Bomb: 65 years ago today

[SteveR]

I have to agree with you. And I suspect there are a number of us on the board who might not otherwise be here if he had not.

I am one of those people. My Grandfather was a POW of the Japanese for 3.5 years, he was in a POW camp in Japan when the bombs were dropped. The plan was to kill all POWs when the mainland was invaded. Dropping the bombs prevented that from happening. The quote below is from a biography of my Grandfather that my younger brother just finished (my Grandfather was Carl Ruse):

A paper was in circulation in the offices of the Army and Navy General staffs. Called “Ketsu-Go”, this was the Japanese last effort for the final battle that would decide the
outcome of the war.

The plan would call for the final employment of every available weapon and resource the Japanese had. Thousands of aircraft had been prepared for use as suicide planes; hidden under trees or camouflage, with only enough fuel in the tanks for one trip to a beach being invaded. Return was not part of the strategy. Runways were narrow swaths cut through grassy meadows. They could only afford a single battle, and it must not pass the beach, so every resource would be spent there. The plan was to kill as many Americans as possible and crush morale. Civilians would fight along soldiers with bamboo spears, and were encouraged to commit suicide before being captured.

As a POW, Ruse had heard of Ketsu-Go: “We found out that their plan was to try to have all of the POWs in Japan, and as the Americans got too close to their homeland, and made landing on Japanese soil, we would all be done away with. In fact, they had already issued orders to that effect. I’ll never, ever forget old Harry Truman for sending those bombs over and putting a stop to it because that’s what got us back home. I think a heck of a lot of Harry Truman and his atomic bomb. If it hadn't been for that, well,
we would have never got out of there.”

After all that the POWs had survived thus far, the plan was to kill them all in the event of an invasion. This was the hopeless world into which the surviving POWs entered in 1944. The war could not be sustained much longer. Some sort of a violent end was inevitably coming, and it would be coming soon. Sure enough, plans for extermination of POWs materialized when Japanese soldiers massacred close to 150 inmates at the Palawan POW Camp. As allied troops advanced on the islands, the men were ordered into bomb shelters underground which they had built themselves for their own protection. After the men were safely inside, gasoline was poured on the death trap and ignited with torches. As the men attempted to escape, many were shot, bayoneted, or met hand grenades. In the end, only eleven men managed to escape. The Ketsu-Go plan was more than just a plan;
at Palawan in December of 1944, it was a reality.

 

[Jay Honeck]

I am one of those people. My Grandfather was a POW of the Japanese for 3.5 years, he was in a POW camp in Japan when the bombs were dropped. The plan was to kill all POWs when the mainland was invaded. Dropping the bombs prevented that from happening. The quote below is from a biography of my Grandfather that my younger brother just finished (my Grandfather was Carl Ruse):

Thank you for your excellent excerpt. It illustrates the reality of the situation well.

Modern people forget the absolute brutality of our war against the Japanese Empire. The Japanese bayoneted our wounded -- and our guys did the same to them. We viewed them as sub-human -- and they thought the same of us. It was total, absolute war, with no quarter sought, or given.

As my kindly, grandfatherly friend -- a 90-year old former, honest-to-goodness former Flying Tiger -- still says, if given the chance: "The only thing I regret about my time fighting the Japs is that I didn't kill more of them."

This from a perfect gentleman who would not harm a fly today -- but 68 years ago he watched as his friends were machine-gunned in their 'chutes, and it changed him forever.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

...

Modern people forget the absolute brutality of our war against the Japanese Empire. ....

"Modern people" also know a whole lot about the war that people at the time, except for those at the very top, didn't know.

 

[John Collins]

Actually the anniversary of the first successful use of nuclear weapons is 16 July 1945. That date marks the first time that humans proved that concept of an atomic bomb. I think that would be technically correct.

6 Aug 1945 was the second use of a nuclear bomb, but the first used against a live target.

All true, but there were two bomb designs. One was based on a near super critical Uranium U-235 core with a uranium trigger. That design was never tested before it was dropped on Hiroshima as it was felt it did not require testing. It was called Little Boy.

