Would Attacking Iran Be Worth It?

[Azure]

Why do you think Iran would set off a dirty bomb in the US?

Iran does not want to bomb the US.

No they don't. Now go back to your basement and don't worry about it.

 

[Damien Evans]

Personally, I think the exact same thing is true of Iran. Iran is much more of a rational actor internationally then it is given credit for. This is a minority view, I know, but much of Ahmadinejad's most inflammatory rhetoric is aimed at a domestic audience - namely his conservative base. He is, after all, a populist. I think it is more constructive to look at what Iran actually does as opposed to what Iran says when grandstanding - especially given the problems of meanings getting lost in translation.

Amen to that, no matter what some may claim

 

[Damien Evans]

Not to mention the perhaps hundreds of thousands of Japanese who would have been killed if the war had dragged on.

Ieed, one could argue (to paraphrase A Few Good Me) that the use of the atomic bombs against Japan, whilst grotesque, saved lives

 

[MilwaukeeMike]

Ieed, one could argue (to paraphrase A Few Good Me) that the use of the atomic bombs against Japan, whilst grotesque, saved lives

We are also forgetting that the U.S. killed far more people by simply doing large scale (blind) bombings of cities that was much more devastating than the two nukes that hit Japan.

 

[D'rok]

Ieed, one could argue (to paraphrase A Few Good Me) that the use of the atomic bombs against Japan, whilst grotesque, saved lives

We're probably heading perilously close to thread derailment here...but I don't think this is a very good argument. In fact, I don't think it is an argument - I think it's a post-hoc rationalization of a horrendously immoral act. We really have no way of knowing who is correct...those who assert that more lives would have been lost in a conventional end-game campaign, or those who assert that Japan was already on the verge of capitulation.

It approximates a large-scale version of a classic moral dilemma - i.e., given the choice, do you divert a runaway train onto the tracks where one person will be struck and killed, or do you let the train proceed down the tracks where 10 people will be struck and killed. Obviously, this is not a perfect analogy because inaction was not one of the real-life choices, but the moral calculus is similar. Most people are OK with the choice of committing an immoral act if it prevents a much greater moral tragedy from occurring, and I think this is necessary for the psyche of the American people regarding nuking Japan.

There are two problems with this in my view. First: Nagasaki. The rationalization seems to totally break down in this case. Was a second atrocity really necessary? Second: This kind of preventative logic is being used over and over by the Bush administration for its current military adventurism. Iran is the perfect case in point. The primary argument seems to be that the immoral act of attacking Iran is justified because it will prevent a greater moral tragedy that will inevitably (so the argument goes) occur when Iran develops a nuclear weapon and uses it against Israel or America (by way of giving nuclear weaponry to terrorists). The only thing we can truly be sure of when going to war to prevent war, is that war will indeed occur - we have chosen it to prevent it.

If there is one positive thing I could say about the atomic attack on Japan it is that it caused such a global shudder of horror that the act has yet to be repeated - in spite of many opportunities to do so. We peered into the abyss, gave a collective gasp of horror, and pulled back from the brink. I am convinced that Iran shares in this horror and will not try to topple us into the brink again unless it is backed so far into a corner that desperation overcomes reason.

 

[Tricky]

We're probably heading perilously close to thread derailment here...but I don't think this is a very good argument. In fact, I don't think it is an argument - I think it's a post-hoc rationalization of a horrendously immoral act. We really have no way of knowing who is correct...those who assert that more lives would have been lost in a conventional end-game campaign, or those who assert that Japan was already on the verge of capitulation.

It approximates a large-scale version of a classic moral dilemma - i.e., given the choice, do you divert a runaway train onto the tracks where one person will be struck and killed, or do you let the train proceed down the tracks where 10 people will struck and killed. Obviously, this is not a perfect analogy because inaction was not one of the real-life choices, but the moral calculus is similar. Most people are OK with the choice of committing an immoral act if it prevents a much greater moral tragedy from occurring, and I think this is necessary for the psyche of the American people regarding nuking Japan.

There are two problems with this in my view. First: Nagasaki. The rationalization seems to totally break down in this case. Was a second atrocity really necessary? Second: This kind of preventative logic is being used over and over by the Bush administration for its current military adventurism. Iran is the perfect case in point. The primary argument seems to be that the immoral act of attacking Iran is justified because it will prevent a greater moral tragedy that will inevitably (so the argument goes) occur when Iran develops a nuclear weapon and uses it against Israel or America (by way of giving nuclear weaponry to terrorists). The only thing we can truly be sure of when going to war to prevent war, is that war will indeed occur - we have chosen it to prevent it.

If there is one positive thing I could say about the atomic attack on Japan it is that it caused such a global shudder of horror that the act has yet to be repeated - in spite of many opportunities to do so. We peered into the abyss, gave a collective gasp of horror, and pulled back from the brink. I am convinced that Iran shares in this horror and will not try to topple us into the brink again unless it is backed so far into a corner that desperation overcomes reason.

 

[D'rok]

Gracias.

 

[Darth Rotor]

We're probably heading perilously close to thread derailment here...but I don't think this is a very good argument. In fact, I don't think it is an argument - I think it's a post-hoc rationalization of a horrendously immoral act.

If you want to talk about post hoc, fallacious buffalo crap, you just laid a steaming pile.

The bomb was a weapon used to fight and end a war, but if one is to use your post hoc buffalo fewments, the entire war the Americans fought against Japan, which killed an order of magnitude (plus) more Japanese than the two A Bombs, was an immoral act. I fail to find it immoral to kill a load of people quickly, but moral to kill that many or more over an extended period of time, and quite possibly kill an order of magnitude more over a further period of time by extending a conventional war.

Atrocity? Nope, not even close, it was a simple air raid, conducted under the laws of war, with weapons that were at hand and not unlawful by any measure or code.

Japan and the US were in an all out, total, industrial age war, the likes of which you have not experienced, nor I, a war driven by a purpose and emotive element that is not suited to Ivory Towers. This was two nations at war, completely mobilized, it was not two baroque era armies playing King's Blood Chess.

You want to talk about about the Bataan Death March, fine, we'll discuss immoral.

If there is one positive thing I could say about the atomic attack on Japan it is that it caused such a global shudder of horror that the act has yet to be repeated - in spite of many opportunities to do so. We peered into the abyss, gave a collective gasp of horror, and pulled back from the brink. I am convinced that Iran shares in this horror and will not try to topple us into the brink again unless it is backed so far into a corner that desperation overcomes reason.

Agreed.


DR

 

[D'rok]

If you want to talk about post hoc, fallacious buffalo crap, you just laid a steaming pile.

The bomb was a weapon used to fight and end a war, but if one is to use your post hoc buffalo fewments, the entire war the Americans fought against Japan, which killed orders of magnitude more Japanese than the two A Bombs, was an immoral act. I fail to find it immoral to kill a load of people quickly, but moral to kill that many or more over an extended period of time, and quite possibly kill an order of magnitude more over a further period of time by extending a conventional war.

Japan and the US were in an all out, total, industrial age war, the likes of which you have not experienced, nor I, a war driven by a purpose and emotive element that is not suited to Ivory Towers.

You want to talk about about the Bataan Death March, fine, we'll discuss immoral.

DR

This is an assertion that you can't possibly back up unless you can hop in your Tardis and visit an alternate time stream where the bombs were not dropped. Same thing goes for the opposite assertion. (That fewer would have died if the bombs were not dropped because Japan was on the verge of surrender already). For one's peace of mind, it is better to make the assumption that you do, but it is still an assumption. This is my point. That, and it would be a mistake to use this post hoc rationalization as a basis for future acts.

I'm not talking about any other horrific acts of war, just this particular one (well..two), and its repercussions.


BTW..."post hoc buffalo fewments" is a great turn of phrase.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I'm not talking about any other horrific acts of war, just this particular one (well..two), and its repercussions.

The repercussions are only known post hoc, which I think is where we came in, and your calling an atrocity is to incorrectly use that word as of August 1945, the time of the air raid.

In industrial age war, the logistic tail of your enemy is his industrial and agricultural rear, which is manned and run by his population. You can't bomb his "rear" area without killing some of the population. This isn't darts, this is total war. It is, as a thing in itself, horrific.

What is a bit more horrific is the prospect of my nation, the US of A, embarking on anything other than a limited war. Were the rabid hawks, the "bomb 'em all, let God sort 'em out" crowd to be heeded, the carnage would be surreal. I am very familiar with our methods and weapons, in particular air weapons. With conventional weaponry alone, the US could slaughter millions per week, in Iraq, Syria, China, or Iran, a butcher's bill that would make Ghengis Khan or Tamerlane weak in the knees.

I am glad we don't.

BTW..."post hoc buffalo fewments" is a great turn of phrase.

Thanks.

DR

 

[Tricky]

If you want to talk about post hoc, fallacious buffalo crap, you just laid a steaming pile.

Graphic, but incorrect.

The bomb was a weapon used to fight and end a war, but if one is to use your post hoc buffalo fewments, the entire war the Americans fought against Japan, which killed an order of magnitude (plus) more Japanese than the two A Bombs, was an immoral act.

Not civilians though. More Japanese civilians were killed in two days by atomic bombs than during the rest of the war. I am not in favor of attacks that target or disregard civilians. That is what I call "terrorism", even if it is done by the military.

Atrocity? Nope, not even close, it was a simple air raid, conducted under the laws of war, with weapons that were at hand and not unlawful by any measure or code.

Even if that were technically correct, and I suspect it may not be, most civilized countries consider it dishonorable to attack civilians. That is the whole point of opposing WMDs.

Japan and the US were in an all out, total, industrial age war, the likes of which you have not experienced, nor I, a war driven by a purpose and emotive element that is not suited to Ivory Towers. This was two nations at war, completely mobilized, it was not two baroque era armies playing King's Blood Chess.

And it was a war that was, for the most part, fought by the military against the military. We beat them at Midway. That was essentially the beginning of the end. Like D'rok, I don't think it is possible to say what would have happened if the bombs had not been dropped. But even if it had saved us thousands more American deaths, it would have still been wrong. I think the "Ivory Towers" thinkers are those who assume that it all worked out for the best.

You want to talk about about the Bataan Death March, fine, we'll discuss immoral.

Horrible though the Bataan Death March was, it was an act against soldiers. Do you think killing POWs is worse than killing civilians? Also, the death toll is "orders of magnitude" smaller than that from Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

All told, approximately 5,000-10,000 Filipino and 600-650 American prisoners of war died before they could reach Camp O'Donnell. Oh yeah, you can say, "but they were in a living hell". Yes, but the Japanese were at least trying to transport them. Do you think they should have just shot them all?

Well over 300,000 people died in the atomic bomb attacks, including about 3000 Japanese-Americans. Only a small percentage of the casualties were soldiers. The US had a total of only 420,000 deaths in all of WWII, most of which were millitary. Of the some 11,000 civilian US deaths, as many as a quarter of them died in the atomic bomb attacks.

Yeah, I'll discuss "immoral" with you if you like.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Not civilians though. More Japanese civilians were killed in two days by atomic bombs than during the rest of the war. I am not in favor of attacks that target or disregard civilians.

Nope.

From your own source level, dear old fallible Wiki:

Unlike the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were at least partially intended to force Japan to capitulate immediately, fire-bombing, which killed more civilians in total, was carried out as a long-term strategy to destroy Japan's ability to produce war materials as well as to undermine the Japanese government's will to continue the war. In the context of total war, the large number of Japanese civilians killed by strategic bombing was seen as acceptable by the American administration.

When you fight a war, you fight to win, and when the stated war aim is

Unconditional Surrender (separate debate and topic)

then you fight and kill your enemy, that nation of Japan, until the opponent cries "uncle" and quits.

That is the nature of total war. The sooner you end a war, the sooner people stop dying.

LeMay's speculation of "well, if we had lost, I might be tried as a war criminal" expresses, among other things, the problem of "victor's justice" and this post hoc intellectual rubbish.

Former Japanese prime minister Fumimaro Konoe's statement that, fundamentally, the thing that brought about the determination to make peace was the prolonged bombing by the B-29s, lends support to this view. More recently, historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa argued in Racing the Enemy (Cambridge: Harvard UP, 2005) that the principal factor for Japan's decision to surrender was not the atomic bombs and the fire-bombings of Japanese cities, but the Soviet renunciation of the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact and declaration of war on Japan. The claim that the US fire-bombings of the Japanese civilian population was justifiable because it saved the lives of Allied soldiers as well as Japanese citizens is an object of bitter debate among historians

And of course, the debate continues, for zero value added, to this date.

Tokyo was not considered as an official target for the first nuclear attacks.

Why? The allied strategists were already looking beyond the end of the war, and wanted the capital to be more or less intact, as a hub of government of a conquered nation.

DR

 

[D'rok]

The repercussions are only known post hoc, which I think is where we came in, and your calling an atrocity is to incorrectly use that word as of August 1945, the time of the air raid.

Well..I can probably concede that point insamuch as outside of the context of war, all acts of war are atrocities, which is the same thing as saying that within the context of war, none of them are.

In industrial age war, the logistic tail of your enemy is his industrial and agricultural rear, which is manned and run by his population. You can't bomb his "rear" area without killing some of the population. This isn't darts, this is total war. It is, as a thing in itself, horrific.

Yup. I thank Crom that I haven't had to experience it personally. (Although he would probably want me to).

What is a bit more horrific is the prospect of my nation, the US of A, embarking on anything other than a limited war. Were the rabid hawks, the "bomb 'em all, let God sort 'em out" crowd to be heeded, the carnage would be surreal. I am very familiar with our methods and weapons, in particular air weapons. With conventional weaponry alone, the US could slaughter millions per week, in Iraq, Syria, China, or Iran, a butcher's bill that would make Ghengis Khan or Tamerlane weak in the knees.

I am glad we don't.

Me too. Which is why I made sure to state a few posts back that, all things considered, global preponderance of power resting with America is not such a bad thing.

 

[D'rok]

What is a bit more horrific is the prospect of my nation, the US of A, embarking on anything other than a limited war.

Actually, I think that this is the ironic tragedy of current American interventions. There is both the will to reshape the world militarily, and the lack of will to undertake the necessary means. Successful conquest and transformation of other nations requires a commitment to empire that is just utterly incomaptible with American republican (as in self-governmet, liberty, etc...not the GOP) virtue. In fact, it probably requires something like Total War. Instead, we get empire-lite and interventions that result in Hobbesian chaos instead of Machiavellian virtu.

I honestly believe that America has an existential dilemma right now. I hope you choose domestic virtue over imperial mastery. Ultimately, I have faith that you will. (Sorry if that sounds patronizing...I don't mean it that way).

 

[Darth Rotor]

Actually, I think that this is the ironic tragedy of current American interventions. There is both the will to reshape the world militarily, and the lack of will to undertake the necessary means. Successful conquest and transformation of other nations requires a commitment to empire that is just utterly incomaptible with American republican (as in self-governmet, liberty, etc...not the GOP) virtue. In fact, it probably requires something like Total War. Instead, we get empire-lite and interventions that result in Hobbesian chaos instead of Machiavellian virtue.I honestly believe that America has an existential dilemma right now. I hope you choose domestic virtue over imperial mastery. Ulitmately, I have faith that you will.

