Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
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 AllI notice you did not list any of your posts where you were rude. I became somewhat rude after yours and others very rude remarks to me.
"So Which one is correct"? That is a good example of your perhaps strange reasoning, or perhaps problems with reading comprehension. Bear with me here, if you really do wish to continue this rather humerous debate.
Truman was quite certain Japan had a nuclear program, because of the uranium shipments from Germany to Japan, which he learned of on May 10, 1945. Really think of it with an open mind.
Suppose you are in Truman's place. You know about the Manhatten Project, you know America is attempting to develope atomic bombs. There are some serious problems with the project and none have been tested as yet. The Project is far behind the estimated schedule. Then on May 10th, you learn Germany is shipping uranium to Japan and Oppenhimer is very disturbed by it. He can see no reason for Germany to ship Uranium to Japan, unless the Germans could not enrich it and Japan had the means to do so. That makes a lot of sense, and if you read the reports of what did transpire, that is what was discussed at that time and of course it became top secret information.
Now, Truman knows that Japan has recieved other uranium shipnments prior to May of 1945, according to the German sub commander. How much more? Truman doesn't know. There is enough uranium on this shipment to develope two atomic bombs. So then as president, you ask yourself; have the Japanese developed an atomic bomb already, and if so how many? Or, have they managed to develope any at all? Those types of questions you would have been asking yourself, if you were the president. At least I hope you would have.
So, that was what I meant when I wrote my comment, combning those two questions in a single sentence. Sorry if it didn't make sense to you, but as I read it, that's what I said. Truman didn't know if Japan had managed to develop Atomic bombs, or if they were close to developing them. He had to act quickly before they could develop them, IF they had not already done so, may have been more understandable for you. I understood it and still do. Of course I realize that E-mails are often misunderstood, there is not eye contact, no manner of one asking right then, "What do you mean by that"? Then recieve an instant clarificaton response.
BTW. The man I used as a reference for that Japanese submersible aricraft carrier (which I was told was hair brained and idiotic) is Tom O paine. He was a scientist, an American Naval Officer who was one of the crew members who brought one of the Japanese I-400 subs to Hawaiii after the war ended. He stated in his report, that those subs were decades ahead of their time and were a menancing strategic threat. Truman was aware of those subs and then when he discovered the uranium shipments to Japan, he put the two together and began to worry about the potential threat in that regard.
Tom Paine later became the Director of NASA, he was the Director when the Apollo Missions to the moon were launched. He also wrote some reports on the Japanese military which are in the Library Of Congress and to this day are highly classified and available to NO ONE. His comprehensive document on the Japanese subs is in the Special Collection of the Nimitz Library at Annapolis and was required reading for all graduate cadets. Paine was also a nuclear scientist.
If you scroll up and read Anderson Coopers post, you may fnd it of interest also. Japan was much closer to having the atomic bomb than most ever realized. We are very fortunate the war ended when it did.
Those I-400 subs, could travel at twice the speed of any of ours, and do so submerged at a depth of 300 feet for 37,500 miles without having to refuel. The three bombers they carried were able to fly at over 300 knots airspeed and travel 1,200 miles with a full bomb load.
I wonder what may have transpired, if the war had gone on for several more months. Their nuclear facility was located in North Korea and we didn't have a clue of where it was until the war ended and we found out we had allowed the Russians to have it. Japan had been working on an atomic weapon there since the mid 1930s. I'm done guys, sorry for the ude remarks too. Forgive me, I'm human.
Well, you've certainly done a lot of research on this subject. And it's interesting to see how the message topics started on the comparison of loss of life due to the atomic bombs versus loss of life due to an invasion. And then whether or not an invasion was needed to end the war. Now the topic is analogous to the four decades of Cold War: What to do with nuclear weapons.
We and the Soviets both had nuclear weapons (and each knew about the other's possession of nuclear weapons), but we didn't use them on each other. We came close, but we didn't use them. We didn't use them because we liked each other. We didn't use them because we knew whoever used them first would be hit by the other guy's retaliation.
