Last crew member of Enola Gay dies aged 93

Fenris said:
It was actually known to the US Intelligence and their top brass (and I mean TOP) at the time that Japan was on the brink of surrender, only after the bombs were dropped was there a coup attempt to stop just that.

Even Eisenhower believed it and many others believed the bombs to be an atrocity, General MacArthur wasn't even consulted.

The nukes may have lead to the end of the war, but they were neither necessary nor justifiable.
Click to expand...


I have always felt the justification for the bombings to be "Complex" :/

#1 The USA spent more on the Atom bomb project than Germany spent on rocketry! they produced the grand total of three "Gadgets" (One test, two actual Bombs)

One might argue that after all that expense it might have been politically /scientifically inconceivable that they wouldn't actually have used them!

(Indeed, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were specifically designated as "Protected" targets much earlier in the war because hitherto "Undamaged" targets were required in order to assess the damage that Nuclear munitions might actually produce. )

#2 OTOH, Invading Japan would have been truly horrendous! merely considering huge casualties doesn't come close to what would actually have been involved! (The US military would never have been able to allow its "Japan Vets" to de-mob!) Nuking Japan into submission from a distance was the only realistic alternative! (#)

(#If you haven't already got the point, it was to protect the GI's, not the Japs! and I am not talking about mere death and injury here!)

And that's only two aspects of it!

Im a bit ****ed now and going to bed. :D

If anybody wants to take me up on this please feel free, ;)

But I wont reply till tomorrow.

G'night all! :)
 
I read somewhere that only 3 of the twelve crew (not sure if the numbers are correct there) were actually aware of the nature of the payload. When they saw the explosion, they were horrified.

I feel that in this case, ends truly did not justify the means. The utter annihilation of that many civilians, in a mere instant, is a war crime.

What's even more terrifying is that it was a show of force. What if they hadn't surrendered? Would it have gone on, the dropping of these bombs in mainland population centres? How many would have had to have died, before someone said "no more"?

What remained of the city after the attack:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a0/Hiroshima_aftermath.jpg
 
ShaolinDreams said:
Why nuke 2 cities with large civilian populations is what i don't get. Couldn't they nuke anything else to stop the war.. like strategic military targets? I'm sure if two or more nukes landed on something other than civilian cities it would have stopped the war regardless just from scaring them half to death. I'm gonna say it.. Think of the innocent children that got vapourised and never to see an age of 93, what did they ever to do America... Warcrime tbh personally i dont believe in total war no honour no valour just shear barbarism.
Click to expand...

Both cities had an awful lot of war materials being produced at very local levels from memory*, I think Hiroshima also had quite a lot of military hardware, shipping and bases/personal based there, both were also chosen I think to show that the U.S. could hit pretty much anywhere.

I suspect Tokyo wasn't targeted as killing the Emperor would likely have had the effect of making the war continue for a lot longer.


*Even today a huge amount of stuff made in Japan tends to have parts made literally in what are pretty much people's garages (things like small plastic parts for example are often produced by very small family run companies working in a small workshop).
 
Werewolf said:
Both cities had an awful lot of war materials being produced at very local levels from memory*, I think Hiroshima also had quite a lot of military hardware, shipping and bases/personal based there, both were also chosen I think to show that the U.S. could hit pretty much anywhere.

I suspect Tokyo wasn't targeted as killing the Emperor would likely have had the effect of making the war continue for a lot longer.


*Even today a huge amount of stuff made in Japan tends to have parts made literally in what are pretty much people's garages (things like small plastic parts for example are often produced by very small family run companies working in a small workshop).
Click to expand...

Hiroshima did have a large garrison, about 30% of the casualties were soldiers IIRC.

Nagasaki, nearly all casualties were civilian. The vast majority of casualties of each bomb were civilian.
 
Werewolf said:
Both cities had an awful lot of war materials being produced at very local levels from memory*, I think Hiroshima also had quite a lot of military hardware, shipping and bases/personal based there, both were also chosen I think to show that the U.S. could hit pretty much anywhere.

I suspect Tokyo wasn't targeted as killing the Emperor would likely have had the effect of making the war continue for a lot longer.


*Even today a huge amount of stuff made in Japan tends to have parts made literally in what are pretty much people's garages (things like small plastic parts for example are often produced by very small family run companies working in a small workshop).
Click to expand...

