There were plenty of soldiers in both places.

So you are arguing that they were tactical strikes to circumvent the enemy soldiers, or in my view, plain old terror against the civilian populations?

Civilian populations were bombed in WWII - on both sides.

My question

When does a Patriot become a Freedom Fighter, or a Terrorist?

That was one reply

When he starts purposely targeting only non-combatants.

My response to the above

Dresden?

Hiroshima?

Civilian populations were bombed in WWII - on both sides.

So although I agree with you K', it doesn't answer my question

There were plenty of soldiers in both places.

So you are arguing that they were tactical strikes to circumvent the enemy soldiers, or in my view, plain old terror against the civilian populations?

Interesting to look at the numbers.....

Japan attacks a US military installation.......December 7, 1941

The attack damaged or destroyed twelve American warships, destroyed 188 aircraft, and killed 2,403 American servicemen and 68 civilians.

US bombs Hiroshima & Nagasaki ...how many civilians killed & what was the military capabilities of both places to warrant total obliteration?

Then again I know many here are of the mind that these kinds of numbers do not matter. That all is fair in war & collateral damages are..........well acceptable. But I do tend to wonder in the end how to tell the bad guys from the good....

London Coventry

caf

I am not arguing the rights or wrongs Caf

Neither was I.

I was putting the point in perspective. There were civilian targets on both sides. Koheesti made the similar point

caf

There were plenty of soldiers in both places.

So you are arguing that they were tactical strikes to circumvent the enemy soldiers, or in my view, plain old terror against the civilian populations?

They were tactical strikes to destroy military targets in which many civilians were also killed. Right or wrong, this was a common practice in warfare at the time. Of course, there was also an element of payback for The Allied cities that had been purposely destroyed by the Axis.

Someone compared the Rape and pillaging of Nanking with Allied Air Strikes, but this just shows how silly and out there some of TVs members can get.

If there was any positives to it, it's that people on all sides were so horrified by the civilian cost that public opinion would never allow deliberate civilian targeting again. I've talked to many vets who still feel sickened by it.

Odd that so many point to Hiroshima when Tokyo suffered worse death tolls from firebombing. It just didn't make headlines.

If there was any positives to it, it's that people on all sides were so horrified by the civilian cost that public opinion would never allow deliberate civilian targeting again. I've talked to many vets who still feel sickened by it.

Hopefully True but, wasn't the US close to again using nuclear bombs in 1958? I remember reading they had planned to use nukes on China over a dispute over Taiwan? I think it was Eisenhower who refused his joint chiefs of staff...thankfully

Now this brings me to wonder.....& I do not mean this as a flame bait just something I wonder....

How is it that the only country to have used nuclear weaponry against others & to pretty much have the only truly long range delivery capabilities...is also the one to police the world as to who can & can not have any such weaponry in any capacity with or without range delivery system in place? Yes sure there is the UN who speaks up but is it not the one with the biggest stick ultimately making the rules?

Now this brings me to wonder.....& I do not mean this as a flame bait just something I wonder....

How is it that the only country to have used nuclear weaponry against others & to pretty much have the only truly long range delivery capabilities...is also the one to police the world as to who can & can not have any such weaponry in any capacity with or without range delivery system in place? Yes sure there is the UN who speaks up but is it not the one with the biggest stick ultimately making the rules?

Because the one with the biggest stick is the only one capable of doing anything about it.

Yes, the US is the only country to have used an atomic bomb against anyone else. It's hard to judge by what we know today and not by what we knew in 1945. Look at the videos of the test in the Pacific (AFTER bombing Japan). They dropped a bomb near some old warships that had goats and other animals on them. Right after the bomb they go aboard the ships in little jump suits that did nothing to protect them from radiation. Furthermore, we tested them against our own troops as well in the American southwest. It finally became clear what atomic/nuclear weapons were truly capable of beyond a big blast so the US and others try to stop it from happening again. The US has had them and hasn't used them in over 60 years. Can anyone be so sure that Iran wouldn't use one? They deny the Holocaust ever happened and might not care about Hiroshima & Nagasaki. But if some think it's not fair that the USA does the enforcing, let's send in Ghana to take care of business.

Now this brings me to wonder.....& I do not mean this as a flame bait just something I wonder....

How is it that the only country to have used nuclear weaponry against others & to pretty much have the only truly long range delivery capabilities...is also the one to police the world as to who can & can not have any such weaponry in any capacity with or without range delivery system in place? Yes sure there is the UN who speaks up but is it not the one with the biggest stick ultimately making the rules?

Because the one with the biggest stick is the only one capable of doing anything about it.

Yes, the US is the only country to have used an atomic bomb against anyone else. It's hard to judge by what we know today and not by what we knew in 1945. Look at the videos of the test in the Pacific (AFTER bombing Japan). They dropped a bomb near some old warships that had goats and other animals on them. Right after the bomb they go aboard the ships in little jump suits that did nothing to protect them from radiation. Furthermore, we tested them against our own troops as well in the American southwest. It finally became clear what atomic/nuclear weapons were truly capable of beyond a big blast so the US and others try to stop it from happening again. The US has had them and hasn't used them in over 60 years. Can anyone be so sure that Iran wouldn't use one? They deny the Holocaust ever happened and might not care about Hiroshima & Nagasaki. But if some think it's not fair that the USA does the enforcing, let's send in Ghana to take care of business.

I agree....except about Iran. I think all countries that have nukes have them as a deterrant and do not want to use them (trhese days).

I also wonder who polices the policeman?

The US has had them and hasn't used them in over 60 years. Can anyone be so sure that Iran wouldn't use one? They deny the Holocaust ever happened and might not care about Hiroshima & Nagasaki. But if some think it's not fair that the USA does the enforcing, let's send in Ghana to take care of business.

Funny I just posted how only 13 years after seeing the result of the two bombs the joint chiefs of staff wanted to use them again....Thankfully denied that time.

As for Iran...who knows eh? Same goes for Russia..North Korea...Pakistan...India...China... Israel? Good fences make good neighbours? Who knows. As for Iran same none can be sure that they or anyone who has them wont use them.

Then again delivery systems play an important part & we know who has that capability dont we?

There were plenty of soldiers in both places.

So you are arguing that they were tactical strikes to circumvent the enemy soldiers, or in my view, plain old terror against the civilian populations?

They were tactical strikes to destroy military targets in which many civilians were also killed. Right or wrong, this was a common practice in warfare at the time. ..........

That's a very optimistic way of putting it and I think somewhat inaccurate. I think the civilian casualties were predicted to occur, and the military targets were really not a problem by that time and could have been disrupted by conventional bombs.

Hiroshima was also an experiment. Hiroshima was deliberately NOT fire-bombed in the weeks preceding so that they could observe the damage of the nuke....which is a very nasty aspect of it.

Funny I just posted how only 13 years after seeing the result of the two bombs the joint chiefs of staff wanted to use them again....Thankfully denied that time.

I'm sure that some people have wanted to use them on a regular basis, but the point is that it did not happen.

Funny I just posted how only 13 years after seeing the result of the two bombs the joint chiefs of staff wanted to use them again....Thankfully denied that time.

I'm sure that some people have wanted to use them on a regular basis, but the point is that it did not happen.

Yeah thank Eisenhower for that one....going against the chiefs of staffs suggestion. But goes to show the question/option to use

is there for any that have them & none is beyond the possibility of using it. Even though only one ever has......

Here is a link that provides the best estimates, at the time, of the number of casualties that would have been incurred with an invasion of Japan in 1945.

http://www.operationolympic.com/p1_casualties.php

Invading Japan would have cost Allied deaths in the range of 265,000 (JCS estimate) and Japanese losses ranging up to 8,000,000 people.

There were something between 105,000 to 130,000 killed in the two cities when the bombs were dropped. Even doubling the worst estimate makes a total of 260,000 deaths at the two cities.

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp10.shtml

Using the bombs was a no brainer. It shortened the war by months, possibly years, and saved far more lives in the long run.

There were plenty of soldiers in both places.

So you are arguing that they were tactical strikes to circumvent the enemy soldiers, or in my view, plain old terror against the civilian populations?

They were tactical strikes to destroy military targets in which many civilians were also killed. Right or wrong, this was a common practice in warfare at the time. ..........

That's a very optimistic way of putting it and I think somewhat inaccurate. I think the civilian casualties were predicted to occur, and the military targets were really not a problem by that time and could have been disrupted by conventional bombs.

Hiroshima was also an experiment. Hiroshima was deliberately NOT fire-bombed in the weeks preceding so that they could observe the damage of the nuke....which is a very nasty aspect of it.

The point is that they were attacking military targets even though they ignored the fact that there were also civilians around. At that time, they did not have smart bombs and killing civilians in warfare was considered to be unavoidable.

When you add into the equation that Hiroshima was purposely NOT fire-bombed so that he full effects of a nuke could be observed, combined with the probability that the Japanese military targets were, by that time, probably redundant, and that the European theatre of war was over, .....draw your own honest conclusion.

It is a bit feeble to state that "killing civilians in warfare was considered to be unavoidable" as an excuse in the Hiroshima scenario as the "collateral damage" was extremely high. 60 years ago or 600 years ago, mass death to women and children was not a cool thing to do.

Who invented the term "collateral damage"? Spin doctors or PR men from where? Why was it invented?

At that time, one way to win wars was to kill as many of the enemy as possible while destroying their military capability. Every country attacked military targets regardless of civilian casualties.

I don't think that Hiroshima was any more horrific that firebombing Tokyo, but purposely targeting civilians to rape and kill in Nanking was.

At that time, one way to win wars was to kill as many of the enemy as possible while destroying their military capability. Every country attacked military targets regardless of civilian casualties.

I don't think that Hiroshima was any more horrific that firebombing Tokyo, but purposely targeting civilians to rape and kill in Nanking was.

"Purposely" is the key word here.

Is Timothy McVeigh a lesser criminal terrorist than Muhamad Atta? Is he less despicable? If so, is it because he caused less civilian deaths?

When you add into the equation that Hiroshima was purposely NOT fire-bombed so that he full effects of a nuke could be observed, combined with the probability that the Japanese military targets were, by that time, probably redundant, and that the European theatre of war was over, .....draw your own honest conclusion.

It is a bit feeble to state that "killing civilians in warfare was considered to be unavoidable" as an excuse in the Hiroshima scenario as the "collateral damage" was extremely high. 60 years ago or 600 years ago, mass death to women and children was not a cool thing to do.

Who invented the term "collateral damage"? Spin doctors or PR men from where? Why was it invented?

Please provide a link to prove your point about the purposeful NON bombing of Hiroshima in order to see the effects of a nuclear weapon. The city had not been bombed but it was not a deliberate act on the part of the US simply to see the impact of a nuclear weapon. Your statement appears to be a deliberate attempt at subterfuge.

After you have done that, please read a little about the Bushido Code and you might realize there would have been no surrender by the Japanese without an invasion or the nukes. The nukes were the lesser of two evils.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwt...render_01.shtml

Then there is this:

______________________________________________

The Bushido mentality of Japanese soldiers

During World War II, Japanese society was a volatile combination of feudalism and nationalism that concluded in a national acceptance of military rule during the war years. The Japanese armed forces were a highly nationalistic, well established modern fighting force. Their doctrine was the Bushido code of feudal Japan permitted the fighting code of Japan's servicemen. Bushido, the code of the Samurai warrior extolled the offensive, created a lust of battle and condemned weakness. It demanded bravery, loyalty, allegiance to orders and forbade surrender. It was believed that death in combat was honorable. In combat, this code was used to rally troops into suicidal banzai charges, or to encourage encircled troops to take their own lives with grenades before they could be captured. Surrender was disgraceful not only to the soldier, but to his entire family. There are documented accounts of soldier's wives driving themselves to disgrace or death because of rumors that their husband dishonorably surrendered. Even after decades after the war was over, Japanese holdouts wept openly when they heard the war was over, refused to surrender to anyone other than their commanding officer, or apologized for not serving his majesty to satisfaction.

http://www.wanpela.com/holdouts/history.html

_______________________________________________

and this....

The word "collateral" comes from medieval Latin collateralis, from col-, "together with" + lateralis (from latus, later-, "side" ) and is otherwise mainly used as a synonym for "parallel" or "additional" in certain expressions ("collateral veins" run parallel to each other and "collateral security" means additional security to the main obligation in a contract). However, "collateral" may also sometimes mean "additional but subordinate," i.e., "secondary" ("collateral meanings of a word"), and that specific meaning of a rather obscure word in the English language seems to have been picked up and broadened by the military in the expression "collateral damage".[2]

According to the USAF Intelligence Targeting Guide, the term means:

" [the] unintentional damage or incidental damage affecting facilities, equipment, or personnel, occurring as a result of military actions directed against targeted enemy forces or facilities. Such damage can occur to friendly, neutral, and even enemy forces".[1]

United States Department of Defense definition collateral damage — Unintentional or incidental injury or damage to persons or objects that would not be lawful military targets in the circumstances ruling at the time. Such damage is not unlawful so long as it is not excessive in light of the overall military advantage anticipated from the attack. (Joint Publication 3-60)

Intent is the key element in understanding the military definition as it relates to target selection and prosecution. Collateral damage is damage aside from that which was intended. Since the dawn of precision guided munitions, military "targeteers" and operations personnel are often considered to have gone to great lengths to minimize collateral damage.

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

______________________________________________

Remember, Google is your friend.

Wiki:

(Bold is mine)

Hiroshima during World War II

The Enola Gay and its crew, who dropped the "Little Boy" atomic bomb on Hiroshima.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 a pristine environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb.^{[citation needed]}

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 constructed of wood with tile roofs, and many of the industrial buildings were also built around wood frames. The city as a whole was highly susceptible to fire damage.

Is Timothy McVeigh a lesser criminal terrorist than Muhamad Atta? Is he less despicable? If so, is it because he caused less civilian deaths?

Timmy is now dead thanks to the US criminal justice system. Hopefully soon to be followed by KSM.

Stick your "deliberate subterfuge" accusation in the same place where you stuck your last liar accusation that you could not back up.

After you have done that, please read a little about the Bushido Code and you might realize there would have been no surrender by the Japanese without an invasion or the nukes. The nukes were the lesser of two evils.

Then there is this:

______________________________________________

The Bushido mentality of Japanese soldiers

Actually without getting into the middle of your discussion I do have one thing to note......

I will say it does not follow suit that when pearl was crippled the Japanese had the opportunity to literally come ashore & many US veterans who were there said they literally could have taken the island at that point......But did not.

They also could have bombed other parts of the island much closer to civilian towns where military sections also existed...they did not.

The Bushido code was heavily rooted in honour not in reckless abandon as the falang interpreted versions have tried to depict.

Reminds me of the old samurai movies I grew up watching as a child. The biggest dishonour was when the gun was used against the blade. If this reckless abandon the falang try to attribute to Bushido were true they would applaud that kind of action not condemn it.

Wiki:

(Bold is mine)

Hiroshima during World War II

The Enola Gay and its crew, who dropped the "Little Boy" atomic bomb on Hiroshima.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 a pristine environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb.^{[citation needed]}

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 constructed of wood with tile roofs, and many of the industrial buildings were also built around wood frames. The city as a whole was highly susceptible to fire damage.

Thank you for the attempt. Now find something that supports what you said in your original post. What you said was this:

"When you add into the equation that Hiroshima was purposely NOT fire-bombed so that he full effects of a nuke could be observed....."

Provide us some proof that the reason Hiroshima was NOT bombed was, "so the full effects of a nuke could be observed."

Your words, not mine.

Provide us some sort of information that seems to indicate the only reason the US did not bomb Hiroshima during the first three plus years of the war was because of the nuclear weapon they had developed in 1945. Your words state rather emphatically there was some grand scheme going on within the US government for over three years in order to set the city up for a bombing.

Your statement is ludicrous and false and you have not provided proof of your assertion.

Timmy is now dead thanks to the US criminal justice system.

Funny that....Because in a sense it was the 3 letter justice systems that made him.

Timothy was an angry at the justice system american.

I remember when he was passing out cards at gun shows that had Lon Horiuchis personal info on it.

It was luck alone that kept Lon from being the one blown up or his family instead of the federal building that day.

.......

and this...

The word "collateral" comes from medieval Latin collateralis, from col-, "together with" + lateralis (from latus, later-, "side" ) and is otherwise mainly used as a synonym for "parallel" or "additional" in certain expressions ("collateral veins" run parallel to each other and "collateral security" means additional security to the main obligation in a contract). However, "collateral" may also sometimes mean "additional but subordinate," i.e., "secondary" ("collateral meanings of a word"), and that specific meaning of a rather obscure word in the English language seems to have been picked up and broadened by the military in the expression "collateral damage".[2]

According to the USAF Intelligence Targeting Guide, the term means:

" [the] unintentional damage or incidental damage affecting facilities, equipment, or personnel, occurring as a result of military actions directed against targeted enemy forces or facilities. Such damage can occur to friendly, neutral, and even enemy forces".[1]

United States Department of Defense definition collateral damage — Unintentional or incidental injury or damage to persons or objects that would not be lawful military targets in the circumstances ruling at the time. Such damage is not unlawful so long as it is not excessive in light of the overall military advantage anticipated from the attack. (Joint Publication 3-60)

Intent is the key element in understanding the military definition as it relates to target selection and prosecution. Collateral damage is damage aside from that which was intended. Since the dawn of precision guided munitions, military "targeteers" and operations personnel are often considered to have gone to great lengths to minimize collateral damage.

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

______________________________________________

Remember, Google is your friend.

Firstly, your "and this..." etymology paragraph is uncited. I thought we were crediting our sources here?

Secondly, your source, "USAF Intelligence Targeting Guide" is a little bit partisan and self-referencing, don't you think?

Thirdly, and most significantly, they rule "collateral damage" as optionally "incidental"........

"I didn't mean it! Yes, I knew it would happen, but it had to happen for me to get the result I wanted. Sorry."

This is OK by USAF military rules, but not in most civil courts in the world...it's manslaughter if the death could not have been reasonably predicted prior to the action, and murder if the death could have been reasonably predicted as a result of the action, and thus avoided....like a drunk driving his car and killing someone: he didn't want to kill, but he knew it was likely before he put the key in the ignition and went ahead anyway: he's a murderer.

Fourthly, I think you have completely missed the point about why I asked where the modern term had originated...and in quoting the US military, I assume you were trying to provide the answer. Thankyou.

After you have done that, please read a little about the Bushido Code and you might realize there would have been no surrender by the Japanese without an invasion or the nukes. The nukes were the lesser of two evils.

Then there is this:

______________________________________________

The Bushido mentality of Japanese soldiers

Actually without getting into the middle of your discussion I do have one thing to note......

I will say it does not follow suit that when pearl was crippled the Japanese had the opportunity to literally come ashore & many US veterans who were there said they literally could have taken the island at that point......But did not.

They also could have bombed other parts of the island much closer to civilian towns where military sections also existed...they did not.

The Bushido code was heavily rooted in honour not in reckless abandon as the falang interpreted versions have tried to depict.

Reminds me of the old samurai movies I grew up watching as a child. The biggest dishonour was when the gun was used against the blade. If this reckless abandon the falang try to attribute to Bushido were true they would applaud that kind of action not condemn it.

But, Mr. flying, the Japanese did not have the opportunity to come ashore after Pearl Harbor. They had no invasion force available in the area and the attack failed to take out any of the US aircraft carriers, which was one of Yamamoto's goals in attacking Pearl Harbor. Yamamoto's task force consisted of six aircraft carriers with the various support ships but no invasion force.

If you are asserting the island was vulnerable, then your assertion is probably correct, unless you consider the four aircraft carrier battle groups of the US Pacific Fleet would likely have retaliated if the Japanese fleet had remained in the area. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Japanese fleet turned for home.

.......

and this...

The word "collateral" comes from medieval Latin collateralis, from col-, "together with" + lateralis (from latus, later-, "side" ) and is otherwise mainly used as a synonym for "parallel" or "additional" in certain expressions ("collateral veins" run parallel to each other and "collateral security" means additional security to the main obligation in a contract). However, "collateral" may also sometimes mean "additional but subordinate," i.e., "secondary" ("collateral meanings of a word"), and that specific meaning of a rather obscure word in the English language seems to have been picked up and broadened by the military in the expression "collateral damage".[2]

According to the USAF Intelligence Targeting Guide, the term means:

" [the] unintentional damage or incidental damage affecting facilities, equipment, or personnel, occurring as a result of military actions directed against targeted enemy forces or facilities. Such damage can occur to friendly, neutral, and even enemy forces".[1]

United States Department of Defense definition collateral damage — Unintentional or incidental injury or damage to persons or objects that would not be lawful military targets in the circumstances ruling at the time. Such damage is not unlawful so long as it is not excessive in light of the overall military advantage anticipated from the attack. (Joint Publication 3-60)

Intent is the key element in understanding the military definition as it relates to target selection and prosecution. Collateral damage is damage aside from that which was intended. Since the dawn of precision guided munitions, military "targeteers" and operations personnel are often considered to have gone to great lengths to minimize collateral damage.

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

______________________________________________

Remember, Google is your friend.

Firstly, your "and this..." etymology paragraph is uncited. I thought we were crediting our sources here?

Secondly, your source, "USAF Intelligence Targeting Guide" is a little bit partisan and self-referencing, don't you think?

Thirdly, and most significantly, they rule "collateral damage" as optionally "incidental"........

"I didn't mean it! Yes, I knew it would happen, but it had to happen for me to get the result I wanted. Sorry."

This is OK by USAF military rules, but not in most civil courts in the world...it's manslaughter if the death could not have been reasonably predicted prior to the action, and murder if the death could have been reasonably predicted as a result of the action, and thus avoided....like a drunk driving his car and killing someone: he didn't want to kill, but he knew it was likely before he put the key in the ignition and went ahead anyway: he's a murderer.

Fourthly, I think you have completely missed the point about why I asked where the modern term had originated...and in quoting the US military, I assume you were trying to provide the answer. Thankyou.

Mr. Harcourt:

What ARE you raving on about?

You have quoted a portion of my post calling it "uncited", yet my link is shown in your quote. I will post it here, yet again, so please try to follow the little bouncing ball:

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

You asked this question in a previous post:

_________________________________________________

"Who invented the term "collateral damage"? Spin doctors or PR men from where? Why was it invented?"

_________________________________________________

I answered your question, gave you the link to support it, in as polite a manner as I know, and you seem to take umbrage at my response. You really need to take a deep breath and relax. Take up water colors or something more soothing to your nerves.

Wiki:

(Bold is mine)

Hiroshima during World War II

The Enola Gay and its crew, who dropped the "Little Boy" atomic bomb on Hiroshima.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 a pristine environment to measure the damage caused by the atomic bomb.^{[citation needed]}

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 constructed of wood with tile roofs, and many of the industrial buildings were also built around wood frames. The city as a whole was highly susceptible to fire damage.

Thank you for the attempt. Now find something that supports what you said in your original post. What you said was this:

"When you add into the equation that Hiroshima was purposely NOT fire-bombed so that he full effects of a nuke could be observed....."

Provide us some proof that the reason Hiroshima was NOT bombed was, "so the full effects of a nuke could be observed."

Your words, not mine.

Provide us some sort of information that seems to indicate the only reason the US did not bomb Hiroshima during the first three plus years of the war was because of the nuclear weapon they had developed in 1945. Your words state rather emphatically there was some grand scheme going on within the US government for over three years in order to set the city up for a bombing.

Your statement is ludicrous and false and you have not provided proof of your assertion.

???? I just gave you a wiki quote....wiki is generally quite reliable, and would certainly deserve significant information to call it false. I put the relevant quote in bold for your convenience...I even qualied that I had boldened some words....and you are saying I didn't provide you with "some sort of information"?

????? I specifalically said "in the weeks prior". Nowhere did I claim anything about the previous 3 years.

???? Ludicrous? I thought you had been studying the dictionary lately....I'll give you time.

????? False? Again you accuse me of deceit. That's 3 times without any substance.