Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements

From: (ArtKramr)
Date: 12/28/2003 6:49 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

Subject: Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological
achievements
From: (B2431)
Date: 12/27/03 8:48 PM Pacific

As a Jew I take offense at your comparing Dachau to Hiroshima. Many
thousands
of humans died there, not just Jews, but I have been there and have seen the
grave markers.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

I entered Dachau a few days after it was liberated and before it was cleaned
up.I still have the bad dreams.



Arthur Kramer

I can only imagine. I have a friend of mine who survived 4 years in Dachau.
Knowing what some people did to survive I never asked him how he did it.

When I saw a square piece of ground about 2 meters per side with a placard
saying "x thousand people are buried here" and saw a wall with a placard
saying "y number of people were shot here" it really brought home the scale.
Unfortunatley in the 24 years since I was there I don't really recall the
numbers cited on the placards.

I wonder how much bigger those numbers would have been if the gas chamber there
was ever made operational.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"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!

"Tex Houston" wrote in message
...

"weary" wrote in message
...
Which doesn't answer my question about a country saving lives of its
servicemen by using WMD. It seems that some regard the use as OK
if their side does it but bad if the other side does it.



From a Pratt and Whitney ad in the October 2001 issue of "Air Force
Magazine".

THERE IS NO SECTION TITLED,
"THE UNFAIR USE OF TECHNOLOGY"
IN THE GENEVA CONVENTION.

Then practice what you preach.
Tex Houston

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:58:16 GMT, "weary" wrote:


All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means.


Like the 16 sq miles of tokyo was in March 1945 perhaps ?

No. Do try to follow the thread.

Your laughable attempt at evasion is noted.

In your fantasy world "no' is considered evasion.
I can't be less evasive in my reply.

You claimed that

"All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means."

I am asking you to tell us how.

By dropping conventional bombs on the target.
(What other possible meaning could there be?)


Back up a couple of lines and you
can read that the previous correspondent tried to justify the bombing
of Hiroshima on the grounds that there were military and industrial
assets
in the city.

He didn't have to try. The military and industrial assets in Hiroshima
were
well documented.

I didn't claim otherwise. However they weren't the target of the
bomb in Hiroshima. The first criterion for the selection of atomic
targets was "1) they be important targets in a large urban area
of more than three miles diameter".
The requirement that the target must be within an urban area
meant that civilian casualties would be maximised.


I ask you like I've asked all the other revisionists. Tell us how *you*
would have targeted these facilities and these facilities using the
technology of the period.

Industrial plants had been targetted successfully by B-29s
virtually from the start of the bombing campaign against
the Japanese home islands. That is a fact that I'm not revising,
although you seem determined to.


However the aiming point was a bridge in a mainly residential
area and the assets were only lightly damaged.

ROFLMAO! Like all those who blindly regurgitate indoctrination, I bet you
cannot name a single one.


Indoctrination - my turn to ROFLMAO.

"... the big plants on the periphery of the city were almost completely
undamaged and 94 percent of their workers unhurt. These factories accounted
for 74 percent of the industrial production of the city. It is estimated
that they could have resumed substantially normal production within 30 days
of the bombing, had the war continued. The railroads running through the
city were repaired for the resumption of through traffic on 8 August, 2 days
after the attack. "

So the factories were largely undamaged and an important means of
distributionas available. What was the point? See estimates of civilian
casualties.


The incendiary raids
on Tokyo deliberately targetted civilians, not military or industrial
assets.

It targeted the distributed nature of the japanese war industry which was
turning out the means to kill millions of Chinese in 10s of thousands of
back yard workshops up and down the kanto plain.

If you had even a modicum of clue on the topic, you would be aware of
that.

Yeah right - ma and pa backyard workshops turning
out battleships, tanks and fighters. Get a grip on reality.



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.


Of course, to allow idiots like you to sleep safe at night.

Bad news - it isn't working,

The opinion of uninformed idiots doesn't count.

Ad hom - the last resort of those without an answer.

"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 07:54:17 GMT, "weary" wrote:


No. Do try to follow the thread.

Your laughable attempt at evasion is noted.

In your fantasy world "no' is considered evasion.
I can't be less evasive in my reply.

Inabilty to answer the question raised is quite clearly evasion.


You claimed that

"All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means."

I am asking you to tell us how.

By dropping conventional bombs on the target.
(What other possible meaning could there be?)

So tell us how *you* would put 'conventional bombs on the target' (sic) and
the target alone, when the delivery system of the day had a CEP of 1000
yards. You do know what CEP means dont you ?



Back up a couple of lines and you
can read that the previous correspondent tried to justify the bombing
of Hiroshima on the grounds that there were military and industrial
assets
in the city.

