The Atomic Bomb: It Was Always Right

Townhall.com ^ | August 2, 2014 | Larry Provost

[TigersEye]

I gave up magical thinking like that before I was ten years old.

[PieterCasparzen]

There is plenty to be gained militarily by destroying the factories and workers that produce the bombs,bullets,fuel and equipment,even the food, of the enemy.

By war's end, our production was utterly overwhelming; tens of thousands of plans, dozens of aircraft carriers.

If there is no army left, that materiel is useless.

Their navy would not be able to transport any supplies to forces on other islands. The materiel would just pile up.

The accuracy of our air force in bombing is often cited as a reason for being unable to bomb military targets, such as such weapons stockpiles.

But as I've said before, air supremecy is key. If bombers meet no resistence, they can come in low enough on a clear day to be very accurate. That means not 20,000 ft, not 10,000 ft, that means 1,200 feet, 1,500 feet, good visibility, not to much wind. If 5,000 dive bombers came and did low-level attacks all day, with no disturbance from any enemy fighters because we had 1,000 P-51s in the air at the same time, they'd have eliminated whatever they were attacking.

This is exactly what our military has been doing since the first Gulf War over 20 years ago, they just don't need as many bombers because they have very few targets, relatively, and they are very accurate. Our air forces keep our ground forces safe, and the same tactics were well-known in WWII.

If any time you get a battalion-strength outfit all in one place and start moving towards the enemy ground positions, airplanes come over and bomb them to bits, it's tough to fight.

[Alberta's Child]

This was the situation at Okinawa. I suggest that you read up on the fight for Okinawa and see how “easy” that went despite the Japanese being cut off from supplies.

I read somewhere that the last two Japanese soldiers left on Iwo Jima surrendered in 1949. That's not a typo ... 1949. Did the U.S. forces on Iwo Jima face massive military casualties between 1945 and 1949 just because those two dudes were willing to hold out for four years after Japan surrendered? Of course not. Japan wasn't in a position to carry out any serious military threats against the U.S. by the time August of 1945 rolled around.

[Ben Ficklin]

Thanks for the correction, my memory is getting bad.

First there was START under GHW Bush, then the Moscow treaty under GW Bush, then the new START under Obama.

There were 29 no votes in the senate, I guess mostly NeoCons. The Realists were pushing it with Kissinger, George Schultz, James Baker, Colin Powell, and Condi Rice front and center

[Pelham]

“Contrary to popular belief, it actually was and is possible to hit military aircraft installations. “

You must get your ideas of what was possible from Hollywood.

‘Precision bombing’ in WWII parlance meant that you hit somewhere close to what you were aiming for.

In theory the top secret Norden bombsight was capable of delivering a bomb to within 75 feet of the target. In actual practice bomb accuracy was only within 1,200 feet of the target. And not every plane was equipped with a Norden sight.

When Naval aircraft attempted to hit a ship they would employ dive bombing or skip bombing and a lot of hope. The Air Force relied on the Norden sight and a whole lot of planes.

[xone]

Did the U.S. forces on Iwo Jima face massive military casualties between 1945 and 1949 just because those two dudes were willing to hold out for four years after Japan surrendered? Of course not.

No, the US faced those massive casualties in March of 1945 because the other 21000 buddies of these two were wiling to hold out. Must the entire population of Japan be exterminated through death from above and starvation below to make you bomb haters happy?

[trisham]

Yes, it was.

[PieterCasparzen]

We had casualties because we kept ground attacking, throwing men at incredibly well-fortified positions.

“Take that hill”, etc.

In 1945 Japan was kaput, it was over. No navy = no support for ground troops. The whole “empire” was all separated by ocean. No navy = impotent.

Just keep sweeping airplanes from the sky until you can part 20 carriers right off the Japanese coast.

Rushing in to “charge” enemy positions before the overwhelming force has arrived is going to cost lives.

If some kamakazi divisions want to live in caves in Okinawa for 10 or 20 years, let them.

Take your time, gradually burn them out from the air. Send the infantry home.

The kamakazis will be stuck inside their underground fortresses. Slap up a sign and call it an American POW camp.

The American infantrymen can be home and getting on with life.

[xone]

Our air forces keep our ground forces safe, and the same tactics were well-known in WWII.

We didn't have the equipment then that we do now. Nor the C3ISR to do what you suppose. Hidden enemy artillery would still be pounding the friendlies ashore. In previous battles, those positions had to be burned out, the holes sealed. Not in the effects column of airborne ordnance, it falls to men, not equipment.

