| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
17 Jul 2005 09:53:32 PM |
| Object: |
Hiroshima |
During these next few weeks, the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombing
of Hiroshima will dominate much of the media's attention. Many articles
will be written and documentaries broadcast detailing the suffering of
the city's population. None of these outlets should forget to also
detail the initial sneak attack at Pearl Harbor that commenced this
war, killing thousands of innocent Americans. They should remember to
run articles and films detailing the atrocities perpetrated on allied
POW's, crimes as vile as anything the Nazi's committed in Russia. They
should detail the occupation of the Asian countries that fell under the
Japanese sword. Was the bombing justified? If it saved even ONE
American life, it was worth it. August 6th should be commemorated as a
holiday honoring Harry Truman.
http://www.abcasiapacific.com/news/stories/asiapacific_stories_141604...
The Japanese city of Hiroshima is preparing to commemorate the 60th
anniversary of the world's first atomic bombing on August 6.
Some 140,000 people, almost half the city's population at the time,
died immediately or in the months after the nuclear attack from
radiation injuries or horrific burns.
Latest research has found 76-percent of survivors still experience
flashbacks.
The Hiroshima bombing was followed by the dropping of a second atomic
bomb on the city of Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, leaving tens of
thousands more dead.
.
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
18 Jul 2005 10:40:20 PM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
During these next few weeks, the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombing
of Hiroshima will dominate much of the media's attention. <snip>
Was the bombing justified? If it saved even ONE
American life, it was worth it. August 6th should be commemorated as a
holiday honoring Harry Truman.
Unlike you, I've met some of the people who developed the atomic bomb
and they did not seem to share your view. Of course, they actually
saw the first test.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jimpgh2002" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
19 Jul 2005 11:01:03 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 03:40:20 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
During these next few weeks, the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombing
of Hiroshima will dominate much of the media's attention. <snip>
Was the bombing justified? If it saved even ONE
American life, it was worth it. August 6th should be commemorated as a
holiday honoring Harry Truman.
Unlike you, I've met some of the people who developed the atomic bomb
and they did not seem to share your view. Of course, they actually
saw the first test.
So what? Everyone is entitlled to their opinion. He stated
that if it saved American lives, it was justified. You probably don't
agree, but I do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
20 Jul 2005 11:42:42 PM |
|
|
jimpgh2002 <pmojh1@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 03:40:20 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
During these next few weeks, the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombing
of Hiroshima will dominate much of the media's attention. <snip>
Was the bombing justified? If it saved even ONE
American life, it was worth it. August 6th should be commemorated as a
holiday honoring Harry Truman.
Unlike you, I've met some of the people who developed the atomic bomb
and they did not seem to share your view. Of course, they actually
saw the first test.
So what? Everyone is entitlled to their opinion. He stated
that if it saved American lives, it was justified. You probably don't
agree, but I do.
What he stated (in particular, the antecedent) is at best an
oversimplification.
Quite frankly, I'd put a lot more credence into the opinions of people
who worked on the development of the bomb (and they really had to work
very hard to pull this off), who saw the tests, and *then* understood
that you should not use this weapon.
And the U.S. government has, at least in the past, concurred in
that we did sign a non proliferation treaty and instituted a
"no first use" policy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
21 Jul 2005 06:37:48 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:42:42 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <m3pstc6afs.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
jimpgh2002 <pmojh1@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 03:40:20 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
During these next few weeks, the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombing
of Hiroshima will dominate much of the media's attention. <snip>
Was the bombing justified? If it saved even ONE
American life, it was worth it. August 6th should be commemorated as a
holiday honoring Harry Truman.
Unlike you, I've met some of the people who developed the atomic bomb
and they did not seem to share your view. Of course, they actually
saw the first test.
So what? Everyone is entitlled to their opinion. He stated
that if it saved American lives, it was justified. You probably don't
agree, but I do.
What he stated (in particular, the antecedent) is at best an
oversimplification.
Quite frankly, I'd put a lot more credence into the opinions of people
who worked on the development of the bomb (and they really had to work
very hard to pull this off), who saw the tests, and *then* understood
that you should not use this weapon.
None of them had ever been shot at, or made the decision to send other
people out to die.
And the U.S. government has, at least in the past, concurred in
that we did sign a non proliferation treaty and instituted a
"no first use" policy.
Irrelevant. We were not in a world war at the time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
21 Jul 2005 10:14:46 AM |
|
|
Attila <prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:42:42 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <m3pstc6afs.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
jimpgh2002 <pmojh1@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 03:40:20 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
So what? Everyone is entitlled to their opinion. He stated
that if it saved American lives, it was justified. You probably don't
agree, but I do.
What he stated (in particular, the antecedent) is at best an
oversimplification.
Quite frankly, I'd put a lot more credence into the opinions of people
who worked on the development of the bomb (and they really had to work
very hard to pull this off), who saw the tests, and *then* understood
that you should not use this weapon.
None of them had ever been shot at, or made the decision to send other
people out to die.
Invalid argument. You could say the same thing about mustard gas, and
we never used that during WW-II.
And the U.S. government has, at least in the past, concurred in
that we did sign a non proliferation treaty and instituted a
"no first use" policy.
Irrelevant. We were not in a world war at the time.
Highly relevant - we would not have put such a policy in place if the
use of these weapons was at all justifiable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
21 Jul 2005 02:32:47 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:14:46 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <m3d5pc9ovu.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:42:42 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <m3pstc6afs.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
jimpgh2002 <pmojh1@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 03:40:20 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
So what? Everyone is entitlled to their opinion. He stated
that if it saved American lives, it was justified. You probably don't
agree, but I do.
What he stated (in particular, the antecedent) is at best an
oversimplification.
Quite frankly, I'd put a lot more credence into the opinions of people
who worked on the development of the bomb (and they really had to work
very hard to pull this off), who saw the tests, and *then* understood
that you should not use this weapon.
None of them had ever been shot at, or made the decision to send other
people out to die.
Invalid argument. You could say the same thing about mustard gas, and
we never used that during WW-II.
It was not a decisive weapon. Two instances of it's use would not
have lead to a national surrender.
And the U.S. government has, at least in the past, concurred in
that we did sign a non proliferation treaty and instituted a
"no first use" policy.
Irrelevant. We were not in a world war at the time.
Highly relevant - we would not have put such a policy in place if the
use of these weapons was at all justifiable.
