I've seen those numbers and many people besides me have questioned those estimates: capitulation was probably at hand anyway and with a blockade, the Japanese would have had no way to acquire materiel for on-going conventional combat.
And you're all military experts, eh?
Our intelligence predicted that Japan only had a couple of thousand aircraft left, when IN FACT, they have almost 12,000 still flyable and able to conduct Kamikaze attacks.
Futhermore, IT WAS DISCOVERED POST-FACTO, that the Japanese had predicted EXACTLY where were planning on invading in Kyushu. And to counter this likely invasion they had reinforced the island with more troops than we had planned to invade with.
Any military expert will tell you that you should always have at least a 3-1 advantage when attempting an assault.
It's not likely that our forces would have been able to achieve that for weeks or months, while all the time facing off massive counter-attacks from Japanese troops defending their homeland.
Maybe you need to study the Allied invasion at Anzio.
But the bottom is that I would like you to explain, to all of those WWII vets who assembled in DC this past weekend, how you thought their lives were less valuable than those of the Japanese killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki..
So, the question remains: when we went from scrawny kTon devices to MTon city killers, the risk to people worldwide went up or down (Japanese and American inclusive) and by how much?
Has anyone ever used them? No. It was call the principle of MAD.
But unfortunately, I don't believe that principle is applicable to the current struggle against Islamic militancy. How can one reasonably threaten someone who is longing for death and eternity in paradise.
Hawk |
