Re: 6th August 1945 when Japan suffered first Atomic explosion
knews4...@yahoo.com
> fleesow wrote:
> > 6th August 1945 when Japan suffered first Atomic explosion
>
> > In the month of August in 1945 atomic explosions devastated Hiroshima
> > and Nagasaki, killing over 1,50,000 people.
> > The first atomic explosion was triggered on 6th August and second on
> > 9th August 1945.
> > The followings are important aspects of formation and explosion of
> > Atomic Bomb.
>
> > (i) On 12 September 1932, when Leo Szilard (just seven months AFTER
> > discovery of Neutron, and six years BEFORE discovery of fission),
> > suggested the possibility of 'Chain Reaction ', in ENGLAND. But this
> > proposal was rejected by Ernest Rutherford immediately.
>
> > (ii) On 2 Septemebr 1939 , Hahn and Strassmann, the bombardment of
> > uranium with neutrons had split the uranium atom almost in half , and
> > huge amount of energy was liberated. Thus nuclear fission was
> > discovered, it was perceived by Slizard.
>
> > (iii) 2 August 1939, Einstein signed letter (prepared by Leo Szilard)
> > to American President Franklin Roosevelt about the possibility
> > formation of Atom Bomb. This letter was delivered to President
> > Roosevelt on 1 Sep 1939 and on 11th October 6000USD were sanctioned
> > to by graphite and uranium as proposed by Szilard.
>
> > (vi) This project was known as Manhattan project. It has mainly 13
> > scientists and Einstein was associated with formation of Atom Bomb
> > at all. The total expenditure on the project in six year was about 2
> > billion.
>
> > (vii) On 2 Dec. 1945 at 3.30 pm, American-Italian Enricho Fermi
> > started first sustained Chain Reaction in Chicago, USA. It was
> > perceived by Slizard long time back.
>
> > (vi) On July 16, 1945, this atomic explosion was tested by the US
> > administration in New Mexico. Many scientists appealed that this
> > weapon must not be used.
>
> > (vii) On 6th August 1945 American Bomber B52 dropped bomb at 11:02
> > local time and it exploded 500m in air in Hiroshima. This explosion
> > generated energy equivalent to 15-kiloton TNT explosion. The second
> > explosion took place on 9th August at Nagasaki.
>
> > These explosions killed more than 1, 50,000 people. It is so nice that
> > in past 62 there no such devastating incidence in world and hope it
> > will never happen AGAIN.
>
> > More information you may like to visit
>
> >www.ajayonline.us
>
> > Ajay Sharma
>
> STupid person! What in the hell is the so-called number 1,50,000? Ain't
> no such number. If you are trying to claim that 1.5 million people died
> in Hiroshima and Nagasaki then you are clearly out of your mind. No
> where near that number of people died. It was enough to avert an
> invasion of Japan that would have killed a very large number of Japanese
> as well as Americans. As one who would almost certainly have been
> involved I was happy to see such a terrible occurrence avoid yet a worse
> one in terms of total deaths. Deaths due to the A-bombs were
> approximately 150,000 people.
> FK
King Dummy you are truly the KING OF DUMMIES.
http://www.rense.com/general72/jee.htm
The Japanese were ready to surrender but WE HAD SPENT SO MUCH MONEY ON
THE BOMB THAT THEY HAD TO USE IT AND PROVE TO THE WORLD WE ARE THE
BEST KILLERS ON THE PLANET.
Here is how the media works to provide your "news."
http://throwawayyourtelescreen.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/john-pilger-the-battle-for-history/
Fred Kasner
were under the impression that we would only accept unconditional
surrender which would include the execution of their Emperor. At that
time they were still of the opinion that he was a god. They had also
brought back from their overseas forces in Asian mainland a total of 13
divisions that were placed exactly in the part of their islands where
logic dictated we would invade. Considering that such a force might
fight to the death the losses would have enough to dwarf the losses due
to the two bombs. The US already knew that the bombs would work. It was
just a question of the Japanese surrendering. They debated it among
themselves quite strongly before finally deciding to choose surrender. I
am sure glad they did. I did not look forward to being part of that
invasion. Really amazing how the facts be damned is part of your
evaluation of almost any system.
FK
knews4...@yahoo.com
>
> You are hopelessly incapable of any such understanding. The Japanese
> were under the impression that we would only accept unconditional
> surrender which would include the execution of their Emperor. At that
> time they were still of the opinion that he was a god. They had also
> brought back from their overseas forces in Asian mainland a total of 13
> divisions that were placed exactly in the part of their islands where
> logic dictated we would invade. Considering that such a force might
> fight to the death the losses would have enough to dwarf the losses due
> to the two bombs. The US already knew that the bombs would work. It was
> just a question of the Japanese surrendering. They debated it among
> themselves quite strongly before finally deciding to choose surrender. I
> am sure glad they did. I did not look forward to being part of that
> invasion. Really amazing how the facts be damned is part of your
> evaluation of almost any system.
> FK
Sure Froody.
The Japanese had no oil with which to fight a sustained war.
They were dead in the water and had nothing left but to try to "save
face" so we bobed the sht out of them.
Great "diplomacy."
Tim Ward
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1186254722....@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Well, personally, I would have grave doubts about any historical source that
said the first atomic bomb was dropped by a B-52.
Tim Ward
Bill Ward
He's quite reliable in his own way. Sort of like a compass that always
points South.
Gunner Asch
>> > (vii) On 6th August 1945 American Bomber B52 dropped bomb at 11:02
>> > local time and it exploded 500m in air in Hiroshima.
Fascinating to find the Enola Gay was a B52. Of which the prototype
first left the runway on April 15, 1952
Gunner
Gunner Asch
It worked and at least 3 million people were spared death in Total War
on the Japanese islands.
Gunner
Stuart Grey
>
> It worked and at least 3 million people were spared death in Total War
> on the Japanese islands.
>
> Gunner
Yes, it did work. It actually SAVED a lot of lives.
The Japanese were teaching their school children to attack Americans with
sharpened bamboo sticks.
Then it became obvious that we could wipe them out as a race from the air
with impunity. Their choice was extinction, or surrender and live well.
A very horrible battle was avoided.
We should have used this tactic on Iraq, when Falluja first started to
harbor terrorist. It would have saved many lives on both sides had we just
leveled Falluja to dust, with impunity, from the air. NEVER give them a
chance to fight back. It encourages them. Hell, the Koran even INSTRUCTS
them to behave when the Infidel has the upper hand.
Stuart Grey
What I don't understand is why leftist are so supportive of Imperial Japan.
Like Germany, Japan was part of the anti-comintern pact against communism.
Unlike Germany, Japan had no program of anti-Semitism nor did Japan make a
connection between Jews and communism. Many Jews fled Germany TO Japan.
Other than that, the Japanese were quite brutal against the communist.
Most of their battles in China, for example, were against the communist
Chinese, not the Chinese Nationalist.
So, why do leftist, who should have as much as a beef against the Japanese
but spit nothing but hate at the Germans, supporting the Japanese in
propaganda AGAINST the United States? Something is not right about that.
Consider that after Germany fell, there were many socialist scientist at
Los Alamos who no long saw a need to develop the bomb, as they really had
no beef with Japan.
One wonders if it was due to the fact that Japan and the Soviet Union were
not at war, and the communist party in the US was Stalin's, not Mao's,
puppet.
I hope that the significant difference to the leftist here in the US was
the Jewish thing. That has... implications.
Gunner Asch
Indeed it does. It also means that the Leftist in the US is a big fan
of totalitarians.
Gunner
Hiroshima Facts
>
> The Japanese were ready to surrender but WE HAD SPENT SO MUCH MONEY ON
> THE BOMB THAT THEY HAD TO USE IT AND PROVE TO THE WORLD WE ARE THE
> BEST KILLERS ON THE PLANET.
The way for them to avoid being nuked was by actually surrendering
(which they only did after Nagasaki).
If they were truly "ready to surrender" they shouldn't have dawdled.
Hiroshima Facts
Japan had 900,000 troops (and thousands of Kamikazes) waiting to fight
to the death in southern Kyushu.
> Great "diplomacy."
Diplomacy had nothing to do with it. This was war. The idea is to
smash your opponent until they surrender.
Stuart Grey
Ops. I meant that it was -not- the Jewish thing. And opps, I overlooked
the implication that the leftist were big fans of totalitarians; I guess
because I already knew that. FDR was Stalin's little monkey.
Li RM
Here, here to that.
Sniper in the minaret?
Level the city block.
Iran providing weapons to the bad guys in Iraq?
Level Tehran.
Al-queda attacking the US and killing our civilians in the name of
Islam?
Level a few Islamic countries and crisp a few million Muslims.
People behave when they get the shit kicked out of them.
Usually.
Those who don't get the shit kicked out of them again.
Ask Germany for clarification on this effective military strategy.
Stuart Grey
Ask a southerner about Sherman's march to the sea, where he destroyed
everything in his wake.
It is how wars are really won. Yes, it is brutal.
Sadly, we have a president today who cares more about the enemy than he
does his own troops or his own country, and he's fighting a pussy foot war
where the rules are engagement are such that you can only shoot back when
your buddy is shot dead by them.
The scary part is, this pussy of a president ran against a so called man
who wanted a "kinder, gentler" war.
Bob Brock
"Li RM" <Li...@unicomp.com> wrote in message
news:8qnbb3p0716m8j0cq...@4ax.com...
When are you guys going to figure out that terrorists don't have a
"country." To a large extent, they don't have a "home base." For the most
part, they don't have a "leader." Get it through your heads that there is
no location that contains all of the terrorists and their supporters.
Figure out that a terrorist cell could be living in your neighborhood right
now waiting on the time to do what they have planned to do.
You cannot fight terrorism using conventional warfare. It doesn't work.
Ask Israel. The only thing that killing all of the innocents around a
terrorists does is provide the terrorist with a lot of grieving relatives to
recruit from. Do you seriously think that the guy willing to put on a vest
loaded with explosives and pull the detonator is worried about you bombing
the city block that he is on? If you dropped a nuke and took out the whole
city, you have multiplied his effectiveness a thousandfold. Hell, you will
have done his job for him and much more effectively.
Now explain to me why the terrorist willing to blow himself up to kill
thirty people gives a shit if you drop a nuke on him if you can.
Bob Brock
"Stuart Grey" <stuar...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:-L-dnTbdeO4aeijb...@comcast.com...
Once again, you confuse conventional war with terrorism. You need to
understand that with terrorist, there is no "South" because they are not
constrained by nationality or country.
BTW, yes my great grandparents homestead was burned to the ground, along
with the crops, by Sherman's troops. However, Sherman issued strict orders
against harming civilians because he knew what that would have brought on.
Gunner Asch
For leftists...the ends Always justifiy the means....
"The death of one man is a tragedy. The death of millions is a
statistic". Joseph Stalin
Gunner
knews4...@yahoo.com
Who dawdled?
There was no reason to drop a nuke on THEM.
We could JUST AS EASILY DROPPED IT ON A VACANT ATOL AND SAID SURRENDER
"OR ELSE."
Fred Kasner
You, of course, are privy to what happened in governmental circles in
regard to the decision to use the bomb. I put it to you that the sole
decider in this matter was President Harry S. Truman. That is how such
things work in the USA. However I know how your mind works. If somebody
suggests a conspiracy you embrace with fervor. So you assume that a
cabal to prove the killing power of the bomb was responsible for the
decision to drop both bombs.
Japan was NOT ready to surrender. They have installed 13 divisions of
seasoned troops (brought back from the Asian mainland) in readiness to
repel an invansion. Their location was spot-on as to the location of the
planned invasion. It would have been a blood bath similar to such as the
reduction of Iwo Jima. The kamikaze attacks had taken a large toll of
naval forces. Albeit the Japanese navy was largely non-existent at that
point it still had plenty of suicide pilots available for attacks on the
US fleet. As ugly as the bombing was it stopped any further killing. The
record is clear; the Japanese were not finished fighting. They still had
beliefs that as the Kamikaze wind destroyed the Chinese fleet of Kubal
Khan so would there deity destroy the Americans. The civilans of Iwo
Jima killed their own families rather than let them be "ravished" by the
Americans. You just don't understand the Japanese. Perhaps you should
read the books of Gordon W. Prange about war in the Pacific. He
contradicts your ideas point by point (really you only have one point.)
FK
Fred Kasner
Dumbo, they didn't need any oil. They already were just about out of any
fleet they could put to sea. The issue was whether they had any notion
of our being less than ruthless. We had already reduced half of Tokyo to
ashes. The only thing that kept us from finishing the job was the
presence of the Imperial Palace in the part we did not burn down. There
is some indication to suggest that that message got through to them.
They already knew that we had almost destroyed many German cities and
they saw that we had the forces to meet even their resistance. Those who
were sure they would be executed (Tojo, et al) were not the ultimate
deciders in this issue. In the end the Emperor was consulted. He had
been passive in the coup d'etat that had seized the government before
the war. He was probably aware that if the military government wanted to
they could assassinate him. But he chose surrender as long as he had no
direct hand in the actual surrender. The only smart thing that McArthur
ever did was to let them keep the guy on the throne but make him only a
figure head. It is easy for dummies such as you to postulate things that
you know absolutely nothin about. Rather like you postulations in the
field of science.
FK
Fred Kasner
Noe that the BBC, a notoriously anti-Israel organization as well as with
many anti-semites on staff, are largely left wing U people. Rather
remarkable that after all the atrocities that the left visited on their
own people in the east of Europe that some still see them as some kind
of wonderful light to the people.
FK
Fred Kasner
Large numbers (relatively speaking) of Jews made it across Asia to China
and later came to the USA. The Japanese left them more or less alone.
They did constitute a "white" enemy of the Japanese but the fact that
the Germans had no influence in killing them seems to tell us something
about the Japanese. I went to HS with a Jewish kid who lived under the
Japanese in Korea and had no real problems. I knew several people in
grad school who had escaped from Russia via China and were not singled
out for oppression by the Japanese in places such as Shanghai.
FK
Fred Kasner
Dummy, you clearly have no ideas about science or history. The USA had
just three bombs. The first was the Los Alamos test. The second was the
Hiroshima (very effective), and the third was the less effective
Nagasaki. It would have taken many months to produce enough fissile
material for a few more. This business about the "demonstration" bomb
would only have meant something to the Japanese if they had been invited
to set up instruments and to take many films and to view the damage
first hand. Why do you think the USA after considering such and the need
to stop the bleeding of our fleet from the Kamakazi attacks. Besides
have you any notion about what logistically has to be involved in trying
to land a few hundred thousand troops (followed by another few hundred
thousand troops) to an objeective hundreds of miles away? It took almost
a supreme effort to just get across the English Channel for what was
initially a lesser force than would be needed to get to Kyushu. And the
supply difficulty was immense not just about 30 miles of open water.
Your naivete is exceeded only by your stupidity.
FK
Richard Macdonald
news:1186340219....@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Keep dreaming. It took two A-Bombs on top of the previous
fire bombings of cities AND the Soviet invasion of Manchuria
to get a 3-3 split in the Japanese war cabinet to bring the decision
to the Emperor, because the war cabinet could still not get a
majority in favor of surrender. And even after the decision there
was an attempted coup by junior officers in attempt to prevent
the broadcasting of the Imperial Rescript announcing the Emperor's
decision to surrender. Try reading "Japan's Longest Day" by a group
of Japanese historians.
Paul Thomas
"Richard Macdonald" told chewynews
> Try reading "Japan's Longest Day"
.
If it doesn't have centerfolds......or lots of colorful pictures......and
short words like "POW!!" and "BAM!!", he'll get bogged down in the prologue,
if not the table of contents.
--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia
Stuart Grey
We dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, and the Japanese didn't believe it, they
thought it was a fluke.
Had we blown up some worthless atoll like knews4u suggested, they
certainly wouldn't have believed that, either; thinking that we had placed
a huge ammo dump there and blew that up. If they didn't believe Hiroshima,
they would never have bought the atoll story.
Note we had already said "surrender or else"; surrender Unconditionally.
Hiroshima Facts
> On Aug 5, 2:22 am, Hiroshima Facts <hiroshima_fa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 4, 3:12 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > The Japanese were ready to surrender but WE HAD SPENT SO MUCH MONEY ON
> > > THE BOMB THAT THEY HAD TO USE IT AND PROVE TO THE WORLD WE ARE THE
> > > BEST KILLERS ON THE PLANET.
>
> > The way for them to avoid being nuked was by actually surrendering
> > (which they only did after Nagasaki).
>
> > If they were truly "ready to surrender" they shouldn't have dawdled.
>
> Who dawdled?
Japan did, if they were truly ready to surrender.
They didn't offer to surrender until the day after Nagasaki.
If they were really ready to surrender before this, it suggests poor
timing on their part.
> There was no reason to drop a nuke on THEM.
Yes there was. The reason is that they hadn't offered to surrender
yet.
> We could JUST AS EASILY DROPPED IT ON A VACANT ATOL AND SAID SURRENDER
> "OR ELSE."
Why would we do that? The idea was to force them to surrender as
quickly as possible. Giving them a nuclear fireworks show is not
nearly as likely to achieve this result as the sudden loss of a city
to an A-bomb.
RadicalModerate
> Dummy, you clearly have no ideas about science or history. The USA had
> just three bombs. The first was the Los Alamos test. The second was the
> Hiroshima (very effective), and the third was the less effective
> Nagasaki. It would have taken many months to produce enough fissile
> material for a few more.
There was a third plutonium bomb core available after Nagasaki; the day it
was to be shipped to Tinian Island, it was put on hold.
After that though from what I have read, it would have taken another 3
months to breed, purify and fabricate enough plutonium for more Bombs.
Jesse
> Jima killed their own families rather than let them be "ravished" by the
> Americans. You just don't understand the Japanese.
The Japs there were starving and nearly out of water and everything
else. They still fought on with near 100% losses.
12,000 American casulties to an insane enemy.
Just a small prelude to a mainland invasion.
I know our marines loved the bomb.
Dan
Would you get your definitions in order. One minute you claim that
"Communists" are leftists, next minute you talk of liberals as leftists.
So, does the word mean anything, or not?
Dan
Dan
You Do realize he thinks YOU are a leftist...
With Stuey, there are no bounds, and no reason. Of course, not having a
handle on the word "leftist," which he bandies about willy-nilly without
a thought, against all his perceived enemies.
Dan
Dan
Hiroshima Facts
> think that _any_ government is perfect enough to react
> immediately?
>
> Need I mention how slow the response has been to the issue of
> global warming?
Well, whether or not they could have reacted in three days, that is
all the time they had to react in.
This was perhaps the biggest war in human history, and "attacking
someone, then sitting back to see if they were ready to surrender,
then attacking them a little more, then waiting to see if they are
ready to surrender" wasn't really in the cards.
We were going to pound Japan as hard as we could as fast as we could
until they surrendered.
However, I think the message that I was responding to when I made the
dawdling comment, was arguing that Japan was ready to surrender even
before Hiroshima. If they were actually ready to surrender even
before Hiroshima, then they were dawdling for longer than three days.
Don Lancaster
Interestingly, the initial effects of Hiroshima were pretty much the
same as a routine conventional bombing mission.
It just took a lot fewer planes is all.
Same for Nagasaki.
--
Many thanks,
Don Lancaster voice phone: (928)428-4073
Synergetics 3860 West First Street Box 809 Thatcher, AZ 85552
rss: http://www.tinaja.com/whtnu.xml email: d...@tinaja.com
Please visit my GURU's LAIR web site at http://www.tinaja.com
Fred Kasner
I was Army and I know I loved the bomb because we had finished our
training and there certainly was no point in having filled the open
positions in my signal corps batallion if it were not ready to reenter
combat as it had in North Africa, Sicily, and Italy. Boy, am I glad they
dropped those bombs. I suspect in Japan, in retrospect, they are glad
they were nuked rather than fight to the death with 13 divisions in
place and more on the way and civilians prepared to use bamboo poles as
weapons. What a blood bath that would have been. We would have had to
shoot every civilian we ran across, even children and women. You just
don't understand the fanaticism that gripped the Japanese.
FK
Fred Kasner
Note that about half to two thirds of Tokyo had been reduced to ashes.
The only reason the fire bombing did not continue was that the Imperial
Palace was still untouched. Had they continued and leveled all of Tokyo
who would have had the authority to actually tell the whole of the
population that they were to surrender?
There will always be people like JW who believe that they have the only
lock on ethics and morality and honesty. And their government is the
worst enemy of all the people. Sometimes they are extreme left and other
times extreme right. However the one thing that characterizes them is
lack of doubt about anything.
FK
Fred Kasner
have taken a large raid repeated many times to have achieved as much
devastation. In the case of Nagasaki the peculiarities of the
geophysical conditions of the city led the blast pattern to produce a
much less universal destruction. The center of Berlin was not so
completely destroyed as the center of Hiroshima.
FK
Jeff McCann
> lock on ethics and morality and honesty. And their government is the worst
> enemy of all the people. Sometimes they are extreme left and other times
> extreme right. However the one thing that characterizes them is lack of
> doubt about anything.
> FK
Well said.
Jeff
(not referring to "JW," whoever that is)
knews4...@yahoo.com
> Don Lancaster wrote:
> > Fred Kasner wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
It probably looked more like Dresden after two waves of fire
bombing...
"Three months" to make more material, spare bombs
Froody......er...sorry sire.....King Dummy
"War......the first casualty is truth".....
See ya at Wilmette beach.......this Sunday the 12th...Family picnic in
Glenview....
knews4...@yahoo.com
> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 02:22:19 -0700, Hiroshima Facts
> <hiroshima_fa...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> <1186305739.948224.114...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> :
>
> |>>
> |>> The Japanese were ready to surrender but WE HAD SPENT SO MUCH MONEY ON
> |>> THE BOMB THAT THEY HAD TO USE IT AND PROVE TO THE WORLD WE ARE THE
> |>> BEST KILLERS ON THE PLANET.
> |>
> |>The way for them to avoid being nuked was by actually surrendering
> |>(which they only did after Nagasaki).
> |>
> |>If they were truly "ready to surrender" they shouldn't have dawdled.
>
> think that _any_ government is perfect enough to react
> immediately?
>
> Need I mention how slow the response has been to the issue of
> global warming?
>
Right, it isn't like they had the internet or anything near much of a
telephone network and radio communications....Christ it was 67 years
ago.
knews4...@yahoo.com
And we became such "great enimies" of theirs because we did what???
They bombed Pearl because???
Hiroshima Facts
Had nothing to do with us. They were evil. They needed to be nuked
until they changed their ways. They were nuked until they changed
their ways.
knews4...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Get over it.
We used the bomb to show the WORLD our supremacy and willingness to
kill innocent civilians.
Yes, the Japanese were fearless suicidal fighters.
You think they could have ruled enough of the world to possibly win a
"World War" against the allies???
Now we will likely have to fightthe Chinese anyway over the same thing
we fought Japan over....OIL.
We still could have showed them the destrucyive power of the bomb and
showed mercy instead of bloodlust....
No one will ever know how that would have worked out because it was
kill, kill, kill, kill....
Maybe that was and still is the way of the world.....great place....
Hiroshima Facts
Er, I'm not the one who is upset over the bombs.
> We used the bomb to show the WORLD our supremacy and willingness to
> kill innocent civilians.
We used the bombs to try to make Japan surrender.
> Yes, the Japanese were fearless suicidal fighters.
> You think they could have ruled enough of the world to possibly win a
> "World War" against the allies???
> Now we will likely have to fightthe Chinese anyway over the same thing
> we fought Japan over....OIL.
> We still could have showed them the destrucyive power of the bomb and
> showed mercy instead of bloodlust....
> No one will ever know how that would have worked out because it was
> kill, kill, kill, kill....
I'm sure the destruction of Hiroshima gave them a fair idea of the
destructive power of the bomb.
Stuart Grey
Dresden: About 300,000 dead.
Hiroshima: 74,000 dead.
Nagasaki: about 70,000 dead.
At least in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we didn't use fighter to strafe the
roads out of the city so the civilians couldn't flee the fire storm, like
we did in Dresden.
The bombing of Dresden was stupid; the goal was to help the Soviets
enslave more of Europe.
Hiroshima Facts
> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:14:43 -0700, Don Lancaster wrote:
> > Fred Kasner wrote:
Actually the firestorm at Dresden (caused by the UK) only killed about
25,000 people.
It is possible that civilians were inadvertently strafed by pilots who
didn't realize that they were civilians, but historians have argued
that there was a dogfight and a few stray bullets only landed near
some civilians as the planes fought -- leading to a myth of people
being strafed. Our guys certainly didn't "deliberately" strafe
civilians in any case.
Paul Maffia
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1186506909.6...@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> We used the bomb to show the WORLD our supremacy and willingness to
> kill innocent civilians.
We used the bomb to end the wafr quickly and save American lives. But that
reality does not fit into your fantacy world.
> Yes, the Japanese were fearless suicidal fighters.
> You think they could have ruled enough of the world to possibly win a
> "World War" against the allies???
Until about 1943 they did. But hey, since when does reality ever fit in your
moron world?
> Now we will likely have to fightthe Chinese anyway over the same thing
> we fought Japan over....OIL.
What a moron,we did not fight the Japanese for oil. I know it is well beyond
your ken, but at the tine we were totally and completely self-sufficient in
oil.
> We still could have showed them the destrucyive power of the bomb and
> showed mercy instead of bloodlust....
If you had ever displayed even one scentilla of sense or facts in any of
your writings, one might give a moments consideration to this possibility.
But since facts, reality and sense are totyally absent from your idiocies,
one just laughs and goes on to enjoy more laughter at your expense.
> No one will ever know how that would have worked out because it was
> kill, kill, kill, kill....
> Maybe that was and still is the way of the world.....great place....
Then do everyone, including yourself, a favor and leave it you dope. It will
improve the average IQ of humanity immensely.
You are the village idiot of MORON TOWN.
Paul Thomas, CPA
"Paul Maffia" <pma...@centurytel.net> wrote
<knews4...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Now we will likely have to fightthe Chinese anyway over
>> the same thing we fought Japan over....OIL.
>
> What a moron,we did not fight the Japanese for oil.
> I know it is well beyond your ken, but at the tine we
> were totally and completely self-sufficient in oil.
We were self-sufficient (as in we didn't depend on Japanese oil at all - but
Japan depended on oil imports from the US, and we embargoed oil to Japan
less than a year from December 7th......
I don't know why people are so distraught over this issue, as at some point
in time we'll develop some method of transportation and energy that is
independent of oil based products. Don't know what that is, because I don't
care to ponder it at this time. Hell, it may be something that no one has
yet thought up.
Fred Kasner
Schmuck! The Japanese had a first world industrial state. If they had
not it would have been total insanity to take on the British, French,
Dutch, and Americans. They would have lost the war within a few months.
They had a functioning infra-structure of a modern country. Within a
matter of decades after they opened to the world they took on the
Russians and won a war against them. Don't sell the Japanese short.
FK
Fred Kasner
We were their primary supplier of petroleum and scrap iron. Japan is low
on natural resources. We cut them off of those supplies as they grew
more aggressive. Yamamoto, their best admiral had counseled that even
with total surprise at Pearl Harbor we could not ever be beaten by the
Japanese. He understood the determination and the resources that the USA
had and was convinced that we would out produce them in weapons of war
and had the population size to fight a war on two oceans and several
continents. He was a splendid strategist - he planned the Pearl Harbor
attack. We proved our recognition of his importance by singling him out
for destruction. We knew where he was going to be and shot down his
plane later in the war.
FK
Fred Kasner
Actually then didn't really change their ways until they were convinced
that under a democratic system they could become a world power in
quality manufacturing.
fk
Fred Kasner
Hey, Dummy, if you really feel this way why don't you end it all? Then
your disgust will end.
FK
Stuart Grey
> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 02:22:19 -0700, Hiroshima Facts
> <hiroshi...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> <1186305739.9...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> :
>
> |>On Aug 4, 3:12 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> |>>
> |>> The Japanese were ready to surrender but WE HAD SPENT SO MUCH MONEY ON
> |>> THE BOMB THAT THEY HAD TO USE IT AND PROVE TO THE WORLD WE ARE THE
> |>> BEST KILLERS ON THE PLANET.
> |>
> |>The way for them to avoid being nuked was by actually surrendering
> |>(which they only did after Nagasaki).
> |>
> |>If they were truly "ready to surrender" they shouldn't have dawdled.
>
> Nagasaki was nuked three days later on 9 August. Do you really
> think that _any_ government is perfect enough to react
> immediately?
>
> Need I mention how slow the response has been to the issue of
> global warming?
The cause of Hiroshima was pretty damned obvious: the Americans bombed it
with a never before seen weapon.
The cause of global warming is also pretty damned obvious: a bunch of
commie American haters and their useful idiots trying to loot the United
States of what wealth it has left with a really STUPID pseudo scientific
pile of bullshit.
Yes, we still haven't pulled the funding to the UN and the IPCC for trying
to pull off this idiotic con job. We need to act.
Tim Ward
In April to June of 1945, American troops fought for Okinawa, at the
southern tip of Japan. In those three months, there were approximately
80,000 American casualties.
Had Truman decided to use the available weapons for demonstrations in remote
areas, and the Japanese not surrendered as a result, it's not unreasonable
to assume another 80,000 American casualties over a three month wait for
fissionable materials. The war, after all, would not have stopped. Then, of
course, there would still have been Japanese casualties when the newer bombs
were dropped.
In war, when it comes down to a decision of your side dying, or the other
side dying, the decision is usually made to protect your own side. It's not
nice, but it's certainly understandable.
Tim Ward
Li RM
wrote:
>
>"Li RM" <Li...@unicomp.com> wrote in message
>news:8qnbb3p0716m8j0cq...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 00:21:04 -0500, Stuart Grey
>> <stuar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 18:08:54 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It worked and at least 3 million people were spared death in Total War
>>>> on the Japanese islands.
>>>>
>>>> Gunner
>>>
>>>Yes, it did work. It actually SAVED a lot of lives.
>>>
>>>The Japanese were teaching their school children to attack Americans with
>>>sharpened bamboo sticks.
>>>
>>>Then it became obvious that we could wipe them out as a race from the air
>>>with impunity. Their choice was extinction, or surrender and live well.
>>>
>>>A very horrible battle was avoided.
>>>
>>>We should have used this tactic on Iraq, when Falluja first started to
>>>harbor terrorist. It would have saved many lives on both sides had we just
>>>leveled Falluja to dust, with impunity, from the air. NEVER give them a
>>>chance to fight back. It encourages them. Hell, the Koran even INSTRUCTS
>>>them to behave when the Infidel has the upper hand.
>>
>> Here, here to that.
>>
>> Sniper in the minaret?
>>
>> Level the city block.
>>
>> Iran providing weapons to the bad guys in Iraq?
>>
>> Level Tehran.
>>
>> Al-queda attacking the US and killing our civilians in the name of
>> Islam?
>>
>> Level a few Islamic countries and crisp a few million Muslims.
>>
>> People behave when they get the shit kicked out of them.
>>
>> Usually.
>>
>> Those who don't get the shit kicked out of them again.
>>
>> Ask Germany for clarification on this effective military strategy.
>
>When are you guys going to figure out that terrorists don't have a
>"country."
I've been out of town and I have to play catch up.
When are you going to realize that you are swallowing hook, line and
sinker exactly what they want you to think.
Fuck Islam. They have funded these bastards. They give them safe
refuge. They support them in every way possible.
And they dance like fucking banshees when their terrorists succeed in
attacking the US.
>To a large extent, they don't have a "home base."
Yeah, they do. Their bases are called Mecca and Medina. The first
two cities that should be turned into "trininite". Followed
immediately by 25 of their largest cities.
>For the most
>part, they don't have a "leader." Get it through your heads that there is
>no location that contains all of the terrorists and their supporters.
Exactly. Neither did Hiroshima and Nagasaki contain most of Japan's
army. That's not the fucking point.
The point in war is simple:
1. Destroy the enemies means to wage war and
2. Destroy the enemies resolve to wage war.
It's called making them surrender.
Surrender.
That means we blow your fucking asses off the map until you lay down
your arms and we see you playing kick ball with the heads of your
mullahs, imams, clerics and sheiks who have called for the destruction
of the United States.
If they don't wanna surrender?
Probably better in the long run. Just incinerate the entire goddamn
middle east. Use Sarin gas on the Saudi and Iraqi oilfields.
>Figure out that a terrorist cell could be living in your neighborhood right
>now waiting on the time to do what they have planned to do.
After 9/11, every foreigner from an Islamic country should have had 4
weeks to get the fuck out.
After that one rule should have applied: Open hunting season and no
bag limit. Free taxidermy included.
>You cannot fight terrorism using conventional warfare. It doesn't work.
>Ask Israel.
And that's exactly why they still have a problem.
>The only thing that killing all of the innocents around a
>terrorists does is provide the terrorist with a lot of grieving relatives to
>recruit from.
With background radiation levels at 500 to 1000 REM per hour, I think
the recruiting drive might run out of gas after a couple of days.
>Do you seriously think that the guy willing to put on a vest
>loaded with explosives and pull the detonator is worried about you bombing
>the city block that he is on?
I am absolutely sure he is not.
However, he might have some difficulty putting on that vest when he is
reduced to a charcoal stump.
>If you dropped a nuke and took out the whole
>city, you have multiplied his effectiveness a thousandfold. Hell, you will
>have done his job for him and much more effectively.
Ok, let's play patty cake with them instead.
Patty cake, patty cake
I'm Osama's man.
Make me a martyr
just as fast as you can.
Look at the pretty bright light
burning up my land.
How can I be a bomber
now that I'm molten sand.
>Now explain to me why the terrorist willing to blow himself up to kill
>thirty people gives a shit if you drop a nuke on him if you can.
Maybe your terrorists can reorganize themselves from the various
isotopes they became back in part 1...
Li RM
wrote:
>
>"Stuart Grey" <stuar...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:-L-dnTbdeO4aeijb...@comcast.com...
>> Ask a southerner about Sherman's march to the sea, where he destroyed
>> everything in his wake.
>>
>> It is how wars are really won. Yes, it is brutal.
