Amazon 7
1969912 0
Quote
We did a moral booster with the Doolittle raid with B-25's in 1942.. it was not until June of 1944 that a FEW raids were launced against Japan from China. The logistics of supplying a bomb wing where everything had to be flown over the Himalaya's were just too ineffective.
It was not until Nov of 1944 that raids started from the bases of Guam and Saipan and Tinian after they had been taken from the Japanese holding them.
Hiroshima had been SELECTED months before..hence it was left untouched after Groves SELECTED it as one of the four cities.....
"SELECTED months before" when? The target list was reduced to four targets during a meeting held 10-11 May, 1945. After that meeting the head of the target committee had to request that the Air Force not bomb those four cities. Thus Hiroshima (and three other cities) was SELECTED and left untouched for about three months before the bomb was dropped.
Is that what you meant?
"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
Amazon 7
Follow along here.....
The fist raids...ineffectual had been in June thru NOV of 1944 from China.
The meeting to select the targets was held in MAY which if when I look at a calendar.... the B-29 raids started in earnest in NOV of 1944 from the Marianas bases...
Saipan was in June of 1944
Guam was July of 1944
Tinian was in July of 1944
It took time to get enough resources to start taking out the industial cities of Japan.
THe May Meeting was the second
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27a/046.html
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:
The fist raids...ineffectual had been in June thru NOV of 1944 from China.
The meeting to select the targets was held in MAY which if when I look at a calendar.... the B-29 raids started in earnest in NOV of 1944 from the Marianas bases...
Saipan was in June of 1944
Guam was July of 1944
Tinian was in July of 1944
It took time to get enough resources to start taking out the industial cities of Japan.
THe May Meeting was the second
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27a/046.html
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:
1969912 0
QuotePerhaps a history class next semester might help you understand that we did not have the capability to bomb the Japanese homeland until very late in the war.
We did a moral booster with the Doolittle raid with B-25's in 1942.. it was not until June of 1944 that a FEW raids were launced against Japan from China. The logistics of supplying a bomb wing where everything had to be flown over the Himalaya's were just too ineffective.
It was not until Nov of 1944 that raids started from the bases of Guam and Saipan and Tinian after they had been taken from the Japanese holding them.
Hiroshima had been SELECTED months before..hence it was left untouched after Groves SELECTED it as one of the four cities on which to demonstrate to the Japanese the power of the new weapons.
Quote"SELECTED months before" when? The target list was reduced to four targets during a meeting held 10-11 May, 1945. After that meeting the head of the target committee had to request that the Air Force not bomb those four cities. Thus Hiroshima (and three other cities) was SELECTED and left untouched for about three months before the bomb was dropped.
Is that what you meant?
QuoteFollow along here.....
The fist raids...ineffectual had been in June thru NOV of 1944 from China.
The meeting to select the targets was held in MAY which if when I look at a calendar.... the B-29 raids started in earnest in NOV of 1944 from the Marianas bases...
Saipan was in June of 1944
Guam was July of 1944
Tinian was in July of 1944
The Target Committee had its second meeting 10-11 May, 1945.
http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html#E
EDITED to show previous posts from Amazon which I had left out. But since Amazon insists on making childish comments like "Follow along here...." and "....which if when I look at a calendar...." in response to polite replies by me, they might be best left in.
.
"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
willard 0
QuoteQuoteReserved" 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.
Perhaps a history class next semester might help you understand that we did not have the capability to bomb the Japanese homeland until very late in the war.
We did a moral booster with the Doolittle raid with B-25's in 1942.. it was not until June of 1944 that a FEW raids were launced against Japan from China. The logistics of supplying a bomb wing where everything had to be flown over the Himalaya's were just too ineffective.
It was not until Nov of 1944 that raids started from the bases of Guam and Saipan and Tinian after they had been taken from the Japanese holding them.
Hiroshima had been SELECTED months before..hence it was left untouched after Groves SELECTED it as one of the four cities on which to demonstrate to the Japanese the power of the new weapons.
I am well aware of the timeline of the bomber raids over Japan.
Maybe you...and others...should indulge in a history lesson yourselves and learn the real reason why some of these cities were not bombed until the end of the war. No, I'm not going to give you that information. You can do a bit of digging and find out for yourself. I will steer you clear of the wrong direction, however, and tell you it had nothing to do with nukes or the ability to reach them with bombers.
Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually saved the lives of many more Japanese, whom we would have had to kill if an Invasion took place.
1969912 0
QuoteI am well aware of the timeline of the bomber raids over Japan.
Maybe you...and others...should indulge in a history lesson yourselves and learn the real reason why some of these cities were not bombed until the end of the war. No, I'm not going to give you that information. You can do a bit of digging and find out for yourself. I will steer you clear of the wrong direction, however, and tell you it had nothing to do with nukes or the ability to reach them with bombers
AFAIK we couldn't conduct major bombing raids until about 1944 because we didn't have the necessary aircraft. It was not (and I'm getting sick of saying this over and over and over again) until after the 10-11 May, 1945 (3 months before dropping the bomb) Target Commission Meeting that a request was sent to the Air Force asking that the four cities selected during the meeting not be bombed.
As you know, this whole stupid series of posts stemmed from people asserting/implying that A-Bomb targets were preselected at or near the beginning of the war, which would indicate that the US was just itching to incinerate a few hundred thousand non-whites just to see if their new macho toy would work. You can bet that if they could, they would assert/imply that the US intentionlly went to war with Japan for that purpose.
double header time
"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
Amazon 7
QuoteAs you know, this whole stupid series of posts stemmed from people asserting/implying that A-Bomb targets were preselected at or near the beginning of the war, which would indicate that the US was just itching to incinerate a few hundred thousand non-whites just to see if their new macho toy would work. You can bet that if they could, they would assert/imply that the US intentionlly went to war with Japan for that purpose
Who the hell said that?????
Or are you doing some kind of wierd transferrence thing there
1969912 0
Said what? The text you quoted was said by me, if that's what you mean.
"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
"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
Lucky... 0
>>>>>Call it a "Good Ol' Boys Club" if you want, the fact remains that they are alive because the bomb was used.
That is blatant speculation. Furthermore, it ignores the issue of whether we used Hiroshima, Nagasaki and many islands in the South Pacific as platforms for testing the potential of these weapons.
>>>>>>I'm sure they couldn't care less what you think of that.
What any of us think is irrelevant as to whether we used Hiroshima, Nagasaki and many islands in the South Pacific as platforms for testing the potential of these weapons.
>>>>>>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?
What’s worse with having to spend sometimes hours researching data is when I do and I post it, then someone lags into the middle of a thread and asks questions that have been answered with said researched info that was recently posted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
The Target Committee at Los Alamos on May 10–11, 1945, recommended Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and the arsenal at Kokura as possible targets. The committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective because of the chance of missing a small target not surrounded by a larger urban area. The psychological effects on Japan were of great importance to the committee members. They also agreed that the initial use of the weapon should be sufficiently spectacular for its importance to be internationally recognized.
Also, had you read this thread you would have known I heard this on Discovery Channel in I believe 95 or 2000 when they had an anniversary weekend special.
>>>>>>>>>Many cities of known military value were left untouched and for many reasons, including strategic and tactical.
Yes, read directly above and understand that they were left untouched so we could potentially bomb them if we needed to. That was the strategy and the tactic.
That is blatant speculation. Furthermore, it ignores the issue of whether we used Hiroshima, Nagasaki and many islands in the South Pacific as platforms for testing the potential of these weapons.
>>>>>>I'm sure they couldn't care less what you think of that.
What any of us think is irrelevant as to whether we used Hiroshima, Nagasaki and many islands in the South Pacific as platforms for testing the potential of these weapons.
>>>>>>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?
What’s worse with having to spend sometimes hours researching data is when I do and I post it, then someone lags into the middle of a thread and asks questions that have been answered with said researched info that was recently posted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
The Target Committee at Los Alamos on May 10–11, 1945, recommended Kyoto, Hiroshima, Yokohama, and the arsenal at Kokura as possible targets. The committee rejected the use of the weapon against a strictly military objective because of the chance of missing a small target not surrounded by a larger urban area. The psychological effects on Japan were of great importance to the committee members. They also agreed that the initial use of the weapon should be sufficiently spectacular for its importance to be internationally recognized.
Also, had you read this thread you would have known I heard this on Discovery Channel in I believe 95 or 2000 when they had an anniversary weekend special.
>>>>>>>>>Many cities of known military value were left untouched and for many reasons, including strategic and tactical.
Yes, read directly above and understand that they were left untouched so we could potentially bomb them if we needed to. That was the strategy and the tactic.
Lucky... 0
>>>>>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?
*sigh* This was all posted by me very recently, why do I have to keep reposting this stuff?
http://www.rmiembassyus.org/Nuclear%20Issues.htm
1994
July - U.S. Representatives George Miller and Ron de Lugo write to Dr. Ruth Faden, chairperson of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments: "...There is no doubt that the AEC intentionally returned (Marshallese) to islands which it considered to be "by far the most contaminated places in the world,' but which it told the people were safe. Nor is there any doubt that the AEC, through the Brookhaven National Laboratory, then planned and conducted test after test on these people to study their bodies' reaction to life in that contaminated environment. "
Have a nice day.
*sigh* This was all posted by me very recently, why do I have to keep reposting this stuff?
http://www.rmiembassyus.org/Nuclear%20Issues.htm
1994
July - U.S. Representatives George Miller and Ron de Lugo write to Dr. Ruth Faden, chairperson of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments: "...There is no doubt that the AEC intentionally returned (Marshallese) to islands which it considered to be "by far the most contaminated places in the world,' but which it told the people were safe. Nor is there any doubt that the AEC, through the Brookhaven National Laboratory, then planned and conducted test after test on these people to study their bodies' reaction to life in that contaminated environment. "
Have a nice day.
Amazon 7
Uh we did the same thing to THOUSANDS of "Atomic Vets".
Two of my uncles were included in that group. Look up Operation Crossroads.
Two of my uncles were included in that group. Look up Operation Crossroads.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteCall 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.
Unless we pull FDR and Truman out of their graves to testify to you, Mikey, you won't believe what is reasonably established and substantiated by the very acts of the US at that time. If not, why did we bomb a city that we hadn't bombed all during the war and that had very little military importance?
Lucky... 0
>>>>>>>Lucky, I expected more from you UNTIL I read your previous posts in this and other threads. You seem unwilling to discuss this in a civil, logical or rational manner (a few examples are quoted below), and I don't have any interest in engaging in that kind of discussion. Call it concession, acquiesence, or whatever you'd like, but I'm done.
See, what I do is to throw in a little sarcasm so guys like you have an exit plan - I’m a little more organized than the guy you voted in - all you have to do is cry foul that your feelings are hurt, ignore all the facts and citations I post, then refuse to talk to that man anymore. Thx for playing - buh-bye.
Oh, BTW, acquiescence noted.
Lucky... 0
Hey, great points. As with most things, they are numerous and dynamic. One reaosn I just read was that 2 billion $$ was spent on the Mathattan Project and if Truman didn't use the bombs he could assume himself of an ousting next election. There are so many points and the dropping of the bombs were more political than military.
We can transpose the same logic with Bush's war hobby in the M.E. Is it oil? Is it religion? s i general ideology? Is it due to him wanting to be a war president as oppsed to a president that served during peaceful times? Probably all of those and many, mnay more - just like WWII.
We can transpose the same logic with Bush's war hobby in the M.E. Is it oil? Is it religion? s i general ideology? Is it due to him wanting to be a war president as oppsed to a president that served during peaceful times? Probably all of those and many, mnay more - just like WWII.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteWe only need beyond reasonable doubt, not absolute proof, to sentence people to death in the USA.
Whoops
Yea, whoops, we execute innocent Americans as well as perform experiments on islanders.
Lucky... 0
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.
Read my citations I posted at least twice now and refute something, anything about them.
1969912 0
QuoteUh we did the same thing to THOUSANDS of "Atomic Vets".
Two of my uncles were included in that group. Look up Operation Crossroads.
What did we do to the "Atomic Vets"? I couldn't figure out what you are refering to.
thanks
"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
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteHere'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.
I'm speaking in ideology only, but what makes the US so responsible? We've misued our authority more than we've used it correctly, so what makes us so great with nuclea weapons?
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteIt'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.
OopsMy 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.
My mistake. Lucky brought it up. I asked him about and you started chiming in from there.
I posted it twice now, US Congressmen noted that we did so purposely and then studied them.
Lucky... 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteCall 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.
He does that, he jumps in midstream, reads a post and replies with issues that have been established.
Perhaps a history class next semester might help you understand that we did not have the capability to bomb the Japanese homeland until very late in the war.
We did a moral booster with the Doolittle raid with B-25's in 1942.. it was not until June of 1944 that a FEW raids were launced against Japan from China. The logistics of supplying a bomb wing where everything had to be flown over the Himalaya's were just too ineffective.
It was not until Nov of 1944 that raids started from the bases of Guam and Saipan and Tinian after they had been taken from the Japanese holding them.
Hiroshima had been SELECTED months before..hence it was left untouched after Groves SELECTED it as one of the four cities on which to demonstrate to the Japanese the power of the new weapons.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites