Hiroshima bomb pilot dies aged 92

[ruksak]

Quote by: Praxius I'm sorry, was that a racist remark?

W H A T ?

How is this a racist remark?

Quote by: ruksak Y'all are throwing lives around with no more regard than to treat them as numbers. As Triad said, "140,000 vs 10,000, its not right". He basically said, and you seem to support this slanted view,

Explain yourself!

Quote by: Praxius If you wish to continue living as a quadrupedal animal, be my guest. It's not like me complaining after the fact is gonna do anything about it, nor do you seem to actually want to learn from this slightly.... to me it seems as though you're kinda gun ho to go drop a few more.

No. I'm "Kinda" glad my great grandpa didn't die on Japanese soil.

Quote by: Praxius When did I say "Death to Americans?" ~ I said country's distruction.... oh, but I suppose that get's misconstruded like how Iran said they wanted Israel's distruction, but didn't actually mean anything towards "Death."

DEstruction, as its properly spelled, goes hand in hand with death. Your wish for my death has not gone unnoticed.

Why would they want to risk all their people in a ground warfare on US soil, if all they gotta do is send a couple of terrorists in with nukes and then blow a few cities up? Then they tell you to surrender or they will do more...... sound familiar?

Don't get me wrong. I understand the strategy. The issue with such attacks is there is no clear retaliatory target. Who do we strike back at? Terrorist that masquerade as civilians? Who's who? A no win situation.

Then what do you do?

Exactly! What do we do? Nothing because our attackers are to afraid to reveal who they are?

Eye for an eye logic would dictate that you would push them back, then bomb the snot out of their biggest navel yard and surrounding area..... Not nuke two cities.... can't you get this? They we're already on the verge of defeat, and before they even attacked you guys in Pearl Harbor, they knew you guys had a big fleet. Surrender was inevitable.

Indeed. Good we gave it a little push. Americans that would have died, didn't.

Lemme be real for a minute. I DO feel sorrow for the civilians. That it had to come to that. I have pictured what that must have been like. Like the victims of Pompeii, they were living their lives. Playing in their front yards, doing dishes, going on with life as usual. Then BAM! Skin melting, eye sockets emptied of their contents. Children even, being burned like ants under a magnifying glass, subjected to the suns focused heat. It's terrible.

However terrible, It's better them than us. We didn't know what they were up to. They were making attempts at attacking us, one such attempt being successful to a great degree.

[Nono]

Quote by: Prax So are we still putting up, or have one of us Shut Up yet?

Thank you for putting up. A little.

Hit ports, factories, etc.

You'd be better off consulting a map first, then some history books.
Nagasaki was a major port, Hiroshima an industrial centre.

Guess what? The US had a grand total of two bombs at that point (it was a brand new invention and enriched uranium was scarce). So they had to achieve the biggest effect with what they had.

Far be it from me to make light of atomic weapons. The results were horrific. But have you ever heard of the firebombing of Tokyo, i.e. by "conventional" weapons?

"Tokyo was engulfed in a firestorm. The fires were so hot they would ignite the clothing on individuals as they were fleeing. Many women were wearing what were called 'air-raid turbans' around their heads, and the heat would ignite those turbans like a wick on a candle. This was the worst disaster for Tokyo since the 1923 earthquake. The death toll was at least 80,000, and perhaps exceeded 100,000. This may have been the most devastating single raid ever carried out by aircraft in any war including the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, and the firebombing of Dresden."

Funny how this is usually glossed over by those obsessed with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Quote by: Prax The effect would have still been the same without having to drop directly on a city, plain and simple. (...) Politely suggest to surrender, or they will witness a city feel the effects.

They only had two bombs, Prax.

The admirable American journalist Nicholas Kristof has written this:

(...) Japanese scholarship, by historians like Sadao Asada of Doshisha University in Kyoto, notes that Japanese wartime leaders who favored surrender saw their salvation in the atomic bombing. The Japanese military was steadfastly refusing to give up, so the peace faction seized upon the bombing as a new argument to force surrender.

''We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war,'' Koichi Kido, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest aides, said later.

Wartime records and memoirs show that the emperor and some of his aides wanted to end the war by summer 1945. But they were vacillating and couldn't prevail over a military that was determined to keep going even if that meant, as a navy official urged at one meeting, ''sacrificing 20 million Japanese lives.''

