Pilot of the Enola Gay: Paul Tibbets

[A-300F4-622R]

What's your guys thoughts on LeMay wanting to nuke N. Vietnam?

 

[granlistillo]

What's your guys thoughts on LeMay wanting to nuke N. Vietnam?

I don't think I like you but that was very funny.

 

[Murdoughnut]

Uhm, I never praised the comments anywhere in my original post or any other part of MY postings.

My only comment was to specifically ask about the turn-radius issues that were brought up by Oppenheimer and then practiced by the pilot....and no-one answered my question for 2 pages, by the way.

Read before you spew.....

Sorry, I had you mixed up with someone else I suppose. My bad.

 

[///AMG]

I understand your reluctance. I was just curious.
That's a cool photo. What was the yield on the bomb and how big was the mushroom cloud? Were you wearing radiation monitors? Did you get any exposure? Did you wear PLZT helmets?

Just going to go out on a limb here and guess that it was a dummy bomb used for verification of compatability with the aircraft itself. We stopped atmospheric nuclear testing many decades ago.

 

[///AMG]

Thank you - yes, that is what I'm trying to say. Instead of celebrating what this gentleman did specifically, I instead choose to celebrate his service to our country. While some see the Enola Gay as a symbol of pride and American strength, I see it as a symbol of human failure. Not American failure, for it's not just the act alone that's sad, but also the necessity for it (be it real or perceived). When I see pictures of the Enola Gay it just makes me sad, not proud. Though again, I do not blame this man or his crew. If he didn't pull the trigger, someone else would have.

I guess you could blame the Japanese for attacking Pearl Harbor and dragging us into a war that we had not intended to be a part of. Revisionist history aside, it was an admitted gamble on their part, and they knew the cost of failure. I'd say they paid in far fewer lives with this outcome than they would have if we had been forced to invade (or continue bombing large population centers like Tokyo)

 

[A-300F4-622R]

Just going to go out on a limb here and guess that it was a dummy bomb used for verification of compatability with the aircraft itself. We stopped atmospheric nuclear testing many decades ago.

I think we should restart testing of nuclear weapons to proof the designs and the stewardship of the national stockpile.

 

[Hacker15e]

I think we should restart testing of nuclear weapons to proof the designs and the stewardship of the national stockpile.

There is definitely concern about this in the nuke community. The DoE and all the nuke national labs are working hard to test everything up to but not including production of a nuclear yield. They spend a considerable amount of time, treasure, and effort doing it, so from a scientific perspective we're in good hands (when they're not allowing their peeps to sell the information to China, that is).

 

[A-300F4-622R]

There is definitely concern about this in the nuke community. The DoE and all the nuke national labs are working hard to test everything up to but not including production of a nuclear yield. They spend a considerable amount of time, treasure, and effort doing it, so from a scientific perspective we're in good hands (when they're not allowing their peeps to sell the information to China, that is).

Computer testing and non-fissile material testing is one thing. We need to test the complete weapon to ensure that the stockpile is reliable.

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

The people who design our nuclear weapons have strong kung fu, and it isn't the first time around the block for us in this department. Whatever we would design wouldn't be a radical departure from our current weapons, I'd bet, so why the need to test what we already know works?

 

[A-300F4-622R]

The people who design our nuclear weapons have strong kung fu, and it isn't the first time around the block for us in this department. Whatever we would design wouldn't be a radical departure from our current weapons, I'd bet, so why the need to test what we already know works?

To date, the largest weapon the US has produces is a 2-stage. I'd like the US to develop, test and stockpile a 3-stage or even a 4-stage weapon. This would put the Teller-Ullam principle to the ultimate test.

 

[Murdoughnut]

I guess you could blame the Japanese for attacking Pearl Harbor and dragging us into a war that we had not intended to be a part of. Revisionist history aside, it was an admitted gamble on their part, and they knew the cost of failure. I'd say they paid in far fewer lives with this outcome than they would have if we had been forced to invade (or continue bombing large population centers like Tokyo)

I would agree with you. But I never agreed with the "massive land invasion costing thousands of lives" part. In my opinion, a blockade would have ended the war in year or less time, given how strapped the Japanese were for resources. It's not revisionist history because no one is changing anything. It's speculative history, which is all anyone can come up with.

 

[PeanuckleCRJ]

I would agree with you. But I never agreed with the "massive land invasion costing thousands of lives" part.

You shouldnt have. All estimates were millions of lives lost, not thousands.

 

[A-300F4-622R]

Just nuke em all and let God sort them out!

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

I guess you could blame the Japanese for attacking Pearl Harbor and dragging us into a war that we had not intended to be a part of. Revisionist history aside, it was an admitted gamble on their part, and they knew the cost of failure. I'd say they paid in far fewer lives with this outcome than they would have if we had been forced to invade (or continue bombing large population centers like Tokyo)

That is a little bit of revisionist history of our own making there. We weren't exactly acting as a neutral power in that war, and it was only a matter of time before we joined it on the allies side even without Pearl Harbor.

 

[granlistillo]

You shouldnt have. All estimates were millions of lives lost, not thousands.

:rotfl: What's a few digits among friends.
Iwo Jima 21,000 Japanese dead, 6,000 US dead less than 10 square miles.

 

[///AMG]

That is a little bit of revisionist history of our own making there. We weren't exactly acting as a neutral power in that war, and it was only a matter of time before we joined it on the allies side even without Pearl Harbor.

You could be correct there, but there is no question that they dragged us fully into the Pacific theater by their own doing.