Last crew member of Enola Gay dies aged 93

[Glaucus]

What a strange way to rationalise the murder of women & children.

"This kid may grow up to fight us!".

Yes it may have been necessary (to reduce overall causality rates - maybe it was, but it doesn't make it desirable or the right thing to do. In a world of wrong choices, poor decisions & the outward offence against against humanity this was yet another example of gross death.

Regarding the point on it's necessity - there is no way you know if dropping the bomb on an unpopulated area but well within view would have had regarding forcing the issue of a surrender). A 'warning shot' could have achieved the same, but let's not pretend that they didn't want to test the bomb on a city.

Dropping the first bomb did not have the seared affect, so dropping it in the middle of nowhere certainly wouldn't.

And it's not strange to rationalise like that at all. as it's true and why both sides bombed Cities extensively. there simply aren't civilians. Everything is going towards the war machine.

Why say women? Is there something special about women? You realised they worked extensively in the war machine as did every citizen.

 

[Mynight]

Maybe I'm full of it but the Americans seem incredibly into praising their military actions regardless of what happens. Could it be he has to say he has no regrets so as not to inspire the anti armed forces brigade?

I honestly can't imagine anyone being ok with that. I can only imagine political pressures.

As for the morals of dropping the nuke where they did I cannot say it was a good idea but if you're going to beat an enemy surely you want to create an absolute horror that they'd think twice before ever trying again.

 

[elmarko]

Dropping the first bomb did not have the seared affect, so dropping it in the middle of nowhere certainly wouldn't.

Repeat after me "I don't think".

And it's not strange to rationalise like that at all. as it's true and why both sides bombed Cities extensively. there simply aren't civilians. Everything is going towards the war machine.

If you wish to hold a private definition as to what constitutes a civilian & an person serving in the military you are free to do so. But I'm unsure as to how you can rationally imply that children or babies are combatants.

Why say women? Is there something special about women? You realised they worked extensively in the war machine as did every citizen.

Because men were conscripted & forced to fight - when discussing 'civilians' during conscripted war-time it's normal to reference women & children.

Obviously it does include the elderly, the sick or the mentally ill.

 

[Glaucus]

You don't think so, great. Well dropping a bomb in a city didn't work. But you think dropping it in the middle of nowhere would? That's a crazy opinion to hold.

World wars aren't peace time. It's not small scale wars. It total war. With what was it, 96%GDP going to the war machine. Everything was a valid target, as in one way or another it was very much helping the war machine, weather that is making the weapons, the supply chain or growing crops which went to the soldiers and factory workers. and as you like to compare it to modern days, women fight in the front line. So do kids.

So yeah that's also a silly opinion you hold. In a big war, let alone a world war, you go after the infrastructure that supports the war machine.

 

[balky12]

Let's not forget Japan killed women and children.

Often in war it's the side with the bigger stick that wins. In this case America had 2 of them.

Japan's mistake was provoking them.

Not that I am condoning any of the acts. But in a fight you can't start it, then complain that someone is hitting you too hard.

Often it's what you learn from an experience that matters. In this case, nuke's should never be used again.

 

[elmarko]

You don't think so, great. Well dropping a bomb in a city didn't work. But you think dropping it in the middle of nowhere would? That's a crazy opinion to hold.

World wars aren't peace time. It's not small scale wars. It total war. With what was it, 96%GDP going to the war machine. Everything was a valid target, as in one way or another it was very much helping the war machine, weather that is making the weapons, the supply chain or growing crops which went to the soldiers and factory workers. and as you like to compare it to modern days, women fight in the front line. So do kids.

So yeah that's also a silly opinion you hold. In a big war, let alone a world war, you go after the infrastructure that supports the war machine.

So children under the age of 10 are fair game in war then? - at what age are they not fair game?.

A hospital exclusively focused in the treatment of babies also a fair target? (I'm just trying to find out at what age you constitute a person a combatant or not during a war).

Let's not forget Japan killed women and children.

Often in war it's the side with the bigger stick that wins. In this case America had 2 of them.

Japan's mistake was provoking them.

Not that I am condoning any of the acts. But in a fight you can't start it, then complain that someone is hitting you too hard.

