Pre-emptive nuclear strikes

[Fluff]

@apparition13 I think you failed the interview for our launch controller vacancy....'a bit late.....'

I speak english as my first language, I can even if I squint not see much difference between your definitions.

Anything happening before they attacked, is in my book pre-emptive, preventative appears to have pretty much the same meaning, i.e. act before. Tomato/tomato....

I plead not seeing the thread until it got resurrected. And I like understatement a wee bit.

Try this. You're out in the woods, and you see a bear. It charges you. Fortunately your rifle is at the ready, and you shoot it. You have preempted the bear's attack. If it falls dead or wounded, or runs away, you've also prevented the attack. If it keeps coming and eats your face, you've still preempted the attack, but you haven't prevented it.

You're out in the woods, you see a bear half a mile away on top of a hill. It looks in your direction. You think it might be considering earing your face, so you shoot it. It drops dead. congratulations, you have prevented it from attacking you, whether it would have or not, but you didn't preempt it because it didn't try to attack you.

Preemptive war is acting in self defense. You see an attack about to happen, so you preempt it with your own attack in order to forestall the attack on you.

Preventive war is when you see a potential threat, so you attack it in order to prevent it from becoming an actual threat. The threat may or may not emerge, an attack may or may not come if it does emerge. This is problem because unlike seeing a bear charging at you, the situation is uncertain.

mmm. i'm no lawyer, your definition of preventative sounds a lot like carte blanche to attack anyone, because one of them might become the father of Hitler.......

You cant shoot all the bears in the woods, because one of them might become a man-eater. And of course unintended consequences, you can only shoot the bears you can see, so the really clever, sneaky bears are the only ones to reproduce, so now you get eaten by a bear you never even saw.

If we now decided to go and bomb everyone's nuclear reactors, pretty sure they are going to gang up and bomb us.

Your preventative situation, would really need diplomacy, sanctions etc.

 

[Archibald]

You don't need nukes to kill a bear, even a grizzly. Conventional weapons are enough.

As proven by Israel with Osiraq in '81, there is no need to use nukes to neutralize a potential nuclear threat. Conventional weapons can do the job far less controversially.
I don't want the "nuclear pandora box" to be opened again, ever, never.

Diplomacy + conventional weapons for war + nuke deterrent, never to be used - has worked very well since 1945, including in crazy times like 1962 and 1983.

 

[fredymac]

mmm. i'm no lawyer, your definition of preventative sounds a lot like carte blanche to attack anyone, because one of them might become the father of Hitler.......

You cant shoot all the bears in the woods, because one of them might become a man-eater. And of course unintended consequences, you can only shoot the bears you can see, so the really clever, sneaky bears are the only ones to reproduce, so now you get eaten by a bear you never even saw.

If we now decided to go and bomb everyone's nuclear reactors, pretty sure they are going to gang up and bomb us.

Your preventative situation, would really need diplomacy, sanctions etc.

What about the bear that's charging at you? Negotiate until the first bite?

When someone says they want to exterminate you and is building a nuke, what are you going to negotiate? There are indeed limits to preemption just as there are with negotiating. Deterrence alone means a pact of mutual destruction. The fact that Israel is pushing ahead on defense from ballistic missiles to incendiary balloon bombs shows how far they are willing to entrust their future to the rational behavior of people who keep saying how much they hate them.

 

[Fluff]

mmm. i'm no lawyer, your definition of preventative sounds a lot like carte blanche to attack anyone, because one of them might become the father of Hitler.......

You cant shoot all the bears in the woods, because one of them might become a man-eater. And of course unintended consequences, you can only shoot the bears you can see, so the really clever, sneaky bears are the only ones to reproduce, so now you get eaten by a bear you never even saw.

If we now decided to go and bomb everyone's nuclear reactors, pretty sure they are going to gang up and bomb us.

Your preventative situation, would really need diplomacy, sanctions etc.

What about the bear that's charging at you? Negotiate until the first bite?

When someone says they want to exterminate you and is building a nuke, what are you going to negotiate? There are indeed limits to preemption just as there are with negotiating. Deterrence alone means a pact of mutual destruction. The fact that Israel is pushing ahead on defense from ballistic missiles to incendiary balloon bombs shows how far they are willing to entrust their future to the rational behavior of people who keep saying how much they hate them.

I'm not sure you have read the thread - the bear charging seems to come under the pre-emptive, rather than the preventative, not my criteria, btw.

