If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
"weary" wrote: "B2431" wrote in message ... From: "weary" Besides, I have never asked nor do I want my government to kill civilians so that I can sleep safe at night. As a matter of fact, if I knew that is what my government was doing, I would not sleep safe at night. Tell ya what, get the bad guys to move their military targets away from civilian populations and the civilians will stop dying. That is true for all countries and organizations including the U.S. and Al Quaida. Your insistance that civilians were deliberatly targeted in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would only hold water if the military targets were no where near civilian population centers. In Hiroshima the aiming point was in a largely residential area and the targetting selection required that the military target be in a large urban area. I ask again, how would YOU have taken out the military targets in Nagasaki and Hiroshima without harming civilians. Conventional bombing and I haven't claimed that no civilians would be harmed so don't you try that strawman as well. As a Jew I take offense at your comparing Dachau to Hiroshima. When did I do that? Many thousands of humans died there, not just Jews, but I have been there and have seen the grave markers. Many thousands of Japanese civilians died in Hiroshima. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired Look, accurate conventional bombing was not possible in 1945, and the only way of knocking out Japan's major industries, cottage industry, and adjacent military targets was by low-level fire raids at night. B-29s attempted daylight precision bombing of such targets from Nov '44 to March of '45. It didn't work. LeMay was right: it HAD TO BE DONE. He knew the civilian casualties would be high, but it was necessary to accomplish the mission assigned him: the destruction of Japan's industry to support the war, and destruction of such military targets colocated with the industries. More people died in a single fire raid on Tokyo than were killed in the two nuclear strikes put together. You still haven't answered the question: what would you have done? I'll refresh your options 1) Bombing in combination with Blockade 2) Invasion of Kyushu in Nov 45 followed by Invasion of Kanto Plain Mar 46 3) Open military use of the Atomic Bomb Diplomacy IS NOT AN OPTION. Unconditional Surrender is the goal. Nothing less than total acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration. So answer the question: what would YOU have done in Truman's place in ending the war with a minimum loss of Allied and Japanese lives? To me, it's simple: drop the bomb and prevent the bloodbath on Kyushu come November. Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access! |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Wiser" wrote in message news:3ff88f17$1@bg2.... "weary" wrote: "Matt Wiser" wrote in message news:3ff06fa6$1@bg2.... "weary" wrote: snip Weary, I said it before and I'll say it again: How would you have destroyed the miltiary and industrial targets located in Japanese Cities? Conventional bombing. If not the B-29 fire raids, what? Daylight precision bombing had poor results over Japan due to winds (Jet Stream) and opposition from flak and fighters. Where do get this nonsense from? The Strategic Bombing Survey states - "Bombing altitudes after 9 March 1945 were lower, in both day and night attacks. Japanese opposition was not effective even at the lower altitudes, and the percentage of losses to enemy action declined as the number of attacking planes increased. Bomb loads increased and operating losses declined in part due to less strain on engines at lower altitudes. Bombing accuracy increased substantially, and averaged 35 to 40 percent within 1,000 feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks from 20,000 feet or lower." From the USAF official history of the 20th and 21st Bomber Commands. Strange that the USSBS contradicts them. The figures it cites speak for themselves. And remember: General Hayward Hansell, the first CO of the B-29s on the Marianas, was fired for poor performance of his command and replaced with LeMay by Hap Arnold. Why would I want to remember that? How is it relevant? You still think that accurate conventional bombing was possible given Japan's cottage industry. I never claimed it was possible against cottage industry - please stop constructing strawmen. It wasn't. Only way to destroy said major How can cottage industry be a major industrial target? and minor industrial targets was to go low-level at night with incindinaries. It worked. I don't care what the Japanese think: THEY STARTED THE WAR, AND THEY HAVE ONLY THEMSELVES TO BLAME FOR THE CONSEQUENCES. Pearl Harbor's treachery was repaid with interest at Hiroshima. Pearl Harbour didn't happen in a vacuum, in spite of what you seem to think. The Japanese didn't get up one morning and decide to attack Pearl Harbour because they had nothing else to do. Yamamoto was right: "All we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." He didn't live to see it, but he was right. I had relatives who were either in the Pacific or headed there from Europe. To them, Truman made the right decision: drop the bomb and end the war ASAP. No bomb means invasion, and look at Saipan, Luzon, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa to see what that would've been like. I like to think that I'm here because my grandfather didn't go to Kyushu in Nov '45. Oh God spare me the grandfather story yet again. |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
