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

Jan 2019
38
USA
Actually, if you look at number of deaths compared to the total population, I don’t even think World War 2 is in the top five of “most destructive wars”.

Genghis Khan and co. killed over 5% of the worlds total population, and razed cities to the point where the firestorms of Hamburg or Dresden pale in comparison.

The An-Lushan rebellion or Three Kingdoms War each cost 40 million dead over 1000 years ago.
I don't think taking into consideration the worlds total population at the time makes sense in this context. 60 to 70 million people were killed. It's without question the most destructive war in history.
 
Jul 2016
7,730
USA
Not to mention, one of the big reasons for dropping the bomb in the first place was to hasten the conclusion of WW2. How would it look if we turned around and started a war that would be much more costly in regards to human life?
Well, in all honesty, considering the US had atomic bombs in 1945 and the Soviet Union did not, nor did the Soviets possess a means to completely stop bombers from striking into the Soviet Union, I'd suggest the war would have been rather one sided.
 
Jan 2019
38
USA
Well, in all honesty, considering the US had atomic bombs in 1945 and the Soviet Union did not, nor did the Soviets possess a means to completely stop bombers from striking into the Soviet Union, I'd suggest the war would have been rather one sided.
To what end exactly? What are we accomplishing? A total unconditional surrender is the only acceptable outcome, otherwise. what? Are you willing to gamble on that during that time period?
 
Not to mention, one of the big reasons for dropping the bomb in the first place was to hasten the conclusion of WW2. How would it look if we turned around and started a war that would be much more costly in regards to human life?
It would look a lot better than what actually happened: The complete betrayal of Poland and Eastern Europe.


Turn it around and look at it this way: The reason that World War 2 started in the first place, was because of German aggression towards Poland. (And to a lesser extent what happened to the rest of Czechoslovakia.)

Why should Stalin be free to redraw borders and subjugate the will of the Polish people?

That’s why War was declared on Germany in the first place.
 
Jul 2016
7,730
USA
To what end exactly? What are we accomplishing? A total unconditional surrender is the only acceptable outcome, otherwise. what? Are you willing to gamble on that during that time period?
I'm not discussing the politics of it, simply military reality. One side is a nuclear power with the means of making numerous bombs and delivering them. The other does not. The side that does not is going to lose quickly, and costly. The side with them is going to suffer much fewer casualties.

Had WW2 started with the type of weapons it ended with, the war in Europe and the Pacific would have some time early 1942 for Europe and 1943 for Japan. The length of time it took to establish an airfield that could reach the enemy's homeland. Then continuous nuke cities until the survivors of the enemy govt sues for peace.

It was everything Douhet, Mitchell, Harris, Spaatz, Lemay, all said (incorrectly) could be done with conventional bombing. Nukes detonating over cities doesn't hurt morale, it destroys it.
 
Jan 2019
38
USA
I was under the impression our nuclear capabilites right after WW2 were no where near full tilt. Russia has a lot more real estate. We could have won the war, but we would eventually have to put boots on the ground right after disengaging in the Pacific. The US would have come out on top. But, the only acceptable outcome could be unconditional surrender after those bombs drop. Is this a crystal ball scenario or are we assuming our leaders only had the information and resources available to them at the time?
 
Aug 2014
135
New York, USA
I'm not discussing the politics of it, simply military reality. One side is a nuclear power with the means of making numerous bombs and delivering them. The other does not. The side that does not is going to lose quickly, and costly. The side with them is going to suffer much fewer casualties.

Had WW2 started with the type of weapons it ended with, the war in Europe and the Pacific would have some time early 1942 for Europe and 1943 for Japan. The length of time it took to establish an airfield that could reach the enemy's homeland. Then continuous nuke cities until the survivors of the enemy govt sues for peace.

It was everything Douhet, Mitchell, Harris, Spaatz, Lemay, all said (incorrectly) could be done with conventional bombing. Nukes detonating over cities doesn't hurt morale, it destroys it.
How many nukes can US produce and deliver for this nuclear genocide? The Red Army would not surrender just after a couple of nukes are dropped, especially those early ones that were not even that powerful.
I would also assume a lot of people in Europe would immediately turn against US soldiers stationed there. The Red Army's strategy would be to station themselves in occupied cities, so their force concentrations would not be nuked.
 
Jan 2019
38
USA
How many nukes can US produce and deliver for this nuclear genocide? The Red Army would not surrender just after a couple of nukes are dropped, especially those early ones that were not even that powerful.
I would also assume a lot of people in Europe would immediately turn against US soldiers stationed there. The Red Army's strategy would be to station themselves in occupied cities, so their force concentrations would not be nuked.
I agree. We would be banking on the hope that our capacity to make nuclear weapons during that time period was sufficient to force Russia into surrender. That takes next level confidence.
 
Jan 2019
38
USA
It would look a lot better than what actually happened: The complete betrayal of Poland and Eastern Europe.


Turn it around and look at it this way: The reason that World War 2 started in the first place, was because of German aggression towards Poland. (And to a lesser extent what happened to the rest of Czechoslovakia.)

Why should Stalin be free to redraw borders and subjugate the will of the Polish people?

That’s why War was declared on Germany in the first place.
A lot better for whom, exactly? I don't think this was as simple as throwing around a few nukes and the evil empire comes crumbling down.
 
Jul 2016
7,730
USA
I agree. We would be banking on the hope that our capacity to make nuclear weapons during that time period was sufficient to force Russia into surrender. That takes next level confidence.
No, it doesn't take next level confidence. The US had already created the systems to mass produce nukes. We would have either 2-3, or it might have been 3-4 bombs/devices/physics package/cores per month by late '45, which would have gone up some more after that. Of course, that was based on the US still maintaining a wartime economy and dumping a ton of money into defense. As soon as WW2 ended, mass production slowed to a crawl. But they'd still have had enough to hit major strategic targets in the USSR. And could (and did) ramp up production again later on.

Whether Stalin (or his successor had he died) would have capitulated is another matter.
 

Similar History Discussions