Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
news:3fe70e02$1@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

"Alan Minyard" wrote
in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:08:15 GMT, "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.



Destruction of Japan, by whatever means possible,
was warranted.

That's what AQ thinks of the USA

The
barbarity of their military was an abomination,
and it was continuing
daily

That's what AQ thinks of the USA.

in China, Korea, etc. If incinerating every
building in Japan would
have ended the war, it would have been completely
justified.

The only thing that the US did that was "wrong"
was not hanging the
******* Hirohito from the nearest tree.

Al Minyard



So why do you apologize for them? Dropping the bombs and 9-11 were two
different events under vastly different circumstances.

That your opinion, and point out where I apologised for them.
My opinion - supported by facts - is that there are similarities,
deliberately targetting civilians, especially with regard to Hiroshima.


In case you forgot:
Pearl Harbor's treachery was rewarded at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

If you think an attack without a declaration of war is "treachery", do
your sums and see how many times the US has declared war in the
conflicts it has been involved in since WW2.


9-11's treachery
has been partially rewarded with the Taliban who sheltered AQ and OBL
reduced
to a low-level insurgency.

AQ believe that US treachery in supporting Israel inits oppression
of the Palestinians was rewarded by Sept 11. It is apparently news
to you but others can hate as strongly as you, and be as ruthless as
your government in targetting civilians.

rant snipped

"weary" wrote:

"Matt Wiser" wrote
in message
news:3fe70e02$1@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

"Alan Minyard" wrote
in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:08:15 GMT, "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.



Destruction of Japan, by whatever means
possible,
was warranted.

That's what AQ thinks of the USA

The
barbarity of their military was an abomination,
and it was continuing
daily

That's what AQ thinks of the USA.

in China, Korea, etc. If incinerating every
building in Japan would
have ended the war, it would have been
completely
justified.

The only thing that the US did that was
"wrong"
was not hanging the
******* Hirohito from the nearest tree.

Al Minyard



So why do you apologize for them? Dropping
the bombs and 9-11 were two
different events under vastly different circumstances.

That your opinion, and point out where I apologised
for them.
My opinion - supported by facts - is that there
are similarities,
deliberately targetting civilians, especially
with regard to Hiroshima.


In case you forgot:
Pearl Harbor's treachery was rewarded at Hiroshima
and Nagasaki.

If you think an attack without a declaration
of war is "treachery", do
your sums and see how many times the US has
declared war in the
conflicts it has been involved in since WW2.


9-11's treachery
has been partially rewarded with the Taliban
who sheltered AQ and OBL
reduced
to a low-level insurgency.

AQ believe that US treachery in supporting Israel
inits oppression
of the Palestinians was rewarded by Sept 11.
It is apparently news
to you but others can hate as strongly as you,
and be as ruthless as
your government in targetting civilians.

rant snipped



Weary, I said it before and I'll say it again: How would you have destroyed
the miltiary and industrial targets located in Japanese Cities? If not the
B-29 fire raids, what? Daylight precision bombing had poor results over Japan
due to winds (Jet Stream) and opposition from flak and fighters. The Navy's
fast carriers are busy supporting Okinawa, so using TBMs and SB2Cs in dive
and glide bombing is out.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military cities: military HQs were located there,
there were port facilities, airfields, a division-sized garrison in Hiroshima
and a brigade's worth in Nagasaki. Legitimate military targets. Add to that
the military-related industries and that makes each more of a target. (This
includes the cottage industry common in Japan at the time) As LeMay said,
the only way to do it was low level fire raids at night. He knew there would
be heavy civilian casualties, but felt it had to be done. A demonstration
was out of the question for a number of reasons, techinical, political, and
practical. Invasion brings heavy American, British, and Japanese loss of
life. Bombing and Blockade will take up to 18 months to work. Truman has
(according to the info he had at the time) those choices. What do YOU do
in his place? I know what I'd do. Drop the bomb and end the war ASAP.
Comparing Hiroshima with 9-11 is apples and oranges. Different context, circumstances,
etc. I can see you as OBL's defense atty. when (not if) he's caught. Good
luck keeping him away from the needle or the noose.

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

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
news:3ff06fa6$1@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

"Matt Wiser" wrote
in message
news:3fe70e02$1@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

"Alan Minyard" wrote
in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:08:15 GMT, "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.



