Author; Historian; Playwright
>> Joe Volk, Executive Secretary, Friends Committee
>on National
>> Legislation
>> Frank von Hippel, Professor of Public and
>International Affairs,
>> Woodrow Wilson School; Co-Director, Program
>on Science and Global
>> Security, Princeton University
>> Kurt Vonnegut, Author
>> Daniel J. Walkowitz, Director, Metropolitan
>Studies, Professor of
>> History, New York University
>> Charles Wallace, Jr., Chaplain and Professor
>of Religious Studies,
>> Willamette University
>> Mike Wallace, Distinguished Professor of History,
>John Jay College,
>> City University of New York
>> Michael Walzer, Professor of Social Science,
>Institute for Advanced
>> Study, Princeton, New Jersey
>> Jessica Wang, Professor of History, University
>of California, Los
>> Angeles
>> Charles Weiner, Professor Emeritus, History
>of Science and Technology,
>> Massachusetts Institute of Technology
>> Richard Weiss, Professor of History, University
>of California, Los
>> Angeles
>> Andrew Wells-Dang, Regional Representative
>Fund for Reconciliation &
>> Development, Hanoi, Vietnam
>> Robert Westbrook, Professor of History, University
>of Rochester
>> Philip E. Wheaton, Episcopal priest; Founder,
>Ecumenical Program for
>> Inter-American Communication & Action; Author,
>Empire & the Word
>> Anne Mitchell Whisnant, Historian and Mellon
>Project Manager, John
>> Hope Franklin Humanities Institute, Duke University
>> David E. Whisnant, Professor Emeritus, University
>of North Carolina,
>> Chapel Hill
>> Geoffrey White, Professor of Anthropology,
>University of Hawaii
>> Stephen J. Whitfield, Max Richter Professor
>of American Civilization,
>> Brandeis University
>> Jon Wiener, Professor of History, UC Irvine
>> Roger Wilkins, Robinson Professor of History
>and American Culture,
>> George Mason University
>> Brett Williams, Professor of Anthropology,
>American University
>> David Blake Willis, Professor of Cultural
>Studies, Soai University,
>> Osaka, Japan
>> Garry Wills, Author, Lincoln at Gettysburg
>> Angela C. Wilson, Professor of Indigenous
>History, Arizona State
>> University
>> Lawrence S. Wittner, Professor of History,
>State University of New
>> York, Albany
>> Robert Wohl, Professor of History, University
>of California, Los
>> Angeles; Author, A Passion for Wings
>> Robert S. Wolff, Professor of History, Central
>Connecticut State
>> University
>> Roberta Wollons, Professor and Chair, Department
>of History, Indiana
>> University Northwest
>> Thomas E. Woods, Jr., Professor of History,
>Suffolk County Community
>> College
>> Peter Yarrow, Musician, Songwriter (Peter,
>Paul, and Mary)
>> Keniiro Yokoro, Secretary General of Japanese
>Physicians for the
>> Prevention of Nuclear War
>> Lisa Yoneyama, Professor of Cultural Studies
>and U.S.-Japan Studies,
>> Department of Literature, University of California,
>San Diego
>> Marilyn B. Young, Professor of History, New
>York University
>> Maurice Zeitlin, Professor of Sociology, University
>of California, Los
>> Angeles
>> Howard Zinn, Professor Emeritus, History,
>Boston University; Author, A
>> People's History of the United States
>> Michael Zuckerman, Professor of History, University
>of Pennsylvania
>> * Institutional affiliations added for purposes
>of identification
>> only.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>----
>>
>> Committee for a National Discussion
>> of Nuclear History and Current Policy
>> P.O. Box 21827
>> Washington, D.C. 20009-1827
>>
>>
>> http://www.enola-gay.org/
>
>
Look at the list of folks who signed the document: it's a who's who of
the liberal and antiwar left. Including several revisionist historians, an
known apologist for dictators (Chomsky, who supported Pol Pot, Saddam, Milosevic,
Kim-Jong Il, Castro, etc), and what I call professional activists. Some folks
seem stuck in a 1960s' time warp, and seem WAAY too fond of ultra-left causes.
The party's been over since '89, so get over it. I had a grandfather who
was going from Europe to the Pacific for the Invasion of Japan. He and his
unit had just gotten their vaccinations to go from England Direct to the
Pacific when Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked. He felt to his dying day
that the bombs saved their lives. End of story.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological
>achievements
>From: (Greg Moritz)
>Date: 12/16/03 6:51 PM Pac

>> 1) We could have dropped the bomb in a lightly populated area ..

Or the Japanese could have attacked another harbor other that Pearl and sank a
load of harmless barges with almost no casualties instead of the thousands of
dead at Pearl. The point would have been made.Don't you think so?

Regards,



Regards
Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Frank F. Matthews]

One amusing thing about the protests is that either a strong blockade or
continued incendiary attacks would have killed far more civilians and
would have prolonged the Japanese occupations throughout asia. FFM

Duck Dog wrote:

> Olivers > wrote in message >...
>
>
>>(f) No single military commander and none of the Allied governments seems
>>to have even considered or suggested blockade as single course to victory.
>>All involved understood the Japanese well enough to comprehend that
>>invasion seemed the only available option. Even LeMay did not believe that
>>the Japanese could be caused to surrender by air attack.
>
>
> Just one point here. In the World at War series, Gen. LeMay was
> quoted as saying that in July of 1945, the conventional wisdom among
> commanders in the Pacific was that Japan would have to capitulate in
> 6-8 weeks given the nightly firebombings on Japanese cities, and the
> resulting loss of warmaking capacity. So I believe you're wrong WRT
> LeMay; he most certainly DID believe that Japan could be forced into
> surrender from air attacks.
>
> One aspect of the atom bombings that most people miss is that the B-29
> incendiary campaign did far more destruction to the home islands than
> the atomic bombs, and were primarily responsible for severely
> crippling Japanese industry. This led to the curious situation where
> the Japanese field army in Asia (which constituted the lions share of
> Japanese ground forces) were relatively intact but their support
> structure was almost completely obliterated. Nevertheless, while the
> Japanese commanders still had such an intact army in China and
> elsewhere, they felt they had a chance. They were disabused of this
> notion when the USSR invaded Manchuria (a brilliant, understudied
> campaign for the Soviets, btw).
>
> My point? One can conceivably argue that the atomic bombings were
> unnecessary, but only from the standpoint that the incendiary bombings
> were already having the desired effect of destroying Japanese
> infrastructure. The atomic bombings by themselves would not have
> induced a surrender, but coming as they did at end of a long bombing
> campaign that essentially destroyed Japan, they were (along with the
> Russian invasion in the north) the final knockout punches that ended
> the fight. The atomic bombings can be seen then as merely an
> escalation of the means of destruction, and the question of whether
> they were "necessary" becomes less urgent.

[Matt Wiser]

"Oelewapper" > wrote:
>Enola Gay draws protesters, atomic bomb survivors
>Tuesday, December 16, 2003 Posted: 11:21 AM
>EST (1621 GMT)
>
>
>
> Two views of the Enola Gay, which dropped
>the first wartime atomic
>bomb over Hiroshima, Japan.
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Story Tools
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> RELATED
> . Interactive: Air and Space Museum
>Extension Takes Flight
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> . Gallery: Air and Space Museum
>expansion
> . National Air and Space Museum
> . New air and space annex lifts
>off
>
> YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS
> Follow the news that matters to
>you. Create your own alert to be
>notified on topics you're interested in.
>
> Or, visit Popular Alerts for suggestions.
>
> Manage alerts | What is this?
>
>
>CHANTILLY, Virginia (AP) -- A small group of
>protesters briefly disrupted
>the official opening of the National Air and
>Space Museum's new annex at
>Dulles International Airport, spilling a red
>liquid supposed to resemble
>blood near the Enola Gay exhibit and throwing
>an object that dented the
>airplane.
>
>Two men were arrested after security broke up
>the demonstration on Monday.
>Thomas K. Siemer, 73, of Columbus, Ohio, was
>charged with felony destruction
>of property and loitering, while Gregory Wright
>of Hagerstown, Maryland
>faced a misdemeanor loitering charge.
>
>Several elderly atomic bomb survivors from Japan
>also expressed dismay that
>information on the effects of the bomb dropped
>by the Enola Gay on Hiroshima
>August 6, 1945, was not included in the exhibit.
>
>"If they want to show these planes, that's fine
>but we can't help but also
>demand that they show the damage and the stories
>that take place behind
>these weapons," said Terumi Tanaka, 71, a survivor
>of the Nagasaki atomic
>bomb attack which occurred three days after
>Hiroshima.
>
>A total of 230,000 people were killed in the
>two attacks. Japan surrendered
>unconditionally six days after the Nagasaki
>bombing.
>
>Some visitors at the opening of the Steven F.
>Udvar-Hazy Center said,
>however, they considered the Enola Gay an important
>part of aviation
>history.
>
>"The Hiroshima bomb started the whole nuclear
>age, that's why I wanted to
>see it," said Philip Wheaton, 78, of Takoma
>Park, Maryland.
>
>The Enola Gay is one of 82 racers, gliders,
>helicopters, warplanes and
>airliners currently on display in the Smithsonian
>Institution's nearly
>294,000-square-foot aviation exhibit hanger.
>
> The Hiroshima bomb started
>the whole nuclear age, that's
>why I wanted to see it.
> -- Philip Wheaton of Takoma
>Park, Maryland
>
>
>Other notable exhibits include the S-R 71 Blackbird,
>an American spy plane
>that still holds the record as the fastest plane
>ever built; and the space
>shuttle Enterprise, which was used by NASA to
>test various concepts during
>the development of reusable spacecraft.
>
>The Smithsonian's aerospace collection also
>will eventually be displayed in
>the 53,000 square foot James S. McDonnell Space
>hanger.
>
>"This is the largest air and space exhibition
>complex in the world," said
>retired Gen. John R. Dailey, director of the
>museum. "We have about 40
>percent of the aircraft in here today, and over
>the next three years we'll
>be moving more in."
>
>Visitors, for the most part, said they were
>impressed with the new annex.
>
>"Seeing all of these aircraft fully assembled
>is getting to see history,"
>said Ray Kimball, 30, of Menloe Park, California.
>The Army helicopter pilot
>toured the facility with his three year-old
>son. "I'll have to bring him
>back when he's older."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
So what if there are folks who complain? The Japanese STARTED THE WAR.
For the Chinese, it was in '37, for everyone else, it was 7/8 Dec 41. The
Japanese have only themselves to blame for the consequences. And if the consequences
are 15 Kt on Hiroshima and 20 Kt on Nagasaki, so be it. The strikes forced
the Emperor to accept Potsdam and surrender, despite an attempted coup the
night of 14/15 Aug. The war ended, the boys and girls came home, and Europe
and Asia could start the painful task of rebuilding. Better that than storming
the beaches of Kyushu in November and the Kanto the next March.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Gregory Baker]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

>
> "Jerry Johnson" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > And why is it that reports from the troops in Iraq suggest that the
> > public is not seeing anything close to the whole picture of what is
> > taking place there?
> >
>
> Because reporting the whole picture of what is taking place there would
> would make it harder to oust Bush next November. US mainstream media isn't
> going to do anything like that.
>
Maybe it's because many Americans have concluded that Bush is better
than their opposition? In a world with 57 channels of news, talk radio,
Internet newspapers, and newsgroups like this, railing against the
mainstream media is futile.

From what I've been inferring, the U.S. is beginning to win the war
against the irregulars. It's a long way to go before the country is
secure, but it will happen if they keep this up. Capturing Saddam
didn't hurt.

[weary]

"Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
news:3fdb5db4$1@bg2....
>
> "Sunny" > wrote:
> >
> >"Polybus" > wrote
> >in message
> om...
> >> Peter Kuznick,
> >> Professor of History and Director, Nuclear
> >Studies Institute, American
> >> University
> >>
> >> Kevin Martin
> >> Executive Director, Peace Action
> >>
> >> Daniel Ellsberg
> >> Author, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and The
> >Pentagon Papers
> >
> >Questions :
> >1. Do the three retards listed above, condone
> >the cross posting to the
> >groups listed ?
> >2. Does Peter Kuznick really study History
> >(or only his version of it)?
> >3. Do any of the three realise that there
> >was a World War on at the
> >time?
> >4. What would you have suggested, at the
> >time, as the means to subdue a
> >fanatical enemy, that had proved to demonstrate
> >acts of barbarism that are
> >still wondered at?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> They all seem to think that if we had talked nicely to the Japanese,
they
> would have surrendered. Not bloody likely. There was a war on, a major
invasion
> planned of Kyushu in November, and ANY MEANS to prevent the bloodbath of
> American, British, and yes, Japanese lives and END THE WAR ASAP is a
viable
> option. If that means incinerating two, three, or however many Japanese
Cities
> by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s, so be it.

Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same right to use WMD to save the
lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting Iran and internal rebellion?
Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately target civilians in their
war with the USA, specifically WTC?

[B2431]

>From: john

>On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:17:29 GMT, "Jack G"
> wrote:
>
>>You forgot to mention the Baghdad Terrorist Times - sure to give you as
>>unbiased reporting as the other 3 mentioned.
>>
>>Jack
>>
>>
>>"john" > wrote in message
>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> And why is it that reports from the troops in Iraq suggest that the
>>> >>>> public is not seeing anything close to the whole picture of what is
>>> >>>> taking place there?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Because reporting the whole picture of what is taking place there
>>would
>>> >>> would make it harder to oust Bush next November. US mainstream media
>>isn't
>>> >>> going to do anything like that.
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>
>>>
>So you want to know what is really going on?
>
>Here's the full skinny--from the average Iraqi point of view.
>
>There is 70% unemployment
>
>There is a shortage of gasoline
>
>There is a shortage of benzene to provide heat as winter approaches.
>
>electricity is on infrequently both day and night.
>
>fresh water is in short supply
>
>crime is rampant--car jacking is on the rise
>
>woman are afraid to go out at night
>
>You had better not be around when anyone starts shooting at the
>Americans--the Americans are shooting 360 degrees at anything.
>
>I guess, other than that, everything is OK.
>
Electricity and water supplies were short before the war and getting worse
bcause the systems were not getting repaired with the food-for-oil money Saddam
was building palaces with.

Gasoline would be in better supply if the bad guys weren't disrupting the flow.

Want to continue?

>Well, good old JACK.S:
>
>How about pointing out the items which you know are incorrect?
>
>You condemn the best newspapers in the country for being biased. So if
>any of the newspapers made any of the above statements it would not be
>true because they have a biased outlook. Is that correct?
>
>You are one ignorant *******.
>
The papers in question have repeatedly pointed out the problems without
explaining things were either worse or just as bad when Saddam was running
things.

If you wish to debate like an adult stop with the name calling.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "weary"

>Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same right to use WMD to save the
>lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting Iran and internal rebellion?
>Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately target civilians in their
>war with the USA, specifically WTC?
>
If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there would not have been a need to defend "Iraqi
servicemen."

As for the attacks on the WTC there was no military value there. An argument
could be made for the strike on the Pentagon being a military attack.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima each had valid military targets within the cities.

In short it is my opinion you made a rather poor analogy.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Matt Wiser]

(Less Ismore) wrote:
><snip>
>> We have formulated the following statement
>of principles, which we
>> plan to circulate widely. The statement makes
>clear that we are not
>> opposed to exhibiting the plane in a fair
>and responsible manner,
>
>And so long as you determine what is a 'fair
>and responsible manner'.
>
>
>> but that we fear that such a celebratory exhibit
>both legitimizes
>> what happened in 1945 and helps build support
>for the Bush
>> administration's dangerous new nuclear policies.
>
>
> So you want to re-write history in an effort
>to critize a President
>who was not yet born when they Enola Gay took
>off and headed to
>Hirsohima. And you honestly consider yourself
>to be an "educator"?
>Instead of a lacky for political correctness
>and the political left.
>
>
>Consider the following in a recent article by
>economist and historian
>Dr. Thomas Sowell:
>
>"History is what happened, not what we wish
>had happened or what a
>theory says should have happened. One of the
>reasons for the great
>value of history is that it allows us to check
>our current beliefs
>against hard facts from around the world and
>across the centuries."
>
>"But history cannot be a reality check for today's
>fashionable visions
>when history is itself shaped by those visions.
>When that happens, we
>are sealing ourselves up in a closed world of
>assumptions."
>
>
> Also, that nonsence about W's nuclear policies
>is exactly that. I
>would expect that were the current President
>not a Rebublican you
>would ignore the Enola Gay exhibit. Even if
>such a president had the
>exact same nuclear policies as the current administration.
>
>
> You people are worse than pathetic. Splash
>some educational title
>and degrees awarded in your email signature
>and believe that you are
>the only ones who can be allowed to direct and
>critize public policy
>and the popular culture. All this after never
>having worked an
>honest day in your life. Rather than continuing
>the indoctrin-
>ation of your students, why don't you instead
>take the first honorable
>action in your pathetic lives and retire. Leave
>higher education to
>those who still believe in the concept (assuming
>that there are any).
I agree with the above: History happened, and you can't change it. Events
must be viewed in the context of the time-and to this day, many Americans
feel that the Bombs ended the war and saved American lives. I've got a BA
and MA in history and have no use at all for revisionists in any way, shape,
or form. Though the invasion would have succeeded, the price paid, even on
the low end, would have been dear. Mr. Truman had an option availiable to
him other than blockade/bombing and the invasion. He took the third option
and ended the war in a quick and brutal manner that forced the Japanese to
surrender in less than ten days from Hiroshima to Hirohito's speech.
Get over it, it happened, and that's that.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Jack G]

Dan,

Nice to see some one understands the meaning of "biased news coverage."
John thinks it means untruthful when it actually means one-sided.

Jack



"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: john
>
> >On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 03:17:29 GMT, "Jack G"
> > wrote:
> >
> >>You forgot to mention the Baghdad Terrorist Times - sure to give you as
> >>unbiased reporting as the other 3 mentioned.
> >>
> >>Jack
> >>
> >>
> >>"john" > wrote in message
> >
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> And why is it that reports from the troops in Iraq suggest that
the
> >>> >>>> public is not seeing anything close to the whole picture of what
is
> >>> >>>> taking place there?
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Because reporting the whole picture of what is taking place there
> >>would
> >>> >>> would make it harder to oust Bush next November. US mainstream
media
> >>isn't
> >>> >>> going to do anything like that.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>
> >
> >>>
> >So you want to know what is really going on?
> >
> >Here's the full skinny--from the average Iraqi point of view.
> >
> >There is 70% unemployment
> >
> >There is a shortage of gasoline
> >
> >There is a shortage of benzene to provide heat as winter approaches.
> >
> >electricity is on infrequently both day and night.
> >
> >fresh water is in short supply
> >
> >crime is rampant--car jacking is on the rise
> >
> >woman are afraid to go out at night
> >
> >You had better not be around when anyone starts shooting at the
> >Americans--the Americans are shooting 360 degrees at anything.
> >
> >I guess, other than that, everything is OK.
> >
> Electricity and water supplies were short before the war and getting worse
> bcause the systems were not getting repaired with the food-for-oil money
Saddam
> was building palaces with.
>
> Gasoline would be in better supply if the bad guys weren't disrupting the
flow.
>
> Want to continue?
>
> >Well, good old JACK.S:
> >
> >How about pointing out the items which you know are incorrect?
> >
> >You condemn the best newspapers in the country for being biased. So if
> >any of the newspapers made any of the above statements it would not be
> >true because they have a biased outlook. Is that correct?
> >
> >You are one ignorant *******.
> >
> The papers in question have repeatedly pointed out the problems without
> explaining things were either worse or just as bad when Saddam was running
> things.
>
> If you wish to debate like an adult stop with the name calling.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Reg]

Glenn Jacobs wrote:

> Actually Nanking wasn't much different from the rest of Japanese occupied
> China, Korea and other areas. Recall that the Japanese used Chinese
> Prisoners of War for bayonet practice for their troops. Japanese troops
> were required to kill prisoners of war to get them ready for killing on the
> battlefront. Japanese Army Officers were required to behead Chinese
> Prisoners of War to toughen them up.

Until the 1970's when it was finally discontinued, the South Koreans
had a postage stamp dipicting a Japanese soldier tossing an Korean
infant up in the air and ctaching it on his bayonnet.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot) com

[weary]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "weary"
>
> >Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same right to use WMD to save the
> >lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting Iran and internal rebellion?
> >Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately target civilians in
their
> >war with the USA, specifically WTC?
> >
> If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there would not have been a need to defend
"Iraqi
> servicemen."

Complaints about his use of WMD relate to uses considerably pre-dating
his invasion of Kuwait.

>
> As for the attacks on the WTC there was no military value there. An
argument
> could be made for the strike on the Pentagon being a military attack.
>
> Nagasaki and Hiroshima each had valid military targets within the cities.

The odds are that there were Reservists in the WTC at the time of the
attack.
The poster I was replying to advocated using "ANY MEANS" to end the war.
He also wrote "If that means incinerating two, three, or however many
Japanese Cities
by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s, so be it." He made no mention of
destroying military assets. His choice of words clearly states that the
destruction of
cities was what would produce a Japanese surrender, not destruction of
military
assets.

[Matt Wiser]

"weary" > wrote:
>
>"Matt Wiser" > wrote
>in message
>news:3fdb5db4$1@bg2....
>>
>> "Sunny" > wrote:
>> >
>> >"Polybus" >
>wrote
>> >in message
>> om...
>> >> Peter Kuznick,
>> >> Professor of History and Director, Nuclear
>> >Studies Institute, American
>> >> University
>> >>
>> >> Kevin Martin
>> >> Executive Director, Peace Action
>> >>
>> >> Daniel Ellsberg
>> >> Author, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and
>The
>> >Pentagon Papers
>> >
>> >Questions :
>> >1. Do the three retards listed above,
>condone
>> >the cross posting to the
>> >groups listed ?
>> >2. Does Peter Kuznick really study History
>> >(or only his version of it)?
>> >3. Do any of the three realise that there
>> >was a World War on at the
>> >time?
>> >4. What would you have suggested, at
>the
>> >time, as the means to subdue a
>> >fanatical enemy, that had proved to demonstrate
>> >acts of barbarism that are
>> >still wondered at?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> They all seem to think that if we had talked
>nicely to the Japanese,
>they
>> would have surrendered. Not bloody likely.
>There was a war on, a major
>invasion
>> planned of Kyushu in November, and ANY MEANS
>to prevent the bloodbath of
>> American, British, and yes, Japanese lives
>and END THE WAR ASAP is a
>viable
>> option. If that means incinerating two, three,
>or however many Japanese
>Cities
>> by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s,
>so be it.
>
>Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same right
>to use WMD to save the
>lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting Iran
>and internal rebellion?
>Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately
>target civilians in their
>war with the USA, specifically WTC?
>
>
>
Absolutely not. The rules of war, written or othewise, have changed. Saddam's
use of WMD was in violation of the 1925 CBW Treaty, which Iraq had signed.

As for Al-Queda, that was an act of terrorism and war, and anyone who committs
such acts deserves death. No mercy, no quarter, no questions asked. Comparing
Hiroshima/Nagasaki to 9/11 is like apples and oranges. I had a grandfather
who would've been in Kyushu for the invasion-his unit was heading from England
thru Suez to Australia, then up to the Marianas and Okinawa to Japan. They
had just gotten their shots for the Pacific when the bombs fell. They knew
then they were going home alive and two years sooner. Enough said.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Alan Minyard]

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:08:15 GMT, "weary" > wrote:

>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "weary"
>>
>> >Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same right to use WMD to save the
>> >lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting Iran and internal rebellion?
>> >Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately target civilians in
>their
>> >war with the USA, specifically WTC?
>> >
>> If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there would not have been a need to defend
>"Iraqi
>> servicemen."
>
>Complaints about his use of WMD relate to uses considerably pre-dating
>his invasion of Kuwait.
>
>>
>> As for the attacks on the WTC there was no military value there. An
>argument
>> could be made for the strike on the Pentagon being a military attack.
>>
>> Nagasaki and Hiroshima each had valid military targets within the cities.
>
>The odds are that there were Reservists in the WTC at the time of the
>attack.
>The poster I was replying to advocated using "ANY MEANS" to end the war.
>He also wrote "If that means incinerating two, three, or however many
>Japanese Cities
>by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s, so be it." He made no mention of
>destroying military assets. His choice of words clearly states that the
>destruction of
>cities was what would produce a Japanese surrender, not destruction of
>military
>assets.
>
>
>
Destruction of Japan, by whatever means possible, was warranted. The
barbarity of their military was an abomination, and it was continuing
daily in China, Korea, etc. If incinerating every building in Japan would
have ended the war, it would have been completely justified.

The only thing that the US did that was "wrong" was not hanging the
******* Hirohito from the nearest tree.

Al Minyard

[B2431]

>From: "weary"

>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "weary"
>>
>> >Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same right to use WMD to save the
>> >lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting Iran and internal rebellion?
>> >Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately target civilians in
>their
>> >war with the USA, specifically WTC?
>> >
>> If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there would not have been a need to defend
>"Iraqi
>> servicemen."
>
>Complaints about his use of WMD relate to uses considerably pre-dating
>his invasion of Kuwait.
>
Neither of us mentioned Kuwait, we said Iran.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Matt Wiser]

"weary" > wrote:
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "weary"
>>
>> >Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same
>right to use WMD to save the
>> >lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting
>Iran and internal rebellion?
>> >Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately
>target civilians in
>their
>> >war with the USA, specifically WTC?
>> >
>> If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there would
>not have been a need to defend
>"Iraqi
>> servicemen."
>
>Complaints about his use of WMD relate to uses
>considerably pre-dating
>his invasion of Kuwait.
>
>>
>> As for the attacks on the WTC there was no
>military value there. An
>argument
>> could be made for the strike on the Pentagon
>being a military attack.
>>
>> Nagasaki and Hiroshima each had valid military
>targets within the cities.
>
>The odds are that there were Reservists in the
>WTC at the time of the
>attack.
>The poster I was replying to advocated using
>"ANY MEANS" to end the war.
>He also wrote "If that means incinerating two,
>three, or however many
>Japanese Cities
>by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s, so
>be it." He made no mention of
>destroying military assets. His choice of words
>clearly states that the
>destruction of
>cities was what would produce a Japanese surrender,
>not destruction of
>military
>assets.
>
>
>
>
For weary: I'm the one who stated that however many cities had to be destroyed
by the 509th's B-29s. Military targets WERE located in said cities. Hiroshima
had the 2nd General Army HQ, a Railroad line and depot, a airfield and port
facility, and a division's worth of troops garrisoned there. Nagasaki: Mistubushi
aircraft works, a torpedo factory, port facilities and related infrastructure,
an air base, etc. Kokura (would've been hit on 9 Aug if not for weather)had
a major arsenal, a chemical plant (that happened to be producing mustard
gas and cynagen chloride agents), an air base, rail facilities, and so on.
With military targets located in the cities, the cities were legitimate targets.
The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes and 9-11 is that in 1945,
there was a WAR ON that had to be brought to an end by whatever means necessary.
If that meant destroying cities to prevent two invasions of the Japanese
Home Islands, so be it. What would you rather risk: several B-29 aircrews
on the missions, or 766,000 soldiers and Marines in the U.S. 6th Army hitting
the beaches of Kyushu on or after 1 November? Not to mention the American
and British aircrews and sailors directly supporting the invasion. Al-Queda
started the war on terror on 9-11 with a massacre. They may have started
the war, but we'll finish it.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Steve Hix]

Apologies for the length of this one; I've left a lot in for context.
(And removed rec.arts.movies.current-films, rec.food.cooking and
rec.travel.air to avoid excessive off-topicness.)

In article >,
john > wrote:
>
> On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 12:22:48 -0800, Steve Hix
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > john > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 19:07:03 -0800, Steve Hix
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article >,
> >> > john > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Maybe you could share with us the name of the newspapers you believe
> >> >> might also answer the questions you raised in an article about Iraqi
> >> >> unemployment.
> >> >>
> >> >> You might also share with us the names of the TV news outlets you
> >> >> follow for reliable news coverage. It might be telling.
> >> >
> >> >It may be more telling that you can't seem to conceive of getting you
> >> >news other than predigested (and from a very narrow range of sources,
> >> >judging from previous comments).
> >> >
> >> >Ever thought of going to primary sources?
> >>
> >> Please share with us your "primary sources".
> >
> >The same sources that various news agencies resort to; FBI, Department
> >of Justice stats, CDC, CIA open publications, etc. etc. etc.
> >
> >The problem with the news sources that you brought up (the same as any
> >other secondary source) is that they have to pick and choose from the
> >huge mass of available data, and select what they're going to include in
> >their releases. The selection process is where the bias effects show up.
> >
> >I doubt that the major news agencies have any conscious, organized
> >conspiracy in operation...but they certainly tend to see the world in
> >roughly the same way. They make assumptions before looking at the data,
> >and toss out whatever doesn't fit their world view right from the
> >beginning. If you're depending on them for your information, then you're
> >necessarily lacking information that might actually better describe
> >what's happening.
> >
> >And, apparently, you don't even know that that is what is happening.
> >
> >> Could al-jazera TV be one of you primary sources?
> >
> >No, Al Jazira is a secondary source. It's one that I look in on
> >periodically, along with BBC, CNN, FoxNews, ABC, Pacifica, Reuters,
> >Pravda, Moscow Times, Iraqi sources, Arab Times, Kuwait Times, The Daily
> >Star (Lebanon), L.A. Times, etc etc etc. Those are all secondary sources.
>
>
> Mr. Hix:
>
> You are so full of ****.

Good start, John! And ad hominem is so much easier than a real argument,
isn't it?

> There are probably hundreds of news items whose subject material you
> don't have a primary source to research.

True enough. However, there are a *lot* of primary sources that are
easily accessible. There's no need to blow them off, is there?

> Your list of secondary sources is also a joke.

Why, because you don't agree with their positions, or because you hadn't
thought to look around? The list above is not exhaustive, by any means,
just representative.

> How many of these secondary sources do you consult BEFORE you believe
> an article?

None or more. Depends on the article.
> Do you believe an article when you find it has a bias towards your way
> of thinking?

Not necessarily, no.

> I read the columns of a lot of syndicated columnists. These columnists
> cover the left wing and the right wing. I know that and know their
> biases.

How nice for you. Still sounds more than a little sparse. But if that's
all you want, fine.

> For you to state that the prestigious newspapers I mentioned are too
> biased for you to believe anything you read in them does a great
> disservice to the excellent reporters who work for these newspapers.

As it happens, john, that is not what I said. Re-read the context above.
Or have someone read it to you, slowly if necessary.

I didn't say that I didn't beleive anything that they publish.

I said that the list you provided was insufficient to get a broad and
correct view of current events.

They (necessarily, given time and space limitations) must pick and
choose what they publish. Fine, so does any other news source.

The problem is that they, without really thinking about it, throw out a
lot of potential content. "If it bleeds, it leads" is not merely a
cliche, it really describes what happens.

An example:

Around December 10, there was an anti-terrorist demonstration put on by
residents of Baghdad. All sorts of political groups, from Communists on
the left all the way as far right as Iraqi politics goes these days;
tribal groups, university and high school students, labor unions, etc.
were represented. Somewhere between 3,000 to 10,000 people marched.

Peacefully. There was no violence by marchers, no violence against
marchers.

The demonstration was witnessed by major news organizations; reporters
and photographers were there.

The western news organizations blew it off. They did not report it, in
most cases, at all. In a couple of cases, it was reported on nearly a
week later. (During the same period, they gave frontpage notice of a
much smaller anti-Coalition demonstration; about 500 strong.)

Why one and not the other?

It's not like it should have been a surprise, since there had been
discussion about the planned demonstration on the web from various
Iraqis.

Here's one of them:

<http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/archives/2003_12_01_healingiraq_archive.
html#107107940577248802>

You would never have known that it was planned, nor that it happened, by
relying on your favored news sources.

If they missed something as obvious as this, what else are they missing?

If they're focusing on bad news in Iraq, which they clearly are, and
mostly ignoring any good news, which other sources do cover, how do you
expect to know what's really going on there?

How can you assume you know what's happening elsewhere in the world?

It's not possible to know everything about everything, nobody could
realistically claim otherwise; but it is certainly possible to know much
more about things you might consider important than what you get from
the usual suspects.

But if that's what floats your boat, kewl.

Just don't be surprised if someone disagrees with you...and has
information to back up their argument that you've never seen.

Expect it to happen more an more as time passes.

[weary]

"Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
news:3fe49de1$1@bg2....
>
> "weary" > wrote:
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >From: "weary"
> >>
> >> >Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same
> >right to use WMD to save the
> >> >lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting
> >Iran and internal rebellion?
> >> >Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately
> >target civilians in
> >their
> >> >war with the USA, specifically WTC?
> >> >
> >> If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there would
> >not have been a need to defend
> >"Iraqi
> >> servicemen."
> >
> >Complaints about his use of WMD relate to uses
> >considerably pre-dating
> >his invasion of Kuwait.
> >
> >>
> >> As for the attacks on the WTC there was no
> >military value there. An
> >argument
> >> could be made for the strike on the Pentagon
> >being a military attack.
> >>
> >> Nagasaki and Hiroshima each had valid military
> >targets within the cities.
> >
> >The odds are that there were Reservists in the
> >WTC at the time of the
> >attack.
> >The poster I was replying to advocated using
> >"ANY MEANS" to end the war.
> >He also wrote "If that means incinerating two,
> >three, or however many
> >Japanese Cities
> >by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s, so
> >be it." He made no mention of
> >destroying military assets. His choice of words
> >clearly states that the
> >destruction of
> >cities was what would produce a Japanese surrender,
> >not destruction of
> >military
> >assets.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> For weary: I'm the one who stated that however many cities had to be
destroyed
> by the 509th's B-29s. Military targets WERE located in said cities.
Hiroshima
> had the 2nd General Army HQ, a Railroad line and depot, a airfield and
port
> facility, and a division's worth of troops garrisoned there. Nagasaki:
Mistubushi
> aircraft works, a torpedo factory, port facilities and related
infrastructure,
> an air base, etc. Kokura (would've been hit on 9 Aug if not for
weather)had
> a major arsenal, a chemical plant (that happened to be producing mustard
> gas and cynagen chloride agents), an air base, rail facilities, and so on.

All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means.

> With military targets located in the cities, the cities were legitimate
targets.
> The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes and 9-11 is that in 1945,
> there was a WAR ON that had to be brought to an end by whatever means
necessary.

But you deny others the same right.

> If that meant destroying cities to prevent two invasions of the Japanese
> Home Islands, so be it. What would you rather risk: several B-29 aircrews
> on the missions, or 766,000 soldiers and Marines in the U.S. 6th Army
hitting
> the beaches of Kyushu on or after 1 November? Not to mention the American
> and British aircrews and sailors directly supporting the invasion.
Al-Queda
> started the war on terror on 9-11 with a massacre.

No they didn't . The war was declared by OBL in 1995, IIRC.

>They may have started
> the war, but we'll finish it.

[weary]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:08:15 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >From: "weary"
> >>
> >> >Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same right to use WMD to save the
> >> >lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting Iran and internal rebellion?
> >> >Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately target civilians in
> >their
> >> >war with the USA, specifically WTC?
> >> >
> >> If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there would not have been a need to
defend
> >"Iraqi
> >> servicemen."
> >
> >Complaints about his use of WMD relate to uses considerably pre-dating
> >his invasion of Kuwait.
> >
> >>
> >> As for the attacks on the WTC there was no military value there. An
> >argument
> >> could be made for the strike on the Pentagon being a military attack.
> >>
> >> Nagasaki and Hiroshima each had valid military targets within the
cities.
> >
> >The odds are that there were Reservists in the WTC at the time of the
> >attack.
> >The poster I was replying to advocated using "ANY MEANS" to end the war.
> >He also wrote "If that means incinerating two, three, or however many
> >Japanese Cities
> >by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s, so be it." He made no mention
of
> >destroying military assets. His choice of words clearly states that the
> >destruction of
> >cities was what would produce a Japanese surrender, not destruction of
> >military
> >assets.
> >
> >
> >
> Destruction of Japan, by whatever means possible, was warranted.

That's what AQ thinks of the USA

>The
> barbarity of their military was an abomination, and it was continuing
> daily

That's what AQ thinks of the USA.

> in China, Korea, etc. If incinerating every building in Japan would
> have ended the war, it would have been completely justified.
>
> The only thing that the US did that was "wrong" was not hanging the
> ******* Hirohito from the nearest tree.
>
> Al Minyard
>

[weary]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "weary"
>
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >From: "weary"
> >>
> >> >Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same right to use WMD to save the
> >> >lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting Iran and internal rebellion?
> >> >Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately target civilians in
> >their
> >> >war with the USA, specifically WTC?
> >> >
> >> If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there would not have been a need to
defend
> >"Iraqi
> >> servicemen."
> >
> >Complaints about his use of WMD relate to uses considerably pre-dating
> >his invasion of Kuwait.
> >
> Neither of us mentioned Kuwait, we said Iran.

What is the relevance of who started a war when
the idea of saving servicemens lives is an issue. Besides, it was a war
where the US actively assisted Iraq.

[weary]

"Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
news:3fe325a4$1@bg2....
>
> "weary" > wrote:
> >
> >"Matt Wiser" > wrote
> >in message
> >news:3fdb5db4$1@bg2....
> >>
> >> "Sunny" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Polybus" >
> >wrote
> >> >in message
> >> om...
> >> >> Peter Kuznick,
> >> >> Professor of History and Director, Nuclear
> >> >Studies Institute, American
> >> >> University
> >> >>
> >> >> Kevin Martin
> >> >> Executive Director, Peace Action
> >> >>
> >> >> Daniel Ellsberg
> >> >> Author, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and
> >The
> >> >Pentagon Papers
> >> >
> >> >Questions :
> >> >1. Do the three retards listed above,
> >condone
> >> >the cross posting to the
> >> >groups listed ?
> >> >2. Does Peter Kuznick really study History
> >> >(or only his version of it)?
> >> >3. Do any of the three realise that there
> >> >was a World War on at the
> >> >time?
> >> >4. What would you have suggested, at
> >the
> >> >time, as the means to subdue a
> >> >fanatical enemy, that had proved to demonstrate
> >> >acts of barbarism that are
> >> >still wondered at?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> They all seem to think that if we had talked
> >nicely to the Japanese,
> >they
> >> would have surrendered. Not bloody likely.
> >There was a war on, a major
> >invasion
> >> planned of Kyushu in November, and ANY MEANS
> >to prevent the bloodbath of
> >> American, British, and yes, Japanese lives
> >and END THE WAR ASAP is a
> >viable
> >> option. If that means incinerating two, three,
> >or however many Japanese
> >Cities
> >> by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s,
> >so be it.
> >
> >Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same right
> >to use WMD to save the
> >lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting Iran
> >and internal rebellion?
> >Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately
> >target civilians in their
> >war with the USA, specifically WTC?
> >
> >
> >
> Absolutely not. The rules of war, written or othewise, have changed.
Saddam's
> use of WMD was in violation of the 1925 CBW Treaty, which Iraq had signed.

You were supporting the idea of using "ANY MEANS" to end the war. You still
haven't explained why Iraq didn't have the same right, given that ANY MEANS
obviously encompasses both legal and illegal.

>
> As for Al-Queda, that was an act of terrorism and war,

The war had actually started at least some 6 years earlier. How was it
different from
bombing campaigns conducted in other theatres and wars by the US and its
allies
where the targets were residential or economic? (Apart from the obvious that
it was
them doing it to US rather than US doing it to them.)

[Greg Hennessy]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:39:57 GMT, "weary" > wrote:


>> a major arsenal, a chemical plant (that happened to be producing mustard
>> gas and cynagen chloride agents), an air base, rail facilities, and so on.
>
>All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means.
>

Like the 16 sq miles of tokyo was in March 1945 perhaps ?

>> With military targets located in the cities, the cities were legitimate
>targets.
>> The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes and 9-11 is that in 1945,
>> there was a WAR ON that had to be brought to an end by whatever means
>necessary.
>
>But you deny others the same right.
>

Of course, to allow idiots like you to sleep safe at night.


greg
--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

[Alan Minyard]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:42:40 GMT, "weary" > wrote:

>
>"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:08:15 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"B2431" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> >From: "weary"
>> >>
>> >> >Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same right to use WMD to save the
>> >> >lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting Iran and internal rebellion?
>> >> >Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately target civilians in
>> >their
>> >> >war with the USA, specifically WTC?
>> >> >
>> >> If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there would not have been a need to
>defend
>> >"Iraqi
>> >> servicemen."
>> >
>> >Complaints about his use of WMD relate to uses considerably pre-dating
>> >his invasion of Kuwait.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> As for the attacks on the WTC there was no military value there. An
>> >argument
>> >> could be made for the strike on the Pentagon being a military attack.
>> >>
>> >> Nagasaki and Hiroshima each had valid military targets within the
>cities.
>> >
>> >The odds are that there were Reservists in the WTC at the time of the
>> >attack.
>> >The poster I was replying to advocated using "ANY MEANS" to end the war.
>> >He also wrote "If that means incinerating two, three, or however many
>> >Japanese Cities
>> >by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s, so be it." He made no mention
>of
>> >destroying military assets. His choice of words clearly states that the
>> >destruction of
>> >cities was what would produce a Japanese surrender, not destruction of
>> >military
>> >assets.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Destruction of Japan, by whatever means possible, was warranted.
>
>That's what AQ thinks of the USA

And it is clear that you think that they are right. They are not, and we will
hunt them down.

>
>>The
>> barbarity of their military was an abomination, and it was continuing
>> daily
>
>That's what AQ thinks of the USA.

Once again, you think that they are right. You are either massively
mis-informed or you simply hate the US. In either case, welcome to my
kill file.

Al Minyard

[Steve Hix]

In article >,
"weary" > wrote:

> > Al-Queda started the war on terror on 9-11 with a massacre.
>
> No they didn't . The war was declared by OBL in 1995, IIRC.

Indeed, and followed that up with multiple attacks, including the first
WTC attack, the USS Cole in Yemen, attacks on two U.S. embassies in
Africa, etc.

[Gregory Baker]

>
> Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same right to use WMD to save the
> lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting Iran and internal rebellion?

Actually, he did in the war against Iran; however, this absolute right
was tempered by international treaties on the laws of war which restrict
the use of poison gases in combat, to which Iraq was a signatory. He
used mustard gas, a blister agent, against Iranian forces. However, the
Hussein regime did not have the right to use nerve gas on civilians in
rebellion. Firstly, there were other, less drastic means to suppress
any demonstrations, as any competent army will use. The use of nerve
gas on Shiites and Kurds was to spread terror. Secondly, under the 1954
Geneva conventions, internal wars and their combatants also fall under
the same restrictions as international wars. The blanket prohibition
against using poison as a weapon applies. Any tribunal will be right to
try Saddam and his assistants for the use of this weapon.

> Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately target civilians in their
> war with the USA, specifically WTC?
>
No. Al-Queda is not a state and as such cannot declare war. Al-Queda
is a combination of private persons united by ideology. They don't fall
under the 1906 Hague Convention definition of legitimate combatants, nor
under the 1954 Geneva Convention extension of these rules. The United
States actions against al-Queda fall into the category of suppression of
criminals or pirates, not warfare between states. The acts of September
11 were by international law murder, not warfare.

Gregory Baker

[Matt Wiser]

"weary" > wrote:
>
>"Matt Wiser" > wrote
>in message
>news:3fe49de1$1@bg2....
>>
>> "weary" > wrote:
>> >
>> >"B2431" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> >From: "weary"
>> >>
>> >> >Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same
>> >right to use WMD to save the
>> >> >lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting
>> >Iran and internal rebellion?
>> >> >Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately
>> >target civilians in
>> >their
>> >> >war with the USA, specifically WTC?
>> >> >
>> >> If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there would
>> >not have been a need to defend
>> >"Iraqi
>> >> servicemen."
>> >
>> >Complaints about his use of WMD relate to
>uses
>> >considerably pre-dating
>> >his invasion of Kuwait.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> As for the attacks on the WTC there was
>no
>> >military value there. An
>> >argument
>> >> could be made for the strike on the Pentagon
>> >being a military attack.
>> >>
>> >> Nagasaki and Hiroshima each had valid military
>> >targets within the cities.
>> >
>> >The odds are that there were Reservists in
>the
>> >WTC at the time of the
>> >attack.
>> >The poster I was replying to advocated using
>> >"ANY MEANS" to end the war.
>> >He also wrote "If that means incinerating
>two,
>> >three, or however many
>> >Japanese Cities
>> >by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s,
>so
>> >be it." He made no mention of
>> >destroying military assets. His choice of
>words
>> >clearly states that the
>> >destruction of
>> >cities was what would produce a Japanese
>surrender,
>> >not destruction of
>> >military
>> >assets.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> For weary: I'm the one who stated that however
>many cities had to be
>destroyed
>> by the 509th's B-29s. Military targets WERE
>located in said cities.
>Hiroshima
>> had the 2nd General Army HQ, a Railroad line
>and depot, a airfield and
>port
>> facility, and a division's worth of troops
>garrisoned there. Nagasaki:
>Mistubushi
>> aircraft works, a torpedo factory, port facilities
>and related
>infrastructure,
>> an air base, etc. Kokura (would've been hit
>on 9 Aug if not for
>weather)had
>> a major arsenal, a chemical plant (that happened
>to be producing mustard
>> gas and cynagen chloride agents), an air base,
>rail facilities, and so on.
>
>All of which could have been destroyed by conventional
>means.
>
>> With military targets located in the cities,
>the cities were legitimate
>targets.
>> The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes
>and 9-11 is that in 1945,
>> there was a WAR ON that had to be brought
>to an end by whatever means
>necessary.
>
>But you deny others the same right.
>
>> If that meant destroying cities to prevent
>two invasions of the Japanese
>> Home Islands, so be it. What would you rather
>risk: several B-29 aircrews
>> on the missions, or 766,000 soldiers and Marines
>in the U.S. 6th Army
>hitting
>> the beaches of Kyushu on or after 1 November?
>Not to mention the American
>> and British aircrews and sailors directly
>supporting the invasion.
>Al-Queda
>> started the war on terror on 9-11 with a massacre.
>
>No they didn't . The war was declared by OBL
>in 1995, IIRC.
>
> >They may have started
>> the war, but we'll finish it.
>
>
>
You still haven't answered the question: drop the bomb or invade. As for
conventional strikes: guess what the conventional strikes would be: B-29s
at low level with M-47 and M-69 incindenary bombs. Remember: it's not just
the destructive effect of 15 Kt on Hiroshima and 20 Kt on Nagasaki, it's
the shock and suprise effect. Add to that the fear that ANY B-29 over Japan
flying solo could be carrying an atomic bomb and that affects military and
civilian morale very badly. Bottom line: Truman, based on the information
he had, had two options: invade or use the bomb. He did what he had to do
to END THE WAR and SAVE AMERICAN, BRITISH, AND JAPANESE LIVES. Estimated
casualties for Kyushu for the Allies range from a low of 49,000 to 85,000.
Japanese casualties would have been 5x to 10x that. Take your pick. End the
war in August or September with the bombs, or January at least with Kyushu,
or a year later if CORONET (the invasion of the Kanto) has to be launched,
with higher casualties for all concerned.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Matt Wiser]

"weary" > wrote:
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "weary"
>>
>> >
>> >"B2431" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> >From: "weary"
>> >>
>> >> >Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same
>right to use WMD to save the
>> >> >lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting
>Iran and internal rebellion?
>> >> >Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately
>target civilians in
>> >their
>> >> >war with the USA, specifically WTC?
>> >> >
>> >> If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there would
>not have been a need to
>defend
>> >"Iraqi
>> >> servicemen."
>> >
>> >Complaints about his use of WMD relate to
>uses considerably pre-dating
>> >his invasion of Kuwait.
>> >
>> Neither of us mentioned Kuwait, we said Iran.
>
>What is the relevance of who started a war when
>the idea of saving servicemens lives is an issue.
>Besides, it was a war
>where the US actively assisted Iraq.
>
>
At a time when Iran was considered by Americans as Public Enemy #1. The feeling
was that the more Iranians the Iraqis kill, the fewer we'll have to kill
when and if we ever go after them ourselves.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Matt Wiser]

"weary" > wrote:
>
>"Alan Minyard" > wrote
>in message
...
>> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:08:15 GMT, "weary"
> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"B2431" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> >From: "weary"
>> >>
>> >> >Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same
>right to use WMD to save the
>> >> >lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting
>Iran and internal rebellion?
>> >> >Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately
>target civilians in
>> >their
>> >> >war with the USA, specifically WTC?
>> >> >
>> >> If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there would
>not have been a need to
>defend
>> >"Iraqi
>> >> servicemen."
>> >
>> >Complaints about his use of WMD relate to
>uses considerably pre-dating
>> >his invasion of Kuwait.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> As for the attacks on the WTC there was
>no military value there. An
>> >argument
>> >> could be made for the strike on the Pentagon
>being a military attack.
>> >>
>> >> Nagasaki and Hiroshima each had valid military
>targets within the
>cities.
>> >
>> >The odds are that there were Reservists in
>the WTC at the time of the
>> >attack.
>> >The poster I was replying to advocated using
>"ANY MEANS" to end the war.
>> >He also wrote "If that means incinerating
>two, three, or however many
>> >Japanese Cities
>> >by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s,
>so be it." He made no mention
>of
>> >destroying military assets. His choice of
>words clearly states that the
>> >destruction of
>> >cities was what would produce a Japanese
>surrender, not destruction of
>> >military
>> >assets.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Destruction of Japan, by whatever means possible,
>was warranted.
>
>That's what AQ thinks of the USA
>
>>The
>> barbarity of their military was an abomination,
>and it was continuing
>> daily
>
>That's what AQ thinks of the USA.
>
>> in China, Korea, etc. If incinerating every
>building in Japan would
>> have ended the war, it would have been completely
>justified.
>>
>> The only thing that the US did that was "wrong"
>was not hanging the
>> ******* Hirohito from the nearest tree.
>>
>> Al Minyard
>>
>
>
So why do you apologize for them? Dropping the bombs and 9-11 were two
different events under vastly different circumstances. In case you forgot:
Pearl Harbor's treachery was rewarded at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 9-11's treachery
has been partially rewarded with the Taliban who sheltered AQ and OBL reduced
to a low-level insurgency. And OBL and his inner circle (those still alive
and free) running for their worthless lives. AQ will be harder to kill. But
killed they will be: no quarter given. They didn't give any to the airline
passengers and crew on 9-11. So why should they expect any when they are
found and given one chance to give up? If they do give up-military tribunal
for violating the laws and customs of war, followed by either a needle or
noose. If they don't... well, KIA works for me.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Matt Wiser]

"weary" > wrote:
>
>"Matt Wiser" > wrote
>in message
>news:3fe325a4$1@bg2....
>>
>> "weary" > wrote:
>> >
>> >"Matt Wiser" > wrote
>> >in message
>> >news:3fdb5db4$1@bg2....
>> >>
>> >> "Sunny" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Polybus" >
>> >wrote
>> >> >in message
>> >> om...
>> >> >> Peter Kuznick,
>> >> >> Professor of History and Director, Nuclear
>> >> >Studies Institute, American
>> >> >> University
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Kevin Martin
>> >> >> Executive Director, Peace Action
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Daniel Ellsberg
>> >> >> Author, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam
>and
>> >The
>> >> >Pentagon Papers
>> >> >
>> >> >Questions :
>> >> >1. Do the three retards listed above,
>> >condone
>> >> >the cross posting to the
>> >> >groups listed ?
>> >> >2. Does Peter Kuznick really study
>History
>> >> >(or only his version of it)?
>> >> >3. Do any of the three realise that
>there
>> >> >was a World War on at the
>> >> >time?
>> >> >4. What would you have suggested,
>at
>> >the
>> >> >time, as the means to subdue a
>> >> >fanatical enemy, that had proved to demonstrate
>> >> >acts of barbarism that are
>> >> >still wondered at?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> They all seem to think that if we had
>talked
>> >nicely to the Japanese,
>> >they
>> >> would have surrendered. Not bloody likely.
>> >There was a war on, a major
>> >invasion
>> >> planned of Kyushu in November, and ANY
>MEANS
>> >to prevent the bloodbath of
>> >> American, British, and yes, Japanese lives
>> >and END THE WAR ASAP is a
>> >viable
>> >> option. If that means incinerating two,
>three,
>> >or however many Japanese
>> >Cities
>> >> by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s,
>> >so be it.
>> >
>> >Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same
>right
>> >to use WMD to save the
>> >lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting
>Iran
>> >and internal rebellion?
>> >Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately
>> >target civilians in their
>> >war with the USA, specifically WTC?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Absolutely not. The rules of war, written
>or othewise, have changed.
>Saddam's
>> use of WMD was in violation of the 1925 CBW
>Treaty, which Iraq had signed.
>
>You were supporting the idea of using "ANY MEANS"
>to end the war. You still
>haven't explained why Iraq didn't have the same
>right, given that ANY MEANS
>obviously encompasses both legal and illegal.
>
>>
>> As for Al-Queda, that was an act of terrorism
>and war,
>
>The war had actually started at least some 6
>years earlier. How was it
>different from
>bombing campaigns conducted in other theatres
>and wars by the US and its
>allies
>where the targets were residential or economic?
>(Apart from the obvious that
>it was
>them doing it to US rather than US doing it
>to them.)
>
>
Saddam used CW in VIOLATION of a 1925 treaty signed at Geneva prohibiting
use of CW/BW. Of course, the treaty (or any other) is useless paper w/o enforcement.
I had a grandfather who was scheduled to ship out from England (USAAF) to
Australia thru Suez and then on to the Marianas and finally Kyushu if the
bomb hadn't been dropped. He felt that the bombs on Japan saved his life,
and felt that way to his dying day.
Now, as far as hitting as many Japanese cities as necessary: even after both
Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been hit, the militarists in the Japanese Government
wanted to keep fighting,despite what had happened and the Soviet invasion
of Manchuria, Korea, Southern Sakhalin and the Kuriles. It took the Emperor
voicing his wishes to force the militarists to accept the Potsdam Declaration.
Before, the response was "mokasstu" or treat with silent contempt. "Japanese
Spirit" would resist the bombing, blockade, and eventual invasion, despite
shortages of weapons, fuel, ammuniton, lack of a navy and trained airmen.
The bombs forced them to see reason and realize that the war was lost. Sure
they wanted peace, but on their terms, not unconditional surrender. Some
might say that was modified to keep the Emperor, but as long as the government
answered to Douglas MacArthur as SCAP, it was as Sec. State Byrnes remarked:
"It'll be one divinity answering to another."
And postwar events vindicated the decision to keep the Emperor. But until
the Emperor spoke up and expressed a desire to end the war on Aug. 10, it
looked like Kokura would be next on Aug. 16th, and additional targets to
be selected as circumstances permitted. All target cities had military targets
in them: arms factories, road and rail nets, airfields, POL refining and
storage, etc. Kyoto and the Emperor's Palace were off-limits.Everything else
that met such criteria was fair game. Add to that a lot of Japanese industry
was cottage industry, taking down cities was necessary. Answer this: what
would you do: invade Kyushu (at least risking 766,000 Army and Marines plus
all air and naval personnel American and British) or drop the bombs. Everything
else learned postwar is hindsight. So use the info Truman had to him at the
time. He had two choices: invade or the bomb. I choose the latter.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[weary]

"Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
news:3fe70ded$1@bg2....
>
> "weary" > wrote:
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >From: "weary"
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> >From: "weary"
> >> >>
> >> >> >Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same
> >right to use WMD to save the
> >> >> >lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting
> >Iran and internal rebellion?
> >> >> >Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately
> >target civilians in
> >> >their
> >> >> >war with the USA, specifically WTC?
> >> >> >
> >> >> If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there would
> >not have been a need to
> >defend
> >> >"Iraqi
> >> >> servicemen."
> >> >
> >> >Complaints about his use of WMD relate to
> >uses considerably pre-dating
> >> >his invasion of Kuwait.
> >> >
> >> Neither of us mentioned Kuwait, we said Iran.
> >
> >What is the relevance of who started a war when
> >the idea of saving servicemens lives is an issue.
> >Besides, it was a war
> >where the US actively assisted Iraq.
> >
> >
> At a time when Iran was considered by Americans as Public Enemy #1. The
feeling
> was that the more Iranians the Iraqis kill, the fewer we'll have to kill
> when and if we ever go after them ourselves.

Which doesn't answer my question about a country saving lives of its
servicemen by using WMD. It seems that some regard the use as OK
if their side does it but bad if the other side does it.

[weary]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:42:40 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:08:15 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> >From: "weary"
> >> >>
> >> >> >Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same right to use WMD to save
the
> >> >> >lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting Iran and internal
rebellion?
> >> >> >Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately target civilians
in
> >> >their
> >> >> >war with the USA, specifically WTC?
> >> >> >
> >> >> If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there would not have been a need to
> >defend
> >> >"Iraqi
> >> >> servicemen."
> >> >
> >> >Complaints about his use of WMD relate to uses considerably pre-dating
> >> >his invasion of Kuwait.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> As for the attacks on the WTC there was no military value there. An
> >> >argument
> >> >> could be made for the strike on the Pentagon being a military
attack.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nagasaki and Hiroshima each had valid military targets within the
> >cities.
> >> >
> >> >The odds are that there were Reservists in the WTC at the time of the
> >> >attack.
> >> >The poster I was replying to advocated using "ANY MEANS" to end the
war.
> >> >He also wrote "If that means incinerating two, three, or however many
> >> >Japanese Cities
> >> >by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s, so be it." He made no
mention
> >of
> >> >destroying military assets. His choice of words clearly states that
the
> >> >destruction of
> >> >cities was what would produce a Japanese surrender, not destruction of
> >> >military
> >> >assets.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Destruction of Japan, by whatever means possible, was warranted.
> >
> >That's what AQ thinks of the USA
>
> And it is clear that you think that they are right. They are not, and we
will
> hunt them down.

An irrational conclusion from what I wrote, but what I expect from you.

>
> >
> >>The
> >> barbarity of their military was an abomination, and it was continuing
> >> daily
> >
> >That's what AQ thinks of the USA.
>
> Once again, you think that they are right.

And once again an irrational conclusion.

> You are either massively
> mis-informed or you simply hate the US.

Actually I'm just stating or summarising what is in the public
domain regarding statements by AQ.

>In either case, welcome to my
> kill file.

Tell someone who cares.

A very mature response to hearing bad news - shoot the messenger.

[weary]

"Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
news:3fe70e02$1@bg2....
>
> "weary" > wrote:
> >
> >"Alan Minyard" > wrote
> >in message
> ...
> >> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:08:15 GMT, "weary"
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> >From: "weary"
> >> >>
> >> >> >Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same
> >right to use WMD to save the
> >> >> >lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting
> >Iran and internal rebellion?
> >> >> >Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately
> >target civilians in
> >> >their
> >> >> >war with the USA, specifically WTC?
> >> >> >
> >> >> If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there would
> >not have been a need to
> >defend
> >> >"Iraqi
> >> >> servicemen."
> >> >
> >> >Complaints about his use of WMD relate to
> >uses considerably pre-dating
> >> >his invasion of Kuwait.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> As for the attacks on the WTC there was
> >no military value there. An
> >> >argument
> >> >> could be made for the strike on the Pentagon
> >being a military attack.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nagasaki and Hiroshima each had valid military
> >targets within the
> >cities.
> >> >
> >> >The odds are that there were Reservists in
> >the WTC at the time of the
> >> >attack.
> >> >The poster I was replying to advocated using
> >"ANY MEANS" to end the war.
> >> >He also wrote "If that means incinerating
> >two, three, or however many
> >> >Japanese Cities
> >> >by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s,
> >so be it." He made no mention
> >of
> >> >destroying military assets. His choice of
> >words clearly states that the
> >> >destruction of
> >> >cities was what would produce a Japanese
> >surrender, not destruction of
> >> >military
> >> >assets.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Destruction of Japan, by whatever means possible,
> >was warranted.
> >
> >That's what AQ thinks of the USA
> >
> >>The
> >> barbarity of their military was an abomination,
> >and it was continuing
> >> daily
> >
> >That's what AQ thinks of the USA.
> >
> >> in China, Korea, etc. If incinerating every
> >building in Japan would
> >> have ended the war, it would have been completely
> >justified.
> >>
> >> The only thing that the US did that was "wrong"
> >was not hanging the
> >> ******* Hirohito from the nearest tree.
> >>
> >> Al Minyard
> >>
> >
> >
> So why do you apologize for them? Dropping the bombs and 9-11 were two
> different events under vastly different circumstances.

That your opinion, and point out where I apologised for them.
My opinion - supported by facts - is that there are similarities,
deliberately targetting civilians, especially with regard to Hiroshima.


>In case you forgot:
> Pearl Harbor's treachery was rewarded at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

If you think an attack without a declaration of war is "treachery", do
your sums and see how many times the US has declared war in the
conflicts it has been involved in since WW2.


> 9-11's treachery
> has been partially rewarded with the Taliban who sheltered AQ and OBL
reduced
> to a low-level insurgency.

AQ believe that US treachery in supporting Israel inits oppression
of the Palestinians was rewarded by Sept 11. It is apparently news
to you but others can hate as strongly as you, and be as ruthless as
your government in targetting civilians.

<rant snipped>

[weary]

"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 11:39:57 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
>
>
> >> a major arsenal, a chemical plant (that happened to be producing
mustard
> >> gas and cynagen chloride agents), an air base, rail facilities, and so
on.
> >
> >All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means.
> >
>
> Like the 16 sq miles of tokyo was in March 1945 perhaps ?

No. Do try to follow the thread. Back up a couple of lines and you
can read that the previous correspondent tried to justify the bombing
of Hiroshima on the grounds that there were military and industrial assets
in the city. However the aiming point was a bridge in a mainly residential
area and the assets were only lightly damaged. The incendiary raids
on Tokyo deliberately targetted civilians, not military or industrial
assets.

>
> >> With military targets located in the cities, the cities were legitimate
> >targets.
> >> The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes and 9-11 is that in
1945,
> >> there was a WAR ON that had to be brought to an end by whatever means
> >necessary.
> >
> >But you deny others the same right.
> >
>
> Of course, to allow idiots like you to sleep safe at night.

Bad news - it isn't working, if we are to believe the number
of heightened terror alerts. Besides, I have never asked nor do I
want my government to kill civilians so that I can sleep safe
at night. As a matter of fact, if I knew that is what my government
was doing, I would not sleep safe at night.

[weary]

"Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
news:3fe70de0$1@bg2....
>
> "weary" > wrote:
> >
> >"Matt Wiser" > wrote
> >in message
> >news:3fe49de1$1@bg2....
> >>
> >> "weary" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> >From: "weary"
> >> >>
> >> >> >Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same
> >> >right to use WMD to save the
> >> >> >lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting
> >> >Iran and internal rebellion?
> >> >> >Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately
> >> >target civilians in
> >> >their
> >> >> >war with the USA, specifically WTC?
> >> >> >
> >> >> If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there would
> >> >not have been a need to defend
> >> >"Iraqi
> >> >> servicemen."
> >> >
> >> >Complaints about his use of WMD relate to
> >uses
> >> >considerably pre-dating
> >> >his invasion of Kuwait.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> As for the attacks on the WTC there was
> >no
> >> >military value there. An
> >> >argument
> >> >> could be made for the strike on the Pentagon
> >> >being a military attack.
> >> >>
> >> >> Nagasaki and Hiroshima each had valid military
> >> >targets within the cities.
> >> >
> >> >The odds are that there were Reservists in
> >the
> >> >WTC at the time of the
> >> >attack.
> >> >The poster I was replying to advocated using
> >> >"ANY MEANS" to end the war.
> >> >He also wrote "If that means incinerating
> >two,
> >> >three, or however many
> >> >Japanese Cities
> >> >by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s,
> >so
> >> >be it." He made no mention of
> >> >destroying military assets. His choice of
> >words
> >> >clearly states that the
> >> >destruction of
> >> >cities was what would produce a Japanese
> >surrender,
> >> >not destruction of
> >> >military
> >> >assets.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> For weary: I'm the one who stated that however
> >many cities had to be
> >destroyed
> >> by the 509th's B-29s. Military targets WERE
> >located in said cities.
> >Hiroshima
> >> had the 2nd General Army HQ, a Railroad line
> >and depot, a airfield and
> >port
> >> facility, and a division's worth of troops
> >garrisoned there. Nagasaki:
> >Mistubushi
> >> aircraft works, a torpedo factory, port facilities
> >and related
> >infrastructure,
> >> an air base, etc. Kokura (would've been hit
> >on 9 Aug if not for
> >weather)had
> >> a major arsenal, a chemical plant (that happened
> >to be producing mustard
> >> gas and cynagen chloride agents), an air base,
> >rail facilities, and so on.
> >
> >All of which could have been destroyed by conventional
> >means.
> >
> >> With military targets located in the cities,
> >the cities were legitimate
> >targets.
> >> The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes
> >and 9-11 is that in 1945,
> >> there was a WAR ON that had to be brought
> >to an end by whatever means
> >necessary.
> >
> >But you deny others the same right.
> >
> >> If that meant destroying cities to prevent
> >two invasions of the Japanese
> >> Home Islands, so be it. What would you rather
> >risk: several B-29 aircrews
> >> on the missions, or 766,000 soldiers and Marines
> >in the U.S. 6th Army
> >hitting
> >> the beaches of Kyushu on or after 1 November?
> >Not to mention the American
> >> and British aircrews and sailors directly
> >supporting the invasion.
> >Al-Queda
> >> started the war on terror on 9-11 with a massacre.
> >
> >No they didn't . The war was declared by OBL
> >in 1995, IIRC.
> >
> > >They may have started
> >> the war, but we'll finish it.
> >
> >
> >
> You still haven't answered the question: drop the bomb or invade.

False dichotomy. There are were many major US players, both military and
civilian who wanted to use a third option, diplomacy, to end the war.
The Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that the Japanese would have
surrendered without the use of the bombs before November.

[Tex Houston]

"weary" > wrote in message
...
> Which doesn't answer my question about a country saving lives of its
> servicemen by using WMD. It seems that some regard the use as OK
> if their side does it but bad if the other side does it.
>


From a Pratt and Whitney ad in the October 2001 issue of "Air Force
Magazine".

THERE IS NO SECTION TITLED,
"THE UNFAIR USE OF TECHNOLOGY"
IN THE GENEVA CONVENTION.

Tex Houston

[weary]

"Gregory Baker" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> >
> > Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same right to use WMD to save the
> > lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting Iran and internal rebellion?
>
> Actually, he did in the war against Iran; however, this absolute right
> was tempered by international treaties on the laws of war which restrict
> the use of poison gases in combat, to which Iraq was a signatory. He
> used mustard gas, a blister agent, against Iranian forces. However, the
> Hussein regime did not have the right to use nerve gas on civilians in
> rebellion. Firstly, there were other, less drastic means to suppress
> any demonstrations, as any competent army will use. The use of nerve
> gas on Shiites and Kurds was to spread terror. Secondly, under the 1954

Are you sure of this date? The latest I can find is dated 1949 with
additional Protocols in 1977.

> Geneva conventions, internal wars and their combatants also fall under
> the same restrictions as international wars. The blanket prohibition
> against using poison as a weapon applies. Any tribunal will be right to
> try Saddam and his assistants for the use of this weapon.
>
> > Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately target civilians in
their
> > war with the USA, specifically WTC?
> >
> No. Al-Queda is not a state and as such cannot declare war.

Online see Wikipedia:
"is any conflict involving the organized use of arms and physical force
between

countries or other large-scale armed groups. "

Other dictionaries Support the notion that war does not necessarily involve

countries.

GWB described Sept 11 as "war" and subsequently declared war

on terrorism. The US had previously declared war on crime and drugs.

> Al-Queda
> is a combination of private persons united by ideology. They don't fall
> under the 1906 Hague Convention definition of legitimate combatants, nor
> under the 1954 Geneva Convention extension of these rules.

> The United
> States actions against al-Queda fall into the category of suppression of
> criminals or pirates, not warfare between states. The acts of September
> 11 were by international law murder, not warfare.
>
> Gregory Baker
>
>
>

[B2431]

>From: "weary"


Besides, I have never asked nor do I
>want my government to kill civilians so that I can sleep safe
>at night. As a matter of fact, if I knew that is what my government
>was doing, I would not sleep safe at night.
>
>
Tell ya what, get the bad guys to move their military targets away from
civilian populations and the civilians will stop dying. That is true for all
countries and organizations including the U.S. and Al Quaida.

Your insistance that civilians were deliberatly targeted in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki would only hold water if the military targets were no where near
civilian population centers.

I ask again, how would YOU have taken out the military targets in Nagasaki and
Hiroshima without harming civilians.

As a Jew I take offense at your comparing Dachau to Hiroshima. Many thousands
of humans died there, not just Jews, but I have been there and have seen the
grave markers.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Greg Hennessy]

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:58:16 GMT, "weary" > wrote:


>> >All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means.
>> >
>>
>> Like the 16 sq miles of tokyo was in March 1945 perhaps ?
>
>No. Do try to follow the thread.

Your laughable attempt at evasion is noted. You claimed that

"All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means."

I am asking you to tell us how.

> Back up a couple of lines and you
>can read that the previous correspondent tried to justify the bombing
>of Hiroshima on the grounds that there were military and industrial assets
>in the city.

He didn't have to try. The military and industrial assets in Hiroshima were
well documented.

I ask you like I've asked all the other revisionists. Tell us how *you*
would have targeted these facilities and these facilities using the
technology of the period.

> However the aiming point was a bridge in a mainly residential
>area and the assets were only lightly damaged.

ROFLMAO! Like all those who blindly regurgitate indoctrination, I bet you
cannot name a single one.


>The incendiary raids
>on Tokyo deliberately targetted civilians, not military or industrial
>assets.

It targeted the distributed nature of the japanese war industry which was
turning out the means to kill millions of Chinese in 10s of thousands of
back yard workshops up and down the kanto plain.

If you had even a modicum of clue on the topic, you would be aware of that.

>>
>> >> With military targets located in the cities, the cities were legitimate
>> >targets.
>> >> The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes and 9-11 is that in
>1945,
>> >> there was a WAR ON that had to be brought to an end by whatever means
>> >necessary.
>> >
>> >But you deny others the same right.
>> >
>>
>> Of course, to allow idiots like you to sleep safe at night.
>
>Bad news - it isn't working,

The opinion of uninformed idiots doesn't count. Especially those who claim
that military targets in hiroshima managed to escape unscathed.


greg


--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

[Greg Hennessy]

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 01:03:40 GMT, "weary" > wrote:


>
>False dichotomy. There are were many major US players, both military and
>civilian who wanted to use a third option, diplomacy, to end the war.

Oh really.

Name them with references.




greg

--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological
>achievements
>From: (B2431)
>Date: 12/27/03 8:48 PM Pacific

>As a Jew I take offense at your comparing Dachau to Hiroshima. Many thousands
>of humans died there, not just Jews, but I have been there and have seen the
>grave markers.
>
>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I entered Dachau a few days after it was liberated and before it was cleaned
up.I still have the bad dreams.



Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[B2431]

>From: (ArtKramr)
>Date: 12/28/2003 6:49 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>Subject: Re: Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological
>>achievements
>>From: (B2431)
>>Date: 12/27/03 8:48 PM Pacific
>
>>As a Jew I take offense at your comparing Dachau to Hiroshima. Many
>thousands
>>of humans died there, not just Jews, but I have been there and have seen the
>>grave markers.
>>
>>Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>I entered Dachau a few days after it was liberated and before it was cleaned
>up.I still have the bad dreams.
>
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

I can only imagine. I have a friend of mine who survived 4 years in Dachau.
Knowing what some people did to survive I never asked him how he did it.

When I saw a square piece of ground about 2 meters per side with a placard
saying "x thousand people are buried here" and saw a wall with a placard
saying "y number of people were shot here" it really brought home the scale.
Unfortunatley in the 24 years since I was there I don't really recall the
numbers cited on the placards.

I wonder how much bigger those numbers would have been if the gas chamber there
was ever made operational.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Matt Wiser]

"weary" > wrote:
>
>"Matt Wiser" > wrote
>in message
>news:3fe70e02$1@bg2....
>>
>> "weary" > wrote:
>> >
>> >"Alan Minyard" > wrote
>> >in message
>> ...
>> >> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:08:15 GMT, "weary"
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"B2431" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> >From: "weary"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Do you think Saddam Hussein had the
>same
>> >right to use WMD to save the
>> >> >> >lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting
>> >Iran and internal rebellion?
>> >> >> >Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to
>deliberately
>> >target civilians in
>> >> >their
>> >> >> >war with the USA, specifically WTC?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there
>would
>> >not have been a need to
>> >defend
>> >> >"Iraqi
>> >> >> servicemen."
>> >> >
>> >> >Complaints about his use of WMD relate
>to
>> >uses considerably pre-dating
>> >> >his invasion of Kuwait.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As for the attacks on the WTC there
>was
>> >no military value there. An
>> >> >argument
>> >> >> could be made for the strike on the
>Pentagon
>> >being a military attack.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nagasaki and Hiroshima each had valid
>military
>> >targets within the
>> >cities.
>> >> >
>> >> >The odds are that there were Reservists
>in
>> >the WTC at the time of the
>> >> >attack.
>> >> >The poster I was replying to advocated
>using
>> >"ANY MEANS" to end the war.
>> >> >He also wrote "If that means incinerating
>> >two, three, or however many
>> >> >Japanese Cities
>> >> >by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s,
>> >so be it." He made no mention
>> >of
>> >> >destroying military assets. His choice
>of
>> >words clearly states that the
>> >> >destruction of
>> >> >cities was what would produce a Japanese
>> >surrender, not destruction of
>> >> >military
>> >> >assets.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> Destruction of Japan, by whatever means
>possible,
>> >was warranted.
>> >
>> >That's what AQ thinks of the USA
>> >
>> >>The
>> >> barbarity of their military was an abomination,
>> >and it was continuing
>> >> daily
>> >
>> >That's what AQ thinks of the USA.
>> >
>> >> in China, Korea, etc. If incinerating every
>> >building in Japan would
>> >> have ended the war, it would have been
>completely
>> >justified.
>> >>
>> >> The only thing that the US did that was
>"wrong"
>> >was not hanging the
>> >> ******* Hirohito from the nearest tree.
>> >>
>> >> Al Minyard
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> So why do you apologize for them? Dropping
>the bombs and 9-11 were two
>> different events under vastly different circumstances.
>
>That your opinion, and point out where I apologised
>for them.
>My opinion - supported by facts - is that there
>are similarities,
>deliberately targetting civilians, especially
>with regard to Hiroshima.
>
>
>>In case you forgot:
>> Pearl Harbor's treachery was rewarded at Hiroshima
>and Nagasaki.
>
>If you think an attack without a declaration
>of war is "treachery", do
>your sums and see how many times the US has
>declared war in the
>conflicts it has been involved in since WW2.
>
>
>> 9-11's treachery
>> has been partially rewarded with the Taliban
>who sheltered AQ and OBL
>reduced
>> to a low-level insurgency.
>
>AQ believe that US treachery in supporting Israel
>inits oppression
>of the Palestinians was rewarded by Sept 11.
>It is apparently news
>to you but others can hate as strongly as you,
>and be as ruthless as
>your government in targetting civilians.
>
><rant snipped>
>
>
>
Weary, I said it before and I'll say it again: How would you have destroyed
the miltiary and industrial targets located in Japanese Cities? If not the
B-29 fire raids, what? Daylight precision bombing had poor results over Japan
due to winds (Jet Stream) and opposition from flak and fighters. The Navy's
fast carriers are busy supporting Okinawa, so using TBMs and SB2Cs in dive
and glide bombing is out.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military cities: military HQs were located there,
there were port facilities, airfields, a division-sized garrison in Hiroshima
and a brigade's worth in Nagasaki. Legitimate military targets. Add to that
the military-related industries and that makes each more of a target. (This
includes the cottage industry common in Japan at the time) As LeMay said,
the only way to do it was low level fire raids at night. He knew there would
be heavy civilian casualties, but felt it had to be done. A demonstration
was out of the question for a number of reasons, techinical, political, and
practical. Invasion brings heavy American, British, and Japanese loss of
life. Bombing and Blockade will take up to 18 months to work. Truman has
(according to the info he had at the time) those choices. What do YOU do
in his place? I know what I'd do. Drop the bomb and end the war ASAP.
Comparing Hiroshima with 9-11 is apples and oranges. Different context, circumstances,
etc. I can see you as OBL's defense atty. when (not if) he's caught. Good
luck keeping him away from the needle or the noose.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[weary]

"Tex Houston" > wrote in message
...
>
> "weary" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Which doesn't answer my question about a country saving lives of its
> > servicemen by using WMD. It seems that some regard the use as OK
> > if their side does it but bad if the other side does it.
> >
>
>
> From a Pratt and Whitney ad in the October 2001 issue of "Air Force
> Magazine".
>
> THERE IS NO SECTION TITLED,
> "THE UNFAIR USE OF TECHNOLOGY"
> IN THE GENEVA CONVENTION.

Then practice what you preach.
> Tex Houston

[weary]

"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:58:16 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
>
>
> >> >All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Like the 16 sq miles of tokyo was in March 1945 perhaps ?
> >
> >No. Do try to follow the thread.
>
> Your laughable attempt at evasion is noted.

In your fantasy world "no' is considered evasion.
I can't be less evasive in my reply.

>You claimed that
>
> "All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means."
>
> I am asking you to tell us how.

By dropping conventional bombs on the target.
(What other possible meaning could there be?)

>
> > Back up a couple of lines and you
> >can read that the previous correspondent tried to justify the bombing
> >of Hiroshima on the grounds that there were military and industrial
assets
> >in the city.
>
> He didn't have to try. The military and industrial assets in Hiroshima
were
> well documented.

I didn't claim otherwise. However they weren't the target of the
bomb in Hiroshima. The first criterion for the selection of atomic
targets was "1) they be important targets in a large urban area
of more than three miles diameter".
The requirement that the target must be within an urban area
meant that civilian casualties would be maximised.

>
> I ask you like I've asked all the other revisionists. Tell us how *you*
> would have targeted these facilities and these facilities using the
> technology of the period.

Industrial plants had been targetted successfully by B-29s
virtually from the start of the bombing campaign against
the Japanese home islands. That is a fact that I'm not revising,
although you seem determined to.

>
> > However the aiming point was a bridge in a mainly residential
> >area and the assets were only lightly damaged.
>
> ROFLMAO! Like all those who blindly regurgitate indoctrination, I bet you
> cannot name a single one.
>

Indoctrination - my turn to ROFLMAO.

"... the big plants on the periphery of the city were almost completely
undamaged and 94 percent of their workers unhurt. These factories accounted
for 74 percent of the industrial production of the city. It is estimated
that they could have resumed substantially normal production within 30 days
of the bombing, had the war continued. The railroads running through the
city were repaired for the resumption of through traffic on 8 August, 2 days
after the attack. "

So the factories were largely undamaged and an important means of
distributionas available. What was the point? See estimates of civilian
casualties.

>
> >The incendiary raids
> >on Tokyo deliberately targetted civilians, not military or industrial
> >assets.
>
> It targeted the distributed nature of the japanese war industry which was
> turning out the means to kill millions of Chinese in 10s of thousands of
> back yard workshops up and down the kanto plain.
>
> If you had even a modicum of clue on the topic, you would be aware of
that.

Yeah right - ma and pa backyard workshops turning
out battleships, tanks and fighters. Get a grip on reality.

>
> >>
> >> >> With military targets located in the cities, the cities were
legitimate
> >> >targets.
> >> >> The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes and 9-11 is that in
> >1945,
> >> >> there was a WAR ON that had to be brought to an end by whatever
means
> >> >necessary.
> >> >
> >> >But you deny others the same right.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Of course, to allow idiots like you to sleep safe at night.
> >
> >Bad news - it isn't working,
>
> The opinion of uninformed idiots doesn't count.

Ad hom - the last resort of those without an answer.

[weary]

"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 01:03:40 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
>
>
> >
> >False dichotomy. There are were many major US players, both military and
> >civilian who wanted to use a third option, diplomacy, to end the war.
>
> Oh really.
>
> Name them with references.
>
>

Always happy to oblige in correcting your
ignorance.


http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

[Greg Hennessy]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 07:54:17 GMT, "weary" > wrote:


>> >No. Do try to follow the thread.
>>
>> Your laughable attempt at evasion is noted.
>
>In your fantasy world "no' is considered evasion.
>I can't be less evasive in my reply.

Inabilty to answer the question raised is quite clearly evasion.

>
>>You claimed that
>>
>> "All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means."
>>
>> I am asking you to tell us how.
>
>By dropping conventional bombs on the target.
>(What other possible meaning could there be?)

So tell us how *you* would put 'conventional bombs on the target' (sic) and
the target alone, when the delivery system of the day had a CEP of 1000
yards. You do know what CEP means dont you ?


>>
>> > Back up a couple of lines and you
>> >can read that the previous correspondent tried to justify the bombing
>> >of Hiroshima on the grounds that there were military and industrial
>assets
>> >in the city.
>>
>> He didn't have to try. The military and industrial assets in Hiroshima
>were
>> well documented.
>
>I didn't claim otherwise. However they weren't the target of the
>bomb in Hiroshima.

Oh really ? Lets see what the targetting committee of the manhattan project
actually said.

http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html

"(2) Hiroshima - This is an important army depot and port of embarkation in
the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is
such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged.
There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect
which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not
a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target"


> The first criterion for the selection of atomic
>targets was "1) they be important targets in a large urban area
>of more than three miles diameter".

That would be Tokyo on a march night in 1945 or Dresden. Hiroshima an
Nagaskai werent treated any differently.

>The requirement that the target must be within an urban area
>meant that civilian casualties would be maximised.

Which of course is another revisionist lie.

>>
>> I ask you like I've asked all the other revisionists. Tell us how *you*
>> would have targeted these facilities and these facilities using the
>> technology of the period.
>
>Industrial plants had been targetted successfully by B-29s
>virtually from the start of the bombing campaign against
>the Japanese home islands.

Detail them. Tell us *exactly* what industrial plants had been targetted
successfully by B29s in mainland japan without causing any collateral
damage to the surrounding urban areas.

>That is a fact that I'm not revising,

Its not a fact, its an outright lie on your part.


>"... the big plants on the periphery of the city were almost completely
>undamaged and 94 percent of their workers unhurt. These factories accounted
>for 74 percent of the industrial production of the city. It is estimated
>that they could have resumed substantially normal production within 30 days
>of the bombing, had the war continued. The railroads running through the
>city were repaired for the resumption of through traffic on 8 August, 2 days
>after the attack. "


Intellectual dishonesty noted. You will tell us the rest of what was quoted
there now wont you.


>So the factories were largely undamaged and an important means of
>distributionas available. What was the point? See estimates of civilian
>casualties.
>
>>
>> >The incendiary raids
>> >on Tokyo deliberately targetted civilians, not military or industrial
>> >assets.
>>
>> It targeted the distributed nature of the japanese war industry which was
>> turning out the means to kill millions of Chinese in 10s of thousands of
>> back yard workshops up and down the kanto plain.
>>
>> If you had even a modicum of clue on the topic, you would be aware of
>that.
>
>Yeah right - ma and pa backyard workshops turning
>out battleships, tanks and fighters.

Which were assembled from components made in small backyard workshops up
and down the kanto plain, what part of mass production sub contracting are
you having problems comprehending.

> Get a grip on reality.

I suggest you do.

>> >>
>> >> Of course, to allow idiots like you to sleep safe at night.
>> >
>> >Bad news - it isn't working,
>>
>> The opinion of uninformed idiots doesn't count.
>
>Ad hom - the last resort of those without an answer.
>

Given you havent told us how B29s with a documented (post war US SBS
survey) CEP of 1000 yards are going to accurately target industrial
operations in large urban areas in the face of hostile air defences. I
suggest you take the mote out of your own eye 1st clown.


greg


--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

[Greg Hennessy]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 08:14:43 GMT, "weary" > wrote:

>
>"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 01:03:40 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >False dichotomy. There are were many major US players, both military and
>> >civilian who wanted to use a third option, diplomacy, to end the war.
>>
>> Oh really.
>>
>> Name them with references.
>>
>>
>
>Always happy to oblige in correcting your
>ignorance.
>
>
>http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
>


Thats not naming them, thats a link to a site regurgitating Wisconsin
school revisionism from Gar Alperovitz.






greg

--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

[B2431]

>From: "weary"

>
>"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message

>> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:58:16 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
>>
<snip>

>>
>> I ask you like I've asked all the other revisionists. Tell us how *you*
>> would have targeted these facilities and these facilities using the
>> technology of the period.
>
>Industrial plants had been targetted successfully by B-29s
>virtually from the start of the bombing campaign against
>the Japanese home islands. That is a fact that I'm not revising,
>although you seem determined to.
>
Certainly, and with huge civilian losses along with the losses of B-29s and
their crews.

<snip>

>"... the big plants on the periphery of the city were almost completely
>undamaged and 94 percent of their workers unhurt. These factories accounted
>for 74 percent of the industrial production of the city. It is estimated
>that they could have resumed substantially normal production within 30 days
>of the bombing, had the war continued. The railroads running through the
>city were repaired for the resumption of through traffic on 8 August, 2 days
>after the attack. "
>
>So the factories were largely undamaged and an important means of
>distributionas available. What was the point? See estimates of civilian
>casualties.
>
And if Japan hadn't surrendered the B-29s would be back as many times as need
to finish the job with thousands more civilian deaths. At least they tried to
take out all those targets in the atromic bombing.

>>
>> >The incendiary raids
>> >on Tokyo deliberately targetted civilians, not military or industrial
>> >assets.
>>
>> It targeted the distributed nature of the japanese war industry which was
>> turning out the means to kill millions of Chinese in 10s of thousands of
>> back yard workshops up and down the kanto plain.
>>
>> If you had even a modicum of clue on the topic, you would be aware of
>that.
>
>Yeah right - ma and pa backyard workshops turning
>out battleships, tanks and fighters. Get a grip on reality.
>
I have in my collection a Japanese bayonet made in one of those "ma and pa
backyard workshops." Those shops made small arms parts, edged weapons, vehicle
parts etc and were thus legitimate targets.


>> >> >> With military targets located in the cities, the cities were
>legitimate
>> >> >targets.
>> >> >> The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes and 9-11 is that in
>> >1945,
>> >> >> there was a WAR ON that had to be brought to an end by whatever
>means
>> >> >necessary.
>> >> >
>> >> >But you deny others the same right.
>> >> >
>> >>

I'm sorry you don't see the difference between a war declared by all sides and
a terroristic act.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[weary]

"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 07:54:17 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
>
>
> >> >No. Do try to follow the thread.
> >>
> >> Your laughable attempt at evasion is noted.
> >
> >In your fantasy world "no' is considered evasion.
> >I can't be less evasive in my reply.
>
> Inabilty to answer the question raised is quite clearly evasion.

Is there some part of "no" that you don't understand.

>
> >
> >>You claimed that
> >>
> >> "All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means."
> >>
> >> I am asking you to tell us how.
> >
> >By dropping conventional bombs on the target.
> >(What other possible meaning could there be?)
>
> So tell us how *you* would put 'conventional bombs on the target' (sic)
and
> the target alone, when the delivery system of the day had a CEP of 1000
> yards. You do know what CEP means dont you ?

I never claimed that every bomb would be on target, but feel free to
construct
strawmen, they are fun to demolish and reveal the poverty of your argument.
Precision bombing in Japan at the time of the atomic bombs greatly exceeded
the average accuracy of the German theatre, where precision bombing
was used and obviously thought viable for pretty well the whole campaign.

From the US Strategic bombing Survey
"Bombing altitudes after 9 March 1945 were lower, in both day and night
attacks. Japanese opposition was not effective even at the lower altitudes,
and the percentage of losses to enemy action declined as the number of
attacking planes increased. Bomb loads increased and operating losses
declined in part due to less strain on engines at lower altitudes. Bombing
accuracy increased substantially, and averaged 35 to 40 percent within 1,000
feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks from 20,000 feet or lower. "

The USBS states that the overall average for Germany was 20 percent
within 1000 feet.

>
>
> >>
> >> > Back up a couple of lines and you
> >> >can read that the previous correspondent tried to justify the bombing
> >> >of Hiroshima on the grounds that there were military and industrial
> >assets
> >> >in the city.
> >>
> >> He didn't have to try. The military and industrial assets in Hiroshima
> >were
> >> well documented.
> >
> >I didn't claim otherwise. However they weren't the target of the
> >bomb in Hiroshima.
>
> Oh really ? Lets see what the targetting committee of the manhattan
project
> actually said.
>
> http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html
>
> "(2) Hiroshima - This is an important army depot and port of embarkation
in
> the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it
is
> such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged.
> There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect
> which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is
not
> a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target"
>
> > The first criterion for the selection of atomic
> >targets was "1) they be important targets in a large urban area
> >of more than three miles diameter".
>
> That would be Tokyo on a march night in 1945 or Dresden. Hiroshima an
> Nagaskai werent treated any differently.
>
> >The requirement that the target must be within an urban area
> >meant that civilian casualties would be maximised.
>
> Which of course is another revisionist lie.

So in your fantasy world pointing out the obvious is "revisionism".
I don't think you know what it means.
What is the effect of demanding that the 'target' be in an urban area
with regard to civilian casualties - are they minimised or maximised?
Why is the value of the 'target' somehow increased by being in a
large urban area?

>
> >>
> >> I ask you like I've asked all the other revisionists. Tell us how *you*
> >> would have targeted these facilities and these facilities using the
> >> technology of the period.
> >
> >Industrial plants had been targetted successfully by B-29s
> >virtually from the start of the bombing campaign against
> >the Japanese home islands.
>
> Detail them. Tell us *exactly* what industrial plants had been targetted
> successfully by B29s in mainland japan without causing any collateral
> damage to the surrounding urban areas.

Nice attempt at a strawman - I didn't claim that such raids caused
no 'collateral' damage.

>
> >That is a fact that I'm not revising,
>
> Its not a fact, its an outright lie on your part.

No - you are lying when you claim I said that no "collateral"
damage occurred in raids on industrial targets. You are obviously
short of facts if you have to resort to constructing strawmen.

>
>
> >"... the big plants on the periphery of the city were almost completely
> >undamaged and 94 percent of their workers unhurt. These factories
accounted
> >for 74 percent of the industrial production of the city. It is estimated
> >that they could have resumed substantially normal production within 30
days
> >of the bombing, had the war continued. The railroads running through the
> >city were repaired for the resumption of through traffic on 8 August, 2
days
> >after the attack. "
>
>
> Intellectual dishonesty noted. You will tell us the rest of what was
quoted
> there now wont you.

If you think something was left out that changed the context feel free
to post it.

>
>
> >So the factories were largely undamaged and an important means of
> >distributionas available. What was the point? See estimates of civilian
> >casualties.
> >
> >>
> >> >The incendiary raids
> >> >on Tokyo deliberately targetted civilians, not military or industrial
> >> >assets.
> >>
> >> It targeted the distributed nature of the japanese war industry which
was
> >> turning out the means to kill millions of Chinese in 10s of thousands
of
> >> back yard workshops up and down the kanto plain.
> >>
> >> If you had even a modicum of clue on the topic, you would be aware of
> >that.
> >
> >Yeah right - ma and pa backyard workshops turning
> >out battleships, tanks and fighters.
>
> Which were assembled from components made in small backyard workshops up
> and down the kanto plain,

Yeah right. They must have turned out hundreds of naval guns
and aero engines, the obvious choke points in production.


> what part of mass production sub contracting are
> you having problems comprehending.

I understand it quite well. I just don't believe
the bull**** you post about it.

>
> > Get a grip on reality.
>
> I suggest you do.

Brilliant retort.

>
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course, to allow idiots like you to sleep safe at night.
> >> >
> >> >Bad news - it isn't working,
> >>
> >> The opinion of uninformed idiots doesn't count.
> >
> >Ad hom - the last resort of those without an answer.
> >
>
> Given you havent told us how B29s with a documented (post war US SBS
> survey) CEP of 1000 yards are going to accurately target industrial
> operations in large urban areas in the face of hostile air defences. I
> suggest you take the mote out of your own eye 1st clown.

The contents of the USSBS do that quite satisfactorily - your
distorted version doesn't.

[weary]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "weary"
>
> >> >> >> With military targets located in the cities, the cities were
> >legitimate
> >> >> >targets.
> >> >> >> The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes and 9-11 is that
in
> >> >1945,
> >> >> >> there was a WAR ON that had to be brought to an end by whatever
> >means
> >> >> >necessary.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >But you deny others the same right.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
>
> I'm sorry you don't see the difference between a war declared by all sides
and
> a terroristic act.

It only takes one side to declare war, if the other declines to respond
it does so at its own peril.

>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[weary]

"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 08:14:43 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 01:03:40 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >False dichotomy. There are were many major US players, both military
and
> >> >civilian who wanted to use a third option, diplomacy, to end the war.
> >>
> >> Oh really.
> >>
> >> Name them with references.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Always happy to oblige in correcting your
> >ignorance.
> >
> >
> >http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
> >
>
>
> Thats not naming them, thats a link to a site regurgitating Wisconsin
> school revisionism from Gar Alperovitz.

