Originally Posted by
Mk 1
Ken, I think that was more due to the input of General Douglas -I'm-so-important-I-dont't-need-to-listen-to-my-president McArthur.
Indeed, and what stopped him from using nukes was his civilian commander in chief. If Truman had OK'd a nuclear release does anyone imagine the target(s) would have been "purely military with no collateral." Nope. Same with nuking a "purely military target" like a Carrier Battle Group. Nuking a CBG would be taken as a declaration of war, just as taking out battleships at Pearl Harbor was taken as a declaration of war. Once war is declared and nukes released, the target list is
certain to include much more than "pure military targets". The notion that the US would restrict itself to "proportionality" in a full on war is absurd. Essentially
all of US military doctrine calls for an overwhelming response. Remember "shock and awe"?
Zero "proportionality" there, and yet
zero carriers threatened, much less nuked.
There's an old saying dating back to WW2. If you shoot at a squad of troops, how do you know who they are?
If you get accurate return fire with rifles, they are Brits
If you get return fire with machine guns, they are Germans
If nothing happens for 10 minutes, but then your position is obliterated with an artillery barrage, they're Americans.
For good or ill, the American military mind set is to use overwhelming firepower. That's doubly true after the Vietnam experience. Remember that the US
entered WW2 because a bunch of battleships were sunk on a fairly remote island outpost not even part of the US homeland. Take a look at any photos of Dresden and Tokyo
after WW2 and then try to sell the notion of "proportionality". That dog won't hunt. Proportionality in a full on war is a pipe dream.