rehmwa 2 #101 October 22, 2007 QuoteWe only need beyond reasonable doubt, not absolute proof, to sentence people to death in the USA. Whoops ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #102 October 22, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Call it a "Good Ol' Boys Club" if you want, the fact remains that they are alive because the bomb was used. I'm sure they couldn't care less what you think of that. You remarked that Hiroshima was intentionally left untouched by conventional bombing. This is true. However, you assert the reason for this is so damage by a nuke could be measured. Care to share with us where you got this tidbit of info, or is it just speculation? Many cities of known military value were left untouched and for many reasons, including strategic and tactical. "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 Said quote, however, does NOT provide proof the city was left untouched solely to provide a target for an atomic bomb. Sorry. "To enable us to assess accurately the effects of the bomb, the target should not have been previously damaged by air raids. It was also desirable that the target be of such a size that the damage would be confined within it, so that we could more definitely determine the power of the bomb." Gen. Leslie Groves, memo on guidelines for target selection, Manhattan Project Target Committee, April 27, 1945. SORRY Want to nit-pick some more? Don't care much for when the shoe is on the other foot, Doc? Sorry, again - you've proven only that the Manhattan Project chiefs decided to use the city *because* it was essentially untouched. AND because they wanted to use it as a science experiment. That is very clear from Groves's memo. Why don't YOU read the archives of the Manhattan Project, since I'm sure nothing I quote will satisfy you. hint: 2 + 2 = 4 Edited to add: "The three RESERVED targets [Koto, Hiroshima and Nigata] for the first unit of this project were announced", Gen Curtis LeMay, minutes of the Manhattan Project target Committee, May 8, 1945.... 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
mnealtx 0 #103 October 22, 2007 It's not MY fault if the quotes YOU provided don't prove out Lucky's claim that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were essentially untouched during the course of the war solely to provide targets for Fat Man and Little Boy. Strive for a little composure, Professor.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 #104 October 22, 2007 QuoteIt's not MY fault if the quotes YOU provided don't prove out Lucky's claim that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were essentially untouched during the course of the war solely to provide targets for Fat Man and Little Boy. Strive for a little composure, Professor. Lucky claimed that? in which post did he claim that? "The three RESERVED targets [Koto, Hiroshima and Nigata] for the first unit of this project were announced", Gen Curtis LeMay, minutes of the Manhattan Project target Committee, May 8, 1945. I have provided evidence that: 1: there were reserved targets, untouched by conventional bombing. Hiroshima was one of them. 2. the targets were selected so as to provide the best evidence of the bomb's power, not for any military reason. Unfortunately the Manhattan Project memo writers in 1945 did not forsee the nitpicking that you and NCC would do 62 years later, so we just have to make do with what they did choose to write down.... 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
NCclimber 0 #105 October 22, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Sure, but it's not responsible to decide world policy upon these folksy stories, that was my point. We DID use the citizenry of Hiroshima, somewhat Nagasaki and definitely the Marshall Islands, Bikinis, Kwajalein, etc as test subjsects. Do you have proof that our government intentionally sent the people of the Marshall Islands and Bikinis back home so we could study the longterm effects of radiation? I'm sure they were sent home for the good of their health. The US would never deliberately expose people to radiation. See attachment. Your snarky opinion doesn't qualify as proof. More often than not, 2 + 2 is equal to 4. We only need beyond reasonable doubt, not absolute proof, to sentence people to death in the USA. Since you seem reluctant to pony up, perhaps we should just accept your logical fallicies as proof. Is this standard practice among college professors? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #106 October 22, 2007 QuoteQuoteIt's not MY fault if the quotes YOU provided don't prove out Lucky's claim that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were essentially untouched during the course of the war solely to provide targets for Fat Man and Little Boy. Strive for a little composure, Professor. Lucky claimed that? in which post did he claim that? "The three RESERVED targets [Koto, Hiroshima and Nigata] for the first unit of this project were announced", Gen Curtis LeMay, minutes of the Manhattan Project target Committee, May 8, 1945. I have provided evidence that: 1: there were reserved targets, untouched by conventional bombing. Hiroshima was one of them. 2. the targets were selected so as to provide the best evidence of the bomb's power, not for any military reason. Unfortunately the Manhattan Project memo writers in 1945 did not forsee the nitpicking that you and NCC would do 62 years later, so we just have to make do with what they did choose to write down. Doolittle raid: 1942 First mass bombing attacks on Japan: 1944 Manhattan Project decides on targets: 1945 Seems to be an odd gap there, Professor. MAYBE the cities weren't bombed up to the decision point (1945) because there were targets of higher strategic or tactical value.... Nah...you're right - it MUST be because they were being held in reserve (so to speak) for a project that wasn't even tested until less than a month before the strikes.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #107 October 22, 2007 QuoteHere's a thought, since we will never see world disarmament, what if everyone had the same nuclear capability? Wouldn't we all tend to act with respect? An armed society is a polite society, so an armed world is a polite world. I sincerely hope I'm missing your sarcasm. MAD does not produce a stable equilibrium, and the more circus performers you add to the balancing act, the more likely it is someone falls off the tightrope and takes others nearby with them. More worrisome still, MAD is only an unstable equilibrium when all entities involved have 303M or 143M or perhaps even just 70M people sitting around unknowingly in large clumps, not if one entity is 10s of thousands scattered around an entire region. To put a slight spin on the old saying, 1,000 nuclear weapons is a statistic, 1 nuclear weapon is the end all be all of asymmetrical warfare. It's bad enough that we already have to rely on several countries to maintain security over a nuclear arsenal (ourselves included.) but five weapons each in the hands of two countries is twice as risky as ten weapons in the hands of one country. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #108 October 22, 2007 You are just being silly. The historical record is very clear that Hiroshima WAS a reserved target from at least May 1945 and that unnamed targets were reserved from April 1945. The historical record is also clear that the reason it was reserved is that it made an excellent science experiment. You wrote: QuoteLucky's claim that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were essentially untouched during the course of the war solely to provide targets for Fat Man and Little Boy. Again, in which post did Lucky claim that?... 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
1969912 0 #109 October 22, 2007 QuoteIt's not MY fault if the quotes YOU provided don't prove out Lucky's claim that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were essentially untouched during the course of the war solely to provide targets for Fat Man and Little Boy. Quote "The three RESERVED targets [Koto, Hiroshima and Nigata] for the first unit of this project were announced", Gen Curtis LeMay, minutes of the Manhattan Project target Committee, May 8, 1945. I have provided evidence that: 1: there were reserved targets, untouched by conventional bombing. Hiroshima was one of them. 2. the targets were selected so as to provide the best evidence of the bomb's power, not for any military reason. There were no targets set aside and left undamaged until after the 10-11 May 1945 Second Meeting of the Target Committee. During the meeting, a list of "five targets which the Air Force would be willing to reserve for our use unless unforeseen circumstances arise" was presented (Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, Kokura Arsenal, Niigata). Niigata was eliminated. After the four targets were selected "Dr. Stearns agreed to do the following:...(2) request reservations [from the Air Force] for these targets..." The targets were reserved for less than three months. -------------------- The targets were selected in part "so as to provide the best evidence of the bomb's power" to the Japanese, and that has high military importance if the goal is to convince the enemy to surrender. "...psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular.... ...Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed." From http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html#E --------------------------------- 6. Status of Targets A. Dr. Stearns described the work he had done on target selection. He has surveyed possible targets possessing the following qualification: (1) they be important targets in a large urban area of more than three miles in diameter, (2) they be capable of being damaged effectively by a blast, and (3) they are unlikely to be attacked by next August. Dr. Stearns had a list of five targets which the Air Force would be willing to reserve for our use unless unforeseen circumstances arise. These targets are: (1) Kyoto - This target is an urban industrial area with a population of 1,000,000. It is the former capital of Japan and many people and industries are now being moved there as other areas are being destroyed. From the psychological point of view there is the advantage that Kyoto is an intellectual center for Japan and the people there are more apt to appreciate the significance of such a weapon as the gadget. (Classified as an AA Target) (2) Hiroshima - This is an important army depot and port of embarkation in the middle of an urban industrial area. It is a good radar target and it is such a size that a large part of the city could be extensively damaged. There are adjacent hills which are likely to produce a focussing effect which would considerably increase the blast damage. Due to rivers it is not a good incendiary target. (Classified as an AA Target) (3) Yokohama - This target is an important urban industrial area which has so far been untouched. Industrial activities include aircraft manufacture, machine tools, docks, electrical equipment and oil refineries. As the damage to Tokyo has increased additional industries have moved to Yokohama. It has the disadvantage of the most important target areas being separated by a large body of water and of being in the heaviest anti-aircraft concentration in Japan. For us it has the advantage as an alternate target for use in case of bad weather of being rather far removed from the other targets considered. (Classified as an A Target) (4) Kokura Arsenal - This is one of the largest arsenals in Japan and is surrounded by urban industrial structures. The arsenal is important for light ordnance, anti-aircraft and beach head defense materials. The dimensions of the arsenal are 4100' x 2000'. The dimensions are such that if the bomb were properly placed full advantage could be taken of the higher pressures immediately underneath the bomb for destroying the more solid structures and at the same time considerable blast damage could be done to more feeble structures further away. (Classified as an A Target) (5) Niigata - This is a port of embarkation on the N.W. coast of Honshu. Its importance is increasing as other ports are damaged. Machine tool industries are located there and it is a potential center for industrial despersion. It has oil refineries and storage. (Classified as a B Target) (6) The possibility of bombing the Emperor's palace was discussed. It was agreed that we should not recommend it but that any action for this bombing should come from authorities on military policy. It was agreed that we should obtain information from which we could determine the effectiveness of our weapon against this target. B. It was the recommendation of those present at the meeting that the first four choices of targets for our weapon should be the following: a. Kyoto b. Hiroshima c. Yokohama d. Kokura Arsenal C. Dr. Stearns agreed to do the following: (1) brief Colonel Fisher thoroughly on these matters, (2) request reservations for these targets, (3) find out more about the target area including exact locations of the strategic industries there, (4) obtain further photo information on the targets, and (5) to determine the nature of the construction, the area, heights, contents and roof coverage of buildings. He also agreed to keep in touch with the target data as it develops and to keep the committee advised of other possible target areas. He will also check on locations of small military targets and obtain further details on the Emperor's palace. 7. Psychological Factors in Target Selection A. It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released. B. In this respect Kyoto has the advantage of the people being more highly intelligent and hence better able to appreciate the significance of the weapon. Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed. The Emperor's palace in Tokyo has a greater fame than any other target but is of least strategic value. 8. Use Against "Military" Objectives A. It was agreed that for the initial use of the weapon any small and strictly military objective should be located in a much larger area subject to blast damage in order to avoid undue risks of the weapon being lost due to bad placing of the bomb. ------------------------------------------------- "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
kallend 2,106 #110 October 22, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Sure, but it's not responsible to decide world policy upon these folksy stories, that was my point. We DID use the citizenry of Hiroshima, somewhat Nagasaki and definitely the Marshall Islands, Bikinis, Kwajalein, etc as test subjsects. Do you have proof that our government intentionally sent the people of the Marshall Islands and Bikinis back home so we could study the longterm effects of radiation? I'm sure they were sent home for the good of their health. The US would never deliberately expose people to radiation. See attachment. Your snarky opinion doesn't qualify as proof. More often than not, 2 + 2 is equal to 4. We only need beyond reasonable doubt, not absolute proof, to sentence people to death in the USA. Since you seem reluctant to pony up, perhaps we should just accept your logical fallicies as proof. Is this standard practice among college professors? What would you consider "proof"? Truman or Eisenhower coming back from the dead and posting an admission on DZ. COM? The US had no hesitation in exposing humans to radiation from atmospheric bomb tests, quite deliberately. The AEC did it in Nevada and Utah, and in the Pacific Islands. What EXACTLY are you nit picking about at this instant?... 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
