FWD: Paul Tibbits, pilot of "Enola Gay", dead at 92

"Dan" wrote in message
...
Stuf4 wrote:

In the wake of 9/11, we can expect that radical Muslims have many
varied justifications for what was done there. The US continues to
cry "foul". Yet Tibbets is a hero.

There's one minor difference. The Enola Gay targetted valid military
targets in Hiroshima. WTC was not a valid military target.

I hate to jump into this thread lest I be suspect of agreeing in toto with
Stuf4.

However, I think the quote regarding that had the Allied Powers lost the
war, they'd have been tried and convicted on war crimes is an unfortunate
truth.


Both sides had attacked non "military" targets if you define "military' as
weapons, defensive or offensive installations, factories dedicated strictly
to war production and the like.

Personally, if anything I believe the fire-bombing of Dresden and Tokyo were
far more horific and probably come closer to the definition a war-crime than
either atomic bombing.

Remember, it wasn't the Axis powers that came up with the term "de-housing".

When it comes to the WTC, the argument that was made was that as a center of
economic power it was a legitimate target. It's not one I buy into for a
lot of reasons. But we have a tough time claiming the higher moral ground
if we turn a blind eye to our own past.

The reality is, war is a place where simple moral choices fall apart.

Personally, I think the bombings were a horrorific choice, but given what we
knew and the other choices at hand, they were probably the least horrorific
choice available.




The biggest advantage that I can see from it is that those two bombs
were so horrific that they helped us to avoid ever using them again.
I credit Paul Tibbets for doing a large part toward averting a WWIII.


You don't really understand why WW 3 never happened, do you? Have you
ever heard of mutually assured destruction? That's just one of the
reasons.

Umm, Dan, the way I read this is that the horror of the bomb that was so
exemplified by the two bombings helped contribute to the concept of MAD.
(and if there were ever a perfect acronym that is one).


MAD kept us safe in a world of sane nuclear powers.

I can't help but think what will keep us safe in a world of less sane
nuclear powers.



Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

On Nov 3, 4:42 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:
your comment on progress in western
society in my view is incorrect.

Well, I guess in your view stifling nuclear power, oil exploration,
wind farms and economic growth must be "progress."

On Nov 3, 4:50 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
wrote:
(do you view those on the fringe right in the same manner?)

No, for the simple fact that fringe right is not the same as fringe
left. For starters, fringe right is in serious decline as far as
cultural importance.For example, fringe right nonsense such as
"Intelligent Design" is being run out of public school ona rail. But
frionge left stuff like "An Inconvenient Truth" is being force-fed to
public school kids.

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
"Dan" wrote in message
snip

You don't really understand why WW 3 never happened, do you? Have you
ever heard of mutually assured destruction? That's just one of the
reasons.

Umm, Dan, the way I read this is that the horror of the bomb that was so
exemplified by the two bombings helped contribute to the concept of MAD.
(and if there were ever a perfect acronym that is one).


MAD kept us safe in a world of sane nuclear powers.

There was much more than MAD that kept the U.S., French and U.K. on
one side and the Soviet Bloc on the other from trading mushrooms. The
most obvious was neither side had anything to gain by heaving nukes even
if the other side couldn't respond in kind. Another point was pure
economics, one side couldn't live without the other since both sides had
mutual trading partners.


I can't help but think what will keep us safe in a world of less sane
nuclear powers.


I'm not worried about nations currently with nukes. I'm worried about
them falling into the hands of terrorists. I don't want Iran to get
them, but I am not convinced they will start heaving them once they do
get them. Ahmaneedaheadjob may be nuts, but he doesn't run the country
the way some people think. The people who would actually have to heave
them aren't crazy. They know what would happen if they did. Having said
that I have no doubt there is someone in Iran who would supply a nuke to
a terrorist. That nut case in Pakistan who sold the plans to atomic
weapons to North Korea and Iran is proof enough some states don't have
as much control over their people as they think. The same can be said of
the spies in the Manhattan Project.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

wrote:
Well, I guess in your view stifling nuclear power, oil exploration,
wind farms and economic growth must be "progress."


They had a show on about those giant wind generators on one of the
science channels recently.
You have no idea now big those things are until you see the parts close-up.
The housing for the generator has more cubic feet in it than my
apartment, and you can go walking around inside of the hollow blades.
The only real downside to them is the problem with birds hitting them at
night.
I'm surprised they haven't stuck electroluminescent film on the blades
so the birds could evade them in the dark.

Pat

When it comes to the WTC, the argument that was made was that as a center
of economic power it was a legitimate target. It's not one I buy into
for a lot of reasons. But we have a tough time claiming the higher moral
ground if we turn a blind eye to our own past.

WTC contained a military recruiting station, offices for the CIA, Secret
Service and FBI, was a major communications hub for the internet and had an
antenna tower for TV and radio stations. You can be fairly sure that this
antenna tower probably had hundreds of smaller antennas attached to it for a
variety of purposes ranging form LE to cell phones to talking to radios in
garbage trucks. In addition a subway station is located in the basement
making it a major transportation hub. I did visit it once as a tourist in
the mid 90's. I distinctly remember the recruiting station as well as the
security being very tight due to the 1993 attack.

I can assure you if a similar building was in a country the USAF was tasked
with attacking it would be a prime target. I do suspect that due to the
large number of civilian in the building some warning would be given as was
done with the Belgrade TV station attacked in 1999 during the war over
Kosovo. I would also think the USAF objective would be to make the building
inoperable rather than total destruction.

While the attack on it by AQ was despicable saying WTC was not a legitimate
military target is laughable on its face.

"Stuf4" wrote in message
oups.com...

Dropping the bomb was not at all *necessary*. It was an _option_ that
the US chose to exercise. And it completely misses the point to say
that it "saved lives". The point is that there are "rules of war".
And these rules say that it is ok to kill military members, but non-
combatant civilians are off limits. THAT is the atrocity.


Then the non-combat civilians must refrain from all activities that
contribute to the war effort.

From Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired:
Stuf4 wrote:
Dropping the bomb was not at all *necessary*. It was an _option_ that
the US chose to exercise. And it completely misses the point to say
that it "saved lives". The point is that there are "rules of war".
And these rules say that it is ok to kill military members, but non-
combatant civilians are off limits. THAT is the atrocity.

OK, let's assume the atomic bombs were not dropped. Were conventional
bombing methods available at the time any better? The fact remains many
military targets were in populated areas. Take a look at the nearest
military base or factory to where you live. How would you take out that
target with the capabilities the Allies had in 1945? By that time a
great many small factories were family businesses in their own
communities. Are you suggesting not taking them out? Suppose you were
making parts for rifles in your yard would you expect to be left alone
just because you live in a residential area?

You advertise having been in the Air Force, yet you show absolutely no
recognition of the distinction between a combatant and a non-
combatant. LOAC is quite clear that it is illegal to kill civilians.
These are the same set of rules that spells out that it is illegal to
shoot a paratrooper while under canopy, or to shoot a pilot who has
bailed out of the aircraft.

Time and again you will hear people talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki
as "saving lives" with absolutely no distinction made about combatants
versus non-combatants. Invading Japan and killing Japanese soldiers
under a declared war would have been legal. But decimating families
sitting at their breakfast table is not an act that is sanctioned by
such laws.

You appear to be ok with killing civilians who work in factories that
make war materials. Let's be clear that those factory workers are non-
combatants. As completely off limits as a paratrooper under canopy.

For your consideration, here is a salient quote about bombing of
civilians:

=======
The ruthless bombing from the air of civilians in unfortified centers
of population during the course of the hostilities which have raged in
various quarters of the earth during the past few years, which has
resulted in the maiming and in the death of thousands of defenseless
men, women, and children, has sickened the hearts of every civilized
man and woman, and has profoundly shocked the conscience of humanity.

