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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Gord Beaman" wrote in message ... "Tarver Engineering" wrote: I think the story could be told, with the final sentence containing, "and it was a very bad thing". I think we can all agree that the millions killed in WWII was all a bad thing. Jesus no John...can you just imagine...everything used in warfare with that stupid tagline on it? "So folks here's an example of a musket used in ancient wars. It was much more lethal than the clubs and spears used up till then. It could actually kill a man at 100 feet every 1.5 minutes!, and it was a very bad thing"...good God. The musket has other uses that are a good thing. The nuke only does things we would as soon not do. Just put the Enola Gay in there with a sign indicating that it was a technological leap both in aircraft and armament design. It was used to drop the first of two atomic bombs which ended WW2 Havn't we already tried that? |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Stephen Harding wrote:
: In reading your defense of the American use of the atomic bomb, and : the refutation of some of the lefties claims of the evil nature of : American leadership (over the entire history of the nation), I thought : perhaps you weren't quite the anti-American ideologue I'd pegged you as. And you were right -- I am not an anti-American ideologue. I do condemn and resent, however, those -- on the left; but also people on the right, like you -- who somehow want to lump together the historical decision to use the bomb against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with the intentions of the current US governments to develop nuclear weapons that are explicitly intended for first-strike use in limited warfare. Different context, different leaders, different goals and different consequences: Let us decide each case on its own merit. Truman's decision, seen in the context of 1945, was an understandable one, rationally defensible and morally not worse than many other acts perpetrated in this war, by friend and foe alike. It is very hard to attach any kind of approval to this decision; but perhaps it is sufficient to say that certainly most of the arguments that are used to condemn it don't survive closer scrutiny. The Bush nuclear policy is not defensible, not on moral grounds and not on grounds of self-interest. It is a prime example of ideology-driven boneheadedness. -- Emmanuel Gustin |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Stephen Harding wrote:
: Emmanuel Gustin wrote: : One wave would drop high explosive to destroy buildings. Later : waves might have more anti-personnel oriented weaponry to kill : the firemen fighting the fires, while delayed HE might be designed : to sink deeper into the ground before exploding, thus rupturing : gas and water lines, for more devastating effect. Firebombing of cities appears to have involved, in general, heavy HE bombs to break windows and improve the opportunity of fires to spread; fire bombs to start fires; and delayed- action anti-personnel bombs to hinder the activities of firefighters and rescue-workers. : Today we would regard this as "barbaric" and too directed towards : "innocent civilians". But back then, "tough luck"! You're with : "them" and you pay. Actually, it was certainly regarded as barbaric targeting of innocent civilians in 1939-1940. At the time there were almost as many concerns about "collateral damage" as today, perhaps even more. For example, the British government banned the bombing of enemy warships in port because it feared that the civilian population would be hit. As the war progressed, mentalities hardened, but not to the extent that the targeting of cities was ever unquestioned or unchallenged. Nor was it openly acknowledged by wartime governments that the essential target of such operations was the civilian population itself. Moral objections against the policy existed then as much as today; but the struggle for survival took priority and they were set aside. A good deal of plain hypocrisy was involved, and many people who actively supported the policy during the war saw fit to express their doubts when the war was won -- Churchill, for example. -- Emmanuel Gustin |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Lyle wrote: On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:17:14 +0100, "Emmanuel Gustin" wrote: "Polybus" wrote in message .com... 70,000 deaths. And as many scientists warned in advance would happen, and as President Truman clearly understood, the incineration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki initiated a nuclear arms race that threatened to bring about the annihilation of the human species, a danger that persists today. This is, to put it mildly, a non-sequitur. The use of the nuclear bomb did not trigger the nuclear arms race. That would have happened regardless of the use of the bomb, in fact it had already started. Dailey's remarks are particularly shocking in light of the criticism of the bombing by General Dwight Eisenhower and the questions raised by so many other WWII military leaders, sentiments best reflected in the haunting comments of Admiral William Leahy, Truman's wartime chief of staff who chaired the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who poignantly observed, "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....in being the first to use it, we adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages." With all respect for the late admiral Leahy, his claims are incompatible with the historical facts, and the learned signatories