Pre-emptive nuclear strikes

[Fluff]

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.

The only benefit, given the huge numbers of rifles. MG's that must have been coming off the lines, can be the deniability aspect, as to how that Burmese hill tribe are equipped with MG42 etc. But I can only see Stalin benefiting, I cant see a deniability benefit for the Allies, especially not for the old colonial powers, who were planning their return to past pleasures.

But I suppose a couple of million KAR with ammo, means a couple of million less lee-enfields to produce- maybe the treasury was sponsoring such activity?

 

[martinbayer]

I always wondered whether Little Boy could alternatively been used for psychological warfare instead of a direct attack on a population center. Instead of Hiroshima, drop it on top of Mount Fuji, a national symbol and one of Japan's "Three Holy Mountains" that is in a direct line of sight from Tokyo (and the nuclear flash would surely have been noticed there, as well as in lots of other places). Then tell the Japanese "Go check it out - if you don't surrender within a week, the next on will wipe out one of your major cities." But I understand that in war you don't often take unnecessary (from a strictly utilitarian point of view) chances, and I also think that part of the motivation of hitting big cities was to be able to study the real world effects of both Uranium and Plutonium devices, as well as to send a message to the USSR.

 

[uk 75]

The tragedy of the allied destruction of German cities is compounded by the fact that Hitler was so crazy that he believed "weak civilians" deserved such a fate when soldiers were dying on the Eastern front.
In one of his lengthy conversations with Hitler in 1938 Chamberlain had described the impression of the fragile homes he had seen from the air after making his first ever flight. Hitler waved this aside as the price of war.
Even if he had been able to confront Hitler with Harris's Bomber Command at full strength, Chamberlain could not have detered the madman from war.

 

[edwest4]

Before the atomic bombs were dropped, target selection occurred. One city was deemed off limits. The Russians invaded Manchuria, causing additional problems for the Japanese. Couldn't our Ally join in on an attack on the main islands? Of course not. This course of action was agreed upon at a previous conference.

No one wants to mention the various high-ranking military men who thought dropping atomic bombs was a bad idea. And what about 24 hour conventional bombing of military targets? Or the fact that the US Navy had ships fitted with multiple rocket launchers? The US planned to mass-produce V-1 copies for the invasion as well (JB-2., Loon). But that was cancelled. The lingering radiation led to cancers but that is not mentioned either.

 

[edwest4]

The tragedy of the allied destruction of German cities is compounded by the fact that Hitler was so crazy that he believed "weak civilians" deserved such a fate when soldiers were dying on the Eastern front.
In one of his lengthy conversations with Hitler in 1938 Chamberlain had described the impression of the fragile homes he had seen from the air after making his first ever flight. Hitler waved this aside as the price of war.
Even if he had been able to confront Hitler with Harris's Bomber Command at full strength, Chamberlain could not have detered the madman from war.

That is pure, unsupported nonsense. Hitler did not finance the war out of his own pocket. Germans were building the weapons before the start of the war. More facts please.

 

[Fluff]

Before the atomic bombs were dropped, target selection occurred. One city was deemed off limits. The Russians invaded Manchuria, causing additional problems for the Japanese. Couldn't our Ally join in on an attack on the main islands? Of course not. This course of action was agreed upon at a previous conference.

No one wants to mention the various high-ranking military men who thought dropping atomic bombs was a bad idea. And what about 24 hour conventional bombing of military targets? Or the fact that the US Navy had ships fitted with multiple rocket launchers? The US planned to mass-produce V-1 copies for the invasion as well (JB-2., Loon). But that was cancelled. The lingering radiation led to cancers but that is not mentioned either.

I would suggest no-one knew for sure if the nuclear bombs would work, in the field, so yes plans were made for an invasion in 46, both UK and US had plans for newer aircraft, tanks etc that would have been used. Radiation is a side effect of the bombs yes. As mentioned above, one reason for there use was probably to test them, and another was to limit allied casualties. If you saying the bombs shouldnt have been used because of the radiation, I'would suggest you talk to the Japanese leaders that led their country on a folly of global scale. The allies settled the war, they didnt start it, nor cause it.

 

[uk 75]

Edwest
I am equally puzzled by your counterpoints.
Are you suggesting like Harris that civilians deserved to be bombed as that would stop the enemy from being able to wage war?
Problem was, even Harris could not kill enough civilians to make that approach work.
And my point stands. Hitler was a madman who cared nothing about the lives lost in "his struggle".

