Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 02:14:06 GMT, "weary" wrote:


Liar - quote where I said that there would be no civilian
casualties or every bomb would be on target.

You have done so repeatedly by claiming that there was an 'alternative'
where none existed.

Just point out where I claimed that the alternative would involve zero
casualties.

So why did you assert it then f*ckwit, other than specious and facile
moralising that is.

You haven't, you selectively quoted the bombing survey figures but were
too
stupid to figure out that 2/3s of all bombs dropped fell more than 1000
feet from the target.

Liar - point out where I made any claim that is supported by what
you fabricate here.

Message-ID:

"Bombing accuracy increased substantially, and averaged 35 to 40 percent
within 1,000 feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks from 20,000 feet
or lower."

Like all trolls you eventually start contradicting yourself.


Ahhh, its manages to contradict itself yet again through complete
cluelessness.

When only 35-40% of the bombs fall within 1000' feet of the
target, an aircraft factory etc is a point target.

I suggest finding out what 'C' means in CEP.

What do you think
a point target is - one of your non-existent backyard workshops.

YOu havent read those bombing surveys too well now have you troll, in
particular pay attention to where it details how *hard* is was to destroy
machine tools depite HE destroying the buildings which contained them.


They clearly couldn't accurately target any facility in anywhere when
2/3rds of bombs dropped fell more than 1000 feet from the aimpoint.

Or have you forgotten those inconvenient bombing survey figures yet idiot.

Since I am the one who pointed them out, that hardly seems likely, moron.

Yet they they considered that half that accuracy was sufficient to warrant
precision bombing in Germany.

they didnt. You have no comprehension of the meaning of what was written.

Like DUH! One generally finds large urban areas around key facilities
such
as ports, dockyards and regional military headquarters controlling tens of
thousands of personnel.

Then why make it a requirement.

You think ports, dockyards and military headquarters manage to run them
selves now do you ?

so about fifty
planes could have been left behind unless the aim was specifically
kill civilians,

Of course you will tell us how anti personnel bombs which 'specifically
kill civilians' would managed to kill those who would have been warned at
least 45 mins before hand by air raid sirens and are now sitting in bomb
shelters.

Since I suggested that such bombs not be carried,

Yes that was most amusing. 2nd guessing life of death decisions made by
mean whose boots you aren't fit to clean. Its a pity 'Weary' Dunlop isnt
about to knock some sense into your miserable PC skull.

your question is
ridiculous.

No, you're to stupid to figure out that anti personnel bombs were carried
to suppress attempts at fire fighting, not to 'specifically kill
civilians'.


given that the vast majority of casualties were civilians.

'civilians' who were providing the means to murder millions of real
civilians across the pacific. Tough.

All 70000 in Hiroshima - sure.

LMAO! So the 15-20000 odd thousand troops who were killed by the bomb were
'civilians' too were they.

At last you endorse total war - this is where I came into the argument.
You believe it is alright to wage total war on others , but when someone
wages total war on you (11 Sept) you call it terrorism and criminal -
hypocrite.

No, the only hypocrite here is the fool who asserts that it was immoral to
use every means necessary to defeat a foe who was murdering 10000 chinese
civilians every day the war continued.



A far cry from the figures (3600-6000)you pluck out of the air above.

You're the one claiming that B29s could accurately target anything
without
causing collateral damage, not I.

Once again you are lying - point out where I made that claim.
Most of your argument seems to rely on fabricated claims
about what I have said.

Ohhh, Its changing tack again, would that be like claiming an aircraft
plant is a precision target.


Very hard to do when the initial CEP for B29 operations was 6%.

A few post ago CEP was 1000 yards and now it is 6% - what are the
units for measuring CEP?

I suggest you find out, I am not here to continue your limited education.

You haven't, all you've done is peddle revisionist agit-prop, your
hilarious nonsense about anti personnel bombs being the latest emission of
pomo moralising.

???? Calm down and take your meds.

"Since I suggested that such bombs not be carried, "

Given you clearly hadnt a *clue* why they were carried. Your tedious
moralising asserted they were carried to attack civilians.




It doesn't have to. There was nothing illegal or immoral in using a weapon
which ended the war and saved the lives of nearly 1 million allied POWs
and
Internees held by the Japanese.

We don't know that it did that or that it had to bu used at all.


We do know you miserable peon. I suggest you figure out figure out what
'magic' was to see why.


" They still relied, however, on plants employing less than 250 workers
for
subcontracted parts and equipment. Many of these smaller plants were
concentrated in Tokyo and accounted for 50 percent of the total industrial
output of the city. Such plants suffered severe damage in urban incendiary
attacks. "

So in your fantasy world , a plant employing 250 people is a backyard
workshop. My turn to LMAO

I suggest you read it again troll, there is nothing quoted about plants
employing precisely 250 people. There is a quote which details that 50% of
tokyos industrial output was produced by plants producing *less* than 250
people.



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 16:32:04 GMT, "Matt Wiser"
wrote:


I don't know what Truman had on his desk at
the time and you don't either.


You ask someone who did his MA thesis on the invasion that last question?

ROTFL! Ohhh, I felt that kick in the slats landing from here.



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 02:32:04 GMT, "weary" wrote:


That would be Stimson who claimed that Nagasaki was picked as the primary
target for Fatman, when it clearly wasnt.

Even if this is true it says nothing about Stimson except he was
confused on that point.

It clearly does.

Of course you will give us the precise quote detailing when exactly *when*
this would have happened and you also tell us how this information was
beamed back in time to allied planners taking tough decisions.

The US was well aware of peace feelers being put out by Japan at least
two months before the bombs were dropped..

Not by any japanese in any position to deliver on a peace offer.

Nevermind Leahy whose own briefing to truman put allied casualities at
30-35% within 30 days of invasion.

But Leahy didn't think the landings would be necessary.

Leahy wasnt sat in a foxhole in Okinawa.

Irrelevant as to what he thought, but introducing irrelevancy
is your trademark, isn't it.

Not surprising, the allied butcher bill is irrelevant to types like you.

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan.

Oh really. Have you asked anyone who would have been at the sharp end of
Operation Zipper that question.

I think his opinion based on the intelligence information available to him
is more credible than that of an infantryman.

Given you clearly *havent* a clue what operation zipper was and why the
bombs being dropped made a difference to those in it, your limited grasp of
the facts is showing again.


So Leahy would have preferred to starve the japanese 'civilians' to death
and keep allied naval personnel in harms way from daily kamikaze attack.
Very moral.

Your woeful comrehension skills noted - he was speaking of
something that had already happened.

He clearly *wasnt* because he hadnt an iota if japan was ever going to
surrender.

7 more days of fighting == 70000 chinese civilians dead.

14 more days == more chinese civilians dead than alleged 'civilian'
casualties at either hiroshima or nagasaki. Your cavalier disregard for
those who truly suffering as a consequence of japanese aggression is
pathetic.

Your tired little charade has relied on a website which peddles
alperovitzes line.

Unlike you , the site doesn't lie.




Yah whatever comrade.



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.

weary ) wrote:

: "Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
: ...

....

: So what - the whole point of the discussion is that an invasion was not
: necessary.
: Even the USSBS says that Japan would have surrendered.
:
:
: Of course you will give us the precise quote detailing when exactly *when*
: this would have happened and you also tell us how this information was
: beamed back in time to allied planners taking tough decisions.

: The US was well aware of peace feelers being put out by Japan at least
: two months before the bombs were dropped..

Peace feelers, not surrender feelers. Feelers for peace with
the following conditions:
- No occupation of Japan
- Japan to retain all its pre-1941 conquests
- War crimes trials (if any) to be initiated and run by the Japanese
government
(and a few other conditions as well)
The United States was not interested in peace under those
conditions.

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 02:14:06 GMT, "weary" wrote:


Liar - quote where I said that there would be no civilian
casualties or every bomb would be on target.

You have done so repeatedly by claiming that there was an 'alternative'
where none existed.

Just point out where I claimed that the alternative would involve zero
casualties.

So why did you assert it

Assert what - I repeat, point out where I claimed there would
be zero casualties. I suggested conventional precision bombing because
it would involve less civilian casualties. If you think it wouldn't have,
then
name some precision bombing raids that caused any where near the
number of civilian casualties that Hiroshima did.

then f*ckwit,

The frustration of one who cannot understand simple English.

other than specious and facile
moralising that is.

Address the issues rather than ranting.


You haven't, you selectively quoted the bombing survey figures but were
too
stupid to figure out that 2/3s of all bombs dropped fell more than 1000
feet from the target.

Liar - point out where I made any claim that is supported by what
you fabricate here.

Message-ID:

"Bombing accuracy increased substantially, and averaged 35 to 40 percent
within 1,000 feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks from 20,000 feet
or lower."

Like all trolls you eventually start contradicting yourself.

Where is stated or implied that I can't figure out that 2/3 of bombs
fell more than 1000' from the target/ Come on, the precise words.




Ahhh, its manages to contradict itself yet again through complete
cluelessness.

