(B2431) wrote:
From: Chad Irby
Date: 1/6/2004 12:10 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id: m

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


Forget it , Chad, he simply doesn't understand
war, economy or anything else
anyone has said to him. He has his mind set
on the fluffy side of war.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired


I'm beginning to agree with that.
Anyone wonder if he's ever talked to vets who were either in the Pacific
or on the way when the bombs fell? I assure you he'll get an earful on dropping
the bomb. It meant they came home alive in '45 instead of Golden Gate in
'48.

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