Thanks Kaslin. Last flight crewmember of the Enola Gay has passed.
Posted on 08/02/2014 8:08:59 AM PDT by Kaslin
No it wasn’t.
Is it that time of year already?
Please explain...
Even after the START and the new START(2010), we still have 5000 nuclear warheads. The warheads and the delivery systems can get expensive to maintain.
War: Obliterate the enemy or unconditional surrender.
If you don’t like war, don’t start one.
The myth continues.
Please explain why it wasn’t.
Thank you.
Thanks Kaslin. Last flight crewmember of the Enola Gay has passed.
I would have been extremely hesitant to bomb civilians even if the Japanese and Germans deserved it. If there was any other way to use the bomb, say on military targets, that is what President Yarddog would have done.
Unfortunately dropping them on cities was probably the only option.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtXaWD12yCg
an argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition
At a Catholic University 40 years ago I had a radical Iranian scumbag professor teaching that we dropped the bomb on the Japanese because they are a yellow people and we didn’t use it on the Germans because they are white.
When I told him the bomb was built to use on Germany he said this was a viewpoint that would only be believed “By reactionaries such as rednecks living in the Southern United States ... or Henry Kissinger!”
Such is the hatred and poison of the left and other assorted scumbag enemies of freedom.
If it saved the life of a single Allied soldier it was the right thing to do.Turns out that it's widely accepted (except by vociferous Marxists and anarchists) that it saved hundreds of thousands of Allied lives *as well as* an equal number of Japanese lives.
There is no explanation
AS the headline says “It Was Always Right”
And thank God my dad didn’t have to go invade Japan
God bless you each and everyone
True American heroes
It’s sad that to anyone who cares about history, every fact in this article is common knowledge. Yet it needs to be written for the idiots who think polar bears are endangered.
The best book I’ve read on this is Richard Frank’s “Downfall: The End Of The Imperial Japanese Empire.” He wrote the book to specifically refute the revisionist theories popular among leftist academicians that it was not necessary to drop the bombs. It is a masterful work that logically destroys every argument against the use of the bombs, based not only on what we knew then but also on what we know now. An historical tragedy, but also absolutely necessary. The bombs saved lives; literally millions of them.
And don’t forget; we didn’t start this war.
No it isn’t ...
He was in the Panama Canal area when the war ended. Bomb probably saved his life.
Arthur T. Hadley said recently that those for whom the use of the A-bomb was “wrong” seem to be implying “that it would have been better to allow thousands on thousands of American and Japanese infantrymen to die in honest hand-to-hand combat on the beaches than to drop those two bombs.” People holding such views, he notes, “do not come from the ranks of society that produce infantrymen or pilots.”
And there’s an eloquence problem: most of those with firsthand experience of the war at its worst were not elaborately educated people. Relatively inarticulate, most have remained silent about what they know. That is, few of those destined to be blown to pieces if the main Japanese islands had been invaded went on to become our most effective men of letters or impressive ethical theorists or professors of contemporary history or of international law.
A couple of years ago, liberal comedian/commentator Jon Stewart discussed this on his show. And he said we should not have bombed Japan.
He said we should have provided the Japanese with a demonstration of the power of the bomb by dropping one off shore. Then, warn them that the next one was to be dropped on them if they didn’t surrender.
Over the years, various people have said it was some sort of crime against humanity, to have used an atomic bomb.
Hindsight is always 20/20 of course.
My unanswered questions to those who think we should not have bombed Japan, revolved around the questions of how many more lives on both sides would have been lost, if we had to launch a conventional invasion of the Japanese islands. My questions are: is it better to kill many more people, including Japanese civilians, through conventional means, rather than inducing them to surrender by the use of the atomic bombs? Never heard a coherent answer to such questions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.