PDA

View Full Version : A monster and a relic finally dies.



Mobilus
11-02-2007, 12:06 AM
Worldandnation: After first A-bomb, he carried no regrets (http://www.sptimes.com/2007/11/02/Worldandnation/After_first_A_bomb__h.shtml)



WASHINGTON - Brig. Gen. Paul Tibbets, the pilot of the B-29 bomber Enola Gay, which dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima in the final days of World War II, died Thursday (Nov. 1, 2007) at his home in Columbus, Ohio.
Gen. Tibbets, 92, became a military celebrity with the first atomic bombing in combat, on Aug. 6, 1945, a historical turning point of the past century. In rarely granted interviews, he expressed little remorse over the more than 100,000 Japanese killed or injured at Hiroshima and made a point of saying that he slept easily at night knowing of his role.
"We had feelings, but we had to put them in the background," he told the Columbus Dispatch for a story on the 60th anniversary of the bombing. "We knew it was going to kill people right and left. But my one driving interest was to do the best job I could so that we could end the killing as quickly as possible."
Before dawn on Aug. 6, 1945, the Enola Gay lifted off carrying a uranium atomic bomb assembled under extraordinary secrecy. Gen. Tibbets, then a colonel in the Army Air Forces, guided the four-engine plane he named in honor of his mother toward the Aioi Bridge in central Hiroshima, a city of 250,000 chosen because it was a military center and had no prisoner-of-war camps.
At 8:15 a.m. local time, the bomb known to its creators as Little Boy exploded in a nuclear inferno on the city. The blast killed 70,000 to 100,000 people and injured countless others.
Gen. Tibbets executed a well-rehearsed diving turn to avoid the blast effect. Because of the bomb's force, he was told he could not fly straight ahead after it exploded but would have to turn 159 degrees to the expanding shock wave and leave the area fast. He said he practiced at great altitudes and eventually was able to turn the large aircraft in about 40 seconds.
Former U.S. Sen. John Glenn, who was a Marine fighter pilot, said people who criticized Gen. Tibbets failed to recognize that an allied invasion of Japan, which the bomb helped avert, would have resulted in the deaths of several million people.
"It wasn't his decision. It was a presidential decision, and he was an officer that carried out his duty," Glenn said. "It's a horrible weapon, but war is pretty horrible, too."
Gen. Tibbets was selected for the top-secret mission, the culmination of the Manhattan Project, because of the piloting skill he showed early in the war during bombing runs over Europe and North Africa.
Leading up to the bombing, he met with J. Robert Oppenheimer and other scientists and military leaders working on the Manhattan Project. But he said he had no clear idea of the bomb's potential besides the description that it would explode with the force of 20,000 tons of dynamite, a concept he could only vaguely grasp.
He later said of the blast: "If Dante had been with us on the plane, he would have been terrified. The city we had seen so clearly in the sunlight a few minutes before was now an ugly smudge. It had completely disappeared under this awful blanket of smoke and fire."
Three days later, the United States dropped a second nuclear bomb on Nagasaki, Japan, killing an estimated 40,000 people. Gen. Tibbets did not fly in that mission. The Japanese surrendered a few days later, ending the war.
Gen. Tibbets was born in Quincy, Ill., and grew up mostly in Miami, where his father opened a confectionary that set in motion his son's aviation career. To promote Baby Ruth candy bars, 12-year-old Paul Tibbets Jr. took a ride with a barnstorming pilot and dropped candy bars on Hialeah racetrack in a promotional stunt for the Curtiss Candy Co. He was hooked on flight.
He attended the University of Florida and the University of Cincinnati and joined the Army Air Corps in 1937. After the United States entered World War II, he flew B-17 sorties over North Africa, led daylight B-17 raids over Europe and was an early test pilot of the B-29. In fall 1944, he was selected for the atomic bombing runs and oversaw operations at Wendover Field in Utah.
After the war, he was a technical adviser to postwar Bikini atoll bomb tests in 1946, held assignments with the Strategic Air Command and helped establish the National Military Command Center in the Pentagon. In 1966, he retired from the Air Force as a brigadier general.
His decorations included the Distinguished Service Cross, the Legion of Merit and the Distinguished Flying Cross.
In a 2002 interview with oral historian Studs Terkel, Gen. Tibbets said he met with President Harry S. Truman in 1948 in the Oval Office, and the president asked the airman if he had regrets. As he would for the rest of his life, Gen. Tibbets replied he had none and had done his duty to protect the country.
His feelings about the bombing embodied public opinion at the time, said Richard Rhodes, author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb.
"He was so characteristic of that generation. He was a man who took great pride in what he did during the war, including the atomic bombing," Rhodes said.
Gen. Tibbets told Terkel that he would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons against America's current enemies.
"I'd wipe 'em out," he said. "You're gonna kill innocent people at the same time, but we've never fought a damn war anywhere in the world where they didn't kill innocent people. If the newspapers would just cut out the (expletive): 'You've killed so many civilians.' That's their tough luck for being there."
Gen. Tibbets said he did not want a funeral or headstone because he did not want to attract protesters to his burial site.
Information from the New York Times, Washington Post and Associated Press was used in this report.



In a sense, what he did was a war crime but since the US won the war, they had the right to define what constituted a war crime. Tibbets was personally responsible for killing more innocent people than any single Nazi in the Numerburg war crimes trial. Also, he is directly responsible for killing more people than any other human in history (he pulled the trigger on over 100000 people)




I understand the viewpoint of those who claim that the bomb was dropped to avoid millions of estimated casualties from a US invasion of Japan, but they always forget to consider this:
After WW2, whenever a country acquired nuclear weapons they did not announce it to their friends OR enemies by dropping it on a city, but by doing a test detonation and telling everyone to go observe it. The US already knew what the bomb would do from irradiating our own soil in New Mexico, so why was it necessary to slaughter the thousands of innocent women and children that Tibbets decided to kill? These days if someone in the military were ordered to do something similar they would be court martialed and most likely executed for FOLLOWING that order.




I already know from copious research of the era and speaking to survivors of WW2 WHY it happened: a combination of attitudes and perceptions towards Japan and the Japanese people. Racism played a huge role given the cartoons and war propaganda showing the Japanese as deformed humans with exaggerated features. No Germans or Italians ever wound up in US internment camps, only Japanese-Americans had to suffer that. No wonder there was no attempt to warn the Japanese about the bomb or even hardly give them a chance to respond to the first one, the US military and civilian leadership didn't even see them as human.


To those who say Tibbets was just following orders: many times he had been interviewed and he said he knew exactly the scale of death the bomb was expected to cause, even if he didn't understand the science of it. Men of his era are given a free pass by modern Americans and we romanticize his generation as the "greatest American generation."

But what happens today when the military orders nuclear weapons to be used? Thankfully, we have enough sane, compassionate, and moral people in the military to prevent that from happening and stop another senseless nuclear strike.
In case you missed it, here is the link. Yes, this actually happened just a few weeks ago.
Dave Lindorff: The Air Force Report on the Minot-Barksdale Nuclear Missile Flight (http://www.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/5-3&fp=472a3b40469d5af8&ei=yNoqR5rtF6XeqwPjxe29Aw&url=http%3A//www.counterpunch.org/lindorff11012007.html&cid=1122980619)
To those who believe the AirForce's official report: you are too stupid to live. It is utterly impossible to lose track of any of our nuclear weapons. They each have hundreds of armed guards constantly escorting them, they are surrounded by giant metal cages with automatic locking systems and each one is monitored with remote technology by the NSA. To move one of these things even 50 feet requires about 20 phone calls and several codes. So instead of believing there was some accident, you all should be grateful that when Bush ordered a nuclear strike against Iran, or when he ordered that such a strike should be prepared, that there were people in the Air Force brave enough to disobey that order and leak the movement of those missiles to the public.

K? Pŕo?ćtiόnŹ
11-02-2007, 08:17 AM
Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) (http://usmilitary.about.com/cs/wars/a/loac.htm)

Zaund
11-02-2007, 12:15 PM
It ended WW2. I couldn't careless about the casualties.

gamepin126
11-02-2007, 12:21 PM
It ended WW2. I couldn't careless about the casualties.

Agreed.

Dick
11-02-2007, 12:32 PM
We can't really calculate what would have happened if those bombs had not have been dropped, but I'm fairly certain more people would have died as a result of the fighting it would have taken to finally win.

Mobilus
11-02-2007, 12:39 PM
As I said in the original post, any particular reason why we couldn't have invited Japanese observers to a remote test explosion first? I mean, what was with the rush for the slaughter of all those kids?

If the test explosion wouldn't have convinced them we always could have done a real explosion right afterward.

I am wondering why we didn't even give them a chance.

Eppie
11-02-2007, 12:49 PM
Dropping it was definitely the right decision. Too bad he's dead now.

Cornerjason
11-02-2007, 01:19 PM
It was also dropped to intimidate the Russians. We had to show them who's boss ^.^

gamepin126
11-02-2007, 01:36 PM
Because given a month or so the German long range bombers would've been finished and we'd be ****ed.

dragonnas
11-02-2007, 01:50 PM
Tibbets was personally responsible for killing more innocent people than any single Nazi in the Numerburg war crimes trial. Also, he is directly responsible for killing more people than any other human in history (he pulled the trigger on over 100000 people)

That's because the nazis who orchestrated the deaths of many more people committed suicide in shame before they could be brought to trial.

Himmler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Himmler) is responsible for many more deaths, and definitely was unrepentant.

CrazyGerbilEater
11-02-2007, 01:54 PM
Fire bombing cities killed more "innocent" civilians than both nuclear bombs did combined.
Think about it, how is killing people with a nuclear bomb any worse than killing them with guns, or artillary, or even missiles. You could say killing by a nuclear bomb is more humane than with those others since it pretty much kills you instantly.
Would you rather die from a nuclear blast or a rifle, id rather die by the blast, so i have no chance of being in extreme pain for maybe hours before finally dieing.
and even if you are at the edge of the blast and are only hurt badly, well other weapons can hurt you badly without killing you too, in fact most weapons of war do just that, and dont kill you right away.
I dont understand all the hype about Nuclear bombs, its just like any other bomb only bigger, i bet if you combined all the bombs dropped in this iraq war, combined them, theyd be similar to the result of one of our nuclear bombs.
Its all in peoples minds, a bomb is a bomb, no matter how powerful, being against one type of bomb is idiotic.

Mobilus
11-02-2007, 11:39 PM
What I meant when I said he killed the most people directly is that he was basically handed the gun and pulled the trigger on over 100K people at once. Even Himmler never directly killed that many people. Say what you want about "tiered responsibility" but if I ever found myself faced with the choice to kill that many people with my own finger on the trigger, I don't think ANY reason could make me do it. And I know it wasn't the right decision.

I ask again why Japan wasn't worth a test explosion that they could have observed? If they didn't surrender after that then the US could still have dropped the bomb, and it wouldn't have taken very long, only a few days or maybe even a week at most.

As to the firebombing, yes those bombs killed more people collectively but the atomic bombs were different: they were singular acts of violence. At least with firebombing no single human was responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.

saren
11-03-2007, 09:19 AM
What I meant when I said he killed the most people directly is that he was basically handed the gun and pulled the trigger on over 100K people at once. Even Himmler never directly killed that many people. Say what you want about "tiered responsibility" but if I ever found myself faced with the choice to kill that many people with my own finger on the trigger, I don't think ANY reason could make me do it. And I know it wasn't the right decision.

I ask again why Japan wasn't worth a test explosion that they could have observed? If they didn't surrender after that then the US could still have dropped the bomb, and it wouldn't have taken very long, only a few days or maybe even a week at most.

As to the firebombing, yes those bombs killed more people collectively but the atomic bombs were different: they were singular acts of violence. At least with firebombing no single human was responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.

Any act you take in direct or indirect (not assisting against) the act of human on human murder/violence/war then you are responsible for each and every death.

Right now, since you do not oppose the Iraq war, you are responsible for every single death there ours or theirs.

Stop trying to pretend you are some moral heirophant and cut the bull****.

I'd murder the **** out of everyone of a nation and lay it to waste if they dared surprise attacked me. With a knife. Personally. Women too.

Super
11-03-2007, 09:30 AM
I'd murder the **** out of everyone of a nation and lay it to waste if they dared surprise attacked me. With a knife. Personally. Women too.

You're so full of ****. You couldn't kill one person let alone kill off an entire population. Even if someone killed your fiance, the most you would do is maybe give the murderer a few dirty looks at his trial.

Deg™
11-03-2007, 09:36 AM
After six months of intense firebombing of 67 other Japanese cities, on August 6, 1945, the nuclear weapon "Little Boy" was dropped on the city of Hiroshima, followed on August 9, 1945 by the detonation of the "Fat Man" nuclear bomb over Nagasaki.

They didn't give up after the first one that DID kill people, and you think they would have if we hadn't killed anyone?

saren
11-03-2007, 10:14 AM
You're so full of ****. You couldn't kill one person let alone kill off an entire population. Even if someone killed your fiance, the most you would do is maybe give the murderer a few dirty looks at his trial.

Clearly you don't know me. I pity you, having to be such a pussy you can't even begin to fathom real manhood.

And it's fiancee. Fiance would be me.

DuckDuckGoose
11-03-2007, 10:20 AM
Japan got what they deserved, dropping those bombs saved millions of lives.

Super
11-03-2007, 10:22 AM
Clearly you don't know me. I pity you, having to be such a pussy you can't even begin to fathom real manhood.

No, it's not that I can't fathom real manhood, it's that I can't fathom you having any real manhood. You can say all you want about killing people and what not, but you don't have the testicular fortitude to do any of that. You clearly play too much halo 3.


And it's fiancee. Fiance would be me.

Are you sure? Can't be positive these days with all the turmoil surrounding gay marriage.

saren
11-03-2007, 10:43 AM
No, it's not that I can't fathom real manhood, it's that I can't fathom you having any real manhood. You can say all you want about killing people and what not, but you don't have the testicular fortitude to do any of that. You clearly play too much halo 3.



Are you sure? Can't be positive these days with all the turmoil surrounding gay marriage.

So basically you're a bitch and a lonely one at that.

Poor you. But I don't have to feel like I need to break someone's legs to feel manly, however, if they **** with me -- why not? They're going to start **** again unless you cripple them.

But it's kinda funny seeing you that envious.

BLeH
11-03-2007, 11:00 AM
Right now, since you do not oppose the Iraq war, you are responsible for every single death there ours or theirs.


If we're successful in Iraq we'll save more lives than you'd care to know.

Problem is we have too many apologists for jihadism, dictators, and islam in this country like yourself.

gamepin126
11-03-2007, 11:02 AM
If we're successful in Iraq we'll save more lives than you'd care to know.

Nice, IF. It's impossible.

Also, I'd to believe that otherwise neutral people would blow themselves up rather than get their country invaded.

Super
11-03-2007, 11:11 AM
So basically you're a bitch and a lonely one at that.

Poor you. But I don't have to feel like I need to break someone's legs to feel manly, however, if they **** with me -- why not? They're going to start **** again unless you cripple them.

But it's kinda funny seeing you that envious.

Yes, because breaking someone's legs amounts to taking their life. :rolleyes:

Try harder, please.

llafnwod
11-03-2007, 12:02 PM
Because given a month or so the German long range bombers would've been finished and we'd be ****ed.
You're aware that by this point Germany had surrendered and Berlin was entirely controlled by the Allies, right? Or that England took several months of literally constant bombing by the entire Luftwaffe and took only a few thousand casualties?

DuckDuckGoose
11-03-2007, 12:24 PM
The Germans where bringing some nasty toys to the party near the end of their war, but yeah Germany fell a while before Japan did.

gamepin126
11-03-2007, 12:34 PM
You're aware that by this point Germany had surrendered and Berlin was entirely controlled by the Allies, right? Or that England took several months of literally constant bombing by the entire Luftwaffe and took only a few thousand casualties?

I was watching the history channel and they were examining German technology recovered post WWII and they found that given a short amount of time, had the bomb not been dropped, they would've finished bombers that were capable of dropping payloads on US soil, which would have completely changed the end of the war. Perhaps not exactly us losing, but if they'd have bombed DC things would have gotten a whole lot messier.

Calaspawn
11-03-2007, 12:40 PM
Gen. Tibbets told Terkel that he would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons against America's current enemies.
"I'd wipe 'em out," he said. "You're gonna kill innocent people at the same time, but we've never fought a damn war anywhere in the world where they didn't kill innocent people. If the newspapers would just cut out the (expletive): 'You've killed so many civilians.' That's their tough luck for being there."



This guy is my hero.

edit: rules of war only hurt a well trained army. the only rule I would follow is to kill them before they kill me because everyone, even civilians, are potential enemies.

Empathy
11-03-2007, 01:17 PM
Let me put it like this, just as I did in my English class one day; If someone and myself were warring, and I created a laser gun, I wouldn't tell the enemy I had a mother f*cking laser gun. I would pull it out and fire it hoping it killed them and ended the conflict we had.

Therefore I agree with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Also, as someone mentioned earlier, the fire bombing that we used was far worse than the nuclear bombs we dropped.

Calaspawn
11-03-2007, 03:18 PM
What I meant when I said he killed the most people directly is that he was basically handed the gun and pulled the trigger on over 100K people at once. Even Himmler never directly killed that many people. Say what you want about "tiered responsibility" but if I ever found myself faced with the choice to kill that many people with my own finger on the trigger, I don't think ANY reason could make me do it. And I know it wasn't the right decision.


He was a soldier in the United States Airforce. He did his honorable duty and is a hero for helping end a war that would have ended the lives of many American soldiers and civilians. During this time there was a Japaneses submarine equipped with a dirty bomb heading for a west coast city. This submarine wasn't warned that the Japanese had surrendered and would have hit the city if it was not captured by the navy. The bomb was made by Germany and would have done the same as the atomic bomb only less instant/more painful. You are spitting on the grave of a war hero right now.

IversonAli3
11-03-2007, 05:14 PM
I was watching the history channel and they were examining German technology recovered post WWII and they found that given a short amount of time, had the bomb not been dropped, they would've finished bombers that were capable of dropping payloads on US soil, which would have completely changed the end of the war. Perhaps not exactly us losing, but if they'd have bombed DC things would have gotten a whole lot messier.
As llaf was saying, Germany surrendered 3 months before the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan. The Luftwaffe was completely destroyed months before that point, along with what was left of their war effort infrastructure.
Anyways, what would they have gained by bombing American cities? By that time they knew the war was lost, and bombing a new country would only escalate post-war hostility towards them.

CrazyGerbilEater
11-03-2007, 06:16 PM
I was watching the history channel and they were examining German technology recovered post WWII and they found that given a short amount of time, had the bomb not been dropped, they would've finished bombers that were capable of dropping payloads on US soil, which would have completely changed the end of the war. Perhaps not exactly us losing, but if they'd have bombed DC things would have gotten a whole lot messier.

do you really think after losing most of the luftwaffe, they couldve made enough to matter, or succeed in sending them so far without us intercepting them, even if we didnt stop them before they left europe, im very sure we wouldve at least saw them, and had a nice welcome party before they reached us soil.

germany lost, the only conceivable way for them to have won, was the us staying out of the war.

i doubt the bombers, had they manage to make 200 of them, wouldve so much as glimpsed us soil before being intercepted and shot down.

BLeH
11-03-2007, 07:42 PM
Nice, IF. It's impossible.

Also, I'd to believe that otherwise neutral people would blow themselves up rather than get their country invaded.

To tell you the truth i'm not surprised by your attitude. Most opponents of the war are sado-masichists and would like to see those people suffering.

The fact of the matter is the strategy we're employing in Iraq right now is working, and even if it wasn't we still have a responsibility to pool every resource we have into winning this war, because the consequences of losing are unimaginable. To leave right now would be the most ammoral thing we've done in our country's history since slavery. It would be unthinkabe giving up our pact with the kurds, giving them all up to the sectarians and allowing a genocide to ensue and give the east up to Islam.

K? Pŕo?ćtiόnŹ
11-03-2007, 07:49 PM
To tell you the truth i'm not surprised by your attitude. Most opponents of the war are sado-masichists and would like to see those people suffering.

The fact of the matter is the strategy we're employing in Iraq right now is working, and even if it wasn't we still have a responsibility to pool every resource we have into winning this war, because the consequences of losing are unimaginable. To leave right now would be the most ammoral thing we've done in our country's history since slavery. It would be unthinkabe giving up our pact with the kurds, giving them all up to the sectarians and allowing a genocide to ensue and give the east up to Islam.
wow

CrazyGerbilEater
11-03-2007, 07:59 PM
To tell you the truth i'm not surprised by your attitude. Most opponents of the war are sado-masichists and would like to see those people suffering.

The fact of the matter is the strategy we're employing in Iraq right now is working, and even if it wasn't we still have a responsibility to pool every resource we have into winning this war, because the consequences of losing are unimaginable. To leave right now would be the most ammoral thing we've done in our country's history since slavery. It would be unthinkabe giving up our pact with the kurds, giving them all up to the sectarians and allowing a genocide to ensue and give the east up to Islam.

your words seem to inspire a hate so great, i feel at a loss to express it. I do not beleive any words in any language put together even into a 10 page essay could express my hatred of you. If my hatred could kill, you would have ceased to exist before conception.

I wont even remark further upon what you wrote.

gamepin126
11-03-2007, 08:01 PM
I wont even remark upon what you wrote.

yet you just did?

Also, bleh, your post made me lol. Vietnam.

K? Pŕo?ćtiόnŹ
11-03-2007, 08:24 PM
your words seem to inspire a hate so great, i feel at a loss to express it. I do not beleive any words in any language put together even into a 10 page essay could express my hatred of you. If my hatred could kill, you would have ceased to exist before conception.

I wont even remark further upon what you wrote.
Why do you hate it? What we are doing is working, dont get mad because you cant stand to think something is actually going right. And Pinner, this isnt Vietnam kthx.

Mobilus
11-03-2007, 08:42 PM
The reason that they didn't surrender after the first bomb is that we waited less than 2 days, their internal communication was screwed and they weren't even sure what happened since the city was blacked out and they were dealing with all the maimed survivors.

Not to mention this was before the wireless phone, instant message, email or satellite footage. The phones and telegraphs were more primitive and the EMP from the first bomb really screwed communications in that entire area. They couldn't fly observer planes anywhere near it because the fallout and radiation was too strong and killed the pilots when they came near.

Would it have been so awful to do a test explosion that the Japanese could observe and THEN wait say a week or two at most before killing 100,000+ people in a single instant?

Dick
11-03-2007, 09:02 PM
this isnt Vietnam

Except for the money, except for the bombs, except for the youth that's gone.
Also if its so freaking immoral to let genocide and suffering go on then why aren't we in darfur or any aids infected and war torn african country, ill tell you why, because there is no profit in protecting Africans. There may have been horrible atrocities committed under Saddam, but were 100 civilians dieing every day. Also we are really off topic right now.

K? Pŕo?ćtiόnŹ
11-03-2007, 10:06 PM
Also if its so freaking immoral to let genocide and suffering go on then why aren't we in darfur or any aids infected and war torn african country, ill tell you why, because there is no profit in protecting Africans. There may have been horrible atrocities committed under Saddam, but were 100 civilians dieing every day. Also we are really off topic right now.
Dont even pull that bull****. "Oh no, all the instability we made is just killing innocent civilians over there by the hundreds everyday". There's no solution thats going to be happy and rainbow sprinkles. People are going to die, thats the nature of it, thats the nature of that region. But look, the region is stabilizing and it is getting better.


Mobilus: They attacked us (surprise attack noless) first in an attempt to bitch us around and get our resources, **** them.

DuckDuckGoose
11-03-2007, 11:09 PM
The reason that they didn't surrender after the first bomb is that we waited less than 2 days, their internal communication was screwed and they weren't even sure what happened since the city was blacked out and they were dealing with all the maimed survivors.

Not to mention this was before the wireless phone, instant message, email or satellite footage. The phones and telegraphs were more primitive and the EMP from the first bomb really screwed communications in that entire area. They couldn't fly observer planes anywhere near it because the fallout and radiation was too strong and killed the pilots when they came near.

Would it have been so awful to do a test explosion that the Japanese could observe and THEN wait say a week or two at most before killing 100,000+ people in a single instant?

You're wrong on all accounts. They sent out personnel later on that day after weird reports and telephone and telegraph failures, his mission was to fly around the area and see what happened, upon seeing the town turned to ruins and burning he promptly told the pilot to land and he started and oversaw a clean up and survivor salvage operation. They knew exactly what happened 16 hour's after it happened.

They didn't surrender however because the Emperor refused to surrender without the condition that we leave him in power. They even contacted the President and told him that they wouldn't surrender unless no war crimes could be brought against them and the Emperor stays in power.

Also the EMP wouldn't have hurt any of their electronic devices (EMP's don't destroy all electronic devices, just complicated ones and there was nothing complicated in those areas).

And another thing, about your statement of the pilots dying from radiation, it is as stupid as you are. Radiation takes hours to die from and thats with really high doses. While the radiation would have remained high for several months after the blast it would have taken days to weeks for anyone who came in to help to get sick and then die from it.
The harmful radiation only sticks around for a couple of months after a nuclear explosion. While the area is still radioactive years and years later, after a couple of months it can no longer harm you. So long as you arn't a child walking in ankle deep in left over fallout, or eating crops that where grown in soil that got fallout in it.

Edit: Mobilus if you wanna know of a real horrible thing that was done in WW2, why not ask all of the innocent Chinese about how Japan invaded them and raped their women and killed their children and men. How they where treated like dogs and still are. Ask the millions that suffered horribly under the Japanese occupation of parts of china how their life was during that time.
The Japanese got everything they deserved, they where just as bad as the Nazi's.

Mobilus
11-03-2007, 11:51 PM
You're wrong on all accounts. They sent out personnel later on that day after weird reports and telephone and telegraph failures, his mission was to fly around the area and see what happened, upon seeing the town turned to ruins and burning he promptly told the pilot to land and he started and oversaw a clean up and survivor salvage operation. They knew exactly what happened 16 hour's after it happened.

They didn't surrender however because the Emperor refused to surrender without the condition that we leave him in power. They even contacted the President and told him that they wouldn't surrender unless no war crimes could be brought against them and the Emperor stays in power.

Also the EMP wouldn't have hurt any of their electronic devices (EMP's don't destroy all electronic devices, just complicated ones and there was nothing complicated in those areas).

And another thing, about your statement of the pilots dying from radiation, it is as stupid as you are. Radiation takes hours to die from and thats with really high doses. While the radiation would have remained high for several months after the blast it would have taken days to weeks for anyone who came in to help to get sick and then die from it.
The harmful radiation only sticks around for a couple of months after a nuclear explosion. While the area is still radioactive years and years later, after a couple of months it can no longer harm you. So long as you arn't a child walking in ankle deep in left over fallout, or eating crops that where grown in soil that got fallout in it.

Edit: Mobilus if you wanna know of a real horrible thing that was done in WW2, why not ask all of the innocent Chinese about how Japan invaded them and raped their women and killed their children and men. How they where treated like dogs and still are. Ask the millions that suffered horribly under the Japanese occupation of parts of china how their life was during that time.
The Japanese got everything they deserved, they where just as bad as the Nazi's.
As stupid as I am? Here's the kindergarten version since you obviously didn't make it through high school physics:


You seem to be making a lot of ignorant statements about atomic energy, so let me break it down for you. The decay rate from the hiroshima bomb was not fast enough to dissipate in a day, and the majority of the 100k+ people died in the days and weeks FOLLOWING the blast, not from the explosion itself.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki (http://www.uic.com.au/nip29.htm)


The devastating effects of both kinds of bombs depended essentially upon the energy released at the moment of the explosion, causing immediate fires, destructive blast pressures, and extreme local radiation exposures. Since the bombs were detonated at a height of some 600 metres above the ground, very little of the fission products were deposited on the ground beneath. Some deposition occurred however in areas near to each city, owing to local rainfall occurring soon after the explosions. This happened at positions a few kilometres to the east of Nagasaki, and in areas to the west and north-west of Hiroshima. For the most part, however, these fission products were carried high into the upper atmosphere by the heat generated in the explosion itself.
In Hiroshima, of a resident civilian population of 250 000 it was estimated that 45 000 died on the first day and a further 19 000 during the subsequent four months. In Nagasaki, out of a population of 174 000, 22 000 died on the first day and another 17 000 within four months. Unrecorded deaths of military personnel and foreign workers may have added considerably to these figures.




Leukemia doesn't take 4 months, people were dying as they came back to the city, day by day due to the intense radiation absorbed not by the soil, but by remaining concrete and metal structures and from rainfall which spread fallout.
As you read, most of the more intense radiation was carried into the atmosphere. Those different rays and irradiated particles lingered there for months contributing to the deadly rain. ANY pilot coming near them would be dead within seconds, if you doubt it please try to walk into the reaction chamber of your local nuclear plant and see how long you survive (and that is a CONTROLLED reaction, not an uncontrolled explosion)
Do you realize how quickly the people at Chernobyl died who went within 1 mile of the reactor while it was melting down? Do you realize those planes were huge radiation magnets and suckers? You are out of your mind to suggest pilots actually flew through that crap in the days afterward and survived.
And about Nanking, why does 1 wrong mean than another wrong is justified? The US has done so many horrible things to so many countries, but if they came here expecting "justified" revenge I would oppose that since revenge is never a just cause.




Mobilus: They attacked us (surprise attack noless) first in an attempt to bitch us around and get our resources, **** them.
Part of the just war theory as compiled by Aquinas, Vitoria, Walzter and others is that force is proportional and efforts are taken to avoid the killing of innocents. Do you honestly believe in feudal Japan that women or tiny children had a say in foreign policy?'

IversonAli3
11-04-2007, 03:03 AM
germany lost, the only conceivable way for them to have won, was the us staying out of the war.
The soviets had Germany beaten before the invasion of Normandy.

MiCrOz
11-04-2007, 03:10 AM
As I said in the original post, any particular reason why we couldn't have invited Japanese observers to a remote test explosion first? I mean, what was with the rush for the slaughter of all those kids?

If the test explosion wouldn't have convinced them we always could have done a real explosion right afterward.

I am wondering why we didn't even give them a chance.
They didn't show us all their planes before pearl harbor did they? That sure would have been nice of them..

Otaku
11-04-2007, 07:08 AM
They didn't show us all their planes before pearl harbor did they? That sure would have been nice of them..

So we have to do the same thing to them?

K? Pŕo?ćtiόnŹ
11-04-2007, 08:37 AM
Part of the just war theory as compiled by Aquinas, Vitoria, Walzter and others is that force is proportional and efforts are taken to avoid the killing of innocents. Do you honestly believe in feudal Japan that women or tiny children had a say in foreign policy?'Well they sure as hell werent going against it. You cant save everyone. What do you think would have happened if we invaded? I bet you that they would have fought against us invading (the women and children). Im glad we didnt waste the lives of thousands and thousands of our soldiers to defeat them. It's not like we asked for the war, so why should we sacrifice our innocent men?

Deg™
11-04-2007, 08:50 AM
If every ****ing time someone gets something that could give them the upper hand in a global conflict they show it to their enemies, there would never be an end to the conflict, merely a lull in the action until the opposing force gains the same capabilities.

The fact is that the two cities were chosen because they were the military heart of Japan, not because they had a bunch of innocents there.

The citizens KNEW that there would eventually be bombing raids there, and yet they did nothing to prepare, or even distance themselves from the military facilities. When the Luftwaffe was bombing London, they built bomb shelters 100+ feet under the ground, saving the lives of countless people from the massive German firebombing (which collectively would have been as destructive, minus the fallout, as an atomic bomb). If Japan had made similar preparations, they wouldn't have suffered nearly as many civilian losses. The sad truth is that imperialistic Japan had almost no respect for human life, indicative of the human rights issues still rampant in Japan today.

Dick
11-04-2007, 08:59 AM
I agree with you, but the Nagasaki was chosen for bombing because it was too cloudy around the first target Kokura a major ship building site and of much more strategic value.

saren
11-04-2007, 09:02 AM
As usual, Degausser is wrong.

Poor guy. Those two cities weren't chosen, they were from a list of 5 based on fairweather conditions.

Tokyo was another target.

Deg™
11-04-2007, 05:33 PM
The point still stands that we didn't just pick cities with innocents, we picked five cities of important militaristic value. It doesn't matter which two were ultimately picked.

DuckDuckGoose
11-04-2007, 06:43 PM
As stupid as I am? Here's the kindergarten version since you obviously didn't make it through high school physics:


You seem to be making a lot of ignorant statements about atomic energy, so let me break it down for you. The decay rate from the hiroshima bomb was not fast enough to dissipate in a day, and the majority of the 100k+ people died in the days and weeks FOLLOWING the blast, not from the explosion itself.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki (http://www.uic.com.au/nip29.htm)




Leukemia doesn't take 4 months, people were dying as they came back to the city, day by day due to the intense radiation absorbed not by the soil, but by remaining concrete and metal structures and from rainfall which spread fallout.
As you read, most of the more intense radiation was carried into the atmosphere. Those different rays and irradiated particles lingered there for months contributing to the deadly rain. ANY pilot coming near them would be dead within seconds, if you doubt it please try to walk into the reaction chamber of your local nuclear plant and see how long you survive (and that is a CONTROLLED reaction, not an uncontrolled explosion)
Do you realize how quickly the people at Chernobyl died who went within 1 mile of the reactor while it was melting down? Do you realize those planes were huge radiation magnets and suckers? You are out of your mind to suggest pilots actually flew through that crap in the days afterward and survived.
And about Nanking, why does 1 wrong mean than another wrong is justified? The US has done so many horrible things to so many countries, but if they came here expecting "justified" revenge I would oppose that since revenge is never a just cause.



Part of the just war theory as compiled by Aquinas, Vitoria, Walzter and others is that force is proportional and efforts are taken to avoid the killing of innocents. Do you honestly believe in feudal Japan that women or tiny children had a say in foreign policy?'


You really are stupid.
I didn't say the radiation dissipates to safe levels in a day, I said it does in months.
Secondly I said that everyone there and everyone entering the area for those months would receive a dose of radiation, however not enough to kill them instantly which your comment on "they couldn't fly pilots near the area cause they died of radiation" made it seem.

And another thing, about your statement of the pilots dying from radiation, it is as stupid as you are. Radiation takes hours to die from and thats with really high doses. While the radiation would have remained high for several months after the blast it would have taken days to weeks for anyone who came in to help to get sick and then die from it.
The harmful radiation only sticks around for a couple of months after a nuclear explosion. While the area is still radioactive years and years later, after a couple of months it can no longer harm you. So long as you arn't a child walking in ankle deep in left over fallout, or eating crops that where grown in soil that got fallout in it.

That is what I said about radiation, please show me where I said it goes away in a day, I dare you to find where I said that.

Military bases repeatedly tried to call the Army Control Station in Hiroshima. The complete silence from that city puzzled the men at headquarters; they knew that no large enemy raid had occurred and that no sizable store of explosives was in Hiroshima at that time. A young officer of the Japanese General Staff was instructed to fly immediately to Hiroshima, to land, survey the damage, and return to Tokyo with reliable information for the staff. It was generally felt at headquarters that nothing serious had taken place and that it was all a rumor.

The staff officer went to the airport and took off for the southwest. After flying for about three hours, while still nearly 100 miles (160 km) from Hiroshima, he and his pilot saw a great cloud of smoke from the bomb. In the bright afternoon, the remains of Hiroshima were burning. Their plane soon reached the city, around which they circled in disbelief. A great scar on the land still burning and covered by a heavy cloud of smoke was all that was left. They landed south of the city, and the staff officer, after reporting to Tokyo, immediately began to organize relief measures.

This is what happened. So if the radiation as you said was killing the pilots within seconds, how the heck did they scout the area, land and check out the damage, then report to tokyo and then start relief? Wanna explain that one?
Oh wait you can't because like I said, You're wrong.

Also Fuedal japan ended long before the war started, Japan was known as the Empire of Japan at the time the war started.

Another thing, your last statement basically says that we shouldn't harm civilians because they didn't have a say. Thomas Aquinas (someone you mentioned) said that fortresses are attackable since they are there to resupply the enemy and destroying them is a way to end a war. And in modern warfare it is argued even a modern city is essentially a fortress supplying men and arms, AND japan had already engaged in what is know as total war, total war is basically extermination of everything of the enemies including civilians.

saren
11-04-2007, 06:58 PM
The point still stands that we didn't just pick cities with innocents, we picked five cities of important militaristic value. It doesn't matter which two were ultimately picked.

Taken from the Atomic Bomb Target Commission of 1945:



1) Kyoto - This target is an urban industrial area with a population of 1,000,000. It is the former capital of Japan and many people and industries are now being moved there as other areas are being destroyed. From the psychological point of view there is the advantage that Kyoto is an intellectual center for Japan and the people there are more apt to appreciate the significance of such a weapon as the gadget. (Classified as an AA Target)



Hiroshima has the advantage of being such a size and with possible focussing from nearby mountains that a large fraction of the city may be destroyed.

What now? They were looking at how much they could destroy, how many people they could kill and how big of a show it'd be for everyone.

Seriously.

Spike5
11-04-2007, 09:31 PM
Yes the bombings were horrific but I believe they were the best plan of action. The bombs killed hundreds of thousands of civilians but the alternative was a plan called Operation Downfall. The estimated death tolls for Operation Downfall led into the millions for both sides and that includes collateral damage(women, children, civilians in general). So as far as we're concerned Operation Downfall could've led to more civilians deaths then the bombings did. On top of that the Japanese organized the Patriotic Citizens Fighting Corps which armed many civilians with nothing more than bamboo spears or other obsolete weapons and forced them to help the military in any way possible which would've led to even more civilian deaths. Not to mention that on August 1st the Japanese stated that if a mainland attack were to occur that they would execute all allied POW's.