[pepsionice]

I may be one of the few people around who say this...but I would have preferred to nuke the island and use that as a demo model for Japan to observe. We would have killed the 22k Japanese soldiers anyway....and it would have been worth the effort.

[wtc911]

I may be one of the few people around who say this...but I would have preferred to nuke the island and use that as a demo model for Japan to observe. We would have killed the 22k Japanese soldiers anyway....and it would have been worth the effort.....

_____________________________________

Number one, we didn't have a working bomb in February 1945. Number two, it took two mainland drops to get the Japs to quit, vaporizing Iwo would have had no effect and cost us a forward base.

[jonascord]

A. In January, 1945, the first bomb wasn't ready yet.
B. We needed the island as an alternate for B-29s that had been damaged, although it wasn't big enough for the runways and taxiways we built on Saipan and Tinian. A fully loaded B-29 needed nearly 10,000 ft. of runway. Iwo also did not have a harbor to supply the logistics of a bomber campaign.
C. It was close enough to provide plenty of loiter time for fighter support. Turning it into a radioactive cinder seems like an idea whose time is not yet.
D. Buried as deeply as they were, I would bet that at least half would not have been so much as rattled...

[PISANO]

There are two of us who believe nukes should be used where possible and damn those who have led us down the present PC cultural abyss.