The Pros And Cons Of Conventional Bombing

1475 Words 6 Pages
When looked up in the dictionary, the word conventional means, not using, making, or involving nuclear weapons or energy, nonnuclear. Therefore, conventional bombing is any type of bombing used during World War II besides the nuclear bomb. In the Pacific Theater of the war, bombing was used constantly, but around V-E day, it was switched to nighttime incendiary bombing in an attempt to close out the war wholly and quickly. This lead to millions of civilians being killed which is why this option is so controversial. I believe that the nuclear bomb and conventional bombing are equally as bad and that the nuclear bomb would only be justified if the incendiary raids had not occurred. An amphibious assault or submarine blockade simply had too many …show more content…
The Japanese had a deep belief created over history that caused an unbreakable devotion to their emperor. This produced kamikaze attacks and civilian suicide in massive amounts. A way to destroy this, and in extent win the war, would be the use of conventional bombing, specifically incendiary bombs. In the Tokyo Fire Raid on March 9, 1945, “279 B-29’s dropped 2,000 tons of firebombs on the city. Within 30 minutes, the fires were out of control and by the next morning one million Japanese civilians were homeless.” One can only imagine the morale of the Japanese at that point. Their homes had been destroyed and their loved ones killed and they themselves wounded. By attacking this aspect of the Japanese, it was sure to shatter the system of devotion to the emperor. If the Allies continued to cut down Japanese morale, there would be no civilians to support the emperor and therefore all would …show more content…
Conventional bombing was not chosen as the primary method of ending the war because of the importance of the atomic bomb. Due to all countries involved in the war, allies and axis powers, attempting to build a nuclear bomb first, the desire to create a monopoly appeared. Although conventional bombing had proved how destructive and effective it could be, policy makers did not strongly consider the option because demonstrating their atomic bomb before other countries was far more important and clearly was a way to end the

Related Documents