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

Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 13th 03, 04:52 PM
Tarver Engineering
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


I think the story could be told, with the final sentence containing, "and

it
was a very bad thing". I think we can all agree that the millions killed

in
WWII was all a bad thing.


Jesus no John...can you just imagine...everything used in warfare
with that stupid tagline on it? "So folks here's an example of a
musket used in ancient wars. It was much more lethal than the
clubs and spears used up till then. It could actually kill a man
at 100 feet every 1.5 minutes!, and it was a very bad
thing"...good God.


The musket has other uses that are a good thing. The nuke only does things
we would as soon not do.

Just put the Enola Gay in there with a sign indicating that it
was a technological leap both in aircraft and armament design. It
was used to drop the first of two atomic bombs which ended WW2


Havn't we already tried that?


  #22  
Old December 13th 03, 06:53 PM
Emmanuel.Gustin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stephen Harding wrote:

: In reading your defense of the American use of the atomic bomb, and
: the refutation of some of the lefties claims of the evil nature of
: American leadership (over the entire history of the nation), I thought
: perhaps you weren't quite the anti-American ideologue I'd pegged you as.

And you were right -- I am not an anti-American ideologue.

I do condemn and resent, however, those -- on the left; but
also people on the right, like you -- who somehow want to
lump together the historical decision to use the bomb against
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with the intentions of the current US
governments to develop nuclear weapons that are explicitly
intended for first-strike use in limited warfare. Different
context, different leaders, different goals and different
consequences: Let us decide each case on its own merit.

Truman's decision, seen in the context of 1945, was an
understandable one, rationally defensible and morally not
worse than many other acts perpetrated in this war, by friend
and foe alike. It is very hard to attach any kind of approval
to this decision; but perhaps it is sufficient to say that
certainly most of the arguments that are used to condemn it
don't survive closer scrutiny.

The Bush nuclear policy is not defensible, not on moral
grounds and not on grounds of self-interest. It is a prime
example of ideology-driven boneheadedness.

--
Emmanuel Gustin

  #23  
Old December 13th 03, 07:14 PM
Emmanuel.Gustin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Stephen Harding wrote:
: Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

: One wave would drop high explosive to destroy buildings. Later
: waves might have more anti-personnel oriented weaponry to kill
: the firemen fighting the fires, while delayed HE might be designed
: to sink deeper into the ground before exploding, thus rupturing
: gas and water lines, for more devastating effect.

Firebombing of cities appears to have involved, in general,
heavy HE bombs to break windows and improve the opportunity
of fires to spread; fire bombs to start fires; and delayed-
action anti-personnel bombs to hinder the activities of
firefighters and rescue-workers.

: Today we would regard this as "barbaric" and too directed towards
: "innocent civilians". But back then, "tough luck"! You're with
: "them" and you pay.

Actually, it was certainly regarded as barbaric targeting
of innocent civilians in 1939-1940. At the time there were
almost as many concerns about "collateral damage" as today,
perhaps even more. For example, the British government banned
the bombing of enemy warships in port because it feared that
the civilian population would be hit.

As the war progressed, mentalities hardened, but not to the
extent that the targeting of cities was ever unquestioned
or unchallenged. Nor was it openly acknowledged by wartime
governments that the essential target of such operations
was the civilian population itself. Moral objections against
the policy existed then as much as today; but the struggle
for survival took priority and they were set aside. A good
deal of plain hypocrisy was involved, and many people who
actively supported the policy during the war saw fit to
express their doubts when the war was won -- Churchill, for
example.

--
Emmanuel Gustin

  #24  
Old December 13th 03, 07:39 PM
Matt Wiser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Lyle wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 21:17:14 +0100, "Emmanuel
Gustin"
wrote:

"Polybus" wrote

in message
.com...

70,000 deaths. And as many scientists warned

in advance would happen,
and as President Truman clearly understood,

the incineration of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki initiated a nuclear

arms race that threatened
to bring about the annihilation of the human

species, a danger that
persists today.


This is, to put it mildly, a non-sequitur.

The use of the nuclear
bomb did not trigger the nuclear arms race.

That would have
happened regardless of the use of the bomb,

in fact it had
already started.

Dailey's remarks are particularly shocking

in light of the criticism
of the bombing by General Dwight Eisenhower

and the questions raised
by so many other WWII military leaders, sentiments

best reflected in
the haunting comments of Admiral William

Leahy, Truman's wartime chief
of staff who chaired the Joint Chiefs of

Staff, who poignantly
observed, "the use of this barbarous weapon

at Hiroshima and Nagasaki
was of no material assistance in our war

against Japan. The Japanese
were already defeated and ready to surrender....in

being the first to
use it, we adopted an ethical standard common

to the barbarians of the
Dark Ages."