Nominated. I share your hope.

(Sorry if that sounds patronizing...I don't mean it that way).

Well, after that Gordon Sinclair imitation, I can only say:

Wow, what a fantastic post. This earns you a six pack of Shiner Blonde beer. I realize that you are spoiled by great Canadian beer, but accept it in the spirit intended, please.

DR

 

[D'rok]

Wow, what a fantastic post. This earns you a six pack of Shiner Blonde beer. I realize that you are spoiled by great Canadian beer, but accept it in the spirit intended, please.

DR

I'll gladly accept, and offer a six-pack of Upper Canada Dark in return
http://www.uppercanada.com/template.asp?CName=DarkAle

Cheers.

 

[Tricky]

I'll gladly accept, and offer a six-pack of Upper Canada Dark in return
http://www.uppercanada.com/template.asp?CName=DarkAle

When I was in Calgary, I fell in love with Kokanee. I wish they had it here.

 

[D'rok]

When I was in Calgary, I fell in love with Kokanee. I wish they had it here.

Ah, Kokanee. Brings back a few fond, but fuzzy, memories. Did you try the local brew?
http://www.bigrockbeer.com/

 

[Tricky]

Ah, Kokanee. Brings back a few fond, but fuzzy, memories. Did you try the local brew?
http://www.bigrockbeer.com/

I don't recall seeing it, but then, once I found Kokanee, I didn't really look around much. I have to wonder about any brewery that sells "warthog" beer though.

But back to topic. In the post below, which Darth loved enough to nominate (and it is good) I might quibble about a thing or two.

Actually, I think that this is the ironic tragedy of current American interventions. There is both the will to reshape the world militarily, and the lack of will to undertake the necessary means.

The US is hardly monolithic. The Liberal/Conservative split has all sorts of jagged edges and there are camps within camps within camps. Isolationism is very much a part of many Conservative beliefs. Imperialism is very much a part of some Liberal camps.

I don't think that the US so much wants to reshape the rest of the world as to get them to stop annoying us. Too many of us seem to see "freedom" as some sort of panacea for all that ails a country or region. They are not prepared to administer governments in other places and really don't want to deal with all those wierdos. It is nothing at all like any kind of imperialism the world has ever seen. Ironically, the US economic and media juggernaut is reshaping the world without the military raising a cap pistol.

Successful conquest and transformation of other nations requires a commitment to empire that is just utterly incomaptible with American republican (as in self-governmet, liberty, etc...not the GOP) virtue. In fact, it probably requires something like Total War. Instead, we get empire-lite and interventions that result in Hobbesian chaos instead of Machiavellian virtu.

I don't think so. What it takes is time and a lot of argument. War seems to be the thing setting them back, and Total War would probably mean Total Downfall, ironically (again) because the US really does have a strong distaste for tyrants. Once it becomes apparant that we are becoming tyrants, support for our military operations drops sharply, as it has in the Iraq war. If I found my country was going to engage in Total War, I'd fight for the other side. I think a lot of Americans would.

I honestly believe that America has an existential dilemma right now. I hope you choose domestic virtue over imperial mastery. Ultimately, I have faith that you will. (Sorry if that sounds patronizing...I don't mean it that way).

Ah, if it really were that simple. It will never be a choice of one way over the other. It will be a kludged-together mish-mash of various of the stronger American traits. Who knows what it will look like.

 

[Corsair 115]

First: Nagasaki. The rationalization seems to totally break down in this case. Was a second atrocity really necessary?

Why did the second bombing happen? These are the basic reasons:

From the American side, it wanted to demonstrate that it had more than one atomic bomb. This was important, because Japan was working on its own atomic bomb project (two, actually: one by the Army and one by the Navy. There are even some accounts which state Japan managed to detonate a small atomic bomb just days before the war ended), and thus knew of the monumental technical challenges involved. With only one drop, an enemy might conclude, legitimately, that the enemy only had one such device. Dropping two, naturally, puts this idea to rest. It also demonstrates the iron resolve to continue using these weapons until a surrender is achieved.

Also, the U.S. authorities were sure that, once the Japanese government realized the terrible destruction wrought by just one atomic bomb, they would immediately sue for peace. When so such surrender came, it was decided that another powerful demonstration had to be made.

From the Japanese side, the American belief that Japan might conclude the U.S. only had one such device was correct. Some in the Japanese government argued that the U.S. couldn't possibly have any more atomic bombs, and thus Japan was safe from further such attacks. There were also those who downplayed the significance of Hiroshima, calling the atomic bomb nothing more than a "magnesium flashlight" which could be warded off by the wearing of white clothing.

Given this situation, a second bomb dropping becomes inevitable.

Well over 300,000 people died in the atomic bomb attacks, including about 3000 Japanese-Americans. Only a small percentage of the casualties were soldiers.

An estimated 100,000 Japanese were killed in the firebombing of Tokyo on March 9-10, 1945, a raid conducted by B-29s using conventional incendiary bombs. Some 75,000 Japanese civilians were killed in the fighting on Okinawa (in addition to about 110,000 Japanese soldiers).

As to Hiroshima, it was hardly some idyllic garden. The city, as one of the few spared incendiary attack, had been converted into what was essentially a military base. There was a considerably military presence in the city, and it was an important command and control centre for its region.

Like D'rok, I don't think it is possible to say what would have happened if the bombs had not been dropped.

Definitively? No. But the likely paths are there to be seen. And what were those paths?

With no quick way to end the war, the U.S. and its Allies were faced with the situation of a foe who simply would not quit, and was quite prepared to fight to the death. The Japanese had done so on Iwo Jima and on Okinawa. They were expending their aviators in deliberate suicide attacks on U.S. Navy ships. There was little reason to think that such a foe was suddenly going to pack it in and give up.

The U.S. had two choices. The first, put forth by the Navy and the air commanders, was that of blockade. Japan was to be completely cut off from outside supply, and air attacks would continue on its cities as well as its economic and military infrastructure. This was the classic siege approach, where you literally starve your enemy into submission. And that's exactly what would have happened, starvation on a massive scale as the economy was pounded into nothing.

The idea of causing the death of untold numbers of Japanese by starvation was not a pleasant prospect. Also, there was no way of knowing how long such a procedure would take. It could take many months, or perhaps even years, before it forced a surrender. No one could put a timeline on it.

The other option was put forth by the Army. It followed the age-old idea for forcing a surrender of an enemy: you march your troops right into his capital and sieze his home ground. This had the advantage of being a more direct and more certain method. The length of time it took could be estimated based on previous campaigns.

In the end, the U.S. government opted for the Army's plan, and would invade Japan.

These operations were actively planned and scheduled, the forces were being assembled, and the commanders assigned. The first part of the invasion, Operation Olympic, was slated for November of 1945, and called for the seizing of Kyushu Island. Once controlled, it was to be turned into a giant staging area and airbase from which to launch the second part of the plan. Operation Coronet was scheduled for March of 1946, and called for an invasion of Honshu Island, with forces landing near Tokyo. Once securely ashore, they would drive towards Tokyo and take the city. With the capital firmly in Allied hands, it was felt the Japanese would finally surrender.

Based on earlier experiences with invading Japanese territory and possessions in the Pacific, it was felt the invasion of Japan was going to be extremely hard-fought and bloody. Foreign forces would be storming ashore sacred Japanese soil, so fierce resistance was expected.

The Japanese, for their part, were expecting an American invasion, and prepared accordingly. Huge numbers of civilians, as many as 27 million of them, were being trained and organized into militia units. They were to be used in mass human-wave assaults against invading troops using nothing more than bamboo spears if necessary. Additionally, thousands of aircraft were being stockpiled to be used in mass kamikaze attacks against the invasion fleet.

