Nagasaki A-bomb plane co-pilot dies at age 88

Friday 05th June, 07:37 AM JST

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 39 Total Comments Show All

medievaltimes at 10:13 AM JST - 6th June

but these bombs were even crueler because they didn't discriminate between soldiers or women or children. Can you really call that a legitimate method in war?

Interesting point. But it stops becoming valid when the country forcibly conscripts women and children into military service. Can you really call that a legitimate method in war?
knews at 06:19 PM JST - 6th June

Can you tell us of any documented cases of Japanese women or children attacking (let alone killing) Allied soldiers or civilians during the war?
medievaltimes at 09:15 PM JST - 6th June

Can you tell us of any documented cases of Japanese women or children attacking (let alone killing) Allied soldiers or civilians during the war?

Read my post again. I never said women and children attacked or killed anyone during the war. But I did say they were conscripted in order to prepare to defend the homeland. They also were forced to work in military factories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_soldier (scroll down to WWII part)

http://www.bambooweb.com/articles/c/o/Conscription.html (2nd paragraph)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NationalMobilizationLaw (5th paragraph is interesting)

Also, I live next door to an old couple that confirm as true. Also, I talked to a Hiroshima survivor who was a high school student at the time, she confirmed as well.

Moderator: Back on topic please.
knews at 06:46 PM JST - 7th June

medievaltimes

My point was that the conscription of women and children was hardly going to have any impact on the outcome of the war and certainly shouldn't have contributed to the supposed justification of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Moreover, conscripting women and children is completely different from indiscriminately killing women and children with bombs, isn't it?
medievaltimes at 09:10 AM JST - 8th June

My point was that the conscription of women and children was hardly going to have any impact on the outcome of the war and certainly shouldn't have contributed to the supposed justification of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Moreover, conscripting women and children is completely different from indiscriminately killing women and children with bombs, isn't it?

Ahhh...yes it would have an impact. Not on the outcome of the war (at that point it was clear the Allies were going to win). But it would have an impact on how many people would be killed during a mainland invasion. It was well known the Japanese were fanatical about fighting till the end with no surrender.

This again goes back to my point of bushido...never surrender and fight to the last person. It's ok to take that stance if you want to...but don't complain when you lose and a lot of people die.
beavis at 12:36 PM JST - 8th June

@medievaltimes

Ridiculous that it still has to be explained to some isn't it?
regev at 10:09 PM JST - 8th June

Albury said he felt no remorse

What a complete idiot. a disgrace to humanity. His wife's not better either. A shame he didn't died 88 years ago.
usaexpat at 12:35 AM JST - 9th June

Medieviltimes: If we take it all the way back to the beginning the whole war was unnecessary. If you remove Tojo and Hull from the picture a settlement could have been negotiated. Hull and co. wouldn't negotiate on Manchuria and Tojo didn't know when to quit. I still don't believe your argument as the second bombing was merely to record data on a different bomb and Nagasaki was merely unlucky there was a break in the clouds that day.
medievaltimes at 09:05 AM JST - 9th June

expat - Although there were a lot of different variables to the war starting I think you are right about Manchuria and Tojo.

I dont believe your argument that the second bombing was "merely to record data". If that were the case the US would have dropped the second bomb the next day, or even the same day as Hiroshima. But they waited several days with no word of surrender.

Some people get upset that the US collected data from the bombings. I never really understood this. Of course they were going to collect data from the bombings. They were new weapons being used for the first time in combat.

I believe ending the war (something Japan was not interested in-even after the first bomb was dropped) was the main factor in the decision to drop the second bomb.
usaexpat at 11:38 PM JST - 9th June

medieviltimes: we can agree to disagree but I appreciate your reasoned approach. It's refreshing to debate with someone who actually has a grasp of history.
knews at 11:49 PM JST - 9th June

medievaltimes

Why would a mainland invasion have been necessary when Japan had almost no ships or planes left that could inflict any serious damage abroad? They may have wanted to fight to the end if there was indeed a mainland invasion, but, the point again being that such an invasion would have been unnnecessary.
usaexpat at 12:26 AM JST - 10th June

knews: interesting position and while you may have a point I think that the US was intent on overthrowing the Japanese government after all of the damage they did. I have to wonder whether Japan would be some sort of 3rd world pariah state like NK had we just left Japan to their own devices after disabling their offensive weaponry.
medievaltimes at 12:28 AM JST - 10th June

Why would a mainland invasion have been necessary when Japan had almost no ships or planes left that could inflict any serious damage abroad?

Becuase Japan refused to surrender.
Ah_so at 04:47 PM JST - 11th June

When Hiroshima had been wiped out days before, why did the Japanese authorities not take the only action left to it and surrender unconditionally? Further resistence was clearly futile.

The leaders of Japan should be held responsible for allowing Nagasaki to take place.
PepinGalarga at 02:58 AM JST - 12th June

Even though i dont think what they did was wrong, I myself would have dropped the bomb off Tokyo bay (hopefully downwind), to show people the destructive power. If they wouldnt give up then, a relatively unpopulated area inland would then be in order, then if that didnt do it then follow the original plan. They had plenty of bombs to use, and considering that none have been use since, it would have been worth it to take a couple extra days t prove their point.

The big problem, was that the puppet emperor and heads of military were never going to give up if the war would have been fought conventionally. This would have resulted in a bigger loss of life no only for americans, but also for the Japanese civilians living in these cities.

By the end of the war, all major cities except Kyoto had been firebombed to ashes, and more people died in these firebombing campaigns that in the 2 nuclear attacks.