USS Bunker Hill

[Robbie Roberts]

Inspite of what to a man the vets he interviewed said, he felt the bomb was unecessary. I guess the 1Million who would have been casulties in Operation Olympic/ Coronet!

I guess it's just me, and I'll preface this by saying that I'm not trying to be prideful or say that I know more than the generals at the time. That said, I've often wondered if either the US or Japan would've come to some sort of terms waaay before the projected 1 million casualties. I'm kind of sick of hearing how it's OK to murder civilians (that's how I see it) so my father or grandfather who was a soldier didn't have to fight. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad your father / grandfather, and my relatives are still alive, but I am still of the opinion that there are rules and boundaries that apply even to warfare, and that the killing of large civilian populations in their homes - whether by A-bomb or napalm - is wrong.

Ryan

Dude- The A-bomb had a lot of casualties, yes. The Japanese leaders were STILL planning to carry on the war, even after the second one. Guess what though- The B-29 fire raids on Tokyo killed far more people than the two atomic bombs combined. And far more damage occurred. Read up on them- horrific firestorms caused by hundreds of B-29s dropping tons of incendiaries from low level, onto buildings built of flammable materials. And this went on for days at a time.

As to killing civilians, If they are part of the work force supplying the military, then they are fair game, as they offer just as much part of the problem as the man with the gun, and I have no problem with that. Without them to build the gun for him, (or plane, ship, rocket, etc) then he would not have one would he? The Japanese manufacturing plants during WWII were spread out, to the point machinists had lathes and other shop equipment in their homes, where they were operated, to allow production even when the main plant may be damaged, and minimize damage by conventional bombing. This was intentional- and the workers agreed to it: Since their home was part of the manufacturing plant, their home became fair game for targeting.

I am quite happy the bombs both got dropped- my dad would probably have been in on that invasion- and may or may not have survived it.

I still believe that the nuclear bomb has a legitimate purpose in our arsenal, especially when other countries with less scruples than ours, more hot tempered and willing to kill for religion, are either trying to build, or have built, nuclear devices, and have the probable intent to use them. Now is not the time to play "We'll give up ours if you give up yours- look, we give up ours in good faith" because that is when the offer free delivery to you. Horrific casualties? Yes, certainly. Mutual Assured Destruction? Quite Possibly, but it is what kept the two greatest superpowers of the 20th Century at bay from each other for over half a century. And those two kept the secrets relatively well hidden, although not perfectly, until one finally collapsed.

I will stop there- I could go on. Point being, the A-bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki did their jobs- they brought the Emperor to the table, and ended the war, rather than allowing a prolonged assault and combat in a land where every person was a combatant, willing to die for their emperor.(Yes- they were. Today's people have no real concept of such devotion to one person. You can liken it to the Islamic extremists willing to kill and die for their beliefs, and in many cases even more extreme). And, as I said, more people died during the fire raids on Japan than did from the A-bombs, including those who lived for years and died of the effects. Read "Target: Tokyo" about Curtis LeMay's fire bombing raids.

Robbie

[Jiggersfromsphilly]

I wonder what effect that the use and the example they set, may have had in the heading off of problems that may have arisen in the following years ?

[John Dupre]

I wonder what effect that the use and the example they set, may have had in the heading off of problems that may have arisen in the following years ?

I think it is interesting that since Israel has all but admitted having nuclear weapons the neighboring countries have not pressured them nearly as much as they had in the first thirty years of its existence. Likewise since Pakistan and India each have admitted having nukes there hasn't been a major war whereas in the thirty years previous there were two.

Even at the height of the cold war and Vietnam we and the Soviets were careful to define our military aid to combatant nations. One assumes this was to prevent escalating combat between "advisors" leading to general (possibly nuclear) combat between the two nations.