He didn't have to try. The military and industrial assets in Hiroshima
were
well documented.

I didn't claim otherwise. However they weren't the target of the
bomb in Hiroshima.

Oh really ? Lets see what the targetting committee of the manhattan project
actually said.

http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html

"(2) Hiroshima - This is an important army depot and port of embarkation in
the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is
such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged.
There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect
which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not
a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target"


The first criterion for the selection of atomic
targets was "1) they be important targets in a large urban area
of more than three miles diameter".

That would be Tokyo on a march night in 1945 or Dresden. Hiroshima an
Nagaskai werent treated any differently.

The requirement that the target must be within an urban area
meant that civilian casualties would be maximised.

Which of course is another revisionist lie.


I ask you like I've asked all the other revisionists. Tell us how *you*
would have targeted these facilities and these facilities using the
technology of the period.

Industrial plants had been targetted successfully by B-29s
virtually from the start of the bombing campaign against
the Japanese home islands.

Detail them. Tell us *exactly* what industrial plants had been targetted
successfully by B29s in mainland japan without causing any collateral
damage to the surrounding urban areas.

That is a fact that I'm not revising,

Its not a fact, its an outright lie on your part.


"... the big plants on the periphery of the city were almost completely
undamaged and 94 percent of their workers unhurt. These factories accounted
for 74 percent of the industrial production of the city. It is estimated
that they could have resumed substantially normal production within 30 days
of the bombing, had the war continued. The railroads running through the
city were repaired for the resumption of through traffic on 8 August, 2 days
after the attack. "


Intellectual dishonesty noted. You will tell us the rest of what was quoted
there now wont you.


So the factories were largely undamaged and an important means of
distributionas available. What was the point? See estimates of civilian
casualties.


The incendiary raids
on Tokyo deliberately targetted civilians, not military or industrial
assets.

It targeted the distributed nature of the japanese war industry which was
turning out the means to kill millions of Chinese in 10s of thousands of
back yard workshops up and down the kanto plain.

If you had even a modicum of clue on the topic, you would be aware of
that.

Yeah right - ma and pa backyard workshops turning
out battleships, tanks and fighters.

Which were assembled from components made in small backyard workshops up
and down the kanto plain, what part of mass production sub contracting are
you having problems comprehending.

Get a grip on reality.

I suggest you do.


Of course, to allow idiots like you to sleep safe at night.

Bad news - it isn't working,

The opinion of uninformed idiots doesn't count.

Ad hom - the last resort of those without an answer.


Given you havent told us how B29s with a documented (post war US SBS
survey) CEP of 1000 yards are going to accurately target industrial
operations in large urban areas in the face of hostile air defences. I
suggest you take the mote out of your own eye 1st clown.


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.

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.

From: "weary"


"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 00:58:16 GMT, "weary" wrote:

snip


I ask you like I've asked all the other revisionists. Tell us how *you*
would have targeted these facilities and these facilities using the
technology of the period.

Industrial plants had been targetted successfully by B-29s
virtually from the start of the bombing campaign against
the Japanese home islands. That is a fact that I'm not revising,
although you seem determined to.

Certainly, and with huge civilian losses along with the losses of B-29s and
their crews.

snip

"... the big plants on the periphery of the city were almost completely
undamaged and 94 percent of their workers unhurt. These factories accounted
for 74 percent of the industrial production of the city. It is estimated
that they could have resumed substantially normal production within 30 days
of the bombing, had the war continued. The railroads running through the
city were repaired for the resumption of through traffic on 8 August, 2 days
after the attack. "

So the factories were largely undamaged and an important means of
distributionas available. What was the point? See estimates of civilian
casualties.

And if Japan hadn't surrendered the B-29s would be back as many times as need
to finish the job with thousands more civilian deaths. At least they tried to
take out all those targets in the atromic bombing.


The incendiary raids
on Tokyo deliberately targetted civilians, not military or industrial
assets.

It targeted the distributed nature of the japanese war industry which was
turning out the means to kill millions of Chinese in 10s of thousands of
back yard workshops up and down the kanto plain.

If you had even a modicum of clue on the topic, you would be aware of
that.

Yeah right - ma and pa backyard workshops turning
out battleships, tanks and fighters. Get a grip on reality.

I have in my collection a Japanese bayonet made in one of those "ma and pa
backyard workshops." Those shops made small arms parts, edged weapons, vehicle
parts etc and were thus legitimate targets.


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.



I'm sorry you don't see the difference between a war declared by all sides and
a terroristic act.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 07:54:17 GMT, "weary" wrote:


No. Do try to follow the thread.

Your laughable attempt at evasion is noted.

In your fantasy world "no' is considered evasion.
I can't be less evasive in my reply.

Inabilty to answer the question raised is quite clearly evasion.