If your investigation of this matter (Japan's atomic research) is correct, it leads to a problem for Truman.
Now here's Truman's problem: He knows Japan is doing atomic research. He knows the Germans had been doing atomic research. He knows some nuclear material has got from Germany to Japan, but he can't ascertain the Japanese progress on the developement of a workable bomb. So what can he do?
1. If he drops the atomic bomb on them and they have one, they'll drop their bomb on us.
2. If he doesn't drop the atomic bomb on them, and they have one, will they drop it on us? Difficult to predict. But you'd figure they would have learned after nearly four of war with us that an atomic attack would be responded to.
3. His third option is to end the war as quickly as possible to get Japan out of the atomic bomb developement process. And in case they have the atomic bomb already, to end the war before they get a chance to use it. (either as a first strike or retaliation). This would entail ( after reading their diplomatic messages) specifically telling them the Emperor would be safe.
He did have a similar problem in the Korean War: Should he use atomic weapons on China when they invaded Korea? He didn't because he knew it would bring nuclear retaliation from the Russians. So is it possible that Truman in 1945 would have avoided dropping the atomic bomb, because of the possibility of a Japanese atomic retaliation?
Now, this is off the subject, but the German business bothers me. so indulge me for a minute.
Germany was on the ropes after January 1945, on their Eastern front and Western front. So if they had enough nuclear material to make an atomic bomb or a radio-active dirty bomb, why didn't they? Why send it off to an ally who appeared ready to lose anyway? Or if they don't lose they might decide they should be the "senior partner" and the Germans could be the "junior partner". Why didn't they send diplomatic messages to London and Washington, and Moscow and threaten them with it if they don't let them [Germany] off the hook? or even after they lost the war, there were still enough fanatically evil men around to carry the nuclear material into London or Paris and blow it up?
Amazed this topic is still on, Kem's right with most of his posts and information about the a/c submarines. I'm amazed that he's missed the information about the Japanese military's program to build an atomic bomb. Google Japan atomic bomb and Hungnam, then read about how they too were trying (some say that they succeeded at) to build and deploy a bomb.
The surrender of Japan was unconditional, their emperor was reduced from the status of a living god to a constitutional monarch. You can certainly ask the Japanese why they would want to keep a king when a president would have been the choice of the west, but those of who have a Queen argue that the cost of a monarch is less than that of a president. She's easier on the eyes and has no real power, would that we could say that about the current occupant of the whitehouse...
I never served on a bomber but I did see a few movies. I know the bombardier drops the bombs and not the pilot. And since the war did not end until after Nagasaki was bombed on Aug 9th.The second mission actually ended the war. I don't know who dropped the bomb on the 9th but I do know who flew the plane and the name of the plane, but I'm not telling because I don't want his name dragged through the mud on CD by some pacifist who did not have a relative in WWII.
Well guys, I thought I had mentioned Japan's endeavors to have atomic weapons. They were working on it long before we were. Truman was unaware of that until May of 1945. As far as I can determine, he was unaware of their nuclear facilities in North Korea, even after the war ended. Had he been aware of that, I am pretty sure Russia would not have been allowed to have control of North Korea and divide the country. That dumb decision was a disaster anyway as it turned out. We are still officially at war, or in a "police action" with North Korea, the truce there has been in effect since early 1954. We'll likely never know how close Japan was to having atomc weapons, because the Russians took over their program immediately after the Japanese surrender.
This BTW was one of the subjects I taught at the Air Force Academy in 1957-8. I was cleared top secret then and had the information on the German Sub U-234. I didn't know about the nuclear facility the Japanese had in Korea then. We could only presume that Japan did have the means to enrich uranium, and Germany had not been able to do that in 1945. That's why they sent their uranium to Japan. ( I do believe I said the uranium shipped was enriched and I mis-typed if I did. It was not enriched. What did bother Truman and his associates who were in the loop was, evidently Japan could enrich uranium, or it would not have made much sense for Germany to ship uranium to them. We always thought Japan had their facility hidden in caves in Japan and we never found it. I am not aware of when we did learn the truths of the Korean facility.
Good questions Dougeaston. Germany did not have atomc weapons and were not close to having them. The British had destroyed their 'heavy water' plant in the Netherlands, in I believe, 1943 or 4 with an air attack, using Mosquito fighter bombers and a guerilla mission of some very brave men.
As to why didn't Germany threaten England or us with a dirty nuclear bomb? I dunno why, they could have I suppose. Maybe they did and that is still classified information? There are many things that hapened during those years that are still not available to anyone, just like Hanger 18 at Wright Patterson AFB.
Some of Tom Paine's personel writings in The Library of Congress are srill availabe to "no one". He was in the loop just after the war. What did he actually discover on that surrendered Japanese I-400 submarine? He was a nuclear scientist, among many other things. Were the Japanese actually taking nuclear weapons to bomb us and the cover story is they were heading to bomb the Panama canal with conventional bombs? __ Maybe? Our government was super duper secret when atomic weapons were the issue. If that was the case, we came very very close to having an atomic bomb, or perhaps three or more dropped on our cities. That sub was half way across the Pacific when Japan surrendered. The sub commander committed suicide when he was ordered to surface and surrender, there were over two hundred men on that sub and the normal crew number was about 160.
Why 200+?
Truman had little choice, it didn't matter if Japan did have them or not. If we used ours and feared because of that they would use theirs, may have been an issue of discussion. If we didn't use ours and they did have them, they could have wreaked havoc on our landing fleet. One of my beliefs is, Japan did have some, and were waiting for us to invade their homeland and use them on our invasion fleet. Then we used our two and so they feared there would be no invasion and decided to instead send that I-400 sub to bomb our cities on our West Coast. That would have been one of the reasons their militay officers were so adament in efforts to prevent their Emperor from broadcasting the surrender. They damn near succeeded there too.
As in our government and military, likely few of the Japanese militay officers were aware of their atomic program. Maybe their Emperor was unaware of it? That is not impossible, those militay officers didn't all regard him as a GOD. There is a lot of guessing and supposition here, and of course due to not having all of the still secret documents, guessing is all we can do. That's the dilema Truman was in also. He decided to use the bomb and if he ever had any fears or reservation about it, he never ever said so.
He refused to use them during the Korean conflict and MacArthur wanted to use them. Funny, he spoke out against them after we used them on Japan. He wanted a land invasion, that's what he was trained to do. He was a superb tactician, historian, and leader, a true egotistical prick of a general and made few mistakes. He hated Truman for using the atomic bomb as did Eisenhour and Curtis LeMay. It ruined their "glory".
Well, guess I've really sounded off here, it had been a very interesting debate and mostly fun and I learned a lot. Which is why we should be here. Again, I am truly sorry for some of my crude remarks to some, ___ I apologize. There are a couple way back there though, who can kiss my ass. Not you or Tony BTW.
Too late BRIAN. Someone alresdy posted it way back there. The B-29 was named Bocks Car. It's at the aircraft museum at Wright Patterson AFB, Ohio. Captain Bock did not fly it that day however. I won't mention the pilot's name, since you wish it not to be.
http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/jp-hung.htm
Japan's nuclear bomb project during WW 2.
Why is the U.S. WMD use circa WWII so visible in comparison to Imperial Japan's?
The germ warfare and other efforts that came of places like Unit 731, officially known by the Imperial Japanese Army as the Kempeitai Political Department and Epidemic Prevention Research Laboratory, was said by one source (Wikki) to have slain upwards of 400,000 Chinese. This does not include experimental subjects killed in the course of "research" conducted by the various units. Compare 400,000 to the entire population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined - roughly 450,000 or so. While the detonation of two atomic bombs is much more dramatic than the works of Unit 731 and her sister facilities, why has there been so little publicity about Imperial Japan's own WMD program?
As a final note, this post is not intended to condemn or condone the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but only to ask everyone to consider that this act by the so-called victor receives much more attention than the similar actions of the nation they did it to...