"Matt Wiser" wrote in message news:3ff88f39$1@bg2.... "weary" wrote: "B2431" wrote in message ... From: "weary" Besides, I have never asked nor do I want my government to kill civilians so that I can sleep safe at night. As a matter of fact, if I knew that is what my government was doing, I would not sleep safe at night. Tell ya what, get the bad guys to move their military targets away from civilian populations and the civilians will stop dying. That is true for all countries and organizations including the U.S. and Al Quaida. Your insistance that civilians were deliberatly targeted in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would only hold water if the military targets were no where near civilian population centers. In Hiroshima the aiming point was in a largely residential area and the targetting selection required that the military target be in a large urban area. I ask again, how would YOU have taken out the military targets in Nagasaki and Hiroshima without harming civilians. Conventional bombing and I haven't claimed that no civilians would be harmed so don't you try that strawman as well. As a Jew I take offense at your comparing Dachau to Hiroshima. When did I do that? Many thousands of humans died there, not just Jews, but I have been there and have seen the grave markers. Many thousands of Japanese civilians died in Hiroshima. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired Look, accurate conventional bombing was not possible in 1945, and the only way of knocking out Japan's major industries, cottage industry, The idea of a substantial "cottage industry" is a myth USSBS "By 1944 the Japanese had almost eliminated home industry in their war economy. " and adjacent military targets was by low-level fire raids at night. B-29s attempted daylight precision bombing of such targets from Nov '44 to March of '45. It didn't work. From the USSBS "The tonnage dropped prior to 9 March 1945 aggregated only 7,180 tons although increasing month by month. The planes bombed from approximately 30,000 feet and the percentage of bombs dropped which hit the target areas averaged less than 10 percent. Nevertheless, the effects of even the relatively small tonnage hitting the selected targets were substantial. During this period, attacks were directed almost exclusively against aircraft, primarily aircraft engine, targets. The principal aircraft engine plants were hit sufficiently heavily and persistently to convince the Japanese that these plants would inevitably be totally destroyed. " How does this constitute a case of "It didn't work". The bombing campaign continued for quite some time after March 45 and in fact that period is when the vast majority of munitions were dropped. And although you seem to want to ignore the USSBS report I quoted elsewhere I will include it again because it refers to a period when over 150 000 tons of bombs were dropped on Japan, as opposed to the already noted 7180 tons in the period you wish to concentrate on. Its content is inconsistent with your claim that precision bombing "didn't work". "Bombing altitudes after 9 March 1945 were lower, in both day and night attacks. Japanese opposition was not effective even at the lower altitudes, and the percentage of losses to enemy action declined as the number of attacking planes increased. Bomb loads increased and operating losses declined in part due to less strain on engines at lower altitudes. Bombing accuracy increased substantially, and averaged 35 to 40 percent within 1,000 feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks from 20,000 feet or lower." LeMay was right: it HAD TO BE DONE. He knew the civilian casualties would be high, but it was necessary to accomplish the mission assigned him: the destruction of Japan's industry to support the war, and destruction of such military targets colocated with the industries. More people died in a single fire raid on Tokyo than were killed in the two nuclear strikes put together. You still haven't answered the question: what would you have done? I'll refresh your options 1) Bombing in combination with Blockade 2) Invasion of Kyushu in Nov 45 followed by Invasion of Kanto Plain Mar 46 3) Open military use of the Atomic Bomb Diplomacy IS NOT AN OPTION. This is not a game with you making the rules to attempt to restrict the outcome to your point of view. Reality was, as noted in USSBS "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
