It's making the Japanese look like they're the poor people, like they didn't do anything.

even if a country does something, it does not allow what has been done... civilians should not suffer as they suffered.

It's a heavy burden to be the son of the U.S. pilot who dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima in 1945.

No, civilians should not suffer, but due to Japan's emoporer Hirohito, who would not surrender after being warned what would happen, they did. Way to go emporer. Rot in hell.

The women and children your Dad dropped the bomb on were the 'poor people', Gene. They didn't do anything. If your Dad wanted to get the people who did do something he should have bombed the Imperial Palace, or wherever US intelligence told him the military leaders were. Not provincial cities full of children and women given no choice as to whether they wanted to work in the munitions factories.

And he needn't have used an atomic bomb.

Cleo... Several days before the bombs were dropped Allied planes dropped leaflets advisin' the populations to go into the countryside.

True story.

Can you think of anything good that's come outta those two bombs havin' been dropped sixty-five years ago?

Obviously, Tibbets fails to distinguish between military leaders 65+ years ago and ordinary people who paid the price.

As for leaflets: a lot of people didn't leave because they had nowhere else to go (compare survivors of Katrina in New Orleans). Also, few people were aware of the power of the new weapon; it's not like now, when if everyone knew an A-bomb was coming they'd realise anyone within a few hundred metres of the blast is going to be vapourised. They were probably expecting a more conventional bomb attack.

Also, a contender in the 'Bad Taste Contest' is Tibbets sr.'s involvement in a re-enactment of the bomb drop in 1976; it seems the participants that day saw glory, not just necessity, in the bombing.

You're right. It served the Allies no purpose to say why they should get outta Dodge. The Japanese were workin' on their own bomb and they weren't braggin' about it either.

All I remember about Colonel Tibbets is that he had no moral qualm about droppin' the bomb and I believe he remained unapologetic up to his death. Maybe you would've, too, if you lived in those times and experienced what he and others did.

So... Maybe you can answer what Cleo chooses not to: Has any good come outta those two bombs bein' dropped sixty-five years ago?

One bomb destroys an entire city or thousands of bombs destroy an entire city or artillery destroys and entire city. How is one worse?? Pretty much since the Franco-Prussian war, capacity of artillery reached the point were you could destroy cities from long distances. Civilians have been regular victims of was ever since (collateral damage). The A-bombs are only the most obvious and easy to grasp example of this.

Civilians have been regular victims of was (sic)

And they always will be. Always.

Back to our story: I believe it was Sir Winston who declared 'total war' in Dubya Dubya Two... maybe it was Hitler, but I think it was Churchill.

No?

Several days before the bombs were dropped Allied planes dropped leaflets advisin' the populations to go into the countryside. True story.

Not according to the National Museum of Nuclear Science and History, whose website plainly states that one condition of dropping the bomb was that it should be dropped without prior warning.

http://www.nuclearmuseum.org/online-museum/article/the-decision-to-drop/

Leaflets warning of ordinary air-raids were dropped - and anyone found in possession of a leaflet was liable to be arrested and jailed (or worse) for undermining the war effort. You can imagine how lenient and understanding the authorities would have been with people abandoning their jobs and trying to leave the city en masse.

Can you think of anything good that's come outta those two bombs havin' been dropped sixty-five years ago?

Pretty stupid question. (And No, I do not choose not to answer it - I got other things to do besides hang around waiting with bated breath to see what Ronin is going to chuck at me). Your stupid question assumes that starting the Nuclear Age was the only way to bring WW2 to an end and so we should all be grateful that the US saved us all. (A bit like the claim that invading Iraq in 2003 was the only way to deal with Saddam - it wasn't). Japan had already lost the war before the bombs were dropped. There is no knowing whether more or fewer people might have died without the bombs, but we can be pretty sure that in the larger view the outcome would have been the same. So good that came specifically out of two cities full of civilian populations being used as test sites for new-fangled WMD? No, can't think of any.

Cleo, as you acknowledge, civilians were warned to get out of the cities. I believe five cities were warned so the Japanese government couldn't pin down exactly what city would be hit on what day.

And, no, I don't care if you thank the US a little or in whole. The fact is many Allied nations and partisan civilian populations won Dubya Dubya Two.

Cleo, put on your thinkin' beanie: Since 1945 - for over sixty-five years (on 9 August) - no atomic or nuclear bombs have been used militarily or to promote a religious armeggadon. Dya think those two bombs've had anything to do with it? I believe it has.

(Of course, the apocolyptic 'religion of peace' leaders in Iran - for one - say they intend to change your world with a couple. Duck and cover, amiga.)

Personally, I think the reason why no a-bombs been used, is that their usage would have caused a nuclear retaliation.

Also don't forget that one of the current bombs is WAAAY more powerful than the bombs dropped on Japan combined.

No one wants to get into a "tit for tat" conflict with that power. But be assured that if some nations could away with using the bombs they would have been falling for decades.

Iraq war could have ended much sooner and quicker by dropping a nuke and would have saved how many lifes? Same with Palestine, Uran, N. Korea.

Drop the bombs and save Millions.

Uran = Iran.

I believe five cities were warned

It was 35, but why bother with facts when you can just believe.

The 'warnings' in fact worked to ensure that more people were out in the streets of Hiroshima when Big Boy fell. Japanese radar had detected the approach of American aircraft and issued a warning, but when it was determined that the number of planes was too small for a full-scale air raid, the warning was lifted.

no atomic or nuclear bombs have been used militarily

None have been dropped on people, I'll grant you. That doesn't mean they haven't been 'used'. Every aspect of US foreign policy with respect to countries that are not exactly friendly has had The Bombs propped up in the corner of the room.

Leaflets warning of ordinary air-raids were dropped - and anyone found in possession of a leaflet was liable to be arrested and jailed (or worse) for undermining the war effort. You can imagine how lenient and understanding the authorities would have been with people abandoning their jobs and trying to leave the city en masse.

I always wondered how someone could sleep at night knowing they had made people stay knowing they would be killed. Seems wrong...

Cleo, five cities... thirty-five cities... I don't care to go into my efiles and wade through it. People were warned... their government chose to call it 'propaganda'.

Every aspect of US foreign policy with respect to countries that are not exactly friendly has had The Bombs propped up in the corner of the room.

Again you are correct, Cleo. The US was the only nation with nuclear weapons and we threatened any nation who didn't do our evile bidding.

Like father like son. How disgusting.

About 140,000 Japanese civilians died in the Battle of Okinawa 3 months before the first bomb was dropped. Another 100,000 Japanese military died there, along with about 30,000 US troops. For just the island of Okinawa.

Can you imagine the fight that would have occured if the Allies would have invaded Kyushu? I imagine that the war leaders at the time probably did. They had estimated that it would take at least 1,000,0000 troops to fight their way through Japan. I guess it was still fresh in their minds on how the Germans invaded Russia, and the resulting long fight that they had there.

So since we are all playing Monday morning quaterbacks let's just look at it this way, which decision would you have made: dropping the A-bomb hoping that it would bring the Japanese leadership to finally accept the terms that were on the table; invading Japan mainland and possibly running up more civilian casulaties (remember the Russians lost 12-14 million civilian casualties, and the Chinese lost around 10 million civilian casualties); or since no shipping was getting in to Japan due to the efforts of the USN, just slowly starve the Japanese people to the peace table.

The leaders at the time made the right decision at the time. Anything ot get the war over as fast as possible, and the use of the A-bomb was the weapon of choice to do it.

A sacrifice had to be made. And it took 2 sacrifices before Japan gave up it's war effort. If they had seen the writing on the wall long before those bombs may never have been used.

And nuclear materials were discovered in a surrendered German submarine on it's way to Japan. There is no innocent victim here. Both these countries if they had developed it the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wouldn't be known today but rather some US or UK city would be synonymous with "the bomb".

One more thing, it is true that innocents had to die in the blast, as is the case in wars. But if you do the research, you will see the nations that were considered the Allies, lost more civilian deaths (58% of all deaths from WW2) than the Axis (4% of Axis deaths from WW2).

When you look at the cold hard facts, the US used the best weapon it had at the time to do the job. We may think that it is wrong to kill so many innoncents, but when you look at the tolls that the Allies had been facing, a decision to use such a weapon could be viewed as a viable alternative.