When only 35-40% of the bombs fall within 1000' feet of the
target, an aircraft factory etc is a point target.

I suggest finding out what 'C' means in CEP.

Exactly what in my statement makes you think I don't know
what it means?


What do you think
a point target is - one of your non-existent backyard workshops.

YOu havent read those bombing surveys too well now have you troll, in
particular pay attention to where it details how *hard* is was to destroy
machine tools depite HE destroying the buildings which contained them.

Where does it say that regarding the Japanese campaign?



They clearly couldn't accurately target any facility in anywhere when
2/3rds of bombs dropped fell more than 1000 feet from the aimpoint.

Or have you forgotten those inconvenient bombing survey figures yet
idiot.

Since I am the one who pointed them out, that hardly seems likely, moron.

Yet they they considered that half that accuracy was sufficient to
warrant
precision bombing in Germany.

they didnt. You have no comprehension of the meaning of what was written.

Precision bombing was used in Germany for essentially the whole
war. It's average over the whole war was 20% in 1000' of target.


Like DUH! One generally finds large urban areas around key facilities
such
as ports, dockyards and regional military headquarters controlling tens
of
thousands of personnel.

Then why make it a requirement.

You think ports, dockyards and military headquarters manage to run them
selves now do you ?

Your question doesn't answer mine. It's about your fourth attempt
to explain why a large urban area was required.


so about fifty
planes could have been left behind unless the aim was specifically
kill civilians,

Of course you will tell us how anti personnel bombs which
'specifically
kill civilians' would managed to kill those who would have been warned
at
least 45 mins before hand by air raid sirens and are now sitting in
bomb
shelters.

Since I suggested that such bombs not be carried,

Yes that was most amusing. 2nd guessing life of death decisions made by
mean whose boots you aren't fit to clean.

It was a hypothetical idiot. There was no decision made. It didn't happen.

Its a pity 'Weary' Dunlop isnt
about to knock some sense into your miserable PC skull.

your question is
ridiculous.

No, you're to stupid to figure out that anti personnel bombs were carried
to suppress attempts at fire fighting, not to 'specifically kill
civilians'.

How do you use bombs to "suppress" fire fighting without killing civilians?



given that the vast majority of casualties were civilians.

'civilians' who were providing the means to murder millions of real
civilians across the pacific. Tough.

All 70000 in Hiroshima - sure.

LMAO! So the 15-20000 odd thousand troops who were killed by the bomb were
'civilians' too were they.

Source please.


At last you endorse total war - this is where I came into the argument.
You believe it is alright to wage total war on others , but when someone
wages total war on you (11 Sept) you call it terrorism and criminal -
hypocrite.

No, the only hypocrite here is the fool who asserts that it was immoral to
use every means necessary

But you call it terrorism when someone does it to you.

to defeat a foe who was murdering 10000 chinese
civilians every day the war continued.



A far cry from the figures (3600-6000)you pluck out of the air above.

You're the one claiming that B29s could accurately target anything
without
causing collateral damage, not I.

Once again you are lying - point out where I made that claim.
Most of your argument seems to rely on fabricated claims
about what I have said.

Ohhh, Its changing tack again,

Not changing tack - just asking you to point out where I wrote
what you claim I did. Of course you can't - it's just
another of your lies.

would that be like claiming an aircraft
plant is a precision target.

Thats what was bombed in Germany as part of the daylight precision
bombing campaign, as well as oil plants and ball bearing works. In spite
of all the hype, the Norden bomb sight couldn't really drop a bomb into
a pickle barrel from 20 000 feet.



Very hard to do when the initial CEP for B29 operations was 6%.

A few post ago CEP was 1000 yards and now it is 6% - what are the
units for measuring CEP?

I suggest you find out, I am not here to continue your limited education.

BWAAAAH. Loser. Caught out.


You haven't, all you've done is peddle revisionist agit-prop, your
hilarious nonsense about anti personnel bombs being the latest emission
of
pomo moralising.

???? Calm down and take your meds.

"Since I suggested that such bombs not be carried, "

Given you clearly hadnt a *clue* why they were carried.

Nothing was carried you moron. It was a hypothetical in the USSBS
estimating what was necessary to achieve the same result as the
Hiroshima bomb. I pointed out where savings could have been made
and civilian lives spared.


It doesn't have to. There was nothing illegal or immoral in using a
weapon
which ended the war and saved the lives of nearly 1 million allied POWs
and
Internees held by the Japanese.

We don't know that it did that or that it had to bu used at all.


We do know you miserable peon. I suggest you figure out figure out what
'magic' was to see why.

That would be the decodes of Japanese messages that included those
revealing the Japanese steps towards surrender from at least early July.

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"

snip

I never claimed that every bomb would be on target, but feel free to
construct
strawmen, they are fun to demolish and reveal the poverty of your
argument.

snip

I guess this proves what I have been thinking about your arguments for
some
time. You are deliberately ignoring military facts and the urban
infrastructure
of Nagasaki and Hiroshima and using terminology intended to inflame
(civilians
were the targets). Since this is the case I will no longer debate with
you.

A wise course to follow when the facts are against you.

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
news:400029be$1@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

"Matt Wiser" wrote
in message
news:3ffb0119$1@bg2....

Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 06:14:59 GMT, "weary"

wrote:


It was an Eisenhower who(as the quote notes)
had been briefed by the
Stimson you refer to below and who was presumably
as aware of the situation
as Stimson himself.

That would be Stimson who claimed that Nagasaki
was picked as the primary
target for Fatman, when it clearly wasnt.



and Stimson whose own memoirs put the
cost
of an allied invasion of Japan
at at least 250,000 casualities.

So what - the whole point of the discussion
is that an invasion was not
necessary.
Even the USSBS says that Japan would have
surrendered.


Of course you will give us the precise quote
detailing when exactly *when*
this would have happened and you also tell
us
how this information was
beamed back in time to allied planners taking
tough decisions.


http://www.paperlessarchives.com/olympic.html


Nevermind Leahy whose own briefing to
truman
put allied casualities at
30-35% within 30 days of invasion.

But Leahy didn't think the landings would
be
necessary.

Leahy wasnt sat in a foxhole in Okinawa.

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous
weapon at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki was of no material assistance in
our
war against Japan.

Oh really. Have you asked anyone who would
have
been at the sharp end of
Operation Zipper that question.

"The Japanese were already defeated and
ready
to surrender because of the
effective sea blockade and the successful
bombing
with conventional weapons.

So Leahy would have preferred to starve the
japanese 'civilians' to death
and keep allied naval personnel in harms
way
from daily kamikaze attack.
Very moral.


snip.

Anything quoting Gar Alperovitz as 'evidence'
clearly is revisionism

I didn't quote one word from Gar Alperovitz,

Your tired little charade has relied on a
website
which peddles
alperovitzes line.


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, good post. I still can't believe we're
still arguing with this
guy.
I wonder if he had a relative either in the
Pacific or with orders to the
Pacific in 1945? From his tone, probably not.
He'll keep spouting postwar
hindsight until the cows come home. It's easy
to criticise with however
many
years of hindsight. And he's never answered
the question about what he
would
have done in the Summer of '45 with the info
Truman had on his desk at the
time.

I don't know what Truman had on his desk at
the time and you don't either.


You ask someone who did his MA thesis on the invasion that last
question?

There was no question in the last statement of mine.
If you think there are some questuions I'm not allowed to ask, then list
them.

I found A LOT of info in researching the planned invasion that validates
the decision to drop the bomb.

Still doesn't prove that you know what he had on his desk.

Even with MAGIC/ULTRA on his desk, that still
doesn't give Truman what the Japanese leaders are ultimately thinking.

It tells him amongst other things that the Japanese are looking to
surrender.

He
had to assume a worst-case scenario in invasion planning-all military
planners
do this to guard against the unexpected. The info on Truman's desk was
basically
this: JCS estimate on length of Bombing and Blockade to force Japan to
surrender
without Soviet intervention: 18 months; with Soviet intervention: 12
months.
Invasion of Kyushu followed by the Kanto campaign: 12 months. Use of the
"gadget" as the bomb was called; as quickly as two weeks, or up to six
months
if multiple bombs need to be dropped.
Max # of bombs expected to be used: fifty. Truman made the right decision,
and I'll never argue with give 'em hell Harry. I'll say it again: THE
JAPANESE
STARTED THE WAR AND HAVE ONLY THEMSELVES TO BLAME FOR THE CONSEQUENCES. At
least Germany has admitted its past and atoned for it: Japan still hasn't.
And the original target of the bomb was Germany, if you've forgotten.

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

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
news:400029ec$1@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 06:14:59 GMT, "weary"
wrote:


It was an Eisenhower who(as the quote notes)
had been briefed by the
Stimson you refer to below and who was presumably
as aware of the
situation
as Stimson himself.

That would be Stimson who claimed that Nagasaki
was picked as the primary
target for Fatman, when it clearly wasnt.

Even if this is true it says nothing about Stimson
except he was
confused on that point.





and Stimson whose own memoirs put the cost
of an allied invasion of
Japan
at at least 250,000 casualities.

