![Transcription Center logo](/themes/custom/tc_theme/assets/image/logo.png)
This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.
would have harmed his own war-making capacity far more that that of his enemies. All in all, the conclusion appears to be inescapable that the United States will not use the atomic bomb unless: 1. The United States can protect itself against Russia atomic reprisals. 2. The United Sates, by means of air supremacy, can drop substantially more bombs on Russian territory, while keeping Russian attacks down to a very small number. [[footnote]]22 To complicate the matter further, even if these two conditions were fulfilled, diplomacy might impose a limit on use of atomic bombs. It appears that it is possible, if not probable, that World War III will be fought without the use of the atomic bomb. If the bomb is not used, the war in all probability will be a long war. Assuming the atomic bomb is used, can our air arm achieve a knock-out blow in a relatively short time, a period of weeks? Assume also our capability of delivering sufficient bombs on Russian targets. Answers to this question are, of course, pure conjecture. It has been stated that Russia might not recognize the blow as decisive and continue to fight in Western Europe; that the Communists are internationally minded; that they would move to Berlin, Paris, or Rome after Moscow and Leningrad are bombed out; that guerrilla warfare would be the Russian tactics. [[footnote]]23 The belief has been expressed that the primary effect of strategic bombing on the Red Army is attrition and that the time lag is such that the Red Army could transfer its base to Western Europe and _____________________________ [[footnote]]22 S.T. Possory, Op. Cit., p. 26ff. [[footnote]]23 W. L. Lippman, "The Russian American War", [[underlined]] The Atlantic Monthly, [[/underlined]] July 1949, p. 21ff. 18