The use of any weapon is justifiable in war. Personally I advocated
their use in Viet Nam. Or at least cutting the Ho Chi Min Trail with
radioactive dust.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
25 Jul 2005 11:13:31 AM |
|
|
Attila <Attila> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:14:46 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <m3d5pc9ovu.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:42:42 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <m3pstc6afs.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
jimpgh2002 <pmojh1@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 03:40:20 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
So what? Everyone is entitlled to their opinion. He stated
that if it saved American lives, it was justified. You probably don't
agree, but I do.
What he stated (in particular, the antecedent) is at best an
oversimplification.
Quite frankly, I'd put a lot more credence into the opinions of people
who worked on the development of the bomb (and they really had to work
very hard to pull this off), who saw the tests, and *then* understood
that you should not use this weapon.
None of them had ever been shot at, or made the decision to send other
people out to die.
Invalid argument. You could say the same thing about mustard gas, and
we never used that during WW-II.
It was not a decisive weapon. Two instances of it's use would not
have lead to a national surrender.
And the U.S. government has, at least in the past, concurred in
that we did sign a non proliferation treaty and instituted a
"no first use" policy.
Irrelevant. We were not in a world war at the time.
Highly relevant - we would not have put such a policy in place if the
use of these weapons was at all justifiable.
The use of any weapon is justifiable in war.
Therefore the Holocaust was justified.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
25 Jul 2005 05:27:19 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:13:31 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) in alt.abortion with message-id <dc333b$r84$1@bolt.sonic.net>
wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:14:46 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <m3d5pc9ovu.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:42:42 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <m3pstc6afs.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
jimpgh2002 <pmojh1@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 03:40:20 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
So what? Everyone is entitlled to their opinion. He stated
that if it saved American lives, it was justified. You probably don't
agree, but I do.
What he stated (in particular, the antecedent) is at best an
oversimplification.
Quite frankly, I'd put a lot more credence into the opinions of people
who worked on the development of the bomb (and they really had to work
very hard to pull this off), who saw the tests, and *then* understood
that you should not use this weapon.
None of them had ever been shot at, or made the decision to send other
people out to die.
Invalid argument. You could say the same thing about mustard gas, and
we never used that during WW-II.
It was not a decisive weapon. Two instances of it's use would not
have lead to a national surrender.
And the U.S. government has, at least in the past, concurred in
that we did sign a non proliferation treaty and instituted a
"no first use" policy.
Irrelevant. We were not in a world war at the time.
Highly relevant - we would not have put such a policy in place if the
use of these weapons was at all justifiable.
The use of any weapon is justifiable in war.
Therefore the Holocaust was justified.
I was not aware the Holocaust was a weapon, nor that the people killed
in any way helped secure the state.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
25 Jul 2005 11:18:44 PM |
|
|
Attila <Attila> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:13:31 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) in alt.abortion with message-id <dc333b$r84$1@bolt.sonic.net>
wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:14:46 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <m3d5pc9ovu.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:42:42 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <m3pstc6afs.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
jimpgh2002 <pmojh1@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 03:40:20 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
So what? Everyone is entitlled to their opinion. He stated
that if it saved American lives, it was justified. You probably don't
agree, but I do.
What he stated (in particular, the antecedent) is at best an
oversimplification.
Quite frankly, I'd put a lot more credence into the opinions of people
who worked on the development of the bomb (and they really had to work
very hard to pull this off), who saw the tests, and *then* understood
that you should not use this weapon.
None of them had ever been shot at, or made the decision to send other
people out to die.
Invalid argument. You could say the same thing about mustard gas, and
we never used that during WW-II.
It was not a decisive weapon. Two instances of it's use would not
have lead to a national surrender.
And the U.S. government has, at least in the past, concurred in
that we did sign a non proliferation treaty and instituted a
"no first use" policy.
Irrelevant. We were not in a world war at the time.
Highly relevant - we would not have put such a policy in place if the
use of these weapons was at all justifiable.
The use of any weapon is justifiable in war.
Therefore the Holocaust was justified.
I was not aware the Holocaust was a weapon, nor that the people killed
in any way helped secure the state.
You claim that "any weapon" is justified. That includes genocide.
The justification was the benefit of all of humanity.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
26 Jul 2005 06:56:48 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 04:18:44 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) in alt.abortion with message-id <dc4dj4$afs$1@bolt.sonic.net>
wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 16:13:31 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) in alt.abortion with message-id <dc333b$r84$1@bolt.sonic.net>
wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:14:46 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <m3d5pc9ovu.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:42:42 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <m3pstc6afs.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
jimpgh2002 <pmojh1@xxnospamxxhotmail.com> writes:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 03:40:20 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
So what? Everyone is entitlled to their opinion. He stated
that if it saved American lives, it was justified. You probably don't
agree, but I do.
What he stated (in particular, the antecedent) is at best an
oversimplification.
Quite frankly, I'd put a lot more credence into the opinions of people
who worked on the development of the bomb (and they really had to work
very hard to pull this off), who saw the tests, and *then* understood
that you should not use this weapon.
None of them had ever been shot at, or made the decision to send other
people out to die.
Invalid argument. You could say the same thing about mustard gas, and
we never used that during WW-II.
It was not a decisive weapon. Two instances of it's use would not
have lead to a national surrender.
And the U.S. government has, at least in the past, concurred in
that we did sign a non proliferation treaty and instituted a
"no first use" policy.
Irrelevant. We were not in a world war at the time.
Highly relevant - we would not have put such a policy in place if the
use of these weapons was at all justifiable.
The use of any weapon is justifiable in war.
Therefore the Holocaust was justified.
I was not aware the Holocaust was a weapon, nor that the people killed
in any way helped secure the state.
You claim that "any weapon" is justified. That includes genocide.
Genocide is not a weapon, you moron. Your knee-jerk responses are
coming fast and furious.
The justification was the benefit of all of humanity.
Meaningless statement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
26 Jul 2005 10:41:30 PM |
|
|
Attila <Attila> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Attila <Attila> wrote:
The use of any weapon is justifiable in war.
Therefore the Holocaust was justified.
I was not aware the Holocaust was a weapon, nor that the people killed
in any way helped secure the state.
You claim that "any weapon" is justified. That includes genocide.
Genocide is not a weapon, you moron.
weapon:
1 : something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or
destroy
2 : a means of contending against another
Your knee-jerk responses are
coming fast and furious.