NCclimber 0 #111 October 22, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Sure, but it's not responsible to decide world policy upon these folksy stories, that was my point. We DID use the citizenry of Hiroshima, somewhat Nagasaki and definitely the Marshall Islands, Bikinis, Kwajalein, etc as test subjsects. Do you have proof that our government intentionally sent the people of the Marshall Islands and Bikinis back home so we could study the longterm effects of radiation? I'm sure they were sent home for the good of their health. The US would never deliberately expose people to radiation. See attachment. Your snarky opinion doesn't qualify as proof. More often than not, 2 + 2 is equal to 4. We only need beyond reasonable doubt, not absolute proof, to sentence people to death in the USA. Since you seem reluctant to pony up, perhaps we should just accept your logical fallicies as proof. Is this standard practice among college professors? What would you consider "proof"? Truman or Eisenhower coming back from the dead and posting an admission on DZ. COM? The US had no hesitation in exposing humans to radiation from atmospheric bomb tests, quite deliberately. The AEC did it in Nevada and Utah, and in the Pacific Islands. What EXACTLY are you nit picking about at this instant? It's was simple question about our intentions, which you brought up. You can blather on and on about what was done all you want. It still doesn't prove the point you asserted. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #112 October 22, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Sure, but it's not responsible to decide world policy upon these folksy stories, that was my point. We DID use the citizenry of Hiroshima, somewhat Nagasaki and definitely the Marshall Islands, Bikinis, Kwajalein, etc as test subjsects. Do you have proof that our government intentionally sent the people of the Marshall Islands and Bikinis back home so we could study the longterm effects of radiation? I'm sure they were sent home for the good of their health. The US would never deliberately expose people to radiation. See attachment. Your snarky opinion doesn't qualify as proof. More often than not, 2 + 2 is equal to 4. We only need beyond reasonable doubt, not absolute proof, to sentence people to death in the USA. Since you seem reluctant to pony up, perhaps we should just accept your logical fallicies as proof. Is this standard practice among college professors? What would you consider "proof"? Truman or Eisenhower coming back from the dead and posting an admission on DZ. COM? Well? Quote The US had no hesitation in exposing humans to radiation from atmospheric bomb tests, quite deliberately. The AEC did it in Nevada and Utah, and in the Pacific Islands. What EXACTLY are you nit picking about at this instant? It's was simple question about our intentions, which you brought up. You can blather on and on about what was done all you want. It still doesn't prove the point you asserted. Where did I do that? Link, please.... 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
kallend 2,106 #113 October 22, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteIt's not MY fault if the quotes YOU provided don't prove out Lucky's claim that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were essentially untouched during the course of the war solely to provide targets for Fat Man and Little Boy. Strive for a little composure, Professor. Lucky claimed that? in which post did he claim that? . Waiting...... 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 NCclimber 0 #114 October 22, 2007 Quote Quote It's was simple question about our intentions, which you brought up. You can blather on and on about what was done all you want. It still doesn't prove the point you asserted. Where did I do that? Link, please. Oops My mistake. Lucky brought it up. I asked him about and you started chiming in from there. However, that doesn't change the fact that no one has shown that our government intentionally sent the people of the Marshall Islands and Bikinis back home so we could study the longterm effects of radiation. By proof, I'm talking about any evidence about our governments motivations in this little drama du jour. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,106 #115 October 22, 2007 QuoteQuoteIt's not MY fault if the quotes YOU provided don't prove out Lucky's claim that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were essentially untouched during the course of the war solely to provide targets for Fat Man and Little Boy. Quote "The three RESERVED targets [Koto, Hiroshima and Nigata] for the first unit of this project were announced", Gen Curtis LeMay, minutes of the Manhattan Project target Committee, May 8, 1945. I have provided evidence that: 1: there were reserved targets, untouched by conventional bombing. Hiroshima was one of them. 2. the targets were selected so as to provide the best evidence of the bomb's power, not for any military reason. There were no targets set aside and left undamaged until after the 10-11 May 1945 Second Meeting of the Target Committee. There wasn't much need before that. The first really destructive raid on Tokyo was on the night of February 23 (174 B-29s). The real start of LeMay's systematic campaign was on March 9, 1945, when he sent 334 B-29s to Tokyo. There were still lots of untouched cities at that time.... 