[John Dupre]

Of the two Franklin and Bunker Hill I think that Franklin was never completely repaired or ever really put into service again. Although it never sank it was considered essentially a total loss. I believe repairs were made to the flight deck and other easily visible spaces but the ship was never made operational again. If the war had gone on no doubt it would have been fully repaired but since the war wasn't likely to last much longer and there were several brand new Essex and the new Midway class ships available it just wasn't necessary to repair Franklin.

[RyanShort1]

Dude- The A-bomb had a lot of casualties, yes. The Japanese leaders were STILL planning to carry on the war, even after the second one. Guess what though- The B-29 fire raids on Tokyo killed far more people than the two atomic bombs combined. And far more damage occurred. Read up on them- horrific firestorms caused by hundreds of B-29s dropping tons of incendiaries from low level, onto buildings built of flammable materials. And this went on for days at a time.

I actually find that just as objectionable as the A-bomb, and I mentioned it with the napalm reference.

As to killing civilians, If they are part of the work force supplying the military, then they are fair game, as they offer just as much part of the problem as the man with the gun, and I have no problem with that. Without them to build the gun for him, (or plane, ship, rocket, etc) then he would not have one would he? The Japanese manufacturing plants during WWII were spread out, to the point machinists had lathes and other shop equipment in their homes, where they were operated, to allow production even when the main plant may be damaged, and minimize damage by conventional bombing. This was intentional- and the workers agreed to it: Since their home was part of the manufacturing plant, their home became fair game for targeting.

All I say to this is what about those who weren't part of the work force supplying the military? What about US prisoners in the cities? What about farmers in the surrounding area? I am VERY uncomfortable with so many of my fellow Americans saying it's OK. Warfare assumes good and evil, and moral issues involved, and while I don't want to violate the board rules and start a religious argument, there are some very serious issues involved. I actually believe that if you give the right kind of warning, it's OK to kill enemy civilians who have chosen to be part of the war effort (I would go to Duet. 20 for an principled argument on this), but you HAVE to give the proper warning to them (that could be an interesting argument ) that they are going to be treated as combatants. Otherwise, we are no better than our enemy. If we don't hold up a higher moral standard, then how can we accuse them of doing wrong in Nanking?

I am quite happy the bombs both got dropped- my dad would probably have been in on that invasion- and may or may not have survived it.

I'm happy your father survived, just as I'm happy my great-uncle survived the bombs on the Franklin. I just don't think that's a legitimate moral argument for killing civilians.

I still believe that the nuclear bomb has a legitimate purpose in our arsenal.

I'm in total agreement, so long as it's used (or not used) wisely!

Ryan

[retroaviation]

I actually believe that if you give the right kind of warning, it's OK to kill enemy civilians who have chosen to be part of the war effort
Ryan

I'm certainly not trying to get involved in this furball about whether or not we should've dropped the bomb, but I recall seeing a little exhibit at the Mid Atlantic Air Museum that mentions where B-29s dropped leaflets to the Japanese people prior to the dropping of the bomb. Now, it's certainly up to each individual that reads those leaflets whether to believe them or not, but wouldn't that be considered a "fair warning?" Just curious.

Gary

[Robbie Roberts]

I actually believe that if you give the right kind of warning, it's OK to kill enemy civilians who have chosen to be part of the war effort
Ryan

I'm certainly not trying to get involved in this furball about whether or not we should've dropped the bomb, but I recall seeing a little exhibit at the Mid Atlantic Air Museum that mentions where B-29s dropped leaflets to the Japanese people prior to the dropping of the bomb. Now, it's certainly up to each individual that reads those leaflets whether to believe them or not, but wouldn't that be considered a "fair warning?" Just curious.

Gary

They were planning to go door to door, but had trouble getting through Customs...

Robbie(trying to lighten a little... )

[retroaviation]

Good one Robbie.

Gary

[RyanShort1]

Yeah, that's funny. I don't expect a door to door thing, but probably something better than the leaflets. We all know how accurate the bombs were, who knows the actual spread and effect of the leaflets!
I think I remember reading somewhere one story about British airmen just shoving them out as bricks so they didn't have to go into the flak area.