Well lets look at them
The first quote is

~~~DWIGHT EISENHOWER
"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in
Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic
bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of
cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon
giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the
plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous
assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a
feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on
the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the
bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our
country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose
employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American
lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some
way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply
perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them
with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63



It names Eisenhower and cites the source of the two quotes which is what

you asked for. Apparently anything that doesn't fit you world

view is revisionism.

[weary]

"Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
news:3ff06fa6$1@bg2....
>
> "weary" > wrote:
> >
> >"Matt Wiser" > wrote
> >in message
> >news:3fe70e02$1@bg2....
> >>
> >> "weary" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Alan Minyard" > wrote
> >> >in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:08:15 GMT, "weary"
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >> >From: "weary"
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >Do you think Saddam Hussein had the
> >same
> >> >right to use WMD to save the
> >> >> >> >lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting
> >> >Iran and internal rebellion?
> >> >> >> >Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to
> >deliberately
> >> >target civilians in
> >> >> >their
> >> >> >> >war with the USA, specifically WTC?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there
> >would
> >> >not have been a need to
> >> >defend
> >> >> >"Iraqi
> >> >> >> servicemen."
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Complaints about his use of WMD relate
> >to
> >> >uses considerably pre-dating
> >> >> >his invasion of Kuwait.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> As for the attacks on the WTC there
> >was
> >> >no military value there. An
> >> >> >argument
> >> >> >> could be made for the strike on the
> >Pentagon
> >> >being a military attack.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Nagasaki and Hiroshima each had valid
> >military
> >> >targets within the
> >> >cities.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The odds are that there were Reservists
> >in
> >> >the WTC at the time of the
> >> >> >attack.
> >> >> >The poster I was replying to advocated
> >using
> >> >"ANY MEANS" to end the war.
> >> >> >He also wrote "If that means incinerating
> >> >two, three, or however many
> >> >> >Japanese Cities
> >> >> >by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s,
> >> >so be it." He made no mention
> >> >of
> >> >> >destroying military assets. His choice
> >of
> >> >words clearly states that the
> >> >> >destruction of
> >> >> >cities was what would produce a Japanese
> >> >surrender, not destruction of
> >> >> >military
> >> >> >assets.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> Destruction of Japan, by whatever means
> >possible,
> >> >was warranted.
> >> >
> >> >That's what AQ thinks of the USA
> >> >
> >> >>The
> >> >> barbarity of their military was an abomination,
> >> >and it was continuing
> >> >> daily
> >> >
> >> >That's what AQ thinks of the USA.
> >> >
> >> >> in China, Korea, etc. If incinerating every
> >> >building in Japan would
> >> >> have ended the war, it would have been
> >completely
> >> >justified.
> >> >>
> >> >> The only thing that the US did that was
> >"wrong"
> >> >was not hanging the
> >> >> ******* Hirohito from the nearest tree.
> >> >>
> >> >> Al Minyard
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> So why do you apologize for them? Dropping
> >the bombs and 9-11 were two
> >> different events under vastly different circumstances.
> >
> >That your opinion, and point out where I apologised
> >for them.
> >My opinion - supported by facts - is that there
> >are similarities,
> >deliberately targetting civilians, especially
> >with regard to Hiroshima.
> >
> >
> >>In case you forgot:
> >> Pearl Harbor's treachery was rewarded at Hiroshima
> >and Nagasaki.
> >
> >If you think an attack without a declaration
> >of war is "treachery", do
> >your sums and see how many times the US has
> >declared war in the
> >conflicts it has been involved in since WW2.
> >
> >
> >> 9-11's treachery
> >> has been partially rewarded with the Taliban
> >who sheltered AQ and OBL
> >reduced
> >> to a low-level insurgency.
> >
> >AQ believe that US treachery in supporting Israel
> >inits oppression
> >of the Palestinians was rewarded by Sept 11.
> >It is apparently news
> >to you but others can hate as strongly as you,
> >and be as ruthless as
> >your government in targetting civilians.
> >
> ><rant snipped>
> >
> >
> >
> Weary, I said it before and I'll say it again: How would you have
destroyed
> the miltiary and industrial targets located in Japanese Cities?

Conventional bombing.

>If not the B-29 fire raids, what? Daylight precision bombing had poor
results over
>Japan due to winds (Jet Stream) and opposition from flak and fighters.

Where do get this nonsense from? The Strategic Bombing Survey states -
"Bombing altitudes after 9 March 1945 were lower, in both day and night
attacks. Japanese opposition was not effective even at the lower altitudes,
and the percentage of losses to enemy action declined as the number of
attacking planes increased. Bomb loads increased and operating losses
declined in part due to less strain on engines at lower altitudes. Bombing
accuracy increased substantially, and averaged 35 to 40 percent within 1,000
feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks from 20,000 feet or lower."

[weary]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "weary"
>
>
> Besides, I have never asked nor do I
> >want my government to kill civilians so that I can sleep safe
> >at night. As a matter of fact, if I knew that is what my government
> >was doing, I would not sleep safe at night.
> >
> >
> Tell ya what, get the bad guys to move their military targets away from
> civilian populations and the civilians will stop dying. That is true for
all
> countries and organizations including the U.S. and Al Quaida.
>
> Your insistance that civilians were deliberatly targeted in Hiroshima and
> Nagasaki would only hold water if the military targets were no where near
> civilian population centers.

In Hiroshima the aiming point was in a largely residential area and
the targetting selection required that the military target be in a large
urban
area.

>
> I ask again, how would YOU have taken out the military targets in Nagasaki
and
> Hiroshima without harming civilians.

Conventional bombing and I haven't claimed that no civilians would be harmed
so don't you try that strawman as well.

>
> As a Jew I take offense at your comparing Dachau to Hiroshima.

When did I do that?

> Many thousands
> of humans died there, not just Jews, but I have been there and have seen
the
> grave markers.

Many thousands of Japanese civilians died in Hiroshima.

>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"weary" > wrote:

> In Hiroshima the aiming point was in a largely residential area and
> the targetting selection required that the military target be in a
> large urban area.

You know, you keep saying this, and while true in one respect (there
were a lot of homes in the area), it was a great aim point for hitting
the major military targets in Hiroshima, along with the local City Hall
and Prefectural offices.

There were a lot of homes in the area, but there were a lot of homes
*everywhere* in Japan near anything worth hitting. They had a habit
(and still do) of putting homes on any stretch of urban land that would
hold a building and wasn't urgently needed for anything else.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[B2431]

>From: "weary"

>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "weary"
>>
>>
>> Besides, I have never asked nor do I
>> >want my government to kill civilians so that I can sleep safe
>> >at night. As a matter of fact, if I knew that is what my government
>> >was doing, I would not sleep safe at night.
>> >
>> >
>> Tell ya what, get the bad guys to move their military targets away from
>> civilian populations and the civilians will stop dying. That is true for
>all
>> countries and organizations including the U.S. and Al Quaida.
>>
>> Your insistance that civilians were deliberatly targeted in Hiroshima and
>> Nagasaki would only hold water if the military targets were no where near
>> civilian population centers.
>
>In Hiroshima the aiming point was in a largely residential area and
>the targetting selection required that the military target be in a large
>urban
>area.
>
>>
>> I ask again, how would YOU have taken out the military targets in Nagasaki
>and
>> Hiroshima without harming civilians.
>
>Conventional bombing and I haven't claimed that no civilians would be harmed
>so don't you try that strawman as well.
>

OK, so your contention civilians were the intended targets of the atomic
bombings doesn't hold water. The fact remains there were military targets there
and civilians would die in very large numbers in any case. That doesn't make
the atomic bombings a war crime. Only one thing is clear had the war continued
both Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been bombed, either atomic or
conventional, again to take out the reast of the targets and those that had
been rebuilt.

>>
>> As a Jew I take offense at your comparing Dachau to Hiroshima.
>
>When did I do that?
>
>> Many thousands
>> of humans died there, not just Jews, but I have been there and have seen
>the
>> grave markers.
>
>Many thousands of Japanese civilians died in Hiroshima.
>
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
The difference is the Nazis set out to murder civilians. They murdered about 6
million Jews and about 6 million non Jews in concentration camps, death camps
and execution pits. The was no military benefit to such mass slaughter.

No matter how Japan would be forced to quit hundreds ofthousands of civilians
would have died. I don't understand why that is beyond your comprehension.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "weary"
>Date: 1/2/2004 4:51 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "weary"
>>
>> >> >> >> With military targets located in the cities, the cities were
>> >legitimate
>> >> >> >targets.
>> >> >> >> The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes and 9-11 is that
>in
>> >> >1945,
>> >> >> >> there was a WAR ON that had to be brought to an end by whatever
>> >means
>> >> >> >necessary.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >But you deny others the same right.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>>
>> I'm sorry you don't see the difference between a war declared by all sides
>and
>> a terroristic act.
>
>It only takes one side to declare war, if the other declines to respond
>it does so at its own peril.
>
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
It is obvious you won't let reality interfere with your opinions.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[B2431]

>From: "weary"

<snip>

>I never claimed that every bomb would be on target, but feel free to
>construct
>strawmen, they are fun to demolish and reveal the poverty of your argument.

<snip>

I guess this proves what I have been thinking about your arguments for some
time. You are deliberately ignoring military facts and the urban infrastructure
of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and using terminology intended to inflame (civilians
were the targets). Since this is the case I will no longer debate with you.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Greg Hennessy]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:57:14 GMT, "weary" > wrote:

>

>
>
>It names Eisenhower and cites the source of the two quotes which is what

That would be Eisenhower who wasnt in the command loop for operations in
the pacific and had no 1st hand knowledge of the losses being incurred on a
daily basis in Okinawa and elsewhere.

and Stimson whose own memoirs put the cost of an allied invasion of Japan
at at least 250,000 casualities.

http://www.paperlessarchives.com/olympic.html


Nevermind Leahy whose own briefing to truman put allied casualities at
30-35% within 30 days of invasion.


http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/hiroshima/ytruman.htm

"This is what the Americans President Truman, Secretary of War Stimson and
Gen. Marshall knew the day before the first atom bomb fell on Japan.
Confronted by an enemy leadership that was self-deluded, neither prepared
to surrender nor to negotiate seriously, the Americans decided that the
only way to end the war quickly would be to use overwhelming force: nuclear
weapons. "


"But the Americans continued to read the Japanese codes. Almost
immediately; the Magic Summaries revealed that the new foreign minister,
Mamoru Shigemitsu, had begun a world-wide propaganda campaign to brand the
Americans as war criminals for using nuclear weapons. Tokyo's goals
included keeping Emperor Hirohito from being tried for instigating a war of
aggression, and diverting Western attention away from the many Japanese
atrocities committed since the start of the Sino-Japanese war in 1937.
"Since the Americans have recently been raising an uproar about the
question of our mistreatment of prisoners [of war],'' Shigemitsu instructed
his diplomats in the Sept. 15, 1945, Magic Summary, "I think we should make
every effort to exploit the atomic bomb question in our propaganda. That
propaganda campaign has borne its final fruit in the revisionist account of
the bombing of Japan. "




greg


>you asked for. Apparently anything that doesn't fit you world
>
>view is revisionism.

Anything quoting Gar Alperovitz as 'evidence' clearly is revisionism and
every bit as toxic as that peddled by the likes of David Irving.


greg



--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

[Greg Hennessy]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:51:33 GMT, "weary" > wrote:


>I never claimed that every bomb would be on target,

Ohhh it attempts to move the goalposts.


> but feel free to
>construct strawmen,


Not a strawman, a fact, you were asked to provide the alternatives, you
havent.


> they are fun to demolish and reveal the poverty of your argument.
>Precision bombing in Japan at the time of the atomic bombs greatly exceeded
>the average accuracy of the German theatre, where precision bombing
>was used and obviously thought viable for pretty well the whole campaign.

Which of course is *meaningless* given the CEP needed to hit and destroy a
point target.


>and averaged 35 to 40 percent within 1,000
>feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks from 20,000 feet or lower. "

ROFLMAO!! You idiot, you still don't know what CEP means now do you.


>> >The requirement that the target must be within an urban area
>> >meant that civilian casualties would be maximised.
>>
>> Which of course is another revisionist lie.
>
>So in your fantasy world pointing out the obvious is "revisionism".
>I don't think you know what it means.

It is revisionism to claim that B29s had the means to accurately deliver HE
on military targets in urban areas as an alternative to fire raids or the
atom bomb. Its pure unadulterated fantasia.


>What is the effect of demanding that the 'target' be in an urban area
>with regard to civilian casualties - are they minimised or maximised?
>Why is the value of the 'target' somehow increased by being in a
>large urban area?

I suggest you ask the targeting committee, the one which detailed
'military' targets as a clear contradiction of your idiotic line about
civilians.


>> >> I ask you like I've asked all the other revisionists. Tell us how *you*
>> >> would have targeted these facilities and these facilities using the
>> >> technology of the period.
>> >
>> >Industrial plants had been targetted successfully by B-29s
>> >virtually from the start of the bombing campaign against
>> >the Japanese home islands.
>>
>> Detail them. Tell us *exactly* what industrial plants had been targetted
>> successfully by B29s in mainland japan without causing any collateral
>> damage to the surrounding urban areas.
>
>Nice attempt at a strawman - I didn't claim that such raids caused
>no 'collateral' damage.

I asked you to tell us how *you* would have targeted the dozen or so key
targets in hiroshima using the technology of the period. Your reply was a
non sequitur.

"Industrial plants had been targetted successfully by B-29s
virtually from the start of the bombing campaign against
the Japanese home islands."

Given you've already told us that 60-70 % of bombs dropped will fall more
than 1000 feet from the target, even your limited comprehension skills
should be aware what 12 air raids by 3-500 B29s will do to a city, even if
they drop only HE.

>You are obviously
>short of facts if you have to resort to constructing strawmen.

You've been repeatedly asked for a meaningful alternative to the fire raids
or the A bomb and you haven't provided one.


>> Intellectual dishonesty noted. You will tell us the rest of what was
>quoted
>> there now wont you.
>
>If you think something was left out that changed the context feel free
>to post it.

Yes, the source

http://www.usaaf.net/surveys/pto/pbs20.htm

and

"The Survey has estimated that the damage and casualties caused at
Hiroshima by the one atomic bomb dropped from a single plane would have
required 220 B-29s carrying 1,200 tons of incendiary bombs, 400 tons of
high-explosive bombs, and 500 tons of anti-personnel fragmentation bombs,
if conventional weapons, rather than an atomic bomb, had been used. One
hundred and twenty-five B-29s carrying 1,200 tons of bombs would have been
required to approximate the damage and casualties at Nagasaki. This
estimate pre-supposed bombing under conditions similar to those existing
when the atomic bombs were dropped and bombing accuracy equal to the
average attained by the Twentieth Air Force during the last 3 months of the
war. "


Which proves that the cities were not treated any differently to any other
B29 target in Japan.

You also neglected the detail the terminal effects on Nagasaki, something
to do with the PBS tearing another great hole in your drivel about the poor
ickle 'civilians'.



>>
>> Which were assembled from components made in small backyard workshops up
>> and down the kanto plain,
>
>Yeah right. They must have turned out hundreds of naval guns
>and aero engines, the obvious choke points in production.


Awww bless another red herring. Tell us how japanese soldiers in the field
made use of all these 'hundreds of naval guns and aero engines' (sic).

You are aware that armies require more prosaic items, like vehicles, small
arms, uniforms, a wide variety of munitions including, bullets, grenades
and shells which were turned out by the millions across the kanto plain.


>
>> what part of mass production sub contracting are
>> you having problems comprehending.
>
>I understand it quite well. I just don't believe
>the bull**** you post about it.

You posted a strawman about naval guns. Ignoring the fact that naval gun
and aero engine production were a tiny fraction of japanese materiel
output.


>>
>> > Get a grip on reality.
>>
>> I suggest you do.
>
>Brilliant retort.

Yes, posting a non sequitur about backyard workshops producing naval cannon
clearly makes my point.


>

>> >Ad hom - the last resort of those without an answer.
>> >
>>
>> Given you havent told us how B29s with a documented (post war US SBS
>> survey) CEP of 1000 yards are going to accurately target industrial
>> operations in large urban areas in the face of hostile air defences. I
>> suggest you take the mote out of your own eye 1st clown.
>
>The contents of the USSBS do that quite satisfactorily

They do that, they tell us that 60-70% of bombs dropped fell more than 1000
feet from the aim point. Something which meant that crews had to be put in
harms away again and again to destroy targets.







greg




>

--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

[Matt Wiser]

"weary" > wrote:
>
>"Matt Wiser" > wrote
>in message
>news:3ff06fa6$1@bg2....
>>
>> "weary" > wrote:
>> >
>> >"Matt Wiser" > wrote
>> >in message
>> >news:3fe70e02$1@bg2....
>> >>
>> >> "weary" > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Alan Minyard" >
>wrote
>> >> >in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:08:15 GMT, "weary"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >"B2431" > wrote in message
>> >> >> ...
>> >> >> >> >From: "weary"
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >Do you think Saddam Hussein had
>the
>> >same
>> >> >right to use WMD to save the
>> >> >> >> >lives of Iraqi servicemen while
>fighting
>> >> >Iran and internal rebellion?
>> >> >> >> >Did Al-Qaeda have the same right
>to
>> >deliberately
>> >> >target civilians in
>> >> >> >their
>> >> >> >> >war with the USA, specifically WTC?
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there
>> >would
>> >> >not have been a need to
>> >> >defend
>> >> >> >"Iraqi
>> >> >> >> servicemen."
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Complaints about his use of WMD relate
>> >to
>> >> >uses considerably pre-dating
>> >> >> >his invasion of Kuwait.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> As for the attacks on the WTC there
>> >was
>> >> >no military value there. An
>> >> >> >argument
>> >> >> >> could be made for the strike on the
>> >Pentagon
>> >> >being a military attack.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Nagasaki and Hiroshima each had valid
>> >military
>> >> >targets within the
>> >> >cities.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >The odds are that there were Reservists
>> >in
>> >> >the WTC at the time of the
>> >> >> >attack.
>> >> >> >The poster I was replying to advocated
>> >using
>> >> >"ANY MEANS" to end the war.
>> >> >> >He also wrote "If that means incinerating
>> >> >two, three, or however many
>> >> >> >Japanese Cities
>> >> >> >by the bombs carried by the 509th's
>B-29s,
>> >> >so be it." He made no mention
>> >> >of
>> >> >> >destroying military assets. His choice
>> >of
>> >> >words clearly states that the
>> >> >> >destruction of
>> >> >> >cities was what would produce a Japanese
>> >> >surrender, not destruction of
>> >> >> >military
>> >> >> >assets.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Destruction of Japan, by whatever means
>> >possible,
>> >> >was warranted.
>> >> >
>> >> >That's what AQ thinks of the USA
>> >> >
>> >> >>The
>> >> >> barbarity of their military was an abomination,
>> >> >and it was continuing
>> >> >> daily
>> >> >
>> >> >That's what AQ thinks of the USA.
>> >> >
>> >> >> in China, Korea, etc. If incinerating
>every
>> >> >building in Japan would
>> >> >> have ended the war, it would have been
>> >completely
>> >> >justified.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The only thing that the US did that
>was
>> >"wrong"
>> >> >was not hanging the
>> >> >> ******* Hirohito from the nearest tree.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Al Minyard
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> So why do you apologize for them? Dropping
>> >the bombs and 9-11 were two
>> >> different events under vastly different
>circumstances.
>> >
>> >That your opinion, and point out where I
>apologised
>> >for them.
>> >My opinion - supported by facts - is that
>there
>> >are similarities,
>> >deliberately targetting civilians, especially
>> >with regard to Hiroshima.
>> >
>> >
>> >>In case you forgot:
>> >> Pearl Harbor's treachery was rewarded at
>Hiroshima
>> >and Nagasaki.
>> >
>> >If you think an attack without a declaration
>> >of war is "treachery", do
>> >your sums and see how many times the US has
>> >declared war in the
>> >conflicts it has been involved in since WW2.
>> >
>> >
>> >> 9-11's treachery
>> >> has been partially rewarded with the Taliban
>> >who sheltered AQ and OBL
>> >reduced
>> >> to a low-level insurgency.
>> >
>> >AQ believe that US treachery in supporting
>Israel
>> >inits oppression
>> >of the Palestinians was rewarded by Sept
>11.
>> >It is apparently news
>> >to you but others can hate as strongly as
>you,
>> >and be as ruthless as
>> >your government in targetting civilians.
>> >
>> ><rant snipped>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Weary, I said it before and I'll say it
>again: How would you have
>destroyed
>> the miltiary and industrial targets located
>in Japanese Cities?
>
>Conventional bombing.
>
>>If not the B-29 fire raids, what? Daylight
>precision bombing had poor
>results over
>>Japan due to winds (Jet Stream) and opposition
>from flak and fighters.
>
>Where do get this nonsense from? The Strategic
>Bombing Survey states -
>"Bombing altitudes after 9 March 1945 were lower,
>in both day and night
>attacks. Japanese opposition was not effective
>even at the lower altitudes,
>and the percentage of losses to enemy action
>declined as the number of
>attacking planes increased. Bomb loads increased
>and operating losses
>declined in part due to less strain on engines
>at lower altitudes. Bombing
>accuracy increased substantially, and averaged
>35 to 40 percent within 1,000
>feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks
>from 20,000 feet or lower."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
From the USAF official history of the 20th and 21st Bomber Commands. And
remember: General Hayward Hansell, the first CO of the B-29s on the Marianas,
was fired for poor performance of his command and replaced with LeMay by
Hap Arnold. You still think that accurate conventional bombing was possible
given Japan's cottage industry. It wasn't. Only way to destroy said major
and minor industrial targets was to go low-level at night with incindinaries.

It worked. I don't care what the Japanese think: THEY STARTED THE WAR, AND
THEY HAVE ONLY THEMSELVES TO BLAME FOR THE CONSEQUENCES. Pearl Harbor's treachery
was repaid with interest at Hiroshima.
Yamamoto was right: "All we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and fill
him with a terrible resolve." He didn't live to see it, but he was right.
I had relatives who were either in the Pacific or headed there from Europe.
To them, Truman made the right decision: drop the bomb and end the war ASAP.
No bomb means invasion, and look at Saipan, Luzon, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa
to see what that would've been like. I like to think that I'm here because
my grandfather didn't go to Kyushu in Nov '45. Instead, he came home.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Matt Wiser]

"weary" > wrote:
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "weary"
>>
>>
>> Besides, I have never asked nor do I
>> >want my government to kill civilians so that
>I can sleep safe
>> >at night. As a matter of fact, if I knew
>that is what my government
>> >was doing, I would not sleep safe at night.
>> >
>> >
>> Tell ya what, get the bad guys to move their
>military targets away from
>> civilian populations and the civilians will
>stop dying. That is true for
>all
>> countries and organizations including the
>U.S. and Al Quaida.
>>
>> Your insistance that civilians were deliberatly
>targeted in Hiroshima and
>> Nagasaki would only hold water if the military
>targets were no where near
>> civilian population centers.
>
>In Hiroshima the aiming point was in a largely
>residential area and
>the targetting selection required that the military
>target be in a large
>urban
>area.
>
>>
>> I ask again, how would YOU have taken out
>the military targets in Nagasaki
>and
>> Hiroshima without harming civilians.
>
>Conventional bombing and I haven't claimed that
>no civilians would be harmed
>so don't you try that strawman as well.
>
>>
>> As a Jew I take offense at your comparing
>Dachau to Hiroshima.
>
>When did I do that?
>
>> Many thousands
>> of humans died there, not just Jews, but I
>have been there and have seen
>the
>> grave markers.
>
>Many thousands of Japanese civilians died in
>Hiroshima.
>
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
>
>
Look, accurate conventional bombing was not possible in 1945, and the only
way of knocking out Japan's major industries, cottage industry, and adjacent
military targets was by low-level fire raids at night. B-29s attempted daylight
precision bombing of such targets from Nov '44 to March of '45. It didn't
work. LeMay was right: it HAD TO BE DONE. He knew the civilian casualties
would be high, but it was necessary to accomplish the mission assigned him:
the destruction of Japan's industry to support the war, and destruction of
such military targets colocated with the industries. More people died in
a single fire raid on Tokyo than were killed in the two nuclear strikes put
together.
You still haven't answered the question: what would you have done? I'll refresh
your options
1) Bombing in combination with Blockade
2) Invasion of Kyushu in Nov 45 followed by Invasion of Kanto Plain Mar 46
3) Open military use of the Atomic Bomb
Diplomacy IS NOT AN OPTION. Unconditional Surrender is the goal. Nothing
less than total acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration. So answer the question:
what would YOU have done in Truman's place in ending the war with a minimum
loss of Allied and Japanese lives? To me, it's simple: drop the bomb and
prevent the bloodbath on Kyushu come November.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[weary]

"Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
news:3ff88f17$1@bg2....
>
> "weary" > wrote:
> >
> >"Matt Wiser" > wrote
> >in message
> >news:3ff06fa6$1@bg2....
> >>
> >> "weary" > wrote:
> >> >
<snip>
> >> >
> >> Weary, I said it before and I'll say it
> >again: How would you have
> >destroyed
> >> the miltiary and industrial targets located
> >in Japanese Cities?
> >
> >Conventional bombing.
> >
> >>If not the B-29 fire raids, what? Daylight
> >precision bombing had poor
> >results over
> >>Japan due to winds (Jet Stream) and opposition
> >from flak and fighters.
> >
> >Where do get this nonsense from? The Strategic
> >Bombing Survey states -
> >"Bombing altitudes after 9 March 1945 were lower,
> >in both day and night
> >attacks. Japanese opposition was not effective
> >even at the lower altitudes,
> >and the percentage of losses to enemy action
> >declined as the number of
> >attacking planes increased. Bomb loads increased
> >and operating losses
> >declined in part due to less strain on engines
> >at lower altitudes. Bombing
> >accuracy increased substantially, and averaged
> >35 to 40 percent within 1,000
> >feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks
> >from 20,000 feet or lower."
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> From the USAF official history of the 20th and 21st Bomber Commands.

Strange that the USSBS contradicts them. The figures it cites speak for
themselves.

> And
> remember: General Hayward Hansell, the first CO of the B-29s on the
Marianas,
> was fired for poor performance of his command and replaced with LeMay by
> Hap Arnold.

Why would I want to remember that? How is it relevant?

>You still think that accurate conventional bombing was possible
> given Japan's cottage industry.

I never claimed it was possible against cottage industry - please
stop constructing strawmen.

> It wasn't. Only way to destroy said major

How can cottage industry be a major industrial target?

> and minor industrial targets was to go low-level at night with
incindinaries.
>
> It worked. I don't care what the Japanese think: THEY STARTED THE WAR, AND
> THEY HAVE ONLY THEMSELVES TO BLAME FOR THE CONSEQUENCES. Pearl Harbor's
treachery
> was repaid with interest at Hiroshima.

Pearl Harbour didn't happen in a vacuum, in spite of what you seem
to think. The Japanese didn't get up one morning and decide to
attack Pearl Harbour because they had nothing else to do.

> Yamamoto was right: "All we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and fill
> him with a terrible resolve." He didn't live to see it, but he was right.
> I had relatives who were either in the Pacific or headed there from
Europe.
> To them, Truman made the right decision: drop the bomb and end the war
ASAP.
> No bomb means invasion, and look at Saipan, Luzon, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa
> to see what that would've been like. I like to think that I'm here because
> my grandfather didn't go to Kyushu in Nov '45.

Oh God spare me the grandfather story yet again.

[weary]

"Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
news:3ff88f39$1@bg2....
>
> "weary" > wrote:
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >From: "weary"
> >>
> >>
> >> Besides, I have never asked nor do I
> >> >want my government to kill civilians so that
> >I can sleep safe
> >> >at night. As a matter of fact, if I knew
> >that is what my government
> >> >was doing, I would not sleep safe at night.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Tell ya what, get the bad guys to move their
> >military targets away from
> >> civilian populations and the civilians will
> >stop dying. That is true for
> >all
> >> countries and organizations including the
> >U.S. and Al Quaida.
> >>
> >> Your insistance that civilians were deliberatly
> >targeted in Hiroshima and
> >> Nagasaki would only hold water if the military
> >targets were no where near
> >> civilian population centers.
> >
> >In Hiroshima the aiming point was in a largely
> >residential area and
> >the targetting selection required that the military
> >target be in a large
> >urban
> >area.
> >
> >>
> >> I ask again, how would YOU have taken out
> >the military targets in Nagasaki
> >and
> >> Hiroshima without harming civilians.
> >
> >Conventional bombing and I haven't claimed that
> >no civilians would be harmed
> >so don't you try that strawman as well.
> >
> >>
> >> As a Jew I take offense at your comparing
> >Dachau to Hiroshima.
> >
> >When did I do that?
> >
> >> Many thousands
> >> of humans died there, not just Jews, but I
> >have been there and have seen
> >the
> >> grave markers.
> >
> >Many thousands of Japanese civilians died in
> >Hiroshima.
> >
> >>
> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >
> >
> >
> Look, accurate conventional bombing was not possible in 1945, and the
only
> way of knocking out Japan's major industries, cottage industry,

The idea of a substantial "cottage industry" is a myth
USSBS
"By 1944 the Japanese had almost eliminated home industry in their war
economy. "


> and adjacent
> military targets was by low-level fire raids at night. B-29s attempted
daylight
> precision bombing of such targets from Nov '44 to March of '45. It didn't
> work.

From the USSBS
"The tonnage dropped prior to 9 March 1945 aggregated only 7,180 tons
although increasing month by month. The planes bombed from approximately
30,000 feet and the percentage of bombs dropped which hit the target areas
averaged less than 10 percent. Nevertheless, the effects of even the
relatively small tonnage hitting the selected targets were substantial.
During this period, attacks were directed almost exclusively against
aircraft, primarily aircraft engine, targets. The principal aircraft engine
plants were hit sufficiently heavily and persistently to convince the
Japanese that these plants would inevitably be totally destroyed. "

How does this constitute a case of "It didn't work".

The bombing campaign continued for quite some time after March 45 and
in fact that period is when the vast majority of munitions were dropped.

And although you seem to want to ignore the USSBS report I quoted elsewhere
I will include it again because it refers to a period when over 150 000 tons
of bombs were dropped on Japan, as opposed to the already noted 7180 tons
in the period you wish to concentrate on. Its content is inconsistent with
your claim that precision bombing "didn't work".

"Bombing altitudes after 9 March 1945 were lower, in both day and night
attacks. Japanese opposition was not effective even at the lower altitudes,
and the percentage of losses to enemy action declined as the number of
attacking planes increased. Bomb loads increased and operating losses
declined in part due to less strain on engines at lower altitudes. Bombing
accuracy increased substantially, and averaged 35 to 40 percent within 1,000
feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks from 20,000 feet or lower."


LeMay was right: it HAD TO BE DONE. He knew the civilian casualties
> would be high, but it was necessary to accomplish the mission assigned
him:
> the destruction of Japan's industry to support the war, and destruction of
> such military targets colocated with the industries. More people died in
> a single fire raid on Tokyo than were killed in the two nuclear strikes
put
> together.
> You still haven't answered the question: what would you have done? I'll
refresh
> your options
> 1) Bombing in combination with Blockade
> 2) Invasion of Kyushu in Nov 45 followed by Invasion of Kanto Plain Mar 46
> 3) Open military use of the Atomic Bomb
> Diplomacy IS NOT AN OPTION.

This is not a game with you making the rules to attempt to
restrict the outcome to your point of view. Reality was, as noted in USSBS
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the
testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's
opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability
prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic
bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even
if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

[weary]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "weary"
>
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >From: "weary"
> >>
> >>
> >> Besides, I have never asked nor do I
> >> >want my government to kill civilians so that I can sleep safe
> >> >at night. As a matter of fact, if I knew that is what my government
> >> >was doing, I would not sleep safe at night.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Tell ya what, get the bad guys to move their military targets away from
> >> civilian populations and the civilians will stop dying. That is true
for
> >all
> >> countries and organizations including the U.S. and Al Quaida.
> >>
> >> Your insistance that civilians were deliberatly targeted in Hiroshima
and
> >> Nagasaki would only hold water if the military targets were no where
near
> >> civilian population centers.
> >
> >In Hiroshima the aiming point was in a largely residential area and
> >the targetting selection required that the military target be in a large
> >urban
> >area.
> >
> >>
> >> I ask again, how would YOU have taken out the military targets in
Nagasaki
> >and
> >> Hiroshima without harming civilians.
> >
> >Conventional bombing and I haven't claimed that no civilians would be
harmed
> >so don't you try that strawman as well.
> >
>
> OK, so your contention civilians were the intended targets of the atomic
> bombings doesn't hold water.

?

>The fact remains there were military targets there
> and civilians would die in very large numbers in any case.

Feel free to point out any precision bombing raid that produced
over 70000 civilian deaths.

[weary]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> In article >,
> "weary" > wrote:
>
> > In Hiroshima the aiming point was in a largely residential area and
> > the targetting selection required that the military target be in a
> > large urban area.
>
> You know, you keep saying this, and while true in one respect (there
> were a lot of homes in the area), it was a great aim point for hitting
> the major military targets in Hiroshima, along with the local City Hall
> and Prefectural offices.

What was the military value in such targets?

[weary]

"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:51:33 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
>
>
> >I never claimed that every bomb would be on target,
>
> Ohhh it attempts to move the goalposts.

Liar - quote where I said that there would be no civilian
casualties or every bomb would be on target.
>
>
> > but feel free to
> >construct strawmen,
>
>
> Not a strawman, a fact, you were asked to provide the alternatives, you
> havent.

I have

>
>
> > they are fun to demolish and reveal the poverty of your argument.
> >Precision bombing in Japan at the time of the atomic bombs greatly
exceeded
> >the average accuracy of the German theatre, where precision bombing
> >was used and obviously thought viable for pretty well the whole campaign.
>
> Which of course is *meaningless* given the CEP needed to hit and destroy a
> point target.

Aircraft factories, oil refineries etc aren't point targets.

>
>
> >and averaged 35 to 40 percent within 1,000
> >feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks from 20,000 feet or lower. "
>
> ROFLMAO!! You idiot, you still don't know what CEP means now do you.

Your delusions and proclivity to inappropriate fits of laughter
don't concern me, but you should seek professional help.

>
>
> >> >The requirement that the target must be within an urban area
> >> >meant that civilian casualties would be maximised.
> >>
> >> Which of course is another revisionist lie.
> >
> >So in your fantasy world pointing out the obvious is "revisionism".
> >I don't think you know what it means.
>
> It is revisionism to claim that B29s had the means to accurately deliver
HE
> on military targets in urban areas as an alternative to fire raids or the
> atom bomb. Its pure unadulterated fantasia.

B29s did and could do so accurately enough to inflict less casualties
than area bombing or atomic bombs.

>
>
> >What is the effect of demanding that the 'target' be in an urban area
> >with regard to civilian casualties - are they minimised or maximised?
> >Why is the value of the 'target' somehow increased by being in a
> >large urban area?
>
> I suggest you ask the targeting committee, the one which detailed
> 'military' targets as a clear contradiction of your idiotic line about
> civilians.

Why did the target have to be in a large urban area?

>
>
> >> >> I ask you like I've asked all the other revisionists. Tell us how
*you*
> >> >> would have targeted these facilities and these facilities using the
> >> >> technology of the period.
> >> >
> >> >Industrial plants had been targetted successfully by B-29s
> >> >virtually from the start of the bombing campaign against
> >> >the Japanese home islands.
> >>
> >> Detail them. Tell us *exactly* what industrial plants had been
targetted
> >> successfully by B29s in mainland japan without causing any collateral
> >> damage to the surrounding urban areas.
> >
> >Nice attempt at a strawman - I didn't claim that such raids caused
> >no 'collateral' damage.
>
> I asked you to tell us how *you* would have targeted the dozen or so key
> targets in hiroshima using the technology of the period. Your reply was a
> non sequitur.
>
> "Industrial plants had been targetted successfully by B-29s
> virtually from the start of the bombing campaign against
> the Japanese home islands."

What was special about the targets in Hiroshima that
the usual bombing ststistics wouldn't apply?

>
> Given you've already told us that 60-70 % of bombs dropped will fall more
> than 1000 feet from the target, even your limited comprehension skills
> should be aware what 12 air raids by 3-500 B29s will do to a city, even if
> they drop only HE.

Yet below you provide a quote that says the same damage to Hiroshima
could have been inflicted by 220 B-29s and details the bomb load.
Nearly a quarter of the load was ant-personnel bombs so about fifty
planes could have been left behind unless the aim was specifically
kill civilians, given that the vast majority of casualties were civilians.
A far cry from the figures (3600-6000)you pluck out of the air above.

>
> >You are obviously
> >short of facts if you have to resort to constructing strawmen.
>
> You've been repeatedly asked for a meaningful alternative to the fire
raids
> or the A bomb and you haven't provided one.

I have - your chauvinism prevent you from considering it.

>
>
> >> Intellectual dishonesty noted. You will tell us the rest of what was
> >quoted
> >> there now wont you.
> >
> >If you think something was left out that changed the context feel free
> >to post it.
>
> Yes, the source
>
> http://www.usaaf.net/surveys/pto/pbs20.htm
>
> and
>
> "The Survey has estimated that the damage and casualties caused at
> Hiroshima by the one atomic bomb dropped from a single plane would have
> required 220 B-29s carrying 1,200 tons of incendiary bombs, 400 tons of
> high-explosive bombs, and 500 tons of anti-personnel fragmentation bombs,
> if conventional weapons, rather than an atomic bomb, had been used. One
> hundred and twenty-five B-29s carrying 1,200 tons of bombs would have been
> required to approximate the damage and casualties at Nagasaki. This
> estimate pre-supposed bombing under conditions similar to those existing
> when the atomic bombs were dropped and bombing accuracy equal to the
> average attained by the Twentieth Air Force during the last 3 months of
the
> war. "
>
>
> Which proves that the cities were not treated any differently to any other
> B29 target in Japan.

Which doesn't say anything about the legality or morality of that treatment.

>
> You also neglected the detail the terminal effects on Nagasaki, something
> to do with the PBS tearing another great hole in your drivel about the
poor
> ickle 'civilians'.

???

> >> Which were assembled from components made in small backyard workshops
up
> >> and down the kanto plain,
> >
> >Yeah right. They must have turned out hundreds of naval guns
> >and aero engines, the obvious choke points in production.
>
>
> Awww bless another red herring. Tell us how japanese soldiers in the field
> made use of all these 'hundreds of naval guns and aero engines' (sic).
>
> You are aware that armies require more prosaic items, like vehicles, small
> arms, uniforms, a wide variety of munitions including, bullets, grenades
> and shells which were turned out by the millions across the kanto plain.

The USBS states
"By 1944 the Japanese had almost eliminated home industry in their war
economy. "
So where do you get your bull**** about backyard workshops across the kanto
plain?

[weary]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "weary"
> >Date: 1/2/2004 4:51 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >From: "weary"
> >>
> >> >> >> >> With military targets located in the cities, the cities were
> >> >legitimate
> >> >> >> >targets.
> >> >> >> >> The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes and 9-11 is
that
> >in
> >> >> >1945,
> >> >> >> >> there was a WAR ON that had to be brought to an end by
whatever
> >> >means
> >> >> >> >necessary.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >But you deny others the same right.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >>
> >> I'm sorry you don't see the difference between a war declared by all
sides
> >and
> >> a terroristic act.
> >
> >It only takes one side to declare war, if the other declines to respond
> >it does so at its own peril.
> >
> >>
> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >
> It is obvious you won't let reality interfere with your opinions.

Well it isn't obvious to me.

When was the last time the US was involved in a war declared
by all sides, and how many interventions has it been involved in
since then?

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"weary" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > In article >,
> > "weary" > wrote:
> >
> > > In Hiroshima the aiming point was in a largely residential area and
> > > the targetting selection required that the military target be in a
> > > large urban area.
> >
> > You know, you keep saying this, and while true in one respect (there
> > were a lot of homes in the area), it was a great aim point for hitting
> > the major military targets in Hiroshima, along with the local City Hall
> > and Prefectural offices.
>
> What was the military value in such targets?

Besides a lot of soldiers, a lot of equipment, and being the main
military command center for that part of the island?

And the civilian centers were, as you should know, pre-empted by the
military, too.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[weary]

"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:57:14 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
> >
> >It names Eisenhower and cites the source of the two quotes which is what
>
> That would be Eisenhower who wasnt in the command loop for operations in
> the pacific and had no 1st hand knowledge of the losses being incurred on
a
> daily basis in Okinawa and elsewhere.

It was an Eisenhower who(as the quote notes) had been briefed by the
Stimson you refer to below and who was presumably as aware of the situation
as Stimson himself.

>
> and Stimson whose own memoirs put the cost of an allied invasion of Japan
> at at least 250,000 casualities.

So what - the whole point of the discussion is that an invasion was not
necessary.
Even the USSBS says that Japan would have surrendered.

>
> http://www.paperlessarchives.com/olympic.html
>
>
> Nevermind Leahy whose own briefing to truman put allied casualities at
> 30-35% within 30 days of invasion.

But Leahy didn't think the landings would be necessary.
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The
Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the
effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
"

<snip>.
>
> Anything quoting Gar Alperovitz as 'evidence' clearly is revisionism

I didn't quote one word from Gar Alperovitz, but don't let facts intrude
on your rant - feel free to misrepresent me as much as you
misrepresent facts.

[B2431]

>From: Chad Irby
>Date: 1/6/2004 12:10 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
> "weary" > wrote:
>
>> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
>> . com...
>> > In article >,
>> > "weary" > wrote:
>> >
>> > > In Hiroshima the aiming point was in a largely residential area and
>> > > the targetting selection required that the military target be in a
>> > > large urban area.
>> >
>> > You know, you keep saying this, and while true in one respect (there
>> > were a lot of homes in the area), it was a great aim point for hitting
>> > the major military targets in Hiroshima, along with the local City Hall
>> > and Prefectural offices.
>>
>> What was the military value in such targets?
>
>Besides a lot of soldiers, a lot of equipment, and being the main
>military command center for that part of the island?
>
>And the civilian centers were, as you should know, pre-empted by the
>military, too.
>
>--
>cirby at cfl.rr.com
>

Forget it , Chad, he simply doesn't understand war, economy or anything else
anyone has said to him. He has his mind set on the fluffy side of war.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

[Greg Hennessy]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 05:54:25 GMT, "weary" > wrote:


>> >I never claimed that every bomb would be on target,
>>
>> Ohhh it attempts to move the goalposts.
>
>Liar - quote where I said that there would be no civilian
>casualties or every bomb would be on target.

You have done so repeatedly by claiming that there was an 'alternative'
where none existed.

>>
>> > but feel free to
>> >construct strawmen,
>>
>>
>> Not a strawman, a fact, you were asked to provide the alternatives, you
>> havent.
>
>I have
>

You haven't, you selectively quoted the bombing survey figures but were too
stupid to figure out that 2/3s of all bombs dropped fell more than 1000
feet from the target.

>> Which of course is *meaningless* given the CEP needed to hit and destroy a
>> point target.
>
>Aircraft factories, oil refineries etc aren't point targets.

Ahhh, its manages to contradict itself yet again through complete
cluelessness.

>> >and averaged 35 to 40 percent within 1,000
>> >feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks from 20,000 feet or lower. "
>>
>> ROFLMAO!! You idiot, you still don't know what CEP means now do you.
>
>Your delusions and proclivity to inappropriate fits of laughter
>don't concern me, but you should seek professional help.

You produced figures which completely undermined your idiotic argument
about the allies having the means to precisely hit targets anywhere, never
mind urban areas.

One can only laugh at such stupidity.


>> It is revisionism to claim that B29s had the means to accurately deliver
>HE
>> on military targets in urban areas as an alternative to fire raids or the
>> atom bomb. Its pure unadulterated fantasia.
>
>B29s did and could do so accurately enough to inflict less casualties
>than area bombing or atomic bombs.

Yet another attempt at misdirection.

They clearly couldn't accurately target any facility in anywhere when
2/3rds of bombs dropped fell more than 1000 feet from the aimpoint.

Or have you forgotten those inconvenient bombing survey figures yet idiot.

>
>> >What is the effect of demanding that the 'target' be in an urban area
>> >with regard to civilian casualties - are they minimised or maximised?
>> >Why is the value of the 'target' somehow increased by being in a
>> >large urban area?
>>
>> I suggest you ask the targeting committee, the one which detailed
>> 'military' targets as a clear contradiction of your idiotic line about
>> civilians.
>
>Why did the target have to be in a large urban area?


Like DUH! One generally finds large urban areas around key facilities such
as ports, dockyards and regional military headquarters controlling tens of
thousands of personnel.


>>
>> I asked you to tell us how *you* would have targeted the dozen or so key
>> targets in hiroshima using the technology of the period. Your reply was a
>> non sequitur.
>>
>> "Industrial plants had been targetted successfully by B-29s
>> virtually from the start of the bombing campaign against
>> the Japanese home islands."
>
>What was special about the targets in Hiroshima that
>the usual bombing ststistics wouldn't apply?

That is a non sensical question.

>>
>> Given you've already told us that 60-70 % of bombs dropped will fall more
>> than 1000 feet from the target, even your limited comprehension skills
>> should be aware what 12 air raids by 3-500 B29s will do to a city, even if
>> they drop only HE.
>
>Yet below you provide a quote that says the same damage to Hiroshima
>could have been inflicted by 220 B-29s and details the bomb load.

Not loaded with HE alone they wouldnt.

>Nearly a quarter of the load was ant-personnel bombs

Cue yet another clue free attempt at moralising.

>so about fifty
>planes could have been left behind unless the aim was specifically
>kill civilians,

Of course you will tell us how anti personnel bombs which 'specifically
kill civilians' would managed to kill those who would have been warned at
least 45 mins before hand by air raid sirens and are now sitting in bomb
shelters.

> given that the vast majority of casualties were civilians.

'civilians' who were providing the means to murder millions of real
civilians across the pacific. Tough.


> A far cry from the figures (3600-6000)you pluck out of the air above.

You're the one claiming that B29s could accurately target anything without
causing collateral damage, not I.

Very hard to do when the initial CEP for B29 operations was 6%.

>> You've been repeatedly asked for a meaningful alternative to the fire
>raids
>> or the A bomb and you haven't provided one.
>
>I have - your chauvinism prevent you from considering it.

You haven't, all you've done is peddle revisionist agit-prop, your
hilarious nonsense about anti personnel bombs being the latest emission of
pomo moralising.


>>
>> Which proves that the cities were not treated any differently to any other
>> B29 target in Japan.
>
>Which doesn't say anything about the legality or morality of that treatment.
>

It doesn't have to. There was nothing illegal or immoral in using a weapon
which ended the war and saved the lives of nearly 1 million allied POWs and
Internees held by the Japanese.



>> You also neglected the detail the terminal effects on Nagasaki, something
>> to do with the PBS tearing another great hole in your drivel about the
>poor
>> ickle 'civilians'.
>
>???

Ohh, it evades yet again. Please tell the audience what was damaged and
destroyed by the nagasaki bomb , or it is too embarrassing for you.

>> You are aware that armies require more prosaic items, like vehicles, small
>> arms, uniforms, a wide variety of munitions including, bullets, grenades
>> and shells which were turned out by the millions across the kanto plain.
>
>The USBS states
>"By 1944 the Japanese had almost eliminated home industry in their war
>economy. "

LMAO! Of course it snips the following sentence which proves my point


" They still relied, however, on plants employing less than 250 workers for
subcontracted parts and equipment. Many of these smaller plants were
concentrated in Tokyo and accounted for 50 percent of the total industrial
output of the city. Such plants suffered severe damage in urban incendiary
attacks. "


Do try harder dear boy.


greg
--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.

[Greg Hennessy]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 06:14:59 GMT, "weary" > wrote:


>It was an Eisenhower who(as the quote notes) had been briefed by the
>Stimson you refer to below and who was presumably as aware of the situation
>as Stimson himself.

That would be Stimson who claimed that Nagasaki was picked as the primary
target for Fatman, when it clearly wasnt.

>
>>
>> and Stimson whose own memoirs put the cost of an allied invasion of Japan
>> at at least 250,000 casualities.
>
>So what - the whole point of the discussion is that an invasion was not
>necessary.
>Even the USSBS says that Japan would have surrendered.


Of course you will give us the precise quote detailing when exactly *when*
this would have happened and you also tell us how this information was
beamed back in time to allied planners taking tough decisions.

>>
>> http://www.paperlessarchives.com/olympic.html
>>
>>
>> Nevermind Leahy whose own briefing to truman put allied casualities at
>> 30-35% within 30 days of invasion.
>
>But Leahy didn't think the landings would be necessary.

Leahy wasnt sat in a foxhole in Okinawa.

>"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and
>Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.

Oh really. Have you asked anyone who would have been at the sharp end of
Operation Zipper that question.

>"The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the
>effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.

So Leahy would have preferred to starve the japanese 'civilians' to death
and keep allied naval personnel in harms way from daily kamikaze attack.
Very moral.

>
><snip>.
>>
>> Anything quoting Gar Alperovitz as 'evidence' clearly is revisionism
>
>I didn't quote one word from Gar Alperovitz,

Your tired little charade has relied on a website which peddles
alperovitzes line.


greg
--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.

[Matt Wiser]

"weary" > wrote:
>
>"Matt Wiser" > wrote
>in message
>news:3ff88f17$1@bg2....
>>
>> "weary" > wrote:
>> >
>> >"Matt Wiser" > wrote
>> >in message
>> >news:3ff06fa6$1@bg2....
>> >>
>> >> "weary" > wrote:
>> >> >
><snip>
>> >> >
>> >> Weary, I said it before and I'll say
>it
>> >again: How would you have
>> >destroyed
>> >> the miltiary and industrial targets located
>> >in Japanese Cities?
>> >
>> >Conventional bombing.
>> >
>> >>If not the B-29 fire raids, what? Daylight
>> >precision bombing had poor
>> >results over
>> >>Japan due to winds (Jet Stream) and opposition
>> >from flak and fighters.
>> >
>> >Where do get this nonsense from? The Strategic
>> >Bombing Survey states -
>> >"Bombing altitudes after 9 March 1945 were
>lower,
>> >in both day and night
>> >attacks. Japanese opposition was not effective
>> >even at the lower altitudes,
>> >and the percentage of losses to enemy action
>> >declined as the number of
>> >attacking planes increased. Bomb loads increased
>> >and operating losses
>> >declined in part due to less strain on engines
>> >at lower altitudes. Bombing
>> >accuracy increased substantially, and averaged
>> >35 to 40 percent within 1,000
>> >feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks
>> >from 20,000 feet or lower."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> From the USAF official history of the 20th
>and 21st Bomber Commands.
>
>Strange that the USSBS contradicts them. The
>figures it cites speak for
>themselves.
>
>> And
>> remember: General Hayward Hansell, the first
>CO of the B-29s on the
>Marianas,
>> was fired for poor performance of his command
>and replaced with LeMay by
>> Hap Arnold.
>
>Why would I want to remember that? How is it
>relevant?
>
>>You still think that accurate conventional
>bombing was possible
>> given Japan's cottage industry.
>
>I never claimed it was possible against cottage
>industry - please
>stop constructing strawmen.
>
>> It wasn't. Only way to destroy said major
>
>How can cottage industry be a major industrial
>target?
>
>> and minor industrial targets was to go low-level
>at night with
>incindinaries.
>>
>> It worked. I don't care what the Japanese
>think: THEY STARTED THE WAR, AND
>> THEY HAVE ONLY THEMSELVES TO BLAME FOR THE
>CONSEQUENCES. Pearl Harbor's
>treachery
>> was repaid with interest at Hiroshima.
>
>Pearl Harbour didn't happen in a vacuum, in
>spite of what you seem
>to think. The Japanese didn't get up one morning
>and decide to
>attack Pearl Harbour because they had nothing
>else to do.
>
>> Yamamoto was right: "All we have done is awaken
>a sleeping giant and fill
>> him with a terrible resolve." He didn't live
>to see it, but he was right.
>> I had relatives who were either in the Pacific
>or headed there from
>Europe.
>> To them, Truman made the right decision: drop
>the bomb and end the war
>ASAP.
>> No bomb means invasion, and look at Saipan,
>Luzon, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa
>> to see what that would've been like. I like
>to think that I'm here because
>> my grandfather didn't go to Kyushu in Nov
>'45.
>
>Oh God spare me the grandfather story yet again.
>
>
Did you have a relative either in the Pacific or en route to the Pacific
in Spring-Summer of '45? If you did, then you know where I'm coming from.
If not, then you'll never understand. How many Americans, British, and Japanese
lived because the bombs were dropped and OLYMPIC and CORONET were made unnecessary.
Besides, when you quote USSBS, that's postwar assessment, with info unavailable
to Truman and his advisers in June-July of '45 as they were deciding whether
to invade, continue the conventional bombing and blockade, or drop the bomb.
Easy to criticise with 50+ years of hindsight. And you still haven't answered
the question: What would YOU have done with the info Truman had on his desk
in June and July of '45? Not any postwar info, but what he had at the time.
And diplomacy is not an option as previously mentioned: it's not politically
possible either at home (He's committed to Unconditional Surrender as FDR's
legacy) or with the Allies (FDR made that policy at Casablanca in '43, and
reaffirmed it at each Summit since). You know the military options. They
are the only feasible options. Take your pick.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Matt Wiser]

"weary" > wrote:
>
>"Matt Wiser" > wrote
>in message
>news:3ff88f39$1@bg2....
>>
>> "weary" > wrote:
>> >
>> >"B2431" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> >From: "weary"
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Besides, I have never asked nor do I
>> >> >want my government to kill civilians so
>that
>> >I can sleep safe
>> >> >at night. As a matter of fact, if I knew
>> >that is what my government
>> >> >was doing, I would not sleep safe at night.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> Tell ya what, get the bad guys to move
>their
>> >military targets away from
>> >> civilian populations and the civilians
>will
>> >stop dying. That is true for
>> >all
>> >> countries and organizations including the
>> >U.S. and Al Quaida.
>> >>
>> >> Your insistance that civilians were deliberatly
>> >targeted in Hiroshima and
>> >> Nagasaki would only hold water if the military
>> >targets were no where near
>> >> civilian population centers.
>> >
>> >In Hiroshima the aiming point was in a largely
>> >residential area and
>> >the targetting selection required that the
>military
>> >target be in a large
>> >urban
>> >area.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I ask again, how would YOU have taken out
>> >the military targets in Nagasaki
>> >and
>> >> Hiroshima without harming civilians.
>> >
>> >Conventional bombing and I haven't claimed
>that
>> >no civilians would be harmed
>> >so don't you try that strawman as well.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> As a Jew I take offense at your comparing
>> >Dachau to Hiroshima.
>> >
>> >When did I do that?
>> >
>> >> Many thousands
>> >> of humans died there, not just Jews, but
>I
>> >have been there and have seen
>> >the
>> >> grave markers.
>> >
>> >Many thousands of Japanese civilians died
>in
>> >Hiroshima.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Look, accurate conventional bombing was
>not possible in 1945, and the
>only
>> way of knocking out Japan's major industries,
>cottage industry,
>
>The idea of a substantial "cottage industry"
>is a myth
>USSBS
>"By 1944 the Japanese had almost eliminated
>home industry in their war
>economy. "
>
>
>> and adjacent
>> military targets was by low-level fire raids
>at night. B-29s attempted
>daylight
>> precision bombing of such targets from Nov
>'44 to March of '45. It didn't
>> work.
>
>From the USSBS
>"The tonnage dropped prior to 9 March 1945 aggregated
>only 7,180 tons
>although increasing month by month. The planes
>bombed from approximately
>30,000 feet and the percentage of bombs dropped
>which hit the target areas
>averaged less than 10 percent. Nevertheless,
>the effects of even the
>relatively small tonnage hitting the selected
>targets were substantial.
>During this period, attacks were directed almost
>exclusively against
>aircraft, primarily aircraft engine, targets.
>The principal aircraft engine
>plants were hit sufficiently heavily and persistently
>to convince the
>Japanese that these plants would inevitably
>be totally destroyed. "
>
>How does this constitute a case of "It didn't
>work".
>
>The bombing campaign continued for quite some
>time after March 45 and
>in fact that period is when the vast majority
>of munitions were dropped.
>
>And although you seem to want to ignore the
>USSBS report I quoted elsewhere
>I will include it again because it refers to
>a period when over 150 000 tons
>of bombs were dropped on Japan, as opposed to
>the already noted 7180 tons
>in the period you wish to concentrate on. Its
>content is inconsistent with
>your claim that precision bombing "didn't work".
>
>"Bombing altitudes after 9 March 1945 were lower,
>in both day and night
>attacks. Japanese opposition was not effective
>even at the lower altitudes,
>and the percentage of losses to enemy action
>declined as the number of
>attacking planes increased. Bomb loads increased
>and operating losses
>declined in part due to less strain on engines
>at lower altitudes. Bombing
>accuracy increased substantially, and averaged
>35 to 40 percent within 1,000
>feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks
>from 20,000 feet or lower."
>
>
> LeMay was right: it HAD TO BE DONE. He knew
>the civilian casualties
>> would be high, but it was necessary to accomplish
>the mission assigned
>him:
>> the destruction of Japan's industry to support
>the war, and destruction of
>> such military targets colocated with the industries.
>More people died in
>> a single fire raid on Tokyo than were killed
>in the two nuclear strikes
>put
>> together.
>> You still haven't answered the question: what
>would you have done? I'll
>refresh
>> your options
>> 1) Bombing in combination with Blockade
>> 2) Invasion of Kyushu in Nov 45 followed by
>Invasion of Kanto Plain Mar 46
>> 3) Open military use of the Atomic Bomb
>> Diplomacy IS NOT AN OPTION.
>
>This is not a game with you making the rules
>to attempt to
>restrict the outcome to your point of view.
>Reality was, as noted in USSBS
>"Based on a detailed investigation of all the
>facts, and supported by the
>testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders
>involved, it is the Survey's
>opinion that certainly prior to 31 December
>1945, and in all probability
>prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered
>even if the atomic
>bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had
>not entered the war, and even
>if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
>
>
>
>
You're forgetting that Hap Arnold fired LeMay's predecessor in the 21st
Bomber Command in Feb of '45 for poor performance of his command. His strikes
were all DAYLIGHT PRECISION BOMBING from 28,000 to 32,000 feet (which was
the doctrine for the B-29s). LeMay tried a few daylight strikes to find out
what was going wrong and came to the conclusion that low level at night was
the way to go. Little danger from fighters, almost no light to medium flak,
and the target density suited the fire bombing that he contemplated. The
March 9-10 45 fire raid on Tokyo succeeded beyond expectations.
As far as the bomb: it was available, and given what happened on Okinawa,
Luzon, Iwo Jima, etc. Truman, based on the INFORMATION HE HAD AVAILIABLE,
took the step of combat use of the bomb. 15 Kt on Hiroshima and 20 Kt on
Nagasaki forced, with the Soviet attack on Manchuria and the Kuriles, the
Emperor to order the military to "bear the unbearable" and accept the Potsdam
Declaration. That is a lot better than a 12-18 month bombing and blockade
campaign, or two costly invasions of key areas of the Japanese Home Islands.
You forget that there was still considerable fighting underway on some of
the Philippines in August of '45, and the British were still clearing Burma
and getting ready for a Malaya campaign. Based on the information available
to him in the Summer of '45, TRUMAN HAD NO CHOICE. He dropped the bomb and
the boys came home. It's easy to criticise with 50+ years of hindsight. And
as the grandson of a veteran who was supposed to be in Kyushu in November
of '45, I will never question Truman's decision.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Matt Wiser]

(B2431) wrote:
>>From: Chad Irby
>>Date: 1/6/2004 12:10 AM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>In article >,
>> "weary" > wrote:
>>
>>> "Chad Irby" > wrote in message
>>> . com...
>>> > In article >,
>>> > "weary" > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > In Hiroshima the aiming point was in
>a largely residential area and
>>> > > the targetting selection required that
>the military target be in a
>>> > > large urban area.
>>> >
>>> > You know, you keep saying this, and while
>true in one respect (there
>>> > were a lot of homes in the area), it was
>a great aim point for hitting
>>> > the major military targets in Hiroshima,
>along with the local City Hall
>>> > and Prefectural offices.
>>>
>>> What was the military value in such targets?
>>
>>Besides a lot of soldiers, a lot of equipment,
>and being the main
>>military command center for that part of the
>island?
>>
>>And the civilian centers were, as you should
>know, pre-empted by the
>>military, too.
>>
>>--
>>cirby at cfl.rr.com
>>
>
>Forget it , Chad, he simply doesn't understand
>war, economy or anything else
>anyone has said to him. He has his mind set
>on the fluffy side of war.
>
>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
>
I'm beginning to agree with that.
Anyone wonder if he's ever talked to vets who were either in the Pacific
or on the way when the bombs fell? I assure you he'll get an earful on dropping
the bomb. It meant they came home alive in '45 instead of Golden Gate in
'48.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Matt Wiser]

Greg Hennessy > wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 05:54:25 GMT, "weary" >
>wrote:
>
>
>>> >I never claimed that every bomb would be
>on target,
>>>
>>> Ohhh it attempts to move the goalposts.
>>
>>Liar - quote where I said that there would
>be no civilian
>>casualties or every bomb would be on target.
>
>You have done so repeatedly by claiming that
>there was an 'alternative'
>where none existed.
>
>>>
>>> > but feel free to
>>> >construct strawmen,
>>>
>>>
>>> Not a strawman, a fact, you were asked to
>provide the alternatives, you
>>> havent.
>>
>>I have
>>
>
>You haven't, you selectively quoted the bombing
>survey figures but were too
>stupid to figure out that 2/3s of all bombs
>dropped fell more than 1000
>feet from the target.
>
>>> Which of course is *meaningless* given the
>CEP needed to hit and destroy a
>>> point target.
>>
>>Aircraft factories, oil refineries etc aren't
>point targets.
>
>Ahhh, its manages to contradict itself yet again
>through complete
>cluelessness.
>
>>> >and averaged 35 to 40 percent within 1,000
>>> >feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks
>from 20,000 feet or lower. "
>>>
>>> ROFLMAO!! You idiot, you still don't know
>what CEP means now do you.
>>
>>Your delusions and proclivity to inappropriate
>fits of laughter
>>don't concern me, but you should seek professional
>help.
>
>You produced figures which completely undermined
>your idiotic argument
>about the allies having the means to precisely
>hit targets anywhere, never
>mind urban areas.
>
>One can only laugh at such stupidity.
>
>
>>> It is revisionism to claim that B29s had
>the means to accurately deliver
>>HE
>>> on military targets in urban areas as an
>alternative to fire raids or the
>>> atom bomb. Its pure unadulterated fantasia.
>>
>>B29s did and could do so accurately enough
>to inflict less casualties
>>than area bombing or atomic bombs.
>
>Yet another attempt at misdirection.
>
>They clearly couldn't accurately target any
>facility in anywhere when
>2/3rds of bombs dropped fell more than 1000
>feet from the aimpoint.
>
>Or have you forgotten those inconvenient bombing
>survey figures yet idiot.
>
>>
>>> >What is the effect of demanding that the
>'target' be in an urban area
>>> >with regard to civilian casualties - are
>they minimised or maximised?
>>> >Why is the value of the 'target' somehow
>increased by being in a
>>> >large urban area?
>>>
>>> I suggest you ask the targeting committee,
>the one which detailed
>>> 'military' targets as a clear contradiction
>of your idiotic line about
>>> civilians.
>>
>>Why did the target have to be in a large urban
>area?
>
>
>Like DUH! One generally finds large urban areas
>around key facilities such
>as ports, dockyards and regional military headquarters
>controlling tens of
>thousands of personnel.
>
>
>>>
>>> I asked you to tell us how *you* would have
>targeted the dozen or so key
>>> targets in hiroshima using the technology
>of the period. Your reply was a
>>> non sequitur.
>>>
>>> "Industrial plants had been targetted successfully
>by B-29s
>>> virtually from the start of the bombing campaign
>against
>>> the Japanese home islands."
>>
>>What was special about the targets in Hiroshima
>that
>>the usual bombing ststistics wouldn't apply?
>
>That is a non sensical question.
>
>>>
>>> Given you've already told us that 60-70 %
>of bombs dropped will fall more
>>> than 1000 feet from the target, even your
>limited comprehension skills
>>> should be aware what 12 air raids by 3-500
>B29s will do to a city, even if
>>> they drop only HE.
>>
>>Yet below you provide a quote that says the
>same damage to Hiroshima
>>could have been inflicted by 220 B-29s and
>details the bomb load.
>
>Not loaded with HE alone they wouldnt.
>
>>Nearly a quarter of the load was ant-personnel
>bombs
>
>Cue yet another clue free attempt at moralising.
>
>
>>so about fifty
>>planes could have been left behind unless the
>aim was specifically
>>kill civilians,
>
>Of course you will tell us how anti personnel
>bombs which 'specifically
>kill civilians' would managed to kill those
>who would have been warned at
>least 45 mins before hand by air raid sirens
>and are now sitting in bomb
>shelters.
>
>> given that the vast majority of casualties
>were civilians.
>
>'civilians' who were providing the means to
>murder millions of real
>civilians across the pacific. Tough.
>
>
>> A far cry from the figures (3600-6000)you
>pluck out of the air above.
>
>You're the one claiming that B29s could accurately
>target anything without
>causing collateral damage, not I.
>
>Very hard to do when the initial CEP for B29
>operations was 6%.
>
>>> You've been repeatedly asked for a meaningful
>alternative to the fire
>>raids
>>> or the A bomb and you haven't provided one.
>>
>>I have - your chauvinism prevent you from considering
>it.
>
>You haven't, all you've done is peddle revisionist
>agit-prop, your
>hilarious nonsense about anti personnel bombs
>being the latest emission of
>pomo moralising.
>
>
>>>
>>> Which proves that the cities were not treated
>any differently to any other
>>> B29 target in Japan.
>>
>>Which doesn't say anything about the legality
>or morality of that treatment.
>>
>
>It doesn't have to. There was nothing illegal
>or immoral in using a weapon
>which ended the war and saved the lives of nearly
>1 million allied POWs and
>Internees held by the Japanese.
>
>
>
>>> You also neglected the detail the terminal
>effects on Nagasaki, something
>>> to do with the PBS tearing another great
>hole in your drivel about the
>>poor
>>> ickle 'civilians'.
>>
>>???
>
>Ohh, it evades yet again. Please tell the audience
>what was damaged and
>destroyed by the nagasaki bomb , or it is too
>embarrassing for you.
>
>>> You are aware that armies require more prosaic
>items, like vehicles, small
>>> arms, uniforms, a wide variety of munitions
>including, bullets, grenades
>>> and shells which were turned out by the millions
>across the kanto plain.
>>
>>The USBS states
>>"By 1944 the Japanese had almost eliminated
>home industry in their war
>>economy. "
>
>LMAO! Of course it snips the following sentence
>which proves my point
>
>
>" They still relied, however, on plants employing
>less than 250 workers for
>subcontracted parts and equipment. Many of these
>smaller plants were
>concentrated in Tokyo and accounted for 50 percent
>of the total industrial
>output of the city. Such plants suffered severe
>damage in urban incendiary
>attacks. "
>
>
>Do try harder dear boy.
>
>
>greg
>--
>You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against
>the Harlot
>after she marches right down the aisle and kicks
>you in the nuts.
Targets of the Nagasaki bomb:
HQ, 122nd Infantry Brigade; Mitsubushi shipyard, Mitsubushi torpedo factory,
airfield, District Naval base, local RR net,
small industry as quoted by USSBS.
All legitimate targets. And all got trashed by 20 Kt.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Matt Wiser]

Greg Hennessy > wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 06:14:59 GMT, "weary" >
>wrote:
>
>
>>It was an Eisenhower who(as the quote notes)
>had been briefed by the
>>Stimson you refer to below and who was presumably
>as aware of the situation
>>as Stimson himself.
>
>That would be Stimson who claimed that Nagasaki
>was picked as the primary
>target for Fatman, when it clearly wasnt.
>
>>
>>>
>>> and Stimson whose own memoirs put the cost
>of an allied invasion of Japan
>>> at at least 250,000 casualities.
>>
>>So what - the whole point of the discussion
>is that an invasion was not
>>necessary.
>>Even the USSBS says that Japan would have surrendered.
>
>
>Of course you will give us the precise quote
>detailing when exactly *when*
>this would have happened and you also tell us
>how this information was
>beamed back in time to allied planners taking
>tough decisions.
>
>>>
>>> http://www.paperlessarchives.com/olympic.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Nevermind Leahy whose own briefing to truman
>put allied casualities at
>>> 30-35% within 30 days of invasion.
>>
>>But Leahy didn't think the landings would be
>necessary.
>
>Leahy wasnt sat in a foxhole in Okinawa.
>
>>"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous
>weapon at Hiroshima and
>>Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our
>war against Japan.
>
>Oh really. Have you asked anyone who would have
>been at the sharp end of
>Operation Zipper that question.
>
>>"The Japanese were already defeated and ready
>to surrender because of the
>>effective sea blockade and the successful bombing
>with conventional weapons.
>
>So Leahy would have preferred to starve the
>japanese 'civilians' to death
>and keep allied naval personnel in harms way
>from daily kamikaze attack.
>Very moral.
>
>>
>><snip>.
>>>
>>> Anything quoting Gar Alperovitz as 'evidence'
>clearly is revisionism
>>
>>I didn't quote one word from Gar Alperovitz,
>
