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

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"
Date: 1/6/2004 12:25 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"Chad Irby" wrote in message
.com...
"weary" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote:

"weary" wrote:

Its clear that the people were the real target.

Yeah, the military people.

Then why did the targetting demand that the target must be
in a large urban atrea?

Because pretty much every major unbombed military target in Japan at
the
time was *in* a large urban area.

Then why insisit on it? However you are wrong. The Target
Committee meeting that produced that requirement was held
10-11 May 1945, at which time the bombing campaign was still
in its relatively early stages.


That was before anyone in the system even knew about the atom bombs.

I don't understand the relevance of this comment.

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"
Date: 1/6/2004 12:28 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"
Date: 1/2/2004 5:02 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
"weary" wrote:

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agor...hirodamap.html

Ohh look at that. The HQ of the local military district right in
the
zone
of complete destruction.

Which seems to be the only military asset in the zone.

This map doesn't show the rest of the details. That Military
District
Headquarters held the 11th Infantry Regiment, the 5th Division
Headquarters, a major artillery detachment, and a number of other
things, including the Prefectural office and the City Hall. It was
also
the HQ of the invasion defense of that entire section of the island.

If you're dropping a nuke on Hiroshima in 1945, you couldn't do a
whole
lot better for targeting.

Its clear that the people were the real target.

Yeah, the military people.

Then why did the targetting demand that the target must be
in a large urban atrea?


Because that's where the valid military targets were. I don't understan
d
why
you can't see that.

Plese provide proof that the onlyvalid military targets in Japan in May
1945
were in large urban areas.

I never said that.

I was discussing the minutes of the target committe that was meeting
in May 1945 that specified the target must be in a large urban area.
You said the valid military targets were in urban areas. You didn't say
'some of' or 'most of', you said 'the valid military targets'. Since the
committe was meeting in May 45, the comment applies to that time.
I cannot interpret what you wrote any other way, but feel free to
explain what you meant.


Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
news:3ff88efc$1@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
"weary" wrote:

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in
message
...

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agor...hirodamap.html

Ohh look at that. The HQ of the local
military district right in the
zone
of complete destruction.

Which seems to be the only military asset
in the zone.

This map doesn't show the rest of the details.
That Military District
Headquarters held the 11th Infantry Regiment,
the 5th Division
Headquarters, a major artillery detachment,
and a number of other
things, including the Prefectural office and
the City Hall. It was also
the HQ of the invasion defense of that entire
section of the island.

If you're dropping a nuke on Hiroshima in
1945, you couldn't do a whole
lot better for targeting.

Its clear that the people were the real
target.

Yeah, the military people.

Then why did the targetting demand that the
target must be
in a large urban atrea?



Military and Military industries were in such large urban areas.

Not all of them. But why specify that the target had to be in a large
urban area.

On 06 Jan 2004 08:53:05 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

From: "weary"
Date: 1/6/2004 12:37 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"
Date: 1/1/2004 2:52 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 02:06:46 GMT, "weary" wrote:


I do regret the civilian losses in Nagasaki and Hiroshima but none of the
other
options would have saved lives. Not one.

That is your opinion - I interpret the facts differently.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


What facts?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

We had pixies working for us who would have scattered magic dust on
the military targets?
Or perhaps our secret alliance with the Martian empire would have
come into play?
Those are the only "Facts" I can think of, becasue there sure aren't
any others lying around that back his point.

From: Charles Gray
Date: 1/9/2004 11:41 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

On 06 Jan 2004 08:53:05 GMT, (B2431) wrote:

From: "weary"
Date: 1/6/2004 12:37 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"
Date: 1/1/2004 2:52 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 02:06:46 GMT, "weary" wrote:


I do regret the civilian losses in Nagasaki and Hiroshima but none of the
other
options would have saved lives. Not one.

That is your opinion - I interpret the facts differently.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


What facts?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

We had pixies working for us who would have scattered magic dust on
the military targets?
Or perhaps our secret alliance with the Martian empire would have
come into play?
Those are the only "Facts" I can think of, becasue there sure aren't
any others lying around that back his point.

I gave up on weary some time ago. He doesn't have the ability to grasp the fact
that urban targets are valid when they contain legitimate military targets,
that regardless of actions to end the war many thousands of people would have
died and that his constantly saying he knows the "facts" that apparently no one
else knows proves nothing.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 03:00:49 GMT, "weary" wrote:


Then why insisit on it? However you are wrong. The Target
Committee meeting that produced that requirement was held
10-11 May 1945, at which time the bombing campaign was still
in its relatively early stages.


That was before anyone in the system even knew about the atom bombs.

I don't understand the relevance of this comment.


Thats because you havent a clue about the topic being discussed, but are
only here to deliver specious moralising.


greg

--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 02:53:20 GMT, "weary" wrote:


"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 06:28:01 GMT, "weary" wrote:


Because that's where the valid military targets were. I don't
understand
why
you can't see that.

Plese provide proof that the onlyvalid military targets in Japan in May
1945
were in large urban areas.


What a surprise, its attempts more misdirection.


A. He never said that.

Yes he did.



He clearly didnt troll.


B. I suggest figuring out what the word 'priority' means, especially in
the
context of having a very finite number of sorties available to hit
thousands of targets in mainland japan.

He didn't use the word priority. Don't try moving goalpostrs.


He didnt *have* to, because those of us who have studied the history of the
period are fully aware of what a limited resource B29s were in theatre.


greg







--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 02:45:36 GMT, "weary" wrote:


Because that's where the valid military targets were. I don't understand
why
you can't see that.

Because in that case all that was necessary was to specify a valid military
target.

They did.

I don't understand why you can't see that.
However,


Thats because you're too stupid to figure out that 'valid military targets'
which warrant the equivalent of 250+ B29 loads being dropped upon them
generally need a local population centre to facilite operations.


greg

--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 02:45:36 GMT, "weary" wrote:


Because that's where the valid military targets were. I don't
understand
why
you can't see that.

Because in that case all that was necessary was to specify a valid
military
target.

They did.

No - they specified a target surrounded by a large urban area.


I don't understand why you can't see that.
However,


Thats because you're too stupid to figure out that 'valid military
targets'
which warrant the equivalent of 250+ B29 loads
being dropped upon them
generally need a local population centre to facilite operations.

Not necessarily. But even if they do why is necessary to mandate
the obvious?

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 03:00:49 GMT, "weary" wrote:


Then why insisit on it? However you are wrong. The Target
Committee meeting that produced that requirement was held
10-11 May 1945, at which time the bombing campaign was still
in its relatively early stages.


That was before anyone in the system even knew about the atom bombs.

I don't understand the relevance of this comment.


Thats because you havent a clue about the topic being discussed, but are
only here to deliver specious moralising.

That really clears it up