Is there some part of "no" that you don't understand.



You claimed that

"All of which could have been destroyed by conventional means."

I am asking you to tell us how.

By dropping conventional bombs on the target.
(What other possible meaning could there be?)

So tell us how *you* would put 'conventional bombs on the target' (sic)
and
the target alone, when the delivery system of the day had a CEP of 1000
yards. You do know what CEP means dont you ?

I never claimed that every bomb would be on target, but feel free to
construct
strawmen, they are fun to demolish and reveal the poverty of your argument.
Precision bombing in Japan at the time of the atomic bombs greatly exceeded
the average accuracy of the German theatre, where precision bombing
was used and obviously thought viable for pretty well the whole campaign.

From the US Strategic bombing Survey
"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. "

The USBS states that the overall average for Germany was 20 percent
within 1000 feet.




Back up a couple of lines and you
can read that the previous correspondent tried to justify the bombing
of Hiroshima on the grounds that there were military and industrial
assets
in the city.

He didn't have to try. The military and industrial assets in Hiroshima
were
well documented.

I didn't claim otherwise. However they weren't the target of the
bomb in Hiroshima.

Oh really ? Lets see what the targetting committee of the manhattan
project
actually said.

http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html

"(2) Hiroshima - This is an important army depot and port of embarkation
in
the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it
is
such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged.
There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect
which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is
not
a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target"

The first criterion for the selection of atomic
targets was "1) they be important targets in a large urban area
of more than three miles diameter".

That would be Tokyo on a march night in 1945 or Dresden. Hiroshima an
Nagaskai werent treated any differently.

The requirement that the target must be within an urban area
meant that civilian casualties would be maximised.

Which of course is another revisionist lie.

So in your fantasy world pointing out the obvious is "revisionism".
I don't think you know what it means.
What is the effect of demanding that the 'target' be in an urban area
with regard to civilian casualties - are they minimised or maximised?
Why is the value of the 'target' somehow increased by being in a
large urban area?



I ask you like I've asked all the other revisionists. Tell us how *you*
would have targeted these facilities and these facilities using the
technology of the period.

Industrial plants had been targetted successfully by B-29s
virtually from the start of the bombing campaign against
the Japanese home islands.

Detail them. Tell us *exactly* what industrial plants had been targetted
successfully by B29s in mainland japan without causing any collateral
damage to the surrounding urban areas.

Nice attempt at a strawman - I didn't claim that such raids caused
no 'collateral' damage.


That is a fact that I'm not revising,

Its not a fact, its an outright lie on your part.

No - you are lying when you claim I said that no "collateral"
damage occurred in raids on industrial targets. You are obviously
short of facts if you have to resort to constructing strawmen.



"... the big plants on the periphery of the city were almost completely
undamaged and 94 percent of their workers unhurt. These factories
accounted
for 74 percent of the industrial production of the city. It is estimated
that they could have resumed substantially normal production within 30
days
of the bombing, had the war continued. The railroads running through the
city were repaired for the resumption of through traffic on 8 August, 2
days
after the attack. "


Intellectual dishonesty noted. You will tell us the rest of what was
quoted
there now wont you.

If you think something was left out that changed the context feel free
to post it.



So the factories were largely undamaged and an important means of
distributionas available. What was the point? See estimates of civilian
casualties.


The incendiary raids
on Tokyo deliberately targetted civilians, not military or industrial
assets.

It targeted the distributed nature of the japanese war industry which
was
turning out the means to kill millions of Chinese in 10s of thousands
of
back yard workshops up and down the kanto plain.

If you had even a modicum of clue on the topic, you would be aware of
that.

Yeah right - ma and pa backyard workshops turning
out battleships, tanks and fighters.

Which were assembled from components made in small backyard workshops up
and down the kanto plain,

Yeah right. They must have turned out hundreds of naval guns
and aero engines, the obvious choke points in production.


what part of mass production sub contracting are
you having problems comprehending.

I understand it quite well. I just don't believe
the bull**** you post about it.


Get a grip on reality.

I suggest you do.

Brilliant retort.



Of course, to allow idiots like you to sleep safe at night.

Bad news - it isn't working,

The opinion of uninformed idiots doesn't count.

Ad hom - the last resort of those without an answer.


Given you havent told us how B29s with a documented (post war US SBS
survey) CEP of 1000 yards are going to accurately target industrial
operations in large urban areas in the face of hostile air defences. I
suggest you take the mote out of your own eye 1st clown.

The contents of the USSBS do that quite satisfactorily - your
distorted version doesn't.

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"

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.



I'm sorry you don't see the difference between a war declared by all sides
and
a terroristic act.

It only takes one side to declare war, if the other declines to respond
it does so at its own peril.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired