"Matt Wiser" wrote in message
news:3ff88f39$1@bg2....

"weary" wrote:

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "weary"


Besides, I have never asked nor do I
want my government to kill civilians so that
I can sleep safe
at night. As a matter of fact, if I knew
that is what my government
was doing, I would not sleep safe at night.


Tell ya what, get the bad guys to move their
military targets away from
civilian populations and the civilians will
stop dying. That is true for
all
countries and organizations including the
U.S. and Al Quaida.

Your insistance that civilians were deliberatly
targeted in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki would only hold water if the military
targets were no where near
civilian population centers.

In Hiroshima the aiming point was in a largely
residential area and
the targetting selection required that the military
target be in a large
urban
area.


I ask again, how would YOU have taken out
the military targets in Nagasaki
and
Hiroshima without harming civilians.

Conventional bombing and I haven't claimed that
no civilians would be harmed
so don't you try that strawman as well.


As a Jew I take offense at your comparing
Dachau to Hiroshima.

When did I do that?

Many thousands
of humans died there, not just Jews, but I
have been there and have seen
the
grave markers.

Many thousands of Japanese civilians died in
Hiroshima.


Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired



Look, accurate conventional bombing was not possible in 1945, and the
only
way of knocking out Japan's major industries, cottage industry,

The idea of a substantial "cottage industry" is a myth
USSBS
"By 1944 the Japanese had almost eliminated home industry in their war
economy. "


and adjacent
military targets was by low-level fire raids at night. B-29s attempted
daylight
precision bombing of such targets from Nov '44 to March of '45. It didn't
work.

From the USSBS
"The tonnage dropped prior to 9 March 1945 aggregated only 7,180 tons
although increasing month by month. The planes bombed from approximately
30,000 feet and the percentage of bombs dropped which hit the target areas
averaged less than 10 percent. Nevertheless, the effects of even the
relatively small tonnage hitting the selected targets were substantial.
During this period, attacks were directed almost exclusively against
aircraft, primarily aircraft engine, targets. The principal aircraft engine
plants were hit sufficiently heavily and persistently to convince the
Japanese that these plants would inevitably be totally destroyed. "

How does this constitute a case of "It didn't work".

The bombing campaign continued for quite some time after March 45 and
in fact that period is when the vast majority of munitions were dropped.

And although you seem to want to ignore the USSBS report I quoted elsewhere
I will include it again because it refers to a period when over 150 000 tons
of bombs were dropped on Japan, as opposed to the already noted 7180 tons
in the period you wish to concentrate on. Its content is inconsistent with
your claim that precision bombing "didn't work".

"Bombing altitudes after 9 March 1945 were lower, in both day and night
attacks. Japanese opposition was not effective even at the lower altitudes,
and the percentage of losses to enemy action declined as the number of
attacking planes increased. Bomb loads increased and operating losses
declined in part due to less strain on engines at lower altitudes. Bombing
accuracy increased substantially, and averaged 35 to 40 percent within 1,000
feet of the aiming point in daylight attacks from 20,000 feet or lower."


LeMay was right: it HAD TO BE DONE. He knew the civilian casualties
would be high, but it was necessary to accomplish the mission assigned
him:
the destruction of Japan's industry to support the war, and destruction of
such military targets colocated with the industries. More people died in
a single fire raid on Tokyo than were killed in the two nuclear strikes
put
together.
You still haven't answered the question: what would you have done? I'll
refresh
your options
1) Bombing in combination with Blockade
2) Invasion of Kyushu in Nov 45 followed by Invasion of Kanto Plain Mar 46
3) Open military use of the Atomic Bomb
Diplomacy IS NOT AN OPTION.

This is not a game with you making the rules to attempt to
restrict the outcome to your point of view. Reality was, as noted in USSBS
"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the
testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's
opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability
prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic
bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even
if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."