Son of Pilot Who Dropped A-Bomb Opposes,

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Vendor

Plan to Send U.S. Delegation to Hiroshima Ceremony.EXCLUSIVE: The son of the U.S. Air Force pilot who dropped the first atomic bomb in the history of warfare says the Obama administration's decision to send a U.S. delegation to a ceremony in Japan to mark the 65th anniversary of the attack on Hiroshima is an "unsaid apology" and appears to be an attempt to "rewrite history."


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...ny/?test=faces

Can I say what b-u-l-l-s-h-i-t ?

The drop of the 2 bombs were justified only from an economical standpoint (remember how much money the Manhattan project cost the US taxpayers ? ) a ROI if you want for the military industrial complex; and as an act of leverage against the Soviets.
All the talk about the bombing being necessary because it would have saved lives etc... is only that. Talk without substance. If the bombs were not dropped the US would have invaded Japan at the earliest by the end of 1945, and it was well known that the japanese government wanted to end the war by the time the Potsdam conference was in effect. Truman and Stalin deliberately decided to ignore the Japanese message.

The drop of the 2 bombs effectively ended the war. The reason for using them (propaganda aside, the evergreen motto "to save lives") on the other hand has nothing to do with saving lives. And history, and historical documents show this very clearly.

[joegrundman]

Every year there is a ceremony to mark the Hiroshima bombing, and every year the US sends a delegation.

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

Every year there is a ceremony to mark the Hiroshima bombing, and every year the US sends a delegation.

True, but this is the first year we are poised to 'apologize'.

[joegrundman]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

True, but this is the first year we are poised to 'apologize'.

maybe i was wrong. i lived in japan for three years, and they hold the ceremony every year. i was pretty sure that on each occasion a us official was present and spoke publicly.

but if the japanese are making a big deal about it, clearly something is different. Maybe it was always in an 'unofficial capacity' before.

But if poised to apologise, as you put it, how is it an 'unsaid apology' as Tibbets jr. puts it?

In any case, although this clearly has the makings of another conservative storm in a teacup, you shouldn't worry too much about it. The commemoration is very uncontroversial, lamenting lives lost in war and wishing that the world never again finds itself using nukes on civilian centres. That sort of thing.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by goldorak

Can I say what b-u-l-l-s-h-i-t ?

The drop of the 2 bombs were justified only from an economical standpoint (remember how much money the Manhattan project cost the US taxpayers ? ) a ROI if you want for the military industrial complex; and as an act of leverage against the Soviets.
All the talk about the bombing being necessary because it would have saved lives etc... is only that. Talk without substance. If the bombs were not dropped the US would have invaded Japan at the earliest by the end of 1945, and it was well known that the japanese government wanted to end the war by the time the Potsdam conference was in effect. Truman and Stalin deliberately decided to ignore the Japanese message.

The drop of the 2 bombs effectively ended the war. The reason for using them (propaganda aside, the evergreen motto "to save lives") on the other hand has nothing to do with saving lives. And history, and historical documents show this very clearly.

from foxNews and nothing else! I know well the story both before and after, and there are reasons for them strategic decision was taken during WWII,and if you have any relevance to "tread" is known as BS as above, only that it is a bad mail is not what it contains, you must be able to separate this!

[TLAM Strike]

Remember this. Every Purple Heart awarded since the end of WWII to the present day (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and other conficts) all were minted for Operation Downfall the Allied invasion of Japan.

500,000 were made. 120,000 are still in stock.

[tater]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

Remember this. Every Purple Heart awarded since the end of WWII to the present day (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and other conficts) all were minted for Operation Downfall the Allied invasion of Japan.

500,000 were made. 120,000 are still in stock.

500k would not have been enough I fear.

Then there is the standing jap order to murder all POWs upon invasion. Note that in September, this would have resulted in the murder of all POWs in the CBI when the brits would have invaded Malaya. The death toll just from already ordered POW murders would have exceeded the death toll of BOTH a-bombs.

[tater]

I've met his grandson (he's a B-2 pilot), as well as General Tibbets himself. His son is right.

The japanese should thank us for the a-bombs, they saved countless JAPANESE lives.

Some goon asked General Tibbets if he had visited the Hiroshima Memorial when I saw him give a talk. He said "I've only been to Hiroshima the one time, and I didn't stop."

Everyone laughed except the hippie.

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by tater

Some goon asked General Tibbets if he had visited the Hiroshima Memorial when I saw him give a talk. He said "I've only been to Hiroshima the one time, and I didn't stop."

Everyone laughed except the hippie.

Killing 80,000 people, most of whom are civilians, can be fun!

[tater]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

Killing 80,000 people, most of whom are civilians, can be fun!

Actually, technically very few were civilians. By Imperial Edict, all "men" between the ages of 15 and 65 were already officially conscripted, as were all females 17-47.

So the only civilians were boys under 15, girls under 17, men over 65, and women over 47.

[Raptor1]

Not...this...time...

Ah, whatever.

Originally Posted by goldorak

Can I say what b-u-l-l-s-h-i-t ?

The drop of the 2 bombs were justified only from an economical standpoint (remember how much money the Manhattan project cost the US taxpayers ? ) a ROI if you want for the military industrial complex; and as an act of leverage against the Soviets.
All the talk about the bombing being necessary because it would have saved lives etc... is only that. Talk without substance. If the bombs were not dropped the US would have invaded Japan at the earliest by the end of 1945, and it was well known that the japanese government wanted to end the war by the time the Potsdam conference was in effect. Truman and Stalin deliberately decided to ignore the Japanese message.

The drop of the 2 bombs effectively ended the war. The reason for using them (propaganda aside, the evergreen motto "to save lives") on the other hand has nothing to do with saving lives. And history, and historical documents show this very clearly.

What messages were they ignoring? The Japanese government had no intention to unconditionally surrender at this point, they rather would have accepted an end to the war with some outrageous demands that included no occupation, conducting their own war crimes trials by themselves, disarming the IJN by themselves and other such blatant nonsense.

And wouldn't it have saved lives? Take a look at the buildup of forces on both sides and the estimated casualties for Operation Downfall; it's quite clear that dropping the atomic bombs would have been much preferable to an invasion on both sides.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

And wouldn't it have saved lives? Take a look at the buildup of forces on both sides and the estimated casualties for Operation Downfall; it's quite clear that dropping the atomic bombs would have been much preferable to an invasion on both sides.

10-15,000 planes held in reserve for kamikaze attacks. Massed forces on the southern end of Kyushu. Aviation fuel, ammo stockpiled. Doesn't sound like "about to surrender" to me.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

Not...this...time...

Ah, whatever.

Bad Raptor!

[tater]

That Japan wanted to end the war is utter nonsense.

That old claim is based on one intercepted message from a diplomat back to Tokyo where he said they should accept. The reply—which was in a code that did not have intercepts declassified until 1996—was an unambiguous "NO." It added that the plan was to bleed the US white on the beaches, THEN sue for peace with the US body count as a negotiating point.

The a-bombs without question saved lives.

Again, all POWs and detainees (civilians) would have been executed in September. Not to mention the fact that Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have simply been firebombed had they not been nuked. The 2d Tokyo fire bomb raid killed more than EITHER a-bomb.

One of the best books dealing with the way the war ended (nitty gritty details from inside the Imperial Palace and IGHQ) is Richard Frank's excellent book, Downfall.

[August]

Originally Posted by goldorak

...and it was well known that the japanese government wanted to end the war by the time the Potsdam conference was in effect.

Says you. IIRC that there was at least one coup attempt by Imperial Army officers to stop the surrender.

In any case how many Tokyo style firebombing raids do you think would have been mounted before the war actually ended if it had been allowed to run it's course?

You may not like it but those atomic bombs did save lives on both sides.