Paul Tibbets (the pilot of the Enola Gay) just died.

ST: Why did they drop the second one, the Bockscar (bomb) on Nagasaki?

I had no idea this was the name of the Nagasaki bomb.

i thought it was 'fat boy'?

ST: One last thing, when you hear people say, "Let's nuke 'em," "Let's nuke these people," what do you think?

PT: Oh, I wouldn't hesitate if I had the choice. I'd wipe 'em out. You're gonna kill innocent people at the same time, but we've never fought a damn war anywhere in the world where they didn't kill innocent people. If the newspapers would just cut out the shit: "You've killed so many civilians." That's their tough luck for being there.

PT is OTM.

it wasn't- bockscar was the plane. the bomb was fatman, iirc. xxpost.

wow, no wonder Tracer would be happy with Hillary

So we're coming down. We get to that point where I say "one second" and by the time I'd got that second out of my mouth the airplane had lurched, because 10,000lbs had come out of the front. I'm in this turn now, tight as I can get it, that helps me hold my altitude and helps me hold my airspeed and everything else all the way round. When I level out, the nose is a little bit high and as I look up there the whole sky is lit up in the prettiest blues and pinks I've ever seen in my life. It was just great.

I tell people I tasted it. "Well," they say, "what do you mean?" When I was a child, if you had a cavity in your tooth the dentist put some mixture of some cotton or whatever it was and lead into your teeth and pounded them in with a hammer. I learned that if I had a spoon of ice-cream and touched one of those teeth I got this electrolysis and I got the taste of lead out of it. And I knew right away what it was.

Zings that don't quite work: "Variety of health problems? That's your tough luck for ... being 92"

In 1976, he was criticized for re-enacting the bombing during an appearance at a Harlingen, Texas, air show. As he flew a B-29 Superfortress over the show, a bomb set off on the runway below created a mushroom cloud.

OK I've got very little problem with anything else the dude did, but this is totally fucked up.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/93/Tibbets-wave.jpg/485px-Tibbets-wave.jpg
http://www.musicspectrum.org/uploaded_images/MorrisseyOnGrass-785551.jpg

an interesting thing about the atom bomb is the totally polarizing effect it had on people who were involved with it. they either ended up hardcore peaceniks (oppenheimer, szilard, sakharov) or quite the hawks (edward teller, vannevar bush, von neumann)

Enola backwards is "Alone".

Tracer please tell me you were joking.

Alone Yag
You should have been spelled backward today
Uh-huh

Studs Terkel, elsewhere:

Why did we drop it? So little Harry could show Molotov and Stalin we've got the cards. That was the phrase Truman used. We showed the goddamned Russians we've got something and they'd better behave themselves in Europe. That's why it was dropped. The evidence is overwhelming. And yet you tell that to 99 percent of Americans and they'll spit in your eye.

http://www.counterpunch.org/mickey08042004.html

Not joking.

Take any sentence from that quote and tell me why it's wrong. Take as long as you like.

"I'd wipe 'em out"
A little genocide never hurt anyone?

not genocide

bombing of tokyo in spring 1945 killed more; bombing of dresden -- also done to show stalin the cards, in february 1945, also very probably killed more. horrible but not genocide either.

I agree with this guy about the ridiculously deluded way that civilian deaths in war are addressed, especially on the left, as if it's a scandal that the military kills people, as if the military has somehow botched its plans or the execution of those plans. What do people think happens in a war???? That two armies agree to meet in a field and then have at each other??

i'm pretty clueless when it comes to war history, so forgive my dumb questions here:

What was the military strategy for bombing hiroshima, i mean was there something there that the US were particularly looking at?

PT: Oh, I wouldn't hesitate if I had the choice. I'd wipe 'em out. You're gonna kill innocent people at the same time, but we've never fought a damn war anywhere in the world where they didn't kill innocent people. If the newspapers would just cut out the shit: "You've killed so many civilians." That's their tough luck for being there.