[Alberta's Child]

Ironically, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings pretty much rendered the massive U.S. casualties on Iwo Jima in March 1945 — and later on Okinawa — a complete waste of lives on both sides. The B-29s that flew the bombing missions to Japan were stationed in Tinian, which is more than 1,200 miles southeast of Okinawa. The U.S. didn’t need those islands to win the war after all.

[PieterCasparzen]

If you can wait for good weather (in such a siege the enemy is going nowhere, and no help is on the way for them, so you can wait till the cows come home), and you have no opposing aircraft (cuz 5,000 P51s have swept them from the sky), and there is no AA fire coming from the ground (cuz every time something pops you bomb it until it’s dead)...

then you have a “milk run”. You come in straight and level at 1,000 to 1,500 feet, drop precisely where and when you want.

Bomb accuracy within 1,200 feet from the target is not the case in those conditions.

I’ve said this in every post I think - AIR SUPREMECY FIRST.

Which is what we had at war’s end.

Then bombing accuracy is no problem.

[xone]

The U.S. didn’t need those islands to win the war after all.

A perspective provided by hindsight. Didn't have the bombs during Iwo. Can't just decide to attack Okinawa tomorrow, takes time to plan and get the logistics in line.

Iwo Jima in March 1945 — and later on Okinawa — a complete waste of lives on both sides.

Again, hindsight. If the bombs had fizzled, they would have had to be taken in any case. If 'ifs' and buts' were candy and nuts.

[xone]

then you have a “milk run”. You come in straight and level at 1,000 to 1,500 feet, drop precisely where and when you want.

Except for those milk runs where before the AA had held their fire, the aviation commander kept his planes on the ground previously. There was no over-arching intel gathering system, the US was surprised at the Jap OOB after the surrender. The History Channel made a buck off the discrepancy of where we thought the Japs were and where they really were in terms of men and material.

Time and life doesn't stop so the Japanese can be starved to the last man.

[PieterCasparzen]

Japan would not starve AT ALL.

There farms were not and did not need to be bombed.

They were on rations because they were supplying their overseas ground forces.

If they had been blockaded, no food would have left Japan.

[PieterCasparzen]

What do you think we did on the Continent ?

There was AA all over and Luftwaffe all over.

We just kept chipping away at them. Everyone knew that it was game over.

However, instead of focusing exclusively on AA and Luftwaffe, we diverted enormous materiel and effort into bombing other things.

If we had made it the first order of business to finish off the Luftwaffe, the skies would be ours to support our ground troops.

Same thing would have worked against Japan.

That’s why that is the way we do things nowadays.

It works.

We would never ever today send in divisions of ground forces, leaving them very exposed to air attack, with significant numbers of enemy aircraft in the area and our air forces still trying to win the airspace.

We win the airspace first. If it flies, it dies.

[riverdawg]

How else, then, would the war have ended? The Japanese had already made clear, in the battles on the various Pacific islands, that they would fight to the last man, woman, and child. Even after the second bomb was dropped, most of the Japanese high command wanted to continue to fight. It was only the courageous statement by the Emperor that convinced the military command to give up the fight before a devastating final invasion occurred.

[Gay State Conservative]

...when this was far from the most effective way of seizing those islands...

I don't know about you but my knowledge of military tactics catapulted me to the lofty rank of SP5 many years ago.Perhaps you were a Major General,thus far outranking me.But whatever rank you achieved in the Armed Forces I'd *love* to hear how *you* would have done it.

[riverdawg]

That is Monday morning quarterbacking in the extreme. The islands were taken in anticipation of a full scale invasion, at a time when it was not at all certain that the Manhattan project would succeed as a weapons project or, if successful in that sense, as a compelling reason for the Japanese to surrender.

[Rockitz]

For all you naysayers out there, tell me how many NET lives would have been spared if the US were forced to invade Japan instead of using atomic weapons?

I’ll give you a clue since you obviously don’t have one. A very large NEGATIVE number.

http://longstreet.typepad.com/thesciencebookstore/2009/08/estimating-casualties-in-the-invasion-of-japan-julyaugust-1945.html

“And so what on earth are we left with, really? 200,000+ American and 2 million Japanese casualties, plus untold destruction, in an atom bombless attack on the Empire.”

You and your ilk are idiots of the highest order.

[stylin19a]

first one, maybe...what about the 2nd one ?