NCclimber 0 #251 October 23, 2007 How demoralizing to revisit something you felt was particularly insightful, only to see the post after yours has 20 more views. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #252 October 23, 2007 So.. did you read thru that JS code before you installed it??? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #253 October 23, 2007 Good point. It doesn't work like that though. KillFile works within Firefox and does it's thing completely outside of the forum software. It sucks to have to block someone, but it's either go nuts scrolling through that crap or go nuts avoiding the temptation to provide some guidance by replying. In my case both were nutting me up. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #254 October 23, 2007 QuoteSo.. did you read thru that JS code before you installed it??? I think I know what you mean, but know little about js. Did you try it out after your troubles in June? If so, what did you think? If I end up removing it, it's no big deal. This is the first thread that was enough of a Charlie-Juliet that I felt a need to try it. It wasn't viewpoints or opinions that I wanted to filter, it was the constant fragstorm of irrational crap. Oh, yeah. Where did you mean by across the river [from Hanford]? YAK? "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #255 October 23, 2007 Nah I did not install it.... I get great amusement at some of the stuff posted here.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #256 October 24, 2007 So what's the deal with the killfile JS? Anything important? "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #257 October 24, 2007 Quote Quote Hey Mike, I find it very peculiar that someone would lecture me about nuclear weapons.(not you) I will refrain from commenting. BTW I do not have a Phd. so therefore I could not possibly know anything at all. Do you know what it is to tur your guns away from military members and onto women and children? psssst stop before you say something even more stupid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #258 October 24, 2007 QuoteThis thread should be NUKED FROM ORBIT There that is much better. The only way to be sure Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #259 October 24, 2007 Quote It works. Screenshot attached. That is very useful Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #260 October 24, 2007 QuoteSpeaking of redirecting.... While the shipping part of the base had more or less died off, this part was still true: QuoteAs the headquarters of the Second Army and of the Chugoku Regional Army, it was one of the most important military command stations in Japan, the site of one of the largest military supply depots And it was such an integral part of the Japanese military that they didn't even conventionally bomb it once the entire was until Aug 6, 1945. Either the US military was pathetic back then or it was an administartive hdqtr with little value. Why would the US not bomb it all war long if it was important? Either: 1) It had little/no military importance, or 2) They were holding off bombing Hiroshima as they had plans to drop the Manhattan Project bombs on it at the start of the war 3) The US military was that stupid with the intel that it was there, yet not bombing it There was a reason, give me one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #261 October 24, 2007 QuoteQuote.) >>>>>>>agreed, the shock to the Emperor to get him to surrender.... Yea, even a harsh SOB like Hirohito was likely shocked to hear that a contry would be so low as bomb women and children as the mew were at war. Good point. I'm just asking and you won't answer, but does it shock you that we INTENTIONALLY at some point decided to abandon miltary targets and look for suburbia to drop our new weapons? >>>>>>>>I thought the topic was whether the cities were reserved "on purpose" for the more esoteric justification of studying the effects of the weapon. There were at least 2 main topics, the one you posted and teh post-WWII nuclear testing in the SP. They, at some point were reserved. Whether it was at teh start of teh Manhattan Project or in May 1945 mattes not, unless you continue to dodge the issue of why we turned our might on the women and children of Hiroshima to stop the war. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #262 October 24, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote. >>>>>>Based on the research I have done shock value was needed. We were fighting a determined enemy. And to claim to be the world's liberators while killing 200-300K women and children, isn't that contradiction? We've beat enemies down before, but have we ever turned to the wives and kids of the men we were fighting? You must admit that is low. We could have let teh Russians do most of the work and do most of the dying, but the we wouldn't have such a jump on the Cold War, now would we? As well, Truman was feeling pressure after having spent 2 Billion $ on the project, so he felt he needed to push the button. >>>>>>>>>They tortured our prisoners and killed millions of Chinese for no reason other than they were Chinese. Case in point. Case in point; what is your point? Is it that we can stoop to levels of scum becuas ethey are? OK, that make sus as bad as them then. You would call any other country scum for abandoning the military targets and intentionally going after suburban families just for shock value, wanna deny that? Ends vs the means is just empty rationale. >>>>>>>>Most rational foes would have surrended after one atomic bomb. It took two for Hirohito to get the picture. Hirohito was an Imperial terrorist , and we were golden until we did teh pathetic; turned from militay targets and onto women and kids. >>>>>>>>Truman was trying to end the war and shock value was needed IMO. His goal was to save American lives and he succeeded in that. It wasn't needed, it was expeditious. Japan would have been defeated eventually. They knew Europe was closing down and the world was turning toward them. We could have dropped the bomb on Tokyo as an exhibition, then told HH that the next was going to be in his hometown, that would have likely worked. It would have certainly been honorable, unlike killing the families of their soldiers. >>>>>>>America is far from perfect. It is just a matter of how you look ar it. Gas half full or half empty... and hindsight is always 20/20. There are four cliches in there. You forgot, personal repsonsibility and rather fight it there than here. Not trying to insight, but from a liberal mind, the conservatives are just hot wind with endless cliches that are suppose to blanket bad events with said cliche. I would just like to hear the conservatives admit some of the bad things we've done and say that that is part of our past we need to learn from and that it was wrong. But neo-cons are like McCarthurs; drive and never admit wron-doing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #263 October 24, 2007 Quote And what needs to be answered is that of why the US turn its most awesome weapon on civilians for the cause of effect, to wow the other side and the world. I won't wait for it, it simply won't happen -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QuoteI am going to make the answer simple. We were at war with Japan. Pearl Harbor, does that ring a bell for you? The idea of war is to win. Win at all costs. That is what the US did. Many people died on both sides. It is what it is. If you can't wrap your liberal beliefs around that simple fact that War is ugly and we did what had to be done then it is pointless to debate semantics. Lucky is the kind of person who happens to be playing on a ball team who has won every game through the season, is in the last game of the state championships, and he intentionally throws the game because nobody has a right to be that good. Andhow am I throwing this? I've established all the elements. 