Hiroshima bomb pilot dies aged 92

[Praxius]

BBC NEWS | Americas | Hiroshima bomb pilot dies aged 92

The commander of the B-29 plane that dropped the first atomic bomb, on Hiroshima in Japan, has died. Paul Warfield Tibbets Jr died at his home in Columbus, Ohio, aged 92. The five-ton "Little Boy" bomb was dropped on the morning of 6 August 1945, killing about 140,000 Japanese, with many of them dying later. On the 60th anniversary of the bombing, the three surviving crew members of the Enola Gay - named after Tibbet's mother - said they had "no regrets". 'No headstone' A friend of the retired brigadier-general told AP news agency that Paul Tibbets had died after a two-month decline in health. Gen Tibbets had asked for no funeral nor headstone as he feared opponents of the bombing may use it as a place of protest, the friend, Gerry Newhouse, said. The bombing of Hiroshima marked the beginning of the end of the war in the Pacific. Japan surrendered shortly after a second bomb was dropped, on Nagasaki, three days later. On the 60th anniversary of Hiroshima, the surviving members of the Enola Gay crew - Gen Tibbets, Theodore J "Dutch" Van Kirk (the navigator) and Morris R Jeppson (weapon test officer) said: "The use of the atomic weapon was a necessary moment in history. We have no regrets". Gen Tibbets said then: "Thousands of former soldiers and military family members have expressed a particularly touching and personal gratitude suggesting that they might not be alive today had it been necessary to resort to an invasion of the Japanese home islands to end the fighting." Air show Paul Warfield Tibbets Jr was born in Quincy, Illinois, in 1915 and spent most of his youth in Miami. He enlisted in the Army Air Corps in 1937 and led bombing operations in Europe before returning to test the Superfortress. He retired from the forces in 1966. In a 1975 interview he said: "I'm proud that I was able to start with nothing, plan it and have it work as perfectly as it did... I sleep clearly every night." In 1976, Gen Tibbets was criticised for re-enacting the bombing at an air show in Texas. A mushroom cloud was set off as he over flew in a B-29 Superfortress in a stunt that outraged Japan. Gen Tibbets said it was not meant as an insult but the US government formally apologised. In 1995, Gen Tibbets denounced as a "damn big insult" a planned 50th anniversary exhibition of the Enola Gay at the Smithsonian Institution that put the bombing in context of the suffering it caused. He and veterans groups said too much attention was being paid to Japan's suffering and not enough to its military brutality.

Well besides him living a nice long life after killing 140,000 people, what are your takes on his views, his life and the outcome of it all?

I am currently indifferent on the situation at the moment, but the news was there and it was a historical landmark in humanity.... I figured posting this would be interesting to some.

[triad]

Well, saying that it ended the war just makes the U.S. look stupid.

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

WTF, that isn't how things should work. I don't know how this guy said he "clearly sleeps" every night. He made the politics of war end, but in order to do so he made the war of politics go to an extreme and kill 140,000 people. He is a DB, and so is the entire US military for claiming that killing 140,000 CITIZENS of Japans was acceptable to stop the MILITARY of japan. Just sick. I dont think there is any due respect here, I hope his burial will be a protest hot spot.

[HelioPrime]

War was going to happen. Japan attacked us, and we responded. People saw firsthand how fanatical the japanese could be and the only way to end the way was an invasion.

We were alreay killing enough people in Germany and Japan by normal bombing. This really isn't that different.

In an invastion many americans would die as well as many japanese. The bomb could have saved lives. More could have been lost in a normal invasion to secure and pacify the country.

[Scribbler1]

Regardless of your position on the use of the A-Bomb, you can't demonize Tibbets. He was doing his job and to protest at his funeral would be tacky, to say the least.

Besides, it's a little late in the game to protest anything connected to WW2.

[Praxius]

Quote by: HelioPrime War was going to happen. Japan attacked us, and we responded. People saw firsthand how fanatical the japanese could be and the only way to end the way was an invasion.

They attacked Pearl Harbor.... last I checked that was a military target... two cities are not. And you guys get two buildings smacked around by some planes, loose a couple thousand as well, in one city, and you guys seem to forget how you guys justified something twice as worse.

Perspective I suppose. *shrugs*

We were alreay killing enough people in Germany and Japan by normal bombing. This really isn't that different.

How about level of suffering due to radiation? Bombing them with bombs would have been more humaine imo.

Possibly the first example of mass terrorism.... do what we say or we kill and mutate your people in a way you can't do anything about.

Sure.... they were crazy fighters... but at least they knew how to fight with a little honor. Oh and attacking Pearl Harbor during the period of a World War I don't believe constitutes as a suprise attack in the sense I believe most try to potray it as..... which was cheap..... but if they look at the methods, it was more of a dumb Idea then anything.

In an invastion many americans would die as well as many japanese. The bomb could have saved lives. More could have been lost in a normal invasion to secure and pacify the country.

That has always been the justification... but to me, it would have been more logical and more decent if the targets were large military targets.... Not Civilians trying to live a normal life in an already horrible time.

In my opinion the two bombs were one of the top cowardly and horrific acts of the war. Sure everybody is hunky dory that the war ended... but the method expressed the same lack of compassion for humanity as the Nazis and their concentration camps.

If he can sleep well at night knowing he killed 140,000 odd Japanese civilians, who are we to argue?

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: Praxius They attacked Pearl Harbor.... last I checked that was a military target... two cities are not. And you guys get two buildings smacked around by some planes, loose a couple thousand as well, in one city, and you guys seem to forget how you guys justified something twice as worse. Perspective I suppose. *shrugs*

Pearl Harbor was a military target but not just men in uniform died. Aid and hospital workers as well as civilians on base.

The attack on cities has nothing to do with pearl harbor. The way to end a war is to destroy the nations ability to build its military. Japan based all its infastructure inside cities.

Quote by: Praxius How about level of suffering due to radiation? Bombing them with bombs would have been more humaine imo. Possibly the first example of mass terrorism.... do what we say or we kill and mutate your people in a way you can't do anything about. Sure.... they were crazy fighters... but at least they knew how to fight with a little honor. Oh and attacking Pearl Harbor during the period of a World War I don't believe constitutes as a suprise attack in the sense I believe most try to potray it as..... which was cheap..... but if they look at the methods, it was more of a dumb Idea then anything.

So the brutal abuse of prisoners, treatment of women and children in occupied zones, and their suicide fliers were all honorable fighting methods?

Quote by: Praxius That has always been the justification... but to me, it would have been more logical and more decent if the targets were large military targets.... Not Civilians trying to live a normal life in an already horrible time. In my opinion the two bombs were one of the top cowardly and horrific acts of the war. Sure everybody is hunky dory that the war ended... but the method expressed the same lack of compassion for humanity as the Nazis and their concentration camps. If he can sleep well at night knowing he killed 140,000 odd Japanese civilians, who are we to argue?

Japan based its military related industry inside crowded cities. Mass death was a side effect that could not be avoided. If we had just bombed the buildings, the fires would have spread quickly and created firestorms killing mass numbers of people. The japanese would have suffered horrible losses no matter how we tackled dealing with the Japanese mainland.

War is never pretty. Every watch Star Trek? The episode where they come across a planet ungulfed in a old standing war where there is no real fighting, just computer calculations?

If we take away all the blood and death and try to make conflict pretty what is there to make us not want to go to war again?

[tinybear]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Regardless of your position on the use of the A-Bomb, you can't demonize Tibbets. He was doing his job and to protest at his funeral would be tacky, to say the least.

Yeah, if you want to point an accusing finger at the dropping of the A-bombs on innocent civilians, there are those higher up than him and more culpable. As Harry Truman once said:" The buck stops here".

YouTube - omd enola gay video

[LtMisha]

Tibbets was only following orders. He can't really be held responsible.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: LtMisha Tibbets was only following orders. He can't really be held responsible.

The nazi's tried and lost on that defence.

The following orders defence only works if you won the war.

[Praxius]

Quote by: HelioPrime Pearl Harbor was a military target but not just men in uniform died. Aid and hospital workers as well as civilians on base.

