![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
(was Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological
achievements) From: Date: 12/22/2003 5:48 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: "Linda Terrell" wrote in message l3.net... The horror of Hiroshima is the sheer indiscrimate nature of the destruction. If atom bomb had been dropped on a Japanese military target it might have been justified. But, to kill like that in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was blind and savage overkill. Hiroshima was a military target -- it was a port wity with several railroad lines running in and out of it. That means supplies going to the Army. So does that make entire cities like San Diego "military targets" as well? If al-Qaeda or North Korea nuked Arlington or DC, would you chalk it up as a respectable act of war? If there are valid targets distributed throughout San Diego and the enemy has precision guided munitions then the entire city is not a target. But that is not the point. No one had any PGMs in WW2. In Hiroshima the targets were distributed througout the city. With no PGMs how would YOU target a rail head in a heavily populated and defended area in 1945? Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organitation not recognized as a state. Therefore an act such as you describe would be a criminal act. We are not at war with North Korea. If we were and it went nuclear they would be militarily correct to strike D.C. as it contains many legitimate targets. I ask again, how would YOU have taken out the legitimate targets in Nagasaki and Hiroshima using only weapons available in WW2? How many civilian casualties would there be with your method? Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
(was Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological
achievements) From: Date: 12/23/2003 1:30 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: (B2431) wrote in message ... I ask again, how would YOU have taken out the legitimate targets in Nagasaki and Hiroshima using only weapons available in WW2? The same way that all previous legitimate targets were taken out during WWII. While I'll admit that the firebombing of German metros led to civilian casualties approaching the same number of Hiroshima/Nagasaki, there is no comparison between the destruction of architecture as women and children huddle underground - and the bright shining incineration of all life within miles, poisoning the land for a generation. One of the reasons the numbers of the dead in Hamburg and Dresden are on par with Hiroshima or Nagasaki is because the women and children who "huddled" underground were either cooked alive or had the air sucked out of them. When it comes to that there were thre differences between the firebombings and atomic attacks: number of allied lives lost, duration of the attack (read suffering of the victims) and radiation. Bear in mind long term radiation effects were unknown at the time. Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
wrote: (B2431) wrote in message ... I ask again, how would YOU have taken out the legitimate targets in Nagasaki and Hiroshima using only weapons available in WW2? The same way that all previous legitimate targets were taken out during WWII. High explosive, followed by incendiaries? Resulting in higher casualty counts, if Tokyo is any indication. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I ask again, how would YOU have taken out the legitimate targets in
Nagasaki and Hiroshima using only weapons available in WW2? The same way that all previous legitimate targets were taken out during WWII. High explosive, followed by incendiaries? Resulting in higher casualty counts, if Tokyo is any indication. Bingo. But you see its much more humane to kill with a stick of bombs and a firestorm than to use a nuke. Because, you see, we knew so fricking MUCH about fallout and radiation effects in 1945, our psychic president really HAD to have known what an awful thing he was doing, in exchange for sending troops ashore to end a bloody six year global struggle. but the whiners on the other side of this goofy 60-years-too-late afternoon-quarterbacking think we should have allowed the war to continue, people to continue to die, all because they grew up knowing everything about the Bomb and why it should not be used. Well, surprise, dorks, in 1945, the best possible choice available to the US President was to end the war with alacrity, using whatever weapon he had. He made several attempts to get Japan to surrender -all efforts were turned away. Angelfarts that think we could have just outwaited the defeated Japanese dont seem to have an answer to the million-man Imperial Japanese army on the mainland, still fighting. Truman was known as "give em hell" Harry because he had the guts to do whatever was required to end the war and stop the deaths to Allied soldiers and civilians - folks that look back with 60+ years of hindsight and think themselves mighty damn outraged by the deaths of Japanese civilians are doing so without the benefit of watching friends and relative perish in a long, bloody war. Truman did his best with the info and technology available to a world leader in 1945. Gordon |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() nt (Krztalizer) wrote: I ask again, how would YOU have taken out the legitimate targets in Nagasaki and Hiroshima using only weapons available in WW2? The same way that all previous legitimate targets were taken out during WWII. High explosive, followed by incendiaries? Resulting in higher casualty counts, if Tokyo is any indication. Bingo. But you see its much more humane to kill with a stick of bombs and a firestorm than to use a nuke. Because, you see, we knew so fricking MUCH about fallout and radiation effects in 1945, our psychic president really HAD to have known what an awful thing he was doing, in exchange for sending troops ashore to end a bloody six year global struggle. but the whiners on the other side of this goofy 60-years-too-late afternoon-quarterbacking think we should have allowed the war to continue, people to continue to die, all because they grew up knowing everything about the Bomb and why it should not be used. Well, surprise, dorks, in 1945, the best possible choice available to the US President was to end the war with alacrity, using whatever weapon he had. He made several attempts to get Japan to surrender -all efforts were turned away. Angelfarts that think we could have just outwaited the defeated Japanese dont seem to have an answer to the million-man Imperial Japanese army on the mainland, still fighting. Truman was known as "give em hell" Harry because he had the guts to do whatever was required to end the war and stop the deaths to Allied soldiers and civilians - folks that look back with 60+ years of hindsight and think themselves mighty damn outraged by the deaths of Japanese civilians are doing so without the benefit of watching friends and relative perish in a long, bloody war. Truman did his best with the info and technology available to a world leader in 1945. Gordon Gordon's right: ask the naysayers what THEY would have done in 1945, as events happened. Japanese military intransigent and willing to keep fighting, civilian leaders and Emperor want peace, but fearful of assassination/coup d'etat if they push things too far. Invasion of Kyushu scheduled for 1 Nov 45 and that of Kanto for 1 March 46. Casualty estimates for Kyushu according to MacArthur up to 70,000 (slightly higher than Normandy, comparable to Luzon, twice that of Okinawa). No estimate for Kanto, but best guess is X2 of Kyushu's. Bombing and blockade will take up to 18 months to work. Invasion(s) up to a year. Bomb is availiable anytime from 1 August. Soviets plan to attack exactly three months from Germany's defeat-likely D-Day is 9 Aug. What do the naysayers suggest out of these options? Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access! |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() " but when we're talking about a strategy capable of wiping out the entire human race, this villager refuses to concede any moral authority to the pro-atomic position." Question: Wouldn't it take an awful lot of A bombs to accomplish wiping out the human race?? Then with the A bomb or now with the current nuclear weaponry?? What percentage of Japan land and / or humans did the bombing in the two cities wipe out compared to the total land mass and / or population? I did a Yahoo search and the two cities seem to still be there and thriving , hotels and all. So the physical land seems to be still there. I know the Japanese weren't completely wiped out back then but could it be done today? Do we really have that kind of arsenal? I mean a country that size literally wiped clean?? Is it necessary with the current accuracy of what we do have, nuclear or conventional? Why develop the daisy cutter or that other huge bomb they recently tested in Florida?? ( I forget it's name at the moment. ) I guess it would be a question of volume of bombs as compared to the power of a single bomb. Those against using the A bomb make it sound like a single nuclear bomb dropped today would literally disintegrate half of the world. Or are they more concerned that a nuclear bomb would kill life when coupled with winds blowing radioactive death along with a bunch of other ripe conditions to carry the effects of the bomb beyond it's minimal effectiveness? Growing up I learned in school that a single bomb could destroy the whole world. Bad, bad, bad. Reading these current threads, I have seen that one didn't do it. A second one made Japan surrender, but the country is still there along with the rest of the world, so the second one didn't do it. The effects seem relatively localized. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Okay, got it! After looking around, it seems to be more of a volume
thing between the US and Russia. Plus, using a few B53's, let alone the whole stockpile, will make quite a mess. I have my perspective. Still, if the US hadn't done what it had to do in history past, then there would probably be no forum where those that could disagree would be able to disagree. I'd rather have that than any other bleak alternative. Mark and Kim Smith wrote: " but when we're talking about a strategy capable of wiping out the entire human race, this villager refuses to concede any moral authority to the pro-atomic position." Question: Wouldn't it take an awful lot of A bombs to accomplish wiping out the human race?? Then with the A bomb or now with the current nuclear weaponry?? What percentage of Japan land and / or humans did the bombing in the two cities wipe out compared to the total land mass and / or population? I did a Yahoo search and the two cities seem to still be there and thriving , hotels and all. So the physical land seems to be still there. I know the Japanese weren't completely wiped out back then but could it be done today? Do we really have that kind of arsenal? I mean a country that size literally wiped clean?? Is it necessary with the current accuracy of what we do have, nuclear or conventional? Why develop the daisy cutter or that other huge bomb they recently tested in Florida?? ( I forget it's name at the moment. ) I guess it would be a question of volume of bombs as compared to the power of a single bomb. Those against using the A bomb make it sound like a single nuclear bomb dropped today would literally disintegrate half of the world. Or are they more concerned that a nuclear bomb would kill life when coupled with winds blowing radioactive death along with a bunch of other ripe conditions to carry the effects of the bomb beyond it's minimal effectiveness? Growing up I learned in school that a single bomb could destroy the whole world. Bad, bad, bad. Reading these current threads, I have seen that one didn't do it. A second one made Japan surrender, but the country is still there along with the rest of the world, so the second one didn't do it. The effects seem relatively localized. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hiroshima justified? (was Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements) | Linda Terrell | Military Aviation | 37 | January 7th 04 02:51 PM |
Hiroshima justified? (was Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other | B2431 | Military Aviation | 7 | December 29th 03 07:00 AM |
Hiroshima justified? (was Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and othermagnificent technological achievements) | mrraveltay | Military Aviation | 7 | December 23rd 03 01:01 AM |
Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent | B2431 | Military Aviation | 1 | December 20th 03 01:19 PM |
Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 19 | December 20th 03 02:47 AM |