1) At some point the military decided to aim for civilians and not military targets. 2) They killed 200-300k women and children. 3) The US killed many with their post-WWII nuclear testing in the SP and even returned the islander before it was safe so tehy could watch the effects on the thyroid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #264 October 24, 2007 QuoteQuoteIf that's the best you can do, Kallend, give it up. You have made your share of stupid posts. But, unlike you, I don't continue to dig up the past for the purpose of trying to embarrass people. He does not have his facts straight in this thread. Hiroshima did have military value as a target. Hiroshima was not chosen just for it's large civilian population (though that was one consideration). . The facts say otherwise. We have already been through this ad nauseam. QuoteThe U.S. was not wrong for using the bomb That is a value judgment, not a matter of fact. The facts say Hiroshima was a staging point for troop dispatch among other military uses posted elsewhere in this thread. That gives it military value. How much value is a matter of debate. The facts say the civilian population was not the sole reason for it being chosen as a potential target. So where do the facts say otherwise? Please inform us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #265 October 24, 2007 What part of the bombing don't you like? The fact that we killed 250,000? Or the fact that we used a nuke? Or maybe it was the saving of several hundred thousand American lives from not having to invade Japan to end the war that Japan started? C'mon, be honest...which part is it? I, for one, am glad we dropped the bomb and don't give a rat's ass about the civilians who were killed. It was a war they started, not us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #266 October 24, 2007 1) Not a waste to show evidence if you would be willing to accept it, but you're not. You're stuck on the idea that the U.S. was totally wrong for using nukes and nothing anyone can say or quote will change your mind. >>>>>>Please, post some evidence. All you've posted is opinion. I've posted so many sites and you've posted none, did I miss 1? Take the oportunity now to post evidence, not opinion. Totally? I rarely use absolutes. I don't think we were totally we=rong, just lowlifes for aiming it away from military targets and at suburbs. Make an argument where you justify the US for aiming at an area that was virtually all suburb. 2) It was wrong of the Japanese to kill 16 million Chinese. It WAS NOT wrong for us to kill 250,000 (EDIT: defensless women and children) Japanese to stop them. >>>>>>>>One doesn't defend the other, just like Billy retaliating against Bobby for hitting him. And if it was sleezy for the Japanese for killing millions of innocent civilians then it must be sleezy for us to have done the same to 100's of thousands of them. By the time we fried 200-300k women and children, the attacks on China had stopped. The Japanese were in a defensive mode and there was no imminent danger to other people outside Japan. The entire SP had been retaken and there was no external threat. 3) Why would I start a flag burning thread? The only time I would consider burning a flag would be to properly dispose of one in accordance with established protocol. To distract attentio from this with another silly agenda. 4) I agree with other posters that your continued quoting of extensive posts is silly and distracts from what little credibility you have. I usually try to remove the quoted part, maybe not to successful here. OK, you got me, since I have irritating posting format, the US didn't fry 200-300k women an children. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #267 October 24, 2007 >>>>> But, unlike you, I don't continue to dig up the past for the purpose of trying to embarrass people. Have some embarrassing posts out there do ya? I bet. >>>>>>>>He does not have his facts straight in this thread. Which are incorrect? >>>>>>>Hiroshima did have military value as a target. Ohhhhhhhhh, it was such an integral part of the Japanes Military that we didn't once conventionally hit it during the entire war when our boys were getting killed. You're right, we were killing miitary men - OUR OWN. You can't have it both ways, if it was a key military target, WHY THE FUCK WOULD WE NOT HAVE HIT IT EARLY? >>>>>>>>>>Hiroshima was not chosen just for it's large civilian population (though that was one consideration). Just a fringe beneift to kills wives and kids - collateral damage >>>>>>>The U.S. was not wrong for using the bomb. No, they were right to intentionally refuse military targets and look for teh juciest neighborhoods. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #268 October 24, 2007 QuoteThis thread should be euthanized. Yea, let's take this thread, put it to paper, enclose it in a nuclear bomb and drop it on Iran or Iraq. Maybe we can get Iran to quit seeking nukes if we kill, oh, let's say a few 100 thousand women and kids. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #269 October 24, 2007 1) As I said, it's a waste of time. I'd rather try to convince my dog she's a cat, at least she would understand what was going on. What evidence have you shown that Hiroshima had no military value at all? Or that every person killed was a woman or child? Or even civilian for that matter? What evidence have you posted that Hiroshima was left untouched throughout the entire war just for the purpose of judging the impact of a nuke and no other reason? It's not up to me to prove you wrong, only up to you to substantiate your claims. You want an argument for aiming at suburbs? Ok, how's this....we got to kill more Japanese that way. More killed with the bomb means less trying to kill our men in case an invasion is needed. 2) Not all were defenseless woman and kids. Some were holding scissors at the time. Fuck 'em. And all the rest. It was war and they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. 3) I wouldn't want to distract from this thread. Watching you try to prove the U.S. was wrong is quite amusing. At least, for the time being. I'm quickly becoming bored with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #270 October 24, 2007 QuoteOhhhhhhhhh, it was such an integral part of the Japanes Military that we didn't once conventionally hit it during the entire war when our boys were getting killed. You're right, we were killing miitary men - OUR OWN. You can't have it both ways, if it was a key military target, WHY THE FUCK WOULD WE NOT HAVE HIT IT EARLY? Because it was of more strategic use intact up until near the end of the war. I'll let you digest that thought for a while. It may take you some time to understand the concept. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites champu 1 #271 October 24, 2007 You've taken some liberties with your description of Hiroshima as a target as this thread has progressed. We've gone from post #78...QuoteAt the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of some industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb. Another account stresses that after General Spaatz reported that Hiroshima was the only targeted city without prisoner of war (POW) camps, Washington decided to assign it highest priority. to post #142...Quotewhy did we bomb a city that we hadn't bombed all during the war and that had very little military importance? to post #152...QuoteIt was left alone becuase it had no military significance, bombed with the A bombs because it was unmollested and there was collection of civilian victims to be murdered. to post #218...QuoteWhat do you think of a nation that kills mothers taking their kids to school at about 8am (time that bomb was dropped) instead of pursuing military targets? to post #231...QuoteUh, anyway, back to the topic, er the issue that the US murdered 200-300k women and children for shock value. And now I ask that you please stop with the theatrics. The bombing of Hiroshima was a calculated decision and one I wouldn't have wanted to have to make. To know what it would take to stop the war you had to know all the ins and outs of the different weapons you had available (a-bomb, conventional bombs, battleships, invading troops, etc.), all your targets (military depots, beachheads, ports, cities, etc.), and your enemy (the troops on the ground, the pilots in the planes, the leaders in the capitols, and yes even highly nationalistic citizens.) A choice was made, action was taken, and the war came to an end. Do the ends justify the means in this case? I have no idea. I don't know what would have happened if any of the other possible choices had been pursued, and frankly I don't think you should pretend to either. If you ask 10 experts you'll get 15 opinions. We can lament what we did, but maybe we did what we had to do to put an end to the war. The parallel you're obviously trying to draw, and the one I admitted I clearly saw, was of course the spectacular nature of the atomic bomb usage and the similar nature of terrorist attacks like those conducted against the World Trade Center on 9/11. Both certainly get people's attention, so much so that they often cast a shadow over other events that happened just prior or even concurrently. In time people start to overlook the lengthly island hopping campaigns and firebombing of Tokyo just like in time, I'm sure, people will overlook Flight 77 and Flight 93. But that's right about where the parallels diverge. The atom bombs were dropped to prevent further fighting, to bring an end to a war, and that's exactly what they did. What do you think the goals are of those who flew the planes into the buildings, planted the bombs in trains, and blew up those embassies? Was it to prevent further fighting? Was it to bring an end to a war? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #272 October 24, 2007 This part of the story is not well known. There was a third a-bomb available to Truman prior to Japan surrendering. A third bomb was being built, but was not expected to be finished until August 21 (everything except the Plutonium core was at Tinian awaiting the Pu). The day after the August 9 bombing of Nagasaki, Gen. Leslie Groves told Pres. Truman that he was able to have the Pu core for the third bomb delivered four days early, and the bomb would be assembled and ready to use by the 16th or 17th. Groves asked Truman if he would like to have the core delivered early. After that Pu cores would be available every 3-4 weeks. "On August 10, while discussing the Japanese surrender offer, President Truman ordered that no more atomic bombs be dropped until further notice. According to the diary of Commerce Secretary Henry Wallace, Truman told the Cabinet that "the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible. He didn't like killing, as he said, 'all those kids.'" Although he had written in his Potsdam diary in July that the target for the first bomb would be purely military, Truman clearly understood after Hiroshima that whatever the target, atomic bombs could destroy whole cities." ""For myself I certainly regret the necessity of wiping out whole populations because of the 'pigheadedness' of the leaders of a nation, and, for your information, I am not going to do it unless it is absolutely necessary. It is my opinion that after the Russians enter into the war the Japanese will very shortly fold up. My object is to save as many American lives as possible but I also have a human feeling for the women and children of Japan." President Harry S. Truman to Senator Richard Russell, August 9, 1945 "" =============================================================== On 14 August, 1945 Japan Surrendered ================================ So Truman ordered a stop to the bombing campaign before the surrender of Japan. ======================= "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ExAFO 0 #273 October 24, 2007 QuoteQuoteThis thread should be euthanized. Yea, let's take this thread, put it to paper, enclose it in a nuclear bomb and drop it on Iran or Iraq. Maybe we can get Iran to quit seeking nukes if we kill, oh, let's say a few 100 thousand women and kids. Your non-sequitor, tinfoil-hat-brigade-esque postings on this thread have been entertaining, in kind of a "Watch a marmoset try to explain particle physics" way.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #274 October 24, 2007 QuoteQuote Can't claim that? Really? Quote2) Unmollested by US bombs for the purpose of seeing what the human damage would be You seem to be missing an important word there Mikey. "SOLELY". The ONLY person to use the word "solely" (or imply it) was YOU. Dishonest to misquote someone, and when called on it, to prevaricate some more. Quote Still waiting on the proof the military was told "hands off" prior to May '45... No-one claimed they were. There wasn't much need before March 1945 since only Kobe and Tokyo had been targeted by LeMay until then, and prior to Jan 1945 only precision bombing of military targets was going on. You REALLY should learn some of your country's military history. PS. "Hiroshima is the largest untouched target not on the 21st Bomber Command priority list. Consideration should be given to this city", Gen. Leslie Groves, memo on guidelines for target selection, Manhattan Project Target Committee, April 27, 1945 He's the one that made the inference, which he (and you) then supported in later posts - maybe you should learn some of the thread history, Professor. Post 78 - he bolded this quote: "It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb." Showing Hiroshima not on the priority list != reserved before April '45.