PT is OTM.

Which parts? That no one should think before dropping a nuke? That innocent deaths in other parts of the world justifies dropping a nuke?
That the press wail about the uneccesary deaths of many cilvillans?
That civillians should be derided for being nuked?

I'm sure i've misunderstood the words of the sage Mr Tibbets, and i haven't read the article so context is maybe lost, but you asked us to consider just that passage.

I dunno Gotta nuke something.
http://l.yimg.com/img.tv.yahoo.com/tv/us/img/site/07/38/0000000738_20060919022341.jpg

what's in play is the sanctification of nuclear weapons because (fair enough) of the prospect they've held out of total annihiliation since, i dunno, the last 50s.

the a-bomb was horrendous, but unless you think there was an *easy way* of negotiating a peace, and that the US *out of spite* decided to drop the bombs instead, you have to get into the other alternatives.

studs is half-right that scaring off stalin was part of the equation -- but within the total picture of the worst war ever fought... it's facile to try to wash your hands of the whole thing, to be sanctimonious.

personally the prospect of stalin running things in western europe the way he ran things in poland -- you know, mass executions, shit like that -- is kind of a hell of a lot scarier than what we ended up with, ie political/military domination by the US.

What was the military strategy for bombing hiroshima, i mean was there something there that the US were particularly looking at?

-- Ste, Friday, November 2, 2007 11:50 AM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

... getting the japanese to surrender.

That no one should think before dropping a nuke?

Does he say that?

That innocent deaths in other parts of the world justifies dropping a nuke?

Or that?

That the press wail about the uneccesary deaths of many cilvillans?

It's the way these deaths get reported, as if the military is a police force. In Iraq, for instance, Americans get to continue this delusion that having hundreds of thousands of soldiers in another country is an essentially benign operation where if we can just follow our own rules, nobody would get hurt who didn't deserve it. That's just not the way it works when you invade another country and drop bombs on it every day and find yourself in the middle of a war. It is a WAR.

That civillians should be derided for being nuked?

He says it is their tough luck for being there, and I find it hard to disagree that their luck is tough.

I think it's interesting hearing his perspective on it because he doesn't really put atomic weapons in another category, for him it's just a really big bomb. Dropping really big bombs on other people is what pilots are trained to do, and do very well. The idea that it's "wrong" to drop really big bombs on other people suggests that it's wrong to have a military at all, because that's what militaries do when they find themselves mobilized and fighting a war.

But doesn't the modern military try and sell modern warfare as something clean and clinical e.g. smart bombs and precision strikes?

Too much modern going on there.

But doesn't the modern military try and sell modern warfare as something clean and clinical e.g. smart bombs and precision strikes?

-- NickB, Friday, November 2, 2007 12:04 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

8th air force was touting this line c. 1943.

That no one should think before dropping a nuke?

Does he say that?

No, he said if it was hischoice, he wouldn't hesitate. You said he was OTM, which implies a universal application of his opinion.

That innocent deaths in other parts of the world justifies dropping a nuke?

Or that?

You're gonna kill innocent people at the same time, but we've never fought a damn war anywhere in the world where they didn't kill innocent people.

Asuming he's still talking about dropping nukes, which is what he was asked about, then yes it does sound as if he's saying that. What do you think he's saying?

That the press wail about the uneccesary deaths of many cilvillans?

It's the way these deaths get reported, as if the military is a police force. In Iraq, for instance, Americans get to continue this delusion that having hundreds of thousands of soldiers in another country is an essentially benign operation where if we can just follow our own rules, nobody would get hurt who didn't deserve it. That's just not the way it works when you invade another country and drop bombs on it every day and find yourself in the middle of a war. It is a WAR.

Hmm. You may have a point here, but Tibbrts isn't necessarily making that point. Just look at his words. All he's saying, very simply, is that it's "shit" to complains about excessive civillians dying. He is NOT OTM.

