Was your daddy warning you for some good reason JAKE? You get caught wrestling with the pigs?

I just don't get it, I must be really stupid, or really informed, to believe Truman was correct. I based that belief upon what Truman was fully aware of in May of 1945, when the cargo of that German submarine was discovered to be enriched uranium, and its destination was Japan prior to its surrender and it was not the first shipment of uranium to Japan. How close were the Japanese to having an atomic bomb? Truman did not know the answer to that most important question. Knowing what was self evident, and also knowing that Japan had the means and the will to bomb any city in the United states, with either a dirty radio-active bomb, or an atomic bomb, he was determined to do ALL he could to end the war before Japan could indeed accomplish that.

Writing that here on this site, and giving internet links to truthful data on the subject, of how Japan could have bombed us with atomic weapons, I was told that I was a fool, a liar, an idiot and a war monger, a despicible person who had no moral character, etc. In so many words that is what I was told I am.

Now some wizard, tells me to get a Job, and if I reply in a somewaht nasty manner, I prove that I'm an asshole. Right? Okay, I'm a retired disabled vet of 72 years of age, legally blind, one who worked all of my life, helped raise my four children and l love my wife of 52 years, people, kids, and the Earth. I'm one of those who is termed an inviromentalist, who cannot spell well and really doesn't care about my poor spelling or grammer usage.

I do care about our Earth and what we are leaving for the coming children of this world. I also at times blog onto a thread such as this, as it is a learning experience and I enjoy it. I don't enjoy the stupidiy of any who say I'm an idiot for my beliefs, which are based upon facts I happen to trust. So therefore Titty-Tatty you and this recent blogger BOB Q DOBBS can go f^^k yourselves. And I will end with,__ any who have not taken the time to check out the facts I presented before slamming me for my opinions are incrediblly ignorant people. I also really don't care what any of you who mayfall into that catagory may think of me, and am certain you likely feel the same in that regard about my opinions of you. ___ Bye.

He is a (dead) war criminal.

A recent viewing of Ken Burns documentary called The War, illustrated what this country was dealing with in fighting the Japanese. The momentum was already there, after the massive casualties being inflicted on both sides in the retaking of the Pacific Islands. A momentum that came to a head on that day in August of 1945.

Truman hated the "Japs", and frankly, they were nuts, fanatical, suicidal, and the prospect of invading the main Japanese Island was harrowing, and certain to be a catastrophic for both sides. I can see what went into the decision to unleash the nuclear era on the last remaining Axis power. I don't condone it, but that cat was released from the bag 62 years ago, no getting her back now.

But in the larger question posed by Mr. Gregory, are individuals soldiers responsible for the decisions made by their superiors, to carry out what amounts to war crimes against humanity. It depends; whether those individuals are on the side that won, or the side that lost.

Isn't that how history judges its heros and anti-heros?

The scientists are responsible too.

Neither the Us nor Hitler could have built a bomb with janitors.

I can just picture some dumb scientist working on a math problem and going: hey! If you add this and subtract that you can create a formula for a big explosion. Neat stuff.

And then some military guy overhears it.

Many scientists, it seems--are moral infants.

When Da Vinci was designing plans for a submarine he said he would keep it secret because he feared people would use it to assassinate people at the bottom of the ocean.

Sadly, scientists dont have that kind of moral understanding.

I am just surprised Tibbets wasnt harassed.

I thought the pilot of the second bomber to drop an atomic bomb on Japan Was Captain Bock. His aircraft was named Bock's Car. There was a picture of a railroad boxcar flying in the clouds painted on the forward side of the B-29. That aircraft was on the ramp at Davis Monthan AFB for many years after the war ended and then flown to the Wright Patterson AFB museum. General Sweeney commanded SAC once, but I didn't know he was the pilot of Bock's Car.

I'm sorry but I have no sympathy for the man who bombed Hiroshima. He had a lifetime to understand his actions and their consequences. That he couldn't come to the realization that what he did was horrible shows how brainwashed he was.
Hoa binh

I believe the socratic question was once posed to the group something on the nature of who would throw a stone first.

kelmer,

Do you work for the Bush administration? If not, maybe you should look into it, because they would admire your anti-science outlook.