Often it's what you learn from an experience that matters. In this case, nuke's should never be used again.

Don't get me wrong, I can accept the rational it may have been the better of two evils. But it's not the right thing to do, neither should it be applauded or looked back on favourably.

 

[Glaucus]

Which war? Which country what consequences?
World war when there's no separation of civilian cities to war machine, then cities are a valid target. Which contain everyone.

In a small conflict where you don't need to carpet bomb cities then that's a different matter. And depends on the country. How about some of the African states that have child platoons? Are they off targets as they are as young as 6?

So it depends, some wars you should and need to minimize casualties especially civilians, other wars there are no civilians and it's impossible to separate the war machine to the handful of people who have refused to fight or are to young to fight in that country. Although even in the UK, plenty off teenagers lied about there age, and even more worked.

Who's looking back on it favourably, war is hell. Not much more to say about that.
But to even say they should have dropped it in nowhere, when even hitting a city didn't make them surrender is pure crazy.
Lots of people don't seem to understand what a world war is, and just compare it to the little clashes of recent time, they aren't even comparable.

 

[balky12]

So children under the age of 10 are fair game in war then? - at what age are they not fair game?.

A hospital exclusively focused in the treatment of babies also a fair target? (I'm just trying to find out at what age you constitute a person a combatant or not during a war).

You know what he is saying... war is war. They are not acceptable targets, but collateral happens.

Even nowadays there are stories of Africans/ Iraqis using children / civilians as shields. Making placements amoungst villages. Hell in Mogadishu children and the elderly use to sit on malitia's backs whilst they lay prone attached yo machine guns.

 

[balky12]

Don't get me wrong, I can accept the rational it may have been the better of two evils. But it's not the right thing to do, neither should it be applauded or looked back on favourably.

I don't think anyone here looks back on it favourably. If they do then I question their humanity. Like I have said through this thread, my only issue here is with people going the other way and calling these people murderers. It's just plain wrong.

 

[elmarko]

Everything was a valid target,

You know what he is saying... war is war. They are not acceptable targets

I can only respond to what's being said.

 

[Eurofighter]

More people would have died if we had invaded Japan. It ended thebwar with fewer deaths and was the right thing to do.

 

[Glaucus]

I can only respond to what's being said.

So you wouldn't bomb cities that are producing war machines, ammo, food etc. Because cities have children in them? Really. I think you need to think what a world war actually is. and stop comparing it to little modern skirmishes.

 

[elmarko]

So you wouldn't bomb cities that are producing war machines, ammo, food etc. Because cities have children in them? Really. I think you need to think what a world war actually is. and stop comparing it to little modern skirmishes.

Don't presume to know my level of expertise on the subject.

What you are also presenting is a red herring, I never said it wasn't required. I said it wasn't right. (I would add that the ease of justification for the indiscriminate murder of civilians is the sign that humanity isn't worth saving to begin with)

 

[Glaucus]

Don't presume to know my level of expertise on the subject.

What you are also presenting is a red herring, I never said it wasn't required. I said it wasn't right. (I would add that the ease of justification for the indiscriminate murder of civilians is the sign that humanity isn't worth saving to begin with)

Did I ever say war was right? But they didn't have the choice, they had war. Once you have war.

I'm not presuming anything, other than the rubbish you are righting.

Would still love to know your reasoning why bombing a city didn't work, but bombing middle of no where might.

Or why you separate women out, who made the war machines.
Or protect the kids that are all around said war machine. Actually UK tried, we shipped many kids to the country side. Away from military targets, which the cities fall under.

Still using the world civilian like it means something and still deluded.

The fact is it was a world war, everything went into the war machine, cities where very much valid and nessecary targets, to end the war.

So yeah think what you like, I'm glad you weren't in charge, or we would be dead and UK would be a German state.

 

[balky12]

murder of civilians

Murder implies unlawful.

Actually UK tried, we shipped many kids to the country side. Away from military targets, which the cities fall under.

We accepted that being part of a World War, our whole country and everyone in it was fair game. We did stuff to mitigate the potential damage.

