Re: Hiroshima justified? (wasRe: Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements) [Archive]

Matt Wiser

December 22nd 03, 03:25 PM

(cave fish) wrote:
>Dave Smith > wrote
>in message >...
>> RogerM wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > > First off, **** Japan, they started it,
>we finished it.
>> >
>> > First off, **** you asshole. The women and
>children who were murdered
>> > didn't have **** to with Pearl Harbor.
>>
>> Sure they did. They were part of an imperialist
>society that had been
>> expanding in the Pacific. They were the people
>who were providing the men to
>> serve in the Japanese armed forces which had
>invaded China and other Asian
>> countries where they were set loose to terrorize
>the populace with
>> unimaginable atrocities. The people in those
>cities were busy manufacturing
>> war materials and providing other services
>that helped the war effort.
>
>You are partly right. No one is completely innocent,
>which is how
>Palestinians justify their bombing of Jewish
>civilians and how Al
>Qaeda defends its attack on NY. Since all of
>us pay taxes that support
>US foreign policy, yes we are all guilty.
>However, in a case of open war between nations,
>while it may be
>justified to bomb key industrial areas supplying
>the war effort, do
>tell me how a newborn baby in a Hiroshima is
>guilty of anything? Or,
>kindergarten students? Or, members of the opposition?
>Or, those in
>jail for standing up to Japanese militarism?
>Or, old folks living out
>their last days?
>The horror of Hiroshima is the sheer indiscrimate
>nature of the
>destruction. If atom bomb had been dropped on
>a Japanese military
>target it might have been justified. But, to
>kill like that in
>Hiroshima and Nagasaki was blind and savage
>overkill.
Both target cities had military targets.
Hiroshima: 2nd General Army HQ, HQ of 39th Infantry Division, Army port facility,
airfield, major railroad depot, numerous factories and cottage industry.

Nagasaki: Port facility, airfield, HQ 122 Infantry Brigade, Mitusbishi aircraft
plant, torpedo plant (producing Long Lance torpedoes and Kaiten Suicide Torpedoes),
other war-related industries.
By the standards of WW II and today, both cities were legitimate military
targets. Only target areas in Japan off limits were Kyoto and the Imperial
Palace. Every other urban military/industrial area was on the list. Use of
the bombs to support the invasion was under consideration by Marshall at
war's end.

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

Dick Locke

December 22nd 03, 06:15 PM

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:41:28 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:

> Um, Hiroshima was HQ for several major Japanese Army and Navy
>units.

And the US' Central Command, in charge of the mideast battles, is
right next to downtown Tampa. Be careful of potential parallels here.
Hmmm, I'm going there tomorrow.

Charles Gray

December 22nd 03, 07:19 PM

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:15:09 GMT, Dick Locke >
wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:41:28 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:
>
>> Um, Hiroshima was HQ for several major Japanese Army and Navy
>>units.
>
>And the US' Central Command, in charge of the mideast battles, is
>right next to downtown Tampa. Be careful of potential parallels here.
>Hmmm, I'm going there tomorrow.
I would consider Tampa a legitimate target for that reason. Just as
I would consider San Diego a legitimate target, as its co-located with
the biggest naval base onthe West Coast.

B2431

December 22nd 03, 09:34 PM

>From: Col. RJ

>Hell they sent their stupid balloon bombs for the sole purpose of
>killing US civilians, thank god only one made it that I know of and it
>killed a school teacher in Oregon with several of her students.

That was the only one that killed. They were on an outting and found the bomb.
It didn't land on them.

Several baloon bombs caused forrest fires. There were units of black fire
fighters you controlled those fires secrretly so as to not spread panic. Since
the end of the war the secrecy has been lifted.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Dick Locke

December 22nd 03, 10:10 PM

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:19:37 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:

>I would consider Tampa a legitimate target for that reason.

Great. Standard landing instructions for planes coming from the
northwest to TPA and landing to the north bring the plane down to a
few thousand feet and then say "turn before McDill and intercept the
localizer." Awfully late to react if the plane doesn't turn.

B2431

December 23rd 03, 12:23 AM

>From: (cave fish)

>Charles Gray > wrote in message
>...
>> On 21 Dec 2003 22:22:27 -0800, (cave fish)
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >However, in a case of open war between nations, while it may be
>> >justified to bomb key industrial areas supplying the war effort, do
>> >tell me how a newborn baby in a Hiroshima is guilty of anything? Or,
>> >kindergarten students? Or, members of the opposition? Or, those in
>> >jail for standing up to Japanese militarism? Or, old folks living out
>> >their last days?
>>
>> Um, Hiroshima was HQ for several major Japanese Army and Navy
>> units. It was also a location of numerous factories and transport
>> facilities, which in the normal order of things woudl have been
>> leveled by the same sort of raid you saw on Tokyo.
>> Also, you might look at Stalingrad to see the result of a full scale
>> ground battle-- or the starvation that comes attendent a longer
>> blockade.
>
>If Hiroshima had factories or military units,then you bomb those
>targets. You don't indiscrimately destroy hospitals and kindergartens
>and homes. Granted, even in conventional bombing raids, some bombs go
>astray, but to willfully destroy an entire civilian population is
>insane.

OK, try this: look at pictures of the aftermath conventional bombing raids.
They are all over the www. Look at the target and count the craters there. Now
look how far away bombs hit. That "few" bombs turns out to be the majority,
doesn't it?

You talk like the ONLY reason to bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima with atomic bombs
was to slaughter civilians. If conventional bomb raids were used they
thousands of civilians would have been killed anyway. The raids would probably
not strike 100% of the targets the first time so they's have to go back to
finish the job. More civilians would have died on each subsequent raid. Neither
you now I know if any civilian lives would have been saved by not using atom
bombs but we can assume there would be U.S. casualties.

Your repeated insistance that the only reason for the atomic bombings was to
kill civilians simply shows your bias.

>Just because a city has legitimate targets
>doesn't make the entire city a legitimate target. If the city YOU live
>in has industrial centers, then they are legitimate targets to the
>enemy. However, the schools, hospitals, suburban homes, nursing homes,
>etc are NOT legitimate targets. Even when only legitimate targets are
>targeted, many civilians end up as casualties. That's bad enough but
>when you knowingly target an entire civilian population, that's
>insanity.
>
No one targeted hospitals and schools as you suggest except the Japanese in
this case.

Please think about this instead of being so stubborn. If there were no
civilians in either city they still would have been bombed.

I say again: civilians, other than those in tha factories etc, were NOT the
prime targets as you suggest.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

B2431

December 23rd 03, 12:34 AM

>(wasRe: Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological
>achievements)
>From:
>Date: 12/22/2003 5:48 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>"Linda Terrell" > wrote in message

l3.net>...
>> > The horror of Hiroshima is the sheer indiscrimate nature of the
>> > destruction. If atom bomb had been dropped on a Japanese military
>> > target it might have been justified. But, to kill like that in
>> > Hiroshima and Nagasaki was blind and savage overkill.
>>
>> Hiroshima was a military target -- it was a port wity with several
>> railroad lines running in and out of it. That means supplies going
>> to the Army.
>
>So does that make entire cities like San Diego "military targets" as
>well? If al-Qaeda or North Korea nuked Arlington or DC, would you
>chalk it up as a respectable act of war?
>

If there are valid targets distributed throughout San Diego and the enemy has
precision guided munitions then the entire city is not a target. But that is
not the point. No one had any PGMs in WW2. In Hiroshima the targets were
distributed througout the city. With no PGMs how would YOU target a rail head
in a heavily populated and defended area in 1945?

Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organitation not recognized as a state. Therefore an
act such as you describe would be a criminal act.

We are not at war with North Korea. If we were and it went nuclear they would
be militarily correct to strike D.C. as it contains many legitimate targets.

I ask again, how would YOU have taken out the legitimate targets in Nagasaki
and Hiroshima using only weapons available in WW2? How many civilian casualties
would there be with your method?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Mary Shafer

December 23rd 03, 02:21 AM

On 22 Dec 2003 21:34:17 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

> >From: Col. RJ
>
>
> >Hell they sent their stupid balloon bombs for the sole purpose of
> >killing US civilians, thank god only one made it that I know of and it
> >killed a school teacher in Oregon with several of her students.
>
> That was the only one that killed. They were on an outting and found the bomb.
> It didn't land on them.
>
> Several baloon bombs caused forrest fires. There were units of black fire
> fighters you controlled those fires secrretly so as to not spread panic. Since
> the end of the war the secrecy has been lifted.

I have to point out that Japan invaded and occupied two of the
Aleutian Islands and neither invasion was without fatalities among the
people living there, all civilians.

Ditto the Channel Islands, by the way. I guess they don't count,
either, since they're not part of the UK.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

Steve Hix

December 23rd 03, 05:01 AM

In article >,
Dick Locke > wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:41:28 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:
>
> > Um, Hiroshima was HQ for several major Japanese Army and Navy
> >units.
>
> And the US' Central Command, in charge of the mideast battles, is
> right next to downtown Tampa. Be careful of potential parallels here.
> Hmmm, I'm going there tomorrow.

Then you're not suprised to note that it would be a major target in case
of war.

Steve Hix

December 23rd 03, 05:05 AM

In article >,
(cave fish) wrote:

> If Hiroshima had factories or military units,then you bomb those
> targets. You don't indiscrimately destroy hospitals and kindergartens
> and homes.

There was no way to separate the one from the other, sorry.

Linda Terrell

December 23rd 03, 05:24 PM

> Again, US would have been justified in bombing factories, bridges,
> railroad tracks, etc. Just because a city has legitimate targets
> doesn't make the entire city a legitimate target. If the city YOU live
> in has industrial centers, then they are legitimate targets to the
> enemy. However, the schools, hospitals, suburban homes, nursing homes,
> etc are NOT legitimate targets. Even when only legitimate targets are
> targeted, many civilians end up as casualties. That's bad enough but
> when you knowingly target an entire civilian population, that's
> insanity.

so the fire-bombing of Tokyo, which destroyed as much or more of that
city
than Hiroshima, is ok because it took longer and didn't target the
entire populace
-- except that we knew fire-bombing turns into maelstroms that take
out entire
cities. But that's ok, because it didn't "target" the entire city
(just most of it)?

Your logic check is bouncing.

Linda Terrell

December 23rd 03, 05:25 PM

> > Hiroshima was a military target -- it was a port with with several
> > railroad lines running in and out of it. That means supplies going
> > to the Army.
>
> So does that make entire cities like San Diego "military targets" as
> well? If al-Qaeda or North Korea nuked Arlington or DC, would you
> chalk it up as a respectable act of war?

Damn straight, then turn their military targets into sheets of glass.

LT

--

Alan Minyard

December 23rd 03, 06:37 PM

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:19:37 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:15:09 GMT, Dick Locke >
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:41:28 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:
>>
>>> Um, Hiroshima was HQ for several major Japanese Army and Navy
>>>units.
>>
>>And the US' Central Command, in charge of the mideast battles, is
>>right next to downtown Tampa. Be careful of potential parallels here.
>>Hmmm, I'm going there tomorrow.
> I would consider Tampa a legitimate target for that reason. Just as
>I would consider San Diego a legitimate target, as its co-located with
>the biggest naval base onthe West Coast.

You are a fool if you cannot tell the difference between WWII and
terrorist cells. Or are you saying that Tamp is a moral equivalent
to Hiroshima? If you are, you are an even bigger fool.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard

December 23rd 03, 06:37 PM

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:19:39 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:

>On 22 Dec 2003 15:48:57 -0800, wrote:
>
>>"Linda Terrell" > wrote in message >...
>>> > The horror of Hiroshima is the sheer indiscrimate nature of the
>>> > destruction. If atom bomb had been dropped on a Japanese military
>>> > target it might have been justified. But, to kill like that in
>>> > Hiroshima and Nagasaki was blind and savage overkill.
>>>
>>> Hiroshima was a military target -- it was a port wity with several
>>> railroad lines running in and out of it. That means supplies going
>>> to the Army.
>>
>>So does that make entire cities like San Diego "military targets" as
>>well? If al-Qaeda or North Korea nuked Arlington or DC, would you
>>chalk it up as a respectable act of war?
>
>
> Yes-- and you might wish to note that Had Al Qaeda used a cruise
>missile against the pentagon, it wouldn't be considered a criminal act
>by many-- the pentagon is a military target.

Al Q is not a military force, it is a terrorist organization. Despite your
evident love for them, they are religious fanatics that wish to
kill all non-muslims.

Al Minyard

[email protected]

December 23rd 03, 07:30 PM

(B2431) wrote in message >...

> I ask again, how would YOU have taken out the legitimate targets in Nagasaki
> and Hiroshima using only weapons available in WW2?

The same way that all previous legitimate targets were taken out
during WWII.

While I'll admit that the firebombing of German metros led to civilian
casualties approaching the same number of Hiroshima/Nagasaki, there is
no comparison between the destruction of architecture as women and
children huddle underground - and the bright shining incineration of
all life within miles, poisoning the land for a generation.

With humblest respect for your past service to our country, I must
admit that the question you pose illustrates the main problem behind
why the Bomb was used: Because no one knew a "better" way. This
represents a militarily trained, "any-means-necessary" bias.

But the anti-atomic crowd believes in a specific philosophical
principle: that regardless of what "gets the job done", atomic/nuclear
weaponry crosses a moral and humanitarian line that should never be
breached. It exists outside the "any means necessary" category as a
unique horror above and beyond conventional warfare.

Pragmatists poo-poo such a distinction, chalking atomic weaponry up as
just another advance in defense technology. The fallacy behind
"Burning the village to save it" may work for military-trained
strategists, but when we're talking about a strategy capable of wiping
out the entire human race, this villager refuses to concede any moral
authority to the pro-atomic position.

Charles Gray

December 23rd 03, 08:51 PM

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:37:56 -0600, Alan Minyard
> wrote:

>On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:19:37 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:15:09 GMT, Dick Locke >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:41:28 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Um, Hiroshima was HQ for several major Japanese Army and Navy
>>>>units.
>>>
>>>And the US' Central Command, in charge of the mideast battles, is
>>>right next to downtown Tampa. Be careful of potential parallels here.
>>>Hmmm, I'm going there tomorrow.
>> I would consider Tampa a legitimate target for that reason. Just as
>>I would consider San Diego a legitimate target, as its co-located with
>>the biggest naval base onthe West Coast.
>
>You are a fool if you cannot tell the difference between WWII and
>terrorist cells. Or are you saying that Tamp is a moral equivalent
>to Hiroshima? If you are, you are an even bigger fool.
>
Methods count-- the use of airliners loaded with passengers was a
terrorist act, as was the assault on the WTC.
But to put it a different way, if during the last Gulf war, Saddam
had had some long range cruise missiles, and they were targeted on the
Naval Warfare center, or the dry docks at San Diego, there would be no
question of war crimes-- those are all legitimate targets of war. If
some civilians got killed, tough luck.
If killing some civilians of other countries is a unavoidable part
of War, we cannot say that any assult on U.S. ground is wrong-- we
have military bases, and those bases are in many cases close to
civilian infrastructure. Shoudl an enemy have a chance to hit us,
then they will, and some civilians will die. That isn't a crime, it's
just war.

Charles Gray

December 23rd 03, 09:27 PM

On 23 Dec 2003 11:30:54 -0800, wrote:

(B2431) wrote in message >...
>
>> I ask again, how would YOU have taken out the legitimate targets in Nagasaki
>> and Hiroshima using only weapons available in WW2?
>
>The same way that all previous legitimate targets were taken out
>during WWII.
>
>While I'll admit that the firebombing of German metros led to civilian
>casualties approaching the same number of Hiroshima/Nagasaki, there is
>no comparison between the destruction of architecture as women and
>children huddle underground - and the bright shining incineration of
>all life within miles, poisoning the land for a generation.
>
You do realize that most of those Women and children huddling
underground died as the oxygen was pulled from their lungs, tehir
shelters turned into underground ovens? You do realize that the
various raids the "destroyed architecture" killed more people than the
A bombs did?

>With humblest respect for your past service to our country, I must
>admit that the question you pose illustrates the main problem behind
>why the Bomb was used: Because no one knew a "better" way. This
>represents a militarily trained, "any-means-necessary" bias.
>
No, it represents something you don't seem to understand-- a
realistic appreciation of the difficulties of invading an island with
as many as 10 million fanatics defending it.

>But the anti-atomic crowd believes in a specific philosophical
>principle: that regardless of what "gets the job done", atomic/nuclear
>weaponry crosses a moral and humanitarian line that should never be
>breached. It exists outside the "any means necessary" category as a
>unique horror above and beyond conventional warfare.

Why? What's so bad about a really big ass bomb? Do demons come out
of its ass? All the A-bomb means is that I can fry YOUR city while
risking only one plane load of my troops. Effecient, and elegant.
As for "beyond conventional warfare" ROTFL-- do go visit a VA
hospital, or take a trip to vietnam, or some of the Russian war
monuments. Conventional warfare is just as horrible as atomics-- more
so because it's much easier to get into. Consider the fact that right
now, in 2003, we've enjoyed the longest period between major great
power wars since the end of the napolionic era. The damned bomb
should be given a nobel peace prize.

B2431

December 23rd 03, 10:38 PM

>(wasRe: Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological
>achievements)
>From:
>Date: 12/23/2003 1:30 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
(B2431) wrote in message
>...
>
>> I ask again, how would YOU have taken out the legitimate targets in
>Nagasaki
>> and Hiroshima using only weapons available in WW2?
>
>The same way that all previous legitimate targets were taken out
>during WWII.
>
>While I'll admit that the firebombing of German metros led to civilian
>casualties approaching the same number of Hiroshima/Nagasaki, there is
>no comparison between the destruction of architecture as women and
>children huddle underground - and the bright shining incineration of
>all life within miles, poisoning the land for a generation.
>
One of the reasons the numbers of the dead in Hamburg and Dresden are on par
with Hiroshima or Nagasaki is because the women and children who "huddled"
underground were either cooked alive or had the air sucked out of them.

When it comes to that there were thre differences between the firebombings and
atomic attacks: number of allied lives lost, duration of the attack (read
suffering of the victims) and radiation. Bear in mind long term radiation
effects were unknown at the time.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Steve Hix

December 24th 03, 04:03 AM

In article >,
wrote:

> (B2431) wrote in message
> >...
>
> > I ask again, how would YOU have taken out the legitimate targets in
> > Nagasaki
> > and Hiroshima using only weapons available in WW2?
>
> The same way that all previous legitimate targets were taken out
> during WWII.

High explosive, followed by incendiaries?

Resulting in higher casualty counts, if Tokyo is any indication.

Krztalizer

December 24th 03, 04:31 AM

>> > I ask again, how would YOU have taken out the legitimate targets in
>> > Nagasaki
>> > and Hiroshima using only weapons available in WW2?
>>
>> The same way that all previous legitimate targets were taken out
>> during WWII.
>
>High explosive, followed by incendiaries?
>
>Resulting in higher casualty counts, if Tokyo is any indication.

Bingo. But you see its much more humane to kill with a stick of bombs and a
firestorm than to use a nuke. Because, you see, we knew so fricking MUCH about
fallout and radiation effects in 1945, our psychic president really HAD to have
known what an awful thing he was doing, in exchange for sending troops ashore
to end a bloody six year global struggle.

but the whiners on the other side of this goofy 60-years-too-late
afternoon-quarterbacking think we should have allowed the war to continue,
people to continue to die, all because they grew up knowing everything about
the Bomb and why it should not be used. Well, surprise, dorks, in 1945, the
best possible choice available to the US President was to end the war with
alacrity, using whatever weapon he had. He made several attempts to get Japan
to surrender -all efforts were turned away. Angelfarts that think we could
have just outwaited the defeated Japanese dont seem to have an answer to the
million-man Imperial Japanese army on the mainland, still fighting.

Truman was known as "give em hell" Harry because he had the guts to do whatever
was required to end the war and stop the deaths to Allied soldiers and
civilians - folks that look back with 60+ years of hindsight and think
themselves mighty damn outraged by the deaths of Japanese civilians are doing
so without the benefit of watching friends and relative perish in a long,
bloody war. Truman did his best with the info and technology available to a
world leader in 1945.

Gordon

Mark and Kim Smith

December 24th 03, 06:52 AM

>
>
>" but when we're talking about a strategy capable of wiping
>out the entire human race, this villager refuses to concede any moral
>authority to the pro-atomic position."
>

Question: Wouldn't it take an awful lot of A bombs to accomplish wiping
out the human race?? Then with the A bomb or now with the current
nuclear weaponry?? What percentage of Japan land and / or humans did
the bombing in the two cities wipe out compared to the total land mass
and / or population? I did a Yahoo search and the two cities seem to
still be there and thriving , hotels and all. So the physical land
seems to be still there. I know the Japanese weren't completely wiped
out back then but could it be done today? Do we really have that kind
of arsenal? I mean a country that size literally wiped clean?? Is it
necessary with the current accuracy of what we do have, nuclear or
conventional? Why develop the daisy cutter or that other huge bomb they
recently tested in Florida?? ( I forget it's name at the moment. ) I
guess it would be a question of volume of bombs as compared to the power
of a single bomb.

Those against using the A bomb make it sound like a single nuclear
bomb dropped today would literally disintegrate half of the world. Or
are they more concerned that a nuclear bomb would kill life when coupled
with winds blowing radioactive death along with a bunch of other ripe
conditions to carry the effects of the bomb beyond it's minimal
effectiveness?

Growing up I learned in school that a single bomb could destroy the
whole world. Bad, bad, bad. Reading these current threads, I have seen
that one didn't do it. A second one made Japan surrender, but the
country is still there along with the rest of the world, so the second
one didn't do it. The effects seem relatively localized.

Greg Hennessy

December 24th 03, 10:04 AM

Matt Wiser

December 24th 03, 04:15 PM

Greg Hennessy > wrote:
>On 22 Dec 2003 13:51:51 -0800,
>(cave fish) wrote:
>
>
>>Russians would not have dared invade Japan
>if Americans adamantly
>>opposed such idea.
>
>The russians hadn't the means to invade japan
>period.
>
>
>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.
SOVPACFLT had assembled enough shipping to ship two divisions' worth of
troops to Hokkaido. Stalin had ordered planning for a Hokkaido invasion to
be done after Manchuria, Kuriles, and Sakhalin had been secured. Granted,
more troops would be needed, but shipping them in relays after a beachhead
is secure, then they push inland. And then you have Soviet troops in Japan
proper, something that (ironically) both the Japanese and the US/Britain
wished to avoid.

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

Matt Wiser

December 24th 03, 04:15 PM

"Linda Terrell" > wrote:
>
>> > Hiroshima was a military target -- it was
>a port with with several
>> > railroad lines running in and out of it.
> That means supplies going
>> > to the Army.
>>
>> So does that make entire cities like San Diego
>"military targets" as
>> well? If al-Qaeda or North Korea nuked Arlington
>or DC, would you
>> chalk it up as a respectable act of war?
>
>Damn straight, then turn their military targets
>into sheets of glass.
>
>LT
>
>--
>
Which is exactly what will happen if they EVER pop a nuke anywhere. 20 plus
minutes for a pair of Trident SSBNs, or 6-8 hours for B-2s with B-52s shooting
ALCMs. A brutal but effective object lesson.

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

Matt Wiser

December 24th 03, 04:16 PM

(Krztalizer) wrote:
>>> > I ask again, how would YOU have taken out
>the legitimate targets in
>>> > Nagasaki
>>> > and Hiroshima using only weapons available
>in WW2?
>>>
>>> The same way that all previous legitimate
>targets were taken out
>>> during WWII.
>>
>>High explosive, followed by incendiaries?
>>
>>Resulting in higher casualty counts, if Tokyo
>is any indication.
>
>Bingo. But you see its much more humane to
>kill with a stick of bombs and a
>firestorm than to use a nuke. Because, you
>see, we knew so fricking MUCH about
>fallout and radiation effects in 1945, our psychic
>president really HAD to have
>known what an awful thing he was doing, in exchange
>for sending troops ashore
>to end a bloody six year global struggle.
>
>but the whiners on the other side of this goofy
>60-years-too-late
>afternoon-quarterbacking think we should have
>allowed the war to continue,
>people to continue to die, all because they
>grew up knowing everything about
>the Bomb and why it should not be used. Well,
>surprise, dorks, in 1945, the
>best possible choice available to the US President
>was to end the war with
>alacrity, using whatever weapon he had. He
>made several attempts to get Japan
>to surrender -all efforts were turned away.
> Angelfarts that think we could
>have just outwaited the defeated Japanese dont
>seem to have an answer to the
>million-man Imperial Japanese army on the mainland,
>still fighting.
>
>Truman was known as "give em hell" Harry because
>he had the guts to do whatever
>was required to end the war and stop the deaths
>to Allied soldiers and
>civilians - folks that look back with 60+ years
>of hindsight and think
>themselves mighty damn outraged by the deaths
>of Japanese civilians are doing
>so without the benefit of watching friends and
>relative perish in a long,
>bloody war. Truman did his best with the info
>and technology available to a
>world leader in 1945.
>
>Gordon
Gordon's right: ask the naysayers what THEY would have done in 1945, as
events happened. Japanese military intransigent and willing to keep fighting,
civilian leaders and Emperor want peace, but fearful of assassination/coup
d'etat if they push things too far. Invasion of Kyushu scheduled for 1 Nov
45 and that of Kanto for 1 March 46. Casualty estimates for Kyushu according
to MacArthur up to 70,000 (slightly higher than Normandy, comparable to Luzon,
twice that of Okinawa). No estimate for Kanto, but best guess is X2 of Kyushu's.
Bombing and blockade will take up to 18 months to work. Invasion(s) up to
a year.
Bomb is availiable anytime from 1 August. Soviets plan to attack exactly
three months from Germany's defeat-likely D-Day is 9 Aug. What do the naysayers
suggest out of these options?

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

Matt Wiser

December 24th 03, 04:17 PM

(B2431) wrote:
>>(wasRe: Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent
>technological
>>achievements)
>>From:
>>Date: 12/23/2003 1:30 PM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
(B2431) wrote in message
>...
>>
>>> I ask again, how would YOU have taken out
>the legitimate targets in
>>Nagasaki
>>> and Hiroshima using only weapons available
>in WW2?
>>
>>The same way that all previous legitimate targets
>were taken out
>>during WWII.
>>
>>While I'll admit that the firebombing of German
>metros led to civilian
>>casualties approaching the same number of Hiroshima/Nagasaki,
>there is
>>no comparison between the destruction of architecture
>as women and
>>children huddle underground - and the bright
>shining incineration of
>>all life within miles, poisoning the land for
>a generation.
>>
> One of the reasons the numbers of the dead
>in Hamburg and Dresden are on par
>with Hiroshima or Nagasaki is because the women
>and children who "huddled"
>underground were either cooked alive or had
>the air sucked out of them.
>
>When it comes to that there were thre differences
>between the firebombings and
>atomic attacks: number of allied lives lost,
>duration of the attack (read
>suffering of the victims) and radiation. Bear
>in mind long term radiation
>effects were unknown at the time.
>
>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
That's correct. Although the Manhattan Project scientists knew about radiation,
they expected the radiation effects to be localized and of short-term duration.
Oppenheimer expected that anyone who had received a lethal dose of radiation
to have been already fatally injured by blast, heat, flying debris, etc.
They were completely suprised by the actual aftereffects they found in September
when Scientists and a military BDA team arrived.