With all respect for the late admiral Leahy,

his claims are
incompatible with the historical facts, and

the learned
signatories of this declaration ought to know

that. The Japanese
were certainly not ready to surrender. They

were ready to
seek favourable peace terms, which is not the

same.

Surely the A-bomb was a barbaric weapon, but

I fail to see
what the moral difference is between killing

people with a
nuclear weapon and killing the same people

with conventional
incendiary bombs. Which would have been the

fate of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, if these cities had not been

'reserved' as nuclear
targets. Large-scale, indiscriminate killing

of civilians was
already a feature of WWII well before Hiroshima

and Nagasaki.
If the these nuclear bombings had not happened,

and the war
would ave continued for more weeks or months,

the USAAF
would have continued its systematic fire-bombing

of Japanese
cities, and probably more Japanese civilians

would have been
killed.

I think it is fair enough to point out that

Leahy was an admiral
and Eisenhower an army general, and that because

of interservice
politics, they had a motive to claim that the

war would have been
concluded without this -- air force -- action.

We are not, however, opposed to exhibiting

the Enola Gay. Much to the
contrary, we welcome any exhibition that

will spur an honest and
balanced discussion of the atomic bombings

of 1945 and of current U.S.
nuclear policy.


The problem is, above statements are neither

honest nor
balanced. Of course everybody has the right

to form a
pressure group to advocate his of her views,

but if the
signatories seek to enhance to reputation of

the USA,
they should begin by being less selective in

the facts they
choose to consider and more rigorous in their

logic.
Professors they may be, but they are barely

up to the
standard expected of high school students.

planned exhibit and that President Truman's

use of atomic weapons will
legitimize the Bush administration's current

effort to lower the
threshold for future use of nuclear weapons.


This is rather far-fetched. While I think Bush'

current nuclear
plans are immoral, stupid, and counter-productive,

I am not
in the least afraid that the opinion of the

American public
will be swayed by the Enola Gay exhibition.

We are not
talking about the latest Coca-Cola commercial,

this is an
aeroplane on display in (yuck) a museum.

We intend to use this exhibit, the presidential

elections, and the
upcoming 60th anniversary of the atomic bombings

to stimulate a
national discussion of U.S. nuclear history

and current policy and to
work with like-minded groups in other nations.


In other words, the noble science of history

will be pimped
again to acquire a public stage for a political

goal. In the
end, of course, truth will be neither here

nor there, and the
Smithonsian will come to regret once more the

day that it
decided to put Enola Gay on display.

Given the seriousness of the current nuclear

crisis, should the
Smithsonian not accede to this request for

a fair and balanced
presentation and a reasoned discussion of

the many profound issues
involved, we will join with others in this

country and around the
world to protest the exhibit in its present

form and to catalyze a
national discussion of critical nuclear issues.


So the Smithonsian will be blackmailed into

providing
a platform for a protest of current policy?

I hope the
institution will resist this firmly and condemn

it in
clear words. While I symphatise with the protest

against
the nuclear policy of this US government, I

think it is an
appalling idea to drag an institution like

this into politics.

here is my $0.02

1.fire bombing of Tokyo killed more then the
Atomic bomb.

2. by dropping it then, we saved lives, cause
we got first hand
knowledge of what it was capable of, and thereby
preventing nuclear
war in the future. imagine what would happen
if we dropped it in Korea
war?

3. the people against the exhibit chances are
did not live during this
time. people were getting tired of war, and
if dropping one a-bomb
would save thousand lives it would be worth
it.Otherwise Truman would
have been lynched by the mothers and wives of
this country for the
needless deaths of their sons/husbands.

4. and i dont buy your veterans response either
cause they probably
were not going to be in the invasion force.
Talk to a grunt who was,
and he will Kiss Trumans ass if he were still
alive for dropping the
bomb.

just my .$02.


Good post, Lyle. 15 Kt on Hiroshima and 20 Kt on Nagasaki is a lot better
than having U.S. 6th Army storm the beaches of Kyushu.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!
  #25  
Old December 13th 03, 07:40 PM
Matt Wiser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Stephen Harding wrote:
MLenoch wrote:

Just a factual question: was there ever a

statistic of the number of deaths via
fire bombing vs. the nuclear bombs? Just

wondering. Thx,

Yes there have been some such stats, but they
vary a bit.

There is the issue of how many people died during
the explosion
versus days/weeks/months after.

Firebombing (or any sort of bombing) can produce
lingering, or
drawn out deaths, but the nuclear bombing this
was more pronounced.

I've read that some "counters" in Japan continue
to add to the death
toll of Hiroshima/Nagasaki as people who were
there and survived that
day finally start to die off. Basically *everyone*
in those towns
becomes part of the death toll eventually for
these types of counters.

