Hiroshima bomb pilot dies aged 92

reply to post by Tom Bedlam


chicxulub crater left a mile deep ?----years ago i read time magazines articals on what has been found ----maybe whats left is a crater a mile deep but what i read was that this asteroid punched a hole 25 miles deep clear thru the earths mantle and into the magma below with the resulting explosion destroying most if not all lifeforms on earth.

Originally posted by COOL HAND

What does that have to do with this topic in any way?

Can you post them? No, guess why? They were detonated while still in the air.

throb, do you really think that someone in Japan in 1945 would surrender if we destroyed a mountain? Chances are the Japanese would have been just as likely to see that as a sign to follow the emporers wishes to the death.

I find that strange, considering the devasatation that was left behind.

Maybe my memory is a little fuzzy, and i merely thought 'crater' because i was unwilling to conjure up the memory of the true destruction that was caused.

Yes, i do believe that they would surrender is we destroyed a mountain.

No other country possessed that kind of technology at the time - literally the Americans had the power to 'Move mountains', so to speak.

However the fact remains that the japanese surrendered, had they not done so there would be far more evidence of the war in that part of the world than there is now.

P.S: About that post before, i said that 1000 years ago things get a little uncertain for me - it's called the "Dark Ages" for a reason.

That's not to say, however that i cannot believe in anything before the Dark ages, for example there is the terracotta army left behind by the chinese emperor as evidence of his rule - there are Roman monuments in England that also left behind evidence.

I rely on what is physical, as i can gain first-hand evidence of it - If i believe that i can gain first-hand evidence of something if i wanted to, i would believe in it.

What i do not believe in is written testimony - there are too many other factors, other possibilities that no single person can ever write in a 'factual' document and still remain coherent enough for the masses to read and 'enjoy'.

reply to post by stealthyone


Finally someone here with brains. Thanks for stating the obvious facts of what would have happened had we not dropped the nukes stealthyone. Guess what all you sniveling Jane Fonda peace lovers, His son flies the B-2 in the same squadron that his dad served in

Originally posted by Throbber

I have seen photography of the Death camps in Germany, as have i seen photography of The Craters left behind by the nuclear explosions.

Back then, it was quite difficult to modify or forge photographs, unlike it is nowadays, where it takes a sharp eye or experience.

Then perhaps you'll point out the crater here:



There were no craters.

reply to post by Tom Bedlam


Thank you for bringing those photographs to my attention, Bedlam.

I apologise for being inaccurate in my testimony.


EDIT: Skywatcher, while i deny that the nuclear bombs in Japan were used in a conceivanly less destructive fashion, i do not disagree about the fact that the war in Europe was ill-conceived*.

You state that i'm a peace lover (Who else?), and i won't hold you to that.




*Eh... that came out wrong - i agree that the war in europe was well-conceived, sorry.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by Throbber]

I have to tell you, when I hear people speaking out of ignorance it really steams me. You judge a generation over an event that happened waaaay before you were even born and ignore their perspective!

Japan was not going to surrender without a fight--battles like Iwo proved that. Col. Tibbits was a great man, not because he deployed the weapon, but because he choose to carry that awesome responsibility.

Anyone care to discuss the treatment of US and allied POWs under the Japanese? Have you conveniently forgotten the Bataan Death March!?

reply to post by yahn goodey


Hildebrand et al (1991) were showing disruption about 1000 meters deep in the center, but I didn't see where they thought it had punched through the mantle. However, they did say it was about 2 million Tsar Bombas. Obviously, it didn't obliterate the Earth, although it was pretty disruptive. Neither did Tycho obliterate the Moon, but it left a pretty distinctive mark.

My point being, even millions of the largest bombs ever made aren't about to obliterate even a good sized chunk of something the size of the Moon.

reply to post by MrMicrophone


It has been discussed, i said that my opinion was that it was soldiers whom administered that treatment, not civilians living in cities.

If anyone wants to discuss the difference between a civilian and an armed combatant with me again, go right ahead.

It's sad to see how many WWII vets we're losing a year. Thank god for people like the folks that did the WWII PBS documentary. We need people to tell their stories for us so we don't lose them.

[edit on 11/1/2007 by Zaphod58]

reply to post by solidshot


from what i've seen on other tv news films about the pilot of the b-29 bomber when seeing/feeling the blast destroying the city of hiroshema it was shock and sorrow not rejoicing over his part of following orders.

I see that i've drawn attention to myself.

Very well; It may well be the case that they were 'military' cities - if there is such a thing, but i cannot condone the mass-slaughter of people by the means of a nuclear weapon, or any weapon really.

I refuse to - Every single thought i have had on this discussion has been about how it would have been possible to avoid such terrible destruction and such careless disregard for life that it may have shown as some bias potentially (i'll thank the 'anti peace-lover' for pointing that out).

War is a terrible thing, i'm sure we can all agree.

It seems that i have been allotted the position of one whom deems the protection of life as an imperitive, as such any arguement i have will be treated as one whom thinks as such.