of this declaration ought to know that. The Japanese were certainly not ready to surrender. They were ready to seek favourable peace terms, which is not the same. Surely the A-bomb was a barbaric weapon, but I fail to see what the moral difference is between killing people with a nuclear weapon and killing the same people with conventional incendiary bombs. Which would have been the fate of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, if these cities had not been 'reserved' as nuclear targets. Large-scale, indiscriminate killing of civilians was already a feature of WWII well before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If the these nuclear bombings had not happened, and the war would ave continued for more weeks or months, the USAAF would have continued its systematic fire-bombing of Japanese cities, and probably more Japanese civilians would have been killed. I think it is fair enough to point out that Leahy was an admiral and Eisenhower an army general, and that because of interservice politics, they had a motive to claim that the war would have been concluded without this -- air force -- action. We are not, however, opposed to exhibiting the Enola Gay. Much to the contrary, we welcome any exhibition that will spur an honest and balanced discussion of the atomic bombings of 1945 and of current U.S. nuclear policy. The problem is, above statements are neither honest nor balanced. Of course everybody has the right to form a pressure group to advocate his of her views, but if the signatories seek to enhance to reputation of the USA, they should begin by being less selective in the facts they choose to consider and more rigorous in their logic. Professors they may be, but they are barely up to the standard expected of high school students. planned exhibit and that President Truman's use of atomic weapons will legitimize the Bush administration's current effort to lower the threshold for future use of nuclear weapons. This is rather far-fetched. While I think Bush' current nuclear plans are immoral, stupid, and counter-productive, I am not in the least afraid that the opinion of the American public will be swayed by the Enola Gay exhibition. We are not talking about the latest Coca-Cola commercial, this is an aeroplane on display in (yuck) a museum. We intend to use this exhibit, the presidential elections, and the upcoming 60th anniversary of the atomic bombings to stimulate a national discussion of U.S. nuclear history and current policy and to work with like-minded groups in other nations. In other words, the noble science of history will be pimped again to acquire a public stage for a political goal. In the end, of course, truth will be neither here nor there, and the Smithonsian will come to regret once more the day that it decided to put Enola Gay on display. Given the seriousness of the current nuclear crisis, should the Smithsonian not accede to this request for a fair and balanced presentation and a reasoned discussion of the many profound issues involved, we will join with others in this country and around the world to protest the exhibit in its present form and to catalyze a national discussion of critical nuclear issues. So the Smithonsian will be blackmailed into providing a platform for a protest of current policy? I hope the institution will resist this firmly and condemn it in clear words. While I symphatise with the protest against the nuclear policy of this US government, I think it is an appalling idea to drag an institution like this into politics. here is my $0.02 1.fire bombing of Tokyo killed more then the Atomic bomb. 2. by dropping it then, we saved lives, cause we got first hand knowledge of what it was capable of, and thereby preventing nuclear war in the future. imagine what would happen if we dropped it in Korea war? 3. the people against the exhibit chances are did not live during this time. people were getting tired of war, and if dropping one a-bomb would save thousand lives it would be worth it.Otherwise Truman would have been lynched by the mothers and wives of this country for the needless deaths of their sons/husbands. 4. and i dont buy your veterans response either cause they probably were not going to be in the invasion force. Talk to a grunt who was, and he will Kiss Trumans ass if he were still alive for dropping the bomb. just my .$02. Good post, Lyle. 15 Kt on Hiroshima and 20 Kt on Nagasaki is a lot better than having U.S. 6th Army storm the beaches of Kyushu. Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access! |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Stephen Harding wrote: MLenoch wrote: Just a factual question: was there ever a statistic of the number of deaths via fire bombing vs. the nuclear bombs? Just wondering. Thx, Yes there have been some such stats, but they vary a bit. There is the issue of how many people died during the explosion versus days/weeks/months after. Firebombing (or any sort of bombing) can produce lingering, or drawn out deaths, but the nuclear bombing this was more pronounced. I've read that some "counters" in Japan continue to add to the death toll of Hiroshima/Nagasaki as people who were there and survived that day finally start to die off. Basically *everyone* in those towns becomes part of the death toll eventually for these types of counters. The numbers I've come across, with some [maybe] small percent variation due to faulty memory, are something like this: Hiroshima: 85,000 (I've read stats going up over 100,000) Nagasaki : 65,000 (max I've seen is around 80,000) One night firebombing of Tokyo by LeMay and company: 120,000-150,000. SMH I used similar stats in my MA thesis on the Invasion v. bombs: more died in the Tokyo fire raid that died in the two nuclear strikes put together. Although I felt the U.S. casualty figure for Kyushu was too high-USSBS used 75-100,000, MacArthur's HQ (which I used) said 55,000 to 70,000, not including Navy casualties. No figures available for CORONET: the plan was published on Aug. 15th-the day of the surrender announcement-still incomplete. Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access! |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Aitken" wrote: "A.T. Hagan" wrote in message . com... (Polybus) wrote in message .com... Dear Friend, A committee of scholars, veterans, clergy, activists, students, and other interested individuals is now forming to challenge the Smithsonian's plans to exhibit the Enola Gay solely as a "magnificent technological achievement." GOOD. I'm glad to hear the Smithsonian has finally come to its senses and stopped acting ashamed of an important part of our national history that we have NO reason to be ashamed of. Unlike a good number of people who seem to be educated beyond their intelligence. Not that this topic has anything at all to do with rec.food.cooking which is where I read the thing. .....Alan. You and others are missing the point. If the B-29 is a "magnificent technological achievement" fine, display one. But why does it have to be the Enola Gay? That specific plane is unavoidable associated with dropping the A-bomb on a civilian target with all the resulting horrors. You may support the dropping of the bomb or you may be against it, but there's no denying that displaying *this* B-29 rather than another one makes the exhibit seem like a celebration of the bombing rather than the bomber. No matter how necessary and justified you think the bombing was, it is nothing to celebrate. Peter G. Aitken That B-29 in particluar, and it's sister ship Bock's Car did more to end the war than the revisionsts want to admit. Which is cheaper? Ten crew on a B-29 over Hiroshima or Nagasaki-or over a million soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines (Both American and British) on the beaches and sea approaches to Kyushu? And revisionists make me puke, as I have no use for them in any way, shape, or form. Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access! |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Sunny" wrote: "Polybus" wrote in message . com... Peter Kuznick, Professor of History and Director, Nuclear Studies Institute, American University Kevin Martin Executive Director, Peace Action Daniel Ellsberg Author, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and The Pentagon Papers Questions : 1. Do the three retards listed above, condone the cross posting to the groups listed ? 2. Does Peter Kuznick really study History (or only his version of it)? 3. Do any of the three realise that there was a World War on at the time? 4. What would you have suggested, at the time, as the means to subdue a fanatical enemy, that had proved to demonstrate acts of barbarism that are still wondered at? They all seem to think that if we had talked nicely to the Japanese, they would have surrendered. Not bloody likely. There was a war on, a major invasion planned of Kyushu in November, and ANY MEANS to prevent the bloodbath of American, British, and yes, Japanese lives and END THE WAR ASAP is a viable option. If that means incinerating two, three, or however many Japanese Cities by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s, so be it. Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access! |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Mycroft" david wrote: Look up the projected losses on both sides that an invasion of Japan would have caused then tell me how in-humane the A bomb was. Plus you forgot to mention that the fire bombing of Axis cities caused losses in some cases greater than both A bombs, war is hell but in the pacific the A bomb ended it. Myc MacArthur estimated about 70,000 casualties for Kyushu. Given the firepower the U.S. and British (British Pacific Fleet and RAF) had, the invasion of Kyushu would have succeeded, but if the bomb doesn't work, or there are production problems, the invasion HAS TO GO. I'd rather risk the lives of 7 B-29 crews on the Hiroshima strike than the lives of 766,000 men in U.S. 6th Army, plus the Navy's 3rd, 5th, and 7th Fleets in the Kyushu invasion. Truman made the right decision based on the information HE HAD AT THE TIME. It was a quick and brutal means to end a long war, but it got the job done. Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access! |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Peter Aitken wrote:
"Mycroft" david wrote in message ... Look up the projected losses on both sides that an invasion of Japan would have caused then tell me how in-humane the A bomb was. Plus you forgot to mention that the fire bombing of Axis cities caused losses in some cases greater than both A bombs, war is hell but in the pacific the A bomb ended it. This overlooks two alternatives. 1) We could have dropped the bomb in a lightly populated area to show the Japanese that we had it and hopefully scared them into surrender. They could have dropped the bomb on a big city too to show the Japanese they had the bomb, and scare them into surrender. Hang on a minute! They DID drop a bomb on a big city and DID show the Japanese they HAD the bomb. Guess who didn't surrender? ronh -- "People do not make decisions on facts, rather, how they feel about the facts" Robert Consedine |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|