Moron Bush flapping his moron gums again

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

And you try to show that they knew all this (from reports that wouldn't come out for 27 years AFTER the fact) going into the Bikinis to do the testing and that it was malicious intent? *THAT* is what I'm calling bullshit on, your rhetoric, not the fact that the nuclear tests caused damage.

Until the day you become a realist and quit trying to lay all the world's problems at the feet of a single political party, I'll call bullshit every time you try it.

Nice ad-hom on the 'true patriotic American' jab, sucks when you can't play the ball and have to resort to playing the player.

>>>>>>And you try to show that they knew all this (from reports that wouldn't come out for 27 years AFTER the fact) going into the Bikinis to do the testing and that it was malicious intent?

Actually I didn’t use the words, “malicious intent” but I like them. Gross negligence to say the least. I mean, we just leveled Hiroshima and Nagasaki with bombs FAR inferior, up to 1,000 times inferior and we had no clue that there would be likely grave consequences? Remember, we still had black/white fountains and bathrooms here, so we looked at non-whites as non-people. To assume we didn’t think there would be a problem is inane. To understand now that congressmen revealed that we let the natives back on to these islands prematurely so we could use them as guinea pigs for thyroid issues, and to be apathetic to that is immensely uncompassionate.

>>>>>>>*THAT* is what I'm calling bullshit on, your rhetoric, not the fact that the nuclear tests caused damage.

But Mikey, my post is in response to this statement of yours:

Lucky - nice spin as usual from you...and you wonder why people keep calling bullshit on you? Drop the rhetoric and just give the data and you make convince a few people of your points...

So Mikey, do you interchange the issue that you are calling bullshit upon when it’s convenient? Kind of a flip-flopper aren’t you? Isn’t the statement immediately above with the arrows just a diversion from having to discuss the issues? Remember the issues that you asked for data; Little boy / fat man and post-WWII testing in the South Pacific? I gave you data, yet instead of addressing it, you vacate that and focus on your assertion of rhetoric, claiming now that that is the issue rather than the data and evidence you were looking for in regard to the nuclear testing. Let’s combine the two bits of joy from you here:

>>>>>>>Lucky - nice spin as usual from you...and you wonder why people keep calling bullshit on you? Drop the rhetoric and just give the data and you make convince a few people of your points... *THAT* is what I'm calling bullshit on, your rhetoric, not the fact that the nuclear tests caused damage.

Bahahahahahaha…… now that is funny.

Previous to those gems was this:

>>>>>>>"killing many of their people"

Show your cite.


I did, you ran from it. Mike, you can think I’m the worst SOB on earth, it won’t change the atrocities we committed to these people. Quit worrying about what you think of me and address some issues:

___________________________________________________________
As I wrote yesterday, you must have just skim-read it, as you are a great reader; that’s all I can do to explain you not reading that I would reply with more about this territory that the US exploited to test killing devices to thwart a pathetic USSR. Anyway, here it is:

http://www.rmiembassyus.org/Nuclear%20Issues.htm

1973
AEC draft report, not publicly released, concludes that Bravo fallout may have contaminated as many as 18 atolls and islands, including Kwajalein and Majuro.

It appears that all of the radiation-related deaths on Kwajalein resulted from fallout from bombs dropped over the Marshall Islands, Bikini’s, etc. That entire region, including the Kwajalein atoll were devastated by the country that brought us liberty and freedom. Is it like we didn’t know what would happen? I mean we used Hiroshima as our first petri dish, then used a bomb some 1,000 times as lethal and were surprised when the fallout caused leukemia, cancer and other deaths? Please Mike.

1976
July - The U.S. Congress approves $20 million and military logistic support for a nuclear cleanup of Enewetak Atoll. A Brookhaven National Laboratory report on Rongelap shows that 20 of 29, or 69 percent of the Rongelap children who were under 10 years old in 1954 have developed thyroid tumors. The people of Utrik, whose original exposure in 1954 of 14 rads of radiation was less than one-twelfth that of Rongelap, suddenly show a higher rate of thyroid cancer than the Rongelap people, indicating the long latency period before health problems develop from low level radiation exposure.

1994
July - U.S. Representatives George Miller and Ron de Lugo write to Dr. Ruth Faden, chairperson of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments: "...There is no doubt that the AEC intentionally returned (Marshallese) to islands which it considered to be "by far the most contaminated places in the world,' but which it told the people were safe. Nor is there any doubt that the AEC, through the Brookhaven National Laboratory, then planned and conducted test after test on these people to study their bodies' reaction to life in that contaminated environment. "

As I said, petri dish, just like Hiroshima.

Look at the bottom of the site I gave you and you’ll see the chronology of 67 bomb tests from 1946 to 1958.…. I wonder why they don’t teach this stuff in school?

http://robert-barclay.com/Preface.htm

Do you know that jellyfish babies are babies born with no bones in their bodies? Sometimes they look transparent, inside-out. They happen because radioactive elements like cesium-137 and strontium-90—which once introduced into land or sea will not go away for hundreds of years—get into foods like crabs and coconuts and breadfruits and bananas and are absorbed into the human body as though they were calcium and potassium.
Do you know that malignant transformation of human cells as a result of radiation exposure might take twenty or more years to occur? You might think you are headed for
a comfortable old age, and then your thyroid goes haywire telling your body to sprout deadly tumors. Sometimes it does not take so long. Sometimes you acquire leukemia, or some other cancer, or your children are born retarded or freakishly deformed.
Sometimes, if you are a woman, you give live birth to a jellyfish baby, or an octopus baby, an apple baby, a turtle baby, what some Marshallese women call monster babies.

Here they call them, “jellyfish babies.” It’s the same thing, radiation causes babies to be born with no bone structure or otherwise deformed. Why is the right so tentative to admit what happened then and there?

___________________________________________________________________

>>>>>>Until the day you become a realist and quit trying to lay all the world's problems at the feet of a single political party, I'll call bullshit every time you try it.

I’m not, perhaps if you spent a little more time thinking about this issue rather than repeatedly typing, “rhetoric” you would have thought of the fact that FDR started the Manhattan Project and that Truman pushed the buttons. These were Dems in case ya didn’t know. I liked FDR’s domestic policy and liked little about Truman, but the neo-con presidents are pathetic on all fronts. Not to mention that Lincoln, the first Republican pres, established the freedom of blacks. I’m not blaming one party for anything, but the current garbage Republicans are just that and I beg you to establish otherwise. So perhaps you shouldn’t paint me with a broad brush, as I’m critical of the Dems as well, just not the current Dems so much.

>>>>>>>>Nice ad-hom on the 'true patriotic American' jab, sucks when you can't play the ball and have to resort to playing the player.

No Mike, you are true patriot and if you could PM me to teach me to ignore the American Indian, Japanese American, African American, Iraqi and many other atrocities, not to mention the 9 trillion $ debt, I could also be a true American for which I long.

[1969912 0]

Quote

Hiroshima:

The nukes stopped a terrible war and resulted in a net reduction in deaths on both sides. Oh yeah, we did warn them first, but unfortunately it took two to make the point. It was not a science experiment to see what the weapon would do to people. We used animals for those tests. Note also that the US provided substantial support to our vanquished enemies in stabilizing/rebuilding their countries.

Can you document your assertion that we were experimenting on the Pacific Islanders?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Hiroshima:

The nukes stopped a terrible war and resulted in a net reduction in deaths on both sides. Oh yeah, we did warn them first, but unfortunately it took two to make the point. It was not a science experiment to see what the weapon would do to people. We used animals for those tests. Note also that the US provided substantial support to our vanquished enemies in stabilizing/rebuilding their countries.

Can you document your assertion that we were experimenting on the Pacific Islanders?

>>>>>>...stopped a terrible war and resulted in a net reduction in deaths on both sides.

Pure speculation, who knows what the deaths would have been in numbers? It certainly likely lowered teh numbers of the allied casualties, but the Japanese, that's arguable.

>>>>>>Oh yeah, we did warn them first, but unfortunately it took two to make the point.

OK, they were already beaten down, especially in Tokyo, so further threats didn't matter to Hiro Hito.

>>>>>>It was not a science experiment to see what the weapon would do to people.

Oh no? Then why did the US bomb a city not heavily or at all supporting the war? Hiroshima was not conventionally bombed during the war, as it wasn't a strategic point, so why atomically bomb an unmollested city? Discovery says it was to see what the casualties would be with a city that didn;t have people departing, but Discovery is just a bunch of liberal, cum swilling faggots, right?

How about that, I found another source, but I'm sure you'll denounce it too.

______________________________________________

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of some industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. It was one of several Japanese cities left deliberately untouched by American bombing, allowing an ideal environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb. Another account stresses that after General Spaatz reported that Hiroshima was the only targeted city without prisoner of war (POW) camps, Washington decided to assign it highest priority.

The center of the city contained several reinforced concrete buildings and lighter structures. Outside the center, the area was congested by a dense collection of small wooden workshops set among Japanese houses. A few larger industrial plants lay near the outskirts of the city. The houses were of wooden construction with tile roofs, and many of the industrial buildings also were of wood frame construction. The city as a whole was highly susceptible to fire damage.

The population of Hiroshima had reached a peak of over 381,000 earlier in the war, but prior to the atomic bombing the population had steadily decreased because of a systematic evacuation ordered by the Japanese government. At the time of the attack the population was approximately 255,000. This figure is based on the registered population used by the Japanese in computing ration quantities, and the estimates of additional workers and troops who were brought into the city may be inaccurate.
_____________________________________________

There's your evidence. As I wrote, Discovery channel said the same thing. I could probably find it elswhere is you're not convinced.

Another reason was political; the Ruskies were getting ready to win the Pacific Theatre too, and the US didn't want them to get that satisfaction. Also, to use this weapon on people put the Russians on warning that we were #1 and not to fuck with us. Just like this joke in Iraq, the reason for the bombings were many.

We DID bomb a city with limited military meaning when we bombed Hiroshima. We also intentionally bombed a city that had not been hit by convential weapons to hope that the population wouldn't spread, alas, a petri dish.

>>>>>>Note also that the US provided substantial support to our vanquished enemies in stabilizing/rebuilding their countries.

The Marshall Plan? OK< so we did, but that doesn't address nor mitigate our human experiments on the Japanese citizens or the other islanders post-WWII with our nuclear testing. Can you refute any of this with your data?

>>>>>>>Can you document your assertion that we were experimenting on the Pacific Islanders?

As for post WWII testing, the cites I posted with the excerpts pasted in my posts will be what you're looking for. Congressmen admitted we prematurely moved these islanders backhome before the radiation was at safe levels so we could watch the thyroid damage incurred.

Please, ask for more info if you're not convinced, but be honest and perhaps concede if you objectivekly feel the evidence meets a reasonable standard.

[willard 0]

Statistics, numbers, claims, counter-claims, suspicions, blah, blah, blah......
It don't mean shit.
I know two men, both good friends and respected elders in my community, who were on an island in the Pacific getting ready to invade the Japanese mainland. Neither of them thought they would live through it. Neither did any of their fellow soldiers. They both said they felt the same thing when they learned the bomb had been used, that they felt like God had given them another chance at life.
Say what you want, what those men told me is all the proof I need to know that the decision to drop the bomb was the right one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Statistics, numbers, claims, counter-claims, suspicions, blah, blah, blah......
It don't mean shit.
I know two men, both good friends and respected elders in my community, who were on an island in the Pacific getting ready to invade the Japanese mainland. Neither of them thought they would live through it. Neither did any of their fellow soldiers. They both said they felt the same thing when they learned the bomb had been used, that they felt like God had given them another chance at life.
Say what you want, what those men told me is all the proof I need to know that the decision to drop the bomb was the right one.

>>>>>>>Statistics, numbers, claims, counter-claims, suspicions, blah, blah, blah......
It don't mean shit.

I know, facts ae worthless, we need to ALWAYS realize the US is ALWAYS right and never brutal.

>>>>>>>>>I know two men, both good friends and respected elders in my community,...

This defines the good ole boy club, I'm not interested in the credibility of anyone's good ole boy club, I defer to silly facts.

>>>>>>>> know two men, both good friends and respected elders in my community, who were on an island in the Pacific getting ready to invade the Japanese mainland. Neither of them thought they would live through it. Neither did any of their fellow soldiers. They both said they felt the same thing when they learned the bomb had been used, that they felt like God had given them another chance at life.

So as an autobiography, that's neat, but as anything relevant to the question of whether the US used the Japanese as test subjects and/or the US used other Pacific Islanders as test subjects post WWII it carries zero relevance.

>>>>>>>Say what you want, what those men told me is all the proof I need to know that the decision to drop the bomb was the right one.

Well that settles it then, I'm convinced. Could you at least cite thei names in bibliography format: Per Bob and Andy...they said....

You're not looking at this as anything but a microcosm of two guys who survived the war. I would probably feel the same way if I were them, just as I would feel good when this garbage in chief gets out of office and we get a Dem who will get us out of there, esp if I were a soldier over there. Thx for sharing that folksy story.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

You're not looking at this as anything but a microcosm of two guys who survived the war. I would probably feel the same way if I were them, just as I would feel good when this garbage in chief gets out of office and we get a Dem who will get us out of there, esp if I were a soldier over there. Thx for sharing that folksy story.

That was a common theme for many... my father included. I probably would not be here now had the Marines made the expected landings. IT was a war...and a very bloody one at that in the Pacific. My father was a survivor of GuadalCanal, Peleliu, Okinawa, but he felt had we invaded Kyushu... most of those he knew would not have come home.

[1969912 0]

>>>>>>...stopped a terrible war and resulted in a net reduction in deaths on both sides.

*******Pure speculation, who knows what the deaths would have been in numbers? It certainly likely lowered teh numbers of the allied casualties, but the Japanese, that's arguable.

I'm not going to bother researching it. The only thing important to me is that US and allied casualties were prevented.


>>>>>>Oh yeah, we did warn them first, but unfortunately it took two to make the point.

*******OK, they were already beaten down, especially in Tokyo, so further threats didn't matter to Hiro Hito.

They were not close to surrendering, and even if they were, we had every right to use a new weapon.


>>>>>>It was not a science experiment to see what the weapon would do to people.

*******Oh no? Then why did the US bomb a city not heavily or at all supporting the war? Hiroshima was not conventionally bombed during the war, as it wasn't a strategic point, so why atomically bomb an unmollested city? Discovery says it was to see what the casualties would be with a city that didn;t have people departing...


The intent was to do major damage and kill as many people as possible. The Wiki page that you linked tells how the target was selected. If the city was intentionally left unmolested in an effort to gather data from the bombing, then good for us.


*******...but Discovery is just a bunch of liberal, cum swilling faggots, right?


Thoughts about their choice of beverage or sexual practices have never crossed my mind.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[champu 1]

Quote

I wish the world were such that we could eliminate all nuclear weapons *and* be confident in complete global disarmament.

How does the saying go again about wishing in one hand and something else in the other?

I gather you do a bit more than wish about such things, however, so here's to that.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

You're not looking at this as anything but a microcosm of two guys who survived the war. I would probably feel the same way if I were them, just as I would feel good when this garbage in chief gets out of office and we get a Dem who will get us out of there, esp if I were a soldier over there. Thx for sharing that folksy story.

That was a common theme for many... my father included. I probably would not be here now had the Marines made the expected landings. IT was a war...and a very bloody one at that in the Pacific. My father was a survivor of GuadalCanal, Peleliu, Okinawa, but he felt had we invaded Kyushu... most of those he knew would not have come home.

Sure, but it's not responsible to decide world policy upon these folksy stories, that was my point. We DID use the citizenry of Hiroshima, somewhat Nagasaki and definitely the Marshall Islands, Bikinis, Kwajalein, etc as test subjsects. No wonder when we kill 100's of thousands or whatever the number of Iraqi civilians in our act to allegedly free them the citizenry of the US apathetically nods in agreement.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

.

1) >>>>>>...stopped a terrible war and resulted in a net reduction in deaths on both sides.

*******Pure speculation, who knows what the deaths would have been in numbers? It certainly likely lowered teh numbers of the allied casualties, but the Japanese, that's arguable.

I'm not going to bother researching it. The only thing important to me is that US and allied casualties were prevented.

1a) So you ask for research and I give plenty, then you relpy with the least empirical answer. What's that? This is YOUR opinion, not an answer. Basically says, "I don't care about facts or truth, as I can't impeach what you've posted, I just want it to be this way and not the way it realy is, so there." I really did expect more from you by reading your previous postings. As I wrote, if you need to concede, it's ok.

2) >>>>>>Oh yeah, we did warn them first, but unfortunately it took two to make the point.

*******OK, they were already beaten down, especially in Tokyo, so further threats didn't matter to Hiro Hito.

They were not close to surrendering, and even if they were, we had every right to use a new weapon.

And as for warning, the leaflets, per the info I posted were dropped on Nagasaki the day after the bombing, not sure about Hiroshima. Furthermore, if you kill your neighbors but warn them first, is that absolving?

2a) Wait, wait, finish that statement, "...we had every right to use a new weapon on civilian communities that we intentionally avoided bombing so we wouldn't scatter the populous and so we could see the human damage of this bomb." Right out of the pages of Timothy McVeigh, huh? Wonder why he did the shit he did? HE was trained by the best murdeers in the world, huh?

3) >>>>>>It was not a science experiment to see what the weapon would do to people.

*******Oh no? Then why did the US bomb a city not heavily or at all supporting the war? Hiroshima was not conventionally bombed during the war, as it wasn't a strategic point, so why atomically bomb an unmollested city? Discovery says it was to see what the casualties would be with a city that didn;t have people departing...


The intent was to do major damage and kill as many people as possible. The Wiki page that you linked tells how the target was selected. If the city was intentionally left unmolested in an effort to gather data from the bombing, then good for us.


3a) Come on, I like mine with no sugar at all, lets clean it up, shall we? "The intent was to do major damage and kill as many innocent civilians not heavily engaged in the war as possible.

So when others use warfare where they kill innocent civilins, they are murderers, but when we do we are just engaging in war. Be objective for a minute and undestand why other countries hate us. Your, we do what we want attitude brijgs upon us their version of the same.

4) *******...but Discovery is just a bunch of liberal, cum swilling faggots, right?


Thoughts about their choice of beverage or sexual practices have never crossed my mind.


4a) Point is that most people will attack the source and say everyone but Fox and newsmax are all liberal and all intentionally lie to hate the US as all liberals must do.

I do give you credit for not doing that, I wish you would try to impeach history as I posted or research your own and post it. You've essentially acquiesced.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I wish the world were such that we could eliminate all nuclear weapons *and* be confident in complete global disarmament.

How does the saying go again about wishing in one hand and something else in the other?

I gather you do a bit more than wish about such things, however, so here's to that.

Here's a thought, since we will never see world disarmament, what if everyone had the same nuclear capability? Wouldn't we all tend to act with respect? An armed society is a polite society, so an armed world is a polte world.

[willard 0]

Call it a "Good Ol' Boys Club" if you want, the fact remains that they are alive because the bomb was used. I'm sure they couldn't care less what you think of that.

You remarked that Hiroshima was intentionally left untouched by conventional bombing. This is true. However, you assert the reason for this is so damage by a nuke could be measured. Care to share with us where you got this tidbit of info, or is it just speculation? Many cities of known military value were left untouched and for many reasons, including strategic and tactical.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Sure, but it's not responsible to decide world policy upon these folksy stories, that was my point. We DID use the citizenry of Hiroshima, somewhat Nagasaki and definitely the Marshall Islands, Bikinis, Kwajalein, etc as test subjsects.

Do you have proof that our government intentionally sent the people of the Marshall Islands and Bikinis back home so we could study the longterm effects of radiation?

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Call it a "Good Ol' Boys Club" if you want, the fact remains that they are alive because the bomb was used. I'm sure they couldn't care less what you think of that.

You remarked that Hiroshima was intentionally left untouched by conventional bombing. This is true. However, you assert the reason for this is so damage by a nuke could be measured. Care to share with us where you got this tidbit of info, or is it just speculation? Many cities of known military value were left untouched and for many reasons, including strategic and tactical.

"Hiroshima is the largest untouched target not on the 21st Bomber Command priority list. Consideration should be given to this city", Gen. Leslie Groves, memo on guidelines for target selection, Manhattan Project Target Committee, April 27, 1945

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[crozby 0]

Anyway, back on topic:

Quote

Iran would need three to eight years to make a nuclear bomb, the head of the UN's nuclear watchdog said in an interview published, and he warned against a rush to use force to curb Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told France's Le Monde newspaper there was plenty of time for diplomacy, sanctions, dialogue and incentives to bear fruit.

US Vice President Dick Cheney said the world would not stand by and let Iran develop a nuclear weapon, and Washington has not ruled out an attack. Iran says its nuclear plans are peaceful and denies it wants to make an atomic bomb.

"I cannot judge their intentions, but supposing that Iran does intend to acquire a nuclear bomb, it would need between another three and eight years to succeed," ElBaradei told Le Monde.

"All the intelligence services agree on that.

"I want to get people away from the idea that Iran will be a threat from tomorrow, and that we are faced right now with the issue of whether Iran should be bombed or allowed to have the bomb," the Nobel peace prize winner said.

"We are not at all in that situation. Iraq is a glaring example of how, in many cases, the use of force exacerbates the problem rather than solving it."

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=97641

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Call it a "Good Ol' Boys Club" if you want, the fact remains that they are alive because the bomb was used. I'm sure they couldn't care less what you think of that.

You remarked that Hiroshima was intentionally left untouched by conventional bombing. This is true. However, you assert the reason for this is so damage by a nuke could be measured. Care to share with us where you got this tidbit of info, or is it just speculation? Many cities of known military value were left untouched and for many reasons, including strategic and tactical.

"Hiroshima is the largest untouched target not on the 21st Bomber Command priority list. Consideration should be given to this city", Gen. Leslie Groves, memo on guidelines for target selection, Manhattan Project Target Committee, April 27, 1945

Said quote, however, does NOT provide proof the city was left untouched solely to provide a target for an atomic bomb.

Sorry.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[1969912 0]

Quote

I really did expect more from you by reading your previous postings. As I wrote, if you need to concede, it's ok.

Lucky, I expected more from you UNTIL I read your previous posts in this and other threads. You seem unwilling to discuss this in a civil, logical or rational manner (a few examples are quoted below), and I don't have any interest in engaging in that kind of discussion. Call it concession, acquiesence, or whatever you'd like, but I'm done.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Discovery says it was to see what the casualties would be with a city that didn;t have people departing, but Discovery is just a bunch of liberal, cum swilling faggots, right?"


"How about that, I found another source, but I'm sure you'll denounce it too."


"Wait, wait, finish that statement, "...we had every right to use a new weapon on civilian communities that we intentionally avoided bombing so we wouldn't scatter the populous and so we could see the human damage of this bomb." Right out of the pages of Timothy McVeigh, huh? Wonder why he did the shit he did? HE was trained by the best murdeers in the world, huh?"


"Come on, I like mine with no sugar at all, lets clean it up, shall we? "The intent was to do major damage and kill as many innocent civilians not heavily engaged in the war as possible."


"Point is that most people will attack the source and say everyone but Fox and newsmax are all liberal and all intentionally lie to hate the US as all liberals must do."


"I do give you credit for not doing that, I wish you would try to impeach history as I posted or research your own and post it. You've essentially acquiesced."

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Call it a "Good Ol' Boys Club" if you want, the fact remains that they are alive because the bomb was used. I'm sure they couldn't care less what you think of that.

You remarked that Hiroshima was intentionally left untouched by conventional bombing. This is true. However, you assert the reason for this is so damage by a nuke could be measured. Care to share with us where you got this tidbit of info, or is it just speculation? Many cities of known military value were left untouched and for many reasons, including strategic and tactical.

"Hiroshima is the largest untouched target not on the 21st Bomber Command priority list. Consideration should be given to this city", Gen. Leslie Groves, memo on guidelines for target selection, Manhattan Project Target Committee, April 27, 1945

Said quote, however, does NOT provide proof the city was left untouched solely to provide a target for an atomic bomb.

Sorry.

"To enable us to assess accurately the effects of the bomb, the target should not have been previously damaged by air raids. It was also desirable that the target be of such a size that the damage would be confined within it, so that we could more definitely determine the power of the bomb." Gen. Leslie Groves, memo on guidelines for target selection, Manhattan Project Target Committee, April 27, 1945.

SORRY Want to nit-pick some more?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Call it a "Good Ol' Boys Club" if you want, the fact remains that they are alive because the bomb was used. I'm sure they couldn't care less what you think of that.

You remarked that Hiroshima was intentionally left untouched by conventional bombing. This is true. However, you assert the reason for this is so damage by a nuke could be measured. Care to share with us where you got this tidbit of info, or is it just speculation? Many cities of known military value were left untouched and for many reasons, including strategic and tactical.

"Hiroshima is the largest untouched target not on the 21st Bomber Command priority list. Consideration should be given to this city", Gen. Leslie Groves, memo on guidelines for target selection, Manhattan Project Target Committee, April 27, 1945

Said quote, however, does NOT provide proof the city was left untouched solely to provide a target for an atomic bomb.

Sorry.

"To enable us to assess accurately the effects of the bomb, the target should not have been previously damaged by air raids. It was also desirable that the target be of such a size that the damage would be confined within it, so that we could more definitely determine the power of the bomb." Gen. Leslie Groves, memo on guidelines for target selection, Manhattan Project Target Committee, April 27, 1945.

SORRY Want to nit-pick some more?

Said quote, however, does NOT provide proof the city was left untouched solely to provide a target for an atomic bomb.

Perhaps you could directly address the point, instead of talking around it.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Sure, but it's not responsible to decide world policy upon these folksy stories, that was my point. We DID use the citizenry of Hiroshima, somewhat Nagasaki and definitely the Marshall Islands, Bikinis, Kwajalein, etc as test subjsects.

Do you have proof that our government intentionally sent the people of the Marshall Islands and Bikinis back home so we could study the longterm effects of radiation?

I'm sure they were sent home for the good of their health. The US would never deliberately expose people to radiation. See attachment.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sure, but it's not responsible to decide world policy upon these folksy stories, that was my point. We DID use the citizenry of Hiroshima, somewhat Nagasaki and definitely the Marshall Islands, Bikinis, Kwajalein, etc as test subjsects.

Do you have proof that our government intentionally sent the people of the Marshall Islands and Bikinis back home so we could study the longterm effects of radiation?

I'm sure they were sent home for the good of their health. The US would never deliberately expose people to radiation. See attachment.

Your snarky opinion doesn't qualify as proof.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Call it a "Good Ol' Boys Club" if you want, the fact remains that they are alive because the bomb was used. I'm sure they couldn't care less what you think of that.

You remarked that Hiroshima was intentionally left untouched by conventional bombing. This is true. However, you assert the reason for this is so damage by a nuke could be measured. Care to share with us where you got this tidbit of info, or is it just speculation? Many cities of known military value were left untouched and for many reasons, including strategic and tactical.

"Hiroshima is the largest untouched target not on the 21st Bomber Command priority list. Consideration should be given to this city", Gen. Leslie Groves, memo on guidelines for target selection, Manhattan Project Target Committee, April 27, 1945

Said quote, however, does NOT provide proof the city was left untouched solely to provide a target for an atomic bomb.

Sorry.

"To enable us to assess accurately the effects of the bomb, the target should not have been previously damaged by air raids. It was also desirable that the target be of such a size that the damage would be confined within it, so that we could more definitely determine the power of the bomb." Gen. Leslie Groves, memo on guidelines for target selection, Manhattan Project Target Committee, April 27, 1945.

SORRY Want to nit-pick some more?

Said quote, however, does NOT provide proof the city was left untouched solely to provide a target for an atomic bomb.

Perhaps you could directly address the point, instead of talking around it.

Have you ever managed to add 2 + 2 without having to be told what the answer is?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nerdgirl 0]

There was another debate going on in summer 1945 that does not get the same attention as the already mentioned and much debated (over the last 60 years) argument that an US invasion of Japan would result in tens of thousands of American fatalities and hundreds of thousands of Japanese fatalities, as well as prolonged engagement.

Would a technical demonstration have been sufficient to push Emperor Hirohito to unconditional surrender?

In June 1945, Secretary of War Henry Stimson (as there was no Defense Dept until 1947) gathered pre-eminent nuclear scientists (physicists, chemists, & engineers) to make recommendations whether use was necessary to end the war or would a ‘technical demonstration” suffice.

