FWD: Paul Tibbits, pilot of "Enola Gay", dead at 92
OM
there:
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003667044
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003989075_tibbetsobit02.html
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/01/america/01obit.php
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22694360-2703,00.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaTopNews/idUSIndia-30281520071101
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_7349005
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071102/NATIONWORLD/711020476/-1/LOCAL17
http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/02/2079806.htm?section=world
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1747652007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/02/db0201.xml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7073588.stm
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/11/enola-gay-pilot.html
http://www.theintelligencer.net/page/content.detail/id/501695.html
http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=200701&s=&i=&t=The_first_atomic_bomb_attack:_facts
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071102/FAMOUSIOWANS/311020003/1001
http://www.contracostatimes.com/nationandworld/ci_7350149
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/168/story/167256.html
Bottom Line: General, on behalf of those of us who didn't have to grow
up speaking Japanese and eating rice and fish heads on a daily basis,
and especially for those of us who happen to actually *be* here
because their fathers and grandfathers weren't killed invading Japan's
home islands, we thank you for your service. The hippies, peaceniks,
treehuggers and other yellow-bellied scumbags may forever curse your
name for simply following orders, but the rest of us know the reality
of the situation, and the necessity of dropping that bomb. The fact
that it took a *second* bomb to wake the Japs up to the need to
surrender before extinction was the clearest possible proof that this
was an enemy too wrapped up in misguided dogmatics to have gotten the
hint through anything negotiable, much less a full-out invasion.
Rest in peace, sir. You have earned it, as well as our undying
gratitude.
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
Eric Chomko
> ...From various news sources featuring differing outlooks here and
> there:
>
>
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003989075_tibbetso...
>
> http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/01/america/01obit.php
>
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22694360-2703,00.html
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaTopNews/idUSIndia-30281520071101
>
> http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_7349005
>
>
> http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071102/NATIONWOR...
>
> http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/02/2079806.htm?section=world
>
> http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1747652007
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/02/db020...
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7073588.stm
>
> http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/11/enola-gay-pilot.html
>
> http://www.theintelligencer.net/page/content.detail/id/501695.html
>
>
> http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071102/FAMO...
>
> http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Site=D2&Date=20071...
>
> http://www.contracostatimes.com/nationandworld/ci_7350149
>
> http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/168/story/167256.html
>
> Bottom Line: General, on behalf of those of us who didn't have to grow
> up speaking Japanese and eating rice and fish heads on a daily basis,
> and especially for those of us who happen to actually *be* here
> because their fathers and grandfathers weren't killed invading Japan's
> home islands, we thank you for your service. The hippies, peaceniks,
> treehuggers and other yellow-bellied scumbags may forever curse your
> name for simply following orders, but the rest of us know the reality
> of the situation, and the necessity of dropping that bomb. The fact
> that it took a *second* bomb to wake the Japs up to the need to
> surrender before extinction was the clearest possible proof that this
> was an enemy too wrapped up in misguided dogmatics to have gotten the
> hint through anything negotiable, much less a full-out invasion.
>
Truman? No mention of Truman, the man who actually made the decision.
Rather you speak negatively of hippies and peaceniks and have a lack
of respect for the modern Japanese. You should learn another language
just because. You, OM, are the scumbag.
> Rest in peace, sir. You have earned it, as well as our undying
> gratitude.
Yeah sure.
> OM
> --
> ]=====================================[
> ] OMBlog -http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
Scott M. Kozel
>
> OM <om@all_trolls_must_DIE.com> wrote:
>
> > Bottom Line: General, on behalf of those of us who didn't have to grow
> > up speaking Japanese and eating rice and fish heads on a daily basis,
> > and especially for those of us who happen to actually *be* here
> > because their fathers and grandfathers weren't killed invading Japan's
> > home islands, we thank you for your service. The hippies, peaceniks,
> > treehuggers and other yellow-bellied scumbags may forever curse your
> > name for simply following orders, but the rest of us know the reality
> > of the situation, and the necessity of dropping that bomb. The fact
> > that it took a *second* bomb to wake the Japs up to the need to
> > surrender before extinction was the clearest possible proof that this
> > was an enemy too wrapped up in misguided dogmatics to have gotten the
> > hint through anything negotiable, much less a full-out invasion.
>
> Truman? No mention of Truman, the man who actually made the decision.
> Rather you speak negatively of hippies and peaceniks and have a lack
> of respect for the modern Japanese. You should learn another language
> just because. You, OM, are the scumbag.
You, sir, are a Chump.
OM
<koz...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Eric Chumpko, catamite troll <pne.cho...@comcast.net> babbled:
>> Truman? No mention of Truman, the man who actually made the decision.
>> Rather you speak negatively of hippies and peaceniks and have a lack
>> of respect for the modern Japanese. You should learn another language
>> just because. You, OM, are the scumbag.
...You want other languages? Otsosi tebya, pidar gnoinyj dolboy'eb!
>You, sir, are a Chump.
...Hence the reason we call him Chumpko. And based on a photo we found
of him on the Web a few years back, "Squarehead" obviously applies on
all corners.
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
Scott Hedrick
"OM" <om@all_trolls_must_DIE.com> wrote in message
news:bmnmi35dtp3s538ds...@4ax.com...
> The hippies, peaceniks,
> treehuggers and other yellow-bellied scumbags may forever curse your
> name for simply following orders, but the rest of us know the reality
> of the situation, and the necessity of dropping that bomb. The fact
> that it took a *second* bomb to wake the Japs up to the need to
> surrender before extinction was the clearest possible proof that this
> was an enemy too wrapped up in misguided dogmatics to have gotten the
> hint through anything negotiable, much less a full-out invasion.
>
> Rest in peace, sir. You have earned it, as well as our undying
> gratitude.
I had the chance to meet at a book signing at the- no, I'm not kidding-
National Atomic Museum (to which I was a frequent visitor before 9/11 closed
it). I savored the irony of watching the Japanese tourists take pictures of
him next to models of Fat Man and Little Boy. Deaf as a post, but with a
very firm grip. Got an autographed copy myself.
He wasn't *quite* as gung-ho as Gene Hackman's character in "Crimson Tide".
He knew it was a sucky job and a terrible thing, but somebody had to do it
and he firmly believed that it would save lives in the end (and as we know
from captured Japanese military documents, it absolutely *did*, on both
sides).
He slept well at night, knowing he saved lives.
I expected protestors, but having the museum on Kirtland AFB tended to
discourage that.
Pre 9/11, I was allowed to pretty much drive anywhere on base I wanted, as
long as I had a valid driver's license and insurance.
Tex Houston
news:O6QWi.47$wW1....@news.sisna.com...
>
> Pre 9/11, I was allowed to pretty much drive anywhere on base I wanted, as
> long as I had a valid driver's license and insurance.
years. Minus the outdoor displays but they are trying to relocate to an
area where it can all be together again, See http://www.atomicmuseum.com/ .
Regards,
Tex Houston
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
peaceniks, treehuggers and other yellow-bellied scumbags... Let's
face it: Sometimes you *need* an obnoxious opinion in your day!"
Actually that says it all right there you are obnoxious....
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
"Obnoxious" and "perfectly factually correct" are not mutually
exclusive. In this particular case, they are the same thing.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Wow, i guess you can rationalize anything then, even the usage of
antagonistic words that are meant to belittle others. He was
expressing his opinions of people, but just because you agree with
those opinions does not make them any more factual than when he used
them in the first place, i.e. your rationalization does not make
things factual and excuse his obnoxious post.
Johnny Hageyama
OM wrote:
> Bottom Line: General, on behalf of those of us who didn't have to grow
> up speaking Japanese and eating rice and fish heads on a daily basis,
> and especially for those of us who happen to actually *be* here
> because their fathers and grandfathers weren't killed invading Japan's
> home islands, we thank you for your service. The hippies, peaceniks,
> treehuggers and other yellow-bellied scumbags may forever curse your
> name for simply following orders, but the rest of us know the reality
> of the situation, and the necessity of dropping that bomb.
>
> The fact that it took a *second* bomb to wake the Japs up to the need to
> surrender before extinction was the clearest possible proof that this
> was an enemy too wrapped up in misguided dogmatics to have gotten the
> hint through anything negotiable, much less a full-out invasion.
>
> Rest in peace, sir. You have earned it, as well as our undying gratitude.
What makes you think that all hippies, peacniks, and treehuggers were
against the dropping of the atomic bombs? The ones in my family
weren't, even though they knew that Japan had stopped funding the war
several weeks before the end. They thought the Japanese army would
have sacrificed tens of millions of people if the bombs hadn't been
dropped.
Scott Hedrick
"Tex Houston" <texho...@pcisys.netvvv> wrote in message
news:6b-dnUqq5tCGTbba...@pcisys.net...
I had a chance to see it in its new location shortly after it opened. I miss
the big outdoor displays, and the sculpture of the sword being beaten into a
plowshare was missing. It had been replaced with a plow made from an atomic
bomb casing.
Scott Hedrick
"Johnny Hageyama" <hage...@hairdresser.net> wrote in message
news:1194071784.2...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> What makes you think that all hippies, peacniks, and treehuggers were
> against the dropping of the atomic bombs?
Guilt by association.
Scott M. Kozel
>
> Bottom Line: General, on behalf of those of us who didn't have to grow
> up speaking Japanese and eating rice and fish heads on a daily basis,
> and especially for those of us who happen to actually *be* here
> because their fathers and grandfathers weren't killed invading Japan's
> home islands, we thank you for your service. The hippies, peaceniks,
> treehuggers and other yellow-bellied scumbags may forever curse your
> name for simply following orders, but the rest of us know the reality
> of the situation, and the necessity of dropping that bomb. The fact
> that it took a *second* bomb to wake the Japs up to the need to
> surrender before extinction was the clearest possible proof that this
> was an enemy too wrapped up in misguided dogmatics to have gotten the
> hint through anything negotiable, much less a full-out invasion.
>
> Rest in peace, sir. You have earned it, as well as our undying
> gratitude.
Indeed.
I heard Paul Tibbits give a talk at the Virginia Aviation Museum about
10 years ago. The place was packed with over a thousand people
sitting and standing everywhere. Truly an honor to be in the presence
of a true American hero.
robert casey
> Bottom Line: General, on behalf of those of us who didn't have to grow
> up speaking Japanese and eating rice and fish heads on a daily basis,
> and especially for those of us who happen to actually *be* here
> because their fathers and grandfathers weren't killed invading Japan's
> home islands, we thank you for your service. The hippies, peaceniks,
> treehuggers and other yellow-bellied scumbags may forever curse your
> name for simply following orders, but the rest of us know the reality
> of the situation, and the necessity of dropping that bomb.
I don't think there was any opposition of significance to WW2 at the
time. The people who would have been hippies, peaceniks, treehuggers
and other yellow-bellied scumbags all knew that that war had to be
fought and won. Wars like Vietnam, on the other hand...
I'd agree that dropping those two nukes did end WW2, and saved a lot of
lives on both sides. Oh, we'd eventually prevail, but at a huge cost if
we didn't drop those nukes.
As it is today, we really don't like destroying entire enemy cities, we
don't want to stay being enemies forever.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
people who would have been hippies, peaceniks, treehuggers and other
yellow-bellied scumbags all knew that that war had to be fought and
won. Wars like Vietnam, on the other hand"
Man you are a joke...
Stuf4
> OM wrote:
> > Bottom Line: General, on behalf of those of us who didn't have to grow
> > up speaking Japanese and eating rice and fish heads on a daily basis,
> > and especially for those of us who happen to actually *be* here
> > because their fathers and grandfathers weren't killed invading Japan's
> > home islands, we thank you for your service. The hippies, peaceniks,
> > treehuggers and other yellow-bellied scumbags may forever curse your
> > name for simply following orders, but the rest of us know the reality
> > of the situation, and the necessity of dropping that bomb.
> What makes you think that all hippies, peacniks, and treehuggers were
> against the dropping of the atomic bombs? The ones in my family
> weren't, even though they knew that Japan had stopped funding the war
> several weeks before the end. They thought the Japanese army would
> have sacrificed tens of millions of people if the bombs hadn't been
> dropped.
Dropping the bomb was not at all *necessary*. It was an _option_ that
the US chose to exercise. And it completely misses the point to say
that it "saved lives". The point is that there are "rules of war".
And these rules say that it is ok to kill military members, but non-
combatant civilians are off limits. THAT is the atrocity.
Hypothetical: Say that the US knew that the Japanese would surrender
if US GIs would rape 10,000 teenage Japanese girls. Can we then
justify the mass rape by saying, "it saved lives"? And if Tibbets was
the one who did the raping, would we then call him a hero for having
raped all those girls?
(If you think that this is a horrific hypothetical, keep in mind that
if you take all the kids vaporized by that "Little Boy" and you give
their parents the option to have them raped instead of vaporized, it
is to be expected that they would choose the raping.)
To have a meaningful discussion about what Tibbets (and Oppenheimer
and Truman and the others) did, then it is insufficient to simply
weigh in a balance the lives lost against the lives that might have
been lost. The crux of the issue is justification of mass murder.
In the wake of 9/11, we can expect that radical Muslims have many
varied justifications for what was done there. The US continues to
cry "foul". Yet Tibbets is a hero.
...and the WTC site is still referred to as "ground zero", as though
the destruction there is comparable to the destruction of a nuclear
bomb. Those airliners were firecrackers in comparison to what a nuke
could have done.
Another interesting angle for analyzing this is to put yourself in
Tibbets' shoes with the ability to peek into the future. Knowing all
of the positive outcomes of the event (aside from the tragic aspects)
then there are plenty of justifications for pickling off that bomb.
The biggest advantage that I can see from it is that those two bombs
were so horrific that they helped us to avoid ever using them again.
I credit Paul Tibbets for doing a large part toward averting a WWIII.
~ CT
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
<columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 2, 7:49 pm, "scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com"
>
> <scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 7:11 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> > <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 2, 9:50 am, OM <om@all_trolls_must_DIE.com> wrote: The hippies,
> > > peaceniks, treehuggers and other yellow-bellied scumbags... Let's
> > > face it: Sometimes you *need* an obnoxious opinion in your day!"
>
> > > Actually that says it all right there you are obnoxious....
>
> > "Obnoxious" and "perfectly factually correct" are not mutually
> > exclusive. In this particular case, they are the same thing.
>
> Wow, i guess you can rationalize anything then, even the usage of
> antagonistic words that are meant to belittle others.
Yes, indeed. Because some people *need* to be berated and belittled.
There's far to much emphasis on "self esteem" in our society, and it's
gotten to the point where many people cannot tolerate being ridiculed
or even disagreed with. The fringe-left is firmly in that group.
> your rationalization does not make
> things factual and excuse his obnoxious post.
The obnoxiousness of his post is excuded by being both factually
accurate *and* properly demeaning to a bunch of self-important
nobodies who have managed to stifle the progress of western
civilization.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> - Show quoted text -
laughing, you mean in your opinion, his obnoxious opinion is correct,
but you must understand that just because you stated that something is
factual does not make it so. Your opinion is just that, nothing more
or less important than mine, but your comment on progress in western
society in my view is incorrect.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> - Show quoted text -
secondly, your concept of society is not correct in my opinion
either...(do you view those on the fringe right in the same manner?)
Gernot Hassenpflug
Your comparison is quite laughable. 10000 rapes would not even budge
the current statistics. No, I think you are merely arguing against the
idea of war in a general sense---war is not an individual matter, it
is defined as one nation against another, and the entire part of a
nation faces destruction, not the military only. It's too bad that
"innocents" get killed, but humans get over it eventually.
--
Gernot Hassenpflug
Dan
>>From Johnny Hageyama <hagey...@hairdresser.net>:
>> OM wrote:
>>> Bottom Line: General, on behalf of those of us who didn't have to grow
>>> up speaking Japanese and eating rice and fish heads on a daily basis,
>>> and especially for those of us who happen to actually *be* here
>>> because their fathers and grandfathers weren't killed invading Japan's
>>> home islands, we thank you for your service. The hippies, peaceniks,
>>> treehuggers and other yellow-bellied scumbags may forever curse your
>>> name for simply following orders, but the rest of us know the reality
>>> of the situation, and the necessity of dropping that bomb.
>
>> What makes you think that all hippies, peacniks, and treehuggers were
>> against the dropping of the atomic bombs? The ones in my family
>> weren't, even though they knew that Japan had stopped funding the war
>> several weeks before the end. They thought the Japanese army would
>> have sacrificed tens of millions of people if the bombs hadn't been
>> dropped.
>
> Dropping the bomb was not at all *necessary*. It was an _option_ that
> the US chose to exercise. And it completely misses the point to say
> that it "saved lives". The point is that there are "rules of war".
> And these rules say that it is ok to kill military members, but non-
> combatant civilians are off limits. THAT is the atrocity.
OK, let's assume the atomic bombs were not dropped. Were conventional
bombing methods available at the time any better? The fact remains many
military targets were in populated areas. Take a look at the nearest
military base or factory to where you live. How would you take out that
target with the capabilities the Allies had in 1945? By that time a
great many small factories were family businesses in their own
communities. Are you suggesting not taking them out? Suppose you were
making parts for rifles in your yard would you expect to be left alone
just because you live in a residential area?
>
> Hypothetical: Say that the US knew that the Japanese would surrender
> if US GIs would rape 10,000 teenage Japanese girls. Can we then
> justify the mass rape by saying, "it saved lives"? And if Tibbets was
> the one who did the raping, would we then call him a hero for having
> raped all those girls?
Try coming up with a hypothetical based in reality.
>
> (If you think that this is a horrific hypothetical, keep in mind that
> if you take all the kids vaporized by that "Little Boy" and you give
> their parents the option to have them raped instead of vaporized, it
> is to be expected that they would choose the raping.)
How many of those same children would have died anyway in
conventional bombing when the valid military targets near them were
taken out? A great many had already died that way. How many of those
same children would have died of malnutrition or starvation? A great
many civilians were already dying that way. How many of those same
children would have been murdered by their own mothers during an Allied
invasion? It happened in Okinawa.
As for "choosing the raping," I just have to ask. You don't have a
sister or daughter, do you? In many cultures, I'm not sure about Japan,
death is preferable to rape. Have you ever heard of "honour killings?"
>
> To have a meaningful discussion about what Tibbets (and Oppenheimer
> and Truman and the others) did, then it is insufficient to simply
> weigh in a balance the lives lost against the lives that might have
> been lost. The crux of the issue is justification of mass murder.
Or justification of stopping mass murder. Are you aware the Japanese
army had orders to slaughter POWs as well as slave labour and were still
butchering civilians en masse?
>
> In the wake of 9/11, we can expect that radical Muslims have many
> varied justifications for what was done there. The US continues to
> cry "foul". Yet Tibbets is a hero.
There's one minor difference. The Enola Gay targetted valid military
targets in Hiroshima. WTC was not a valid military target.
>
> ...and the WTC site is still referred to as "ground zero", as though
> the destruction there is comparable to the destruction of a nuclear
> bomb. Those airliners were firecrackers in comparison to what a nuke
> could have done.
Ground zero means nuclear attack site? Since when?
>
>
> Another interesting angle for analyzing this is to put yourself in
> Tibbets' shoes with the ability to peek into the future. Knowing all
> of the positive outcomes of the event (aside from the tragic aspects)
> then there are plenty of justifications for pickling off that bomb.
OK, you agree they needed to be dropped.
>
> The biggest advantage that I can see from it is that those two bombs
> were so horrific that they helped us to avoid ever using them again.
> I credit Paul Tibbets for doing a large part toward averting a WWIII.
>
You don't really understand why WW 3 never happened, do you? Have
you ever heard of mutually assured destruction? That's just one of the
reasons.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:7_8Xi.1739$Gy4...@newsfe24.lga...
> Stuf4 wrote:
>>
>> In the wake of 9/11, we can expect that radical Muslims have many
>> varied justifications for what was done there. The US continues to
>> cry "foul". Yet Tibbets is a hero.
>
> There's one minor difference. The Enola Gay targetted valid military
> targets in Hiroshima. WTC was not a valid military target.
I hate to jump into this thread lest I be suspect of agreeing in toto with
Stuf4.
However, I think the quote regarding that had the Allied Powers lost the
war, they'd have been tried and convicted on war crimes is an unfortunate
truth.
Both sides had attacked non "military" targets if you define "military' as
weapons, defensive or offensive installations, factories dedicated strictly
to war production and the like.
Personally, if anything I believe the fire-bombing of Dresden and Tokyo were
far more horific and probably come closer to the definition a war-crime than
either atomic bombing.
Remember, it wasn't the Axis powers that came up with the term "de-housing".
When it comes to the WTC, the argument that was made was that as a center of
economic power it was a legitimate target. It's not one I buy into for a
lot of reasons. But we have a tough time claiming the higher moral ground
if we turn a blind eye to our own past.
The reality is, war is a place where simple moral choices fall apart.
Personally, I think the bombings were a horrorific choice, but given what we
knew and the other choices at hand, they were probably the least horrorific
choice available.
>
>>
>> The biggest advantage that I can see from it is that those two bombs
>> were so horrific that they helped us to avoid ever using them again.
>> I credit Paul Tibbets for doing a large part toward averting a WWIII.
>>
>
> You don't really understand why WW 3 never happened, do you? Have you
> ever heard of mutually assured destruction? That's just one of the
> reasons.
Umm, Dan, the way I read this is that the horror of the bomb that was so
exemplified by the two bombings helped contribute to the concept of MAD.
(and if there were ever a perfect acronym that is one).
MAD kept us safe in a world of sane nuclear powers.
I can't help but think what will keep us safe in a world of less sane
nuclear powers.
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
<columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> your comment on progress in western
> society in my view is incorrect.
Well, I guess in your view stifling nuclear power, oil exploration,
wind farms and economic growth must be "progress."
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
<columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> (do you view those on the fringe right in the same manner?)
No, for the simple fact that fringe right is not the same as fringe
left. For starters, fringe right is in serious decline as far as
cultural importance.For example, fringe right nonsense such as
"Intelligent Design" is being run out of public school ona rail. But
frionge left stuff like "An Inconvenient Truth" is being force-fed to
public school kids.
Dan
>>>
>> You don't really understand why WW 3 never happened, do you? Have you
>> ever heard of mutually assured destruction? That's just one of the
>> reasons.
>
> Umm, Dan, the way I read this is that the horror of the bomb that was so
> exemplified by the two bombings helped contribute to the concept of MAD.
> (and if there were ever a perfect acronym that is one).
>
>
> MAD kept us safe in a world of sane nuclear powers.
There was much more than MAD that kept the U.S., French and U.K. on
one side and the Soviet Bloc on the other from trading mushrooms. The
most obvious was neither side had anything to gain by heaving nukes even
if the other side couldn't respond in kind. Another point was pure
economics, one side couldn't live without the other since both sides had
mutual trading partners.
>
> I can't help but think what will keep us safe in a world of less sane
> nuclear powers.
>
I'm not worried about nations currently with nukes. I'm worried about
them falling into the hands of terrorists. I don't want Iran to get
them, but I am not convinced they will start heaving them once they do
get them. Ahmaneedaheadjob may be nuts, but he doesn't run the country
the way some people think. The people who would actually have to heave
them aren't crazy. They know what would happen if they did. Having said
that I have no doubt there is someone in Iran who would supply a nuke to
a terrorist. That nut case in Pakistan who sold the plans to atomic
weapons to North Korea and Iran is proof enough some states don't have
as much control over their people as they think. The same can be said of
the spies in the Manhattan Project.
Pat Flannery
scottl...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> Well, I guess in your view stifling nuclear power, oil exploration,
> wind farms and economic growth must be "progress."
>
They had a show on about those giant wind generators on one of the
science channels recently.
You have no idea now big those things are until you see the parts close-up.
The housing for the generator has more cubic feet in it than my
apartment, and you can go walking around inside of the hollow blades.
The only real downside to them is the problem with birds hitting them at
night.
I'm surprised they haven't stuck electroluminescent film on the blades
so the birds could evade them in the dark.
Pat
Leadfoot
> When it comes to the WTC, the argument that was made was that as a center
> of economic power it was a legitimate target. It's not one I buy into
> for a lot of reasons. But we have a tough time claiming the higher moral
> ground if we turn a blind eye to our own past.
WTC contained a military recruiting station, offices for the CIA, Secret
Service and FBI, was a major communications hub for the internet and had an
antenna tower for TV and radio stations. You can be fairly sure that this
antenna tower probably had hundreds of smaller antennas attached to it for a
variety of purposes ranging form LE to cell phones to talking to radios in
garbage trucks. In addition a subway station is located in the basement
making it a major transportation hub. I did visit it once as a tourist in
the mid 90's. I distinctly remember the recruiting station as well as the
security being very tight due to the 1993 attack.
I can assure you if a similar building was in a country the USAF was tasked
with attacking it would be a prime target. I do suspect that due to the
large number of civilian in the building some warning would be given as was
done with the Belgrade TV station attacked in 1999 during the war over
Kosovo. I would also think the USAF objective would be to make the building
inoperable rather than total destruction.
While the attack on it by AQ was despicable saying WTC was not a legitimate
military target is laughable on its face.
Steven P. McNicoll
"Stuf4" <tdadamemd-...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1194130494.5...@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dropping the bomb was not at all *necessary*. It was an _option_ that
> the US chose to exercise. And it completely misses the point to say
> that it "saved lives". The point is that there are "rules of war".
> And these rules say that it is ok to kill military members, but non-
> combatant civilians are off limits. THAT is the atrocity.
>
Then the non-combat civilians must refrain from all activities that
contribute to the war effort.
Stuf4
> Stuf4 wrote:
> > Dropping the bomb was not at all *necessary*. It was an _option_ that
> > the US chose to exercise. And it completely misses the point to say
> > that it "saved lives". The point is that there are "rules of war".
> > And these rules say that it is ok to kill military members, but non-
> > combatant civilians are off limits. THAT is the atrocity.
>
> OK, let's assume the atomic bombs were not dropped. Were conventional
> bombing methods available at the time any better? The fact remains many
> military targets were in populated areas. Take a look at the nearest
> military base or factory to where you live. How would you take out that
> target with the capabilities the Allies had in 1945? By that time a
> great many small factories were family businesses in their own
> communities. Are you suggesting not taking them out? Suppose you were
> making parts for rifles in your yard would you expect to be left alone
> just because you live in a residential area?
You advertise having been in the Air Force, yet you show absolutely no
recognition of the distinction between a combatant and a non-
combatant. LOAC is quite clear that it is illegal to kill civilians.
These are the same set of rules that spells out that it is illegal to
shoot a paratrooper while under canopy, or to shoot a pilot who has
bailed out of the aircraft.
Time and again you will hear people talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki
as "saving lives" with absolutely no distinction made about combatants
versus non-combatants. Invading Japan and killing Japanese soldiers
under a declared war would have been legal. But decimating families
sitting at their breakfast table is not an act that is sanctioned by
such laws.
You appear to be ok with killing civilians who work in factories that
make war materials. Let's be clear that those factory workers are non-
combatants. As completely off limits as a paratrooper under canopy.
For your consideration, here is a salient quote about bombing of
civilians:
=======
The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers
of population during the course of the hostilities which have raged in
various quarters of the earth during the past few years, which has
resulted in the maiming and in the death of thousands of defenseless
men, women, and children, has sickened the hearts of every civilized
man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity.
If resort is had to this form of inhuman barbarism during the period
of the tragic conflagration with which the world is now confronted,
hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings who have no
responsibility for, and who are not even remotely participating in,
the hostilities which have now broken out, will lose their lives. I am
therefore addressing this urgent appeal to every government which may
be engaged in hostilities publicly to affirm its determination that
its armed forces shall in no event, and under no circumstances,
undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations or of
unfortified cities, upon the understanding that these same rules of
warfare will be scrupulously observed by all of their opponents. I
request an immediate reply.
=======
Now here's the kicker. Those words are from FDR. He wrote them in
September '39 in an appeal to Germany, among others. His authority
came from a League of Nations unanimous resolution from September '38
that said, among other things, that:
"The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal"
(One reference - http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html#D)
Obviously Roosevelt had a "change of heart" whereby he ordered the
program to construct the most heinous weapon the Earth had ever
known. He championed the Manhattan Project. Now while he didn't live
long enough to give the order to use those bombs on Japanese
civilians, we can extrapolate from FDR's data points of Dresden and
Tokyo. He was all hunky dory about ordering civilians to be roasted.
> > Hypothetical: Say that the US knew that the Japanese would surrender
> > if US GIs would rape 10,000 teenage Japanese girls. Can we then
> > justify the mass rape by saying, "it saved lives"? And if Tibbets was
> > the one who did the raping, would we then call him a hero for having
> > raped all those girls?
>
> Try coming up with a hypothetical based in reality.
Obviously that example is not based in reality. Its purpose is to
shock people back into the reality of understanding how atrocious (and
illegal) it is to vaporize civilian families as they are sitting
around their breakfast table. There is no one-for-one comparison of
"saved lives" by trading off school kids for soldier combatants.
> > (If you think that this is a horrific hypothetical, keep in mind that
> > if you take all the kids vaporized by that "Little Boy" and you give
> > their parents the option to have them raped instead of vaporized, it
> > is to be expected that they would choose the raping.)
>
> How many of those same children would have died anyway in
> conventional bombing when the valid military targets near them were
> taken out? A great many had already died that way. How many of those
> same children would have died of malnutrition or starvation? A great
> many civilians were already dying that way. How many of those same
> children would have been murdered by their own mothers during an Allied
> invasion? It happened in Okinawa.
If you want to justify targeting school children, then you may as well
take it to the ultimate absurdity of counting newborn babies a
legitimate military target because they will eventually grow up to
become soldiers.
...or perhaps I am misreading your point above. Perhaps you are
actually voicing agreement that the act of killing these kids was
atrocious.
> As for "choosing the raping," I just have to ask. You don't have a
> sister or daughter, do you? In many cultures, I'm not sure about Japan,
> death is preferable to rape. Have you ever heard of "honour killings?"
It is clear to me that *both* outcomes are atrocious. To debate which
one is worse is beside the point. The point was that the act of
nuking an entire city falls outside the rules for what is justifiable
in war. (As FDR himself clearly indicated at one point in time.)
> > To have a meaningful discussion about what Tibbets (and Oppenheimer
> > and Truman and the others) did, then it is insufficient to simply
> > weigh in a balance the lives lost against the lives that might have
> > been lost. The crux of the issue is justification of mass murder.
>
> Or justification of stopping mass murder. Are you aware the Japanese
> army had orders to slaughter POWs as well as slave labour and were still
> butchering civilians en masse?
There are plenty of examples for excursions from what was legal
warfare. But to identify only those crimes of the Germans and
Japanese, while ignoring those of the US and allied countries makes
for an unbalanced view of history.
...and it would also help to note that a balanced view of history will
show that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and Manila on December
7th (/8th) was billed as a LIBERATION of Hawaiian and Filipino natives
who were being oppressed by US Imperialists.
> > In the wake of 9/11, we can expect that radical Muslims have many
> > varied justifications for what was done there. The US continues to
> > cry "foul". Yet Tibbets is a hero.
>
> There's one minor difference. The Enola Gay targetted valid military
> targets in Hiroshima. WTC was not a valid military target.
If you persist in the belief that vaporizing a city constitutes a
legal military action, I will refer you back to that unanimous League
of Nations resolutions stating that "the intentional bombing of
civilian populations is illegal".
...or take the words of Curt LeMay himself. He stated that if the US
had lost the war, he expected that he would have been tried as a war
criminal.
(Google [lemay war criminal] for references.)
> > ...and the WTC site is still referred to as "ground zero", as though
> > the destruction there is comparable to the destruction of a nuclear
> > bomb. Those airliners were firecrackers in comparison to what a nuke
> > could have done.
>
> Ground zero means nuclear attack site? Since when?
"Ground zero" has a very specific meaning that comes from nuclear
weapons. Since nukes are typically set for an air burst, the term
refers to the plot of ground that lies directly below that burst. All
other uses of the term are dilutions that have come from hyperbole,
with lame comparisons to the destruction of an actual nuclear blast.
> > Another interesting angle for analyzing this is to put yourself in
> > Tibbets' shoes with the ability to peek into the future. Knowing all
> > of the positive outcomes of the event (aside from the tragic aspects)
> > then there are plenty of justifications for pickling off that bomb.
>
> OK, you agree they needed to be dropped.
I did not say that. I was very clear in stating up front that it was
not necessary at all.
> > The biggest advantage that I can see from it is that those two bombs
> > were so horrific that they helped us to avoid ever using them again.
> > I credit Paul Tibbets for doing a large part toward averting a WWIII.
>
> You don't really understand why WW 3 never happened, do you? Have
> you ever heard of mutually assured destruction? That's just one of the
> reasons.
Au contraire. My point was that the very reason why nuke deterrence
was so effective in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s was because Tibbets
gave us graphic images of their consequences.
It's akin to spanking a kid. If a child has never been spanked, then
the kid has no experience base to draw from when someone raises up a
threatening hand. But after the child has been hit just once or
twice, any time a hand gets raised, that child will have a flash of
memory back to the pain that was experienced.
Tibbets gave Planet Earth our first nuclear spanking.
~ CT
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
You just compared non related issues, not people, so your example
fails, and you failed to provide and level of objectivity in your
opinoins, which reveals in biases, and so you have stated nothing
factual. Now once again just because your second opinion backs your
first opinion, it does not make the first any more factual than the
first time you stated it. You see it is in your above expressed
opinions that those issues are on equal footing, but thats why i asked
you about people and not issues...
Stuf4
> "Stuf4" <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote in message
> > Dropping the bomb was not at all *necessary*. It was an _option_ that
> > the US chose to exercise. And it completely misses the point to say
> > that it "saved lives". The point is that there are "rules of war".
> > And these rules say that it is ok to kill military members, but non-
> > combatant civilians are off limits. THAT is the atrocity.
>
> Then the non-combat civilians must refrain from all activities that
> contribute to the war effort.
Must they? To get a more clear understanding of the Law of Armed
Conflict, think back to that paratrooper or bailed out aircrew
example. It is illegal to shoot them while under canopy. They are
clearly performing acts that are directly contributing to the war
effort. They are members of the military performing those acts. But
those are non-combatant acts. And it is illegal to shoot them while
they are in the role of a non-combatant.
If we can grasp the concept of how it is illegal to shoot an armed
military member who is moments away from being in a position to kill,
then I hope we can all clearly see how blatantly illegal it was to
indiscriminately vaporize an entire city of civilians (school
children, etc).
If that isn't clear enough, then here is another hypothetical for the
purpose of shedding light on the matter...
Say that instead of an atomic bomb, the Enola Gay had carried US
paratroopers. Say that Tibbets flew them over to the Mazda factory at
Hiroshima that was actively building armored vehicles for the Japanese
Army.
When these paratroopers storm the Mazda factory, would it be proper
for them to shoot and kill the workers in the factory? (Because these
women and men were actively contributing to the war effort.) I hope
it is clear that this would be a case of mass murder of non-combatant
civilians.
Contributing to the war effort is not the criteria for making a lawful
military target.
On top of this, let's not forget that those citizens of Hiroshima who
were actively contributing to the war effort made up a small
percentage of those vaporized.
~ CT
Dan
>>From Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired:
>> Stuf4 wrote:
>>> Dropping the bomb was not at all *necessary*. It was an _option_ that
>>> the US chose to exercise. And it completely misses the point to say
>>> that it "saved lives". The point is that there are "rules of war".
>>> And these rules say that it is ok to kill military members, but non-
>>> combatant civilians are off limits. THAT is the atrocity.
>> OK, let's assume the atomic bombs were not dropped. Were conventional
>> bombing methods available at the time any better? The fact remains many
>> military targets were in populated areas. Take a look at the nearest
>> military base or factory to where you live. How would you take out that
>> target with the capabilities the Allies had in 1945? By that time a
>> great many small factories were family businesses in their own
>> communities. Are you suggesting not taking them out? Suppose you were
>> making parts for rifles in your yard would you expect to be left alone
>> just because you live in a residential area?
>
> You advertise having been in the Air Force, yet you show absolutely no
> recognition of the distinction between a combatant and a non-
> combatant. LOAC is quite clear that it is illegal to kill civilians.
> These are the same set of rules that spells out that it is illegal to
> shoot a paratrooper while under canopy, or to shoot a pilot who has
> bailed out of the aircraft.
You fail to realize targeting a factory is not the same as targeting
the civilians working there. In a perfect world one would hope there
would have been an alarm given and the employees would have headed for
shelter. The factory would be a legitimate target. I ask you again, how
would you take out the factory with the technology fielded in 1945
without civilian casualties?
>
> Time and again you will hear people talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki
> as "saving lives" with absolutely no distinction made about combatants
> versus non-combatants. Invading Japan and killing Japanese soldiers
> under a declared war would have been legal. But decimating families
> sitting at their breakfast table is not an act that is sanctioned by
> such laws.
>
> You appear to be ok with killing civilians who work in factories that
> make war materials. Let's be clear that those factory workers are non-
> combatants. As completely off limits as a paratrooper under canopy.
See above.
I ask again, how would you strike legitimate targets with the
technology fielded during WW2 without collateral damage to include
civilians?
I never justified deliberately targeting children.
> ...or perhaps I am misreading your point above. Perhaps you are
> actually voicing agreement that the act of killing these kids was
> atrocious.
>
Of course it was atrocious.
>> As for "choosing the raping," I just have to ask. You don't have a
>> sister or daughter, do you? In many cultures, I'm not sure about Japan,
>> death is preferable to rape. Have you ever heard of "honour killings?"
>
> It is clear to me that *both* outcomes are atrocious. To debate which
> one is worse is beside the point. The point was that the act of
> nuking an entire city falls outside the rules for what is justifiable
> in war. (As FDR himself clearly indicated at one point in time.)
>
>>> To have a meaningful discussion about what Tibbets (and Oppenheimer
>>> and Truman and the others) did, then it is insufficient to simply
>>> weigh in a balance the lives lost against the lives that might have
>>> been lost. The crux of the issue is justification of mass murder.
>> Or justification of stopping mass murder. Are you aware the Japanese
>> army had orders to slaughter POWs as well as slave labour and were still
>> butchering civilians en masse?
>
> There are plenty of examples for excursions from what was legal
> warfare. But to identify only those crimes of the Germans and
> Japanese, while ignoring those of the US and allied countries makes
> for an unbalanced view of history.
I never said otherwise. But there's a big difference between Nazi
gas chambers and Japanese slaughtering civilians for pleasure in Nanking
and collateral deaths of civilians during a bombing campaign.
>
> ...and it would also help to note that a balanced view of history will
> show that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and Manila on December
> 7th (/8th) was billed as a LIBERATION of Hawaiian and Filipino natives
> who were being oppressed by US Imperialists.
Liberators do not slaughter hospital patients in their beds, kidnap
women as sex slaves and the like. So what is your point here?
>
>>> In the wake of 9/11, we can expect that radical Muslims have many
>>> varied justifications for what was done there. The US continues to
>>> cry "foul". Yet Tibbets is a hero.
>> There's one minor difference. The Enola Gay targetted valid military
>> targets in Hiroshima. WTC was not a valid military target.
>
> If you persist in the belief that vaporizing a city constitutes a
> legal military action, I will refer you back to that unanimous League
> of Nations resolutions stating that "the intentional bombing of
> civilian populations is illegal".
Again, you seem to forget the fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had
perfectly legal military targets within city limits and no technology
fielded in 1945 could have taken them out without large civilian
casualty rates.
>
> ...or take the words of Curt LeMay himself. He stated that if the US
> had lost the war, he expected that he would have been tried as a war
> criminal.
>
> (Google [lemay war criminal] for references.)
I'm sure he would have.
>
>>> ...and the WTC site is still referred to as "ground zero", as though
>>> the destruction there is comparable to the destruction of a nuclear
>>> bomb. Those airliners were firecrackers in comparison to what a nuke
>>> could have done.
>> Ground zero means nuclear attack site? Since when?
>
> "Ground zero" has a very specific meaning that comes from nuclear
> weapons. Since nukes are typically set for an air burst, the term
> refers to the plot of ground that lies directly below that burst. All
> other uses of the term are dilutions that have come from hyperbole,
> with lame comparisons to the destruction of an actual nuclear blast.
If you insist.
>
>>> Another interesting angle for analyzing this is to put yourself in
>>> Tibbets' shoes with the ability to peek into the future. Knowing all
>>> of the positive outcomes of the event (aside from the tragic aspects)
>>> then there are plenty of justifications for pickling off that bomb.
>> OK, you agree they needed to be dropped.
>
> I did not say that. I was very clear in stating up front that it was
> not necessary at all.
>
>>> The biggest advantage that I can see from it is that those two bombs
>>> were so horrific that they helped us to avoid ever using them again.
>>> I credit Paul Tibbets for doing a large part toward averting a WWIII.
>> You don't really understand why WW 3 never happened, do you? Have
>> you ever heard of mutually assured destruction? That's just one of the
>> reasons.
>
> Au contraire. My point was that the very reason why nuke deterrence
> was so effective in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s was because Tibbets
> gave us graphic images of their consequences.
As I said, there were other reasons.
>
> It's akin to spanking a kid. If a child has never been spanked, then
> the kid has no experience base to draw from when someone raises up a
> threatening hand. But after the child has been hit just once or
> twice, any time a hand gets raised, that child will have a flash of
> memory back to the pain that was experienced.
>
> Tibbets gave Planet Earth our first nuclear spanking.
>
>
> ~ CT
>
From reading what you wrote above you seem to be saying no
noncombatant casualties were acceptable. You have yet to come up with a
way to have won that war without civilian casualties. The only way to
completely avoid U.S. forces killing civilians would be for the forces
to not fight and withdraw to CONUS.
I ask again, given the technology fielded by the Allies in 1945 how
would YOU have avoided civilian casualties? Using your "logic"
railroads, factories , bridges, military buildings etc could not be
struck because civilians would be hurt. You don't seem to understand
the civilians were NOT the target.
Had the U.S. used conventional bombs to strike military targets in
Hiroshima I'd venture to say just as many, if not more, civilians would
have died since a herd of B-29s would have dropped their bombs over
wider areas and would have had to keep going back to get what they
missed before.
Leadfoot
> >From Steven P. McNicoll:
>> "Stuf4" <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote in message
>
>> > Dropping the bomb was not at all *necessary*. It was an _option_ that
>> > the US chose to exercise. And it completely misses the point to say
>> > that it "saved lives". The point is that there are "rules of war".
>> > And these rules say that it is ok to kill military members, but non-
>> > combatant civilians are off limits. THAT is the atrocity.
>>
>> Then the non-combat civilians must refrain from all activities that
>> contribute to the war effort.
>
> Must they? To get a more clear understanding of the Law of Armed
> Conflict, think back to that paratrooper or bailed out aircrew
> example.
You can shoot paratroopers at any point in their journey to combat including
while parachuting to the ground. It's not any different than shooting at
amphibious landing craft.
Shooting at aircrew bailing out of damaged airplanes is prohibited. That
would be similar to shooting up a lifeboat.
Might be a tough call if the cargo plane carrying paratroopers is shot down.
I'd say the aircrew loses it's protection in that case.
Dan
If the civilian workers put up resistance or attempted to interfere
with the U.S. forces destroying the factory they become legitimate
targets. What if the U.S. forces placed explosives in the factory, set
the timers and ordered the remaining civilians out but they refused to
leave? They would be maimed or killed when the explosives went off. They
would not have been targeted, but they would have been legitimate
casualties.
>
> Contributing to the war effort is not the criteria for making a lawful
> military target.
Actually, it is in some circumstances. Doing a bond drive isn't,
operating a munitions train is.
>
> On top of this, let's not forget that those citizens of Hiroshima who
> were actively contributing to the war effort made up a small
> percentage of those vaporized.
>
>
> ~ CT
>
You have never studied or been trained in the Law of Armed Conflict,
have you?
Stuf4
> You have never studied or been trained in the Law of Armed Conflict,
> have you?
Anyone who holds that nuking a city full of civilians is justified
under the LOAC has studied a different set of laws than I am aware
of. It doesn't hold water with Just War Theory either. So far all I
have been stressing here is the legal aspects, not the moral aspects.
And if you would like to know specifics on my experience in the
military, certification with nuclear weapons and education in the Law
of Armed Conflict, I would be glad to share that with you privately.
Just clip the "-spamblock-" from my email address.
For here I will share that one of Paul Tibbets' grandkids is a friend
of mine. You probably know that his grandson flies as a B-2 SqdnCC
with the 509th at Whiteman.
~ CT
Stuf4
> Stuf4 wrote:
> >>From Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired:
> >> Stuf4 wrote:
> > You advertise having been in the Air Force, yet you show absolutely no
> > recognition of the distinction between a combatant and a non-
> > combatant. LOAC is quite clear that it is illegal to kill civilians.
> > These are the same set of rules that spells out that it is illegal to
> > shoot a paratrooper while under canopy, or to shoot a pilot who has
> > bailed out of the aircraft.
>
> You fail to realize targeting a factory is not the same as targeting
> the civilians working there. In a perfect world one would hope there
> would have been an alarm given and the employees would have headed for
> shelter. The factory would be a legitimate target. I ask you again, how
> would you take out the factory with the technology fielded in 1945
> without civilian casualties?
I remember having read somewhere that the USAAF *did* issue a warning
to the entire city of Hiroshima. Something to the effect of "leave
your city because we are about to nuke you..."
<snip>
> I ask again, how would you strike legitimate targets with the
> technology fielded during WW2 without collateral damage to include
> civilians?
Without collateral damage to civilians? Well I wouldn't use nukes,
that's for sure!
> >>> To have a meaningful discussion about what Tibbets (and Oppenheimer
> >>> and Truman and the others) did, then it is insufficient to simply
> >>> weigh in a balance the lives lost against the lives that might have
> >>> been lost. The crux of the issue is justification of mass murder.
> >> Or justification of stopping mass murder. Are you aware the Japanese
> >> army had orders to slaughter POWs as well as slave labour and were still
> >> butchering civilians en masse?
>
> > There are plenty of examples for excursions from what was legal
> > warfare. But to identify only those crimes of the Germans and
> > Japanese, while ignoring those of the US and allied countries makes
> > for an unbalanced view of history.
>
> I never said otherwise. But there's a big difference between Nazi
> gas chambers and Japanese slaughtering civilians for pleasure in Nanking
> and collateral deaths of civilians during a bombing campaign.
Agreed.
My primary reason for piping in on this thread was to check the one-
for-one lives saved point of view with no regard to combatant status.
> > ...and it would also help to note that a balanced view of history will
> > show that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and Manila on December
> > 7th (/8th) was billed as a LIBERATION of Hawaiian and Filipino natives
> > who were being oppressed by US Imperialists.
>
> Liberators do not slaughter hospital patients in their beds, kidnap
> women as sex slaves and the like. So what is your point here?
Every country has their own spin for justifying their actions. After
all, if you cannot justify it to yourself then you wouldn't do it.
> >>> In the wake of 9/11, we can expect that radical Muslims have many
> >>> varied justifications for what was done there. The US continues to
> >>> cry "foul". Yet Tibbets is a hero.
> >> There's one minor difference. The Enola Gay targetted valid military
> >> targets in Hiroshima. WTC was not a valid military target.
>
> > If you persist in the belief that vaporizing a city constitutes a
> > legal military action, I will refer you back to that unanimous League
> > of Nations resolutions stating that "the intentional bombing of
> > civilian populations is illegal".
>
> Again, you seem to forget the fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had
> perfectly legal military targets within city limits and no technology
> fielded in 1945 could have taken them out without large civilian
> casualty rates.
In such a case then, the moral imperative is to Not "take them out".
> > ...or take the words of Curt LeMay himself. He stated that if the US
> > had lost the war, he expected that he would have been tried as a war
> > criminal.
>
> > (Google [lemay war criminal] for references.)
>
> I'm sure he would have.
WWII got severely ugly.
> >>> ...and the WTC site is still referred to as "ground zero", as though
> >>> the destruction there is comparable to the destruction of a nuclear
> >>> bomb. Those airliners were firecrackers in comparison to what a nuke
> >>> could have done.
> >> Ground zero means nuclear attack site? Since when?
>
> > "Ground zero" has a very specific meaning that comes from nuclear
> > weapons. Since nukes are typically set for an air burst, the term
> > refers to the plot of ground that lies directly below that burst. All
> > other uses of the term are dilutions that have come from hyperbole,
> > with lame comparisons to the destruction of an actual nuclear blast.
>
> If you insist.
There are probably some references available, like Nuclear Weapons
Effects manuals and such that explicitly define what Ground Zero
means. And then we can play historian/etymologist to see how that
term got diluted, particularly post-9/11.
<snip>
> From reading what you wrote above you seem to be saying no
> noncombatant casualties were acceptable. You have yet to come up with a
> way to have won that war without civilian casualties. The only way to
> completely avoid U.S. forces killing civilians would be for the forces
> to not fight and withdraw to CONUS.
I am not here to suggest that the war could have been won without any
civilian casualties.
> I ask again, given the technology fielded by the Allies in 1945 how
> would YOU have avoided civilian casualties? Using your "logic"
> railroads, factories , bridges, military buildings etc could not be
> struck because civilians would be hurt. You don't seem to understand
> the civilians were NOT the target.
>
> Had the U.S. used conventional bombs to strike military targets in
> Hiroshima I'd venture to say just as many, if not more, civilians would
> have died since a herd of B-29s would have dropped their bombs over
> wider areas and would have had to keep going back to get what they
> missed before.
...and the Tokyo firebombing raids were just as illegal as the nukings
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (LeMay's quote about war crimes was in
response, as I recall, to authorizing the firebombing raids.) The
issue is not conventional versus nuclear. The issue is indiscriminate
targeting of non-combatant civilians. While Douhet preached it as a
great way to win a war, it seems to get lost on the history books that
it was a totally illegal way to win a war.
As it is, the ends have been used to justify the means.
~ CT
Dan
>>From Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired:
>> You have never studied or been trained in the Law of Armed Conflict,
>> have you?
>
> Anyone who holds that nuking a city full of civilians is justified
> under the LOAC has studied a different set of laws than I am aware
> of. It doesn't hold water with Just War Theory either. So far all I
> have been stressing here is the legal aspects, not the moral aspects.
You still don't get it. The civilians weren't the target. There were
military targets in both cities. If there were no lawful military
targets and they were bombed anyway then that would be a war crime. You
can't change facts. There WERE military targets in both cities and
that's why the bombs were dropped there.
I have asked you several times; given the technology fielded in 1945
how would YOU have struck the military targets without civilian
casualties? If you don't have an answer admit it.
>
> And if you would like to know specifics on my experience in the
> military, certification with nuclear weapons and education in the Law
> of Armed Conflict, I would be glad to share that with you privately.
> Just clip the "-spamblock-" from my email address.
I really don't care enough to ask. Based on your inability to
comprehend the difference between targeting civilians and targeting
military assets with civilian collateral casualties I highly doubt you
ever served let alone had to sit through the Law of Armed Conflict
courses those of us who actually served did. This would have been done
in basic, academy, ROTC or OCS/OTS.
Then again, if you really had served, you would be a hypocrite since
the U.S. military has thermonuclear weapons ready to use. In using them
the majority of casualties would be civilian. If you played with nukes
in any capacity you would have done so voluntarily. No one is forced to
do so. All you have to do to get out of it is flunk HRP/PRP. It can be
done without breaking any regulations.
>
> For here I will share that one of Paul Tibbets' grandkids is a friend
> of mine.
Why of COURSE he's a friend of yours. I wouldn't have expected
anything less.
You probably know that his grandson flies as a B-2 SqdnCC
> with the 509th at Whiteman.
I didn't know and it really has no bearing on this discussion, does
it? BTW, the 13th Bomb Squadron's CC is Col. Bill Eldridge, 393d Bomb
Squadron's CC is Lt. Col. John Vitacca and 394th Combat Training
Squadron's CC is Lt. Col. Troy VanBemmelen.
Given the technology fielded in 1945 how would YOU have struck the
military targets without civilian casualties?
Dave Michelson
> Stuf4 wrote:
>>
> You still don't get it.
Apparently neither do you. Stuffie is a troll. Please stop biting!
--
Dave Michelson
da...@ece.ubc.ca
Stuf4
> >> Then the non-combat civilians must refrain from all activities that
> >> contribute to the war effort.
>
> > Must they? To get a more clear understanding of the Law of Armed
> > Conflict, think back to that paratrooper or bailed out aircrew
> > example.
>
> You can shoot paratroopers at any point in their journey to combat including
> while parachuting to the ground. It's not any different than shooting at
> amphibious landing craft.
There had never been an airborne assault with paratroopers until
*after* WWII was well underway. The rules of warfare that applied
from the start of the war, as I understand them, prohibited *anyone*
who had parachuted from an aircraft from being shot at.
~ CT
Dan
Given bombing accuracy at the time a bigger area would have been
struck because of repeated air strikes being required to complete the
task. You have no solution so your argument is not valid.
>
>>>>> To have a meaningful discussion about what Tibbets (and Oppenheimer
>>>>> and Truman and the others) did, then it is insufficient to simply
>>>>> weigh in a balance the lives lost against the lives that might have
>>>>> been lost. The crux of the issue is justification of mass murder.
>>>> Or justification of stopping mass murder. Are you aware the Japanese
>>>> army had orders to slaughter POWs as well as slave labour and were still
>>>> butchering civilians en masse?
>>> There are plenty of examples for excursions from what was legal
>>> warfare. But to identify only those crimes of the Germans and
>>> Japanese, while ignoring those of the US and allied countries makes
>>> for an unbalanced view of history.
>> I never said otherwise. But there's a big difference between Nazi
>> gas chambers and Japanese slaughtering civilians for pleasure in Nanking
>> and collateral deaths of civilians during a bombing campaign.
>
> Agreed.
>
> My primary reason for piping in on this thread was to check the one-
> for-one lives saved point of view with no regard to combatant status.
Your primary reason seems to have been to accuse the U.S. of
deliberately targeting civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. You have
deliberately ignored the fact that both cities had military targets.
>
>>> ...and it would also help to note that a balanced view of history will
>>> show that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and Manila on December
>>> 7th (/8th) was billed as a LIBERATION of Hawaiian and Filipino natives
>>> who were being oppressed by US Imperialists.
>> Liberators do not slaughter hospital patients in their beds, kidnap
>> women as sex slaves and the like. So what is your point here?
>
> Every country has their own spin for justifying their actions. After
> all, if you cannot justify it to yourself then you wouldn't do it.
So that argument about them being liberators was a canard.
>
>>>>> In the wake of 9/11, we can expect that radical Muslims have many
>>>>> varied justifications for what was done there. The US continues to
>>>>> cry "foul". Yet Tibbets is a hero.
>>>> There's one minor difference. The Enola Gay targetted valid military
>>>> targets in Hiroshima. WTC was not a valid military target.
>>> If you persist in the belief that vaporizing a city constitutes a
>>> legal military action, I will refer you back to that unanimous League
>>> of Nations resolutions stating that "the intentional bombing of
>>> civilian populations is illegal".
>> Again, you seem to forget the fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had
>> perfectly legal military targets within city limits and no technology
>> fielded in 1945 could have taken them out without large civilian
>> casualty rates.
>
> In such a case then, the moral imperative is to Not "take them out".
Using that "logic" there were almost no military targets on the home
islands that could have been struck. You are making less and less sense
as you go on.
>
>>> ...or take the words of Curt LeMay himself. He stated that if the US
>>> had lost the war, he expected that he would have been tried as a war
>>> criminal.
>>> (Google [lemay war criminal] for references.)
>> I'm sure he would have.
>
> WWII got severely ugly.
All wars are ugly, I have seen war up close and personal when I was
in the Army.
>
>>>>> ...and the WTC site is still referred to as "ground zero", as though
>>>>> the destruction there is comparable to the destruction of a nuclear
>>>>> bomb. Those airliners were firecrackers in comparison to what a nuke
>>>>> could have done.
>>>> Ground zero means nuclear attack site? Since when?
>>> "Ground zero" has a very specific meaning that comes from nuclear
>>> weapons. Since nukes are typically set for an air burst, the term
>>> refers to the plot of ground that lies directly below that burst. All
>>> other uses of the term are dilutions that have come from hyperbole,
>>> with lame comparisons to the destruction of an actual nuclear blast.
>> If you insist.
>
> There are probably some references available, like Nuclear Weapons
> Effects manuals and such that explicitly define what Ground Zero
> means. And then we can play historian/etymologist to see how that
> term got diluted, particularly post-9/11.
>
> <snip>
>> From reading what you wrote above you seem to be saying no
>> noncombatant casualties were acceptable. You have yet to come up with a
>> way to have won that war without civilian casualties. The only way to
>> completely avoid U.S. forces killing civilians would be for the forces
>> to not fight and withdraw to CONUS.
>
> I am not here to suggest that the war could have been won without any
> civilian casualties.
>
Then what is your point here?
>> I ask again, given the technology fielded by the Allies in 1945 how
>> would YOU have avoided civilian casualties? Using your "logic"
>> railroads, factories , bridges, military buildings etc could not be
>> struck because civilians would be hurt. You don't seem to understand
>> the civilians were NOT the target.
>>
>> Had the U.S. used conventional bombs to strike military targets in
>> Hiroshima I'd venture to say just as many, if not more, civilians would
>> have died since a herd of B-29s would have dropped their bombs over
>> wider areas and would have had to keep going back to get what they
>> missed before.
>
> ...and the Tokyo firebombing raids were just as illegal as the nukings
> of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Wrong again, the city of Tokyo had backyard factories interspersed
throughout the city including residential areas. As cruel as firebombing
was it was one of the best ways to ensure taking out those factories.
(LeMay's quote about war crimes was in
> response, as I recall, to authorizing the firebombing raids.) The
> issue is not conventional versus nuclear. The issue is indiscriminate
> targeting of non-combatant civilians. While Douhet preached it as a
> great way to win a war, it seems to get lost on the history books that
> it was a totally illegal way to win a war.
It would have been illegal if the civilians were the target. They
weren't. See above.
>
> As it is, the ends have been used to justify the means.
>
>
> ~ CT
>
Why can't you comprehend taking out military targets was perfectly
legal even if civilian collateral casualties were incurred? Your entire
theory seems to be the U.S. deliberately targeted noncombatants. It
simply wasn't the case.
On top of that you still can't seem to offer an alternative that
would have been any more humane.
Dan
> Dan wrote:
>> Stuf4 wrote:
>>>
>> You still don't get it.
>
> Apparently neither do you. Stuffie is a troll. Please stop biting!
>
Stuf4
> Stuf4 wrote:
> >>From Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired:
> You still don't get it. The civilians weren't the target. There were
> military targets in both cities. If there were no lawful military
> targets and they were bombed anyway then that would be a war crime. You
> can't change facts. There WERE military targets in both cities and
> that's why the bombs were dropped there.
>
> I have asked you several times; given the technology fielded in 1945
> how would YOU have struck the military targets without civilian
> casualties? If you don't have an answer admit it.
Perhaps you have heard of the concept of precision daylight bombing.
...not to say that it's what I would have ordered, but it is certainly
a less indiscriminate tactic than nuking. Or firebombing, for that
matter.
> > And if you would like to know specifics on my experience in the
> > military, certification with nuclear weapons and education in the Law
> > of Armed Conflict, I would be glad to share that with you privately.
> > Just clip the "-spamblock-" from my email address.
>
> I really don't care enough to ask. Based on your inability to
> comprehend the difference between targeting civilians and targeting
> military assets with civilian collateral casualties I highly doubt you
> ever served let alone had to sit through the Law of Armed Conflict
> courses those of us who actually served did. This would have been done
> in basic, academy, ROTC or OCS/OTS.
You might want to read what you just wrote. You are referring to the
nuking of an entire city as "collateral casualties".
> Then again, if you really had served, you would be a hypocrite since
> the U.S. military has thermonuclear weapons ready to use. In using them
> the majority of casualties would be civilian. If you played with nukes
> in any capacity you would have done so voluntarily. No one is forced to
> do so. All you have to do to get out of it is flunk HRP/PRP. It can be
> done without breaking any regulations.
Hypocrite? I have not killed any civilians with a nuclear weapon. I
am not aware of any civilians who have been killed with a nuclear bomb
by anyone at all since August 1945.
<snip>
> Given the technology fielded in 1945 how would YOU have struck the
> military targets without civilian casualties?
I find it peculiar how you refuse to acknowledge that the very purpose
of the nukes was to inflict mass civilian casualties. One of the
primary criteria for the cities chosen was that it was not a city that
had been bombed out previously, so that the devastation would be
attributed to that one bomb. That means that the "targets" in the
city were not important enough to hit with conventional bombs.
...and you want to hold that these factories were the primary reason
for killing those tens of thousands of people.
For the purpose of completeness... if the goal was not wiping out the
entire city, but just disabling some production sites, then you have
the option to attack them as precision targets with precise bombs that
don't wipe out thousands of people "collaterally". Or another option
discussed was to parachute some people who could disable the
militarily significant targets from the ground. If you were really
bent on disabling any factories with a nuke, there is also the option
of dropping it as a dirty bomb (low order explosive nuke) so that the
workers would be prevented from going to their jobs.
There were plenty of options. One option that was pushed for was,
instead of wiping out a city, to have an awesome demonstration of nuke
power by blowing it up over Tokyo Bay. This idea was rejected. The
reason why was because it was thought to be far more effective to
press the Japanese to surrender if a city was wiped out with mass
casualties.
~ CT
Hiroshima Facts
<mooregr_deletet...@greenms.com> wrote:
> "Dan" <B2...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:7_8Xi.1739$Gy4...@newsfe24.lga...
> > Stuf4 wrote:
>
> >> In the wake of 9/11, we can expect that radical Muslims have many
> >> varied justifications for what was done there. The US continues to
> >> cry "foul". Yet Tibbets is a hero.
>
> > There's one minor difference. The Enola Gay targetted valid military
> > targets in Hiroshima. WTC was not a valid military target.
>
> I hate to jump into this thread lest I be suspect of agreeing in toto with
> Stuf4.
>
> However, I think the quote regarding that had the Allied Powers lost the
> war, they'd have been tried and convicted on war crimes is an unfortunate
> truth.
>
> Both sides had attacked non "military" targets if you define "military' as
> weapons, defensive or offensive installations, factories dedicated strictly
> to war production and the like.
I'm not aware of the US attacking a non-military target.
Hiroshima was Japan's largest military town. Hiroshima's military
districts held tens of thousands of soldiers (giving it the highest
soldier/civilian ratio of any Japanese city). Hiroshima Castle held
the headquarters of the Japanese Second General Army, which was in
charge of repelling any invasion in the southern half of Japan (right
where we were planning to invade).
The second bomb was intended for Kokura Arsenal, a massive (4100' x
2000') arms-production complex. The secondary target was the
Mitsubishi Shipyards, a massive warship construction facility at
Nagasaki. Due to technical and weather difficulties, the bomb ended
up being dropped on Urakami, an industrial zone north of Nagasaki.
There it destroyed the Mitsubishi Steel Works and the Mitsubishi
Torpedo Works.
Before Japan attacked us, Pearl Harbor had been regarded as immune to
air-dropped torpedoes because the water was so shallow the torpedoes
would hit the ocean floor and embed themselves in the mud. This was
the only harbor in the world (outside Japan) that had such a natural
defense against air-dropped torpedoes. In order to attack us, Japan
had to develop entirely new torpedo technology designed specifically
for Pearl Harbor. The Mitsubishi Torpedo Works is the place that
designed and built those torpedoes.
> When it comes to the WTC, the argument that was made was that as a center of
> economic power it was a legitimate target. It's not one I buy into for a
> lot of reasons. But we have a tough time claiming the higher moral ground
> if we turn a blind eye to our own past.
I don't think al-Qa'ida made such an argument. They seem pretty open
about the fact that they intentionally target civilians.
More likely the argument was made by radicals who seem to hate any
country that stands for freedom.
You were correct to not buy into it. The WTC was second-tier office
space. The only point was to trap and kill civilians in a horrific
way.
Hiroshima Facts
>
> On top of this, let's not forget that those citizens of Hiroshima who
> were actively contributing to the war effort made up a small
> percentage of those vaporized.
A good 20,000 of the Hiroshima dead were soldiers. And the Hiroshima
bomb destroyed one of the most important military headquarters in
Japan.
Hiroshima Facts
>
> Time and again you will hear people talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki
> as "saving lives" with absolutely no distinction made about combatants
> versus non-combatants.
Had the war continued a few months longer, 10 million Japanese
civilians would have starved to death due to our ever-tightening
blockade.
And civilians were dying in mainland Asia at a rate of 250,000 to
400,000 a month.
Hiroshima Facts
> >From Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired:
> > Stuf4 wrote:
> > >>From Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired:
> <snip>
> > You still don't get it. The civilians weren't the target. There were
> > military targets in both cities. If there were no lawful military
> > targets and they were bombed anyway then that would be a war crime. You
> > can't change facts. There WERE military targets in both cities and
> > that's why the bombs were dropped there.
>
> > I have asked you several times; given the technology fielded in 1945
> > how would YOU have struck the military targets without civilian
> > casualties? If you don't have an answer admit it.
>
> Perhaps you have heard of the concept of precision daylight bombing.
Didn't work over Japan.
> I find it peculiar how you refuse to acknowledge that the very purpose
> of the nukes was to inflict mass civilian casualties.
That was hardly the purpose of the nukes.
> One of the
> primary criteria for the cities chosen was that it was not a city that
> had been bombed out previously, so that the devastation would be
> attributed to that one bomb. That means that the "targets" in the
> city were not important enough to hit with conventional bombs.
No, it doesn't mean that at all.
> For the purpose of completeness... if the goal was not wiping out the
> entire city, but just disabling some production sites, then you have
> the option to attack them as precision targets with precise bombs that
> don't wipe out thousands of people "collaterally". Or another option
> discussed was to parachute some people who could disable the
> militarily significant targets from the ground.
In WWII Japan? Are you kidding?
Stuf4
Targeting Committee [declassified6-4-74]:
- "targets in a large urban area of more than three miles in diameter"
- "Hiroshima ...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"
- "Yokohama ...has the disadvantage of the most important target areas
being separated by a large body of water..."
- "Use Against "Military" Objectives - 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."
Commentary:
These statements make it clear that reaping destruction to civilians
in the city was a major consideration in targeting these first nukes.
The hills around Hiroshima were seen as an advantage so that a larger
part of the city could be wiped out. Yokohama was seen as less than
desirable because plenty of water would be vaporized instead of people
(unless there were people out on the water). And it was decided not
to use the bomb against a military only target that wasn't surrounded
by a bunch of civilians, because if the bomb was dropped off target
then a bunch of trees would get blasted instead of a bunch of people.
~ CT
More complete excerpt (from http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html):
=========
Minutes of the second meeting of the Target Committee
Los Alamos, May 10-11, 1945
...
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:
...
(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 ...has the disadvantage of the most
important target areas being separated by a large body of water...
...
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. ...
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.
=========
Stuf4
20,000? Perhaps you are counting the "future soldiers" under the age
of 14. And even if it were to be established as fact, then perhaps
you consider it to be a worthy ratio that "a good" 1 out of 7 of those
killed were not civilians.
Also, if it was so important for this military headquarters to have
been taken out, then it would support your point to explain why the
USAAF waited until August '45 to bomb it.
~ CT
Rinnga Dinnga
I love this "Rules of War" shit. Do you think this is a game of
monopoly where you read the rule sheet before you play? The (single)
rule is simple...
Win.
What is needed at the time is needed, and all discussion after the
event is trite. End of.
Steven P. McNicoll
>>
>> Then the non-combat civilians must refrain from all activities that
>> contribute to the war effort.
>>
>
> Must they?
>
Yes.
>
> To get a more clear understanding of the Law of Armed
> Conflict, think back to that paratrooper or bailed out aircrew
> example. It is illegal to shoot them while under canopy. They are
> clearly performing acts that are directly contributing to the war
> effort. They are members of the military performing those acts. But
> those are non-combatant acts. And it is illegal to shoot them while
> they are in the role of a non-combatant.
>
What law prohibits shooting an armed paratrooper under canopy?
Dan
>>From Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired:
>> Stuf4 wrote:
>>> >From Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired:
> <snip>
>> You still don't get it. The civilians weren't the target. There were
>> military targets in both cities. If there were no lawful military
>> targets and they were bombed anyway then that would be a war crime. You
>> can't change facts. There WERE military targets in both cities and
>> that's why the bombs were dropped there.
>>
>> I have asked you several times; given the technology fielded in 1945
>> how would YOU have struck the military targets without civilian
>> casualties? If you don't have an answer admit it.
>
> Perhaps you have heard of the concept of precision daylight bombing.
I suggest you look at "precision daylight bombing" as it actually
happened during WW2.
>
> ...not to say that it's what I would have ordered, but it is certainly
> a less indiscriminate tactic than nuking. Or firebombing, for that
> matter.
>
>>> And if you would like to know specifics on my experience in the
>>> military, certification with nuclear weapons and education in the Law
>>> of Armed Conflict, I would be glad to share that with you privately.
>>> Just clip the "-spamblock-" from my email address.
>> I really don't care enough to ask. Based on your inability to
>> comprehend the difference between targeting civilians and targeting
>> military assets with civilian collateral casualties I highly doubt you
>> ever served let alone had to sit through the Law of Armed Conflict
>> courses those of us who actually served did. This would have been done
>> in basic, academy, ROTC or OCS/OTS.
>
> You might want to read what you just wrote. You are referring to the
> nuking of an entire city as "collateral casualties".
No, I didn't say that at all.
>
>> Then again, if you really had served, you would be a hypocrite since
>> the U.S. military has thermonuclear weapons ready to use. In using them
>> the majority of casualties would be civilian. If you played with nukes
>> in any capacity you would have done so voluntarily. No one is forced to
>> do so. All you have to do to get out of it is flunk HRP/PRP. It can be
>> done without breaking any regulations.
>
> Hypocrite? I have not killed any civilians with a nuclear weapon. I
> am not aware of any civilians who have been killed with a nuclear bomb
> by anyone at all since August 1945.
If you had actually served in the military in the capacity you
suggest you would have been required to be part of the release of
thermonuclear weapons.
As I said, conventional bombing wasn't "precision" and would have
covered a larger area than was affected by the atomic bomb. This would
be due to the accuracy of the bombing and the need for repeated attacks
to finish the job.
Since you have persistently refused to read what I actually write I
am done with you.
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
<columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 3, 8:21 pm, "scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com"
>
> <scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 4:50 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
>
> > <columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > (do you view those on the fringe right in the same manner?)
>
> > No, for the simple fact that fringe right is not the same as fringe
> > left. For starters, fringe right is in serious decline as far as
> > cultural importance.For example, fringe right nonsense such as
> > "Intelligent Design" is being run out of public school ona rail. But
> > frionge left stuff like "An Inconvenient Truth" is being force-fed to
> > public school kids.
>
> You just compared non related issues, not people, so your example
Incorrect. It is *issues* that make the difference.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:" Incorrect. It is *issues* that
make the difference"
nope you are wrong, as you can continue to attempt to shift things all
you want, but at the root of the issues are people. Once again i
asked you to objectivley compare people on opposite sides of the
political spectrum, not the specific issues that seperate them, and
all you did was back your opinion, with another opinion. The reason i
asked you do so was because i was wondering if you were capable of
labeling the far right, just as you label the far left, which you
still have failed to do, and it appears you are avoiding to do so. But
if you want to be viewed as something more than a political hack (or
beligerent such as om), then you will be objective and provide such a
objective view, it is that simple, otherwise by continuing your
avoidance your are just lowering the credibility of your posts...
Stuf4
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 01:43:45 -0700, Stuf4
> <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote:
> >>From Leadfoot:
> >> "Stuf4" <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote in message
> >> > >From Steven P. McNicoll:
> >> >> Then the non-combat civilians must refrain from all activities that
> >> >> contribute to the war effort.
>
> >> > Must they? To get a more clear understanding of the Law of Armed
> >> > Conflict, think back to that paratrooper or bailed out aircrew
> >> > example.
>
> >> You can shoot paratroopers at any point in their journey to combat including
> >> while parachuting to the ground. It's not any different than shooting at
> >> amphibious landing craft.
>
> >There had never been an airborne assault with paratroopers until
> >*after* WWII was well underway. The rules of warfare that applied
> >from the start of the war, as I understand them, prohibited *anyone*
> >who had parachuted from an aircraft from being shot at.
> I love this "Rules of War" shit. Do you think this is a game of
> monopoly where you read the rule sheet before you play? The (single)
> rule is simple...
>
> Win.
>
> What is needed at the time is needed, and all discussion after the
> event is trite. End of.
That is a perfectly understandable position. But I hope you are aware
where that path leads, because...
...in order to be to be consistent, one would reject criticism of
Mohammed Atta's tactics as "trite" just as readily as rejecting Paul
Tibbets' tactics. Now once you say "wait a minute" to point out
distinctions then you are back venturing into the realm of Rules of
War. So is it really true that "all's fair..." ?
Aye, there's the rub.
~ CT
Mike Williamson
>>From Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired:
>
>>
>>bombing methods available at the time any better? The fact remains many
>>military targets were in populated areas. Take a look at the nearest
>>military base or factory to where you live. How would you take out that
>>target with the capabilities the Allies had in 1945? By that time a
>>great many small factories were family businesses in their own
>>communities. Are you suggesting not taking them out? Suppose you were
>>making parts for rifles in your yard would you expect to be left alone
>>just because you live in a residential area?
>
>
> recognition of the distinction between a combatant and a non-
> combatant. LOAC is quite clear that it is illegal to kill civilians.
> These are the same set of rules that spells out that it is illegal to
> shoot a paratrooper while under canopy, or to shoot a pilot who has
> bailed out of the aircraft.
You berate Dan, but in the process show your own ignorance. It is
not and has never been illegal to kill civilians (noncombatants). It
is illegal to DELIBERATELY TARGET them in and of themselves, and
care must be taken during military operations that if non-combatants
may or will be killed during an attack (almost always the case,
unfortunately) that the military benefits outweigh the expected
non-combatant casualties (the concepts of proportionality and military
necessity). An attack on a military target that results
in non-combatant casualties or property damage is an act of war. A
deliberate attack on non-combatants that results in the deaths of
combatants or incidental damage to a military target is a crime. In
instances where large amounts of collateral damage is expected, then
the concept of military necessity determines whether such an attack
would be warranted. Also, it is specifically LEGAL to shoot a
paratrooper in a parachute under the laws of armed conflict, so you
are specifically incorrect in two out of your three arguments.
>
> You appear to be ok with killing civilians who work in factories that
> make war materials. Let's be clear that those factory workers are non-
> combatants. As completely off limits as a paratrooper under canopy.
Once again, your argument is useless as paratroopers are specifically
considered to be combatants and may be shot "under canopy" at will.
Civilians working in a factory generally are not considered legal
targets in and of themselves, but they may be attacked at the factory,
as the presence of protected persons in or around a legal target does
not confer protection to the target (subject to the concepts of
proportionality and military necessity), and if they happen to live
near the target then even in their homes they may be considered to
be collateral damage if the target of the attack is the factory and
not specifically the homes of the workers.
During WWII, given the general problems with navigation, target
identification, size of formations, bomb dispersal, etc., just about
any place within several miles of a target was considered "close"
under the technical limitations of the time. At the time, if the
attack was intended to cause damage to a specific target of military
value, then just about everything else was collateral damage. This
is especially true as all sides attempted to make their strategic
targets harder to attack by placing anti-aircraft guns, smoke screens,
camouflage, etc, all of which contributed to less accurate bombing
and widespread damage as a result. Given improvements in precision
munitions in the last several years, such collateral damage has been
drastically reduced, but will never be eliminated entirely.
Mike
Stuf4
> Since you have persistently refused to read what I actually write I
> am done with you.
I have read every single word that was written. As I see it, you and
I simply disagree.
~ CT
Stuf4
I have supported my statements with clear references citing unanimous
resolution from the League of Nations, etc. (http://groups.google.com/
group/sci.space.history/msg/ddd4633c71828c84). If you have any
support for the view that it was perfectly ok to nuke cities, or ok to
shoot paratrooper under canopy prior to the 1949 Geneva Conventions
(post WWII), I would be glad to consider any support you have to
offer.
In case you glossed over that previous reference, it was quite clear
in stating:
=====
1) The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal;
2) Objectives aimed at from the air must be legitimate military
objectives and must be identifiable;
3) Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in
such a way that civilian populations in the neighbourhood are not
bombed through negligence
=====
(http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html#D)
And from that same reference, when FDR was talking about "inhuman
barbarism" in the "ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in
unfortified centers of population", let's be clear that he was talking
about conventional bombs. Mere firecrackers in comparison to Little
Boy.
Requoting from that League of Nations resolution:
"Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in
such a way that civilian populations in the neighbourhood are not
bombed through negligence".
It does not say "minimize collateral damage". It says "not bombed
through negligence". Your argument above seems to indicate an
attitude that "negligence is perfectly excusable". Now if you'd like
an historical example of how bombs can be dropped with precision,
compare Ploesti. This bombardier knew exactly what buildings his
bombs were going to fall on:
http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/4053/ploesti2nu.jpg
Compare that type of WWII precision versus indiscriminately nuking the
entire city in order to take out one militarily significant target.
~ CT
Stuf4
> On Nov 4, 4:13 am, Stuf4 <tdadamemd-spamblo...@excite.com> wrote:
> > I find it peculiar how you refuse to acknowledge that the very purpose
> > of the nukes was to inflict mass civilian casualties.
>
> That was hardly the purpose of the nukes.
Here is a repost of the Targeting Committee's classified minutes:
http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html
Excerpts have been posted here:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.history/msg/cf730e83b530141e
Note in particular the discussed desire for "psychological effects".
This fits with Douhet Strategic Bombardment Theory that states that if
you kill enough civilians, they will lose the will to continue to
fight the war.
~ CT
Pat Flannery
Hiroshima Facts wrote:
> In order to attack us, Japan
> had to develop entirely new torpedo technology designed specifically
> for Pearl Harbor.
>
Consisting of a set of fall-off plywood fins mounted on the back of the
torpedo to keep it straight as it fell into the water.
Not exactly a earthshaking new technology.
Now if they had figured out a way to drop a Long Lance torpedo off of a
carrier based aircraft.... ;-)
Pat
Stuf4
> > My primary reason for piping in on this thread was to check the one-
> > for-one lives saved point of view with no regard to combatant status.
>
> Your primary reason seems to have been to accuse the U.S. of
> deliberately targeting civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. You have
> deliberately ignored the fact that both cities had military targets.
Here are quotes from the Top Secret documents from the Manhattan
Project Targeting Committee (declassified,'74):
http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html
=====
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
=====
***Meaning: The expressed goal was to wipe out a large urban area.
=====
(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)
=====
***Meaning: The goal of extensively damaging a large part of the city
fits exactly with the concept of indiscriminate mass killing of
civilians.
=====
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.
=====
***Meaning: It is clear that the committee felt that wiping out a
bunch of smart civilians would have a greater impact than wiping out a
bunch of less intelligent people. Hiroshima mountains will help wipe
out the city.
=====
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.
=====
***Meaning: Here the committee is specific in that it does not want
to use the bomb against a target that is only military. The very goal
is to wipe out civilians. By "weapon being lost", they are lamenting
the possibility that the bomb levels a bunch of trees instead of
killing Japs.
> >>> ...and it would also help to note that a balanced view of history will
> >>> show that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and Manila on December
> >>> 7th (/8th) was billed as a LIBERATION of Hawaiian and Filipino natives
> >>> who were being oppressed by US Imperialists.
> >> Liberators do not slaughter hospital patients in their beds, kidnap
> >> women as sex slaves and the like. So what is your point here?
>
> > Every country has their own spin for justifying their actions. After
> > all, if you cannot justify it to yourself then you wouldn't do it.
>
> So that argument about them being liberators was a canard.
I specifically stated that it was how the attacks were "billed".
> > <snip>
> >> From reading what you wrote above you seem to be saying no
> >> noncombatant casualties were acceptable. You have yet to come up with a
> >> way to have won that war without civilian casualties. The only way to
> >> completely avoid U.S. forces killing civilians would be for the forces
> >> to not fight and withdraw to CONUS.
>
> > I am not here to suggest that the war could have been won without any
> > civilian casualties.
>
> Then what is your point here?
Minimizing civilian casualties seems to be your own objective, and
that does not fit with the historical record on how these atomic bombs
were purposefully used to inflict mass civilian casualties.
> Why can't you comprehend taking out military targets was perfectly
> legal even if civilian collateral casualties were incurred? Your entire
> theory seems to be the U.S. deliberately targeted noncombatants. It
> simply wasn't the case.
> On top of that you still can't seem to offer an alternative that
> would have been any more humane.
There is one alternative yet to be discussed that I know to be
perfectly humane. Yet given the various options that have already
been spelled out here, it appears that you favor mass civilian
casualties over minimum civilian casualties.
...and that is exactly what Oppenheimer & co were out to achieve given
their approach to targeting.
~ CT
Pat Flannery
Hiroshima Facts wrote:
>> Or another option
>> discussed was to parachute some people who could disable the
>> militarily significant targets from the ground.
>>
>
> In WWII Japan? Are you kidding?
>
I'm getting this image of American paratroopers 'disguised' as
Japanese... faces painted bright yellow, fake mustaches, fake buck
teeth, round glasses as thick as bottoms of Coca-Cola bottles, running
around and bowing to every one while muttering 'So solly' and 'God bress
empelol.'
The whole concept may have been brilliant; the Japanese might have
considered it some sort of bizarre Zen tactic by a enemy who was so
confident of victory that he'd send in crack troops just to make fun of
you, knowing that their Bushido spirit was so high that they didn't mind
dieing for the sake of a insulting practical joke against their enemies.
At least the quick end to the war via the atomic bombs meant that the
dread Enkai-Sundzumari Kinezumis
were never called into action against the approaching U.S. invasion
fleet; from a past posting -
>One pic shows the moon ship from BOS on the pad
>with the SFX guy standing next to it and it was taller than
>him, or either the guy would be a tad smaller in actual
>size.
You know how they did that? They used MIDGETS for their model and
prop-building work! Not only were the little guys capable of getting
into all sorts of tight places, but they made the props look far larger
than they actually were in carefully released "behind the scenes" photos
for the press, and got Toho Pictures the traditional tax break that was
afforded to any company employing midgets (considered by Japanese to be
mystical beings descended from the Sun Goddess Amaterasu's romantic
liaison with Ru-Kinezumi, the Red Squirrel Deity) under the Imperial
Edict of Emperor Gosuzaku in 1042. It is a little-known fact that the
average height of Japanese Toyota employees is only 42", and the company
is required by law to supply them with a dozen free acorns at lunch each
day. One reason that the Japanese developed midget submarines during
W.W. II is that they had the midgets to crew them, and these "little sea
squirrels" (Enkai-Sundzumari Kinezumis) actually found the submarines to
be quite spacious, although they soon tired of the constant diet of
acorns, peanuts, and bird seed which the Imperial Navy thought necessary
to maintain their health and fighting spirit. This led to the famous
wartime poem:
"Little sea squirrel, prowling in the cold waves, gnaw now upon the
enemy's nuts as well as the navy's.
Tiny are you, no larger than a rodent, but your teeth are full of
Bushido Spirit, and the angry demeanor of your shaking tail betokens
sure victory."
The tragic part was how to some extent Japanese midgetism became a
self-fulfilling prophecy; if a child was seen to have "squirrel
tendencies" early in their youth (large teeth, a tendency to climb
trees, long finger and toenails, and a nervous and curious temperament)
then the local Shinto priest was almost sure to suggest that acorns
should be introduced into the child's diet for its health.
Unfortunately, acorns contain substances that make them unpalatable (and
indeed somewhat poisonous) to humans, and this would lead to a loss of
the child's appetite and consequent stunting of their growth, leading to
yet more "squirrel food" being introduced into their diet in an attempt
to make them healthy.
The end results were vitamin deficiencies that led to numerous problems
including poor eyesight due to lack of vitamin A, and protuberant teeth
due to lack of vitamin C and incipient scurvy.
It is no coincidence that American W.W. II propaganda posters showed
Japanese soldiers as tiny in size, with buck teeth and glasses. In fact,
it went even further than that, with Japanese soldiers actually being
portrayed as rodents in some cases:
http://memory.loc.gov/service/pnp/cph/3b40000/3b48000/3b48800/3b48885...
;-)
Pat
Pat Flannery
Rinnga Dinnga wrote:
> I love this "Rules of War" shit. Do you think this is a game of
> monopoly where you read the rule sheet before you play? The (single)
> rule is simple...
>
Besides which, neither we or Japan were signatories to the Geneva
Conventions during WWII.
As others have pointed out, Stuf4 is a troll who loves to make
nonsensical arguments to bait people into arguing with him.
If you want to throw him...or her... it's never admitted who, what, or
where it is...a curve ball, just agree whole-heartedly with the goofy
concept being put forward...then the reply from Stuf4 will state that
although you agree with him, it's for the wrong reasons.
Also do a Google Groups search on the term 'Attic Latin' and 'Stuf4'
sometime.
That's very amusing to read. :-)
Pat
Pat Flannery
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
>
> What law prohibits shooting an armed paratrooper under canopy?
If he's still under the canopy, you should probably let him eject first
before shooting at him. ;-)
Pat
Dan
>
>
> Rinnga Dinnga wrote:
>> I love this "Rules of War" shit. Do you think this is a game of
>> monopoly where you read the rule sheet before you play? The (single)
>> rule is simple...
>>
>
> Besides which, neither we or Japan were signatories to the Geneva
> Conventions during WWII.
Who is this "we," Kemosabe? Japan wasn't, the U.S. and U.K. were.
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
<columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Once again i
> asked you to objectivley compare people on opposite sides of the
The specific issues that separate them is what makes them different.
, and
> all you did was back your opinion, with another opinion. The reason i
> asked you do so was because i was wondering if you were capable of
> labeling the far right...
Indeed I am. What about this concept challenges you?
, just as you label the far left, which you
> still have failed to do, and it appears you are avoiding to do so.
Incorrect. The discussiuon has revolved around the far left, objecting
as they do to things such as the nuking of Japan. The far right did
not and does not object to that, thus the far right is irrelevant to
this discussion.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
Actually the discussion is what we make it, which goes back to my
first point, just because somebody backs an opinion with an opinion,
it does not make the first opinion factual, i.e. just because om
decided to start a discussion off by calling people names, that does
not mean he is factually correct. Now i think i remember somebody
saying something like all politics is local, which kind of invalidates
your theories of left and right. I know some people like you would
like to pretend like they have the power to define what the argument
is, but your opinion was subjective by nature, meaning your predefined
argument is biased, and therefore other than preaching to your choir,
it is basically meaningless as it lacks objectivity. Now since you
lack objectivity, and you feel you must clearly define what the
argument is, you are attempting to stack the argument in favor of your
views, which is why i wanted to test your objectivity. Now the far
right is relevant as you have defined the far left, but where your
views are placed on the spectrum have yet to be defined, but they must
exist between the two extremes, so therefore how you define the other
extreme is important to objectively classify your views and opinions
of others. It is that simple, and i know you are avoiding doing what
i ask, but that's ok it is the credibility of your views at stake, not
mine....
Bill Shatzer
> "Stuf4" <tdadamemd-...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:1194158498.7...@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>To get a more clear understanding of the Law of Armed
>>Conflict, think back to that paratrooper or bailed out aircrew
>>example. It is illegal to shoot them while under canopy. They are
>>clearly performing acts that are directly contributing to the war
>>effort. They are members of the military performing those acts. But
>>those are non-combatant acts. And it is illegal to shoot them while
>>they are in the role of a non-combatant.
> What law prohibits shooting an armed paratrooper under canopy?
None. Protocol Additional to the 1949 Geneva Convention:
"Article 42.-Occupants of aircraft
1. No person parachuting from an aircraft in distress shall be made the
object of attack during his descent.
2. Upon reaching the ground in territory controlled by an adverse Party,
a person who has parachuted from an aircraft in distress shall be given
an opportunity to surrender before being made the object of attack,
unless it is apparent that he is engaging in a hostile act.
3. Airborne troops are not protected by this Article."
Cheers,
Robert Sveinson
"Bill Shatzer" <bshat...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9rOdncZS5qlm8LPa...@comcast.com...
Dowding in his report on the time that he was AOCinC of fighter command
did not consider the shooting of British pilots in their parachute by German
pilots
over Britain to be a criminal act.
I think that this was said in the book The Right Of The Line by John
Terraine.
>
> Cheers,
>
scottl...@ix.netcom.com
<columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> just because somebody backs an opinion with an opinion,
> it does not make the first opinion factual...
While that's true, nobody has said anything of the kind. One is left
to wonder just what in hell you're yammering on about.
, i.e. just because om
> decided to start a discussion off by calling people names, that does
> not mean he is factually correct.
And just because he's calling some names doesn;t mean he's *wrong,*
either. In this particular case, OM was correct.
>... which is why i wanted to test your objectivity.
Blah, blah, blah.
Now the far
> right is relevant as you have defined the far left, but where your
> views are placed on the spectrum have yet to be defined...
Yawn. It's irrelevant whether I am left, right, center or imaginary
when it comes to determining that the far left/right/imaginary kooks
are indeed kooks.
> It is that simple, and i know you are avoiding doing what
> i ask...
Perhaps you should re-read what you have asked, and ask *yourself* if
you asked the right question to obtain the answer you desire.
, but that's ok it is the credibility of your views at stake, not
> mine....
At stake to *whom?* I don't see too many people giving a shit.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
im yammering in your words about the terms that om choose to use, and
you words posted attempting to defend his obnoxious words of
belligerence, that's the problem. Now i really don't care about what
you think of me, or how you label me, and most importantly i could
care less if you are not amused or choose to yawn. You see you are
unable to treat yourself as others, or even demonstrate your
objectivity, so of course you wouldn't see the obnoxiousness or
belligerence in om's words, for your myopia is the very problem....
OM
>At stake to *whom?* I don't see too many people giving a shit.
...IIRC, this particular troll is still pissed because I wouldn't
include any of his CT Nutter bullshit claims in the FAQ, and *may*
have been one of the two who sent me threats in e-mail using Yahoo
accounts. The other turned out to be a know psychotic paraplegic
living in a trailer near Dickinson, TX. According to the cop who
handled the case, I could have handled the matter myself by taking the
nutjob for a stroll along one of the piers.
OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
OM
<rsve...@mts.net> wrote:
>I think that this was said in the book The Right Of The Line by John
>Terraine.
...Robert - and the rest of you over in r.a.military - ~CT AKA
"Stuf4", is a known Conspiracy Troll. He exists only to bait and
cajole the unsuspecting into flame wars that are nothing but lame
attempts at Argument Clinic. Most of us on sci.space.* - that is,
those of us who aren't bastard trolls like he is - killfiled him
*YEARS* ago. The sanest thing for you and the rest of those in your
group to do would be to pursue the same course of action. Send ~CT to
Killfile Hell and put him out of all of our miseries.
Please.
OM
<hiroshi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In order to attack us, Japan had to develop entirely new torpedo technology designed specifically
>for Pearl Harbor.
...Uh, not quite. What the Japs did was tweak an existing torpedo into
performing the job by adding a pair of wooden - bamboo? - fins that
forced the torpedo to level off very quickly after being dropped
beneath the surface, and then detached to eliminate drag through the
water. The fins were innovative, but not anything along the line of
"basic patent" new.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
> On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 19:47:57 -0800, "scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com"
>
> <scottlowt...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >At stake to *whom?* I don't see too many people giving a shit.
>
> ...IIRC, this particular troll is still pissed because I wouldn't
> include any of his CT Nutter bullshit claims in the FAQ, and *may*
> have been one of the two who sent me threats in e-mail using Yahoo
> accounts. The other turned out to be a know psychotic paraplegic
> living in a trailer near Dickinson, TX. According to the cop who
> handled the case, I could have handled the matter myself by taking the
> nutjob for a stroll along one of the piers.
>
> OM
> --
> ]=====================================[
> ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
> ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
> ]=====================================[
om dont take yourself too seriously, i dont, im just pointing out your
bs when i see it, if you cant handle that fact that is your problem...
Pat Flannery
OM wrote:
> ...Robert - and the rest of you over in r.a.military - ~CT AKA
> "Stuf4", is a known Conspiracy Troll. He exists only to bait and
> cajole the unsuspecting into flame wars that are nothing but lame
> attempts at Argument Clinic. Most of us on sci.space.* - that is,
> those of us who aren't bastard trolls like he is - killfiled him
> *YEARS* ago. The sanest thing for you and the rest of those in your
> group to do would be to pursue the same course of action. Send ~CT to
> Killfile Hell and put him out of all of our miseries.
>
Now wait a minute here....rec.aviation.military has Rob Arndt in it,
basically the self-proclaimed Fuhrer of the group...if Guth and CT were
to go over there, they could really liven things up for Herr Arndt, as
Guth could explain that the Nazi saucers flew to Venus, not Antarctica,
and CT could describe the cover-ups of the Mariner program's real
military aims.
This could add a whole section to the Dark Sun website, not to mention
get Brad a date with a Vril Thrill Girl.
The postings between Rob and Brad alone would be a wonder to behold, as
both seem to share a belief in some sort of Jewish Nazism, and I suspect
they are also both incest-bred Borg LLPOF clones.
I suggest a name for such a new gathering of trolls, conspiracy
theorists, neo-Nazi UFO fans, and complete schizo nutballs...
ladies and gentlemen...may I introduce 'The Loopy Legion'. :-P
Pat
Pat Flannery
OM wrote:
> ...Uh, not quite. What the Japs did was tweak an existing torpedo into
> performing the job by adding a pair of wooden - bamboo? - fins that
> forced the torpedo to level off very quickly after being dropped
> beneath the surface, and then detached to eliminate drag through the
> water. The fins were innovative, but not anything along the line of
> "basic patent" new.
>
I think they were plywood.
Turning the 16 inch shells off of the Nagato class battleships into
armor piercing bombs was pretty clever also.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Pat Flannery wrote:
>
> I think they were plywood.
> Turning the 16 inch shells off of the Nagato class battleships into
> armor piercing bombs was pretty clever also.
I checked, they were indeed plywood; there's info on them here-
http://www.pastfoundation.org/Arizona/UtahHistory_3.htm
Pat
GrassyNoel
> "Ground zero" has a very specific meaning that comes from nuclear
> weapons.
It also has other specific meanings that don't come from nuclear
weapons, or any other weapons.
Dale Carlson
wrote:
>...Uh, not quite. What the Japs did...
You know, terms like "Japs" and "Nips" may have been
acceptable while we were at war with Japan, but that was
over 60 years ago. These days, the use of such perjoratives
only makes the user look like a mindless bigot.
Dale
Not as if this is breaking news or something...
Eunometic
> ...From various news sources featuring differing outlooks here and
> there:
>
> http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_...
>
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003989075_tibbetso...
>
> http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/01/america/01obit.php
>
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22694360-2703,00.html
>
> http://www.reuters.com/article/asiaTopNews/idUSIndia-30281520071101
>
> http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_7349005
>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-tibbets2nov02,1,...
>
> http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071102/NATIONWOR...
>
> http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/02/2079806.htm?section=world
>
> http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1747652007
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/02/db020...
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7073588.stm
>
> http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/11/enola-gay-pilot.html
>
> http://www.theintelligencer.net/page/content.detail/id/501695.html
>
> http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=200701&s=&i=&t=The_first_atom...
>
> http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071102/FAMO...
>
> http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Site=D2&Date=20071...
>
> http://www.contracostatimes.com/nationandworld/ci_7350149
>
> http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/168/story/167256.html
>
> Bottom Line: General, on behalf of those of us who didn't have to grow
> up speaking Japanese and eating rice and fish heads on a daily basis,
I doubt the Japanese would have forced anyone to change their diet
especially since rice doesn't grow so well in the midwest.
I really don't know if the Japanese wanted to invade the USA; they
wanted to push Europeans out of Asia and get control of
the raw materials.
Given that the USA leads the world in grotesque barely mobile
blubberous land whales the Japanese diet high in sea food, sea
vegetables and rice would be an improvement.
Rand Simberg
"scottl...@ix.netcom.com" <scottl...@ix.netcom.com> made the
phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>On Nov 4, 12:44 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
><columbiaaccidentinvestigat...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> just because somebody backs an opinion with an opinion,
>> it does not make the first opinion factual...
>
>While that's true, nobody has said anything of the kind. One is left
>to wonder just what in hell you're yammering on about.
That's almost always the case with the idiot that calls itself
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation." Why encourage it to waste group
bandwidth with its nonsense?
Rand Simberg
Hiroshima Facts <hiroshi...@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> When it comes to the WTC, the argument that was made was that as a center of
>> economic power it was a legitimate target. It's not one I buy into for a
>> lot of reasons. But we have a tough time claiming the higher moral ground
>> if we turn a blind eye to our own past.
