Enola Gay, heroism or insanity?

[Unkotare]

It was necessity. The Japanese were arming their civilians with spears to attack the marines as they landed on the beaches. ....

Don't be ridiculous. Starving children and old women were NOT going to fight US marines with spears. Get a grip.

 

[HenryBHough]

Had Truman not nuked Japan when he did Americans would still be dying trying to invade Japan. But maybe not if that America had elected Obama in which case there would been an apology, troop withdrawals and reparations paid.

Thankfully was not as stupid at that time

 

[westwall]

It was necessity. The Japanese were arming their civilians with spears to attack the marines as they landed on the beaches. ....

Don't be ridiculous. Starving children and old women were NOT going to fight US marines with spears. Get a grip.

Absolutely they were. Read some history before you make fool out of yourself. I suggest you look up "Japanese Pole Bayonet" to further educate yourself.

 

[westwall]

One of the crew felt such guilt and horror at what he had participate in, he tried to commit suicide. I saw an interview with one who said his life had been ruined by that one experience. Watch the documentary, Hiroshima - what we did to those civilians is indefensible.

The US was wrong.

I disagree. Here is why. The total number of people killed in the two blasts was actually going to be less than what we would have had to do otherwise which was Dresden-style firebombing of Tokyo.

I do grant that future generations were affected by the fallout.

There's no evidence that following generations were affected. The victims exposed to the initial gamma burst died of radiation poisoning very quickly. However there were Australian POWs who were within a mile or so of the blast. They have been heavily monitored since the war to study the effects of radiation and they exhibited no unusual diseases. They suffered from leukemia and other cancers at the same rate as any other Australian. There are still a few of them still alive.

 

[candycorn]

One of the crew felt such guilt and horror at what he had participate in, he tried to commit suicide. I saw an interview with one who said his life had been ruined by that one experience. Watch the documentary, Hiroshima - what we did to those civilians is indefensible.

The US was wrong.

I disagree. Here is why. The total number of people killed in the two blasts was actually going to be less than what we would have had to do otherwise which was Dresden-style firebombing of Tokyo.

I do grant that future generations were affected by the fallout.

There's no evidence that following generations were affected. The victims exposed to the initial gamma burst died of radiation poisoning very quickly. However there were Australian POWs who were within a mile or so of the blast. They have been heavily monitored since the war to study the effects of radiation and they exhibited no unusual diseases. They suffered from leukemia and other cancers at the same rate as any other Australian. There are still a few of them still alive.

Well, good for them.

Somehow, I think the infrastructure of Post-war Melbourne was rather pleasant compared to that of Post-war Osaka....

Would you have drank the water from in and around Hiroshima?

 

[Thunderbird]

I think the fact that the Japanese didn't surrender in haste after Hiroshima was proof enough that they were in it for the long haul.

They were looking desperately for a way out. If we told them they could keep their emperor they would have surrendered.

 

[Thunderbird]

The victims exposed to the initial gamma burst died of radiation poisoning very quickly.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Long Term Health Effects

Within the first few months after the bombing, it is estimated by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (a cooperative Japan-U.S. organization) that between 90,000 and 166,000 people died in Hiroshima, while another 60,000 to 80,000 died in Nagasaki. These deaths include those who died due to the force and excruciating heat of the explosions as well as deaths caused by acute radiation exposure.

While these numbers represent imprecise estimates—due to the fact that it is unknown how many forced laborers and military personnel were present in the city and that in many cases entire families were killed, leaving no one to report the deaths—statistics regarding the long term effects have been even more difficult to determine.

Though exposure to radiation can cause acute, near-immediate effect by killing cells and directly damaging tissue, radiation can also have effects that happen on longer scale, such as cancer, by causing mutations in the DNA of living cells. Mutations can occur spontaneously, but a mutagen like radiation increases the likelihood of a mutation taking place. In theory, ionizing radiation can deposit molecular-bond-breaking energy, which can damage DNA, thus altering genes. In response, a cell will either repair the gene, die, or retain the mutation. In order for a mutation to cause cancer, it is believed that a series of mutations must accumulate in a given cell and its progeny. For this reason, it may be many years after exposure before an increase in the incident rate of cancer due to radiation becomes evident.

