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

"B2431" wrote in message
...
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:


The aiming point for the Hiroshima bomb was a bridge in a mainly
residential area, not any of the military or industrial assets. By
definition
the target was civilians since that is where the bomb was aimed.


Which of course is a lie.

So in your fantasy world you aim about a mile from the real target.


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.
Its clear that the people were the real target.



The railroads and trams were also valid military targets, as were the
factories
and warehouses. Electrical distribution, water and sewage facilities
were
also
valid targets. By no stretch of the imagination does the map at that
link
list
all of the valid targets. But why let facts get in the way? You have
made
up
your mind.

You still haven't said how you would take out military targets in
Hiroshima,
Nagasaki or any other city without massive civilian casualties.

I have but you don't want to accept it.


Using technology available anyone bombing the Navy yard in Boston,
Mass,
for
example, would take also out thousands of civilians.

But not 70000


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?

I suggest you go to a library and read up on the
subject - I haven't really got the time to educate you on-line.