I wonder what would have happened if Germany would not have lost the main land battles in Europe in '44/'45.
Would the U.S. still have used their two nuclear bombs on Japan, or would they have gone for Hitler?
Or.. split them up, one for Hiroshima, one for Munich for example?
But even if both were used against the Nazis, would Hitler have given up?
I doubt it, the hopeless war that has been fought in late '44 until mid '45 clearly shows that Hitler was a madman at that time.
What then? Would he have used his large supplies of nerve/poison gas, attached to V2 rockets and used in bombers, to massacre the Allied troops and civilians (e.g. in the UK) for revenge?
I ask this because I am VERY glad that Germany lost WW2 before the Americans got the chance to test their new devastating toy on us.
- dahool
Nuclear bombs
-
Abel Ravasz
- Member
- Posts: 402
- Joined: 31 Mar 2002, 22:46
- Location: Hungary/Slovakia
I don't think that the Allies would use an A-bomb in Europe, not when they knew that they had already won the war. In Japan, they dropped the bomb to avoid a hard and risky operation of landing, which could be extremely costy and would prolong the war by far. And, even with Churchill's departure, Britain still wouldn't let anyone to use the A-bomb in Europe. Not if the otherside wouldn't have one at the time (speaking of let's say 45 second half-46)
Abel
Abel
Considering the ruthlessness of the bombings, I don't think they would've doubted a second to nuke as many cities as possible. But the effects would not have been much worse than in Dresden for instance. The radiation is actually only deadly very close to the bomb. And there people die from the chockwave and the fire anyway. Look at Hiroshima an Nagasaki today! There is no radiation hazard whatsoever. And there were relatively few who died from radiation, compared to the blast and fire effects. Even at Chernobyl, only 30 died, mostly staff who died in the explosion and a few firemen who died from radiation after having fought the fire onsite. A slight increase in one type of cancer (90% curable) has been registred in the area, but there is no truth whatsoever to the freightening stories we have heard about it.
What is freightening about A-bombs is that in large numbers, they are very destructive. But in 45, early 46, US wouldn't have had enough bombs to make any difference to the damage they caused with conventinal bombs. Swedish military made an investigation in the 60s about building a Swedish bomb. They calculated that they needed at least 50 bombs to halt a Soviet invasion. The A-bomb is not the wonder weapon it often is said to be. You need quantity.
A German A-bomb at the end of the war would've been something else. Loosing the uptil then practically intact London in one blast could've affected the english moral, so to speak. However, even this would've resulted in little more than an even more gruesome revenge on the soon to be defeated Germans, and an even weaker after-war Europe.
What is freightening about A-bombs is that in large numbers, they are very destructive. But in 45, early 46, US wouldn't have had enough bombs to make any difference to the damage they caused with conventinal bombs. Swedish military made an investigation in the 60s about building a Swedish bomb. They calculated that they needed at least 50 bombs to halt a Soviet invasion. The A-bomb is not the wonder weapon it often is said to be. You need quantity.
A German A-bomb at the end of the war would've been something else. Loosing the uptil then practically intact London in one blast could've affected the english moral, so to speak. However, even this would've resulted in little more than an even more gruesome revenge on the soon to be defeated Germans, and an even weaker after-war Europe.
-
Gwynn Compton
- Member
- Posts: 2840
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 23:46
- Location: United Kingdom
Re: US nukes
It's true that when Nagasaki was bombed that was the only nuke the US had. BUT the bomb production program was only getting up to speed; if the war had continued, the number of bombs would have increased at a steady rate. The US already had something like a dozen bombs that were complete except for the fissile material.
Not many know it, but Japan came close to being nuked a 3rd time before it surrended, and would have if Oppenheimer hadn't intervened to stop Groves' shipment of the fissile material for bomb no. 3 on--I think--9 August. The casing and other parts were already at Tinian; all it needed was the core, and if Oppenheimer hadn't intervened, the core would have been on Tinian and assembled by the Project Alberta people before the 14th.
Not many know it, but Japan came close to being nuked a 3rd time before it surrended, and would have if Oppenheimer hadn't intervened to stop Groves' shipment of the fissile material for bomb no. 3 on--I think--9 August. The casing and other parts were already at Tinian; all it needed was the core, and if Oppenheimer hadn't intervened, the core would have been on Tinian and assembled by the Project Alberta people before the 14th.
Gwynn Compton, I'm sure they do. But the number of causulties due to radiation doesn't compare in any way to the casualties of the direct impact (although the individual cases might be more horrendous). Also, I'd think that very few were contaminated by radioactivity after the first few rainfalls or so. You won't get sick by living there today. Also, no child born had damaged genes in the reproductive cells (whataretheycallednowagain? like egg cells), even if they suffered from other awful injures due to radiation. This means that their children in turn would have no trace of the bombs.
A few nukes are effectively like huge conventional bombs. There are of course innovations, like the neutron bomb, which create more damage through radiation. It is the ability of delivering many nukes in a short time that makes nukewar something else than conventional wars. But few people outside the region would suffer from a full nukewar between India and pakistan, for instance. And the environment would not collapse. And the area would soon be habitable again.
A few nukes are effectively like huge conventional bombs. There are of course innovations, like the neutron bomb, which create more damage through radiation. It is the ability of delivering many nukes in a short time that makes nukewar something else than conventional wars. But few people outside the region would suffer from a full nukewar between India and pakistan, for instance. And the environment would not collapse. And the area would soon be habitable again.
I'm sure the allies would have nuked Germany, possibly even Berlin. The allies were thirsting for revenge agianst Germany and I can just see them dropping an a-bomb on say, Munich or Nuremburg. It is my belief that the bombs were built to destroy German cities but when Germany surrendered before their completion they were dropped on Japan instead. I'm sure the allies were disappointed that they weren't able to nuke Germany.
This was answered in some detail on the old boards. I don't think the Americans would have ever used the A-Bomb in Germany.
The use of Atomic Weapons is limited and there are few opportunities to employ them. Japan was an isolated, but prime, example of where the use of Atomic Weapons can bring about the desired affect.
Basically, two primary considerations must be met before an Atomic Bomb can be employed.
1) The target must have no strategic offensive retailitory ability.
2) The target must still posses ample defensive capability.
1945 Germany met neither of these conditions. Nazi Germany had tons of Sarin gas available. This could have easily been deployed on German jet bombers and used to destroy English cities. It could be transported via U-Boat and used against the United States.
The Allies feared a German chemical attack, and they often had Mustard Gas on hand to use if the Germans restorted to chemical warfare. One of the reasons why the Germans never used their superior chemical warfare abilities is they feared the United States had more potent chemical weapons based on agriculture, and the vulnerability of German cities to retailiation.
If the Allies used the Atomic Bomb, neither of these restraints would then apply. Western Europe would turn into a chemical warfare battlefield with huge loss of life against England.
Plus, by late 1944 it was obvious that Germany was going to be defeated, it was simply a matter of time. While the Battle of the Bulge came as a shock, that was quickly defeated and everyone knew the war would end soon. Plus, nobody expected huge Allied losses based on previous combat tallies.
Compare this to Japan.
Japan had no ability to strike the United States or US allies with a retailitory strike. The US could bomb Japan with impunity.
Yet, Japan itself was still not under assualt. A huge amount of casualties were anticipated on both sides. Using the A-bomb under such conditions made sense.
It wouldn't have made sense agaist the Germans.
Xanthro
The use of Atomic Weapons is limited and there are few opportunities to employ them. Japan was an isolated, but prime, example of where the use of Atomic Weapons can bring about the desired affect.
Basically, two primary considerations must be met before an Atomic Bomb can be employed.
1) The target must have no strategic offensive retailitory ability.
2) The target must still posses ample defensive capability.
1945 Germany met neither of these conditions. Nazi Germany had tons of Sarin gas available. This could have easily been deployed on German jet bombers and used to destroy English cities. It could be transported via U-Boat and used against the United States.
The Allies feared a German chemical attack, and they often had Mustard Gas on hand to use if the Germans restorted to chemical warfare. One of the reasons why the Germans never used their superior chemical warfare abilities is they feared the United States had more potent chemical weapons based on agriculture, and the vulnerability of German cities to retailiation.
If the Allies used the Atomic Bomb, neither of these restraints would then apply. Western Europe would turn into a chemical warfare battlefield with huge loss of life against England.
Plus, by late 1944 it was obvious that Germany was going to be defeated, it was simply a matter of time. While the Battle of the Bulge came as a shock, that was quickly defeated and everyone knew the war would end soon. Plus, nobody expected huge Allied losses based on previous combat tallies.
Compare this to Japan.
Japan had no ability to strike the United States or US allies with a retailitory strike. The US could bomb Japan with impunity.
Yet, Japan itself was still not under assualt. A huge amount of casualties were anticipated on both sides. Using the A-bomb under such conditions made sense.
It wouldn't have made sense agaist the Germans.
Xanthro
-
Thunderstruck
- Member
- Posts: 37
- Joined: 14 Mar 2002, 19:18
- Location: Texas
Another factor not mentioned is that the Germans themselves were coming to the conclusion that the war was lost and were surrendering individually. The Japanese, on the other hand, sought to die fighting rather than surrendered. Look at the Okinawa campaign as an example of what I am talking about. Estimates for casualties in regard to an amphibious invasion of Japan proper were a million dead/wounded/missing and that was the conservative estimates. How many died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Steve
Steve
How many died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
A hell of a lot less than died in the Tokyo firebombings, thats for sure.
As far as a weapon of mass destruction, the A bombs werent really that efficient. Not one at a time, anyway. When compared to the many flights and tonnage of bombs it would take match the explosive power of just one bomb, though, is when their worth was evident. The fact that Japan didnt know how many of these we had was our trump card. I find it amazing that they didnt surrender immediatly after the first one was dropped.
A hell of a lot less than died in the Tokyo firebombings, thats for sure.
As far as a weapon of mass destruction, the A bombs werent really that efficient. Not one at a time, anyway. When compared to the many flights and tonnage of bombs it would take match the explosive power of just one bomb, though, is when their worth was evident. The fact that Japan didnt know how many of these we had was our trump card. I find it amazing that they didnt surrender immediatly after the first one was dropped.
I wonder what would have happened if Germany would not have lost the main land battles in Europe in '44/'45.
Would the U.S. still have used their two nuclear bombs on Japan, or would they have gone for Hitler?
Or.. split them up, one for Hiroshima, one for Munich for example?
=============================================
This question is again...very silly... They would have "FAt-MAn"
and " little Boy" for the JAP and ....
"MINI-ME" for the Germans!!
"YEah baby"
Would the U.S. still have used their two nuclear bombs on Japan, or would they have gone for Hitler?
Or.. split them up, one for Hiroshima, one for Munich for example?
=============================================
This question is again...very silly... They would have "FAt-MAn"
and " little Boy" for the JAP and ....
"MINI-ME" for the Germans!!
"YEah baby"
-
HJ Division Grenadier
- Member
- Posts: 390
- Joined: 22 Mar 2002, 00:22
- Location: United Kingdom
The allied commanders would have looked at the issue in terms of simple geography.
If you drop the bomb on Japan you kill Japanese and the fallout affects Japanese people only.
If you drop the bomb in Europe the initial damage and subsequent radiation affect other (allied) countries in addition to Germany.
I feel that even Churchill would have found dropping the bomb in the European theatre objectionable.
If you drop the bomb on Japan you kill Japanese and the fallout affects Japanese people only.
If you drop the bomb in Europe the initial damage and subsequent radiation affect other (allied) countries in addition to Germany.
I feel that even Churchill would have found dropping the bomb in the European theatre objectionable.
-
HJ Division Grenadier
- Member
- Posts: 390
- Joined: 22 Mar 2002, 00:22
- Location: United Kingdom
Ok, we all know the a-bomb didnt fly direct from the States.
But you say if Germany hadnt lost all the major land battle, in which case, what bases would the allies of had within range in this case?
Dont forget, if Germany had won all the major land battles, the war in the west would have been mor or less over.
But you say if Germany hadnt lost all the major land battle, in which case, what bases would the allies of had within range in this case?
Dont forget, if Germany had won all the major land battles, the war in the west would have been mor or less over.