Eric F. Richards wrote:
"John S." wrote:


Clearly you haven't heard of the firebombing of Tokyo, which was more
destructive to lives than both atomic detonations together.
And so what. Both the firebombing and the nuclear explosions were
designed to get the Japanese to stop fighting a losing battle. One
that would have cost our side and theirs huge numbers of killed had a
land invasion taken place.

The point, which you seem to have missed, too, is that just because it
used a fission reaction doesn't make it the ultimate evil. Tokyo,
Dresden, Koln were all far more destructive. I'm not talking about
motives here, so spare me. The POINT is, the nukes were destructive
as in what a single bomb could do, but they sure as hell weren't when
compared mission-for-mission.

You are confusing issues here. In the firebombing of tokyo, london,
dresden or koln there were numerous devices used which resulted in
numerous highly destuctive fires. In the two separate nuclear bomb
attacks on japan one device was used in each attack with extreme
destruction the result.


I would have far rather been 5 miles away from Hiroshima than 5 miles
away from Dresden. I suspect even at that distance I could have been
sucked in by the firestorm.

Chances are you would have been killed or seriously maimed for life by
radiation at a 5 mile distance.



--
Eric F. Richards

"The weird part is that I can feel productive even when I'm doomed."
- Dilbert

www.devilfinder.com World War Two The Magician (Jasper Maskelyne) I
have the pocket book here,I have read it only once,many years ago.It is
an interesting read.If y'all are interested?
cuhulin

"John S." wrote:



You are confusing issues here.

No, I'm not. You are, or you are being deliberatly obtuse.

The point is, the firebombings KILLED MORE PEOPLE.

They were more DESTRUCTIVE.


End of story.

So, which was "more evil?" (which is a bull**** construct, but lets
leave that alone for now...)

Killing 75,000 people with a nuke?

Killing 300,000 people with incindiaries?

Killing 300,000 people with incindiaries, timing the individual waves
to catch fire and rescue people in the open and unprotected? (read up
on Dresden.)

In the firebombing of tokyo, london,
dresden or koln there were numerous devices used which resulted in
numerous highly destuctive fires. In the two separate nuclear bomb
attacks on japan one device was used in each attack with extreme
destruction the result.


I would have far rather been 5 miles away from Hiroshima than 5 miles
away from Dresden. I suspect even at that distance I could have been
sucked in by the firestorm.

Chances are you would have been killed or seriously maimed for life by
radiation at a 5 mile distance.


Check your facts.
--
Eric F. Richards

"The weird part is that I can feel productive even when I'm doomed."
- Dilbert

On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 08:23:10 -0600, Eric F. Richards
wrote:

"John S." wrote:



You are confusing issues here.

No, I'm not. You are, or you are being deliberatly obtuse.

The point is, the firebombings KILLED MORE PEOPLE.

They were more DESTRUCTIVE.


End of story.

So, which was "more evil?" (which is a bull**** construct, but lets
leave that alone for now...)

Killing 75,000 people with a nuke?

Killing 300,000 people with incindiaries?

Killing 300,000 people with incindiaries, timing the individual waves
to catch fire and rescue people in the open and unprotected? (read up
on Dresden.)

In the firebombing of tokyo, london,
dresden or koln there were numerous devices used which resulted in
numerous highly destuctive fires. In the two separate nuclear bomb
attacks on japan one device was used in each attack with extreme
destruction the result.


I would have far rather been 5 miles away from Hiroshima than 5 miles
away from Dresden. I suspect even at that distance I could have been
sucked in by the firestorm.

Chances are you would have been killed or seriously maimed for life by
radiation at a 5 mile distance.


Check your facts.
Amazing.