Posted on 11/11/2001 3:39:58 AM PST by bulldog905
President Harry Truman ended the Second World War almost overnight in 1945 by dropping two atomic bombs on Japan.
Those operations cost not a single American life.
The atomic bombings were not all that devastating when put into perspective. Just weeks earlier, saturation bombing -- with conventional explosives -- killed as many as 200,000 in Tokyo. In February, 1945, round-the-clock carpet bombing of the beautiful German city of Dresden killed as many as 250,000 men, women and children in a scenario that is awesome, even today. Go to Dresden, as I have and the lasting effects of the destruction are still there to see.
Sir Arthur (Bomber) Harris, legendary head of the Royal Air Force's Bomber Command in the Second World War, boasted his squadrons of aircraft had killed 600,000 people -- mainly civilians and children -- in their non-stop flights over Germany.
Most of the able-bodied men were fighting on the Russian front or elsewhere, but "Bomber" Harris' bombing helped demoralize the entire population. Again, Bomber Command used only conventional explosives.
We still look on atomic -- nuclear -- weapons as something loathsome because of their singular forces. You do not need hundreds of planes to drop bombs in a nuclear attack -- as at Tokyo or Dresden -- just one will do the job in quick fashion. A nuclear bomb drives the message home quickly that to fight on is fruitless, to surrender is the best option.
The U.S., Britain and France are nuclear powers. Coincidentally, no matter whether the government of the day in Britain or France is conservative or socialist, neither have ever considered for a second giving up their nuclear arms.
During the Cold War, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) of which Canada is a member, had a nuclear first-strike policy -- if the Soviets invaded Western Europe and looked like they were advancing over large areas successfully, NATO would go nuclear and take out Moscow and other large Soviet cities.
Last month, British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- whose nation has both nuclear attack submarines and fighter-bombers equipped with nuclear weapons, raised the frightening spectacle that if Osama bin Laden's Islamic terrorists had weapons of mass destruction, rather than slaughter just 6,000 people in New York City they would have killed 60,000 or 600,000 with a grin on their faces.
This month, bin Laden has said it is the "sacred" duty of Islamic forces to get hold of weapons of mass destruction.
When he does -- or when some of his contemporaries do -- he and they will use them. President George W. Bush admits to this horrifying scenario.
Indeed, as George Will noted in his Nov. 4 column "Daring Israeli raid saved U.S. grief," if it hadn't been for the Israelis taking out an Iraqi nuclear processing plant in a daring raid in 1981, Saddam Hussein would have had nuclear weapons and many of us today would not be alive.
Saddam is still doing his best to get hold of nuclear or biological weapons and he is surely not going to get them just to fondly gaze at them. He will use them, initially against Israel -- recall the Scud attacks in the 1990s -- but then against the U.S.
Just 22 years ago, during the American hostage crisis in Iran, the Soviets went to Iranian authorities and warned them any moves against the Soviet Embassy and its staff in Tehran would provoke a nuclear response. Tehran would be gone. Not a single Soviet Embassy official was ever touched.
Looking at the current scenario, we can do one of two things: Wait until the Islamic terrorists get weapons of mass destruction in which case any number of our cities and their populations will be wiped out, or we can make some pre-emptive surgical nuclear strikes and end Islamic terrorism for the next 100 years.
If we took out, say, Kabul, Baghdad and Tehran with clean "neutron" bombs, which kill people but leave buildings standing, we would have won the war against these dictators and "rogue" nations without losing the life of a single allied soldier.
It would also be a lesson to the likes of Syria and North Korea that retribution for any of their transgressions will be met in similar fashion.
You do not win wars by pussyfooting around, playing the gentleman or dropping humanitarian supplies to civilian populations -- can you imagine the laughter if anyone has suggested dropping humanitarian supplies to Germans back in the 1940s? You win wars by taking your opponents to the edge of the precipice and letting them know you'll kick them over the edge unless they comply.
Tiny Nukes-- the backpack threat
The Poor-Boy Nuke-- Bioterrorism***
The Samson Option-- what is known about Israel's Nuclear Weapons?
NBC/ABC Warfare Survival Skills Links
-Index of Chemical Warfare/weapons articles--
-Index of Bioterrorism articles--
I flew with the eighth AF and can tell you that there was nothing noble or commendable about Mr. Harris's destruction of Dresden and massacre of it's inhabitants. It was simply a crime and has been whitewashed by the British press since the mid forties.
The city of Dresden had not a fragment of use to the German military and was the repository of irreplacable art of immense value to the world. What this maniac accomplished was no different than the Taliban's recent and equally insane destruction of the desert statues after ignoring the pleas of the civilized world to spare them.
This act by the Royal Air Force stands as a crime against humanity and was inexcusable then...and now.
yes you heard me right ...china..can you think of anyone else besides a bunch of islam-nuts who would go after us?
I won't pull the abuse button on you, as you seem to be into self-abuse.
Are you waiting for Osmama to use his nukes first?
I find it interesting that the majority of those who want the U.S. to now use it's most destructive weapons have never been in the military and have never participated in combat. Don't you agree?
Or do you want to nuke just anywhere?
It is my opinion that BUSH is kissing the DegenaRats A$$ because of the need for "unity". Clinton,(Mr diversity - divide and conquer) MUST have really destroyed our two front plus home defense capabilities, or IRAQ would be IREQED.
Gotta ask - Why are 3000 IRQIs coming to the US legally each year? Dubuh will be DubleDUH if he doesn't stop it. We have enough waiters, welfare recipients and terrorists.
Do you know why the United States constructed the bomb during the second world war? Because scientists warned Roosevelt that Germany was constructing one. Does anyone doubt that Hitler would have used it, if he had built it first?
Does anyone doubt that Osmama will use it, if he builds it first?
What you say is pretty much true except for the detonation of the "fat man" over Japan.
When I flew it was mantra that strategic bombardment from the air will destroy the enemy'e will to fight....but in Germany it didn't work at all.
What really nailed them was destroying oil and ball bearing manufacturing....when things can't roll or engines have no fuel the military has a big problem.
Have a nice day.
No doubt in my mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.