"B2431" wrote in message ... From: "weary" "B2431" wrote in message ... From: "weary" Besides, I have never asked nor do I want my government to kill civilians so that I can sleep safe at night. As a matter of fact, if I knew that is what my government was doing, I would not sleep safe at night. Tell ya what, get the bad guys to move their military targets away from civilian populations and the civilians will stop dying. That is true for all countries and organizations including the U.S. and Al Quaida. Your insistance that civilians were deliberatly targeted in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would only hold water if the military targets were no where near civilian population centers. In Hiroshima the aiming point was in a largely residential area and the targetting selection required that the military target be in a large urban area. I ask again, how would YOU have taken out the military targets in Nagasaki and Hiroshima without harming civilians. Conventional bombing and I haven't claimed that no civilians would be harmed so don't you try that strawman as well. OK, so your contention civilians were the intended targets of the atomic bombings doesn't hold water. ? The fact remains there were military targets there and civilians would die in very large numbers in any case. Feel free to point out any precision bombing raid that produced over 70000 civilian deaths. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
"Chad Irby" wrote in message . com... In article , "weary" wrote: In Hiroshima the aiming point was in a largely residential area and the targetting selection required that the military target be in a large urban area. You know, you keep saying this, and while true in one respect (there were a lot of homes in the area), it was a great aim point for hitting the major military targets in Hiroshima, along with the local City Hall and Prefectural offices. What was the military value in such targets? |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message ... On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:51:33 GMT, "weary" wrote: I never claimed that every bomb would be on target, Ohhh it attempts to move the goalposts. Liar - quote where I said that there would be no civilian casualties or every bomb would be on target. but feel free to construct strawmen, Not a strawman, a fact, you were asked to provide the alternatives, you havent. I have they are fun to demolish and reveal the poverty of your argument. Precision bombing in Japan at the time of the atomic bombs greatly exceeded the average accuracy of the German theatre, where precision bombing was used and obviously thought viable for pretty well the whole campaign. Which of course is *meaningless* given the CEP needed to hit and destroy a point target. Aircraft factories, oil refineries etc aren't point targets. and averaged 35 to 40 percent within 1,000 feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks from 20,000 feet or lower. " ROFLMAO!! You idiot, you still don't know what CEP means now do you. Your delusions and proclivity to inappropriate fits of laughter don't concern me, but you should seek professional help. The requirement that the target must be within an urban area meant that civilian casualties would be maximised. Which of course is another revisionist lie. So in your fantasy world pointing out the obvious is "revisionism". I don't think you know what it means. It is revisionism to claim that B29s had the means to accurately deliver HE on military targets in urban areas as an alternative to fire raids or the atom bomb. Its pure unadulterated fantasia. B29s did and could do so accurately enough to inflict less casualties than area bombing or atomic bombs. What is the effect of demanding that the 'target' be in an urban area with regard to civilian casualties - are they minimised or maximised? Why is the value of the 'target' somehow increased by being in a large urban area? I suggest you ask the targeting committee, the one which detailed 'military' targets as a clear contradiction of your idiotic line about civilians. Why did the target have to be in a large urban area? I ask you like I've asked all the other revisionists. Tell us how *you* would have targeted these facilities and these facilities using the technology of the period. Industrial plants had been targetted successfully by B-29s virtually from the start of the bombing campaign against the Japanese home islands. Detail them. Tell us *exactly* what industrial plants had been targetted successfully by B29s in mainland japan without causing any collateral damage to the surrounding urban areas. Nice attempt at a strawman - I didn't claim that such raids caused no 'collateral' damage. I asked you to tell us how *you* would have targeted the dozen or so key targets in hiroshima using the technology of the period. Your reply was a non sequitur. "Industrial plants had been targetted successfully by B-29s virtually from the start of the bombing campaign against the Japanese home islands." What was special about the targets in Hiroshima that the usual bombing ststistics wouldn't apply? Given you've already told us that 60-70 % of bombs dropped will fall more than 1000 feet from the target, even your limited comprehension skills should be aware what 12 air raids by 3-500 B29s will do to a city, even if they drop only HE. Yet below you provide a quote that says the same damage to Hiroshima could have been inflicted by 220 B-29s and details the bomb load. Nearly a quarter of the load was ant-personnel bombs so about fifty planes could have been left behind unless the aim was specifically kill civilians, given that the vast majority of casualties were civilians. A far cry from the figures (3600-6000)you pluck out of the air above. You are obviously short of facts if you have to resort to constructing strawmen. You've been repeatedly asked for a meaningful