Nagasaki A-bomb plane co-pilot dies at age 88

[Coventina]

Source: Associated Press

ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — Charles Donald Albury, co-pilot of the plane that dropped the atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan, has died after years of congestive heart failure. He was 88.

Albury died May 23 at a hospital, Family Funeral Care in Orlando confirmed.

Albury helped fly the B-29 Superfortress, nicknamed "Bockscar," that dropped the weapon on Aug. 9, 1945. He also witnessed the first atomic blast over Hiroshima, as a pilot on a support plane that measured the magnitude of the blast and levels of radioactivity.

The Hiroshima mission was led by Col. Paul Tibbets Jr. aboard the better-known "Enola Gay."

"When Tibbets dropped the bomb, we dropped our instruments and made our left turn," Albury told Time magazine four years ago. "Then this bright light hit us and the top of that mushroom cloud was the most terrifying, but also the most beautiful, thing you've ever seen in your life. Every color in the rainbow seemed to be coming out of it."



Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gHWq7tmoLws_gP1wTjF8jWTrwtXQD98KDI1O0

[jody]

1. Thanks to Truman's order, the US didn't have to invade. Read "The Invasion That Didn’t Happen"

The Invasion That Didn’t Happen (airforce-magazine.com)

Japan was not ready to surrender prior to the dropping of the atomic bombs. Without them, the war would have gone on. Those who think otherwise seriously underestimate Japan’s residual strength and determination.

Bombing and blockade would have eventually ended the war at some point but were not likely to have done so anytime soon. The B-29 firebombing would probably have resumed, and two nights of it on a par with March 9 would have exceeded the death toll of both atomic bombs.

Operation Olympic would most likely have gone forward against a Japanese force with 600,000 more troops than previously estimated on Kyushu—and that would have left the invasion of Honshu and Operation Coronet yet to come.

In the end, Japan would have been defeated, but the price in lives on both sides would have been terrible.

[David__77]

2. This was a criminal move against Japan's people, but aimed at the Soviet Union.

The US wanted to sit on its hands during the whole war in Europe, but only pushed things when the Soviets were sweeping through Europe, liberating the continent from fascism.

The Soviet Union declared war against Japan, liberated northeast China and northern Korea and was prepared to liberate Japan as well. The US didn't have the desire to invade Japan but wasn't prepared to let the Red Army free the country, so instead slaughtered a quarter million Japanese civilians. Reprehensible, and the beginning of the cold war. It didn't have to be that way. We could have cooperated and built a much better world.

[MicaelS]

4. "Criminal move" really?

So if Berlin had been nuked, would THAT have been a criminal move?

[David__77]

5. I believe so, yes.

Berlin wasn't nuked though, but was liberated by Soviet soldiers who, despite many excesses by the largely peasant army, directed their activities against the armed forces of the German state.

[hack89]

30. No they didn't

the Soviet army raped and pillaged their way through Germany

[David__77]

35. As I said...

there were many excesses. But the large majority of those killed were soldiers or other state agents. The large majority of the German people in the east were thankful to the Soviet Union for liberating them. Certainly, the pro-fascist ones were not.

[DrCory]

49. Can You Provide...

A cite for this?:

"The large majority of the German people in the east were thankful to the Soviet Union for liberating them."

[NutmegYankee]

52. Having known a German Emigre from the former Danzig...

Who was not a Nazi and recalls the mass rape of all the women, I can safely and accurately state that they were not "Thankful". I haven't known many women who were thankful of getting raped.

[psychopomp]

71. You don't know shit about WWII

Every female over eight was raped after the fall of Berlin.

[toopers]

79. Get your facts straight . . .

First, the US Army pulled up short to allow Soviet troops liberate parts of Germany.

Second, and this is based on direct discussions I had with my mother and other German (Berlin to be exact) relatives who survived WW2, the Soviet Army was not their to liberate. They were there to control, pillage, and punish. The tongues of many German men (not part of the army for whatever reason) were cut off and nailed to the doors of their house. The women faced much worse. The atrocities committed by the Soviet Army on the German civilians was disgusting.

Many Germans ran to the west so that they would be under the protection of American forces. Many older Germans love America due to the way the end of the war was handled By the US and the US' post war actions (Berlin Airlift is a specific example).

[zipplewrath]

9. Cite?

The US, in the form mostly of Eisenhower, was constantly pushing for earlier invasions of France. It was England predominately that was hesitant. Considering what they had been through, it was understandable. But the US and France both wanted earlier invasions. The US can hardly be blamed for "wanting to sit on their hands". They fought in Africa and Italy before that. The US even decided to "defeat Germany First" instead of making the Pacific war a priority, even though it was actually Japan that had attacked us. We were already knee deep in Europe with lend-lease by then.

And Stalin had absolutely no interest in "building a better world". I'm not prepared to defend everything that was done by the US in the cold war, but it is a fallacy to suggest that conflict with Stalin was going to be anything but hostile.

[proteus_lives]

10. Yeah, it would have rocked if Japan been "liberated" by the Russians.

The US was doing anything but sitting on it's hands during the war in Europe. You obviously know nothing about history. The Russians were our allies but weren't that much better then the Nazis. (In some ways worse, if you take in all of Stalin's butchery.)

[Regret My New Name]

23. The US was practically fighting an undeclared war against Germany well before the official entrance

The gearing up for war began when Germany invaded Poland. That was when the US started to reactivate warships. Not to mention the supplies the US was giving to both the Western European allies and the Soviet Union. How long do you think it took to prepare the d-day operation? Also how long was the US carrying out air missions over Europe? How about North Africa and Italy? To say the US was content with sitting around doing nothing while Germany slaughtered Europe is just as foolish as those who claim the US saved the world single handily. Many of the US citizens may have wanted to stay out of what was seen as European wars, but it's clear that Roosevelt had intentions on supporting the allies early on.

[Massacure]

42. I don't think the United States wasn't completely aware of what was going on in Europe.

Roosevelt definitely saw Hitler as a bad guy and was gearing up for war prior to Pearl Harbor even though much of the country opposed it. If the United States knew Germany was going to exterminate more than 10 million people, I think they would have have joined the war with France and Britain in September of 1940.

[ohio2007]

36. What are the odds

you wouldn't be here today posting 'speculation' if a relative of yours actually had to go ashore on the Japanese mainland.
And to pretend they wouldn't fight like holy 'freedom fighters',emerging from cracks and crevaces, blowing themselves up for their emperor is wishful thinking.

Those who fought those island campaigns would love to kick your little whiney ass all over your moms basement for spewing such bull shit.
But your not scared of 90 yr old cripples now are you ?

jmo

emo

[AzDar]

85. ...

:applause:

[Synicus Maximus]

55. You do realize that the Soviet Union did not declare war on

Japan until after the first bomb had been dropped? The first bomb was dropped on Aug 6 and the USSR did not declare war on Japan until Aug 9. The timing had nothing to do the bomb however,the USSR had agreed to declare war within 3 months of the end of hostilities in Europe. Aug 9 happen to be the last possible day to meet that agreement.

[JVS]

58. I'm not sure the Soviet Union would have the ability to launch an amphibious assault on Japan.

Still. A few more months of war and the Red Army would have swept through all of Korea and costal China. Just as they ended up handing Manchuria over to Mao's forces, they would have decided the Chinese civil war in Mao's favor in 1945-46 instead of Mao finally winning in 1949.

[psychopomp]

73. Your cynacism obviously doesn't get hampered by truth

The Soviets weren't out to liberate anybody. They had a deal with the fascists that Hitler broke when he started Barbarossa. The Soviets were overwhelmed at first and realized they were in a fight for their very survival as a people. They dug deep and sought to crush the enemy. After the war the Soviets made damn sure there wasn't any "liberating" going on and threw up the Iron Curtain.

The US didn't just wait for the Soviets to get going, either. First off, the US had naval military escorts for supply ships to the UK before 1941, freeing up British ships to carry out the military efforts against Germany. Then there was this thing called Pearl Harbor, they made a movie about it, maybe you can check it out.

[dugaresa]

74. well it was the "criminal" behavior of the Japanese that brought the result of war upon themselves

it was their warmongering that set the US against them eventually. I hate to see anyone suffer, however people who aggressively push for war have to be prepared to pay the consequences of war.

If you invade countries or bomb them and then humiliate people, expect that unless you remain victorious that they will one day do the same to you. Why people never figure that out, I don't know.

[JonQ]

78. Criminal?

By what law? The law that says during a declared war (started by an undeclared sneak attack) the US has to be nice and not hurt anyone? I must have forgotten that one, could you refresh my memory?

[New Dawn]

15. LOL, try reading serious military history of WWII.

When the A-bombs were dropped, Japan was already a burned out, defeated country. A few more months of CONVENTIONAL bombing could have compelled them to surrender unconditionally. A ground invasion would not have been necessary. I've taken a graduate studies level military history class and we discussed this in depth. The sources are US military analysis, which plainly spell this out. The pro-nuke garbage they teach in high school "history" classes is just propaganda.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

16. How many more lives would "a couple months of conventional bombing" cost?

[Zynx]

40. Probably at least as many.

[stumprancher]

22. The American soldiers

The American soldiers (including my brother), who were training for the impending invasion of Japan do not agree with the conclusions of the students in your "graduate studies level military history class". I have talked to several of them, who thanked God for President Truman's decision.
BTW, where were these "graduate...class" students during WWII?

[New Dawn]

27. These were not graduate students.

The data comes from the documents of the Joint War Plans Committee, which were not declassified until the late 1980s and early 1990s. Even in the event of an invasion, they estimated that there would only be 40,000 Allied fatalities.

Of course, after the defeat of Germany, ordinary Allied troops were obviously very worried about an invasion of Japan. They did not have access to these only recently declassified documents.

[lynne]

44. Thank you and your brother. My Dad was training for the invasion of Japan -

- he was told he'd be front and center. THANK GOD for President Truman's decision.

[neverforget]

47. My dad was on Okinawa in August 1945 with 105th Infantry Regiment

27th Infantry Division. He didn't see any combat as it was over by the time he got there, but he saw the destruction of the battle. He was some of the first troops flown into Japan for the occupation. He saw Tokyo and how it had been leveled by the fire bombings. He also saw all the equipment that the Japanese had hidden away in caves for the invasion. The Japanese knew where we going to invade and even had a reasonable guess for the invasion dates of Kyushu (Nov 1, 1945) and Honshu (March 1, 1946). He thanks Truman for saving his life.

[ohio2007]

60. I knew a marine that enlisted in 1938 because of family hardships

Was stationed in the Phillipines for training and later put on a troop transport ship floating around the Pacific during the summer of 1941.

He had stories of island hopping all the way to Iwo Jima and was part of the Japanese mainland invasion.

You could say his recruiter lied to him about the paradise island of Peleliu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuPEzJkrOYA

What was ahead landing on the mainland was going to be worse.

[cabluedem]

65. My old man was sent in to take Okinawa, and would have been sent into Japan had the bombs not....

been dropped, ending the war and bloodshed on both sides.

Here is a token from my family to anyone here who questions the
dropping of the A-Bombs on the two military target Japanese cities.



/'_/)
,/_ /
/ /
/'_'/' '/'__'7,
/'/ / / /" /_\
('( ' /' ')
\ /
'\' _.7'
\ (
\ \


Remember Pearl Harbor, Iwo Jima, the rape and torture of Nanking, China and the Bataan Death March!!!!

[Regret My New Name]

24. How many more Japanese would have died after a few more months of conventional bombings though?

I mean, I don't see how destroying ten cities with conventional bombing is any better than two destroyed with nuclear weapons. Well, other than the lasting side-effects, of course.

[jody]

31. I've read enough military history to know that Truman made the correct decision. n/t

[Zynx]

39. Of course those conventional bombings didn't kill hundreds of thousnads either.

There is not a consensus opinion on this issue. Japan had been offered a chance to surrender, but they had not taken it nor were they in the process of serious negotiations.

[Stella_Artois]

41. I have

I do wonder if you have. It is a fact that the invasion of Okinawa cost a third of its civilian population. It is also a fact that the Japanese fought for every single town and village. This was quite shortly before you claim the Japanese were on the brink of surrendering.

It also a fact that no nation in history has been defeated by conventional airpower alone, yet you claim that one of the most militaristic nations ever known was about to be.

Defeated country, my ass. Even after the bombs were dropped they did not openly admit defeat, only that "the war is proceeding not to our advantage"

[psychopomp]

75. We perfected firebombing cities in the European theater

That skill proved very useful when the bombing of the Japanese mainland began. Did you know that every city over forty thousand was firebombed? Japanese cities proved very susceptible to it; most structures were built with wooden frames. It's a cinch to drop high explosives to expose the wood and smash it up into kindling and follow it up with incendiary bombs. Done properly, you generate a FIRESTORM. It sucks in air, in turn feeding the flames as they consume everything and everybody in a superheated vortex of death.

Every city, big and small, was burned between 20-90 percent. If the nukes hadn't been dropped, Japan's cities would have been reduced to cinders and ash.

McNamara talks a lot about this in the 2003 documentary, "The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara."

[Thothmes]

84. Just like they did on Okinawa or Iwo Jima.

[MicaelS]

3. If the bomb has been available 6-12 months sooner,

Or the war lasted 6-12 months longer, then Berlin would have been the first target. Those Progressives who now condemn the use of the bombs on Japan would not have said a thing about their use on Germany. Their attitude would have been that the Fascists got what they deserved.

Those scientists who worked on the bomb (many of the Jewish refugees from Hitler) did not seem to develop scruples until it was clear that Germany would no longer be the target. They knew for a fact that Berlin, and its civilians would certainly be the main target. They certainly didn’t have any concerns about German civilians, so why their concern about Japanese civilians?

In my opinion, the Japanese were just as bad as the Nazis. Many people weep tears for the “victims" of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as if the Japanese did nothing to start the war in Asia. The Chinese suffered between 20-35 million casualties during the Japanese invasion of China (1937-1945). They forced Korean women into sexual slavery. Everywhere the Japanese won they acted like barbarians toward Allied captured soldiers, sailors and airman and civilians. They beat starved, tortured and executed men and women. They used living human beings as test subjects under their infamous biological warfare Unit 731.

Finally, I personally think if Truman had not used the bomb out of moral scruples, and Operation Downfall had gone ahead, then America would have suffered terrible casualties. The truth about the bomb would have come out. And I think Truman would have been impeached and possibly tried for Treason.

[David__77]

6. Japan did indeed kill more people than Germany did.

There's no contesting that. Japanese militarism was certainly as bad as German fascism. The question was how to destroy them. The choice for the US with regard to Japan was NOT "use atom bombs or have many more US soldiers die." Certainly the Soviets would have invaded Japan. This was a geostrategic move provoking cold war, even in "alliance" with Soviets.

[MicaelS]

12. "Certainly the Soviets would have invaded Japan. "

And then we would have a Communist North Japan and a Democratic South Japan with all the consequences we have had with North and South Korea, and those we had with North and Sotuh Vietnam. As far as I'm concerned the bomb prevented that, and that is a much better thing in the long term.

[Regret My New Name]

25. Well, either way how does that change much?

Let's say that was the case and it was meant to prevent the Soviets from invading Japan... How many Japanese civilians and soldiers and Soviet's would have died in such an invasion? Either way, the Japanese civilians still would have been slaughtered, and I think it's safe to say that whether it was the Soviets or the US(or both?) who invaded, then far more civilians would have been killed.

[ForrestGump]

33. There was obviously only one clear solution to this situation in 1945:

Nuke Moscow.




Now is everyone happy?







:hide:

[MicaelS]

14. So let's say the bomb had been available 2 years sooner

In mid-1943. Would you have supported it's use then in both ETO and PTO to end the war quickly?

[jody]

7. The Nanking Massacre is one instance. Japanese troops reportedly tossed babies into the air and

caught them on bayonets.

[daleo]

17. That story has been told about all kinds of armies

Dostoevsky has a character make this claim in The Brothers Karamazov, attributing this to the Turks:

"These Turks took a pleasure in torturing children too...tossing babies up in the air and catching them on the points of their bayonets before their mothers' eyes". (p 223)

Which is not to say that the Japanese weren't brutal in Nanking and other places.

[ForrestGump]

34. Dostoevsky doesn't have pictures or films of such atrocities, though, but we do of Nanking.

Do a little poking around and you'll find plenty online. It's almost unbelievable, the level of behavior those Japanese soldiers did when let loose there. Even if there's exaggeration in some of the counts -- and any perusal of human history will show that people are more than capable of doing harm that would make Stephen King throw up -- there's enough pictorial evidence to damn the entire Imperial Japanese Army. Cultural relativism only goes so far: the Japanese in WWII very often did stuff right off the bat that the most fear-driven Soviets and most dedicated German Nazis had to work their way up to.

[Old Hob]

20. ...............

They would daisy chain humans together at the wrists in a ring and then set them on fire just to watch them die a horrible and humiliating death. It's recorded. The Nazis were just as bad. Thank God we won.

[DinahMoeHum]

8. There was an utterly ruthless race to develop/acquire this weapon.

And whoever got this weapon first would have used it. U.S.A., Soviet Union, Germany, etc. whoever got this first would have used it.

Given the nature of the war, and an emphasis on targeting civilian sites as well as military ones, ANY ONE OF THEM WOULD HAVE USED IT.

Forget this "innocent civilians" shit. THAT went out the window when the Nazi Stuka bombers struck Poland on September 1, 1939.

World War II was the closet thing to "total war", and total war means total death, no exceptions for "innocents".

:evilfrown:

[MicaelS]

13. From the viewpoint of military planners

The only "innocent civilians" are those of one's own country...and it's allies. All "enemy civilians" are legitimate targets. Unfortunately, that's just the way it is.

It could be argued that the concept of "innocent civilians" went out the window with the Zeppelin raids on Britain and France in WW 1.

[NutmegYankee]

56. Civillians provide food, equipment, and weapons for the military.

When the goal is to destroy a nation's ability to wage war, those that enable that ability are going to die. That is the concept of a nation; the people make up the nation, and war with a nation is war with it's population. You may only sell groceries, but you sell them to the defense plant worker who builds tanks for the army.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

28. "Those Progressives who now condemn the use of the bombs on Japan...

...would not have said a thing about their use on Germany."

And you base such speculation on WHAT exactly?

[Dark]

43. The firebombing of Dresden. No one ever mentions that, but its toll was similar to that of Nagasaki.

n/t

[MicaelS]

46. That really is the point isn't it?

There are no "commemorations" of the firebombing of Dresden as there are for Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[NutmegYankee]

54. 100,000 Japanese died in one night of bombing Tokyo.

It was a war against a brutal and racist enemy who had nothing but contempt for those they conquered or captured, and the allies had to really hit them hard to break their will to fight on. The loss of lives is sad, but was the only thing that made them stop. The emperor himself stated that the A-bomb was a large factor in his decision. I know some look back and think we were wrong because of the vast casualties, but I disagree. The Japanese practically enslaved those they conquered and were starving their "subhuman" prisoners of war to death. It had to end, and end soon.

[ohio2007]

57. You hit on a point that Kim Jong ill refuses to forget or forgive yet, ..he emulates the principles

The Japanese practically enslaved those they conquered and were starving their "subhuman" prisoners of war to death.


the bastard grandson of Tojo ?
obviously not but history repeats .... and history revisionists will edit as required.

[NutmegYankee]

63. The only difference was that the Japanese did so to other nations.

North Korea just rots within. North Korea knows that it cannot win an offensive war for land.

[paulsby]

29. your assessment of japan is correct

japan had a god-emperor and a belief that all non-japanese were subhuman.

the nazis, for example, certainly treated POW's much better than japan did.

[ohio2007]

59. people don't like to look at it from such a perspective as that

imo, When Truman found out about the bomb research, who is to say the trinity tests wasn't then ordered onto a fast track ? The untested first assembled 'hypothisis' was rushed out of the lab and on top the platform.
Were the results a fluke? Further research required as to feasibility of mass production done?
No,move the hastily assembled specimans across the ocean.

Why?
Honestly
if you really have to ask,
maybe you really don't care.

jmo

[24601]

62. German treatment of POWs was commensurate with the

treatment of their captured soldiers. Canadians were treated the best followed bu the US and Britian. At the end of the line were the Soviets who were little more than imprisoned and starved to death.

[Morning Dew]

77. Except for those pesky Russians.

IIRC, only 3% of Russian POWs survived the war.

[cabluedem]

68. Well said and the truth of the matter. The bombs ended the war, period, end of story. nt

[mainegreen]

11. Yay! A-Bomb thread!

x(

[undeterred]

18. I'd hate to be remembered for that.

[jody]

32. Members of the crew were personal friends of mine. They were satisfied with the job they did. n/t

[devilgrrl]

45. If only I could ever accomplish such a fete.

:sarcasm:

[jody]

51. My guess is given the right circumstances you would do the same. n/t

[JonQ]

80. Do more to end the worlds largest

and costliest war than most people? Save millions of lives, including hundreds of thousands of your own countrymen? Yeah, there are worse things a man could do with his life.

[Raine]

48. "Satisfied" ... yes I can see that ...

they did what they were ordered to do but it seems like a sad thing to live with. :-(

[jody]

50. I've known troops with combat experience from WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and all conflicts since then.

Many have revealed that their experiences seeing people from both sides killed is "a sad thing to live with."

[Old Hob]

19. the A-bombs very probably saved more lives than they took.

They brought a swift end to hostilities and they ensured that WW3 didn't immediately follow the respite. What's more, the conventional bombs we dropped in WW2 killed way more peoplethan any A-bomb ever did. Hand wringing over this is retarded.

[Thothmes]

21. A ray of sunshine on the DU.

Without the world witnessing the pure destruction of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, what would have kept the U.S. or the USSR from using them. We both realized what the world would look like after the mushroom shaped clouds dispersed. It scared the holy hell our of us. That is why they have never been used again. JMO

[roamer65]

26. Also...there would have been massive problems with moving Allied troops from Europe to Japan.

Many of the European theater troops were already demanding demobilization. Redeployment to Japan would eventually have created mutinies. It is good that the war ended in Sept 1945.

[ohio2007]

37. It also saved far more Japanese lives then many care to speculate.

And it didn't exactly make them 'hate to this very day ',passing on their hatred to the unborn generations ,screaming for revenge from their graves now did it ?

[NutmegYankee]

53. That is known. Thousand of allied POWs owe their lives to the swift end.

And perhaps millions of Japanese who were spared the "final defense". The Japanese were starving allied POWs to death, and many only survived because of the swift end.

[ShortnFiery]

67. Yeah! Plus we put on a really cool demonstration to the Russians as to how we could

kick their asses too ... whenever we wanted to.

We, after all, had GOD on our side. :crazy:

[ShortnFiery]

69. That is still debatable today in a number of academic forums.

http://books.google.com/books?id=4_KOtRIZEDMC&pg=PA166&lpg=PA166&dq=Japs+Racist+truman+Japs&source=bl&ots=ablb0dExo6&sig=H9D0mI9JTFPX5htVgQsyVZBdpW0&hl=en&ei=ouEtSo-PKdCMtgfclJmIDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

The US decision to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima remains one of the most controversial events of the twentieth century. But as this fascinating new history shows, the bomb dropped by an American pilot that hot August morning was in many ways the world's bomb, in both a technological and a moral sense. And it was the world that would have to face its consequences, strategically, diplomatically, and culturally, in the years ahead.

In this fast-paced and insightful narrative, Andrew J. Rotter tells the international story behind the development of the atom bomb, ranging from the global crises that led to the Second World War to the largely unavailing attempts to control the spread of nuclear weapons and the evolution of the nuclear arms race after the war had ended. He details the growth in the 1930s and '40s of a world-wide community of scientists dedicated to developing a weapon that could undo the evil in Nazi Germany, and he describes the harnessing of their efforts by the US wartime government. Rotter also sheds light on the political and strategic decisions that led to the bombing itself, the impact of the bomb on Hiroshima and the endgame of the Pacific War, the effects of the bombing and the bomb on society and culture, and the state of all things nuclear in the early 21st century world.

Hiroshima: The World's Bomb illuminates a pivotal moment in the development of the modern age. In an era of stateless terrorism, where there are as many as ten nuclear powers, it is a story that remains central to our understanding of the world.

[Vidar]

38. RIP Mr. Albury.

[Ohio Joe]

61. RIP - nt

[kgnu_fan]

64. Can we abolish ALL form of genocide and

condemn all who participates? Peace on Earth...

[ShortnFiery]

66. I wonder how that audience with Saint Peter went?

[Bonobo]

70. Another thread full of rationalizations for mass murder that we would NEVER accept from others.

We would never accept that another country drop 1 let alone 2 nuclear/atomic weapons on innocent civilians. No matter what their claimed reasons were.

I think the funniest is people who say "Well, it saved so many Japanese lives! Good on us!"

Love how people can convince themselves of anything!

[Bonobo]

72. Hey Mods, thanks for deleting the pics of victims! No American should have to look at that horror!

We drop the bombs, we don't have to look at the damage!

Good work!

[cslinger59]

76. One thing I agree with

Is everybody should be made very aware of the consequences of violence. I do think dropping the bombs made military sense and probably saved U.S. lives but violence in any fashion should always be a very considered, absolute last resort. All of us should be made aware of what real violence is vs. the pretend violence of the action movies we grow up with.

Chris

[Bonobo]

81. I do not disagree.

[MellowDem]

82. Sure we would...

given the right circumstances. Considering we were already firebombing Japanese cities, using atomic bombs really wasn't anything different from what we were doing before in terms of mass civilian casulties.

From my understanding of history, atomic weapons have saved many more lives than they have taken, especially considering future wars between superpowers. The only drawback is having to live with a cloud of nuclear armageddon always being a possibility. But then again, the cloud of mass war hasn't been hanging over our head for some time. It's a trade off.

[Romulox]

83. We "accept" that imperial Japan killed MILLIONS of innocent civilians though. Strange. nt