On Nov 1, 7:38?pm, Tim wrote:
On Nov 1, 3:59 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...article=1&catn...

"...Tibbets, then a 30-year-old colonel.."

WOAH! I think he has the right idea over secrecy in his burial,
though.

Knowing what I know now, I don't know if I could have done his job or
not. Even though it was probablyt he right thing to do, I don't think
it would be a prideful act.

But I wasn't there either.

mixed emotions

We had reduced Japanese naval power to the point where an effective
blockade of the island nation would probably have inspired its
surrender within a matter of weeks...likely without an invasion.

The nuke was only one of several options available for ending the war.
We know that it worked, there's probably no way to know whether it was
the best options available, and opinions at that time were most
decidedly mixed.

Truman felt it was neccessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of both
the uranium bomb (Hiroshima) and the plutonium bomb (Nagasaki) to
convince the Russians that we had the will and capability to react to
any threat "with extreme prejudice". I was also strategically critical
to end the Japanese war before our Russian "allies" marched in during
the mop up with possible plans for occupying some of the islands and
thereby establishing effective Naval bases in the Pacfic.

Japanese people continued to die from radiation poisoning for many
years after the explosions, with more than 500,000 civilian deaths by
1951.

Many military leaders of the day disagreed with Truman's decision to
use the atomic bomb.

Dwight Eisenhower said that when he was infromed of Truman's decision
to use nuclear bombs, "I voiced my misgivings, first on the basis of
my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb
was completely unneccesary, and secondly because I thought that our
country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon who
employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save
American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment,
seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of face."

Admiral William Leahy, Chief of Saff to Presidents Roosevelt and
Truman, said in his autobiography "It is my opinion that the use of
this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material
assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already
defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade
and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."

General MacArthur apparently did not voice any official support for or
opposition to the bombing in 1945, but his consultant Norman Cousins
wrote in 1987 that MacArthur's oft-stated private opinion was "The war
might have ended weeks earlier if the United States had agreed, as it
later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

Historic footnote: The "we dropped it to save American Lives"
rationale didn't begin gathering a lot of traction until 1958- the
year that Truman convened a news conference to defend his decision to
drop atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The news conference was
precipitated, in part, by a letter from the Hiroshima City Council
asking Truman if, all those years later, he had any regrets or was
inclined to apologize for the decision. Authors Robert Jay Lifton and
Greg Mitchell,
("Hiroshima in America: Fifty Years of Denmial" published by Grossett/
Putnam in 1995), claim to have documentation that official US
estimates for the number of military deaths that would result from an
invasion of Japan would be between 20,000 and 63,000.

So, yes, RIP Paul Tibbets. He was a brave and dutiful airman, simply
doing his job. Opinions will vary enormously whether there is any
guilt to bear over the manner in which we chose to end WWII, but the
heroes of the hour (or the villians, depending on ones' point of view)
will be found among the decision makers of the day- not down among the
ranks of those who simply upheld their oath to follow orders.

Chuck Gould wrote:
.."

General MacArthur apparently did not voice any official support for or
opposition to the bombing in 1945, but his consultant Norman Cousins
wrote in 1987 that MacArthur's oft-stated private opinion was "The war
might have ended weeks earlier if the United States had agreed, as it
later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."


Interesting to note, that later on, McArther thought it would have
been a good idea to drop a nuke on N.Korea and even China during the
time of the Korean conflict.

So, yes, RIP Paul Tibbets. He was a brave and dutiful airman, simply
doing his job. Opinions will vary enormously whether there is any
guilt to bear over the manner in which we chose to end WWII, but the
heroes of the hour (or the villians, depending on ones' point of view)
will be found among the decision makers of the day- not down among the
ranks of those who simply upheld their oath to follow orders.

agreed.


Also a note about Truman, I don't know for a fact but supposedly,
Harry Truman was confronting Openheimer over the success of the
nukings, and Openheimer said "Mr. President, I feel like I have blood
on my hands"

President Truman then gave Openheimer a handkerchief and casually said
"Here, wipe it off."

Of course, I can't confirm nor deny this story as fact.

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...


We had reduced Japanese naval power to the point where an effective
blockade of the island nation would probably have inspired its
surrender within a matter of weeks...likely without an invasion.


rest snipped for brevity

Monday morning quarterbacking is always easier than playing the game and
we'll probably never know for sure, but there where many then and many today
that believed Japan was close to using an A-bomb ... on *us*. If Truman
hadn't authorized it and the war lasted just long enough for Japan to toss
one on San Diego from a submarine, how would Truman be viewed today knowing
that he could have ended the war before it happened?

http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/jp-hung.htm

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...


We had reduced Japanese naval power to the point where an effective
blockade of the island nation would probably have inspired its
surrender within a matter of weeks...likely without an invasion.


rest snipped for brevity

Monday morning quarterbacking is always easier than playing the game and
we'll probably never know for sure, but there where many then and many
today that believed Japan was close to using an A-bomb ... on *us*. If
Truman hadn't authorized it and the war lasted just long enough for Japan
to toss one on San Diego from a submarine, how would Truman be viewed
today knowing that he could have ended the war before it happened?

http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/jp-hung.htm

Eisboch


"were" not "where" damit.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...


We had reduced Japanese naval power to the point where an effective
blockade of the island nation would probably have inspired its
surrender within a matter of weeks...likely without an invasion.


rest snipped for brevity

Monday morning quarterbacking is always easier than playing the game and
we'll probably never know for sure, but there where many then and many today
that believed Japan was close to using an A-bomb ... on *us
http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/jp-hung.htm

Eisboch

I didn't know that Japan had that type of technology....yet.

But then again, anyone who can (at that time) successfully calculate
bombs carried by weather ballons, that could make it to the US from
Japan all those thousands of miles across the Pacific, were actually
no dummies.

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:08:53 -0700, Tim wrote:


Eisboch wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
oups.com...


We had reduced Japanese naval power to the point where an effective
blockade of the island nation would probably have inspired its
surrender within a matter of weeks...likely without an invasion.


rest snipped for brevity

Monday morning quarterbacking is always easier than playing the game and
we'll probably never know for sure, but there where many then and many today
that believed Japan was close to using an A-bomb ... on *us
http://www.kimsoft.com/korea/jp-hung.htm

Eisboch

I didn't know that Japan had that type of technology....yet.

Nothing close. That's an "internet speculation piece" to me.
A few facts, then like fission, they split into a mushroom cloud of
speculation.
Might as well believe anything. Like Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction. Garbage intelligence, and mindless and erroneous
speculation.
The MacArthur and Ike views mentioned by Chuck are almost irrelevant,
if even accurate and contemporaneous with the time the bombs were
dropped. Theater generals painting rosy scenarios of easy victory, or
greatly underestimating actual costs wasn't new then, and still
happens.
Truman and Marshall were running the show, and had the best picture.
Personally, I would have asked a grunt who survived Tarawa or Iwo Jima
or Okinawa, who had seen, heard and smelled the mayhem, his buddies
killed and maimed. He fought the Japs on those islands, and the Japs
fought to their death.
"Well, son, we have a choice. We can drop a couple A-bombs on Japan,
war's over, and you can go home. Or if you prefer, gear up and we'll
land you in Japan to fight more Japs. What'll it be?"
Then go with the answer. Truman already knew the answer.
Anyway, having read much on the then Japanese view of combat and
honor, it isn't much different in effect than Islamo-facism. They
were nuts. The A-bomb was a nutcracker.
Nukes generate a lot of fear, which is perfectly understandable, but
the firebombing of cities, starvation, disease, and endless combat
needed to take Japan would have been much worse.
Victory in combat was the primary Jap goal, but dying in combat ran a
close second. Being toasted by an unseen enemy tossing a nuke on
your head turned their world upside down, and cracked the nut.
IMHO.
Tibbets belonged to that great generation to whom we owe so much,
and I salute him. May he RIP.
BTW, I was born in 1947. For all I know, my Dad might have died in
the invasion of Japan in '45 or '46 and then I would be writing this
as somebody else.

But then again, anyone who can (at that time) successfully calculate
bombs carried by weather ballons, that could make it to the US from
Japan all those thousands of miles across the Pacific, were actually
no dummies.

Fat lot of good that did them. Might as well throw TNT-rigged
coconuts in the gulf stream to blow up Ireland.
But hey, everything can help in war. Kept some number of
West-coasters busy on balloon patrol.
Whenever the Jap balloons come up, I'm reminded of the American bat
guy whose bats, incendiaries on their legs, were near the point of
being dropped in Japan. Those bats might have caused more Jap
casualties than the A-bombs. Who knows?

--Vic

On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 23:24:10 -0600, Vic Smith wrote:


Fat lot of good that did them. Might as well throw TNT-rigged coconuts
in the gulf stream to blow up Ireland. But hey, everything can help in
war. Kept some number of West-coasters busy on balloon patrol. Whenever
the Jap balloons come up, I'm reminded of the American bat guy whose
bats, incendiaries on their legs, were near the point of being dropped
in Japan. Those bats might have caused more Jap casualties than the
A-bombs. Who knows?

Those Japanese balloon bombs could have been an effective terrorism weapon, except for a
few small details. They were mostly incendiary devices, meant to start forest fires, some
landing as far east as Michigan, but that was back in the day where the press could keep a
secret, and very few people knew about them. Not much terror in an unknown weapon. The
other, perhaps more important reason, they were released over the winter of 1944-45. Not
the best time to be setting a forest fire in the Pacific Northwet. However, the recent fires in
California show their potential.

On Nov 2, 1:59 pm, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 1, 7:38?pm, Tim wrote:
On Nov 1, 3:59 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...article=1&catn...

"...Tibbets, then a 30-year-old colonel.."

WOAH! I think he has the right idea over secrecy in his burial,
though.

Knowing what I know now, I don't know if I could have done his job or
not. Even though it was probablyt he right thing to do, I don't think
it would be a prideful act.

But I wasn't there either.

mixed emotions

We had reduced Japanese naval power to the point where an effective
blockade of the island nation would probably have inspired its
surrender within a matter of weeks...likely without an invasion.

Perhaps, but that wasn't guaranteed. And it wasn't a reason to delay
the A-bombs.



Truman felt it was neccessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of both
the uranium bomb (Hiroshima) and the plutonium bomb (Nagasaki) to
convince the Russians that we had the will and capability to react to
any threat "with extreme prejudice".

Perhaps to some extent, but Truman's main concern was convincing Japan
to surrender.

There was no desire to demonstrate different types of bombs. The only
reason two bombs were used is because Japan surrendered between the
second and third bombs. Had Japan surrendered between the third and
fourth bombs, they'd have been nuked three times.



I was also strategically critical
to end the Japanese war before our Russian "allies" marched in during
the mop up with possible plans for occupying some of the islands and
thereby establishing effective Naval bases in the Pacfic.

True. We definitely preferred keeping the Soviets out of Japan.

But on the other hand, the Soviets were coming in because we had
invited them. We didn't want to invade Japan without the Soviets
attacking Manchuria.



Japanese people continued to die from radiation poisoning for many
years after the explosions, with more than 500,000 civilian deaths by
1951.

Nope. The death rate returned to normal a few months after the A-
bombs. There have only been a few thousand deaths attributed to A-
bomb radiation since 1945.



Many military leaders of the day disagreed with Truman's decision to
use the atomic bomb.

Maybe long after the war had ended. But there wasn't any great
groundswell of military disagreement during the war.



Dwight Eisenhower said that when he was infromed of Truman's decision
to use nuclear bombs, "I voiced my misgivings, first on the basis of
my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb
was completely unneccesary, and secondly because I thought that our
country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon who
employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save
American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment,
seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of face."

Yes, Ike was the one military leader who thought during the war that
the A-bombs were unnecessary.

But he never made much of a fuss about it. It's unlikely that Truman
even knew Ike had objected until Ike mentioned it in his post-
presidential memoirs.



Admiral William Leahy, Chief of Saff to Presidents Roosevelt and
Truman, said in his autobiography "It is my opinion that the use of
this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material
assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already
defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade
and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."

Hindsight. All Leahy said about the A-bombs *during the war* was "I'm
an expert in explosives and I say these things will never work".



General MacArthur apparently did not voice any official support for or
opposition to the bombing in 1945, but his consultant Norman Cousins
wrote in 1987 that MacArthur's oft-stated private opinion was "The war
might have ended weeks earlier if the United States had agreed, as it
later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

One thing MacArthur said just after Hiroshima was that he thought
Japan was nowhere near surrendering and we'd probably still have to
invade before they gave up.



Authors Robert Jay Lifton and
Greg Mitchell,
("Hiroshima in America: Fifty Years of Denmial" published by Grossett/
Putnam in 1995), claim to have documentation that official US
estimates for the number of military deaths that would result from an
invasion of Japan would be between 20,000 and 63,000.

They seem to have missed the projections of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
which pointed to 1,200,000 American casualties (including 267,000
dead) from Operation Downfall.

And how about the study the War Department had done that estimated
that invading Japan would cost 1,700,000 to 4,000,000 American
casualties (including 400,000 to 800,000 dead)?

On Nov 2, 11:23?pm, Hiroshima Facts wrote:
On Nov 2, 1:59 pm, Chuck Gould wrote:





On Nov 1, 7:38?pm, Tim wrote:
On Nov 1, 3:59 pm, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...article=1&catn...

"...Tibbets, then a 30-year-old colonel.."

WOAH! I think he has the right idea over secrecy in his burial,
though.

Knowing what I know now, I don't know if I could have done his job or
not. Even though it was probablyt he right thing to do, I don't think
it would be a prideful act.

But I wasn't there either.

mixed emotions

We had reduced Japanese naval power to the point where an effective
blockade of the island nation would probably have inspired its
surrender within a matter of weeks...likely without an invasion.

Perhaps, but that wasn't guaranteed. And it wasn't a reason to delay
the A-bombs.

Truman felt it was neccessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of both
the uranium bomb (Hiroshima) and the plutonium bomb (Nagasaki) to
convince the Russians that we had the will and capability to react to
any threat "with extreme prejudice".

Perhaps to some extent, but Truman's main concern was convincing Japan
to surrender.

There was no desire to demonstrate different types of bombs. The only
reason two bombs were used is because Japan surrendered between the
second and third bombs. Had Japan surrendered between the third and
fourth bombs, they'd have been nuked three times.

I was also strategically critical
to end the Japanese war before our Russian "allies" marched in during
the mop up with possible plans for occupying some of the islands and
thereby establishing effective Naval bases in the Pacfic.

True. We definitely preferred keeping the Soviets out of Japan.

But on the other hand, the Soviets were coming in because we had
invited them. We didn't want to invade Japan without the Soviets
attacking Manchuria.

Japanese people continued to die from radiation poisoning for many
years after the explosions, with more than 500,000 civilian deaths by
1951.

Nope. The death rate returned to normal a few months after the A-
bombs. There have only been a few thousand deaths attributed to A-
bomb radiation since 1945.

Many military leaders of the day disagreed with Truman's decision to
use the atomic bomb.

Maybe long after the war had ended. But there wasn't any great
groundswell of military disagreement during the war.

Dwight Eisenhower said that when he was infromed of Truman's decision
to use nuclear bombs, "I voiced my misgivings, first on the basis of
my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb
was completely unneccesary, and secondly because I thought that our
country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon who
employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save
American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment,
seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of face."

Yes, Ike was the one military leader who thought during the war that
the A-bombs were unnecessary.

But he never made much of a fuss about it. It's unlikely that Truman
even knew Ike had objected until Ike mentioned it in his post-
presidential memoirs.

Admiral William Leahy, Chief of Saff to Presidents Roosevelt and
Truman, said in his autobiography "It is my opinion that the use of
this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material
assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already
defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade
and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."

Hindsight. All Leahy said about the A-bombs *during the war* was "I'm
an expert in explosives and I say these things will never work".

General MacArthur apparently did not voice any official support for or
opposition to the bombing in 1945, but his consultant Norman Cousins
wrote in 1987 that MacArthur's oft-stated private opinion was "The war
might have ended weeks earlier if the United States had agreed, as it
later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

One thing MacArthur said just after Hiroshima was that he thought
Japan was nowhere near surrendering and we'd probably still have to
invade before they gave up.

Authors Robert Jay Lifton and
Greg Mitchell,
("Hiroshima in America: Fifty Years of Denmial" published by Grossett/
Putnam in 1995), claim to have documentation that official US
estimates for the number of military deaths that would result from an
invasion of Japan would be between 20,000 and 63,000.

They seem to have missed the projections of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
which pointed to 1,200,000 American casualties (including 267,000
dead) from Operation Downfall.

And how about the study the War Department had done that estimated
that invading Japan would cost 1,700,000 to 4,000,000 American
casualties (including 400,000 to 800,000 dead)?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

http://www.unm.edu/~abqteach/atomica...rica_cover.htm

On Nov 2, 11:23?pm, Hiroshima Facts wrote:
On Nov 2, 1:59 pm, Chuck Gould wrote:


Japanese people continued to die from radiation poisoning for many
years after the explosions, with more than 500,000 civilian deaths by
1951.

Nope. The death rate returned to normal a few months after the A-
bombs. There have only been a few thousand deaths attributed to A-
bomb radiation since 1945.


Not according to the cirriculum from a course called "Atomic America"
taught at the University of New Mexico:


"From three to thirty years after the bombing the number of cases of
leukemia in Hiroshima was fifteen times higher than that of the rest
of Japan (Shohno 62). Leukemia results when abnormal white blood cells
produce wildly; it is a type of blood cancer. The blue stigmata
(marks) that radiation victims exhibit are a symptom of leukemia. They
result from blood so filled with white cells that it loses its red
color. The white blood cells caused by leukemia tend to clump together
instead of fighting bacteria. Therefore, those with leukemia are very
susceptible to other infections. Usually they die from pneumonia that
their immune system cannot fight off.

Most cancers have a longer incubation period than does leukemia. At
Hiroshima fifteen years after the bomb, death by non-blood cancers
began to increase among survivors who had been exposed to more than
100 rads of radiation (Shohno 62). Lung cancer, breast cancer, and
thyroid cancer are all stimulated by high dosages of radiation.
Cancers of the colon, stomach, urinary organs, and blood marrow are
also probably linked to dosages of radiation. The uranium miners in
the United States who provided the raw material to fuel the nuclear
programs have reported much higher incidence of lung cancer than
normal (Justice)."