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

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.

Hiroshima was a military target -- it was a port with 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?

Damn straight, then turn their military targets into sheets of glass.

LT

--

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.

Al Minyard

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:19:39 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:

On 22 Dec 2003 15:48:57 -0800, wrote:

"Linda Terrell" wrote in message ...
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?


Yes-- and you might wish to note that Had Al Qaeda used a cruise
missile against the pentagon, it wouldn't be considered a criminal act
by many-- the pentagon is a military target.

Al Q is not a military force, it is a terrorist organization. Despite your
evident love for them, they are religious fanatics that wish to
kill all non-muslims.

Al Minyard

(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 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 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

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.