The numbers I've come across, with some [maybe]
small percent variation
due to faulty memory, are something like this:

Hiroshima: 85,000 (I've read stats going
up over 100,000)
Nagasaki : 65,000 (max I've seen is around
80,000)

One night firebombing of Tokyo by LeMay and
company: 120,000-150,000.


SMH


I used similar stats in my MA thesis on the Invasion v. bombs: more died
in the Tokyo fire raid that died in the two nuclear strikes put together.
Although I felt the U.S. casualty figure for Kyushu was too high-USSBS used
75-100,000, MacArthur's HQ (which I used) said 55,000 to 70,000, not including
Navy casualties. No figures available for CORONET: the plan was published
on Aug. 15th-the day of the surrender announcement-still incomplete.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!
  #26  
Old December 13th 03, 07:40 PM
Matt Wiser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Peter Aitken" wrote:
"A.T. Hagan" wrote in
message
. com...
(Polybus) wrote

in message
.com...
Dear Friend,

A committee of scholars, veterans, clergy,

activists, students, and
other interested individuals is now forming

to challenge the
Smithsonian's plans to exhibit the Enola

Gay solely as a "magnificent
technological achievement."


GOOD.

I'm glad to hear the Smithsonian has finally

come to its senses and
stopped acting ashamed of an important part

of our national history
that we have NO reason to be ashamed of.

Unlike a good number of people who seem to

be educated beyond their
intelligence.

Not that this topic has anything at all to

do with rec.food.cooking
which is where I read the thing.

.....Alan.


You and others are missing the point. If the
B-29 is a "magnificent
technological achievement" fine, display one.
But why does it have to be the
Enola Gay? That specific plane is unavoidable
associated with dropping the
A-bomb on a civilian target with all the resulting
horrors. You may support
the dropping of the bomb or you may be against
it, but there's no denying
that displaying *this* B-29 rather than another
one makes the exhibit seem
like a celebration of the bombing rather than
the bomber. No matter how
necessary and justified you think the bombing
was, it is nothing to
celebrate.

Peter G. Aitken


That B-29 in particluar, and it's sister ship Bock's Car did more to end
the war than the revisionsts want to admit. Which is cheaper? Ten crew on
a B-29 over Hiroshima or Nagasaki-or over a million soldiers, sailors, airmen,
and Marines (Both American and British) on the beaches and sea approaches
to Kyushu? And revisionists make me puke, as I have no use for them in any
way, shape, or form.

Posted via
www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!
  #27  
Old December 13th 03, 07:40 PM
Matt Wiser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Sunny" wrote:

"Polybus" wrote
in message
. com...
Peter Kuznick,
Professor of History and Director, Nuclear

Studies Institute, American
University

Kevin Martin
Executive Director, Peace Action

Daniel Ellsberg
Author, Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and The

Pentagon Papers

Questions :
1. Do the three retards listed above, condone
the cross posting to the
groups listed ?
2. Does Peter Kuznick really study History
(or only his version of it)?
3. Do any of the three realise that there
was a World War on at the
time?
4. What would you have suggested, at the
time, as the means to subdue a
fanatical enemy, that had proved to demonstrate
acts of barbarism that are
still wondered at?




They all seem to think that if we had talked nicely to the Japanese, they
would have surrendered. Not bloody likely. There was a war on, a major invasion
planned of Kyushu in November, and ANY MEANS to prevent the bloodbath of
American, British, and yes, Japanese lives and END THE WAR ASAP is a viable
option. If that means incinerating two, three, or however many Japanese Cities
by the bombs carried by the 509th's B-29s, so be it.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!
  #28  
Old December 13th 03, 07:40 PM
Matt Wiser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


lid (John Savard) wrote:
On 12 Dec 2003 06:23:46 -0800,

(Polybus)
wrote, in part:

a celebratory exhibit
both legitimizes what happened in 1945


Anything *other* than a celebratory exhibit
would legitimize what
happened on December 7, 1941 and what happened
on other dates in other
times and places, such as the Japanese occupation
of Nanking.

An A-bomb is a tool. If it was used for wrong
purposes, for aggression
and world conquest, that would be bad. Achievements
of science and
technology that help free people to defend themselves
from evil are to
be celebrated.

John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html

Hear, Hear. I'd rather put 15 Kt on Hiroshima and 20 Kt on Nagasaki than
risk the lives of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines of both the U.S.
and Britain in storming Kyushu. And if they don't surrender after Nagasaki-Kokura's
next on August 16th. And Tibbets has been quoted in two books that if that
mission were necessary, he would lead that mission. And here's some irony:
Kokura was home to a major Japanese CW production plant-mustard and phosgene.
Aim point was just to the NW of the plant. It was a known chemical plant,
but not until after the war did the U.S. find out it was a CW plant.

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




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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:16 PM.


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