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

ArtKramr ) wrote:
: ubject: Hiroshima justified? (was Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other
: magnificent technological achievements)
: From: Merlin Dorfman
: Date: 12/28/03 1:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
: Message-id:
:
: ArtKramr ) 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.
: :
: :
:
: : As a trained and experienced bombardier I wish I could have been on the
: Enola
: : Gay that day. I would have had the honor of bringing to an end the worst
: war
: : the world has ever seen.But I was busy in Eirope at that time.
:
: I was going to answer a previous question about "What was Art
: doing on that day?" by pointing out that the war in Europe had ended
: three months earlier. But it sounds like many Air Force personnel
: were still in Europe.
:

: We were preparing to go over to Japan when the bomb dropped and we were
: cancelled. I think that saved my life. I don't know if I could have made it
: through both wars.The odds go down with time.

I know the Luftwaffe was pretty well decimated by late 1944, so
fighter opposition was probably light; but if you were doing tactical
ground support missions I expect AA fire was still formidable.
Likewise fighter opposition to flights over Japan was not too
bad by mid-1945, as the Japanese were saving their aircraft, pilots,
and gasoline for Kamikaze attacks on the invasion force. But if you
were to be providing close support for the invasion, you certainly
would have been at risk from ground fire.
We're grateful that the war ended when it did so that ETO veterans
did not have to face a second war, and PTO veterans the ultimate in
suicidal resistance.

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 04:04:02 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman
wrote:


I know the Luftwaffe was pretty well decimated by late 1944, so
fighter opposition was probably light; but if you were doing tactical
ground support missions I expect AA fire was still formidable.
Likewise fighter opposition to flights over Japan was not too
bad by mid-1945, as the Japanese were saving their aircraft, pilots,
and gasoline for Kamikaze attacks on the invasion force. But if you
were to be providing close support for the invasion, you certainly
would have been at risk from ground fire.
We're grateful that the war ended when it did so that ETO veterans
did not have to face a second war, and PTO veterans the ultimate in
suicidal resistance.

and lets be honest-- with hindsight that IJA and Japanse civilains
didn't have to face what probably would have been a catostrophic
invasion for Japanese civilization.
I've read that one of the great things about the occupation was how
the troops found the Japanese mindset to be completely different from
what they expected, and that this led to a far more "friendly"
occupation. Had it occured after a savage invasion however...

Charles Gray wrote in message . ..
On 27 Dec 2003, wrote:

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.

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.

Hm, I see that 12/27's Russian Riddle is still flying way over your
head. Fair enough - While I register for my logic class, your first
assignment is to grab a dictionary and look up the words "irony" &
"metaphor", which just might start you on your way to discovering that
I've already answered your questions.

But incase you're still lost, you can still save face by writing one
sentence a hundred times on the blackboard. Don't worry, it's only
made up of five little words:

"YOU CAN KEEP YOUR EMPEROR."

Perhaps this 2nd assignment will help you to grasp how powerful such a
simple Potsdam clarification might have been in rendering your above
questions moot.

But as those questions of yours prove, it can be lots more fun for
macho military-types to wonder which one of their toys is the "best"
for murdering 100,000 civilians... So I don't blame you for
scratching your head over the crazy notion that we might never have
had to kill them in the first place.

On 28 Dec 2003 23:16:37 -0800, wrote:

Charles Gray wrote in message . ..
On 27 Dec 2003, wrote:



But incase you're still lost, you can still save face by writing one
sentence a hundred times on the blackboard. Don't worry, it's only
made up of five little words:

"YOU CAN KEEP YOUR EMPEROR."

Perhaps this 2nd assignment will help you to grasp how powerful such a
simple Potsdam clarification might have been in rendering your above
questions moot.


Ah, one of hte typical fantasys of those who live in the pink
colored world where they never have to fight.
That was never on the table. The japenese at the time of potsdam
might have given some thought to a surrender agreement that allowed
them to keep the emperor, as he was-- the semi-divine figurehead ruler
of Japan, set above the people.
Those who point out "well we kept the emperor" miss one very
important fact-- the "Emperor" as he existed before 1945 died. He
lost all temporal power, and more importantly, was both "De-deified"
and subjegated to the will of the Japanese people.
The entire equation of legitimacy was turned on its head, where the
emperor gained whatever legitimacy he had via the will of the Japanese
people, a starkly impossible concept for the pre-surrender Japan. At
no point do you find that on the table, even in teh private
discussions of the "pro-peace" party.

Charles Gray wrote in message . ..
On 28 Dec 2003 23:16:37 -0800, wrote:

But incase you're still lost, you can still save face by writing one
sentence a hundred times on the blackboard. Don't worry, it's only
made up of five little words:

"YOU CAN KEEP YOUR EMPEROR."

