History

So, today Paul Tibbetts, who was the man who flew the bombing mission over Hiroshima, Japan on August 6, 1945, the occasion of the worlds first atomic bomb. He was 92 years old.

I'll give you a bit of background, shall I? This is WWII, Germany has been knocked out of the war, and we are planning a final invasion of Japan. Estimates of casualties if we hit the beaches indicate a 90 percent casualty rate in the leading divisions and more than 1 million casualties total. Even so, there is fierce debate in the US Government about whether the bomb should be used. Eventually, tho. President Harry Truman decides to go forward, reasoning that, at the very least the bomb will save American lives, and, considering the fierce resistance we have encountered so far, and the samurai culture of our enemy, the bomb is quite likely to save Japanese lives as well.

Instead, the bomb kills around 100 to 140 thousand people with thousands more dying later of related causes. In addition, the bomb spawns birth defects. A horrible cost in human loss and suffering, but it does indeed save American lives. A few days later we drop another one at Nagasaki, and Japan surrenders.

(A side note here. There are many who believe that even if Hiroshima was justifiable, Nagasaki was not. There was strong evidence that Japan was about to surrender, and many people urged Truman to wait a bit.)

However, this isn't really about justifying or condemning the actions, tho of course your response is welcomed. This is just a bit about General Tibbetts, and the changing nature of warfare.

By our standards today, everyone was committing war crimes then. Carpet bombing was standard procedure. The Americans were locking up not only war dissenters, but loyal Americans who had Japanese ancestry. The crimes of Germany and Japan of course are well documented, and Russia also was quite ruthless, tho given the severe losses they suffered, they perhaps were the most provoked.

(No, I haven't mentioned England, Italy, and other nations. I can't remember off the top of my head, and I just don't feel like doing any research. My point is everyone had blood on thier hands, by todays standards.)

Today, far from killing civilians as a matter of course, we go to great lengths to avoid thier deaths and feel outrage when they do happen, even if they are the civilian population of our enemy. Today, we are at "war with the government, not the people"), and we send humanitarian aid to those people. I like the change in mores, the more humanitarian face of war

Gen. Tibbetts himself expressed no reservations or regrets about his role, tho thru-out his life he was targeted for criticism as having committed an immoral act. He said he had a job to do, a duty to perform, and while not happy about killing so many people, he was happy to have ended the war and saved untold lives. I'm not sure he was as completely comfortable with his actions as he pretended, (killing 100, 000 people, regardless of thier status as an enemy, or as evil, or republican, whatever, would bother the fuck outta me). However, he was very clear that no shame attached to his actions, and that he considered his service honorable.

I'm interested to know how others feel. Personally, I feel I'm not competent to judge people who lived by the standards of other times. I do know that in war, it makes sense to place a higher priority on the lives of your people than those of your enemy.

Anyways....

(Salute) Thank you for your service, sir. Along with your thousands of comrades, we thank you for your service, and we owe you our freedom.