That civillians should be derided for being nuked?

He says it is their tough luck for being there, and I find it hard to disagree that their luck is tough.

I wavered over this one, because in one sense, objectively it's true. It is terribly tough luck. But you don't think his perspective, as that of the once and future bomb-dropper, is that one shouldn't shed too many tears over dead civillians in a war/nuke-zone? That's obviously implied by the choice of language, and his positon. Don't be disingenuous.

I think Tibbets' mentality is a dangerous one to have. Sure, let's nuke 'em, they're the enemy. When followed through by all parties, this scenario stops being 'rational war' and starts being 'death for death's sake'.

but no-one has ever argued that an invasion can be clean, and that was one of the other options with japan. taking the pacific islands was amazingly costly on both sides, and there's no reason invading the mainland would have been easier. invasions/liberations -- example: the russian invasion of poland and east germany in 1945 -- can be pretty fucking horrible for the civilians too.

xpost

it's fine and right to lament civilian deaths ("excessive" implies what kind of standard? standard of japanese invasion of china? of the area bombing of germany?), but you're still left with "what was the best option then?"

louis the argument that has to be answered is fewer people died this way. i believe that people have answered it and said truman could have made peace, but it doesn't seem too cut-and-dried. but categorically "doing nothing was not an option" here.

You're gonna kill innocent people at the same time, but we've never fought a damn war anywhere in the world where they didn't kill innocent people.

Asuming he's still talking about dropping nukes, which is what he was asked about, then yes it does sound as if he's saying [innocent deaths in other parts of the world justifies dropping a nuke]. What do you think he's saying?

I think he's saying you can't fight a war without killing innocent people. Probably lots of them. It doesn't have anything to do with "other parts of the world" or "justifying", it's just a description of what war is. If you don't believe this, then you don't believe that war is actually that horrible!!!

xp
"it's fine and right to lament civilian deaths ("excessive" implies what kind of standard? standard of japanese invasion of china? of the area bombing of germany?), but you're still left with "what was the best option then?""

Absolutely. This is all part of the wider debate, or indeed the narrower one about ww2. I'm just addressing Tracer's challenge about Tibbet. The ethics of war, or specific actions, i'm not much quaified to discuss. But i can't see how, out of context, PT's words were supportable.

louis the argument that has to be answered is fewer people died this way. i believe that people have answered it and said truman could have made peace, but it doesn't seem too cut-and-dried. but categorically "doing nothing was not an option" here.

Oh, I agree, in the specific WWII endgame scenario. To persist with such sentiments in the age of the H-bomb and nuclear proliferation, however, is I believe extremely dangerous.

The whole thrust of that quote though was that nuclear weapons should be the first option in a conflict and we shouldn't hesitate to use them. Sounds a bit squiffy to me.

That's what I find so interesting -- there's no taboo for him. It's the biggest bomb we've got -- so why on earth wouldn't we use it?

"I think he's saying you can't fight a war without killing innocent people. Probably lots of them. It doesn't have anything to do with "other parts of the world" or "justifying", it's just a description of what war is. If you don't believe this, then you don't believe that war is actually that horrible!!!"

PT: Oh, I wouldn't hesitate if I had the choice. I'd wipe 'em out. You're gonna kill innocent people at the same time, but . If the newspapers would just cut out the shit: "You've killed we've never fought a damn war anywhere in the world where they didn't kill innocent peopleso many civilians." That's their tough luck for being there.

He's not describing what war is like. Third sentence follows second sentence, "I'd wipe 'em out.". He is giving his reason for doing so in the third sentence. Second sentence follows first sentence "Oh, I wouldn't hesitate if I had the choice." where he is agreeing with "Let's nuke 'em," "Let's nuke these people". It's chain of reasoning. Pretty clear to me. I said "other parts of the world" a)because he is obviously referring to Japan and b)he says "we've never fought a damn war anywhere in the world where they didn't kill innocent people", which references USA's interventionist policies after ww2.

screwed up PT's quote there, pls ignore it.

the raids that destroyed tokyo involved, i guess, literally thousands of airmen. this raid, involving just ten or so, achieved comparable results.

there was a debate in england in the 20s about chemical/biological weapons -- haldane vs bertrand russell -- which got into this area.

i think the fallout from atomic attack is the strongest argument against on a practical level -- morally, i don't see how it was worse than the area bombing raids:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo_in_World_War_II#Firebombing

That's what I find so interesting -- there's no taboo for him. It's the biggest bomb we've got -- so why on earth wouldn't we use it?

Well, for one thing, think of the precedent it would set. It would lead to a huge proliferation in nuclear weapons with no more constraints on their use.

Also, even if nuclear weapons stop a conflict dead, their physical impact lasts so damn long and kills people that weren't even born during the conflict itself.

I haven't read the papers on this at all, but out of interest, how is this guy's death being received in Japan?

Sure, it killed a lot of people...but it gave us a great synthpop song!

Well, for one thing, think of the precedent it would set. It would lead to a huge proliferation in nuclear weapons with no more constraints on their use.

i don't follow. in 1945 which other countries were going to be using nuclear weapons? unless you believe the US government of the time was flat-out psychotic, i don't see how using the a-bomb leads to there being no constraints on its use. in any case by then the US and UK had been using mass bombing raids to kill enemy civilians in their thousands for three years, with no real restraint at all.

Yeah the fallout is what makes it qualitatively different. It sounds like he doesn't even really understand that part, even these decades later.

EnriQuit: I was referring to Tibbets giving the thumbs up to the use of nuclear weapons in the present day.

yeah. by 'these people' he means whoever did 9/11. i dunno if i'm the only person here who's not too surprised that a decorated, elderly war veteran is somewhat belligerent! he's outlining a fantasy scenario where the bad guys are in a hideout and we hit them with a nuke and it's game over for the terrorists, and everyone drives home in a cadillac.

the modern h-bomb is much, much nastier than the bomb he dropped, is the main reason why -- even if this were possible -- it's a bit much. but that's kind of moot because it's a fantasy scenario. another fantasy scenario is, we save afghanistan for democracy by invading it. another fantasy scenario is, we do the same in iraq.

"the modern h-bomb is much, much nastier than the bomb he dropped, is the main reason why -- even if this were possible -- it's a bit much."

classic british reticence

"yeah. by 'these people' he means whoever did 9/11."

o he is? o okay. If i thought about who he meant at all i thought simply "enemy combatants" (current ones, natch). Did Tracer think that?
Was he agreeing with the proposition?

... getting the japanese to surrender.

There were other ways. See Counterpunch link for the objections of that pacifist Eisenhower.

ok scanning the piece, mickey z's version of the "accepted version" is nonsense. i already knew the german atomic programme was a lame duck. i already knew scaring off the russians was part of the equation. he's acting shocked but comes off naive: holmes, i was writing this shit when i was at school.

but more was at stake there than "the cold logic of capitalism".

on the really important things, what is he trying to argue? first he says a US invasion of japan would have cost 40,000 US lives -- that seems pretty low to me, but what would the japanese death toll have been? that's surely a much bigger question here.

but then he says:

it was widely known at the time that Japan had been trying to surrender for months prior to the atomic bombing. A May 5, 1945 cable, intercepted and decoded by the U.S., "dispelled any possible doubt that the Japanese were eager to sue for peace." In fact, the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey reported shortly after the war, that Japan "in all probability" would have surrendered before the much-discussed November 1, 1945 Allied invasion of the homeland.
Truman himself eloquently noted in his diary that Stalin would "be in the Jap War on August 15th. Fini (sic) Japs when that comes about."

the first quote is from a book, but the japanese don't seem to have been going that extra mile to obtain peace -- against the soviet union or against the US. if you believe it, that's great for you, but it seems to be typical counterpunch "US as source of all evil" bullshit.

with guys like patton and macarthur around, let alone stalin, it is probably a good thing for everyone that the russian advance stopped where it did. he quotes truman's diary saying that the russian entry would finish off the japanese -- what's his point? that it would have been better if russia had invaded japan -- once again, see what happened in east europe in 1945 -- than the us killing, say, 200,000 with bombs?

how you gonna call it?

i'd never trust anyone lame enough to call himself "mickey z."

why was nagasaki necessary?

yeah. by 'these people' he means whoever did 9/11.

...

He says it is their tough luck for being there, and I find it hard to disagree that their luck is tough.

they don't enter into, rather

I wonder if there are any good studies on the turning of opinion - most commanders during the war and the post-war Strategic Bombing Survey held that the bombs were unnecessary. But now it is almost universal, as we see here, to claim that it would have been a humanitarian disaster to not use them.

Why the change? How did the viewpoint go from being, say, 50-50 to 99-1?

no one wants to question the greatest generation

tracer's tacking a transparently bullshit reading which sez:

pt: all war is necessarily total war, therefore we must accept it.

th: pt otm. all war is necessarily total war, therefore we must disavow it.

ST: One last thing, when you hear people say, "Let's nuke 'em," "Let's nuke these people," what do you think?

tracer: Oh, I wouldn't hesitate if I had the choice. I'd wipe 'em out.

yeah, im sure you believe that dude.

the idea that there arent degrees or "proper" rules of warfare makes sense & no doubt infiltrates the minds of everyone engaged, but, you know, destruction of entire 'population centers' at cost of victory is kind of a steep price, morally speaking.

How did the viewpoint go from being, say, 50-50 to 99-1?

totally obvious - end of the cold war! ie, it's much easier to look at the question of nuclear deterrence "uncritically" when the threat of total worldwide mutual assured destruction isn't imminently hanging over your head.

"threat of total worldwide mutual assured destruction" didn't begin till what? the late 50s?

most commanders during the war and the post-war Strategic Bombing Survey held that the bombs were unnecessary.

what now? *during the war* notion of these bombs was pretty sketchy. if the a-bombs were unnecessary -- which i can believe -- that's partly because conventional raids could and were achieving similar results.

all the stuff in c/punch re "they were about to surrender" doesn't square so well with the fact they were not very actively seeking surrender. it seems hard to get around that.

'What now' what? What part of that statement didn't make sense?

We have numerous statements from Allied military figures and the War Department/Army Air Corps itself (the Strategic Bombing Survey) that the use of the A-Bombs was either unnecessary, unhelpful or both.

These statements and findings in and of themselves don't prove the anti-nuke cause to the extent that Cockpunchers would like. But the statements should give just enough reasonable doubt to make the usage morally debatable and avoid the certainty of their need and righteousness displayed here.

"what now?" cos the strategic bombing survey was done after the war, not during, when the effects of the bomb were not that widely publicized.

also because those surveys broadly okayed the use of area bombing, which to my mind is not morally different from the use of the a-bomb.

At the time there was still the question of the million or so Japanese troops still fighting in China/Manuchuria to consider (my numbers are probably off but it was a considerable amount, probably more). A condidtional surrender would've left China with a gigantic occupation force.

And also, as an aside, the Japanese Army and Navy were two completely seperate entities that at best hated each other- for example the Midway disaster was unknown to the Army for at least a year after it happened. I'm not sure if the Japanese (at least the Army anyway) actually knew what was happening before the A-bombs.

I do have some personal ties to this as my father was slated to go in as part of the invasion force. As it was he was part of Saipan, the Okinawa mop up and participated in the occupation afterwards.

His very comments are 1) Jap beer is some of the best he's had. 2) He dislikes the Japanese intensely.

I've never asked him about the A-bomb.

fwiw

Eighty seven year old being a bit controversial shocker.

Also.

I'm-on-a-roll-a-Gay