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,106 #275 October 24, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf that's the best you can do, Kallend, give it up. You have made your share of stupid posts. But, unlike you, I don't continue to dig up the past for the purpose of trying to embarrass people. He does not have his facts straight in this thread. Hiroshima did have military value as a target. Hiroshima was not chosen just for it's large civilian population (though that was one consideration). . The facts say otherwise. We have already been through this ad nauseam. QuoteThe U.S. was not wrong for using the bomb That is a value judgment, not a matter of fact. The facts say Hiroshima was a staging point for troop dispatch among other military uses posted elsewhere in this thread. That gives it military value. How much value is a matter of debate. The facts say the civilian population was not the sole reason for it being chosen as a potential target. So where do the facts say otherwise? Please inform us. The ONLY person to say it was the SOLE reason is mnealtx. I haven't claimed that. You DO have a hard time keeping your facts straight. PS Hiroshimal was NOT on Gen. LeMay's priority list even before it became a reserved target. While YOU seem to think it had military value, the US army did not. I'm inclined to trust LeMay's judgment over yours.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next Page 11 of 13 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Lucky... 0 #262 October 24, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote. >>>>>>Based on the research I have done shock value was needed. We were fighting a determined enemy. And to claim to be the world's liberators while killing 200-300K women and children, isn't that contradiction? We've beat enemies down before, but have we ever turned to the wives and kids of the men we were fighting? You must admit that is low. We could have let teh Russians do most of the work and do most of the dying, but the we wouldn't have such a jump on the Cold War, now would we? As well, Truman was feeling pressure after having spent 2 Billion $ on the project, so he felt he needed to push the button. >>>>>>>>>They tortured our prisoners and killed millions of Chinese for no reason other than they were Chinese. Case in point. Case in point; what is your point? Is it that we can stoop to levels of scum becuas ethey are? OK, that make sus as bad as them then. You would call any other country scum for abandoning the military targets and intentionally going after suburban families just for shock value, wanna deny that? Ends vs the means is just empty rationale. >>>>>>>>Most rational foes would have surrended after one atomic bomb. It took two for Hirohito to get the picture. Hirohito was an Imperial terrorist , and we were golden until we did teh pathetic; turned from militay targets and onto women and kids. >>>>>>>>Truman was trying to end the war and shock value was needed IMO. His goal was to save American lives and he succeeded in that. It wasn't needed, it was expeditious. Japan would have been defeated eventually. They knew Europe was closing down and the world was turning toward them. We could have dropped the bomb on Tokyo as an exhibition, then told HH that the next was going to be in his hometown, that would have likely worked. It would have certainly been honorable, unlike killing the families of their soldiers. >>>>>>>America is far from perfect. It is just a matter of how you look ar it. Gas half full or half empty... and hindsight is always 20/20. There are four cliches in there. You forgot, personal repsonsibility and rather fight it there than here. Not trying to insight, but from a liberal mind, the conservatives are just hot wind with endless cliches that are suppose to blanket bad events with said cliche. I would just like to hear the conservatives admit some of the bad things we've done and say that that is part of our past we need to learn from and that it was wrong. But neo-cons are like McCarthurs; drive and never admit wron-doing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #263 October 24, 2007 Quote And what needs to be answered is that of why the US turn its most awesome weapon on civilians for the cause of effect, to wow the other side and the world. I won't wait for it, it simply won't happen -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QuoteI am going to make the answer simple. We were at war with Japan. Pearl Harbor, does that ring a bell for you? The idea of war is to win. Win at all costs. That is what the US did. Many people died on both sides. It is what it is. If you can't wrap your liberal beliefs around that simple fact that War is ugly and we did what had to be done then it is pointless to debate semantics. Lucky is the kind of person who happens to be playing on a ball team who has won every game through the season, is in the last game of the state championships, and he intentionally throws the game because nobody has a right to be that good. Andhow am I throwing this? I've established all the elements. 1) At some point the military decided to aim for civilians and not military targets. 2) They killed 200-300k women and children. 3) The US killed many with their post-WWII nuclear testing in the SP and even returned the islander before it was safe so tehy could watch the effects on the thyroid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #264 October 24, 2007 QuoteQuoteIf that's the best you can do, Kallend, give it up. You have made your share of stupid posts. But, unlike you, I don't continue to dig up the past for the purpose of trying to embarrass people. He does not have his facts straight in this thread. Hiroshima did have military value as a target. Hiroshima was not chosen just for it's large civilian population (though that was one consideration). . The facts say otherwise. We have already been through this ad nauseam. QuoteThe U.S. was not wrong for using the bomb That is a value judgment, not a matter of fact. The facts say Hiroshima was a staging point for troop dispatch among other military uses posted elsewhere in this thread. That gives it military value. How much value is a matter of debate. The facts say the civilian population was not the sole reason for it being chosen as a potential target. So where do the facts say otherwise? Please inform us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #265 October 24, 2007 What part of the bombing don't you like? The fact that we killed 250,000? Or the fact that we used a nuke? Or maybe it was the saving of several hundred thousand American lives from not having to invade Japan to end the war that Japan started? C'mon, be honest...which part is it? I, for one, am glad we dropped the bomb and don't give a rat's ass about the civilians who were killed. It was a war they started, not us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #266 October 24, 2007 1) Not a waste to show evidence if you would be willing to accept it, but you're not. You're stuck on the idea that the U.S. was totally wrong for using nukes and nothing anyone can say or quote will change your mind. >>>>>>Please, post some evidence. All you've posted is opinion. I've posted so many sites and you've posted none, did I miss 1? Take the oportunity now to post evidence, not opinion. Totally? I rarely use absolutes. I don't think we were totally we=rong, just lowlifes for aiming it away from military targets and at suburbs. Make an argument where you justify the US for aiming at an area that was virtually all suburb. 