Atomic Bombing Day

[Enemy Ace]

My grandfather was a WWII Marine Raider, was wounded on New Georgia and since he had experience was assigned out of the hospital to be an NCO in a company tasked with making the initial landings on the Home Islands.
He told me before he died that he fully expected to be killed in the Japan landings and gave thanks every year at christmas that the bombs had been dropped and he didn't have to go.

I am glad the Bombs were dropped and also give thanks that there were men at that time who had the intestinal fortitude to do what needed to be done.

[michaelharadon]

New info on Nagasaki: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-mitc ... 75106.html

[Pogmusic]

I served as an officer in several nuclear capable units and this is MY perspective and that is my only preface.
As is oft quoted, "It's a good thing that war is a terrible thing..."
Yes, it is a terrible weapon. And yes, I pray we never have to use it again. But, I also hope we never lose the backbone to use it if the need arises.

[K5DH]

As is oft quoted, "It's a good thing that war is a terrible thing..."
Yes, it is a terrible weapon. And yes, I pray we never have to use it again. But, I also hope we never lose the backbone to use it if the need arises.

Amen, brother.

[oscardeuce]

I served as an officer in several nuclear capable units and this is MY perspective and that is my only preface.
As is oft quoted, "It's a good thing that war is a terrible thing..."
Yes, it is a terrible weapon. And yes, I pray we never have to use it again. But, I also hope we never lose the backbone to use it if the need arises.

I agree.

The current POTUS has already taken it off the table.

I'd gladly trade enemy lives for allied lives any day. As horrible as it is, to paraphrase a great American: you don't win by dying for your country, you win my making the other man die for his country.

[cott]

Way back when, in my college US History class, we had a discussion section about whether or not the atomic bombings were justified. Of 15 people, I was the only one who voted that they were... at the beginning of class. At the end, all agreed (some begrudgingly) that it was the right thing to do.

What I think a lot of people miss is that we are judging past events from our current perspective. Put yourself in Harry Truman's shoes in July of 1945. We have a wonder weapon that could save hundreds of thousands of our troops, and end the war in 1945 rather than 1946 or 47. What would we all be saying now if Truman had access to this weapon, and didn't use it???

Yes, atomic weapons are horrible. That is exactly why they haven't been a militarily-useful weapon since 1945. They are a politically useful weapon, as we all have a crystal-clear picture of what happens if we use one (the crystal ball effect). But, luckily, we haven't used one in anger in 65 years! Think of how remarkable that truly is.

My grandfather received orders to report to be part of the invasion force. It was truly an eerie feeling looking at Bock's Car and realizing that I may owe my very existence to that airplane.

Anyhow, there's my 2 cents.

Chris Ott

[michaelharadon]

I served as an officer in several nuclear capable units and this is MY perspective and that is my only preface.
As is oft quoted, "It's a good thing that war is a terrible thing..."
Yes, it is a terrible weapon. And yes, I pray we never have to use it again. But, I also hope we never lose the backbone to use it if the need arises.

I agree.

The current POTUS has already taken it off the table.

I'd gladly trade enemy lives for allied lives any day. As horrible as it is, to paraphrase a great American: you don't win by dying for your country, you win my making the other man die for his country.

Sure. Of course. And while we're at it, please tell me how the damage caused by nuclear weapons would be confined to just the "enemy". Look at how allied soldiers who have been around depleted uranium rounds and the vehicles destroyed by them suffer from radiation sicknesses, as do their newborn and family members, as do the civilians we are allegedly there to defend and protect.

When we say that we'd use nuclear weapons, how can we not be saying that we'd be using them also on our own citizenry, when we take into account how radiation travels indiscriminately on wind and water currents, food supply, etc?

You want to "win" a war? Then I suggest that you don't get into one to begin with. I am inclined to think that America lost the Second War just as much as Germany, Italy and Japan did when I consider the 65 years of ill advised and misguided follies across the globe that stemmed from the (false) sense of bravado that came from having "won" the Second War.

[JBoyle]

Like others here whose father was in WWII, my dad, a B-17 co-pilot in the 15th AF, told me he fully expected to be transferred to a B-29 unit for the final assault against Japan.

It's good for everyone that the invasion never took place.

[PinecastleAAF]

The current POTUS has already taken it off the table.

Say what? Taken off the table where?

[oscardeuce]

I served as an officer in several nuclear capable units and this is MY perspective and that is my only preface.
As is oft quoted, "It's a good thing that war is a terrible thing..."
Yes, it is a terrible weapon. And yes, I pray we never have to use it again. But, I also hope we never lose the backbone to use it if the need arises.

I agree.

The current POTUS has already taken it off the table.

I'd gladly trade enemy lives for allied lives any day. As horrible as it is, to paraphrase a great American: you don't win by dying for your country, you win my making the other man die for his country.

Sure. Of course. And while we're at it, please tell me how the damage caused by nuclear weapons would be confined to just the "enemy". Look at how allied soldiers who have been around depleted uranium rounds and the vehicles destroyed by them suffer from radiation sicknesses, as do their newborn and family members, as do the civilians we are allegedly there to defend and protect.

When we say that we'd use nuclear weapons, how can we not be saying that we'd be using them also on our own citizenry, when we take into account how radiation travels indiscriminately on wind and water currents, food supply, etc?

You want to "win" a war? Then I suggest that you don't get into one to begin with. I am inclined to think that America lost the Second War just as much as Germany, Italy and Japan did when I consider the 65 years of ill advised and misguided follies across the globe that stemmed from the (false) sense of bravado that came from having "won" the Second War.

You do know DEPLETED Uranium emits less radiation then some granite countertops in people's homes correct? That's what they mean by depleted. Heck the radium in most of our aircraft emits more.
Whoever told you about that is outright wrong.

Now.... the Uranium cloud from the impact can cause a chemical pneumonitis, but not "radiation sickness".

Please give sources for this claim as my research ( holding a BS in chemistry and an MD degree with specialization boarding in Emergency Medicine, and specialized training in radiation disasters) has told me otherwise.

You too sound sorry the US and allies won the war. Just like the POTUS basically said "sorry" for marching the Japanese gov't across the Mighty Mo to sign the surrender papers with just about every plane we could get overhead. Are you too uncomfortable with the word "victory"?

[The Inspector]

Steve and Vlado,
That's exactly what I meant (and I believe, that's what I said) Old wooden chops came up with the idea of the medal during the revolutionary war that's why it's got his profile on it-



along with a motto that's served our military well over the past 234 years, 'when in trouble or in doubt. run in circles scream and shout'

[Bill Greenwood]

Vlado, and Inspector, I see that I misread your word "minted", not as literal, but meaning created. When I looked at Wikipedia. the medal was created long before the invasion. Look it up yourself on Wik and give us your version, my computer is really slow now.

If I read your post closer and literally "minted" meaning produced, then maybe your account is correct that the medals came from 1945. However, I have my doubts about this, can either of you or anyone give any good reliable source for this info, or is it sort of an unquestioned myth?

I finally got my computer to look up this again on Wik and there is a story about 500,000 medals being made during WWII. Not much more info than that, except it says there are some of these left over.

Several guys have said their Father or relative received orders for the invasion. Maybe, but I"d like to see a copy of any such written orders. I just doubt that the army sent out such printed orders well before the invasion and/bombing, just from a security standpoint if nothing else. I believe I read that the invasion, if it took place was not planned until several months later at the earliest, after much more softening up of Japan, can't recall this part for sure.

We know lot's of American soldiers did take part in the Normandy Invasion, yet I have never heard of or seen any such written orders for that. Once again, it was a secret matter.

Obviously if the invasion had taken place, there would have been many ground troops, but it may be going too far to say any particular soldier would know far in advance which ones were assigned.

Last edited by Bill Greenwood on Tue Aug 10, 2010 9:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Kyleb]

Sure. Of course. And while we're at it, please tell me how the damage caused by nuclear weapons would be confined to just the "enemy". Look at how allied soldiers who have been around depleted uranium rounds and the vehicles destroyed by them suffer from radiation sicknesses, as do their newborn and family members, as do the civilians we are allegedly there to defend and protect.

When we say that we'd use nuclear weapons, how can we not be saying that we'd be using them also on our own citizenry, when we take into account how radiation travels indiscriminately on wind and water currents, food supply, etc?

Nuclear weapons have always been reserved for the most grave situations, and that is as it should be. However, if it comes down to those grave circumstances and you face the risk of huge casualties or of having an enemy use WMD against allied forces, those circumstances may warrant the use of nukes. Isn't it better to kill the enemy and face the possibility of nuclear contamination rather than face a live enemy who may (circumstance dependant) be prepared to use WMD on you?

I'd much rather face fallout from 1/2 a world away than WMD impacting the US proper. To me, that's the equation military and political commanders face when they consider the use of nukes.

[Ztex]

If I read your post closer and literally "minted" meaning produced, then maybe your account is correct that the medals came from 1945. However, I have my doubts about this, can either of you or anyone give any good reliable source for this info, or is it sort of an unquestioned myth?

Here's one....
http://hnn.us/articles/1801.html
In 2000, for the first time in years, the government ordered a new supply of Purple Hearts. The old supply, manufactured in anticipation of the invasion of the home islands of Japan during World War II, had begun to run low.

[JBoyle]

Some say that nukes have been a (somewhat) good thing.

Think of it...Nukes...and MAD that went along with it have Europe 45 years of peace from 1945 to the early 90s Balkan war.
When was the last time that happened?
I wish I could tell you, but one of my majors was in U.S., not world, history.
And you could also make the argument that nukes are what kept the cold war as cold as it was..if you discount Korea, SEA, etc, etc.
As much as the US & USSR distrusted each other, no one was willing to commit suicide.

Get rid of all nukes, and I bet that changes...what's to stop a nation like Iran, NK, etc. from having a "terror' group do its bidding and hiding behind plausable deniability?

Right now they're smart enough to know that if they do something really stupid, they risk being in a pool of melted glass.
How long would Israel survive without nukes?
(And yes, I know that a lot of anti-nuke people are also anti-Israel, so many will dismiss the question).
Preventing terror groups from getting nukes is the best argument for banning them, but then you have to trust that they won't get/make one...then they have all the cards.

I really don't have a strong opinion one way or the other...in part because the last time I made a semi-political statement here, certain well-known forum members were very nasty...

Who knows who is right, but ask yourself a question...are you willing to take a chance abandoning something that has worked reasonably well?
Do you feel lucky...?

Just asking.