kallend 1,623 #301 October 25, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote According to Wiki, which you have a lot of faith in, as t. ROFL You are floundering in a quagmire of your own making. Ah, yes, kallend at his best. He asks for proof, he is shown proof, he doesn't like proof, Proof One of the posts you cited as "proof" (#74) was on another topic altogether. Get real, man. Quote so he resorts to attempting to make fun of people, straying off topic, etc. Not to mention telling lies about other members posts. Mr. Kallend, I hate to leave but this thread, and you, are boring me. Have a nice day and remember...it's not nice to tell lies about other people. I'm sure you are well aware, based on the thoroughness of your research, that the death toll figures for the atomic bombings are **estimates** because no-one actually knows the answer. And the **estimates** vary from 210,000 to over 400,000 by 1950, depending on the methodology used. So to base your defense of your misrepresentations on one **estimated** figure from Wiki that doesn't match up with Lucky's **estimated** figure is just absurd. Your misrepresentations have been noted, and your feeble defense of them has been thoroughly debunked by Jerryzflies. Have a nice evening.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #302 October 25, 2007 Let's put 1 aspect of this argument to bed. The side who is for the use of these bombs on civilians claims I made an assertion that these targets were left untouched from the start of the war with the idea of dropping the bomb, rather than the meeting in May of 45. I have thought on this: 1) Does it matter when they decided to drop the bomb on a civilian target that was likely mostly women and children? 2) Hypothetically, even if it was asserted that they made this decision in Dec 41 rather than May 45, would it change anything? 3) If it were a last-minute decision, would that matter? 4) The only absolving possibility I see is if they dropped the bomb on a city they thought was paramount in the war, and if they thought that, why wasn't it bombed early on in the conflict? 5) If they thought Hiroshima was a viable, important military target, why did they not bomb it early as they bombed Tokyo? Hell, it was the closest. I briefed the thread and all I could come up with in regard to me saying they left it alone so the civilians wouldn't flee and they could see what the human loss was is found here: POST #31 2) Unmollested by US bombs for the purpose of seeing what the human damage would be POST #78 Hiroshima was not conventionally bombed during the war, as it wasn't a strategic point, so why atomically bomb an unmollested city? POST #152 OK, and why was it untouched? Perhaps.....uh, cause it had virtually no military significance? YEA, exactly, no reason to bomb it, hence left untouched until we wanted to provide some collateral damage and document the evidence. If someone can find more, I implore them to do so. Truth is, I didn't know when they made that decision before I entered this thread and researched and read of the selection committee. I had heard from Discovery Channel that they intentionally left it untouched so the civilians wouldn't flee and they could better establish the human kill total, but I didn't know when that decision was made. So I'm not claiming that point, but at the same time the other claim is that I did overtly state that the US decided early on that they would leave the city alone so they could later kill civilians and get a better count, a decision made at least by May 45, is not established thru any citation from the other side of this argument. Please find where I stated this. 6) Isn't it semantic to wonder what the timing is? I mean, a decision to bomb civilians is a decision to bomb civilians; timing is strategy and has zero to do with morals. 7) If Hiroshima was a military target of any real importance, why did they wait to bomb it until the last day of the war? 8) If Hiroshima was a relevant military target and the US didn't bomb it all war long for whatever reason, did it put US and ally troops in danger? I hope you guys answer these in enumerated fashion. I don't expect that, and if some do they will answer a variant of the questions, but I think we can sew up some of this thread. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
willard 0 #303 October 25, 2007 To aid in putting this argument to rest i will offer up an explanation as to why Hiroshima was not bombed until the end of the war. Don't bother asking for sources or other proof, I'm merely relaying information that was told to me by a retired Army officer who passed away many years ago. But it still makes sense. Hiroshima, as we all seem to agree, had a limited amount of military activity going on during the war. Thogh small, it was important and became more so as other military installations throughout Japan were damaged or destroyed by Allied air raids. The Allies had a network of spys/informants in Japan who gathered vital information as to troop numbers, equipment, supplies, etc. and went to great risk to get that information to our intelligence people. Hiroshima, having a small amount of a lot of different activities going on, provided much needed intell that greatly aided our war effort. That was why it was left alone before May '45. The intell coming out was many times more valuable to us than any possible benefit from destroying it. Near the end of the war it's value as a nuke site was greater than it's value as a source of intell which, by then, was of less and less value since we had other, quicker, means of learning the same things. When the bomb fell that morning several of our people who were gathering that intell throughout much of the war died along with the rest. As I said, I can offer no sources or other evidence to back this up, only the words of a long departed Army officer who was there and worked with the information that came out of Japan. It is up to each reader to decide whether or not they want to accept this as a viable explanation. As to what happened after May'45, that is quite evident. Right or wrong is, as Kallend said, a matter of opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #304 October 25, 2007 Well, your 4), 5), 7), and 8) are essentially the same question. And the answer is that between when the bombing raids started and when the target committee narrowed their choices, we had more important places to go after. Does that mean Hiroshima was crawling with troops and airstrips? No. Does it mean it was populated entirely by orphan koala bears who were trying to find a cure for cancer? No. To the targeting committee it looked like a good place to drop a bomb. As I said before, this list was made from calculated choices I wouldn't have wanted to have to make. There's another interesting piece of info I just read (on everyone's favorite reference site.) I had realized that Kokura (very large military arsenal) had been left untouched, just like the other potential targets, since the down-selection, but I didn't realize it was the secondary target for little-boy and the primary target of fat-man. Turns out it was clear over Hiroshima during the first mission and cloudy over Kokura during the second mission so it never got bombed. It's a funny thing, the weather. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #305 October 25, 2007 I don't really have anything to say on this subject, I just wanted to get in the last word. Blues, Dave "I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #306 October 25, 2007 Quote I don't really have anything to say on this subject, I just wanted to get in the last word. Blues, Dave What?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #307 October 25, 2007 Quote Quote I don't really have anything to say on this subject, I just wanted to get in the last word. Blues, Dave What? Are you questioning me? I dare say you owe me a public apology for that! Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #308 October 25, 2007 Quote Quote Quote I don't really have anything to say on this subject, I just wanted to get in the last word. Blues, Dave What? Are you questioning me? I dare say you owe me a public apology for that! Blues, Dave Oh, yeah? What are you gonna do if he refuses? . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #309 October 25, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote I don't really have anything to say on this subject, I just wanted to get in the last word. Blues, Dave What? Are you questioning me? I dare say you owe me a public apology for that! Blues, Dave Oh, yeah? What are you gonna do if he refuses? . I believe in diplomacy, so I'll follow the example of my heroes at the UN and write a letter. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #310 October 25, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote I don't really have anything to say on this subject, I just wanted to get in the last word. Blues, Dave What? Are you questioning me? I dare say you owe me a public apology for that! Blues, Dave Oh, yeah? What are you gonna do if he refuses? . I believe in diplomacy, so I'll follow the example of my heroes at the UN and write a letter. Blues, Dave I believe Harry Reid could be a great help with that. He has experience at writing letters to employers asking that an employee be disciplined for remarks he didn't like, made on a public forum. . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #311 October 25, 2007 How did it feel to almost be "Reided". Guess you and Rush Limbaugh have something in common, eh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #312 October 25, 2007 Quote How did it feel to almost be "Reided". Guess you and Rush Limbaugh have something in common, eh? You mean besides their political views and manner of debate? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #313 October 25, 2007 Quote Quote How did it feel to almost be "Reided". Guess you and Rush Limbaugh have something in common, eh? You mean besides their political views and manner of debate? Blues, Dave Some would say their manner of debate is very similar. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,623 #314 October 25, 2007 Quote Quote Quote I don't really have anything to say on this subject, I just wanted to get in the last word. Blues, Dave What? Are you questioning me? I dare say you owe me a public apology for that! Blues, Dave Sorry.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #315 October 26, 2007 I wrote: I hope you guys answer these in enumerated fashion. I don't expect that, and if some do they will answer a variant of the questions, but I think we can sew up some of this thread. As I thought, no one would answer the questions. I just can't see how some are so stubborn on one side of an issue, yet unwilling answer questions. But, we have dirtbag in chief twice, so how can I be surprised this demographic is any different? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #316 October 26, 2007 Or, maybe people are tired of answering your loaded questions, then having to answer them again (and again and again) when you rephrase it to try and 'win' your point?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #317 October 26, 2007 Quote I wrote: I hope you guys answer these in enumerated fashion. I don't expect that, and if some do they will answer a variant of the questions, but I think we can sew up some of this thread. As I thought, no one would answer the questions. I just can't see how some are so stubborn on one side of an issue, yet unwilling answer questions. But, we have dirtbag in chief twice, so how can I be surprised this demographic is any different? So, now that no one is responding to your posts, you're responding to yourself? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #318 October 26, 2007 Quote Quote I wrote: I hope you guys answer these in enumerated fashion. I don't expect that, and if some do they will answer a variant of the questions, but I think we can sew up some of this thread. As I thought, no one would answer the questions. I just can't see how some are so stubborn on one side of an issue, yet unwilling answer questions. But, we have dirtbag in chief twice, so how can I be surprised this demographic is any different? So, now that no one is responding to your posts, you're responding to yourself? Only way I can get an intelligent answer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