Aware... but there are hospitals, civilians and the sort in most military bases around the world, I don't see that as much of a defense in comparison to cities which held very little for military, besides as you say production.... but that would be just the exact same thing as them nuking Michigan factories, full of civilians building for your own forces.

The attack on cities has nothing to do with pearl harbor. The way to end a war is to destroy the nations ability to build its military. Japan based all its infastructure inside cities.

So did you guys.... I see no difference, except hypocracy.... it would have been evil if they did it to you, but for you guys to do it, you find some justification for it. Anybody can find a remote level of justification for anything.... whether that justification seems valid depends on the individual.

So the brutal abuse of prisoners, treatment of women and children in occupied zones, and their suicide fliers were all honorable fighting methods?

Kamakazis in their culture was an honorable method of sacraficing yourself to assist and honor your country..... the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

How about the US and Canada's rounding up of all asian citizens in our countries and holding them and their families in detention facilities, regardless if there was evidence of them being spies.... racial profiling is what it was, out of fear.

And when it comes to brutality, I think your A-Bomb attacks go above and beyond beating POW's around.

Japan based its military related industry inside crowded cities. Mass death was a side effect that could not be avoided. If we had just bombed the buildings, the fires would have spread quickly and created firestorms killing mass numbers of people. The japanese would have suffered horrible losses no matter how we tackled dealing with the Japanese mainland.

I'll be sure to remember this when one of your cities ever gets nuked.... as your own cities are designed in the same manner. I guess it's alright to use the same mentality. Most of your factories, as well as our own, are intergrated into our cities and towns for easy access for our civilian population who are employed in them.

During the War car factories and such were changed into factories for military purposes.... so think of all those current factories in your country that design planes, cars, and other mechanical devices which most likely would be converted back into military factories in a great war.... and then picture all those factories within your cities and towns being potiential targets for a nuclear attack and tell me how you feel about that. I imagine you wouldn't like the idea.

War is never pretty. Every watch Star Trek? The episode where they come across a planet ungulfed in a old standing war where there is no real fighting, just computer calculations?

If that was on the original series, most likely I didn't see it.

If we take away all the blood and death and try to make conflict pretty what is there to make us not want to go to war again?

Now you see the solution.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Praxius Well besides him living a nice long life after killing 140,000 people, what are your takes on his views, his life and the outcome of it all? I am currently indifferent on the situation at the moment, but the news was there and it was a historical landmark in humanity.... I figured posting this would be interesting to some.

True American Hero! :eek:

[triad]

Quote by: GHook93 True American Hero! :eek:

[HelioPrime]

If we take away all the death then there is no reason to end the war.

How would we have ended the Japanese side of the war? Land invasion?

An invasion to end the war would have very likely wiped out the Japanese as a people. The limited use of atomic weapons saved lives and ended the war.

Its easy to sit back and look at history and judge. Less lives lost and a quick end helped save enough people so Japan was able to recover and become a world power again in peace time. Had we invaded their nation could have never recovered. How the world would be different today without an economic japan. Well Zenith might still be making TV's.

[Nono]

Quote by: Prax They attacked Pearl Harbor.... last I checked that was a military target... two cities are not.

As Helio has pointed out, the vicious militarist Japanese regime (firmly supported by the Japanese people) attacked far more than military targets. Hell, Prax, you never read history books?

This isn't to say that militarily pointless vindictiveness against helpless Japanese civilians was therefore OK.
But if you'd been Truman back in '45, what would you have done?
No offhand bullshit, Prax. State clearly how you would have proceeded and cite historically credible sources as the basis for your decisions.

Put up or shut up.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Nono As Helio has pointed out, the vicious militarist Japanese regime (firmly supported by the Japanese people) attacked far more than military targets. Hell, Prax, you never read history books?

There are books now?

The Japanese Regime who was firmly supported by the people.... OOOoooOOoooooo..... That's unheard of :eek: Come off it now.... you're trying to make them sound more evil with silly ways of wording.

Were your people behind your military and your government during WWII? Wasn't every country?

Oh and they attacked more than just military targets.... Whoopie doo *twils finger* As your military is so fond of saying "They're just collateral damage, which is to be expected during war."

Cry me a river.

This isn't to say that militarily pointless vindictiveness against helpless Japanese civilians was therefore OK. But if you'd been Truman back in '45, what would you have done? No offhand bullshit, Prax. State clearly how you would have proceeded and cite historically credible sources as the basis for your decisions. Put up or shut up.

Indeed.... how about you continue to put up until you have no other choice but to shut up?

I have already.... YET AGAIN IN ANOTHER THREAD.... stated an answer to your question above in this thread. Learn to Read, as you so like to suggest.

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.

The other option would have been to continue the fight and push them back to their country and press for them to a cease fire, because as you may have noticed in your precious history books you talk about, Germany was helpless and at their end, the US/Allies had pushed Japan all the way back across the pacific to their country.... the Axis were already on the loosing end and it was close to being over.

I could think of several alternative options that could have been taken, but it seems you like big booms, and pretty lights, and it makes the jobs quicker and easier to get done, and it's all at their expense, so why not? True American Mentality.

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

[gallo]

Quote by: triad Well, saying that it ended the war just makes the U.S. look stupid. We killed 140,000 other people to potentially save 10,000 of our own (maybe). It was for the better. WTF, that isn't how things should work.

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?

I don't know how this guy said he "clearly sleeps" every night.

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

He made the politics of war end, but in order to do so he made the war of politics go to an extreme and kill 140,000 people.

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?

He is a DB,

What's a DB?

and so is the entire US military for claiming that killing 140,000 CITIZENS of Japans was acceptable to stop the MILITARY of japan. Just sick.

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

I dont think there is any due respect here, I hope his burial will be a protest hot spot.

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.

[ruksak]

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

You know how many people "would have died"?

140,000 enemy lives aren't worth 1 American.

Given the circumstances, I make no regard for their civilians. Neither did our military.

[Praxius]

Quote by: ruksak You know how many people "would have died"? 140,000 enemy lives aren't worth 1 American. Given the circumstances, I make no regard for their civilians. Neither did our military.

Listen to yourself, cripes.....

You're telling me that 140,000 Human lives, which are as an equal importance in this world as your one (1) American life, are not worth the same ammount?

Now I'm preying for your country's distruction, because that's got to be one of the sickest comments to date in regards to this whole Super American Proud is Us BS.

With such disregard for humanity, societies like this do not diserve to exist.

And don't try to pretty it up by saying you stated "Enemies" because those same damn enemies are human just as you are, and have every damn right to fight for what they believe in just as much as you do.

I had little sympathy when 9/11 happened (I still had some) ~ But I certainly can't wait until about 140,000 of your US Citizens feel some justice for once, because I'll be sitting here with my little violin playing. :rolleyes:

[ruksak]

Quote by: Praxius You're telling me that 140,000 Human lives, which are as an equal importance in this world as your one (1) American life, are not worth the same amount?

A nation, tribe, clan or family cannot extend the privilege of valuing the lives of the enemy above that of their own. You do not sacrifice your own as a means to save enemy lives. To do so is weak and a hallmark of a spineless, soon to be defunct, society.

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, "pffft whats 10,000 lives". This isn't a numbers game. These are lives. Us against them. Nature reflecst this. The human animal is no different than the quadrupedal animal in respect to value for its clan over opposing clans.

To deny America of this instinct is smug, ignorant and all together blind to the ways of the world. Think of all the generations that spawned from these soldiers that compose his estimated 10,000 casualties. The soldiers that would have died, their children. Their children's children. Their children's children's children. NONE WOULD HAVE EXISTED! Gone! Because we valued enemy lives above our own because they stood a potential loss higher in regard to only numbers.

Quote by: Praxius Now I'm preying for your country's distruction, because that's got to be one of the sickest comments to date in regards to this whole Super American Proud is Us BS.

How many Canadians would be an acceptable loss under the same given circumstance? 10,000? 50,000? 100,000? At which point do the numbers balance out to a point whereas it cannot be viewed as acceptable?