2) It was wrong of the Japanese to kill 16 million Chinese. It WAS NOT wrong for us to kill 250,000 (EDIT: defensless women and children) Japanese to stop them. >>>>>>>>One doesn't defend the other, just like Billy retaliating against Bobby for hitting him. And if it was sleezy for the Japanese for killing millions of innocent civilians then it must be sleezy for us to have done the same to 100's of thousands of them. By the time we fried 200-300k women and children, the attacks on China had stopped. The Japanese were in a defensive mode and there was no imminent danger to other people outside Japan. The entire SP had been retaken and there was no external threat. 3) Why would I start a flag burning thread? The only time I would consider burning a flag would be to properly dispose of one in accordance with established protocol. To distract attentio from this with another silly agenda. 4) I agree with other posters that your continued quoting of extensive posts is silly and distracts from what little credibility you have. I usually try to remove the quoted part, maybe not to successful here. OK, you got me, since I have irritating posting format, the US didn't fry 200-300k women an children. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #267 October 24, 2007 >>>>> But, unlike you, I don't continue to dig up the past for the purpose of trying to embarrass people. Have some embarrassing posts out there do ya? I bet. >>>>>>>>He does not have his facts straight in this thread. Which are incorrect? >>>>>>>Hiroshima did have military value as a target. Ohhhhhhhhh, it was such an integral part of the Japanes Military that we didn't once conventionally hit it during the entire war when our boys were getting killed. You're right, we were killing miitary men - OUR OWN. You can't have it both ways, if it was a key military target, WHY THE FUCK WOULD WE NOT HAVE HIT IT EARLY? >>>>>>>>>>Hiroshima was not chosen just for it's large civilian population (though that was one consideration). Just a fringe beneift to kills wives and kids - collateral damage >>>>>>>The U.S. was not wrong for using the bomb. No, they were right to intentionally refuse military targets and look for teh juciest neighborhoods. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #268 October 24, 2007 QuoteThis thread should be euthanized. Yea, let's take this thread, put it to paper, enclose it in a nuclear bomb and drop it on Iran or Iraq. Maybe we can get Iran to quit seeking nukes if we kill, oh, let's say a few 100 thousand women and kids. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #269 October 24, 2007 1) As I said, it's a waste of time. I'd rather try to convince my dog she's a cat, at least she would understand what was going on. What evidence have you shown that Hiroshima had no military value at all? Or that every person killed was a woman or child? Or even civilian for that matter? What evidence have you posted that Hiroshima was left untouched throughout the entire war just for the purpose of judging the impact of a nuke and no other reason? It's not up to me to prove you wrong, only up to you to substantiate your claims. You want an argument for aiming at suburbs? Ok, how's this....we got to kill more Japanese that way. More killed with the bomb means less trying to kill our men in case an invasion is needed. 2) Not all were defenseless woman and kids. Some were holding scissors at the time. Fuck 'em. And all the rest. It was war and they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. 3) I wouldn't want to distract from this thread. Watching you try to prove the U.S. was wrong is quite amusing. At least, for the time being. I'm quickly becoming bored with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #270 October 24, 2007 QuoteOhhhhhhhhh, it was such an integral part of the Japanes Military that we didn't once conventionally hit it during the entire war when our boys were getting killed. You're right, we were killing miitary men - OUR OWN. You can't have it both ways, if it was a key military target, WHY THE FUCK WOULD WE NOT HAVE HIT IT EARLY? Because it was of more strategic use intact up until near the end of the war. I'll let you digest that thought for a while. It may take you some time to understand the concept. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites champu 1 #271 October 24, 2007 You've taken some liberties with your description of Hiroshima as a target as this thread has progressed. We've gone from post #78...QuoteAt the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of some industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb. Another account stresses that after General Spaatz reported that Hiroshima was the only targeted city without prisoner of war (POW) camps, Washington decided to assign it highest priority. to post #142...Quotewhy did we bomb a city that we hadn't bombed all during the war and that had very little military importance? to post #152...QuoteIt was left alone becuase it had no military significance, bombed with the A bombs because it was unmollested and there was collection of civilian victims to be murdered. to post #218...QuoteWhat do you think of a nation that kills mothers taking their kids to school at about 8am (time that bomb was dropped) instead of pursuing military targets? to post #231...QuoteUh, anyway, back to the topic, er the issue that the US murdered 200-300k women and children for shock value. And now I ask that you please stop with the theatrics. The bombing of Hiroshima was a calculated decision and one I wouldn't have wanted to have to make. To know what it would take to stop the war you had to know all the ins and outs of the different weapons you had available (a-bomb, conventional bombs, battleships, invading troops, etc.), all your targets (military depots, beachheads, ports, cities, etc.), and your enemy (the troops on the ground, the pilots in the planes, the leaders in the capitols, and yes even highly nationalistic citizens.) A choice was made, action was taken, and the war came to an end. Do the ends justify the means in this case? I have no idea. I don't know what would have happened if any of the other possible choices had been pursued, and frankly I don't think you should pretend to either. If you ask 10 experts you'll get 15 opinions. We can lament what we did, but maybe we did what we had to do to put an end to the war. The parallel you're obviously trying to draw, and the one I admitted I clearly saw, was of course the spectacular nature of the atomic bomb usage and the similar nature of terrorist attacks like those conducted against the World Trade Center on 9/11. Both certainly get people's attention, so much so that they often cast a shadow over other events that happened just prior or even concurrently. In time people start to overlook the lengthly island hopping campaigns and firebombing of Tokyo just like in time, I'm sure, people will overlook Flight 77 and Flight 93. But that's right about where the parallels diverge. The atom bombs were dropped to prevent further fighting, to bring an end to a war, and that's exactly what they did. What do you think the goals are of those who flew the planes into the buildings, planted the bombs in trains, and blew up those embassies? Was it to prevent further fighting? Was it to bring an end to a war? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #272 October 24, 2007 This part of the story is not well known. There was a third a-bomb available to Truman prior to Japan surrendering. A third bomb was being built, but was not expected to be finished until August 21 (everything except the Plutonium core was at Tinian awaiting the Pu). The day after the August 9 bombing of Nagasaki, Gen. Leslie Groves told Pres. Truman that he was able to have the Pu core for the third bomb delivered four days early, and the bomb would be assembled and ready to use by the 16th or 17th. Groves asked Truman if he would like to have the core delivered early. After that Pu cores would be available every 3-4 weeks. "On August 10, while discussing the Japanese surrender offer, President Truman ordered that no more atomic bombs be dropped until further notice. According to the diary of Commerce Secretary Henry Wallace, Truman told the Cabinet that "the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible. He didn't like killing, as he said, 'all those kids.'" Although he had written in his Potsdam diary in July that the target for the first bomb would be purely military, Truman clearly understood after Hiroshima that whatever the target, atomic bombs could destroy whole cities." ""For myself I certainly regret the necessity of wiping out whole populations because of the 'pigheadedness' of the leaders of a nation, and, for your information, I am not going to do it unless it is absolutely necessary. It is my opinion that after the Russians enter into the war the Japanese will very shortly fold up. My object is to save as many American lives as possible but I also have a human feeling for the women and children of Japan." President Harry S. Truman to Senator Richard Russell, August 9, 1945 "" =============================================================== On 14 August, 1945 Japan Surrendered ================================ So Truman ordered a stop to the bombing campaign before the surrender of Japan. ======================= "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ExAFO 0 #273 October 24, 2007 QuoteQuoteThis thread should be euthanized. Yea, let's take this thread, put it to paper, enclose it in a nuclear bomb and drop it on Iran or Iraq. Maybe we can get Iran to quit seeking nukes if we kill, oh, let's say a few 100 thousand women and kids. Your non-sequitor, tinfoil-hat-brigade-esque postings on this thread have been entertaining, in kind of a "Watch a marmoset try to explain particle physics" way.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #274 October 24, 2007 QuoteQuote Can't claim that? Really? Quote2) Unmollested by US bombs for the purpose of seeing what the human damage would be You seem to be missing an important word there Mikey. "SOLELY". The ONLY person to use the word "solely" (or imply it) was YOU. Dishonest to misquote someone, and when called on it, to prevaricate some more. Quote Still waiting on the proof the military was told "hands off" prior to May '45... No-one claimed they were. There wasn't much need before March 1945 since only Kobe and Tokyo had been targeted by LeMay until then, and prior to Jan 1945 only precision bombing of military targets was going on. You REALLY should learn some of your country's military history. PS. "Hiroshima is the largest untouched target not on the 21st Bomber Command priority list. Consideration should be given to this city", Gen. Leslie Groves, memo on guidelines for target selection, Manhattan Project Target Committee, April 27, 1945 He's the one that made the inference, which he (and you) then supported in later posts - maybe you should learn some of the thread history, Professor. Post 78 - he bolded this quote: "It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb." Showing Hiroshima not on the priority list != reserved before April '45.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,106 #275 October 24, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf that's the best you can do, Kallend, give it up. You have made your share of stupid posts. But, unlike you, I don't continue to dig up the past for the purpose of trying to embarrass people. He does not have his facts straight in this thread. Hiroshima did have military value as a target. Hiroshima was not chosen just for it's large civilian population (though that was one consideration). . The facts say otherwise. We have already been through this ad nauseam. QuoteThe U.S. was not wrong for using the bomb That is a value judgment, not a matter of fact. The facts say Hiroshima was a staging point for troop dispatch among other military uses posted elsewhere in this thread. That gives it military value. How much value is a matter of debate. The facts say the civilian population was not the sole reason for it being chosen as a potential target. So where do the facts say otherwise? Please inform us. The ONLY person to say it was the SOLE reason is mnealtx. I haven't claimed that. You DO have a hard time keeping your facts straight. PS Hiroshimal was NOT on Gen. LeMay's priority list even before it became a reserved target. While YOU seem to think it had military value, the US army did not. I'm inclined to trust LeMay's judgment over yours.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next Page 11 of 13 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Lucky... 0 #263 October 24, 2007 Quote And what needs to be answered is that of why the US turn its most awesome weapon on civilians for the cause of effect, to wow the other side and the world. I won't wait for it, it simply won't happen -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- QuoteI am going to make the answer simple. We were at war with Japan. Pearl Harbor, does that ring a bell for you? The idea of war is to win. Win at all costs. That is what the US did. Many people died on both sides. It is what it is. If you can't wrap your liberal beliefs around that simple fact that War is ugly and we did what had to be done then it is pointless to debate semantics. Lucky is the kind of person who happens to be playing on a ball team who has won every game through the season, is in the last game of the state championships, and he intentionally throws the game because nobody has a right to be that good. Andhow am I throwing this? I've established all the elements. 1) At some point the military decided to aim for civilians and not military targets. 2) They killed 200-300k women and children. 