I still stand by the fact that nothing has been learnt from this, however - that the destruction of so many lives served nothing but the American Establishment's interests.

What have we really learned other than to fear nuclear weapons?


EDIT: *Cough* Don't mind me, just talking to myself for the most part.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by Throbber]

reply to post by Throbber


Your lost on your reply to me, You should read my post then think about that one lol. I never said jack about the war in Europe.

RIP General Tibbets I am glad that there weren't any do gooders around in 1945 a job like he did needs to be done without any such hiccups. Japan actually put feelers out towards the Soviet Union but the Soviets were more interested in taking a slice of Asia then ending the War. So perhaps all those people who don't support the dropping of the atomic bombs should direct some of there energy's towards the Soviets.

Source

Dropping an Atomic bomb on a mountain would have been pointless it wouldn't have forced the Japs to the table because less people live in mountain regions.

reply to post by Throbber


Yes I went back and changed my post. I decided after reading it that FOR ME this should be more a tribute to WWII vets and less of a political armchair warfighting thread. If you want to get into a thread like that, then let's start a new one, and keep this one as a tribute to those on both sides who lost their lives in this and other attacks during the war.

Originally posted by Sky watcher
reply to post by Throbber

 

Your lost on your reply to me, You should read my post then think about that one lol. I never said jack about the war in Europe.

Heh, don't worry - i was just thinking ahead; covering my proverbial ass, so to speak.

reply to post by xpert11


That's all well and good xpert11, but i doubt that russia would really possess the capability to make a serious dive into China and then Japan.

Then again, i'm not too certain about China's Military capabilities back then, perhaps you would care to enlighten me on this issue?

Originally posted by Throbber
I still stand by the fact that nothing has been learnt from this, however - that the destruction of so many lives served nothing but the American Establishment's interests.

I disagree. Without these examples(Hiro. & Naga.) I'm sure the Cold War would have gone HOT. Thus none of us would be here now.

Had the United States not developed the bomb first, I guarantee you the Axis would not have hesitated to use it on civilian targets in the US, like New York.

And FYI, the firebombing of Tokyo by B-29's took almost as many (estimated 120k) lives as the atomic bombs with high aircrew casualties. Both tactics were horrible, but the casualties to allied forces were much less compared to the use of the bomb. With an estimated 1 million casualties if we had invaded Japan, it is quite certain that many of us would not be here today since I grandfathers would have been killed.

The fact that the bomb has not been used in anger since then, is testimony that the citizenry and most of the government understands the seriousness of this weapon. Sadly I fear, some in our current Administration have forgotten that lesson.

[edit on 1-11-2007 by MrMicrophone]

reply to post by Zaphod58


Nah, it's okay - my position is known now as a guy who would try to protect life at all costs; i can't make a cohesive arguement now without people looking at me and thinking as such.

It's because i want to protect life that i would prefer it if they destroyed a few mountains, and i really do believe that it would have the same effect on the japanese morale - especially if we hit one of the more prominent mountains like Fuji (granted, the initial rage would be substantual, but that would subside, given time.).

I agree with you on honouring the crew on board the fortress, they performed the job that was given to them and came back to tell about it.

It just strikes me that every person who has seen the destructive capabilities of a nuclear bomb first-hand has despaired at the true nature of what humans are capable of, and that we are prepared to use these things on each other if we must.

This is why i hate war, and those who start wars - nothing good has ever come of it.

But that's not to say i disagree with those trying to stop wars.

Nor do i disagree that something had to be done - that the people in charge of that operation realised they were sitting on a history-changing event that would change the course of humanity forever.

I do not damn them for their choice, but the deaths they caused seem so stark to me that i would wish it were done differently.

I realise now that i am literally pissing into the wind here.

EDIT:

I see the importance of what you're saying Intrepid, that's why i'm saying we should have nuked somewhere else in japan that wasn't so populated - i do not dispute the fact that the nukes ended the war.



[edit on 1-11-2007 by Throbber]

There was a period of my life where I would have done the same thing, because of "patriotism". Or the desire to "win" which you see in all children.
That is it, people grow up and learn more at different speeds

Originally posted by Throbber
Nah, it's okay - my position is known now as a guy who would try to protect life at all costs; i can't make a cohesive arguement now without people looking at me and thinking as such.

You are missing the point of what others were saying then. It would have cost MANY MORE live to take Japan by the conventional route. Logic dictates then that nuking those cities is EXACTLY what you'ld be for then.

EDIT:

I see the importance of what you're saying Intrepid, that's why i'm saying we should have nuked somewhere else in japan that wasn't so populated - i do not dispute the fact that the nukes ended the war.



[edit on 1-11-2007 by Throbber]

What pressure would it make to a ruler if a mountain was nuked. Bid deal. So we can't go there for a little while. You remove citizens and that's a different scenario. Hits you in the wallet and popularity. What would the Japaese thought of their leader if he didn't care about the human factor? Think about that.