Among the long-term effects suffered by atomic bomb survivors, the most deadly was leukemia. An increase in leukemia appeared about two years after the attacks and peaked around four to six years later. Children represent the population that was affected most severely. Attributable risk—the percent difference in the incidence rate of a condition between an exposed population and a comparable unexposed one — reveals how great of an effect radiation had on leukemia incidence. The Radiation Effects Research Foundation estimates the attributable risk of leukemia to be 46% for bomb victims.

For all other cancers, incidence increase did not appear until around ten years after the attacks. The increase was first noted in 1956 and soon after tumor registries were started in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki to collect data on the excess cancer risks caused by the radiation exposure. The most thorough study regarding the incidence of solid cancer (meaning cancer that is not leukemia) was conducted by a team led by Dale L. Preston of Hirosoft International Corporation and published in 2003. The study estimated the attributable rate of radiation exposure to solid cancer to be significantly lower than that for leukemia—10.7%. According to the RERF, the data corroborates the general rule that even if someone is exposed to a barely survivable whole-body radiation dose, the solid cancer risk will not be more than five times greater than the risk of an unexposed individual.

Nearly seventy years after the bombings occurred, most of the generation that was alive during the attack has passed away. Now much more attention has turned to the children born to the survivors. Regarding individuals who had been exposed to radiation before birth (in utero), studies, such as one led by E. Nakashima in 1994, have shown that exposure led to increases in small head size and mental disability, as well as impairment in physical growth. Persons exposed in utero were also found to have a lower increase in cancer rate than survivors who were children at the time of the attack.

 

[namvet]

 

[namvet]

The victims exposed to the initial gamma burst died of radiation poisoning very quickly.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Long Term Health Effects

Within the first few months after the bombing, it is estimated by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (a cooperative Japan-U.S. organization) that between 90,000 and 166,000 people died in Hiroshima, while another 60,000 to 80,000 died in Nagasaki. These deaths include those who died due to the force and excruciating heat of the explosions as well as deaths caused by acute radiation exposure.

While these numbers represent imprecise estimates—due to the fact that it is unknown how many forced laborers and military personnel were present in the city and that in many cases entire families were killed, leaving no one to report the deaths—statistics regarding the long term effects have been even more difficult to determine.

Though exposure to radiation can cause acute, near-immediate effect by killing cells and directly damaging tissue, radiation can also have effects that happen on longer scale, such as cancer, by causing mutations in the DNA of living cells. Mutations can occur spontaneously, but a mutagen like radiation increases the likelihood of a mutation taking place. In theory, ionizing radiation can deposit molecular-bond-breaking energy, which can damage DNA, thus altering genes. In response, a cell will either repair the gene, die, or retain the mutation. In order for a mutation to cause cancer, it is believed that a series of mutations must accumulate in a given cell and its progeny. For this reason, it may be many years after exposure before an increase in the incident rate of cancer due to radiation becomes evident.

Among the long-term effects suffered by atomic bomb survivors, the most deadly was leukemia. An increase in leukemia appeared about two years after the attacks and peaked around four to six years later. Children represent the population that was affected most severely. Attributable risk—the percent difference in the incidence rate of a condition between an exposed population and a comparable unexposed one — reveals how great of an effect radiation had on leukemia incidence. The Radiation Effects Research Foundation estimates the attributable risk of leukemia to be 46% for bomb victims.

For all other cancers, incidence increase did not appear until around ten years after the attacks. The increase was first noted in 1956 and soon after tumor registries were started in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki to collect data on the excess cancer risks caused by the radiation exposure. The most thorough study regarding the incidence of solid cancer (meaning cancer that is not leukemia) was conducted by a team led by Dale L. Preston of Hirosoft International Corporation and published in 2003. The study estimated the attributable rate of radiation exposure to solid cancer to be significantly lower than that for leukemia—10.7%. According to the RERF, the data corroborates the general rule that even if someone is exposed to a barely survivable whole-body radiation dose, the solid cancer risk will not be more than five times greater than the risk of an unexposed individual.

Nearly seventy years after the bombings occurred, most of the generation that was alive during the attack has passed away. Now much more attention has turned to the children born to the survivors. Regarding individuals who had been exposed to radiation before birth (in utero), studies, such as one led by E. Nakashima in 1994, have shown that exposure led to increases in small head size and mental disability, as well as impairment in physical growth. Persons exposed in utero were also found to have a lower increase in cancer rate than survivors who were children at the time of the attack.

you flunked kindergarten didn't you???

 

[namvet]

I think the fact that the Japanese didn't surrender in haste after Hiroshima was proof enough that they were in it for the long haul.

They were looking desperately for a way out. If we told them they could keep their emperor they would have surrendered.

be specific. who were "they" ??

 

[Darkwind]

Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur and many others thought the Hiroshima attack unwise.

HIROSHIMA
WHO DISAGREED WITH THE ATOMIC BOMBING?

Some people seem eager to burn children alive to defeat a nation already defeated.

You realize that your feeble attempt at an emotional blackmail is failing miserably.

 

[westwall]

The victims exposed to the initial gamma burst died of radiation poisoning very quickly.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Long Term Health Effects

Within the first few months after the bombing, it is estimated by the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (a cooperative Japan-U.S. organization) that between 90,000 and 166,000 people died in Hiroshima, while another 60,000 to 80,000 died in Nagasaki. These deaths include those who died due to the force and excruciating heat of the explosions as well as deaths caused by acute radiation exposure.

While these numbers represent imprecise estimates—due to the fact that it is unknown how many forced laborers and military personnel were present in the city and that in many cases entire families were killed, leaving no one to report the deaths—statistics regarding the long term effects have been even more difficult to determine.

Though exposure to radiation can cause acute, near-immediate effect by killing cells and directly damaging tissue, radiation can also have effects that happen on longer scale, such as cancer, by causing mutations in the DNA of living cells. Mutations can occur spontaneously, but a mutagen like radiation increases the likelihood of a mutation taking place. In theory, ionizing radiation can deposit molecular-bond-breaking energy, which can damage DNA, thus altering genes. In response, a cell will either repair the gene, die, or retain the mutation. In order for a mutation to cause cancer, it is believed that a series of mutations must accumulate in a given cell and its progeny. For this reason, it may be many years after exposure before an increase in the incident rate of cancer due to radiation becomes evident.

Among the long-term effects suffered by atomic bomb survivors, the most deadly was leukemia. An increase in leukemia appeared about two years after the attacks and peaked around four to six years later. Children represent the population that was affected most severely. Attributable risk—the percent difference in the incidence rate of a condition between an exposed population and a comparable unexposed one — reveals how great of an effect radiation had on leukemia incidence. The Radiation Effects Research Foundation estimates the attributable risk of leukemia to be 46% for bomb victims.

For all other cancers, incidence increase did not appear until around ten years after the attacks. The increase was first noted in 1956 and soon after tumor registries were started in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki to collect data on the excess cancer risks caused by the radiation exposure. The most thorough study regarding the incidence of solid cancer (meaning cancer that is not leukemia) was conducted by a team led by Dale L. Preston of Hirosoft International Corporation and published in 2003. The study estimated the attributable rate of radiation exposure to solid cancer to be significantly lower than that for leukemia—10.7%. According to the RERF, the data corroborates the general rule that even if someone is exposed to a barely survivable whole-body radiation dose, the solid cancer risk will not be more than five times greater than the risk of an unexposed individual.

Nearly seventy years after the bombings occurred, most of the generation that was alive during the attack has passed away. Now much more attention has turned to the children born to the survivors. Regarding individuals who had been exposed to radiation before birth (in utero), studies, such as one led by E. Nakashima in 1994, have shown that exposure led to increases in small head size and mental disability, as well as impairment in physical growth. Persons exposed in utero were also found to have a lower increase in cancer rate than survivors who were children at the time of the attack.