Pretty much hit anywhere, like a city with many innocent people in it. Is there anything worse?

I didn't necessarily mean on the Emperor or another civilian city with a few military parts in it.. couldn't of there been alternative targets for the sake of "shock & awe" tactic? They only had 2 bombs but the Japanese didn't know that they could have made more if required, plus the Japanese didn't have any nuclear capability.

If i was at war and my adversary was right on my door step and they unleashed a weapon of great destruction even if it wasn't on a city i would surrender and count myself lucky. Make Mount Fuji no more Mount Fuji Japs would have surrendered.
 
ShaolinDreams said:
If i was at war and my adversary was right on my door step and they unleashed a weapon of great destruction even if it wasn't on a city i would surrender and count myself lucky. Make Mount Fuji no more Mount Fuji Japs would have surrendered.
Click to expand...

You'd need a pretty big nuke to make Mount Fuji no more Mount Fuji even in a controlled demolition situation - in an air burst context as per the bombs dropped on Japan you'd need something like 500,000 the power of those bombs.

On the flip side a demonstration of the power of those bombs likely would have had the desired effect though the US presents several arguments as to why they didn't do that.

EDIT: Many people have unrealistic views as to the power of nuclear bombs, though older dirtier bombs were pretty nasty, modern day nukes (aside from the really big stuff) tend to be relatively clean with almost no significant fallout or thermal flash damage beyond ~4km (depending on wind direction and terrain). Though if someone like Russia went all out they could flatten and irradiate every inch of the UK several times over for good measure with the number of nukes they have.
 
Last edited:
ShaolinDreams said:
Pretty much hit anywhere, like a city with many innocent people in it. Is there anything worse?

I didn't necessarily mean on the Emperor or another civilian city with a few military parts in it.. couldn't of there been alternative targets for the sake of "shock & awe" tactic? They only had 2 bombs but the Japanese didn't know that they could have made more if required, plus the Japanese didn't have any nuclear capability.

If i was at war and my adversary was right on my door step and they unleashed a weapon of great destruction even if it wasn't on a city i would surrender and count myself lucky. Make Mount Fuji no more Mount Fuji Japs would have surrendered.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: What civilians. With over 90%GDP going on the war effort there's no such thing as a civilian. Bombing cities also caused more casulties. So they weren't even the worst city attacks.
It also ended the war, those saying japan was about to surrender never post anything substantial to back there cries up. Other than isn't I so terrible and evil. Well war is terrible.

That's also why japan surrender after the first? Oh wait no they didn't. So saying they would surrender once they know they had such a weapon isn't true at all. City or no city.
 
ShaolinDreams said:
Why nuke 2 cities with large civilian populations is what i don't get. Couldn't they nuke anything else to stop the war.. like strategic military targets? I'm sure if two or more nukes landed on something other than civilian cities it would have stopped the war regardless just from scaring them half to death. I'm gonna say it.. Think of the innocent children that got vapourised and never to see an age of 93, what did they ever to do America... Warcrime tbh personally i dont believe in total war no honour no valour just shear barbarism.
Click to expand...

Large centers of production are strategic targets in a multi year total war.
 
If nothing else, those bombs showed us the true extent of nuclear weaponry and made the theory of their use a reality. That alone has probably saved us from their use ever since.

An old man has passed away. It's a bit sad that some people feel the need to question how he could sleep at night just shy of 70 years after the event, if unsurprising.
 
RIP, but nor do I give a monkeys. If he genuinely had no regrets (I expect this is a farce), then he was a heartless man and I couldn't care less that he's dead. One less mass murderer around.
 
Glaucus said:
:rolleyes: What civilians. With over 90%GDP going on the war effort there's no such thing as a civilian. Bombing cities also caused more casulties. So they weren't even the worst city attacks.
It also ended the war, those saying japan was about to surrender never post anything substantial to back there cries up. Other than isn't I so terrible and evil. Well war is terrible.

That's also why japan surrender after the first? Oh wait no they didn't. So saying they would surrender once they know they had such a weapon isn't true at all. City or no city.
Click to expand...

Exactly...always such an emotionally driven response from frankly ill informed people on threads like this.

Fact is, neither of those air attacks caused the most casualties...either in WWII or even against Japan.

Japan was making extensive preparations for countering an assault on the the home islands, it would have been a bloodbath the likes of which the world has never seen. We only need to look at the assault on the outlying island of Okinawa a few months previously for a template of what the scenes would have been. Japanese civilians were being murdered by their own troops rather than be captured....others were either being forced or willingly to commit suicide...there is newsreel footage of parents throwing children off cliffs before jumping themselves....
 
I think it is very easy for armchair experts to sit behind their keyboards and judge someone else's actions for an event so far removed from present day knowledge and circumstances. He did his job - he would have had no idea of the real consequences of his actions, there is a big difference between theoretical knowledge and personal experience - and I think it is a shame people can't apply these things in that context. You can argue whether Japan would have surrendered or not (I believe they would have but at what cost) or that it prevented the Soviets from entering the conflict (well they actually grabbed land anyway) or that it set the tone for people's awareness of the result of a nuclear conflict and therefore prevent further conflict in Europe (I think this is true). Okinawa and Guadalcanal would have been better targets though imo.

I have done many 'bad' things in my life all of which I can justify to myself to the point I have no regrets I took that particular course of action. That doesn't mean I don't care about the consequences though.

Anyway someone has died and you have to show respect irrespective of your position on their life. Someone cared for this man even if you didn't.
 
Pretty much every source I've read or watched has lead me to believe that although they were pretty much broken they would still not surrender as it was culturally not their way.. even in the face of certain defeat. Civilians were being 'trained' to attack with spears on mass in suicide style banzai charges. Invading the home islands of Japan would not only cost 1000s of US lives but be utterly emotionally devastating on the troops.
With the emergence of new threats statement needed to be made to show the USSR and Stalin that the USA now had new toys.

I think statistically it was justified at the time - with hindsight you can argue otherwise. Seeing the arms race that starts there dominates the last half of the 20th century and the technological progression associated with it, again i think it has been worth it.

From a Japanese POV maybe it was worth it too in a strange way. Their country was rebuilt with American money, they wasted little on a huge military budget. They now have a thriving hi tech industry base. They have Pokemon and you can buy panties from vending machines!!!!!!
 
Xordium said:
I think it is very easy for armchair experts to sit behind their keyboards and judge someone else's actions for an event so far removed from present day knowledge and circumstances. He did his job - he would have had no idea of the real consequences of his actions, there is a big difference between theoretical knowledge and personal experience - and I think it is a shame people can't apply these things in that context. You can argue whether Japan would have surrendered or not (I believe they would have but at what cost) or that it prevented the Soviets from entering the conflict (well they actually grabbed land anyway) or that it set the tone for people's awareness of the result of a nuclear conflict and therefore prevent further conflict in Europe (I think this is true). Okinawa and Guadalcanal would have been better targets though imo.

I have done many 'bad' things in my life all of which I can justify to myself to the point I have no regrets I took that particular course of action. That doesn't mean I don't care about the consequences though.

Anyway someone has died and you have to show respect irrespective of your position on their life. Someone cared for this man even if you didn't.
Click to expand...

Good post :)
 
Von Smallhausen said:
He previously said that he had no regrets but I just wonder if the deaths of around 140,000 ever played on his mind ?[/url]
Click to expand...

I doubt it considering it's a widely accepted fact that the planned ground invasion of Japan would have resulted in the death of 500,000-1,000,000 US soldiers and 5,000,000-10,000,000 Japanese.
 
Fenris said:
It was actually known to the US Intelligence and their top brass (and I mean TOP) at the time that Japan was on the brink of surrender, only after the bombs were dropped was there a coup attempt to stop just that.

Even Eisenhower believed it and many others believed the bombs to be an atrocity, General MacArthur wasn't even consulted.

The nukes may have lead to the end of the war, but they were neither necessary nor justifiable.
Click to expand...

Sorry but this is rubbish, Japan had sworn to "fight to the last man" and it was widely believed that they would virtually do it, as I said projected casualties were expected to be as high as 1 million US and 10 million Japanese, surrender was nowhere in sight.

They asked Japan to surrender, Japan swore to fight to the death.
They dropped a nuke and asked again, Japan swore to fight to the death.
They dropped a nuke and asked again, The Japanese parliament agreed by split decision, and only because the emperor personally recommended surrender.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom