Paul Tibbets passes

[Murdoughnut]

I don't see ANY moral differance between dropping High Explosive and droping an Nuke.

Different results sure, but you are still droping bombs on a city.

Well the difference was that, prior the nuke, targets were always specified based on a strategic military threat (a tank depot, an airport, AAA guns, a weapons cache, etc.) With the atomic bomb the population at large became the target.

Civilians went from unintended casualties to primary targets - that's the big difference.

I want to again take a second to point out that my thoughts aren't an indictment on this man and his service - just wanted to make that clear.

*EDIT: I did just realize the error in my above statement - indiscriminate bombing of London by the Nazis would also qualify above - even if it were with conventional weapons.

 

[JHines]

Well the difference was that, prior the nuke, targets were always specified based on a strategic military threat (a tank depot, an airport, AAA guns, a weapons cache, etc.) With the atomic bomb the population at large became the target.

Civilians went from unintended casualties to primary targets - that's the big difference.

I want to again take a second to point out that my thoughts aren't an indictment on this man and his service - just wanted to make that clear.

*EDIT: I did just realize the error in my above statement - indiscriminate bombing of London by the Nazis would also qualify above - even if it were with conventional weapons.

Yes re: London, etc. And I would also put the incendiary bombing of Japanese cites in the same category as the A-bomb. Although, I recall one of the arguments at the time was that military production was highly decentralized in Japan. But I doubt that was a primary selection criteria.

 

[Murdoughnut]

Yes re: London, etc. And I would also put the incendiary bombing of Japanese cites in the same category as the A-bomb. Although, I recall one of the arguments at the time was that military production was highly decentralized in Japan. But I doubt that was a primary selection criteria.

I just really think the US wanted to use the bomb to assert itself as a super power - in that sense, they were successful. In my humble opinion, it was completely unnecessary and unethical - a demonstration bombing in rural Japan would have had the same effect.

Had the roles been reversed, I don't think we'd have ever let Japan live it down. At the time, however, the invasion argument was convenient and didn't need a lot of explanation. Patriotism was high, and no one was going to question the government. People just wanted an end to the war - and for many soldiers, it seemed justified given the war crimes committed by the Japanese. I can completely understand the mindset leading to support for the bomb - at the time. Now it just seems like a great stain, much like the U.S.'s murder of indigenous peoples.

Just my 2-cents, though - I can understand the argument for the bomb, so it doesn't upset me that some people see it differently.

 

[USMCmech]

Well the difference was that, prior the nuke, targets were always specified based on a strategic military threat (a tank depot, an airport, AAA guns, a weapons cache, etc.) With the atomic bomb the population at large became the target.

Not quite,

The British crossed that moral threshold in 1940 when they started night bombing. Under the technology of the day they were lucky to hit the right town, much less any specific target.

The USAAF "talked" about targeting only military in Germany, but their acuracy wasn't much better at keeping civilians safe. Not to mention leveling Dresden.

In March, Lemay began his own higntime raids over Japan. Useing WP, Naphalm, and HE bombs, he caused more casulities in one night than BOTH nukes did. The reason Hiroshima was the target was because it was one of the very few cities that had NOT been leveled by conventional explosives.

lemay opposed the A bomb, not becasue of any moral issues, but because he didn't think he needed it. He expected to have leveled every major Japanese city by October.


Also, there was no such thing as a non military target at that point in Japan. The entire Japanese war production was in the form of "cottage industry" in peoples basements. 10 year old school children were manning things like telephone exchanges and training with bamboo spears.


Same moral choice, the only difference was the nukes were spectacular enough to shake Hirohito into action.

 

[TheFlyingTurkey]

That make sense - not to mention the PR tactics that all sides used to demonize the other. Easier to drop a bomb on "Japs" or "Nazis" than, say, Iraqi civilians caught up in that conflict.

If the invasion of Japan was needed, the civilians would not of been "caught up in the conflict" but they would have become active combatants, as every man woman and child would have fought to the death.

Where were these civilians when Japanese solders were raping and beheading millions of Chinese in the 1930's? Read the book Flyboys by James Bradley. If you were alive back then to see what the Japanese were doing to the Chinese and our POW's, I think you wouldn't have had to think about pushing the button for too long.

Demonizing wasn't required. It was the truth.

Tibbets was an American hero.

 

[TheFlyingTurkey]

Now ask me if I could push the button today? Probably not. But I don't think anyone can say for sure outside of any real world wide war. You have to be there, in the midst of it to know for sure.

 

[pilot602]

I dunno with the exception of children (and then only to a point... look at the Hitler youth) civillians are just as culpable when their nation is at war as a soldier. The U.S. won WWII because of the civillians at home pumping out tanks, aircraft and ships out of every single factory they could convert. You can not tell me that the civillians had no role or hand in the outcome of the war. Nor can you say the millions of German civillians who knew and turned their heads as millions of Jews were marched into furnaces were "innocent bystanders!"

No. Civillians are just as much a combatant in my eyes as the soldier on the frontline pulling the trigger.

I also think that this current "smart bomb" mentality we have is only further aggrivating things. If a general populous knew it would be bombed into oblivion for supporting gurellia warriors or a runaway government they might, just might, be a little less helpful the next time a group of them wandered through town or might overthrow the tyrant themselves.

As it stands now we brag about being able to destroy an apartment from 100 miles away and leave the other portions of the building more or less untouched. The "innocent civilians" who even do nothing but turn their heads are emboldened to do so because they fear no retribution.

War is a cruel, nasty business. And it's SUPPOSED to be that way. It's the only thing that scares enough to keep from launching one every six months (current president/administration notwithstanding).

Now, to get back to the topic a bit. Regardless of the need to drop the bomb the fact that it was scared the human race enough to keep from ever dropping it again (so far). And for that it was a very important event in history.

 

[Murdoughnut]

I dunno with the exception of children (and then only to a point... look at the Hitler youth) civillians are just as culpable when their nation is at war as a soldier. The U.S. won WWII because of the civillians at home pumping out tanks, aircraft and ships out of every single factory they could convert. You can not tell me that the civillians had no role or hand in the outcome of the war. Nor can you say the millions of German civillians who knew and turned their heads as millions of Jews were marched into furnaces were "innocent bystanders!"

No. Civillians are just as much a combatant in my eyes as the soldier on the frontline pulling the trigger.

I also think that this current "smart bomb" mentality we have is only further aggrivating things. If a general populous knew it would be bombed into oblivion for supporting gurellia warriors or a runaway government they might, just might, be a little less helpful the next time a group of them wandered through town or might overthrow the tyrant themselves.

As it stands now we brag about being able to destroy an apartment from 100 miles away and leave the other portions of the building more or less untouched. The "innocent civilians" who even do nothing but turn their heads are emboldened to do so because they fear no retribution.

War is a cruel, nasty business. And it's SUPPOSED to be that way. It's the only thing that scares enough to keep from launching one every six months (current president/administration notwithstanding).

Now, to get back to the topic a bit. Regardless of the need to drop the bomb the fact that it was scared the human race enough to keep from ever dropping it again (so far). And for that it was a very important event in history.

Then were the 9/11 victims combatants as well? I'm just not quite sure where we draw the line. Each of us was complacent about the U.S.'s foreign policy in the middle east - none of us stepped up to stop companies from entering into shady business deals with the leadership of these countries - which in turn led to a decrease in the QOL of those living there - which in turn led to the emergence of the type of civil unrest necessary for radicalism to flourish. By this logic, I deserved to be killed for the U.S.'s previous mistakes in that region.

To the earlier posts - I am aware of the horrible things the Japanese did in China, and to allied troops. And in a true "eye-for-an-eye" system of justice, dropping the bomb would make complete and rational sense. I just thought we held ourselves up to a higher standard.

I still don't think the bomb was necessary - I think you guys make some good arguments with regards to the ethics, though. Still - roles reversed, and your kid's history textbook describes it as the single most horrible act of man.