No again someone saying they want to exterminate you, would come under pre-emptive, to me.

The example of preventative was 'may' in the future become a threat.

As I would argue any country 'could' threaten the UK, we should bomb them all to oblivion?

Israel sits in a very unique situation, and deals with in their own unique way.

 

[Orionblamblam]

You don't need nukes to kill a bear, even a grizzly.

Depends on the bear. The Soviet bear needed the threat of nukes just to keep them from trying to overrun their neighbors; had the Soviet bear actually gone on a rampage, a bunch of B-52's armed with iron bombs would have been approximately worthless.

As proven by Israel with Osiraq in '81, there is no need to use nukes to neutralize a potential nuclear threat.

Depends on the nuclear threat. Iraq was small, with a single point failure mode that was possible to deal with using conventional munitions. Since then, other nuclear threats have moved their operations deep underground where conventional bombs cannot reach.

Diplomacy + conventional weapons for war + nuke deterrent, never to be used - has worked very well since 1945, including in crazy times like 1962 and 1983.

If everyone knows that the "nuclear deterrent" is "never to be used," then it ceases to be a deterrent. This proposal from 2002 remains the most sensible plan for using the threat of nukes to achieve a lasting peace.

 

[fredymac]

I'm not sure you have read the thread - the bear charging seems to come under the pre-emptive, rather than the preventative, not my criteria, btw.

No again someone saying they want to exterminate you, would come under pre-emptive, to me.

The example of preventative was 'may' in the future become a threat.

As I would argue any country 'could' threaten the UK, we should bomb them all to oblivion?

Israel sits in a very unique situation, and deals with in their own unique way.

The UK should decide for itself the urgency of the threat and the options to counter. In doing so, I would assume they would assess the limits to both "bombing everyone" as well as "negotiate with everyone".

 

[marauder2048]

You don't need nukes to kill a bear, even a grizzly. Conventional weapons are enough.

As proven by Israel with Osiraq in '81, there is no need to use nukes to neutralize a potential nuclear threat. Conventional weapons can do the job far less controversially.
I don't want the "nuclear pandora box" to be opened again, ever, never.

Diplomacy + conventional weapons for war + nuke deterrent, never to be used - has worked very well since 1945, including in crazy times like 1962 and 1983.

Didn't the Israelis go on nuclear alert for Osiraq? They certainly did after the conventional SCUD attacks.

 

[merriman]

I would remind the timid that EVERY SINGLE TIME a nuclear weapon was employed on the field it achieved the objective. Nukes are tools. Use them well.

Today, a curtesy call to adjoining countries to the target, a few moments before detonation, is all that is required. "Hello, Chinese State Department? Yes. We're destroying your neighbor to the East. Stand down, this won't take long. Yes, we've checked the prevailing winds. You will be pleased to know that the winds, as of bomb-time, will be blowing from the North-West. You're welcome. Anytime, have a nice day".

David
nine patrols on the WEBSTER, out of Guam... guess what our target package was?

 

[apparition13]

mmm. i'm no lawyer, your definition of preventative sounds a lot like carte blanche to attack anyone, because one of them might become the father of Hitler.......

You cant shoot all the bears in the woods, because one of them might become a man-eater. And of course unintended consequences, you can only shoot the bears you can see, so the really clever, sneaky bears are the only ones to reproduce, so now you get eaten by a bear you never even saw.

If we now decided to go and bomb everyone's nuclear reactors, pretty sure they are going to gang up and bomb us.

Your preventative situation, would really need diplomacy, sanctions etc.

It's not my definition, but it is why preemtive war is acceptable under international law and preventive is not. And it's one reason Iraq 2003 received so much criticism as it was the justification Bush used.

My favorite preventive war quote is from Bismark, as he put it: 'Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death.' I don't know to what extent I agree with it, but it's mighty clever.

 

[Archibald]

I would remind the timid that EVERY SINGLE TIME a nuclear weapon was employed on the field it achieved the objective. Nukes are tools. Use them well.

This is a completely stupid argument. I mean, TWO nuclear weapons were ever dropped in anger. Hardly a significative sample, by any mean.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I would remind the timid that EVERY SINGLE TIME a nuclear weapon was employed on the field it achieved the objective. Nukes are tools. Use them well.

This is a completely stupid argument. I mean, TWO nuclear weapons were ever dropped in anger. Hardly a significative sample, by any mean.

Ahem: " As proven by Israel with Osiraq in '81, there is no need to use nukes to neutralize a potential nuclear threat." That, by my count is.... hmmm, let me see... carry the two... multiply by the square root of minus one.... ah, yes. A sample size of *one.*

 

[Hood]

Your forgetting the tactical nukes that made it to Cuba in 1962. The US was completely unaware of them at the time, so they had no impact at all on US plans - it was the prospect of the longer-range IRBMs that precipitated the crisis.

It was political manoeuvring that removed them, it was probably the blockade and not MAD that made Khrushchev reverse-course, his plans were completely tipped-off and he had no way of carrying out his policy to reinstate some kind of nuclear parity. His goal was not to reduce the West's nuclear arsenal but to try and increase the effectiveness of his smaller arsenal by placing it closer to its objective. Those nuclear weapons never even made it to their intended bases, they had psychological shock value but never translated that into actual military value and the plan backfired spectacularly.

 

[Archibald]

Let me try again. With simple words.

Hiroshima: one nuke.

Nagasaki: one nuke.

osiraq: no nuke.

What you don't understand, i don't know.

 

[Fluff]

“My mother says that violence never settles anything.”

“So?” Mr. Dubois looked at her bleakly. “I’m sure the city fathers of Carthage would be glad to know that.

 

[Trident]

Ahem: " As proven by Israel with Osiraq in '81, there is no need to use nukes to neutralize a potential nuclear threat." That, by my count is.... hmmm, let me see... carry the two... multiply by the square root of minus one.... ah, yes. A sample size of *one.*

Well, if we're going to split hairs, the sample size for nuclear preemption is arguably zero. Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were nuked because the US was worried about a Japanese nuclear programme, which they knew was far behind even its embryonic German counterpart. Alternatively the latter, we might as well note, did NOT get nuked... so if Japan passes for a case of preempting a nuclear project then so does Germany and then we have a sample size of two for non-nuclear preemption as well

Preempting a Japanese nuclear programme may have been a peripheral consideration, but so far down on the list of priorities that the bombs would ultimately have been dropped or not regardless of this argument.

 

[fredymac]

Well, if we're going to split hairs, the sample size for nuclear preemption is arguably zero. Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were nuked because the US was worried about a Japanese nuclear programme, which they knew was far behind even its embryonic German counterpart. Alternatively the latter, we might as well note, did NOT get nuked......

This sounds like Germany did not get nuked because of a decision rather than losing before any bomb was ready.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I thought the bombs were used to prevent the need for a home island invasion and save countless lives.

 

[fredymac]

I'm guessing history text has changed a lot since I was in school but I was taught the bomb was initially developed in fear of Germany developing one first. Then in regards to Japan, the experience of Japanese soldiers (and civilians) fighting to the last man/woman/child made any thought of mainland invasion a matter of dread. Mix that with an attitude that radiation was a short lived hindrance and using the bomb was practically guaranteed.

 

[Trident]

This sounds like Germany did not get nuked because of a decision rather than losing before any bomb was ready.

I'm sure it would have been nuked had the war dragged on long enough, I believe target selection was already underway. None of this changes the fact that the war ending in Europe before a nuke was ready directly translates into the German nuclear project being successfully preempted by non-nuclear means, however.

But all of this is beside the point really: the actual atomic bombings in Japan (as opposed to the rationale behind the Manhattan project that developed the weapons) has little if anything to do with the subject at hand - preemption of an adversary nuclear programme. The conventional attack on Osirak on the other hand fits beautifully.

 

[Fluff]

This sounds like Germany did not get nuked because of a decision rather than losing before any bomb was ready.

I'm sure it would have been nuked had the war dragged on long enough, I believe target selection was already underway. None of this changes the fact that the war ending in Europe before a nuke was ready directly translates into the German nuclear project being successfully preempted by non-nuclear means, however.

But all of this is beside the point really: the actual atomic bombings in Japan (as opposed to the rationale behind the Manhattan project that developed the weapons) has little if anything to do with the subject at hand - preemption of an adversary nuclear programme. The conventional attack on Osirak on the other hand fits beautifully.

mmm. it was only pre-empted by non-nuclear means, because only non-nuclear means existed. Has there been a bomb ready, say late 44, I'm pretty sure you would be saying goodbye to Hamburg, or Munich, first, then Berlin.

