Replies

I absolutely disagree. It is the only thing that works. You mean to tell me that if we had not fire bombed Tokyo and followed it up with Hiroshima and Nagasaki that the Japanese would have surrendered?

In 1945, the Japanese government was looking for a way to surrender that wouldn't give the fire-eaters an excuse for overthrowing the government. The atomic bomb gave them that out. However, what made it a safe means of surrender was its newness; that factor no longer works in our favor. Even then, it was still a very near-run thing--the fire-eaters damn near overran the Imperial Palace the night before Hirohito's speech was broadcast.

The presence or absence of the 20th Air Force's firebombing efforts would not have made a significant difference in this equation. The Japanese government knew the war was lost--the question was whether Japan would commit national suicide like the fire-eaters in the Army wanted.

If we had not bombed the major cities of Germany proper that the Nazi's would have just stopped where they were?

The original draft of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (the one that the Air Force burned every copy of to prevent embarrassing news from getting out) concluded that the "Mighty Eighth" and RAF Bomber Command's bombing efforts actually lengthened the war, because (a) they didn't destroy vital industrial targets and (b) convinced the German populace that they were equal partners with the Wehrmacht in fighting the war. It stiffened their resolve considerably.

The first reaction of a person after his neighborhood has been bombed is surely one of anger and outrage. Sooner or later though the most basic law of human nature will prevail; self preservation.

The historical record does not support your contention. A policy of deliberately devastating urban areas has been tried on three separate occasions. On two of those occasions, it was manifestly a failure; on the third, it was irrelevant to success.

Some of these people are willing to give their lives for Allah but my money's on most of them wanting to continue existing.

Maybe you would behave like that; the vast majority of people around the world wouldn't.

One of the principal motivations for the September 11th attacks was the polarization of Islam and Western Society. Osama wanted this and quite frankly, has achieved it. Rather than look at this in a defeatist manner, we should at least take comfort in it happening now rather than 100 years later when many of these nations may have had ICBM's capable of reaching the US. We need to capitalize on this opportunity and will get nowhere by attacking the figureheads of the Islamic hatred of the west that prevails in most Arab nations. Treating a symptom will not cure a disease.
I don't know if you have ever been in a fist fight and lost but the first time you are hit in the face it makes you madder than hell and you fight back harder. However if your opponent is able to continue hitting you over and over, pretty soon you want to stop fighting. As for your contention that the vast majority of people around the world would not act in a to self preservation you need look no further than the recent Israeli (accidental) machine gunning in a Palestinian market. Why by your reasoning, were the Palestinians running away from rather than towards the enemy?
As for the Strategic Bombing Survey, the jury is out:

"The economic consequences of the physical damage wrought by air attack are closely interrelated with the concurrent effects of the interdiction of imports, the cumulative effects of under-maintenance of plants, and the declining health, vigor and determination of the Japanese people."
"By December 1944 air attacks from the Marianas against the home islands had begun, defeats in the Philippines had been suffered, and the food situation had deteriorated; 10 percent of the people believed Japan could not achieve victory. By March 1945, when the night incendiary attacks began and the food ration was reduced, this percentage had risen to 19 percent. In June it was 46 percent, and just prior to surrender, 68 percent. Of those who had come to this belief over one-half attributed the principal cause to air attacks, other than the atomic bombing attacks, and one-third to military defeats."
"A striking aspect of the air attack was the pervasiveness with which its impact on morale blanketed Japan. Roughly one-quarter of all people in cities fled or were evacuated, and these evacuees, who themselves were of singularly low morale, helped spread discouragement and disaffection for the war throughout the islands."
Seems convincing to me. Might also note the effect on Iraqi morale in the Gulf War.
By the way, I don't condone the nuclear option. Sets a bad precedent and the world might notice that we tell other nations not to build them but don't seem to mind using them ourselves.