Among the scientists in that early Defense Science Board (DSB) or JASON-esque groups were Ernest Lawrence, Arthur Compton, Enrico Fermi, and Robert Oppenheimer. They recommended that a ‘technical demonstration’ would not end the war.

Another group of scientists, who came to be known as the Frank Committee (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB162/16.pdf), which included Leo Szilard and Glenn Seaborg, disagreed:

”We believe that these considerations make the use of nuclear bombs for an early, unannounced attack against Japan inadvisable. If the United States would be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race of armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.

“Much more favorable conditions for the eventual achievement of such an agreement could be created if nuclear bombs were first revealed to the world by a demonstration in an appropriately selected uninhabited area.

"From this point of view a demonstration of the new weapon may best be made before the eyes of representatives of all United Nations, on the desert or a barren island (emphasis in the original). The best possible atmosphere for the achievement of an international agreement could be achieved if America would be able to say to the world, ‘You see what weapon we had but did not use. We are ready to renounce its use in the future and to join other nations in working out adequate supervision of the use of this nuclear weapon.’”

The US did not realize how stretched thin and imperiled economically Japan was.

The Japanese (& the rest of the world) did not know how little highly enriched uranium (HEU) or plutonium we had.

After bombing of Nagasaki, President Truman promised a "rain of ruin" if Japan did not surrender – it was a bluff.

More civilians died in the conventional and fire bombings of Tokyo then Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

In the summer of 1945, the Soviets had not yet declared war on Japan; they indicated they would do so on 15 August 1945. Colonel Paul Tibbets flew the Enola Gay flew over Hiroshima on 6 Aug and 9 Aug Major Chaeles Sweeny commanded the B-29 that flew over Nagasaki.This was a narrow time period. The US did not want to see Japan divided as Europe had been.

Secretary of War Henry Stimson considered the use of the atomic bomb against Japan to be the "least abhorrent choice."

-----

The use of atomic bombs by the US occurred many years before I was born. I can’t change history. What I can learn is that I never want that to happen again. Lowering the barriers to the use of nuclear weapons is something to which I am opposed, whether that be via proliferation to non-nuclear weapons states (*any* of them) or the proposed exploration of B61-11s or development of new tactical nuclear weapons (e.g., the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator) for use as ‘bunker busters.’

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sure, but it's not responsible to decide world policy upon these folksy stories, that was my point. We DID use the citizenry of Hiroshima, somewhat Nagasaki and definitely the Marshall Islands, Bikinis, Kwajalein, etc as test subjsects.

Do you have proof that our government intentionally sent the people of the Marshall Islands and Bikinis back home so we could study the longterm effects of radiation?

I'm sure they were sent home for the good of their health. The US would never deliberately expose people to radiation. See attachment.

Your snarky opinion doesn't qualify as proof.

More often than not, 2 + 2 is equal to 4.

We only need beyond reasonable doubt, not absolute proof, to sentence people to death in the USA.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Call it a "Good Ol' Boys Club" if you want, the fact remains that they are alive because the bomb was used. I'm sure they couldn't care less what you think of that.

You remarked that Hiroshima was intentionally left untouched by conventional bombing. This is true. However, you assert the reason for this is so damage by a nuke could be measured. Care to share with us where you got this tidbit of info, or is it just speculation? Many cities of known military value were left untouched and for many reasons, including strategic and tactical.

"Hiroshima is the largest untouched target not on the 21st Bomber Command priority list. Consideration should be given to this city", Gen. Leslie Groves, memo on guidelines for target selection, Manhattan Project Target Committee, April 27, 1945

Said quote, however, does NOT provide proof the city was left untouched solely to provide a target for an atomic bomb.

Sorry.

"To enable us to assess accurately the effects of the bomb, the target should not have been previously damaged by air raids. It was also desirable that the target be of such a size that the damage would be confined within it, so that we could more definitely determine the power of the bomb." Gen. Leslie Groves, memo on guidelines for target selection, Manhattan Project Target Committee, April 27, 1945.

SORRY Want to nit-pick some more?

Don't care much for when the shoe is on the other foot, Doc?

Sorry, again - you've proven only that the Manhattan Project chiefs decided to use the city *because* it was essentially untouched.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706