EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- 'Beyond Orwellian': Outrage Follows Revelations of Vast Domestic Spying Program
- The Bill of Rights Exists: An Open Letter to Dianne Feinstein
- The World Economy Is a Ticking Time Bomb (and The Fuse is Burning)
- Major Loss to Organic Farmers as Court Rules in Favor of Monsanto
- Naomi Klein: 'Anti-Shock Doctrines' Show the Way to Resist
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Man Who Bombed Hiroshima
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.
Anthony Gregory is a Research Analyst at The Independent Institute.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
208 Comments so far
Show AllYou "assume" I have not already read it PETER.
I don't apologize for the use of the atomic bomb, for Truman, or Tibbets, or anyone else. I offer some comments as to reasons the bomb was used.
Many are totally unaware of some appropriate reasons Truman had for making that awful decision. Did you know he did not authorize the use of the second bomb? That was done by Simpson, the Secretary of War, behnd Truman's back. That was a secret for many years also. After seeing the destruction, Truman did not wish to use another atomic weapon, __ ever, nor would any decent person. Wish and should are two different words.
What befuddles me is, why there is no public outcry of our use of Depleted Uranium, DU ammunition and bombs? When an article on that subject comes up, few bother to post a comment. How come? It should be one of our most important concerns. Many would rather discuss the war which ended 60 some years ago and say how awful the men were who fought it.
I bet some of the people who blog here would say we should have surrenderd to Japan on December 7th, 1941 and there would have been no killing. In fact on another article some weeks ago, a couple of bloggers did write that. I dunno abut some of you, of course you have the perfect right and could say that about me also. If we'd surrenderd to Japan, you may not have any rights. If Bush has his way, we won't have any either come to think of it.
the japanese attacked the US navy fleet at pearl harbor and aimed at soldiers while the US dropped nuclear bombs on civilians. hiroshima and nagasaki were acts of nuclear terrorism. they were also examples of an unfortunate streak of overreaction on the part of the US. terrorism and overreaction continue to plague us to this day.
No PURVIS, I don't "got it". There are two sides to every coin, the flip side of this one is, there were several reasons Truman had for using the atomic bomb and many who disagree with all of them, and many are not even aware of all of the reasons and don't wish to hear them.
I say this, those who disagree, weren't named to go ashore on Japenese homeland soil.
Lets just pray and hope, that the horror of what an atomic bomb can inflict on people is not lost on the bush/cheney junta, as they sharpen their sabers for Iran. Or maybe they are hearing from the weapons experts at Sandia, LA and LLL that deep penetrators with nuke yields will contain the fallout, and are perfectly effective weapons to use against deep targets.
it took Hirohito to break the tie in the ruling council whether or not to surrender.
4 wanted to go on forever in the true warrior fashion and 4 did not. I have never been to war so I will not judge anyone who did go and was a part of any action. I know that I wold want to get it over with as soon as possible. We all seem to believe that only the bad guys die but most are civilians. It has always been this way and probably always will be.
At least during those days America tried to help rebuild Europe and Japan.
Cry Havoc and let loose the Dogs of War....
War is total. The "rules of war" are the biggest oxymoron I've ever contemplated. You always know that some subcontractor building a clusterbomb is going to rationalize the indisciminate killing his device does to the innocent in order to get the government pork since his bomb is more "effective."
You let the dogs of war run your country and this chit is going to happen. Take the Isralie/Syrian Raid. This bombing had essencially zero coverage with the mainstream media. Al Jazier reported it was nuked with tactical nukes by U.S. aircraft. Satillites show bulldozers covering the target areas with massive mounds of dirt. WTF, over?
Do you think that radioactive crap will leak into the atmosphere and get caught by the jetstream and come over here?
You becha it will.
This planet is completely out of control, and homo sapiens is headed for extinction if we don't de-fang these dogs of war that are running loose in our government. These killers aka bush administration, work for big oil and the defense industry.
You're all insane to sit here typing when you should be boycotting everything the Fortune 500 makes.
That, is our only chance.
Tibbets probably believed - as I did. growing up - that dropping the bomb was necessary and would shorten the war. Eisenhower questioned it, by the way. Even Teller questioned its use; he thought that a demonstration on an uninhabited island would have been just as effective. But even before I began to question the use of Little Boy, I always had a troubled feeling about the SECOND bomb - the one on Nagasaki.
The answer to that, when I found it out, shocked me out of all faith in America's leadership: it was a sinister test in which human beings were the subjects.
You see, they had two KINDS of bombs.
KEM PATRICK
Take your meds and go to sleep.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
~Voltaire
Paul Tibbets was by definition a war criminal in my opinion . But also it seems likely to me that he was a victim as well. "He slept well everynight", He would "do it all over again". If I had done what he did , it seems likely to me that in order to live with myself I would use the well known psychological defense mechanisms of rationalization and justification in order to survive with what I/We had done . He was the one who dropped the bomb on an innocent CIVIL populion . If he was sane before the bomb landed , I question what his mental status was after he learned what devastation his actions caused . After all he "was only following orders" too, wasnt he? How does one live with that?
One of the most interesting debates I participated in college was the debate on the dropping of the atomic bomb.
The side against its use was chaired by my professor of Japanese studies. He stood 4 feet 8 inches tall. He was a visiting professor from the University of Tokyo and his father had been buried by debris at Hiroshima for over a week- this had saved his life by keeping him out of the radioactive rains. Still, he died at 57 and my professor believed the bombing was responsible for his short stature as both his parents were quite tall.
The side for the bombing was chaired by an Ancient History Professor from Tennessee who was quite brilliant and often a riot in class. As a young man however he had fought in number of the Island battles culminating in Okinawa. When the bomb dropped he was on Okinawa dreading the prospect of a Mainland Invasion. The moderator was a Jesuit professor who headed the Ethics and International Relations department at Georgetown- and for those who don't know Gtown that's a biggie there!
I was tasked against (though at the time I was for) and given the focus of the nature of the bomb itself. As I'm sure many posters on this site are aware the very notion of war crimes is based on the Western concept of Just War Theory. While many volumes can and have been written about it, the pertinent part to me in my argument was that lethal force can only be directed at military targets (this includes supply and yes it gets complicated and gray). And while the killing of civilians itself is not a war crime, if it is a result of collateral damage, mistakes or other situations (if the enemy atachs with civilians on their tanks, ships whatever you can still fire, again this can get sticky)- it is still the basic notion that you must "Target" lethal force at military targets only. The main thrust of my argument was that you cannot target a nuclear weapon of the type that was dropped on Hiroshima- you can't aim it at the military targets. The nature of the bomb itself made it an indiscriminate weapon- with the possible exception of some remote military base you cannot target this weapon in any military sense of the word. Just War Theory is taught extensively at all our military academies and, along with the possible lack of military necessasity, was the main point cited by top commanders in their opposition to the bombing.
Couple of points that I find interesting:
1. The plan for the invasion was code named "Downfall" and not a soul thought it would be a pushover, certainly not the marines like my professor who had fought on Okinawa. The question is really was an invasion needed at all?
2. My Japanese professor, and Father Winters, agreed that without the dropping of the bombs there would not have been any surrender, not for awhile at any rate. The point that he made is that the hardcore Japanese Military council simply did not believe in it. To say that Japan's military situation was untenable meant nothing to them- anyone who fought on Okinawa can tell you that- they fought to the end and then killed themselves- the only honorable thing to do. Something less that might be spun as less than surrender maybe, but nothing Truman could swallow.
In the end to me I took a lesson from another course on the Philosophy of Law. It taught me about "Hard Cases"- which by their nature have no right or wrong answer. Do I think the dropping of the bomb can be said to be compliant with Just War Theory- NO. Can I say that it was Wrong- given everything I know- NO.
", and my sister at Pearl Harbor that day. The Japs sure as hell invaded and attacked the US."
Because of that long land bridge that connects Hawaii to the mainland US?
It wa a clash of empires. The US and Britain had Pacific empires & Japan wanted an Asian one.
