"weary" wrote:

"Matt Wiser" wrote
in message
news:3fe49de1$1@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"

Do you think Saddam Hussein had the same
right to use WMD to save the
lives of Iraqi servicemen while fighting
Iran and internal rebellion?
Did Al-Qaeda have the same right to deliberately
target civilians in
their
war with the USA, specifically WTC?

If Saddam hadn't invaded Iran there would
not have been a need to defend
"Iraqi
servicemen."

Complaints about his use of WMD relate to
uses
considerably pre-dating
his invasion of Kuwait.


As for the attacks on the WTC there was
no
military value there. An
argument
could be made for the strike on the Pentagon
being a military attack.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima each had valid military
targets within the cities.

The odds are that there were Reservists in
the
WTC at the time of the
attack.
The poster I was replying to advocated using
"ANY MEANS" to end the war.
He also wrote "If that means incinerating
two,
three, or however many
Japanese Cities
by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s,
so
be it." He made no mention of
destroying military assets. His choice of
words
clearly states that the
destruction of
cities was what would produce a Japanese
surrender,
not destruction of
military
assets.




For weary: I'm the one who stated that however
many cities had to be
destroyed
by the 509th's B-29s. Military targets WERE
located in said cities.
Hiroshima
had the 2nd General Army HQ, a Railroad line
and depot, a airfield and
port
facility, and a division's worth of troops
garrisoned there. Nagasaki:
Mistubushi
aircraft works, a torpedo factory, port facilities
and related
infrastructure,
an air base, etc. Kokura (would've been hit
on 9 Aug if not for
weather)had
a major arsenal, a chemical plant (that happened
to be producing mustard
gas and cynagen chloride agents), an air base,
rail facilities, and so on.

All of which could have been destroyed by conventional
means.

With military targets located in the cities,
the cities were legitimate
targets.
The difference between the 1945 nuclear strikes
and 9-11 is that in 1945,
there was a WAR ON that had to be brought
to an end by whatever means
necessary.

But you deny others the same right.

If that meant destroying cities to prevent
two invasions of the Japanese
Home Islands, so be it. What would you rather
risk: several B-29 aircrews
on the missions, or 766,000 soldiers and Marines
in the U.S. 6th Army
hitting
the beaches of Kyushu on or after 1 November?
Not to mention the American
and British aircrews and sailors directly
supporting the invasion.
Al-Queda
started the war on terror on 9-11 with a massacre.

No they didn't . The war was declared by OBL
in 1995, IIRC.

They may have started
the war, but we'll finish it.



You still haven't answered the question: drop the bomb or invade. As for
conventional strikes: guess what the conventional strikes would be: B-29s
at low level with M-47 and M-69 incindenary bombs. Remember: it's not just
the destructive effect of 15 Kt on Hiroshima and 20 Kt on Nagasaki, it's
the shock and suprise effect. Add to that the fear that ANY B-29 over Japan
flying solo could be carrying an atomic bomb and that affects military and
civilian morale very badly. Bottom line: Truman, based on the information
he had, had two options: invade or use the bomb. He did what he had to do
to END THE WAR and SAVE AMERICAN, BRITISH, AND JAPANESE LIVES. Estimated
casualties for Kyushu for the Allies range from a low of 49,000 to 85,000.
Japanese casualties would have been 5x to 10x that. Take your pick. End the
war in August or September with the bombs, or January at least with Kyushu,
or a year later if CORONET (the invasion of the Kanto) has to be launched,
with higher casualties for all concerned.

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