alternative to the fire raids or the A bomb and you haven't provided one. I have - your chauvinism prevent you from considering it. Intellectual dishonesty noted. You will tell us the rest of what was quoted there now wont you. If you think something was left out that changed the context feel free to post it. Yes, the source http://www.usaaf.net/surveys/pto/pbs20.htm and "The Survey has estimated that the damage and casualties caused at Hiroshima by the one atomic bomb dropped from a single plane would have required 220 B-29s carrying 1,200 tons of incendiary bombs, 400 tons of high-explosive bombs, and 500 tons of anti-personnel fragmentation bombs, if conventional weapons, rather than an atomic bomb, had been used. One hundred and twenty-five B-29s carrying 1,200 tons of bombs would have been required to approximate the damage and casualties at Nagasaki. This estimate pre-supposed bombing under conditions similar to those existing when the atomic bombs were dropped and bombing accuracy equal to the average attained by the Twentieth Air Force during the last 3 months of the war. " Which proves that the cities were not treated any differently to any other B29 target in Japan. Which doesn't say anything about the legality or morality of that treatment. You also neglected the detail the terminal effects on Nagasaki, something to do with the PBS tearing another great hole in your drivel about the poor ickle 'civilians'. ??? Which were assembled from components made in small backyard workshops up and down the kanto plain, Yeah right. They must have turned out hundreds of naval guns and aero engines, the obvious choke points in production. Awww bless another red herring. Tell us how japanese soldiers in the field made use of all these 'hundreds of naval guns and aero engines' (sic). You are aware that armies require more prosaic items, like vehicles, small arms, uniforms, a wide variety of munitions including, bullets, grenades and shells which were turned out by the millions across the kanto plain. The USBS states "By 1944 the Japanese had almost eliminated home industry in their war economy. " So where do you get your bull**** about backyard workshops across the kanto plain? |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
"B2431" wrote in message ... From: "weary" Date: 1/2/2004 4:51 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: "B2431" wrote in message ... From: "weary" With military targets located in the cities, the cities were legitimate targets. The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes and 9-11 is that in 1945, there was a WAR ON that had to be brought to an end by whatever means necessary. But you deny others the same right. I'm sorry you don't see the difference between a war declared by all sides and a terroristic act. It only takes one side to declare war, if the other declines to respond it does so at its own peril. Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired It is obvious you won't let reality interfere with your opinions. Well it isn't obvious to me. When was the last time the US was involved in a war declared by all sides, and how many interventions has it been involved in since then? |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"weary" wrote: "Chad Irby" wrote in message . com... In article , "weary" wrote: In Hiroshima the aiming point was in a largely residential area and the targetting selection required that the military target be in a large urban area. You know, you keep saying this, and while true in one respect (there were a lot of homes in the area), it was a great aim point for hitting the major military targets in Hiroshima, along with the local City Hall and Prefectural offices. What was the military value in such targets? Besides a lot of soldiers, a lot of equipment, and being the main military command center for that part of the island? And the civilian centers were, as you should know, pre-empted by the military, too. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message ... On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:57:14 GMT, "weary" wrote: It names Eisenhower and cites the source of the two quotes which is what That would be Eisenhower who wasnt in the command loop for operations in the pacific and had no 1st hand knowledge of the losses being incurred on a daily basis in Okinawa and elsewhere. It was an Eisenhower who(as the quote notes) had been briefed by the Stimson you refer to below and who was presumably as aware of the situation as Stimson himself. and Stimson whose own memoirs put the cost of an allied invasion of Japan at at least 250,000 casualities. So what - the whole point of the discussion is that an invasion was not necessary. Even the USSBS says that Japan would have surrendered. http://www.paperlessarchives.com/olympic.html Nevermind Leahy whose own briefing to truman put allied casualities at 30-35% within 30 days of invasion. But Leahy didn't think the landings would be necessary. "It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons. " snip. Anything quoting Gar Alperovitz as 'evidence' clearly is revisionism I didn't quote one word from Gar Alperovitz, but don't let facts intrude on your rant - feel free to misrepresent me as much as you misrepresent facts. |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|