Perhaps it was merely another day of infamy! But it occurred. It was probably the tool that opened lots of eyes to what war is or can become. Nagasaki need not have happened had smarter men been in charge in Japan. But it also occurred.
I am going to make a statement that I doubt anyone else on these boards can make.
I overflew Hiroshima on September 1st, 1945 enroute to Atsugi AFB in Japan for our initial landing to take over a defeated nation. Among many thing I have seen nothing can compare to the waste I viewed from several thousand feet in the air that day. It was breathtaking. It was awesome. It put the fear of God in men who previously to that feared nothing. And while we gawked at this unprecidented sight not a word passed between us. All of us sat stone-faced and just stared. I cannot say what the others on that flight thought but I can say that my mind wandered and wondered in the same stroke of time what warfare held in the future.
I, for one, benefitted from the ordeal. I have no doubts about that. And I do know after reading top secret documents following the war that our expected loss of life when invading Japan might well have included my name on the roster.
So be it.
Gramps
Gramps we have been over this before and as you probably know, while there are not a lot of people who fought in the war and flew over or were actually in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki still alive to offer their own points of view. I have heard both, from friends and relatives who were as close or closer to the events than you. They are not living now, but I can relate their thoughts were both along your line of thought and the lines of thought offered by people like Einstein, Wigner, Szilard and Franck from the scientific community and Eisenhower, MacArthur, Clarke, Admiral's Leahy and Nimitz who did not agree the atomic bombs needed to or should have been used.
I am sure the disagreement over events that no one will ever be able to prove for an accurate judgment (knowing the outcome of both using them and not using them.) No one can take away the subjective thoughts of anyone not wishing to be on the list of KIA, but there is an objectivity to the use of such weapons and firebombing upon civilians while at the same time decrying the same.
There were over 100,000 KI the A in a matter of days as a result of the use of such weapons, many of the civilians, many children. Then comes the question of whether we would see the use of such weapons upon our soil with the same justifications by the users as saving many more lives than it took. Judging by the reaction of Americans to Pearl Harbor and 9/11/01 and the relative number of deaths, I wouldn't believe we would see others using a nuclear weapon upon us for the justification of saving many more future lives than the weapons would take of Americans, perhaps some others would.
Yes, dilemma's and conundrums are faced where no answer is a good one, but since that time we have faced a number of concerns and consequences as a result. Iran now wants the same weapons we have. Who wouldn't really, based on our uni-lateral move into Iraq. Until a certain point in the development of nuclear power versus weapons development, we can't be absolutely certain Iran is developing weapons, but let's assume they are. Why would we assume they would develop them to use them and if they did, isn't that what we did? We didn't develop them, then let them sit idle. There is the other possibility that Iran wants a bargaining tool, the same as we have, Israel and other nuclear powers have and instead of doing what we did (use the weapons) they want them as a means to deter an invasion of them in the same way as we invaded Iraq.
In addition, for a nation that prides itself in a "right to keep and bear arms" regardless of how that might be qualified or prefaced, why arms control, why shouldn't all nations of the world be able to "Keep and bear" whatever arms they like, the same as us?
I recognize both points of view and hold no bad feelings about those who saw the use of the bombs as "necessary" to save more lives than they took. A comfort to those "saved", not meaningful at all to those who "lost" their lives or loved ones in that lottery who pays with their lives to "save" others.
I don't believe it is matter of being a "peacenik" or patriotic as you know the men listed as being opposed to the use of the bombs would be hard to characterize as "peaceniks" or unpatriotic. I think you might also agree that while they were in the same line of fire as yourself and others, they were responsible for your life and the lives of many many others. Not something they took lightly.
Hope you and your spouse are doing super well Gramps!
All the very best, Knot