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

" 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


There is no bias in my argument. Your inability to provide anything
resembling and *alternative* makes that plain.



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.

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

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.

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.

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.