Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
news:3fe70de0$1@bg2....

"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.

False dichotomy. There are were many major US players, both military and
civilian who wanted to use a third option, diplomacy, to end the war.
The Strategic Bombing Survey concluded that the Japanese would have
surrendered without the use of the bombs before November.

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 01:03:40 GMT, "weary" wrote:



False dichotomy. There are were many major US players, both military and
civilian who wanted to use a third option, diplomacy, to end the war.

Oh really.

Name them with references.




greg

--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 01:03:40 GMT, "weary" wrote:



False dichotomy. There are were many major US players, both military and
civilian who wanted to use a third option, diplomacy, to end the war.

Oh really.

Name them with references.



Always happy to oblige in correcting your
ignorance.


http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 08:14:43 GMT, "weary" wrote:


"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 01:03:40 GMT, "weary" wrote:



False dichotomy. There are were many major US players, both military and
civilian who wanted to use a third option, diplomacy, to end the war.

Oh really.

Name them with references.



Always happy to oblige in correcting your
ignorance.


http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm



Thats not naming them, thats a link to a site regurgitating Wisconsin
school revisionism from Gar Alperovitz.






greg

--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 08:14:43 GMT, "weary" wrote:


"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 01:03:40 GMT, "weary" wrote:



False dichotomy. There are were many major US players, both military
and
civilian who wanted to use a third option, diplomacy, to end the war.

Oh really.

Name them with references.



Always happy to oblige in correcting your
ignorance.


http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm



Thats not naming them, thats a link to a site regurgitating Wisconsin
school revisionism from Gar Alperovitz.

Well lets look at them
The first quote is

~~~DWIGHT EISENHOWER
"...in [July] 1945... Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in
Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic
bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of
cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. ...the Secretary, upon
giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the
plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous
assent.

"During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a
feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on
the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the
bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our
country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose
employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American
lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some
way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'. The Secretary was deeply
perturbed by my attitude..."

- Dwight Eisenhower, Mandate For Change, pg. 380

In a Newsweek interview, Eisenhower again recalled the meeting with Stimson:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them
with that awful thing."

- Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63



It names Eisenhower and cites the source of the two quotes which is what

you asked for. Apparently anything that doesn't fit you world

view is revisionism.

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:57:14 GMT, "weary" wrote:





It names Eisenhower and cites the source of the two quotes which is what

That would be Eisenhower who wasnt in the command loop for operations in
the pacific and had no 1st hand knowledge of the losses being incurred on a
daily basis in Okinawa and elsewhere.

and Stimson whose own memoirs put the cost of an allied invasion of Japan
at at least 250,000 casualities.

http://www.paperlessarchives.com/olympic.html


Nevermind Leahy whose own briefing to truman put allied casualities at
30-35% within 30 days of invasion.


http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/...ma/ytruman.htm

"This is what the Americans President Truman, Secretary of War Stimson and
Gen. Marshall knew the day before the first atom bomb fell on Japan.
Confronted by an enemy leadership that was self-deluded, neither prepared
to surrender nor to negotiate seriously, the Americans decided that the
only way to end the war quickly would be to use overwhelming force: nuclear
weapons. "


"But the Americans continued to read the Japanese codes. Almost
immediately; the Magic Summaries revealed that the new foreign minister,
Mamoru Shigemitsu, had begun a world-wide propaganda campaign to brand the
Americans as war criminals for using nuclear weapons. Tokyo's goals
included keeping Emperor Hirohito from being tried for instigating a war of
aggression, and diverting Western attention away from the many Japanese
atrocities committed since the start of the Sino-Japanese war in 1937.
"Since the Americans have recently been raising an uproar about the
question of our mistreatment of prisoners [of war],'' Shigemitsu instructed
his diplomats in the Sept. 15, 1945, Magic Summary, "I think we should make
every effort to exploit the atomic bomb question in our propaganda. That
propaganda campaign has borne its final fruit in the revisionist account of
the bombing of Japan. "




greg


you asked for. Apparently anything that doesn't fit you world

view is revisionism.

Anything quoting Gar Alperovitz as 'evidence' clearly is revisionism and
every bit as toxic as that peddled by the likes of David Irving.


greg



--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 22:57:14 GMT, "weary" wrote:





It names Eisenhower and cites the source of the two quotes which is what

That would be Eisenhower who wasnt in the command loop for operations in
the pacific and had no 1st hand knowledge of the losses being incurred on
a
daily basis in Okinawa and elsewhere.

It was an Eisenhower who(as the quote notes) had been briefed by the
Stimson you refer to below and who was presumably as aware of the situation
as Stimson himself.


and Stimson whose own memoirs put the cost of an allied invasion of Japan
at at least 250,000 casualities.

So what - the whole point of the discussion is that an invasion was not
necessary.
Even the USSBS says that Japan would have surrendered.


http://www.paperlessarchives.com/olympic.html


Nevermind Leahy whose own briefing to truman put allied casualities at
30-35% within 30 days of invasion.

But Leahy didn't think the landings would be necessary.
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The
Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the
effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons.
"

snip.

Anything quoting Gar Alperovitz as 'evidence' clearly is revisionism

I didn't quote one word from Gar Alperovitz, but don't let facts intrude
on your rant - feel free to misrepresent me as much as you
misrepresent facts.