"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 02:14:06 GMT, "weary" wrote:


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.

So why did you assert it

Assert what - I repeat, point out where I claimed there would
be zero casualties. I suggested conventional precision bombing because
it would involve less civilian casualties. If you think it wouldn't have,
then
name some precision bombing raids that caused any where near the
number of civilian casualties that Hiroshima did.

then f*ckwit,

The frustration of one who cannot understand simple English.

other than specious and facile
moralising that is.

Address the issues rather than ranting.


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.

Message-ID:

"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."

Like all trolls you eventually start contradicting yourself.

Where is stated or implied that I can't figure out that 2/3 of bombs
fell more than 1000' from the target/ Come on, the precise words.




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.

I suggest finding out what 'C' means in CEP.

Exactly what in my statement makes you think I don't know
what it means?


What do you think
a point target is - one of your non-existent backyard workshops.

YOu havent read those bombing surveys too well now have you troll, in
particular pay attention to where it details how *hard* is was to destroy
machine tools depite HE destroying the buildings which contained them.

Where does it say that regarding the Japanese campaign?



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.

they didnt. You have no comprehension of the meaning of what was written.

Precision bombing was used in Germany for essentially the whole
war. It's average over the whole war was 20% in 1000' of target.


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.

You think ports, dockyards and military headquarters manage to run them
selves now do you ?

Your question doesn't answer mine. It's about your fourth attempt
to explain why a large urban area was required.


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,

Yes that was most amusing. 2nd guessing life of death decisions made by
mean whose boots you aren't fit to clean.

It was a hypothetical idiot. There was no decision made. It didn't happen.

Its a pity 'Weary' Dunlop isnt
about to knock some sense into your miserable PC skull.

your question is
ridiculous.

No, you're to stupid to figure out that anti personnel bombs were carried
to suppress attempts at fire fighting, not to 'specifically kill
civilians'.

How do you use bombs to "suppress" fire fighting without killing civilians?



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.

LMAO! So the 15-20000 odd thousand troops who were killed by the bomb were
'civilians' too were they.

Source please.


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.

No, the only hypocrite here is the fool who asserts that it was immoral to
use every means necessary

But you call it terrorism when someone does it to you.

to defeat a foe who was murdering 10000 chinese
civilians every day the war continued.



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.

Ohhh, Its changing tack again,

Not changing tack - just asking you to point out where I wrote
what you claim I did. Of course you can't - it's just
another of your lies.

would that be like claiming an aircraft
plant is a precision target.

Thats what was bombed in Germany as part of the daylight precision
bombing campaign, as well as oil plants and ball bearing works. In spite
of all the hype, the Norden bomb sight couldn't really drop a bomb into
a pickle barrel from 20 000 feet.



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?

I suggest you find out, I am not here to continue your limited education.

BWAAAAH. Loser. Caught out.


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.

"Since I suggested that such bombs not be carried, "

Given you clearly hadnt a *clue* why they were carried.

Nothing was carried you moron. It was a hypothetical in the USSBS
estimating what was necessary to achieve the same result as the
Hiroshima bomb. I pointed out where savings could have been made
and civilian lives spared.


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.


We do know you miserable peon. I suggest you figure out figure out what
'magic' was to see why.

That would be the decodes of Japanese messages that included those
revealing the Japanese steps towards surrender from at least early July.