I wish nuclear weapons did not exist

[shoshi]

Using the Atomic bomb on Japan was not easy decision for Truman to make from all sources. Patton believed war between America and Soviet union was going to happen and if not for nukes maybe it would have. i would bet on America in a conventional war with USSR.

 

[Mushroom]

i would bet on America in a conventional war with USSR.

After the end of WWII? Not a chance.

 

[shoshi]

After the end of WWII? Not a chance.

Patton believed so. He thought war with the Soviets was going to happen and the US army could handle them at the time in 1945.

 

[Blues Man]

But they do and I can't turn back time. At the least it should not have been allowed to develop beyond the atomic bomb. What do you think?

 

[Mushroom]

Patton believed so.

They still could not have done it. The US was at the end of a very long supply line, as were the Soviets. They could have likely pushed through the rest of Germany, but then would have bogged down in Poland. And if they moved further East, their lines would have gotten only longer, as that of the Soviets would have gotten shorter.

Patton was never much of a logistics man, which is why he was under the command of General of the Army Bradley. And during and after the war he was fired and relieved of command many times. The final times being relived as Military General and command of the 3rd Army, ending his days as the caretaker command of a bunch of historians that were now studying the just ended war in Europe.

 

[whitehall]

Nukes time had come. America got them before Nazi Germany but Hitler was closer to having them than is Iran today.

So one must concluded that you're unhappy Hitler didn't get there first.

How about now: Should America dismantle all nukes or maybe donate them to Iran in a gesture of friendship?

Hitler was allegedly close to nuclear capability but we nuked the Japanese. Did Harry Truman flunk geography?

 

[Silver Cat]

Hitler was allegedly close to nuclear capability but we nuked the Japanese. Did Harry Truman flunk geography?

The nukes aren't good or evil by themselves. It was good to bomb both Germany and Japan.

 

[Mushroom]

Hitler was allegedly close to nuclear capability but we nuked the Japanese.

Hitler was nowhere close to nuclear capability. He forbid all research into nuclear fission, for several reasons. First, he believed it to be "Jewish Physics", and secondly because he thought the radioactive contamination was some kind of "chemical weapon".

The Germans were trying to make a jump to "Direct Fusion", something we know even at this time is impossible. That is making a thermonuclear fusion explosion, without the heat and pressure of a fission explosion to kickstart it. A hydrogen bomb without an atomic bomb inside, just conventional explosives to get it started.

And we nuked the Japanese, because they were still in the fight. By the time of the Trinity Test, both Italy and Germany were already out of the war. Hell, they were even both out of the war at the time of the 100 Ton Test.

 

[Delldude]

Whatever. If your army filled to the brim with trained archers and all manner of long bows or regular bows wants to take on an enemy fully armed with rifles, your strategy and tactics are likely already doomed to failure.

The point has nothing to do with the individual examples. The point is: weaponry got more advanced and lethal over time. And I’m wondering a bit if there is an even more sophisticated “ultimate” weapon down the road.

I'd wager they already exist.

 

[Delldude]

The nukes aren't good or evil by themselves. It was good to bomb both Germany and Japan.

We nuked Germany?

 

[Mushroom]

We nuked Germany?

Cat believes that nuclear wars are "winnable", and that China dropping a nuke over Taiwan or Japan will cause the US to run away in fear and sue for peace.

He does not live in the real world.

 

[Delldude]

Cat believes that nuclear wars are "winnable", and that China dropping a nuke over Taiwan or Japan will cause the US to run away in fear and sue for peace.

He does not live in the real world.

But Germany?

 

[harryo]

shoshi more were killed directly in the conventional bombing of Tokyo, etc
-- Nukes, Atomic bombs have been used in only 1 war , and there have been hundreds of wars since then -- between counties with nukes. We have much bigger worries than nukes
-- however, I would bet that some city will be hit with a WMD from terrorists. The question is not if, but when

 

[harryo]

If they hadn't been developed we would probably be on WWV by now.

wrong.
-most wars are not total wars--they don't turn into world wars because of diplomacy, not nukes. the US is not going to nuke Cambodia or Vietnam or Cuba, etc
---they are not worth nukes
-there were no nukes in 1914 or 1939, but those were world wars -nukes didn't prevent them, did they? or the Seven Years War. Or the Napoleanic Wars . etc

and--and-and-Israel had nukes -but it did not stop the Arabs - that didn't have nukes- from starting the October War or the many, many conflicts after that
-nukes did not stop the Afghanistan War where terrorists attacked the US on 9-11
-or the Persian Gulf Wars
etc many examples

 

[Unkotare]

....
-there were no nukes in 1914 or 1939, but those were world wars -nukes didn't prevent them, did they?....

Want to think about that one and try again, kid?

 

[harryo]

Unkotare no, don't need to . last time I looked, there were no Atomic bombs in 1914 or 1939

 

[harryo]

Want to think about that one and try again, kid?

why do you post a childish reply? I would hope we could discuss logically, politely, maturely

 

[Unkotare]

why do you post a childish reply? I would hope we could discuss logically, politely, maturely

If that's what you want, try a little harder kid

 

[harryo]

Unkotare yes, yes, you can't refute the points, so you resort to childish behavior

 

[Unkotare]

Unkotare yes, yes, you can't refute the points, so you resort to childish behavior

Refute what points, kid?