How exactly did Japan acquire the status of a world power? Oh yes Commodore Perry with his gunboat diplomacy "opened" Japan to "trade" and vowed eternal friendship with the Japanese (i.e., "keep the goods coming or else!"), which, in keeping with the typical "friendships", established with the threat of bombardment by my country, eventually evokes retaliation. When the Japanese decided to emulate their invaders, naturally the latter took umbrage -- How DARE they?! WE were ATTACKED, fumfuhbarumphharumph!!
Pearl Harbor was the earliest "blowback".
All this "Hind Sight" by people that were not there makes me sick. You have your chance today to stop another slaughter/war and you think you can do it from a keyboard. Grow up . . . What will the "Hind Sight" of the future say of your efforts today? I am sorry I am so harsh but I was there and the decision was made 60 plus years ago. Are you who now condemn so rightous with your "Hind Sight" that you speak so harshly of that which you did not take part in? Where are you while the fighting is going on now and your fellow Americans are dying. Sitting at your keyboard saying naughty, naughty, you bad, bad boys. The bodies of the dead Americans are what allows you the privilage to say what you say. Have so respect . . . .
I know we are not supposed say anything bad about dead people. But I hope he rots in hell for killing so many innocent civilians.
And no, he was not a victim, as some have suggested. He was the perpetrator. But of course we have plenty of people, including here, who simply can not think beyond "support our troops". Oh well....
There are those who believe aggression is natural, or at the least an inevitable part of the human psyche, and by extension, society. I do not. Yet it appears as such since over the ages, so much antagonism has been fomented among next door neighbor nations, often on the basis of competition for specific assets.
PACPLYER: I, too, have felt the "law of war" or "rules of war" constitute an obvious oxymoron.
SNAFUBAR: I agree, that the responsibility and/or blame should be passed around.
REMERDYTH: I intended to make the point you did, that no sentient human being with any shred of morality or empathy could look at the result of his action and NOT feel shame and a great need for remorse.
He may have gone to sleep soundly like Bush, but that silence you hear are the lords of karma typing away, keeping a cosmic accounting.
Clarity: Interesting debate and points you have shared. Thank you.
Pathetic Mendo Chuck November 16th, 2007 6:40 pm... "...and your fellow Americans are dying..."
It's not about "just a few" Americans dying, the greater issue is the millions (yes millions) of innocent non-Americans that we, Americans, are killing. Pathetic Mendo, pathetic, how you can not see beyond your nose...
ANY AND ALL WARS ARE CRIMES.
Hence: anyone who plans a war, and any "soldier" who participates in such inhuman activities, is, per definition, a war-criminal.
Everybody is responsible for his/her own actions; thus: no "soldier" has the right to say: "They made me do it" (this in reference to dropping bombs; shooting and killing people in "the theaters of wars").
No scientist, who has two braincells working, has the right to say that he/she did not know the consequences of plutonium, nuclear, and: god forbid: "depleted" uranium research.
The most despiccable are, without the shadow of a doubt, the politicians, who use the scientists, and who send little Johnny and little Mary to the battlefields, for no other reason than to polish their own ego's.
On the other hand: if and when little Johnny and little Mary did not go in to the military, then they would never be sent to war.
Even so: if in the bloody military: those "soldiers" could still refuse to go to any slaughter-field.
Yes: the consequence of that could be:
imprisonment in a military lock-up; or having to leave the country (as so many have done during the Vietnam-"conflict").
So what!
Better than having the blood of heaven-knows-how-many innocents on one's hands...
In summation: everyone who even considers a war, is a war-criminal.
---
And this is for the person, who calls him/her-self "snafubar":
Dresden is, indeed, in Germany.
Rotterdam is one of the larger cities in The Netherlands.
The Port of Rotterdam is, to this day, the largest and busiest seaport in the world.
On 10 May 1940 the Germans bombed, literally, the heart out of Rotterdam.
If The Netherlands had not surrendered, then The Hague and Amsterdam would have been annihilated also.
The totally unnecessary fire-bombing on Dresden, Germany, occurred years later. This was done by the so-called allies.
And lest we forget the millions and millions and millions of Iraqi people killed since 1991.
And lest we forget the fact that "depleted" uranium will NEVER go away...
