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

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

" 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:
On 22 Dec 2003 13:51:51 -0800,
(cave fish) wrote:


Russians would not have dared invade Japan
if Americans adamantly
opposed such idea.

The russians hadn't the means to invade japan
period.


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.
SOVPACFLT had assembled enough shipping to ship two divisions' worth of
troops to Hokkaido. Stalin had ordered planning for a Hokkaido invasion to
be done after Manchuria, Kuriles, and Sakhalin had been secured. Granted,
more troops would be needed, but shipping them in relays after a beachhead
is secure, then they push inland. And then you have Soviet troops in Japan
proper, something that (ironically) both the Japanese and the US/Britain
wished to avoid.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

"Linda Terrell" wrote:

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

--

Which is exactly what will happen if they EVER pop a nuke anywhere. 20 plus
minutes for a pair of Trident SSBNs, or 6-8 hours for B-2s with B-52s shooting
ALCMs. A brutal but effective object lesson.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

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!

(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!

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.

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.