Destruction of Japan, by whatever means
possible,
was warranted.

That's what AQ thinks of the USA

The
barbarity of their military was an abomination,
and it was continuing
daily

That's what AQ thinks of the USA.

in China, Korea, etc. If incinerating every
building in Japan would
have ended the war, it would have been
completely
justified.

The only thing that the US did that was
"wrong"
was not hanging the
******* Hirohito from the nearest tree.

Al Minyard



So why do you apologize for them? Dropping
the bombs and 9-11 were two
different events under vastly different circumstances.

That your opinion, and point out where I apologised
for them.
My opinion - supported by facts - is that there
are similarities,
deliberately targetting civilians, especially
with regard to Hiroshima.


In case you forgot:
Pearl Harbor's treachery was rewarded at Hiroshima
and Nagasaki.

If you think an attack without a declaration
of war is "treachery", do
your sums and see how many times the US has
declared war in the
conflicts it has been involved in since WW2.


9-11's treachery
has been partially rewarded with the Taliban
who sheltered AQ and OBL
reduced
to a low-level insurgency.

AQ believe that US treachery in supporting Israel
inits oppression
of the Palestinians was rewarded by Sept 11.
It is apparently news
to you but others can hate as strongly as you,
and be as ruthless as
your government in targetting civilians.

rant snipped



Weary, I said it before and I'll say it again: How would you have
destroyed
the miltiary and industrial targets located in Japanese Cities?

Conventional bombing.

If not the B-29 fire raids, what? Daylight precision bombing had poor
results over
Japan due to winds (Jet Stream) and opposition from flak and fighters.

Where do get this nonsense from? The Strategic Bombing Survey states -
"Bombing altitudes after 9 March 1945 were lower, in both day and night
attacks. Japanese opposition was not effective even at the lower altitudes,
and the percentage of losses to enemy action declined as the number of
attacking planes increased. Bomb loads increased and operating losses
declined in part due to less strain on engines at lower altitudes. 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."

"weary" wrote:

"Matt Wiser" wrote
in message
news:3ff06fa6$1@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

"Matt Wiser" wrote
in message
news:3fe70e02$1@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

"Alan Minyard"
wrote
in message
.. .
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 11:08:15 GMT, "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.



Destruction of Japan, by whatever means
possible,
was warranted.

That's what AQ thinks of the USA

The
barbarity of their military was an abomination,
and it was continuing
daily

That's what AQ thinks of the USA.

in China, Korea, etc. If incinerating
every
building in Japan would
have ended the war, it would have been
completely
justified.

The only thing that the US did that
was
"wrong"
was not hanging the
******* Hirohito from the nearest tree.

Al Minyard



So why do you apologize for them? Dropping
the bombs and 9-11 were two
different events under vastly different
circumstances.

That your opinion, and point out where I
apologised
for them.
My opinion - supported by facts - is that
there
are similarities,
deliberately targetting civilians, especially
with regard to Hiroshima.


In case you forgot:
Pearl Harbor's treachery was rewarded at
Hiroshima
and Nagasaki.

If you think an attack without a declaration
of war is "treachery", do
your sums and see how many times the US has
declared war in the
conflicts it has been involved in since WW2.


9-11's treachery
has been partially rewarded with the Taliban
who sheltered AQ and OBL
reduced
to a low-level insurgency.

AQ believe that US treachery in supporting
Israel
inits oppression
of the Palestinians was rewarded by Sept
11.
It is apparently news
to you but others can hate as strongly as
you,
and be as ruthless as
your government in targetting civilians.

rant snipped



Weary, I said it before and I'll say it
again: How would you have
destroyed
the miltiary and industrial targets located
in Japanese Cities?

Conventional bombing.

If not the B-29 fire raids, what? Daylight
precision bombing had poor
results over
Japan due to winds (Jet Stream) and opposition
from flak and fighters.

Where do get this nonsense from? The Strategic
Bombing Survey states -
"Bombing altitudes after 9 March 1945 were lower,
in both day and night
attacks. Japanese opposition was not effective
even at the lower altitudes,
and the percentage of losses to enemy action
declined as the number of
attacking planes increased. Bomb loads increased
and operating losses
declined in part due to less strain on engines
at lower altitudes. 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."








