Evening star., 1949-03-16
Bombers and Another War

the article entitled Nonstop B-50 Flight
Demonstrates Need for Big Army, Navy" by
David Lawrence, which appeared in The
Star for March is without parallel. Al
though not particularly surprising to an
habitual reader Of Mr.. Lawrence, the man
ner in which he distorts the facts and ar
rives at an erroneous conclusion adds little
to the stature Of the press
Now, the obvious purpose Of the round
the-world fight was to prove the Air Force
could strike any target on earth, and the
route was purposely selected to avoid Rus
sian territory and its satellites. Neverthe-
less Mr.. Lawrence goes to great length to
prove q large Army and Navy are needed
to protect the refueling bases used in this
24000-mile demonstration flight. All this
despite the fact that 80 per cent of the in
dustry targets of Russia are easily within
50o0-mile range from our present bases in
the United States, Alaska, Iceland, England
and Japan. To quote few figures: Moscow
NO. target is within $500 nautical miles
from Maine. 271o from the Azores. $3.50
from Fairbanks. 1890 from Chicago and
only 1850 from London.
Categorically, Mr.. Lawrence states "Un-
less the Navy and Army can take and hold
those bases and occupying troops can main
tain those bases against opposition, there
can be no long range bombing Of sustained
nature" This is patiently ridiculous, as we
could commence sustained long-range bomb
ing from this country. If necessary, within a
very short times Obviously, it would be more
convenient to do so from bases closer to
the enemy provided the costs of securing
and maintaining said bases were not
excessive.
Doubts Value of Bases.
Mr.. Lawrence's synthetic argument about
the refueling bases Is without merit. He
states that in the last war a hostile Navy
took the Philippines. This is quite true,
of course. However, Russia has little Navy
strength outside of strong submarine force.
so the mission of our naval arm therefore
will be more defensive than offensive.
The same thing applies to Hawaii. 1t
is very doubtful that in any future war with
Russia Hawaii will be subject to attack.
1t seems considerably more likely it will be
used merely for supply base terminal for
our antisubmarine activities.
Mr.. Lawrence states further on that:
while theoretically long bombing
from continental United States is possible.
it is not yet regarded as being as effective as
bombing directly from strategically located
bases" Well. again 1t seems to be problem
Of definition. What are strategically located
bases? Naturally. the closer We can move
our bases to the enemy, the more economical
are able to attack without air refueling op-
erations, we will therefore be able to achieve
q higher 1atio Of sorties per man hour.
Mr.. Lawrence goes on to say that bomberS
cannot venture back and forth without pro-
lection of fighter planes. Here, he again
proves that he has a mistaken concept OF
present day strategic bombardment. The
fighter escort mass bomb attacks Of World
War II will not necessarily be repeated in
a future conflict. Where thousands of Fly
ing Fortresses once were needed to destroy
an objective. one atomic bomb now does 1t
with equal facility. Our bombing crews al
ready are trained in night and instrument
operations. It is assumed that the majority
Of atomic bomb attacks will be made under
cover of darkness or weather with the aid
of radar and new electronic means.
Will Bomb From U. S.
Mr.. Lawrence says that no one, as yet.
has claimed the Air Force can carry out
sustained long range bombing from the
United States. deny this. In the event
q war starts tomorrow, I have no doubt but
that the Strategic Air Command Of the
United States Air Force Immediately will
retaliate with atomic BOMBS and will con-
tinue these attacks with increasing intensity.
indefinitely.
Assuming that Mr.. Lawrence is sincere in
his effort to present his arguments it only
can be presumed that he is misguided-that
he holds the wrong strategic concept. Many
others of the "Maginot Line" type mind
refuse to accept the fact that new strategic
concept has been formulated. They refuse
to believe that the triphibious operations of
World War II were improvisations forced
upon us by failure to provide planes of such
range to lombard Japan, and without the
terrible cost of taking and holding island
fortresSes.
How can a thinking person, knowing the
destructive powers of an atomic bomb, con-
slider paying the cost of orthodox bombing,
followed by amphibious assault? Russia, let
us remember, presents totally different
picture from Japan. Russia does not need
navy. She has no need for a navy to
protect an oceanic lifeline. She fears no
navy She is completely self sufficient, and
there is very little our Navy can do to hurt
Russia.
In presenting this rebuttal for Mr.. Law
rence's arguments. hope no one is misled
into believing that the Air Force should not
have bases abroad. or does not plan on using
large numbers of airplanes and conventional
bombs. While there Is a definite need for
these factors, it should be remembered that
they are tactical rather than strategie
considerations.
1t is to be regretted that columnst of
Mr.. LaWrence'S powers is unable to accept
the new strategic concepts. Let us not for
get that it was thinking of this sort that
led the French to depend implicitly on the
Maginot Line, ignoring progress that other
nations had been making prior to World
War I.
Mr.. Lawrence and "the battleship admi
rails" have much in common, but it is doubt
full If the American people will allow them
selves to be miSled. x. Y. z.
To the Editor of The Star:
A commentator has announced over
popular broadcast that the Air Force had
just released list of 70 cities of the U. S.
s. R. which would be bombed in event of war
with Russia. A few weeks ago well-known
columnist wrote that some authorities felt it
might be better to have war with Russia
right now and get vt over with. Several
times week commentators here and there
broadcast their rawlings on cold war" and
t@ ifn nd inAo