BG Paul W Tibbets, USAF, Ret: "That's their tough luck for being there."

The UK Guardian ^ | Tuesday August 6, 2002 | Studs Terkel

[rightwing2]

You are the one who is a disgrace. How many wars have you fought in and helped to win for the United States? General Tibbets is a patriotic American who helped to turn the tide in WWII. He should hold his head up high in knowing that he served his country well and wore his uniform proudly. General Tibbets is a true American hero.

Just because I haven't had the honor of fighting in a war doesn't mean that I don't have a right to point out when someone makes a statement that is morally repugnant and in opposition to everything America has ever stood for. I served my country as an officer of the United States Army. BG Tibbets may be patriotic, but his comments here are simply disgraceful and reminiscent of Hitler's and Tojo's "high" ethical standards whom we fought a war against to defeat. In retrospect it seems that it was very fitting that they picked Alec "I'll leave the country if Bush is elected" "Let's kill Henry Hyde's family" Baldwin to play him in the movie Pearl Harbor.

[rightwing2]

What utter nonsense. The bombs ended the war on August 15, 1945. Case closed.

So would have the overturning of our idiotic unconditional surrender demands which could have caused the war to end in early 1945 with nearly a million US and Japanese lives saved and the exact same result--namely victory for the US. Only, had the war ended months earlier, Russia could not have intervened against Japan and occupied northern China, Korea, and Japan and thus China and Korea would be united under pro-Western Democratic governments today.

[rightwing2]

You seem to be of the opinion that soldiers deserve what they get, but “innocent civilians” should be spared. Most soldiers, worldwide and throughout history, were "innocent civilians" until their governments ordered/forced them to become soldiers, they really had no choice in the matter of becoming a soldier. How is it moral to kill these uniformed innocent civilians, but it’s not morally OK to kill someone merely because their government hasn’t yet ordered them to wear a uniform?

Quite the contrary as an Army vet, I can say that historically it is the soldiers that are the most reluctant to go to war for it is they who are called upon to make the greatest sacrifices in blood and sweat, sometimes even their lives. So you see, it is very natural for me as a former Army officer to question the strategic mistakes and moral failings of a liberal Democrap President like Truman which did not have the best interests of the country at stake and that insisted on unconditional surrender demands which prolonged the war for several months unnecessarily so it could battle-test its atomic bombs on the poor, starving, huddled masses of innocent Japanese civilians and families.

How is it moral to kill uniformed soldiers you ask? How else do you propose that we fight a war? If it were not moral than there would be no such thing as a just or moral war and I guess we could have all submitted to Global Communism. It is a very sad thing to have to kill enemy soldiers who are given no choice but to fight for their country, but in war it is an unfortunate necessity. It is simply not acceptable for an enemy soldier to kill your wife and children in war just as it is not acceptable for you to kill his. Once you figure that out, you will begin to understand why the dropping of the A-bombs on Japan was a return to barbarism as so eloquently stated by Admiral Leahy, our highest ranking military officer during World War Two. Why do you presume to know more about war than he?

[Tickle Me Pank]

Thanks for your theory.

[DoughtyOne]

You are the one who is a disgrace. How many wars have you fought in and helped to win for the United States? General Tibbets is a patriotic American who
helped to turn the tide in WWII. He should hold his head up high in knowing that he served his country well and wore his uniform proudly. General Tibbets is
a true American hero.

You have every right to express your opinions on this subject, even though I think you are dead wrong.  Service in the military is not required to voice an opinion.  I deeply respect those who have served in the military.  Some of them are unsavory characters to be sure.  But they did serve our nation.  Some of them risked their lives.  On differenty levels, I respect each of them.  But men of good reason who have never served must be able to voice their opinions too.  Public oversight of the military is an important component of the the preventative measures needed to make sure our military does not supercede it's mandate.  Keep criticizing.  There will always be someone around to criticize right back.  And that's healthy.

[rightwing2]

Some of what you say may be true, but why are you seemingly unconcerned about the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed in our raids on German cities?

