Colonel Paul Tibbets and the Atomic Age

Darrell Castle recounts the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, around the 80th anniversary of the events and where it leaves us in the world today.

Transcription / Notes

COLONEL PAUL TIBBETS AND THE ATOMIC AGE

Hello, this is Darrell Castle with today’s Castle Report. This is Friday the 8th day of August in the year of our Lord 2025. Two days ago, on August 6th we remembered the 80th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, Japan. Tomorrow the 9th of August is the 80th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Nagasaki, Japan. I will talk about those events and about where they leave us in the world today.

During World War ll the United States was in a technological race with Germany to develop a war winning atomic weapon. The U.S. had some of the smartest people on earth working on the weapon which came to be called “The Manhattan Project.” Einstein gave his theoretical advice and Oppenheimer ran the effort to build a potentially world destroying weapon. No one knew for sure what this weapon would do when it was unleashed. The only thing certain was that its explosive power would be like nothing seen before on earth.

I am certainly no scientist and I am not scientifically educated but as I understand it the microscopic particle that makes up matter, called the atom contains enormous energy and if it could be split that energy would be unleashed by way of explosive power. Some scientists were afraid that the explosion would not be able to be contained and would continue until it destroyed the entire universe but they went ahead with it despite the unknown.

The allies throughout the war fought a clandestine effort to prevent German scientists from finishing their work first. Many people gave their lives in that effort but eventually German industry was destroyed and only Japan was left. The decision to use the weapon against Japan was President Truman’s alone. I understand from much reading on the subject that he was in Europe to conclude the German surrender when he received word that the weapon known as “Little Boy” was ready. His response was “use it.”

Winston Churchill once famously said, “I think history will be kind to me because I intend to write it.” The point is that history is written by the winners not the losers. I have read many histories of the end of the war and the decision to use the bomb and my conclusion is that the historical perspective depends on your world view today. I read something this week which asserted that Japan was begging to surrender but Truman wanted to use the bomb so he ignored them. The supposed reason was to send a message to the Soviet Union that the same thing could happen to them.

The Soviet angle as a secondary reason makes sense but I see no evidence of Japan begging to surrender. In fact, after the surrender when MacArthur was proconsul in Japan surviving Japanese troops tried to lead a rebellion against the surrender. The real question for debate is, was the dropping of the atomic bomb justified or was it the most heinous crime against humanity in history. Everyone has his opinion, but from the perspective of the Marines and soldiers on the beaches and in the jungles of Asia I doubt that they wanted to invade the Japanese home islands. Perhaps if some of those who condemn the decision had been at Tarawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima, or Okinawa they would see it differently.

In any event on August 6th, 1945, a B-29 Super fortress flown by Colonel Paul W. Tibbets Jr and with a crew of 12 more men lifted off the runway on the island of Tinian and headed for Japan and a mission that would forever alter our world. I saw an interview with Colonel Tibbets just before he died and the interviewer gave him a chance to express his sorrow at what he did but he said no I have no regrets. “I viewed my mission as one to save lives. I didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor. I didn’t start the war. But I was going to finish it.”

Colonel Tibbets continued to maintain the same message discipline until the end. He retired form the U.S. Air Force as a brigadier general in 1966 never once expressing any remorse. He anticipated protests after his death in 2007 so he requested that no headstone be placed over his grave. Instead of a burial with highest honor in Arlington, his ashes were scattered over the English Channel by his French born widow, Andrea.

Most of the crew of the Enola Gay, the B-29 named after colonel Tibbets’ mother kept a low profile for the rest of their lives. The bombardier who released the bomb, Major Thomas Ferebee, who had seen much aerial combat throughout the war said like Colonel Tibbets, that he thought the bombing saved more lives than it took. The Navigator who guided the bomber to its release point, Captain Theodore Van Kirk, in a final interview in 2005 said, “War is war. And in war, you do what you have to do to win. It was a different time and a different place.” Captain Van Kirk died in 2014, the last surviving member of the crew.

One man, co-pilot Captain Robert Lewis, had a different perspective on the event. In his logbook written during the return flight to Tinian he wrote, “My God, what have we done.” Captain Lewis had problems with the event but some of his crew disputed the theories about his logbook and they reported that he expressed no such regrets. He expressed his emotional struggles in much writing throughout his life until he died in 1983. The photographs of the blast which became world-famous were taken by tail gunner Sergeant Bob Caron who was the only crewmember to see the blast. He lived a quiet and peaceful life after the war, and eventually wrote his memoirs called, “Fire of a Thousand Suns.”

I could go on and give you the reactions and personal stories of every man on that crew but time and space restrain me. The men all maintained personal pride and professionalism for their military duty, and they did not glorify the destruction itself. The men, as life went on for them, watched as the world was forever changed by what they did. Their single bombing mission became the centerpiece of global geopolitics and in many ways it still is. I will argue that even when it isn’t the centerpiece today, it should be.

To give credence to the Japan will not surrender theory, the Japanese leadership had been repeatedly warned that a new terrible weapon would be unleashed on them if they did not surrender but they refused. When Hiroshima was gone from the earth requests for surrender were again made and again they refused. August 9th, 1945, brought another B-29 on another mission this time headed for the city of Nagasaki and carrying a bomb known as “Fat Man.” After that attack about a week went by when the Japanese general staff were in constant discussion but on August 15th the emperor announced to his military leaders and to the nation via radio message that he had agreed to the allied terms of surrender.

That message brought much weeping from the Japanese people because surrender was not a concept they understood. The thing that made island combat so difficult against the Japanese was their determination to fight to the last man. Often in an island battle 10’s of thousands would die and only a tiny handful would ultimately surrender. The potential loss of life in an invasion of the home islands was therefore obvious. The surrender papers were finally signed on the deck of the battleship Missouri in Tokyo Bay on September 2, 1945. The war was over, but I suppose I should reserve that story for another anniversary on another day.

Where does the atomic age find us today 80 years later. If the theory about President Truman using the bomb to send a message to the Soviet Union is true it obviously didn’t work because it took the Soviets only about 3 years to develop their own weapon. So far. Fat Man was the last atomic bomb used in anger against an enemy but the danger, the horrible possibilities are always there. During the Korean War, General MacArthur wanted President Truman to authorize atomic weapons when China entered the war on behalf of Norh Korea but cooler heads prevailed.

In 1962 U.S. intelligence discovered that Russia had placed and was continuing to place offensive nuclear missiles in Cuba, just 90 miles from U.S. soil. Perhaps you are old enough as I am to have lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis, but it was a time of great danger and fear here in America. When I delivered my newspapers each day I could see the blankets hung over windows to prevent injuries from flying glass. People expected a nuclear attack to come at any moment but once again cooler heads prevailed. President Kennedy agreed to remove some missiles from Turkey at least those Khruschev could see from his summer villa on the Black Sea. Premier Khruschev agreed to remove the missiles from Cuba and the world was spared a nuclear holocaust.

Would that happen today or asked differently, do both sides still have cooler heads which hopefully would prevail. I’m not certain of the answer because the rhetoric coming from discussions or non-discussion with Russia are very disturbing. Disarmament treaties have been abandoned and Russia is surrounded by nuclear weapons. My fear is that at some point sooner rather than later, Putin will say no more. In response to a Russian warning Trump publicly ordered two nuclear attack submarines “to the appropriate places.” Something that would never have happened during the dark days of the cold war.

I could go on all day with a discussion about the coming catastrophic war but in the interest of brevity I will say that when events move inevitably forward day by day so that a nuclear armed nation feeling that its back is to the wall, makes a final decision that leads to catastrophe, then it’s too late. Cooler heads must prevail before that happens, but where are they today. President Trump has had some spectacular success with trade negotiations lately, but negotiation is the wrong word for him because he doesn’t negotiate, he dictates terms. Long-term allies seem to accept him as in charge and they have repeatedly given in to his demands.

I’m not sure that Russia can be treated like that without consequence. The Russians are supposed to make peace but how, and what does that even mean. Make peace by surrendering or what. Who knows I guess. Well. in a recent interview with the Atlantic, a publication long at odds with the President, and one he accused of printing damaging lies about him he explained his position on world affairs. “I run the country and the world. “That sounds like a clear definite statement of American hegemony over the world to me.

Finally, folks, when you are a nuclear armed superpower having cordial relations with other nuclear armed superpowers seems like a very good idea to me.

At least that’s the way I see it,

Until next time folks,

This is Darrell Castle,

Thanks for listening.