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

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

[Pagey]

"...General Tibbets doesn't demonstrate much regard for the lives of the 140,000...who lost their lives as the result of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki".

That's right, and he doesn't 'HAVE TO' either.

[Gumlegs]

I wasn't sure about exactly how it was named, but I knew the name 1) sounded like that, and 2) it was a play on "boxcar."

[Paradox]

Moral of the story... Americans are amongst the kindest, gentlest people on earth. They are loathe to get involved in conflicts, and very slow to react. America, you might say, is something of a well armed wimp... except... and this is a big exception....If you push them, really push them, history has shown that they are capable of unleashing destruction heretofore only beknownst by Creation. The power of the gods with the fury of Demons.

To put it succinctly, don't F*CK with the USA.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

If men commit acts of barbarism, then run and hide behind the skirts of women and children, they should not be surprised to see similar acts of barbarism visited upon same.

Excellent point.

[Gumlegs]

I take it then, that your position is that the people on United Airlines Flight 93 who fought back against the terrorists were morally wrong because other passengers were killed.

[rond]

Slick: I did go back and re-read the quote, and here it is, in its entirety:

"Oh, I wouldn't hesitate (to drop an atomic bomb) 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."

He is talking about civilians, not the "recent spate of news stories concerning possible civilian deaths in Afghanistan," as you put it. He is dismissing civilian deaths as too bad, so sad, as "tough luck."

I concur with you on the "moral approach" to this issue. We should not be surprised when old birds of prey come home to roost.

[Bikers4Bush]

Excellent read.

[Badray]

Remember Pearl Harbor!"

Remember Bataan!

[rond]

I take it then, that your position is that the people on United Airlines Flight 93 who fought back against the terrorists were morally wrong because other passengers were killed.

That's a straw-man debating point and you should know it. Unless, of course, you are saying that some of the Flight 93 passengers were four-square opposed to the fight to regain control of the craft.

Let's get back on point, shall we? It's really quite simple. The United States dropped two atomic weapons and killed tens of thousands of civilians. Our Joint Chiefs chair and the majority of his subordinates opposed the dropping of the A bombs. So did future President Eisenhower. The latter's words seem most applicable here:

"Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary ... I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."

Yes, I like Ike, and not just because of the interstate highway system.

[Bikers4Bush]

The dropping of the atomic bombs was neither immoral or unnecessary to get Japan to surrender.

It was the right thing to do whether you approve of it or not, whether you like it or not.

[EternalVigilance]

I for one totally agree with the parallel you draw between the passengers of Flight 82 and the dropping of the bombs on Japan.

The passengers discovered the intent of the highjackers...to drive the plane into a national landmark...possibly killing thousands.

They instinctively and quickly and rightly discerned that A) The situation had been created by the murderous aggressors B) The danger to the innocent was not their fault C) The risk to the few innocents on the plane paled in comparison to the lives that were potentially at risk D) That it was their duty to risk their own lives, and the lives of those few innocents, in the hopes of saving many.

I say your analogy works, and works well.

Besides, the Japenese people themselves were hardly without guilt themselves for the war.

Later.

EV

[Charles Martel]

As ripe for surrender as you suggest they were, it took two bombs to get the message delivered - what's wrong with this picture?

Even after the bombings and the official surrender, even after our occupation forces began to arrive in Tokyo and elsewhere, the Japanese laborers were still hard at work building defensive bunkers. I've seen the photos, taken by my father-in-law when he arrived in Sasebo with a handful of Americans sent there to secure an armory. Either the Japanese were *very* slow to get the news, or they refused to accept it. Either way, they were digging in for one heck of a fight.

[ProudEagle]

The Japanese government had accepted defeat and was desperately searching for a way out.

And we gave it to them. We didn't invade Southeast Asia, China and expand our might into the mass of Pacific Islands. We didn't start it. But we sure as hell finished it. Come back and talk to us about morality when you've done your homework on Japanese butchery, barbarism and totalitarianism.

[Gunrunner2]

>>I think Rightwing2 is spot-on with this elegant, succinct belief: the killing of innocents is always morally wrong.<<

Killing innocents is always regrettable, but not morally wrong in all cases. The evolution of Just War and morality of killing has evolved over time, and even the Conventions on war recognize that in war innocents sometimes get hurt/killed. What matters in the aim and proportional goal of the act that caused the injury/death.

>>Con Doesn't matter the place, the time, the circumstances.<<

It certainly does matter, otherwise you would prohibit our troops from shooting back if they are being fired upon by a bad guy that used civilians as a shield. In addition, you would say it is wrong to drop a bomb on a munitions factory, staffed with civilians that are being forced to work there, as this factory is making weapons that will be used to kill Americans. You would also make it immoral to attack a command and control building in a downtown location, merely because some innocents may be harmed. (In the Kosovo campaign we ran modeling and simulation studies before dropping bombs on targets in downtown Belgrade. If the civilian cost was too high, we did not attack. However, if the military gain was sufficient, it was attacked.)

One must keep in mind the military gain when contemplating an action that would result in civilian lives being lost. If by shutting down a command and control center means we make the bad guys’ fielded forces combat ineffective and his SAM batteries blind, that action is certainly acceptable in most cases.

>>It's wrong and we should not be a party to such barbarism.<<

It is wrong to deliberately target civilians as the aim and object of the attack. It is not wrong to attack military targets with proportional civilian losses--and that is an acceptable international standard.

I strongly suggest you do a little reading on the subject: Just War, by Tucker, Just and Unjust Wars, by Michael Walzer are two great books to begin your education. Once you have studied these books, and understood St Thomas Aquinas' influence on the subject, will then be able to speak knowledgably on the subject.

[Gritty]

Great article!

Thanks for posting it.

[hchutch]

If they were beaten, they were not admitting it.

Read Richard Frank's book, "Downfall" which covered that time frame. They were not READY to quit.

If Japan didn't want the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they shouldn't have attacked Pearl Harbor. Their bad decision on that front.

[Gunrunner2]

>>Is it acceptable when enemies of the United States kill civilians and dismiss those casualties as "besides the point"?<<

No, it is not acceptable, as the attacks on 9-11 prove--attacking civlians with the aim of murdering civlians is never acceptable.

[rockfish59]

Speaking of civilian losses!

[rightwing2]

Who the hells side are you on? You come off as nothing but a liberal Blame-AMERICA first panty waste.

On the side of America First of course! I am now and have always been an America First conservative. However, I am also a Christian and believe in fighting just wars in a moral way. The fact is that the atomic bombings were unnecessary in addition to being immoral. Admiral Leahy called Truman's atomic bombings of Japan "a barbarous act." Are you ready to call Admiral Leahy an America Last liberal too? Gees! I am calling attention to the travesty of Hiroshima because I want to help ensure that the lesson is learned and that it never happens again. Otherwise the next Hiroshima will be on US soil.

[Gumlegs]

ME: I take it then, that your position is that the people on United Airlines Flight 93 who fought back against the terrorists were morally wrong because other passengers were killed.

That's a straw-man debating point and you should know it. Unless, of course, you are saying that some of the Flight 93 passengers were four-square opposed to the fight to regain control of the craft.

1. You were objecting to the loss of innocent lives, period. 2. Who is to say that the passengers were, in fact, unanimous? Were there any children aboard -- they couldn't give informed consent even if they'd wanted to. 3. How could they have known in advance that no one on the ground would have been killed? Anyone on the ground could not possibly have given consent. As long as we're indulging in sweeping moral condemnation of events we don't fully understand , why not toss in the people who tried maniacally to grab the plane back. It's up to them to prove what they did was moral, right?

Let's get back on point, shall we? It's really quite simple. The United States dropped two atomic weapons and killed tens of thousands of civilians.

Is your objection to the number of bombs or the number of civilians killed? We'd used more bombs in the past and killed more civilians.

Civilians are always killed during wars. We don't like it (unlike some of our opponents), but it happens. Hiroshima was a major military target that had, up to that point suffered the least war damage. We were hitting where we would inflict the most war damage. Nagasaki was less important militarily, but the primary target that day was obscured by clouds. It was the best they could do under the circumstances.

Do you prefer the Clinton approach: Blowing up a few vacant paint lockers and out-houses? It doesn't seem to have stopped Osama bin Laden and his jolly lads, and in fact may have encouraged them.

Some people have used the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to try to implicate the wartime U.S. in some sort of anti-Christian plot because those two cities had the highest concentration of Christians. There are threads right here on FR on the topic. Want to play with that notion?

In your zeal to hate the way we won the war, you forget we were fighting an a foe which at the time was the most ruthless and implacable we'd ever faced. If I had been president in 1945, I would much rather have explained to the American people why I used such a weapon to end the war and save millions of lives (on both sides, by the way), than try and explain why I had such a weapon and didn't use it.

By the way, do we get to count the Japanese civilians who weren't killed because we didn't invade, and we didn't carpet bomb their other cities, and who didn't starve to death because their military was commandeering all the food?

Our Joint Chiefs chair and the majority of his subordinates opposed the dropping of the A bombs. So did future President Eisenhower. The latter's words seem most applicable here:

"Japan was already defeated and dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary ... I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."

Eisenhower fought the war in Europe, and was not familiar with the situation in the Pacific. As to why it was not "mandatory as a measure to save American lives," I'm curious ... how should we have won? Were we supposed to starve them out? Do you have evidence that the Japanese military, contrary to all history and experience, mysteriously planned on allowing civilians have all the food in time of war?

Were we supposed to let the Soviet Union take care of Japan? The Soviets hadn't even declared war when the first bomb was dropped.

Japan refused to surrender after the first atomic bombing. After Nagasaki, the emperor recorded a message of surrender to be played on the radio (he was precluded from appearing live by protocol), A cadre of officers mutinied and tried to steal the record so that Japan would not surrender.

Japanese school children were being taught to use sharpened sticks to kill invading Americans. Would it have been immoral to kill those kids to save the lives of American soldiers?

You are able to enjoy your moral preening at the expense of the very men who won the war and made continuing our way of life possible. Live it up.