A tribute for the Worlds first atomic bombers,B-29s and the men who flew them.

Gentlemen.

This thread has wandered a long way from the topic of Boeing B29 Superfortresses and indeed WW2 aviation in all but a very tenuous way.

The forum software no longer allows the splitting of a group of posts into a separate thread, otherwise I would move the off topic posts to general.

The argument has progressed hardly at all for a couple of days with the two sides just pointlessly restating assertions and positions, neither with any likelihood of convincing the other.

I am therefore closing this thread. If anybody feels the urge to open one on General Discussion and restate their dogma there, please feel free.

This is, after all, an aviation forum.

Moggy
Moderator

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/intro.shtml

The Charter of the United Nations was signed on 26 June 1945, in San Francisco, at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, and came into force on 24 October 1945. The Statute of the International Court of Justice is an integral part of the Charter.

http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml

The UN was founded as a successor to the League of Nations, which was widely considered to have been ineffective in its role as an international governing body, as it had been unable to prevent World War II.

The term “United Nations” was first used by Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt, in the 1942 Declaration by United Nations, which united the Allied countries of WWII under the Atlantic Charter, and soon became a term widely used to refer to them.

Declarations signed at wartime Allied conferences in 1943 espoused the idea of the UN, and in 1944, representatives of the major Allied powers met to elaborate on the plans at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference. Those and later talks outlined the organization’s proposed purposes, membership, organs, and ideals in regards to peace, security, and cooperation.

On 25 April 1945, the UN Conference on International Organization began in San Francisco, attended by 50 governments and a number of non-governmental organizations involved in drafting the Charter of the United Nations.

again from the Franck report

if that is not concern for the use of it i don’t know how else to call it.

I invite all the readers of this topic to read the full Franck Report as kindly posted by Poundskater and tell us what you think about it.

i’ve read the report and i do agree with some of it there seems to me a glareing problem,as far as i know the united nations didnt come into existance till 1948 !!
so how would a dmonstration to a body that didnt come into exsitance till after the capitulation of japan solve the problem of the war with japan?
i’m happy to be corrected on this

No…..not really……pride has nothing to do with it, I suppose my only connection with this topic was serving in an underground bunker in the RAF, during the ‘cold war’.
I would say delete ‘proud of’ and insert ‘interested in’.

I’m sure this is true in your case, and I appreciate your need to clarify your position, but I wish I could say the same for all of the people who posted in this thread.

It’s something we cannot change, if we could rewind the clock, stop the bombs, then fast-forward to today, would we (the world) be any better off?
I doubt it.
All the same countries would have developed the same weapons anyway, we would still have had the cold war, yet, this time round no fear.
No yardstick.
No horror.
No shock and awe.

AlexT, I can see were you are coming from but, we have had nuclear peace now for over 60 years and a big part of that comes down to those 2 bombs.
The fear generated by the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki touched all mankind, from that day to this.

In hindsight it’s just another reason why I think it was right to drop them.

Yeah I know what you mean, but still, the price to pay for that technological achievement was very high.
Sometimes one wonders how human kind can cope with the atrocities that have been made (or that are currently being committed) and not do anything to stop the insanity of it.

It would have had less of an effect than bombing Hiroshima – but after that the Japanese Government voted to fight on.

No, the only fight they were doing was the peace negotiations. The second bomb drop was conditioned by the weather forecasts, and pressure was made by Col Tibbets to do the drop before the 10th of august, for the forecasted worsening weather conditions.
A sad fact that is almost unknown is that several POWs died in the Nagasaki bombing as well.

AlexT
What was the original post about? Ah yes, posting picture of mushroom clouds as something to be proud of, right?

No…..not really……pride has nothing to do with it, I suppose my only connection with this topic was serving in an underground bunker in the RAF, during the ‘cold war’.
I would say delete ‘proud of’ and insert ‘interested in’.

AlexT
I’m sorry to create so much fuss, I just can’t believe that nowadays, with all the knowledge and that we have and the things that have emerged after the WW2, there are still people that believe the use of atomic bombs was right and appropriate.

It’s something we cannot change, if we could rewind the clock, stop the bombs, then fast-forward to today, would we (the world) be any better off?
I doubt it.
All the same countries would have developed the same weapons anyway, we would still have had the cold war, yet, this time round no fear.
No yardstick.
No horror.
No shock and awe.