>
>I don't think al-Qa'ida made such an argument. They seem pretty open
>about the fact that they intentionally target civilians.
>
>More likely the argument was made by radicals who seem to hate any
>country that stands for freedom.
>
>You were correct to not buy into it. The WTC was second-tier office
>space. The only point was to trap and kill civilians in a horrific
>way.
No, the other point was to destroy one of the most prominent symbols
of capitalism and the Evil West (TM). But agreed, as a military
target, it was utterly insignificant, particularly from Al Qaeda's
viewpoint. They very likely hit the Pentagon not because if was a
military target, but because it was easy to see, almost looking like a
target from the air, after they failed to identify smaller, but more
symbolically important targets, like the White House.
Rand Simberg
<tdadamemd-...@excite.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>>From Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired:
>> Stuf4 wrote:
>> > Dropping the bomb was not at all *necessary*. It was an _option_ that
>> > the US chose to exercise. And it completely misses the point to say
>> > that it "saved lives". The point is that there are "rules of war".
>> > And these rules say that it is ok to kill military members, but non-
>> > combatant civilians are off limits. THAT is the atrocity.
>>
>> OK, let's assume the atomic bombs were not dropped. Were conventional
>> bombing methods available at the time any better? The fact remains many
>> military targets were in populated areas. Take a look at the nearest
>> military base or factory to where you live. How would you take out that
>> target with the capabilities the Allies had in 1945? By that time a
>> great many small factories were family businesses in their own
>> communities. Are you suggesting not taking them out? Suppose you were
>> making parts for rifles in your yard would you expect to be left alone
>> just because you live in a residential area?
>
>You advertise having been in the Air Force, yet you show absolutely no
>recognition of the distinction between a combatant and a non-
>combatant. LOAC is quite clear that it is illegal to kill civilians.
It is illegal to directly target civilians with no other military
objective. When civilians are in the vicinity of a legitimate target
(such as munitions factories), it is not illegal to kill them if they
are unavoidable collateral damage. Otherwise, the enemy would use
them as human shields (which our enemy in the current war does on a
regular, and even policy basis).
<rest of Stuffie nonsense snipped>
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:"That's almost always the case with the idiot that calls itself
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation." Why encourage it to waste group
bandwidth with its nonsense?
laughing, rand, do you really want to defend om's words, or is this
you just doing your chicken shit "call him names, and don't talk to
him" bs? Because based on the anger of your posts, one would ask why
they engage you as well, as you are not able to have a civil
discussion with someone who disagrees with you, so save your weak ass
insults for yourself or someone who cares. Oh yeah, take them and
shove them rand, as i don't care about you and your little peanut
gallery, but what i do care about is revealing words of intolerance
for what they really are, so act like the man you wanaa be, and engage
or shut up. Now om started this thread off with intolerant words,
justifying them, and excusing them just perpetuates his belligerence
and obnoxiousness, both of which make this group stink with a stench
of bigotry. So the logical question to ask a person like you is why
do you encourage such intolerant behavior by attacking me, when im
calling him out for his bs?
Steven P. McNicoll
"Robert Sveinson" <rsve...@mts.net> wrote in message
news:2KuXi.581$9l1...@newsfe20.lga...
>
> Dowding in his report on the time that he was AOCinC of fighter command
> did not consider the shooting of British pilots in their parachute by
> German pilots over Britain to be a criminal act.
>
That would seem perfectly reasonable, a British pilot bailing out over
Britain could be back in action against German pilots in a few hours.
Gatt
"robert casey" <wa2...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:13ipkpl...@corp.supernews.com...
>The people who would have been hippies, peaceniks, treehuggers and other
>yellow-bellied scumbags
FWIW, "treehuggers" don't have an iron in the WWII fire at all, and there
are plenty of "treehuggers" who are veterans. Might as well throw
homosexuals and suffragettes in the same general condemnation.
Semper Fi.
-c
Oregonius Treehuggerus I'll-Kick-Some-Ass-Anywayus. ;> Thank you, General
Tibbets.
Stuf4
> It is illegal to directly target civilians with no other military
> objective. When civilians are in the vicinity of a legitimate target
> (such as munitions factories), it is not illegal to kill them if they
> are unavoidable collateral damage. Otherwise, the enemy would use
> them as human shields (which our enemy in the current war does on a
> regular, and even policy basis).
As pointed out elsewhere on this thread, your argument serves as
justification for attacking the World Trade Center.
~ CT
Gatt
"Stuf4" <tdadamemd-...@excite.com> wrote in message
> Dropping the bomb was not at all *necessary*. It was an _option_ that
> the US chose to exercise. And it completely misses the point to say
> that it "saved lives". The point is that there are "rules of war".
Well, I'm glad you cleared that up. Nobody here had any idea that there
were "rules of war."
> And these rules say that it is ok to kill military members, but non-
> combatant civilians are off limits. THAT is the atrocity.
Wow. And to think we bombed Berlin. What an atrocity.
> Hypothetical: Say that the US knew that the Japanese would surrender
> if US GIs would rape 10,000 teenage Japanese girls. Can we then
> justify the mass rape by saying, "it saved lives"?
Yes, if it would in fact save hundreds of thousands or even millions of
lives. War is truly hell.
>And if Tibbets was the one who did the raping, would we then call him a
>hero for having
> raped all those girls?
Well, we call him a hero for killing 100,000 people, so you do the math.
The ones he vaporized would have preferred the former option as well. But
the problem is, they almost universally worshipped the imperial asshole who
destroyed their country.
-c
Stuf4
I am not aware of any use of the term that isn't a spinoff of the
original nuke coinage. If you have any supporting references for what
you have stated, I'd be interested to see it.
~ CT
Gatt
"Stuf4" <tdadamemd-...@excite.com> wrote in message
> You advertise having been in the Air Force, yet you show absolutely no
> recognition of the distinction between a combatant and a non-
> combatant.
You ever hear of Schweinfurt, Germany?
That's where civilians built ball bearings to go into German tanks, fighter
planes and other war machines. Should we not have bombed the Messerschmitt
factories, oil refineries or ball bearing plants because civilians worked
there?
-c
Gatt
"Stuf4" <tdadamemd-...@excite.com> wrote in message
>> Then the non-combat civilians must refrain from all activities that
>> contribute to the war effort.
>
> Must they?
Clearly they must. Pop quiz: Who stopped World War II, and under what
rules?
Furthermore, everybody in Japan was a potential combatant because even the
women and children were preparing to defend their homeland.
-c
Gatt
> under the LOAC has studied a different set of laws than I am aware
> of. It doesn't hold water with Just War Theory either
Too bad, huh? The theory didn't hold up too well in Nanking or Dachau,
did it?
Gatt
"Stuf4" <tdadamemd-...@excite.com> wrote in message
> Perhaps you have heard of the concept of precision daylight bombing.
My grandmother lost her first husband--a conscript--over Germany in
February, 1945, and her second husband--also drafted--had Luftwaffe 20mm
fragments in his brain and endured excruciating pain his entire life from
it.
It wasn't so people like you could casually advocate "precision daylight
bombing."
The atomic bombs ended the war in Japan so that folks like my grandmother
and countless other families who didn't want to lose husbands and sons for
their freedom didn't have to keep losing them. Ideals and theories didn't
do it. Bullets on the ground, artillery from ships and thousands of tons of
explosives falling from the sky did it.
I'm killfiling you now. My grandmother still cries when she remembers her
first husband, and you have the gall to come out to these forums and say
"perhaps you have heard of the concept of precision daylight bombing." Go
read some more books, jackass.
-c
Rand Simberg
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccide...@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>On Nov 5, 5:07 am, simberg.interglo...@org.trash (Rand Simberg)
>wrote:"That's almost always the case with the idiot that calls itself
>"columbiaaccidentinvestigation." Why encourage it to waste group
>bandwidth with its nonsense?
>
>laughing, rand, do you really want to defend om's words, or is this
>you just doing your chicken shit "call him names, and don't talk to
>him" bs?
I rarely, if ever, defend OM's words. But that's an entirely
orthogonal point to whether or not you're an idiot (which you'd
recognize if you weren't an idiot).
>Because based on the anger of your posts,
There is rarely anger in my posts. There's certainly none in the one
you quoted, or this one. Most of my posts are quite dispassionate.
>one would ask why
>they engage you as well, as you are not able to have a civil
>discussion with someone who disagrees with you,
I'm quite capable of having civil discussions with people who disagree
with me, as I demonstrate daily, in the real world, and in this
newsgroup. But I don't suffer idiots gladly.
Stuf4
>
> >>To get a more clear understanding of the Law of Armed
> >>Conflict, think back to that paratrooper or bailed out aircrew
> >>example. It is illegal to shoot them while under canopy. They are
> >>clearly performing acts that are directly contributing to the war
> >>effort. They are members of the military performing those acts. But
> >>those are non-combatant acts. And it is illegal to shoot them while
> >>they are in the role of a non-combatant.
>
> > What law prohibits shooting an armed paratrooper under canopy?
>
> None. Protocol Additional to the 1949 Geneva Convention:
>
> "Article 42.-Occupants of aircraft
>
> 1. No person parachuting from an aircraft in distress shall be made the
> object of attack during his descent.
>
> 2. Upon reaching the ground in territory controlled by an adverse Party,
> a person who has parachuted from an aircraft in distress shall be given
> an opportunity to surrender before being made the object of attack,
> unless it is apparent that he is engaging in a hostile act.
>
> 3. Airborne troops are not protected by this Article."
We are in total agreement that after 1949, it became illegal to shoot
paratroopers under canopy.
But if this were to have been done at the time of Hiroshima, it would
have been a war crime.
And let's be clear that the entire issue of paratroopers is peripheral
to the primary point about vaporizing civilians with nukes being in
violation of international law circa 1945.
Any example of a war crime (such as raping villagers) serves to
illustrate the point.
It has been established from Top Secret documents from the Manhattan
Project Targetting Committee that their goal was to vaporize
civilians. I am astounded to see how many people here are ok with
that.
...the very same people who will cry "foul" when the WTC gets taken
out.
I would much prefer that we clearly identify all atrocities for what
they are, irregardless of which side was responsible for doing them.
~ CT
Rand Simberg
>>From Rand Simberg:
Nonsense. The WTC had zero military value, from Al Qaeda's point of
view. It's value (as is the value of all of their targets) was purely
as propaganda. They have no military capability whatsoever, other
than the ability to commit carnage, get the news media to dutifully
report it, and sap the will of the American people.
columbiaaccidentinvestigation
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation." Why encourage it to waste roup
bandwidth with its nonsense?
Laughing that's more chicken shit stuff rand, and should i call you
"cousin it". Words of intolerance and bigotry are not a function of
my name, im sorry you think so but that is also a sign of your myopia
as well, and part of the problem of our society as demonstrated by om
and scott. People use words of intolerance openly or covertly, then
they offer the standard wanna be apology of "oh im sorry you took it
that way", which is completely a dodge of taking self responsibility
for ones own actions. The covert words of intolerance posted by scott
in replies to me are nothing more than thinly veiled excuses to spread
hate, as it creates an us vs. them world i.e. peacenik vs. hawks,
making it easier for punks like om to spread that hate using a
discussion of war as an excuse. So take your tired pleas of "don't
talk to him" which are yellow bellied in nature, and stuff em, because
they are only really relevant to you and your peanut gallery. Now why
do you encourage om's bigotry by attacking me, and do you think om's
words on usenet are not a waste of bandwidth? And finally you have
taken the time in these groups to brag about what instrument you
sister plays, something you should have saved for your "my space" you
idiot, but instead you choose to consume usenet bandwidth to post your
personal junk, you're a joke of a joke....
Stuf4
> "Stuf4" <tdadamemd-...@excite.com> wrote in message
>
> > Perhaps you have heard of the concept of precision daylight bombing.
>
> My grandmother lost her first husband--a conscript--over Germany in
> February, 1945, and her second husband--also drafted--had Luftwaffe 20mm
> fragments in his brain and endured excruciating pain his entire life from
> it.
>
> It wasn't so people like you could casually advocate "precision daylight
> bombing."
I do not an advocate precision bombing. I am advocating not killing
civilians.
And I look forward to the human race advancing our society to the
point where we avoid killing ALL people with war.
> The atomic bombs ended the war in Japan so that folks like my grandmother
> and countless other families who didn't want to lose husbands and sons for
> their freedom didn't have to keep losing them. Ideals and theories didn't
> do it. Bullets on the ground, artillery from ships and thousands of tons of
> explosives falling from the sky did it.
>
> I'm killfiling you now. My grandmother still cries when she remembers her
> first husband, and you have the gall to come out to these forums and say
> "perhaps you have heard of the concept of precision daylight bombing." Go
> read some more books, jackass.
Perhaps you have heard of the logical fallacy known as Appeal to
Emotion.
The grandfathers in Hiroshima suffered for the rest of their lives
also. The differences being that their lifespan was measured in
microseconds. And that they were non-combatants whereas military
casualties, whether volunteers or conscripts, were combatants.
And I am not even clear on what your point is. Perhaps you are saying
that you are ok with killing off tens of thousands of civilians in
some foreign country that you never met (and are obviously never going
to meet) so that your one grandmother can avoid her tears.
This is exactly the type of skewed equation balancing that I piped in
onto this thread to call into check.
Not only are American lives more valuable on a thousand-to-one ratio,
but American *tears* appear to be more valuable than lives of
foreigners.
~ CT
Stuf4
<snip>
> Furthermore, everybody in Japan was a potential combatant because even the
> women and children were preparing to defend their homeland.
Everyone on the planet is a "potential combatant".
...and here is another angle that has yet to be addressed here:
Why was it seen as necessary to invade Japan? Once the Japanese have
been contained to their nation, hasn't the objective of containing
Japanese aggression been accomplished?
(Take Gulf War I as an example of such restraint.)
If the goal was to avoid the tragic loss of American soldiers in
Operation Downfall, one alternative is blatantly obvious, yet
curiously ignored:
- Don't invade.
~ CT
Stuf4
yet vaporizing with nukes gets written in history as strangely
legitimized.
~ CT