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

Alan Minyard

December 24th 03, 04:57 PM

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 20:51:46 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:37:56 -0600, Alan Minyard
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:19:37 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:15:09 GMT, Dick Locke >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:41:28 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Um, Hiroshima was HQ for several major Japanese Army and Navy
>>>>>units.
>>>>
>>>>And the US' Central Command, in charge of the mideast battles, is
>>>>right next to downtown Tampa. Be careful of potential parallels here.
>>>>Hmmm, I'm going there tomorrow.
>>> I would consider Tampa a legitimate target for that reason. Just as
>>>I would consider San Diego a legitimate target, as its co-located with
>>>the biggest naval base onthe West Coast.
>>
>>You are a fool if you cannot tell the difference between WWII and
>>terrorist cells. Or are you saying that Tamp is a moral equivalent
>>to Hiroshima? If you are, you are an even bigger fool.
>>
> Methods count-- the use of airliners loaded with passengers was a
>terrorist act, as was the assault on the WTC.
> But to put it a different way, if during the last Gulf war, Saddam
>had had some long range cruise missiles, and they were targeted on the
>Naval Warfare center, or the dry docks at San Diego, there would be no
>question of war crimes-- those are all legitimate targets of war. If
>some civilians got killed, tough luck.
> If killing some civilians of other countries is a unavoidable part
>of War, we cannot say that any assult on U.S. ground is wrong-- we
>have military bases, and those bases are in many cases close to
>civilian infrastructure. Shoudl an enemy have a chance to hit us,
>then they will, and some civilians will die. That isn't a crime, it's
>just war.

Would you care to tell us what "cruise missile" could travel from
Iraq to the US west coast?? Incidentally, there are no military
dry docks in San Diego. Having said that, I do agree that if
we are engaged in war with a nation, they certainly have the
right to attack any US Military target, and "collateral damage"
would be both expected and legal. You need to learn at
least a LITTLE bit about the world's militaries before making
such silly comments.

Al Minyard

Chad Irby

December 24th 03, 05:26 PM

In article >,
Alan Minyard > wrote:

> Would you care to tell us what "cruise missile" could travel from
> Iraq to the US west coast??

The kind fired from the deck of a cargo ship.

It wouldn't work that well (firing a cheap missile from the deck of a
ship is a bit tricky at times), and would hardly work at *all* after the
first try, and you'd have to hope nobody caught you, but it's doable.

Once.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

Mark and Kim Smith

December 24th 03, 08:30 PM

Okay, got it! After looking around, it seems to be more of a volume
thing between the US and Russia. Plus, using a few B53's, let alone the
whole stockpile, will make quite a mess. I have my perspective. Still,
if the US hadn't done what it had to do in history past, then there
would probably be no forum where those that could disagree would be able
to disagree. I'd rather have that than any other bleak alternative.

Mark and Kim Smith wrote:

>>
>>
>> " but when we're talking about a strategy capable of wiping
>> out the entire human race, this villager refuses to concede any moral
>> authority to the pro-atomic position."
>>
>
> Question: Wouldn't it take an awful lot of A bombs to accomplish
> wiping out the human race?? Then with the A bomb or now with the
> current nuclear weaponry?? What percentage of Japan land and / or
> humans did the bombing in the two cities wipe out compared to the
> total land mass and / or population? I did a Yahoo search and the two
> cities seem to still be there and thriving , hotels and all. So the
> physical land seems to be still there. I know the Japanese weren't
> completely wiped out back then but could it be done today? Do we
> really have that kind of arsenal? I mean a country that size
> literally wiped clean?? Is it necessary with the current accuracy of
> what we do have, nuclear or conventional? Why develop the daisy
> cutter or that other huge bomb they recently tested in Florida?? ( I
> forget it's name at the moment. ) I guess it would be a question of
> volume of bombs as compared to the power of a single bomb.
>
> Those against using the A bomb make it sound like a single nuclear
> bomb dropped today would literally disintegrate half of the world. Or
> are they more concerned that a nuclear bomb would kill life when
> coupled with winds blowing radioactive death along with a bunch of
> other ripe conditions to carry the effects of the bomb beyond it's
> minimal effectiveness?
>
> Growing up I learned in school that a single bomb could destroy the
> whole world. Bad, bad, bad. Reading these current threads, I have
> seen that one didn't do it. A second one made Japan surrender, but
> the country is still there along with the rest of the world, so the
> second one didn't do it. The effects seem relatively localized.
>

[email protected]

December 24th 03, 08:36 PM

Greg Hennessy > wrote in message >...
> On 23 Dec 2003 11:30:54 -0800, wrote:

> >With humblest respect for your past service to our country, I must
> >admit that the question you pose illustrates the main problem behind
> >why the Bomb was used: Because no one knew a "better" way. This
> >represents a militarily trained, "any-means-necessary" bias.
>
> No, this represents "You havent a f*cking clue what you are talking about"
> attempt at a cop out.

Simply re-asserting the bias does not advance your argument.

Charles Gray

December 24th 03, 09:37 PM

On 24 Dec 2003 12:36:01 -0800, wrote:

>Greg Hennessy > wrote in message >...
>> On 23 Dec 2003 11:30:54 -0800, wrote:
>
>> >With humblest respect for your past service to our country, I must
>> >admit that the question you pose illustrates the main problem behind
>> >why the Bomb was used: Because no one knew a "better" way. This
>> >represents a militarily trained, "any-means-necessary" bias.
>>
>> No, this represents "You havent a f*cking clue what you are talking about"
>> attempt at a cop out.
>
>Simply re-asserting the bias does not advance your argument.

Nor is ignoring the truth. You still haven't mentioned how you
woudl destroy point targets in a city, when all the technology to do
so wasn't available until the 1960's (laser targeted bombs) and in a
strategic sense until the 1990's. (GPS assisted high altitutude
bombing).
You have not refuted the overwhelming evidence that a ground
invasion of Japan, or a continued blockade, would have led to more
deaths-- a fact made abundantly clear by the invasion of Berlin, which
killed more civilians and soldiers than the two Abombs combined.
you have not explained how Japanese civilians, many of whom were at
least tacitly in favor of Japans expansion (so long as it didn't turn
sour), were worth more than the roughly 10,000 Chinese dying every day
from warfare or war related causes.
As for the "by any means necessary" you are incorrect. The United
States did not deprive Axis POWS of food. We did not resort to
torture to gain information. We did provide relief for civilians in
conquered areas. We did not engage in mass punishments of government
officials, and they had access ot legal council, and in one case, an
appeal to the U.S. supreme court.
All you have done is engage in fantasy thinking. Well, here's
mine:
The U.S. obviously failed to consider all the alternatives. WE
could have easily placed orbital mind control lasers in orbit, thus
forcing the Japanese to surrender and take up Bonsai tree growing.
This callous disregard for them obviously shows that the U.S. enjoyed
the stench of burning flesh, as can be seen by the sudden export of
"Scratch and sniff" Abomb toys.

B2431

December 24th 03, 10:08 PM

>From: Greg Hennessy
>Date: 12/24/2003 4:04 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 23 Dec 2003 11:30:54 -0800, wrote:
>
(B2431) wrote in message
>...
>>
>>> I ask again, how would YOU have taken out the legitimate targets in
>Nagasaki
>>> and Hiroshima using only weapons available in WW2?
>>
>>The same way that all previous legitimate targets were taken out
>>during WWII.
>>
>>While I'll admit that the firebombing of German metros led to civilian
>>casualties approaching the same number of Hiroshima/Nagasaki, there is
>>no comparison between the destruction of architecture as women and
>>children huddle underground
>
>I suggest you expand your limited grasp of the actualite. Try well in
>excess of 100000 dead on the night of march 9th/10th 1945.
>
>32 square miles destroyed and 250000 dead in raids over the space of 8
>days.
>
>
>> - and the bright shining incineration of
>>all life within miles, poisoning the land for a generation.
>
>Which is emotive lying bilge. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both rebuilt in
>less than a decade.
>
>
>>
>>With humblest respect for your past service to our country, I must
>>admit that the question you pose illustrates the main problem behind
>>why the Bomb was used: Because no one knew a "better" way. This
>>represents a militarily trained, "any-means-necessary" bias.
>
>No, this represents "You havent a f*cking clue what you are talking about"
>attempt at a cop out.
>
>
>
>
>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.
>
Careful with the attributions, Greg, nothing you attribute to me here was said
by me.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Greg Hennessy

December 26th 03, 05:58 PM

Greg Hennessy

December 26th 03, 05:58 PM

On 24 Dec 2003 22:08:51 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>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.
>>
>Careful with the attributions, Greg, nothing you attribute to me here was said
>by me.
>
>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

No worries Dan, a little too much hacking and not enough pasting on my part
:-).

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

December 26th 03, 05:58 PM

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 16:15:03 GMT, "Matt Wiser" >
wrote:

> SOVPACFLT had assembled enough shipping to ship two divisions' worth of
>troops to Hokkaido. Stalin had ordered planning for a Hokkaido invasion to
>be done after Manchuria, Kuriles, and Sakhalin had been secured. Granted,
>more troops would be needed, but shipping them in relays after a beachhead
>is secure,

Given the intended reaction of japanese to Olympic, the japanese are going
to make short work of such a tiny force lacking any USN comparable
bluewater support element.

Shades of operation Sea Lion IMHO.

>then they push inland.

and have to keep them supplied in the face of the japanese going at them
hammer and tongs kamikaze fashion.

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.

[email protected]

December 27th 03, 12:16 AM

Greg Hennessy > wrote in message >...

> >> On 23 Dec 2003 11:30:54 -0800, wrote:
>
> >> >With humblest respect for your past service to our country, I must
> >> >admit that the question you pose illustrates the main problem behind
> >> >why the Bomb was used: Because no one knew a "better" way. This
> >> >represents a militarily trained, "any-means-necessary" bias.
> >>
> >> No, this represents "You havent a f*cking clue what you are talking about"
> >> attempt at a cop out.
> >
> >Simply re-asserting the bias does not advance your argument.
>
> There is no bias in my argument.

Ah, the old "That which I cannot see does not exist" myopia. Your
assumption (that anyone who opposes atomic weaponry doesn't know what
s/he is talking about) pretty much stamps "MilitaryIndustrial Bias"
across your forehead.

(Just curious - why are you okay with murdering 100,000 civilians but
afraid to spell the word "****"?)

Peter Stickney

December 27th 03, 12:22 AM

In article >,
Alan Minyard > writes:
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 20:51:46 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:37:56 -0600, Alan Minyard
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:19:37 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:15:09 GMT, Dick Locke >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:41:28 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Um, Hiroshima was HQ for several major Japanese Army and Navy
>>>>>>units.
>>>>>
>>>>>And the US' Central Command, in charge of the mideast battles, is
>>>>>right next to downtown Tampa. Be careful of potential parallels here.
>>>>>Hmmm, I'm going there tomorrow.
>>>> I would consider Tampa a legitimate target for that reason. Just as
>>>>I would consider San Diego a legitimate target, as its co-located with
>>>>the biggest naval base onthe West Coast.
>>>
>>>You are a fool if you cannot tell the difference between WWII and
>>>terrorist cells. Or are you saying that Tamp is a moral equivalent
>>>to Hiroshima? If you are, you are an even bigger fool.
>>>
>> Methods count-- the use of airliners loaded with passengers was a
>>terrorist act, as was the assault on the WTC.
>> But to put it a different way, if during the last Gulf war, Saddam
>>had had some long range cruise missiles, and they were targeted on the
>>Naval Warfare center, or the dry docks at San Diego, there would be no
>>question of war crimes-- those are all legitimate targets of war. If
>>some civilians got killed, tough luck.
>> If killing some civilians of other countries is a unavoidable part
>>of War, we cannot say that any assult on U.S. ground is wrong-- we
>>have military bases, and those bases are in many cases close to
>>civilian infrastructure. Shoudl an enemy have a chance to hit us,
>>then they will, and some civilians will die. That isn't a crime, it's
>>just war.
>
> Would you care to tell us what "cruise missile" could travel from
> Iraq to the US west coast?? Incidentally, there are no military
> dry docks in San Diego. Having said that, I do agree that if
> we are engaged in war with a nation, they certainly have the
> right to attack any US Military target, and "collateral damage"
> would be both expected and legal. You need to learn at
> least a LITTLE bit about the world's militaries before making
> such silly comments.

Actually, there's mothing at all impractial to the idea of building a
large cruise missile with an Intercontinental range. The Northrop
SM-61 Snark, built by the U.S> i the 1950s, and operationally deployed
in 1960 for a short time, had a range of about 6,000 NM. The only
thing limiting its range was fuel supply and the drift inherent to its
first-generation guidance system. Such a weapon is going to be big,
though, as in Airliner sized, and won't be cheap. It'll also have to
fly high to get that sort of range, and thus it'll be detectable and a
fiarly good target. But it certainly could be done, if somebody
wanted to.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Charles Gray

December 27th 03, 03:54 AM

On 26 Dec 2003 16:16:37 -0800, wrote:

>Greg Hennessy > wrote in message >...
>
>> >> On 23 Dec 2003 11:30:54 -0800, wrote:
>>
>> >> >With humblest respect for your past service to our country, I must
>> >> >admit that the question you pose illustrates the main problem behind
>> >> >why the Bomb was used: Because no one knew a "better" way. This
>> >> >represents a militarily trained, "any-means-necessary" bias.
>> >>
>> >> No, this represents "You havent a f*cking clue what you are talking about"
>> >> attempt at a cop out.
>> >
>> >Simply re-asserting the bias does not advance your argument.
>>
>> There is no bias in my argument.
>
>Ah, the old "That which I cannot see does not exist" myopia. Your
>assumption (that anyone who opposes atomic weaponry doesn't know what
>s/he is talking about) pretty much stamps "MilitaryIndustrial Bias"
>across your forehead.
>
>(Just curious - why are you okay with murdering 100,000 civilians but
>afraid to spell the word "****"?)
Actually, you have failed to answer any of the questoins raised in
my post. You have at no point addressed any of the real concerns with
the neccesity or lack therof of the use of atomic weapons.
When confronted with facts opposing your viewpoint, you seem to
have no ability to meet them with anything more effective than
"military industrial bias" comments, with no substantive components to
your arguement, or any ability to effectively analyze or dispute
opposing viewpoints.

[email protected]

December 27th 03, 07:05 AM

Charles Gray > wrote in message >...

> >> There is no bias in my argument.
> >
> >Ah, the old "That which I cannot see does not exist" myopia. Your
> >assumption (that anyone who opposes atomic weaponry doesn't know what
> >s/he is talking about) pretty much stamps "MilitaryIndustrial Bias"
> >across your forehead.

> Actually, you have failed to answer any of the questoins raised in
> my post.

Not "failed" - Dismissed. Your loaded questions attempted to enforce
an antipacifist playing field. The point of my post was to explain
why such questions are irrelevant.

> You have at no point addressed any of the real concerns
^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
Here's that pesky bias
again. Concerns aren't "real" unless they braid into *your* world
view? The only "real concern" regarding atomic/nuclear weapons is
that they never be used (or glorified or patriotized).

> When confronted with facts opposing your viewpoint, you seem to
> have no ability to meet them with anything more effective than
> "military industrial bias" comments

Nothing "more effective" is necessary. I'll continue to refer to the
bias as often as you continue to demonstrate it.

Charles Gray

December 27th 03, 09:50 AM

On 26 Dec 2003 23:05:38 -0800, wrote:

>Charles Gray > wrote in message >...
>
>> >> There is no bias in my argument.
>> >
>> >Ah, the old "That which I cannot see does not exist" myopia. Your
>> >assumption (that anyone who opposes atomic weaponry doesn't know what
>> >s/he is talking about) pretty much stamps "MilitaryIndustrial Bias"
>> >across your forehead.
>
>> Actually, you have failed to answer any of the questoins raised in
>> my post.
>
>Not "failed" - Dismissed. Your loaded questions attempted to enforce
>an antipacifist playing field. The point of my post was to explain
>why such questions are irrelevant.
>

Dismissed. As in, you have no answer for them. As for loaded, how
so? They are all real concerns, dating from the time. Do you have
any way the war could have been concluded without the use of atomic
weapons and without a drastically increased body count?

>> You have at no point addressed any of the real concerns
> ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
> Here's that pesky bias
>again. Concerns aren't "real" unless they braid into *your* world
>view? The only "real concern" regarding atomic/nuclear weapons is
>that they never be used (or glorified or patriotized).

Oh? I wasn't aware any of the posters were glorifying them, or
suggesting they be used for crowd control, just pointing out in
arguements that you apparently have no counter to, that in 1945, there
was no realistic alternative, given teh demonstrated willingness of
the Japanese to continue resisting.
If they were so glorified, why did we not use them in Korea? The
Russians were still very far behind in the race, and a few dozen
warhead exploded over NK and China would have ended the war very much
on our terms.
Instead, we accepted a draw that was a tacit defeat to many, and
were willing to sti with a status quo that has lasted for the last 50
years. Why not nuke Iran? A little nation that ****ed off both the
russians and us, well, tailor made for a little glorifying nuke use.
You're "glorification" of nukes doesn't survive the sniff test--
if they were so glorious, I'm certain we would have found a use for
them somewhere or other.
They are, in fact, simply a weapon, no better or worse than most
others, that have certain characteristics. The main characteristics
of nuclear weapons are the following:
1. Great destructive force.
2 The dispersal of greater or lesser amounts of radioactive
fallout.
3. The ability to project that force in one plane. (we are
staying with 1940-50 technology here, as we are discussing Hiroshima).
In comparison with the dresden raid or the Battle of Berlin,
they were not the most distructive weapons of WWII, although they were
the most *quickly( destructive weapons, in that their force was
exerted quickly. This speed can be seen as one reason why the
Japanese cabinet agreed upon a surrender.

>
>> When confronted with facts opposing your viewpoint, you seem to
>> have no ability to meet them with anything more effective than
>> "military industrial bias" comments
>
>Nothing "more effective" is necessary. I'll continue to refer to the
>bias as often as you continue to demonstrate it.

Oh? How does a Military industrial bias operate on the decision of
the A bombing of Japan? the Manhatten project *Wasn't* a military
industrial operation, it was government from the word go. Civilian
contracters were not used except to provide certain materials, and few
knew what it was for.
For that matter, why would a "military industrial" complex
WANT a nuclear bomb. Lots more money to be made in supplying a vast
invasion fleet with everything they need. By that logic, the MI
should have been sabotaging the project.
In fact, the military industrial complex didn't even exist
until, arguably, the 1950's. In 1945 most companies were shifting
over to civilian production as fast as they could...odd if their goal
was to maintain a military industrial complex.

I'm sorry, you flunk logic 101. Please return for next semesters
course. In order to prepare you for your second course, answer the
following questions.

Assume a total death toll of 100,000 people from atomic weapons,
100,000 people from firebombming raids, 100,000 from general ground
combat, and 100,000 from counter-insurgency operations in China.
How do you define the deaths caused by atomic weapons as somehow
"less moral" than those from other causes. If an atomic weapon *is*
less moral, why? What innate quality of being blown up through the
mass energy conversion of fissionable material makes it worse than
being fried by napalm, shot by bullets or gassed by Chlorine.
There. A very simple answer should be possible, given your vast
knowledge.

Greg Hennessy

December 27th 03, 10:59 AM

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 03:54:56 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:

> Actually, you have failed to answer any of the questoins raised in
>my post.

Because as with the rest of your uninformed emotive cant, your questions
are nonsense.

>You have at no point addressed any of the real concerns with
>the neccesity or lack therof of the use of atomic weapons.

You've been asked repeatedly to detail *any* meaningful alternative, you've
proven clearly incapable of doing so.

> When confronted with facts opposing your viewpoint, you seem to
>have no ability to meet them with anything more effective than
>"military industrial bias" comments,

Asking someone to detail a meaningful alternative to the action taken has
SFA to do with "military industrial bias" (sic).

> with no substantive components to
>your arguement, or any ability to effectively analyze or dispute
>opposing viewpoints.
>

Rather ironic given you cannot detail anything resembling an alternative to
the action taken.

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

December 27th 03, 10:59 AM

On 26 Dec 2003 23:05:38 -0800, wrote:

>> Actually, you have failed to answer any of the questoins raised in
>> my post.
>
>Not "failed" - Dismissed.

You cannot 'dismiss' something you have no answer for.

>Your loaded questions attempted to enforce
>an antipacifist playing field.

ROFLMAO! How is asking for a meaningful alternative enforcing the
'antipacifist playing field'.

What pomo PC school did you attend to learn that piece of meaningless
verbiage ?

> The point of my post was to explain
>why such questions are irrelevant.

Needless deaths of allied forces in the field as a consequence of the
japanese not been taken out of the fight are highly relevant.

My maternal grandfather would most likely have been on an RN ship off the
coast of Japan somewhere supporting Olympic and Coronet.

>again. Concerns aren't "real" unless they braid into *your* world
>view?

The mass murder of chinese civilians at a rate of approximately 10000/day
were quite real I can assure you.

> The only "real concern" regarding atomic/nuclear weapons is
>that they never be used (or glorified or patriotized).

Given you haven't told us what *you* would have done to prevent the mass
murder of civilians accross asia by japanese forces. The only 'real
concern' here is how civilians have to die to keep your PC conscience clean
60 odd years after the event.

>
>> When confronted with facts opposing your viewpoint, you seem to
>> have no ability to meet them with anything more effective than
>> "military industrial bias" comments
>
>Nothing "more effective" is necessary.

On the contrary, the depth of your ignorance is comical.

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.

Charles Gray

December 27th 03, 11:21 AM

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 10:59:46 +0000, Greg Hennessy >
wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 03:54:56 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:
>
>
>
>> Actually, you have failed to answer any of the questoins raised in
>>my post.
>
>Because as with the rest of your uninformed emotive cant, your questions
>are nonsense.
>
>>You have at no point addressed any of the real concerns with
>>the neccesity or lack therof of the use of atomic weapons.
>
>You've been asked repeatedly to detail *any* meaningful alternative, you've
>proven clearly incapable of doing so.
>
>
>> When confronted with facts opposing your viewpoint, you seem to
>>have no ability to meet them with anything more effective than
>>"military industrial bias" comments,
>
>Asking someone to detail a meaningful alternative to the action taken has
>SFA to do with "military industrial bias" (sic).
>
>> with no substantive components to
>>your arguement, or any ability to effectively analyze or dispute
>>opposing viewpoints.
>>
>
>Rather ironic given you cannot detail anything resembling an alternative to
>the action taken.
>
>
>greg
>
Hey Greg, that was theatre6@hotmail, not me!

Suh, I demand satisfaction! I will face you with the spambot of
your choice, at dawn! :)
Charles Gray.

Greg Hennessy

December 27th 03, 12:09 PM

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 11:21:11 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:

>>
> Hey Greg, that was theatre6@hotmail, not me!
>
> Suh, I demand satisfaction! I will face you with the spambot of
>your choice, at dawn! :)
>Charles Gray.

Sorry mate LOL!

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.

Peter Stickney

December 27th 03, 03:06 PM

In article >,
Charles Gray > writes:
> On 26 Dec 2003 23:05:38 -0800, wrote:
>
>>Charles Gray > wrote in message >...
>>
>>> >> There is no bias in my argument.
>>> >
>>> >Ah, the old "That which I cannot see does not exist" myopia. Your
>>> >assumption (that anyone who opposes atomic weaponry doesn't know what
>>> >s/he is talking about) pretty much stamps "MilitaryIndustrial Bias"
>>> >across your forehead.
>>
>>> Actually, you have failed to answer any of the questoins raised in
>>> my post.
>>
>>Not "failed" - Dismissed. Your loaded questions attempted to enforce
>>an antipacifist playing field. The point of my post was to explain
>>why such questions are irrelevant.
>>
>
> Dismissed. As in, you have no answer for them. As for loaded, how
> so? They are all real concerns, dating from the time. Do you have
> any way the war could have been concluded without the use of atomic
> weapons and without a drastically increased body count?

You're forgetting the Primary Rule of the Theatre:
"When the going gets tough, the actors go home."

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Charles Gray

December 27th 03, 07:47 PM

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:37:57 -0600, Alan Minyard
> wrote:

>On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:19:39 GMT, Charles Gray > wrote:
>
>>On 22 Dec 2003 15:48:57 -0800, wrote:
>>
>>>"Linda Terrell" > wrote in message >...
>>>> > The horror of Hiroshima is the sheer indiscrimate nature of the
>>>> > destruction. If atom bomb had been dropped on a Japanese military
>>>> > target it might have been justified. But, to kill like that in
>>>> > Hiroshima and Nagasaki was blind and savage overkill.
>>>>
>>>> Hiroshima was a military target -- it was a port wity with several
>>>> railroad lines running in and out of it. That means supplies going
>>>> to the Army.
>>>
>>>So does that make entire cities like San Diego "military targets" as
>>>well? If al-Qaeda or North Korea nuked Arlington or DC, would you
>>>chalk it up as a respectable act of war?
>>
>>
>> Yes-- and you might wish to note that Had Al Qaeda used a cruise
>>missile against the pentagon, it wouldn't be considered a criminal act
>>by many-- the pentagon is a military target.
>
>Al Q is not a military force, it is a terrorist organization. Despite your
>evident love for them, they are religious fanatics that wish to
>kill all non-muslims.
>
>Al Minyard

You are correct-- since Al Qaeda has no international standing, any
attack by them, is both de facto and legally illegal.
Let me rephrase-- had the Pentagon been attacked by a nation as part
of a conflict, there would be nothing *innately* illegal about that,
even though there are civilian workers co-located with teh military
personel. Of course, in that case methods woudl count, and using a
liner loaded with civilians as a cruisemissile would still be illegal
and a war crime. (and a nation state has *so* many peices of valuable
real estate where the U.S. could make our...displeasure at such an
action felt).

[email protected]

December 27th 03, 09:45 PM

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message >...

> > Dismissed. As in, you have no answer for them. As for loaded, how
> > so? They are all real concerns, dating from the time. Do you have
> > any way the war could have been concluded without the use of atomic
> > weapons and without a drastically increased body count?
>
> You're forgetting the Primary Rule of the Theatre:
> "When the going gets tough, the actors go home."

Perhaps the actors have gone home because they were smart enough to
notice that the playbill has been translated into Russian, which has
frightened away the audience and eliminates any need to incinerate
season subscribers.

