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

On 26 Dec 2003 23:05:38 -0800, wrote:

Charles Gray wrote in message . ..

There is no bias in my argument.

Ah, the old "That which I cannot see does not exist" myopia. Your
assumption (that anyone who opposes atomic weaponry doesn't know what
s/he is talking about) pretty much stamps "MilitaryIndustrial Bias"
across your forehead.

Actually, you have failed to answer any of the questoins raised in
my post.

Not "failed" - Dismissed. Your loaded questions attempted to enforce
an antipacifist playing field. The point of my post was to explain
why such questions are irrelevant.


Dismissed. As in, you have no answer for them. As for loaded, how
so? They are all real concerns, dating from the time. Do you have
any way the war could have been concluded without the use of atomic
weapons and without a drastically increased body count?

You have at no point addressed any of the real concerns
^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
Here's that pesky bias
again. Concerns aren't "real" unless they braid into *your* world
view? The only "real concern" regarding atomic/nuclear weapons is
that they never be used (or glorified or patriotized).

Oh? I wasn't aware any of the posters were glorifying them, or
suggesting they be used for crowd control, just pointing out in
arguements that you apparently have no counter to, that in 1945, there
was no realistic alternative, given teh demonstrated willingness of
the Japanese to continue resisting.
If they were so glorified, why did we not use them in Korea? The
Russians were still very far behind in the race, and a few dozen
warhead exploded over NK and China would have ended the war very much
on our terms.
Instead, we accepted a draw that was a tacit defeat to many, and
were willing to sti with a status quo that has lasted for the last 50
years. Why not nuke Iran? A little nation that ****ed off both the
russians and us, well, tailor made for a little glorifying nuke use.
You're "glorification" of nukes doesn't survive the sniff test--
if they were so glorious, I'm certain we would have found a use for
them somewhere or other.
They are, in fact, simply a weapon, no better or worse than most
others, that have certain characteristics. The main characteristics
of nuclear weapons are the following:
1. Great destructive force.
2 The dispersal of greater or lesser amounts of radioactive
fallout.
3. The ability to project that force in one plane. (we are
staying with 1940-50 technology here, as we are discussing Hiroshima).
In comparison with the dresden raid or the Battle of Berlin,
they were not the most distructive weapons of WWII, although they were
the most *quickly( destructive weapons, in that their force was
exerted quickly. This speed can be seen as one reason why the
Japanese cabinet agreed upon a surrender.



When confronted with facts opposing your viewpoint, you seem to
have no ability to meet them with anything more effective than
"military industrial bias" comments

Nothing "more effective" is necessary. I'll continue to refer to the
bias as often as you continue to demonstrate it.

Oh? How does a Military industrial bias operate on the decision of
the A bombing of Japan? the Manhatten project *Wasn't* a military
industrial operation, it was government from the word go. Civilian
contracters were not used except to provide certain materials, and few
knew what it was for.
For that matter, why would a "military industrial" complex
WANT a nuclear bomb. Lots more money to be made in supplying a vast
invasion fleet with everything they need. By that logic, the MI
should have been sabotaging the project.
In fact, the military industrial complex didn't even exist
until, arguably, the 1950's. In 1945 most companies were shifting
over to civilian production as fast as they could...odd if their goal
was to maintain a military industrial complex.



I'm sorry, you flunk logic 101. Please return for next semesters
course. In order to prepare you for your second course, answer the
following questions.

Assume a total death toll of 100,000 people from atomic weapons,
100,000 people from firebombming raids, 100,000 from general ground
combat, and 100,000 from counter-insurgency operations in China.
How do you define the deaths caused by atomic weapons as somehow
"less moral" than those from other causes. If an atomic weapon *is*
less moral, why? What innate quality of being blown up through the
mass energy conversion of fissionable material makes it worse than
being fried by napalm, shot by bullets or gassed by Chlorine.
There. A very simple answer should be possible, given your vast
knowledge.

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 03:54:56 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:



Actually, you have failed to answer any of the questoins raised in
my post.

Because as with the rest of your uninformed emotive cant, your questions
are nonsense.

You have at no point addressed any of the real concerns with
the neccesity or lack therof of the use of atomic weapons.

You've been asked repeatedly to detail *any* meaningful alternative, you've
proven clearly incapable of doing so.


When confronted with facts opposing your viewpoint, you seem to
have no ability to meet them with anything more effective than
"military industrial bias" comments,

Asking someone to detail a meaningful alternative to the action taken has
SFA to do with "military industrial bias" (sic).

with no substantive components to
your arguement, or any ability to effectively analyze or dispute
opposing viewpoints.


Rather ironic given you cannot detail anything resembling an alternative to
the action taken.


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 26 Dec 2003 23:05:38 -0800, wrote:


Actually, you have failed to answer any of the questoins raised in
my post.

Not "failed" - Dismissed.

You cannot 'dismiss' something you have no answer for.

Your loaded questions attempted to enforce
an antipacifist playing field.

ROFLMAO! How is asking for a meaningful alternative enforcing the
'antipacifist playing field'.

What pomo PC school did you attend to learn that piece of meaningless
verbiage ?

The point of my post was to explain
why such questions are irrelevant.

Needless deaths of allied forces in the field as a consequence of the
japanese not been taken out of the fight are highly relevant.

My maternal grandfather would most likely have been on an RN ship off the
coast of Japan somewhere supporting Olympic and Coronet.

again. Concerns aren't "real" unless they braid into *your* world
view?