So what - the whole point of the discussion
is that an invasion was not
necessary.
Even the USSBS says that Japan would have
surrendered.


Of course you will give us the precise quote
detailing when exactly *when*
this would have happened and you also tell
us how this information was
beamed back in time to allied planners taking
tough decisions.

The US was well aware of peace feelers being
put out by Japan at least
two months before the bombs were dropped..



http://www.paperlessarchives.com/olympic.html


Nevermind Leahy whose own briefing to truman
put allied casualities at
30-35% within 30 days of invasion.

But Leahy didn't think the landings would
be necessary.

Leahy wasnt sat in a foxhole in Okinawa.

Irrelevant as to what he thought, but introducing
irrelevancy
is your trademark, isn't it.

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous
weapon at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki was of no material assistance in
our war against Japan.

Oh really. Have you asked anyone who would
have been at the sharp end of
Operation Zipper that question.

I think his opinion based on the intelligence
information available to him
is more credible than that of an infantryman.


"The Japanese were already defeated and ready
to surrender because of the
effective sea blockade and the successful
bombing with conventional
weapons.

So Leahy would have preferred to starve the
japanese 'civilians' to death
and keep allied naval personnel in harms way
from daily kamikaze attack.
Very moral.

Your woeful comrehension skills noted - he was
speaking of
something that had already happened.



snip.

Anything quoting Gar Alperovitz as 'evidence'
clearly is revisionism

I didn't quote one word from Gar Alperovitz,

Your tired little charade has relied on a
website which peddles
alperovitzes line.

Unlike you , the site doesn't lie.



Weary, when you keep repeating USSBS, remember that was written by those
who thought that all the U.S. had to do was essentially bomb everything in
Japan and they would surrender; notwithstanding all other
factors-destruction
of her navy, the submarine, air, and mining destruction of her merchant
marine,
the destruction of her best armies in Burma, the Philippines, New Guinea,
Solomons, Okinawa, etc. The guys who put USSBS together were commendable
people, but besides surveying damage, they wanted it to be the final
document
to get Congress to agree to a postwar independent Air Force. Air Power
advocates
to the extreme.
You still haven't answered the question I posed to you earlier: with the
information Truman had on his desk in the Summer of '45, what would you
have
done? Invade, continue bombing and blockade (and hope for Stalin to attack
Manchuria as promised at Yalta),

The agreed latest date for the Soviets to attack was 8 August. He would
have only had to wait 2 days to see that and another 3 or 4 would have
revealed the result of that attack - a total rout of the Army on the
mainland.

or use Little Boy and Fat Man. I prefer
the latter as the least time-and manpower intensive option of the three.
As for the peace feelers: NONE OF THEM HAD THE FULL APPROVAL OF THE
JAPANESE
GOVERNMENT. All were done by the peace faction in the government with the
Emperor's unspoken sympathies, but the militarists still called the shots
(and that could include threat of assassination) and could bring down the
government if the Army felt the government was getting too soft for its
liking.
And don't forget the coup attempt on the night of 14-15 Aug to attempt to
put in a government to keep fighting. It took the combination of the bomb
AND the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the Kuriles to force the peace
faction's
hand in getting the Emperor to urge acceptance of Potsdam. I prefer
BLACKLIST
(peaceful occupation) to OLYMPIC/CORONET (invasion).

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

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 02:32:04 GMT, "weary" wrote:


That would be Stimson who claimed that Nagasaki was picked as the
primary
target for Fatman, when it clearly wasnt.

Even if this is true it says nothing about Stimson except he was
confused on that point.

It clearly does.

And?


Of course you will give us the precise quote detailing when exactly
*when*
this would have happened and you also tell us how this information was
beamed back in time to allied planners taking tough decisions.

The US was well aware of peace feelers being put out by Japan at least
two months before the bombs were dropped..

Not by any japanese in any position to deliver on a peace offer.

We don't know what would have happened if there had been a
response to the feelers.


Nevermind Leahy whose own briefing to truman put allied casualities
at
30-35% within 30 days of invasion.

But Leahy didn't think the landings would be necessary.

Leahy wasnt sat in a foxhole in Okinawa.

Irrelevant as to what he thought, but introducing irrelevancy
is your trademark, isn't it.

Not surprising, the allied butcher bill is irrelevant to types like you.

He didn't think it would be necessary so his estimate is irrelevant.

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:11:29 GMT, "weary" wrote:



A wise course to follow when the facts are against you.



Bye bye troll.


ker-PLONK




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.