Peter Stickney

December 27th 03, 11:34 PM

In article >,
writes:
> (Peter Stickney) wrote in message >...
>
>> > Dismissed. As in, you have no answer for them. As for loaded, how
>> > so? They are all real concerns, dating from the time. Do you have
>> > any way the war could have been concluded without the use of atomic
>> > weapons and without a drastically increased body count?
>>
>> You're forgetting the Primary Rule of the Theatre:
>> "When the going gets tough, the actors go home."
>
> Perhaps the actors have gone home because they were smart enough to
> notice that the playbill has been translated into Russian, which has
> frightened away the audience and eliminates any need to incinerate
> season subscribers.

No, sport, it's because they're afraid that you might actually have to
sweat. You know, dealing with all those unfair things like learning
lines, or putting your props where you can find them again, or
actually hitting you mark underneath those awful, bright, lights.
Now be good, or I'll have one of my minions slip Stage Weights into
your valise.

--
Pete Stickney
Occasional Stage Manger, Technical Director, Live Theater
Vehicle Wrangler and Driver (On-Screen) Film & T.V.

weary

December 28th 03, 02:06 AM

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: (cave fish)
>
> <snip>
>
> >The horror of Hiroshima is the sheer indiscrimate nature of the
> >destruction. If atom bomb had been dropped on a Japanese military
> >target it might have been justified. But, to kill like that in
> >Hiroshima and Nagasaki was blind and savage overkill.
> >
> There WERE military targets in Nagasaki and Hiroshima and I'm not talking
about
> the civilians.
>
> Nagasaki was a functioning port. Hiroshima had a army divisions and
training
> facilities as well as some mines with POWs working in them.
>
> If you had been following this thread you'd have known this by now.

The aiming point for the Hiroshima bomb was a bridge in a mainly
residential area, not any of the military or industrial assets. By
definition
the target was civilians since that is where the bomb was aimed.

ArtKramr

December 28th 03, 03:03 AM

>Subject: Re: Hiroshima justified? (wasRe: Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other
>magnificent technological achievements)
>From: "weary"
>Date: 12/27/03 6:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: (cave fish)
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >The horror of Hiroshima is the sheer indiscrimate nature of the
>> >destruction. If atom bomb had been dropped on a Japanese military
>> >target it might have been justified. But, to kill like that in
>> >Hiroshima and Nagasaki was blind and savage overkill.
>> >
>> There WERE military targets in Nagasaki and Hiroshima and I'm not talking
>about
>> the civilians.
>>
>> Nagasaki was a functioning port. Hiroshima had a army divisions and
>training
>> facilities as well as some mines with POWs working in them.
>>
>> If you had been following this thread you'd have known this by now.
>
>The aiming point for the Hiroshima bomb was a bridge in a mainly
>residential area, not any of the military or industrial assets. By
>definition
>the target was civilians since that is where the bomb was aimed.
>
>

As a trained and experienced bombardier I wish I could have been on the Enola
Gay that day. I would have had the honor of bringing to an end the worst war
the world has ever seen.But I was busy in Eirope at that time.

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 and Kim Smith

December 28th 03, 03:42 AM

What were you doing on those particular days? What was the environment
like when everyone heard the news?

ArtKramr wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Hiroshima justified? (wasRe: Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other
>>magnificent technological achievements)
>>From: "weary"
>>Date: 12/27/03 6:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>
>>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>>>From: (cave fish)
>>>>
>>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The horror of Hiroshima is the sheer indiscrimate nature of the
>>>>destruction. If atom bomb had been dropped on a Japanese military
>>>>target it might have been justified. But, to kill like that in
>>>>Hiroshima and Nagasaki was blind and savage overkill.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>There WERE military targets in Nagasaki and Hiroshima and I'm not talking
>>>
>>>
>>about
>>
>>
>>>the civilians.
>>>
>>>Nagasaki was a functioning port. Hiroshima had a army divisions and
>>>
>>>
>>training
>>
>>
>>>facilities as well as some mines with POWs working in them.
>>>
>>>If you had been following this thread you'd have known this by now.
>>>
>>>
>>The aiming point for the Hiroshima bomb was a bridge in a mainly
>>residential area, not any of the military or industrial assets. By
>>definition
>>the target was civilians since that is where the bomb was aimed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>As a trained and experienced bombardier I wish I could have been on the Enola
>Gay that day. I would have had the honor of bringing to an end the worst war
>the world has ever seen.But I was busy in Eirope at that time.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
>
>

Chad Irby

December 28th 03, 03:52 AM

"weary" > wrote:

> The aiming point for the Hiroshima bomb was a bridge in a mainly
> residential area, not any of the military or industrial assets. By
> definition the target was civilians since that is where the bomb was
> aimed.

The aim point for the Hiroshima bomb was the city center, easily marked
because of the bridge and the split in the river.

The aim point was between the Military District Headquarters and the
Prefectural Office (and near the City Hall, too). The area of total
destruction encompassed most of the major military structures and
organizations in the city, including the 11th Infantry Regiment and the
Headquarters of the 5th Division. Partial destruction included the
area's weaponry depots and Army clothing depot.

So your description of the aim point as a "mainly residential area" is,
quite simply, misleading.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

[email protected]

December 28th 03, 12:19 PM

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message >...

> >> You're forgetting the Primary Rule of the Theatre:
> >> "When the going gets tough, the actors go home."
> >
> > Perhaps the actors have gone home because they were smart enough to
> > notice that the playbill has been translated into Russian, which has
> > frightened away the audience and eliminates any need to incinerate
> > season subscribers.
>
> No, sport, it's because they're afraid that you might actually have to
> sweat. You know, dealing with all those unfair things like learning
> lines, or putting your props where you can find them again, or
> actually hitting you mark underneath those awful, bright, lights.

Gosh, Pete - Did my puns really fly THAT far above your radar? My bad
- I'll be sure to dumb them down next time.

Greg Hennessy

December 28th 03, 12:29 PM

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 02:06:46 GMT, "weary" > wrote:

>
>The aiming point for the Hiroshima bomb was a bridge in a mainly
>residential area, not any of the military or industrial assets. By
>definition
>the target was civilians since that is where the bomb was aimed.
>

Which of course is a lie.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/4526/hirodamap.html

Ohh look at that. The HQ of the local military district right in the zone
of complete destruction.

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.

Charles Gray

December 28th 03, 07:11 PM

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 18:34:43 -0500, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

>In article >,
> writes:
>> (Peter Stickney) wrote in message >...
>>
>>> > Dismissed. As in, you have no answer for them. As for loaded, how
>>> > so? They are all real concerns, dating from the time. Do you have
>>> > any way the war could have been concluded without the use of atomic
>>> > weapons and without a drastically increased body count?
>>>
>>> You're forgetting the Primary Rule of the Theatre:
>>> "When the going gets tough, the actors go home."
>>
>> Perhaps the actors have gone home because they were smart enough to
>> notice that the playbill has been translated into Russian, which has
>> frightened away the audience and eliminates any need to incinerate
>> season subscribers.
>
>No, sport, it's because they're afraid that you might actually have to
>sweat. You know, dealing with all those unfair things like learning
>lines, or putting your props where you can find them again, or
>actually hitting you mark underneath those awful, bright, lights.
>Now be good, or I'll have one of my minions slip Stage Weights into
>your valise.

I notice that Theatre6 has failed to answer any of those simple
questoins I posted. The obvious conclusion is that he doesn't have
any answers.
As I said, he fails logic 101.

Merlin Dorfman

December 28th 03, 09:32 PM

ArtKramr ) wrote:

....

: >The aiming point for the Hiroshima bomb was a bridge in a mainly
: >residential area, not any of the military or industrial assets. By
: >definition
: >the target was civilians since that is where the bomb was aimed.
: >
: >

: As a trained and experienced bombardier I wish I could have been on the Enola
: Gay that day. I would have had the honor of bringing to an end the worst war
: the world has ever seen.But I was busy in Eirope at that time.

I was going to answer a previous question about "What was Art
doing on that day?" by pointing out that the war in Europe had ended
three months earlier. But it sounds like many Air Force personnel
were still in Europe.

[email protected]

December 28th 03, 10:24 PM

Charles Gray > wrote in message >...

> >In article >,
> > writes:

> >> Perhaps the actors have gone home because they were smart enough to
> >> notice that the playbill has been translated into Russian, which has
> >> frightened away the audience and eliminates any need to incinerate
> >> season subscribers.

> I notice that Theatre6 has failed to answer any of those simple
> questoins I posted. The obvious conclusion is that he doesn't have
> any answers.
> As I said, he fails logic 101.

Was that before or after you failed your community college seminar on
Reading Between the Lines? No worries - maybe Greg will let you share
his thinking cap while you both embark on a re-read of my 12/27 post.

*Sigh* - sarcastic wordplay can be such a lonely business.

Charles Gray

December 28th 03, 10:36 PM

On 28 Dec 2003 14:24:44 -0800, wrote:

>Charles Gray > wrote in message >...
>
>> >In article >,
>> > writes:
>
>> >> Perhaps the actors have gone home because they were smart enough to
>> >> notice that the playbill has been translated into Russian, which has
>> >> frightened away the audience and eliminates any need to incinerate
>> >> season subscribers.
>
>> I notice that Theatre6 has failed to answer any of those simple
>> questoins I posted. The obvious conclusion is that he doesn't have
>> any answers.
>> As I said, he fails logic 101.
>
>Was that before or after you failed your community college seminar on
>Reading Between the Lines? No worries - maybe Greg will let you share
>his thinking cap while you both embark on a re-read of my 12/27 post.
>
>*Sigh* - sarcastic wordplay can be such a lonely business.
Actually no. Here are the questions. Answer them.

I'm sorry, you flunk logic 101. Please return for next semesters
course. In order to prepare you for your second course, answer the
following questions.

Assume a total death toll of 100,000 people from atomic weapons,
100,000 people from firebombming raids, 100,000 from general ground
combat, and 100,000 from counter-insurgency operations in China.
How do you define the deaths caused by atomic weapons as somehow
"less moral" than those from other causes. If an atomic weapon *is*
less moral, why? What innate quality of being blown up through the
mass energy conversion of fissionable material makes it worse than
being fried by napalm, shot by bullets or gassed by Chlorine.
There. A very simple answer should be possible, given your vast
knowledge.

ArtKramr

December 28th 03, 10:40 PM

>ubject: Re: Hiroshima justified? (wasRe: Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other
>magnificent technological achievements)
>From: Merlin Dorfman
>Date: 12/28/03 1:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>ArtKramr ) wrote:
>
>...
>
>: >The aiming point for the Hiroshima bomb was a bridge in a mainly
>: >residential area, not any of the military or industrial assets. By
>: >definition
>: >the target was civilians since that is where the bomb was aimed.
>: >
>: >
>
>: As a trained and experienced bombardier I wish I could have been on the
>Enola
>: Gay that day. I would have had the honor of bringing to an end the worst
>war
>: the world has ever seen.But I was busy in Eirope at that time.
>
> I was going to answer a previous question about "What was Art
>doing on that day?" by pointing out that the war in Europe had ended
>three months earlier. But it sounds like many Air Force personnel
>were still in Europe.
>

We were preparing to go over to Japan when the bomb dropped and we were
cancelled. I think that saved my life. I don't know if I could have made it
through both wars.The odds go down with time.

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

Merlin Dorfman

December 29th 03, 04:04 AM

ArtKramr ) wrote:
: >ubject: Re: Hiroshima justified? (wasRe: Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other
: >magnificent technological achievements)
: >From: Merlin Dorfman
: >Date: 12/28/03 1:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
: >Message-id: >
: >
: >ArtKramr ) wrote:
: >
: >...
: >
: >: >The aiming point for the Hiroshima bomb was a bridge in a mainly
: >: >residential area, not any of the military or industrial assets. By
: >: >definition
: >: >the target was civilians since that is where the bomb was aimed.
: >: >
: >: >
: >
: >: As a trained and experienced bombardier I wish I could have been on the
: >Enola
: >: Gay that day. I would have had the honor of bringing to an end the worst
: >war
: >: the world has ever seen.But I was busy in Eirope at that time.
: >
: > I was going to answer a previous question about "What was Art
: >doing on that day?" by pointing out that the war in Europe had ended
: >three months earlier. But it sounds like many Air Force personnel
: >were still in Europe.
: >

: We were preparing to go over to Japan when the bomb dropped and we were
: cancelled. I think that saved my life. I don't know if I could have made it
: through both wars.The odds go down with time.

I know the Luftwaffe was pretty well decimated by late 1944, so
fighter opposition was probably light; but if you were doing tactical
ground support missions I expect AA fire was still formidable.
Likewise fighter opposition to flights over Japan was not too
bad by mid-1945, as the Japanese were saving their aircraft, pilots,
and gasoline for Kamikaze attacks on the invasion force. But if you
were to be providing close support for the invasion, you certainly
would have been at risk from ground fire.
We're grateful that the war ended when it did so that ETO veterans
did not have to face a second war, and PTO veterans the ultimate in
suicidal resistance.

Charles Gray

December 29th 03, 05:17 AM

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 04:04:02 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman
> wrote:

>
> I know the Luftwaffe was pretty well decimated by late 1944, so
>fighter opposition was probably light; but if you were doing tactical
>ground support missions I expect AA fire was still formidable.
> Likewise fighter opposition to flights over Japan was not too
>bad by mid-1945, as the Japanese were saving their aircraft, pilots,
>and gasoline for Kamikaze attacks on the invasion force. But if you
>were to be providing close support for the invasion, you certainly
>would have been at risk from ground fire.
> We're grateful that the war ended when it did so that ETO veterans
>did not have to face a second war, and PTO veterans the ultimate in
>suicidal resistance.

and lets be honest-- with hindsight that IJA and Japanse civilains
didn't have to face what probably would have been a catostrophic
invasion for Japanese civilization.
I've read that one of the great things about the occupation was how
the troops found the Japanese mindset to be completely different from
what they expected, and that this led to a far more "friendly"
occupation. Had it occured after a savage invasion however...