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 kallend 2,106 #116 October 22, 2007 Quote Quote Quote It's was simple question about our intentions, which you brought up. You can blather on and on about what was done all you want. It still doesn't prove the point you asserted. Where did I do that? Link, please. Oops My mistake. YES, IT WAS. By proof, I'm talking about any evidence about our governments motivations in this little drama du jour. SUCH AS "I am not a crook", "I did not have sex with that woman"? Those kinds of admissions of guilt? Why do you think the US government deliberately exposed US soldiers and civilians in Nevada and Utah, and US sailors in the Pacific?... 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 NCclimber 0 #117 October 22, 2007 Quote Quote By proof, I'm talking about any evidence about our governments motivations in this little drama du jour. SUCH AS "I am not a crook", "I did not have sex with that woman"? Those kinds of admissions of guilt? I didn't ask about "admissions of guilt". Nice try, perfisser. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #118 October 22, 2007 QuoteWhy do you think the US government deliberately exposed US soldiers and civilians in Nevada and Utah, and US sailors in the Pacific? Please provide a source for your claim that the US government deliberately exposed US civilians in Nevada and Utah. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #119 October 22, 2007 Quote Quote Call it a "Good Ol' Boys Club" if you want, the fact remains that they are alive because the bomb was used. I'm sure they couldn't care less what you think of that. You remarked that Hiroshima was intentionally left untouched by conventional bombing. This is true. However, you assert the reason for this is so damage by a nuke could be measured. Care to share with us where you got this tidbit of info, or is it just speculation? Many cities of known military value were left untouched and for many reasons, including strategic and tactical. "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 Bzzzzzz... Wrong answer! Being picked as a target because it was untouched is one thing, being intentionally left untouched for the purpose of studying the effects of an atomic blast is something entirely different. To difficult to understand? Try this... I drove my car in the left-hand lane this morning because it was empty. Does that mean it was empty just so I could drive there? I wish! Care to try again? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,106 #120 October 22, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Call it a "Good Ol' Boys Club" if you want, the fact remains that they are alive because the bomb was used. I'm sure they couldn't care less what you think of that. You remarked that Hiroshima was intentionally left untouched by conventional bombing. This is true. However, you assert the reason for this is so damage by a nuke could be measured. Care to share with us where you got this tidbit of info, or is it just speculation? Many cities of known military value were left untouched and for many reasons, including strategic and tactical. "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 Bzzzzzz... Wrong answer! Being picked as a target because it was untouched is one thing, being intentionally left untouched for the purpose of studying the effects of an atomic blast is something entirely different. To difficult to understand? Try this... I drove my car in the left-hand lane this morning because it was empty. Does that mean it was empty just so I could drive there? I wish! Care to try again? Please pay attention. See the rest of the thread. Hiroshima was "reserved" by the targeting committee.... 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 kallend 2,106 #121 October 22, 2007 QuoteQuoteWhy do you think the US government deliberately exposed US soldiers and civilians in Nevada and Utah, and US sailors in the Pacific? Please provide a source for your claim that the US government deliberately exposed US civilians in Nevada and Utah. So you ADMIT that it deliberately exposed US soldiers and sailors. I guess we're getting somewhere. Now, have you heard about fall-out and prevailing winds? So had the US when it did atmospheric testing at the Nevada test site. The tests were quite deliberate, and the US knew quite well that civilians were downwind.... 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 NCclimber 0 #122 October 22, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhy do you think the US government deliberately exposed US soldiers and civilians in Nevada and Utah, and US sailors in the Pacific? Please provide a source for your claim that the US government deliberately exposed US civilians in Nevada and Utah. So you ADMIT that it deliberately exposed US soldiers and sailors. I guess we're getting somewhere. Now you're making up lies? That's rich. I'm not surprised. QuoteNow, have you heard about fall-out and prevailing winds? So had the US when it did atmospheric testing at the Nevada test site. The tests were quite deliberate, and the US knew quite well that civilians were downwind. The possibility that people conducting the tests thought the fallout would dissipate to non-toxic levels before reach citizens is not an option, eh? If what you assert is true wouldn't there have been tons of lawsuits for the US government intentionally (key word - intentionally) harming citizens. I know of government actions to compensate those harmed, but none where it was shown the harm was intentional. Give it up, perfessor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites willard 0 #123 October 22, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Call it a "Good Ol' Boys Club" if you want, the fact remains that they are alive because the bomb was used. I'm sure they couldn't care less what you think of that. You remarked that Hiroshima was intentionally left untouched by conventional bombing. This is true. However, you assert the reason for this is so damage by a nuke could be measured. Care to share with us where you got this tidbit of info, or is it just speculation? Many cities of known military value were left untouched and for many reasons, including strategic and tactical. "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 Bzzzzzz... Wrong answer! Being picked as a target because it was untouched is one thing, being intentionally left untouched for the purpose of studying the effects of an atomic blast is something entirely different. To difficult to understand? Try this... I drove my car in the left-hand lane this morning because it was empty. Does that mean it was empty just so I could drive there? I wish! Care to try again? Please pay attention. See the rest of the thread. Hiroshima was "reserved" by the targeting committee. "Reserved" in May '45. After 3 1/2 years of war it was still untouched and yet, because it was left untouched for the next 3 month, you conclude the reason was so it could be used as a test bed. Read your own postings and you will understand two things: 1) It was chosen because it was untouched, not untouched because it was chosen (except for the last 3 months) and, 2) The reasons listed for bombing an untouched city were so the maximum damage could be sustained and emonstrated to the Japanese. To have dropped the bomb on a city that was already a pile of smoldering ashes would have not had the same impression upon the Japanese leadership. Nowhere have you or Lucky shown anything that points to Hiroshima being left alone for the entire war just so the effects of an atomic bomb could be tested on people and structures. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ExAFO 0 #124 October 22, 2007 For fuck's sake...WW2 is over. The Allies won, the Axis lost. No fucking point in trying to change this fact. I'm glad they dropped the Atomic bombs. It saved Allied Lives. In war that is the only real priority. If you're any ethnicity other than Japanese or Bikinian, (IMHO the only real victims of The Manhattan project) You should thank the AAF for doing what they did and go about your fucking business. We could've nuked Tokyo, but we didn't because we didn't want a political nightmare. It is aisnine to debate the morality of war. It's an inherently ugly thing. Fight it in a humane way and you only kill more people because it lasts longer.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AWL71 0 #125 October 22, 2007 QuoteFor fuck's sake...WW2 is over. The Allies won, the Axis lost. No fucking point in trying to change this fact. I'm glad they dropped the Atomic bombs. It saved Allied Lives. In war that is the only real priority. If you're any ethnicity other than Japanese or Bikinian, (IMHO the only real victims of The Manhattan project) You should thank the AAF for doing what they did and go about your fucking business. We could've nuked Tokyo, but we didn't because we didn't want a political nightmare. It is aisnine to debate the morality of war. It's an inherently ugly thing. Fight it in a humane way and you only kill more people because it lasts longer. Good point. But don't forget the America haters need a reason to bitch. The USA isn't perfect but I can't think of another country I would want to live in. If you can, leave.The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next Page 5 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
NCclimber 0 #114 October 22, 2007 Quote Quote It's was simple question about our intentions, which you brought up. You can blather on and on about what was done all you want. It still doesn't prove the point you asserted. Where did I do that? Link, please. Oops My mistake. Lucky brought it up. I asked him about and you started chiming in from there. However, that doesn't change the fact that no one has shown that our government intentionally sent the people of the Marshall Islands and Bikinis back home so we could study the longterm effects of radiation. By proof, I'm talking about any evidence about our governments motivations in this little drama du jour. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #115 October 22, 2007 QuoteQuoteIt's not MY fault if the quotes YOU provided don't prove out Lucky's claim that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were essentially untouched during the course of the war solely to provide targets for Fat Man and Little Boy. Quote "The three RESERVED targets [Koto, Hiroshima and Nigata] for the first unit of this project were announced", Gen Curtis LeMay, minutes of the Manhattan Project target Committee, May 8, 1945. I have provided evidence that: 1: there were reserved targets, untouched by conventional bombing. Hiroshima was one of them. 2. the targets were selected so as to provide the best evidence of the bomb's power, not for any military reason. There were no targets set aside and left undamaged until after the 10-11 May 1945 Second Meeting of the Target Committee. There wasn't much need before that. The first really destructive raid on Tokyo was on the night of February 23 (174 B-29s). The real start of LeMay's systematic campaign was on March 9, 1945, when he sent 334 B-29s to Tokyo. There were still lots of untouched cities at that time.... 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
kallend 2,106 #116 October 22, 2007 Quote Quote Quote It's was simple question about our intentions, which you brought up. You can blather on and on about what was done all you want. It still doesn't prove the point you asserted. Where did I do that? Link, please. Oops My mistake. YES, IT WAS. By proof, I'm talking about any evidence about our governments motivations in this little drama du jour. SUCH AS "I am not a crook", "I did not have sex with that woman"? Those kinds of admissions of guilt? Why do you think the US government deliberately exposed US soldiers and civilians in Nevada and Utah, and US sailors in the Pacific?... 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
NCclimber 0 #117 October 22, 2007 Quote Quote By proof, I'm talking about any evidence about our governments motivations in this little drama du jour. SUCH AS "I am not a crook", "I did not have sex with that woman"? Those kinds of admissions of guilt? I didn't ask about "admissions of guilt". Nice try, perfisser. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #118 October 22, 2007 QuoteWhy do you think the US government deliberately exposed US soldiers and civilians in Nevada and Utah, and US sailors in the Pacific? Please provide a source for your claim that the US government deliberately exposed US civilians in Nevada and Utah. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #119 October 22, 2007 Quote Quote Call it a "Good Ol' Boys Club" if you want, the fact remains that they are alive because the bomb was used. I'm sure they couldn't care less what you think of that. You remarked that Hiroshima was intentionally left untouched by conventional bombing. This is true. However, you assert the reason for this is so damage by a nuke could be measured. Care to share with us where you got this tidbit of info, or is it just speculation? Many cities of known military value were left untouched and for many reasons, including strategic and tactical. "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 Bzzzzzz... Wrong answer! Being picked as a target because it was untouched is one thing, being intentionally left untouched for the purpose of studying the effects of an atomic blast is something entirely different. To difficult to understand? Try this... I drove my car in the left-hand lane this morning because it was empty. Does that mean it was empty just so I could drive there? I wish! Care to try again? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #120 October 22, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Call it a "Good Ol' Boys Club" if you want, the fact remains that they are alive because the bomb was used. I'm sure they couldn't care less what you think of that. You remarked that Hiroshima was intentionally left untouched by conventional bombing. This is true. However, you assert the reason for this is so damage by a nuke could be measured. Care to share with us where you got this tidbit of info, or is it just speculation? Many cities of known military value were left untouched and for many reasons, including strategic and tactical. "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 Bzzzzzz... Wrong answer! Being picked as a target because it was untouched is one thing, being intentionally left untouched for the purpose of studying the effects of an atomic blast is something entirely different. To difficult to understand? Try this... I drove my car in the left-hand lane this morning because it was empty. Does that mean it was empty just so I could drive there? I wish! Care to try again? Please pay attention. See the rest of the thread. Hiroshima was "reserved" by the targeting committee.... 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
kallend 2,106 #121 October 22, 2007 QuoteQuoteWhy do you think the US government deliberately exposed US soldiers and civilians in Nevada and Utah, and US sailors in the Pacific? Please provide a source for your claim that the US government deliberately exposed US civilians in Nevada and Utah. So you ADMIT that it deliberately exposed US soldiers and sailors. I guess we're getting somewhere. Now, have you heard about fall-out and prevailing winds? So had the US when it did atmospheric testing at the Nevada test site. The tests were quite deliberate, and the US knew quite well that civilians were downwind.... 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
NCclimber 0 #122 October 22, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteWhy do you think the US government deliberately exposed US soldiers and civilians in Nevada and Utah, and US sailors in the Pacific? Please provide a source for your claim that the US government deliberately exposed US civilians in Nevada and Utah. So you ADMIT that it deliberately exposed US soldiers and sailors. I guess we're getting somewhere. Now you're making up lies? That's rich. I'm not surprised. QuoteNow, have you heard about fall-out and prevailing winds? So had the US when it did atmospheric testing at the Nevada test site. The tests were quite deliberate, and the US knew quite well that civilians were downwind. The possibility that people conducting the tests thought the fallout would dissipate to non-toxic levels before reach citizens is not an option, eh? If what you assert is true wouldn't there have been tons of lawsuits for the US government intentionally (key word - intentionally) harming citizens. I know of government actions to compensate those harmed, but none where it was shown the harm was intentional. Give it up, perfessor. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #123 October 22, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Call it a "Good Ol' Boys Club" if you want, the fact remains that they are alive because the bomb was used. I'm sure they couldn't care less what you think of that. You remarked that Hiroshima was intentionally left untouched by conventional bombing. This is true. However, you assert the reason for this is so damage by a nuke could be measured. Care to share with us where you got this tidbit of info, or is it just speculation? Many cities of known military value were left untouched and for many reasons, including strategic and tactical. "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 Bzzzzzz... Wrong answer! Being picked as a target because it was untouched is one thing, being intentionally left untouched for the purpose of studying the effects of an atomic blast is something entirely different. To difficult to understand? Try this... I drove my car in the left-hand lane this morning because it was empty. Does that mean it was empty just so I could drive there? I wish! Care to try again? Please pay attention. See the rest of the thread. Hiroshima was "reserved" by the targeting committee. "Reserved" in May '45. After 3 1/2 years of war it was still untouched and yet, because it was left untouched for the next 3 month, you conclude the reason was so it could be used as a test bed. Read your own postings and you will understand two things: 1) It was chosen because it was untouched, not untouched because it was chosen (except for the last 3 months) and, 2) The reasons listed for bombing an untouched city were so the maximum damage could be sustained and emonstrated to the Japanese. To have dropped the bomb on a city that was already a pile of smoldering ashes would have not had the same impression upon the Japanese leadership. Nowhere have you or Lucky shown anything that points to Hiroshima being left alone for the entire war just so the effects of an atomic bomb could be tested on people and structures. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #124 October 22, 2007 For fuck's sake...WW2 is over. The Allies won, the Axis lost. No fucking point in trying to change this fact. I'm glad they dropped the Atomic bombs. It saved Allied Lives. In war that is the only real priority. If you're any ethnicity other than Japanese or Bikinian, (IMHO the only real victims of The Manhattan project) You should thank the AAF for doing what they did and go about your fucking business. We could've nuked Tokyo, but we didn't because we didn't want a political nightmare. It is aisnine to debate the morality of war. It's an inherently ugly thing. Fight it in a humane way and you only kill more people because it lasts longer.Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AWL71 0 #125 October 22, 2007 QuoteFor fuck's sake...WW2 is over. The Allies won, the Axis lost. No fucking point in trying to change this fact. I'm glad they dropped the Atomic bombs. It saved Allied Lives. In war that is the only real priority. If you're any ethnicity other than Japanese or Bikinian, (IMHO the only real victims of The Manhattan project) You should thank the AAF for doing what they did and go about your fucking business. We could've nuked Tokyo, but we didn't because we didn't want a political nightmare. It is aisnine to debate the morality of war. It's an inherently ugly thing. Fight it in a humane way and you only kill more people because it lasts longer. Good point. But don't forget the America haters need a reason to bitch. The USA isn't perfect but I can't think of another country I would want to live in. If you can, leave.The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
