Why didn't the USA use atomic bomb like indimidation on USSR after ww2?

Aug 2015
2,359
uk
Look what it took for the US to go to war in the first place. To go to war again, immediately after VJ day, and against an ally from that war who had shown no hostile intent to the US. The people and government of America would never allow it to happen.
 
Jun 2017
2,819
Connecticut
This is all true but things didn't deteriorate quickly enough between the USSR and the USA until it was basically too late. Even then atomic warfare wasn't MAD until the 1950s and 1960s, and Macarthur's plan to nuke China while very risky was not entirely insane in an era before the hydro bomb. Regardless while it wasn't quite MAD, it wasn't something anyone wanted to do(hence why a popular general was fired).
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,383
San Antonio, Tx
USA use the atomic bomb to save 1 million americans but didn't use to save european countries!
Do please try to stay awake. At the time of the victory against Hitler, there were no usable nuclear weapons yet; therefore, they could not be used. Using nukes against Russia in the IMMEDIATE aftermath of WW2 - if they existed, which they did not - against an ally who had lost millions of its own citizens in fighting the Nazis would have been a tawdry and unseemly way for a civilized country to behave. Letting the Russians behave poorly was no incitement for us to do the same.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,383
San Antonio, Tx
"America could have put down Russia"

I think you underestimate how difficult it would be to beat Russia. Long-term, you're not wrong. Eventually the Allies would be able to defeat the Russians but the number of Allied, Civilian, and Russian casualties would have been astronomical.

The atomic bomb will never again win a war, it will simply end all of them.
In he first place, the US military in Europe was vastly smaller than its Russian counterpart; in the second place, so was Canada’s and Great Britain’s military. And finally, in he third place, there is no way the US public would accept a sudden widening of the war to include Russia which had been terribly beat up by the Wehrmacht, SS et al. Finally. Russia was our ally at the time and it would have been quite deceitful to turn on one’s own ally who had contributed so much to the defeat of Germany. Lastly, the US/Britain, Australia and the Dutch had their hands full in the Pacific fighting yet another country.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,383
San Antonio, Tx
Any difference between Americans and Nazis...None.
Even discussing this topic shows pretty much what American national psych is all about.
Dropping nukes upon an ally just after the war is over. Attacking ally who bore the major burden of the war.
I do think US needs some strong shock medicine like Germans got after two World wars.
Since none of that actually happened, what are you on about?
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,383
San Antonio, Tx
Any difference between Americans and Nazis...None.
Even discussing this topic shows pretty much what American national psych is all about.
Dropping nukes upon an ally just after the war is over. Attacking ally who bore the major burden of the war.
I do think US needs some strong shock medicine like Germans got after two World wars.
Stop fantasizing already! None of the events you posit actually took plac, so take a chill pill will you?
 
Nov 2018
105
Idaho
Because the USSR was a broken 3rd world country propped up by UN and US subsidization in order to be a boogey-man, 'the Red Menace' was a stalking horse to rationalize American global militarism and imperialism. The last thing they wanted was for the USSR to fall apart, then how would they explain Boeing's 100 billion dollar welfare cheques? Thankfully some genius came up with the vague emotional menace of TERRORISM to replace the obsolete and inept Soviet empire, which would have fallen long before (or at least sunk so low as to not be a credible bugaboo) if not for free grain, technology and other goods provided by Americans and Europeans.
 
Sep 2012
3,751
Bulgaria
Because the USSR was a broken 3rd world country propped up by UN and US subsidization in order to be a boogey-man, 'the Red Menace' was a stalking horse to rationalize American global militarism and imperialism. The last thing they wanted was for the USSR to fall apart, then how would they explain Boeing's 100 billion dollar welfare cheques? Thankfully some genius came up with the vague emotional menace of TERRORISM to replace the obsolete and inept Soviet empire, which would have fallen long before (or at least sunk so low as to not be a credible bugaboo) if not for free grain, technology and other goods provided by Americans and Europeans.
There is a misconception about this term. Today 3rd world country term is used to describe an underdeveloped, primitive etc poor state. During the cold war the Second world referred to the Soviet Union and its satellites, the communist states aka Warsaw Pact countries. Soviet union belonged to the Second world . R.I.P. The Third world referred to the nations not aligned with either the First world (NATO) or the Second world (Warsaw Pact). In short Third world (as the First and the Second) was a political, rather than an economic grouping. Sweden, Switzerland etc were in this group.
 

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,383
San Antonio, Tx
What would they gain by dropping a nuke on a country they are not at war with?

Possibly after studying the effects of Hiroshima and Nagaskai, they felt dropping one was a seriously nasty way to wage war, extreme last resort only.

I doubt the people who'd dropped two already were chicken, maybe they had a stronger ethical code than yourself. That claim doesn't make sense? chicken? of what?
You make the correct point.
 

Similar History Discussions