• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

How should we remember Paul Tibbets?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Craig234

What "choice" do you think he really made?

He was already an experienced combat bomber pilot. He understood the role of bombing in the war. By 1945, it was commonly accepted that bombing cities was justified.

We could already destroy Japanese cities at will with a mass bomber strike. The Japanese desperately hoped that our losses would deter us. The atomic bomb killed that idea. Instead of risking a thousand bombers and crews to destroy a city, we could risk one. They understood that we could sustain that level of risk indefinitely, and it was hopeless to continue.

Tibbets understood this too. Given the knowledge and attitudes of the time, just what do you think he considered to be negatives to dropping the bomb?

If you had been a product of those times and a veteran, what moral compunctions would you have had that would have been alien to him?

Personally, I take the opportunity of having him brought to mind again to salute all of the vets of that war who did their duty with honorable service and sacrifice.

It might have been a justified action, but that's not a good reason to lionize him either. He was a soldier doing his job, he doesn't deserve the to be vilified by Craig234, or deified by various other folks.

Except for one thing, he (and his crew) knew they were dropping a bomb that if it worked as hoped would kill 10's if not 100's of thousands of human beings. That's a lot of weight for so few people to be carry on their shoulders for their whole lives. May he rest in Peace.
 
Originally posted by: capece
"Please try to understand this," Tibbets said, his voice quiet and even. "It's not an easy thing to hear, but please listen. There is no morality in warfare. You kill children. You kill women. You kill old men. You don't seek them out, but they die. That's what happens in war."

We might be tempted to malign Tibbets for saying this, but what he says is true. How can war, an activity directly associated with the killing of human beings, ever be considered "moral"?

Any people malign the religious right for having a simplistic worldview. :roll: Yes, war is terrible, but in some situations, it can be the more moral option. The basic fact is, there are evil people in this world, and sometimes, they rise to power and seek to kill innocents for whatever reason. (There are plenty of examples in history of this fact, but I'm not going to cite to any to avoid getting into the politics of different situations.) In some situations, it's morally justified to use force, even deadly force, to oppose evil.

And war itself can be conducted in a moral manner (given the circumstances). Armies can respect surrender, try to avoid collateral damage, not use certain weapons, treat prisoners humanely, etc.
 
Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
Originally posted by: Craig234
As a man who killed hundreds of thousands of people.

There can be a question whether it was 'justified' or not. Following orders doesn't cut it; he made the choice to follow those orders, and can't transfer the moral responsibility to the people who gave the orders (they also have shared responsibility). There are questions about that bomb drop, much less the second one when the Japanese may have been on the verge of surrender; such as whether it needed to be on a city with civilians rather than on a less populated or at least military target ('production' isn't the same thing).

It also doesn't matter that someone else would have taken his place - that's no excuse if it was wrong. The callousness war creates is not an excuse, either, if it was wrong.

Perhaps he would have sent a far more lasting message had he refused the mission - a message reminding that the soldiers have a moral responsibility all their own, a message that the dropping of nuclear weapons might be morally questionable, even in that situation; maybe not.

There is a side of the argument in favor of the dropping; unfortunately, many who argue it are ideologues who simply rush to blindly defend the dropping, not just consider one side.

I do not see him at all as a hero.

I would not make the same choice he made. But I don't simply say he was wrong. He made a very large choice. He did not choose to oppose the use of the bomb on a city, for better or worse. At the end of the day, he's simply a pilot who did not do much but follow an order to fly a plane - and participate in the use of the bomb that killed so many, and may have saved many others.

I read the book Enola Gay a long long long long time ago... So my memory is a little fuzzy on this issue...

But IIRC Paul Tibbets and his crew only had a vague notion of what kind of bomb they were dropping. They weren't at the Trinity test site. They didn't see the bomb go off. They didn't know about fall out. They didn't know about radiation. All they knew was that it was a weapon powerful enough to end a war and they were chosen to be the crew to drop it.

So given that... without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight... why would he refuse the mission? Why would you for that matter? You say you woudn't have made the same choice he made but that is based on your knowledge of history... something he didn't have. It's also based on a different cultural and political background but we won't go there.

Are you really telling us all here that given the same choice with the same limited information that he had... (very few people understood the full ramifications of a nuclear bomb - and they weren't the ones making the decision to use it, much less drop it) having been told that you could end a horrible war that had dragged on for years with one bomb... you're saying you wouldn't do it? Really?

Kinda sounds like you're talking out of your self righteous ass right now.



Bingo!~

This is precisely to the point I was going to make - saved me from typing.
Back in '45, the A-bomb was just "a bomb"... now it's "THE bomb"... pressures are very different.
 
a pilot who did his job, and is only notable because he flew the plane that ushered in an new era. and did he even drop the bomb, or was it the bombardier?


i'll note that firebombing tokyo most likely killed more people than the atomic bombs combined.
 
Originally posted by: Vic
How should we remember Einstein?

Let's get our facts straight here:
-He didn't directly participate in its creation
-He regretted urging Roosevelt to develop it and its use in Japan

In November 1954, five months before his death, Einstein summarized his feelings about his role in the creation of the atomic bomb: "I made one great mistake in my life... when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification - the danger that the Germans would make them." (Clark, pg. 752).
...
Einstein later wrote, "I have always condemned the use of the atomic bomb against Japan."


this is very different from this guy's views:

He had no regrets, regarding the dropping of the bomb as necessary
 
The man who willingly killed tens of thousands of civilians and died with no regrets of it.

OR

The poster child of this nation's dual measure for heroism and terrorism?
 
Originally posted by: Martin
Originally posted by: Vic
How should we remember Einstein?

Let's get our facts straight here:
-He didn't directly participate in its creation
-He regretted urging Roosevelt to develop it and its use in Japan

In November 1954, five months before his death, Einstein summarized his feelings about his role in the creation of the atomic bomb: "I made one great mistake in my life... when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made; but there was some justification - the danger that the Germans would make them." (Clark, pg. 752).
...
Einstein later wrote, "I have always condemned the use of the atomic bomb against Japan."


this is very different from this guy's views:

He had no regrets, regarding the dropping of the bomb as necessary

First, you missed my obvious point, which is the use of the bomb was not the action of any one man, but the culmination of the labor of tens of thousands, starting with Einstein and ending with Tibbets.

Second, Einstein did participate in its creation, by signing the letter to FDR that urged for its development.

And third, regret after the fact does not mean sh!t. That's emotional nonsense if I've ever heard it. It happened. Get over it. Blaming the man who piloted the plane while excusing the man who dreamed it up is just plain childish.
 
Originally posted by: DarkThinker
The man who willingly killed tens of thousands of civilians and died with no regrets of it.

OR

The poster child of this nation's dual measure for heroism and terrorism?

dude you really have no concept of the tims or what was happenning.
A military ceases to be a military if you can refuse an order.
This guy Tibbet`s sww it correctly as in not how many would be killed but as in hoe many lives on both sides would be eventually saved.
People can say what they want about japan laready looking for a way to surrender gracefully nit the truth be told we could still be at war withg them or even worse speaking Japanses on Amrican soil....no thx

Tibbets was a Hero!!
 
Tibbets did his duty asked of him. He took on a heavy task for his nation to defeat a foe that wasn't backing down. We shouldn't celebrate the bombing, but we should look at the fact that he was willing to take on this task to serve his nation.
 
Back
Top