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

From: (cave fish)

snip

The horror of Hiroshima is the sheer indiscrimate nature of the
destruction. If atom bomb had been dropped on a Japanese military
target it might have been justified. But, to kill like that in
Hiroshima and Nagasaki was blind and savage overkill.

There WERE military targets in Nagasaki and Hiroshima and I'm not talking about
the civilians.

Nagasaki was a functioning port. Hiroshima had a army divisions and training
facilities as well as some mines with POWs working in them.

If you had been following this thread you'd have known this by now.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

(cave fish) wrote:
Dave Smith wrote
in message ...
RogerM wrote:


First off, **** Japan, they started it,
we finished it.

First off, **** you asshole. The women and
children who were murdered
didn't have **** to with Pearl Harbor.

Sure they did. They were part of an imperialist
society that had been
expanding in the Pacific. They were the people
who were providing the men to
serve in the Japanese armed forces which had
invaded China and other Asian
countries where they were set loose to terrorize
the populace with
unimaginable atrocities. The people in those
cities were busy manufacturing
war materials and providing other services
that helped the war effort.

You are partly right. No one is completely innocent,
which is how
Palestinians justify their bombing of Jewish
civilians and how Al
Qaeda defends its attack on NY. Since all of
us pay taxes that support
US foreign policy, yes we are all guilty.
However, in a case of open war between nations,
while it may be
justified to bomb key industrial areas supplying
the war effort, do
tell me how a newborn baby in a Hiroshima is
guilty of anything? Or,
kindergarten students? Or, members of the opposition?
Or, those in
jail for standing up to Japanese militarism?
Or, old folks living out
their last days?
The horror of Hiroshima is the sheer indiscrimate
nature of the
destruction. If atom bomb had been dropped on
a Japanese military
target it might have been justified. But, to
kill like that in
Hiroshima and Nagasaki was blind and savage
overkill.
Both target cities had military targets.
Hiroshima: 2nd General Army HQ, HQ of 39th Infantry Division, Army port facility,
airfield, major railroad depot, numerous factories and cottage industry.

Nagasaki: Port facility, airfield, HQ 122 Infantry Brigade, Mitusbishi aircraft
plant, torpedo plant (producing Long Lance torpedoes and Kaiten Suicide Torpedoes),
other war-related industries.
By the standards of WW II and today, both cities were legitimate military
targets. Only target areas in Japan off limits were Kyoto and the Imperial
Palace. Every other urban military/industrial area was on the list. Use of
the bombs to support the invasion was under consideration by Marshall at
war's end.

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

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:41:28 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:

Um, Hiroshima was HQ for several major Japanese Army and Navy
units.

And the US' Central Command, in charge of the mideast battles, is
right next to downtown Tampa. Be careful of potential parallels here.
Hmmm, I'm going there tomorrow.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:15:09 GMT, Dick Locke
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:41:28 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:

Um, Hiroshima was HQ for several major Japanese Army and Navy
units.

And the US' Central Command, in charge of the mideast battles, is
right next to downtown Tampa. Be careful of potential parallels here.
Hmmm, I'm going there tomorrow.
I would consider Tampa a legitimate target for that reason. Just as
I would consider San Diego a legitimate target, as its co-located with
the biggest naval base onthe West Coast.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:19:37 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:

I would consider Tampa a legitimate target for that reason.

Great. Standard landing instructions for planes coming from the
northwest to TPA and landing to the north bring the plane down to a
few thousand feet and then say "turn before McDill and intercept the
localizer." Awfully late to react if the plane doesn't turn.

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:19:37 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:15:09 GMT, Dick Locke
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:41:28 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:

Um, Hiroshima was HQ for several major Japanese Army and Navy
units.

And the US' Central Command, in charge of the mideast battles, is
right next to downtown Tampa. Be careful of potential parallels here.
Hmmm, I'm going there tomorrow.
I would consider Tampa a legitimate target for that reason. Just as
I would consider San Diego a legitimate target, as its co-located with
the biggest naval base onthe West Coast.