The Japanese who survived the blasts have likewise been extensively studied and their rates of leukemia are no different from anyone else.

 

[Anathema]

Nearly seventy years after the bombings occurred, most of the generation that was alive during the attack has passed away. Now much more attention has turned to the children born to the survivors. Regarding individuals who had been exposed to radiation before birth (in utero), studies, such as one led by E. Nakashima in 1994, have shown that exposure led to increases in small head size and mental disability, as well as impairment in physical growth. Persons exposed in utero were also found to have a lower increase in cancer rate than survivors who were children at the time of the attack.

Let's call that a lasting reminder not to pick a fight you can't win.

 

[Thunderbird]

You realize that your feeble attempt at an emotional blackmail is failing miserably.

You realize that your feeble attempt to justify the incineration of children is failing miserably.

 

[regent]

Certainly no nation would use A bombs today, sure a lot of them have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, but children would be incinerated so it's all a big bluff.

 

[Unkotare]

It was necessity. The Japanese were arming their civilians with spears to attack the marines as they landed on the beaches. ....

Don't be ridiculous. Starving children and old women were NOT going to fight US marines with spears. Get a grip.

Absolutely they were. Read some history before you make fool out of yourself. I suggest you look up "Japanese Pole Bayonet" to further educate yourself.

It was necessity. The Japanese were arming their civilians with spears to attack the marines as they landed on the beaches. ....

Don't be ridiculous. Starving children and old women were NOT going to fight US marines with spears. Get a grip.

Absolutely they were. Read some history before you make fool out of yourself. I suggest you look up "Japanese Pole Bayonet" to further educate yourself.

Stop being foolish. You are now taking what was a propaganda campaign to keep starving and disgruntled citizens 'involved ' in a war that was already a lost cause, seriously 70 years later because it suits your preconceived notion.

 

[Unkotare]

One of the crew felt such guilt and horror at what he had participate in, he tried to commit suicide. I saw an interview with one who said his life had been ruined by that one experience. Watch the documentary, Hiroshima - what we did to those civilians is indefensible.

The US was wrong.

I disagree. Here is why. The total number of people killed in the two blasts was actually going to be less than what we would have had to do otherwise which was Dresden-style firebombing of Tokyo.

I do grant that future generations were affected by the fallout.

There's no evidence that following generations were affected. The victims exposed to the initial gamma burst died of radiation poisoning very quickly. However there were Australian POWs who were within a mile or so of the blast. They have been heavily monitored since the war to study the effects of radiation and they exhibited no unusual diseases. They suffered from leukemia and other cancers at the same rate as any other Australian. There are still a few of them still alive.

A ridiculously ignorant post.

 

[MaryL]

Enola Gay, undoubtedly the most famous B-29 bomber ever built. The big question, his fame comes from an act of heroism or insanity? Click on the link below, answer this poll and leave your opinion. The link also contains a full report and photos about this important chapter of WW2. Be sure to visit and participate.


Avia o em Floripa Enola Gay


Cheers.

Anthony

Funny the names they give machines. Enola Gay.That was the name of the pilot's mother. But it was just a machine. Bomber crews didn't last long in Europe, and I am sure it wasn't a picnic over Japan, either. They were doing their jobs. Heros? I don't know about that.

 

[gipper]

I knew that I could never again raise my voice... without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today -- my own government. ...for the sake of the hundreds of thousands trembling under our violence, I cannot be silent.
What do they think as we test out our latest weapons on them, just as the Germans tested out new medicine and new tortures in the concentration camps of Europe?- Martin Luther King Jr.

So true, but many Americans can't or won't accept the truth.

 

[rightwinger]

I can understand dropping the first bomb, but it didn't have to be a civilian target

After dropping the first bomb and demonstrating your might, I see no reason for dropping the second just three days later