It seeps into the soil and into the waters...of ALL countries...
Go to websites where one can see photo's of totally misformed Iraqi babies...
Go to websites where one can see photo's of people who are still suffering from the aftermath of the nuclear bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
And cry rivers over all the crimes against humanity (read: WARS), committed in the name of....fill in your own blanks.
Only if and when every body on this planet begins to do soul-searching and sees his/her own inner light, and realizes that all of us are connected, only then WARS will cease to exist.
But THAT is a long way going, baby...
Thank You.
Ruth Benderall
whitepatches@verizon.net
Mundo Chuck,
"Are you who now condemn so rightous with your "Hind Sight" that you speak so harshly of that which you did not take part in?"
It isn't hindsight -- it's called History, something which many of my fellow countrymen believe exempts them and absolves them, because they don't like people analyzing their doings, or those of their fathers and grandfathers, with any sort of impartiality.
"The bodies of the dead Americans are what allows you the privilage to say what you say. Have so respect . "
The belief that the military bestows freedom on citizens is fascism, the thing that the dead soldiers were supposedly fighting against. It is not a PRIVILEGE granted by generals & armies, but a RIGHT, and anyone who spouts idiocies like "Freedom isn't free" or "You owe your freedom to me" can squrim & screech all they like.
By that logic, all of us owe our freedom to Stalin and to the millions of dead Soviet soldiers, yes?
I just went to Google and asked for surrendered German submarine U-234.
For any who are not closed minded, read it and you will find that German submarine, one of the largest Germany ever built, was carrying enough uranium-235 to Japan to build two atomic bombs. Japan was much closer to having the atomic bomb than most ever realized and planned on using them on American cities when the uranium was delivered and they finished constructing them.
The top secret information was not declassified until after the "cold war" with the Soviet Union ended.
Truman did not know if Japan had already recieved other shipments of uranium. There were no nuclear scientists on the sub, but the two Japenese passengers committed suicide when the sub surrendered to an American destroyer. Oppenheimer inspected the uranium cargo and was very disturbed by that ans the documents aboard which detaied how to have a chain reaction atomic bomb. President Truman was then advised of the seriousness of it all.
"Japan was much closer to having the atomic bomb than most ever realized and planned on using them on American cities when the uranium was delivered and they finished constructing them."
And do you think Americans would have surrendered meekly on the say so of the president's say so? Wouldn't they have fought like fanatics, to the last man, had the Japanese tried to invade after dropping nuclear weapons on two cities? 150 million Americans on a vast continent would have raised their arms and surrendered? What would the Russians -- who always are ignored in these little flagwaving symposia -- have done?
"Japan was much closer to having the atomic bomb than most ever realized and planned on using them on American cities when the uranium was delivered and they finished constructing them."
And so America, which ACTUALLY USED the bombs that had already been developed -- and was building more -- was morally justified because the Japanese were "closer" to having the bomb and planning to use them?
Idealism cannot overcome realism . . . .
Humans have had war since we began and in the end there will be those that will still kill for what they want and you have.
Humans are a failed experiment . . . When the wars over water, which have already started, ask then what will you do ask your neighbor for his water.
This war over oil is the least of our problems and wishing it wasn't so will not change that.
What the hell are you raving about, DICHTERFREUND?
The point is, Japan planned on having atomic bombs and using them on us. Truman decided he could not gamble that Japan didn't have them yet. Therefore he decided the best option was to use ours and he was convinced it would end the war and Japan would never be able to build them.
Would Americas have surrendered if Japan did use atomic bombs agaist us. Who knows, your goofy comments are just sheer speculation on your part, because it never happened. Your post remarks are stupid. Your history lesson on Perry is stupid also, Perry went to Japan in his gunboats, because the Japanese were holding shipwrecked sailors in prison and our government wanted Japan to have free trade with all, not just the Dutch and for them to stop killing and holding shipwrecked sailors in deplorable conditions just because they unfortunantly ended up on Japanese soil.
What an asinine article - "The Man Who Bombed Hiroshima". I'm pretty sure it was a group effort, ya twit.
You are getting smarter by the minute DICH. That's right Truman decided it was morally correct to use them before Japan used any they MAY have.