The mass murder of chinese civilians at a rate of approximately 10000/day
were quite real I can assure you.

The only "real concern" regarding atomic/nuclear weapons is
that they never be used (or glorified or patriotized).

Given you haven't told us what *you* would have done to prevent the mass
murder of civilians accross asia by japanese forces. The only 'real
concern' here is how civilians have to die to keep your PC conscience clean
60 odd years after the event.



When confronted with facts opposing your viewpoint, you seem to
have no ability to meet them with anything more effective than
"military industrial bias" comments

Nothing "more effective" is necessary.

On the contrary, the depth of your ignorance is comical.


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 Sat, 27 Dec 2003 10:59:46 +0000, Greg Hennessy
wrote:

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 03:54:56 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:



Actually, you have failed to answer any of the questoins raised in
my post.

Because as with the rest of your uninformed emotive cant, your questions
are nonsense.

You have at no point addressed any of the real concerns with
the neccesity or lack therof of the use of atomic weapons.

You've been asked repeatedly to detail *any* meaningful alternative, you've
proven clearly incapable of doing so.


When confronted with facts opposing your viewpoint, you seem to
have no ability to meet them with anything more effective than
"military industrial bias" comments,

Asking someone to detail a meaningful alternative to the action taken has
SFA to do with "military industrial bias" (sic).

with no substantive components to
your arguement, or any ability to effectively analyze or dispute
opposing viewpoints.


Rather ironic given you cannot detail anything resembling an alternative to
the action taken.


greg

Hey Greg, that was theatre6@hotmail, not me!

Suh, I demand satisfaction! I will face you with the spambot of
your choice, at dawn!
Charles Gray.

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 11:21:11 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:



Hey Greg, that was theatre6@hotmail, not me!

Suh, I demand satisfaction! I will face you with the spambot of
your choice, at dawn!
Charles Gray.

Sorry mate LOL!


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.

In article ,
Charles Gray writes:
On 26 Dec 2003 23:05:38 -0800, wrote:

Charles Gray wrote in message . ..

There is no bias in my argument.

Ah, the old "That which I cannot see does not exist" myopia. Your
assumption (that anyone who opposes atomic weaponry doesn't know what
s/he is talking about) pretty much stamps "MilitaryIndustrial Bias"
across your forehead.

Actually, you have failed to answer any of the questoins raised in
my post.

Not "failed" - Dismissed. Your loaded questions attempted to enforce
an antipacifist playing field. The point of my post was to explain
why such questions are irrelevant.


Dismissed. As in, you have no answer for them. As for loaded, how
so? They are all real concerns, dating from the time. Do you have
any way the war could have been concluded without the use of atomic
weapons and without a drastically increased body count?

You're forgetting the Primary Rule of the Theat
"When the going gets tough, the actors go home."

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:37:57 -0600, Alan Minyard
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 01:19:39 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:

On 22 Dec 2003 15:48:57 -0800, wrote:

"Linda Terrell" wrote in message ...
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.

Hiroshima was a military target -- it was a port wity with several
railroad lines running in and out of it. That means supplies going
to the Army.

So does that make entire cities like San Diego "military targets" as
well? If al-Qaeda or North Korea nuked Arlington or DC, would you
chalk it up as a respectable act of war?


Yes-- and you might wish to note that Had Al Qaeda used a cruise
missile against the pentagon, it wouldn't be considered a criminal act
by many-- the pentagon is a military target.

Al Q is not a military force, it is a terrorist organization. Despite your
evident love for them, they are religious fanatics that wish to
kill all non-muslims.

Al Minyard

You are correct-- since Al Qaeda has no international standing, any
attack by them, is both de facto and legally illegal.
Let me rephrase-- had the Pentagon been attacked by a nation as part
of a conflict, there would be nothing *innately* illegal about that,
even though there are civilian workers co-located with teh military
personel. Of course, in that case methods woudl count, and using a
liner loaded with civilians as a cruisemissile would still be illegal
and a war crime. (and a nation state has *so* many peices of valuable
real estate where the U.S. could make our...displeasure at such an
action felt).

(Peter Stickney) wrote in message ...

Dismissed. As in, you have no answer for them. As for loaded, how
so? They are all real concerns, dating from the time. Do you have
any way the war could have been concluded without the use of atomic
weapons and without a drastically increased body count?

You're forgetting the Primary Rule of the Theat
"When the going gets tough, the actors go home."

Perhaps the actors have gone home because they were smart enough to
notice that the playbill has been translated into Russian, which has
frightened away the audience and eliminates any need to incinerate
season subscribers.

In article ,
writes:
(Peter Stickney) wrote in message ...

Dismissed. As in, you have no answer for them. As for loaded, how
so? They are all real concerns, dating from the time. Do you have
any way the war could have been concluded without the use of atomic
weapons and without a drastically increased body count?

You're forgetting the Primary Rule of the Theat
"When the going gets tough, the actors go home."

Perhaps the actors have gone home because they were smart enough to
notice that the playbill has been translated into Russian, which has
frightened away the audience and eliminates any need to incinerate
season subscribers.

No, sport, it's because they're afraid that you might actually have to
sweat. You know, dealing with all those unfair things like learning
lines, or putting your props where you can find them again, or
actually hitting you mark underneath those awful, bright, lights.
Now be good, or I'll have one of my minions slip Stage Weights into
your valise.

--
Pete Stickney
Occasional Stage Manger, Technical Director, Live Theater
Vehicle Wrangler and Driver (On-Screen) Film & T.V.

"B2431" wrote in message
...
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.

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.