Replies

see also this exchange:

The Angry Reader
September 13, 2006
What, Sir, are you recommending? More troops to Iraq? Bomb Iran? If so, please explain where such troops will come from or what bombs you mean. How will either curb Islamist sentiment or make us safer? WWII showed that strategic bombing does not lower morale, halt arms production, or cause regime change — ditto for Vietnam and Lebanon. Massive German losses in Russia were a key contributor to its defeat, and fear of Soviet occupation was a key deterrent to opposition to Allied occupation in the aftermath. It turns out that Japan's decision to surrender was also definitely influenced by the Soviet declaration of war — after the two U.S. atomic strikes. There is no Stalin or Genghis Khan to play this role towards Islam today. Neither are there any huge armies to settle struggles in any sort of conventional battlefield. There are, however, nukes. But do you really think that killing many thousands of Iranians this way will earn us any thanks?
Hanson: Let me answer your incoherent queries in the order you raised them.
1) I never recommended more troops for Iraq, (cf. a Commentary article on why we should not do that), because more would only create dependency, inflate the support footprint, and resemble Saigon circa 1968.
2) I never recommended bombing Iran, but rather letting the U.N. work, the E.U. work, and allow China and Russia to work, the Iranian dissidents to work, the Iraqi Shiias to demonstrate democracy works, do all that and don't bomb anything until it is sure that all that failed and the theocracy is ready to arm nuclear intercontinental missiles.
3) WWII, especially against Japan after March 1945, and in Europe after Spring 1944 with the onset of improved tactics, long-range fighter escorts, more planes and less resistance, in fact does tragically show that bombing really does tax arms production and leads to defeat. The Red Army would have lost WWII had not the Wehrmacht diverted thousands of planes and artillery to protect its cities to the rear from air attack. We are learning that 1st-generation precision weapons brought the Vietnamese to the peace table; and Israel did much more damage than the media let on in Lebanon. Bombing is not the answer in war, but it is sometimes a viable choice in concert with other strategies.
4) Yes, Russia killed two out of three German foot soldiers, but only because it was freed from a submarine campaign, a surface fleet campaign, a strategic air campaign, an Italian campaign, a North Africa campaign, a Western European campaign, a Japanese island campaign, a Pacific Ocean campaign, a supply campaign to help its allies, etc. The allies in nine months from beaches got as far into Germany as the Russians did from Moscow in four years.
5) No one wishes to kill "many thousands" except the Iranian President himself who has promised to "wipe out" Israel and others who have called Israel a "one-bomb state"
In short, your history is faulty, and you display the sad wages of the Left — hysterical allegations that other viewpoints are warmongering, while offering no concrete solutions to dealing with fascists seeking nuclear weapons to reify what they have stated in public.

http://victorhanson.com/Books%26Things.html