Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Helmsman" data-source="post: 1545453" data-attributes="member: 14018">Of all the services the Navy was the most opposed to the use of the Atomic bomb. Had Fat Man and Little Boy not been used Japan would have been brought to her knees by the submarine blockade, extensive mining of shipping channels, and surface action groups bombarding shore targets. This however would take time. The invasion of Japan was slated for 1946. Public opinion was turning against the war, production was already being returned to civilian products and some troops were discharged. The invasion would have been unacceptable in terms of casulaties, regardless if it was 100k or 1 million (KIA, WIA, and missing). The Navy, even facing the threat of extensive kamikaze attacks when near the Japanese home islands had the least skin in the game. New AA guns like the 3&quot;/50 Mk 22 and fighters like the F8F Bearcat would go a long way in mitigating that threat. They also never faced fanatical Japanese resistance on the ground. See EB Sledges' (a marine) reaction to the bombing in &quot;With The Old Breed&quot; or read Paul Fussel's (an army rifleman) essay on using the bomb. Those two begin to scratch the surface of the reaction of the average American ground pounder who would have had to go ashore and finish the job.I get the need to question the narrative and possibly find ulterior motives but the use of the bomb was absolutely justified. And for icing on the cake, if they hadn't used it on civilian targets they would have been deployed tactically as a part of the pre-landing bombardment. Radiation casualties were not factored into the invasion due to its effects being unknown.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Helmsman, post: 1545453, member: 14018"] Of all the services the Navy was the most opposed to the use of the Atomic bomb. Had Fat Man and Little Boy not been used Japan would have been brought to her knees by the submarine blockade, extensive mining of shipping channels, and surface action groups bombarding shore targets. This however would take time. The invasion of Japan was slated for 1946. Public opinion was turning against the war, production was already being returned to civilian products and some troops were discharged. The invasion would have been unacceptable in terms of casulaties, regardless if it was 100k or 1 million (KIA, WIA, and missing). The Navy, even facing the threat of extensive kamikaze attacks when near the Japanese home islands had the least skin in the game. New AA guns like the 3"/50 Mk 22 and fighters like the F8F Bearcat would go a long way in mitigating that threat. They also never faced fanatical Japanese resistance on the ground. See EB Sledges' (a marine) reaction to the bombing in "With The Old Breed" or read Paul Fussel's (an army rifleman) essay on using the bomb. Those two begin to scratch the surface of the reaction of the average American ground pounder who would have had to go ashore and finish the job. I get the need to question the narrative and possibly find ulterior motives but the use of the bomb was absolutely justified. And for icing on the cake, if they hadn't used it on civilian targets they would have been deployed tactically as a part of the pre-landing bombardment. Radiation casualties were not factored into the invasion due to its effects being unknown. [/QUOTE]

Verification