Ryan

[mustangdriver]

They must have gotten misplaced with the Pearl Harbor warning papers.

[SaxMan]

Of the two Franklin and Bunker Hill I think that Franklin was never completely repaired or ever really put into service again. Although it never sank it was considered essentially a total loss. I believe repairs were made to the flight deck and other easily visible spaces but the ship was never made operational again. If the war had gone on no doubt it would have been fully repaired but since the war wasn't likely to last much longer and there were several brand new Essex and the new Midway class ships available it just wasn't necessary to repair Franklin.

Various sources seem to contradict each other on Franklin. I've read that after repairs it was the Essex class ship in the best condition, but was decommissioned in the summer of '46 and never returned to duty. I've also read that the ship was never fully repaired from it's considerable war wounds. What is indisputable was that in '59 the forward part of the flight deck was removed to repair the one on the USS Valley Forge, which was damaged in a storm, IIRC. By 1966, Franklin was the first Essex class carrier deemed unfit for service (no doubt due to the missing forward flight deck) and the first one scrapped.

Bunker Hill was slated for an SCB-125 conversion (angled deck, hurricane bow, etc.), but this never materialized both due to budgetary reasons, and undoubtedly because of the newer Forrestal class carriers coming on line during the mid to late fifties.

[Garth]

Of the two Franklin and Bunker Hill I think that Franklin was never completely repaired or ever really put into service again. Although it never sank it was considered essentially a total loss. I believe repairs were made to the flight deck and other easily visible spaces but the ship was never made operational again. If the war had gone on no doubt it would have been fully repaired but since the war wasn't likely to last much longer and there were several brand new Essex and the new Midway class ships available it just wasn't necessary to repair Franklin.

Various sources seem to contradict each other on Franklin. I've read that after repairs it was the Essex class ship in the best condition, but was decommissioned in the summer of '46 and never returned to duty. I've also read that the ship was never fully repaired from it's considerable war wounds. What is indisputable was that in '59 the forward part of the flight deck was removed to repair the one on the USS Valley Forge, which was damaged in a storm, IIRC. By 1966, Franklin was the first Essex class carrier deemed unfit for service (no doubt due to the missing forward flight deck) and the first one scrapped.

Bunker Hill was slated for an SCB-125 conversion (angled deck, hurricane bow, etc.), but this never materialized both due to budgetary reasons, and undoubtedly because of the newer Forrestal class carriers coming on line during the mid to late fifties.

I believe Friedman (or maybe Polmar) documented in one of his books where Franklin and Bunker Hill were repaired to fully operational condition and then held set aside for an "Ultimate Essex" conversion so they could act as escort ships for United States-class CVBs. Conversion would have resulted in a flush-deck (no island) configuration. With the other Essexes having been updated to one extent or another (LPH conversions, SCB upgrades, etc) they were extraneous into the 1960s at which time the Vietnam-era budget constraints kicked in.

IIRC one of them (Bunker Hill?) was used on Magic Carpet runs.

One thing that may have played a factor is Navy superstition about the ships and the deaths suffered within them. The USN was extremely reluctant to even using the "Indianapolis" name for the LA-class sub, and as it was she was pulled from the refueling list and taken out of service at the first opportunity.

[SaxMan]

...One thing that may have played a factor is Navy superstition about the ships and the deaths suffered within them. The USN was extremely reluctant to even using the "Indianapolis" name for the LA-class sub, and as it was she was pulled from the refueling list and taken out of service at the first opportunity.

That's interesting. I know USS Stark (FFG-31) was one of the first of the Oliver Hazard Perry (FFG-7) class frigates to be scrapped (if not the first), even though there were 23 other ships in the class that were built before it. I couldn't figure out what the Navy's logic was...the superstition theory makes sense.