Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements

"weary" wrote:

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


Besides, I have never asked nor do I
want my government to kill civilians so that
I can sleep safe
at night. As a matter of fact, if I knew
that is what my government
was doing, I would not sleep safe at night.


Tell ya what, get the bad guys to move their
military targets away from
civilian populations and the civilians will
stop dying. That is true for
all
countries and organizations including the
U.S. and Al Quaida.

Your insistance that civilians were deliberatly
targeted in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki would only hold water if the military
targets were no where near
civilian population centers.

In Hiroshima the aiming point was in a largely
residential area and
the targetting selection required that the military
target be in a large
urban
area.


I ask again, how would YOU have taken out
the military targets in Nagasaki
and
Hiroshima without harming civilians.

Conventional bombing and I haven't claimed that
no civilians would be harmed
so don't you try that strawman as well.


As a Jew I take offense at your comparing
Dachau to Hiroshima.

When did I do that?

Many thousands
of humans died there, not just Jews, but I
have been there and have seen
the
grave markers.

Many thousands of Japanese civilians died in
Hiroshima.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



Look, accurate conventional bombing was not possible in 1945, and the only
way of knocking out Japan's major industries, cottage industry, and adjacent
military targets was by low-level fire raids at night. B-29s attempted daylight
precision bombing of such targets from Nov '44 to March of '45. It didn't
work. LeMay was right: it HAD TO BE DONE. He knew the civilian casualties
would be high, but it was necessary to accomplish the mission assigned him:
the destruction of Japan's industry to support the war, and destruction of
such military targets colocated with the industries. More people died in
a single fire raid on Tokyo than were killed in the two nuclear strikes put
together.
You still haven't answered the question: what would you have done? I'll refresh
your options
1) Bombing in combination with Blockade
2) Invasion of Kyushu in Nov 45 followed by Invasion of Kanto Plain Mar 46
3) Open military use of the Atomic Bomb
Diplomacy IS NOT AN OPTION. Unconditional Surrender is the goal. Nothing
less than total acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration. So answer the question:
what would YOU have done in Truman's place in ending the war with a minimum
loss of Allied and Japanese lives? To me, it's simple: drop the bomb and
prevent the bloodbath on Kyushu come November.

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