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

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.

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 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.

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.

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 16:15:03 GMT, "Matt Wiser"
wrote:



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,

Given the intended reaction of japanese to Olympic, the japanese are going
to make short work of such a tiny force lacking any USN comparable
bluewater support element.


Shades of operation Sea Lion IMHO.


then they push inland.

and have to keep them supplied in the face of the japanese going at them
hammer and tongs kamikaze fashion.



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 "****"?)

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

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.