What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?
-
By the time it was developed there was nothing left in Germany to drop it on.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
@Mik said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
By the time it was developed there was nothing left in Germany to drop it on.
How so? What metrics do you use to come up with the judgement that says Japan still had assets worth bombing but Germany did not?
-
Since Japan started WW2, I guess it's only fitting they were the recipient of the most powerful weapon used during the war.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@Mik said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
By the time it was developed there was nothing left in Germany to drop it on.
How so? What metrics do you use to come up with the judgement that says Japan still had assets worth bombing but Germany did not?
@Axtremus said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
@Mik said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
By the time it was developed there was nothing left in Germany to drop it on.
How so? What metrics do you use to come up with the judgement that says Japan still had assets worth bombing but Germany did not?
For starters the first atomic bomb was not ready before July 45, three months after Germany surrendered. The Allies all had troops in Germany, so we'd have been dropping it near our own troops. Japan would have been a bloody nightmare to invade, with an uncertain conclusion.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
Since Japan started WW2, I guess it's only fitting they were the recipient of the most powerful weapon used during the war.
@Jolly said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
Since Japan started WW2
Some will say that Hitler's invasion of Poland was the official start of WWII. Two days after that invasion, France and Britain declared war.
One could say that Japan's invasion of Manchuria in 1931 was a precursor, however.
-
No, he meant Manchuria.
After WW1, Japan experienced a population explosion and an industrial surge. Led primarily by the military in a nominal democracy that also had an emporor (that's complicated), the resource poor country decided to take those resources from the Chinese. The Japanese Empire expansion began.
-
No, he meant Manchuria.
After WW1, Japan experienced a population explosion and an industrial surge. Led primarily by the military in a nominal democracy that also had an emporor (that's complicated), the resource poor country decided to take those resources from the Chinese. The Japanese Empire expansion began.
@Jolly said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
the resource poor country decided to take those resources from the Chinese. The Japanese Empire expansion began.
True, however, it was really a two-nation regional conflict, no?
In Europe, once Poland was invaded, within 72 hours, there were at least four adversaries.
-
@Jolly said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
the resource poor country decided to take those resources from the Chinese. The Japanese Empire expansion began.
True, however, it was really a two-nation regional conflict, no?
In Europe, once Poland was invaded, within 72 hours, there were at least four adversaries.
@George-K said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
@Jolly said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
the resource poor country decided to take those resources from the Chinese. The Japanese Empire expansion began.
True, however, it was really a two-nation regional conflict, no?
In Europe, once Poland was invaded, within 72 hours, there were at least four adversaries.
Roosevelt didn't care for the Japanese or their motives. By 1937, the New Deal was playing out and Roosevelt, as many presidents do, became more involved in foreign policy. The screws started to turn on the Japanese. Restrictions of trade, particularly oil and steel, talk of a naval blockade, breaking off negotiations with the Japanese...All were part of the effort.
We knew what we were doing. As Stimson wrote in his diary, The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.
-
@Mik said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
By the time it was developed there was nothing left in Germany to drop it on.
Except, of course, the Russians.
-
@Mik said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
By the time it was developed there was nothing left in Germany to drop it on.
Except, of course, the Russians.
-
@Mik said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
By the time it was developed there was nothing left in Germany to drop it on.
Except, of course, the Russians.
@Copper said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
@Mik said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
By the time it was developed there was nothing left in Germany to drop it on.
Except, of course, the Russians.
Channeling Patton, are we?
-
@Axtremus said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
@Mik said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
By the time it was developed there was nothing left in Germany to drop it on.
How so? What metrics do you use to come up with the judgement that says Japan still had assets worth bombing but Germany did not?
For starters the first atomic bomb was not ready before July 45, three months after Germany surrendered. The Allies all had troops in Germany, so we'd have been dropping it near our own troops. Japan would have been a bloody nightmare to invade, with an uncertain conclusion.
@Mik said in What if the US had developed, but not used the atomic bombs?:
Japan would have been a bloody nightmare to invade, with an uncertain conclusion.
This.
I read an article about the estimated cost in lifes (on both sides) if the US would have NOT used the atom bomb and would have done a traditional land invasion. It would have been much much much higher than the loss from the atom bombs.
-
An older video by Bill Whittle.
Link to video
