"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:58:16 GMT, "weary" wrote:


All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means.


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

No. Do try to follow the thread.

Your laughable attempt at evasion is noted.

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

You claimed that

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

I am asking you to tell us how.

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


Indoctrination - my turn to ROFLMAO.

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

But you deny others the same right.


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

Bad news - it isn't working,

The opinion of uninformed idiots doesn't count.

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