Hiroshima justified? (was Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements)

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

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

(was 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

(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.

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.

(was 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

(B2431) wrote:
(was 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!

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.

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

nt (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!