AlexT, I can see were you are coming from but, we have had nuclear peace now for over 60 years and a big part of that comes down to those 2 bombs.
The fear generated by the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki touched all mankind, from that day to this.

In hindsight it’s just another reason why I think it was right to drop them.

Don’t you really think that such a demonstration wouldn’t have been effective at all?

It would have had less of an effect than bombing Hiroshima – but after that the Japanese Government voted to fight on.

Well, we know it was (almost) finished now but it didn’t have to finish in 1945 did it?

that is a fair point, I have been put before in front of this question, but the truth is that the Russian Manchuria attack and the continuos hammering from American bombers was the last big hit to a country that finished its resources.
Japan was surrounded and the Allies were aware of the desperate conditions of their armed forces. The advanced airbases in the Pacific would have allowed to keep on hammering the military targets down steadily. It would have been taken longer probably, but the war could have been pushed on in a conventional way.

But let’s not even consider this, let’s just think about the fact that a demonstration of the atomic bomb could have been done on an island or on the ocean, sending both a message to the URSS and the Japanese that the war was over and the Americans were in control of the most powerful weapon ever produced. Don’t you really think that such a demonstration wouldn’t have been effective at all?

And what is wrong with that? Russia clearly wanted to use its military power in 1945 to exercise influence over formerly independent countries in Europe. What would you have done if the Red Army had kept advancing West in 1945?

I’m not questioning the reasons, I am questioning the methods.

Also the US had to finally defeat Japan, if the fire raids and the atom bombs are not permitted as being ‘immoral’ how would this be brought about? Any invasion of Japan itself would lead to an enormous loss of Allied, but mainly Japanese (civilian), lives; far more than were lost at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Wouldn’t that be immoral too?

please read what the Franck Report suggested, that should answer your question regarding a valid alternative.

What’s the difference?

That one is an instrument of the other.

Any better than what exactly?

well, we passed from a conventional world war to 40 years of cold war, go figure!

again from the Franck report

From this point of view, a demonstration of the new weapon might best be made, before the eyes of representatives of all the United Nations, on the desert or a barren island. The best possible atmosphere for the achievement of an international agreement could be achieved if America could say to the world, “You see what sort of a weapon we had but did not use. We are ready to renounce its use in the future if other nations join us in this renunciation and agree to the establishment of an efficient control.”

After such a demonstration the weapon might perhaps be used against Japan if the sanction of the United Nations (and if public opinion at home) were obtained, perhaps after a preliminary ultimatum to Japan to surrender or at least to evacuate certain regions as an alternative to their total destruction. This may sound fantastic, but in nuclear weapons we have something entirely new in order of magnitude of destructive power, and if we want to capitalize fully on the advantage their possession gives us, we must use new and imaginative methods.

It must be stressed that if one takes the pessimistic point of view and discounts the possibility of an effective international control over nuclear weapons at the present time, then the advisability of an early use of nuclear bombs against Japan becomes even more doubtful — quite independently of any humanitarian considerations. If an international agreement is not concluded immediately after the first demonstration, this will mean a flying start toward an unlimited armaments race. If this race is inevitable, we have every reason to delay its beginning as long as possible in order to increase our head start still further.

if that is not concern for the use of it i don’t know how else to call it.

I invite all the readers of this topic to read the full Franck Report as kindly posted by Poundskater and tell us what you think about it.

. . . hence my quote of the Franck Report.
Once again, what was stated in the report was that the strength and devastation of the atomic bomb would have been too big to be used as a conventional weapon, so they pressed that it would have been demonstrated instead. What the US government did instead was to authorise the drop of the two bombs dead in the middle of two big cities.

That’s certainly not my understanding when I read the Franck Report – see original text here: http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/franck.html

The scientists were primarily concerned with the dangers to the USA from a “race for arms” of other countries building nuclear weapons and a perceived vulnerability of the USA because of the way industries were concentrated.

The technology could not be kept secret since too many other countries were already only a few years behind with the technology. However, they accepted they were scientists not politicians:

The scientists on this project do not presume to speak authoritatively on problems of national and international policy. However, we found ourselves, by the force of events, during the last five years, in the position of a small group of citizens cognizant of a grave danger for the safety of this country as well as for the future of all the other nations, of which the rest of mankind is unaware.
All of us, familiar with the present state of nucleonics, live with the vision before our eyes of sudden destruction visited on our own country, of a Pearl Harbor disaster repeated in thousand-fold magnification in every one of our major cities.

Their big fear was the sneak attack which, unless industry and population could be dispersed from the major centres, would see the USA as the most vulnerablde to an A-bomb attack. They argued for some international agreement to ration materials (especially Uranium) needed for the bomb, or other ways to limit their availability and use.

We believe that these considerations make the use of nuclear bombs for an early unannounced attack against Japan inadvisable. If the United States were to be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race for armaments and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.
Much more favorable conditions for the eventual achievement of such an agreement could be created if nuclear bombs were first revealed to the world by a demonstration in an appropriately selected uninhabited area.

They were not trying to end the Japanese war with a demonstration, they were suggesting that America would be in a stronger position politically as a result. The politicans disagreed.

The most common mistake made is considering the drop of the two atomic bombs as a part of the war, a war that was already finished.

Well, we know it was (almost) finished now but it didn’t have to finish in 1945 did it?

It was a mere demonstration of strength to Russia, which became an uncomfortable ally to deal with, and when you are gambling with a country like the Russia of 1945, you’d better go for a proper message, not a soft version of it. Dropping two bombs over two crowded cities, showing the real power of the atomic bomb, was more than a clear message for the Russians.

And what is wrong with that? Russia clearly wanted to use its military power in 1945 to exercise influence over formerly independent countries in Europe. What would you have done if the Red Army had kept advancing West in 1945?

Also the US had to finally defeat Japan, if the fire raids and the atom bombs are not permitted as being ‘immoral’ how would this be brought about? Any invasion of Japan itself would lead to an enormous loss of Allied, but mainly Japanese (civilian), lives; far more than were lost at Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Wouldn’t that be immoral too?

The atomic bomb use as “necessary” was intended on a political scale, not a military one.

What’s the difference?

So yes, the atomic bombs put the word end to the war, but they were used in a criminal way killing thousands of civilians…..and actually started a new political and military era which was not any better.

Any better than what exactly?

All you seem to have done is to find some people who thought that the atomic bombs should have been used in a demonstration in the hope that they wouldn’t have to be used against a largely civilian target.

So what does that prove? To be honest, it would be incredible if you hadn’t managed to find such a group of people, and the fact that those people came from within the bomb project itself is not particularly relevant since they had to be part of the project to know about the bomb in the first place.

well according to some there was nobody of the Manhattan project who didn’t approve the use of the atomic bomb, hence my quote of the Franck Report.
Once again, what was stated in the report was that the strength and devastation of the atomic bomb would have been too big to be used as a conventional weapon, so they pressed that it would have been demonstrated instead. What the US government did instead was to authorise the drop of the two bombs dead in the middle of two big cities.

Since you seem to be placing yourself on an intellectual level equal to the entire United States government and scientific communities of 1945 (but with a greater moral integrity) perhaps you would enlighten us as to how you would have concluded the war with Japan?

Intellectual level as the US Government? Not a chance! They ordered a mass execution, I wouldn’t have.
The most common mistake made is considering the drop of the two atomic bombs as a part of the war, a war that was already finished. It was a mere demonstration of strength to Russia, which became an uncomfortable ally to deal with, and when you are gambling with a country like the Russia of 1945, you’d better go for a proper message, not a soft version of it.
Dropping two bombs over two crowded cities, showing the real power of the atomic bomb, was more than a clear message for the Russians.
Dropping them in the ocean would have surely ended the war as well, but it wouldn’t have worked on a political level.
The atomic bomb use as “necessary” was intended on a political scale, not a military one.

Criticism is not enough, you must have an alternative…..and an alternative using hindsight doesn’t make you intellectually superior. :rolleyes:

I have no aspiration of being intellectually superior! You are making this assumption by yourself.
There were valid alternatives to end the war, but they weren’t selected because they would have brought political complications to the end of it.
So yes, the atomic bombs put the word end to the war, but they were used in a criminal way (killing thousands of civilians, just like the criminal raids of 1940 on London and the subsequent V1/V2 attacks) and actually started a new political and military era which was not any better.

Can you add arrogant, condescending, patronising and insulting to the list?

Regards,

kev35

it wasnt me who got started with it, I invite you as well to have a careful look at the posts progress.

No, but it did come up in conversation from time to time (normally towards the end) usually when they showed relief of not going to the FE. I never recalled on any occasion however, criticism of the bombing (of Japan).

Sadly some people on this forum will no longer engage you in conversation due to your aggressive and sarcastic responses.
No-one is knocking your belief son, its the continual bombardment of the defence of your belief, which makes it tiresome.

If you are just trying to ruin this thread on the grounds you don’t like or believe it, go to the Mods and complain.

We all now get that there is another side to the Atomic bombs, you have got that across, well.

Please can we get back to the original thread as that was quite interesting too.

I’m sorry to create so much fuss, I just can’t believe that nowadays, with all the knowledge and that we have and the things that have emerged after the WW2, there are still people that believe the use of atomic bombs was right and appropriate.

What was the original post about? Ah yes, posting picture of mushroom clouds as something to be proud of, right?

uh and btw it wasn’t me who started being aggressive, insolent or whatever you want to call me, have a careful look at the post progression please.

My point was meant to let u understand that the atomic solution was not seen in a positive way even back then, and by many people from all the countries and fields…

All you seem to have done is to find some people who thought that the atomic bombs should have been used in a demonstration in the hope that they wouldn’t have to be used against a largely civilian target.

So what does that prove? To be honest, it would be incredible if you hadn’t managed to find such a group of people, and the fact that those people came from within the bomb project itself is not particularly relevant since they had to be part of the project to know about the bomb in the first place.

Since you seem to be placing yourself on an intellectual level equal to the entire United States government and scientific communities of 1945 (but with a greater moral integrity) perhaps you would enlighten us as to how you would have concluded the war with Japan?

Criticism is not enough, you must have an alternative…..and an alternative using hindsight doesn’t make you intellectually superior. :rolleyes:

Sadly some people on this forum will no longer engage you in conversation due to your aggressive and sarcastic responses.

Can you add arrogant, condescending, patronising and insulting to the list?

Regards,

kev35

So u managed to ask to hundreds of vets what they thought of the atomic bomb? Interesting.

No, but it did come up in conversation from time to time (normally towards the end) usually when they showed relief of not going to the FE. I never recalled on any occasion however, criticism of the bombing (of Japan).

Sadly some people on this forum will no longer engage you in conversation due to your aggressive and sarcastic responses.
No-one is knocking your belief son, its the continual bombardment of the defence of your belief, which makes it tiresome.

If you are just trying to ruin this thread on the grounds you don’t like or believe it, go to the Mods and complain.

We all now get that there is another side to the Atomic bombs, you have got that across, well.

Please can we get back to the original thread as that was quite interesting too.

Alex T

Read the CoC and heed what it says about personal insults please

Moggy

thank you for your contribution, you are the perfect example of what happens when you don’t apply revisionism in history.

ROFL. You are certainly on a troll run. Your 22-0 down at half time and you still think you can scrape a draw. Gotta admire the tenacity.
It’s precisely because we learn from history that we know that if the Bad guys have a weapon, the West needs a bigger and better weapon. I am PROUD to be working on the next generation nuclear weapons and the platforms that will launch them. Obviously, if used it will take out a grid square on the Atlas, we don’t actually want that but it may have to come to that…..if certain people don’t listen and start behaving. They will fire first and we shall finish the job. They know this so lets hope they aren’t as stupid as their policies indicate.

How pompous of you!

My dad ‘did D-Day and marched his way to Germany’ and his views were nothing like yours.

Over the last thirty years I’ve spoken to hundreds of WW2 vets RAF, Army and Navy ( including Jap POWs ) and funnily enough, their views were nothing like yours either.

So u managed to ask to hundreds of vets what they thought of the atomic bomb? Interesting.

My point was meant to let u understand that the atomic solution was not seen in a positive way even back then, and by many people from all the countries and fields. The massive excitement for the end of the war put the concerns of the use of atomic weapons on a secondary level, but the message had been delivered and the experiments had been done, that is what really mattered to the Americans.