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

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 02:06:46 GMT, "weary" wrote:


The aiming point for the Hiroshima bomb was a bridge in a mainly
residential area, not any of the military or industrial assets. By
definition
the target was civilians since that is where the bomb was aimed.


Which of course is a lie.

So in your fantasy world you aim about a mile from the real target.


http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agor...hirodamap.html

Ohh look at that. The HQ of the local military district right in the zone
of complete destruction.

Which seems to be the only military asset in the zone.
Its clear that the people were the real target.






greg


--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

In article ,
"weary" wrote:

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agor...hirodamap.html

Ohh look at that. The HQ of the local military district right in the zone
of complete destruction.

Which seems to be the only military asset in the zone.

This map doesn't show the rest of the details. That Military District
Headquarters held the 11th Infantry Regiment, the 5th Division
Headquarters, a major artillery detachment, and a number of other
things, including the Prefectural office and the City Hall. It was also
the HQ of the invasion defense of that entire section of the island.

If you're dropping a nuke on Hiroshima in 1945, you couldn't do a whole
lot better for targeting.

Its clear that the people were the real target.

Yeah, the military people.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

From: "weary"
Date: 1/1/2004 2:52 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 02:06:46 GMT, "weary" wrote:


The aiming point for the Hiroshima bomb was a bridge in a mainly
residential area, not any of the military or industrial assets. By
definition
the target was civilians since that is where the bomb was aimed.


Which of course is a lie.

So in your fantasy world you aim about a mile from the real target.


http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agor...hirodamap.html

Ohh look at that. The HQ of the local military district right in the zone
of complete destruction.

Which seems to be the only military asset in the zone.
Its clear that the people were the real target.



The railroads and trams were also valid military targets, as were the factories
and warehouses. Electrical distribution, water and sewage facilities were also
valid targets. By no stretch of the imagination does the map at that link list
all of the valid targets. But why let facts get in the way? You have made up
your mind.

You still haven't said how you would take out military targets in Hiroshima,
Nagasaki or any other city without massive civilian casualties.

Using technology available anyone bombing the Navy yard in Boston, Mass, for
example, would take also out thousands of civilians.

I do regret the civilian losses in Nagasaki and Hiroshima but none of the other
options would have saved lives. Not one.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 08:52:03 GMT, "weary" wrote:


http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agor...hirodamap.html

Ohh look at that. The HQ of the local military district right in the zone
of complete destruction.

Which seems to be the only military asset in the zone.

Your point ? Tell us how a conventional raid of B29s would have killed 2
divisions worth of soldiers plus the HQ staff for the entire region and
*not* caused collateral damage.


Its clear that the people were the real target.


The manhattan project targetting committee says otherwise.


greg

--
Once you try my burger baby,you'll grow a new thyroid gland.
I said just eat my burger, baby,make you smart as Charlie Chan.
You say the hot sauce can't be beat. Sit back and open wide.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
In article ,
"weary" wrote:

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agor...hirodamap.html

Ohh look at that. The HQ of the local military district right in the
zone
of complete destruction.

Which seems to be the only military asset in the zone.

This map doesn't show the rest of the details. That Military District
Headquarters held the 11th Infantry Regiment, the 5th Division
Headquarters, a major artillery detachment, and a number of other
things, including the Prefectural office and the City Hall. It was also
the HQ of the invasion defense of that entire section of the island.

If you're dropping a nuke on Hiroshima in 1945, you couldn't do a whole
lot better for targeting.

Its clear that the people were the real target.

Yeah, the military people.

Then why did the targetting demand that the target must be
in a large urban atrea?

"weary" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote:

"weary" wrote:

Its clear that the people were the real target.

Yeah, the military people.

Then why did the targetting demand that the target must be
in a large urban atrea?

Because pretty much every major unbombed military target in Japan at the
time was *in* a large urban area.

Once again:

This map doesn't show the rest of the details. That Military
District Headquarters held the 11th Infantry Regiment, the 5th
Division Headquarters, a major artillery detachment, and a number
of other things, including the Prefectural office and the City
Hall. It was also the HQ of the invasion defense of that entire
section of the island.

What part of that did you not understand?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

From: "weary"
Date: 1/2/2004 5:02 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
"weary" wrote:

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agor...hirodamap.html

Ohh look at that. The HQ of the local military district right in the
zone
of complete destruction.

Which seems to be the only military asset in the zone.

This map doesn't show the rest of the details. That Military District
Headquarters held the 11th Infantry Regiment, the 5th Division
Headquarters, a major artillery detachment, and a number of other
things, including the Prefectural office and the City Hall. It was also
the HQ of the invasion defense of that entire section of the island.

If you're dropping a nuke on Hiroshima in 1945, you couldn't do a whole
lot better for targeting.

Its clear that the people were the real target.

Yeah, the military people.

Then why did the targetting demand that the target must be
in a large urban atrea?


Because that's where the valid military targets were. I don't understand why
you can't see that.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"weary" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...
In article ,
"weary" wrote:

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in
message
...

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agor...hirodamap.html

Ohh look at that. The HQ of the local
military district right in the
zone
of complete destruction.

Which seems to be the only military asset
in the zone.

This map doesn't show the rest of the details.
That Military District
Headquarters held the 11th Infantry Regiment,
the 5th Division
Headquarters, a major artillery detachment,
and a number of other
things, including the Prefectural office and
the City Hall. It was also
the HQ of the invasion defense of that entire
section of the island.

If you're dropping a nuke on Hiroshima in
1945, you couldn't do a whole
lot better for targeting.

Its clear that the people were the real
target.

Yeah, the military people.

Then why did the targetting demand that the
target must be
in a large urban atrea?



Military and Military industries were in such large urban areas. Proximity
of civilians does not make such targets immune to attack. You could take
out those targets with today's LGBs and JDAMS, and not kill many civlians,
but such accuracy was not possible in '45. 15 Kt on Hiroshma and 20 Kt on
Nagasaki is preferable to the U.S. Sixth Army hitting the beaches of Kyushu
on or after 1 November '45 with expected casualties in the 55-75,000 range
for Kyushu. I'd rather risk a few B-29 crews on the nuclear strikes than
the Sixth Army, 3rd and 5th Fleets, FEAF and Marine Tac Air crews, and B-17,
B-24 and B-29 crews of 8th and 20th AFs, plus the Lancaster crews of the
RAF Tiger Force.

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

(Tom Hartman) wrote:
(cave fish) wrote in
message m...
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.


There were more casualties from US napalming
of the Japanese than from
the A bomb. I was reading "Flyboys," an excellent
book, and it had a
section quoting one of the Japanese military
leaders who said that was
more demoralizing than the strike by the Enola
Gay.
You're forgetting that post-Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the fear that even
a single B-29 would be carrying an A-bomb that spread in Japan. Even recon
planes were feared. And now it meant one plane, one bomb, one city.

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

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...
"weary" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote:

"weary" wrote:

Its clear that the people were the real target.

Yeah, the military people.

Then why did the targetting demand that the target must be
in a large urban atrea?

Because pretty much every major unbombed military target in Japan at the
time was *in* a large urban area.

Then why insisit on it? However you are wrong. The Target
Committee meeting that produced that requirement was held
10-11 May 1945, at which time the bombing campaign was still
in its relatively early stages.