Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The A-bomb would save no more lives than the 15,000 bombers, bombers which they already had. The Japanese never surrendered after the first drop of the A-bomb. It never impressed them that much, compared to massed bombers dropping napalm and incendiaries.
Because of how Japan developed - all the cities, infrastructure, power, ports, manufacturing - are on the coasts. The interior is too mountainous. & so fire was always a real danger - Japan housing tended to be light (wood & other combustibles - because of earthquakes, temblors), so that reconstruction was relatively fast. & housing was crowded together. But gas mains & electrical lines would go down too - causing massive fires.
Normally, Japanese fire brigades & private citizens would knock down fires quickly - but under war - shortages of POL, power, food & medical care - fire lanes weren't cleared, & people didn't have the energy to clear combustibles.
Why in the world would the US use mass bombing when they had at their disposal an attack strategy that employed a single aircraft and a single bomb that could destroy an entire city. War is about inflicting maximum damage on the enemy while minimizing the attackers losses.
The A-Bomb was known to be devastating with lasting effects. What use something like that when you do not need to?
The bombings in Japan were airbursts - minimizing uptake of soil & debris, & thus of contaminating material with more radioactivity. Were the results & effects of radioactivity known @ that point? The test bomb in New Mexico was essentially a ground burst, & so it would have kicked up more radioactive dust & debris than the bombs in Japan. But the interval between test & deployment was short - telescoped in order to get the bomb into action, I assume.
USAAF had technicians & observers all over the Japan bomb sites once we were on the ground there. It's an interesting question, I'll have to review.
The A-Bomb was known to be devastating with lasting effects. What use something like that when you do not need to?
John,
I know you won't answer nor bother responding with anything that adds to the discussion. All you have to do is reread the entire string here and this has been addressed.
Why in the world would the US use mass bombing when they had at their disposal an attack strategy that employed a single aircraft and a single bomb that could destroy an entire city. War is about inflicting maximum damage on the enemy while minimizing the attackers losses.
Not the mention the obvious: It Worked.
It worked brilliantly. Japan surrendered. The war ended. Less loss of life on both sides.
Why in the world would the US use mass bombing when they had at their disposal an attack strategy that employed a single aircraft and a single bomb that could destroy an entire city. War is about inflicting maximum damage on the enemy while minimizing the attackers losses.
Yah. Unlike Imperial Japan, the US put together a logistics chain to transport men, machines, food, ammo, POL & etc. across the Pacific & sustain operations there. @ the end of WWII in the PTO, that meant that B-29s & all their support, POL, bombs, aircrew, naval transport - everything was in place, materiel had been stockpiled in preparation for the planned bombardments ahead of the invasion of IJ.
For Curtis LeMay & other commanders, it was a matter of expend it or jettison most of it - only very valuable inventory would be returned to base. Some dual-purpose goods - rations, uniforms, civilian-grade POL, might be given to friendly nations - the Philippines, China, other allies - & some military gear was abandoned to the French, on their way to try to retake French Indochina (we also supplied them transport - from Africa &/or France).
The USAAF also wanted to establish their credentials as a strategic force for the future. So conventional bombing of IJ continued up to the end of the war.
The A-bomb would save no more lives than the 15,000 bombers, bombers which they already had. The Japanese never surrendered after the first drop of the A-bomb. It never impressed them that much, compared to massed bombers dropping napalm and incendiaries.
here are the odds of B-29 Crewmen living through the required 35 missions...…….
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Known lasting effects?
