"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 05:54:25 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.

You have done so repeatedly by claiming that there was an 'alternative'
where none existed.

Just point out where I claimed that the alternative would involve zero
casualties.



but feel free to
construct strawmen,


Not a strawman, a fact, you were asked to provide the alternatives, you
havent.

I have


You haven't, you selectively quoted the bombing survey figures but were
too
stupid to figure out that 2/3s of all bombs dropped fell more than 1000
feet from the target.

Liar - point out where I made any claim that is supported by what
you fabricate here.


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.

Ahhh, its manages to contradict itself yet again through complete
cluelessness.

When only 35-40% of the bombs fall within 1000' feet of the
target, an aircraft factory etc is a point target. What do you think
a point target is - one of your non-existent backyard workshops.


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.

You produced figures which completely undermined your idiotic argument
about the allies having the means to precisely hit targets anywhere,
never
mind urban areas.

One can only laugh at such stupidity.


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.

Yet another attempt at misdirection.

They clearly couldn't accurately target any facility in anywhere when
2/3rds of bombs dropped fell more than 1000 feet from the aimpoint.

Or have you forgotten those inconvenient bombing survey figures yet idiot.

Since I am the one who pointed them out, that hardly seems likely, moron.

Yet they they considered that half that accuracy was sufficient to warrant
precision bombing in Germany. But logic isn't one of you strong points.



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?


Like DUH! One generally finds large urban areas around key facilities
such
as ports, dockyards and regional military headquarters controlling tens of
thousands of personnel.

Then why make it a requirement.




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?

That is a non sensical question.


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.

Not loaded with HE alone they wouldnt.

Nearly a quarter of the load was ant-personnel bombs

Cue yet another clue free attempt at moralising.

so about fifty
planes could have been left behind unless the aim was specifically
kill civilians,

Of course you will tell us how anti personnel bombs which 'specifically
kill civilians' would managed to kill those who would have been warned at
least 45 mins before hand by air raid sirens and are now sitting in bomb
shelters.

Since I suggested that such bombs not be carried, your question is
ridiculous.


given that the vast majority of casualties were civilians.

'civilians' who were providing the means to murder millions of real
civilians across the pacific. Tough.

All 70000 in Hiroshima - sure.

At last you endorse total war - this is where I came into the argument.
You believe it is alright to wage total war on others , but when someone
wages total war on you (11 Sept) you call it terrorism and criminal -
hypocrite.



A far cry from the figures (3600-6000)you pluck out of the air above.

You're the one claiming that B29s could accurately target anything
without
causing collateral damage, not I.

Once again you are lying - point out where I made that claim.
Most of your argument seems to rely on fabricated claims
about what I have said.


Very hard to do when the initial CEP for B29 operations was 6%.

A few post ago CEP was 1000 yards and now it is 6% - what are the
units for measuring CEP?


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.

You haven't, all you've done is peddle revisionist agit-prop, your
hilarious nonsense about anti personnel bombs being the latest emission of
pomo moralising.

???? Calm down and take your meds.




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.


It doesn't have to. There was nothing illegal or immoral in using a weapon
which ended the war and saved the lives of nearly 1 million allied POWs
and
Internees held by the Japanese.

We don't know that it did that or that it had to bu used at all.




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'.

???

Ohh, it evades yet again. Please tell the audience what was damaged and
destroyed by the nagasaki bomb , or it is too embarrassing for you.

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. "

LMAO! Of course it snips the following sentence which proves my point


" They still relied, however, on plants employing less than 250 workers
for
subcontracted parts and equipment. Many of these smaller plants were
concentrated in Tokyo and accounted for 50 percent of the total industrial
output of the city. Such plants suffered severe damage in urban incendiary
attacks. "

So in your fantasy world , a plant employing 250 people is a backyard
workshop. My turn to LMAO