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

From: "weary"
Date: 1/1/2004 2:52 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 02:06:46 GMT, "weary" wrote:


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.


Which of course is a lie.

So in your fantasy world you aim about a mile from the real target.


http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agor...hirodamap.html

Ohh look at that. The HQ of the local military district right in the zone
of complete destruction.

Which seems to be the only military asset in the zone.
Its clear that the people were the real target.



The railroads and trams were also valid military targets, as were the factories
and warehouses. Electrical distribution, water and sewage facilities were also
valid targets. By no stretch of the imagination does the map at that link list
all of the valid targets. But why let facts get in the way? You have made up
your mind.

You still haven't said how you would take out military targets in Hiroshima,
Nagasaki or any other city without massive civilian casualties.

Using technology available anyone bombing the Navy yard in Boston, Mass, for
example, would take also out thousands of civilians.

I do regret the civilian losses in Nagasaki and Hiroshima but none of the other
options would have saved lives. Not one.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"
Date: 1/1/2004 2:52 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 02:06:46 GMT, "weary" wrote:


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.


Which of course is a lie.

So in your fantasy world you aim about a mile from the real target.


http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agor...hirodamap.html

Ohh look at that. The HQ of the local military district right in the
zone
of complete destruction.

Which seems to be the only military asset in the zone.
Its clear that the people were the real target.



The railroads and trams were also valid military targets, as were the
factories
and warehouses. Electrical distribution, water and sewage facilities were
also
valid targets. By no stretch of the imagination does the map at that link
list
all of the valid targets. But why let facts get in the way? You have made
up
your mind.

You still haven't said how you would take out military targets in
Hiroshima,
Nagasaki or any other city without massive civilian casualties.

I have but you don't want to accept it.


Using technology available anyone bombing the Navy yard in Boston, Mass,
for
example, would take also out thousands of civilians.

But not 70000


I do regret the civilian losses in Nagasaki and Hiroshima but none of the
other
options would have saved lives. Not one.

That is your opinion - I interpret the facts differently.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 08:52:03 GMT, "weary" wrote:


http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agor...hirodamap.html

Ohh look at that. The HQ of the local military district right in the zone
of complete destruction.

Which seems to be the only military asset in the zone.

Your point ? Tell us how a conventional raid of B29s would have killed 2
divisions worth of soldiers plus the HQ staff for the entire region and
*not* caused collateral damage.


Its clear that the people were the real target.


The manhattan project targetting committee says otherwise.


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.

(Tom Hartman) wrote:
(cave fish) wrote in
message m...
Dave Smith wrote
in message ...
RogerM wrote:


First off, **** Japan, they started
it, we finished it.

First off, **** you asshole. The women
and children who were murdered
didn't have **** to with Pearl Harbor.

Sure they did. They were part of an imperialist
society that had been
expanding in the Pacific. They were the
people who were providing the men to
serve in the Japanese armed forces which
had invaded China and other Asian
countries where they were set loose to terrorize
the populace with
unimaginable atrocities. The people in those
cities were busy manufacturing
war materials and providing other services
that helped the war effort.

You are partly right. No one is completely
innocent, which is how
Palestinians justify their bombing of Jewish
civilians and how Al
Qaeda defends its attack on NY. Since all
of us pay taxes that support
US foreign policy, yes we are all guilty.
However, in a case of open war between nations,
while it may be
justified to bomb key industrial areas supplying
the war effort, do
tell me how a newborn baby in a Hiroshima
is guilty of anything? Or,
kindergarten students? Or, members of the
opposition? Or, those in
jail for standing up to Japanese militarism?
Or, old folks living out
their last days?
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 more casualties from US napalming
of the Japanese than from
the A bomb. I was reading "Flyboys," an excellent
book, and it had a
section quoting one of the Japanese military
leaders who said that was
more demoralizing than the strike by the Enola
Gay.
You're forgetting that post-Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the fear that even
a single B-29 would be carrying an A-bomb that spread in Japan. Even recon
planes were feared. And now it meant one plane, one bomb, one city.

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