testtest

79 yrs ago on Aug 9, Nagasaki was struck with an A Bomb

In hindsight, I think it would have been tactically more sound to nuke the Japanese military island strongholds rather than taking so many American casualties in the slog. But strategically U.S. leaders wanted to punish the Japanese and destroy their will to fight by firebombing and nuking their cities. Maximum violence works if you can stand the collateral damage.
 
HayesGreener said:
In hindsight, I think it would have been tactically more sound to nuke the Japanese military island strongholds rather than taking so many American casualties in the slog. But strategically U.S. leaders wanted to punish the Japanese and destroy their will to fight by firebombing and nuking their cities. Maximum violence works if you can stand the collateral damage.
Click to expand...
I think it was payback for Pearl Harbor
 
HayesGreener said:
In hindsight, I think it would have been tactically more sound to nuke the Japanese military island strongholds rather than taking so many American casualties in the slog. But strategically U.S. leaders wanted to punish the Japanese and destroy their will to fight by firebombing and nuking their cities. Maximum violence works if you can stand the collateral damage.
Click to expand...
I’m hindsight it would have been tactically more sound to let Japan wipe out China before dropping the nukes.
 
The war needed to end. After Tinian, Sipan, and Okinawa the invasion of mainland Japan was all but unthinkable.
HayesGreener said:
Maximum violence works if you can stand the collateral damage.
Click to expand...
“War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”
― William Tecumseh Sherman
I recall reading at the time that during the Second Gulf War we were still issuing Purple Hearts that had been stuck in anticipation of the casualties of an invasion of mainland Japan. Take a moment to think about that please. How many of us would be alive today if not for the dropping of the bomb. The same can be said for the Japanese, where they were arming women and kids with sharpened bamboo sticks to fend off the Americans. Estimated 300,000 deaths throughout the war by fire-bombing Tokyo. 25,000 in Dresden in one night. 40,000 in Nagasaki. 200,000-300,000 deaths during the "rape of Nanjing".
Don't expect me to wear any sack cloth.
 
HayesGreener said:
In hindsight, I think it would have been tactically more sound to nuke the Japanese military island strongholds rather than taking so many American casualties in the slog. But strategically U.S. leaders wanted to punish the Japanese and destroy their will to fight by firebombing and nuking their cities. Maximum violence works if you can stand the collateral damage.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the bomb wasn't developed early enough for the Pacific campaign to unfold as it did. I do agree though, that it was very shortsighted to not make use of heavy bombers to blast these very geographically limited specks of land and then naval bombardment and then invade. Not only would it have saved lives, but if the airfields we were after were hit I'd rather spend reconstruction time to repair them. My guess is it would have been a lot quicker than bloody fights lasting weeks or months, and then having to repair them anyway.
 
When stationed in New Hampshire I was assigned to the 509th BW. The same wing that dropped in Japan. I sure do remember loading the nukes on the FB111A bomber and sitting on alert there. 7 on and 7 off. Honestly have great memories of that base. The Air Force was great then.
 
NMEDGE said:
When stationed in New Hampshire I was assigned to the 509th BW. The same wing that dropped in Japan. I sure do remember loading the nukes on the FB111A bomber and sitting on alert there. 7 on and 7 off. Honestly have great memories of that base. The Air Force was great then.
Click to expand...
We lived south of “Boring Loring” in NE Maine. B-52’s coming and going was a regular sight.
 
The Night Rider said:
What I find really odd about all this is it somehow the United States has become the bad guys for dropping the bombs
Click to expand...
I think a lot of it has to do with pop culture and being pounded with the Hitler/Nazi focus. Whether it's avoiding the race issue with the Japanese or plain historical ignorance - likely both there are no comparisons of leaders to say Tojo, or being a tin pot emperor or whatever. As we've gotten further away from WWII movies are largely focused on fighting Germany and Hitler. Countless psychological profiles of Hitler and his inner circle but few if any on the Japanese leadership. One of the best movies I've seen is The Great Raid, but it came and went. Obviously, we can't show the brutality against our POWs and civilians alike, can we? I know there are other movies about the Pacific theater, but not as numerous as movies fighting Hitler. This is why I think with the younger generations we've become the bad guy for ending a war started by a bunch of Bushido code fanatics.

BTW, I do not have any animosity towards the Japanese. I have two grandkids who are part Japanese but I just wish people would stop laying a guilt trip on the US for ending the carnage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top