3) The US killed many with their post-WWII nuclear testing in the SP and even returned the islander before it was safe so tehy could watch the effects on the thyroid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #264 October 24, 2007 QuoteQuoteIf that's the best you can do, Kallend, give it up. You have made your share of stupid posts. But, unlike you, I don't continue to dig up the past for the purpose of trying to embarrass people. He does not have his facts straight in this thread. Hiroshima did have military value as a target. Hiroshima was not chosen just for it's large civilian population (though that was one consideration). . The facts say otherwise. We have already been through this ad nauseam. QuoteThe U.S. was not wrong for using the bomb That is a value judgment, not a matter of fact. The facts say Hiroshima was a staging point for troop dispatch among other military uses posted elsewhere in this thread. That gives it military value. How much value is a matter of debate. The facts say the civilian population was not the sole reason for it being chosen as a potential target. So where do the facts say otherwise? Please inform us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #265 October 24, 2007 What part of the bombing don't you like? The fact that we killed 250,000? Or the fact that we used a nuke? Or maybe it was the saving of several hundred thousand American lives from not having to invade Japan to end the war that Japan started? C'mon, be honest...which part is it? I, for one, am glad we dropped the bomb and don't give a rat's ass about the civilians who were killed. It was a war they started, not us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #266 October 24, 2007 1) Not a waste to show evidence if you would be willing to accept it, but you're not. You're stuck on the idea that the U.S. was totally wrong for using nukes and nothing anyone can say or quote will change your mind. >>>>>>Please, post some evidence. All you've posted is opinion. I've posted so many sites and you've posted none, did I miss 1? Take the oportunity now to post evidence, not opinion. Totally? I rarely use absolutes. I don't think we were totally we=rong, just lowlifes for aiming it away from military targets and at suburbs. Make an argument where you justify the US for aiming at an area that was virtually all suburb. 2) It was wrong of the Japanese to kill 16 million Chinese. It WAS NOT wrong for us to kill 250,000 (EDIT: defensless women and children) Japanese to stop them. >>>>>>>>One doesn't defend the other, just like Billy retaliating against Bobby for hitting him. And if it was sleezy for the Japanese for killing millions of innocent civilians then it must be sleezy for us to have done the same to 100's of thousands of them. By the time we fried 200-300k women and children, the attacks on China had stopped. The Japanese were in a defensive mode and there was no imminent danger to other people outside Japan. The entire SP had been retaken and there was no external threat. 3) Why would I start a flag burning thread? The only time I would consider burning a flag would be to properly dispose of one in accordance with established protocol. To distract attentio from this with another silly agenda. 4) I agree with other posters that your continued quoting of extensive posts is silly and distracts from what little credibility you have. I usually try to remove the quoted part, maybe not to successful here. OK, you got me, since I have irritating posting format, the US didn't fry 200-300k women an children. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #267 October 24, 2007 >>>>> But, unlike you, I don't continue to dig up the past for the purpose of trying to embarrass people. Have some embarrassing posts out there do ya? I bet. >>>>>>>>He does not have his facts straight in this thread. Which are incorrect? >>>>>>>Hiroshima did have military value as a target. Ohhhhhhhhh, it was such an integral part of the Japanes Military that we didn't once conventionally hit it during the entire war when our boys were getting killed. You're right, we were killing miitary men - OUR OWN. You can't have it both ways, if it was a key military target, WHY THE FUCK WOULD WE NOT HAVE HIT IT EARLY? >>>>>>>>>>Hiroshima was not chosen just for it's large civilian population (though that was one consideration). Just a fringe beneift to kills wives and kids - collateral damage >>>>>>>The U.S. was not wrong for using the bomb. No, they were right to intentionally refuse military targets and look for teh juciest neighborhoods. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #268 October 24, 2007 QuoteThis thread should be euthanized. Yea, let's take this thread, put it to paper, enclose it in a nuclear bomb and drop it on Iran or Iraq. Maybe we can get Iran to quit seeking nukes if we kill, oh, let's say a few 100 thousand women and kids. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #269 October 24, 2007 1) As I said, it's a waste of time. I'd rather try to convince my dog she's a cat, at least she would understand what was going on. What evidence have you shown that Hiroshima had no military value at all? Or that every person killed was a woman or child? Or even civilian for that matter? What evidence have you posted that Hiroshima was left untouched throughout the entire war just for the purpose of judging the impact of a nuke and no other reason? It's not up to me to prove you wrong, only up to you to substantiate your claims. You want an argument for aiming at suburbs? Ok, how's this....we got to kill more Japanese that way. More killed with the bomb means less trying to kill our men in case an invasion is needed. 2) Not all were defenseless woman and kids. Some were holding scissors at the time. Fuck 'em. And all the rest. It was war and they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. 3) I wouldn't want to distract from this thread. Watching you try to prove the U.S. was wrong is quite amusing. At least, for the time being. I'm quickly becoming bored with you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #270 October 24, 2007 QuoteOhhhhhhhhh, it was such an integral part of the Japanes Military that we didn't once conventionally hit it during the entire war when our boys were getting killed. You're right, we were killing miitary men - OUR OWN. You can't have it both ways, if it was a key military target, WHY THE FUCK WOULD WE NOT HAVE HIT IT EARLY? Because it was of more strategic use intact up until near the end of the war. I'll let you digest that thought for a while. It may take you some time to understand the concept. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #271 October 24, 2007 You've taken some liberties with your description of Hiroshima as a target as this thread has progressed. We've gone from post #78...QuoteAt the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of some industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb. Another account stresses that after General Spaatz reported that Hiroshima was the only targeted city without prisoner of war (POW) camps, Washington decided to assign it highest priority. to post #142...Quotewhy did we bomb a city that we hadn't bombed all during the war and that had very little military importance? to post #152...QuoteIt was left alone becuase it had no military significance, bombed with the A bombs because it was unmollested and there was collection of civilian victims to be murdered. to post #218...QuoteWhat do you think of a nation that kills mothers taking their kids to school at about 8am (time that bomb was dropped) instead of pursuing military targets? to post #231...QuoteUh, anyway, back to the topic, er the issue