>
>Once again, you confuse conventional war with terrorism. You need to
>understand that with terrorist, there is no "South" because they are not
>constrained by nationality or country.
>
>BTW, yes my great grandparents homestead was burned to the ground, along
>with the crops, by Sherman's troops. However, Sherman issued strict orders
>against harming civilians because he knew what that would have brought on.
>
Kind of like what incinerating the civilians of Tokyo, Hiroshima,
Nagasaki and Dresden brought on?
Stuart Grey
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 11:51:27 -0400, "Bob Brock" <bbr...@i-america.net>
> wrote:
>
>>When are you guys going to figure out that terrorists don't have a
>>"country."
>
> I've been out of town and I have to play catch up.
>
> When are you going to realize that you are swallowing hook, line and
> sinker exactly what they want you to think.
>
> Fuck Islam. They have funded these bastards. They give them safe
> refuge. They support them in every way possible.
>
> And they dance like fucking banshees when their terrorists succeed in
> attacking the US.
As usual, little Bobbie is uttering stupid defenses of the Islamic
terrorist. Who cares if they "don't have a country"? He says that as if it
gives them immunity from attack. Brock's an idiot.
Quite frankly, I can't stand the guy. He's intentionally trying to be
annoying, and he constantly lies, especially about what other people's
arguments are. What's worse, is that he's never met an enemy of the United
States he didn't like; he's really into that self loathing crap.
Gunner Asch
<hiroshi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> The bombing of Dresden was stupid; the goal was to help the Soviets
>> enslave more of Europe.
>
>Actually the firestorm at Dresden (caused by the UK) only killed about
>25,000 people.
Actually..thats only one of the figures bantied about. On the low end
and usually by those attempting to minimize the carnage at Dresden.
The more commonly figure accepted for years has been around 150,000
Know one knows within 25000 of how many died. Dresden was filled with
refugees camping and living wherever there was free space to squat.
They will never be counted, nor did the Nazis keep records of those
tossed into mass graves, or of those burned to ash.
Gunner
Stuart Grey
> On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:53:39 -0700, Hiroshima Facts
> <hiroshi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> The bombing of Dresden was stupid; the goal was to help the Soviets
>>> enslave more of Europe.
>>
>>Actually the firestorm at Dresden (caused by the UK) only killed about
>>25,000 people.
>
> Actually..thats only one of the figures bantied about. On the low end
> and usually by those attempting to minimize the carnage at Dresden.
>
> The more commonly figure accepted for years has been around 150,000
>
> Know one knows within 25000 of how many died. Dresden was filled with
> refugees camping and living wherever there was free space to squat.
Yes, there were some 200,000 refugees that are not counted in the low
number. The sick thing is, we did it to help the communist enslave more of
Europe. The other sick thing is that both the Nazis and the British were
good with the low numbers; the Nazis because they didn't want to admit
that Germany was wide open to horrible carnage of allied bombers, and the
Brits because they didn't want to admit they were targeting civilians for
mass murder. The Brits did NOT just target the rail road yards.
EskW...@spamblock.panix.com
> The sick thing is, we did it to help the communist enslave more of
> Europe.
Your guesses as to the innermost thoughts and feelings of the generals
shows just how much you hate America.
Hiroshima Facts
> On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:53:39 -0700, Hiroshima Facts
>
>
> >> The bombing of Dresden was stupid; the goal was to help the Soviets
> >> enslave more of Europe.
>
> >Actually the firestorm at Dresden (caused by the UK) only killed about
> >25,000 people.
>
> Actually..thats only one of the figures bantied about. On the low end
> and usually by those attempting to minimize the carnage at Dresden.
>
> The more commonly figure accepted for years has been around 150,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II
"Earlier reputable estimates varied from 25,000 to more than 60,000,
but historians now view around 25,000-35,000 as the likely range[26]
[27] with the latest (1994) research by the Dresden historian
Friedrich Reichert pointing toward the lower part of this range.[28]"
"Contemporary official German records give a number of 21,271
registered burials, including 6,865 who were cremated on the Altmarkt.
[30] There were around 25,000 officially buried dead by March 22,
1945, war related or not, according to official German report
Tagesbefehl (Order of the Day) no. 47 ("TB47"). There was no
registration of burials between May and September 1945.[31] War-
related dead found in later years, from October 1945 to September
1957, are given as 1,557; from May 1945 until 1966, 1,858 bodies were
recovered. None was found during the period 1990-1994, even though
there was a lot of construction and excavation during that period. The
number of people registered with the authorities as missing was
35,000; around 10,000 of those were later found to be alive.[27]"
"There have been higher estimates for the number of dead, ranging as
high as 300,000. They are from disputed and unreliable sources, such
as the Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda headed by
Joseph Goebbels, Soviet historians, and David Irving, the once popular
but now discredited self-styled 'historian'[32] who retracted his
higher estimates.[33] Both the Columbia Encyclopedia and Encarta
Encyclopedia list the number as "from 35,000 to more than 135,000
dead", the higher figure of which is in line with Irving's incorrect
retracted estimates."