The Atomic Bomb

[smichhertz]

Originally Posted by JimG

The target for the Hiroshima bomb was the Aoio Bridge.

Again, that's like saying "the target was Osama bin Laden", if one were to use a nuclear bomb to kill Osama bin Laden.

Sure, that might have been the specific point where they were aiming the bomb, but they blast radius of an Atomic bomb is much bigger than just a bridge. Hence, the real target was the CITY, not a bridge.

[smichhertz]

Originally Posted by GKC

It is perhaps germane to point out that after LeMay changed the tactics for the use of B-29s, in March 945, all B-29 bombing was essential against cities, not individual targets: that is, area bombing. Concentrated on 6 major cities, the campaign resulted in around 316,000 casualties and destroyed over 105 sq. miles of the cities of Tokyo, Osaka, Nagoya, Yokohoma, Kobe and Kawasaki, through June.

Not really, the subject is atomic bombs. So other than Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there weren't any other historic uses of them.

Certainly, targeting a city is immoral, whether it is done by an atomic bomb, conventional bombs, etc doesn't change that.

I believe the Nazis were the first to start deliberately targeting cities, and then the Allies followed suit in retaliation. But regardless, targeting of civilian populations is immoral and neither should have done it.

Originally Posted by GKC

What was planned for the next phase of the conventional bombing was likely worse. Had the war not ended, that is.

That doesn't justify targeting civilians.

Originally Posted by GKC

Frank's DOWNFALL is essential reading.

Not really, it might be an interesting read, or teach some facts about it. But once we establish that a city is targeted, then we know its immoral. And no amount of circumstantial evidence changes that.

The only essential reading is this:

Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities of extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation.

Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_c...t-spes_en.html

[Monte RCMS]

Originally Posted by JimG

The target for the Hiroshima bomb was the Aoio Bridge.

That was the aiming point.

Because The famous Tachikawa Bicycle and Mortar Base Plate Manufacturing Shop was too small to aim for.

And I think they missed the bridge, even so.

One of my friends was in Hiroshima that day, but he was down in the basement of his house and he survived handily.

[Monte RCMS]

Originally Posted by smichhertz

Again, that's like saying "the target was Osama bin Laden", if one were to use a nuclear bomb to kill Osama bin Laden.

Sure, that might have been the specific point where they were aiming the bomb, but they blast radius of an Atomic bomb is much bigger than just a bridge. Hence, the real target was the CITY, not a bridge.

The reason for using a big bomb was that their accuracy was so poor.

As accuracy improved, the size of the bombs got smaller.

Then they actually stopped designating nukes for some weapons because of the increased accuracy.

Now they don't even use conventional explosives in some cases ... just the kinetic hit to kill ... hitting the target very precisely with the rocket motor case ...

It's all a question of accuracy.

Back then accuracy was terrible. Lucky if you got within five miles of the target with one bomb. They tried and tried and tried. Even in the Vietnam War, they had a terrible time hitting individual bridges with computerized dive bombers ... and that was in 1966.

[edwest2]

Originally Posted by Ross54

I just finished reading my July / August issue of This Rock and thoroughly enjoyed it. I was stunned though at the lengthy article on the use of the atomic bomb which ended WWII. Most shocking was that the author himself had been a military man. Many military members, both present and past, are ardent history students. So Mr. Check's flawed "coffee shop synopsis" of this great, tragic event begs comment. I humbly offer that given the deeply flawed logic of Mr. Check's thesis and his weak to ludicrous support of that thesis, his conclusion must also be in err. In particular, his argument that civilians died en mass--they did--ignores their complicity in the war. In brief, I'd suggest that Mr. Check spend an evening with "War's End," by MJ Charles Sweeney, or "Flyboys" by James Bradley. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were selected because of their military value. Japanese leadership deliberately intermingled the civilian workforce in the industrial areas in hopes of a deterrent effect. Asking Eisenhower, ETO commander, about affairs in the PTO, is absurd on it's face. Hoover?? What the heck? He knew absolutely nothing about any of it. Mr. Check seems utterly unaware of Japan's vast holdings in Manchuria and elsewhere that would have taken many years to quell. (Sweeney--a devout,Boston-Irish Catholic and the mission commander of the Nagasaki flight--sought and received advice from the Catholic Chaplain just before the mission. That's in his book. I could go on and on. Thus, Mr. Check, a short answer to your quandary as to why Americans--and Japanese scholars--support that necessary act.

As a World War II researcher, your assumptions are incorrect. I suggest you pick up a book titled Made in Japan by Sony corporation founder Akio Morita to get his reaction to the atomic bombings. Eisenhower was consulted.

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm





Peace,
Ed

[GKC]

Originally Posted by Monte RCMS

That was the aiming point.

Because The famous Tachikawa Bicycle and Mortar Base Plate Manufacturing Shop was too small to aim for.

And I think they missed the bridge, even so.

One of my friends was in Hiroshima that day, but he was down in the basement of his house and he survived handily.

By 800 feet, approximately.

GKC

[GKC]

Originally Posted by edwest2

As a World War II researcher, your assumptions are incorrect. I suggest you pick up a book titled Made in Japan by Sony corporation founder Akio Morita to get his reaction to the atomic bombings. Eisenhower was consulted.

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm





Peace,
Ed

Frank (among others) addresses this subject in DOWNFALL, in a lengthy note on p.332. Other historians of the period make similar observations (Maddox, below).

Eisenhower made the statement above in two places, in 1948 (CRUSADE IN EUROPE) and 1963 (MANDATE FOR CHANGE). This quote is from 1963, the 1948 account was less detailed. A couple of points:

Stimson kept detailed diaries that include a complete record of all discussions, of any nature, which he had on the bombs. This exchange is not mentioned. and it is not independent evidence of an opinion as stated prior to the use of the weapons, but after the war. And, in the 1948, but not the 1963 account, Eisenhower added "My views were merely personal and immediate reactions, they were not based on any analysis of the subject".

Eisenhower had no particular insight into the Pacific theater, as he said in 1948, nor should he have. As far as is known, he had no access to Pacific Theater Magic or Ultra, either traffic or summary. Nor should he have. In a 12 July 1945 letter he wrote that he had not the slightest idea what would happen in the Pacific, nor was there any reason he should. He was the ETO commander. MacArthur or Nimitz had similarly no insight into the European Theater.

For a more detailed consideration of Eisenhower's words, and the improbability of the circumstances being accurately recalled see HIROSHIMA IN HISTORY:THE MYTHS OF THE REVISIONISTS, ed. by Robert James Maddox.16-19, as well as the Frank reference, in DOWNFALL.

GKC

[GKC]

Originally Posted by smichhertz

Not really, the subject is atomic bombs. So other than Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there weren't any other historic uses of them.

Certainly, targeting a city is immoral, whether it is done by an atomic bomb, conventional bombs, etc doesn't change that.

I believe the Nazis were the first to start deliberately targeting cities, and then the Allies followed suit in retaliation. But regardless, targeting of civilian populations is immoral and neither should have done it.



That doesn't justify targeting civilians.



Not really, it might be an interesting read, or teach some facts about it. But once we establish that a city is targeted, then we know its immoral. And no amount of circumstantial evidence changes that.

The only essential reading is this:



Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_c...t-spes_en.html

The only essential reading for those who as accept the magisterium as binding, certainly, and they should affirm it with whatever theological level of certainty is proper for a given teaching. As I always remind folks.

But not all accept the magisterium in that way. Your citing it, or discussing it, is appropriate for those who do.

And if you have no interest in the historical facts of the subject, I will still be posting them; others do, and sometimes they get them wrong. Or sometimes the facts are debatable. But, as stated, I won't be discussing your moral views.

GKC

[smichhertz]

Originally Posted by Monte RCMS

The reason for using a big bomb was that their accuracy was so poor. etc...

I don't really see how any of that is relevant. Understand, I'm looking at this from a MORAL perspective. You keep going on about historical/military information at the time. Don't get me wrong, it's interesting, but ultimately irrelevant to determining the morality of a given act.

Just by looking at the intended target we can see how the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are immoral. In both cases, the target was a city. Guess what? That's immoral:

Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities of extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation.

Source: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_c...t-spes_en.html

And that's it!

Everything else is IRRELEVANT. It doesn't matter whether or not Japan was trying to surrender, it doesn't matter how accurate or inaccurate bombs were, it doesn't matter what Japan or Germany, or USSR or any one else did to us, it doesn't matter whether or not more or less civilians would have died in an invasion, it doesn't matter whether or not the war would have ended, or anything else.

If something is immoral, then YOU CAN'T DO IT. You can't kill a 2 year old child even if the end result would be that all wars would stop forever and no one would ever murder again. The ends DO NOT justify the means, and no act can be justified by its results.

So either the Catholic Church is wrong, or the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are immoral.

[GKC]

Originally Posted by Monte RCMS

The reason for using a big bomb was that their accuracy was so poor.

As accuracy improved, the size of the bombs got smaller.

Then they actually stopped designating nukes for some weapons because of the increased accuracy.

Now they don't even use conventional explosives in some cases ... just the kinetic hit to kill ... hitting the target very precisely with the rocket motor case ...

It's all a question of accuracy.

Back then accuracy was terrible. Lucky if you got within five miles of the target with one bomb. They tried and tried and tried. Even in the Vietnam War, they had a terrible time hitting individual bridges with computerized dive bombers ... and that was in 1966.

Bombing accuracy depended on a number of factors, In the ETO, under ideal conditions, a good bombardier with a Norden could achieve a CEP in the 200 ft range. But such was not possible over Japan, for a number of weather related reasons . The failure of the first commander of the XXI Bomb Group (Hansell) to achieve results, from Nov 1944, to his relief in Jan 1945, was what brought LeMay to command. It was his own experience, from Jan to Mar, that led him to abandon attempts at mass precision bombing, and use the area bombing, which targeted entire cities. And was going to continue doing so, until the war ended.

GKC

[Monte RCMS]

Originally Posted by GKC

Bombing accuracy depended on a number of factors, In the ETO, under ideal conditions, a good bombardier with a Norden could achieve a CEP in the 200 ft range. But such was not possible over Japan, for a number of weather related reasons . The failure of the first commander of the XXI Bomb Group (Hansell) to achieve results, from Nov 1944, to his relief in Jan 1945, was what brought LeMay to command. It was his own experience, from Jan to Mar, that led him to abandon attempts at mass precision bombing, and use the area bombing, which targeted entire cities. And was going to continue doing so, until the war ended.

GKC

We tended to bomb en masse ... the whole squadron or group or box dropping at the same time.

We didn't often bomb under ideal conditions.

http://ww2total.com/WW2/Weapons/War-...g-Accuracy.htm


http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Mag...8daylight.aspx

One excerpt:

"The planners were not misled by pickle barrel assumptions. According to data from training and practice bombing, a heavy bomber at 20,000 feet had a 1.2 percent probability of hitting a 100-foot-square target. About 220 bombers would be required for 90 percent probability of destroying the target. AWPD-1 forecast a need for 251 combat groups to carry out the plan."

[GKC]

Originally Posted by Monte RCMS

We tended to bomb en masse ... the whole squadron or group or box dropping at the same time.

We didn't often bomb under ideal conditions.

http://ww2total.com/WW2/Weapons/War-...g-Accuracy.htm


http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Mag...8daylight.aspx

True. In the ETO. I was speaking of the theory.

But the practice in the PTO was far different.

GKC

[JimG]

Originally Posted by GKC

By 800 feet, approximately.

GKC

Missed the bridge by 800 feet. Yet, it remained standing. It was damged but not destroyed.

[GKC]

Originally Posted by JimG

Missed the bridge by 800 feet. Yet, it remained standing. It was damged but not destroyed.

Yep.

GKC

[Monte RCMS]

The Norden bomb sight allowed daylight precision bombing of specific targets like factories.[4] It worked well enough in leisurely practice runs in sunny California at 10,000 feet with no flak or enemy planes. Over German airspace, in bad weather at 20,000 feet with shells exploding all around and enemy fighters a constant threat, the B-17 had at most 30 seconds over the target. "The flak is murder," the pilots said. "If you fly straight and level through it for more than ten seconds, you're a dead duck."[5]

Navigators found it very difficult to find the target in the first place. Navigation errors often put streams of 500 bombers many miles the wrong direction. At high altitude, with the usual cloud cover, it was nearly impossible to identify urban landmarks visually. On clear nights camouflage and dummy cities confused the navigators.[6] H2X, an American adaptation of the British radar system H2S, provided a crude mapping of the ground through cloud cover. It helped locate targets, but beginners' luck in its early trials gave planners a much exaggerated estimate of the accuracy the Flying Fortress could achieve. In late 1943, one bomber in 25 hit within one mile of the aiming point, and only one in 5 even got within five miles. If the aiming point was a factory or railroad yard, fewer than 10% of the bombs that did land there would do any real damage. Bombs that missed and landed in residential areas were just like the RAF's; they would destroy apartments, but the residents were usually safe in underground shelters.[7]

Source: http://www.conservapedia.com/B-17_Flying_Fortress