Paul Tibbets talks about the Hiroshima bombing

[Phrogman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhZERU58RSI&mode=related&search=

This is a clip from the old movie Atomic Cafe. I think its interesting and once again relevant.

I hope to God they do not use these weapons again.

Note Truman's expression and how it changes when the cameras start rolling.

[jody]

1. IMO given the times and circumstances, Truman was correct. What point do

you wish to make?

[Phrogman]

2. You tell me what IMO means, and than I'll respond.

I'm not "up" on chatspeak.

[The Straight Story]

5. IMO = In My Opinion (nt)

[jody]

9. See # 5 for IMO. What point do you wish to make? n/t

[Bonobo]

3. Which time was he right? Hiroshima or Nagasaki...or both?

Next question: Do you really think that government brainwashing was invented AFTER Vietnam?

[jody]

7. Both. What specific brainwashing do you mean? n/t

[Bonobo]

10. Standard stuff...

FALSE PREMISE A. We HAVE to take the island of Japan to "stop" them.

FALSE PREMISE B: If we DID try to take the island, we would lose 500,00o soldiers because -FALSE/DE-HUMANIZING PROPOGANDA - they are insane machines that run on rice and are so fanatical that even the old grannies will be out there against us with a bamboo spear!

FALSE CONCLUSION A: We need to "shock and awe" them (sound familiar?) into submission. How' bout Hiroshima?

FALSE CONCLUSION B: 3 days later. "Didn't work yet...gotta go to plan B!". Bomb Nagasaki?

Both were basically bomb tests and threats to USSR. Not necessary. Possible only because enemy was "small-monkeylike yellow people".

And some people STILL buy it? How's that for good brainwashing?

[jody]

12. Have you actually studied WWII? Have you talked with some of the

leaders that made critical decisions or as a minimum read their papers?

Until one has done that, then one is repeating second hand rumors from historians with their own pet conspiracy theories to prove.

I know that you and I will not agree but I've done the above and I stand by my conclusion that Truman did the right thing under the circumstances.

[Tansy_Gold]

15. And the principals in the decision-making didn't have

a vested interest in their own point of view? Didn't have their own biases and prejudices?

It's so simple to paint the a-bomb decision in either/or terms. In fact, there were numerous alternatives to the invasion of Japan besides dropping weapons of unknown capability on essentially civilian populations.

It is also simpler to hide behind the comfortable myths one has been raised with and not even question them.

Tansy Gold

[jody]

19. Yes Truman and his advisors had biases, they wanted to win with minimum

loss of Allied troops.

Are you an apologist for Japanese atrocities such as the Nanking Massacre, commonly known as "The Rape of Nanking"?

[Parche]

26. japan

Truman made the right decision
I hope the US never has to use them again, but he did make the right decision
As I have studied the Pacific 1941-1945
The main reasons were that the Army had control over Japan, and they were not
going to surrender.
There were thousands of POW's that only had weeks to live due to disease
and malnutrition, most were tortured still.
Kamikazes were taking their tolls on the 3rd fleet
Iwo Jima and Okinawa were proof that they were not going to surrender
They had a lot of chances to surrender but did not until the very last minute
when the Emperor finally made that decision.
Admiral Halsey and the 3rd fleet surrounded Japan, but they still kept fighting....

[karlrschneider]

6. Lots of "what ifs"...nobody will ever know how the war would have

gone sans the 2 nukes. I'm personally somewhat ambivalent, realizing the dedication of the Japanese
and yet having spent a lot of time in Hiroshima (not Nagasaki, though) in the 1970s. I've stood at 'ground zero' in the Peace Park and it evoked some emotions I never knew lurked in the back of my mind.
That said, I don't fault Truman for making that horrible decision...he evidently did what he thought was the best course. And that conflicts me somewhat because I can't extend the same 'fairness doctrine' to Bush who probably believes what he does is right.

[jody]

8. Not many "what ifs". The U.S. was fighting an enemy that had not yet

decided to surrender. The atomic bomb was the most efficient, effective way to force that decision.

There is no question that by dropping the A-bomb, Truman saved tens of thousands if U.S. casualties.

That was the simple decision Truman had to make.

[Oeditpus Rex]

14. The Empire had presented terms of surrender

The U.S. wouldn't accept them. A real sticking point was that Japan wanted to keep the Empire, as Hirohito had god-like status among the citizenry. The U.S. refused to allow this.

Somewhat ironically, after Japan did surrender, Gen. MacArthur permitted the Empire. He understood how important it was to them, and to us if we were to have them as allies.

(I used "Empire" pointedly in the subject line. The Japanese Army, which was in control of the government, was fanatically pro-war; it was they who held to the Bushido code of fighting to the last man. The surrender proposal came from the Empire, not the government, which in fact tried to prevent the Empire from negotiating with the U.S.)

[Phrogman]

16. Did you hear Maj Tibbets in this interview?

Did you hear him say they encountered absolutely no interceptors or flack of air defenses at all while flying his bomber to target and back?

Was it really necessary to use a terror weapon on a nation that was already defenseless from any kind of attack?

Was it necessary for America to lose its "moral superiority" by using the worlds most dangerous mass killing weapon?

