On Nov 3, 8:05?pm, JR North wrote:
?
Remember Pearl Harbor. And Nanking. And Battan.
JR
So, yes, RIP Paul Tibbets. He was a brave and
Chuck Gould wrote:


Of course.

There was no excuse for many of the Japanese actions during WWII.

Once hostilities end, each side has to deal with the aftermath of its
own decisions.

It's not my place to judge whether the atomic bombs dropped on Japan
were "right" or "wrong". I'm simply pointing out that my research into
the subject indicates we had more options than some revisionist
militarists would prefer to have us believe. Whether any of the other
options would have been "better" or "worse" is useless conjecture.

About a year after the war ended, the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey
report concluded that "certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all
probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered
even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not
entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or
contemplated." Yes, the conclusion in that report could have been
wrong, but I would have to give the Strategic Bombing Survey report at
least equal credibility with the opinions of talk show hosts and
historians 60 years after the fact.

I can't think of any major national issue or decision in which there
hasn't been a difference of opinion. In the interest of establishing
the best possible insight into the past, it is useful to know that
many people
at that time- including some very responsible, patriotic, loyal
Americans in positions of military authority, disagreed with Truman's
decision to nuke the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Once it's done,
it's done- so questions about good, bad, better, or worse are simply
academic. What we can profit from the experience is a lesson in
evaluating options and dealing with the aftermath of choices.

I can't say that if I were in Truman's shoes at the time I would have
decided any differently- nor can anybody else who wasn't there (or
even born) at the time.