You wish to surmise? Surmise this. Suppose Japan had managed to have Atomic Bombs and we decided we wouldn't use ours for moral reasons. Then suppose Japan dropped one on San Francisco and one on New York, would we be morally correct then to use ours in an attempt to end the war? Please don't answer and show your incredible ignorance.
This was an insightful op-ed, but the author's history is incorrect.
It's an American historical myth that "Japan" wanted to retain its emperor after the war. Comparable to the UK, many Japanese considered and still consider the institution an anachronistic sham, and many progressive Japanese wanted to do away with a system that they considered undemocratic.
The emperor is not a popular figure among Japanese progressives, although he has spoken out for peace in Japan and reconciliation with Asian countries, sometimes in marked contrast to some of the leaders of Japan's one-party LDP (Liberal Democratic Party, which is neither liberal or democratic) which controlled Japan's politics since the American Occupation put them into power. The LDP has been rubber stamping US military policy in Japan, i.e. using Okinawa and the rest of Japan as US' East Asian military center, and footing most of the US military bill in Japan ever since.
Tak Fujitani's Splendid Monarchy: Power and Pageantry in Modern Japan, (University of California Press, 1996). Korean translation from Yeesan Press, 2003, http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/6689.html sets the record straight on the institution of the emperor in Japan:
"This book demonstrates that many of the symbols, beliefs and practices that 'the Japanese people take for granted' today date back no further than the Meiji Period (1868-1912). Indeed, at the time of the Meiji Restoration of 1868, most Japanese did not even know of the emperor's existence. . . . Splendid Monarchy is an exercise in remembering the invention of the Japanese imperial institution in modern times. . . . Fujitani's approach sheds light on concepts such as nationalism, modernity and the formation of national identity in Japan. . . . Although he does not offer any predictions about the future of the imperial institution, he ends enigmatically, pondering the emperor's ambiguous position today."--Japan Quarterly
That is not how the general public in Japan thought of their Emperor in 1945 SATYA. Their Emperor was devine, ___ a God. When he ordered them to surrender, ____ they obeyed, including the military, who would have never surrendered, ____ the war ended at his word.
Mr. Gregory should read Joh Toland's history
Mr. Gregory should read John Toland's history The Rising Sun and he will learn the position of the Japanese government at the last stages of the war. They were really defeated but would have continued to defend Japan even though it was hopeless. The US was preparing to invade, which I can verify, being a Naval boat officer in the Philippines just before the bomb was dropped. We were training Marines and Army and I have no doubt that many of them would have died. Hiroshima was indeed a tragedy but a necessary consequence of war.
jjpeter November 16th, 2007 5:14 pm
"Lets just pray and hope, that the horror of what an atomic bomb can inflict on people is not lost on the bush/cheney junta, as they sharpen their sabers for Iran."
This is the problem with comparing two separate moments in time. What was then was then, but bush/cheney are the emissaries of the problem this time around. And all they represent.
Sort of just sliding the ruler forward and making the same equations, leaves too many variables unaccounted for.
Kem Patrick,
You are, of course, correct. I did not mean the general public was against the institution of the emperor.
But there were progressives, many whom were jailed or even killed for dissenting before the war, during wartime, who did not support the institution.
After the war, many more Japanese people, who were disillusioned when they realized they had been deceived by their fascist government regarding the war, and much else (the so-called "divinity" of the emperor), and these Japanese people did not support the institution.
I will take a look at the Toland history if I can stomach it in the future. All I know about this time is what I learned from veterans who were in the Pacific war, including my uncle who was a Marine at Guadacanal. He was in a hospital in the Philippines and waiting for deployment to Japan, just as tedplant writes. It was so painful absorbing the pain of family friends and family as a child long after the war, that it's not a history I have been able to look at closely. I find every aspect horrifying, from Pearl Harbor, to every battle I know of, to the atomic bombings.
Ruth Benderall.....So well said..........................................."My friend, you and I shall remain strangers onto life, and unto one another, and each unto himself, until the day when you shall speak and I shall listen. Deeming your voice my own voice; and when I shall stand before you thinking myself standing before a mirror...Kahlil Gibran
How many of you writing were there? I to was sitting in Manila in the Philippines waiting to go on the invation of Japan and I can tell you that I would not be writing this post if President Truman hadn't dropped the bomb.So unless you have been in my position and know what you are talking about Shut Up.
Leo Zilard wrote the letter that Einstein signed, he was driven to the meeting by Teller ( father of the H bomb ). Bock was pilot of both the 2nd bombing run and the weather recce that 'fingered' Hiroshima; memory says him was later committed to an asylym.
I have heard 2 apocryphal stories; A) that Zilard was talking to a high Japenese diplomat after the war, when asked if the bombing had been necesssary the diplomat said "it took two".
2) rumors abounded in military circles in the 70's that the Russians had used 2 devices against China during their border spats. My instantaneous response was " the only use of atomic weapons was by the white man against the yellow man"
clyde paige:
I was there so shut up?
Wait a minute. I know there's some kind of syllogism here...
Kem Patrick
You sound like an apologist for American foreign policy, gloating in the rightness of American action.
You actually believe that US gunboat policy on Japan was to save ship-wrecked sailors!
Like the US-Vietnam war was really initiated by a hostile attack on the US navy,
like Afghanastan was invaded to find Bin Laden and save women from the Taliban,
like Iraq had to be attacked to save the US from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
Is it to protect your privilege or deal with guilt?
This is ridiculous. Why is Tibbets "the man who bombed Hiroshima"? Truman is the man who bombed Hiroshima. Blaming Tibbets is like blaming the assassin's bullet for the victim's death. Going after Tibbets is like going after the "bad apples" at Abu Graib.
Yes, Tibbets could have refused, but he was acting under compulsion, just like every other soldier. In wartime any one of them can be put in jail for refusing orders. The ones who refuse unjust orders are heroes, but the ones who who don't are victims, not criminals.
We hold people morally responsible for the foreseeable consequences of actions taken without compulsion. Tibbets was acting under compulsion and it is very unlikely he had the knowledge to foresee what would happen when he dropped that bomb. The fact that he rationalized it afterwards allows us to accuse him of being weak-minded and oh-so-human, but it does not make him any more or less guilty-- it simply is not germain. By contrast, Truman and others WERE in a position to know the consequences of the choices that they made.
Any country that's nuked by the US but then turns around and becomes an ally and a friend of its tormentor probably deserved it.
A couple of points to consider in this debate:
1. If they hadn't surrendered even after the bombings would it have been ok to continue using Nukes until surrender or complete annilation?
2. Assuming we did this to keep them or"the commies" from dominating us does anyone know who holds most of our debt and where most of our products come from? So in the long run did we really win considering that either Nation could sink us without firing a shot? hmmm...
it made model citizens of the Japanese. If it was not Tibbets somebody else would have done it. But Tibbets was greatful for being chosen.
Saila,
Vietnam is now on friendly terms with the US, so, by your logic, I guess the 4 million or so dead in Indochina at the hands of the US deserved it as well
DAND, you know me not at all. To equate the war with Japan and the subsequent use of the atomic bombs with any other war since that time in history is neither logical nor sensible. I have given my opinion based upon what is now known about the reasoning Truman had to use when he ordered the atomic bomb dropped.
If you disagree with that, it is your perogative and I would not condemn you for it. To state that I feel justified about what our government has done since then is just someone who is spewing crap off at the mouth. ___ So shove it.
As far as Perry is concerned, I am aware that high roller American busnessmen wished to have trade with Japan, which was an isolationist country and only allowed the Dutch to trade with them, and that is not fair trade. Perry also DID GO there to free the captives who were innocent sailors and did not deserve to be locked up till death in a foreign country where they had committed no crimes whatsoever. Wahtever happend then was not my doing BTW and if I were the President or the King, we would not have attacked Vietnam, or Iraq, or treated Fidel Castro like a criminal, etc. You can take your snotty remarks and tell it to someone to their face, but don't ever hope to tell it to mine.
JJPETER, you are correct, Major Sweeney did pilot Bock's car the day they dropped the second atomic bomb on Japan. Bock flew Sweeney's B-29 that day.
We don't know what would have happened if Japan hadn't surrendered after the second bomb. I personally do not believe Truman would have allowed another atomic bomb used, at least not for awhile. He didn't autorize the second one, Secretary of War Simpson did it behind his back.
I imagine fire bombing their cities would have continued and possibly even the Emperor's palace bombed. Eventually there would have been a land invasion and with MacArthur in charge, it would likely have occurred in two locations at the same time. We would have lost a lot of men and ships. It is posible another atomic bomb would have been used to clear a path for our invasion troops. We don't know and never will know, but we can surely imagine the war would have gone on for a long time and millions of Japanese would have been killed and the end result would have been far different that how it did turn out.
Interesting too, to consider the relationship between nuking Japan and what is generally considered to be the first documented downing of an extraterrestrial craft and capture of its occupants.
Word around town is that it is not uncommon for ET activity to become more pronounced after a sentient species uses nuclear weapons. The variety of species that are here now have - not surprisingly - a variety of agendas in this regard. Further details are available via disclosureproject.org and exopolitics.com.
Don't want to go there? I understand. Shakes things up a bit, I know. But, what did Helen Keller say? "Life is either a great adventure or it's a bust.
Something like that.
You could probably apply to this man the phrase Richard Boone made to Paul Newman in the movie, "Hombre" before the grand finale: "Now, friend,...what do you suppose HELL is gonna look like?"
Poweroflove, if you Google Robert Hasting Ufologist you will find some most interesting writings abut UFOs and nuckes. Hastings has spent his entire adult life, over 30 years, investigating UFO sightings near nuclear weapons storage areas and military bases where atomic weapons are placed on alert, such as ICBM sites. It is amazng who have reported such, even high rankng generals. Most have retired and are now coming out with UFO incidents they were witness to. Some are downright frightening, where ICBMs came within seconds of self launch and no one could stop it. They just stopped at the last moment by themselves and then at times the warheads were compromised and had to be shipped to a military overhaul depot. __ Very interesting.
This is to the person who identifies herself as Ruth Benderall.
I use the pen name "Snafubar" because so much of the world I am surrounded by is Situation Normal, all Fouled Up beyond Recognition. SNAFU originated in World War II, as well as FUBAR; I take credit for neither the expression or the reality of its message. I didn't make the world around me as such, nor am I responsible for it if I point it out. However, to ignore it as such would be delusional, which you seem to confirm by your comments. Therefore, I use the moniker Snafubar to illustrate that I am not such an optimist who could have found a way to blind myself to what I see.
You seem to be making the same point I am. I agree the civilian casualties are always unforgivable whether they come from an atomic weapon, an incendiary weapon, or a depleted uranium shell that will be causing damage far longer than the lives of those who built it, dropped it, or directed where it should be dropped.
I rage and rant on blogs in the hopes that somehow my internal angst might find it's way to the right channels, through the right people, and to affect some kind of external change. I could stand on a street corner with a banner and face a cop who merely wants to keep the rage to a minimum and get arrested or pepper-sprayed or tasered and accomplish as much. But since protests don't seem to be covered in the press anyway, and bloggers seem to tick off the people I want to reach, it seems to inspire more people if I use my brain and not my butt to make a statement.
I could do it in person at the place where I work and lose my job, or at the place I once went to school and get thrown out. That's not very productive either, so therefore I blog and leave comments where they are invited.
Regarding your correction of my mention of Rotterdam; I was not blaming any American pilot for bombing it. My comment came from the 12th episode of the Cosmos series by Carl Sagan when he remarked how the number of nuclear weapons we had amassed even in 1981 when that series was created was already enough to repeat the entire destruction of World War II "every minute for the length of a lazy Sunday afternoon"; illustrating the point that our side justified Dresden because it was in retaliation for what was done to Rotterdam, Coventry, and others.
Those cities all had stories like that of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, minus the radiation sickness. The devastation and the death were no less horrible to those who suffered it, and to compare numbers as if it is a balance sheet is to erase the fact that all were individuals who's suffering was their own regardless of how many others had similar stories.
The point that I believe you are also making is that we need not single out one side who destroyed another side, or what weapons they used, or what particular individual fired them. It's the destruction and killing that is wrong, not who flies the planes, or what bombs they used, or how many bombs it took to accomplish the job. That is why it seems so ludicrous to make Tibbets such a target for all this retroactive animosity. Hate the war, hate the statesmen who force us into it, but all soldiers are pawns.
Tibbets lack of remorse in my estimation is what he had to do in order to live with what he had done, and it was an entirely legitimate argument that he go ahead and fly the mission because the mission was going to be flown whether he was at the controls or not. He did not participate in the choice of the weapon, it's target, or it's consequences. Why is it so easy for those who blame Tibbets to forget that _no_one_ knew what effects this bomb would have on civilians when it was dropped, because none had ever been dropped on civilians before?
Tibbets could not have completed the mission by himself, so why don't we assail the navigator, too?
As I continue to say, Paul Tibbets was the one variable in this whole sad story that was utterly irrelevant to the horror and scale of the event.
Therefore, my rage is focused on the supposedly wise and noble 'statesman' who start wars and return fire, or as we have now discovered, start wars to prevent wars and call it 'pre-emption'. The responsibility of the destruction of the war lays in the hands of those who direct it far more than it does in the hands of those who participate in it. Any enlisted man or any officer of any branch of the military will tell you that they don't free-lance their missions or they are court-martialed. Similarly, if they do not obey a direct order their fate is the same.
It is hypocritical in my assessment to see soldiers as heroes when their mission is deemed noble and just by it's citizens; but as criminals if their mission is perceived as misguided and unjust. If people have such contempt and vitriol for Tibbets, I then understand how VietNam vets somehow earned the reputation as 'bad' soldiers for following their orders. Why then would we not slander and blame our returning Iraq and Afghanistan veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan with the same misguided angst; after all we agree this is an unjust war, right?
I hate this unforgivable war we are waging; but I don't blame the soldiers who signed up to defend a nation for the right reasons, who are sent on the wrong mission for the wrong reasons. Particularly when the Commander in Chief who sent them will never allow himself to bear the moral burden of the consequences of his orders on those who deliver them.
Tibbets rationalized his acts. I don't fault him for that. I wonder if he had come home from the mission and in remorse, blown his skull open with his own gun if it would have changed anything. I wonder if he had declined to go on the mission and faced court martial if this essay would have been written and the people who have posted comments here would simply be having the very same argument, just about a different man.
People were going to be killed in August of 1945; how many, by what method, and by whom is an utterly pointless discussion to be had, particularly in hind-sight when we have the luxury of knowing how it all turned out. It is shameful for us to do that, having no idea what alternatives could instead have been our history (and that of the Japanese) had Paul Tibbets not been the one to drop the first atomic bomb.
If we really want to shame this discussion to silence in a hurry, I have noticed that no one has pointed out that in the first week of August, 1945, the United States only had two atomic weapons. Had the Japanese not surrendered, there was no third bomb for any other city, and we have no way to know what invasion or destruction would have followed. Either way, this armchair, hindsight, second-guess analysis that we go through every year is absurd.
I hope we can give up on demonizing Tibbets; it's as useless as repeating how evil Saddam Hussein was. I would rather we have a discussion on how evil George W. Bush still is, and remember that the U.S. soldiers who shamed us all at Abu Ghraib (better still the commanders who ordered them to) and Hadditha and who knows what Blackwater has done would all be innocent men and women, home stateside working to keep their bills paid and their lawns mowed if the current president had not put them in the middle of this morass he calls the 'War on Terror".
The war is the terror.
charles shaw ,
A nuke is the ultimate weapon of indiscriminate mass destruction, whereas Viet Nam was a conventional war. Also, I did not say that people deserved to die. The hidden meaning in what I tried to convey was that a country should not reward the one that nukes it by extending friendship. If all those countries that have been wronged by the US had ostracized it, perhaps that would have taught the bully to be a benign power.
This same question should be asked of our air force pilots who bombed Baghdad, killing a lot more civilians than Tibbets did. Any regrets?