>Your tired little charade has relied on a website
>which peddles
>alperovitzes line.
>
>
>greg
>--
>You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against
>the Harlot
>after she marches right down the aisle and kicks
>you in the nuts.
Greg, good post. I still can't believe we're still arguing with this guy.
I wonder if he had a relative either in the Pacific or with orders to the
Pacific in 1945? From his tone, probably not. He'll keep spouting postwar
hindsight until the cows come home. It's easy to criticise with however many
years of hindsight. And he's never answered the question about what he would
have done in the Summer of '45 with the info Truman had on his desk at the
time.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Greg Hennessy]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 18:37:18 GMT, "Matt Wiser" >
wrote:


> Greg, good post.

Thanks mate.

> I still can't believe we're still arguing with this guy.

We are dealing with a tiny ego who thinks that having the last word means
its won.

>I wonder if he had a relative either in the Pacific or with orders to the
>Pacific in 1945?

Given it's posting from australia, I'd say thats a possibility.

> From his tone, probably not. He'll keep spouting postwar
>hindsight until the cows come home.

One could be dealing with a nisei revisionist here.

Its almost as bad as the canadian clown who claimed that japanese were
acting in self defence on Dec 7th because the USN depth charged a japanese
sub inside pearl harbour that morning.


greg
--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.

[Alan Minyard]

>
>Pearl Harbour didn't happen in a vacuum, in spite of what you seem
>to think. The Japanese didn't get up one morning and decide to
>attack Pearl Harbour because they had nothing else to do.
>

True, it happened because the Japanese thought that they were racially
superior to all others, and therefore had a "right" to rule all of Asia.

>> Yamamoto was right: "All we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and fill
>> him with a terrible resolve." He didn't live to see it, but he was right.
>> I had relatives who were either in the Pacific or headed there from
>Europe.
>> To them, Truman made the right decision: drop the bomb and end the war
>ASAP.
>> No bomb means invasion, and look at Saipan, Luzon, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa
>> to see what that would've been like. I like to think that I'm here because
>> my grandfather didn't go to Kyushu in Nov '45.
>
>Oh God spare me the grandfather story yet again.
>
As you have spared yourself any sort of historical knowledge?

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

and supported by the
>testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's
>opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability
>prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic
>bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even
>if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
>
>
>
The "testimony of the surviving Japanese" is hardly something to put much faith
in. Not to mention Dugout Doug's input. You are a despicable apologist for one
of the most inhuman regimes of all time.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 06:14:59 GMT, "weary" > wrote:

>
>"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:57:14 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >It names Eisenhower and cites the source of the two quotes which is what
>>
>> That would be Eisenhower who wasnt in the command loop for operations in
>> the pacific and had no 1st hand knowledge of the losses being incurred on
>a
>> daily basis in Okinawa and elsewhere.
>
>It was an Eisenhower who(as the quote notes) had been briefed by the
>Stimson you refer to below and who was presumably as aware of the situation
>as Stimson himself.
>
>>
>> and Stimson whose own memoirs put the cost of an allied invasion of Japan
>> at at least 250,000 casualities.
>
>So what - the whole point of the discussion is that an invasion was not
>necessary.
>Even the USSBS says that Japan would have surrendered.
>
>>
>> http://www.paperlessarchives.com/olympic.html
>>
>>
>> Nevermind Leahy whose own briefing to truman put allied casualities at
>> 30-35% within 30 days of invasion.
>
>But Leahy didn't think the landings would be necessary.
>"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and
>Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The
>Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the
>effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
>"
>
><snip>.
>>
>> Anything quoting Gar Alperovitz as 'evidence' clearly is revisionism
>
>I didn't quote one word from Gar Alperovitz, but don't let facts intrude
>on your rant - feel free to misrepresent me as much as you
>misrepresent facts.
>
A**hole

PLONK

Al Minyard

[Merlin Dorfman]

weary ) wrote:

: "Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
: ...

....


: So what - the whole point of the discussion is that an invasion was not
: necessary.
: Even the USSBS says that Japan would have surrendered.

: >
: > http://www.paperlessarchives.com/olympic.html

Have you actually looked at the USSBS report? Recognize that it
was written by those who carried out the extensive conventional
bombing of Japan and had an interest in showing the value of that
campaign. It was written by people who overestimate the value of
aerial bombing as a matter of professional survival.

: > Nevermind Leahy whose own briefing to truman put allied casualities at
: > 30-35% within 30 days of invasion.

: But Leahy didn't think the landings would be necessary.
: "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and
: Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The
: Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the
: effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
: "

Nobody says it was necessary. All agree the war could have been
won without it. The question is the cost of victory with and without
the bomb. Without, with or without an invasion, the casualties would
have been much higher. Thousands were dying every week in China, in
the Dutch East Indies, in the Philippines, not to mention Japan itself.
I have the book where Leahy makes that statement. Recognize that
he was an ordnance expert and said many times that the bomb would not
work. He was extremely embarrassed that it did, and never really
understood it. He thought even as late as 1950, when he wrote the
book, that the bomb killed by radiation--that every casualty died of
radiation poisoning.

But actually reading these sources, and others such as
Eisenhower, is much more difficult than quoting sound bites.

[weary]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> and supported by the
> >testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's
> >opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability
> >prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic
> >bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and
even
> >if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."
> >
> >
> >
> The "testimony of the surviving Japanese" is hardly something to put much
faith
> in. Not to mention Dugout Doug's input. You are a despicable apologist for
one
> of the most inhuman regimes of all time.

So much for the killfile .
The quote I used came from the USSBS - address your vitriol and
spleen at them.

[weary]

"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 05:54:25 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
>
>
> >> >I never claimed that every bomb would be on target,
> >>
> >> Ohhh it attempts to move the goalposts.
> >
> >Liar - quote where I said that there would be no civilian
> >casualties or every bomb would be on target.
>
> You have done so repeatedly by claiming that there was an 'alternative'
> where none existed.

Just point out where I claimed that the alternative would involve zero
casualties.

>
> >>
> >> > but feel free to
> >> >construct strawmen,
> >>
> >>
> >> Not a strawman, a fact, you were asked to provide the alternatives, you
> >> havent.
> >
> >I have
> >
>
> You haven't, you selectively quoted the bombing survey figures but were
too
> stupid to figure out that 2/3s of all bombs dropped fell more than 1000
> feet from the target.

Liar - point out where I made any claim that is supported by what
you fabricate here.

>
> >> Which of course is *meaningless* given the CEP needed to hit and
destroy a
> >> point target.
> >
> >Aircraft factories, oil refineries etc aren't point targets.
>
> Ahhh, its manages to contradict itself yet again through complete
> cluelessness.

When only 35-40% of the bombs fall within 1000' feet of the
target, an aircraft factory etc is a point target. What do you think
a point target is - one of your non-existent backyard workshops.

>
> >> >and averaged 35 to 40 percent within 1,000
> >> >feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks from 20,000 feet or
lower. "
> >>
> >> ROFLMAO!! You idiot, you still don't know what CEP means now do you.
> >
> >Your delusions and proclivity to inappropriate fits of laughter
> >don't concern me, but you should seek professional help.
>
> You produced figures which completely undermined your idiotic argument
> about the allies having the means to precisely hit targets anywhere,
never
> mind urban areas.
>
> One can only laugh at such stupidity.
>
>
> >> It is revisionism to claim that B29s had the means to accurately
deliver
> >HE
> >> on military targets in urban areas as an alternative to fire raids or
the
> >> atom bomb. Its pure unadulterated fantasia.
> >
> >B29s did and could do so accurately enough to inflict less casualties
> >than area bombing or atomic bombs.
>
> Yet another attempt at misdirection.
>
> They clearly couldn't accurately target any facility in anywhere when
> 2/3rds of bombs dropped fell more than 1000 feet from the aimpoint.
>
> Or have you forgotten those inconvenient bombing survey figures yet idiot.

Since I am the one who pointed them out, that hardly seems likely, moron.

Yet they they considered that half that accuracy was sufficient to warrant
precision bombing in Germany. But logic isn't one of you strong points.

>
> >
> >> >What is the effect of demanding that the 'target' be in an urban area
> >> >with regard to civilian casualties - are they minimised or maximised?
> >> >Why is the value of the 'target' somehow increased by being in a
> >> >large urban area?
> >>
> >> I suggest you ask the targeting committee, the one which detailed
> >> 'military' targets as a clear contradiction of your idiotic line about
> >> civilians.
> >
> >Why did the target have to be in a large urban area?
>
>
> Like DUH! One generally finds large urban areas around key facilities
such
> as ports, dockyards and regional military headquarters controlling tens of
> thousands of personnel.

Then why make it a requirement.

>
>
> >>
> >> I asked you to tell us how *you* would have targeted the dozen or so
key
> >> targets in hiroshima using the technology of the period. Your reply was
a
> >> non sequitur.
> >>
> >> "Industrial plants had been targetted successfully by B-29s
> >> virtually from the start of the bombing campaign against
> >> the Japanese home islands."
> >
> >What was special about the targets in Hiroshima that
> >the usual bombing ststistics wouldn't apply?
>
> That is a non sensical question.
>
> >>
> >> Given you've already told us that 60-70 % of bombs dropped will fall
more
> >> than 1000 feet from the target, even your limited comprehension skills
> >> should be aware what 12 air raids by 3-500 B29s will do to a city, even
if
> >> they drop only HE.
> >
> >Yet below you provide a quote that says the same damage to Hiroshima
> >could have been inflicted by 220 B-29s and details the bomb load.
>
> Not loaded with HE alone they wouldnt.
>
> >Nearly a quarter of the load was ant-personnel bombs
>
> Cue yet another clue free attempt at moralising.
>
> >so about fifty
> >planes could have been left behind unless the aim was specifically
> >kill civilians,
>
> Of course you will tell us how anti personnel bombs which 'specifically
> kill civilians' would managed to kill those who would have been warned at
> least 45 mins before hand by air raid sirens and are now sitting in bomb
> shelters.

Since I suggested that such bombs not be carried, your question is
ridiculous.

>
> > given that the vast majority of casualties were civilians.
>
> 'civilians' who were providing the means to murder millions of real
> civilians across the pacific. Tough.

All 70000 in Hiroshima - sure.

At last you endorse total war - this is where I came into the argument.
You believe it is alright to wage total war on others , but when someone
wages total war on you (11 Sept) you call it terrorism and criminal -
hypocrite.

>
>
> > A far cry from the figures (3600-6000)you pluck out of the air above.
>
> You're the one claiming that B29s could accurately target anything
without
> causing collateral damage, not I.

Once again you are lying - point out where I made that claim.
Most of your argument seems to rely on fabricated claims
about what I have said.

>
> Very hard to do when the initial CEP for B29 operations was 6%.

A few post ago CEP was 1000 yards and now it is 6% - what are the
units for measuring CEP?

>
> >> You've been repeatedly asked for a meaningful alternative to the fire
> >raids
> >> or the A bomb and you haven't provided one.
> >
> >I have - your chauvinism prevent you from considering it.
>
> You haven't, all you've done is peddle revisionist agit-prop, your
> hilarious nonsense about anti personnel bombs being the latest emission of
> pomo moralising.

???? Calm down and take your meds.

>
>
> >>
> >> Which proves that the cities were not treated any differently to any
other
> >> B29 target in Japan.
> >
> >Which doesn't say anything about the legality or morality of that
treatment.
> >
>
> It doesn't have to. There was nothing illegal or immoral in using a weapon
> which ended the war and saved the lives of nearly 1 million allied POWs
and
> Internees held by the Japanese.

We don't know that it did that or that it had to bu used at all.

>
>
>
> >> You also neglected the detail the terminal effects on Nagasaki,
something
> >> to do with the PBS tearing another great hole in your drivel about the
> >poor
> >> ickle 'civilians'.
> >
> >???
>
> Ohh, it evades yet again. Please tell the audience what was damaged and
> destroyed by the nagasaki bomb , or it is too embarrassing for you.
>
> >> You are aware that armies require more prosaic items, like vehicles,
small
> >> arms, uniforms, a wide variety of munitions including, bullets,
grenades
> >> and shells which were turned out by the millions across the kanto
plain.
> >
> >The USBS states
> >"By 1944 the Japanese had almost eliminated home industry in their war
> >economy. "
>
> LMAO! Of course it snips the following sentence which proves my point
>
>
> " They still relied, however, on plants employing less than 250 workers
for
> subcontracted parts and equipment. Many of these smaller plants were
> concentrated in Tokyo and accounted for 50 percent of the total industrial
> output of the city. Such plants suffered severe damage in urban incendiary
> attacks. "

So in your fantasy world , a plant employing 250 people is a backyard
workshop. My turn to LMAO

[weary]

"Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
news:3ffb0119$1@bg2....
>
> Greg Hennessy > wrote:
> >On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 06:14:59 GMT, "weary" >
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >>It was an Eisenhower who(as the quote notes)
> >had been briefed by the
> >>Stimson you refer to below and who was presumably
> >as aware of the situation
> >>as Stimson himself.
> >
> >That would be Stimson who claimed that Nagasaki
> >was picked as the primary
> >target for Fatman, when it clearly wasnt.
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> and Stimson whose own memoirs put the cost
> >of an allied invasion of Japan
> >>> at at least 250,000 casualities.
> >>
> >>So what - the whole point of the discussion
> >is that an invasion was not
> >>necessary.
> >>Even the USSBS says that Japan would have surrendered.
> >
> >
> >Of course you will give us the precise quote
> >detailing when exactly *when*
> >this would have happened and you also tell us
> >how this information was
> >beamed back in time to allied planners taking
> >tough decisions.
> >
> >>>
> >>> http://www.paperlessarchives.com/olympic.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Nevermind Leahy whose own briefing to truman
> >put allied casualities at
> >>> 30-35% within 30 days of invasion.
> >>
> >>But Leahy didn't think the landings would be
> >necessary.
> >
> >Leahy wasnt sat in a foxhole in Okinawa.
> >
> >>"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous
> >weapon at Hiroshima and
> >>Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our
> >war against Japan.
> >
> >Oh really. Have you asked anyone who would have
> >been at the sharp end of
> >Operation Zipper that question.
> >
> >>"The Japanese were already defeated and ready
> >to surrender because of the
> >>effective sea blockade and the successful bombing
> >with conventional weapons.
> >
> >So Leahy would have preferred to starve the
> >japanese 'civilians' to death
> >and keep allied naval personnel in harms way
> >from daily kamikaze attack.
> >Very moral.
> >
> >>
> >><snip>.
> >>>
> >>> Anything quoting Gar Alperovitz as 'evidence'
> >clearly is revisionism
> >>
> >>I didn't quote one word from Gar Alperovitz,
> >
> >Your tired little charade has relied on a website
> >which peddles
> >alperovitzes line.
> >
> >
> >greg
> >--
> >You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against
> >the Harlot
> >after she marches right down the aisle and kicks
> >you in the nuts.
> Greg, good post. I still can't believe we're still arguing with this
guy.
> I wonder if he had a relative either in the Pacific or with orders to the
> Pacific in 1945? From his tone, probably not. He'll keep spouting postwar
> hindsight until the cows come home. It's easy to criticise with however
many
> years of hindsight. And he's never answered the question about what he
would
> have done in the Summer of '45 with the info Truman had on his desk at the
> time.

I don't know what Truman had on his desk at the time and you don't either.

[weary]

"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 06:14:59 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
>
>
> >It was an Eisenhower who(as the quote notes) had been briefed by the
> >Stimson you refer to below and who was presumably as aware of the
situation
> >as Stimson himself.
>
> That would be Stimson who claimed that Nagasaki was picked as the primary
> target for Fatman, when it clearly wasnt.

Even if this is true it says nothing about Stimson except he was
confused on that point.


>
> >
> >>
> >> and Stimson whose own memoirs put the cost of an allied invasion of
Japan
> >> at at least 250,000 casualities.
> >
> >So what - the whole point of the discussion is that an invasion was not
> >necessary.
> >Even the USSBS says that Japan would have surrendered.
>
>
> Of course you will give us the precise quote detailing when exactly *when*
> this would have happened and you also tell us how this information was
> beamed back in time to allied planners taking tough decisions.

The US was well aware of peace feelers being put out by Japan at least
two months before the bombs were dropped..

>
> >>
> >> http://www.paperlessarchives.com/olympic.html
> >>
> >>
> >> Nevermind Leahy whose own briefing to truman put allied casualities at
> >> 30-35% within 30 days of invasion.
> >
> >But Leahy didn't think the landings would be necessary.
>
> Leahy wasnt sat in a foxhole in Okinawa.

Irrelevant as to what he thought, but introducing irrelevancy
is your trademark, isn't it.
>
> >"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and
> >Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.
>
> Oh really. Have you asked anyone who would have been at the sharp end of
> Operation Zipper that question.

I think his opinion based on the intelligence information available to him
is more credible than that of an infantryman.

>
> >"The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the
> >effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional
weapons.
>
> So Leahy would have preferred to starve the japanese 'civilians' to death
> and keep allied naval personnel in harms way from daily kamikaze attack.
> Very moral.

Your woeful comrehension skills noted - he was speaking of
something that had already happened.

>
> >
> ><snip>.
> >>
> >> Anything quoting Gar Alperovitz as 'evidence' clearly is revisionism
> >
> >I didn't quote one word from Gar Alperovitz,
>
> Your tired little charade has relied on a website which peddles
> alperovitzes line.

Unlike you , the site doesn't lie.

[weary]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 06:14:59 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:57:14 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >It names Eisenhower and cites the source of the two quotes which is
what
> >>
> >> That would be Eisenhower who wasnt in the command loop for operations
in
> >> the pacific and had no 1st hand knowledge of the losses being incurred
on
> >a
> >> daily basis in Okinawa and elsewhere.
> >
> >It was an Eisenhower who(as the quote notes) had been briefed by the
> >Stimson you refer to below and who was presumably as aware of the
situation
> >as Stimson himself.
> >
> >>
> >> and Stimson whose own memoirs put the cost of an allied invasion of
Japan
> >> at at least 250,000 casualities.
> >
> >So what - the whole point of the discussion is that an invasion was not
> >necessary.
> >Even the USSBS says that Japan would have surrendered.
> >
> >>
> >> http://www.paperlessarchives.com/olympic.html
> >>
> >>
> >> Nevermind Leahy whose own briefing to truman put allied casualities at
> >> 30-35% within 30 days of invasion.
> >
> >But Leahy didn't think the landings would be necessary.
> >"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and
> >Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The
> >Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the
> >effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional
weapons.
> >"
> >
> ><snip>.
> >>
> >> Anything quoting Gar Alperovitz as 'evidence' clearly is revisionism
> >
> >I didn't quote one word from Gar Alperovitz, but don't let facts intrude
> >on your rant - feel free to misrepresent me as much as you
> >misrepresent facts.
> >
> A**hole
>
> PLONK

But you promised that ages ago - now FOAD.

[weary]

"Alan Minyard" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> >Pearl Harbour didn't happen in a vacuum, in spite of what you seem
> >to think. The Japanese didn't get up one morning and decide to
> >attack Pearl Harbour because they had nothing else to do.
> >
>
> True, it happened because the Japanese thought that they were racially
> superior to all others, and therefore had a "right" to rule all of Asia.

They had watched the West colonise virtually all of SE Asia and decided
that they wanted a slice of the action.

>
> >> Yamamoto was right: "All we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and
fill
> >> him with a terrible resolve." He didn't live to see it, but he was
right.
> >> I had relatives who were either in the Pacific or headed there from
> >Europe.
> >> To them, Truman made the right decision: drop the bomb and end the war
> >ASAP.
> >> No bomb means invasion, and look at Saipan, Luzon, Iwo Jima, and
Okinawa
> >> to see what that would've been like. I like to think that I'm here
because
> >> my grandfather didn't go to Kyushu in Nov '45.
> >
> >Oh God spare me the grandfather story yet again.
> >
> As you have spared yourself any sort of historical knowledge?

I'm certainly spared any historical knowledge when I read the
drivel you post.

>
> Al Minyard

[Matt Wiser]

"weary" > wrote:
>
>"Matt Wiser" > wrote
>in message
>news:3ffb0119$1@bg2....
>>
>> Greg Hennessy > wrote:
>> >On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 06:14:59 GMT, "weary"
>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>It was an Eisenhower who(as the quote notes)
>> >had been briefed by the
>> >>Stimson you refer to below and who was presumably
>> >as aware of the situation
>> >>as Stimson himself.
>> >
>> >That would be Stimson who claimed that Nagasaki
>> >was picked as the primary
>> >target for Fatman, when it clearly wasnt.
>> >
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> and Stimson whose own memoirs put the
>cost
>> >of an allied invasion of Japan
>> >>> at at least 250,000 casualities.
>> >>
>> >>So what - the whole point of the discussion
>> >is that an invasion was not
>> >>necessary.
>> >>Even the USSBS says that Japan would have
>surrendered.
>> >
>> >
>> >Of course you will give us the precise quote
>> >detailing when exactly *when*
>> >this would have happened and you also tell
>us
>> >how this information was
>> >beamed back in time to allied planners taking
>> >tough decisions.
>> >
>> >>>
>> >>> http://www.paperlessarchives.com/olympic.html
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Nevermind Leahy whose own briefing to
>truman
>> >put allied casualities at
>> >>> 30-35% within 30 days of invasion.
>> >>
>> >>But Leahy didn't think the landings would
>be
>> >necessary.
>> >
>> >Leahy wasnt sat in a foxhole in Okinawa.
>> >
>> >>"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous
>> >weapon at Hiroshima and
>> >>Nagasaki was of no material assistance in
>our
>> >war against Japan.
>> >
>> >Oh really. Have you asked anyone who would
>have
>> >been at the sharp end of
>> >Operation Zipper that question.
>> >
>> >>"The Japanese were already defeated and
>ready
>> >to surrender because of the
>> >>effective sea blockade and the successful
>bombing
>> >with conventional weapons.
>> >
>> >So Leahy would have preferred to starve the
>> >japanese 'civilians' to death
>> >and keep allied naval personnel in harms
>way
>> >from daily kamikaze attack.
>> >Very moral.
>> >
>> >>
>> >><snip>.
>> >>>
>> >>> Anything quoting Gar Alperovitz as 'evidence'
>> >clearly is revisionism
>> >>
>> >>I didn't quote one word from Gar Alperovitz,
>> >
>> >Your tired little charade has relied on a
>website
>> >which peddles
>> >alperovitzes line.
>> >
>> >
>> >greg
>> >--
>> >You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit
>against
>> >the Harlot
>> >after she marches right down the aisle and
>kicks
>> >you in the nuts.
>> Greg, good post. I still can't believe we're
>still arguing with this
>guy.
>> I wonder if he had a relative either in the
>Pacific or with orders to the
>> Pacific in 1945? From his tone, probably not.
>He'll keep spouting postwar
>> hindsight until the cows come home. It's easy
>to criticise with however
>many
>> years of hindsight. And he's never answered
>the question about what he
>would
>> have done in the Summer of '45 with the info
>Truman had on his desk at the
>> time.
>
>I don't know what Truman had on his desk at
>the time and you don't either.
>
>
You ask someone who did his MA thesis on the invasion that last question?
I found A LOT of info in researching the planned invasion that validates
the decision to drop the bomb. Even with MAGIC/ULTRA on his desk, that still
doesn't give Truman what the Japanese leaders are ultimately thinking. He
had to assume a worst-case scenario in invasion planning-all military planners
do this to guard against the unexpected. The info on Truman's desk was basically
this: JCS estimate on length of Bombing and Blockade to force Japan to surrender
without Soviet intervention: 18 months; with Soviet intervention: 12 months.
Invasion of Kyushu followed by the Kanto campaign: 12 months. Use of the
"gadget" as the bomb was called; as quickly as two weeks, or up to six months
if multiple bombs need to be dropped.
Max # of bombs expected to be used: fifty. Truman made the right decision,
and I'll never argue with give 'em hell Harry. I'll say it again: THE JAPANESE
STARTED THE WAR AND HAVE ONLY THEMSELVES TO BLAME FOR THE CONSEQUENCES. At
least Germany has admitted its past and atoned for it: Japan still hasn't.
And the original target of the bomb was Germany, if you've forgotten.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Matt Wiser]

"weary" > wrote:
>
>"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 06:14:59 GMT, "weary"
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >It was an Eisenhower who(as the quote notes)
>had been briefed by the
>> >Stimson you refer to below and who was presumably
>as aware of the
>situation
>> >as Stimson himself.
>>
>> That would be Stimson who claimed that Nagasaki
>was picked as the primary
>> target for Fatman, when it clearly wasnt.
>
>Even if this is true it says nothing about Stimson
>except he was
>confused on that point.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> and Stimson whose own memoirs put the cost
>of an allied invasion of
>Japan
>> >> at at least 250,000 casualities.
>> >
>> >So what - the whole point of the discussion
>is that an invasion was not
>> >necessary.
>> >Even the USSBS says that Japan would have
>surrendered.
>>
>>
>> Of course you will give us the precise quote
>detailing when exactly *when*
>> this would have happened and you also tell
>us how this information was
>> beamed back in time to allied planners taking
>tough decisions.
>
>The US was well aware of peace feelers being
>put out by Japan at least
>two months before the bombs were dropped..
>
>>
>> >>
>> >> http://www.paperlessarchives.com/olympic.html
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Nevermind Leahy whose own briefing to truman
>put allied casualities at
>> >> 30-35% within 30 days of invasion.
>> >
>> >But Leahy didn't think the landings would
>be necessary.
>>
>> Leahy wasnt sat in a foxhole in Okinawa.
>
>Irrelevant as to what he thought, but introducing
>irrelevancy
>is your trademark, isn't it.
>>
>> >"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous
>weapon at Hiroshima and
>> >Nagasaki was of no material assistance in
>our war against Japan.
>>
>> Oh really. Have you asked anyone who would
>have been at the sharp end of
>> Operation Zipper that question.
>
>I think his opinion based on the intelligence
>information available to him
>is more credible than that of an infantryman.
>
>>
>> >"The Japanese were already defeated and ready
>to surrender because of the
>> >effective sea blockade and the successful
>bombing with conventional
>weapons.
>>
>> So Leahy would have preferred to starve the
>japanese 'civilians' to death
>> and keep allied naval personnel in harms way
>from daily kamikaze attack.
>> Very moral.
>
>Your woeful comrehension skills noted - he was
>speaking of
>something that had already happened.
>
>>
>> >
>> ><snip>.
>> >>
>> >> Anything quoting Gar Alperovitz as 'evidence'
>clearly is revisionism
>> >
>> >I didn't quote one word from Gar Alperovitz,
>>
>> Your tired little charade has relied on a
>website which peddles
>> alperovitzes line.
>
>Unlike you , the site doesn't lie.
>
>
>
Weary, when you keep repeating USSBS, remember that was written by those
who thought that all the U.S. had to do was essentially bomb everything in
Japan and they would surrender; notwithstanding all other factors-destruction
of her navy, the submarine, air, and mining destruction of her merchant marine,
the destruction of her best armies in Burma, the Philippines, New Guinea,
Solomons, Okinawa, etc. The guys who put USSBS together were commendable
people, but besides surveying damage, they wanted it to be the final document
to get Congress to agree to a postwar independent Air Force. Air Power advocates
to the extreme.
You still haven't answered the question I posed to you earlier: with the
information Truman had on his desk in the Summer of '45, what would you have
done? Invade, continue bombing and blockade (and hope for Stalin to attack
Manchuria as promised at Yalta), or use Little Boy and Fat Man. I prefer
the latter as the least time-and manpower intensive option of the three.
As for the peace feelers: NONE OF THEM HAD THE FULL APPROVAL OF THE JAPANESE
GOVERNMENT. All were done by the peace faction in the government with the
Emperor's unspoken sympathies, but the militarists still called the shots
(and that could include threat of assassination) and could bring down the
government if the Army felt the government was getting too soft for its liking.
And don't forget the coup attempt on the night of 14-15 Aug to attempt to
put in a government to keep fighting. It took the combination of the bomb
AND the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the Kuriles to force the peace faction's
hand in getting the Emperor to urge acceptance of Potsdam. I prefer BLACKLIST
(peaceful occupation) to OLYMPIC/CORONET (invasion).

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Greg Hennessy]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 02:14:06 GMT, "weary" > wrote:


>> >Liar - quote where I said that there would be no civilian
>> >casualties or every bomb would be on target.
>>
>> You have done so repeatedly by claiming that there was an 'alternative'
>> where none existed.
>
>Just point out where I claimed that the alternative would involve zero
>casualties.

So why did you assert it then f*ckwit, other than specious and facile
moralising that is.

>> You haven't, you selectively quoted the bombing survey figures but were
>too
>> stupid to figure out that 2/3s of all bombs dropped fell more than 1000
>> feet from the target.
>
>Liar - point out where I made any claim that is supported by what
>you fabricate here.

Message-ID: >

"Bombing accuracy increased substantially, and averaged 35 to 40 percent
within 1,000 feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks from 20,000 feet
or lower."

Like all trolls you eventually start contradicting yourself.


>> Ahhh, its manages to contradict itself yet again through complete
>> cluelessness.
>
>When only 35-40% of the bombs fall within 1000' feet of the
>target, an aircraft factory etc is a point target.

I suggest finding out what 'C' means in CEP.

> What do you think
>a point target is - one of your non-existent backyard workshops.

YOu havent read those bombing surveys too well now have you troll, in
particular pay attention to where it details how *hard* is was to destroy
machine tools depite HE destroying the buildings which contained them.


>> They clearly couldn't accurately target any facility in anywhere when
>> 2/3rds of bombs dropped fell more than 1000 feet from the aimpoint.
>>
>> Or have you forgotten those inconvenient bombing survey figures yet idiot.
>
>Since I am the one who pointed them out, that hardly seems likely, moron.
>
>Yet they they considered that half that accuracy was sufficient to warrant
>precision bombing in Germany.

they didnt. You have no comprehension of the meaning of what was written.

>> Like DUH! One generally finds large urban areas around key facilities
>such
>> as ports, dockyards and regional military headquarters controlling tens of
>> thousands of personnel.
>
>Then why make it a requirement.

You think ports, dockyards and military headquarters manage to run them
selves now do you ?

>> >so about fifty
>> >planes could have been left behind unless the aim was specifically
>> >kill civilians,
>>
>> Of course you will tell us how anti personnel bombs which 'specifically
>> kill civilians' would managed to kill those who would have been warned at
>> least 45 mins before hand by air raid sirens and are now sitting in bomb
>> shelters.
>
>Since I suggested that such bombs not be carried,

Yes that was most amusing. 2nd guessing life of death decisions made by
mean whose boots you aren't fit to clean. Its a pity 'Weary' Dunlop isnt
about to knock some sense into your miserable PC skull.

>your question is
>ridiculous.

No, you're to stupid to figure out that anti personnel bombs were carried
to suppress attempts at fire fighting, not to 'specifically kill
civilians'.

>>
>> > given that the vast majority of casualties were civilians.
>>
>> 'civilians' who were providing the means to murder millions of real
>> civilians across the pacific. Tough.
>
>All 70000 in Hiroshima - sure.

LMAO! So the 15-20000 odd thousand troops who were killed by the bomb were
'civilians' too were they.

>At last you endorse total war - this is where I came into the argument.
>You believe it is alright to wage total war on others , but when someone
>wages total war on you (11 Sept) you call it terrorism and criminal -
>hypocrite.

No, the only hypocrite here is the fool who asserts that it was immoral to
use every means necessary to defeat a foe who was murdering 10000 chinese
civilians every day the war continued.



>> > A far cry from the figures (3600-6000)you pluck out of the air above.
>>
>> You're the one claiming that B29s could accurately target anything
>without
>> causing collateral damage, not I.
>
>Once again you are lying - point out where I made that claim.
>Most of your argument seems to rely on fabricated claims
>about what I have said.

Ohhh, Its changing tack again, would that be like claiming an aircraft
plant is a precision target.

>>
>> Very hard to do when the initial CEP for B29 operations was 6%.
>
>A few post ago CEP was 1000 yards and now it is 6% - what are the
>units for measuring CEP?

I suggest you find out, I am not here to continue your limited education.

>> You haven't, all you've done is peddle revisionist agit-prop, your
>> hilarious nonsense about anti personnel bombs being the latest emission of
>> pomo moralising.
>
>???? Calm down and take your meds.

"Since I suggested that such bombs not be carried, "

Given you clearly hadnt a *clue* why they were carried. Your tedious
moralising asserted they were carried to attack civilians.


>
>>
>> It doesn't have to. There was nothing illegal or immoral in using a weapon
>> which ended the war and saved the lives of nearly 1 million allied POWs
>and
>> Internees held by the Japanese.
>
>We don't know that it did that or that it had to bu used at all.


We do know you miserable peon. I suggest you figure out figure out what
'magic' was to see why.


>> " They still relied, however, on plants employing less than 250 workers
>for
>> subcontracted parts and equipment. Many of these smaller plants were
>> concentrated in Tokyo and accounted for 50 percent of the total industrial
>> output of the city. Such plants suffered severe damage in urban incendiary
>> attacks. "
>
>So in your fantasy world , a plant employing 250 people is a backyard
>workshop. My turn to LMAO

I suggest you read it again troll, there is nothing quoted about plants
employing precisely 250 people. There is a quote which details that 50% of
tokyos industrial output was produced by plants producing *less* than 250
people.



greg

--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.

[Greg Hennessy]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:32:04 GMT, "Matt Wiser" >
wrote:

>
>>I don't know what Truman had on his desk at
>>the time and you don't either.
>>
>>
> You ask someone who did his MA thesis on the invasion that last question?

ROTFL! Ohhh, I felt that kick in the slats landing from here.



greg

--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.

[Greg Hennessy]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 02:32:04 GMT, "weary" > wrote:


>> That would be Stimson who claimed that Nagasaki was picked as the primary
>> target for Fatman, when it clearly wasnt.
>
>Even if this is true it says nothing about Stimson except he was
>confused on that point.

It clearly does.

>> Of course you will give us the precise quote detailing when exactly *when*
>> this would have happened and you also tell us how this information was
>> beamed back in time to allied planners taking tough decisions.
>
>The US was well aware of peace feelers being put out by Japan at least
>two months before the bombs were dropped..

Not by any japanese in any position to deliver on a peace offer.

>> >> Nevermind Leahy whose own briefing to truman put allied casualities at
>> >> 30-35% within 30 days of invasion.
>> >
>> >But Leahy didn't think the landings would be necessary.
>>
>> Leahy wasnt sat in a foxhole in Okinawa.
>
>Irrelevant as to what he thought, but introducing irrelevancy
>is your trademark, isn't it.

Not surprising, the allied butcher bill is irrelevant to types like you.

>> >"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and
>> >Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.
>>
>> Oh really. Have you asked anyone who would have been at the sharp end of
>> Operation Zipper that question.
>
>I think his opinion based on the intelligence information available to him
>is more credible than that of an infantryman.

Given you clearly *havent* a clue what operation zipper was and why the
bombs being dropped made a difference to those in it, your limited grasp of
the facts is showing again.


>> So Leahy would have preferred to starve the japanese 'civilians' to death
>> and keep allied naval personnel in harms way from daily kamikaze attack.
>> Very moral.
>
>Your woeful comrehension skills noted - he was speaking of
>something that had already happened.

He clearly *wasnt* because he hadnt an iota if japan was ever going to
surrender.

7 more days of fighting == 70000 chinese civilians dead.

14 more days == more chinese civilians dead than alleged 'civilian'
casualties at either hiroshima or nagasaki. Your cavalier disregard for
those who truly suffering as a consequence of japanese aggression is
pathetic.

>> Your tired little charade has relied on a website which peddles
>> alperovitzes line.
>
>Unlike you , the site doesn't lie.
>
>


Yah whatever comrade.



greg

--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.

[Merlin Dorfman]

weary ) wrote:

: "Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
: ...

....

: > >So what - the whole point of the discussion is that an invasion was not
: > >necessary.
: > >Even the USSBS says that Japan would have surrendered.
: >
: >
: > Of course you will give us the precise quote detailing when exactly *when*
: > this would have happened and you also tell us how this information was
: > beamed back in time to allied planners taking tough decisions.

: The US was well aware of peace feelers being put out by Japan at least
: two months before the bombs were dropped..

Peace feelers, not surrender feelers. Feelers for peace with
the following conditions:
- No occupation of Japan
- Japan to retain all its pre-1941 conquests
- War crimes trials (if any) to be initiated and run by the Japanese
government
(and a few other conditions as well)
The United States was not interested in peace under those
conditions.

[weary]

"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 02:14:06 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
>
>
> >> >Liar - quote where I said that there would be no civilian
> >> >casualties or every bomb would be on target.
> >>
> >> You have done so repeatedly by claiming that there was an 'alternative'
> >> where none existed.
> >
> >Just point out where I claimed that the alternative would involve zero
> >casualties.
>
> So why did you assert it

Assert what - I repeat, point out where I claimed there would
be zero casualties. I suggested conventional precision bombing because
it would involve less civilian casualties. If you think it wouldn't have,
then
name some precision bombing raids that caused any where near the
number of civilian casualties that Hiroshima did.

>then f*ckwit,

The frustration of one who cannot understand simple English.

> other than specious and facile
> moralising that is.

Address the issues rather than ranting.

>
> >> You haven't, you selectively quoted the bombing survey figures but were
> >too
> >> stupid to figure out that 2/3s of all bombs dropped fell more than 1000
> >> feet from the target.
> >
> >Liar - point out where I made any claim that is supported by what
> >you fabricate here.
>
> Message-ID: >
>
> "Bombing accuracy increased substantially, and averaged 35 to 40 percent
> within 1,000 feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks from 20,000 feet
> or lower."
>
> Like all trolls you eventually start contradicting yourself.

Where is stated or implied that I can't figure out that 2/3 of bombs
fell more than 1000' from the target/ Come on, the precise words.


>
>
> >> Ahhh, its manages to contradict itself yet again through complete
> >> cluelessness.
> >
> >When only 35-40% of the bombs fall within 1000' feet of the
> >target, an aircraft factory etc is a point target.
>
> I suggest finding out what 'C' means in CEP.

Exactly what in my statement makes you think I don't know
what it means?

>
> > What do you think
> >a point target is - one of your non-existent backyard workshops.
>
> YOu havent read those bombing surveys too well now have you troll, in
> particular pay attention to where it details how *hard* is was to destroy
> machine tools depite HE destroying the buildings which contained them.

Where does it say that regarding the Japanese campaign?

>
>
> >> They clearly couldn't accurately target any facility in anywhere when
> >> 2/3rds of bombs dropped fell more than 1000 feet from the aimpoint.
> >>
> >> Or have you forgotten those inconvenient bombing survey figures yet
idiot.
> >
> >Since I am the one who pointed them out, that hardly seems likely, moron.
> >
> >Yet they they considered that half that accuracy was sufficient to
warrant
> >precision bombing in Germany.
>
> they didnt. You have no comprehension of the meaning of what was written.

Precision bombing was used in Germany for essentially the whole
war. It's average over the whole war was 20% in 1000' of target.

>
> >> Like DUH! One generally finds large urban areas around key facilities
> >such
> >> as ports, dockyards and regional military headquarters controlling tens
of
> >> thousands of personnel.
> >
> >Then why make it a requirement.
>
> You think ports, dockyards and military headquarters manage to run them
> selves now do you ?

Your question doesn't answer mine. It's about your fourth attempt
to explain why a large urban area was required.

>
> >> >so about fifty
> >> >planes could have been left behind unless the aim was specifically
> >> >kill civilians,
> >>
> >> Of course you will tell us how anti personnel bombs which
'specifically
> >> kill civilians' would managed to kill those who would have been warned
at
> >> least 45 mins before hand by air raid sirens and are now sitting in
bomb
> >> shelters.
> >
> >Since I suggested that such bombs not be carried,
>
> Yes that was most amusing. 2nd guessing life of death decisions made by
> mean whose boots you aren't fit to clean.

It was a hypothetical idiot. There was no decision made. It didn't happen.

>Its a pity 'Weary' Dunlop isnt
> about to knock some sense into your miserable PC skull.
>
> >your question is
> >ridiculous.
>
> No, you're to stupid to figure out that anti personnel bombs were carried
> to suppress attempts at fire fighting, not to 'specifically kill
> civilians'.

How do you use bombs to "suppress" fire fighting without killing civilians?

>
> >>
> >> > given that the vast majority of casualties were civilians.
> >>
> >> 'civilians' who were providing the means to murder millions of real
> >> civilians across the pacific. Tough.
> >
> >All 70000 in Hiroshima - sure.
>
> LMAO! So the 15-20000 odd thousand troops who were killed by the bomb were
> 'civilians' too were they.

Source please.

>
> >At last you endorse total war - this is where I came into the argument.
> >You believe it is alright to wage total war on others , but when someone
> >wages total war on you (11 Sept) you call it terrorism and criminal -
> >hypocrite.
>
> No, the only hypocrite here is the fool who asserts that it was immoral to
> use every means necessary

But you call it terrorism when someone does it to you.

> to defeat a foe who was murdering 10000 chinese
> civilians every day the war continued.
>
>
>
> >> > A far cry from the figures (3600-6000)you pluck out of the air above.
> >>
> >> You're the one claiming that B29s could accurately target anything
> >without
> >> causing collateral damage, not I.
> >
> >Once again you are lying - point out where I made that claim.
> >Most of your argument seems to rely on fabricated claims
> >about what I have said.
>
> Ohhh, Its changing tack again,

Not changing tack - just asking you to point out where I wrote
what you claim I did. Of course you can't - it's just
another of your lies.

>would that be like claiming an aircraft
> plant is a precision target.

Thats what was bombed in Germany as part of the daylight precision
bombing campaign, as well as oil plants and ball bearing works. In spite
of all the hype, the Norden bomb sight couldn't really drop a bomb into
a pickle barrel from 20 000 feet.

>
> >>
> >> Very hard to do when the initial CEP for B29 operations was 6%.
> >
> >A few post ago CEP was 1000 yards and now it is 6% - what are the
> >units for measuring CEP?
>
> I suggest you find out, I am not here to continue your limited education.

BWAAAAH. Loser. Caught out.

>
> >> You haven't, all you've done is peddle revisionist agit-prop, your
> >> hilarious nonsense about anti personnel bombs being the latest emission
of
> >> pomo moralising.
> >
> >???? Calm down and take your meds.
>
> "Since I suggested that such bombs not be carried, "
>
> Given you clearly hadnt a *clue* why they were carried.

Nothing was carried you moron. It was a hypothetical in the USSBS
estimating what was necessary to achieve the same result as the
Hiroshima bomb. I pointed out where savings could have been made
and civilian lives spared.

> >>
> >> It doesn't have to. There was nothing illegal or immoral in using a
weapon
> >> which ended the war and saved the lives of nearly 1 million allied POWs
> >and
> >> Internees held by the Japanese.
> >
> >We don't know that it did that or that it had to bu used at all.
>
>
> We do know you miserable peon. I suggest you figure out figure out what
> 'magic' was to see why.

That would be the decodes of Japanese messages that included those
revealing the Japanese steps towards surrender from at least early July.

[weary]

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "weary"
>
> <snip>
>
> >I never claimed that every bomb would be on target, but feel free to
> >construct
> >strawmen, they are fun to demolish and reveal the poverty of your
argument.
>
> <snip>
>
> I guess this proves what I have been thinking about your arguments for
some
> time. You are deliberately ignoring military facts and the urban
infrastructure
> of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and using terminology intended to inflame
(civilians
> were the targets). Since this is the case I will no longer debate with
you.

A wise course to follow when the facts are against you.

[weary]

"Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
news:400029be$1@bg2....
>
> "weary" > wrote:
> >
> >"Matt Wiser" > wrote
> >in message
> >news:3ffb0119$1@bg2....
> >>
> >> Greg Hennessy > wrote:
> >> >On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 06:14:59 GMT, "weary"
> >
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>It was an Eisenhower who(as the quote notes)
> >> >had been briefed by the
> >> >>Stimson you refer to below and who was presumably
> >> >as aware of the situation
> >> >>as Stimson himself.
> >> >
> >> >That would be Stimson who claimed that Nagasaki
> >> >was picked as the primary
> >> >target for Fatman, when it clearly wasnt.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> and Stimson whose own memoirs put the
> >cost
> >> >of an allied invasion of Japan
> >> >>> at at least 250,000 casualities.
> >> >>
> >> >>So what - the whole point of the discussion
> >> >is that an invasion was not
> >> >>necessary.
> >> >>Even the USSBS says that Japan would have
> >surrendered.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Of course you will give us the precise quote
> >> >detailing when exactly *when*
> >> >this would have happened and you also tell
> >us
> >> >how this information was
> >> >beamed back in time to allied planners taking
> >> >tough decisions.
> >> >
> >> >>>
> >> >>> http://www.paperlessarchives.com/olympic.html
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Nevermind Leahy whose own briefing to
> >truman
> >> >put allied casualities at
> >> >>> 30-35% within 30 days of invasion.
> >> >>
> >> >>But Leahy didn't think the landings would
> >be
> >> >necessary.
> >> >
> >> >Leahy wasnt sat in a foxhole in Okinawa.
> >> >
> >> >>"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous
> >> >weapon at Hiroshima and
> >> >>Nagasaki was of no material assistance in
> >our
> >> >war against Japan.
> >> >
> >> >Oh really. Have you asked anyone who would
> >have
> >> >been at the sharp end of
> >> >Operation Zipper that question.
> >> >
> >> >>"The Japanese were already defeated and
> >ready
> >> >to surrender because of the
> >> >>effective sea blockade and the successful
> >bombing
> >> >with conventional weapons.
> >> >
> >> >So Leahy would have preferred to starve the
> >> >japanese 'civilians' to death
> >> >and keep allied naval personnel in harms
> >way
> >> >from daily kamikaze attack.
> >> >Very moral.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >><snip>.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Anything quoting Gar Alperovitz as 'evidence'
> >> >clearly is revisionism
> >> >>
> >> >>I didn't quote one word from Gar Alperovitz,
> >> >
> >> >Your tired little charade has relied on a
> >website
> >> >which peddles
> >> >alperovitzes line.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >greg
> >> >--
> >> >You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit
> >against
> >> >the Harlot
> >> >after she marches right down the aisle and
> >kicks
> >> >you in the nuts.
> >> Greg, good post. I still can't believe we're
> >still arguing with this
> >guy.
> >> I wonder if he had a relative either in the
> >Pacific or with orders to the
> >> Pacific in 1945? From his tone, probably not.
> >He'll keep spouting postwar
> >> hindsight until the cows come home. It's easy
> >to criticise with however
> >many
> >> years of hindsight. And he's never answered
> >the question about what he
> >would
> >> have done in the Summer of '45 with the info
> >Truman had on his desk at the
> >> time.
> >
> >I don't know what Truman had on his desk at
> >the time and you don't either.
> >
> >
> You ask someone who did his MA thesis on the invasion that last
question?

There was no question in the last statement of mine.
If you think there are some questuions I'm not allowed to ask, then list
them.

> I found A LOT of info in researching the planned invasion that validates
> the decision to drop the bomb.

Still doesn't prove that you know what he had on his desk.

>Even with MAGIC/ULTRA on his desk, that still
> doesn't give Truman what the Japanese leaders are ultimately thinking.

It tells him amongst other things that the Japanese are looking to
surrender.

> He
> had to assume a worst-case scenario in invasion planning-all military
planners
> do this to guard against the unexpected. The info on Truman's desk was
basically
> this: JCS estimate on length of Bombing and Blockade to force Japan to
surrender
> without Soviet intervention: 18 months; with Soviet intervention: 12
months.
> Invasion of Kyushu followed by the Kanto campaign: 12 months. Use of the
> "gadget" as the bomb was called; as quickly as two weeks, or up to six
months
> if multiple bombs need to be dropped.
> Max # of bombs expected to be used: fifty. Truman made the right decision,
> and I'll never argue with give 'em hell Harry. I'll say it again: THE
JAPANESE
> STARTED THE WAR AND HAVE ONLY THEMSELVES TO BLAME FOR THE CONSEQUENCES. At
> least Germany has admitted its past and atoned for it: Japan still hasn't.
> And the original target of the bomb was Germany, if you've forgotten.
>
> Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[weary]

"Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
news:400029ec$1@bg2....
>
> "weary" > wrote:
> >
> >"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 06:14:59 GMT, "weary"
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >It was an Eisenhower who(as the quote notes)
> >had been briefed by the
> >> >Stimson you refer to below and who was presumably
> >as aware of the
> >situation
> >> >as Stimson himself.
> >>
> >> That would be Stimson who claimed that Nagasaki
> >was picked as the primary
> >> target for Fatman, when it clearly wasnt.
> >
> >Even if this is true it says nothing about Stimson
> >except he was
> >confused on that point.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> and Stimson whose own memoirs put the cost
> >of an allied invasion of
> >Japan
> >> >> at at least 250,000 casualities.
> >> >
> >> >So what - the whole point of the discussion
> >is that an invasion was not
> >> >necessary.
> >> >Even the USSBS says that Japan would have
> >surrendered.
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course you will give us the precise quote
> >detailing when exactly *when*
> >> this would have happened and you also tell
> >us how this information was
> >> beamed back in time to allied planners taking
> >tough decisions.
> >
> >The US was well aware of peace feelers being
> >put out by Japan at least
> >two months before the bombs were dropped..
> >
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.paperlessarchives.com/olympic.html
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Nevermind Leahy whose own briefing to truman
> >put allied casualities at
> >> >> 30-35% within 30 days of invasion.
> >> >
> >> >But Leahy didn't think the landings would
> >be necessary.
> >>
> >> Leahy wasnt sat in a foxhole in Okinawa.
> >
> >Irrelevant as to what he thought, but introducing
> >irrelevancy
> >is your trademark, isn't it.
> >>
> >> >"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous
> >weapon at Hiroshima and
> >> >Nagasaki was of no material assistance in
> >our war against Japan.
> >>
> >> Oh really. Have you asked anyone who would
> >have been at the sharp end of
> >> Operation Zipper that question.
> >
> >I think his opinion based on the intelligence
> >information available to him
> >is more credible than that of an infantryman.
> >
> >>
> >> >"The Japanese were already defeated and ready
> >to surrender because of the
> >> >effective sea blockade and the successful
> >bombing with conventional
> >weapons.
> >>
> >> So Leahy would have preferred to starve the
> >japanese 'civilians' to death
> >> and keep allied naval personnel in harms way
> >from daily kamikaze attack.
> >> Very moral.
> >
> >Your woeful comrehension skills noted - he was
> >speaking of
> >something that had already happened.
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> ><snip>.
> >> >>
> >> >> Anything quoting Gar Alperovitz as 'evidence'
> >clearly is revisionism
> >> >
> >> >I didn't quote one word from Gar Alperovitz,
> >>
> >> Your tired little charade has relied on a
> >website which peddles
> >> alperovitzes line.
> >
> >Unlike you , the site doesn't lie.
> >
> >
> >
> Weary, when you keep repeating USSBS, remember that was written by those
> who thought that all the U.S. had to do was essentially bomb everything in
> Japan and they would surrender; notwithstanding all other
factors-destruction
> of her navy, the submarine, air, and mining destruction of her merchant
marine,
> the destruction of her best armies in Burma, the Philippines, New Guinea,
> Solomons, Okinawa, etc. The guys who put USSBS together were commendable
> people, but besides surveying damage, they wanted it to be the final
document
> to get Congress to agree to a postwar independent Air Force. Air Power
advocates
> to the extreme.
> You still haven't answered the question I posed to you earlier: with the
> information Truman had on his desk in the Summer of '45, what would you
have
> done? Invade, continue bombing and blockade (and hope for Stalin to attack
> Manchuria as promised at Yalta),

The agreed latest date for the Soviets to attack was 8 August. He would
have only had to wait 2 days to see that and another 3 or 4 would have
revealed the result of that attack - a total rout of the Army on the
mainland.

> or use Little Boy and Fat Man. I prefer
> the latter as the least time-and manpower intensive option of the three.
> As for the peace feelers: NONE OF THEM HAD THE FULL APPROVAL OF THE
JAPANESE
> GOVERNMENT. All were done by the peace faction in the government with the
> Emperor's unspoken sympathies, but the militarists still called the shots
> (and that could include threat of assassination) and could bring down the
> government if the Army felt the government was getting too soft for its
liking.
> And don't forget the coup attempt on the night of 14-15 Aug to attempt to
> put in a government to keep fighting. It took the combination of the bomb
> AND the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the Kuriles to force the peace
faction's
> hand in getting the Emperor to urge acceptance of Potsdam. I prefer
BLACKLIST
> (peaceful occupation) to OLYMPIC/CORONET (invasion).
>
> Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[weary]

"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 02:32:04 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
>
>
> >> That would be Stimson who claimed that Nagasaki was picked as the
primary
> >> target for Fatman, when it clearly wasnt.
> >
> >Even if this is true it says nothing about Stimson except he was
> >confused on that point.
>
> It clearly does.

And?

>
> >> Of course you will give us the precise quote detailing when exactly
*when*
> >> this would have happened and you also tell us how this information was
> >> beamed back in time to allied planners taking tough decisions.
> >
> >The US was well aware of peace feelers being put out by Japan at least
> >two months before the bombs were dropped..
>
> Not by any japanese in any position to deliver on a peace offer.

We don't know what would have happened if there had been a
response to the feelers.

>
> >> >> Nevermind Leahy whose own briefing to truman put allied casualities
at
> >> >> 30-35% within 30 days of invasion.
> >> >
> >> >But Leahy didn't think the landings would be necessary.
> >>
> >> Leahy wasnt sat in a foxhole in Okinawa.
> >
> >Irrelevant as to what he thought, but introducing irrelevancy
> >is your trademark, isn't it.
>
> Not surprising, the allied butcher bill is irrelevant to types like you.

He didn't think it would be necessary so his estimate is irrelevant.

[Greg Hennessy]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:11:29 GMT, "weary" > wrote:


>
>A wise course to follow when the facts are against you.
>


Bye bye troll.


ker-PLONK




greg

--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.

[Matt Wiser]

Merlin Dorfman > wrote:
>weary ) wrote:
>
>: "Greg Hennessy" > wrote in
>message
>: ...
>
>....
>
>: > >So what - the whole point of the discussion
>is that an invasion was not
>: > >necessary.
>: > >Even the USSBS says that Japan would have
>surrendered.
>: >
>: >
>: > Of course you will give us the precise quote
>detailing when exactly *when*
>: > this would have happened and you also tell
>us how this information was
>: > beamed back in time to allied planners taking
>tough decisions.
>
>: The US was well aware of peace feelers being
>put out by Japan at least
>: two months before the bombs were dropped..
>
> Peace feelers, not surrender feelers.
>Feelers for peace with
>the following conditions:
>- No occupation of Japan
>- Japan to retain all its pre-1941 conquests
>- War crimes trials (if any) to be initiated
>and run by the Japanese
>government
>(and a few other conditions as well)
> The United States was not interested in
>peace under those
>conditions.
>
Remember that none of those peace feelers had the full approval of the
Japanese government. The Emperor and the civilian members of the government,
along with Admrial Yonai, the Navy minister, wanted to accept unconditional
surrender, but the Army blocked any discussion of it. Add to that fear of
assassination by hotheads (a not unreasonable concern in Japan) and you understand
why these were peace and not surrender feelers.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Matt Wiser]

"weary" > wrote:
>
>"Matt Wiser" > wrote
>in message
>news:400029ec$1@bg2....
>>
>> "weary" > wrote:
>> >
>> >"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in
>message
>> ...
>> >> On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 06:14:59 GMT, "weary"
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >It was an Eisenhower who(as the quote
>notes)
>> >had been briefed by the
>> >> >Stimson you refer to below and who was
>presumably
>> >as aware of the
>> >situation
>> >> >as Stimson himself.
>> >>
>> >> That would be Stimson who claimed that
>Nagasaki
>> >was picked as the primary
>> >> target for Fatman, when it clearly wasnt.
>> >
>> >Even if this is true it says nothing about
>Stimson
>> >except he was
>> >confused on that point.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> and Stimson whose own memoirs put the
>cost
>> >of an allied invasion of
>> >Japan
>> >> >> at at least 250,000 casualities.
>> >> >
>> >> >So what - the whole point of the discussion
>> >is that an invasion was not
>> >> >necessary.
>> >> >Even the USSBS says that Japan would have
>> >surrendered.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Of course you will give us the precise
>quote
>> >detailing when exactly *when*
>> >> this would have happened and you also tell
>> >us how this information was
>> >> beamed back in time to allied planners
>taking
>> >tough decisions.
>> >
>> >The US was well aware of peace feelers being
>> >put out by Japan at least
>> >two months before the bombs were dropped..
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://www.paperlessarchives.com/olympic.html
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Nevermind Leahy whose own briefing to
>truman
>> >put allied casualities at
>> >> >> 30-35% within 30 days of invasion.
>> >> >
>> >> >But Leahy didn't think the landings would
>> >be necessary.
>> >>
>> >> Leahy wasnt sat in a foxhole in Okinawa.
>> >
>> >Irrelevant as to what he thought, but introducing
>> >irrelevancy
>> >is your trademark, isn't it.
>> >>
>> >> >"It is my opinion that the use of this
>barbarous
>> >weapon at Hiroshima and
>> >> >Nagasaki was of no material assistance
>in
>> >our war against Japan.
>> >>
>> >> Oh really. Have you asked anyone who would
>> >have been at the sharp end of
>> >> Operation Zipper that question.
>> >
>> >I think his opinion based on the intelligence
>> >information available to him
>> >is more credible than that of an infantryman.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >"The Japanese were already defeated and
>ready
>> >to surrender because of the
>> >> >effective sea blockade and the successful
>> >bombing with conventional
>> >weapons.
>> >>
>> >> So Leahy would have preferred to starve
>the
>> >japanese 'civilians' to death
>> >> and keep allied naval personnel in harms
>way
>> >from daily kamikaze attack.
>> >> Very moral.
>> >
>> >Your woeful comrehension skills noted - he
>was
>> >speaking of
>> >something that had already happened.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> ><snip>.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Anything quoting Gar Alperovitz as 'evidence'
>> >clearly is revisionism
>> >> >
>> >> >I didn't quote one word from Gar Alperovitz,
>> >>
>> >> Your tired little charade has relied on
>a
>> >website which peddles
>> >> alperovitzes line.
>> >
>> >Unlike you , the site doesn't lie.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Weary, when you keep repeating USSBS, remember
>that was written by those
>> who thought that all the U.S. had to do was
>essentially bomb everything in
>> Japan and they would surrender; notwithstanding
>all other
>factors-destruction
>> of her navy, the submarine, air, and mining
>destruction of her merchant
>marine,
>> the destruction of her best armies in Burma,
>the Philippines, New Guinea,
>> Solomons, Okinawa, etc. The guys who put USSBS
>together were commendable
>> people, but besides surveying damage, they
>wanted it to be the final
>document
>> to get Congress to agree to a postwar independent
>Air Force. Air Power
>advocates
>> to the extreme.
>> You still haven't answered the question I
>posed to you earlier: with the
>> information Truman had on his desk in the
>Summer of '45, what would you
>have
>> done? Invade, continue bombing and blockade
>(and hope for Stalin to attack
>> Manchuria as promised at Yalta),
>
>The agreed latest date for the Soviets to attack
>was 8 August. He would
>have only had to wait 2 days to see that and
>another 3 or 4 would have
>revealed the result of that attack - a total
>rout of the Army on the
>mainland.
>
>> or use Little Boy and Fat Man. I prefer
>> the latter as the least time-and manpower
>intensive option of the three.
>> As for the peace feelers: NONE OF THEM HAD
>THE FULL APPROVAL OF THE
>JAPANESE
>> GOVERNMENT. All were done by the peace faction
>in the government with the
>> Emperor's unspoken sympathies, but the militarists
>still called the shots
>> (and that could include threat of assassination)
>and could bring down the
>> government if the Army felt the government
>was getting too soft for its
>liking.
>> And don't forget the coup attempt on the night
>of 14-15 Aug to attempt to
>> put in a government to keep fighting. It took
>the combination of the bomb
>> AND the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the
>Kuriles to force the peace
>faction's
>> hand in getting the Emperor to urge acceptance
>of Potsdam. I prefer
>BLACKLIST
>> (peaceful occupation) to OLYMPIC/CORONET (invasion).
>>
>> Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to
>news gateway for usenet access!
>
>
Stalin only gave a general date: three months after Germany's defeat to
enter the Pacific War. Exactly when he was going to attack was known only
to the Soviet General Staff. He never gave a precise date to Truman at Potsdam.


Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Matt Wiser]

"weary" > wrote:
>
>"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 02:32:04 GMT, "weary"
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> That would be Stimson who claimed that
>Nagasaki was picked as the
>primary
>> >> target for Fatman, when it clearly wasnt.
>> >
>> >Even if this is true it says nothing about
>Stimson except he was
>> >confused on that point.
>>
>> It clearly does.
>
>And?
>
>>
>> >> Of course you will give us the precise
>quote detailing when exactly
>*when*
>> >> this would have happened and you also tell
>us how this information was
>> >> beamed back in time to allied planners
>taking tough decisions.
>> >
>> >The US was well aware of peace feelers being
>put out by Japan at least
>> >two months before the bombs were dropped..
>>
>> Not by any japanese in any position to deliver
>on a peace offer.
>
>We don't know what would have happened if there
>had been a
>response to the feelers.
>
>>
>> >> >> Nevermind Leahy whose own briefing to
>truman put allied casualities
>at
>> >> >> 30-35% within 30 days of invasion.
>> >> >
>> >> >But Leahy didn't think the landings would
>be necessary.
>> >>
>> >> Leahy wasnt sat in a foxhole in Okinawa.
>> >
>> >Irrelevant as to what he thought, but introducing
>irrelevancy
>> >is your trademark, isn't it.
>>
>> Not surprising, the allied butcher bill is
>irrelevant to types like you.
>
>He didn't think it would be necessary so his
>estimate is irrelevant.
>
>
>
Weary, the peace feelers were mostly freelancing by Japanese diplomats
and military attaches in Sweden and Switzerland-when the Japanese in Switzerland
met with OSS Director Allen Dulles, he tread cautiously-as thanks to MAGIC
intercepts of their communications, he knew that they did not have the full
approval of the Japanese Government. They had the support of the peace faction
(PM, FM, Navy Minister), and the unspoken support of the Emperor himself,
but no full cabinet approval. If word had gotten out in Tokyo about the peace
faction's efforts, well,can you say "Government by assassination"?
(a common practice in Japan in the 1920s and 30s) Which means a military
government dedicated to continuing the war.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[weary]

"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:11:29 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
>
>
> >
> >A wise course to follow when the facts are against you.
> >
>
>
> Bye bye troll.
>
>
> ker-PLONK

Your definition of a troll is apparently someone who out reasons you.

[weary]

"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:32:04 GMT, "Matt Wiser" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >>I don't know what Truman had on his desk at
> >>the time and you don't either.
> >>
> >>
> > You ask someone who did his MA thesis on the invasion that last
question?
>
> ROTFL! Ohhh, I felt that kick in the slats landing from here.

Yeah ... reading yet another post that doesn't contain a single
reference as a source and contains unverifiable claims really
knocks the stuffing out of me.

[weary]

"Matt Wiser" > wrote in message news:4002f13a@bg2....
>
> "weary" > wrote:
> >
> >"Matt Wiser" > wrote
> >in message
> >news:400029ec$1@bg2....
> >>
> >> "weary" > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in
> >message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 06:14:59 GMT, "weary"
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >It was an Eisenhower who(as the quote
> >notes)
> >> >had been briefed by the
> >> >> >Stimson you refer to below and who was
> >presumably
> >> >as aware of the
> >> >situation
> >> >> >as Stimson himself.
> >> >>
> >> >> That would be Stimson who claimed that
> >Nagasaki
> >> >was picked as the primary
> >> >> target for Fatman, when it clearly wasnt.
> >> >
> >> >Even if this is true it says nothing about
> >Stimson
> >> >except he was
> >> >confused on that point.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> and Stimson whose own memoirs put the
> >cost
> >> >of an allied invasion of
> >> >Japan
> >> >> >> at at least 250,000 casualities.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >So what - the whole point of the discussion
> >> >is that an invasion was not
> >> >> >necessary.
> >> >> >Even the USSBS says that Japan would have
> >> >surrendered.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course you will give us the precise
> >quote
> >> >detailing when exactly *when*
> >> >> this would have happened and you also tell
> >> >us how this information was
> >> >> beamed back in time to allied planners
> >taking
> >> >tough decisions.
> >> >
> >> >The US was well aware of peace feelers being
> >> >put out by Japan at least
> >> >two months before the bombs were dropped..
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> http://www.paperlessarchives.com/olympic.html
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Nevermind Leahy whose own briefing to
> >truman
> >> >put allied casualities at
> >> >> >> 30-35% within 30 days of invasion.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >But Leahy didn't think the landings would
> >> >be necessary.
> >> >>
> >> >> Leahy wasnt sat in a foxhole in Okinawa.
> >> >
> >> >Irrelevant as to what he thought, but introducing
> >> >irrelevancy
> >> >is your trademark, isn't it.
> >> >>
> >> >> >"It is my opinion that the use of this
> >barbarous
> >> >weapon at Hiroshima and
> >> >> >Nagasaki was of no material assistance
> >in
> >> >our war against Japan.
> >> >>
> >> >> Oh really. Have you asked anyone who would
> >> >have been at the sharp end of
> >> >> Operation Zipper that question.
> >> >
> >> >I think his opinion based on the intelligence
> >> >information available to him
> >> >is more credible than that of an infantryman.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >"The Japanese were already defeated and
> >ready
> >> >to surrender because of the
> >> >> >effective sea blockade and the successful
> >> >bombing with conventional
> >> >weapons.
> >> >>
> >> >> So Leahy would have preferred to starve
> >the
> >> >japanese 'civilians' to death
> >> >> and keep allied naval personnel in harms
> >way
> >> >from daily kamikaze attack.
> >> >> Very moral.
> >> >
> >> >Your woeful comrehension skills noted - he
> >was
> >> >speaking of
> >> >something that had already happened.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> ><snip>.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Anything quoting Gar Alperovitz as 'evidence'
> >> >clearly is revisionism
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I didn't quote one word from Gar Alperovitz,
> >> >>
> >> >> Your tired little charade has relied on
> >a
> >> >website which peddles
> >> >> alperovitzes line.
> >> >
> >> >Unlike you , the site doesn't lie.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Weary, when you keep repeating USSBS, remember
> >that was written by those
> >> who thought that all the U.S. had to do was
> >essentially bomb everything in
> >> Japan and they would surrender; notwithstanding
> >all other
> >factors-destruction
> >> of her navy, the submarine, air, and mining
> >destruction of her merchant
> >marine,
> >> the destruction of her best armies in Burma,
> >the Philippines, New Guinea,
> >> Solomons, Okinawa, etc. The guys who put USSBS
> >together were commendable
> >> people, but besides surveying damage, they
> >wanted it to be the final
> >document
> >> to get Congress to agree to a postwar independent
> >Air Force. Air Power
> >advocates
> >> to the extreme.
> >> You still haven't answered the question I
> >posed to you earlier: with the
> >> information Truman had on his desk in the
> >Summer of '45, what would you
> >have
> >> done? Invade, continue bombing and blockade
> >(and hope for Stalin to attack
> >> Manchuria as promised at Yalta),
> >
> >The agreed latest date for the Soviets to attack
> >was 8 August. He would
> >have only had to wait 2 days to see that and
> >another 3 or 4 would have
> >revealed the result of that attack - a total
> >rout of the Army on the
> >mainland.
> >
> >> or use Little Boy and Fat Man. I prefer
> >> the latter as the least time-and manpower
> >intensive option of the three.
> >> As for the peace feelers: NONE OF THEM HAD
> >THE FULL APPROVAL OF THE
> >JAPANESE
> >> GOVERNMENT. All were done by the peace faction
> >in the government with the
> >> Emperor's unspoken sympathies, but the militarists
> >still called the shots
> >> (and that could include threat of assassination)
> >and could bring down the
> >> government if the Army felt the government
> >was getting too soft for its
> >liking.
> >> And don't forget the coup attempt on the night
> >of 14-15 Aug to attempt to
> >> put in a government to keep fighting. It took
> >the combination of the bomb
> >> AND the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the
> >Kuriles to force the peace
> >faction's
> >> hand in getting the Emperor to urge acceptance
> >of Potsdam. I prefer
> >BLACKLIST
> >> (peaceful occupation) to OLYMPIC/CORONET (invasion).
> >>
> >> Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to
> >news gateway for usenet access!
> >
> >
> Stalin only gave a general date: three months after Germany's defeat to
> enter the Pacific War. Exactly when he was going to attack was known only
> to the Soviet General Staff. He never gave a precise date to Truman at
Potsdam.

He said he would attack three months after the war in Europe ended.
He did that to the day.

[Matt Wiser]

"weary" > wrote:
>
>"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 16:32:04 GMT, "Matt Wiser"
>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >>I don't know what Truman had on his desk
>at
>> >>the time and you don't either.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > You ask someone who did his MA thesis on
>the invasion that last
>question?
>>
>> ROTFL! Ohhh, I felt that kick in the slats
>landing from here.
>
>Yeah ... reading yet another post that doesn't
>contain a single
>reference as a source and contains unverifiable
>claims really
>knocks the stuffing out of me.
>
>
I used the ACTUAL plans for the Invasion: Plan DOWNFALL from MacArthur's
HQ, OP PLAN OLYMPIC, also from MacArthur's HQ, both dated 25 May 45, and
OP PLAN CORONET, from MacArthur's HQ, dated 15 Aug 45; CINCPAC OP PLAN 10-45
OLYMPIC from Nimitz's HQ dated 8 Aug 45, and AMPHIBSFORPAC (Amphibious Forces
Pacific) OP PLAN A11-45 OLYMPIC dated 11 Aug 45; for books, check out John
Ray Skates' The Invasion of Japan, DOWNFALL by Richard Frank, Code-Name DOWNFALL
by Norman Polmar and Thomas Allen, The Reports of General MacArthur, as well
as MHQ Magazine, Strategy and Tactics, Marine Corps Gazette, Proceedings,
etc. LOTS and LOTS of info the I used. And check Frank, as well as Polmar
and Allen for the decision making on whether to use the bomb or "Climb Olympus"
(invade). I did the thesis, evaled the info, and came to a conclusion that
the BOMB AS USED PREVENTED A BLOODBATH; You still haven't answered the question
as to what you would have done. Bomb and Blockade, Invade, or use Little
Boy/Fat Man. I prefer the latter to the other two.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!