The estimates from the planners of American and Japanese casualties (killed, wounded, or captured) arising from the invasion were enormous. U.S. casualties were estimated to be anywhere from 250,000 to as many as one million; the estimates for Japanese casualties were between one million and five million.

It was against this background that the use of the atomic bomb was considered and adopted.

[I am not in favor of attacks that target or disregard civilians. That is what I call "terrorism", even if it is done by the military.

There is an assumption in the above that civilians are not a legitimate target in a war between industrialized nation states. This assumption must be examined, and indeed, I would say this assumption is incorrect. Civilians are a legitimate target, albeit an indirect one, and historically, have always been one.

The rationalization? It's simple: no military, be it ancient, medieval, or 20th century, can exist without the support of the civilian and civilian economy. Who is it who supplies the soldiers, sailors, and airmen? Civilians. Who is it who grows the food that feeds the military personnel? Civilians. Who is it who builds the ships and aircraft and tanks and rifles and bullets which the military uses? Civilians. Who is it who mines the resources needed to build the implements of war? Civilians. Who is it who supplies the water and power needed to run the factories? Civilians. Who is it who operate the trains needed to move the resources to the factories? Civilians. And so on.

Given the above, civilians are indeed a legitimate target in a war, but an indirect one.

There are three ways to destroy the capacity of an enemy to fight: 1) you can eliminate all his military forces; 2) you can destroy his economy so that he cannot sustain his military forces in the field; or 3) you can do a mixture of 1 and 2.

An industrialized nation state such as those of WWII had a fantastic capacity to continually grind out more troops and equipment. So to stop an enemy simply by destroying his forces is hugely difficult, since industry can supply more. So, you have to attack not only the enemy's forces but also his capacity to build new forces. That means destroying his economic infrastructure.

In theory, one could only attack those economic aspects which directly support the war effort. That would mean attacks on things like oil facilities, power plants, roads, ports, bridges, railways, in addition to assaulting armaments factories and dedicated military targets like naval bases and airbases.

Theory, however, has a way of breaking down in practice. This the air forces learned as the war progressed. Logistical, technical, and operational considerations often meant that the theory of precision strategic bombing could not be carried out. This was true over Europe, and it was equally true over Japan.

The B-29 was an incredible piece of bombing technology for the time. But in spite of all its advancements, it could not bomb the Japanese infrastructure with the accuracy needed to make much of a dent in its capabilities. The aircraft flew at very high altitudes to avoid Japanese fighters, and encountered the jet stream. These strong winds made accurate bombing difficult at best. In a November, 1944, raid on a Nakajima engine factor, just 48 bombs out of over 1,000 dropped landed near the target. This sort of raid, quite obviously, is not going to do much to reduce Japanese industry.

There was an additional problem in that Japanese industry was more spread out and dispersed than had been the case with industry in Germany. This meant there were fewer big factories which could be specifically targetted. It was against this backdrop that the switch to incendiary attacks was made.

Since much of Japan's cities were built from wood, fire then became a potent weapon. It was a much easier way to devastate large areas and the industrial sites contained within them. But since those industrial areas were often surrounded by civilian neighbourhoods, and fire an indiscriminate weapon, the toll amonst Japanese civilians was likely to be high. But the reason for going ahead with such attacks was simple: if you don't destroy Japanese industry somehow, they will continue to produce more military assets.

Of course, there are also the indirect effects of such incendiary attacks to consider, such as the expected psychological pressure it would exert on the population by demoralizing it, the use of economic capacity to repair damaged civilian infrastructure, and the redirection of military assets to combat such raids.

All of the preceeding is merely an overview of the background of strategic bombing in WWII. The point is to show that the evolution and progression of the bombing campaigns must be put into proper context in order to understand what was done and why it was done.



There, very long thread derail over...