From the USAF official history of the 20th and 21st Bomber Commands. And
remember: General Hayward Hansell, the first CO of the B-29s on the Marianas,
was fired for poor performance of his command and replaced with LeMay by
Hap Arnold. You still think that accurate conventional bombing was possible
given Japan's cottage industry. It wasn't. Only way to destroy said major
and minor industrial targets was to go low-level at night with incindinaries.

It worked. I don't care what the Japanese think: THEY STARTED THE WAR, AND
THEY HAVE ONLY THEMSELVES TO BLAME FOR THE CONSEQUENCES. Pearl Harbor's treachery
was repaid with interest at Hiroshima.
Yamamoto was right: "All we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and fill
him with a terrible resolve." He didn't live to see it, but he was right.
I had relatives who were either in the Pacific or headed there from Europe.
To them, Truman made the right decision: drop the bomb and end the war ASAP.
No bomb means invasion, and look at Saipan, Luzon, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa
to see what that would've been like. I like to think that I'm here because
my grandfather didn't go to Kyushu in Nov '45. Instead, he came home.

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

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
news:3ff88f17$1@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

"Matt Wiser" wrote
in message
news:3ff06fa6$1@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

snip

Weary, I said it before and I'll say it
again: How would you have
destroyed
the miltiary and industrial targets located
in Japanese Cities?

Conventional bombing.

If not the B-29 fire raids, what? Daylight
precision bombing had poor
results over
Japan due to winds (Jet Stream) and opposition
from flak and fighters.

Where do get this nonsense from? The Strategic
Bombing Survey states -
"Bombing altitudes after 9 March 1945 were lower,
in both day and night
attacks. Japanese opposition was not effective
even at the lower altitudes,
and the percentage of losses to enemy action
declined as the number of
attacking planes increased. Bomb loads increased
and operating losses
declined in part due to less strain on engines
at lower altitudes. 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."








From the USAF official history of the 20th and 21st Bomber Commands.

Strange that the USSBS contradicts them. The figures it cites speak for
themselves.

And
remember: General Hayward Hansell, the first CO of the B-29s on the
Marianas,
was fired for poor performance of his command and replaced with LeMay by
Hap Arnold.

Why would I want to remember that? How is it relevant?

You still think that accurate conventional bombing was possible
given Japan's cottage industry.

I never claimed it was possible against cottage industry - please
stop constructing strawmen.

It wasn't. Only way to destroy said major

How can cottage industry be a major industrial target?

and minor industrial targets was to go low-level at night with
incindinaries.

It worked. I don't care what the Japanese think: THEY STARTED THE WAR, AND
THEY HAVE ONLY THEMSELVES TO BLAME FOR THE CONSEQUENCES. Pearl Harbor's
treachery
was repaid with interest at Hiroshima.

Pearl Harbour didn't happen in a vacuum, in spite of what you seem
to think. The Japanese didn't get up one morning and decide to
attack Pearl Harbour because they had nothing else to do.

Yamamoto was right: "All we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and fill
him with a terrible resolve." He didn't live to see it, but he was right.
I had relatives who were either in the Pacific or headed there from
Europe.
To them, Truman made the right decision: drop the bomb and end the war
ASAP.
No bomb means invasion, and look at Saipan, Luzon, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa
to see what that would've been like. I like to think that I'm here because
my grandfather didn't go to Kyushu in Nov '45.

Oh God spare me the grandfather story yet again.

"weary" wrote:

"Matt Wiser" wrote
in message
news:3ff88f17$1@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

"Matt Wiser" wrote
in message
news:3ff06fa6$1@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

snip

Weary, I said it before and I'll say
it
again: How would you have
destroyed
the miltiary and industrial targets located
in Japanese Cities?

Conventional bombing.

If not the B-29 fire raids, what? Daylight
precision bombing had poor
results over
Japan due to winds (Jet Stream) and opposition
from flak and fighters.

Where do get this nonsense from? The Strategic
Bombing Survey states -
"Bombing altitudes after 9 March 1945 were
lower,
in both day and night
attacks. Japanese opposition was not effective
even at the lower altitudes,
and the percentage of losses to enemy action
declined as the number of
attacking planes increased. Bomb loads increased
and operating losses
declined in part due to less strain on engines
at lower altitudes. 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."








From the USAF official history of the 20th
and 21st Bomber Commands.

Strange that the USSBS contradicts them. The
figures it cites speak for
themselves.

And
remember: General Hayward Hansell, the first
CO of the B-29s on the
Marianas,
was fired for poor performance of his command
and replaced with LeMay by
Hap Arnold.

Why would I want to remember that? How is it
relevant?

You still think that accurate conventional
bombing was possible
given Japan's cottage industry.

I never claimed it was possible against cottage
industry - please
stop constructing strawmen.

It wasn't. Only way to destroy said major

How can cottage industry be a major industrial
target?

and minor industrial targets was to go low-level
at night with
incindinaries.

It worked. I don't care what the Japanese
think: THEY STARTED THE WAR, AND
THEY HAVE ONLY THEMSELVES TO BLAME FOR THE
CONSEQUENCES. Pearl Harbor's
treachery
was repaid with interest at Hiroshima.

Pearl Harbour didn't happen in a vacuum, in
spite of what you seem
to think. The Japanese didn't get up one morning
and decide to
attack Pearl Harbour because they had nothing
else to do.

Yamamoto was right: "All we have done is awaken
a sleeping giant and fill
him with a terrible resolve." He didn't live
to see it, but he was right.
I had relatives who were either in the Pacific
or headed there from
Europe.
To them, Truman made the right decision: drop
the bomb and end the war
ASAP.
No bomb means invasion, and look at Saipan,
Luzon, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa
to see what that would've been like. I like
to think that I'm here because
my grandfather didn't go to Kyushu in Nov
'45.

Oh God spare me the grandfather story yet again.


Did you have a relative either in the Pacific or en route to the Pacific
in Spring-Summer of '45? If you did, then you know where I'm coming from.
If not, then you'll never understand. How many Americans, British, and Japanese
lived because the bombs were dropped and OLYMPIC and CORONET were made unnecessary.
Besides, when you quote USSBS, that's postwar assessment, with info unavailable
to Truman and his advisers in June-July of '45 as they were deciding whether
to invade, continue the conventional bombing and blockade, or drop the bomb.
Easy to criticise with 50+ years of hindsight. And you still haven't answered
the question: What would YOU have done with the info Truman had on his desk
in June and July of '45? Not any postwar info, but what he had at the time.
And diplomacy is not an option as previously mentioned: it's not politically
possible either at home (He's committed to Unconditional Surrender as FDR's
legacy) or with the Allies (FDR made that policy at Casablanca in '43, and
reaffirmed it at each Summit since). You know the military options. They
are the only feasible options. Take your pick.

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

Pearl Harbour didn't happen in a vacuum, in spite of what you seem
to think. The Japanese didn't get up one morning and decide to
attack Pearl Harbour because they had nothing else to do.


True, it happened because the Japanese thought that they were racially
superior to all others, and therefore had a "right" to rule all of Asia.

Yamamoto was right: "All we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and fill
him with a terrible resolve." He didn't live to see it, but he was right.
I had relatives who were either in the Pacific or headed there from
Europe.
To them, Truman made the right decision: drop the bomb and end the war
ASAP.
No bomb means invasion, and look at Saipan, Luzon, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa
to see what that would've been like. I like to think that I'm here because
my grandfather didn't go to Kyushu in Nov '45.

Oh God spare me the grandfather story yet again.

As you have spared yourself any sort of historical knowledge?

Al Minyard

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...


Pearl Harbour didn't happen in a vacuum, in spite of what you seem
to think. The Japanese didn't get up one morning and decide to
attack Pearl Harbour because they had nothing else to do.


True, it happened because the Japanese thought that they were racially
superior to all others, and therefore had a "right" to rule all of Asia.

They had watched the West colonise virtually all of SE Asia and decided
that they wanted a slice of the action.


Yamamoto was right: "All we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and
fill
him with a terrible resolve." He didn't live to see it, but he was
right.
I had relatives who were either in the Pacific or headed there from
Europe.
To them, Truman made the right decision: drop the bomb and end the war
ASAP.
No bomb means invasion, and look at Saipan, Luzon, Iwo Jima, and
Okinawa
to see what that would've been like. I like to think that I'm here
because
my grandfather didn't go to Kyushu in Nov '45.

Oh God spare me the grandfather story yet again.

As you have spared yourself any sort of historical knowledge?

I'm certainly spared any historical knowledge when I read the
drivel you post.


Al Minyard