It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hiroshima bomb pilot dies aged 92

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Hiroshima bomb pilot dies aged 92


news.bbc.co.uk

The commander of the B-29 plane that dropped the first atomic bomb, on Hiroshima in Japan in World War II, has died at the age of 92.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Unfortunately another of the old generation has now gone, i wonder just how many people in today's politically correct world would have the stones to carry out this kind of mission?

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I wonder how many people would have 'the stones' to stand up and say I'm not going to be responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of civilians.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by twitchy]



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I imagine there are more than a few teenagers whom are twisted enough to want to do that kind of thing.

Which is an important difference to make - Do you want a man who doesn't want the job but can carry it out or a man who wants the job and can carry it out?

Let's just say the guy who doesn't want the job isn't going to scream "Hah hah you f###in# spics!" at the top of his voice, then forget to retreat from the fallout zone.

That said, i'm surprised the American military didn't try doing field tests against military encampments or ship arrays rather than population centres - you can say what you like about how it had to be a blow to the country's population, in order to spread war discontent, but really i don't think it was nessecary.


EDIT: Doubly shameful is that the contingency plan also followed through, that nagasaki also suffered the same devastation.

Question: What is the point of fighting a war 'For democracy' if you're going to blow people up regardless of their nationality, religious beliefs, World view, or anything like that?

I can't see this as anything other than pure, merciless genocide.


On the other hand, the pilot himself went above and beyond the call of duty, and his country should be proud of him for that, regardless of what the japs say about it.

The fact that there is so much political caution over the matter only goes to show the moral weakness that lies at the very heart of the American Establishment - so much so that they are not even prepared to discuss it.

I wonder if president bush will be attending the funeral?

[edit on 1-11-2007 by Throbber]



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by solidshot
i wonder just how many people in today's politically correct world would have the stones to carry out this kind of mission?


Read any thread on the shambolic "war on terror" on ATS and you'll find at least four or five people who probably would - and enjoy it too


I don't think Tibbets would have, had he known at the time what he was unleashing.

The guy has spent his entire life defending his position because he actually did it, rather than coming at it from someone who would be asked to do it now.

140,000 dead in an instant. Thousands more afterwards.

There was a British Observer on Bocks Car, when the Nagasaki bomb was dropped. He was writing a letter home to his wife when the bomb run started. The letter was normal - as the allies had complete aerial superiority at the time and uninterrupted, leaving him with time to do such a thing. The letter was neatly written, up until a point where he wrote "i must prepare, we're starting our bomb run".

It ended with a badly written and panicked scrawl of "My God"

Those guys had no real idea what they were doing at the time.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


No normal person can even contemplate that amount of destruction on a relative scale.*

I believe his reaction to the bomb was an appropiate one.


*Of course, there are very, very few 'normal' people on this planet, so i'll do it for you.

Imagine the power to destroy 1/16th of the moon.

EDIT: What i'm saying here is that it would take roughly 16 nuclear bombs to annihilate the nearest celestial body.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by Throbber]



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Taking into account the projected US military deaths from an attack on mainland Japan, I must say that I will glady accept 220,000+ enemy deaths over the death of 1 Americal soldier (nevermind the 220,000+ US Projected Deaths):

from: Source


A note in Truman's own handwriting says that Gen. George C. Marshall's estimate of US casualties was about a quarter-million killed, wounded and missing. The actual estimate by the Joint War Plans Committee was 220,000 as of early June-close enough. However, we now know that this figure was based on a near-catastrophic underestimate of Japanese troop strength.

Was it the right thing to do? Would things have been different if all parties knew exactly what the outcome would be?

I can't answer that

Did the bombing provide a speedy end to a brutal conflict and save hundreds of thousands of US lives.

Yes it did, and that is good enough reason for me.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by stealthyone
 


Were the population centres the best possible targets for the attack?

I believe not.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Japan should have surrender after the first bomb was dropped, not after the second. Arrogant Japanese to think the U.S. had only 2, one tested and one used in war. Think they can make the U.S. to the negotiating table by inflicting as many casualties as possible as the U.S. was getting closer to the Japanese homeland.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 


And what if they did?

What if the second plane was already in japanese aerospace and couldn't be recalled due to radio blackout?

DIDN'T THINK OF THAT DID YOU?

EDIT: I cannot believe that people are supporting the use of nuclear bombs on population centers - despite the perceived "Threat" from japan, they didn't need to blow up any cities - they could have just annihilated a mountain or two and that would probably do the trick.

Saying "We have the power to move mountains" is certainly better than saying "We have the power to annihilate every last one of you".

It reeks of intimidation and oppression.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by Throbber]



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Throbber

DIDN'T THINK OF THAT DID YOU?


What if?????? Got any evidence that they tried??????



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 


Got any evidence they didn't?

I don't think it would look very good, the japanese surrendering and then All of a sudden ANOTHER NUCLEAR BOMB hits.

EDIT: Hey guys, when they say that WW2 changed the world, they mean the nuke, not the lives lost.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by Throbber]



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 12:35 PM
link   
As an 'armchair historian' I can say that it has only been in recent history that wars are being fought by military only. In the past, leaders knew that if they invaded an area and defeated the military, the innocent civilian citizens were capable of rising up and defending their land.

Consider the scenario that your country is under attack from another country's military force. Do you stand by and allow your military force to be anilated, or do you take up arms and defend your land to your last breath?

As the world progressed in destroying their enemies, the horror of their actions finally dawned on the public. But is there really any difference in slaughtering a village and burning it to the ground, or dropping a bomb that vaporizes hundreds ands leaves thousands more to suffer a long horrible death?



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by darkelf
 


Yes, because the actions of that nuclear bomb caused fallout, which affected people for years afterwards.

simply razing a village to the ground doesn't compare in the slightest.

Remember, this was in the days when the nuclear bomb has just been invented, there was no 'nuclear deterrent', the nuclear bomb was a weapon conceived to cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Ever stop to think about what the american public would think if the japanese hadn't surrendered, and that we, the allies, had nuked them off the face of history?



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Throbber
 


Yes there is tons of evidence that the Japanese refuse to listen to the U.S. Especially America's unconditional surrender which the Japanese refused to bow down to, hence we bomb the crap out of them. It took two atomic bombs to make them surrender, not years of continous firebombings and blockades.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by deltaboy
 


I'm not saying that it was wrong to use atomic bombs, i'm saying that the targeting should have been invalid.

EDIT: Please share this evidence, by the way - i'd like to see it.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by Throbber]



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by stealthyone
Did the bombing provide a speedy end to a brutal conflict and save hundreds of thousands of US lives.

Yes it did, and that is good enough reason for me.


Let's not forget that is also saved many Japenese lives. The people of that country were being trained to repel the Allies with their own lives.

If an Allied landing had happened, we would have had an even greater death toll.

"Gen Tibbets said then: "Thousands of former soldiers and military family members have expressed a particularly touching and personal gratitude suggesting that they might not be alive today had it been necessary to resort to an invasion of the Japanese home islands to end the fighting." "

Also remember, that the targets were selected based on their value. Had we destroyed a mountain, the Japenese would have just kept on fighting. By bombing those cities, we took away assets they needed to continue the fight.



[edit on 1/11/07 by COOL HAND]



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by COOL HAND
 


So if the japanese were prepared to sacrifice their lives, why did they surrender?

Again, the targeting was invalid - you could have acheived the same effect WITHOUT NUKING CITIES.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Throbber
 


So how many deaths of civilians are acceptable? 1, 50, 100? What weapons are acceptable in war? Who draws the line? Are accidental deaths of civilians ok? Is it ok to kill civilians when they take up arms to dendend their country?

If I don't respond for a while, it's because I'm leaving to go to work.



posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Throbber
So if the japanese were prepared to sacrifice their lives, why did they surrender?

Again, the targeting was invalid - you could have acheived the same effect WITHOUT NUKING CITIES.


Where is your proof of that? The Japenese had to see the power of the weapon with their own eyes in order to believe it.

Just be glad we picked from the low end of the spectrum. How do you think Japan would have turned out if we nuked Tokyo?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join