The atomic bombings broke this political stalemate and were thus described by Mitsumasa Yonai, the navy minister at the time, as a ''gift from heaven.''

Without the atomic bombings, Japan would have continued fighting by inertia. This would have meant more firebombing of Japanese cities and a ground invasion, planned for November 1945, of the main Japanese islands. The fighting over the small, sparsely populated islands of Okinawa had killed 14,000 Americans and 200,000 Japanese, and in the main islands the toll would have run into the millions. (...)

It's easy to shoot one's mouth off about these things. But it's better to check the facts.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Praxius I said I would have suggested military targets or the best targets outside of civilian populated locations to reduce the loss of innocent life. Hit ports, factories, etc. I imagine there would still be loss of innocent lives, but not as many if military targets were made, not direct targeting of defensless cities for maximum damage. The effect would have still been the same without having to drop directly on a city, plain and simple. • Bomb makes big boom • They're entire fleet of whatever is now gone • You then tell them to surrender, like what was done previously. • Nuke another military compound like the second attack. • Politely suggest to surrender, or they will witness a city feel the effects. By this time the Japanese would have had a chance to figure out what the hell you guys have and what you can do, and realise it'd be wise to surrender before they lost a city.

I think you're being unrealistic to second guess the decision to use the bomb. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were valid military targets:

"At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of some industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops.

The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials."
Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In addition, it's not enough to have the enemy know that you have such a weapon, it's imperative that the enemy also knows that you have the will to use it. Even after Hiroshima, the Japanese government was resisting surrender. It was only after a second bomb was used that they were convinced that we would continue to use them.

[brien]

We killed 140,000 other people to potentially save 10,000 of our own (maybe). It was for the better.

Estimated US casulaties were 100,000, not 10,000.

As far as justification for the use of Atomic bombs in 1945, all I would suggest that hasn't been rightly pointed out already, would be if Germany and Japan had the technology, they would have no doubt used it to their advantage, and some people around here would either be speaking German or Japanese, and certainly not freely posting bs on this website.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Zeebadee I think you're being unrealistic to second guess the decision to use the bomb. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were valid military targets: "At the time of its bombing, Hiroshima was a city of some industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby, including the headquarters of the Fifth Division and Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's 2nd General Army Headquarters, which commanded the defense of all of southern Japan. Hiroshima was a minor supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. The city was a communications center, a storage point, and an assembly area for troops. The city of Nagasaki had been one of the largest sea ports in southern Japan and was of great wartime importance because of its wide-ranging industrial activity, including the production of ordnance, ships, military equipment, and other war materials." Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia In addition, it's not enough to have the enemy know that you have such a weapon, it's imperative that the enemy also knows that you have the will to use it. Even after Hiroshima, the Japanese government was resisting surrender. It was only after a second bomb was used that they were convinced that we would continue to use them.

Then with the above reasoning, it is logical to find justification for a terrorist nuking D.C., Michigan or New York.... it's basic warfare afterall. You guys are on the war against terrorism, so if it's a war, then targeting such populated areas is justified to help destabalize their enemy and to force them to surrender, as those above areas in the US hold Key targets which would cause problems for their enemy to fight back.

And yes, the Japanese were reluctant after the first bomb drop, but for various reasons, besides the obvious.

But the same effect would have still been applied if only military targets were hit and then a following threat towards the civilian population if they do not heed the warnings.

This would at least given some civilians a chance.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Praxius Then with the above reasoning, it is logical to find justification for a terrorist nuking D.C., Michigan or New York.... it's basic warfare afterall. You guys are on the war against terrorism, so if it's a war, then targeting such populated areas is justified to help destabalize their enemy and to force them to surrender, as those above areas in the US hold Key targets which would cause problems for their enemy to fight back.

Sure, in the realm of war it could be justified. But that doesn't mean we should sit back and allow them to have the means to do so. Why would we do that, Praxius?

And yes, the Japanese were reluctant after the first bomb drop, but for various reasons, besides the obvious.

The Japanese went way beyond "reluctance". They had a habit of committing suicide by hurling themselves off of cliffs to avoid surrender.

You seem to be avoiding the fact that many lives were saved by the application of the atomic bomb.

[Praxius]

Quote by: ruksak Sure, in the realm of war it could be justified. But that doesn't mean we should sit back and allow them to have the means to do so. Why would we do that, Praxius?

Never said you had to, to a degree.... All I was saying is that when this does happen again, don't expect any sympathy, no don't bother to redicule those who don't express sympathy as being cruel of evil, let alone supporters of the action.

The Japanese went way beyond "reluctance". They had a habit of committing suicide by hurling themselves off of cliffs to avoid surrender.

So?

I imagine a few people killed themselves in order to avoid capture by the Nazis and their treatment... it was common for each government to potray the enemy as as evil as possible. Your mentality towards what they were like is similar to how they viewed you guys.

All this shows is their devotion to the life they know.... be that filled by propaganda or genuine personal belief.

Them commiting suicide isn't a justification to nuke them.

You seem to be avoiding the fact that many lives were saved by the application of the atomic bomb.

I have no need to claim avoidance on this fact, because I haven't. I'm talking about the ends justifying the means, and the means is what is in question. What already has occured isn't what is in question as it's already answered by history.

All I'm saying is there was a potiential of a bit more of a humanitarian method of targeting, as this was clearly on a genocidal level.

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, religious or national group. While precise definition varies among genocide scholars, the legal definition is found in the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG). Article 2 of the CPPCG defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

On the level... debatable if it could be classified as genocide.... of course if the US continued to drop bombs as it did with these two, then I could easily say it would classify as Genocide.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Praxius I have no need to claim avoidance on this fact, because I haven't. I'm talking about the ends justifying the means, and the means is what is in question. What already has occured isn't what is in question as it's already answered by history. All I'm saying is there was a potiential of a bit more of a humanitarian method of targeting, as this was clearly on a genocidal level.

The more humanitarian methods as rusak pointed out resulted in just as many if not more deatsh due to raging fires caused by selective bombings.

The final option of an all out land invasion could have have huge casualties on both american and japanese ends.

Quote by: Praxius On the level... debatable if it could be classified as genocide.... of course if the US continued to drop bombs as it did with these two, then I could easily say it would classify as Genocide.

And if the US had invaded by land and the japanese people had been almost exterminated would that still classify as genocide?

The US had no options left that we could call humanitarian or honorable. The use of the bomb gave the japanese no chance, but did cause the least number of deaths compared to other menthods of forcing the war to a close.

genocide was going to happen. One way or another.

The only "non-genocidal" option would have been to just blockade and cut off Japan. The country could have say and stewing in hatred and lacking resources to rebuild it could have never recovered its military. Of course it would be a far cry from the developed country it is today.

[Praxius]

Prime:

I guess my only point is that you aknowlege the method is borderline, if not genocide in itself.... and that this guy who just passed away was more or less proud he had a hand in it..... seems a bit screwed if you ask me.

[HelioPrime]

I think he puts his pride in duty as his major focus. Granted not every command to a soldier is ethical but among the friends and familys of those who have or now serve duty and honor is big.

The people who remember him will recognize him for unfailing duty in doing what he had to during wartime.

[triad]

Quote by: gallo Maybe not in a perfect world. But how many Americans and British soldiers had already been killed in combat by an enemy that attacked us? Why on earth should we want to spare enemy lives and sacrifice our own soldiers? And since Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both military targets, what is your problem?

If you don't see the problem with the destruction of two major cities filled with civilians - then I am not going to explain it to you.

He 'clearly sleeps'? Did you actually read the article? He said that he sleeps clearly.

Oooo, I mistyped a quote - thanks for making your points more valid by pointing that out ???:rolleyes:

Can you tell me how many people died because of Japanese invasions in China, Burma and other countries? How about the British and American POWs that were starved to death while forced to do manual labor? How many were they? How many Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians were also worked and starved to death? And you worry about 140,000 civilians from the aggressor nation?

You really don't see the problem still? Inhuman.

What's a DB?

Censored version of douchebag, I was trying to be nice...

So you support the Japanese murder of several hundred thousand innocent civilians and military that the Japanese killed outright or through starvation?

Putting words into someone else's mouth: Sign of a weak, desperate individual - lacking intelligence and common courtesy.

Of course, there is no due respect for you. You are an idiot. Of course, you never served in the military, especially in combat. Thus, that explains why you are an idiot.

I've also never raped another person, does that mean I should not be able to say raping isn't right?

Resorting to calling me an idiot really doesn't give you any due respect either. Stay on topic or shut your mouth - and again with your pretentious bullshit, knock it off. I am tired of you and soon you will be the first person I have had to ignore on this forum because of your lame attempts at making me seem inferior to you.


You don't have to be a DB to get your point across, there gallo.

[ruksak]

Quote by: Triad I've also never raped another person, does that mean I should not be able to say raping isn't right?

Don't knock it till ya try it!

Quote by: Praxius Never said you had to, to a degree.... All I was saying is that when this does happen again, don't expect any sympathy, no don't bother to redicule those who don't express sympathy as being cruel of evil, let alone supporters of the action.

I have sympathy for the victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. I know that many probably didn't deserve what happened to them. Most notably, the children. Sucks a hard one, but it all comes back to us or them. Our children or theirs. The attack at Pearl Harbor and the Japanese repeated attempts at other rather unorthodox methods of bombing America was sufficient cause for an unprecedented strike.

So? I imagine a few people killed themselves in order to avoid capture by the Nazis and their treatment... it was common for each government to portray the enemy as as evil as possible. Your mentality toward what they were like is similar to how they viewed you guys.

We had witnessed first hand the resolve of the Japanese. The battle of Okinawa played a huge part in both showing the resolve of the Japanese, as well as the extraordinary American casualties we would face if an invasion of the Japanese mainland had gone forth.

Battle of Okinawa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. losses were over 72,000 casualties, of whom 12,513 were killed or missing—over twice the number of casualties as at Iwo Jima and Guadalcanal combined.

There were about 66,000 Japanese combatants killed and 7,000 captured. Some of the soldiers committed seppuku or simply blew themselves up with hand grenades.

Just in taking Okinawa, we suffered 50% of the losses Japan suffered from both atomic bombs. Hard to look away from those numbers. The bombs saved lives.

All I'm saying is there was a potential of a bit more of a humanitarian method of targeting, as this was clearly on a genocidal level.

Thats way over the top my friend. 140,000 doesn't account for but a minuscule percentile of Japans overall population. For an accusation of genocide to be substantial, one must be able to show an actual attempt at killing all the Japanese. Or at least most. Something more than .001% of their total numbers.

genocide was going to happen. One way or another

No it wasn't. What are you talking about? Japanese did well enough to kill themselves.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: ruksak No it wasn't. What are you talking about? Japanese did well enough to kill themselves.

On genocide: No matter the outcome, many japanese would have died. A land invasion would have been meet by resistance. Japanese propaganda worked well enough to cause men to kill their own wives and children for fear of US soldiers.

I'm sure down the road no matter how they died, people would have finger pointed and flamed the US for genocide.

[Nono]

Quote by: Prax Then with the above reasoning, it is logical to find justification for a terrorist nuking D.C., Michigan or New York.... it's basic warfare afterall. You guys are on the war against terrorism, so if it's a war, then targeting such populated areas is justified to help destabalize their enemy ..........

Having lost the argument on the basis of facts, you're now trying to change the subject.
The bombs were used to put an end to the war. They did.

Quote by: triad If you don't see the problem with the destruction of two major cities filled with civilians - then I am not going to explain it to you.

Did gallo say there was "no problem"? I must have missed that.

The bombs were used to put an end to the war, a war started by the Japanese and that had seen all manner of insane cruelties inflicted by the Japanese. The bombs ended that war. Failure to use them effectively would have no doubt seen it drag on indefinitely, with far higher casualties, including civilian casualties.

If you can't grasp that, "then I am not going to explain it to you".

[Praxius]

Quote by: Nono Having lost the argument on the basis of facts, you're now trying to change the subject. The bombs were used to put an end to the war. They did.

Apparently you don't even know the argument I was presenting.... The bombs were used, they ended the war... where did I deny this ever to happen? Learn to read please. I wasn't arguing that they didn't. :rolleyes:

Learn what the argument was about before you shoot off claiming who lost it..... as apparenlty you haven't even entered it yet.