Enola Gay Damaged at Air & Space Museum Opening

"plumb bob" wrote in message
news:TfIEb.88748$8y1.292185@attbi_s52

Tell me how a dent in a heap of metal has any significance compared
to what happened to millions of people in the war.

That's not the point. You tell me why it's acceptable to vandalize an
historical artifact (of any type).

These are just objects connected to events of historical significance.

They deserve careful respect because of that connection - regardless of the
politics involved either then or now.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

That's exactly what the Soviets were afraid of. We spent them into
collapse because they thought our weapons might work. The B1 Bomber,
Star Wars, etc. They were fairly certain these things wouldn't work as
advertised, but they couldn't afford to take the chance that they might.
Unfortunately for them they also couldn't afford to keep up.

Dan Luke wrote:

"Corrie" wrote:

The "Peacemaker" never dropped a bomb in anger - it scared the
Soviets out of starting anything stupid in the dark days of the early
Cold War.


It would surprise me to learn that the Soviets were terrified of a
weapon based on the thoroughly discredited idea that heavily armed,
unescorted strategic bombers could fight their way deep into enemy
territory with acceptable losses. The B-36 always struck me as a flying
porkbarrel project propelled by Curtis LeMay's ego.

Too bad is it's going to be the most egregious visual eye-sore perpetrated
on the national mall since WWII.

That's EXACTLY what everyone said about the Viet Nam Veteran's Memorial,
before it opened.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I love aircraft too but would submit that the bomb IS the history. Of
course it was more than vaporized - quite a restoration project even for the
pros at the Smithsonian.

I believe there are at least two replicas, and I have seen one of
them, at Wright-Patt air force museum. The other I think is in New
Mexico.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

It would surprise me to learn that the Soviets were terrified of a
weapon based on the thoroughly discredited idea that heavily armed,
unescorted strategic bombers could fight their way deep into enemy
territory with acceptable losses. The B-36 always struck me as a flying
porkbarrel project propelled by Curtis LeMay's ego.

We know for a certainty that the 36s routinely flew over China and
even Vladivostok, and very likely they flew over much of Siberia and
perhaps even eastern Russia. Several crewmen have related how they
watched the MiGs trying to get up to their altitude but vainly falling
away. Such flights were probably made in excess of 50,000 feet.

LeMay actually didn't care for the 36, but it was in the pipeline when
he became head of SAC. He accepted it for what it was: a placemarker
for the B-52. It overlapped the B-47 (which likewise made regular
flights over eastern Russia) but the latter simply didn't have the
range to do what the 36 (and later the 52) was capable of.

Very quickly these flights were made unnecessary by the U-2, and the
U-2 in turn was soon supplanted by satellite photography.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Very quickly these flights were made unnecessary by the U-2, and the
U-2 in turn was soon supplanted by satellite photography.

Not supplanted, augmented. We're still using the U2's. There was also
this
black thing called an SR71

I think he wanted the protestor to take his argument to Harry Truman
in 1945.

I was referring to the protests that preceded the Iraq invasion.

Nevertheless, the poster seemed to be referring to the earlier
incident: Little Boy.

The purpose of a protest is to protest. Nobody expects it to succeed!
Sheez. A whole generation spoiled rotten by the Vietnam War.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Dan Luke wrote:

It would surprise me to learn that the Soviets were terrified of a
weapon based on the thoroughly discredited idea that heavily armed,
unescorted strategic bombers could fight their way deep into enemy
territory with acceptable losses.

You mean like the losses the B-29s took bombing Japan? Of course, the losses to
the B-17s against Germany were worse. Lets take the worst case there. We lost
something over 60% of the planes that flew the Schweinfurt "Black Thursday" raid
and over half the planes made it to the target. At one time, we could have
launched over 30 B-36s at any given moment. So only 10 of them reach their
targets. Stalin isn't going to be upset at the prospect of losing 10 major
production centers? He would certainly be worried about the fact that the odds
were good that he'd be in one of them.

The B-36 always struck me as a flying
porkbarrel project propelled by Curtis LeMay's ego.

The B-36 project was started prior to America's entry into WWII. Roosevelt was
afraid that Britain would be lost and that the U.S. would have to enter the war
against Germany without being able to base bombers in the British Isles. It was
planned that we would use it for a conventional bombing campaign against Germany
operating from bases in the U.S. Postwar development was a case basically of the
only game in town. It was the only plane capable of carrying nuclear weapons into
the USSR that could possibly reach production in a few years. It was a stopgap
measure, but it worked until we could get something better in place.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

Rob Perkins wrote in message . ..
Aren't protests usually more effective if they're done *before* an
event takes place?

As far as I can tell, protests aren't intended to affect events.

Rather, they seem to exist solely for the self-gratification of the
participants. They fail even in this regard because there's
ultimately no satisfaction to be found in immersing yourself in
irrationality and hatred.

in article VxIEb.402384$Dw6.1250716@attbi_s02, Newps at
wrote on 12/19/03 11:43 AM:


plumb bob wrote:
Again, I find it
very disappointing that this generation is not better remembered.

You've got to be kidding. The WWII generation is the most remembered in
history. At any given time I can find a program on TV relating to WWII.
There have been more books written about WWII than any other. There
are numerous monuments relating to WWII in many places. Pearl Harbor
and the flag raising on Iwo Jima sculpture come to mind.

Thank you. I have often wondered why so many people cling to the absurd
notion that the WWII generation is "forgotten". Someone else in this thread
mentioned The History Channel--often called "The Hitlery Channel", since
it's pretty much all WWII all the time. There are numerous other examples,
from "Saving Private Ryan" to "Band of Brothers", to countless books. For
the record, I have no problem with any of that--I share the fascination with
that period of history, and I would certainly hope that it's never
forgotten.