that the US murdered 200-300k women and children for shock value. And now I ask that you please stop with the theatrics. The bombing of Hiroshima was a calculated decision and one I wouldn't have wanted to have to make. To know what it would take to stop the war you had to know all the ins and outs of the different weapons you had available (a-bomb, conventional bombs, battleships, invading troops, etc.), all your targets (military depots, beachheads, ports, cities, etc.), and your enemy (the troops on the ground, the pilots in the planes, the leaders in the capitols, and yes even highly nationalistic citizens.) A choice was made, action was taken, and the war came to an end. Do the ends justify the means in this case? I have no idea. I don't know what would have happened if any of the other possible choices had been pursued, and frankly I don't think you should pretend to either. If you ask 10 experts you'll get 15 opinions. We can lament what we did, but maybe we did what we had to do to put an end to the war. The parallel you're obviously trying to draw, and the one I admitted I clearly saw, was of course the spectacular nature of the atomic bomb usage and the similar nature of terrorist attacks like those conducted against the World Trade Center on 9/11. Both certainly get people's attention, so much so that they often cast a shadow over other events that happened just prior or even concurrently. In time people start to overlook the lengthly island hopping campaigns and firebombing of Tokyo just like in time, I'm sure, people will overlook Flight 77 and Flight 93. But that's right about where the parallels diverge. The atom bombs were dropped to prevent further fighting, to bring an end to a war, and that's exactly what they did. What do you think the goals are of those who flew the planes into the buildings, planted the bombs in trains, and blew up those embassies? Was it to prevent further fighting? Was it to bring an end to a war? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #272 October 24, 2007 This part of the story is not well known. There was a third a-bomb available to Truman prior to Japan surrendering. A third bomb was being built, but was not expected to be finished until August 21 (everything except the Plutonium core was at Tinian awaiting the Pu). The day after the August 9 bombing of Nagasaki, Gen. Leslie Groves told Pres. Truman that he was able to have the Pu core for the third bomb delivered four days early, and the bomb would be assembled and ready to use by the 16th or 17th. Groves asked Truman if he would like to have the core delivered early. After that Pu cores would be available every 3-4 weeks. "On August 10, while discussing the Japanese surrender offer, President Truman ordered that no more atomic bombs be dropped until further notice. According to the diary of Commerce Secretary Henry Wallace, Truman told the Cabinet that "the thought of wiping out another 100,000 people was too horrible. He didn't like killing, as he said, 'all those kids.'" Although he had written in his Potsdam diary in July that the target for the first bomb would be purely military, Truman clearly understood after Hiroshima that whatever the target, atomic bombs could destroy whole cities." ""For myself I certainly regret the necessity of wiping out whole populations because of the 'pigheadedness' of the leaders of a nation, and, for your information, I am not going to do it unless it is absolutely necessary. It is my opinion that after the Russians enter into the war the Japanese will very shortly fold up. My object is to save as many American lives as possible but I also have a human feeling for the women and children of Japan." President Harry S. Truman to Senator Richard Russell, August 9, 1945 "" =============================================================== On 14 August, 1945 Japan Surrendered ================================ So Truman ordered a stop to the bombing campaign before the surrender of Japan. ======================= "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #273 October 24, 2007 QuoteQuoteThis thread should be euthanized. Yea, let's take this thread, put it to paper, enclose it in a nuclear bomb and drop it on Iran or Iraq. Maybe we can get Iran to quit seeking nukes if we kill, oh, let's say a few 100 thousand women and kids. Your non-sequitor, tinfoil-hat-brigade-esque postings on this thread have been entertaining, in kind of a "Watch a marmoset try to explain particle physics" way.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #274 October 24, 2007 QuoteQuote Can't claim that? Really? Quote2) Unmollested by US bombs for the purpose of seeing what the human damage would be You seem to be missing an important word there Mikey. "SOLELY". The ONLY person to use the word "solely" (or imply it) was YOU. Dishonest to misquote someone, and when called on it, to prevaricate some more. Quote Still waiting on the proof the military was told "hands off" prior to May '45... No-one claimed they were. There wasn't much need before March 1945 since only Kobe and Tokyo had been targeted by LeMay until then, and prior to Jan 1945 only precision bombing of military targets was going on. You REALLY should learn some of your country's military history. PS. "Hiroshima is the largest untouched target not on the 21st Bomber Command priority list. Consideration should be given to this city", Gen. Leslie Groves, memo on guidelines for target selection, Manhattan Project Target Committee, April 27, 1945 He's the one that made the inference, which he (and you) then supported in later posts - maybe you should learn some of the thread history, Professor. Post 78 - he bolded this quote: "It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb." Showing Hiroshima not on the priority list != reserved before April '45.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #275 October 24, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf that's the best you can do, Kallend, give it up. You have made your share of stupid posts. But, unlike you, I don't continue to dig up the past for the purpose of trying to embarrass people. He does not have his facts straight in this thread. Hiroshima did have military value as a target. Hiroshima was not chosen just for it's large civilian population (though that was one consideration). . The facts say otherwise. We have already been through this ad nauseam. QuoteThe U.S. was not wrong for using the bomb That is a value judgment, not a matter of fact. The facts say Hiroshima was a staging point for troop dispatch among other military uses posted elsewhere in this thread. That gives it military value. How much value is a matter of debate. The facts say the civilian population was not the sole reason for it being chosen as a potential target. So where do the facts say otherwise? Please inform us. The ONLY person to say it was the SOLE reason is mnealtx. I haven't claimed that. You DO have a hard time keeping your facts straight. PS Hiroshimal was NOT on Gen. LeMay's priority list even before it became a reserved target. While YOU seem to think it had military value, the US army did not. I'm inclined to trust LeMay's judgment over yours.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
