Pilot of plane that dropped A-bomb dies

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

It's perfectly legitimate to question the use of the A bomb as a policy, it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that the crew of the bomber are somehow morally responsible for the decision to deploy it. They did their job, they did it well, they have nothing to be reproached for.

Indeed.

As far as the policy goes I do think there is reason to question the dropping of one atomic bomb on a country that was already making moves toward peace; and a second, larger, Plutonium bomb for reasons of scientific curiosity.

ugh.. remember Pearl Harbor? Payback's a ######.

Destruction of a navy base Vs. the destruction of two large cities along with the majority of their civilian populations? Not really all that comparable....

Too bad. War is not about equality. It's about a disproportionate response to send a message. It also avoided a bloody amphibious invasion for us.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's perfectly legitimate to question the use of the A bomb as a policy, it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that the crew of the bomber are somehow morally responsible for the decision to deploy it. They did their job, they did it well, they have nothing to be reproached for.

Indeed.

As far as the policy goes I do think there is reason to question the dropping of one atomic bomb on a country that was already making moves toward peace; and a second, larger, Plutonium bomb for reasons of scientific curiosity.

ugh.. remember Pearl Harbor? Payback's a ######.

Destruction of a navy base Vs. the destruction of two large cities along with the majority of their civilian populations? Not really all that comparable....

Too bad. War is not about equality. It's about a disproportionate response to send a message. It also avoided a bloody amphibious invasion for us.

Depends what books you read. Popular history as it pertains to war generally comes with a degree of mythology to justify the "righteousness" of the victor's cause.

Edited November 2, 2007 by Number 6

[natty bumppo 297]

It's perfectly legitimate to question the use of the A bomb as a policy, it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that the crew of the bomber are somehow morally responsible for the decision to deploy it. They did their job, they did it well, they have nothing to be reproached for.

Indeed.

As far as the policy goes I do think there is reason to question the dropping of one atomic bomb on a country that was already making moves toward peace; and a second, larger, Plutonium bomb for reasons of scientific curiosity.

ugh.. remember Pearl Harbor? Payback's a ######.

Destruction of a navy base Vs. the destruction of two large cities along with the majority of their civilian populations? Not really all that comparable....

interesting that the first link you provided was to a socialist worker's party frontman.

It was time to end the conflict ... how many more would have died waiting for some "hypothetical"? We don't know ... and can only guess.

Could it be the decision at the time was ... make it end ... or wait and have even more casualities for both sides.

Of course the Japanese during WWII were innocent in terms of handling others ..... Nanking

Edited November 2, 2007 by Natty Bumppo

[Ban Hammer 14,269]

It's perfectly legitimate to question the use of the A bomb as a policy, it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that the crew of the bomber are somehow morally responsible for the decision to deploy it. They did their job, they did it well, they have nothing to be reproached for.

Indeed.

As far as the policy goes I do think there is reason to question the dropping of one atomic bomb on a country that was already making moves toward peace; and a second, larger, Plutonium bomb for reasons of scientific curiosity.

ugh.. remember Pearl Harbor? Payback's a ######.

Destruction of a navy base Vs. the destruction of two large cities along with the majority of their civilian populations? Not really all that comparable....

interesting that the first link you provided was to a socialist worker's party frontman.

The nature of the source doesn't make his point invalid - however if you don't like that guy I'll be honest. I didn't have the book references to hand so I did a quick google search. So by all means dismiss that particular source out of hand if you wish - it doesn't change the point; that there was evidence that the Japanese government was moving toward peace and a good number of US military commanders regarded the dropping of the A-Bomb to be militarily unnecessary.

funny how you dismiss fox news because you don't like it, yet when someone questions a source of yours guess what? i don't think as a source he's unbiased or a credible source given his organizational ties.

i did hear a possible reason behind the use of the bombs in a college history class, that they were used to impress the russians - an idea not floated yet in this thread.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

funny how you dismiss fox news because you don't like it, yet when someone questions a source of yours guess what? i don't think as a source he's unbiased or a credible source given his organizational ties.

Well I never said he was - I said I didn't have the book references to hand and so I did a quick google search along the lines of what I remembered reading. Looking for a quick source as opposed to the best source.

On balance however - that guy isn't the source of those allegations either. They've been around for quite a few years.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

i did hear a possible reason behind the use of the bombs in a college history class, that they were used to impress the russians - an idea not floated yet in this thread.

Oddly enough that was actually in the article.

[Fandango 1,440]

RIP

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Every war in history, has ended in peace.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Whether or not the use of the atomic bomb (both of them) was morally right is moot. It's been done, so even if it was the "wrong" thing to do, it can't be taken back. What's "right" in war is heavily subjective. Each side will believe something markedly different.

To the U.S. military (and most Americans of the time), the use of nuclear weaponry on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was clearly called for and a smart move to make. To the Japanese, the bombs were probably considered an underhanded move. Of course, I've read reports that history classes in Japan teach a very skewed view of World War II. They tend to completely gloss over the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor (which, of course, prompted the U.S. to enter the war) and gives Japanese school children the incorrect impression that the United States was indeed the aggressor and used "Fat Man and Little Boy" out of pure spite and hatred for the Japanese people and culture. Obviously, this isn't the case, but who are Japanese kids going to believe? Their school teachers or Americans telling them that "everything they've been taught is wrong?"

It's a historical fact that the Japanese military was not making a move towards peace or surrender (this is why the U.S. had to drop two bombs; one wasn't enough to get Japan to "wave the white flag") and to the vast majority of Japanese at the time, the emperor was a "living god." He could do no wrong and his word was law -- those in the military lived and died to serve in his name and win "honor" for their families. No one signs up to be a kamikaze pilot unless they are seriously deluded, since it's not a great career choice.

