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

"B2431" wrote in message
...
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.

Plese provide proof that the onlyvalid military targets in Japan in May
1945
were in large urban areas.

"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
news:3ff88efc$1@bg2....

"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.

Exclusively? I don't believe you. Why didn't the committe just specify
military taget?

"B2431" wrote in message
...
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.

I have but you don't want to accept it.


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

But not 70000


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

That is your opinion - I interpret the facts differently.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

From: "weary"
Date: 1/6/2004 12:25 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"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.


That was before anyone in the system even knew about the atom bombs.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

From: "weary"
Date: 1/6/2004 12:28 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"B2431" wrote in message
...
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.

Plese provide proof that the onlyvalid military targets in Japan in May
1945
were in large urban areas.

I never said that.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

From: "weary"
Date: 1/6/2004 12:37 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:


"B2431" wrote in message
...
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.

I have but you don't want to accept it.


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

But not 70000


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

That is your opinion - I interpret the facts differently.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired


What facts?

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 06:28:01 GMT, "weary" wrote:


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

Plese provide proof that the onlyvalid military targets in Japan in May
1945
were in large urban areas.


What a surprise, its attempts more misdirection.


A. He never said that.

B. I suggest figuring out what the word 'priority' means, especially in the
context of having a very finite number of sorties available to hit
thousands of targets in mainland japan.

C. Then reconcile that list of 'priority' targets with their geographical
location.




greg


--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.

"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.

If that was case, there was no necessity to stipulate it as a requirement.

"B2431" wrote in message
...
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.

Because in that case all that was necessary was to specify a valid military
target.
I don't understand why you can't see that.
However,

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 06:28:01 GMT, "weary" wrote:


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

Plese provide proof that the onlyvalid military targets in Japan in May
1945
were in large urban areas.


What a surprise, its attempts more misdirection.


A. He never said that.

Yes he did.


B. I suggest figuring out what the word 'priority' means, especially in
the
context of having a very finite number of sorties available to hit
thousands of targets in mainland japan.

He didn't use the word priority. Don't try moving goalpostrs.