Pilot of plane that dropped A-bomb dies

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Paul Tibbets, who piloted the B-29 bomber Enola Gay that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, died Thursday. He was 92 and insisted almost to his dying day that he had no regrets about the mission and slept just fine at night.

Tibbets died at his Columbus home, said Gerry Newhouse, a longtime friend. He suffered from a variety of health problems and had been in decline for two months.

Tibbets had requested no funeral and no headstone, fearing it would provide his detractors with a place to protest, Newhouse said.

Tibbets' historic mission in the plane named for his mother marked the beginning of the end of World War II and eliminated the need for what military planners feared would have been an extraordinarily bloody invasion of Japan. It was the first use of a nuclear weapon in wartime.

The plane and its crew of 14 dropped the five-ton "Little Boy" bomb on the morning of Aug. 6, 1945. The blast killed 70,000 to 100,000 people and injured countless others.

Three days later, the United States dropped a second nuclear bomb on Nagasaki, Japan, killing an estimated 40,000 people. Tibbets did not fly in that mission. The Japanese surrendered a few days later, ending the war.

"I knew when I got the assignment it was going to be an emotional thing," Tibbets told The Columbus Dispatch for a story published on the 60th anniversary of the bombing. "We had feelings, but we had to put them in the background. We knew it was going to kill people right and left. But my one driving interest was to do the best job I could so that we could end the killing as quickly as possible."

Tibbets, then a 30-year-old colonel, never expressed regret over his role. He said it was his patriotic duty and the right thing to do.

"I'm not proud that I killed 80,000 people, but I'm proud that I was able to start with nothing, plan it and have it work as perfectly as it did," he said in a 1975 interview.

"You've got to take stock and assess the situation at that time. We were at war. ... You use anything at your disposal."

He added: "I sleep clearly every night."

Paul Warfield Tibbets Jr. was born Feb. 23, 1915, in Quincy, Ill., and spent most of his boyhood in Miami.

He was a student at the University of Cincinnati's medical school when he decided to withdraw in 1937 to enlist in the Army Air Corps.

After the war, Tibbets said in 2005, he was dogged by rumors claiming he was in prison or had committed suicide.

"They said I was crazy, said I was a drunkard, in and out of institutions," he said. "At the time, I was running the National Crisis Center at the Pentagon."

Tibbets retired from the Air Force as a brigadier general in 1966. He later moved to Columbus, where he ran an air taxi service until he retired in 1985.

But his role in the bombing brought him fame — and infamy — throughout his life.

In 1976, he was criticized for re-enacting the bombing during an appearance at a Harlingen, Texas, air show. As he flew a B-29 Superfortress over the show, a bomb set off on the runway below created a mushroom cloud.

He said the display "was not intended to insult anybody," but the Japanese were outraged. The U.S. government later issued a formal apology.

Tibbets again defended the bombing in 1995, when an outcry erupted over a planned 50th anniversary exhibit of the Enola Gay at the Smithsonian Institution.

The museum had planned to mount an exhibit that would have examined the context of the bombing, including the discussion within the Truman administration of whether to use the bomb, the rejection of a demonstration bombing and the selection of the target.

Veterans groups objected, saying the proposed display paid too much attention to Japan's suffering and too little to Japan's brutality during and before World War II, and that it underestimated the number of Americans who would have perished in an invasion.

They said the bombing of Japan was an unmitigated blessing for the United States and the exhibit should say so.

Tibbets denounced it as "a damn big insult."

The museum changed its plan and agreed to display the fuselage of the Enola Gay without commentary, context or analysis.

He told the Dispatch in 2005 that he wanted his ashes scattered over the English Channel, where he loved to fly during the war.

Newhouse, Tibbets' longtime friend, confirmed that Tibbets wanted to be cremated, but he said relatives had not yet determined how he would be laid to rest.

link

[Scott & Lai 12]

I'd thought he died a while ago

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I'd thought he died a while ago

Snake Plissken?

[peejay 327]

Old WW2 vets like my dad never thought twice about the decision to use of the A-bomb on Japan. My dad was convinced to the day he died that the Japanese were fanatics that would have fought to the bitter end. Using the "bomb" saved American lives.

[Peikko 1,575]

It's perfectly legitimate to question the use of the A bomb as a policy, it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that the crew of the bomber are somehow morally responsible for the decision to deploy it. They did their job, they did it well, they have nothing to be reproached for.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's perfectly legitimate to question the use of the A bomb as a policy, it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that the crew of the bomber are somehow morally responsible for the decision to deploy it. They did their job, they did it well, they have nothing to be reproached for.

Indeed.

As far as the policy goes I do think there is reason to question the dropping of one atomic bomb on a country that was already making moves toward peace; and a second, larger, Plutonium bomb for reasons of scientific curiosity.

[kaydee457 13]

It's perfectly legitimate to question the use of the A bomb as a policy, it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that the crew of the bomber are somehow morally responsible for the decision to deploy it. They did their job, they did it well, they have nothing to be reproached for.

Indeed.

As far as the policy goes I do think there is reason to question the dropping of one atomic bomb on a country that was already making moves toward peace; and a second, larger, Plutonium bomb for reasons of scientific curiosity.

Um, they absolutely were not "moving towards peace" but rather preparing for the allied invasion by preparing their citizens, via propaganda to fight to the death.

They almost allowed a coup to succeed that would have dragged the war out a few more years had it succeeded; if memory serves the coup was launched after the first bombing, and the plan was to fight to the death.

They only acquiesced after the second bombing.......and only after the coup failed.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's perfectly legitimate to question the use of the A bomb as a policy, it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that the crew of the bomber are somehow morally responsible for the decision to deploy it. They did their job, they did it well, they have nothing to be reproached for.

Indeed.

As far as the policy goes I do think there is reason to question the dropping of one atomic bomb on a country that was already making moves toward peace; and a second, larger, Plutonium bomb for reasons of scientific curiosity.

Um, they absolutely were not "moving towards peace" but rather preparing for the allied invasion by preparing their citizens, via propaganda to fight to the death.

They almost allowed a coup to succeed that would have dragged the war out a few more years had it succeeded; if memory serves the coup was launched after the first bombing, and the plan was to fight to the death.

They only acquiesced after the second bombing.......and only after the coup failed.

Just a quick Google search - but here you go:

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/20/043.html

Here's another:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson7.html

[Jasman0717 9]

RIP

[kaydee457 13]

It's perfectly legitimate to question the use of the A bomb as a policy, it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that the crew of the bomber are somehow morally responsible for the decision to deploy it. They did their job, they did it well, they have nothing to be reproached for.

Indeed.

As far as the policy goes I do think there is reason to question the dropping of one atomic bomb on a country that was already making moves toward peace; and a second, larger, Plutonium bomb for reasons of scientific curiosity.

Um, they absolutely were not "moving towards peace" but rather preparing for the allied invasion by preparing their citizens, via propaganda to fight to the death.

They almost allowed a coup to succeed that would have dragged the war out a few more years had it succeeded; if memory serves the coup was launched after the first bombing, and the plan was to fight to the death.

They only acquiesced after the second bombing.......and only after the coup failed.

Just a quick Google search - but here you go:

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/20/043.html

Here's another:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson7.html

Sorry, but you don't know your history.....I'm not going to bother reading the above references because frankly the fact is that a coup, initiated by a Maj. Tenaka (SP) had almost succeeded in that his forces had surrounded the Emperor's palace and he had the cooperation of a large part of the Army in and around Tokyo.

The plan was to wrestle power from Hirohito and prevent him from surrendering Japan via the recording he had made.

All this happened the night before the recording of Hirohito was to be played on radio asking his people to "endure the unendurable".

This Major Tenaka had already the cooperation of the Army guarding the Emperor as well as the Army he commanded in and around Tokyo, and had the coup succeeded the remaining Armies would have had to follow.

Ironically, the LAST bombing mission of WW11 (except for the B29 raid) caused the civil defense people to turn off the power to the entire city, even though the bombing run was to hit refineries far from Tokyo.

The resulting air raid and power outage inadvertantly disrupted the coup logistically.

These details were little known until recently. Had the electical power not been lost, historians beleive that the coup would have succeeded and the war would have continued until Japan was defeated on the ground, via invasion.

A&E did a program on this not too long ago that's titled something like 'The last bombing mission' or similar.......

Very, very interesting.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's perfectly legitimate to question the use of the A bomb as a policy, it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that the crew of the bomber are somehow morally responsible for the decision to deploy it. They did their job, they did it well, they have nothing to be reproached for.

Indeed.

As far as the policy goes I do think there is reason to question the dropping of one atomic bomb on a country that was already making moves toward peace; and a second, larger, Plutonium bomb for reasons of scientific curiosity.

Um, they absolutely were not "moving towards peace" but rather preparing for the allied invasion by preparing their citizens, via propaganda to fight to the death.

They almost allowed a coup to succeed that would have dragged the war out a few more years had it succeeded; if memory serves the coup was launched after the first bombing, and the plan was to fight to the death.

They only acquiesced after the second bombing.......and only after the coup failed.

Just a quick Google search - but here you go:

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/20/043.html

Here's another:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/denson7.html

Sorry, but you don't know your history.....I'm not going to bother reading the above references because frankly the fact is that a coup, initiated by a Maj. Tenaka (SP) had almost succeeded in that his forces had surrounded the Emperor's palace and he had the cooperation of a large part of the Army in and around Tokyo.

The plan was to wrestle power from Hirohito and prevent him from surrendering Japan via the recording he had made.

All this happened the night before the recording of Hirohito was to be played on radio asking his people to "endure the unendurable".

This Major Tenaka had already the cooperation of the Army guarding the Emperor as well as the Army he commanded in and around Tokyo, and had the coup succeeded the remaining Armies would have had to follow.

Ironically, the LAST bombing mission of WW11 (except for the B29 raid) caused the civil defense people to turn off the power to the entire city, even though the bombing run was to hit refineries far from Tokyo.

The resulting air raid and power outage inadvertantly disrupted the coup logistically.

These details were little known until recently. Had the electical power not been lost, historians beleive that the coup would have succeeded and the war would have continued until Japan was defeated on the ground, via invasion.

A&E did a program on this not too long ago that's titled something like 'The last bombing mission' or similar.......

Very, very interesting.

Well if you're not going to read it then there's really no point.

However to suggest that Japan wasn't deeply divided towards the end of the war, or indeed that very figures in the US military command (including Eisenhower, MacArthur and Nimitz) criticised the policy as being "militarily un-necessary" isn't really very accurate.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

It's perfectly legitimate to question the use of the A bomb as a policy, it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that the crew of the bomber are somehow morally responsible for the decision to deploy it. They did their job, they did it well, they have nothing to be reproached for.

Indeed.

As far as the policy goes I do think there is reason to question the dropping of one atomic bomb on a country that was already making moves toward peace; and a second, larger, Plutonium bomb for reasons of scientific curiosity.

ugh.. remember Pearl Harbor? Payback's a ######.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's perfectly legitimate to question the use of the A bomb as a policy, it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that the crew of the bomber are somehow morally responsible for the decision to deploy it. They did their job, they did it well, they have nothing to be reproached for.

Indeed.

As far as the policy goes I do think there is reason to question the dropping of one atomic bomb on a country that was already making moves toward peace; and a second, larger, Plutonium bomb for reasons of scientific curiosity.

ugh.. remember Pearl Harbor? Payback's a ######.

Destruction of a navy base Vs. the destruction of two large cities along with the majority of their civilian populations? Not really all that comparable....

Edited November 2, 2007 by Number 6

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

It's perfectly legitimate to question the use of the A bomb as a policy, it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that the crew of the bomber are somehow morally responsible for the decision to deploy it. They did their job, they did it well, they have nothing to be reproached for.

Indeed.

As far as the policy goes I do think there is reason to question the dropping of one atomic bomb on a country that was already making moves toward peace; and a second, larger, Plutonium bomb for reasons of scientific curiosity.

ugh.. remember Pearl Harbor? Payback's a ######.

Destruction of a navy base Vs. the destruction of two large cities along with the majority of their civilian populations? Not really all that comparable....

interesting that the first link you provided was to a socialist worker's party frontman.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It's perfectly legitimate to question the use of the A bomb as a policy, it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that the crew of the bomber are somehow morally responsible for the decision to deploy it. They did their job, they did it well, they have nothing to be reproached for.

Indeed.

As far as the policy goes I do think there is reason to question the dropping of one atomic bomb on a country that was already making moves toward peace; and a second, larger, Plutonium bomb for reasons of scientific curiosity.

ugh.. remember Pearl Harbor? Payback's a ######.

Destruction of a navy base Vs. the destruction of two large cities along with the majority of their civilian populations? Not really all that comparable....

interesting that the first link you provided was to a socialist worker's party frontman.

The nature of the source doesn't make his point invalid - however if you don't like that guy I'll be honest. I didn't have the book references to hand so I did a quick google search. So by all means dismiss that particular source out of hand if you wish - it doesn't change the point; that there was evidence that the Japanese government was moving toward peace and a good number of US military commanders regarded the dropping of the A-Bomb to be militarily unnecessary.

Edited November 2, 2007 by Number 6