http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...cle=1&catnum=0

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

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...

wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 12:34:48 -0000,
wrote:

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...

When I watch the way the nips treated our soldiers I think we should
nuke them again.
It is very clear that the shock value of those two bombs saved more
Japanese lives than they took. Without the nukes, LeMay was going to
firebomb that island until there was not one structure standing and
then we would have had a bloody invasion that might have killed a
million or more. I doubt we could have ever really occupied the
country peacefully.

I afgree and disagree at the same time.

Thats what I meant when I said: "Mixed emotions"

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.

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.