 

[elmarko]

Murder implies unlawful.

Murder is subjective pending on perspective of the nationality of the people involved (They were killed in Japan, it wasn't lawful there). Besides, in the context of what's being said the fact murder is a legal term isn't really relevant to the discussion at hand.

But aside from that a fantastic contribution there.

So yeah think what you like, I'm glad you weren't in charge, or we would be dead and UK would be a German state.

I will thanks.

I would continue this debate but I've got a feeling you will "Beat me with experience".

 

[balky12]

Murder is subjective pending on perspective of the nationality of the people involved (They were killed in Japan, it wasn't lawful there). Besides, in the context of what's being said the fact murder is a legal term isn't really relevant to the discussion at hand.

But aside from that a fantastic contribution there.

Japan might have accepted that civilian deaths were a certainty and therefore feel it was lawful. 'We are at war'.

But I agree, in this context using the words murder and murderer are pretty stupid.

indiscriminate murder of civilians

 

[Xordium]

There are two real ethical components here:

A) Was it wrong to use the two bombs to end the war.
B) Did the crew understand it was wrong.

Now what you are all disagreeing on is Point A. I have my opinion on that and so do you all. We can put forward conjecture and strong arguments for both points. We can quite easily ethically justify dropping the bombs (principle of lesser harm) or not dropping the bombs (principle of not causing harm). Essentially you are having a debate about the ethics of 'Consequentialism'.

However, what you can not do then is to drag that onto Point B. There could no conceivable way that the crew would appreciate the mavity of their actions. Historically it appears the upper echelons did not appreciate the mavity of their choices. We know what a nuclear bomb can do to a population centre due to the actions of these men. They never had that knowledge. They would have had theoretical knowledge to some limited degree (they were not famous physicists) but they would not have been to apply that theoretical construct and envision its real world consequences.

Let me give you an example. Stop and think what would happen if you saw someone hit by a car going at say 40mph. Theoretically we would assess that the would be a forward momentum from the point of impact that would apply spin to the person. At the point where the contact was made there would be trauma. When the person hit the ground there would also be trauma. You can objectively picture that. That is what this man had. We all know that is far from the truth though. The truth is blood, silence, noise, desolation, fear, loss and pain for all present and all who know. A victim that will leave this world and a family that will never get to say goodbye. A driver that will live in pain and guilt for the rest of their life and their family who will share that pain and possibly their isolation. That subjective experience is something this man would never have had at that time.

Subsequently like us he would have. He had no regrets. He argues Point A a certain way. So challenge his decisions and those who agree with them. But don't damn the man on Point B because that is totally incorrect.

 

[JonnyT]

Why single out the atomic bombs? As others have mentioned countless other Japanese cities had been carpet-bombed relentlessly by General Curtis LeMay's B-29 bombers for months. In fact, they deliberately chose to use bombloads of incendiary rather than high-explosive bombs because the vast majority of Japanese buildings were built from wood, and would therefore burn very easily.

To some, any bombing of population centres equals murder, however WW2 was very much the age of Total War; cities were centres for production for vital war materiel as well as transport hubs (as was used as justification for Dresden, Leipzig and Chemnitz being targeted).

The main target was in most cases these production centres and hubs, civilian casualties being a secondary outcome (desirable or not depends on your point of view). In some cases it was desirable - the Blitz on London to break British morale, Arthur Harris' euphemistic use of the term 'dehousing' but the Americans were equally guilty of such methods; they also bombed Dresden the morning after the RAF had done so and had conducted what almost constituted a strategic bombing campaign against Japan's cities via conventional means for months prior to Hiroshima.

In short, the US wanted to end the war against Japan as quickly as possible by any means which avoided the invasion of the Japanese home islands. They also hoped it would give them the diplomatic upper hand in the rapidly cooling relations with the Soviets.

 

[adolf hamster]

i recall reading somewhere that the justification for nuking japan came from experience in trying to take other japanese held islands in the pacific and the realisation that to invade would mean pretty much a genocide before they surrendered properly.

if this has any basis in truth or not i dont know, but its certainly beleivable, and ofc no wonder they surrendered after the bombs, nobody wants more of that.