The Man Who Bombed Hiroshima


JBeee
#1
November 8, 2007
Anthony Gregory


The man who flew the plane that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima passed away last week at the age of 92. Paul Warfield Tibbets, Jr. did not die from war wounds or violently at the hands of other people, years before his time. He died in hospice care, in a bed, from heart problems and strokes.

In stark contrast, the more than 100,000 civilians who were killed at Hiroshima 62 years ago were burnt, melted, vaporized, in an apocalyptic act of warfare. Many died painful deaths over a period of days or weeks. Others saw family members consumed by flames. Most were far younger than Tibbets was when he finally died. Thousands were children.

Is now the wrong time to discuss this? Tibbets called it a “damn big insult” when a Smithsonian exhibit commemorating Hiroshima’s fiftieth anniversary attempted to capture some of the suffering.

If he didn’t think that was the right time for such reflection, then perhaps now is as good as any.
Although he was offended to see the victims remembered, he had said that he meant no insult himself when he reenacted the bombing in Texas in 1976, complete with mushroom cloud. He said he slept fine every night. He consistently affirmed he’d do it all over again.

People disagree on whether the nuking was a war crime. The 1946 Strategic Bombing Survey determined it had been unnecessary to the winning of the war. We know that Japan, demoralized from having dozens of cities obliterated in fire bombings, was extending peace feelers. “The Japanese were ready to surrender,” said Dwight Eisenhower, who as a general during that war believed the atom bomb was “completely unnecessary.” Admiral William D. Leahy, General Douglas MacArthur, and many other high officials at the time agreed.

Japan wanted only to keep its emperor. Understandably, the nation feared the consequences of the unconditional surrender that Truman and the Allies demanded. They had reason to fear brutalities exceeding the very harsh treatment of Germany under the Versailles Treaty after World War I, which had come after a mere conditional surrender.

Some have tried to rewrite history and have said that to win the war without nuclear weapons, the U.S. would have had to invade and suffer intolerable losses, that the atomic bomb “saved a million lives.” But there is no reason to doubt that Japan’s cause was lost by mid-1945—even without an invasion. Practically every major city was destroyed. The people were blockaded and starving. Then, perhaps as a show of strength to Stalin, the U.S. government nuked two of Japan’s remaining cities, introducing nuclear warfare to the world, and ultimately, allowed the Japanese to keep their emperor anyway.

Robert McNamara, who worked with Curtis LeMay in planning the pre-Hiroshima fire bombings of Japan, admitted in recent years that he and LeMay were acting as “war criminals.” Does this term apply to Tibbets?

We know Tibbets did not shy away from personal responsibility. He proudly took credit for planning the nuclear attack.

This raises uncomfortable questions: If your government orders you to slaughter tens of thousands of defenseless men, women, and children, to whom and to what do you owe your loyalty? If you’re willing to take credit for your supposed acts of wartime heroism, should you also be ready to accept blame if it turns out you committed an atrocity?

Some might say it’s insensitive to ask now whether Tibbets was a war criminal. Indeed, there is no need to condemn this man upon his passing. Even if he was guilty of a war crime, he is now beyond the reaches of human justice.

But it remains crucial for us to consider the implications of what he did. It is important to our sense of individual responsibility in a world where, especially in times of war, people think mainly in terms of the collective. It is this fallacy in moral reasoning that leads otherwise decent people to commit unspeakable barbarities against their fellow man.

We must not lose track of the individual’s role, even in the chaos of war. For whatever we think of Tibbets, it is the refusal to view people as individuals, the branding of everyone as merely an expendable part of a larger group, which brought about the atomic bombings and so many other horrors of World War II.
 
Curiosity
#2
JBee

How typical of you to publish that piece of refuse on the eve of November 11th.

The "research institute" who delivers this kind of socialist eletism does not stop for one second to consider the man would lose his career had he refused that mission. This is the kind of crap academia is now putting out for consumption and dividing our world into hatred and suspicion.

In war there are no personalities one must follow - they must follow the dictates of the warriors to dream up and design and carry out the ugly missions of killing - even innocents.

For you to sit in judgment in your pacifist world, having no stressors in your life except where to get the next beer....you are hardly one to judge what these people went through or why their decisions - whether right or wrong - were made.

Your timing sucks JB.....as does the ugly article, demeaning a man who was destined to be hated throughout history and the remainder of his life. Even after his death you could not resist turning the screw yet once more.

The article serves to insult every life lost in battle regardless of whether the comfortable author hiding behind his big electronic box thinks it was worthy or not.

And how does this article uplift anyone? What fine message does it impart? Know this JBeee, once war is declared, a nation must be committed to the last terrible attempt at finality.... or forever put away its weaponry and remain committed forever .... it has never happened in civilized nationbuilding, and I doubt will in the near future.
Last edited by Curiosity; Nov 12th, 2007 at 07:38 AM..
 
Unforgiven
#3
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but isn't today November 12th?
 
Curiosity
#4
Good for you Unforgiven

You can read dates. What has today's date to do with anything?

The article was published here on November 8th - or as I wrote it "the eve of...."

I responded the day after November 11th (which amazingly you tell us is November 12th - well done!).

Two questions:
(1) Why do you write and sign off in a hit and run fashion?
(2) Why are you still a contributing member on this forum?

Curiosity

 
Brat
#5
Ummm...... correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he (Unforgiven) ment that the article was written on Nov. 8 and that it was posted this morning at 6:01.
So not sure which "Eve" your talking about.

Just saying, carry on!
 
Unforgiven
#6
Someone certainly wants to start a flame war.

How much time do you need around November 11th before you feel people should be again allowed to speak their mind? Ironic that all these freedoms that were fought for are the ones you seem so eager to take away.

The article was published by the author, not JBeee days before and posted here after Nov11.

Got beef?

Quote: Originally Posted by Curiosity View Post

Good for you Unforgiven

You can read dates. What has today's date to do with anything?

The article was published here on November 8th - or as I wrote it "the eve of...."

I responded the day after November 11th (which amazingly you tell us is November 12th - well done!).

Two questions:
(1) Why do you write and sign off in a hit and run fashion?
(2) Why are you still a contributing member on this forum?

Curiosity

 
Zzarchov
#7
Thats funny. No I mean real funny.

Japan was demoralized? News flash, the world doesnt' revolve around your self-guilt problem. Nor does the world revolve around America.

The fact of the matter is, Japan was not demoralized nor did the Atomic bombs make them so. The idea of Soviet conquest did.

Their defense strategy was based on the sound assumption that America did not have the stomach for a ground war as they intended to wage one(their battle plan was called 90 million dead, their own population). The Soviets did. Once the Soviets started rolling into Japanese Territory , allied surrender became the better option.

The bombs weren't even that dangerous, daily conventional bombing caused more carnage. And the Japanese were well aware of this will their "Kill all, burn all, destroy all" policy in China (still active even then)

Alot of your post is just standard whinging, you feel the need to feel bad about something in your pampered life so you invent things to apologize, whether or not they are true.

Here is something better to do, go help someone with a less pampered life. You really feel bad for those suffered by war? Get off your fat ass and join an NGO, go to a warzone and offer some care, build wells, distribute medicine or help grow crops.

Or you can sit back, be lazy, whine and maybe donate a $50/year (95% of which is overhead) and feel like your doing something.

But stop insulting those who actually DID get off their ass and make the world a better place.
 
Vereya
Free Thinker
#8
All the big decisions in the course of history were made by big men, but carried out by small ones. If you blame the pilot who flew the plane over Hiroshima for dropping the bomb, you can as well blame the soldier to fire the first shot in World War II for all the atrocities that happened during it. Had Tibbets refused, someone else would have been sent in his place. Had that first soldier refused to shoot, there were lots of others who would have obeyed, and the war would have taken place anyway. If you follow this line of reasoning, it was the first American soldier to arrive in Iraq who was responsible for the war in Iraq.
Personal responsibility is something I strongly believe in, but it has got its limitations. To be responsible for the fate of nations and for the course of history, you have to have enough power and authority to make decisions that influence the nations. One soldier doesn't decide whether to start a war, or not. A soldier just doesn't have enough influence to make that decision. Why should he be responsible for it? Moral responsibility lies upon those, who give the orders, not upon those, who execute them.
In a word, personal responsibility is only applicable to things and events that depend directly upon you. Taking it further is simply ridiculous.
 
Curiosity
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by Unforgiven View Post

Someone certainly wants to start a flame war.