Was it really necessary to let the jeanie out of the bottle?

Please let me know what the advantage is that the US got out of using that device on a city full of civilians.

[jody]

18. Advantage? Japan surrendered! n/t

[Phrogman]

25. They were going to surrender anyway.

So what was the advantage?

[jody]

27. They surrendered promptly without massive allied casualties.

Thanks for the exchange.

Goodbye, :hi:

[Phrogman]

28. See, with the benefit of hindsight, when you really think about it....

it was a very bad idea to use atomic weapons against fellow humans.

For any reason.

[Parche]

30. surrender when?

In 1946/47/48????

People dont realize how stubborn the Japanese and their government/army was at that time

They had January 1945-August to surrender,
once they lost the Phillipines/Iwo Jima/Okinawa, they should have realized that they were thru

[Parche]

29. bomb

No interceptors at all??? That means they were all being flown as Kamikazes on the 3rd fleet

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both military cities

The Japanese had lots of time to surrender, they were just too ignorantly stubborn
and paid the consequences.

I would rather have Truman drop the bomb, then to have our pilots being killed flying more
missions into 1946 over Japan........

[QuestionAll...]

11. harumph! what time and circumstance

would allow that holocaust on the japanese people?

how many fighting soldiers were killed compared to civilians? give me data.

US=terrorist nation in that respect.
It should never have happened except for the fact 'it could'. boys like their toys.

[jody]

13. Surely you aren't serious? Given the vast quantity of detailed reports and

books written on the disposition of Japanese forces in mid 1945 and its general staff's commitment to fight an invasion, you must be making a joke. :rofl:

[sam sarrha]

4. the story is that the japanese were really afraid of the Russians apparent

plans to invade Japan unannounced to the americans.. they knew it would be total genocide and it is said factions in japan at the time were trying to get the americans to discuss surrender... but we needed statistics on the new weapon. and who in their right mind would think they wouldn't have surrendered after the first bomb.. they just needed to see if Plutonium would work better.

i think the whole cold war was just a scheme make plutonium at taxpayers expense and store it as weapons till they could manipulate the price of oil to legislate the creation of a reactor program for producing electricity..

but the whole industry system is flawed from the beginning.. they wanted to build them as cheap as possible.. the reactor cores crack under the stresses of the temperatures they wanted to run them at.. they are not 19th century boilers.. as they are being treated. south africa has developed and graphite ball system that runs at lower temptress and is a lot more efficient and the least dangerous of them all, the graphite balls with plutonium in them are just stacked on the bottom of a bowl like vessel, if the water gets low the whole system cools off, it is the water Over them that makes them work.. it is a nearly failsafe system.. but they are not large plants.. but are easy to take care of and very efficient. they would be more of a municipal system than a regional one like the corporate Mafia's need to make a lot of money.

these things should NOT be run by corporations..

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

23. I really hope you're kidding.

i think the whole cold war was just a scheme make plutonium at taxpayers expense and store it as weapons till they could manipulate the price of oil to legislate the creation of a reactor program for producing electricity..

Because if you're not kidding, then this is, quite possibly the most inane, ridiculous, unfounded, and utterly nonsencal thing I've read... Well, since my last visit to the 9/11 forum.

[BootinUp]

17. We killed more Japanese cities with conventional weapons

than we did with the atom bombs.

Recently watched "Fog of War" which went into some detail on our bombing of Japan.

[Parche]

31. tokyo

Exactly, the fire bombing of Tokyo killed over 80,000 at least

But it was a real war, and that is what happens


I would rather have those 2atomic bombs dropped, then another USS Franklin disaster from
a kamikaze attack...............

[patcox2]

20. The bombs were for the USSR, not the Japanese.

At the time the bombs were dropped, the USSR had occupied eastern europe and effectively enslaved the countries of Poland, Yugoslavia, Estonia, East Germany, Czechslovakia, Latvia, and others. They held these countries in a state of domination for the next 45 years.

In addition, the USSR had massed troops at the Chinese border and were indeed preparing to invade Japan.

The bombs were dropped to intimidate the USSR, and to prevent the USSR doing in Asia what it had done in eastern europe as much or more so than to defeat Japan.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. It was most certainly a war crime of monstrous proportions.

And, quite unnecessary.

The argument that it saved "10s of thousands of American lives" is predicated on an invasion of the Home Islands. An invasion that was unnecessary. The Japanese military had no means to pursue aggressive war and was tottering. The conditions in Japan were disintegrating to the point of real starvation. The militarists were clinging to power in fear of a "communist revolution" or a Russian invasion.

Alas, for the victims, patience is not an American virtue.

“What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy.” - Gandhi

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. The irony about the justifications for Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

is that using the same logic, the Iraqis would be justified in nuking NYC.

[AzDar]

24. Perhaps if Iraq truly had nuclear capabilities the King of Fools would

have thought twice before invading.

[bicentennial_baby]

32. pure posturing to scare the USSR...

simple as that...too bad we had to kill so many for that gesture... :cry:

[bleedingheart]

33. Hindsight makes us all experts...

but in the end...people make decisions in the "moment".

The firebombings of Tokyo and Dresden were just as calamitous....

I can't say what I would do...because I wasn't there...I did not live it.