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

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.

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 "****"?)

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.

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.

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.

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 Theat
"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

(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 Theat
"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.

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.

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.

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.