• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Pilot who dropped bomb on Hiroshima died.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

jagec

Lifer
Apr 30, 2004
24,442
4
0
Originally posted by: Rogodin2
I know more than you can imagine jagec. I'm not being facetious.

This pilot was used, just as both my grandfathers were, to make manifest the superior weapons capability (strategic atomic bombs) of the United States of America. If you'd like to argue that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki put an end to the war please feel free to post your argument.

Rogo
That's not what I'm taking issue with. It's the "...provoked them by limiting their imperialist growth" that got to me...by that argument, the US needs to drop a LOT more bombs on Vietnam, Venezuela, Cuba, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, and all those other countries that are guilty of "limiting our imperialist growth". We've been WRONGED!
 

tyler811

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2002
5,387
0
71
Originally posted by: Linflas
Originally posted by: CPA
Originally posted by: RagingBITCH
30 year old colonel? Wow.

I guess we can make all the comments we want, but none of us will ever know what it was like to be in his shoes. You take 80K lives for your country...that's a hell of a moral weight to have on your shoulders until you die.
But, from the sounds of it, it looked like we chose the right guy.
Fortunately for us the country was full of the "right guys" at that time.

RIP
:thumbsup:
 

Rogodin2

Banned
Jul 2, 2003
3,224
0
0
That's not what I'm taking issue with. It's the "...provoked them by limiting their imperialist growth" that got to me...by that argument, the US needs to drop a LOT more bombs on Vietnam, Venezuela, Cuba, Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, and all those other countries that are guilty of "limiting our imperialist growth". We've been WRONGED!
I meant that the countries that had/have the economic and social power to pursue our imperialistic nation building have just as much of a global right as we do.

Every country has the right to create a society based upon the 'american way of life'.

You misunderstood my intention.

Rogo
 

OdiN

Banned
Mar 1, 2000
16,431
3
0
Originally posted by: Rogodin2
Every time I see you nik for some reason my brain reads it as "jizzhole", then I read your post and I understand why.
Every time I read your name I always think it's 'assmonkey'.

We're talking about a 'hero' and you're calling people names. Grow up lad.

Rogo
You posting in this thread just does dishonor to this hero. You should not speak in here again.

Go troll somewhere else.
 

Rogodin2

Banned
Jul 2, 2003
3,224
0
0
You posting in this thread just does dishonor to this hero. You should not speak in here again.
I've more of a right to post in this thread than you do. My grandfathers both fought in WW2 and both of them believed that HT was correct and that they would die in battle unless they dropped atomic bombs on japanese civilians. Grandpa Vik died in 2001 and Papa Shelton is still living in his orchard.

Oh-and Odin-take a leap you immature person.

Rogo
 

DarkThinker

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2007
2,822
0
0
"I sleep clearly every night," he said.

For someone that resulted in the deaths of 80,000 in addition to the horrible mutations that still exist till our current day?
Our nation's dual measure for terrorism and heroism is ironic.
 

wkabel23

Platinum Member
Dec 7, 2003
2,505
0
0
Japanese civilians were ready to surrender. The military? That's a different story. If you think Japan was ready to roll over without the atomic bombs, or a land invasion...I suggest you drop Revisionist History 101 and take a look at reality.
 

DarkThinker

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2007
2,822
0
0
Originally posted by: wkabel23
Japanese civilians were ready to surrender. The military? That's a different story. If you think Japan was ready to roll over without the atomic bombs, or a land invasion...I suggest you drop Revisionist History 101 and take a look at reality.
I understand your point, but personally, I just don't believe it was a used as a LAST RESORT.
 

foghorn67

Lifer
Jan 3, 2006
11,883
49
91
Originally posted by: DarkThinker
Originally posted by: wkabel23
Japanese civilians were ready to surrender. The military? That's a different story. If you think Japan was ready to roll over without the atomic bombs, or a land invasion...I suggest you drop Revisionist History 101 and take a look at reality.
I understand your point, but personally, I just don't believe it was a used as a LAST RESORT.
You really got to read some biographies and autobiographies of the leaders of that time. Another factor was the 'kamakazi' and the fervor of even the average Japanese soldier. This had everyone beside themselves. Getting captured alive was a disgrace to them.
Iwo Jima and Okinawa were overwhelming in casualties for such a small piece of land. They couldn't imagine the invasion casualties for the main island. Heck, all of the island hopping campaigns were bloody. Take a look at any map of the Pacific theatere, look at the population of each island, each naval battle, look at the casualties on both sides on each battle, then look north to Japan's main island. Maybe, just maybe we can relate to the heaviness of all this.
 

IEC

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jun 10, 2004
14,015
3,815
136
Let me put it this way: It's morally wrong to do something like an atomic bomb

BUT

War is hell. War is immoral. Policymakers are immoral. In this case, vulgar utilitarianism wins every time.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Originally posted by: wkabel23
Japanese civilians were ready to surrender. The military? That's a different story. If you think Japan was ready to roll over without the atomic bombs, or a land invasion...I suggest you drop Revisionist History 101 and take a look at reality.
Don't you defer this to revisionist history 101. I think that the supreme commander of the entire allied forces and ex president of the country probably had a better understanding of it than you.

For someone that resulted in the deaths of 80,000 in addition to the horrible mutations that still exist till our current day?
Our nation's dual measure for terrorism and heroism is ironic.
Yep, I say this often but people are not interested in hearing it.

War is hell. War is immoral. Policymakers are immoral. In this case, vulgar utilitarianism wins every time.
If this country has to one-up 911, I hate to see what that looks like.

Those who want to keep this thread "on track", it is on track. It will always be impossible to do something like bring up the a-bombing of a country without different perspectives chiming in, for if they do not chime, it's all so disingenuous and pointless.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,661
3,138
126
Originally posted by: Rogodin2
Should'a, would'a, could'a. There might be a half dozen people on this forum that were alive when these bombs were dropped, much less adult and discerning. We weren't there, we don't really know what happened, but we do know that almost the entire world agreed upon what did happen shortly after it happened and the people that were there were still alive. If you have conspiracy theories, ok, but take it to P&N. These kinds of threads are posted in OT specifically to avoid the flamebait and stupid arguments that are expected over there.
At least you have to read about the history of the machine that supports your life lad.

Take a fucking leap.

Rogo
I want some of whatever Rogo is smoking.......
 

Demon-Xanth

Lifer
Feb 15, 2000
20,551
2
81
Some people make it sound like Japan fought honorably.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
"During the occupation of Nanjing, the Japanese army committed numerous atrocities, such as rape, looting, arson and the execution of prisoners of war and civilians. Although the executions began under the pretext of eliminating Chinese soldiers disguised as civilians, a large number of innocent men were intentionally identified as enemy combatants and executed?or simply killed outright?as the massacre gathered momentum. A large number of women and children were also killed, as rape and murder became more widespread.

The extent of the atrocities is debated between China and Japan, with numbers[1] ranging from some Japanese claims of several hundred,[2] to the Chinese claim of a non-combatant death toll of 300,000[3]. A number of Japanese researchers consider 100,000 ? 200,000 to be an approximate value.[4] Other nations usually believe the death toll to be between 150,000 ? 300,000"

In total, 3.8 MILLION Chinese soldiers died, and 15.8 MILLION Chinese civilians died during WW2. Kinda makes Japan's 580,000 civilians seem like we went soft, doesn't it?

The Soviet Union was the only country to take more at 10.7M soldiers and 11.9M civilians.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
Some people make it sound like Japan fought honorably.
Who? Nobody denies the horrors their military propogated, or at least shouldn't. The Allies were far and away better to prisoners than the Axis forces.
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,388
75
91
Do some of you really live in such a fantasy world that you believe that the home islands of Japan could have been invaded without repeating on a massive scale the losses experienced on Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, Peleliu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa? Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied commander in the European theater and did not experience first hand the horrors of the Pacific war including the massive Kamikaze attacks against naval vessels. If you don't understand that those experiences greatly influenced the decision to use the bomb then you are either enthralled with the revisionist view or willfully blind to the realities of the Pacific war. I suspect after seeing first hand the depredations of the Nazi death factories if Eisenhower had been given the atomic option to force the surrender of Germany a year sooner he would have used it without hesitation.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
2
0
enthralled with the revisionist view
I like how it's being coined the revisionist view that is the one that paints a darker picture of it as opposed to the "It was the right thing to do" picture. If anything, that sounds revisionist.

I haven't studied this issue much. The vast majority of people in this thread haven't, but I feel fairly safe deferring on matters of strategy to Eisenhower. His credentials are without equal, so if nothing else I'm just dropping a bone of consideration, that maybe people would question a bit more about it instead of rehashing what they were told in grade nine.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Some people make it sound like Japan fought honorably.
Who? Nobody denies the horrors their military propogated, or at least shouldn't. The Allies were far and away better to prisoners than the Axis forces.
That's only half-true. Unless you were Jewish of course, the Germans treated you to Geneva Convention standards. The fatality rate of U.S. POWs in German hands was something like 3%, confirming humane treatment generally. Of course the concentration camps were a different story - I'm not going to deny that at all. On the other hand, the Japanese treated all prisoners poorly, with starvation-level diets, torture, slave labor to the the point of death, medical expirementation, etc. The fatality rate for US POWs in Japanese hands was ~33%, 10 times the rate for those held by Germany. Additionally, the survivors, having been treated so poorly, had significantly shortened lifespans as a result. The VA tracks all this information, and the mortality rate for POWs held by Japan was always much higher than those held by Germany.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: Skoorb
enthralled with the revisionist view
I like how it's being coined the revisionist view that is the one that paints a darker picture of it as opposed to the "It was the right thing to do" picture. If anything, that sounds revisionist.

I haven't studied this issue much. The vast majority of people in this thread haven't, but I feel fairly safe deferring on matters of strategy to Eisenhower. His credentials are without equal, so if nothing else I'm just dropping a bone of consideration, that maybe people would question a bit more about it instead of rehashing what they were told in grade nine.
Probably one of the best books on the subject is "Downfall" by Rich Frank. Amazon has it. Great study of the final days of Imperial Japan. Read it, and you'll understand why the so-called "revisionist" view is indeed revisionist.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: Linflas
Do some of you really live in such a fantasy world that you believe that the home islands of Japan could have been invaded without repeating on a massive scale the losses experienced on Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, Peleliu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa? Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied commander in the European theater and did not experience first hand the horrors of the Pacific war including the massive Kamikaze attacks against naval vessels. If you don't understand that those experiences greatly influenced the decision to use the bomb then you are either enthralled with the revisionist view or willfully blind to the realities of the Pacific war. I suspect after seeing first hand the depredations of the Nazi death factories if Eisenhower had been given the atomic option to force the surrender of Germany a year sooner he would have used it without hesitation.
Your argument essentially boils down to "well, they were doing horrible things too." This isn't a justification, particularly during a war that Americans love to claim moral superiority. You cannot justify killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens (including the firebombing campaigns) by saying "well, the Japanese were doing it to other people." However you slice it, the United States was responsible for the murder of innocent civilians. Hate to break it to you, but that's the truth. I don't like it either.

Justifying the use of the weapons is a tough task. I'm not even saying it wasn't the "best" answer, I'm just trying to say we cannot just gloss over history by applying our "moral superiority" to the war itself. The atomic bomb is a horrible weapon, it does horrible things to people, and has caused countless long, painful deaths in the decades following the 1940s.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: Linflas
Do some of you really live in such a fantasy world that you believe that the home islands of Japan could have been invaded without repeating on a massive scale the losses experienced on Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, Peleliu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa? Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied commander in the European theater and did not experience first hand the horrors of the Pacific war including the massive Kamikaze attacks against naval vessels. If you don't understand that those experiences greatly influenced the decision to use the bomb then you are either enthralled with the revisionist view or willfully blind to the realities of the Pacific war. I suspect after seeing first hand the depredations of the Nazi death factories if Eisenhower had been given the atomic option to force the surrender of Germany a year sooner he would have used it without hesitation.
Your argument essentially boils down to "well, they were doing horrible things too." This isn't a justification, particularly during a war that Americans love to claim moral superiority. You cannot justify killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens (including the firebombing campaigns) by saying "well, the Japanese were doing it to other people." However you slice it, the United States was responsible for the murder of innocent civilians. Hate to break it to you, but that's the truth. I don't like it either.
And the U.S. saved many more innocent Japanese civilian lives by dropping the bombs, thus removing the need to conduct a mainland invasion. Furthermore, Japan was facing a famine beginning in mid-to-late 1945 because of a poor rice crop and the Allied naval blockade, and had the U.S. not occupied Japan and shipped emergency food supplies, many Japanese would have starved to death. Any reasonable review of the historical record will confirm that the dropping of the bombs saved many, many more than were killed.
 

BeauJangles

Lifer
Aug 26, 2001
13,941
1
0
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: Linflas
Do some of you really live in such a fantasy world that you believe that the home islands of Japan could have been invaded without repeating on a massive scale the losses experienced on Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, Peleliu, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa? Eisenhower was the Supreme Allied commander in the European theater and did not experience first hand the horrors of the Pacific war including the massive Kamikaze attacks against naval vessels. If you don't understand that those experiences greatly influenced the decision to use the bomb then you are either enthralled with the revisionist view or willfully blind to the realities of the Pacific war. I suspect after seeing first hand the depredations of the Nazi death factories if Eisenhower had been given the atomic option to force the surrender of Germany a year sooner he would have used it without hesitation.
Your argument essentially boils down to "well, they were doing horrible things too." This isn't a justification, particularly during a war that Americans love to claim moral superiority. You cannot justify killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens (including the firebombing campaigns) by saying "well, the Japanese were doing it to other people." However you slice it, the United States was responsible for the murder of innocent civilians. Hate to break it to you, but that's the truth. I don't like it either.
And the U.S. saved many more innocent Japanese civilian lives by dropping the bombs, thus removing the need to conduct a mainland invasion. Furthermore, Japan was facing a famine beginning in mid-to-late 1945 because of a poor rice crop and the Allied naval blockade, and had the U.S. not occupied Japan and shipped emergency food supplies, many Japanese would have starved to death. Any reasonable review of the historical record will confirm that the dropping of the bombs saved many, many more than were killed.
That isn't true. What you're doing is confusing what happened with what you think would have happened. Reasonable? You seem to view history as a having on two tracks: the path that was followed and the alternate. The fact is, there were many, many options available to the United States besides bombing the Japanese and invading the home islands. Like I said before, a demonstration of the weapon would have at least given the Japanese an idea of what the US meant by complete destruction.

The reality is we do not know what would have happened had the US invaded or had anothe course of action been followed. Hypothetically, we saved lives. I guess I'm hypothetically satisfied with that. In reality, however, I am not satisfied with the course of action followed by the United States. While the bombings may have saved lives, they also killed a hell of a lot of real people. Let's not take this whole issue so lightly.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,853
11,053
136
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: Skoorb
enthralled with the revisionist view
I like how it's being coined the revisionist view that is the one that paints a darker picture of it as opposed to the "It was the right thing to do" picture. If anything, that sounds revisionist.

I haven't studied this issue much. The vast majority of people in this thread haven't, but I feel fairly safe deferring on matters of strategy to Eisenhower. His credentials are without equal, so if nothing else I'm just dropping a bone of consideration, that maybe people would question a bit more about it instead of rehashing what they were told in grade nine.
Probably one of the best books on the subject is "Downfall" by Rich Frank. Amazon has it. Great study of the final days of Imperial Japan. Read it, and you'll understand why the so-called "revisionist" view is indeed revisionist.
Frank makes a compelling argument, backed up by facts, that the Japanese food situation was quite dire in 1945. The atomic bombings probably saved vast numbers of Japanese citizens from starvation by forcing a conclusion to the war. One of the first things MacArthur did was import massive amounts of foodstufs to Japan to avert the disaster.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
That isn't true. What you're doing is confusing what happened with what you think would have happened. Reasonable? You seem to view history as a having on two tracks: the path that was followed and the alternate. The fact is, there were many, many options available to the United States besides bombing the Japanese and invading the home islands. Like I said before, a demonstration of the weapon would have at least given the Japanese an idea of what the US meant by complete destruction.
What other options? And your idea for a 'demonstration' convincing the Japanese is mere speculation, and not very good speculation at that - when the bombs were dropped on actual people, there were still very senior military commanders who did not wish to end the war. It's likely a demonstration would not have convinced them.

Besides, a demonstration was considered at the time. The U.S. only had two bombs initially (which they weren't totally sure would work anyway) and were nearly a year away from making more. They wanted to create the impression that they had more of this weapon, and could drop them at will on Japan, so they really couldn't waste one (which might have been a dude) dropping it in a demonstration. What if the U.S. had scheduled a demonstration for the Japanese, and the bomb was a dud? It would've only emboldened them, prolonging the war.

The reality is we do not know what would have happened had the US invaded or had anothe course of action been followed.
Well, that's just obvious. But we can make educated guesses. Looking at the death tolls resulting from such invasions as Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the total casualties of an invasion of Japan could easily be predicted to exceed 1M+. And we already knew from the Philipphines that the Japanese had no qualms about killing prisoners, rather than returning them to the Allied forces.

Hypothetically, we saved lives. I guess I'm hypothetically satisfied with that. In reality, however, I am not satisfied with the course of action followed by the United States. While the bombings may have saved lives, they also killed a hell of a lot of real people. Let's not take this whole issue so lightly.
No one's taking it lightly. Death is never a good thing, but less deaths are better than more, and having read up on the issue, I have no real reservations about the dropping of the bombs.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY