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

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.

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

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.

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