I thought virtually every educated US adult was aware that Einstein, at the urging of fellow physicists, wrote (it is generally thought he did not actually write the letter, but agreed with it and signed it) to Roosevelt, explaining the potential for such a weapon and that the Nazis were ahead in the science and technology for producing such a weapon. And that led to the Manhattan Project, under the command of General Groves, with Oppenheimer leading the research in Los Alamos that produced the bomb.

Without science, there is only the Hobbesian world where life is "nasty, brutish, and short." Science is simply the best means yet developed by humans to produce reliable and useful knowledge, and that knowledge provides humans with great power. It is in the exercise of that power that we find virtue or vice.

The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were plainly evil, but were they an unnecessary evil? I'm not sure that Anthony Gregory, in his generally intelligent article, has made the case. As with most arguments against the bomb, Mr. Gregory's hangs on the idea that the Japanese would have surrendered without being nuked. Perhaps. Certainly there is a case to be made. But if Japan had been on the brink of surrender, why did it not do so after Hiroshima was annihilated on Aug. 6, 1945? In the crucial days of Aug. 7, 8, and (the early morning of Aug.) 9, Japan appears to have taken very few, if any, steps to submit to the unconditional surrender rightly demanded by the Allies. Japan's leaders apparently still hoped for a conditional surrender that called not merely for the preservation of the emperor, as Mr. Gregory states, but for the far more important terms of not being occupied by the Allies and permission to punish (or not) its own war criminals. For the Allies, this would have been a fool's armistice. Even after the USSR made plain its intention to invade Japan--and did so on the very early morning of Aug. 9--still Japan did not surrender. Instead, by several accounts Japan's leaders took steps to impose martial law to keep its citizens from "weakening." Japan did not finally yield until after the bombing of Nagasaki on Aug. 9.

I claim no expertise on the A-bomb. I admit getting my information from the Web and other secondhand sources. But had I been an Allied soldier poised in 1945 to invade the home islands of Japan with its kamikazes and fanatical legions of soldiers, I would not think myself immoral--even admitting that the bombs were meant in no small part to impress the USSR with America's military might, etc.--for saying, as Paul Fussell did in his moving essay, "Thank God for the Atom Bomb." I would not be able to claim, as did bombardier Col. Tibbets, that I slept easily every night after killing 150,000 or more people. But I do not believe my unease would lessen my conviction that bombings were quite probably the right, if despicable, choice.

SEEDEEVEE, if Paul Tibbetts is a dead war criminal, are all of the flight crews of American aircraft, who fought in World War 2 and dropped bombs on cities in Europe and Japan war criminals also? Or is killing with atomic bombs a war crime, where just using, napalm, fire bombing and conventional munitions legally acceptable? How about cannon shells, rockets, mortars, machine guns, rifles, bayonetts, hand grenades, knives and bare hands, if any killed with those weapons, are they also war criminals, ___ dead or alive? ___ Just wondered.

Truly the Atomic bomb attacks were acts of terrorism by the United States. In fact, they remain as the two biggest terrorist attacks of all time.
It isn't right to blame Mr. Tibbets for the attack on Hiroshima. He did not design the atomic bomb. He did not choose the target. It is unlikely that even knew the capabilities of the weapon. He followed his orders and carried out his assignment as a soldier. It's at that point where Mr. Tibbets mental illness becomes apparant.
When he saw what happened and when he read the casualty reports, he bragged about being the one to carry out the attack. He never expressed any regret and even stated he would "Do it again". This is evidence that Mr. Tibbet's was psychologically deranged.
The sad part is that he never received the mental health counseling that he needed.
A soldier that carries out his orders to attack a target is doing his job. When he expresses regret about it he's human. When he brags about it he's a war criminal.

The Nuremberg Trails made plain that "just following orders" can be no defence. They require people, as individuals, to follow their consciences. Most lack the moral courage - in the case of Tibbetts he seems to have felt no qualms (though to claim that he was insulted by attempts to depict the suffering of his victims suggests otherwise. What was being suppressed and twisted here?). That makes him as guilty of the crime as those who enabled it. There is no difference between him and the criminals who conduct torture or the soldiers who massacre civilians (again without committing a crime in the eyes of their country). He offers a frightening insight into the sheer inhumanity of man. A condition that seems to afflict a majority of us.

The man believed he was doing the right thing, and did until he died. He did not "plan" the drop, but was the pilot of the plane executing it. He and most other WWII vets believe the bomb was necessary in order to bring the Pacific war to a rapid conclusion. This article gratuiously slanders a military professional that is not as "enlightened" as the author, and makes progressives sound shrill and vindictive.

WWII ushered in a new dynamic to post-war relations; the war crimes trial. Prior to that war the winner exacted victor's justice; just like the usa did in Iraq, hang the losers. In WWI, some of the U-boat captains were hanged for crimes against the laws of the sea. After WWII the brits wanted to do that again, the yanks stopped them with the arguement that what the Germans tried to do to the Brits, the yanks did to the Japs...

I still think that using the bomb was a necessary evil, its use during that August made sure that we cannot deny that those things are capable of causing our extinction. I think that had the states not used the bomb on Hiroshima, the USSR and the USA would have had a nuclear exchange in 1962. None of us would be talking about anything if that had happened.

So, what to say about Tibbets??? He followed orders, had no remorse, he did what he considered to be his duty. As others did during that war. At least he didn't kill as many people as Eichman did...

The author of this article fails to mention other important facts that led to the decision of using the atomic bombs.

When Germany surrendered, one of their submarines in-route to Japan surrendered and was escorted to an eastern U.S. port. The sub was carrying technical data and materials for making atomic bombs. It was not the first shipment of such that Germany had shipped to Japan, ___ it was the last.

President Truman was aware of those shipments and was also aware, that in spite of being badly beaten, the Japanese had managed to build at least three gigantic submersible aircraft carriers, the largest submarines that have ever been built. What was the purpose of those? Truman could only guess.

When Japan surrendered, one of those subs was at sea, their mssion was to bomb the Panama Canal. How close was Japan to having atomic bombs? ___ Truman didn't know, ___ all he knew for certain, that it was a possibility that Japan may have them at any time in the future and would surely use them on any invasion fleet and or American cities if they did have them.

Japan was not close to having atomic bombs as it turned out, but that was not known by Truman on Dec 6, 1945. So, what should Truman have done under the circumstances? Japan had not asked for a truce, or a cease fire, in order to have surrender negotiations. They had that option. The Japanese military commanders would have NEVER surrendered. During the final minutes when their Emperor was about to broadcast the surrender to the citizens of Japan, army officers were attempting to stop him and place him under house arrest.

Was Paul Tibbets wrong to command the special operatins squadron, to pilot the B-29 that dropped the first atomc bomb on Japan? We hear a lot about Tibbets, but what about the second bomb, the plutonium model which was dropped by ______ ? I seriously doubt there were any American pilots who would have refused to pilot the Enola Gay on that fateful mission.

Was Japan going to surrneder? We'll never know, many have made educated and uneducated guesses on the subject, monday morning quarterbacking is an art form. All we are positive of is, after the second Atomic bomb was used, Japan surrendered and the killing stopped. Had we invaded Japan, there would have been millions of deaths on each side, and many more fire bombings of Japanese cities. The Japenese people did not know how to spell the word surrender. Eisenhour and MacArthur hated the atomic Bomb and Truman for using it. It wasn't the manner West Pointers fought war. ___ It wasn't noble.

Kivals,

Do you live on planet earth, or in some sort of pollyannaish bizarre-o world? Do you honestly believe that:

"Without science, there is only the Hobbesian world where life is "nasty, brutish, and short"

First off, define "science". Assuming you mean "science" to be the Baconian-Newtonian standard that developed in 16th Century Europe, you are relegated must of human history and most non-Western societies to the Hobbesian state-of-nature.
I consider that demeaning, self-serving, ethnocentric, and just plain silly.

"Science is simply the best means yet developed by humans to produce reliable and useful knowledge"

Qualify that, please. Define "useful" and "reliable". My guess you're invoking science as instrumental. It is "reliable" in that it is utilitarian; it provides predictable answers and solutions to the problems it poses. I agree there. But that hardly makes it the "best means to produce reliable knowledge" It makes it a good means to solve problems within its own conceptual framework, nothing more, nothing else.

"Do you work for the Bush administration? If not, maybe you should look into it, because they would admire your anti-science outlook"

Do you work for the Bush administration, Kivals? You should consider it. Your simple-minded sloganeering is precisely the type of tactics the Bushies employ so effectively"

Kelmer was criticizing scientists, not science per se. Your reaction is emblematic of a rigid, narrow-minded fundamentalist, who goes into hyper-defense mode whenever he senses any threat to his creed.

Science is science; it should not be romanticized or elevated any more than any other epistemological framework. It is sometimes appropriate and wonderful for humanity and sometimes a great threat to humanity. And, contrary to Kivals' simplistic assumption that science is corrupted by evildoers, the practice of science itself can be intrinsically evil, depending on what, specifically is being practiced. That is why it should be treated with caution and skepticism as well as respect and appreciation.

"I think that had the states not used the bomb on Hiroshima, the USSR and the USA would have had a nuclear exchange in 1962. None of us would be talking about anything if that had happened."

Incinerating the odd hundred thousand (and poisoning many more) with radiation bombs was moral because it prevented a later exchange of nuclear weapons??

Very very odd moral calculus.

Ken Burns documentary isn't bad propaganda, it is shallow enough, and it is in part a romantic look back. This secured the corporate funding necessary to assemble and air the piece on PBS.
Any college student, perhaps in his/her first Philosophy course, armed with enough information about WWII would come to the conclusion that horrific genocide is always within reach, always validated, frequently insulated with some faith based lower brain idiocy: "it was the right thing to do".
No litmus test is needed for a Tibbets, a soldier who was doing what he was told, any efficient killer doesn't consider their mark as an individual. Blowing someone's head off in Fallujah or holding onto the controls of a 767.
Cynical as the evidence is, that our society has become more aggressive, less tolerant, more inhumane, we should get ready for more.
We've superseded the nuclear toll in Japan with our 'conventional' weaponry in the Middle East.

Did Japan ever invade or bomb, or intend to invade or bomb, the United States?

Yes, they bombed a US military base on it's dubiously acquired colony of Hawaii - but did they actually have any kind of imperialist ambitions on the US?

THE LORAX, first you state that Tibbets was mentally unstable, he needed help. Guess you must be a doctor to offer such opinions. Then you state that due to his mental illness, he was a war criminal. As his legal advisor, what defense would you use at his trial?

For any to brag about killing another human in any manner is despicible, perhaps some do so, to help them maintain their sanity. That is, ___ if they are sane.

Anyone seriously interested in the topic of the Atomic Bombings need only read "The Decision to Use The Atomic Bomb--the Architecture of an American Myth" by University of Martyland Professor Gar Alperovitz. This definitive work proves conclusively that there was no military necessity to drop the bombs on Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The Emperor was ready to surrender and Japan no longer posed a threat. Because we had broken the Japanese Code we knew this to be the case. What the whole porject was was an experiment to see if the bombs worked, the victioms were human giunea pigs. The bombings will forever remain a stain on the honor of the United States.

well expounded Kem Patrick!

looks like I'll have to wait another day to disagree with you.

This whole idea of re examining the past and whether it was right or wrong, or whatever, is almost like trying to compare sports stars from differing generations. It's not entirely rational.

First, you have to admit that our ideas about certain subjects have gone through several metamorphoses in the past 60 odd years. We are only chatting here because of the past, both for good and ill.

Also, the "invasion with a million casualties" rationale is known to have been a years-later, post-hoc, fabricated rationale. No such invasion was being contemplated in 1945.

The actual plan in July/Ausust of 1945 was simply too maintain a seige, while allowing Russia to pursue their war plans on Japan until desired surrender terms were obtained.

Truman pushed the Bomb, for reasons that were hard to fathom by the likes of Eisenhower and McArthur. But, I sure can think of one obvious one - those many thousands died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki solely so Truman could send a message to the Russians...

Considering that the bombings of Japan were about as justified as Bush's were for the invasion of Iraq and Afghansitan, I remain stunned by the pro-bomb opinions on this site. Your US exceptionalism mythology runs deep.

PJD, have you ever heard of Wake Island?

Japan invaded that territory of the United States right after their attack on Pearl Harbor. Wake Island was a refueling airfield for Pan American Airlines. It was also a resort island, we also had begun building a military airstrip there in the event Japan did start a war with us. Japan also attacked us in Alaska. Japan also fire bombed us with thousands of high altitude balloon bombs, which fortunantly were used during our rainy season and did little damage. I do believe Japan started the war with us and what their eventual intention were is not perfecvtly clear.

"The actual plan in July/Ausust of 1945 was simply too maintain a seige,"

You don't think there were multiple plans? For every war or battle fought, there are plans for a dozen not fought.

The real purpose of dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was as a warning to the Soviet Union by the emerging National Security State. Period.

Kem Patrick,

"When Germany surrendered, one of their submarines in-route to Japan surrendered and was escorted to an eastern U.S. port. The sub was carrying technical data and materials for making atomic bombs. It was not the first shipment of such that Germany had shipped to Japan, ___ it was the last."

This is the first I've been made aware of this. Would you mind citing your source? If Germany was sending plans for a nuclear weapon to Japan then one might assume Germany would have built a bomb, but if they did, they never used it, or they did attempt to use it and it was a dud.

Kent Shaw

Who was the man who salvoed the first atomic bomb? ___ An obvious war "criminal".

How about the geniuses who developed the bomb? This is just one example of how bright they were. When they tested the first one at the Trinity site, they were making bets with one another as to how good or bad it may be. Some were of the belief it might ignite our atmosphere and kill all life on the planet. A couple of them wondered if it may trigger an atomic chain reaction and destroy the entire universe. Did that stop them? ___ Of course not, it was science at its best.

PETER202, any decent writer can take the first chapter and the last of a story or event, fill in the meat of the story with guesses, opinions, or whatever his or her imagination wishes. The fact is, the Japanese military were not about to surrender, they didn't give a rip what their diplomats or embassy staffs were thinking, saying or attempting.

President Truman did not know if the Japanese were as close as we were to having the atomic bomb. ___ He chose not to gamble on the prospect and authorized the use of the first atomic bomb on Japan. It is and was a damn shame, the shame belongs with the Japanese for wishing to become a super power and invading Manchuria, China and then us.

Kem Patrick
Is that me you're referring to? When Truman, Churchill, and Stalin met at Potsdam, it was perfectly clear that Stalin knew about the atomic bomb. After all, why wouldn't he? He had more or less twenty agents who had infiltrated both the Manhattan Project and Los Alamos. The purpose of bombing the Japanese people, who had been ceaselessly portayed in U.S. propaganda as bucktoothed, sadistic "Nips", is clear. No one would care and the Soviets would be very careful about expanding their own ambitions. Got it?

"War is Hell"

Dichterfreund, I did call the bomb evil. Still think that it has no real use other than to exterminate all of humanity. The damn weapons are nothing more than a damoclean sword at all of our throats. By using it back in 45 we know what will happen to us if we use it again. Just like if we try to kill all 'brand X' humans we know the moral price of that act too. There have been many holocausts in the history of 'civilized' humanity, none has ever killed off all of the targeted humans, should any nation state decide to use nukes to rid the world of 'brand X' it's very likely that we all will die.

Hi Kent, that German submarine case was top secret until, I understand about the 1970s. The entire story can be found on the internet, but for the moment I do not have the link. Can anyone here help on that? Germany was not close to developing the atomic bomb, neither was Japan. But our intelligence agencies and President Truman only knew Japan was attempting to develop one. The cargo of the sub was enriched uranium and reams of scientific data on building an atomic bomb. I believe some German scientists were also aboard, but am not positive of that. At that time the atomic bomb was ultra secret, Even Truman was not aware of the Manhatten Project until after Roosevelt died.

At that time n history, we were very concerned with the technical advantages Germany had over everyone, their state of the art jet aircraft, the V-1 and V-2 rockets, rocket powered aircraft that were impossible to track with antiaircraft fire. Truman didn't know what else they may have developed or were on the verge of developing and now they were shipping such secrets and materials to Japan. ___ What to do?

I would surmise that Truman did not discuss the issue of the German sub's cargo with very many and likely could not do so. How would he know where the Japanese were on their project? He couldn't take the chance they had succeeded as we had, or were close to having them. We has not even tested one when that German sub surrendered and the captain also imformed our intelligence people that it was not the first such shipment. One can easily imagine the worry and secrecy of it at that time and time was of the essence.

Common Dreams is my home page; I enjoy the points of view I see reflected here and the analysis and opinions presented. But this is the second essay demonizing Tibbets, and I am growing uneasy with this mentality that the one man who had his hand on one release mechanism to drop one bomb deserves so much scorn and contempt. There were millions killed by other means, and somehow we don't see essays criticizing the members of the military who pulled the trigger on those weapons.

In this essay, you even make the point I have myself made, and then you don't make the next logical step:

(Japan was) "demoralized from having dozens of cities obliterated in fire bombings". Why is there not an essay assailing the hundreds of pilots who conducted those bombing raids? You say of the vitims of Hiroshima: "Many died painful deaths over a period of days or weeks. Others saw family members consumed by flames." The same can be said for Dresden and Rotterdam in Germany; shouldn't the pilots who conducted those bombing runs also deserve your contempt?

People will die in horrible ways, and the tragedies of those who suffered and those who witnessed the suffering will be legion. Always. These were the realities of the war, period. And until I see essays listing by name and quoting the remarks of the interviews and lack of remorse by any of those other bomber pilots, I will continue to question this continuing demonization of Tibbets.

That one man and one bomb is easier to focus your rage on than a thousand pilots and a million bombs is understandable; however that is the same misguided rage that allowed Bush to believe that capturing and killing one man - Saddamn Hussein - would justify all the other misery and misbegotten gains we have accomplished in Iraq since 2003. Therefore, I say to you who write these essays that in a day and time when we have 160,000 other soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in a combat theater, also engaged in a war that will be second guessed and demonized for time immmortal, leave the soldiers alone.

Someone was going to drop that bomb, whether it was Tibbets or whatever pilot raised his hand if Tibbets had declined is utterly irrelevant. Save your rage and your derision and focus your energy on the "statesmen" who start the wars, and spend decades shaming them to express remorse; but do not question the integrity of those soldiers who volunteered or were recruited to defend their country and who then were obligated to follow orders under threat of a court martial if they didn't.

Let's focus our efforts on shaming those who start and perpetuate wars; whether Tibbets one act ended one war is irrelevant to how many will die if we can't stop the next one.

By the way - - does anyone even know the name of the person who dropped the OTHER bomb on Nagasaki?

I have trouble thinking that Trumans thought in such purely strategic terms. US Presidents - since Mckinley anyway, always think, first and foremst, how to expand US imperial power.

And yes, I was going to mention Wake Island, but couldn't recall the name. And, how did the US aquire this island? I guess it was uninhabited except for a few "savages" like Virginia or Massachusetts was...

Much of the above is fanciful Monday Morning Strategy, long after the game is over.

As a WWII vet of the 8th AF, and flew 35 missions during which I probably committed what would now be called "war crimes" by those who weren't even alive then. So be it.

I can assure you, there was not a soldier, sailor or airman in early 1945 that doubted the US would be invading the Japanese home islands. My brother was on Midway Island on 12-7-41, and my sister at Pearl Harbor that day. The Japs sure as hell invaded and attacked the US.

The world is full of shoulda, woulda, coulda, but where are they when the decisions must be made?

Kem Patrick,

"The entire story can be found on the internet, but for the moment I do not have the link."

Don't worry about it, I'll google it. I have read previously about the Japanese super-subs but didn't know one had actually been operational.

Kent

No, no one lived on Wake Island PJD, it was just another small atoll in the Pacific. I believe Pan American had a lease on it and gave our government permission to build another runway for military aircraft in the spring of 1941. Good to see you know how Presidents think, you could probably get a job advising them, hear the pay is good.

"War is Hell"

W.T. Sherman actually said:

War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it will be over.

Well for certain the war in Vietnam was cruel JAKE, as is this insane war we had with and the current occupation of Iraq. BTW, we have used far more atomic radiation poison with DU bombs and ammunition in the Mid-East than we ever used on Japan. Every person over there will eventulally die of radiation poisoning, including any militay or civilians.

Is that a fact PURVIS? Of course not, it's the opinion of those who wish to sell a book.

snafubar {quote}: "Therefore, I say to you who write these essays that in a day and time when we have 160,000 other soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in a combat theater, also engaged in a war that will be second guessed and demonized for time immmortal, leave the soldiers alone."

I most moments, I agree with you. A dear friend is a WWII vet who served in the Pacific. He proudly displays his bumper sticker "There are only two kinds of ships, subs and targets." He refuses to buy anything 'made in Japan' (which includes Toyotas manufactured in the U.S.). He refuses to eat oriental stir-fry. The Japanese foreign exchange student living in the town is 'that damn Jap.' His sub had one of the highest sink rates in the Pacific theatre. That, more than his children or grandchildren, is his source of pride.

One time, his sub bombed a civilian passanger ship. Innocent people died. He has no remorse.

Is he a WWII war criminal? In most moments, I say no. But there are other moments in which there is doubt.

And for that doubt, I am eternally grateful. When the doubt is there, it is a reminder that there are no absolutes - only many shades of grey. And it reminds me not to judge him because I don't want him to judge me or my friends who have chosen abortion.

If any of us need reminders of the destruction that comes from black/white, yes/no, we/they thinking, do we need to look any farther than mr bush, cheney, bin laden, and countless others?

There are war criminals - most certainly. Mr. Bush, Cheney topping the list. After that, for me anyway, it's shades of grey.

Charles W. Sweeney, was the pilot who dropped the atomic bomb on Nagasaki.

"But this is the second essay demonizing Tibbets, and I am growing uneasy with this mentality that the one man who had his hand on one release mechanism to drop one bomb deserves so much scorn and contempt."

He (Tibbets) deserves far worse than scorn and contempt as I read his attitudes concerning what he did. If the bible is correct, his lost soul is experiencing the melting heat that he so willingly subjected his 100K victims to. What you give, you get.

Is that an order King PURVIS? ___BTW my daily medication consists of a half an aspirin. that's all. Sorry if my opinions, based upon the intelligence released on the subject differ from yours.

Once again for you and any others who may not understand. With good reason, Truman feared Japan MAY have atomic bombs and he wanteD the swiftest end to the war possible.

The day before Japan surrendered, General LeMay ordered a mission of 1,000 B-29s to fly over Tokyo and they dropped no bombs. It was a massive show of force to show to the Japanese we meant busines and we had the power to bomb them into the stone age.

KEM PATRICK: Read Dr. Alperovitz's book, all 700 pages, and then comment. Until then you are just part of the folks who apologize for the dropping of the atomic bombs. There will be more on this subject in my forthcoming book on how to achieve an ethical foreign polcy.

I've always been interested in WWII, the "last good war". When GW started the comparisons of Saddam to Hitler it prompted me to go on a reading binge about Hitler, Germany and Japan. About 30 volumes later I decided that while Saddam was a brutal dictator he was a mere shadow of Hitler and the Japenese milatary command.

One lasting impression that struck me about WWII is that unless you lived through it I don't think you can really know the mindset of those who had to fight it. There were atrocities throughout the conflict on all sides but the fact is the Germans and the Japanese started it and did intend to subjagate large portions of the earths population to their will and use both as human and natural resources.

I am a Viet Nam vet and have some knowledge of what a country at war is like. But I have hard time trying to put my self in the mindset of what it would be like to have virtually all major nations invilved in a do or die conflict with not the >1% of the poulation carrying the load as now in Iraq, but most people on your street with someone in harms way.

I won't judge our countries soldiers motives or morality, just try to learn from their situation and avoid the conditions that fostered the conflict. Unfortuately our current administration is closer to the mindset of our enimies then than I care to think about, that is the real tragedy.

Gregory is slaying the messenger. He overlooks the organizational structure of the Air Force. Tibbets did not "plan the attack". He flew where he was ordered to. He did have several alternate targets in case bad weather interferred, but they were arranged in priority beforehand.

Furthermore, if he refused to fly the mission someone else would be ordered to do it. The important thing about Tibbets' life to those of us who were around at the time was the fact that he fathered a child. He was the first of the air crew of the Enola Gay to do so and we knew then that anyone associated with handling the bomb would not be sterile.

Thank you for your long exegesis about nothing. And stay away from colleges.

That is correct ADRIENRAIN, one of the bombs had a core of plutonium and the other was uranium. That was never kept secret.

Now, who is it that was in command, said they dropped the second bomb to test how the plutonium would work? No one did, that was just an opinion of one who wrote a book.

I wish atomic power had never been produced for any reason. I also wish there were no wars, ever. But there wa one and we fought back and Truman used the atomic bomb for reasons, that most, including Eisenhour and MacArthur were totally unaware of.