[email protected]

December 29th 03, 07:16 AM

Charles Gray > wrote in message >...
> On 27 Dec 2003, wrote:
>
> >> >> Perhaps the actors have gone home because they were smart enough to
> >> >> notice that the playbill has been translated into Russian, which has
> >> >> frightened away the audience and eliminates any need to incinerate
> >> >> season subscribers.
>
> I'm sorry, you flunk logic 101. Please return for next semesters
> course. In order to prepare you for your second course, answer the
> following questions.
> Assume a total death toll of 100,000 people from atomic weapons,
> 100,000 people from firebombming raids, 100,000 from general ground
> combat, and 100,000 from counter-insurgency operations in China.
> How do you define the deaths caused by atomic weapons as somehow
> "less moral" than those from other causes.

Hm, I see that 12/27's Russian Riddle is still flying way over your
head. Fair enough - While I register for my logic class, your first
assignment is to grab a dictionary and look up the words "irony" &
"metaphor", which just might start you on your way to discovering that
I've already answered your questions.

But incase you're still lost, you can still save face by writing one
sentence a hundred times on the blackboard. Don't worry, it's only
made up of five little words:

"YOU CAN KEEP YOUR EMPEROR."

Perhaps this 2nd assignment will help you to grasp how powerful such a
simple Potsdam clarification might have been in rendering your above
questions moot.

But as those questions of yours prove, it can be lots more fun for
macho military-types to wonder which one of their toys is the "best"
for murdering 100,000 civilians... So I don't blame you for
scratching your head over the crazy notion that we might never have
had to kill them in the first place.

Charles Gray

December 29th 03, 09:52 AM

On 28 Dec 2003 23:16:37 -0800, wrote:

>Charles Gray > wrote in message >...
>> On 27 Dec 2003, wrote:
>>
>
>
>But incase you're still lost, you can still save face by writing one
>sentence a hundred times on the blackboard. Don't worry, it's only
>made up of five little words:
>
>"YOU CAN KEEP YOUR EMPEROR."
>
>Perhaps this 2nd assignment will help you to grasp how powerful such a
>simple Potsdam clarification might have been in rendering your above
>questions moot.
>

Ah, one of hte typical fantasys of those who live in the pink
colored world where they never have to fight.
That was never on the table. The japenese at the time of potsdam
might have given some thought to a surrender agreement that allowed
them to keep the emperor, as he was-- the semi-divine figurehead ruler
of Japan, set above the people.
Those who point out "well we kept the emperor" miss one very
important fact-- the "Emperor" as he existed before 1945 died. He
lost all temporal power, and more importantly, was both "De-deified"
and subjegated to the will of the Japanese people.
The entire equation of legitimacy was turned on its head, where the
emperor gained whatever legitimacy he had via the will of the Japanese
people, a starkly impossible concept for the pre-surrender Japan. At
no point do you find that on the table, even in teh private
discussions of the "pro-peace" party.

[email protected]

December 29th 03, 05:29 PM

Charles Gray > wrote in message >...
> On 28 Dec 2003 23:16:37 -0800, wrote:

> >But incase you're still lost, you can still save face by writing one
> >sentence a hundred times on the blackboard. Don't worry, it's only
> >made up of five little words:
> >
> >"YOU CAN KEEP YOUR EMPEROR."
> >
> >Perhaps this 2nd assignment will help you to grasp how powerful such a
> >simple Potsdam clarification might have been in rendering your above
> >questions moot.
> >
> The japenese at the time of potsdam
> might have given some thought to a surrender agreement that allowed
> them to keep the emperor, as he was-- the semi-divine figurehead ruler
> of Japan, set above the people.

Which, of course, is the whole point. We are discussing whether the
Bomb was necessary to end the war and Japanese imperialism - Not
whether or not it was also necessary to shatter another culture's
ancient GodKing tradition.

I can anticipate your response - But while deified leadership and
Imperialism can certainly go hand in hand, secular leadership and
Imperialism are not mutually exclusive (as the current secular
imperials in the White House so aptly illustrate). Killing Hirohito's
spiritual mandate was a nice move for Japanese civil rights and
societal evolution, but it isn't impossible to decipher the
"wiggle-outs" from such a condition that can be found in Potsdam,
clarified later by Secretary Byrnes' reply to the Japanese government
in August: that "[t]he ultimate form of government of Japan shall, in
accordance with the Potsdam Declaration, be established by the freely
expressed will of the Japanese people."

Matt Wiser

December 29th 03, 06:14 PM

(ArtKramr) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Hiroshima justified? (wasRe: Enola
>Gay: Burnt flesh and other
>>magnificent technological achievements)
>>From: "weary"
>>Date: 12/27/03 6:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>
>>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>>> >From: (cave fish)
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>> >The horror of Hiroshima is the sheer indiscrimate
>nature of the
>>> >destruction. If atom bomb had been dropped
>on a Japanese military
>>> >target it might have been justified. But,
>to kill like that in
>>> >Hiroshima and Nagasaki was blind and savage
>overkill.
>>> >
>>> There WERE military targets in Nagasaki and
>Hiroshima and I'm not talking
>>about
>>> the civilians.
>>>
>>> Nagasaki was a functioning port. Hiroshima
>had a army divisions and
>>training
>>> facilities as well as some mines with POWs
>working in them.
>>>
>>> If you had been following this thread you'd
>have known this by now.
>>
>>The aiming point for the Hiroshima bomb was
>a bridge in a mainly
>>residential area, not any of the military or
>industrial assets. By
>>definition
>>the target was civilians since that is where
>the bomb was aimed.
>>
>>
>
>As a trained and experienced bombardier I wish
>I could have been on the Enola
>Gay that day. I would have had the honor of
>bringing to an end the worst war
>the world has ever seen.But I was busy in Eirope
>at that time.
>
>
>Arthur Kramer
>344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
>Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
>http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>
Were you training to go to the Pacific in '46 when Enola Gay and Bock's
Car ended the War? If so, what would you have flown?

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

Merlin Dorfman

December 29th 03, 11:53 PM

Charles Gray ) wrote:
: On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 04:04:02 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman
: > wrote:

: >
: > I know the Luftwaffe was pretty well decimated by late 1944, so
: >fighter opposition was probably light; but if you were doing tactical
: >ground support missions I expect AA fire was still formidable.
: > Likewise fighter opposition to flights over Japan was not too
: >bad by mid-1945, as the Japanese were saving their aircraft, pilots,
: >and gasoline for Kamikaze attacks on the invasion force. But if you
: >were to be providing close support for the invasion, you certainly
: >would have been at risk from ground fire.
: > We're grateful that the war ended when it did so that ETO veterans
: >did not have to face a second war, and PTO veterans the ultimate in
: >suicidal resistance.
:
: and lets be honest-- with hindsight that IJA and Japanse civilains
: didn't have to face what probably would have been a catostrophic
: invasion for Japanese civilization.
: I've read that one of the great things about the occupation was how
: the troops found the Japanese mindset to be completely different from
: what they expected, and that this led to a far more "friendly"
: occupation. Had it occured after a savage invasion however...

I have a friend who was one of the first Occupation troops to
land in mainland Japan. After a few weeks, he and his buddies found
themselves saying to each other, "How did we wind up fighting these
people?" They were indeed amazed at how easy it was to get along
with the Japanese.

Tex Houston

December 30th 03, 01:11 AM

"Merlin Dorfman" > wrote in message
...
> I have a friend who was one of the first Occupation troops to
> land in mainland Japan. After a few weeks, he and his buddies found
> themselves saying to each other, "How did we wind up fighting these
> people?" They were indeed amazed at how easy it was to get along
> with the Japanese.

Because those treacherous *******s attacked us at Pearl Harbor on December
7, 1941. It was in all the papers.

Tex

Charles Gray

December 31st 03, 09:19 AM

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 16:15:04 GMT, "Matt Wiser"
> wrote:

>
> "Linda Terrell" > wrote:
>>
>>> > Hiroshima was a military target -- it was
>>a port with with several
>>> > railroad lines running in and out of it.
>> That means supplies going
>>> > to the Army.
>>>
>>> So does that make entire cities like San Diego
>>"military targets" as
>>> well? If al-Qaeda or North Korea nuked Arlington
>>or DC, would you
>>> chalk it up as a respectable act of war?
>>
>>Damn straight, then turn their military targets
>>into sheets of glass.
>>
>>LT
>>
>>--
>>
> Which is exactly what will happen if they EVER pop a nuke anywhere. 20 plus
>minutes for a pair of Trident SSBNs, or 6-8 hours for B-2s with B-52s shooting
>ALCMs. A brutal but effective object lesson.
>
>Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

Minor problem-- Al Qaeda has no bases...and their greatest base of
support seems to be coming from Pakistan and Saudia Arabia...which are
our allies.

That is, of course, one of the biggest arguements for preventing
large scale proliferation-- a nuke in the hands of any organization,
terrorist, criminal or otherwise with no major bases of cities to
defend is an utter nightmare, because right now the only defense
against nukes IS detterence.

Chad Irby

December 31st 03, 04:36 PM

In article >,
Charles Gray > wrote:

> Minor problem-- Al Qaeda has no bases

Well, not any more.

> ...and their greatest base of support seems to be coming from
> Pakistan and Saudia Arabia...which are our allies.

Note the current low level of AQ activity.

If they were working unhindered, you'd think that could come up with
something dramatic in a place other than a Muslim country on the other
side of the planet from the Great Satan...

If they don't manage to do something tonight or tomorrow, it's a good
sign that they're *done*, effectively.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

weary

January 1st 04, 08:52 AM

"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 02:06:46 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
>
> >
> >The aiming point for the Hiroshima bomb was a bridge in a mainly
> >residential area, not any of the military or industrial assets. By
> >definition
> >the target was civilians since that is where the bomb was aimed.
> >
>
> Which of course is a lie.

So in your fantasy world you aim about a mile from the real target.

>
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/4526/hirodamap.html
>
> Ohh look at that. The HQ of the local military district right in the zone
> of complete destruction.

Which seems to be the only military asset in the zone.
Its clear that the people were the real target.

>
>
> 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.

Chad Irby

January 1st 04, 11:21 AM

In article >,
"weary" > wrote:

> "Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/4526/hirodamap.html
> >
> > Ohh look at that. The HQ of the local military district right in the zone
> > of complete destruction.
>
> Which seems to be the only military asset in the zone.

This map doesn't show the rest of the details. That Military District
Headquarters held the 11th Infantry Regiment, the 5th Division
Headquarters, a major artillery detachment, and a number of other
things, including the Prefectural office and the City Hall. It was also
the HQ of the invasion defense of that entire section of the island.

If you're dropping a nuke on Hiroshima in 1945, you couldn't do a whole
lot better for targeting.

> Its clear that the people were the real target.

Yeah, the military people.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

B2431

January 1st 04, 12:42 PM

>From: "weary"
>Date: 1/1/2004 2:52 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 02:06:46 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >The aiming point for the Hiroshima bomb was a bridge in a mainly
>> >residential area, not any of the military or industrial assets. By
>> >definition
>> >the target was civilians since that is where the bomb was aimed.
>> >
>>
>> Which of course is a lie.
>
>So in your fantasy world you aim about a mile from the real target.
>
>>
>> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/4526/hirodamap.html
>>
>> Ohh look at that. The HQ of the local military district right in the zone
>> of complete destruction.
>
>Which seems to be the only military asset in the zone.
>Its clear that the people were the real target.
>
>

The railroads and trams were also valid military targets, as were the factories
and warehouses. Electrical distribution, water and sewage facilities were also
valid targets. By no stretch of the imagination does the map at that link list
all of the valid targets. But why let facts get in the way? You have made up
your mind.

You still haven't said how you would take out military targets in Hiroshima,
Nagasaki or any other city without massive civilian casualties.

Using technology available anyone bombing the Navy yard in Boston, Mass, for
example, would take also out thousands of civilians.

I do regret the civilian losses in Nagasaki and Hiroshima but none of the other
options would have saved lives. Not one.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

Greg Hennessy

January 1st 04, 12:49 PM

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 08:52:03 GMT, "weary" > wrote:

>> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/4526/hirodamap.html
>>
>> Ohh look at that. The HQ of the local military district right in the zone
>> of complete destruction.
>
>Which seems to be the only military asset in the zone.

Your point ? Tell us how a conventional raid of B29s would have killed 2
divisions worth of soldiers plus the HQ staff for the entire region and
*not* caused collateral damage.

>Its clear that the people were the real target.
>

The manhattan project targetting committee says otherwise.

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.

weary

January 2nd 04, 11:02 PM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
> In article >,
> "weary" > wrote:
>
> > "Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/4526/hirodamap.html
> > >
> > > Ohh look at that. The HQ of the local military district right in the
zone
> > > of complete destruction.
> >
> > Which seems to be the only military asset in the zone.
>
> This map doesn't show the rest of the details. That Military District
> Headquarters held the 11th Infantry Regiment, the 5th Division
> Headquarters, a major artillery detachment, and a number of other
> things, including the Prefectural office and the City Hall. It was also
> the HQ of the invasion defense of that entire section of the island.
>
> If you're dropping a nuke on Hiroshima in 1945, you couldn't do a whole
> lot better for targeting.
>
> > Its clear that the people were the real target.
>
> Yeah, the military people.

Then why did the targetting demand that the target must be
in a large urban atrea?

Chad Irby

January 2nd 04, 11:26 PM

"weary" > wrote:

> "Chad Irby" > wrote:

> > "weary" > wrote:
> >
> > > Its clear that the people were the real target.
> >
> > Yeah, the military people.
>
> Then why did the targetting demand that the target must be
> in a large urban atrea?

Because pretty much every major unbombed military target in Japan at the
time was *in* a large urban area.

Once again:

> > This map doesn't show the rest of the details. That Military
> > District Headquarters held the 11th Infantry Regiment, the 5th
> > Division Headquarters, a major artillery detachment, and a number
> > of other things, including the Prefectural office and the City
> > Hall. It was also the HQ of the invasion defense of that entire
> > section of the island.

What part of that did you not understand?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

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

B2431

January 2nd 04, 11:38 PM

>From: "weary"
>Date: 1/2/2004 5:02 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
>> In article >,
>> "weary" > wrote:
>>
>> > "Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >
>> > > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/4526/hirodamap.html
>> > >
>> > > Ohh look at that. The HQ of the local military district right in the
>zone
>> > > of complete destruction.
>> >
>> > Which seems to be the only military asset in the zone.
>>
>> This map doesn't show the rest of the details. That Military District
>> Headquarters held the 11th Infantry Regiment, the 5th Division
>> Headquarters, a major artillery detachment, and a number of other
>> things, including the Prefectural office and the City Hall. It was also
>> the HQ of the invasion defense of that entire section of the island.
>>
>> If you're dropping a nuke on Hiroshima in 1945, you couldn't do a whole
>> lot better for targeting.
>>
>> > Its clear that the people were the real target.
>>
>> Yeah, the military people.
>
>Then why did the targetting demand that the target must be
>in a large urban atrea?
>

Because that's where the valid military targets were. I don't understand why
you can't see that.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Matt Wiser

January 4th 04, 10:06 PM

"weary" > wrote:
>
>"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
om...
>> In article >,
>> "weary" > wrote:
>>
>> > "Greg Hennessy" > wrote in
>message
>> > ...
>> >
>> > > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/4526/hirodamap.html
>> > >
>> > > Ohh look at that. The HQ of the local
>military district right in the
>zone
>> > > of complete destruction.
>> >
>> > Which seems to be the only military asset
>in the zone.
>>
>> This map doesn't show the rest of the details.
> That Military District
>> Headquarters held the 11th Infantry Regiment,
>the 5th Division
>> Headquarters, a major artillery detachment,
>and a number of other
>> things, including the Prefectural office and
>the City Hall. It was also
>> the HQ of the invasion defense of that entire
>section of the island.
>>
>> If you're dropping a nuke on Hiroshima in
>1945, you couldn't do a whole
>> lot better for targeting.
>>
>> > Its clear that the people were the real
>target.
>>
>> Yeah, the military people.
>
>Then why did the targetting demand that the
>target must be
>in a large urban atrea?
>
>
>
Military and Military industries were in such large urban areas. Proximity
of civilians does not make such targets immune to attack. You could take
out those targets with today's LGBs and JDAMS, and not kill many civlians,
but such accuracy was not possible in '45. 15 Kt on Hiroshma and 20 Kt on
Nagasaki is preferable to the U.S. Sixth Army hitting the beaches of Kyushu
on or after 1 November '45 with expected casualties in the 55-75,000 range
for Kyushu. I'd rather risk a few B-29 crews on the nuclear strikes than
the Sixth Army, 3rd and 5th Fleets, FEAF and Marine Tac Air crews, and B-17,
B-24 and B-29 crews of 8th and 20th AFs, plus the Lancaster crews of the
RAF Tiger Force.

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

Matt Wiser

January 5th 04, 05:51 PM

(Tom Hartman) wrote:
(cave fish) wrote in
>message >...
>> Dave Smith > wrote
>in message >...
>> > RogerM wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > > First off, **** Japan, they started
>it, we finished it.
>> > >
>> > > First off, **** you asshole. The women
>and children who were murdered
>> > > didn't have **** to with Pearl Harbor.
>> >
>> > Sure they did. They were part of an imperialist
>society that had been
>> > expanding in the Pacific. They were the
>people who were providing the men to
>> > serve in the Japanese armed forces which
>had invaded China and other Asian
>> > countries where they were set loose to terrorize
>the populace with
>> > unimaginable atrocities. The people in those
>cities were busy manufacturing
>> > war materials and providing other services
>that helped the war effort.
>>
>> You are partly right. No one is completely
>innocent, which is how
>> Palestinians justify their bombing of Jewish
>civilians and how Al
>> Qaeda defends its attack on NY. Since all
>of us pay taxes that support
>> US foreign policy, yes we are all guilty.
>> However, in a case of open war between nations,
>while it may be
>> justified to bomb key industrial areas supplying
>the war effort, do
>> tell me how a newborn baby in a Hiroshima
>is guilty of anything? Or,
>> kindergarten students? Or, members of the
>opposition? Or, those in
>> jail for standing up to Japanese militarism?
>Or, old folks living out
>> their last days?
>> The horror of Hiroshima is the sheer indiscrimate
>nature of the
>> destruction. If atom bomb had been dropped
>on a Japanese military
>> target it might have been justified. But,
>to kill like that in
>> Hiroshima and Nagasaki was blind and savage
>overkill.
>
>
>There were more casualties from US napalming
>of the Japanese than from
>the A bomb. I was reading "Flyboys," an excellent
>book, and it had a
>section quoting one of the Japanese military
>leaders who said that was
>more demoralizing than the strike by the Enola
>Gay.
You're forgetting that post-Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the fear that even
a single B-29 would be carrying an A-bomb that spread in Japan. Even recon
planes were feared. And now it meant one plane, one bomb, one city.

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

weary

January 6th 04, 06:25 AM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> "weary" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote:
>
> > > "weary" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Its clear that the people were the real target.
> > >
> > > Yeah, the military people.
> >
> > Then why did the targetting demand that the target must be
> > in a large urban atrea?
>
> Because pretty much every major unbombed military target in Japan at the
> time was *in* a large urban area.

Then why insisit on it? However you are wrong. The Target
Committee meeting that produced that requirement was held
10-11 May 1945, at which time the bombing campaign was still
in its relatively early stages.

weary

January 6th 04, 06:28 AM

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "weary"
> >Date: 1/2/2004 5:02 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> In article >,
> >> "weary" > wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >
> >> > > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/4526/hirodamap.html
> >> > >
> >> > > Ohh look at that. The HQ of the local military district right in
the
> >zone
> >> > > of complete destruction.
> >> >
> >> > Which seems to be the only military asset in the zone.
> >>
> >> This map doesn't show the rest of the details. That Military District
> >> Headquarters held the 11th Infantry Regiment, the 5th Division
> >> Headquarters, a major artillery detachment, and a number of other
> >> things, including the Prefectural office and the City Hall. It was
also
> >> the HQ of the invasion defense of that entire section of the island.
> >>
> >> If you're dropping a nuke on Hiroshima in 1945, you couldn't do a whole
> >> lot better for targeting.
> >>
> >> > Its clear that the people were the real target.
> >>
> >> Yeah, the military people.
> >
> >Then why did the targetting demand that the target must be
> >in a large urban atrea?
> >
>
> Because that's where the valid military targets were. I don't understand
why
> you can't see that.

Plese provide proof that the onlyvalid military targets in Japan in May
1945
were in large urban areas.

weary

January 6th 04, 06:34 AM

"Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
news:3ff88efc$1@bg2....
>
> "weary" > wrote:
> >
> >"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> In article >,
> >> "weary" > wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Greg Hennessy" > wrote in
> >message
> >> > ...
> >> >
> >> > > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/4526/hirodamap.html
> >> > >
> >> > > Ohh look at that. The HQ of the local
> >military district right in the
> >zone
> >> > > of complete destruction.
> >> >
> >> > Which seems to be the only military asset
> >in the zone.
> >>
> >> This map doesn't show the rest of the details.
> > That Military District
> >> Headquarters held the 11th Infantry Regiment,
> >the 5th Division
> >> Headquarters, a major artillery detachment,
> >and a number of other
> >> things, including the Prefectural office and
> >the City Hall. It was also
> >> the HQ of the invasion defense of that entire
> >section of the island.
> >>
> >> If you're dropping a nuke on Hiroshima in
> >1945, you couldn't do a whole
> >> lot better for targeting.
> >>
> >> > Its clear that the people were the real
> >target.
> >>
> >> Yeah, the military people.
> >
> >Then why did the targetting demand that the
> >target must be
> >in a large urban atrea?
> >
> >
> >
> Military and Military industries were in such large urban areas.

Exclusively? I don't believe you. Why didn't the committe just specify
military taget?

weary

January 6th 04, 06:37 AM

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "weary"
> >Date: 1/1/2004 2:52 AM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 02:06:46 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >The aiming point for the Hiroshima bomb was a bridge in a mainly
> >> >residential area, not any of the military or industrial assets. By
> >> >definition
> >> >the target was civilians since that is where the bomb was aimed.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Which of course is a lie.
> >
> >So in your fantasy world you aim about a mile from the real target.
> >
> >>
> >> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/4526/hirodamap.html
> >>
> >> Ohh look at that. The HQ of the local military district right in the
zone
> >> of complete destruction.
> >
> >Which seems to be the only military asset in the zone.
> >Its clear that the people were the real target.
> >
> >
>
> The railroads and trams were also valid military targets, as were the
factories
> and warehouses. Electrical distribution, water and sewage facilities were
also
> valid targets. By no stretch of the imagination does the map at that link
list
> all of the valid targets. But why let facts get in the way? You have made
up
> your mind.
>
> You still haven't said how you would take out military targets in
Hiroshima,
> Nagasaki or any other city without massive civilian casualties.

I have but you don't want to accept it.

>
> Using technology available anyone bombing the Navy yard in Boston, Mass,
for
> example, would take also out thousands of civilians.

But not 70000

>
> I do regret the civilian losses in Nagasaki and Hiroshima but none of the
other
> options would have saved lives. Not one.

That is your opinion - I interpret the facts differently.

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

B2431

January 6th 04, 08:45 AM

>From: "weary"
>Date: 1/6/2004 12:25 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
>> "weary" > wrote:
>>
>> > "Chad Irby" > wrote:
>>
>> > > "weary" > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Its clear that the people were the real target.
>> > >
>> > > Yeah, the military people.
>> >
>> > Then why did the targetting demand that the target must be
>> > in a large urban atrea?
>>
>> Because pretty much every major unbombed military target in Japan at the
>> time was *in* a large urban area.
>
>Then why insisit on it? However you are wrong. The Target
>Committee meeting that produced that requirement was held
>10-11 May 1945, at which time the bombing campaign was still
>in its relatively early stages.
>

That was before anyone in the system even knew about the atom bombs.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

B2431

January 6th 04, 08:48 AM

>From: "weary"
>Date: 1/6/2004 12:28 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "weary"
>> >Date: 1/2/2004 5:02 PM Central Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >
>> >"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> >> In article >,
>> >> "weary" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > "Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
>> >> > ...
>> >> >
>> >> > > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/4526/hirodamap.html
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Ohh look at that. The HQ of the local military district right in
>the
>> >zone
>> >> > > of complete destruction.
>> >> >
>> >> > Which seems to be the only military asset in the zone.
>> >>
>> >> This map doesn't show the rest of the details. That Military District
>> >> Headquarters held the 11th Infantry Regiment, the 5th Division
>> >> Headquarters, a major artillery detachment, and a number of other
>> >> things, including the Prefectural office and the City Hall. It was
>also
>> >> the HQ of the invasion defense of that entire section of the island.
>> >>
>> >> If you're dropping a nuke on Hiroshima in 1945, you couldn't do a whole
>> >> lot better for targeting.
>> >>
>> >> > Its clear that the people were the real target.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, the military people.
>> >
>> >Then why did the targetting demand that the target must be
>> >in a large urban atrea?
>> >
>>
>> Because that's where the valid military targets were. I don't understand
>why
>> you can't see that.
>
> Plese provide proof that the onlyvalid military targets in Japan in May
>1945
>were in large urban areas.
>
I never said that.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

B2431

January 6th 04, 08:53 AM

>From: "weary"
>Date: 1/6/2004 12:37 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>> >From: "weary"
>> >Date: 1/1/2004 2:52 AM Central Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >
>> >"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 02:06:46 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >The aiming point for the Hiroshima bomb was a bridge in a mainly
>> >> >residential area, not any of the military or industrial assets. By
>> >> >definition
>> >> >the target was civilians since that is where the bomb was aimed.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Which of course is a lie.
>> >
>> >So in your fantasy world you aim about a mile from the real target.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/4526/hirodamap.html
>> >>
>> >> Ohh look at that. The HQ of the local military district right in the
>zone
>> >> of complete destruction.
>> >
>> >Which seems to be the only military asset in the zone.
>> >Its clear that the people were the real target.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> The railroads and trams were also valid military targets, as were the
>factories
>> and warehouses. Electrical distribution, water and sewage facilities were
>also
>> valid targets. By no stretch of the imagination does the map at that link
>list
>> all of the valid targets. But why let facts get in the way? You have made
>up
>> your mind.
>>
>> You still haven't said how you would take out military targets in
>Hiroshima,
>> Nagasaki or any other city without massive civilian casualties.
>
>I have but you don't want to accept it.
>
>>
>> Using technology available anyone bombing the Navy yard in Boston, Mass,
>for
>> example, would take also out thousands of civilians.
>
>But not 70000
>
>>
>> I do regret the civilian losses in Nagasaki and Hiroshima but none of the
>other
>> options would have saved lives. Not one.
>
>That is your opinion - I interpret the facts differently.
>
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>

What facts?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Greg Hennessy

January 6th 04, 03:21 PM

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 06:28:01 GMT, "weary" > wrote:

>
>> Because that's where the valid military targets were. I don't understand
>why
>> you can't see that.
>
> Plese provide proof that the onlyvalid military targets in Japan in May
>1945
>were in large urban areas.
>

What a surprise, its attempts more misdirection.

A. He never said that.

B. I suggest figuring out what the word 'priority' means, especially in the
context of having a very finite number of sorties available to hit
thousands of targets in mainland japan.

C. Then reconcile that list of 'priority' targets with their geographical
location.

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.

weary

January 10th 04, 02:42 AM

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. com...
> "weary" > wrote:
>
> > "Chad Irby" > wrote:
>
> > > "weary" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Its clear that the people were the real target.
> > >
> > > Yeah, the military people.
> >
> > Then why did the targetting demand that the target must be
> > in a large urban atrea?
>
> Because pretty much every major unbombed military target in Japan at the
> time was *in* a large urban area.

If that was case, there was no necessity to stipulate it as a requirement.

weary

January 10th 04, 02:45 AM

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "weary"
> >Date: 1/2/2004 5:02 PM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> In article >,
> >> "weary" > wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
> >> > ...
> >> >
> >> > > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/4526/hirodamap.html
> >> > >
> >> > > Ohh look at that. The HQ of the local military district right in
the
> >zone
> >> > > of complete destruction.
> >> >
> >> > Which seems to be the only military asset in the zone.
> >>
> >> This map doesn't show the rest of the details. That Military District
> >> Headquarters held the 11th Infantry Regiment, the 5th Division
> >> Headquarters, a major artillery detachment, and a number of other
> >> things, including the Prefectural office and the City Hall. It was
also
> >> the HQ of the invasion defense of that entire section of the island.
> >>
> >> If you're dropping a nuke on Hiroshima in 1945, you couldn't do a whole
> >> lot better for targeting.
> >>
> >> > Its clear that the people were the real target.
> >>
> >> Yeah, the military people.
> >
> >Then why did the targetting demand that the target must be
> >in a large urban atrea?
> >
>
> Because that's where the valid military targets were. I don't understand
why
> you can't see that.

Because in that case all that was necessary was to specify a valid military
target.
I don't understand why you can't see that.
However,

weary

January 10th 04, 02:53 AM

"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 06:28:01 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
>
> >
> >> Because that's where the valid military targets were. I don't
understand
> >why
> >> you can't see that.
> >
> > Plese provide proof that the onlyvalid military targets in Japan in May
> >1945
> >were in large urban areas.
> >
>
> What a surprise, its attempts more misdirection.
>
>
> A. He never said that.

Yes he did.

>
> B. I suggest figuring out what the word 'priority' means, especially in
the
> context of having a very finite number of sorties available to hit
> thousands of targets in mainland japan.

He didn't use the word priority. Don't try moving goalpostrs.

weary

January 10th 04, 03:00 AM

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "weary"
> >Date: 1/6/2004 12:25 AM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> . com...
> >> "weary" > wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Chad Irby" > wrote:
> >>
> >> > > "weary" > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Its clear that the people were the real target.
> >> > >
> >> > > Yeah, the military people.
> >> >
> >> > Then why did the targetting demand that the target must be
> >> > in a large urban atrea?
> >>
> >> Because pretty much every major unbombed military target in Japan at
the
> >> time was *in* a large urban area.
> >
> >Then why insisit on it? However you are wrong. The Target
> >Committee meeting that produced that requirement was held
> >10-11 May 1945, at which time the bombing campaign was still
> >in its relatively early stages.
> >
>
> That was before anyone in the system even knew about the atom bombs.

I don't understand the relevance of this comment.

weary

January 10th 04, 03:08 AM

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "weary"
> >Date: 1/6/2004 12:28 AM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >From: "weary"
> >> >Date: 1/2/2004 5:02 PM Central Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> >> om...
> >> >> In article >,
> >> >> "weary" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > "Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
> >> >> > ...
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/4526/hirodamap.html
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Ohh look at that. The HQ of the local military district right in
> >the
> >> >zone
> >> >> > > of complete destruction.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Which seems to be the only military asset in the zone.
> >> >>
> >> >> This map doesn't show the rest of the details. That Military
District
> >> >> Headquarters held the 11th Infantry Regiment, the 5th Division
> >> >> Headquarters, a major artillery detachment, and a number of other
> >> >> things, including the Prefectural office and the City Hall. It was
> >also
> >> >> the HQ of the invasion defense of that entire section of the island.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you're dropping a nuke on Hiroshima in 1945, you couldn't do a
whole
> >> >> lot better for targeting.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Its clear that the people were the real target.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yeah, the military people.
> >> >
> >> >Then why did the targetting demand that the target must be
> >> >in a large urban atrea?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Because that's where the valid military targets were. I don't understan
d
> >why
> >> you can't see that.
> >
> > Plese provide proof that the onlyvalid military targets in Japan in May
> >1945
> >were in large urban areas.
> >
> I never said that.

I was discussing the minutes of the target committe that was meeting
in May 1945 that specified the target must be in a large urban area.
You said the valid military targets were in urban areas. You didn't say
'some of' or 'most of', you said 'the valid military targets'. Since the
committe was meeting in May 45, the comment applies to that time.
I cannot interpret what you wrote any other way, but feel free to
explain what you meant.

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

weary

January 10th 04, 04:34 AM

"Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
news:3ff88efc$1@bg2....
>
> "weary" > wrote:
> >
> >"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
> om...
> >> In article >,
> >> "weary" > wrote:
> >>
> >> > "Greg Hennessy" > wrote in
> >message
> >> > ...
> >> >
> >> > > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/4526/hirodamap.html
> >> > >
> >> > > Ohh look at that. The HQ of the local
> >military district right in the
> >zone
> >> > > of complete destruction.
> >> >
> >> > Which seems to be the only military asset
> >in the zone.
> >>
> >> This map doesn't show the rest of the details.
> > That Military District
> >> Headquarters held the 11th Infantry Regiment,
> >the 5th Division
> >> Headquarters, a major artillery detachment,
> >and a number of other
> >> things, including the Prefectural office and
> >the City Hall. It was also
> >> the HQ of the invasion defense of that entire
> >section of the island.
> >>
> >> If you're dropping a nuke on Hiroshima in
> >1945, you couldn't do a whole
> >> lot better for targeting.
> >>
> >> > Its clear that the people were the real
> >target.
> >>
> >> Yeah, the military people.
> >
> >Then why did the targetting demand that the
> >target must be
> >in a large urban atrea?
> >
> >
> >
> Military and Military industries were in such large urban areas.

Not all of them. But why specify that the target had to be in a large
urban area.

Charles Gray

January 10th 04, 05:41 AM

On 06 Jan 2004 08:53:05 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

>>From: "weary"
>>Date: 1/6/2004 12:37 AM Central Standard Time
>>Message-id: >
>>
>>
>>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>>> >From: "weary"
>>> >Date: 1/1/2004 2:52 AM Central Standard Time
>>> >Message-id: >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> >> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 02:06:46 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> I do regret the civilian losses in Nagasaki and Hiroshima but none of the
>>other
>>> options would have saved lives. Not one.
>>
>>That is your opinion - I interpret the facts differently.
>>
>>>
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>
>What facts?
>
>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

We had pixies working for us who would have scattered magic dust on
the military targets?
Or perhaps our secret alliance with the Martian empire would have
come into play?
Those are the only "Facts" I can think of, becasue there sure aren't
any others lying around that back his point.

B2431

January 10th 04, 04:57 PM

>From: Charles Gray
>Date: 1/9/2004 11:41 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>On 06 Jan 2004 08:53:05 GMT, (B2431) wrote:
>
>>>From: "weary"
>>>Date: 1/6/2004 12:37 AM Central Standard Time
>>>Message-id: >
>>>
>>>
>>>"B2431" > wrote in message
...
>>>> >From: "weary"
>>>> >Date: 1/1/2004 2:52 AM Central Standard Time
>>>> >Message-id: >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>> >> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 02:06:46 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> I do regret the civilian losses in Nagasaki and Hiroshima but none of the
>>>other
>>>> options would have saved lives. Not one.
>>>
>>>That is your opinion - I interpret the facts differently.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>>
>>
>>What facts?
>>
>>Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired
>
> We had pixies working for us who would have scattered magic dust on
>the military targets?
> Or perhaps our secret alliance with the Martian empire would have
>come into play?
> Those are the only "Facts" I can think of, becasue there sure aren't
>any others lying around that back his point.
>
I gave up on weary some time ago. He doesn't have the ability to grasp the fact
that urban targets are valid when they contain legitimate military targets,
that regardless of actions to end the war many thousands of people would have
died and that his constantly saying he knows the "facts" that apparently no one
else knows proves nothing.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Greg Hennessy

January 11th 04, 11:32 PM

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 03:00:49 GMT, "weary" > wrote:

>> >Then why insisit on it? However you are wrong. The Target
>> >Committee meeting that produced that requirement was held
>> >10-11 May 1945, at which time the bombing campaign was still
>> >in its relatively early stages.
>> >
>>
>> That was before anyone in the system even knew about the atom bombs.
>
>I don't understand the relevance of this comment.
>

Thats because you havent a clue about the topic being discussed, but are
only here to deliver specious moralising.

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

January 11th 04, 11:32 PM

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 02:53:20 GMT, "weary" > wrote:

>
>"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 06:28:01 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> Because that's where the valid military targets were. I don't
>understand
>> >why
>> >> you can't see that.
>> >
>> > Plese provide proof that the onlyvalid military targets in Japan in May
>> >1945
>> >were in large urban areas.
>> >
>>
>> What a surprise, its attempts more misdirection.
>>
>>
>> A. He never said that.
>
>Yes he did.
>

He clearly didnt troll.

>>
>> B. I suggest figuring out what the word 'priority' means, especially in
>the
>> context of having a very finite number of sorties available to hit
>> thousands of targets in mainland japan.
>
>He didn't use the word priority. Don't try moving goalpostrs.
>

He didnt *have* to, because those of us who have studied the history of the
period are fully aware of what a limited resource B29s were in theatre.

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

January 11th 04, 11:32 PM

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 02:45:36 GMT, "weary" > wrote:

>
>> Because that's where the valid military targets were. I don't understand
>why
>> you can't see that.
>
>Because in that case all that was necessary was to specify a valid military
>target.

They did.

>I don't understand why you can't see that.
>However,
>

Thats because you're too stupid to figure out that 'valid military targets'
which warrant the equivalent of 250+ B29 loads being dropped upon them
generally need a local population centre to facilite operations.

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.

weary

January 12th 04, 01:43 PM

"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 02:45:36 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
>
> >
> >> Because that's where the valid military targets were. I don't
understand
> >why
> >> you can't see that.
> >
> >Because in that case all that was necessary was to specify a valid
military
> >target.
>
> They did.

No - they specified a target surrounded by a large urban area.

>
> >I don't understand why you can't see that.
> >However,
> >
>
> Thats because you're too stupid to figure out that 'valid military
targets'
> which warrant the equivalent of 250+ B29 loads
> being dropped upon them
> generally need a local population centre to facilite operations.

Not necessarily. But even if they do why is necessary to mandate
the obvious?

weary

January 12th 04, 01:46 PM

"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 03:00:49 GMT, "weary" > wrote:
>
>
> >> >Then why insisit on it? However you are wrong. The Target
> >> >Committee meeting that produced that requirement was held
> >> >10-11 May 1945, at which time the bombing campaign was still
> >> >in its relatively early stages.
> >> >
> >>
> >> That was before anyone in the system even knew about the atom bombs.
> >
> >I don't understand the relevance of this comment.
> >
>
> Thats because you havent a clue about the topic being discussed, but are
> only here to deliver specious moralising.

That really clears it up

weary

January 12th 04, 01:48 PM

"B2431" > wrote in message
...
> >From: "weary"
> >Date: 1/6/2004 12:37 AM Central Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >
> >"B2431" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >From: "weary"
> >> >Date: 1/1/2004 2:52 AM Central Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Greg Hennessy" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 02:06:46 GMT, "weary" >
wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The aiming point for the Hiroshima bomb was a bridge in a mainly
> >> >> >residential area, not any of the military or industrial assets. By
> >> >> >definition
> >> >> >the target was civilians since that is where the bomb was aimed.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Which of course is a lie.
> >> >
> >> >So in your fantasy world you aim about a mile from the real target.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/4526/hirodamap.html
> >> >>
> >> >> Ohh look at that. The HQ of the local military district right in the
> >zone
> >> >> of complete destruction.
> >> >
> >> >Which seems to be the only military asset in the zone.
> >> >Its clear that the people were the real target.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> The railroads and trams were also valid military targets, as were the
> >factories
> >> and warehouses. Electrical distribution, water and sewage facilities
were
> >also
> >> valid targets. By no stretch of the imagination does the map at that
link
> >list
> >> all of the valid targets. But why let facts get in the way? You have
made
> >up
> >> your mind.
> >>
> >> You still haven't said how you would take out military targets in
> >Hiroshima,
> >> Nagasaki or any other city without massive civilian casualties.
> >
> >I have but you don't want to accept it.
> >
> >>
> >> Using technology available anyone bombing the Navy yard in Boston,
Mass,
> >for
> >> example, would take also out thousands of civilians.
> >
> >But not 70000
> >
> >>
> >> I do regret the civilian losses in Nagasaki and Hiroshima but none of
the
> >other
> >> options would have saved lives. Not one.
> >
> >That is your opinion - I interpret the facts differently.
> >
> >>
> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
> >
>
> What facts?

I suggest you go to a library and read up on the
subject - I haven't really got the time to educate you on-line.