"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?