The plutonium bomb was based on a sphere that was imploded to create the super critical mass and used precision munitions. There was more uncertainty in its operation due to the sophistication of the triggering mechanism. In fact, just before the Trinity test, a separate test of the triggering mechanism failed. Because of the large round design of the bomb, it was named Fat Man. It was the bomb dropped on Nagasaki.

 

[Matthew]

I am one of those people. My Grandfather was a POW of the Japanese for 3.5 years, he was in a POW camp in Japan when the bombs were dropped. The plan was to kill all POWs when the mainland was invaded. Dropping the bombs prevented that from happening. The quote below is from a biography of my Grandfather that my younger brother just finished (my Grandfather was Carl Ruse):

I was flipping through the local paper a couple days ago - for some reason I noticed this obit as it flashed by, here's a snip:

>>>
ALBERT EDWIN PUCKETT

Albert, at the age of 18, joined the US Marine Corps where he served from 1939-1946 in WWII. During this time he was in Shanghai China, 4th Marine Regiment, the first 2 years and then sent to Cavate Naval Base in the Philippine Islands. The Naval Base was heavily bombed for weeks, starting Dec 8, 1941, where they had to fight a rear guard back to Bataan. From there he was moved to Corregidor Island in the bay. They fought until the surrender May 6, 1942 upon that time he became a Prisoner of War (POW). He was then imprisoned for 39 months. First prison camp was Bilibid and second camp was Cabanatuan which were 2 of the worse POW camps. The last year he was moved by hell ship to Nagoya #6B camp, Takaoka, Japan. He was worked then in a steel mill shoveling iron ore into a blast furnace until the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan. He was then released September 6, 1945 upon Japan's surrender with a rank of Platoon Sergeant, U.S.M.C. He was honorable discharged on Feb 8, 1946.

Read more: http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/ka...ert-edwin-puckett&pid=144519650#ixzz0wDALQu2w
<<<

One of the few guys to survive Bataan, Corregidor, and eventually be saved by the bomb.

 

[SteveR]

I was flipping through the local paper a couple days ago - for some reason I noticed this obit as it flashed by, here's a snip:

>>>
ALBERT EDWIN PUCKETT

Albert, at the age of 18, joined the US Marine Corps where he served from 1939-1946 in WWII. During this time he was in Shanghai China, 4th Marine Regiment, the first 2 years and then sent to Cavate Naval Base in the Philippine Islands. The Naval Base was heavily bombed for weeks, starting Dec 8, 1941, where they had to fight a rear guard back to Bataan. From there he was moved to Corregidor Island in the bay. They fought until the surrender May 6, 1942 upon that time he became a Prisoner of War (POW). He was then imprisoned for 39 months. First prison camp was Bilibid and second camp was Cabanatuan which were 2 of the worse POW camps. The last year he was moved by hell ship to Nagoya #6B camp, Takaoka, Japan. He was worked then in a steel mill shoveling iron ore into a blast furnace until the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan. He was then released September 6, 1945 upon Japan's surrender with a rank of Platoon Sergeant, U.S.M.C. He was honorable discharged on Feb 8, 1946.

Read more: http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/ka...ert-edwin-puckett&pid=144519650#ixzz0wDALQu2w
<<<

One of the few guys to survive Bataan, Corregidor, and eventually be saved by the bomb.

Thanks for posting that. My Granddad was with him for the first 2.5 years. He was in Bilibid and Cabanatuan also. His last year he spent in Yokkaichi Japan. To get there he was put in the hold of a "hell ship" for almost two months straight. They packed prisoners in the ships holds so tight that no one could lay down unless someone else stood up. They could all sit down only if they all tucked their knees up to their chests. The "bathroom" was a bucket passed down by rope. They moved food in and dead bodies out the same way. They sat in port for several weeks while doing repairs on the ship...the prisoners were left in the holds the entire time. Temperatures were in the 100 to 130 degree range in the holds.

 

[Jay Honeck]

"Modern people" also know a whole lot about the war that people at the time, except for those at the very top, didn't know.

Meaning...what, exactly?

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Meaning...what, exactly?

Meaning that there's an incredible amount of information that was wholly unknown to the average person in 1945.

Which, in turn, means that statements like the one you made are...misguided. No one's forgotten anything; if anything, I'd say the brutality is the one that everyone fully aware of (it's both undisputed, and well known). In fact, a whole lot more information has become public knowledge in the time since.

That information tells us that there were some major screwups towards the end of the war; screw-ups that cost tens of thousands of lives on the Allied side alone; screwups that call into question the need to do anything other than accept a surrender in the Pacific after March, '45 at the latest.

So simply trotting out "war was brutal, invasion imminent, bomb was necessary" is inaccurate, overlooks a whole lot of facts, and indicates a collective failure in terms of the learnin' we provide in regard to the Second World War and the United States' role in it.

I'm not saying in any way that I disagree with the decision to drop the atomic bombs, but I am saying that there are: 1) a whole lot of things that need to be considered; 2) your average person in 1945 wasn't aware of any of those things; and 3) it would seem that the majority of the public today doesn't seem interested in considering those things. I'm also not saying that, if you were involved in 1945, you wouldn't think that the dropping of the bomb is what ended the war - nothing unreasonable about thinking that; but facts, known at the time to those making the decisions and revealed to the public since (it's worth noting that a lot of those facts weren't revealed until after those decisionmakers were dead), show otherwise.

It's important to know about these things, so perhaps we can learn from them for future conduct; it's unfortunate that these things are either unknown or simply rejected as "revisionism." Such is human nature, though, I suppose.

YMMV.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Meaning that there's an incredible amount of information that was wholly unknown to the average person in 1945.

Which, in turn, means that statements like the one you made are...misguided. No one's forgotten anything; if anything, I'd say the brutality is the one that everyone fully aware of (it's both undisputed, and well known). In fact, a whole lot more information has become public knowledge in the time since.

That information tells us that there were some major screwups towards the end of the war; screw-ups that cost tens of thousands of lives on the Allied side alone; screwups that call into question the need to do anything other than accept a surrender in the Pacific after March, '45 at the latest.

So simply trotting out "war was brutal, invasion imminent, bomb was necessary" is inaccurate, overlooks a whole lot of facts, and indicates a collective failure in terms of the learnin' we provide in regard to the Second World War and the United States' role in it.

I'm not saying in any way that I disagree with the decision to drop the atomic bombs, but I am saying that there are: 1) a whole lot of things that need to be considered; 2) your average person in 1945 wasn't aware of any of those things; and 3) it would seem that the majority of the public today doesn't seem interested in considering those things. I'm also not saying that, if you were involved in 1945, you wouldn't think that the dropping of the bomb is what ended the war - nothing unreasonable about thinking that; but facts, known at the time to those making the decisions and revealed to the public since (it's worth noting that a lot of those facts weren't revealed until after those decisionmakers were dead), show otherwise.

It's important to know about these things, so perhaps we can learn from them for future conduct; it's unfortunate that these things are either unknown or simply rejected as "revisionism." Such is human nature, though, I suppose.

YMMV.

I agree with everything you said, and see nothing that contradicts what I said -- EXCEPT for the part about the brutality of the war being better known today than in 1945.

While the information is certainly there for all to read, the fact remains that most Americans can't find Mississippi on a map. To believe that these same people are somehow endowed with more knowledge than their counterparts were during the war is counter-intuitive.

For those who are able to pull their attention away from Oprah, yes, the information is available. For most, however, it is wholly unknown, ancient history.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I agree with everything you said, and see nothing that contradicts what I said -- EXCEPT for the part about the brutality of the war being better known today than in 1945.

While the information is certainly there for all to read, the fact remains that most Americans can't find Mississippi on a map. To believe that these same people are somehow endowed with more knowledge than their counterparts were during the war is counter-intuitive.

For those who are able to pull their attention away from Oprah, yes, the information is available. For most, however, it is wholly unknown, ancient history.

Gotcha.

 

[Jay Honeck]

I'm currently reading a book written in 1956 called "Military Heritage of America" by R. Ernest and Trevor Dupuy. (My 16 year old daughter bought it for me at a used book store in Corpus Christi. What a nice kid!)

In it I was surprised to find that Douglas MacArthur -- fired by Harry Truman just four years earlier -- had written the following words, excerpted from his forward:

"Certain fundamentals to military success remain unchanged. Foremost among these is the requisite that there be preserved to the soldier unimpaired the will to win. He must fully understand the national objectives for which his sacrifice is asked. He must be assured that the diplomat, once he had failed to achieve such objectives by the normal process of diplomacy, will not be entrusted with the strategy designed to enforce them by war. He must have full faith that once his country has committed him to battle it will invincibly support him until victory has been won."

This this is in the American tradition. It must be refortified if American arms in the future are to successfully meet the tests of war."

Truer words have rarely been written. Had we, as a nation, followed his advice, Korea, Viet Nam, and the ongoing war in Afghanistan would not have been allowed to drag on forever.

 

[Maxmosbey]

16 square miles out of the heart of Tokyo when Lemay sent in the firebombers at 500 feet. That one night killed more than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Or so claims a book at home.

There is a good Wiki article on LeMay. I don't remember what book I read it in, but the Wiki article also mentions that LeMay said that he killed so many civilians firebombing Tokyo that had we lost the war he probably would have been tried as a war criminal. The Wiki article claims that his raids killed 500,000 civilians, Imagine trying that today in Afghanistan.

 

[bbchien]

I used to work for a defense contractor that made parts for nukes. Every year on August 6th and 9th we'd have protestors outside.

Maybe it's the heatwave we've had this year that's keeping their numbers down, or maybe it's too hot for the local news crews to cover it, but I haven't heard anything about them yet this year.

They have all forgotten. Just watch Leno's Jaywalk of the Allstars.

We're pathetic.

 

[dmccormack]

Read There's a War to be Won: The US Army in WW2 for a less-flattering portrait of the air war and Lemay and his ilk. Perret demolishes the myth of the "Norden bombsight," challenges the numbers produced by the strategic bombing zealots, and shows that gaining and keeping ground is what forced surrender.

The distinction between "tactical" and "strategic" nukes is a vapid, pointless insider row over "annihilation" and "oblivion."

The US Air Force was carrying mostly "tactical" nukes by 1983 to pave the way for the eventual drop over larger targets.

 

[ScottM]

Read There's a War to be Won: The US Army in WW2 for a less-flattering portrait of the air war and Lemay and his ilk.

It is interesting to note that by some measures the air war in Europe during WW2 was a failure. For instance even at the height of the strategic bombing of Germany, the Nazis were able to increase industrial output. This would be an indicator that the allied bombing raids had done little to slow the Nazi war machine. The counter argument is that even though industrial growth increased it did so at a rate that was slower than if there were no bombing and slow enough as to not keep up with the demands needed to maintain the two front ground war.

 

[Matthew]

They have all forgotten. Just watch Leno's Jaywalk of the Allstars.

We're pathetic.

Best thing about working at that place - the vets. Many of the older engineers had been in the war: radio operators, technicians, whatever. These were the guys that took their GI money, went to college when they got home, and became engineers. An amazing bunch. That was a generation that could do the math in their heads or on paper, and blow away any of the rest of us with our calculators and computers.

I miss those guys.

 

[AuntPeggy]

My dad turned 18 on August 14, 1945. Always claimed that bomb saved his life all the kids his age were convinced they were going to die fighting the Japanese.

My dad was fighting on Okinawa on August 6, 1945 and was also convinced that the bomb saved his life.

 

[dmccormack]

Truer words have rarely been written. Had we, as a nation, followed his advice, Korea, Viet Nam, and the ongoing war in Afghanistan would not have been allowed to drag on forever.

So -- which High Command, Capital City, or Riechstag should we target in Afghanistan...?

How do we achieve "total victory"?

 

[jsstevens]

[snip]How do we achieve "total victory"?

And there's the question! I was reading Robert Scott's second book ("God is Sill My Copilot") recently. It's got a lot of politics in it, but what struck me was a side story about his being in Germany in the 50's (probably late 50's) and the Germans were still under US Military rule. In Germany and Japan, we transformed the culture (much more so in Japan - they were culturally farther from the west) and built two strong allies. But it took decades and a will that I don't think we (as a nation & culture) have today. Can you imagine our government saying "We're going to keep Iraq & Afghanistan under martial law for 15-20 years."? I can't. And yet our goal, as I understand it, is to transform them into some form of popular self government. With human rights a priority. Which is what we did in Germany and Japan.

Anyway, how do you define success? If you can't answer that, you can't succeed.

John

 

[ScottM]

Can you imagine our government saying "We're going to keep Iraq & Afghanistan under martial law for 15-20 years."? I can't. And yet our goal, as I understand it, is to transform them into some form of popular self government. With human rights a priority. Which is what we did in Germany and Japan.

Anyway, how do you define success? If you can't answer that, you can't succeed.

John

There was a step that was done in both Germany and Japan that has yet to be employed in modern wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan that made the occupation and transformation of the axis powers possible. That was to convince the population, the non-combatants, that war was so horrible that it was to be avoided at all costs. In WW2 the civilians felt a lot of the pressure of warfare and were part of the targets. In our modern use of surgical strikes, pin point weapons systems and tactical targets the civilians are mostly left unharmed and unmolested. They therefore do not really feel how awful war is and are not amenable to a re-engineering of their culture to avoid wars.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

There was a step that was done in both Germany and Japan that has yet to be employed in modern wars such as Iraq and Afghanistan that made the occupation and transformation of the axis powers possible. That was to convince the population, the non-combatants, that war was so horrible that it was to be avoided at all costs. In WW2 the civilians felt a lot of the pressure of warfare and were part of the targets. In our modern use of surgical strikes, pin point weapons systems and tactical targets the civilians are mostly left unharmed and unmolested. They therefore do not really feel how awful war is and are not amenable to a re-engineering of their culture to avoid wars.

The other thing is that in Germany, and to an extent in Japan, you were dealing with people that were already "westernized." What I mean by that is that our ideas - democracy, etc. - weren't alien to them.

Although I can hardly prove it, I'd say that this is a big obstacle at a basic level.

 

[Palmpilot]

It is interesting to note that by some measures the air war in Europe during WW2 was a failure. For instance even at the height of the strategic bombing of Germany, the Nazis were able to increase industrial output. This would be an indicator that the allied bombing raids had done little to slow the Nazi war machine. The counter argument is that even though industrial growth increased it did so at a rate that was slower than if there were no bombing and slow enough as to not keep up with the demands needed to maintain the two front ground war.

The documentaries I've seen make the claim that fuel shortages caused by the bombing kept the Germans from making full use of the weapons they were building. For example, late in the war they didn't have fuel for enough pilot training to make adequate use of new aircraft being built, and fuel shortages were said to be hampering the war on the ground too.

Perhaps there was a learning curve going on in terms of which targets are effective and which aren't.

It has been reported that in WW II conventional bombing was not successful at demoralizing the population, and from what I heard, it seems like we were having to learn that lesson all over again in Vietnam.

 

[dmccormack]

In our modern use of surgical strikes, pin point weapons systems and tactical targets the civilians are mostly left unharmed and unmolested. They therefore do not really feel how awful war is and are not amenable to a re-engineering of their culture to avoid wars.

No, it's more like life is a tiny bit more terrible than it is during peacetime.

 

[maddog52]

Perhaps there was a learning curve going on in terms of which targets are effective and which aren't.

It has been reported that in WW II conventional bombing was not successful at demoralizing the population, and from what I heard, it seems like we were having to learn that lesson all over again in Vietnam.

Unfortunately, in Vietnam, there was very little "Strategic" bombing being done since the politicians placed most of the best targets off limits. Interdicting the Ho Chi Min trail was as close as it came for most of the war. However, Linebacker II over Hanoi was the best example of how successful strategic bombing could be. At the end of the campaign, we owned the skies over North Vietnam and had destroyed their ability to import, transport and distribute war material to their forces in the south.

In Afgahnistan and Iraq, there is no one centralized enemy government in control and consequently very few strategic targets. More like an insurgency. Completely different wars than those with Germany and Japan.

 

[Jay Honeck]

So -- which High Command, Capital City, or Riechstag should we target in Afghanistan...?

How do we achieve "total victory"?

IMHO we can't, militarily, precisely because our goals are not clear, and the diplomats are still in control of the strategy. It also doesn't help that Afghanistan has no national identity.

In contrast, MacArthur's advice was taken to heart by Colin Powell and Norman Schwartzkopf in the Kuwait campaign (AKA: Desert Storm), thanks to the leadership of George Bush, Sr. Once that war started, he made sure that the diplomats were told to sit on their hands.