How much time do you need around November 11th before you feel people should be again allowed to speak their mind? Ironic that all these freedoms that were fought for are the ones you seem so eager to take away.

The article was published by the author, not JBeee days before and posted here after Nov11.

Got beef?

Unforgiven - the flame war was started in the OP - which was unnecessarily close to the time of Remembrance - and thus shows your disrespect for the fallen and mutilated in the wars many nations have taken part in.

Now that you ask: You are the dedicated flamer..... as your past history here is available for all to see you for what you are.

Why are you still posting here?
 
Curiosity
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Brat View Post

Ummm...... correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he (Unforgiven) ment that the article was written on Nov. 8 and that it was posted this morning at 6:01.
So not sure which "Eve" your talking about.

Just saying, carry on!

Dear Brat - my my Unforgiven has his very own Quasimoto following him to clean up ? How endearing you must be

My mistake.... hardly a biggie however as he was three hours in to the day after November 11th....chomping at the bit to post an inflammatory article about the WWII bombing which has become one of the major tools against the U.S. and the Military.

The thrust of the article was primarily to FLAME..... which is what your group do best.... disrupt good forums, make life miserable for an unhappy one victim... and move into a place and take it over like stormtroops..... just like your own little Nagasaki.

None of you ever question what our world would be like had the war in the Pacific been terminated... both for the Japanese people themselves and the nations bordering the west.

But if you like to follow with the little pail and shovel.... be our guest......
 
Brat
#11
It's ok, I forgive you
 
gerryh
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Curiosity View Post

Dear Brat - my my Unforgiven has his very own Quasimoto following him to clean up ? How endearing you must be

My mistake.... hardly a biggie however as he was three hours in to the day after November 11th....chomping at the bit to post an inflammatory article about the WWII bombing which has become one of the major tools against the U.S. and the Military.

The thrust of the article was primarily to FLAME..... which is what your group do best.... disrupt good forums, make life miserable for an unhappy one victim... and move into a place and take it over like stormtroops..... just like your own little Nagasaki.

None of you ever question what our world would be like had the war in the Pacific been terminated... both for the Japanese people themselves and the nations bordering the west.

But if you like to follow with the little pail and shovel.... be our guest......


The only flaming I see....is from you.
 
EagleSmack
#13
The people who say Japan was defeated are simply Japan apologists. The premise is that Japan wanted to surrender. Japan wanted to negotiate a peace treaty and end a war that they started with terms favorable to themselves. I read two books on the days leading up to the surrender that were written by Japanese and American authors.

The Japanese Diet was split into two groups. One group wanted to negotiate a peace deal with the US and not surrender Unconditionally like the allies had already said that they must. They wanted to save face and be able to eventually say that they did not lose the war. They wanted to avoid the humiliation of losing their first war. They also wanted to protect the Emperor. The second group wanted to continue the war even if it meant the total destruction of their nation. They were indeed ready and making plans for the allied invasion.

Even after the first A-Bomb they were willing to fight it out as the allies once again called on for the Unconditional surrender which was refused. Some members of the Diet informed the Emperor that the Americans could not possibly have any more of these bombs. When the second bomb was dropped the Emperor called a meeting and chastised these members and said that his seat was not worth the destruction of his people. He refused to see his country suffer any longer and called on the members to signal the allies that Japan would accept the Unconditional surrender.

Even after the Emperor made his decision an attempted coup was made by IJA and IJN officers who attempted to seize the surrender message of the emperor, assasinated military and politicians who were abiding by the Emperor's wishes and temporarily seized the Imperial Palace with the intent of swaying the Emperor. They believed the Emperor was swayed by traitors and that Japan still could win the war. It was the Emperor himself that approached the leaders of this coup and said they were in direct disobedience of his wishes which ended the coup. The coup leaders promptly slit their stomachs.
 
gerryh
#14
For me, this was a revelation. I have always given the pilots a pass in the "guilt" department for this particular act. To now find that he elped plan the bombing, obviously knowing the ramifications for the populace, and not feeling any remorse for the thousands of innocents puts this man in an entirely different light.

My 16 year old just finished WWI and WWII in his grade 12 Social Studies. He had asked me what I felt the culpability of the pilot was, and I HAD told him "none".

I consider the use of nukes to be a war crime, then again I consider any war a war crime. Especially the targeting of civilian targets, which both sides were very adapt at. I find it to be not only criminal but cowardly.
 
earth_as_one
#15
News flash!

We still bomb cities.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/h...ion/html/1.stm

We still kill innocent civilians by the hundreds of thousands:
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnew...iraq_2006.html

Z is right, Japan surrendered because the USSR declared war, not because of the bomb. Unlike the US, the point of the USSR declaration was to move their borders.

The Japanese didn't understand the implications of nuclear weapons until after they surrendered. At first, most Japanese were skeptical that single bombs had even destroyed these cities.

I don't think the crew of these flights truly understood what they were doing until they saw the results.

By the time these bombs were dropped, Tokyo and many other Japanese cities had already been fire bombed, resulting in a similar amount of death and destruction as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Does it really matter whether a city is destroyed over a few hours by thousands of bombs, or by a single bomb in a few seconds?

War criminals exist in most wars on both sides. But they are only brought to justice if their side looses. If you want to make an argument for allied war criminals, I'd say Churchill and Harris are better targets:

Quote:

...The year was 1919. The Royal Air Force asked Churchill for permission to use chemical weapons "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment." Churchill, secretary of state at the war office at the time, promptly consented. "I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes," he explained. Bomber Harris, an up-and-coming air force officer in 1919, concurred: "They [the Arabs and Kurds] now know what real bombing means, in casualties and damage."


Harris and Churchill teamed up again some 25 years later to execute a relentless terror bombing campaign during WWII for which neither offered any apologies nor demonstrated any qualms. "Now everyone's at it," Churchill said about the deliberate targeting of civilians. "It's simply a question of fashion - similar to that of whether short or long dresses are in."

Bomber's attitude was best displayed when, during the later stages of the war, a motorcycle policeman stopped Harris for speeding. "You might have killed someone, sir," came the reprimand, to which Bomber Harris replied, "Young man, I kill thousands of people every night."...
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=3003

Churchill and Harris were never charged with war crimes, but you can be sure they would have if the Germans won WW II. That's called victor's justice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor's_justice
 
EagleSmack
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

For me, this was a revelation. I have always given the pilots a pass in the "guilt" department for this particular act. To now find that he elped plan the bombing, obviously knowing the ramifications for the populace, and not feeling any remorse for the thousands of innocents puts this man in an entirely different light.

My 16 year old just finished WWI and WWII in his grade 12 Social Studies. He had asked me what I felt the culpability of the pilot was, and I HAD told him "none".

I consider the use of nukes to be a war crime, then again I consider any war a war crime. Especially the targeting of civilian targets, which both sides were very adapt at. I find it to be not only criminal but cowardly.

Serious question... Do you think Japan has any responsibility to what happened to them? Do you agree that by your view of war that they, even in defeat they committed many war crimes and by starting the war should be held more responsible.

Any pilot who drops a bomb has to help in the planning. Dropping a bomb like this the pilot would need to practice and plan for months like they did. Even the common soldier when conducting an attack needs to be part of the planning and training before hand knowing full well that people are going to get hurt.

I respect your view that any war is a crime. However we are a warring people/planet... all of mankind is. It always has been.

Something way off this thread. When I was a kid I was watching a Battlestar Gallactica episode when they found Earth. I am not sure if you are familar with the show because you would need to be to get this. Well as the Commander was spreading the news that they have finally found Earth he said...

"There are a few things we must know... Earth is a warring planet."

...and everyone gasped...

I thought to myself "Hmmm...that is interesting." Interesting in the fact that to us here on Earth war is frequent and somewhat normal.
 
EagleSmack
#17
Japan surrendered for a number of reasons. Apologists do not want to give the US credit because they don't want to see any positives from the US dropping the bomb. Japan surrendered because of the collapse of the Axis Powers, Japan surrendered because of the Soviet entry into the war, and Japan surrendered because of the Atomic Bomb.

This is what the Emperor of Japan stated in his surrender address...

Moreover, the enemy now possesses a new and terrible weapon with the power to destroy many innocent lives and do incalculable damage. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.
Such being the case, how are We to save the millions of Our subjects, or to atone Ourselves before the hallowed spirits of Our Imperial Ancestors? This is the reason why We have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the Joint Declaration of the Powers.

Again...those were his words...

US Bombs Hiroshima on Aug 6
US Bombs Nagasaki on Aug 9
Hirohito announces the acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration on Aug 14
 
earth_as_one
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

For me, this was a revelation. I have always given the pilots a pass in the "guilt" department for this particular act. To now find that he elped plan the bombing, obviously knowing the ramifications for the populace, and not feeling any remorse for the thousands of innocents puts this man in an entirely different light...

Not to give Tibbets a free pass, but he never saw a nuclear detonation until he dropped one.
Quote:

Tibbets ran into various confrontations, on issues from maintenance to training, stemming in part from the secrecy of the operations. He flew back and forth to the States three times between May and July, but missed the first atomic test at Alamogordo because he had to return to Tinian to persuade General Curtis LeMay not to switch the atomic mission to another outfit...
http://www.acepilots.com/usaaf_tibbets.html

The amount of death and destruction a nuke would cause to a city was only theoretical. No one knew until after Hiroshima. But by the time the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki it was known that the city would be destroyed.

Quote:

Brigadier General Charles W. Sweeney (1919 - July 15, 2004) was an officer in the U.S. Army Air Force during World War II and the pilot who flew the "Fat Man" atomic bomb to Nagasaki on August 9, 1945.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_W._Sweeney

 
MikeyDB
#19
Eaglesmack

Is the revisiting of atrocities like Mai Lai or Hiroshima or other acts commited during war also a part of human "normalcy", or is it the effort to establish once and for all that the perpetrator was perfectly correct in exterminating children sleeping in their beds?

As someone pointed out in McNamara's video "The Fog of War" he calls for "proportionality", although he supported the fire-bombing and the nuclear attack, in hindsight he called the behavior of the Allied forces "criminal".

Death on the magnitude of that caused by war is an indictment of all mankind. There is no clearer "proof" that humankind is only comfortably engaging in denial when the mass extermination of innocents is acceptable in "war". While the action was regrettable, we're engaging the topic now because the threat of nuclear war is more present now than it has been since the Cuban missile crisis.

Will it take even more mass exterminations to convince humankind that the facility to deal out death in enormous quantities isn't the same as the moral imperative to do so...?
 
gerryh
#20
Eaglesmack, unfortunatley, or fortunatley depending on how you look at it, I have just recieved a call out and must go get someone some heat. I WILL answer your questions when I return.
 
earth_as_one
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

US Bombs Hiroshima on Aug 6
US Bombs Nagasaki on Aug 9
Hirohito announces the acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration on Aug 14

USSR declares war on August 8, 1945

Its debatable about which event lead to Japan's unconditional surrender. Here is what one researcher going through the archives has concluded:

Quote:

For almost 60 years, the view of many Western historians has been that World War II ended in the blinding flashes of the atomic bombs dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945. Compared to such a show of force, these historians said, how could other factors—the entry of the Soviet Union into the war, a confused and divided Japanese leadership—be seen as anything but footnotes

But in his new book, “ Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan,” Tsuyoshi Hasegawa claims the bombs had little effect on a Japanese leadership squabbling over how to end the war with their honor, their monarchy, and their privileged positions intact. It was only when the Soviets, jockeying with the United States for post-war influence in Asia, declared war and invaded Japanese-held Manchuria that Japan’s leaders capitulated to prevent falling under Soviet dominance....

http://instadv.ucsb.edu/93106/2005/M...esearcher.html

 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#22
Which is the worst of crimes - the tens of thousands who perished in and after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the millions doomed in a fight-to-the-last-man battle for the Japanese homeland. Perhaps the generals gave some hint they were weakening. The little guy knew only his Samuri codes.

Col. Paul Tribbits - another of many thousands of men who had a job to do.

Woof!
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

Col. Paul Tribbits - another of many thousands of men who had a job to do.

Exactly. If he refused, he would have suffered personal consequences and somebody else would have flown the plane.
 
earth_as_one
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDB View Post

...Will it take even more mass exterminations to convince humankind that the facility to deal out death in enormous quantities isn't the same as the moral imperative to do so...?

then you have to read this:

Quote:

Why the future doesn't need us.

Our most powerful 21st-century technologies - robotics, genetic engineering, and nanotech - are threatening to make humans an endangered species.
By Bill Joy

... What was different in the 20th century? Certainly, the technologies underlying the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) - nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) - were powerful, and the weapons an enormous threat. But building nuclear weapons required, at least for a time, access to both rare - indeed, effectively unavailable - raw materials and highly protected information; biological and chemical weapons programs also tended to require large-scale activities.
The 21st-century technologies - genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics (GNR) - are so powerful that they can spawn whole new classes of accidents and abuses. Most dangerously, for the first time, these accidents and abuses are widely within the reach of individuals or small groups. They will not require large facilities or rare raw materials. Knowledge alone will enable the use of them.
Thus we have the possibility not just of weapons of mass destruction but of knowledge-enabled mass destruction (KMD), this destructiveness hugely amplified by the power of self-replication.
I think it is no exaggeration to say we are on the cusp of the further perfection of extreme evil, an evil whose possibility spreads well beyond that which weapons of mass destruction bequeathed to the nation-states, on to a surprising and terrible empowerment of extreme individuals...

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8...pic=&topic_set=



As our technology evolves, the amount of resources required to destroy the world or exterminate mankind decreases. Before nukes, destruction of the earth was impossible. After nukes, it was within the realm of possibility given the resources of a large industrialized nation. Today the list of nations with the technology and resources to destroy the earth continues to grow.

But as this trend continues it will eventually get to the point where any nutcase with moderate resources will have the ability to destroy the earth. Even if only one in a million people would be crazy enough to do such a thing, eventually millions of people will have that capability..., which makes our self-destruction inevitable...

Read the entire article (11 pages)
 
MikeyDB
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolf View Post

Which is the worst of crimes - the tens of thousands who perished in and after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the millions doomed in a fight-to-the-last-man battle for the Japanese homeland. Perhaps the generals gave some hint they were weakening. The little guy knew only his Samuri codes.

Col. Paul Tribbits - another of many thousands of men who had a job to do.

Woof!

What if....and yes I appreicate the barn door is still open...

The effects of this device were disseminated to the leadership and the people of Japan before the bomb was dropped? Would anyone but those who've learned to Love the Bomb be capable of understanding the devastation that would visit their people and their nation if the Allied forces went ahead with the attack?

We remember WWI now and we remember WWII and we've all watched various wars on our TV from the comfort of our livingrooms, and what have we learned?

We haven't stopped supplying Saddam Hussein and others with weapons and we've certainly demonstrated that agent orange and purple are "appropriate" when the U.S. is fighting wars...

Will we have to irradiate and toxify the entire planet before the message sinks in.....?
 
MikeyDB
#26
Earth-as Won....

How do we correct the problem? How do we tell people that Canada is across the border from the United States and that the air that Americans breathe is the same air that Canadians breathe? How can we influence our governments to seek every alternative before mass extermination?

If we believe we have some "right" to "prosperity" regardless of the consequences, I suppose the exercise would be totally useless anyway....
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
#27
The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a demonstration of power to Russia. Those two cities had been purposely saved from the firebombing that other Japanese cities suffered that did a lot more damage. It was an important demonstration that stopped the Russian advance. Japan had been trying to surrender for some time.
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
#28
It's what we HAVEN'T learned that makes war - Nobody's perfect....

Woof!
 
I think not
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan View Post

The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a demonstration of power to Russia. Those two cities had been purposely saved from the firebombing that other Japanese cities suffered that did a lot more damage. It was an important demonstration that stopped the Russian advance. Japan had been trying to surrender for some time.

You can repeat it ANOTHER 100 times and it still won't be true.
 
MikeyDB
#30
G'day Juan..

I'm sure you'll get an argument about that....

I'll ask you the same question; What makes the use of mustard gas or VX or agent orange OK for one side but rationale for demonizing the "enemy"? Why is it that despite the knowledge of Hiroshima etc. that Kruschev and Castro put missiles in Cuba and that was "reason" enough to America to almost take the world to war...and yet America seems OK with expecting European nations to facilitate a missile capablity right next door to Russia....

Is there any exit strategy from this circular pursuit of self-extinction?
 

Similar Threads

1
Hiroshima Film Cover-up Exposed
by jjw1965 | Aug 23rd, 2018
63
51
Which country should be bombed?
by buddy | Jun 13th, 2007
51
Hiroshima: Harry Truman on Trial
by I think not | Jan 6th, 2006
4
This is the house that Bush bombed
by moghrabi | Jun 4th, 2005