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

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

--

"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!

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 16:15:04 GMT, "Matt Wiser"
wrote:


"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!


Minor problem-- Al Qaeda has no bases...and their greatest base of
support seems to be coming from Pakistan and Saudia Arabia...which are
our allies.

That is, of course, one of the biggest arguements for preventing
large scale proliferation-- a nuke in the hands of any organization,
terrorist, criminal or otherwise with no major bases of cities to
defend is an utter nightmare, because right now the only defense
against nukes IS detterence.

In article ,
Charles Gray wrote:

Minor problem-- Al Qaeda has no bases

Well, not any more.

...and their greatest base of support seems to be coming from
Pakistan and Saudia Arabia...which are our allies.

Note the current low level of AQ activity.

If they were working unhindered, you'd think that could come up with
something dramatic in a place other than a Muslim country on the other
side of the planet from the Great Satan...

If they don't manage to do something tonight or tomorrow, it's a good
sign that they're *done*, effectively.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

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

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:37:57 -0600, Alan Minyard
wrote:

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

You are correct-- since Al Qaeda has no international standing, any
attack by them, is both de facto and legally illegal.
Let me rephrase-- had the Pentagon been attacked by a nation as part
of a conflict, there would be nothing *innately* illegal about that,
even though there are civilian workers co-located with teh military
personel. Of course, in that case methods woudl count, and using a
liner loaded with civilians as a cruisemissile would still be illegal
and a war crime. (and a nation state has *so* many peices of valuable
real estate where the U.S. could make our...displeasure at such an
action felt).

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!

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.

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: (cave fish)

snip

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.

There WERE military targets in Nagasaki and Hiroshima and I'm not talking
about
the civilians.

Nagasaki was a functioning port. Hiroshima had a army divisions and
training
facilities as well as some mines with POWs working in them.

If you had been following this thread you'd have known this by now.

The aiming point for the Hiroshima bomb was a bridge in a mainly
residential area, not any of the military or industrial assets. By
definition
the target was civilians since that is where the bomb was aimed.

Subject: Hiroshima justified? (was Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other
magnificent technological achievements)
From: "weary"
Date: 12/27/03 6:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: (cave fish)

snip

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.

There WERE military targets in Nagasaki and Hiroshima and I'm not talking
about
the civilians.

Nagasaki was a functioning port. Hiroshima had a army divisions and
training
facilities as well as some mines with POWs working in them.

If you had been following this thread you'd have known this by now.

The aiming point for the Hiroshima bomb was a bridge in a mainly
residential area, not any of the military or industrial assets. By
definition
the target was civilians since that is where the bomb was aimed.



As a trained and experienced bombardier I wish I could have been on the Enola
Gay that day. I would have had the honor of bringing to an end the worst war
the world has ever seen.But I was busy in Eirope at that time.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer