Pilot who dropped atom bomb on Nagasaki dies at 84

[fdt]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/07/17/obit.sweeney.ap/index.html

Pilot who dropped atom bomb on Nagasaki dies at 84
Charles W. Sweeney was outspoken defender of bombings
Saturday, July 17, 2004 Posted: 9:39 PM EDT (0139 GMT)

MILTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- Charles W. Sweeney, a retired Air Force general who piloted the plane that dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki in the final days of World War II, has died at age 84.

Sweeney died Thursday at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, hospital spokeswoman Christine Johanson said. She did not disclose the cause of death. The Associated Press left messages Saturday at phone numbers listed to the Sweeney family in the Boston suburb of Milton.

Sweeney was 25 when he piloted the B-29 bomber that attacked Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, three days after the Enola Gay dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and six days before Japan surrendered.

About 70,000 people were killed in the explosion of the bomb, dubbed "Fat Man." It was the first bomb Sweeney ever dropped on an enemy target.

Sweeney was an outspoken defender of the bombings, appearing on CNN and speaking at colleges and universities.

Sweeney also wrote a book, "War's End: An Eyewitness Account of America's Last Atomic Mission," to counter what he considered "cockamamie theories" that the bombings were unnecessary.

"I looked upon it as a duty. I just wanted the war to be over, so we could get back home to our loved ones," Sweeney told The Patriot Ledger of Quincy in 1995. "I hope my missions were the last ones of their kind that will ever be flown."

Sweeney also flew an instrument plane that accompanied the Enola Gay during the attack on Hiroshima.

His own B-29, Bock's Car, is not as well-known, though the bombing was harrowing for the crew. The flight had fuel problems from the start, and clouds and smoke were covering the mission's primary target, the city of Kokura.

After making several dangerous passes over the city, Sweeney abandoned the primary target for Nagasaki. A break in the clouds allowed the bomb to be dropped, Sweeney said.

Sweeney was a graduate of North Quincy High School who traced his passion for flying to a local airfield. He became a brigadier general in 1956, and at the time was the youngest man in the Air Force to reach that rank. He retired in 1976.

[ShotOver]

Rest in Peace to the bloke.

[2RHPZ]

RIP ...


The ancient historian Herodotus once said: "In peace sons bury fathers, but in war fathers bury sons." To limit these occurrences in as much as possible, Truman brought the "sons" home.
Gen. Charles W. Sweeney helped him too ...

CAG 147 (about A-bombing in Japan)

[coldman]

I lament the passing of a great generation of people like that who knew what sacrifices and truth meant. He did a great service for humanity and the world. Let those who invade others and use dirty tactics remember the lessons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[2RHPZ]

Let those who invade others and use dirty tactics remember the lessons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

http://img12.exs.cx/img12/2927/23_28_100.gif

[Fee Fi Fo Fum]

R.I.P what a great man he was

[aartamen]

RIP General, you fly under highest command today.

One of the veterans of the Easy Company of the "Band of Brothers" fame told how a guy in his town commited suicide when he was turned away from enlistment for health reasons.

[sgt.pepper]

RIP

[One?]

I lament the passing of a great generation of people like that who knew what sacrifices and truth meant. He did a great service for humanity and the world. Let those who invade others and use dirty tactics remember the lessons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


you are one twisted person. You agree with killing civilians in mass numbers?

[Nizark]

I lament the passing of a great generation of people like that who knew what sacrifices and truth meant. He did a great service for humanity and the world. Let those who invade others and use dirty tactics remember the lessons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


you are one twisted person. You agree with killing civilians in mass numbers?

Oh **** here we go, FLAME ON!

[Kilgor]

you are one twisted person. You agree with killing civilians in mass numbers?

So you would prefer countless soldiers and civilans dying in a prolonged bloody invasion, and probably even more civilans dying from hunger and conventional bombing in a protacted war ?

Short sight leftist idiot :bash:

[Tane Angle]

I don't if the Japanese of 1945 can accurately be described as civilians, given their mentality, culture, honor code, and (in 1945) recent history of fighting to the last. It was extremely plausible-indeed, expected-that the Japanese civilians would become combatants.

Moreover, it is almost certain that most, if not all, of the people killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have died had an invasion taken place. After months/years of blockade, food and medical supplies would have completely cut off by the time the Allies eventually landed. Those 200,000 people saved the lives of the entire Japanese nation, because at least 40 million Japanese, by most estimates, would have died had an lengthy build-up and invasion taken place, through incendiary and HE bombings, through eventual combat, but especially through inevitable starvation. The necessary price to pay for the survival of the Japanese people?

Also, I hate to say it, but perhaps 200,000 people-civilians or not-was the necessary price to pay for a clear sign of what nuclear weapons could do to cities and human beings. Imagine if we had gotten to the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, with both sides armed with nuclear weapons that dwarved the destructive power of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs, without ever having been "warned." The two sides might have very easily taken the next step and engaged in full-scale nuclear war. Perhaps it was a necessary price to pay, to trade 200,000 for the survival of the species?

Nonetheless, we should mourn the dead, as we mourn all dead. There is much to respect in the Japanese.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Kilgor]

In one firebombing night raid in tokyo... approx 80,000 civilians died.
Not the bomb, just low level firebombing.

Would they prefer raids like that occur for a few more months in a drawn out war ?

:roll:

[scattergun]

One, get your head out of your ass. We thankfully live in a different world today, than our fathers and grandfathers did in 1945.

In WWII-era warfare, civilian casualties were a fact of life......in numbers incomprehensible to oblivious people such as yourself. Medium and heavy bombers, as well as naval and field artillery from Normandy to the Rhineland accounted for tens of thousands of civilian deaths as commanders ordered the obliteration of entire towns and cities, some of which had no warning.

[Tane Angle]

People's arguments might be more respectable if they didn't include violenticons and insults. Just speak your piece and leave it at that. There are very few on here who strike me as idiots, and no one on this thread so far are included among them. It's tough to respect those who don't respect others. So let's keep things respectful, shall we?

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Fintin]

rest in peace...



tane i like that point about it possibly have been a warning for us...the cuba example is a good one...


sadly most choices are between the lesser of two evils...this just happend to be another one of those choices...compair the loss of life due to the fire bombings...that was the plan untill the a-bomb was cleared for use...people lost their lives...but i feel more would have if they had not ben used

[Tane Angle]

sadly most choices are between the lesser of two evils Welcome to the wonderful world of international relations and war. :|

And American politics. :| :|

[Vance]

sadly most choices are between the lesser of two evils Welcome to the wonderful world of international relations and war. :|

And American politics. :| :|
Are you implying that POLITICS ties in with WAR?

Are you also telling me that the Oscars are political?!! Oh, **** off!

[Tane Angle]

I was implying that I haven't really appreciated a US President since JFK. :( ;)

[Fintin]

I was implying that I haven't really appreciated a US President since JFK. :( ;)

this is why im writing in TR...with jefka as VP

[Sayeret]

you are one twisted person. You agree with killing civilians in mass numbers?

I'm not too surprised that One said this I was expecting either him or OB Kenobi or someone would say something like that if he didn't.

[Fargin]

May his soul become cleansed by flames, as the purgatory he created in Nagasaki for children, women and men.

RIP

[Kilgor]

He was ordered to fly that mission, you do that in the military. Otherwise they throw your ass in jail. Blame the people who sent it him.

This topic sure brings out the morons ;)

[Hullebullen]

It was not he that started the war. Others put upon him to perform something that many view as one of the darkest moments in human history. I don't know about him but I sure would have some trouble reconsiling with something like that even if I thought that I was doing the right thing...

[DPGLAW]

Rest in Peace.....Thank god for him and others like him, although in my opinoin it was probably a great feeling to drop that bomb and end the wat with 2 bombs, it was at the same time probably a hard thing to deal with, but a great deed nonetheless

[Jack Mehoff]

I lament the passing of a great generation of people like that who knew what sacrifices and truth meant. He did a great service for humanity and the world. Let those who invade others and use dirty tactics remember the lessons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.


you are one twisted person. You agree with killing civilians in mass numbers?

Do you think an all out war on inland Japan would minimize casualties on both sides? Boy you are stupid and obviously you have never heard of the word "bushido" rofl rofl

[Kilgor]

The japanese population was being told to fight to the death. Hundreds of boats packed with explosives, civilians being trained to fight with sharpened bamboo spears, propaganda messages that they would be slaughtered and raped in any invasion.

To be captured in battle was a tremendous insult to the japanese, a invasion of the mainland would have been a bloodbath of epic propotions.
It would have costs scores of russian and american lives.

[Vance]

I was implying that I haven't really appreciated a US President since JFK. :( ;)
Yeah I know, just had to throw a Robin Williams joke in there.

[Bayonet]

Rest In Peace....

[Kitsune]

That this pilot who dropped the bomb on Nagasaki tried desperately to justify it during his whole life is understandable. Otherwise he had to face the harsh reality that he needlessly killed 70.000 civilians, 50.000 of them women or children in an act of vile barbarism. Better to live with a lie. But it is an entire other matter that even the Americans of today still take that stance...the same who point accusing fingers at Japan because of Nanking.


This talk about the alleged 12 million dead in case of an invasion is rubbish. When the first nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima it

1) was done IN PLAIN DISREGARD of the fact that peace negotiations had already begun in Moscow. Is this fact ommitted in todays history lessons?
The Japanese had in no way broken them off or demanded unreasonable things...but instead of waiting for the outcome, the American military leadership decided to behave as if nothing of the kind was taking place.

2) was done without any attempt to save lives by demonstrating this weapon. For example to ignite it at night in the air over Tokyo bay. Or to drop it onto a small village or something. No...it was used against a city literally filled with people. If thats not a callous disregard for human life what is? How can this be called justified?

After it, the world was shocked. I have never worked out what happened during the next days. A misunderstanding? A translation error? Whatever, the American leadership decided to kill some more tens of thousands of civilians only three days after Hiroshima because Japan didn't surrender fast enough. Why? There was simply NO need whatsoever. The war was over!
("You Japanese do not want to capitulate?" [...] "Oh." [...] "Are you sure?" [...] "Really?" [...] "Why not take a day to think this over? No, take a week!")
But no. Another 70.000 civilians were killed. And you do not see a problem with this?

Lastly, it is NO excuse that the use of the nuclear bombs may have-possibly-perhaps prevented a nuclear war by showing how terrible these weapons are. Not that there is no truth to this. But that wasn't the motif for using them.
Horrible crimes can have a good by effect by shocking people and make them turn away from evil. But is that a justification for committing them? (Take the holocaust as an even more extreme case: Before WWII antisemitism and racism were accepted kinds of behaviour. (Not only in Germany, all over the world). After the World saw the horror pictures of Bergen-Belsen this changed...they showed what rascism, intolerance and hate ideologies like fascism could lead to. With the result that people turned away from them. [Fascism is largely a phenomenon of the first half of the 20th century...the astrocities committed by fascists during WWII are one of the main reasons for this. This ideology simply lost a lot of its appeal with Auschwitz]. Humanity matured a bit. A good thing, isn't it? But was it worth to murder millions of human beings for it? I don't know. But one thing is sure: it doesn't excuse a thing. Those who committed these crimes did not do it to help humanity.)
Hiroshima and Nagasaki have not been destroyed to save civilians of hypothetical future wars or to help educate humanity. Granted, it was done to end a war. But it was done by deliberately massacring civilians, women and children until the enemy gives in. But it was done without real need. The war was lost for Japan, and the Japanese knew it. Peace negotiations were underway. Even after it had been decided to use the bomb, numerous ways to vastly reduce the number of victims could have been thought of. None were even attempted, showing a callous disregard for human life.
And that is nothing to be proud of.
Face it.

[Kilgor]

The fact remains, many important military figures wanted to fight to the last drop of blood. And even after japan surrendered, there was still problems in the outlying islands clearing out subborn troops.

Japanese leadership was far from united in wanting peace. There was still plenty of war mongers amonst the cilivian population and the military who wanted nothing but war.

Japan was offered surrender before the bomb was dropped kitsune.


"Clearly the time to surrender had come. Incredibly, many in the military wanted to fight on, preferring death to capitulation. The cabinet, made up of elder statesmen, tried to send out peace feelers through neutral Sweden, Soviet Union, and Switzerland as early as June 1945. The only condition was the continued existence of the of Imperial Throne. Unwilling or unclear of the Japanese offer, the Allies refused and issued the Potsdam Declaration on July 26th.

The Emperor was sympathetic to the peacemakers. The Army members of the cabinet were not willing to give up, and Prime Minister Suzuki had to move carefully. If there was a perceived weakness in the cabinet, even the Emperor might be assassinated. The idea that the Emperor would support surrender was inconceivable to many in both the Army and the Navy. Suzuki cautiously sought out others on the cabinet, finding all but two generals in support. On July 28, the government issued a carefully worded response to the Potsdam Declaration, which unfortunately used a word with a double meaning. English-language broadcasts used the word "ignore" and the Western press picked up that sentiment. Truman announced he had rejected the peace offer and dropped the atomic bombs.

The Emperor ordered a surrender document be sent accepting the Potsdam declaration. Through Swiss channels, it was sent to the United States, but it added that the Emperor must be left on the Imperial Throne. The Allies replied that the Emperor would be subject to the Allied Occupation Commander. While the cabinet debated, the Emperor secretly recorded a surrender broadcast. Imperial Guardsmen searched government offices in vain to seize the record. On August 14, the record was broadcast. Using formal Japanese, the public was unsure if the Emperor was surrendering or exhorting his subjects to continued resistance. The announcer assured the Japanese public that the war was over. An abortive attempt that night by Army and Navy right-wing officers to take the Emperor hostage and continue the war was stopped.

Truman accepted the surrender, and announced that the war was over on August 15th. Wild celebrations occurred in every Allied capital and most cities. US Army General Douglas C. MacArthur arrived at Atsugi Airfield that day. His staff, lightly armed with pistols, wondered if they would meet a firing squad. As they arrived, thousands of Japanese civilians surrounded the plane and gave him a warm welcome. The occupation of Japan was about to begin.
"

http://www.worldwar2database.com/html/japansurrender.htm

Your statements are offensive in the extreme kitsune. What germany and japan did to POW's was some of the worst abuses in human rights history. The war had to be brought to a end as soon as possible... and this was the way to do it.

Dont ever think that demonising the allies takes focus of what your country and japan did during ww2.

[Lt_Crooks]

Well we know that he is in hell. there is NO way to justify killing unarmed women and children,even if it is done to save your own men.

[Tane Angle]

For example to ignite it at night in the air over Tokyo bay. Or to drop it onto a small village or something.
Detonating it over the waters outside Tokyo would have had what effect? It would have destroyed Tokyo, no? What's more, it would have killed the one man who could issue the surrender order to the Japanese "civilians" and military. It was not an option to hit near Tokyo.

Moreover, because the Japanese population is concentrated on the 15% land area that is along the coasts, it was pretty tough to find a village that would have been noticed but would not have hit a major city.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[ariweiner]

Can someone tell me the difference between the nuclear bombings and 9/11 in terms of the definition of "terrorism?" Or is it just that it is only legal for us to perpetrate terrorist attacks while our enemies cannot?

NOTE: One of the definitions of terrorism according to US Title Code 18; Part 1; Chapter 113B; Sec. 2331, Clause 1B:

"the term ``international terrorism'' means activities that-..."

1b) appear to be intended--
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;"

[Flagg]

Can someone tell me the difference between the nuclear bombings and 9/11 in terms of the definition of "terrorism?" Or is it just that it is only legal for us to perpetrate terrorist attacks while our enemies cannot?

NOTE: One of the definitions of terrorism according to US Title Code 18; Part 1; Chapter 113B; Sec. 2331, Clause 1B:

"the term ``international terrorism'' means activities that-..."

1b) appear to be intended--
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;"



flame bait: n.
[common] A posting intended to trigger a flame war, or one that invites flames in reply. See also ariweiner.

PLUS


Monday-morning quarterback: n.

someone who says how an event or problem should have been dealt with by others after it has already been dealt with. See also ariweiner.

EQUALS

ariweiner

[ariweiner]

Answer the question:

Does not the deliberate killing of tens of thousands of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki fit the term "International Terrorism" as defined by American law?

Understand that I am not talking about whether the action is justified or not. I am simply asking: "Is this not terrorism?" and I even used the definition given by the US legal system itself.

[Kilgor]

because the US and Japan had signed formal war documentation, they conducted attacks clearly in uniform and with equipment clearly marked.

Just a few points of difference.

:roll:

[Secret Squirrel]

Answer the question:

Does not the deliberate killing of tens of thousands of civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki fit the term "International Terrorism" as defined by American law?

Understand that I am not talking about whether the action is justified or not. I am simply asking: "Is this not terrorism?" and I even used the definition given by the US legal system itself.

Isnt the definition you cited from 1992? War during WWII was waged against a country, which included it's military and it's people. I'm not defending dropping a second bomb, just trying to answer your question.

[ariweiner]

Ok, so do I understand that you are saying that terrorist attacks cease being terrorist attacks when the perpetrator is State authority with a standing army, the trappings of modern statehood (ex: printed currency)etc etc? So are we saying that terrorism is justified in certain situations?

EDIT: "Isnt the definition you cited from 1992? "

"[Laws in effect as of January 7, 2003]" - Source (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+18USC2331)

[Secret Squirrel]

Ok, so do I understand that you are saying that terrorist attacks cease being terrorist attacks when the perpetrator is State authority with a standing army, the trappings of modern statehood (ex: printed currency)etc etc? So are we saying that terrorism is justified in certain situations?

I'm saying you've taken a modern law and tried to apply it to the past. Can you see the problems with that?

[Kilgor]

Dropping the bomb had a military goal, to make the army realise that resistance was hopeless in the face of total devestation.

9/11 was a terror attack to make americans fear they werent safe on their home soil.

[ariweiner]

I'm saying you've taken a modern law and tried to apply it to the past. Can you see the problems with that?

That's not my point. My point is does the action fit the definition of terrorism? In the case that it does, then we can all admit that the US has perpetrated terrorist attacks in the past and that the current "War on Terror" needs to be somewhat rethought since when does a former criminal get put in charge of an anti-criminal task force?

[ariweiner]

According to what I remember reading of the Gospels, the definition of "hypocrisy" is "holding our enemies to standards that we do not hold to ourselves." Something to think about...

[Sayeret]

Ariweiner it is not terrorism and I don't see why you continue trying to find reasons to hate the country you live in or atleast say you do.

[Secret Squirrel]

I'm saying you've taken a modern law and tried to apply it to the past. Can you see the problems with that?

That's not my point. My point is does the action fit the definition of terrorism? In the case that it does, then we can all admit that the US has perpetrated terrorist attacks in the past and that the current "War on Terror" needs to be somewhat rethought since when does a former criminal get put in charge of an anti-criminal task force?

You dont have a point, which is my point. You cant take a modern law or definition that reflects modern thinking and then try to apply it to the past when such a law or definition did not exist.

[Operation Ivy]

Lastly, it is NO excuse that the use of the nuclear bombs may have-possibly-perhaps prevented a nuclear war by showing how terrible these weapons are.

hmm i dont know if i agree with you on that one :D

[Flagg]

That's not my point. My point is does the action fit the definition of terrorism?

NO

US actions in Nagasaki and Hiroshima prevented the need for a full-scale invasion of Japan(Operation Olympic & Coronet) which would have resulted in many millions of casualties....period.


In the case that it does,

It doesn't


then we can all admit that the US has perpetrated terrorist attacks in the past and that the current "War on Terror" needs to be somewhat rethought since when does a former criminal get put in charge of an anti-criminal task force?

No that would be having Libya chair the UN Human Rights Body :P

[ariweiner]

Ariweiner it is not terrorism and I don't see why you continue trying to find reasons to hate the country you live in or atleast say you do.
I don't hate this country. I just feel that we are hypocrites...

You dont have a point, which is my point. You cant take a modern law or definition that reflects modern thinking and then try to apply it to the past when such a law or definition did not exist.
That's an interesting argument. However, I did have a point: Which is that our current "War on Terror" is nothing but built up hypocrisy because we apply standards and rules only when it suits us.

[Jack Mehoff]

Can someone tell me the difference between the nuclear bombings and 9/11 in terms of the definition of "terrorism?" Or is it just that it is only legal for us to perpetrate terrorist attacks while our enemies cannot?

NOTE: One of the definitions of terrorism according to US Title Code 18; Part 1; Chapter 113B; Sec. 2331, Clause 1B:

"the term ``international terrorism'' means activities that-..."

1b) appear to be intended--
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping;"


That mean every nation took part in WW2 were terrorists. Why single out the United States?

Hell, while we are at it, why not apply your argument in WW1 and other previous wars before WW1?

[ariweiner]

US actions in Nagasaki and Hiroshima prevented the need for a full-scale invasion of Japan(Operation Olympic & Coronet) which would have resulted in many millions of casualties....period.
So, as I see it, you are saying that terrorism was justified in this instance. That seems very familiar now why could that be?:

"terrorism can be commendable and it can be reprehensible." - Usama bin Laden (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html)

In other words, "commendable" when against our enemies and "reprehensible" when against ourselves.

[Sayeret]

Ariweiner you always talk about how the West is so mean to you and the other Muslim extremists. Instead of being a hypocrite yourself why don't you for once admit that some Muslims are terrorists rather than saying that the only terrorists are Jews and Christians.

[ariweiner]

Instead of being a hypocrite yourself why don't you for once admit that some Muslims are terrorists rather than saying that the only terrorists are Jews and Christians.
Please don't try to change the subject. In answer, I have condemned terrorist attacks apparently perpetrated by Muslims such as 9/11 and the Bali bombings so your allegation is not true. Please lets get back to the topic...

[ariweiner]

That mean every nation took part in WW2 were terrorists. Why single out the United States?
I was focussing on the US because it is the US government that originally "declared" the "War on Terror."

[Tane Angle]

Let's keep things civil, please. Thank you.

It is not terrorism if one considers "nearly all" Japanese civilians to have been combatants, given the Japanese culture and mentality, on both the national and individual level, of the time. Very similar to why some say that the attacks on the Cole, Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, the Marine Barracks, French Paratrooper Barracks, and the 18 April, 1983 attack on the US Embassy-Beirut were probably not "terrorist attacks."

That, of course, depends on whether or not one views the Japanese civilians as no longer civilians.

Of course, different people have different definitions of terrorism, and it could be considered as such by some people's defintions. In answer to whether or not the US has committed terrorist attacks, that is also debatable.

However, in regards to putting a criminal in charge of an anti-criminal task force, pretty much every nation and every group involved in international affairs today has blood on its hands. Having a spotless record is not the real test, perhaps; perhaps the real test is changing oneself for the better.

Moreover, nations or groups should not be held responsible for the actions of their ancestors. Does it make sense to blame today's German youths for the actions of the Nazis?

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Secret Squirrel]

Moreover, nations or groups should not be held responsible for the actions of their ancestors. Does it make sense to blame today's German youths for the actions of the Nazis?


Just to add something... You can also break it down further to the racial doctrine, though taken to the extremes by Nazis, was a thought/term which originates from England before sweeping over large parts of the world. Should we blame England for the holocaust? Or maybe we should put the blame on the U.S because of the Rockefeller Foundation and the money it invested in Germany to progress Germany's eugenic research. No, obviously the blame should be placed on the shoulders of the Nazis. However, should it also be placed up the German people like a book "Hitler's Willing Executioners" attempted to do. Of course there was a war going on at the time so i'm sure some people had to worry about themselves first. So should the blame only be placed on the leaders and those with "blood on their hands"? Sure, it seems like thats where the blame should lie. However, where did their social darwinistic thoughts originate? Are we back to England again? Or can we solely blame Hitler? He pushed eugenics to its breaking point when knowledge of his T-4 programs came to light. Can we thank Hitler for perverted a thought process to such a degree that, for many, he tainted it forever and some were quick to distance themselves from it? Oh yea, the past is "black and white" and as easy as simply saying "according to a recent definition of terrorim, the U.S were terrorists in the past." :roll:

[Flagg]

So, as I see it, you are saying that terrorism was justified in this instance. That seems very familiar now why could that be?:

"terrorism can be commendable and it can be reprehensible." - Usama bin Laden

In other words, "commendable" when against our enemies and "reprehensible" when against ourselves.

You see it wrong.....that is NOT what I'm saying.

Even with the priveledge of hindsight I believe US action was totally justified in the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

One point of Japanese history ingrained in everyone until that time was that Japan had never been successfully invaded......that any invader would fail and the Japanese would prevail.

Action was required to DESTROY Japan's belief that they could withstand and successfully survive US efforts to force it's unconditional surrender for initiating a conflict bent on global domination.

Many died.....but many, many more were saved from the alternatives.

Alternatives that would GUARANTEE Japan's unconditional surrender were invasion or siege......both of which would have killed many millions.

Your efforts to marry historical US foreign policy/military decisions with current policy decisions is poor at best......at worst...it's more flame bait

[Sayeret]

"terrorism can be commendable and it can be reprehensible." - Usama bin Laden

ariweiner is bin laden a terrorist?

[usa320]

This thread is so ****ed up...

though any thread in which both ariwiener and secret squirrel post in is destined to be ****ed.

[Sayeret]

usa320,

secret squirrel isn't siding with ariweiner.

[ariweiner]

ariweiner is bin laden a terrorist?
Are we talking about the US legal definition of terrorist? Then, yes, of course he is.

[vryhpyammoadded]

I thank Mr. Sweeney and all of those people of that generation who broke the will of the Japanese government, forcing its unconditional surrender. They did what was necessary and I agree with the fact that many more lives were saved by their actions.

RIP

[Secret Squirrel]

This thread is so f*** up...

though any thread in which both ariwiener and secret squirrel post in is destined to be f***.

There there, just go look at some more pictures or offtopic jokes. I think you're outside of your intellectual ability in the general discussion section. ;)

[szr]

Thank you MajGen. Sweeney and the crews of the Enola Gay and BocksCar for having the courage to do something most people couldn't do, and for helping to end a war that otherwise, had no end in sight. Sometimes, when you were alone and got to thinking real introspectively, you probably struggled with your conscience. You had to live with the ire from people who could never understand that you were doing your job, faithfully to your country, and that for every life that was lost that day, hundreds of thousands more, were saved. Thank you.

RIP