Arguing over if using nuclear weapons was "fair" is, I'm sorry to say, rather stupid. "Fair" is a weak concept (and a subjective one, at that) in an all-out war, such as WWII. When you're fighting in a global conflict, you use whatever you can to get the upper-hand. If the Japanese had gained access to nuclear weaponry before the United States, you can bet they would've utilized it just as the U.S. did. The point in a war such as that is to kill as many of the enemy as possible while minimizing your own losses by any means possible. The U.S. realized that a conventional war with Japan would continue to last well into 1946 (and possibly beyond), costing many more American (and even Japanese) lives, so to end the fighting, the U.S. launched the bombs.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Whether or not the use of the atomic bomb (both of them) was morally right is moot. It's been done, so even if it was the "wrong" thing to do, it can't be taken back. What's "right" in war is heavily subjective. Each side will believe something markedly different.

To the U.S. military (and most Americans of the time), the use of nuclear weaponry on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was clearly called for and a smart move to make. To the Japanese, the bombs were probably considered an underhanded move. Of course, I've read reports that history classes in Japan teach a very skewed view of World War II. They tend to completely gloss over the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor (which, of course, prompted the U.S. to enter the war) and gives Japanese school children the incorrect impression that the United States was indeed the aggressor and used "Fat Man and Little Boy" out of pure spite and hatred for the Japanese people and culture. Obviously, this isn't the case, but who are Japanese kids going to believe? Their school teachers or Americans telling them that "everything they've been taught is wrong?"

It's a historical fact that the Japanese military was not making a move towards peace or surrender (this is why the U.S. had to drop two bombs; one wasn't enough to get Japan to "wave the white flag") and to the vast majority of Japanese at the time, the emperor was a "living god." He could do no wrong and his word was law -- those in the military lived and died to serve in his name and win "honor" for their families. No one signs up to be a kamikaze pilot unless they are seriously deluded, since it's not a great career choice.

Arguing over if using nuclear weapons was "fair" is, I'm sorry to say, rather stupid. "Fair" is a weak concept (and a subjective one, at that) in an all-out war, such as WWII. When you're fighting in a global conflict, you use whatever you can to get the upper-hand. If the Japanese had gained access to nuclear weaponry before the United States, you can bet they would've utilized it just as the U.S. did. The point in a war such as that is to kill as many of the enemy as possible while minimizing your own losses by any means possible. The U.S. realized that a conventional war with Japan would continue to last well into 1946 (and possibly beyond), costing many more American (and even Japanese) lives, so to end the fighting, the U.S. launched the bombs.

That's nice - but "historical fact" is a bit of an exaggeration.

Those who argue that the bombings were unnecessary on military grounds hold that Japan was already essentially defeated and ready to surrender.

One of the most notable individuals with this opinion was then-General Dwight D. Eisenhower. He wrote in his memoir The White House Years:

"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."[31][32]

Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General Douglas MacArthur (the highest-ranking officer in the Pacific Theater), Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), General Carl Spaatz (commander of the U.S. Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials),[32] Admiral Ernest King, U.S. Chief of Naval Operations, Undersecretary of the Navy Ralph A. Bard,[33] and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.[34]

"The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan." Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.[35]

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender." Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.[35]

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, after interviewing hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, reported:

"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 31 December 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."[36][35]

The survey assumed that conventional bombing attacks on Japan would greatly increase as the bombing capabilities of July 1945 were ...a fraction of its planned proportion...[37] due to a steadily high production rate of new B-29s and the reallocation of European airpower to the Pacific. When hostilities ended, the USAAF had approximately 3700 B-29s of which only about 1000 were deployed.[38]

Had the war gone on these and still more aircraft would have brought devastation far worse than either bomb to many more cities. The results of conventional strategic bombing at the cease-fire were summed up thusly:

"...On the basis of photo coverage, intelligence estimated that 175 square miles of urban area in 66 cities were wiped out. Total civilian casualties stemming directly from the urban attacks were estimated at 330,000 killed, 476,000 injured, and 9,200,000 rendered homeless." General Haywood S. Hansell[38]

General MacArthur has also contended that Japan would have surrendered before the bombings if the U.S. had notified Japan that it would accept a surrender that allowed Emperor Hirohito to keep his position as titular leader of Japan, a condition the U.S. did in fact allow after Japan surrendered. He suggested that the U.S. leadership knew this, through intercepts of encoded Japanese messages, but they refused to clarify Washington's willingness to accept this condition. Before the bombings, the position of the Japanese leadership with regards to surrender was divided. Several diplomats favored surrender, while the leaders of the Japanese military voiced a commitment to fighting a "decisive battle" on Kyūshū, hoping that they could negotiate better terms for an armistice afterward. The Japanese government did not decide what terms, beyond preservation of an imperial system, they would have accepted to end the war; as late as August 9, the Supreme War Council was still split, with the hard-liners insisting Japan should demobilize its own forces, no war crimes trials would be conducted, and no occupation of Japan would be allowed. The Japanese Foreign Ministry dispatched a message to the United States on August 10th stating that Japan would accept the Potsdam Declaration, "with the understanding that the said declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler." This was not, as critics later asserted, merely a humble request that the emperor retain a modest figurehead role. As Japanese historians writing decades after the war emphasized, the demand that there be no compromise of the "prerogatives of His Majesty as a Sovereign Ruler" as a precondition for the surrender was a demand that the United States grant the emperor veto power over occupation reforms and continue the rule of the old order in Japan.[39] Only the direct intervention of the emperor ended the dispute, and even then a military coup was attempted to prevent the surrender.

Historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings themselves were not even the principal reason for capitulation. Instead, he contends, it was the swift and devastating Soviet victories in Manchuria that forced the Japanese surrender on August 15, 1945.[40]