A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #2  
Old December 22nd 03, 04:25 PM
Matt Wiser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


(cave fish) wrote:
Dave Smith wrote
in message ...
RogerM wrote:


First off, **** Japan, they started it,

we finished it.

First off, **** you asshole. The women and

children who were murdered
didn't have **** to with Pearl Harbor.


Sure they did. They were part of an imperialist

society that had been
expanding in the Pacific. They were the people

who were providing the men to
serve in the Japanese armed forces which had

invaded China and other Asian
countries where they were set loose to terrorize

the populace with
unimaginable atrocities. The people in those

cities were busy manufacturing
war materials and providing other services

that helped the war effort.

You are partly right. No one is completely innocent,
which is how
Palestinians justify their bombing of Jewish
civilians and how Al
Qaeda defends its attack on NY. Since all of
us pay taxes that support
US foreign policy, yes we are all guilty.
However, in a case of open war between nations,
while it may be
justified to bomb key industrial areas supplying
the war effort, do
tell me how a newborn baby in a Hiroshima is
guilty of anything? Or,
kindergarten students? Or, members of the opposition?
Or, those in
jail for standing up to Japanese militarism?
Or, old folks living out
their last days?
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.

Both target cities had military targets.
Hiroshima: 2nd General Army HQ, HQ of 39th Infantry Division, Army port facility,
airfield, major railroad depot, numerous factories and cottage industry.

Nagasaki: Port facility, airfield, HQ 122 Infantry Brigade, Mitusbishi aircraft
plant, torpedo plant (producing Long Lance torpedoes and Kaiten Suicide Torpedoes),
other war-related industries.
By the standards of WW II and today, both cities were legitimate military
targets. Only target areas in Japan off limits were Kyoto and the Imperial
Palace. Every other urban military/industrial area was on the list. Use of
the bombs to support the invasion was under consideration by Marshall at
war's end.

Posted via
www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!
  #3  
Old December 22nd 03, 07:15 PM
Dick Locke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:41:28 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:

Um, Hiroshima was HQ for several major Japanese Army and Navy
units.


And the US' Central Command, in charge of the mideast battles, is
right next to downtown Tampa. Be careful of potential parallels here.
Hmmm, I'm going there tomorrow.
  #4  
Old December 22nd 03, 08:19 PM
Charles Gray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 18:15:09 GMT, Dick Locke
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:41:28 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:

Um, Hiroshima was HQ for several major Japanese Army and Navy
units.


And the US' Central Command, in charge of the mideast battles, is
right next to downtown Tampa. Be careful of potential parallels here.
Hmmm, I'm going there tomorrow.

I would consider Tampa a legitimate target for that reason. Just as
I would consider San Diego a legitimate target, as its co-located with
the biggest naval base onthe West Coast.

  #6  
Old December 22nd 03, 11:10 PM
Dick Locke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 19:19:37 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:

I would consider Tampa a legitimate target for that reason.


Great. Standard landing instructions for planes coming from the
northwest to TPA and landing to the north bring the plane down to a
few thousand feet and then say "turn before McDill and intercept the
localizer." Awfully late to react if the plane doesn't turn.

  #7  
Old December 23rd 03, 01:23 AM
B2431
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From: (cave fish)

Charles Gray wrote in message
...
On 21 Dec 2003 22:22:27 -0800,
(cave fish)
wrote:


However, in a case of open war between nations, while it may be
justified to bomb key industrial areas supplying the war effort, do
tell me how a newborn baby in a Hiroshima is guilty of anything? Or,
kindergarten students? Or, members of the opposition? Or, those in
jail for standing up to Japanese militarism? Or, old folks living out
their last days?


Um, Hiroshima was HQ for several major Japanese Army and Navy
units. It was also a location of numerous factories and transport
facilities, which in the normal order of things woudl have been
leveled by the same sort of raid you saw on Tokyo.
Also, you might look at Stalingrad to see the result of a full scale
ground battle-- or the starvation that comes attendent a longer
blockade.


If Hiroshima had factories or military units,then you bomb those
targets. You don't indiscrimately destroy hospitals and kindergartens
and homes. Granted, even in conventional bombing raids, some bombs go
astray, but to willfully destroy an entire civilian population is
insane.


OK, try this: look at pictures of the aftermath conventional bombing raids.
They are all over the www. Look at the target and count the craters there. Now
look how far away bombs hit. That "few" bombs turns out to be the majority,
doesn't it?

You talk like the ONLY reason to bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima with atomic bombs
was to slaughter civilians. If conventional bomb raids were used they
thousands of civilians would have been killed anyway. The raids would probably
not strike 100% of the targets the first time so they's have to go back to
finish the job. More civilians would have died on each subsequent raid. Neither
you now I know if any civilian lives would have been saved by not using atom
bombs but we can assume there would be U.S. casualties.

Your repeated insistance that the only reason for the atomic bombings was to
kill civilians simply shows your bias.

Just because a city has legitimate targets
doesn't make the entire city a legitimate target. If the city YOU live
in has industrial centers, then they are legitimate targets to the
enemy. However, the schools, hospitals, suburban homes, nursing homes,
etc are NOT legitimate targets. Even when only legitimate targets are
targeted, many civilians end up as casualties. That's bad enough but
when you knowingly target an entire civilian population, that's
insanity.

No one targeted hospitals and schools as you suggest except the Japanese in
this case.

Please think about this instead of being so stubborn. If there were no
civilians in either city they still would have been bombed.

I say again: civilians, other than those in tha factories etc, were NOT the
prime targets as you suggest.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
  #8  
Old December 23rd 03, 01:34 AM
B2431
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(was Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological
achievements)
From:
Date: 12/22/2003 5:48 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

"Linda Terrell" wrote in message

l3.net...
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?


If there are valid targets distributed throughout San Diego and the enemy has
precision guided munitions then the entire city is not a target. But that is
not the point. No one had any PGMs in WW2. In Hiroshima the targets were
distributed througout the city. With no PGMs how would YOU target a rail head
in a heavily populated and defended area in 1945?

Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organitation not recognized as a state. Therefore an
act such as you describe would be a criminal act.

We are not at war with North Korea. If we were and it went nuclear they would
be militarily correct to strike D.C. as it contains many legitimate targets.

I ask again, how would YOU have taken out the legitimate targets in Nagasaki
and Hiroshima using only weapons available in WW2? How many civilian casualties
would there be with your method?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



  #10  
Old December 23rd 03, 06:01 AM
Steve Hix
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Dick Locke wrote:

On Mon, 22 Dec 2003 07:41:28 GMT, Charles Gray wrote:

Um, Hiroshima was HQ for several major Japanese Army and Navy
units.


And the US' Central Command, in charge of the mideast battles, is
right next to downtown Tampa. Be careful of potential parallels here.
Hmmm, I'm going there tomorrow.


Then you're not suprised to note that it would be a major target in case
of war.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hiroshima justified? (was Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements) Linda Terrell Military Aviation 37 January 7th 04 03:51 PM
Hiroshima justified? (was Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other B2431 Military Aviation 7 December 29th 03 08:00 AM
Hiroshima justified? (was Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and othermagnificent technological achievements) mrraveltay Military Aviation 7 December 23rd 03 02:01 AM
Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent B2431 Military Aviation 1 December 20th 03 02:19 PM
Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological ArtKramr Military Aviation 19 December 20th 03 03:47 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.