 

[Navion]

I believe that most of us in this discussion are falling into the the trap of monday morning quarterbacking. We are able to look through fifty years of history and make a judgement about something that we werent even around to experience. None of us have any first hand experience just what we read in books and watch on the history channel. What really puts it into perspective for me is that out of all the WWII veterans I have talked to not one of them, even with the benefit of 50 years hindsight, has been against the dropping of the bomb on Japan. I believe that these people who actually lived during that time have alot more insight about it than us and I value their opinions accordingly.

 

[JHines]

<SNIP>

I still don't think the bomb was necessary - I think you guys make some good arguments with regards to the ethics, though. Still - roles reversed, and your kid's history textbook describes it as the single most horrible act of man.

It would be interesting to see what Japanese history textbooks say about it. I saw some interviews of Japanese war survivors around the 50th anniversary; many of them seemed to think the first A-bomb was necessary to shock the government into giving up, but that the second one was overkill.

 

[pilot602]

Then were the 9/11 victims combatants as well? I'm just not quite sure where we draw the line. Each of us was complacent about the U.S.'s foreign policy in the middle east - none of us stepped up to stop companies from entering into shady business deals with the leadership of these countries - which in turn led to a decrease in the QOL of those living there - which in turn led to the emergence of the type of civil unrest necessary for radicalism to flourish. By this logic, I deserved to be killed for the U.S.'s previous mistakes in that region.

No. They were were murder victims. Not heros. Not fallen warriors. They were people in the wrong place at the wrong time and our response to the act has been almost as reprehensible as the act itself. If for no other reason (and there are plenty of others) then the magnitude of which it has been FUBAR'ed.

There is a big difference between "business" and war - regardless of what current business school teaches.

If you are in a declared war with active combat going on and civillians helping they are combantants. If you go blow up a business building in a time of "peace" you're a terrorist. If you help said terrorists (even by allowing them to hold a meeting in your country) you are aiding and abedding and therefore open targets.

In any case retaliation should be to go after said terrorist until he or she is dead. It's been six and a half years and Mr. Laden is still trapsing about the hills of Pakistan with his only worry being where he'll take his next ##### and how many virgins he's got waiting when he departs this Earth.

 

[Murdoughnut]

I believe that most of us in this discussion are falling into the the trap of monday morning quarterbacking. We are able to look through fifty years of history and make a judgement about something that we werent even around to experience. None of us have any first hand experience just what we read in books and watch on the history channel. What really puts it into perspective for me is that out of all the WWII veterans I have talked to not one of them, even with the benefit of 50 years hindsight, has been against the dropping of the bomb on Japan. I believe that these people who actually lived during that time have alot more insight about it than us and I value their opinions accordingly.

I see your point, but to the same token, perhaps they were way too biased to provide a rational opinion on the matter. During periods of extreme xenophobia (such as during a major war) people's opinions follow the path of causal attribution bias - what we do is fine, what you do is wrong. I couldn't see a WWII vet admitting that the US had ever done anything wrong.

Also, and not to be a downer, but I'm not the first to say it - for all the heroism and valor displayed by these men and women (and I don't want to underestimate it at all) those folks tend(ed) to be pretty racist. They can say whatever they want for all I care - they've earned it - but most of the men and women I know from that generation hold white Americans a few notches above everyone else. Hell, my grandmother still uses the word colored on a day to day basis.

We could of course ask some Japanese folks whether they thought it was necessary or ethical. I imagine they'd give us the opposite response, leading to the above mentioned bias.

 

[esa17]

I wonder if any of them were conflicted.

He and several of his crew were asked that question on several occasions. His answer was a quick and simple: "No".

Some of the misinformation thrown around in this thread makes me see red but out of respect for him I'll just close with this:

Farewell good sir.

 

[Velocipede]

Tibbets was only 29 when he assumed command of the 509th, and 31 at the time of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Pretty typical for WWII. Most folks forget that war was fought by 18/19/20 year olds. If you lived, you were a fighter pilot squadron commander at 23 and a group commander at 25.

That's why they're called the "greatest generation." Gen X, Y and Z can't hold a candle to them.

 

[Velocipede]

A lot of the A-bomb's effect was psychological, I think. Curtis LeMay was doing a pretty good job of killing tens of thousands people and leveling Japanese cities with conventional weapons.

Try hundreds of thousands. Fire bombing killed an estimated 130,000 Japanese in Tokyo in one night. Over 100k were killed in the fire bombing of Dresden.

All the atomic bomb did was reduce the number of planes required to do the job. Of course, a section of Japanese fighters in the right place at the right time would have ended the whole mission.

 

[JHines]

Pretty typical for WWII. Most folks forget that war was fought by 18/19/20 year olds. If you lived, you were a fighter pilot squadron commander at 23 and a group commander at 25.

That's why they're called the "greatest generation." Gen X, Y and Z can't hold a candle to them.

That's a bit of stretch. "The Greatest Generation" were thrust into global war by the desire of a few to rule over millions, and they rose to the occasion.

To what similar undertaking have Gen X, Y, or Z been called that would show their mettle?

 

[Getburned]

Pretty typical for WWII. Most folks forget that war was fought by 18/19/20 year olds. If you lived, you were a fighter pilot squadron commander at 23 and a group commander at 25.

That's why they're called the "greatest generation." Gen X, Y and Z can't hold a candle to them.

What about Iraq, Afghanistan, war on terror? I do not think we should sell our men and women over there short, who are putting it all on the line as we speak. These wars might continue for a very long time.

 

[derg]

I'm kind of novice historian, but the A-bomb was absolutely not the first bomb dropped against civilian non-combatants. We killed a loooooooot of German civilians during WW2. A modest estimate of at least 30,000 during the Dresden campaign alone. We killed another 100,000 or so in Tokyo in two hours of firebombing the city with napalm.

The atom bomb is a terrible weapon, however I think we need to look at it in honest context as we killed civilians regularly in WW2. Hell, everyone did.

We actually killed far more people with conventional bombing during the war.

 

[Vyse]

It would be interesting to see what Japanese history textbooks say about it. I saw some interviews of Japanese war survivors around the 50th anniversary; many of them seemed to think the first A-bomb was necessary to shock the government into giving up, but that the second one was overkill.

For the most part, they say that the Japanese were the victims, in part due to the a-bomb being dropped on them, and that Japan was fighting the war to protect Asia from Western colonialism. They also largely gloss over Japan's atrocities, for example referring to the Rape of Nanking as an "incident".

 

[Lee D]

Tibbets did his duty, as did so many other men and women of that generation. May he rest in peace.

As others have said, I think it is easy to look back with over 60 years of hindsight and be somewhat critical of the decisions made at the end of WWII. It can be easy to be critical of what was done, yet none of us were ever there to experience the feelings and emotions that those of that generation went through. Were any of us to be thrust into that time or situation, knowing what they knew, would we be much different?

I do find it interesting that history has somewhat forgotten the aforementioned firebombings of Germany and Japan, or the brutality mentioned in China. Yet we certainly remember the use of the Atom bomb. (I'm not saying that remembering it is a bad thing.)

Like the above post mentioned, after some time the allies began to use firebombs on civillian populations first in Europe then later in Japan. For a time the British were more active at this and then we (USA) also followed suit. AND as mentioned above, late in the Pacific war we began to drop incendiary bombs on the Japanese. Due to the large use of wood in their construction things burned quick and as mentioned above civilian deaths were well over the 100K mark.

Pulled this info out of a book I have on the Allied bomber untis in Europe. The Eighth airforce was instructed to bomb certain cities in order to "disrupt the working population." Some of the history indicates that they did not have many moral qualms about this because their own sufferings as bomber crews had made them hard and bitter.

I don't know if any one else had a chance to catch a part of the 5 or 6 part mini-series documentary called "The War." (REALLY well done documentary on WWII.) Somewhere in the last episode, many of the US service men and civilians who were interviewed, expressed the huge relief they felt when it ended. To them it seemded like the best choice given the circumstances. They expected to invade Japan and they expected HUGE casualties. Many of the men who returned from Europe were told to enjoy their time at home because they would, in short order, be shipped out to the Pacific to finish the job.

Honestly I don't think there were any perfect, sterile and bloodless solutions at that point.