If resort is had to this form of inhuman barbarism during the period
of the tragic conflagration with which the world is now confronted,
hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings who have no
responsibility for, and who are not even remotely participating in,
the hostilities which have now broken out, will lose their lives. I am
therefore addressing this urgent appeal to every government which may
be engaged in hostilities publicly to affirm its determination that
its armed forces shall in no event, and under no circumstances,
undertake the bombardment from the air of civilian populations or of
unfortified cities, upon the understanding that these same rules of
warfare will be scrupulously observed by all of their opponents. I
request an immediate reply.
=======

Now here's the kicker. Those words are from FDR. He wrote them in
September '39 in an appeal to Germany, among others. His authority
came from a League of Nations unanimous resolution from September '38
that said, among other things, that:

"The intentional bombing of civilian populations is illegal"

(One reference - http://www.dannen.com/decision/int-law.html#D)

Obviously Roosevelt had a "change of heart" whereby he ordered the
program to construct the most heinous weapon the Earth had ever
known. He championed the Manhattan Project. Now while he didn't live
long enough to give the order to use those bombs on Japanese
civilians, we can extrapolate from FDR's data points of Dresden and
Tokyo. He was all hunky dory about ordering civilians to be roasted.

Hypothetical: Say that the US knew that the Japanese would surrender
if US GIs would rape 10,000 teenage Japanese girls. Can we then
justify the mass rape by saying, "it saved lives"? And if Tibbets was
the one who did the raping, would we then call him a hero for having
raped all those girls?

Try coming up with a hypothetical based in reality.

Obviously that example is not based in reality. Its purpose is to
shock people back into the reality of understanding how atrocious (and
illegal) it is to vaporize civilian families as they are sitting
around their breakfast table. There is no one-for-one comparison of
"saved lives" by trading off school kids for soldier combatants.


(If you think that this is a horrific hypothetical, keep in mind that
if you take all the kids vaporized by that "Little Boy" and you give
their parents the option to have them raped instead of vaporized, it
is to be expected that they would choose the raping.)

How many of those same children would have died anyway in
conventional bombing when the valid military targets near them were
taken out? A great many had already died that way. How many of those
same children would have died of malnutrition or starvation? A great
many civilians were already dying that way. How many of those same
children would have been murdered by their own mothers during an Allied
invasion? It happened in Okinawa.

If you want to justify targeting school children, then you may as well
take it to the ultimate absurdity of counting newborn babies a
legitimate military target because they will eventually grow up to
become soldiers.

....or perhaps I am misreading your point above. Perhaps you are
actually voicing agreement that the act of killing these kids was
atrocious.

As for "choosing the raping," I just have to ask. You don't have a
sister or daughter, do you? In many cultures, I'm not sure about Japan,
death is preferable to rape. Have you ever heard of "honour killings?"

It is clear to me that *both* outcomes are atrocious. To debate which
one is worse is beside the point. The point was that the act of
nuking an entire city falls outside the rules for what is justifiable
in war. (As FDR himself clearly indicated at one point in time.)

To have a meaningful discussion about what Tibbets (and Oppenheimer
and Truman and the others) did, then it is insufficient to simply
weigh in a balance the lives lost against the lives that might have
been lost. The crux of the issue is justification of mass murder.

Or justification of stopping mass murder. Are you aware the Japanese
army had orders to slaughter POWs as well as slave labour and were still
butchering civilians en masse?

There are plenty of examples for excursions from what was legal
warfare. But to identify only those crimes of the Germans and
Japanese, while ignoring those of the US and allied countries makes
for an unbalanced view of history.

....and it would also help to note that a balanced view of history will
show that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and Manila on December
7th (/8th) was billed as a LIBERATION of Hawaiian and Filipino natives
who were being oppressed by US Imperialists.

In the wake of 9/11, we can expect that radical Muslims have many
varied justifications for what was done there. The US continues to
cry "foul". Yet Tibbets is a hero.

There's one minor difference. The Enola Gay targetted valid military
targets in Hiroshima. WTC was not a valid military target.

If you persist in the belief that vaporizing a city constitutes a
legal military action, I will refer you back to that unanimous League
of Nations resolutions stating that "the intentional bombing of
civilian populations is illegal".

....or take the words of Curt LeMay himself. He stated that if the US
had lost the war, he expected that he would have been tried as a war
criminal.

(Google [lemay war criminal] for references.)

...and the WTC site is still referred to as "ground zero", as though
the destruction there is comparable to the destruction of a nuclear
bomb. Those airliners were firecrackers in comparison to what a nuke
could have done.

Ground zero means nuclear attack site? Since when?

"Ground zero" has a very specific meaning that comes from nuclear
weapons. Since nukes are typically set for an air burst, the term
refers to the plot of ground that lies directly below that burst. All
other uses of the term are dilutions that have come from hyperbole,
with lame comparisons to the destruction of an actual nuclear blast.

Another interesting angle for analyzing this is to put yourself in
Tibbets' shoes with the ability to peek into the future. Knowing all
of the positive outcomes of the event (aside from the tragic aspects)
then there are plenty of justifications for pickling off that bomb.

OK, you agree they needed to be dropped.

I did not say that. I was very clear in stating up front that it was
not necessary at all.

The biggest advantage that I can see from it is that those two bombs
were so horrific that they helped us to avoid ever using them again.
I credit Paul Tibbets for doing a large part toward averting a WWIII.

You don't really understand why WW 3 never happened, do you? Have
you ever heard of mutually assured destruction? That's just one of the
reasons.

Au contraire. My point was that the very reason why nuke deterrence
was so effective in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s was because Tibbets
gave us graphic images of their consequences.

It's akin to spanking a kid. If a child has never been spanked, then
the kid has no experience base to draw from when someone raises up a
threatening hand. But after the child has been hit just once or
twice, any time a hand gets raised, that child will have a flash of
memory back to the pain that was experienced.

Tibbets gave Planet Earth our first nuclear spanking.


~ CT

On Nov 3, 8:21 pm, "
wrote:
On Nov 3, 4:50 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation

wrote:
(do you view those on the fringe right in the same manner?)

No, for the simple fact that fringe right is not the same as fringe
left. For starters, fringe right is in serious decline as far as
cultural importance.For example, fringe right nonsense such as
"Intelligent Design" is being run out of public school ona rail. But
frionge left stuff like "An Inconvenient Truth" is being force-fed to
public school kids.

You just compared non related issues, not people, so your example
fails, and you failed to provide and level of objectivity in your
opinoins, which reveals in biases, and so you have stated nothing
factual. Now once again just because your second opinion backs your
first opinion, it does not make the first any more factual than the
first time you stated it. You see it is in your above expressed
opinions that those issues are on equal footing, but thats why i asked
you about people and not issues...

From Steven P. McNicoll:
"Stuf4" wrote in message

Dropping the bomb was not at all *necessary*. It was an _option_ that
the US chose to exercise. And it completely misses the point to say
that it "saved lives". The point is that there are "rules of war".
And these rules say that it is ok to kill military members, but non-
combatant civilians are off limits. THAT is the atrocity.

Then the non-combat civilians must refrain from all activities that
contribute to the war effort.

Must they? To get a more clear understanding of the Law of Armed
Conflict, think back to that paratrooper or bailed out aircrew
example. It is illegal to shoot them while under canopy. They are
clearly performing acts that are directly contributing to the war
effort. They are members of the military performing those acts. But
those are non-combatant acts. And it is illegal to shoot them while
they are in the role of a non-combatant.

If we can grasp the concept of how it is illegal to shoot an armed
military member who is moments away from being in a position to kill,
then I hope we can all clearly see how blatantly illegal it was to
indiscriminately vaporize an entire city of civilians (school
children, etc).

If that isn't clear enough, then here is another hypothetical for the
purpose of shedding light on the matter...

Say that instead of an atomic bomb, the Enola Gay had carried US
paratroopers. Say that Tibbets flew them over to the Mazda factory at
Hiroshima that was actively building armored vehicles for the Japanese
Army.

When these paratroopers storm the Mazda factory, would it be proper
for them to shoot and kill the workers in the factory? (Because these
women and men were actively contributing to the war effort.) I hope
it is clear that this would be a case of mass murder of non-combatant
civilians.

Contributing to the war effort is not the criteria for making a lawful
military target.

On top of this, let's not forget that those citizens of Hiroshima who
were actively contributing to the war effort made up a small
percentage of those vaporized.


~ CT