Fables of the Reconstruction

Sparks

The death toll from a raid on Tokyo doesn't justify bombing a city needlessly xm15e3.

BTW - xm15e3 - is that a bushmaster model number?

xm15e3

Originally posted by Sparks
The French, German and Russian interest was in getting their loans repaid, as opposed to oil.

The French (ElfTotal ?) had exclusive oil rights to some of Iraq's reserves, Russia needed sanctions lifted so Iraq could pay off weapons loans with oil money, same for Germany. They all had oil deals or oil backed debt with the Baath party, I'm sure none of that effected their actions in the UN.

Originally posted by Sparks And you have to factor in here, the deaths that will be caused by the decision to invade Iraq, the total figure for that hasn't stopped climbing yet, but it's well up over 10,000 so far by some estimates - and that's just direct casualties.

Initially reports were 100K-200K total, I think 10K is a better number. That's about the number of Shiites Saddam killed in 1991. I agree, net deaths are the # dead had the Baathists lost power naturally minus the 10K + per diem. I doubt this number will be negative by this time next year. It's impossible to prove however, that is why it is rhetorical. It assumes a certain conclusion. Calling it a stupid question was a bit harsh, my mistake.

Total unnecessary deaths : 19,000 military.[/B][/QUOTE]

Just as above though, how many would have died if Vienna fell. An exact number is impossible, but it would undoubtedly been higher. Sometimes war is the best option. The world sucks, always has.

Originally posted by Sparks Doesn't change the fact that there was a Japanese surrender on the table when Hiroshima was bombed. [/B]

I've read this before, however never well supported. And, it really doesn't make sense given the state of Japanese leadership. The Army, Navy, and Emperor shared power. The balance of power was greatly influenced by public sentiment. After Hiroshima, the Emperor had pushed for surrender, but lacked political clout to pull it off. The Army had the benefit of the decades of government propaganda backing public sentiment for a final showdown.

This may or may not have changed after information about the attack was learned in shared. Not many Japanese knew what had happend or how, the magnitude of the situation was not commonly understood. These were people who had seen Tokyo and 200K people die in one night...and still were not ready to surrender.

This is why Nagasaki was considered necessary, we needed the Japanese to believe we had an unlimited supply of these weapons. It was a bluff, we only had two, and the next in line was at least 6 months away. They were tactically insignificant, and only strategically useful as a bluff.

We can all second guess what would have happend if Hiroshima were allowed to "sink in", but with the information available to Truman at the time, Its hard to argue Nagasaki was unnecessary.

xm15e3

Originally posted by Sparks
The death toll from a raid on Tokyo doesn't justify bombing a city needlessly xm15e3.

BTW - xm15e3 - is that a bushmaster model number?

I agree completey. The reason I quote that number is to put the nulcear boogie man in perspective. It also demonstrates the resolve of the Japanese people, Tokyo and similar raids didn't phase them. Not the Army at least.

Yah, the xm15e3 is the flat top with front sight post. I got a screaming deal on one a couple years ago. Anyone claiming an AR has no sporting use has never shot one. (legal for Deer in some states) Bushmaster is awsome, better quality then Colt and much less expensive.

Sparks

Yah, the xm15e3 is the flat top with front sight post. I got a screaming deal on one a couple years ago. Anyone claiming an AR has no sporting use has never shot one. (legal for Deer in some states) Bushmaster is awsome, better quality then Colt and much less expensive.

I think I'll stick to my Anschutz (2013/690, alu stock) myself, it's a bit more challanging (and a bit more accurate). AR-15s would be fun to try though - as would the .50 cal's. Just not what I'd keep up with for a long-term hobby, y'know? It's that whole possibility of olympic competition

Initially reports were 100K-200K total, I think 10K is a better number.

The 100-200k were for civilian and military casualties combined, weren't they?

That's about the number of Shiites Saddam killed in 1991.

If Hussein is your benchmark....

Just as above though, how many would have died if Vienna fell. An exact number is impossible, but it would undoubtedly been higher. Sometimes war is the best option.

The point was not "why defend Vienna", the point was that the war was pointless and did not solve or even resolve any problems.

I've read this before, however never well supported.

Apart from notes written by the then US president?

Also, from the United States Strategic Bombing Survey:
“Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to December 31 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”
Given the level of intelligence from signal intercepts that was available, it seems rather strange that they wouldn't have known this.
Also, the japanese ambassador in Moscow was under orders to work on a peace deal. The offer on the table was a conditional surrender, the one condition being that the emperor be allowed to remain in situ.

http://www.corax.org/revisionism/misc/ar/hiroshima.html

This is why Nagasaki was considered necessary, we needed the Japanese to believe we had an unlimited supply of these weapons.

So bomb an uninhabited region or island.

We can all second guess what would have happend if Hiroshima were allowed to "sink in", but with the information available to Truman at the time, Its hard to argue Nagasaki was unnecessary.

Actually, given what we now know Truman knew, the opposite is true.

xm15e3

Originally posted by Sparks
I think I'll stick to my Anschutz (2013/690, alu stock) myself, it's a bit more challenging (and a bit more accurate). AR-15s would be fun to try though - as would the .50 cal's. Just not what I'd keep up with for a long-term hobby, y'know? It's that whole possibility of olympic competition Niice. Those are rare over here, is that a Biathlon rifle? Do you compete with it? What are Irish gun laws like?

The AR is great fun, and will hold sub MOA at 100 yards..pretty cool for something that was designed to have a selector switch. Not to mention the ammunition is cheap. It also fits my fiance perfectly, so it's hers on range days. I'll try to sell her on a Carbon 15 someday.

I've never shot a .50 BMG, always wanted one. Some dude in Portland set a national record of something like a 3.5" 5 round group at 1000 yards. Too cool. ever check out www.fcsa.org?

Originally posted by Sparks

The 100-200k were for civilian and military casualties combined, weren't they?


If Hussein is your benchmark.... From what I remember they were military, I think they are high at that, and very preliminary. I guess it doesn't matter if your one of them.

Originally posted by Sparks

The point was not "why defend Vienna", the point was that the war was pointless and did not solve or even resolve any problems.
Iraq or Vienna?

Originally posted by Sparks

Apart from notes written by the then US president?
..Given the level of intelligence from signal intercepts that was available, it seems rather strange that they wouldn't have known this.

http://www.corax.org/revisionism/misc/ar/hiroshima.html

Again, this is hindsight. However I'll check the Truman notes. Truman was a rotten SOB, but I don't think he was that bad. I'd read some of his notes and the debate around them in college. From what I remember they were taken way out of context for the conclusion. I'll look into it, and if necessary stand corrected.

As far as nuking an island, it's not a bad idea, however would it have left the same impact? It's a very heavy decision to make. Had they not surrendered, we would have had to invade. 8 million lives were in the balance.

Sparks

Niice. Those are rare over here, is that a Biathlon rifle?

No, just standard ISSF 50m. I've got a 2002CA air rifle for 10m competitions, but if I tried to do the actual skiing part of a biathlon, apart from looking silly when we've no snow, I'd get a heart attack

Do you compete with it?

Yeah, won the Irish nationals a while back. Haven't shot much recently over work.

What are Irish gun laws like?

A total nightmare in some areas, not so bad in others. Basicly, .22 single-shots are easy enough to get, anything higher is tough and .230 is about the highest calibre you can get. No pistols at all, including starter pistols (they need a special licence).

The AR is great fun, and will hold sub MOA at 100 yards..pretty cool for something that was designed to have a selector switch. Not to mention the ammunition is cheap. It also fits my fiance perfectly, so it's hers on range days. I'll try to sell her on a Carbon 15 someday.

Ah, a girl that shoots

I've never shot a .50 BMG, always wanted one. Some dude in Portland set a national record of something like a 3.5" 5 round group at 1000 yards.

Yes, I've seen the target sheet scanned in on the web. Quite impressive feat of marksmanship. (Mind you, I'm not overly comfortable with the original design purpose of the light .50s, but they'd be fun to try out).

Iraq or Vienna?

Kindof applies to both, unfortunately, since what little the Iraqis had under Hussein is now gone or being destroyed without any improvement visible in the near term.

Again, this is hindsight.

Er, no - it's hindsight that we now know what he knew - but he knew it then...

However I'll check the Truman notes. Truman was a rotten SOB, but I don't think he was that bad. I'd read some of his notes and the debate around them in college. From what I remember they were taken way out of context for the conclusion. I'll look into it, and if necessary stand corrected.

The quote as I recall made specific mention of a peace deal the Japanese had made with the Russians, but which he didn't like. There was also serious worry about the Russians taking Japan.

As far as nuking an island, it's not a bad idea, however would it have left the same impact?

The initial argument was that Hiroshima had to be bombed rather than risk the bomb on an isolated area in case a publicised demo failed. Now me, I'd say that the risk of the bomb on hiroshima not detonating and thus showing the Japanese what the bomb looked like up close and giving them raw materials, was a more significant risk, but I wasn't around to be asked
But after Hiroshima, bombing a target with no value at all would seem to put over the idea that the US had bombs to spare better than nuking Nagasaki did.

It's a very heavy decision to make. Had they not surrendered, we would have had to invade.

Actually, had they withdrawn the surrender that was on the table with the Russians and vowed to fight to the last man.... the US would have to have dropped more A-bombs.
And more.
And more.
Until they surrendered.
So frankly, I don't buy the whole "it saved the US from invading Japan" argument...

Hobbes

Uh, yah.

What exactly did the UN do during the Cuban Missle crisis? Oh, they gave the Russians a microphone to lie with. That was helpful.

And the US a voice to point out to the rest of the world what Russia was really up to. Before that point there was the same kind of feelings with the countries that we saw before Colin went to the UN with Iraqs WMD proof.

Only difference between then and now was Colins evidence was crock of ****.

xm15e3

Yes, but did the UN really prevent WWIII? IMO, The Soviets backed down mainly because Kennedy grew a pair (for once, and only once) and held the blockade. The Russians were pretty sure JFK was a lightweight, and for good reason.

As far as Colin's proof, do you really think the Iraqis kept impeccably clean hydrogen producing plants on semi trailers to fill sounding balloons? That registers pretty high on the bs meter.

Sparks

xm15e3, the British were the ones that confirmed the nature of the hydrogen production plants. Which seems fitting, since it was the British that built and sold them to the Iraqis in the first place, not so much for scientific weather balloons as for an integral part of an artillery system. (You use the balloons to get data on windspeed vs. altitude in order to aim the shells better).

And they weren't impeccably clean, looking at the videos shows that. They just had no forensic evidence of the manufacture of biological weapons on them. Which is perfectly normal for things that aren't used to produce biological weapons...

xm15e3

Originally posted by Sparks

Yeah, won the Irish nationals a while back. Haven't shot much recently over work.

Originally posted by Sparks
Good Work! Some friends of mine have been looking into getting into the local events, but nothing highly competitive.

Originally posted by Sparks
A total nightmare in some areas, not so bad in others. Basicly, .22 single-shots are easy enough to get, anything higher is tough and .230 is about the highest calibre you can get. No pistols at all, including starter pistols (they need a special licence). That's a shame. Although there is much that can be done with .less then .230 cal (6mm?).

Originally posted by Sparks
Ah, a girl that shoots I gave her a choice of a ring or a Glock. She took the ring, knowing she get's both.

Originally posted by Sparks
(Mind you, I'm not overly comfortable with the original design purpose of the light .50s, but they'd be fun to try out). Barret's are cool, but must of the made-for civilian stuff are actually better anyway.

Originally posted by Sparks
Kindof applies to both, unfortunately, since what little the Iraqis had under Hussein is now gone or being destroyed without any improvement visible in the near term. At least that is what our media will report, there is much more going on with infrustructure improvement then CNN will ever admit to, reuters, AP, BBC all have a party line to adhere to.

Originally posted by Sparks
Er, no - it's hindsight that we now know what he knew - but he knew it then...

I don't think we had any faith in Japan's dimplomatic. At the time we saw much of it as intentional dupliclity, in reallity (hindsight) it was a case of the right hand not talking to the left.

A conditional surrender would never have been accepted with Japan or Germany. Why fight the war in the first place when you leave the problem in place (Iraq I).

I'll get back to you on the when Trumen knew what argument.

BTW. Speaking of girls with guns. This isn't my fiance, but it's a cool pic anyway. She's a cop I guess.

http://www.gulfcoastarmory.com/shoots/kcr/10-2000/hkat-m60e3.jpg

bonkey

This is not the "Guns R Us" board.
You guys want to chat firearms, then take it to PM or anywhere relevant please.

jc