Because, thankfully, the US did not join the Brits in committing that evil war crime against the German populace. In Europe, the USAAF engaged in highly effective daylight precision bombing while in Japan they had no compulsion against destroying entire Japanese cities at a time along with hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese women and children who had nothing to do with the fight. Incidentally, as a German-American I have been VERY concerned about the British slaughter of over a million innocent German civlians, but I do not draw racial or national distinctions when serving as an advocate for the innocent dead of all countries since so few others are willing to tell their story and defend their innocence.

[DoughtyOne]

You have made your case. I have defended your right to do so. I'm unable to accept your take on things, but it is interesting to see your take none the less. I would hope that people who read your comments would consider that over some 55 year or so, yours is not the prevailing thought on the topic. In fact your theory is heralded by only a miniscule fraction of our society. That doesn't make you wrong on the face of it. But after hearing your arguements, I'm not swayed.

[agarrett]

You and Sean Hannity get this one wrong. If a terrorist hides in an apartment building of 200 plus innocent people and the only way you have a 50% chance or better to kill him in the building is to kill everyone else in the building, do you kill 200 innocents just to kill one guilty. Sean Hannity says kill the innocent women and children to get to the terrorist, which is by definition committing a terrorist act or fighting terrorism with terrorism. So would Hitler, Stalin, Mao or Timothy McVeigh. What say you?

  I say it depends on who it is we're targeting, and how much military value his death will gain us. If we have bin Laden, or Saddam Hussein, hiding in an apartment building with 200 people, then those 200 people are toast. If it's some Hamas stooge, perhaps not, but it really does depend on what value we get out of killing him.

  It also depends on what our relations are with the country. If we're formally at war, then blowing up that apartment building to get some one of military significance becomes much easier. In a wartime situation, the leaders of the country are committing perfidy if they place (or even allow) military targets in a civilian environment, and the blame - legal and, I believe, moral, for the civilian deaths is on their shoulders.

  In the more likely case where it's a terrorist hiding in an apartment building in an otherwise neutral country, it becomes more difficult, and we're much less likely to blow up the whole building. However, as I'm sure you're aware, our sensitivity to civilian deaths encourages unfriendly nations to place military targets in civilian environments. If we wish to spare future civilian deaths, we may have to get over this, and start targeting military targets even if numerous civilian deaths are inevitable.

  In the specific case of the article - Hiroshima - we were at war with Japan. Hiroshima was a valid target, but we killed a lot more civilians than was necessary. It is certainly questionable as far as the morality of that strike is concerned. In retrospect, I think it actually improves. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war before the Soviets got involved. For all the horror those two cities endured, it is truly minor compared to what would have happened in a North and South Japan. Just look at North Korea for a shining example.

Drew Garrett

[agarrett]

As I said, he is a man of courage. He would prove his courage to me even more so if he were to take one last trip to Japan (I suspect he has never been back) to go through the massive and rather detailed Hiroshima Museum at ground zero that I have had the chance to see. I think he would not be able to compose himself after walking through; or if he could, he has nerves of more steel and human capabilities to rationalize far beyond what I would imagine any man to have.

  You know, it's interesting, but the Hiroshima museum had the exact opposite effect on me that it is supposed to. It made it clear to me that the atomic bomb isn't as horrific as it's made out to be. Why? Because the Hiroshima museum is located in Hiroshima.

  Hiroshima is, I thought, the second prettiest city in Japan (Kyoto still has it beat). The buildings are well constructed and maintained, they're laid out with reasonably broad streets, and there's lots of green plants growing throughout the city. Now, the pictures in the museum were, no doubt, horrific, but they also showed that things heal - people recover and move on, and rebuild. The city seems to contradict the museum, and I thought the city had the stronger voice.

Drew Garrett

[rightwing2]

Wake up! there is no such thing as innocent civilians.

This is your statement that I thought was so ludicrious.

[AmericanInTokyo]

I liked your comments. I am not with you singing on precisely the same sheet, but I liked your observations.

From me, I had a different take. Perhaps the city as it is now (some people today even ask me, "did they rebuild Hiroshima after the bomb or is it all still just flat?" -- Amazing ignorant question!), is in some ways the way it was before 8:15 a.m. You can see through the museum that it was just wiped out like a huge giant just squished it with a foot. Of course, you see the new, revitalized city that it is. If anything, this (the rebuilding) is a testimony to the resilience of Japanese to come back from what ever crappy set of cards they are dealt (recovery from wartime dictators and fascism, as well as fire and atomic bombings).

One thing is for sure; in talking with survivors I think you would not get the opposite message from the museum.

Sure, there is some important things left out of the museum such as the treatment of Koreans, or the Japanese development of the nuke. If anything, though, it does show the human dimension of a split atom over the heads of hundreds of thousands, which nobody in their right mind can see is something of inherent beauty, despite it facilitating the end of the war.

[rightwing2]

You have every right to express your opinions on this subject, even though I think you are dead wrong. Service in the military is not required to voice an opinion. I deeply respect those who have served in the military. Some of them are unsavory characters to be sure. But they did serve our nation. Some of them risked their lives. On differenty levels, I respect each of them. But men of good reason who have never served must be able to voice their opinions too. Public oversight of the military is an important component of the the preventative measures needed to make sure our military does not supercede it's mandate. Keep criticizing. There will always be someone around to criticize right back. And that's healthy.

I served for several years as an Army officer in a combat arms branch? Did you? Regardless, you are very correct in stating that the opinions of all patriotic Americans are equally valid.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Great post. Very interesting observation.

[AmericanInTokyo]

A pretty good photo of Hiroshima downtown (the epicenter is the 'dome' building and the park), that probably only shows about 1/5th of the whole city of Hiroshima. Ground zero along the river that is in the foreground of the big baseball stadium. Amazingly tall buildings, modern shopping centers, top class Japanese major baseball team (Carps), good yakitori chicken and beer... the works.

[gilor]

Wake up! there is no such thing as innocent civilians.

This is your statement that I thought was so ludicrious.

What ever your opinion is about nuking Japan, so be it. There was nothing wrong with 'lighting up' those cities.

[DoughtyOne]

No. I did not serve in the armed forces.

[DoughtyOne]

When you look are Nagasaki and Hiroshima today, does it bother you when people state that land that has been nuked is uninhabitable for tens of thousands of years?

The looney peacenics do more damage to their own cause than anyone else could, what with the illogical and just plain false statements that nearly always wind up unraveling in the end.

[AmericanInTokyo]

I see your point. Well, the only thing I might point out D.O., (and perhaps devil's advocatedly here) is that the power of atomic weapons (only two in possession, only two used) in the late summer of 1945, is pale in comparison to what mankind has developed in that arsenal over the last 57 years and what kind of bang for the buck you get with a hydro bomb these days. Heck, I would not want a nuke of today's arsenal dropped on my head, or otherwise have it go off in my home town if I ever wanted to return to it some day later if I had been spared during the big kaboom.

[rightwing2]

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the war before the Soviets got involved. For all the horror those two cities endured, it is truly minor compared to what would have happened in a North and South Japan. Just look at North Korea for a shining example.

Wrongo. The bombings did not end the war before the Russians got involved. Even though the Russians did not invade until August 8, 1945, they were able to occupy the vast territory of Manchuria in northern China as well as Port Arthur, northern Japan including Sakhlain Island and ALL of the Kurile Islands which they promptly annexed and northern Korea. So there was a North and South Japan, but the Soviets annexed the northern part that they occupied. Their occupation of northern China and delivery of the tanks, artillery and aircraft from 41 Japanese Army divisions led to the Communist takeover of all of mainland China from the previously militarily superior brave Nationalist freedom fighters, a feat which would have otherwise been impossible.

Without the Russian intervention against Japan, there would have been no Communist China, no North Korea, no Communist Vietnam and no Korean and Vietnamese wars. Tens of thousands of American lives would have been saved over and above the tens of thousands that would have been saved had liberal Democrap President Truman dropped his demand for unconditional surrender and promptly accepted Japanese conditional surrender offers of the pro-peace, pro-surrender Suzuki government which took power from Tojo whom the Emporer sacked for starting the war in April 1945.

[AppyPappy]

FDR deliberately sacrificed the lives of 2,000 brave US sailors to get the US in the war against Germany on the side of the Brits.

You are full of it.