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.
Yes, those poor sailors!
One of the most frightening combat experiences I have ever read of. It's a miracle that any of them survived the schools of sharks that were devouring them.
Well, he may have won the nobel prize but I think part of this conclusion is a little shakey....I really can't believe that ball bearings of various sizes from destroyed B-17s were canabalized and actually used for other non-related machinery requiring non-standard sizes. Think of non-metric ball bearing in the main gear, for example...could they be used in German machinery?
But it is, in fact, true that the Ball bearing raids on Schweinfurt might be questionable from an economic standpoint, i.e. the cost of planes lost to the value of the ball bearings...God knows the raids were expensive to us. But they did, nonetheless, crimp the German war effort and in war, winning is just about everything even with poor "cash flow" from our effort.
The United States was on the moral high ground as long as it sought to find and destroy the masterminds of the Sept. 11 attack. Now, with our attacks on the Afghan government and the civilian population we look like vengeful Americans striking out not against terrorism, but merely to placate the public's desire for revenge.
Every American bomb that kills or dismembers an innocent mother, father or child creates more anti-American hatred in the Muslim world.
Anyone seriously suggesting the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan needs pyschiatric treatment.
The first..That enormous American casualties could be expected from the enevitable need to invade the Japanese mainland due to their implacable will to fight on.
Two: That as you say, they were dead in the water and time would have forced acceptance of the "unconditional surrender" demanded by Pres. Truman.
The first...OKINAWA! Question answered.
The second...We agree on that one.
As long as the Afghan government fails to turn over bin Laden, it is a legitimate target for bombing. And, you old fool, you continually saying we are targeting civilians does not mean we are. WE ARE NOT TARGETING AFGHAN CIVILIANS!
Every American bomb that kills or dismembers an innocent mother, father or child creates more anti-American hatred in the Muslim world.
So what? If the diaperheads will not remove the cancer of terrorism from their midst, we will do it for them. And if some civilians are caught up in that effort, it is unfortunate.
Who cares if the Muslims hate us? It is much more important that they fear us.
Anyone seriously suggesting the use of nuclear weapons in Afghanistan needs pyschiatric treatment.
You're right about this. But if intelligence indicates that someone like Hussein has nuclear capability and is ready to use it, a pre-emptive nuclear strike is not only adviseable, but wise.
"Who cares if the Muslims hate us? It is much more important that they fear us."
Who cares? Incinerate a million Muslims with a nuke and just SEE how many jehadi you inspire.
Just because you disagree with Bulldog905 dosen't mean he did something wrong.
If everyone that wanted to nuke arab cities right now were thrown off Free Republic there would probably be only a few dozen Freepers left.
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.