Regarding Japan, I would imagine there was a stong desire, in addition to the loss of allied lives(I cant really see at the time that Japanese lives were considered) to test the bombs in real combat- also wasn't that why there were 2 different designs used, to spread risk and have a backup if one didn't work?

Also interesting is that Bomber Harris is pilloried for the destruction if Hamburg etc by conventional mass bombing, but I dont think we hear much that the Nuke Japanese bombings were a potential war crime.

all of that aside, there must be situations where countries will go nuclear, first. If BAOR was being overrun, UK could threaten it, and actually deliver it.

Going further, isnt this partly the reason USA has 'bunker busters'. One of those as a near miss, is going to wreck your centrifuges. I would further suggest this is simply internal politics, that USA cant nuke some start-up dictator, but you know, 'earthquakes' happen alot in 3rd world dictatorships - nothing to see, move along....

 

[Orionblamblam]

Let me try again. With simple words.

Hiroshima: one nuke.

Nagasaki: one nuke.

osiraq: no nuke.

What you don't understand, i don't know.

That a sample size of "one" is less than a sample size of "two." If you have a problem with a smaple size of two being statistically too small... why do you accept a sample size of one?

 

[Orionblamblam]

Also interesting is that Bomber Harris is pilloried for the destruction if Hamburg etc by conventional mass bombing, but I dont think we hear much that the Nuke Japanese bombings were a potential war crime.

Really? Must be a geographical thing. Here in the US, we hear next to nothing about Bomber Harris (or indeed much of anything about the erasure of German cities and populations), yet certain people go on and on and on about how evil and war-crimey it was to have nuked two Japanese cities.

 

[Fluff]

Let me try again. With simple words.

Hiroshima: one nuke.

Nagasaki: one nuke.

osiraq: no nuke.

What you don't understand, i don't know.

That a sample size of "one" is less than a sample size of "two." If you have a problem with a smaple size of two being statistically too small... why do you accept a sample size of one?

I suspect thats not a sample, sample impies there were hundreds of cases, and we are going to look at some of them. You are looking at all of them.

No idea how that fits whatever this argument is.

 

[Fluff]

Also interesting is that Bomber Harris is pilloried for the destruction if Hamburg etc by conventional mass bombing, but I dont think we hear much that the Nuke Japanese bombings were a potential war crime.

Really? Must be a geographical thing. Here in the US, we hear next to nothing about Bomber Harris (or indeed much of anything about the erasure of German cities and populations), yet certain people go on and on and on about how evil and war-crimey it was to have nuked two Japanese cities.

Could be, must be easy to look back, and have the confidence to nitpick how people managed the biggest armed conflict in human history - as far as we know.....

 

[bobbymike]

Also interesting is that Bomber Harris is pilloried for the destruction if Hamburg etc by conventional mass bombing, but I dont think we hear much that the Nuke Japanese bombings were a potential war crime.

Really? Must be a geographical thing. Here in the US, we hear next to nothing about Bomber Harris (or indeed much of anything about the erasure of German cities and populations), yet certain people go on and on and on about how evil and war-crimey it was to have nuked two Japanese cities.

For the last 70 years theres been an annual global debate about the nukes dropped on Japan with little to nothing about Harris/German cities.

 

[fredymac]

Convenient memory to not remember anything about the Smithsonian Museum and the Enola Gay.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Convenient memory to not remember anything about the Smithsonian Museum and the Enola Gay.

When the NASM put the Enola Gay on display, a *lot* of people were cheesed off because the Enola Gay was a symbol of "mass murder." Same people didn't have a problem displaying a B-17, a Lancaster or anything the Japanese built.

 

[Foo Fighter]

In the case of the Kremlin, simples, just nuke the tea lady.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Convenient memory to not remember anything about the Smithsonian Museum and the Enola Gay.

When the NASM put the Enola Gay on display, a *lot* of people were cheesed off because the Enola Gay was a symbol of "mass murder." Same people didn't have a problem displaying a B-17, a Lancaster or anything the Japanese built.

It's a regular thing in the UK that any time the bombing campaign against Germany is discussed, it must be in the context of the number of innocent Germans killed. Ideally also stressing that Harris was the villain of the piece and that the attacks on Dresden and Hamburg were particularly reprehensible.

I have to agree with Curtis Lemay (noted bomber commander) and Barnes Wallis (noted pacifist). If you have to fight a war, hit the enemy hard enough and early enough that to end it as quickly as possible.

 

[Fluff]

Convenient memory to not remember anything about the Smithsonian Museum and the Enola Gay.

When the NASM put the Enola Gay on display, a *lot* of people were cheesed off because the Enola Gay was a symbol of "mass murder." Same people didn't have a problem displaying a B-17, a Lancaster or anything the Japanese built.

It's a regular thing in the UK that any time the bombing campaign against Germany is discussed, it must be in the context of the number of innocent Germans killed. Ideally also stressing that Harris was the villain of the piece and that the attacks on Dresden and Hamburg were particularly reprehensible.

I have to agree with Curtis Lemay (noted bomber commander) and Barnes Wallis (noted pacifist). If you have to fight a war, hit the enemy hard enough and early enough that to end it as quickly as possible.

I agree, UK didnt start it, if you were sitting in germany in 37-39, did they not have Globes? We are going to win because we are going to attack, EVERYONE else in the World. Yes that should work, no problem, lets do it.

Once you embark on that route, then pretty much anything in response is ok, in my book. In in 43, 44 there was no such thing as LGB, or pinpoint bombing, and pretty much every factory/shed was making something that would be used in fighting, or extend the ability of Germany to fight. All the hand wringing now, is people the Nazis would have regarded as intelligensia and would have got a one way trip to Pontins and a special badge to wear.....

 

[Orionblamblam]

It's a regular thing in the UK that any time the bombing campaign against Germany is discussed, it must be in the context of the number of innocent Germans killed. Ideally also stressing that Harris was the villain of the piece and that the attacks on Dresden and Hamburg were particularly reprehensible.

I don;t know whether or not to be releived that virtue signalling is neither a new phenomena nor a uniquely American one. In a way it's comforting to know that that particular form of self-hatred is widespread.

If you have to fight a war, hit the enemy hard enough and early enough that to end it as quickly as possible.

Those who have fought wars successfully know that they cannot be successfully fought "nicely."

The great historical irony is that by overly focussing on *not* being a murderous bastard, you end up extending the war and spreading the misery. Imagine if the Brits and the French had decided that German militarization of the Rhineland was a step too far and had stomped Hitlers forces flat before they had had the chance to really build up. Today I suppose people would be arguing about how awful it was that France and Britain took such unlawful actions and started a war with Germany that lasted a month and cost twenty thousand lives.

 

[Justo Miranda]

The ancient Spanish swords had this legend engraved: ‘No la saques sin razón ni la envaines sin honor’ (Don’t bare it without reason or sheath it without honor).

 

[Justo Miranda]

Let me try again. With simple words.

Hiroshima: one nuke.

Nagasaki: one nuke.

osiraq: no nuke.

What you don't understand, i don't know.

"Human losses were the Achilles’ heel of democracies"

Would Japan have not surrendered after the atomic attacks over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, the Allies would have been forced to land on the Japanese home islands.

There were plans to carry out the invasion in two phases. The first step, known as ‘Operation Olympic’, aimed to occupy the south of Kyushu Island and should start on November 1st. The second one, ‘Operation Coronet’, would have consisted of landings on Honshu Island, to control the Tokyo plain, and it was planned for March 1946. The whole plan, ‘Operation Downfall’, required 5,000,000 men, 3,000 ships, 66 aircraft carriers, loaded with 2,649 aircraft, and all the airplanes in the 7th, 8th and 10th Army Air Forces. Casualties were expected to be extremely heavy. A study requested by U.S. Navy Secretary estimated that conquering Japan would cost between 1.7 and 4 million casualties including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities and the destruction of 800 Allied ships.

The Japanese High Command understood that human losses were the Achilles’ heel of democracies and decided that, after the failure of the kamikaze tactics to stop the invasion of Okinawa, the number of casualties infringed to the enemy in Kyushu was high enough. They could still negotiate a peace by exhaustion and avoid the cost of a final battle at Honshu. Therefore, they forgot the idea of sinking aircraft carriers and battleships and turned their attention to the humble Landing Craft Vehicles (LCV).

At this point of time the Japanese were no more interested in sinking the big heavily armoured warships. The political circumstances were more favourable to the kind of war that caused a high number of casualties to the Allies. It was better to try and destroy the little protected troop transports with a warhead of just 250 kg.

During the most critical moments of the amphibious assault, dozens of slow and unstable boats, cramped with troops, vehicles, explosives and fuel, desperately tried to reach the beach under the enemy fire. Some were reached by the artillery but most of them survived. The Japanese thought that this pattern could be altered and devised all kind of defensive strategies to convert Kyushu in a swamp of blood. They took advantage of the three-to-two local numeric superiority of the Japanese army and mobilized the civil population to perform banzai charges.

On 9 October 1945, the typhoon Louise passed over the Okinawa Island, with winds of 150-220 kph and heavy seas with 9-11 m waves, causing serious damage to the Allies occupation forces based in Nakagusuku Wan, Amami Oshima, Nagasaki and Wakayama. A total of 12 ships, including six LST, were sunk, 222 grounded and 32 damaged beyond economical repair, and over 60 airplanes were damaged. In Okinawa almost all the food, medical supplies and 80 per cent of all buildings were destroyed with 183 personal casualties.

Would the war have not ended by early September, the tremendous storm would have caused serious damage to the Invasion Force, forcing the cancellation of the ‘Operation Olympic’.

The War against Japan could have become an early Vietnam.

 

[Fluff]

Let me try again. With simple words.

Hiroshima: one nuke.

Nagasaki: one nuke.

osiraq: no nuke.

What you don't understand, i don't know.

"Human losses were the Achilles’ heel of democracies"

Would Japan have not surrendered after the atomic attacks over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, the Allies would have been forced to land on the Japanese home islands.

There were plans to carry out the invasion in two phases. The first step, known as ‘Operation Olympic’, aimed to occupy the south of Kyushu Island and should start on November 1st. The second one, ‘Operation Coronet’, would have consisted of landings on Honshu Island, to control the Tokyo plain, and it was planned for March 1946. The whole plan, ‘Operation Downfall’, required 5,000,000 men, 3,000 ships, 66 aircraft carriers, loaded with 2,649 aircraft, and all the airplanes in the 7th, 8th and 10th Army Air Forces. Casualties were expected to be extremely heavy. A study requested by U.S. Navy Secretary estimated that conquering Japan would cost between 1.7 and 4 million casualties including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities and the destruction of 800 Allied ships.

The Japanese High Command understood that human losses were the Achilles’ heel of democracies and decided that, after the failure of the kamikaze tactics to stop the invasion of Okinawa, the number of casualties infringed to the enemy in Kyushu was high enough. They could still negotiate a peace by exhaustion and avoid the cost of a final battle at Honshu. Therefore, they forgot the idea of sinking aircraft carriers and battleships and turned their attention to the humble Landing Craft Vehicles (LCV).

At this point of time the Japanese were no more interested in sinking the big heavily armoured warships. The political circumstances were more favourable to the kind of war that caused a high number of casualties to the Allies. It was better to try and destroy the little protected troop transports with a warhead of just 250 kg.

During the most critical moments of the amphibious assault, dozens of slow and unstable boats, cramped with troops, vehicles, explosives and fuel, desperately tried to reach the beach under the enemy fire. Some were reached by the artillery but most of them survived. The Japanese thought that this pattern could be altered and devised all kind of defensive strategies to convert Kyushu in a swamp of blood. They took advantage of the three-to-two local numeric superiority of the Japanese army and mobilized the civil population to perform banzai charges.

On 9 October 1945, the typhoon Louise passed over the Okinawa Island, with winds of 150-220 kph and heavy seas with 9-11 m waves, causing serious damage to the Allies occupation forces based in Nakagusuku Wan, Amami Oshima, Nagasaki and Wakayama. A total of 12 ships, including six LST, were sunk, 222 grounded and 32 damaged beyond economical repair, and over 60 airplanes were damaged. In Okinawa almost all the food, medical supplies and 80 per cent of all buildings were destroyed with 183 personal casualties.

Would the war have not ended by early September, the tremendous storm would have caused serious damage to the Invasion Force, forcing the cancellation of the ‘Operation Olympic’.

The War against Japan could have become an early Vietnam.

well maybe, or maybe the allies just kept making atomic bombs and dropping them, then opened an early version of Jurassic park.....

 

[Justo Miranda]

Let me try again. With simple words.

Hiroshima: one nuke.

Nagasaki: one nuke.

osiraq: no nuke.

What you don't understand, i don't know.

"Human losses were the Achilles’ heel of democracies"

Would Japan have not surrendered after the atomic attacks over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, the Allies would have been forced to land on the Japanese home islands.

There were plans to carry out the invasion in two phases. The first step, known as ‘Operation Olympic’, aimed to occupy the south of Kyushu Island and should start on November 1st. The second one, ‘Operation Coronet’, would have consisted of landings on Honshu Island, to control the Tokyo plain, and it was planned for March 1946. The whole plan, ‘Operation Downfall’, required 5,000,000 men, 3,000 ships, 66 aircraft carriers, loaded with 2,649 aircraft, and all the airplanes in the 7th, 8th and 10th Army Air Forces. Casualties were expected to be extremely heavy. A study requested by U.S. Navy Secretary estimated that conquering Japan would cost between 1.7 and 4 million casualties including 400,000 to 800,000 fatalities and the destruction of 800 Allied ships.

The Japanese High Command understood that human losses were the Achilles’ heel of democracies and decided that, after the failure of the kamikaze tactics to stop the invasion of Okinawa, the number of casualties infringed to the enemy in Kyushu was high enough. They could still negotiate a peace by exhaustion and avoid the cost of a final battle at Honshu. Therefore, they forgot the idea of sinking aircraft carriers and battleships and turned their attention to the humble Landing Craft Vehicles (LCV).

At this point of time the Japanese were no more interested in sinking the big heavily armoured warships. The political circumstances were more favourable to the kind of war that caused a high number of casualties to the Allies. It was better to try and destroy the little protected troop transports with a warhead of just 250 kg.

During the most critical moments of the amphibious assault, dozens of slow and unstable boats, cramped with troops, vehicles, explosives and fuel, desperately tried to reach the beach under the enemy fire. Some were reached by the artillery but most of them survived. The Japanese thought that this pattern could be altered and devised all kind of defensive strategies to convert Kyushu in a swamp of blood. They took advantage of the three-to-two local numeric superiority of the Japanese army and mobilized the civil population to perform banzai charges.

On 9 October 1945, the typhoon Louise passed over the Okinawa Island, with winds of 150-220 kph and heavy seas with 9-11 m waves, causing serious damage to the Allies occupation forces based in Nakagusuku Wan, Amami Oshima, Nagasaki and Wakayama. A total of 12 ships, including six LST, were sunk, 222 grounded and 32 damaged beyond economical repair, and over 60 airplanes were damaged. In Okinawa almost all the food, medical supplies and 80 per cent of all buildings were destroyed with 183 personal casualties.

Would the war have not ended by early September, the tremendous storm would have caused serious damage to the Invasion Force, forcing the cancellation of the ‘Operation Olympic’.

The War against Japan could have become an early Vietnam.

well maybe, or maybe the allies just kept making atomic bombs and dropping them, then opened an early version of Jurassic park.....

Maybe...T-Rex popularity greatly increased after devouring the lawyer in Jurassic Park .

 

[Foo Fighter]

Any invasion of the home island would have cost a lot of lives, not just as a result of the fighting but the aftermath. I truly believe the nuclear strikes saved more than they killed but we do need to control them and who has them.

 

[Orionblamblam]

well maybe, or maybe the allies just kept making atomic bombs and dropping them, then opened an early version of Jurassic park.....

The existence of Godzilla and Rodan and the like, as amply displayed in any of a number of high-quality documentaries, show that Japan *did* become a form of Jurassic Park.

 

[Hood]

Criticisms of the strategic bombing campaign were already there by early 1944, even 'Guy' Gibson during his public tour in the USA in 1943 publicly said that mass bombing was useless (much to the ire of Harris). Harris refused to divert his bombers to more targeted bombing campaigns, he loathed 'panacea merchants' yet couldn't see he was himself just such a merchant, believing wiping out every town and city would end the war without the need for troops. It took strong political pressure to get him to divert bombers to other efforts. Even Portal as Chief of the Air Staff had no real power over his subordinate. In truth by late 1944 most Allied commanders were ignoring Harris and Hap Arnold and getting on the war, their false claims self-evident as Allied troops were slogging across France and the Low Countries. Sadly that just let off the hook and they carried out their private war until the end. Anyone else who had disobeyed and refused orders as often as Harris would have been sacked, but he was a household name and lauded high in the propaganda stakes so Churchill could never remove him.
The fact the crews of Bomber Command never got their true reward and recognition was because of this, they paid the price to keep Harris until the bitter end and Churchill quickly tried to bury the whole episode.

The Allies had little choice, they were churning out thousands of Lancasters, Halifaxes, Stirlings, B-17s and B-24s and had plans to churn out Lincolns, Windsors and B-29s in similar numbers when it was obvious there would be little left for a force of 3-4,000 Lincolns and Windors to bomb. They had geared up their training and requirements to feed the bomber machine, they couldn't simply switch off the tap. And as ever in war, you use the weapons available to you and those bombers were used.

History is never straightforward. For example, we always hear the story of the V-weapons and their deadly trail of destruction. How many books or programmes mention the reality that Allied bombing of V-weapon sites across France, Belgium and Holland actually inflicted far more casualties on French, Belgian and Dutch civilians that the V-weapons did to the British population? Tactical bombing was just as much as a sledgehammer as strategic bombing.

I always take the "A-bomb saved millions" line with a pinch of salt. Nobody knows how the invasion would have gone. Japan had little intact military industry left, she had little oil stocks left, morale was low, the population was half starved. There is no doubt that the military would have fought on regardless of loss and self-sacrifice but would the people really have fought with any enthusiasm or maintained any enthusiasm for very long? The Kenpeitai could keep everyone fighting through sheer terror (even the Nazi's couldn't maintain order at the end). Scaling up losses from Okinawa and Iwo Jima was probably not ideal, for example the Philippines were recaptured with 68,0000 casualties, off Okinawa less than 40 ships were actually sunk with 368 damaged. Allied ships of TF37 and TF38 were bombarding up and down the Japanese mainland without loss in July and August and inflicting serious losses of aircraft and ships on the Japanese (though the battleship bombardments aimed at steelworks probably had little material effect overall).

 

[Fluff]

I always take the "A-bomb saved millions" line with a pinch of salt. Nobody knows how the invasion would have gone. Japan had little intact military industry left, she had little oil stocks left, morale was low, the population was half starved. There is no doubt that the military would have fought on regardless of loss and self-sacrifice but would the people really have fought with any enthusiasm or maintained any enthusiasm for very long? The Kenpeitai could keep everyone fighting through sheer terror (even the Nazi's couldn't maintain order at the end). Scaling up losses from Okinawa and Iwo Jima was probably not ideal, for example the Philippines were recaptured with 68,0000 casualties, off Okinawa less than 40 ships were actually sunk with 368 damaged. Allied ships of TF37 and TF38 were bombarding up and down the Japanese mainland without loss in July and August and inflicting serious losses of aircraft and ships on the Japanese (though the battleship bombardments aimed at steelworks probably had little material effect overall).

I would say fortunately, we will never know. I'm not sure the allies were expecting a strong military defence, as someone mentioned it could have become vietnam, if every japanese slit one allied throat, that would be a lot of dead, and of course the reaction would have been to kill 'every' japanese adult. Sorry to wonder into AH, but in such a case, maybe Stalin realises he can keep the rest of the allies bogged down, by shipping ex-german weapons over, leaving him to secure his new eurpoean dominions.

 

[Hood]

I would say fortunately, we will never know. I'm not sure the allies were expecting a strong military defence, as someone mentioned it could have become vietnam, if every japanese slit one allied throat, that would be a lot of dead, and of course the reaction would have been to kill 'every' japanese adult. Sorry to wonder into AH, but in such a case, maybe Stalin realises he can keep the rest of the allies bogged down, by shipping ex-german weapons over, leaving him to secure his new european dominions.

There are a lot of things about the Japanese psyche that is hard to explain or understand from our perspective.
One question that never seems to get asked is why or how Japan adjusted so quickly to occupation in late 1945? Japan had been unconquered, indeed isolated from the world for a large part of its history, a suspicious, traditional and feudalistic society that had morphed in the 20th century into a more nationalistic and militaristic society but still deeply traditional and hierarchical. And yet they seemed to accept US occupation and transformation of the their political, economical and social spheres the like the Japanese people had never experienced before. Yet there were no uprisings or riots or violent backlashes.

On ex-German weapons, I was reading an article month about RAF recovery teams in Norway in 1945. They were carefully sorting, preparing and storing ex-Luftwaffe weapons and equipment to ship to the Far East. A rather puzzling affair given how much resources the Allies had in 1945 and the supply difficulties it would bring, but perhaps indications that the British at least thought Germany's kit could be of use to them.