Author Topic: Has any single plane ever saved so many lives? (Read 2568 times)

GRUNHERZ · « **on:** August 19, 2003, 03:01:49 AM »

http://www.msnbc.com/news/953981.asp?0cv=TB10&cp1=1

Tarmac · « **Reply #1 on:** August 19, 2003, 03:07:17 AM »

Exactly the plane I was thinking of when I read the thread title.

Wasn't it already on display, as just a cockpit and front fuselage? Glad to see it whole again.

rpm · « **Reply #2 on:** August 19, 2003, 03:07:27 AM »

You could make a strong arguement for Bock's Car. It proved the 1st one wasn't a fluke and we could do it at will. Always nice to see a grand old Lady returned to her Glory Days!

CyranoAH · « **Reply #3 on:** August 19, 2003, 04:16:58 AM »

"...saved so many lives taking others?" would be a correct ending to that question Grun.

I was thinking more the DC-3, the Catalina or the Huey for evacuations

Daniel

Dowding · « **Reply #4 on:** August 19, 2003, 04:24:38 AM »

The C-130 has done a great deal of humanitarian work too.

If you are going to say the B-29 was a life-saver, the Lanc should be right beside it.

rpm · « **Reply #5 on:** August 19, 2003, 04:53:28 AM »

I belive he ment single aircraft, not model. It's a strong point. The estemated loss of life on both sides of a mainland Japan invasion was in the millions.

Dowding · « **Reply #6 on:** August 19, 2003, 04:56:25 AM »

You are talking about an estimation, while he is talking about a certainty. That's a distinction worth keeping in mind.

There are other planes more fitting for that title.

Gh0stFT · « **Reply #7 on:** August 19, 2003, 05:38:34 AM »

turn the "saved" into "shaved" and it would fit too, dont?

rpm · « **Reply #8 on:** August 19, 2003, 06:39:32 AM »

Dowding, you don't expect me to belive that if Churchill had the Bomb and a way to deliver it during the Blitz he would not have used it, do you? Or was it part of the Chamberlin "Peace in our time!" treaty?
What if the Russians had developed it first? How would Europe feel about that? Of course Stallin would not have used it against his close Allies .
Belive me the Japanese would have used it against us to win the war. War is ugly buisness and I hope there are no more, BUT, it was the way to stop it at the time.

Crowwe · « **Reply #9 on:** August 19, 2003, 06:56:07 AM »

Saved? That word shouldn't go into the statement... it should of said;

"This plane ended an ugly war with an equally ugly weapon, to prevent an even uglier number of unnecessary military and civilian deaths."

Dowding · « **Reply #10 on:** August 19, 2003, 07:08:32 AM »

Agreed Crowwe.

That's nothing to do with the argument rpm. We will never know how many people were ‘saved’ by dropping the bomb(s) – the whole subject is based on conjecture. All we do know is that hundreds of thousands died. Consequently, that set of actions can hardly be included in a quantitative discussion regarding the most ‘humanitarian’ plane. It’s illogical.

More generally, the B29 is about as humanitarian as the Lancaster – i.e. not very.

Fishu · « **Reply #11 on:** August 19, 2003, 07:32:26 AM »

It's always easy to create excuses yourself and look with bad at others excuses.

Hypocrisy.

john9001 · « **Reply #12 on:** August 19, 2003, 08:53:18 AM »

don't be so dramatic, more people died in fire bombings than by the 2 nuks.

OMG...THE BOMB.....AHHHHH

Mini D · « **Reply #13 on:** August 19, 2003, 09:15:36 AM »

The loss of life with a Japanese invasion would have been staggering. Anyone that doesn't believe it would have far exceded the fatalities caused by that bomb is fooling themselves into thinking moral superiority translates to clarity. Anyone that fools themselves into thinking lives lost is more important than how many more could have been lost is playing the "criticize the action cause we didn't have to live with the consequences of not doing it" win-win game.

I've been to Nagasaki... to ground zero. It's all been rebuilt. I wonder if that would have been the case if the U.S. was forced to land on the main Japanese Isles.

Dropping those two bombs was not a shining moment in world history. But it did end the war. Very quickly. I can't think of a single incident in any war that managed to end hostilities so fast.

MiniD

Dago · « **Reply #14 on:** August 19, 2003, 09:23:57 AM »

How many did the Lanc save in Dresden anyway?

I think the original title of this thread was correct, dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while killing alot of people, probably on balance saved more lives in total by bringing the war in the Pacific to a quick end.

How someone could try and make this into a "national pride in your bomber" pissing match is beyond me.

For what it is worth, I am not embarrassed nor ashamed of the US for dropping the bombs on Japan. The legacy of the Imperial Japanese forces, and the leadership of Japan during the war are responsible for millions of lives lost to pure brutal slaughter.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was an unprovoked attrocity killing innocent people who were not at war, the attack and "rape" of Nan King has few parallels in barbarism, the incredible cruelty and slaughter of the Bataan Death March brings shame on the nation of Japan for history to record and remember.

I once watched a documentary about the Bataan Death March, and one of the survivors said "I don't feel bad about them dropping the atomic bomb on Japan, I wish they had dropped 10 more of them on 'em". To hear what they went through, I can understand his feelings.

dago