And so the bigot lashes out in his murderous stupidity.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
26 Jul 2005 11:16:01 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 03:41:30 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) in alt.abortion with message-id <dc6vpa$ip5$1@bolt.sonic.net>
wrote:
Attila <Attila> wrote:
(Ray Fischer)
Attila <Attila> wrote:
The use of any weapon is justifiable in war.
Therefore the Holocaust was justified.
I was not aware the Holocaust was a weapon, nor that the people killed
in any way helped secure the state.
You claim that "any weapon" is justified. That includes genocide.
Genocide is not a weapon, you moron.
weapon:
1 : something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or
destroy
2 : a means of contending against another
Thanks for proving you wrong.
Your knee-jerk responses are
coming fast and furious.
And so the bigot lashes out in his murderous stupidity.
You are unable to go more than one or two posts without name calling
aren't you? You must be one of those short, insignificant little
people in real life who is careful not to annoy others so they won't
be slapped down.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
21 Jul 2005 08:31:54 PM |
|
|
Attila <prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:14:46 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <m3d5pc9ovu.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Quite frankly, I'd put a lot more credence into the opinions of people
who worked on the development of the bomb (and they really had to work
very hard to pull this off), who saw the tests, and *then* understood
that you should not use this weapon.
None of them had ever been shot at, or made the decision to send other
people out to die.
Invalid argument. You could say the same thing about mustard gas, and
we never used that during WW-II.
It was not a decisive weapon. Two instances of it's use would not
have lead to a national surrender.
Sorry, but that one won't fly. Your argument was based on "saving
American lives" and that doesn't require an instantaneous surrender.
It just requires losing fewer people than you would othersie.
And the U.S. government has, at least in the past, concurred in
that we did sign a non proliferation treaty and instituted a
"no first use" policy.
Irrelevant. We were not in a world war at the time.
Highly relevant - we would not have put such a policy in place if the
use of these weapons was at all justifiable.
The use of any weapon is justifiable in war. Personally I advocated
their use in Viet Nam. Or at least cutting the Ho Chi Min Trail with
radioactive dust.
Hey, you should be Saddam's lawyer, if he is ever charged with using
poisson gas against the Kurds or the Iranians. Your words would be
music to his ears.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
21 Jul 2005 09:41:49 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 01:31:54 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <m3oe8vljf9.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:14:46 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <m3d5pc9ovu.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Quite frankly, I'd put a lot more credence into the opinions of people
who worked on the development of the bomb (and they really had to work
very hard to pull this off), who saw the tests, and *then* understood
that you should not use this weapon.
None of them had ever been shot at, or made the decision to send other
people out to die.
Invalid argument. You could say the same thing about mustard gas, and
we never used that during WW-II.
It was not a decisive weapon. Two instances of it's use would not
have lead to a national surrender.
Sorry, but that one won't fly. Your argument was based on "saving
American lives" and that doesn't require an instantaneous surrender.
It just requires losing fewer people than you would othersie.
Which would not have happened in an invasion.
And the U.S. government has, at least in the past, concurred in
that we did sign a non proliferation treaty and instituted a
"no first use" policy.
Irrelevant. We were not in a world war at the time.
Highly relevant - we would not have put such a policy in place if the
use of these weapons was at all justifiable.
The use of any weapon is justifiable in war. Personally I advocated
their use in Viet Nam. Or at least cutting the Ho Chi Min Trail with
radioactive dust.
Hey, you should be Saddam's lawyer, if he is ever charged with using
poisson gas against the Kurds or the Iranians. Your words would be
music to his ears.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
21 Jul 2005 10:03:13 PM |
|
|
Attila <prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 01:31:54 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <m3oe8vljf9.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> writes:
It was not a decisive weapon. Two instances of it's use would not
have lead to a national surrender.
Sorry, but that one won't fly. Your argument was based on "saving
American lives" and that doesn't require an instantaneous surrender.
It just requires losing fewer people than you would othersie.
Which would not have happened in an invasion.
Try again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
22 Jul 2005 04:41:38 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 03:03:13 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <m33bq7lf6v.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 01:31:54 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <m3oe8vljf9.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Attila <prochoice@here.now> writes:
It was not a decisive weapon. Two instances of it's use would not
have lead to a national surrender.
Sorry, but that one won't fly. Your argument was based on "saving
American lives" and that doesn't require an instantaneous surrender.
It just requires losing fewer people than you would othersie.
Which would not have happened in an invasion.
Try again.
No need.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Secretary of HomIntern" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
21 Jul 2005 03:47:36 PM |
|
|
Hail Eris! It was a dark and stormy night in alt.politics.homosexuality,
when Attila wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:14:46 GMT, No One in alt.abortion wrote:
Attila writes:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:42:42 GMT, No One in alt.abortion wrote:
<snip>
And the U.S. government has, at least in the past, concurred in
that we did sign a non proliferation treaty and instituted a
"no first use" policy.
Irrelevant. We were not in a world war at the time.
Highly relevant - we would not have put such a policy in place if the
use of these weapons was at all justifiable.
The use of any weapon is justifiable in war. Personally I advocated
their use in Viet Nam. Or at least cutting the Ho Chi Min Trail with
radioactive dust.
No, the use of "any" weapon isn't justifiable in war. Slaughtering civilians
isn't justifiable either, no matter who did it first. Terror tactics are
also unjustifiable, and so is killing civilians to get at terrorists.
Landmines are, for example, not justifiable weapons, because removing them
safely is next to impossible, as they are designed to be detonated by
anyone attempting such. Total war is an abomination, no matter who starts
it, and allowing one's opposition to make a conventional war into a total
one is no excuse. Nuclear weapons are not usable in wars unless only one
side has them; otherwise, total destruction of both sides is
all-but-assured.
As for the whole "Fight teh evul Communist regimes" aspect of the Vietnam
and other wars, all governments in wars demonise and vilify the "enemy".
This is but one reason why no one in the rest of the world takes the US
very seriously about Cuba, after all.
--
_______________________________________________
"The personal _is_ political."
Superfaggot; GGGHD; MWFA; HCNB; MU; BCB; FI
Economic Left/Right: -5.71
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -7.23
Killfiled by: directory
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
21 Jul 2005 04:22:15 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 20:47:36 GMT, The Secretary of HomIntern
<ykransepop@woem.gro> in alt.abortion with message-id
<IRTDe.8627$s54.6888@pd7tw2no> wrote:
Hail Eris! It was a dark and stormy night in alt.politics.homosexuality,
when Attila wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:14:46 GMT, No One in alt.abortion wrote:
Attila writes:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:42:42 GMT, No One in alt.abortion wrote:
<snip>
And the U.S. government has, at least in the past, concurred in
that we did sign a non proliferation treaty and instituted a
"no first use" policy.
Irrelevant. We were not in a world war at the time.
Highly relevant - we would not have put such a policy in place if the
use of these weapons was at all justifiable.
The use of any weapon is justifiable in war. Personally I advocated
their use in Viet Nam. Or at least cutting the Ho Chi Min Trail with
radioactive dust.
No, the use of "any" weapon isn't justifiable in war.
That depends on the situation and the current state of the war. Would
you advocate surrender rather than use a weapon that might win the war
for you?
Slaughtering civilians
isn't justifiable either, no matter who did it first. Terror tactics are
also unjustifiable, and so is killing civilians to get at terrorists.
Welcome to modern warfare. There are no more civilians, only
combatants.
Landmines are, for example, not justifiable weapons, because removing them
safely is next to impossible, as they are designed to be detonated by
anyone attempting such.
Of course they are. That is why they have been used by the millions.
Personally I support the use of those that become harmless over time.
Total war is an abomination, no matter who starts
it, and allowing one's opposition to make a conventional war into a total
one is no excuse.
That is an unrealistic position.
Nuclear weapons are not usable in wars unless only one
side has them; otherwise, total destruction of both sides is
all-but-assured.
It's called MAD, and it seems to have worked. Or something did.
As for the whole "Fight teh evul Communist regimes" aspect of the Vietnam
and other wars, all governments in wars demonise and vilify the "enemy".
This is but one reason why no one in the rest of the world takes the US
very seriously about Cuba, after all.
Every war since WW2 has been a political war, and those are hard to
take seriously.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
21 Jul 2005 05:10:20 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:o740e110qad55bh50upau7joe9cn4j9tv9@4ax.com...
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 20:47:36 GMT, The Secretary of HomIntern
<ykransepop@woem.gro> in alt.abortion with message-id
<IRTDe.8627$s54.6888@pd7tw2no> wrote:
Hail Eris! It was a dark and stormy night in alt.politics.homosexuality,
when Attila wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:14:46 GMT, No One in alt.abortion wrote:
Attila writes:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:42:42 GMT, No One in alt.abortion wrote:
<snip>
And the U.S. government has, at least in the past, concurred in
that we did sign a non proliferation treaty and instituted a
"no first use" policy.
Irrelevant. We were not in a world war at the time.
Highly relevant - we would not have put such a policy in place if the
use of these weapons was at all justifiable.
The use of any weapon is justifiable in war. Personally I advocated
their use in Viet Nam. Or at least cutting the Ho Chi Min Trail with
radioactive dust.
No, the use of "any" weapon isn't justifiable in war.
That depends on the situation and the current state of the war. Would
you advocate surrender rather than use a weapon that might win the war
for you?
Slaughtering civilians
isn't justifiable either, no matter who did it first. Terror tactics are
also unjustifiable, and so is killing civilians to get at terrorists.
Welcome to modern warfare. There are no more civilians, only
combatants.
Landmines are, for example, not justifiable weapons, because removing them
safely is next to impossible, as they are designed to be detonated by
anyone attempting such.
Of course they are. That is why they have been used by the millions.
Personally I support the use of those that become harmless over time.
Total war is an abomination, no matter who starts
it, and allowing one's opposition to make a conventional war into a total
one is no excuse.
That is an unrealistic position.
Nuclear weapons are not usable in wars unless only one
side has them; otherwise, total destruction of both sides is
all-but-assured.
It's called MAD, and it seems to have worked. Or something did.
We also have to understand that there has been a greater reluctance to use
them because the power of these weapons have increased dramatically over the
last 60 years. The bombs used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were relative
firecrackers compared to the megatonage yielded by todays weapons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
21 Jul 2005 07:26:01 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:10:20 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> in alt.abortion with message-id
<g3VDe.2511$6f.1396@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:o740e110qad55bh50upau7joe9cn4j9tv9@4ax.com...
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 20:47:36 GMT, The Secretary of HomIntern
<ykransepop@woem.gro> in alt.abortion with message-id
<IRTDe.8627$s54.6888@pd7tw2no> wrote:
Hail Eris! It was a dark and stormy night in alt.politics.homosexuality,
when Attila wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:14:46 GMT, No One in alt.abortion wrote:
Attila writes:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:42:42 GMT, No One in alt.abortion wrote:
<snip>
And the U.S. government has, at least in the past, concurred in
that we did sign a non proliferation treaty and instituted a
"no first use" policy.
Irrelevant. We were not in a world war at the time.
Highly relevant - we would not have put such a policy in place if the
use of these weapons was at all justifiable.
The use of any weapon is justifiable in war. Personally I advocated
their use in Viet Nam. Or at least cutting the Ho Chi Min Trail with
radioactive dust.
No, the use of "any" weapon isn't justifiable in war.
That depends on the situation and the current state of the war. Would
you advocate surrender rather than use a weapon that might win the war
for you?
Slaughtering civilians
isn't justifiable either, no matter who did it first. Terror tactics are
also unjustifiable, and so is killing civilians to get at terrorists.
Welcome to modern warfare. There are no more civilians, only
combatants.
Landmines are, for example, not justifiable weapons, because removing them
safely is next to impossible, as they are designed to be detonated by
anyone attempting such.
Of course they are. That is why they have been used by the millions.
Personally I support the use of those that become harmless over time.
Total war is an abomination, no matter who starts
it, and allowing one's opposition to make a conventional war into a total
one is no excuse.
That is an unrealistic position.
Nuclear weapons are not usable in wars unless only one
side has them; otherwise, total destruction of both sides is
all-but-assured.
It's called MAD, and it seems to have worked. Or something did.
We also have to understand that there has been a greater reluctance to use
them because the power of these weapons have increased dramatically over the
last 60 years. The bombs used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were relative
firecrackers compared to the megatonage yielded by todays weapons.
In the neighborhood of 20kt or so.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
21 Jul 2005 09:09:59 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:u7f0e19rgqji0q588umc4la8omk9lf3fgh@4ax.com...
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:10:20 GMT, "Andrealphus"
<NOREALEMAIL2@THISADDRESS.FOAD> in alt.abortion with message-id
<g3VDe.2511$6f.1396@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:o740e110qad55bh50upau7joe9cn4j9tv9@4ax.com...
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 20:47:36 GMT, The Secretary of HomIntern
<ykransepop@woem.gro> in alt.abortion with message-id
<IRTDe.8627$s54.6888@pd7tw2no> wrote:
Hail Eris! It was a dark and stormy night in alt.politics.homosexuality,
when Attila wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:14:46 GMT, No One in alt.abortion wrote:
Attila writes:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:42:42 GMT, No One in alt.abortion wrote:
<snip>
And the U.S. government has, at least in the past, concurred in
that we did sign a non proliferation treaty and instituted a
"no first use" policy.
Irrelevant. We were not in a world war at the time.
Highly relevant - we would not have put such a policy in place if the
use of these weapons was at all justifiable.
The use of any weapon is justifiable in war. Personally I advocated
their use in Viet Nam. Or at least cutting the Ho Chi Min Trail with
radioactive dust.
No, the use of "any" weapon isn't justifiable in war.
That depends on the situation and the current state of the war. Would
you advocate surrender rather than use a weapon that might win the war
for you?
Slaughtering civilians
isn't justifiable either, no matter who did it first. Terror tactics are
also unjustifiable, and so is killing civilians to get at terrorists.
Welcome to modern warfare. There are no more civilians, only
combatants.
Landmines are, for example, not justifiable weapons, because removing
them
safely is next to impossible, as they are designed to be detonated by
anyone attempting such.
Of course they are. That is why they have been used by the millions.
Personally I support the use of those that become harmless over time.
Total war is an abomination, no matter who starts
it, and allowing one's opposition to make a conventional war into a
total
one is no excuse.
That is an unrealistic position.
Nuclear weapons are not usable in wars unless only one
side has them; otherwise, total destruction of both sides is
all-but-assured.
It's called MAD, and it seems to have worked. Or something did.
We also have to understand that there has been a greater reluctance to use
them because the power of these weapons have increased dramatically over
the
last 60 years. The bombs used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were relative
firecrackers compared to the megatonage yielded by todays weapons.
In the neighborhood of 20kt or so.
Exactly. The largest U.S. Nuclear test was 15 Megaton. The largest Soviet
test was an underground 58 Megaton. Both sides have bombs (untested for
obvious reasons) of over 100 Megaton. It's little wonder why "no first
strike" agreements came into being. The EMP alone from a 70 Megaton bomb
striking Detroit would put unshielded electronics out of business as far
away as Nashville, Tennessee. Putting this into perspective, a strike with
such a weapon in the center of Honshu would mean lights out for almost the
entire island. In perspective, the close to 20 Kiloton bomb that was
dropped on Hiroshima put out radio transmissions for up to 15 miles away.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Secretary of HomIntern" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
21 Jul 2005 05:36:15 PM |
|
|
It was a dark and stormy night in alt.politics.homosexuality, when Attila
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, The Secretary of HomIntern in alt.abortion wrote:
Hail Eris! It was a dark and stormy night in alt.politics.homosexuality,
when Attila wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:14:46 GMT, No One in alt.abortion wrote:
Attila writes:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:42:42 GMT, No One in alt.abortion wrote:
<snip>
And the U.S. government has, at least in the past, concurred in
that we did sign a non proliferation treaty and instituted a
"no first use" policy.
Irrelevant. We were not in a world war at the time.
Highly relevant - we would not have put such a policy in place if the
use of these weapons was at all justifiable.
The use of any weapon is justifiable in war. Personally I advocated
their use in Viet Nam. Or at least cutting the Ho Chi Min Trail with
radioactive dust.
No, the use of "any" weapon isn't justifiable in war.
That depends on the situation and the current state of the war. Would
you advocate surrender rather than use a weapon that might win the war
for you?
No, it depends on the weapon. As for surrender, the US wasn't in a position
of needing to worry about that by August 1st, 1945. The nukes were used to
specifically save *American* lives. Well, "good" job. Perfect, even. It
only cost over 200,000 civilian lives, but so what? No one who mattered
died, only a bunch of Nips. Not real humans. Not Americans. Glad I'm not a
real human...My balls aren't big enough for that kind of raw arrogance.
Then again, I'm transgendered, so I'm not planning on keeping them anyroad.
Slaughtering civilians
isn't justifiable either, no matter who did it first. Terror tactics are
also unjustifiable, and so is killing civilians to get at terrorists.
Welcome to modern warfare. There are no more civilians, only
combatants.
Oh-kaaaaayyyy, that gives me a good idea of where you stand on 9/11 and
terrorism, then. No civilians. Thanks, I'll remember that. <adds it to a
sigfile>
Landmines are, for example, not justifiable weapons, because removing them
safely is next to impossible, as they are designed to be detonated by
anyone attempting such.
Of course they are. That is why they have been used by the millions.
Personally I support the use of those that become harmless over time.
Oh, how generous of you.
Total war is an abomination, no matter who starts
it, and allowing one's opposition to make a conventional war into a total
one is no excuse.
That is an unrealistic position.
Yes, well, all the realistic ones have been taken by bloody-minded asshats
who love a good kill for its own sake, and happen to have read someone
else's "realistic position". That one there, however, is _mine_. No fleas
on it, at least. Realism's for wankers who want to justify their pet war
-fantasy, anyway.
Nuclear weapons are not usable in wars unless only one
side has them; otherwise, total destruction of both sides is
all-but-assured.
It's called MAD, and it seems to have worked. Or something did.
Your lot waited the Soviets out, while they were embroiled in a
Vietnam-style war with Afghanistan. Gee, that name sounds familiar...
As for the whole "Fight teh evul Communist regimes" aspect of the Vietnam
and other wars, all governments in wars demonise and vilify the "enemy".
This is but one reason why no one in the rest of the world takes the US
very seriously about Cuba, after all.
Every war since WW2 has been a political war, and those are hard to
take seriously.
Every war is a political war; WW2 just happened to involve a politician with
dreams of global empire -- much like a certain former Texas governor. They
even use similar phrases, allowing for translation.
--
_______________________________________________
"The personal _is_ political."
Superfaggot; GGGHD; MWFA; HCNB; MU; BCB; FI
Economic Left/Right: -5.71
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -7.23
Killfiled by: directory
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
21 Jul 2005 07:31:23 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:36:15 GMT, The Secretary of HomIntern
<ykransepop@woem.gro> in alt.abortion with message-id
<zrVDe.8756$5V4.2295@pd7tw3no> wrote:
It was a dark and stormy night in alt.politics.homosexuality, when Attila
wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005, The Secretary of HomIntern in alt.abortion wrote:
Hail Eris! It was a dark and stormy night in alt.politics.homosexuality,
when Attila wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:14:46 GMT, No One in alt.abortion wrote:
Attila writes:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:42:42 GMT, No One in alt.abortion wrote:
<snip>
And the U.S. government has, at least in the past, concurred in
that we did sign a non proliferation treaty and instituted a
"no first use" policy.
Irrelevant. We were not in a world war at the time.
Highly relevant - we would not have put such a policy in place if the
use of these weapons was at all justifiable.
The use of any weapon is justifiable in war. Personally I advocated
their use in Viet Nam. Or at least cutting the Ho Chi Min Trail with
radioactive dust.
No, the use of "any" weapon isn't justifiable in war.
That depends on the situation and the current state of the war. Would
you advocate surrender rather than use a weapon that might win the war
for you?
No, it depends on the weapon. As for surrender, the US wasn't in a position
of needing to worry about that by August 1st, 1945. The nukes were used to
specifically save *American* lives. Well, "good" job. Perfect, even. It
only cost over 200,000 civilian lives, but so what? No one who mattered
died, only a bunch of Nips. Not real humans. Not Americans. Glad I'm not a
real human...My balls aren't big enough for that kind of raw arrogance.
Then again, I'm transgendered, so I'm not planning on keeping them anyroad.
It is easy to criticize from 60 years after the fact. As I said
elsewhere, if you weren't even born at the time you have no right to
an opinion.
Slaughtering civilians
isn't justifiable either, no matter who did it first. Terror tactics are
also unjustifiable, and so is killing civilians to get at terrorists.
Welcome to modern warfare. There are no more civilians, only
combatants.
Oh-kaaaaayyyy, that gives me a good idea of where you stand on 9/11 and
terrorism, then. No civilians. Thanks, I'll remember that. <adds it to a
sigfile>
Glad I can be of service. WW2 showed there was no longer a
battlefield and a civilian population. It's called total war.
Landmines are, for example, not justifiable weapons, because removing them
safely is next to impossible, as they are designed to be detonated by
anyone attempting such.
Of course they are. That is why they have been used by the millions.
Personally I support the use of those that become harmless over time.
Oh, how generous of you.
Total war is an abomination, no matter who starts
it, and allowing one's opposition to make a conventional war into a total
one is no excuse.
That is an unrealistic position.
Yes, well, all the realistic ones have been taken by bloody-minded asshats
who love a good kill for its own sake, and happen to have read someone
else's "realistic position". That one there, however, is _mine_. No fleas
on it, at least. Realism's for wankers who want to justify their pet war
-fantasy, anyway.
War has always existed and will always exist.
Nuclear weapons are not usable in wars unless only one
side has them; otherwise, total destruction of both sides is
all-but-assured.
It's called MAD, and it seems to have worked. Or something did.
Your lot waited the Soviets out, while they were embroiled in a
Vietnam-style war with Afghanistan. Gee, that name sounds familiar...
Actually it was economic warfare that did them in.
As for the whole "Fight teh evul Communist regimes" aspect of the Vietnam
and other wars, all governments in wars demonise and vilify the "enemy".
This is but one reason why no one in the rest of the world takes the US
very seriously about Cuba, after all.
Every war since WW2 has been a political war, and those are hard to
take seriously.
Every war is a political war; WW2 just happened to involve a politician with
dreams of global empire -- much like a certain former Texas governor. They
even use similar phrases, allowing for translation.
WW2 was a total war with military objectives. There was no
restriction where and how to fight it. That has not been true since
1945.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
21 Jul 2005 03:51:30 PM |
|
|
The Secretary of HomIntern wrote:
Hail Eris! It was a dark and stormy night in alt.politics.homosexuality,
when Attila wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:14:46 GMT, No One in alt.abortion wrote:
Attila writes:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:42:42 GMT, No One in alt.abortion wrote:
<snip>
And the U.S. government has, at least in the past, concurred in
that we did sign a non proliferation treaty and instituted a
"no first use" policy.
Irrelevant. We were not in a world war at the time.
Highly relevant - we would not have put such a policy in place if the
use of these weapons was at all justifiable.
The use of any weapon is justifiable in war. Personally I advocated
their use in Viet Nam. Or at least cutting the Ho Chi Min Trail with
radioactive dust.
No, the use of "any" weapon isn't justifiable in war. Slaughtering civilians
isn't justifiable either, no matter who did it first. Terror tactics are
also unjustifiable, and so is killing civilians to get at terrorists.
Landmines are, for example, not justifiable weapons, because removing them
safely is next to impossible, as they are designed to be detonated by
anyone attempting such. Total war is an abomination, no matter who starts
it, and allowing one's opposition to make a conventional war into a total
one is no excuse. Nuclear weapons are not usable in wars unless only one
side has them; otherwise, total destruction of both sides is
all-but-assured.
As for the whole "Fight teh evul Communist regimes" aspect of the Vietnam
and other wars, all governments in wars demonise and vilify the "enemy".
This is but one reason why no one in the rest of the world takes the US
very seriously about Cuba, after all.
So what's your solution? If we get hit, do nothing?
After Pearl Harbor, should we have just retreated and done nothing?
After 9/11, do nothing?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Secretary of HomIntern" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
21 Jul 2005 04:50:40 PM |
|
|
Hail Eris! It was a dark and stormy night in alt.politics.homosexuality,
when osprey wrote:
The Secretary of HomIntern wrote:
Hail Eris! It was a dark and stormy night in alt.politics.homosexuality,
when Attila wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 15:14:46 GMT, No One in alt.abortion wrote:
Attila writes:
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 04:42:42 GMT, No One in alt.abortion wrote:
<snip>
And the U.S. government has, at least in the past, concurred in
that we did sign a non proliferation treaty and instituted a
"no first use" policy.
Irrelevant. We were not in a world war at the time.
Highly relevant - we would not have put such a policy in place if the
use of these weapons was at all justifiable.
The use of any weapon is justifiable in war. Personally I advocated
their use in Viet Nam. Or at least cutting the Ho Chi Min Trail with
radioactive dust.
No, the use of "any" weapon isn't justifiable in war. Slaughtering
civilians isn't justifiable either, no matter who did it first. Terror
tactics are also unjustifiable, and so is killing civilians to get at
terrorists. Landmines are, for example, not justifiable weapons, because
removing them safely is next to impossible, as they are designed to be
detonated by anyone attempting such. Total war is an abomination, no
matter who starts it, and allowing one's opposition to make a
conventional war into a total one is no excuse. Nuclear weapons are not
usable in wars unless only one side has them; otherwise, total
destruction of both sides is all-but-assured.
As for the whole "Fight teh evul Communist regimes" aspect of the Vietnam
and other wars, all governments in wars demonise and vilify the "enemy".
This is but one reason why no one in the rest of the world takes the US
very seriously about Cuba, after all.
So what's your solution? If we get hit, do nothing?
After Pearl Harbor, should we have just retreated and done nothing?
I dunno, have a bloody sense of proportion? So you didn't kill a million
more people in Japan. Big deal. I didn't kill anybody the last time I went
downtown -- hooray! I didn't buy, sell, or use hard drugs! Bully for me!
You don't get an automatic right to go kill innocents when your own are
killed, not that PH had all that many civilian types who weren't support
personnel (who were not fair targets, IOW), and so on. You have no idea how
many more people may have been killed if you'd fought a conventional war --
it might only have been another 100,000, or 150,000. You'll never know.
Ever.
After 9/11, do nothing?
You might as well have done *nothing*, for all the good you did.
Afghanistan's a bigger mess than ever (like Iraq), the Taliban look like
they may have a shot at getting back into power, al-Qaeda has finally
established connections to Iraqis, and your leaders, as well as many of
your soldiers, are war criminals of Saddam's calibre. Oh, and London
apparently got hit yet again. Is there anything positive you've gained?
Karl Rove's a traitor, the rest of them likewise (but not verging on
impeachment right now), you've been lied to, tricked, misdirected in every
possible way, positively *****-slapped with obfuscation, and your country's
good name now nigh-permanently buried under a mountain range of filthy
atrocities to add to the horrors of Vietnam, the Indian Wars of the 19th
century, and every single dirty little war your country's leaders have
gotten you into in the past sixty years in the name of policing an empire
the vast majority of you won't even admit to having, at least not
pre-Shrub.
--
_______________________________________________
"The personal _is_ political."
Superfaggot; GGGHD; MWFA; HCNB; MU; BCB; FI
Economic Left/Right: -5.71
Authoritarian/Libertarian: -7.23
Killfiled by: directory
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ryd" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
17 Jul 2005 10:00:30 PM |
|
|
200,000 + civilians killed by atomic weapons.
Why on earth would Truman kill so many CIVILIANS???
Oh, I know, they were JAPANESE CIVILIANS!
And KILLING THEM WITH A WEAPON NEVER BEFORE USED ON HUMANS JUST SEEMED
LIKE THE THING TO DO AT THE TIME.
Ryda
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
18 Jul 2005 10:57:47 PM |
|
|
"Ryd" <ryda56p@yahoo.com> writes:
200,000 + civilians killed by atomic weapons.
Why on earth would Truman kill so many CIVILIANS???
Oh, I know, they were JAPANESE CIVILIANS!
And KILLING THEM WITH A WEAPON NEVER BEFORE USED ON HUMANS JUST SEEMED
LIKE THE THING TO DO AT THE TIME.
The last statement is closer to the truth. Based on a first hand
account that I heard from a person there at the time, the generals who
visited the test site a few days after the first test literally did
not know what to make of it - they exploded the bomb hundreds of feet
in the air at the top of a tower (being higher up makes the bomb more
effective), and the generals didn't understand why there wasn't a big
hole in the ground. That the sand was fused went over some of their
heads.
As the decision percolated upwards towards the prez, details and
sublties were lost and by the time it got to Harry Truman, it was
boiled down to "Might shorten the war? Do it."
Harry had enough trouble with language (he could be a bit vulgar) and
French words like nuance were not things he worried about. There was
the story about how Harry was campaigning and telling a bunch of
farmers that he used to be a farmer and knew that farming was
manure, manure, and more manure. Someone took his wife Beth aside
and said, "Can't you get him to say 'fertilizer'?" Beth replied,
"you don't know how long it took me to get him to say 'manure.'"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
19 Jul 2005 04:44:29 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 03:57:47 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <m3u0irzc2r.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
"Ryd" <ryda56p@yahoo.com> writes:
200,000 + civilians killed by atomic weapons.
Why on earth would Truman kill so many CIVILIANS???
Oh, I know, they were JAPANESE CIVILIANS!
And KILLING THEM WITH A WEAPON NEVER BEFORE USED ON HUMANS JUST SEEMED
LIKE THE THING TO DO AT THE TIME.
The last statement is closer to the truth. Based on a first hand
account that I heard from a person there at the time, the generals who
visited the test site a few days after the first test literally did
not know what to make of it - they exploded the bomb hundreds of feet
in the air at the top of a tower (being higher up makes the bomb more
effective), and the generals didn't understand why there wasn't a big
hole in the ground. That the sand was fused went over some of their
heads.
As the decision percolated upwards towards the prez, details and
sublties were lost and by the time it got to Harry Truman, it was
boiled down to "Might shorten the war? Do it."
Harry had enough trouble with language (he could be a bit vulgar) and
French words like nuance were not things he worried about. There was
the story about how Harry was campaigning and telling a bunch of
farmers that he used to be a farmer and knew that farming was
manure, manure, and more manure. Someone took his wife Beth aside
and said, "Can't you get him to say 'fertilizer'?" Beth replied,
"you don't know how long it took me to get him to say 'manure.'"
If it became general knowledge that a weapon was available which would
have saved American lives and shortened the war but was not used the
public outrage would still be echoing today.
Impeachment of the entire Truman administration would only have been a
small beginning. The trial for treason would have lasted for years.
Those who were not there can never understand the tone of that era.
And the absolute total public dedication to the successful end to the
war.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
20 Jul 2005 11:32:56 PM |
|
|
Attila <prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 03:57:47 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <m3u0irzc2r.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
"Ryd" <ryda56p@yahoo.com> writes:
200,000 + civilians killed by atomic weapons.
Why on earth would Truman kill so many CIVILIANS???
Oh, I know, they were JAPANESE CIVILIANS!
And KILLING THEM WITH A WEAPON NEVER BEFORE USED ON HUMANS JUST SEEMED
LIKE THE THING TO DO AT THE TIME.
The last statement is closer to the truth. Based on a first hand
account that I heard from a person there at the time, the generals who
visited the test site a few days after the first test literally did
not know what to make of it - they exploded the bomb hundreds of feet
in the air at the top of a tower (being higher up makes the bomb more
effective), and the generals didn't understand why there wasn't a big
hole in the ground. That the sand was fused went over some of their
heads.
As the decision percolated upwards towards the prez, details and
sublties were lost and by the time it got to Harry Truman, it was
boiled down to "Might shorten the war? Do it."
Harry had enough trouble with language (he could be a bit vulgar) and
French words like nuance were not things he worried about. There was
the story about how Harry was campaigning and telling a bunch of
farmers that he used to be a farmer and knew that farming was
manure, manure, and more manure. Someone took his wife Beth aside
and said, "Can't you get him to say 'fertilizer'?" Beth replied,
"you don't know how long it took me to get him to say 'manure.'"
If it became general knowledge that a weapon was available which would
have saved American lives and shortened the war but was not used the
public outrage would still be echoing today.
It is far more complex than that. In fact, at the time (and I heard
this from a person who knew some of the people involved), Japan was
about to collapse anyway due to running out of resources, and there
were "overtures" being made informally for some face-saving
arrangement to end the conflict, without the loss of life that an
invasion might have entailed.
There were also proposals to set up a 'demo' of what the weapon would
do, which would be terrifying enough to make the point without the
loss of life (it was, after all, dropped on cities as opposed to
purely military targets).
Curiously, the people most opposed to using it were the ones who had
actually seen the test.
Those who were not there can never understand the tone of that era.
And the absolute total public dedication to the successful end to the
war.
By the time we dropped the bomb, we basically had complete air
superiority and the ability to totally blockade the country with our
navy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Hiroshima |
21 Jul 2005 05:41:25 AM |
|
|
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3u0io6aw2.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
Attila <prochoice@here.now> writes:
On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 03:57:47 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <m3u0irzc2r.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
"Ryd" <ryda56p@yahoo.com> writes:
200,000 + civilians killed by atomic weapons.
Why on earth would Truman kill so many CIVILIANS???
Oh, I know, they were JAPANESE CIVILIANS!
And KILLING THEM WITH A WEAPON NEVER BEFORE USED ON HUMANS JUST SEEMED
LIKE THE THING TO DO AT THE TIME.
The last statement is closer to the truth. Based on a first hand
account that I heard from a person there at the time, the generals who
visited the test site a few days after the first test literally did
not know what to make of it - they exploded the bomb hundreds of feet
in the air at the top of a tower (being higher up makes the bomb more
effective), and the generals didn't understand why there wasn't a big
hole in the ground. That the sand was fused went over some of their
heads.
As the decision percolated upwards towards the prez, details and
sublties were lost and by the time it got to Harry Truman, it was
boiled down to "Might shorten the war? Do it."
Harry had enough trouble with language (he could be a bit vulgar) and
French words like nuance were not things he worried about. There was
the story about how Harry was campaigning and telling a bunch of
farmers that he used to be a farmer and knew that farming was
manure, manure, and more manure. Someone took his wife Beth aside
and said, "Can't you get him to say 'fertilizer'?" Beth replied,
"you don't know how long it took me to get him to say 'manure.'"
If it became general knowledge that a weapon was available which would
have saved American lives and shortened the war but was not used the
public outrage would still be echoing today.
It is far more complex than that. In fact, at the time (and I heard
this from a person who knew some of the people involved), Japan was
about to collapse anyway due to running out of resources,
Funny, of all the fifty or so WWII Veterans that served in the Pacific
Theater I have spoken to over the years, not a single one of them believed
that Japan was about to collapse.
and there
were "overtures" being made informally for some face-saving
arrangement to end the conflict, without the loss of life that an
invasion might have entailed.
"On April 5, 1945, one week before Rooseveft's death, Japanese Prime
Minister Kuniaki Koiso and his Cabinet resigned because of the increasingly
disastrous course of the war--the second such resignation in less than a
year. A peace faction in the military-dominated Japanese government had
begun to realize that a way had to be found to negotiate an end to the war.
The Allied demand for "unconditional surrender" was, however, regarded as
intolerable. Emperor Hirohito approved the appointment of the aged Admiral
Kantaro Suzuki as the new Prime Minister. But Suzuki's government was
hobbled by severe tensions between the peace faction and militarists who
vowed to fight to the bitter end. As a result, direct negotiations with the
United States could not be undertaken, and Japan lost an opportunity to try
to end the war early."
http://www.theenolagay.com/study.html#THE%20DECISION%20TO%20DROP%20THE%20BOMB
"MAGIC AND "ULTRA": TWO PICTURES OF JAPANESE INTENTIONS
In 1940 American intelligence experts cracked the Japanese diplomatic
code. This operation, codenamed "Magic," allowed the deciphering of messages
between Tokyo and the Japanese Embassy in Moscow and gave the United States
knowledge of the Japanese peace initiative in the spring of 1945. The
intercepted messages showed that Japan was seeking Russian mediation to end
the war, but also showed that it rejected "unconditional surrender" and hope
for significant Allied concessions. American military intelligence was also
deciphering Japanese military communications. These intercepts, codenamed
"Ultra," revealed in the summer of 1945 that the Japanese had achieved an
alarming buildup of forces in southern Japan--precisely in the areas
American forces were scheduled to invade late in the year. Thus, despite the
peace initiative,
Japan was preparing to fight to the bitter end."
http://www.theenolagay.com/study.html#THE%20DECISION%20TO%20DROP%20THE%20BOMB
The Japanese "Surrender" was little more than lip service while they built
up their forces. They armed civilians, and even armed and mobilized school
children.
There were also proposals to set up a 'demo' of what the weapon would
do, which would be terrifying enough to make the point without the
loss of life (it was, after all, dropped on cities as opposed to
purely military targets).
"WE COULD NOT GIVE THE JAPANESE ANY WARNING"
"The question of whether to drop the first atomic bomb on Japan
without warning was left to another group, the Interim Committee on post-war
atomic policy. On May 31, 1945, Secretary Stimson chaired a meeting of this
group, which included Truman's personal representative, James F. Byrnes, and
the committee's scientific advisers, headed by Dr. Robert Oppenheimer. The
committee members briefly discussed warning the Japanese to evacuate the
target, or arranging a demonstration of the bomb for delegates f | | | | | |
