"TOP SECRET" view only with security clearance ...

[gary1954]

Post War, a need to read is a book entitled "The Day We Bombed Utah...America's Worst Kept Secret" in one month the were 28 above ground nuclear bomb tests.
the activity of the government during this period actually caused Howard R. Hughes to blow a head-gasket and move from Vegas to the Bahamas Islands, and that too, is another story.

Yeah, but wasn't Howard buying up Vegas to sell as beach front property after 'the BIG ONE' in California??

Yeah, he was in fact buying up as many casino's as possible, but that had nothing, N o t h i n g to do with the Twenty-Eight Nuclear Bombs that the Government detonated in O n e month.

[fnqvmuch]

coincidently found this a few clicks later, via unrelated browsing:
http://www.amazon.com/ATOMIC-COVER-UP-S ... B005CKK9IG
and it is as a part of WWII in the Pacific, a subject i have an unhealthy fascination with;
(got the Manhattan Engineer District photo album N-13910.2-A and B,
the Naval Technical Mission report N-139101 (medical effects) etc., etc.).
I would like to be able to see both sides of what can inevitably be an argument
and I'm absolutely aware of 'our' enemy that would persist even as they starved to death
but I can't help questioning again after seeing here recently, thanks to Mark, what was being
brought to bear on the Home Islands - all that ordnance in all those B-29s on Iwo, for one thing;
weren't 'conventional' strategies enough to bomb 'them' into the Stone Age or beyond?
Tokyo burned easier than Dresden, didn't it?

and now this;

http://lareviewofbooks.org/review/hiros ... militarism

(imho Paul Ham - well, at least his Kokoda - is excellent, btw)

[Left Seat]

[JDK]

and now this;

http://lareviewofbooks.org/review/hiros ... militarism

(imho Paul Ham - well, at least his Kokoda - is excellent, btw)

Thanks for that!

Interesting review, some good content.

But. He falls to the same issues he accuses Ham of in that he skips the Fascist German bombing of Rotterdam and London in 1940, in his case to get his knife quicker into Harris et al, and avoid any 'who started it' argument. You can't mention the theory by Mitchell and Douhet and skip to Harris and LeMay without the actual attacks on Guernica, Chinese cities (by the Japanese) Rotterdam, London, Coventry etc. And accusing Harris of deploying a 'fascist theory of warfare' is using an emotive term - either unwise (at best) or as a cheap shot hot button at worst. Harris was operating in a democracy, and should/could have been sacked.

His good points, over the reality of the effect of the bombs on the peace processes, and the appalling emasculation of the independence of the Smithsonian with the Enola Gay debacle is utterly compromised by towering bias on other areas, encouraging the skeptical reader to chuck it all out, or where I am which is to wonder if he's been selective biased here, what about the rest?

Franklin also fails the simple test of being seen to use emotive adjectives to direct sympathy rather than laying out the argument (pro and contra) coldly and let the evidence speak.

Good thinking stuff, but won't play on peer review.

Regards,

[sandiego89]

fnqvmuch wrote:

and now this;

http://lareviewofbooks.org/review/hiros ... militarism

(imho Paul Ham - well, at least his Kokoda - is excellent, btw)

Thanks for that!

Interesting review, some good content.

But. He falls to the same issues he accuses Ham of in that he skips the Fascist German bombing of Rotterdam and London in 1940, in his case to get his knife quicker into Harris et al, and avoid any 'who started it' argument. You can't mention the theory by Mitchell and Douhet and skip to Harris and LeMay without the actual attacks on Guernica, Chinese cities (by the Japanese) Rotterdam, London, Coventry etc. And accusing Harris of deploying a 'fascist theory of warfare' is using an emotive term - either unwise (at best) or as a cheap shot hot button at worst. Harris was operating in a democracy, and should/could have been sacked.

His good points, over the reality of the effect of the bombs on the peace processes, and the appalling emasculation of the independence of the Smithsonian with the Enola Gay debacle is utterly compromised by towering bias on other areas, encouraging the skeptical reader to chuck it all out, or where I am which is to wonder if he's been selective biased here, what about the rest?

Franklin also fails the simple test of being seen to use emotive adjectives to direct sympathy rather than laying out the argument (pro and contra) coldly and let the evidence speak.

Good thinking stuff, but won't play on peer review.

Regards,

Agree with JDK, I read the Franklin review of the Ham book, and the two seem be in the same lot that the war was already won and the bombing of civilians was unjustified. While undoubtedly horriffic most of the other accounts I have read of the final months of the war conclude that the only way to destroy Japan's abilty to wage war made it neccessary to target the factories and the the pool. Guess where they lived?

I find the topic very interesting, but think I will skip this book.

I also think the major conclusion that in post war “Everyone involved expected, indeed hoped, to use the bomb" is an overstretch. Yes there were a few folks that advocated their use, but as none were used it must be that cooler heads prevalied- obviusly not "everyone"

[JDK]

Agree with JDK, I read the Franklin review of the Ham book, and the two seem be in the same lot ...

Just to be clear, I don't think Ham is in any way on the same page as Franklin. As is often the way, Franklin is using his 'review' to present is own case, rather than critiquing the book - I'd leave comment on the book to a better evaluation.

Regards,

[sandiego89]

I don't think Ham is in any way on the same page as Franklin

Thanks for the clarification, understood. Franklin does seem to have a strong opinion on things in his review.

[fnqvmuch]

Thank you James, will keep that all in mind as i read on ...
I had noted that Barcelona was mentioned and wondered why not Guernica, and now you mention it;
weren't the first raids in WWII questionable british ones, somewhere scando-baltic?
Need to check that - think i read it in Human Smoke by Nicholson Baker
which, as - laying out the argument (pro and contra) coldly and - letting - the evidence speak - is surely the best example.