You are a fool if you cannot tell the difference between WWII and
terrorist cells. Or are you saying that Tamp is a moral equivalent
to Hiroshima? If you are, you are an even bigger fool.

Al Minyard

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:37:56 -0600, Alan Minyard
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:19:37 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:15:09 GMT, Dick Locke
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:41:28 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:

Um, Hiroshima was HQ for several major Japanese Army and Navy
units.

And the US' Central Command, in charge of the mideast battles, is
right next to downtown Tampa. Be careful of potential parallels here.
Hmmm, I'm going there tomorrow.
I would consider Tampa a legitimate target for that reason. Just as
I would consider San Diego a legitimate target, as its co-located with
the biggest naval base onthe West Coast.

You are a fool if you cannot tell the difference between WWII and
terrorist cells. Or are you saying that Tamp is a moral equivalent
to Hiroshima? If you are, you are an even bigger fool.

Methods count-- the use of airliners loaded with passengers was a
terrorist act, as was the assault on the WTC.
But to put it a different way, if during the last Gulf war, Saddam
had had some long range cruise missiles, and they were targeted on the
Naval Warfare center, or the dry docks at San Diego, there would be no
question of war crimes-- those are all legitimate targets of war. If
some civilians got killed, tough luck.
If killing some civilians of other countries is a unavoidable part
of War, we cannot say that any assult on U.S. ground is wrong-- we
have military bases, and those bases are in many cases close to
civilian infrastructure. Shoudl an enemy have a chance to hit us,
then they will, and some civilians will die. That isn't a crime, it's
just war.

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 20:51:46 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:37:56 -0600, Alan Minyard
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:19:37 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:15:09 GMT, Dick Locke
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:41:28 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:

Um, Hiroshima was HQ for several major Japanese Army and Navy
units.

And the US' Central Command, in charge of the mideast battles, is
right next to downtown Tampa. Be careful of potential parallels here.
Hmmm, I'm going there tomorrow.
I would consider Tampa a legitimate target for that reason. Just as
I would consider San Diego a legitimate target, as its co-located with
the biggest naval base onthe West Coast.

You are a fool if you cannot tell the difference between WWII and
terrorist cells. Or are you saying that Tamp is a moral equivalent
to Hiroshima? If you are, you are an even bigger fool.

Methods count-- the use of airliners loaded with passengers was a
terrorist act, as was the assault on the WTC.
But to put it a different way, if during the last Gulf war, Saddam
had had some long range cruise missiles, and they were targeted on the
Naval Warfare center, or the dry docks at San Diego, there would be no
question of war crimes-- those are all legitimate targets of war. If
some civilians got killed, tough luck.
If killing some civilians of other countries is a unavoidable part
of War, we cannot say that any assult on U.S. ground is wrong-- we
have military bases, and those bases are in many cases close to
civilian infrastructure. Shoudl an enemy have a chance to hit us,
then they will, and some civilians will die. That isn't a crime, it's
just war.

Would you care to tell us what "cruise missile" could travel from
Iraq to the US west coast?? Incidentally, there are no military
dry docks in San Diego. Having said that, I do agree that if
we are engaged in war with a nation, they certainly have the
right to attack any US Military target, and "collateral damage"
would be both expected and legal. You need to learn at
least a LITTLE bit about the world's militaries before making
such silly comments.

Al Minyard

In article ,
Dick Locke wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:41:28 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:

Um, Hiroshima was HQ for several major Japanese Army and Navy
units.

And the US' Central Command, in charge of the mideast battles, is
right next to downtown Tampa. Be careful of potential parallels here.
Hmmm, I'm going there tomorrow.

Then you're not suprised to note that it would be a major target in case
of war.

From: Col. RJ


Hell they sent their stupid balloon bombs for the sole purpose of
killing US civilians, thank god only one made it that I know of and it
killed a school teacher in Oregon with several of her students.

That was the only one that killed. They were on an outting and found the bomb.
It didn't land on them.

Several baloon bombs caused forrest fires. There were units of black fire
fighters you controlled those fires secrretly so as to not spread panic. Since
the end of the war the secrecy has been lifted.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired