| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
|
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
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 |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
On Nov 1, 10:38 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 If it means anything, my dad was there and thinks they did the right thing... |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
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. |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
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. |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
"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 |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
"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 |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
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. |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
wrote: On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 10:59:13 -0700, Chuck Gould wrote: 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 invasio The GIs who took Okinawa would probably dissagree with this assessment. There were still Japanese soldiers holding out on islands years after the war Even up to a few years ago, there were forgotten and ancient japanese soldiers living off the land on many of the thousands of islands, that were still manning their posts. Quite commendable actually. |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
On Nov 2, 4:12 pm, Tim wrote:
wrote: On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 10:59:13 -0700, Chuck Gould wrote: 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 invasio The GIs who took Okinawa would probably dissagree with this assessment. There were still Japanese soldiers holding out on islands years after the war Even up to a few years ago, there were forgotten and ancient japanese soldiers living off the land on many of the thousands of islands, that were still manning their posts. Quite commendable actually. I don't think they were defeated, and I never met one soldier from that theatre that thought they were either. |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
On Nov 2, 1:34?pm, wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 10:59:13 -0700, Chuck Gould wrote: 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 invasio The GIs who took Okinawa would probably dissagree with this assessment. There were still Japanese soldiers holding out on islands years after the war. I dsoubt there was any kind of attrition war that would have defeated them and we might still have an Iraqi style insurrection around the world. Remember the Japanese invented the suicide bomber. The conquest of Okinawa undoubtedly contributed to the disheartened state of the Japanese empire at the time of the bombing. From what I have been able to learn after the fact, I tend to agree with the opinions expressed by Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur, as well as Admiral Leahy. We had options. We chose one that proved to work decisively. Monday morning quarterbacks and certain generals and admirals will long debate whether we chose the "best" option. We succeeded in keeping the Russians out of Japan, denying them warm water Pacific naval bases that would have allowed them to more easily launch a conventional, 1940's style war against the United States. |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
On Nov 2, 3:30?pm, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:57:13 -0700, Chuck Gould wrote: On Nov 2, 1:34?pm, wrote: On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 10:59:13 -0700, Chuck Gould wrote: 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 invasio The GIs who took Okinawa would probably dissagree with this assessment. There were still Japanese soldiers holding out on islands years after the war. I dsoubt there was any kind of attrition war that would have defeated them and we might still have an Iraqi style insurrection around the world. Remember the Japanese invented the suicide bomber. The conquest of Okinawa undoubtedly contributed to the disheartened state of the Japanese empire at the time of the bombing. From what I have been able to learn after the fact, I tend to agree with the opinions expressed by Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur, as well as Admiral Leahy. We had options. We chose one that proved to work decisively. Monday morning quarterbacks and certain generals and admirals will long debate whether we chose the "best" option. We succeeded in keeping the Russians out of Japan, denying them warm water Pacific naval bases that would have allowed them to more easily launch a conventional, 1940's style war against the United States. Speaking of Japanese in a boating forum... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinyo These came up in a novel I'm reading. Interesting vessels!- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Sort of an ominous caption on the second photo "A Shinyo underway, being tested by an American soldier". What? Was he a prisoner, strapped into place? Let's hope the testing was *after* the war was over.......... |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 13:57:13 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote: On Nov 2, 1:34?pm, wrote: On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 10:59:13 -0700, Chuck Gould wrote: 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 invasio The GIs who took Okinawa would probably dissagree with this assessment. There were still Japanese soldiers holding out on islands years after the war. I dsoubt there was any kind of attrition war that would have defeated them and we might still have an Iraqi style insurrection around the world. Remember the Japanese invented the suicide bomber. The conquest of Okinawa undoubtedly contributed to the disheartened state of the Japanese empire at the time of the bombing. From what I have been able to learn after the fact, I tend to agree with the opinions expressed by Generals Eisenhower and MacArthur, as well as Admiral Leahy. We had options. We chose one that proved to work decisively. Monday morning quarterbacks and certain generals and admirals will long debate whether we chose the "best" option. We succeeded in keeping the Russians out of Japan, denying them warm water Pacific naval bases that would have allowed them to more easily launch a conventional, 1940's style war against the United States. Speaking of Japanese in a boating forum... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinyo These came up in a novel I'm reading. Interesting vessels! |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
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 |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
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)? |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
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. |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
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 |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 09:12:54 -0400, JimH wrote:
There was no 3rd bomb ready for use. It was months away from development. Not months, weeks. The US expected to have another bomb ready in the third week of August, and another three in September and October. |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
On Nov 3, 9:12 am, " JimH" ask wrote:
"Hiroshima Facts" wrote in message ups.com... 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. There was no 3rd bomb ready for use. It was months away from development. That is incorrect. Japan missed the third A-bomb by about a week. There were implosion assemblies already at Tinian. All they needed was a plutonium core to put in them. On August 11, that core was just leaving Los Alamos, to be flown to the Pacific for a bombing around August 17-18. However, Japan had begun to talk about surrendering the day before, and Truman had responded by ordering a temporary halt to A-bombing to give them a little breathing room. Groves took that a step further and ordered a halt to shipping the core. The core only made it as far as the Los Alamos parking lot before it was recalled. On August 14, Truman ordered that the core be shipped and that it be used on Tokyo. However, a few hours later Japan surrendered and the war was over. Because of the three day delay in shipping the core, the bombing would have been around August 20-21. After the third bomb, there would have been a delay of some months, but not because we lacked A-bombs. The delay would have been because we would have begun saving them up to clear the beaches just before we invaded. Expected production rates would have been another three in September, another four in October, another five in November, another seven (or more) in December, and about ten a month from then on. |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... 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. You can say that the Japanese were ready to surrender peacefully after watching the "War" coverage of the pacific campaign? After seeing the tenacity with which the Japanese fought in the Pacific, what leads you to the conclusion that they would surrender?Personally I am thankful that we didn't have to invade because my father was scheduled to go participate, since the war in Europe was over. And how many civilians would have died of starvation and bombing during this blockade? How long to convince whoever that the Emperor wasn't "divine"? It is too bad that the Japanese became expansionist. They were already racist. |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
On Nov 3, 7:22?am, "Del Cecchi" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... 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. You can say that the Japanese were ready to surrender peacefully after watching the "War" coverage of the pacific campaign? After seeing the tenacity with which the Japanese fought in the Pacific, what leads you to the conclusion that they would surrender? Observations made during that time by leading US Military officials, including General Eisenhower and Admiral Leahy. Somehow I think they probably a more accurate finger on the pulse of the situation than any of us can have more than 60 years after the fact. Much of the information released to the public during any war is pure, unadulterated BS manipulation. The government can influence, if not entirely control, what it wants the populace to think. Top military leaders get a more accurate picture, as they need to deal with the reality of a situation and not the political posturing. Consider the internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry that occured in the western US (and in Canda as well). The government convinced everybody that these "little yellow people" couldn't be relied upon to be loyal to the US, even those who were 2nd and 3rd generation Americans, had never been to Japan, and didn't speak, read or write Japanese. Funny thing of course is that we didn't round up everybody named Schwartz or DiMaggio, even though we were also at war with Germany and Italy. Only a few people remain who will voice enthusiastic support for the internment, but at the time the sales job had been thorough enough that a majority of Americans felt it was a good idea. Personally I am thankful that we didn't have to invade because my father was scheduled to go participate, since the war in Europe was over. And how many civilians would have died of starvation and bombing during this blockade? How long to convince whoever that the Emperor wasn't "divine"? According to General Douglas MacArthur, (another individual in a position to know what was going on at the time), the Japanese were willing to surrender as soon as we agreed to allow the Emperor to remain on his throne. It is too bad that the Japanese became expansionist. They were already racist. Most of the world remains highly racist. I don't think the Japanese had any unique claim in that category. Many of our official government policies during the war (such as the internment) don't make any sense in retrospect unless viewed through the lens of racism. While American citizens of Japanese ancestry were in prison camps in the Rockies and the midwest, the farms, homes, factories, fishing boats, and small businesses they owned were confiscated by tax authorities. (Pretty hard to pay taxes on the farm when you're not allowed to work it.) It was considered shrewd business at the time to buy up property "confiscated from the Japs", and most of the internees had to start over again, completely from scratch, after they were released. Once again, Americans whose ancestry was German or Italian were not subject to the same treatment- at least they "looked like real Americans." As racist as some Americans remain, I think that in general the mixture of cultures and races in the US has done much to reduce racism. As a society we are probably more inclusive than most, but we still have a ways to go and some of the individual exceptions are almost Neanderthalic. |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... As racist as some Americans remain, I think that in general the mixture of cultures and races in the US has done much to reduce racism. As a society we are probably more inclusive than most, but we still have a ways to go and some of the individual exceptions are almost Neanderthalic. Most, if not all, nations have remained highly nationalistic by culture. An exception is the United States. We are one of the few successful nations on earth that can withstand the constant negative analysis and bad image promoted by some of her own citizens. Eisboch |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
Chuck Gould wrote: Most of the world remains highly racist. I don't think the Japanese had any unique claim in that category. Many of our official government policies during the war (such as the internment) don't make any sense in retrospect unless viewed through the lens of racism. While American citizens of Japanese ancestry were in prison camps in the Rockies and the midwest, the farms, homes, factories, fishing boats, and small businesses they owned were confiscated by tax authorities. (Pretty hard to pay taxes on the farm when you're not allowed to work it.) It was considered shrewd business at the time to buy up property "confiscated from the Japs", and most of the internees had to start over again, completely from scratch, after they were released. Once again, Americans whose ancestry was German or Italian were not subject to the same treatment- at least they "looked like real Americans." As racist as some Americans remain, I think that in general the mixture of cultures and races in the US has done much to reduce racism. As a society we are probably more inclusive than most, but we still have a ways to go and some of the individual exceptions are almost Neanderthalic. There was even talk of internment camps in WW1 which would of course been disasterous. My great uncle Fritz Schnautz , was a second generation immigrant from Germany and could speak German and English very fluentl. From what I gather, his service was invaluable in many case's as an interpreter. Same with my Uncle Geo. Lichner in WWII, He was raised in Chicago and only had a 6th grade education, but in service in Germany and Italy, he was put in the I-Corps, and used as in interpreter, because being raised in the melting pot of Chicago, he could speak and make his way though centeral european languages including most slavic dilects, because of his Bohemian background. |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
WaIIy wrote:
On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 08:12:36 -0700, Chuck Gould wrote: Most of the world remains highly racist. We're talking about WW2, not your PC editorials. Take the blinders off Wally. |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
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)." |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... On Nov 3, 7:22?am, "Del Cecchi" wrote: snip You can say that the Japanese were ready to surrender peacefully after watching the "War" coverage of the pacific campaign? After seeing the tenacity with which the Japanese fought in the Pacific, what leads you to the conclusion that they would surrender? Observations made during that time by leading US Military officials, including General Eisenhower and Admiral Leahy. Somehow I think they probably a more accurate finger on the pulse of the situation than any of us can have more than 60 years after the fact. Much of the information released to the public during any war is pure, unadulterated BS manipulation. The government can influence, if not entirely control, what it wants the populace to think. Top military leaders get a more accurate picture, as they need to deal with the reality of a situation and not the political posturing. Consider the internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry that occured in the western US (and in Canda as well). The government convinced everybody that these "little yellow people" couldn't be relied upon to be loyal to the US, even those who were 2nd and 3rd generation Americans, had never been to Japan, and didn't speak, read or write Japanese. Funny thing of course is that we didn't round up everybody named Schwartz or DiMaggio, even though we were also at war with Germany and Italy. Only a few people remain who will voice enthusiastic support for the internment, but at the time the sales job had been thorough enough that a majority of Americans felt it was a good idea. Sure, it was a disgraceful thing. Not nearly as bad as the Japanese actions in China however. Not even close. Personally I am thankful that we didn't have to invade because my father was scheduled to go participate, since the war in Europe was over. And how many civilians would have died of starvation and bombing during this blockade? How long to convince whoever that the Emperor wasn't "divine"? According to General Douglas MacArthur, (another individual in a position to know what was going on at the time), the Japanese were willing to surrender as soon as we agreed to allow the Emperor to remain on his throne. Ah, so all we had to do was go along with the "divine emperor" remaining in charge and retain his claim of divinity and they would have surrendered. Were there any other conditions? Would it have been hard to reform the government with the "divine emperor" on his throne? snip |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
?
Remember Pearl Harbor. And Nanking. And Battan. JR Chuck Gould wrote: 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. -- -------------------------------------------------------------- Home Page: http://www.seanet.com/~jasonrnorth |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 15:34:58 -0500, gfretwell wrote:
The GIs who took Okinawa would probably dissagree with this assessment. There were still Japanese soldiers holding out on islands years after the war. I dsoubt there was any kind of attrition war that would have defeated them and we might still have an Iraqi style insurrection around the world. Remember the Japanese invented the suicide bomber. Exactly, at that time, the Japanese knew they couldn't win the war, but they had hopes that they could make the cost of invading Japan so high, we would go for some sort of an armistice. They had very little fuel, but they still had 10,000 planes to be used as kamikaze. The plan was to target troop transports, rather than carriers and battleships. One Japanese study suggested that they could eliminate 1/3 to 1/2 of the invasion force before it's landing. Interestingly, 500,000 Purple Hearts were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties an invasion of Japan would cause. Even after the Korean War, Vietnam, etc., we still have over 100,000 stockpiled. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
On Nov 3, 12:46?pm, WaIIy wrote:
On Sat, 03 Nov 2007 08:12:36 -0700, Chuck Gould wrote: Observations made during that time by leading US Military officials, including General Eisenhower and Admiral Leahy. Somehow I think they probably a more accurate finger on the pulse of the situation than any of us can have more than 60 years after the fact. Quite the opposite. Well of course you're right. Rush Limbaugh obviously has a better handle on what happened in WWII than the generals who commanded the armed forces at the time. :-) History is written by the winners. Once the official "interpretation" of events is in place, it takes on a life of its own. Far be it from me to say what did or did not happen at the end of WWII. I wasn't even born yet. But I think that dismissing out of hand comments by the top ranking military commanders of the day, (comments that were made during or immediately after the events in question), in favor of analysis made 10, 20, or 30 years later for a variety of purposes and agendas may be somewhat careless. |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
On Nov 3, 7:47?pm, "Del Cecchi" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message oups.com... On Nov 3, 7:22?am, "Del Cecchi" wrote: snip You can say that the Japanese were ready to surrender peacefully after watching the "War" coverage of the pacific campaign? After seeing the tenacity with which the Japanese fought in the Pacific, what leads you to the conclusion that they would surrender? Observations made during that time by leading US Military officials, including General Eisenhower and Admiral Leahy. Somehow I think they probably a more accurate finger on the pulse of the situation than any of us can have more than 60 years after the fact. Much of the information released to the public during any war is pure, unadulterated BS manipulation. The government can influence, if not entirely control, what it wants the populace to think. Top military leaders get a more accurate picture, as they need to deal with the reality of a situation and not the political posturing. Consider the internment of American citizens of Japanese ancestry that occured in the western US (and in Canda as well). The government convinced everybody that these "little yellow people" couldn't be relied upon to be loyal to the US, even those who were 2nd and 3rd generation Americans, had never been to Japan, and didn't speak, read or write Japanese. Funny thing of course is that we didn't round up everybody named Schwartz or DiMaggio, even though we were also at war with Germany and Italy. Only a few people remain who will voice enthusiastic support for the internment, but at the time the sales job had been thorough enough that a majority of Americans felt it was a good idea. Sure, it was a disgraceful thing. Not nearly as bad as the Japanese actions in China however. Not even close. Indeed. I had a great aunt and uncle killed in the So Pacific by the Japanese. They were British civilians. Personally I am thankful that we didn't have to invade because my father was scheduled to go participate, since the war in Europe was over. And how many civilians would have died of starvation and bombing during this blockade? How long to convince whoever that the Emperor wasn't "divine"? According to General Douglas MacArthur, (another individual in a position to know what was going on at the time), the Japanese were willing to surrender as soon as we agreed to allow the Emperor to remain on his throne. Ah, so all we had to do was go along with the "divine emperor" remaining in charge and retain his claim of divinity and they would have surrendered. Were there any other conditions? Would it have been hard to reform the government with the "divine emperor" on his throne? Actually, the emperor *did* retain his throne as one of the terms of surrender. The last paragraph of the surrender document reads, "The authority of the Emperor and the Imperial Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Forces...." We left the emperor in place, a move that was probably well calculated to make the rebuilding and restructuring of the country. Even if everybody knew that Hirohito was taking his orders from the Allies, the changes were easier to accept as edicts from the Emperor. |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
On Nov 3, 10:56?am, WaIIy wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 10:59:13 -0700, Chuck Gould wrote: 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. What a suprise coming from just another "Useful idiot". Are you characterizing Admiral Leahy as a useful idiot? That was his opinion at the time, and he was Chief of Staff to both Roosevelt and Truman. |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
On Nov 3, 10:29 am, " JimH" ask wrote:
"Hiroshima Facts" wrote in message ups.com... On Nov 3, 9:12 am, " JimH" ask wrote: "Hiroshima Facts" wrote in message roups.com... 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. There was no 3rd bomb ready for use. It was months away from development. That is incorrect. Japan missed the third A-bomb by about a week. There were implosion assemblies already at Tinian. All they needed was a plutonium core to put in them. On August 11, that core was just leaving Los Alamos, to be flown to the Pacific for a bombing around August 17-18. However, Japan had begun to talk about surrendering the day before, and Truman had responded by ordering a temporary halt to A-bombing to give them a little breathing room. Groves took that a step further and ordered a halt to shipping the core. The core only made it as far as the Los Alamos parking lot before it was recalled. On August 14, Truman ordered that the core be shipped and that it be used on Tokyo. However, a few hours later Japan surrendered and the war was over. Because of the three day delay in shipping the core, the bombing would have been around August 20-21. After the third bomb, there would have been a delay of some months, but not because we lacked A-bombs. The delay would have been because we would have begun saving them up to clear the beaches just before we invaded. Expected production rates would have been another three in September, another four in October, another five in November, another seven (or more) in December, and about ten a month from then on. Thanks. I was just repeating what was said in the Burns "The War" PBS documentary. I guess they were wrong. Yes. I cringed at that part. They made three huge errors in a couple quick lines. They also said the Nazis were racing to build their own A-bomb. We did fear that during the war, and that fear is what led us to rush our own A-bomb program. But in reality the Nazis had erroneously concluded that an A-bomb was impossible, so they weren't pursuing it. And worst of all they had absurdly high figures for the post-1945 radiation deaths -- far higher than what actually happened. |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
On Nov 3, 10:12 am, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 3, 7:22?am, "Del Cecchi" wrote: You can say that the Japanese were ready to surrender peacefully after watching the "War" coverage of the pacific campaign? After seeing the tenacity with which the Japanese fought in the Pacific, what leads you to the conclusion that they would surrender? Observations made during that time by leading US Military officials, including General Eisenhower and Admiral Leahy. Leahy's observations to that effect were not made "during that time". They were made years after the war had ended. Ike is about the only one who claimed Japan was trying to surrender, but he didn't make a big deal over it, and the only person he told (Stimson) didn't take him very seriously. Somehow I think they probably a more accurate finger on the pulse of the situation than any of us can have more than 60 years after the fact. Not necessarily. Historians have access to pretty much all the knowledge that they had during the war. Personally I am thankful that we didn't have to invade because my father was scheduled to go participate, since the war in Europe was over. And how many civilians would have died of starvation and bombing during this blockade? How long to convince whoever that the Emperor wasn't "divine"? According to General Douglas MacArthur, (another individual in a position to know what was going on at the time), the Japanese were willing to surrender as soon as we agreed to allow the Emperor to remain on his throne. That was MacArthur's view years after the war. Just after Hiroshima his view was still that Japan wouldn't surrender until the US invaded Japan. And we never made any agreement regarding keeping the Emperor. The surrender terms gave MacArthur the power to depose the Emperor if he felt like it. |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
On Nov 3, 2:43 pm, WaIIy wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 23:23:57 -0700, Hiroshima Facts wrote: 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. Rewriting history ? Nope. Just a straightforward statement of the facts. |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
On Nov 3, 5:18 pm, Chuck Gould wrote:
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)." That quote does not contradict the fact that there were only a few thousand deaths due to A-bomb radiation after 1945. It is true that a few hundred of those deaths were Leukemia though. |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
On Nov 4, 12:57 am, Chuck Gould wrote:
But I think that dismissing out of hand comments by the top ranking military commanders of the day, (comments that were made during or immediately after the events in question), in favor of analysis made 10, 20, or 30 years later for a variety of purposes and agendas may be somewhat careless. Not necessarily. Some of the military leaders had an axe to grind when they made their comments. Of course, so do some present day historians. But the mainstream seems to have formed a reasonable consensus on the matter. |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
On Nov 4, 1:12 am, Chuck Gould wrote:
Actually, the emperor *did* retain his throne as one of the terms of surrender. The last paragraph of the surrender document reads, "The authority of the Emperor and the Imperial Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Forces...." That line is saying that the Supreme Commander for the Allied Forces can depose the Emperor if he feels like it. |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
On Nov 4, 1:13 am, Chuck Gould wrote:
On Nov 3, 10:56?am, WaIIy wrote: On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 10:59:13 -0700, Chuck Gould wrote: 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. What a suprise coming from just another "Useful idiot". Are you characterizing Admiral Leahy as a useful idiot? Hmmm...... Well, all Leahy had to say about the bomb during the war was "I'm and expert in explosives, and I say these things will never work". |
Brigadier General Paul Tibbets, RIP
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:44 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com