Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
news:3fe325a4$1@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

"Matt Wiser" wrote
in message
news:3fdb5db4$1@bg2....

"Sunny" wrote:

"Polybus"
wrote
in message
. com...
Peter Kuznick,
Professor of History and Director, Nuclear
Studies Institute, American
University

Kevin Martin
Executive Director, Peace Action

Daniel Ellsberg
Author, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and
The
Pentagon Papers

Questions :
1. Do the three retards listed above,
condone
the cross posting to the
groups listed ?
2. Does Peter Kuznick really study History
(or only his version of it)?
3. Do any of the three realise that there
was a World War on at the
time?
4. What would you have suggested, at
the
time, as the means to subdue a
fanatical enemy, that had proved to demonstrate
acts of barbarism that are
still wondered at?




They all seem to think that if we had talked
nicely to the Japanese,
they
would have surrendered. Not bloody likely.
There was a war on, a major
invasion
planned of Kyushu in November, and ANY MEANS
to prevent the bloodbath of
American, British, and yes, Japanese lives
and END THE WAR ASAP is a
viable
option. If that means incinerating two, three,
or however many Japanese
Cities
by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s,
so be it.

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?



Absolutely not. The rules of war, written or othewise, have changed.
Saddam's
use of WMD was in violation of the 1925 CBW Treaty, which Iraq had signed.

You were supporting the idea of using "ANY MEANS" to end the war. You still
haven't explained why Iraq didn't have the same right, given that ANY MEANS
obviously encompasses both legal and illegal.


As for Al-Queda, that was an act of terrorism and war,

The war had actually started at least some 6 years earlier. How was it
different from
bombing campaigns conducted in other theatres and wars by the US and its
allies
where the targets were residential or economic? (Apart from the obvious that
it was
them doing it to US rather than US doing it to them.)

"weary" wrote:

"Matt Wiser" wrote
in message
news:3fe325a4$1@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

"Matt Wiser" wrote
in message
news:3fdb5db4$1@bg2....

"Sunny" wrote:

"Polybus"
wrote
in message
. com...
Peter Kuznick,
Professor of History and Director, Nuclear
Studies Institute, American
University

Kevin Martin
Executive Director, Peace Action

Daniel Ellsberg
Author, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam
and
The
Pentagon Papers

Questions :
1. Do the three retards listed above,
condone
the cross posting to the
groups listed ?
2. Does Peter Kuznick really study
History
(or only his version of it)?
3. Do any of the three realise that
there
was a World War on at the
time?
4. What would you have suggested,
at
the
time, as the means to subdue a
fanatical enemy, that had proved to demonstrate
acts of barbarism that are
still wondered at?




They all seem to think that if we had
talked
nicely to the Japanese,
they
would have surrendered. Not bloody likely.
There was a war on, a major
invasion
planned of Kyushu in November, and ANY
MEANS
to prevent the bloodbath of
American, British, and yes, Japanese lives
and END THE WAR ASAP is a
viable
option. If that means incinerating two,
three,
or however many Japanese
Cities
by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s,
so be it.

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?



Absolutely not. The rules of war, written
or othewise, have changed.
Saddam's
use of WMD was in violation of the 1925 CBW
Treaty, which Iraq had signed.

You were supporting the idea of using "ANY MEANS"
to end the war. You still
haven't explained why Iraq didn't have the same
right, given that ANY MEANS
obviously encompasses both legal and illegal.


As for Al-Queda, that was an act of terrorism
and war,

The war had actually started at least some 6
years earlier. How was it
different from
bombing campaigns conducted in other theatres
and wars by the US and its
allies
where the targets were residential or economic?
(Apart from the obvious that
it was
them doing it to US rather than US doing it
to them.)


Saddam used CW in VIOLATION of a 1925 treaty signed at Geneva prohibiting
use of CW/BW. Of course, the treaty (or any other) is useless paper w/o enforcement.
I had a grandfather who was scheduled to ship out from England (USAAF) to
Australia thru Suez and then on to the Marianas and finally Kyushu if the
bomb hadn't been dropped. He felt that the bombs on Japan saved his life,
and felt that way to his dying day.
Now, as far as hitting as many Japanese cities as necessary: even after both
Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been hit, the militarists in the Japanese Government
wanted to keep fighting,despite what had happened and the Soviet invasion
of Manchuria, Korea, Southern Sakhalin and the Kuriles. It took the Emperor
voicing his wishes to force the militarists to accept the Potsdam Declaration.
Before, the response was "mokasstu" or treat with silent contempt. "Japanese
Spirit" would resist the bombing, blockade, and eventual invasion, despite
shortages of weapons, fuel, ammuniton, lack of a navy and trained airmen.
The bombs forced them to see reason and realize that the war was lost. Sure
they wanted peace, but on their terms, not unconditional surrender. Some
might say that was modified to keep the Emperor, but as long as the government
answered to Douglas MacArthur as SCAP, it was as Sec. State Byrnes remarked:
"It'll be one divinity answering to another."
And postwar events vindicated the decision to keep the Emperor. But until
the Emperor spoke up and expressed a desire to end the war on Aug. 10, it
looked like Kokura would be next on Aug. 16th, and additional targets to
be selected as circumstances permitted. All target cities had military targets
in them: arms factories, road and rail nets, airfields, POL refining and
storage, etc. Kyoto and the Emperor's Palace were off-limits.Everything else
that met such criteria was fair game. Add to that a lot of Japanese industry
was cottage industry, taking down cities was necessary. Answer this: what
would you do: invade Kyushu (at least risking 766,000 Army and Marines plus
all air and naval personnel American and British) or drop the bombs. Everything
else learned postwar is hindsight. So use the info Truman had to him at the
time. He had two choices: invade or the bomb. I choose the latter.

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