This was also true in the second Iraq war under Bush, Jr. During active combat operations, the State Department was a spectator. Only later did the "nation building" strategy develop (and begin to unravel) due to too-few "boots on the ground". The "Surge" took care of that, mostly.

Afghanistan? After the Taliban was overthrown it was time to declare victory and get out. Building a friendly "nation" in that sand box is not going to happen any time soon -- and we've already been fighting there longer than any war in American history.

At some point you have to acknowledge the reality of the situation. We can keep killing our kids (and theirs) for the next decade, if we want. I just don't see that this strategy (if you can call it that) is going to accomplish any of our stated goals.

 

[dmccormack]

The documentaries I've seen make the claim that fuel shortages caused by the bombing kept the Germans from making full use of the weapons they were building. For example, late in the war they didn't have fuel for enough pilot training to make adequate use of new aircraft being built, and fuel shortages were said to be hampering the war on the ground too.

Far more deleterious than any bombing campaign to the German war effort was the Nazi commitment to unique variants of equipment.

German tank repair was accomplished at depot level -- all the way back in Germany.

Many German vehicles had custom parts that only fit that vehicles in that variant.

We should be glad they didn't embrace the American mass-production model.

 

[dmccormack]

IMHO we can't, militarily, precisely because our goals are not clear, and the diplomats are still in control of the strategy. It also doesn't help that Afghanistan has no national identity.

In contrast, MacArthur's points were taken to heart by Colin Powell and Norman Schwartzkopf in the Kuwait campaign (AKA: Desert Storm), thanks to the leadership of George Bush, Sr. Once that war started, he made sure that the diplomats were told to sit on their hands.

This was also true in the second Iraq war under Bush, Jr. During active combat operations, the State Department was a spectator. Only later did the "nation building" strategy develop (and begin to unravel) due to too-few "boots on the ground". The "Surge" took care of that, mostly.

Afghanistan? After the Taliban was overthrown it was time to declare victory and get out. Building a friendly "nation" in that sand box is not going to happen any time soon -- and we've already been fighting there longer than any war in American history.

At some point you have to acknowledge the reality of the situation. We can keep killing our kids (and theirs) for the next decade, if we want. I just don't see that this strategy (if you can call it that) is going to accomplish any of our stated goals.

I don't know where to start, Jay. You certainly have a way with cliches, though.

I know you're quick to bash "journalists" who get GA "all wrong," but now you're a Pentagon insider?

Anyway -- read Schwarztkopf's It Doesn't Take a Hero and then let's discuss the "unified command" topic.

Next read Cobra II. Then maybe we can discuss Iraq strategy.

FWIW -- we have civilian control of the military for a reason. Thank God MacArthur went away quietly. It coulda been really bad.

 

[Palmpilot]

Far more deleterious than any bombing campaign to the German war effort was the Nazi commitment to unique variants of equipment..

I heard that Hitler was deleterious to the German war effort too. For example, one of the things that made their use of the jet fighter less effective than it could have been was that he insisted on its being configured as a bomber instead of a fighter until it was too late.

One of the planned assassination attempts against Hitler had British involvement, but the British called it off because by that time, it was clear that Hitler's interference in miltary decisions was benefitting the Allies!

 

[flyersfan31]

There was also fear on the Allied side that they would have to attack Japan with even more nukes. Marshall had changed the invasion plans from a straight up D-Day like assault favored by MacArthur to one that would use 9 atomic bombs to soften Japanese defenses.

Not sure where we were going to get 9 bombs, because we pretty much had shot our wad at Nagasaki and had, IIRC, only about 1-2 bombs worth of stuff left, if that. Fortunately they did not call our bluff.

 

[flyersfan31]

In some respects I very much agree with that. But I was also honored enough to know a few people who had first hand knowledge of working for him. One that was on the Bataan Death March. Those that knew him also remarked that he had a love and respect for his men that had never seen from a leader. He was a very complex man. Like you said he was worthy of respect and esteem.

I will note for the record that Ol Corn Cob was drinking martinis on the veranda while the boys were on the Death March.

Dugout Doug was not universally revered.

 

[flyersfan31]

A friend of mine's father was one of the first US military folk into Hiroshima. He died of cancers. Plural. My friend turns almost apoplectic when talk turns to the ABomb. Very anti. I couldn't even discuss it with him.

IMHO, his beef is with military leadership that had a very blase attitude toward exposing people to radiation (see atmospheric A bomb testing in Nevada, for example). The bomb? Not a question in my mind. None at all. Had to be done.

 

[dmccormack]

IMHO, his beef is with military leadership that had a very blase attitude toward exposing people to radiation (see atmospheric A bomb testing in Nevada, for example). The bomb? Not a question in my mind. None at all. Had to be done.

I spent four years handling nukes and various radioactive equipment with no dosimeter, no badge, and no monitoring system even allowed in the facility.

We also sprayed tons of zinc chromate and used all sorts of chemical cleaners with little to no protection (best we had was paper masks and playtex gloves -- if we had the time to put them on).

 

[astanley]

So -- which High Command, Capital City, or Riechstag should we target in Afghanistan...?

How do we achieve "total victory"?

I'm trying hard to stay out of this vien of argument (I agree with you, Dan)... but two *outstanding* books on the peculiarities of Afghanistan are "Before Taliban", but David Edwards, and "War", by Sebastian Junger.

War is a very, very quick read. It gives some insights into just what sort of situation we have on our hands in Afghanistan. Unreal.

Cheers,

-Andrew

 

[flyersfan31]

I spent four years handling nukes and various radioactive equipment with no dosimeter, no badge, and no monitoring system even allowed in the facility.

We also sprayed tons of zinc chromate and used all sorts of chemical cleaners with little to no protection (best we had was paper masks and playtex gloves -- if we had the time to put them on).

As I said. The guvmt is pretty blase about the little people.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I heard that Hitler was deleterious to the German war effort too. For example, one of the things that made their use of the jet fighter less effective than it could have been was that he insisted on its being configured as a bomber instead of a fighter until it was too late.

One of the planned assassination attempts against Hitler had British involvement, but the British called it off because by that time, it was clear that Hitler's interference in miltary decisions was benefitting the Allies!

Hitler was a...loon, in terms of both military equipment and strategy.

In terms of assassinations, the guy was as lucky as it got.

 

[dmccormack]

As I said. The guvmt is pretty blase about the little people.

Yep.

 

[wsuffa]

I'm trying hard to stay out of this vien of argument (I agree with you, Dan)... but two *outstanding* books on the peculiarities of Afghanistan are "Before Taliban", but David Edwards, and "War", by Sebastian Junger.

War is a very, very quick read. It gives some insights into just what sort of situation we have on our hands in Afghanistan. Unreal.

Cheers,

-Andrew

It's not like the Russians had a lot of success there, either.

 

[Jay Honeck]

I will note for the record that Ol Corn Cob was drinking martinis on the veranda while the boys were on the Death March.

Dugout Doug was not universally revered.

True that. MacArthur was disliked by many, both inside and outside the military. Here's an excerpt from an interview with historian Stephen Ambrose, discussing MacArthur's Medal of Honor:

"Eisenhower wrote in his diaries some scathing things about it. MacArthur's emerging as this great hero -- ha, ha -- and, he's done everything wrong. I mean Eisenhower knew what he was talking about. He'd been out there in the Philippines for years with MacArthur, he knew what MacArthur's plans were, he knew what the Japanese threat was, he knew how MacArthur responded to it and under professional judgment Eisenhower felt he'd done everything wrong, and yet he's emerged as a hero."

These opinions were kept mostly quiet, since public morale during wartime was considered to be more important than "truth" -- but it was out there.

 

[Jay Honeck]

IMHO, his beef is with military leadership that had a very blase attitude toward exposing people to radiation (see atmospheric A bomb testing in Nevada, for example).

I suspect (in 50 or 100 years) that the truth about radiation dosage from those atmospheric A-bomb tests will be released. For now, those of us who have noticed that an awful lot of Midwesterners seem to die of cancer will simply have to remain (mostly) silent with our suspicions.

 

[Jay Honeck]

I'm trying hard to stay out of this vien of argument (I agree with you, Dan)

Just curious -- how can you agree with Dan when he hasn't mentioned what he believes WRT to Afghanistan?