Paul Tibbets: aid to mass murder or man of duty?

[HelioPrime]

For those that don't know, Paul Tibbets was a former general of the air force was the pilot of the Enola Gay, the aircraft that dropped the "Little Boy" bomb on Hiroshima, killing 70,000-100,000 people outright during the second world war.

He recently passed, requesting oddly no funeral or gravemarker for fear of detractors. I find it odd a man who clearly served his county well is depicted as a willing villian of a corrupt war industry while others would go as far as calling him a mass murder.

So thoughts? Paul Tibbets said he spelt soundly with no regrets, should he have regrets? Should he be held accountable for murder or was the atomic bomb a neccesary weapon of war?

Estimates were that the US would lose 100,000 + lives in a land invasion of Japan. At the time there was little knowledge of any attempts inside Japan to end the war. So is the sacrifice of the lives of Japanese civilians acceptable in warfare?

If today we became engulfed in a similar large scale conflict, should be allow weapons of mass destruction to be used?



- my responce would be the bomb was a neccesary evil. We lacked knowledge of any attempt by the japanese to end the war. We prevented massive lose of american life. Many Japanese would have died regardless in a land invasion. The bomb saved more lives than were taken.

Today the situation should be the same. If more lives can be saved by use of mass weapons then a country in unrestricted war can and should use them.

[Scribbler1]

To answer the question posed in the thread title, he was a soldier doing his duty. Nothing more than that.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Scribbler1 To answer the question posed in the thread title, he was a soldier doing his duty. Nothing more than that.

So because one puts on soem uniform he/she is beyond standard moral consideration? That's one aspect (among many) of statecraft I've never been able to get behind. We should eventually come to realize that soldiers actually do commit acts, that a great deal of tyranny happens because of their enacting policies. I think that's an elementary truth, honestly. But states thrive by defeating the introspective critical thinker, so they can divorce man from his own actions.

We should be concerned about those who say "we are nothing more than employees," soldiers or what have you. Such proclamations are a formula for disaster.

Grandpa h.

[Scribbler1]

This wasn't an act of terrorism or similar scenario. It was the use of a new weapon on a declared enemy country, and was believed to be the best way to end the war. In that sense, Tibbets must have felt he was following lawful orders from his superiors in a time of war. It wasn't his place to question the extremely relative morality of the use of the bomb.

I place no blame whatsoever on the man for doing what he did. There ARE, of course, situations where morality demands a soldier question, or even disobey an order, but this wasn't one of those times.

[tinybear]

Of course it was an act of terrorism. It was a deliberate act of targeting civilians in the knowledge that death and injury would result. The fact that the weapon used was new and more devasting than anything then known to the world was an aggravating rather than an ameliorating factor. That said, I wonder to what extent Tibbets appreciated what he was doing. It may be that, in his mind, he was actually reducing the loss of human lives by accelerating the end of the war.

[grandpa]

Quote by: tinybear Of course it was an act of terrorism. It was a deliberate act of targeting civilians in the knowledge that death and injury would result.

Unfortunately, a lot of people simply assume that course of action
was reasonable.

Grandpa h.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: grandpa Unfortunately, a lot of people simply assume that course of action was reasonable. Grandpa h.

So can I ask what the reasonable action should have been or do you anti WMD types just assume as long as you kill someone in a honorable fashion its ok?

[grandpa]

Quote by: HelioPrime So can I ask what the reasonable action should have been or do you anti WMD types just assume as long as you kill someone in a honorable fashion its ok?

Well, looking back, the reasonable thing would have been for no country to fall victim to Hitler-esque governments. And, as far as I'm concerned, that would have meant all the governments involved.

States around the world never seem far from edging over into Hitler-ism, as anyone can see.

Grandpa h.

[brien]

We lacked knowledge of any attempt by the japanese to end the war. We prevented massive lose of american life. Many Japanese would have died regardless in a land invasion. The bomb saved more lives than were taken.

This is only partially true. The Japanese wanted a negotiated peace settlement but the terms of the US were "Unconditional Surrender" something the Japanese ruiling elite could not agree to so the US dropped the bomb to force them to surrender unconditionally.

Japan Surrenders, August 10-15, 1945

JAPAN SURRENDERS (August 10-15, 1945) Events: Dawn of the Atomic Era, 1945 Prior to the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, elements existed within the Japanese government that were trying to find a way to end the war. In June and July 1945, Japan attempted to enlist the help of the Soviet Union to serve as an intermediary in negotiations. No direct communication occurred with the United States about peace talks, but American leaders knew of these maneuvers because the United States for a long time had been intercepting and decoding many internal Japanese diplomatic communications. From these intercepts, the United States learned that some within the Japanese government advocated outright surrender. A few diplomats overseas cabled home to urge just that. From the replies these diplomats received from Tokyo, the United States learned that anything Japan might agree to would not be a surrender so much as a "negotiated peace" involving numerous conditions

Here is the rub.

The one possible exception to this was the personal status of the emperor himself. Although the Allies had long been publicly demanding "unconditional surrender," in private there had been some discussion of exempting the emperor from war trials and allowing him to remain as ceremonial head of state. In the end, at Potsdam, the Allies (right) went with both a "carrot and a stick," trying to encourage those in Tokyo who advocated peace with assurances that Japan eventually would be allowed to form its own government, while combining these assurances with vague warnings of "prompt and utter destruction" if Japan did not surrender immediately. No explicit mention was made of the emperor possibly remaining as ceremonial head of state. Japan publicly rejected the Potsdam Declaration, and on July 25, 1945, President Harry S. Truman gave the order to commence atomic attacks on Japan as soon as possible.

[brien]

Of course it was an act of terrorism

This is not true in terms of the modern definition of the word "terrorism" but it is true if one sees the bombings as a new era of mass annihilation that terrified the world and ushered in a new age of warfare.

[brien]

If today we became engulfed in a similar large scale conflict, should be allow weapons of mass destruction to be used?

If it came down to the imminent destruction of the US, I would vote to annihilate the enemy first.

[tinybear]

Quote by: brien This is not true in terms of the modern definition of the word "terrorism" but it is true if one sees the bombings as a new era of mass annihilation that terrified the world and ushered in a new age of warfare.

Any act deliberately aimed at the killing or maiming of innocent civilians for political other similar purposes counts as terrorism. Wouldn't you agree?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: tinybear Any act deliberately aimed at the killing or maiming of innocent civilians for political other similar purposes counts as terrorism. Wouldn't you agree?

I looks we are all terrorists.

[tinybear]

Quote by: Rainbow I looks we are all terrorists.

When you say "we", who do you mean?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: tinybear When you say "we", who do you mean?

By "We" , I mean "People", regardless of a state they may represent.

[brien]

Quote by: tinybear Any act deliberately aimed at the killing or maiming of innocent civilians for political other similar purposes counts as terrorism. Wouldn't you agree?

Are you trying to say the drops on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of terrorism? B/c if you are, you are out in the ozone, no wait, rather the no zone.

These bombings were acts of war meant to break the will of the enemy. Since WW II Japan chose to locate their war manufacturing and Naval ports where a substantial population was located was certainly not the fault of the alllies and as such, one can't blame the destruction of collateral damage upon an allied act of war.

If you want to see terrorism during WW II try reading this.

Bataan Death March

The Bataan Death March began at Mariveles on April 10, 1942. Any troops who fell behind were executed. Japanese troops beat soldiers randomly, and denied the POWs food and water for many days. One of their tortures was known as the sun treatment. The Philippines in April is very hot. Therefore, the POWs were forced to sit in the sun without any shade, helmets, or water. Anyone who dared ask for water was executed. On the rare occasion they were given any food, it was only a handful of contaminated rice. When the prisoners were allowed to sleep for a few hours at night, they were packed into enclosures so tight that they could barely move. Those who lived collapsed on the dead bodies of their comrades. For only a brief part of the march would POWs be packed into railroad cars and allowed to ride. Those who did not die in the suffocating boxcars were forced to march about seven more miles until they reached their camp. It took the POWs over a week to reach their destination. (49) Those on Corregidor would suffer the same fate as their fellow soldiers on Bataan did as they too were transferred to Bataan

.


Bataan-POW Camps

Japanese POW camps Tojo's orders regarding POWs was very clear. Guards "must supervise their charges rigidly, taking care not to become obsessed with mistaken ideas of humanitarianism or swayed by personal feelings toward prisoners that might grow over a long incarceration." (50) Rarely did top government officials visit any Japanese prison camps. Therefore, the local commanders could do as they wished without reprimand. However, considering the indoctrination of Japanese troops, reprimand was highly unlikely. If the commander wished, he could make anything, even whistling, a crime and inflict any type of punishment, including execution. (51

)

The Geneva Convention stated that if a prisoner escaped and was recaptured, he was not to be punished. However, the Japanese did not care. The POWs were forced to sign non-escape oaths soon after they reached the POW camps. They signed at the advice of their officers with the secret understanding that the oaths were not morally binding. Escapes were rare. Any re-captured escapees were executed. Not only were they killed in front of the other POWs, but ten additional POWs were executed as well. While some officers knew the Geneva Convention said it was their duty to escape, many did not know this and the rest did not want to have the POWs left behind to suffer for their actions should they get caught. Therefore, few escapes were attempted. Fewer still succeeded. (52) Successful escapees, such as Dyess, were the rare exception and not the rule.

Japan didn't even conform to the Geneva Convention accords so I don't know what makes anyone think they didn't deserve the harshest penalty that could be inflicted upon them. Furthermore, they probably also fail to understand how ruthless and barbaric the Japanese were during WW II. Without a doubt, the bombings that ended the war w/Japan were not only justified, they were necessary to completely break the will of a stubborn and horrific enemy who was willing to sacrifice every Japanese citizen to win the war.

[grandpa]

Quote by: brien Are you trying to say the drops on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of terrorism? B/c if you are, you are out in the ozone, no wait, rather the no zone.

The distinction between "acts of war" and 'acts of terror" matter very little to the charred remains.
Don't you agree?

But what it really comes down to is a matter of opinion. not historical fact (as usual). If one believes the bombings ended the war, it seems he/she will grip to that belief like grim death.

Grandpa h.

[Kentaro]

Paul Tibbets did not know that he would be delivering an Atomic Bomb.
for all he knew it could have been a small bomb that destroyed a city blcok.

What I don't understand is why the dropping of the atomic bomb on both Hiroshima and nagasaki
wasnt considered a War Crime against the US.

Quote by HelioPrime
"- my responce would be the bomb was a neccesary evil. We lacked knowledge of any attempt by the japanese to end the war. We prevented massive lose of american life. Many Japanese would have died regardless in a land invasion. The bomb saved more lives than were taken."

"many Japanese would have died regardless" but the thing is, the people who had to suffer were the innocent ones, not the military personnels.

"The bomb saved more lives than were taken." Would it be fine if I could ask you what I'll be doing 30 years from now?