 

[Archibald]

Some random elements about the why and how and uncertainities faced by Truman when making the decision

The options were
- the nukes
- Operation Starvation (starve the Japanese people by vaporizing anything that look like a mean of transporting food)
- More incendiary bombings (Tokyo, March 1945 was arguably as horrific as the nukes)
- Grandfall and Coronet (hundred of thousands would die: American, Commonwealth, civilians, japanese military)
All four options would be a bloodbath.
- Another option (as suggested): drop a nuke as a warning shot to try and scare the shit out of the Japanese military.

Main problem was the sheer fanaticism of the Japanese military leadership. Those guys were completely insane, Tojo and many others. Die hard fanatics.
There was no absolute certainity that even the Emperor could have told them to stop the madness - without the nukes.

Surrender of Japan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Surrender of Japan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Crucially - even with the nukes, some events between August 9 (Nagasaki) and the surrender 6 days later (August 15) are quite disturbing.

There was a very real risk that those military fanatical assholes decided to carry on the butchering until only bones and rubble was left. Don't forget - they had plans for a last-ditch defense were the elder, the kids and the wives would charge US soldiers with bamboo spears.

Anami and Tojo were ruthless son of bitches.

As War Minister, Anami was outspoken against the idea of surrender, despite his awareness that Japan's losses on the battlefield and the destruction of Japan's cities and industrial capability by American bombing meant that by this point Japan had lost the war militarily.[4]

Even after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Anami opposed acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration, and proposed instead that a large-scale battle be fought on the Japanese mainland causing such massive Allied casualties that Japan would somehow be able to evade surrender and perhaps even keep some of what it had conquered.

Also this (what a complete idiot and moron, really)

I am convinced that the Americans had only one bomb, after all.

— Korechika Anami, immediately after the drop of Little Boy over Hiroshima

With that kind of people, there is real doubt that a "warning shot" even very close from Tokyo would have changed anything.

 

[Orionblamblam]

There are a lot of things about the Japanese psyche that is hard to explain or understand from our perspective.

There are lots of things about prit near *every* psyche that are hard for "us" to understand. History is replete with cultures, even our own recent ancestral cultures, that just plain don't make sense to us. A little over a century and a half ago the US tore itself apart because a lot of folks thought it was not just good and proper but divinely ordained that some people are natural slaves. More recent than that, people like HP Lovecraft saw the Irish and Italians as terribly different and awful; even the Norwegians weren't white enough for him. Further back, the Spartans were almost *wholly* alien to us culturally and ethically, with an easy acceptance of murder and a wholly insane notion of proper relationships between men and women... and men and men and boys. And what Genghis Khan and the Mongols did were a level of genocidal awful that even Hitler and maybe even Stalin would have blanched at.

"Psyche" changes a lot faster than people seem to think. Aktion T4 saw some of the best doctors in the world turned into mass murderers within the lifespan of the Third Reich... only 12 years. An entire national healthcare system turned whackadoodle in little short of no time. It is a flaw in *our* psyche that we think that our way of viewing the world is the datum by which all others are measured... and always will be.

 

[Archibald]

19th and 20th century certainly had a knack to produce such people - good doctors or scientist on one side, bloodthirsty fanatics / nationalists / antisemits / colonial supporters on the other. Great Britain, France, Belgium, and many others had a load of people like this.

Jules Ferry - on one side, made a successful push for mass schooling of kids and prevent their employments in coal mines. Fine. On the other side - ruthless supporter of the french colonial empire, notably the Berlin congress in the 1880's that eviscerated Africa.

 

[martinbayer]

Some random elements about the why and how and uncertainities faced by Truman when making the decision

The options were
- the nukes
- Operation Starvation (starve the Japanese people by vaporizing anything that look like a mean of transporting food)
- More incendiary bombings (Tokyo, March 1945 was arguably as horrific as the nukes)
- Grandfall and Coronet (hundred of thousands would die: American, Commonwealth, civilians, japanese military)
All four options would be a bloodbath.
- Another option (as suggested): drop a nuke as a warning shot to try and scare the shit out of the Japanese military.

Main problem was the sheer fanaticism of the Japanese military leadership. Those guys were completely insane, Tojo and many others. Die hard fanatics.
There was no absolute certainity that even the Emperor could have told them to stop the madness - without the nukes.

Surrender of Japan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Surrender of Japan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Crucially - even with the nukes, some events between August 9 (Nagasaki) and the surrender 6 days later (August 15) are quite disturbing.

There was a very real risk that those military fanatical assholes decided to carry on the butchering until only bones and rubble was left. Don't forget - they had plans for a last-ditch defense were the elder, the kids and the wives would charge US soldiers with bamboo spears.

Anami and Tojo were ruthless son of bitches.

As War Minister, Anami was outspoken against the idea of surrender, despite his awareness that Japan's losses on the battlefield and the destruction of Japan's cities and industrial capability by American bombing meant that by this point Japan had lost the war militarily.[4]

Even after the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Anami opposed acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration, and proposed instead that a large-scale battle be fought on the Japanese mainland causing such massive Allied casualties that Japan would somehow be able to evade surrender and perhaps even keep some of what it had conquered.

Also this (what a complete idiot and moron, really)

I am convinced that the Americans had only one bomb, after all.

— Korechika Anami, immediately after the drop of Little Boy over Hiroshima

With that kind of people, there is real doubt that a "warning shot" even very close from Tokyo would have changed anything.

Archibald,

I pretty much concur with your analysis, and hindsight makes it clear that two devices were necessary to drive the point home, but I could see a scenario where a decidedly shell shocked population, together with losses incurred from a drop of Fat Man on Hiroshima, would have achieved the end goal, while sparing the inhabitants of Nagasaki. I'll leave it to alternate history afficionados to play this scenario out.

Martin

 

[Archibald]

Fair enough !

 

[martinbayer]

There are a lot of things about the Japanese psyche that is hard to explain or understand from our perspective.

There are lots of things about prit near *every* psyche that are hard for "us" to understand. History is replete with cultures, even our own recent ancestral cultures, that just plain don't make sense to us. A little over a century and a half ago the US tore itself apart because a lot of folks thought it was not just good and proper but divinely ordained that some people are natural slaves. More recent than that, people like HP Lovecraft saw the Irish and Italians as terribly different and awful; even the Norwegians weren't white enough for him. Further back, the Spartans were almost *wholly* alien to us culturally and ethically, with an easy acceptance of murder and a wholly insane notion of proper relationships between men and women... and men and men and boys. And what Genghis Khan and the Mongols did were a level of genocidal awful that even Hitler and maybe even Stalin would have blanched at.

"Psyche" changes a lot faster than people seem to think. Aktion T4 saw some of the best doctors in the world turned into mass murderers within the lifespan of the Third Reich... only 12 years. An entire national healthcare system turned whackadoodle in little short of no time. It is a flaw in *our* psyche that we think that our way of viewing the world is the datum by which all others are measured... and always will be.

I might add that the current psyche of a large part of the USA is utterly baffling to a lot of countries around the world as well.

 

[Archibald]

This. thread. is. doomed.

 

[edwest4]

Edwest
I am equally puzzled by your counterpoints.
Are you suggesting like Harris that civilians deserved to be bombed as that would stop the enemy from being able to wage war?
Problem was, even Harris could not kill enough civilians to make that approach work.
And my point stands. Hitler was a madman who cared nothing about the lives lost in "his struggle".

Your point is ridiculous. Who financed the war? Who built the tanks and planes? What was the largest global chemical cartel in the world? I'll answer the last: IG Farben. Synthetic fuel, synthetic rubber and synthetic lubricants.

I never mentioned bombing civilians. Who worked, pre-war, to build the German war machine? Civilians.

And what did the Americans think of Hitler? He was on the cover of Time magazine in March, 1933, again in April 1936, and was named Man of the Year in the January 1939 issue.

 

[_Del_]

Main problem was the sheer fanaticism of the Japanese military leadership. Those guys were completely insane, Tojo and many others. Die hard fanatics.
There was no absolute certainity that even the Emperor could have told them to stop the madness - without the nukes.

Even with the nukes, there was a coup attempt after the Emperor's declaration that he planned to surrender. And there were incidents even after the Emperor publicly declared a ceasefire.

 

[marauder2048]

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.

Surely it's any kind of WMD pre-emption.

The fact that Japan could not effectively retaliate against CONUS was a major factor in WMD being released on it.

If it hadn't been nukes, the US was going to resort to massive CW bombardment using
the world's largest CW arsenal augmented by the captured German nerve agents: Tabun and Sarin.

How much the US knew about the CBW weapons employed against the Chinese is an open question.
It's still and will forever be murky because the technical details for making CBW agents at scale are still
useful.

 

[marauder2048]

Before the atomic bombs were dropped, target selection occurred. One city was deemed off limits. The Russians invaded Manchuria, causing additional problems for the Japanese. Couldn't our Ally join in on an attack on the main islands? Of course not. This course of action was agreed upon at a previous conference.

The Russians weren't great at amphibious operations as the high cost of one of their operations against Hokkaido proved.
They needed huge Allied logistical support to mount and sustain one.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Nigata and Kyoto were off the targeting list.
Kyoto was off to-be-nuked list because Stimson had visited Japan before the war and rather liked it.

No one wants to mention the various high-ranking military men who thought dropping atomic bombs was a bad idea.

I've heard Eisenhower make remarks but he knew nothing about operations in the Pacific.

Some Navy leadership expressed the orthodox Navy view (based in part on War Plan Orange)
that neither the bomb nor an invasion were necessary: starvation via blockade would work in their view.

And whatever they may have said later, commanders in the Pacific were immediately demanding the bomb for tactical operations.

And what about 24 hour conventional bombing of military targets?

Hadn't produced anything meaningful; the Japanese were going to fight until their leaders told them to stop.
That was the contemporary intelligence assessment and I've seen nothing to suggest otherwise.

Or the fact that the US Navy had ships fitted with multiple rocket launchers?

Given the number of suicide boats the Japanese had to resist Olympic, those MRLs would have
been the first casualties.

The US planned to mass-produce V-1 copies for the invasion as well (JB-2., Loon). But that was cancelled. The lingering radiation led to cancers but that is not mentioned either.

What would cruise missiles have done that B-29s hadn't?

60 years of medical studies say:

The studies have clearly demonstrated that radiation exposure increases cancer risk, but also show that the average
lifespan of survivors was reduced by only a few months compared to those not exposed to radiation.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160811120353.htm

 

[Archibald]

Main problem was the sheer fanaticism of the Japanese military leadership. Those guys were completely insane, Tojo and many others. Die hard fanatics.
There was no absolute certainity that even the Emperor could have told them to stop the madness - without the nukes.

Even with the nukes, there was a coup attempt after the Emperor's declaration that he planned to surrender. And there were incidents even after the Emperor publicly declared a ceasefire.

Sure. That's the reason why I linked wikipedia. There was an aborted Coup on August 12 and clearly the japanese military leadership was in full denial mode. While respectful of the Emperor there was also a strong will to keep fighting. To the very end.
Would starvation have worked ? no idea.

 

[Josh_TN]

By the same logic the US should have launched pre-emotive nuclear strikes on the Soviet Union during the 50s...

A moral argument could be made. Things seem to have worked out OK (Russia's arsenal still exists and it remains a strategic competitor) but if the US had been overtaken by the USSR or simply forced into a large scale nuclear exchange with it, then a lot of people would have regretted not pre-emptively bombing the USSR in the late 1940's when the US had a clear capability to do so, both in terms of weapons and delivery platforms.

 

[Archibald]

if the US had been overtaken by the USSR or simply forced into a large scale nuclear exchange with it, then a lot of people would have regretted

I see the point you want to make, but I can't help thinking - I'm not sure a LOT of people would be left, to regreat anything.

 

[Josh_TN]

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.

I always find it weird that Tokyo is rarely mentioned in the nuclear argument. It seems likely more people were indiscriminately killed in that action than either nuclear attack. Conventional bombing of the scale of WWII approached the devastation of low yield nuclear weapons. To me the argument is weather bombing cities in general is moral or not; nuclear weapons were simply one way of achieving it. If Tokyo was an acceptable outcome, surely Hiroshima was as well.

 

[edwest4]

Before the atomic bombs were dropped, target selection occurred. One city was deemed off limits. The Russians invaded Manchuria, causing additional problems for the Japanese. Couldn't our Ally join in on an attack on the main islands? Of course not. This course of action was agreed upon at a previous conference.

The Russians weren't great at amphibious operations as the high cost of one of their operations against Hokkaido proved.
They needed huge Allied logistical support to mount and sustain one.

Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Nigata and Kyoto were off the targeting list.
Kyoto was off to-be-nuked list because Stimson had visited Japan before the war and rather liked it.

No one wants to mention the various high-ranking military men who thought dropping atomic bombs was a bad idea.

I've heard Eisenhower make remarks but he knew nothing about operations in the Pacific.

Some Navy leadership expressed the orthodox Navy view (based in part on War Plan Orange)
that neither the bomb nor an invasion were necessary: starvation via blockade would work in their view.

And whatever they may have said later, commanders in the Pacific were immediately demanding the bomb for tactical operations.

And what about 24 hour conventional bombing of military targets?

Hadn't produced anything meaningful; the Japanese were going to fight until their leaders told them to stop.
That was the contemporary intelligence assessment and I've seen nothing to suggest otherwise.

Or the fact that the US Navy had ships fitted with multiple rocket launchers?

Given the number of suicide boats the Japanese had to resist Olympic, those MRLs would have
been the first casualties.

The US planned to mass-produce V-1 copies for the invasion as well (JB-2., Loon). But that was cancelled. The lingering radiation led to cancers but that is not mentioned either.

What would cruise missiles have done that B-29s hadn't?

60 years of medical studies say:

The studies have clearly demonstrated that radiation exposure increases cancer risk, but also show that the average
lifespan of survivors was reduced by only a few months compared to those not exposed to radiation.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/08/160811120353.htm

Your assessment is sorely lacking in substantive research. The shockwave from the atomic bomb left scratched out images of men and horses on the ground. There was the effect from heat as well, as any post-war atomic test film would show. Monitors in protective gear were on the ground as soon as possible. The US needed data on the only kind of situation that mattered: effects on human beings under wartime conditions. It was clear that commanders in the Pacific were told little about how the bombs worked in action. Others besides Eisenhower voiced objections.

You should research why sending in V-1 copies was decided in the first place. And why that decision was called off. The US had the industrial capacity to rapidly mass-produce the desired number. In any case, V-1 copies would be launched from atop submarines post-war.

 

[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.

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.

I always find it weird that Tokyo is rarely mentioned in the nuclear argument. It seems likely more people were indiscriminately killed in that action than either nuclear attack. Conventional bombing of the scale of WWII approached the devastation of low yield nuclear weapons. To me the argument is weather bombing cities in general is moral or not; nuclear weapons were simply one way of achieving it. If Tokyo was an acceptable outcome, surely Hiroshima was as well.

I like to think the debate is a sign of a healthy society, and a rich society, financially. To have the luxury and time to try to second guess these often historical figures.

But I always reach the view, that we werent there, the records are probably incomplete, and in WW2 just because something happened, doesn't mean the general 4000 miles away was told by tomorrow morning. I always get back to the fact that the allies didnt start it, they lost millions of people, especially Russia, and one of their eggheads popped up with the stupid idea that one bomb could destroy one city, they gave him a few million and some desert and said have at it. Once delivered, they used it. Maybe they debated the moral case, but I'd suggest the case then, was shall we let the Brutal Japanese kill yet more of our boys, or shall we try this newfangled bomb thingy. I think I would make the same decision they did.

Wrapping this into the racist or simply war crime tones we see today, is in my view crazy. Some sanctions and no invite to the olympics wasn't going to put nice Mr Hitler off, nor Tojo.

what would have been a war crime, would to have not used it, and sent in the millions of men, in 46, and lost another million of them, along with 10 million japanese, mostly civilians.

 

[marauder2048]

Your assessment is sorely lacking in substantive research. The shockwave from the atomic bomb left scratched out images of men and horses on the ground. There was the effect from heat as well, as any post-war atomic test film would show. Monitors in protective gear were on the ground as soon as possible. The US needed data on the only kind of situation that mattered: effects on human beings under wartime conditions.

I provided a link to an excellent synopsis of 60 years of medical research on the subject; you've provided nothing.
Monitors were there because of the unknown unknowns but that was all well post-war. Quite why that's relevant to this
discussion is unclear.

It was clear that commanders in the Pacific were told little about how the bombs worked in action.

Why is that relevant? It produced heat and overpressure that killed the enemy.
The radiological effects wouldn't be debilitating to healthy enemy soldiers for days.

It was viewed, tactically, as a way to arrest the huge buildup of forces in Kyushu.

Others besides Eisenhower voiced objections.

When did they voice objection and how well were they informed of the alternatives?

I don't think the casualty projections for 'Olympic' were widely circulated though
US newspapers at the time had some remarkably well-informed analysis.

A lot of these objections were either:

a. off-the-cuff and uninformed
b. post-war when it became fashionable
c. or because the Navy was advocating/justifying its "starvation" strategy that was an outgrowth of War Plan Orange
d. or the Navy and Army were worried about the Air Force's post-war dominance via the atomic weapons monopoly

You should research why sending in V-1 copies was decided in the first place. And why that decision was called off. The US had the industrial capacity to rapidly mass-produce the desired number. In any case, V-1 copies would be launched from atop submarines post-war.

It would be wonderful way for US submarines to be sunk while they were trying to set-up to launch the V-1.

And quite what a < 2000 lb warhead would do better than the B-29 bombing and 16-inch shelling by
AP/HE rounds is your case to make.

B-29s were flying almost completely unopposed and the battleship bombardment was not contested;
the Japanese were husbanding all of their forces to resist the invasion.