Quote by: Praxius I had little sympathy when 9/11 happened (I still had some)

So what makes you better than the generals who gave the commands to the crew of the Enola Gay? With your repeated sentiments of "death to the Americans", how can you spit on the grave of the crew of the Enola Gay when you yourself speak death to people that do not deserve it? You write us all off as deserving. You will have no sympathy, even for those Americans whom speak the same sentiment as you?

You see where your stunning hypocrisy is combating the validity of your death wish to us? Can you honestly say Japan wasn't deserving of having war brought to their land, as they had brought to ours?

[Praxius]

Quote by: ruksak A nation, tribe, clan or family cannot extend the privilege of valuing the lives of the enemy above that of their own. You do not sacrifice your own as a means to save enemy lives. To do so is weak and a hallmark of a spineless, soon to be defunct, society.

No, that sounds more like a cave man group to me... a tad primitive. This mentality is what causes such devisions in your own nation as we speak. But suit yourself.... it's not like I really care about the defenses you can think of, because it has already come to pass, and the explinations were already given back then.... I know the justification for it, and to a degree I understand.....

But a big chunk of me feels the targets were just plain evil, and as your above logic confirms.

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,

I'm sorry, was that a racist remark?

"pffft whats 10,000 lives". This isn't a numbers game. These are lives. Us against them. Nature reflecst this. The human animal is no different than the quadrupedal animal in respect to value for its clan over opposing clans.

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.

To deny America of this instinct is smug, ignorant and all together blind to the ways of the world. Think of all the generations that spawned from these soldiers that compose his estimated 10,000 casualties. The soldiers that would have died, their children. Their children's children. Their children's children's children. NONE WOULD HAVE EXISTED! Gone! Because we valued enemy lives above our own because they stood a potential loss higher in regard to only numbers.

yeah, them's the breaks.

you speak of devotion on protection of your own culture and kind.... just remember that when you hear the next list of deaths from suicide bombers and ask why they keep killing your people. I suppose once you figure that out, it would be a good idea to just drop a few nukes on Iraq and Afghanistan because it'll be easier?

Apparently you don't see the connection, either that or you're just not to that level of conversation just yet, no offense, to me it seems you're still on this mentality that killing is progress in some manner.

How many Canadians would be an acceptable loss under the same given circumstance? 10,000? 50,000? 100,000? At which point do the numbers balance out to a point whereas it cannot be viewed as acceptable?

*sigh* and you still seem to go on as if there were never any other options. As I have already explained to you my solutions and methods.

So what makes you better than the generals who gave the commands to the crew of the Enola Gay? With your repeated sentiments of "death to the Americans", how can you spit on the grave of the crew of the Enola Gay when you yourself speak death to people that do not deserve it? You write us all off as deserving. You will have no sympathy, even for those Americans whom speak the same sentiment as you?

What makes me better then the generals? the simple fact that I have their mistakes to learn from.

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."

I'm just someone who believes in Karma... or whatever there maybe that causes universal justice to work as it does. I know I'm not immune to this, and my day will come..... but I know that when I die, I didn't drop a nuke on 140,000 civilians who didn't diserve such treatment.

Think about it.... which you still haven't responded to.... what would you considder it as, if a terrorist came along and blew up Huston with a nuclear device on some random sunny day?

Would you think of it as an evil act apon helpless and innocent civilians?

Perhaps now you see why I have no sympathy for the US? Unless you face the wrongs of your past, you will never avoid it in the future.... and for me to pat you guys on the back and say "there there, it's ok, those evil bastards." ~ Would be hypocritical in my priciples, as you just justified the same actions.

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?

Then what do you do? You can't just launch nukes all over the planet at an emeny that has no state..... and everybody else in the world sure as hell won't tollerate you guys twirling off nukes left and right, therefore, if the terrorists don't nuke you off, the rest of the world will unless you surrender. It's kinda a crappy situation if you ask me.

And if your allies see them attacking you in historically the same fasion as you guys attacked Japan, minus the Bombers.... then who are you gonna get help from?

You see where your stunning hypocrisy is combating the validity of your death wish to us? Can you honestly say Japan wasn't deserving of having war brought to their land, as they had brought to ours?

Eye for an eye logic would dictact 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.