A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hiroshima justified? (was Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 23rd 03, 12:34 AM
B2431
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(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  
Old December 23rd 03, 07:30 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(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.

With humblest respect for your past service to our country, I must
admit that the question you pose illustrates the main problem behind
why the Bomb was used: Because no one knew a "better" way. This
represents a militarily trained, "any-means-necessary" bias.

But the anti-atomic crowd believes in a specific philosophical
principle: that regardless of what "gets the job done", atomic/nuclear
weaponry crosses a moral and humanitarian line that should never be
breached. It exists outside the "any means necessary" category as a
unique horror above and beyond conventional warfare.

Pragmatists poo-poo such a distinction, chalking atomic weaponry up as
just another advance in defense technology. The fallacy behind
"Burning the village to save it" may work for military-trained
strategists, 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.
  #3  
Old December 23rd 03, 09:27 PM
Charles Gray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 23 Dec 2003 11:30:54 -0800, 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.

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.

You do realize that most of those Women and children huddling
underground died as the oxygen was pulled from their lungs, tehir
shelters turned into underground ovens? You do realize that the
various raids the "destroyed architecture" killed more people than the
A bombs did?



With humblest respect for your past service to our country, I must
admit that the question you pose illustrates the main problem behind
why the Bomb was used: Because no one knew a "better" way. This
represents a militarily trained, "any-means-necessary" bias.

No, it represents something you don't seem to understand-- a
realistic appreciation of the difficulties of invading an island with
as many as 10 million fanatics defending it.


But the anti-atomic crowd believes in a specific philosophical
principle: that regardless of what "gets the job done", atomic/nuclear
weaponry crosses a moral and humanitarian line that should never be
breached. It exists outside the "any means necessary" category as a
unique horror above and beyond conventional warfare.


Why? What's so bad about a really big ass bomb? Do demons come out
of its ass? All the A-bomb means is that I can fry YOUR city while
risking only one plane load of my troops. Effecient, and elegant.
As for "beyond conventional warfare" ROTFL-- do go visit a VA
hospital, or take a trip to vietnam, or some of the Russian war
monuments. Conventional warfare is just as horrible as atomics-- more
so because it's much easier to get into. Consider the fact that right
now, in 2003, we've enjoyed the longest period between major great
power wars since the end of the napolionic era. The damned bomb
should be given a nobel peace prize.



  #5  
Old December 24th 03, 04:17 PM
Matt Wiser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


(B2431) wrote:
(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

That's correct. Although the Manhattan Project scientists knew about radiation,
they expected the radiation effects to be localized and of short-term duration.
Oppenheimer expected that anyone who had received a lethal dose of radiation
to have been already fatally injured by blast, heat, flying debris, etc.
They were completely suprised by the actual aftereffects they found in September
when Scientists and a military BDA team arrived.

Posted via
www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!
  #7  
Old December 24th 03, 04:31 AM
Krztalizer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old December 24th 03, 04:16 PM
Matt Wiser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old December 24th 03, 06:52 AM
Mark and Kim Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



" 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  
Old December 24th 03, 08:30 PM
Mark and Kim Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:09 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.