Pilot that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima dies at 92

[souloffire]

then why take it out at the very end of the war?
especially since after dropping the A-bomb they had to know an invasion would not be needed.
so yeah, it probably had some Military significance, but again, the fact that US military left it untouched to "measure damage" along Japan would kind of tip the balance to the "somewhat important, but not that much really" area wouldn't it?

They hoped to God that an invasion would not be needed. So just in case they bombed the southern command.

yeah, I know, like I said speculation from the both of us.
however, I had previously posted about the fact that before the Hiroshima Bomb there were already negotiations through Russia, since their main fear WAS Russia.
I think the lives of so many civilians were worth the selection of another target though, a purely military target perhaps, or at least one not so heavily surrounded by civilians.

I'm sure there were other targets they could have used but like I said they bombed Hiroshima in case they still needed a land invasion.

and I what I meant is that it's an illegitimate reason.
in order to defend against it, you'd have to know the intended target, since your military can't be stretched that thin, and theirs already was.

Too many "what if's" and "maybes" involved. They didn't want to take that chance.

Nagasaki proved that you can indeed deliver atomic power after a demonstration and that there was no real way to stop it at the time.

True, but it also proved they wouldn't surrender after having one of their cities nuked. Remember it took two bombs and Russia to get then to surrender.

 

[Showtime]

So there was no funeral for this guy?

 

[Jerry!]

I would think there would be. He doesn't deserve any of the hate towards the bombs though. Thats ridiculous.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

They hoped to God that an invasion would not be needed. So just in case they bombed the southern command.

again, that makes no sense from a tactical standpoint.
the firebombing alone would've been sufficient to pretty much wipe out this all important "southern command" and that campaign had already been going on for a while.
tactically it's just not a reason.

I'm sure there were other targets they could have used but like I said they bombed Hiroshima in case they still needed a land invasion.

see response above, apply reasoning to Nagasaki.
you'll see there was no real "reason" think about it. people back then sent US troops into heavily Irradiated areas to see what would happen, this was AFTER the war.
it just reeks of "Look at our new toy suckas!!!"
in fact, George Marshall pretty much spoke of that in the memo addressing further use of A-bombs in Japan

"The problem now [13 August] is whether or not, assuming the Japanese do not capitulate, to continue dropping them every time one is made and shipped out there or whether to hold them . . . and then pour them all on in a reasonably short time. Not all in one day, but over a short period. And that also takes into consideration the target that we are after. In other words, should we not concentrate on targets that will be of the greatest assistance to an invasion rather than industry, morale, psychology, and the like? Nearer the tactical use rather than other use.

seems he was convinced that so far they hadn't done anything that would aid in a military invasion of Japan.

Too many "what if's" and "maybes" involved. They didn't want to take that chance.

the exact same of what if's and maybes that Japan would've faced after a demonstration, they would have protected their military targets though, maybe that's why they went for a heavily civilian one.
in fact, I already posted about the selection committee opted for a target surrounded by a HEAVILY urban area because they wanted "psychological impact"and for the bombing to be "spectacular"

so those are the actual true-to history reasons.
they wanted to give the world a show.

True, but it also proved they wouldn't surrender after having one of their cities nuked. Remember it took two bombs and Russia to get then to surrender.

dude, seriously.
that's not accurate at all.
prior to the first bombing the Japanese were already considering the conditions to surrender, again, one of which included Hirohito retaining his title ( which he got after the fact) Hiroshima wasn't really "known" of by the Japanese government since like after a day ( that would make it August 7) and Nagasaki was bombed on August 9th. the same Day that Russia retook hostilities shall we say.
the sad part is that someone ( not you) was harping on the importance of an unconditional surrender, when in fact, after Japan surrenders, they allow Hirohito to retain his title ( that was one of the four conditions for surrender) so even after, it was kind of a "conditional surrender"

 

[Mr Sparkle]

I would think there would be. He doesn't deserve any of the hate towards the bombs though. Thats ridiculous.

why not? weren't the Nuremberg trials filled to brim with people who just followed orders? I mean, they sent a guy who wrote children's books ( mind you, NAZI propaganda, but still in the form of Children's Books) to Die, but this....is somehow NOT worth it?

 

[Jerry!]

I don't get you people, I've explained this before. It wasn't his call, he isn't the one ordering the bombs being dropped. It was a legal order, every one who is in the army, officer or not, takes an oath. If they directly disobey a lawful order from a superior that breaks the oath and they face the death penalty. If you want to argue about the locations of where they decided to drop the bombs go ahead, but that isn't the pilot's call.

You cannot honestly tell me after dodging death for however long he was in the war for, especially for bomber pilots whose survival rate was not good at all, that now you choose death after all that by disobeying the order. You stop nothing, there is no cause, its going to happen. You are risking being put to death by YOUR OWN COUNTRY on to refusing to do what will most likely be your last mission of the war. Thats the way he had to think of it. He said he wasn't proud, but he had to do it.

Furthermore, what kind of trials would we put this guy under? The Japanese attacked us, they started the war in the Pacific. You're talking about a country in a total war mindset at that time.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

"you people" you racist! you're worse than the Nazis!
it's because I'm Jewish isn't it!?

 

[Jerry!]

All I am saying is the guy doesn't deserve the kind of **** he probably did take during his post war life. I mean, the guy had a family, think about this realistically. What would you do?

 

[Mr Sparkle]

I think all Nazis had families( or a high percentage of them did), and they all faced orders.
yet, I'm pretty sure we "condemn" them as monsters right?

 

[Jerry!]

I'm pretty sure the Americans in this war weren't the ones trying to wipe a race off the face of the planet.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

LOL, yeah, you're right. that's not what we were talking about though is it?

 

[Jerry!]

Thats the main reason why they are regarded as monsters isn't it?

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Yes, quite, still not what we are talking about is it?

 

[Jerry!]

You brought up the comparison, not me.

 

[The Overlord]

the sad part is that someone ( not you) was harping on the importance of an unconditional surrender, when in fact, after Japan surrenders, they allow Hirohito to retain his title ( that was one of the four conditions for surrender) so even after, it was kind of a "conditional surrender"

God, can you ever make a point without being nasty about it? God forbid should debate like a civil human being instead of a teenager with a superiority complex?

As mentioned before, fevorer at the time war and technological ingnorance could have explained why the Allies decided to drop the bomb. That may not make it right, but its little more complex than your theory. Did you really think the American or even Chinese public would have been interested in "saving face" for Japanese after the all that happened during the war?

Public pressure likely would have ensure that for the most part the allies would ask for an unconditional surrender (sure they let them keep the Emperor, but that was only becase the americans were using him as political puppet to legitmatize their occuption and policies, if they saw no political benefit in keeping the emperor, they wouldn't have done it. japan did sign an unconditional surrender, the americans let them keep the emperor because it was to their benefit, not because it helped the Japanese save face.)

The fact is historians have debated whether this was the right or wrong decision for the past 60 years and have presented many valid arguements and counter agruements to bloster their case. To come along and say "no, this side is right and anyone who disagrees is a ******" completely ignores 60 years of historical debate and makes you look competley arrogant. There many differnet theories on why WWI happened and much debate and argument, you would laughed out of any university if you said "no, only this theory is right and everyone else is a ******."

It seems like your the one acting like high school student, instead of an adult with this superiority attitude of yours.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

You brought up the comparison, not me.

my comparison was on topic, yours was a deviation.

 

[Jerry!]

You were comparing an American bomber pilot to a Nazi and how they should each be viewed as the same basically.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

God, can you ever make a point without being nasty about it? God forbid should debate like a civil human being instead of a teenager with a superiority complex?

As mentioned before, fevorer at the time war and technological ingnorance could have explained why the Allies decided to drop the bomb. That may not make it right, but its little more complex than your theory. Did you really think the American or even Chinese public would have been interested in "saving face" for Japanese after the all that happened during the war?

Public pressure likely would have ensure that for the most part the allies would ask for an unconditional surrender (sure they let them keep the Emperor, but that was only becase the americans were using him as political puppet to legitmatize their occuption and policies, if they saw no political benefit in keeping the emperor, they wouldn't have done it. japan did sign an unconditional surrender, the americans let them keep the emperor because it was to their benefit, not because it helped the Japanese save face.)

The fact is historians have debated whether this was the right or wrong decision for the past 60 years and have presented many valid arguements and counter agruements to bloster their case. To come along and say "no, this side is right and anyone who disagrees is a ******" completely ignores 60 years of historical debate and makes you look competley arrogant. There many differnet theories on why WWI happened and much debate and argument, you would laughed out of any university if you said "no, only this theory is right and everyone else is a ******."

It seems like your the one acting like high school student, instead of an adult with this superiority attitude of yours.

man, you sure get angry when you respond to me.
why do you think Historians have debated?
because either one believes their side to be correct.

I believe that the wholesale slaughter of 220,000 people, most of them civilians, a lot of them children and women and old didn't deserve to die so the US could "make a point".

that's MY belief, hell it's not even a belief, it's fact, because I remember a lot of *****ing the last time civilians died in an attack, and I HATE, HATE the way people try to rationalize slaughter by their countries while condemning the same actions of foreign governments as inhumane.

Like Celldog, who goes on and on about the sanctity of life and how to protect a zygote, but a charred japanese baby?

"war is hell" that's all he can say.
Lazur doesn't mind that civilians had to die by the thousands for a little international muscle flex, but hey! they are giving out birth control without parental notification, how dare they? Children are our future!

CRAZY

INSANE

EVIL.

how people can justify that, is arrogant, not what I'm doing.
you don't get it, the fact that you're on the winning side doesn't mean
that you're right all the time, even when you are fighting for a noble cause.


you do understand this don't you?

that's supposed to be the difference between the good and the bad guys.
again, war is hell sure, but how you can see the piles of dead jews in the camps and weep and then look at the charred remains of a city..a CITY which the US own military officials admitted had no major significance, except as an "impact" or a "spectacle" to the world, a city filled with children and women who were NOT evil, despite what their government did, and who did not.

repeat

did NOT deserve to die.

and you just say "had to be done"

that my friend, IS the height, the pinnacle of arrogance.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

You were comparing an American bomber pilot to a Nazi and how they should each be viewed as the same basically.

now, how they BOTH followed orders to commit atrocities upon a civilian population for the good of the war effort.

do you deny this is so?

 

[Jerry!]

Ok, we are going around in circles, so this is the last I have to say on this topic. Yeah, America could have ended the war using more conventional methods, but would it be worth it? Would it be worth costing each country even more damage doing it that way? Japan was in a state of total war, they would be sending EVERYONE, no matter how old or young, into battle.

Would it be worth losing more American lives to the war and losing a lot more Japanese civilian lives? What would the difference be from having to kill more Japanese civilians over months probably in trying to take Japan than to limit the casualties and use the atomic bombs? I know it sounds bad, but thats what it did. It saved a lot more Japanese civilians than it killed because they didn't stand a chance against the Americans if they had to invade. Yeah America would have taken casualties as well, but nothing compared to the Japanese. The Japanese would commit suicide before surrendering to the American forces, all the while trying to take out as much Americans with them as they could.

This is the worst case scenario, fighting an enemy that no longer cares whether it had already lost, they would still not stop and throw everything it possibly could at you. Women in Okinawa committed suicide instead of going to American forces. There were mass suicides instead of surrendering. Thats the kind of stuff that would have been happening if there was an invasion instead. The only way was the atomic bomb, the Japanese had never before seen so much destruction, so much loss of life happen all at once to its people, key word PEOPLE not military targets, and yeah that sounds bad but its supposed to. That was the whole idea. Even though in the long run, the fire bombings in Tokyo caused more destruction, it wasn't instantaneous like with the atomic bombs. That kind of wide spread destruction in seconds was never seen before. Thats what finally ended the war. It was the best possible decision in the worst case scenario and it saved more lives than it cost.

 

[Kelly]

Also with the Soviet Union in the picture at the time, doing deals behind closed doors as they were in Eastern Europe, the Koreas, and Southeast Asia....had the Soviet Union taken Japan as well, would Japan be in our top 3 as a trading partner now, or would they be communist, with the same problems as North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, etc....?

These are all questions that have been asked, are being asked, and no one truly has the answer....

Was it right, wrong, whatever.......IMO, I wish they would have chosen another way, but who knows what that would have been, and who knows what the outcome would have been. I'm not a Monday morning quarterback, and I was not at the table making these decisions. We all have our opinions and they have been well stated here, I'm with Patent Pen as well, enough said, great debate.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

LOL, yeah.
we'll never know whether it was wrong or not to drop a nuclear device on civilians.