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

On 23 Dec 2003 01:40:24 GMT, nt (Krztalizer) wrote:


THAT is how you win a war.

AND you get to hear the lamentations of their women.

Pretty much=-= but all the fantasy's of "conditional surrender" miss
the fact that the Japanese leadership was banking on that-- it would
have been their "Divine wind" what would have proven god was still on
their side. The complete unconditional surrender put the pin in that
particular baloon.

Mary Shafer wrote:
On 21 Dec 2003 23:00:36 -0800,
(cave fish)
wrote:

You are right. However, anyone who justifies
the bombing of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki based purely on estimates are
on shaky ground. They keep
saying how it saved lives. But, how do they
know?

Because the US is still using Purple Hearts
from those struck for the
invasion of the Japanese homeland?

And there's no foreseeable end to the supply
at the rate they're being
used?

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

The Army ordered at least 370,000 Purple Hearts in June of '45, expecting
to award those to KIA and WIA from the invasion of Japan. Navy ordered at
least 100,000 for Navy and Marine casualties. Still lots in storage.

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

On 22 Dec 2003 23:00:35 GMT, nt (Krztalizer) wrote:


Without PGMs they were just chucking them out like everyone else. They may
have
been assigned different targets, but their "accuracy" was as non-existant as
any other level bomber of the era.

From 30K perhaps, but down in the weeds, Mosquitos sent their bombs through
doorways and into specifica areas of buildings that they were attacking. No
B-17 or Lanc could ever claim that.

v/r
Gordon
====(A+C====
USN SAR

Donate your memories - write a note on the back and send those old photos to a
reputable museum, don't take them with you when you're gone.

All parts of the "Mosquito" myth. The A-20, B-25, B-26, etc all had the same
bombing capabilities. Early in the war, the Mossy was all that the Brits had,
so it was useful for them to portray it as a "super weapon"

Don't get me wrong, the Mossy was a fine a/c, but it was NOT a "precision"
weapon.

Al Minyard

"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
...
On 22 Dec 2003 23:00:35 GMT, nt (Krztalizer) wrote:


All parts of the "Mosquito" myth. The A-20, B-25, B-26, etc all had the
same
bombing capabilities. Early in the war, the Mossy was all that the Brits
had,
so it was useful for them to portray it as a "super weapon"

There are a couple of slight problems here

1) The Mosquito wasnt available in the early part of the war

2) The RAF operated all of the US types you mention and
replaced many of them with the Mosquito

3) There are very few aircraft of WW2 that were succesful in
as many roles as the Mosquito. Fighter, maritime strike, night fighter,
fighter bomber and night bomber.

4) The RAF never depicted it as a super weapon, the major types
used in the bomber offensive were the Lancaster and Halifax.


Don't get me wrong, the Mossy was a fine a/c, but it was NOT a "precision"
weapon.

It certainly was on occasion as in the raid on the Gestapo prison
at Amiens and the HQ in Copenhagen. The problem was in such
raids the losses were heavy as at such low altitude German light
flak was deadly.

It was not of course a wonder weapon but the Luftwaffe certainly
came to fear it by night every bit as much as they did the P-51
by day.

Keith

From: "Keith Willshaw"
Date: 12/23/2003 3:58 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"Alan Minyard" wrote in message
.. .
On 22 Dec 2003 23:00:35 GMT, nt (Krztalizer) wrote:


All parts of the "Mosquito" myth. The A-20, B-25, B-26, etc all had the
same
bombing capabilities. Early in the war, the Mossy was all that the Brits
had,
so it was useful for them to portray it as a "super weapon"

There are a couple of slight problems here

1) The Mosquito wasnt available in the early part of the war

2) The RAF operated all of the US types you mention and
replaced many of them with the Mosquito

3) There are very few aircraft of WW2 that were succesful in
as many roles as the Mosquito. Fighter, maritime strike, night fighter,
fighter bomber and night bomber.

4) The RAF never depicted it as a super weapon, the major types
used in the bomber offensive were the Lancaster and Halifax.


Don't get me wrong, the Mossy was a fine a/c, but it was NOT a "precision"
weapon.

It certainly was on occasion as in the raid on the Gestapo prison
at Amiens and the HQ in Copenhagen. The problem was in such
raids the losses were heavy as at such low altitude German light
flak was deadly.

It was not of course a wonder weapon but the Luftwaffe certainly
came to fear it by night every bit as much as they did the P-51
by day.

Keith


The Nazis even went so far as to make a copy of the Mosquito.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

In article ,
devil wrote:

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 20:46:54 +0000, Charles Gray wrote:

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 16:54:04 -0000, "freeda"
wrote:


Bear in mind America could forcast the impending cold war, so what better
way to scare the Russians ****less.

Um, not as clear as you believe-- because if we could "Forcast" the
coming cold war, why was our military allowed to decline so quickly
before Korea?

Forecast? The US started it in the first place. And make no mistake,
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the first shot.

Even mo then why the drastic drawdown in forces after WW2?

In article ,
Richard Periut wrote:

Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
Richard Periut wrote:
Steve Hix wrote:
Richard Periut wrote:
Linda Terrell wrote:

So let me get this straight; in order to clear a country of a
despotism,
you have to try to annihilate at least two cities full of thousands of
civilians?

I'm really intrigued.

It ended the war.

Yeah, and the cost of human lives and the suffering?

Significantly less than the alternatives of blockade or invasion.

Note Periut's dancing as he dodges the issue:

Well if you consider Cuba, it can freely trade with the European Union,
just as any other country blockaded by another country.

Not much of a blockade, then, is it?

Have someone explain the difference between a blockade and a boycott
sometime.

Do you spend much time figuring out how to dodge and issue, or is it a
natural talent on your part?

Oh, your post speaks volumes of wisdom and knowledge.

Noting, once again, that you dodge the issue.

The boycott of Cuba by the U.S. is *nothing* like the proposed blockage
of Japan that was considered as one of the options of ending the war in
the Pacific.

Have someone explain to you, that Castro considers it both a blockade
and a boycott.

A boycott it clearly is; the U.S. officially bars U.S. entities from
doing business with Cuba.

As a blockade, it pretty much misses the mark, since just about anyone
else on earth can do business with Cuba.

And Cuba's economy is *still* in the tank.

Have you ever attempted to remove the anal probe stuck high up yer rectum?

You're apparently projecting some deeply hidden desire of your own on
someone else. Weird.

You really don't want to face the fact that you *still* haven't
acknowledged that the blockade of Japan would have resulted in more
Japanese deaths than did using the two atomic bombs that drove the
Japanese finally to unconditional surrender.

From: Steve Hix NVALID
Date: 12/28/2003 10:29 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


In article ,
Richard Periut wrote:

Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
Richard Periut wrote:
Steve Hix wrote:
Richard Periut wrote:
Linda Terrell wrote:

So let me get this straight; in order to clear a country of a
despotism,
you have to try to annihilate at least two cities full of thousands
of
civilians?

I'm really intrigued.

It ended the war.

Yeah, and the cost of human lives and the suffering?

Significantly less than the alternatives of blockade or invasion.

Note Periut's dancing as he dodges the issue:

Well if you consider Cuba, it can freely trade with the European Union,
just as any other country blockaded by another country.

Not much of a blockade, then, is it?

Have someone explain the difference between a blockade and a boycott
sometime.

Do you spend much time figuring out how to dodge and issue, or is it a
natural talent on your part?

Oh, your post speaks volumes of wisdom and knowledge.

Noting, once again, that you dodge the issue.

The boycott of Cuba by the U.S. is *nothing* like the proposed blockage
of Japan that was considered as one of the options of ending the war in
the Pacific.

Have someone explain to you, that Castro considers it both a blockade
and a boycott.

A boycott it clearly is; the U.S. officially bars U.S. entities from
doing business with Cuba.

As a blockade, it pretty much misses the mark, since just about anyone
else on earth can do business with Cuba.

And Cuba's economy is *still* in the tank.


A blockade is an act of war. Why do you think JFK called his act a quarantine?"

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

Richard Periut wrote:

Seems to me to sell off these possessions might, in the short run
be helpful but would, in the long run, be detrimental to the
well-being of the membership and therefore the world.
--

-Gord.

You mean, continue to be the opium of the people. Didn't C. Marx say that?

Rich

Pretty impressive argument there Richard...
--

-Gord.

In article ,
(B2431) wrote:

From: Steve Hix NVALID
Date: 12/28/2003 10:29 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


In article ,
Richard Periut wrote:

Steve Hix wrote:
In article ,
Richard Periut wrote:
Steve Hix wrote:
Richard Periut wrote:
Linda Terrell wrote:

So let me get this straight; in order to clear a country of a
despotism,
you have to try to annihilate at least two cities full of thousands
of
civilians?

I'm really intrigued.

It ended the war.

Yeah, and the cost of human lives and the suffering?

Significantly less than the alternatives of blockade or invasion.

Note Periut's dancing as he dodges the issue:

Well if you consider Cuba, it can freely trade with the European Union,
just as any other country blockaded by another country.

Not much of a blockade, then, is it?

Have someone explain the difference between a blockade and a boycott
sometime.

Do you spend much time figuring out how to dodge and issue, or is it a
natural talent on your part?

Oh, your post speaks volumes of wisdom and knowledge.

Noting, once again, that you dodge the issue.

The boycott of Cuba by the U.S. is *nothing* like the proposed blockage
of Japan that was considered as one of the options of ending the war in
the Pacific.

Have someone explain to you, that Castro considers it both a blockade
and a boycott.

A boycott it clearly is; the U.S. officially bars U.S. entities from
doing business with Cuba.

As a blockade, it pretty much misses the mark, since just about anyone
else on earth can do business with Cuba.

And Cuba's economy is *still* in the tank.

A blockade is an act of war. Why do you think JFK called his act a
quarantine?"

Because fuses were short enough, what with Russian freighters inbound,
at the time.