Perhaps this 2nd assignment will help you to grasp how powerful such a
simple Potsdam clarification might have been in rendering your above
questions moot.

The japenese at the time of potsdam
might have given some thought to a surrender agreement that allowed
them to keep the emperor, as he was-- the semi-divine figurehead ruler
of Japan, set above the people.

Which, of course, is the whole point. We are discussing whether the
Bomb was necessary to end the war and Japanese imperialism - Not
whether or not it was also necessary to shatter another culture's
ancient GodKing tradition.

I can anticipate your response - But while deified leadership and
Imperialism can certainly go hand in hand, secular leadership and
Imperialism are not mutually exclusive (as the current secular
imperials in the White House so aptly illustrate). Killing Hirohito's
spiritual mandate was a nice move for Japanese civil rights and
societal evolution, but it isn't impossible to decipher the
"wiggle-outs" from such a condition that can be found in Potsdam,
clarified later by Secretary Byrnes' reply to the Japanese government
in August: that "[t]he ultimate form of government of Japan shall, in
accordance with the Potsdam Declaration, be established by the freely
expressed will of the Japanese people."

(ArtKramr) wrote:
Subject: Hiroshima justified? (was Enola
Gay: Burnt flesh and other
magnificent technological achievements)
From: "weary"
Date: 12/27/03 6:06 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:


"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.



As a trained and experienced bombardier I wish
I could have been on the Enola
Gay that day. I would have had the honor of
bringing to an end the worst war
the world has ever seen.But I was busy in Eirope
at that time.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Were you training to go to the Pacific in '46 when Enola Gay and Bock's
Car ended the War? If so, what would you have flown?

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

Charles Gray ) wrote:
: On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 04:04:02 +0000 (UTC), Merlin Dorfman
: wrote:

:
: I know the Luftwaffe was pretty well decimated by late 1944, so
: fighter opposition was probably light; but if you were doing tactical
: ground support missions I expect AA fire was still formidable.
: Likewise fighter opposition to flights over Japan was not too
: bad by mid-1945, as the Japanese were saving their aircraft, pilots,
: and gasoline for Kamikaze attacks on the invasion force. But if you
: were to be providing close support for the invasion, you certainly
: would have been at risk from ground fire.
: We're grateful that the war ended when it did so that ETO veterans
: did not have to face a second war, and PTO veterans the ultimate in
: suicidal resistance.
:
: and lets be honest-- with hindsight that IJA and Japanse civilains
: didn't have to face what probably would have been a catostrophic
: invasion for Japanese civilization.
: I've read that one of the great things about the occupation was how
: the troops found the Japanese mindset to be completely different from
: what they expected, and that this led to a far more "friendly"
: occupation. Had it occured after a savage invasion however...

I have a friend who was one of the first Occupation troops to
land in mainland Japan. After a few weeks, he and his buddies found
themselves saying to each other, "How did we wind up fighting these
people?" They were indeed amazed at how easy it was to get along
with the Japanese.

"Merlin Dorfman" wrote in message
...
I have a friend who was one of the first Occupation troops to
land in mainland Japan. After a few weeks, he and his buddies found
themselves saying to each other, "How did we wind up fighting these
people?" They were indeed amazed at how easy it was to get along
with the Japanese.

Because those treacherous *******s attacked us at Pearl Harbor on December
7, 1941. It was in all the papers.

Tex

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003 16:15:04 GMT, "Matt Wiser"
wrote:


"Linda Terrell" wrote:

Hiroshima was a military target -- it was
a port with 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?

Damn straight, then turn their military targets
into sheets of glass.

LT

--

Which is exactly what will happen if they EVER pop a nuke anywhere. 20 plus
minutes for a pair of Trident SSBNs, or 6-8 hours for B-2s with B-52s shooting
ALCMs. A brutal but effective object lesson.

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


Minor problem-- Al Qaeda has no bases...and their greatest base of
support seems to be coming from Pakistan and Saudia Arabia...which are
our allies.

That is, of course, one of the biggest arguements for preventing
large scale proliferation-- a nuke in the hands of any organization,
terrorist, criminal or otherwise with no major bases of cities to
defend is an utter nightmare, because right now the only defense
against nukes IS detterence.

In article ,
Charles Gray wrote:

Minor problem-- Al Qaeda has no bases

Well, not any more.

...and their greatest base of support seems to be coming from
Pakistan and Saudia Arabia...which are our allies.

Note the current low level of AQ activity.

If they were working unhindered, you'd think that could come up with
something dramatic in a place other than a Muslim country on the other
side of the planet from the Great Satan...

If they don't manage to do something tonight or tomorrow, it's a good
sign that they're *done*, effectively.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.