3 ms·

I had a similar question. While we're playing with hypotheticals, say the Allies had gained atomic weapons in 1941. It's pretty easy to imagine that using them

I had a similar question. While we're playing with hypotheticals, say the Allies had gained atomic weapons in 1941. It's pretty easy to imagine that using them then would have been preferable to what followed. That the author apparently didn't consider such a thing makes me think this piece is excessively colored by his idealistic mindset. Too bad, sounded interesting until I saw how judgmental he is.

wavefunction 12y ago
Atomic weapons were not feasible for use until we destroyed the Imperial Navy and the expert aircraft pilots that made up their offensive and defensive air-service, from what I know, which admittedly is not expert-level.
- brownbat 12y ago
  You're right, the parallel for Europe occurred in early to mid 1944. Might have shortened the war six months? It's not clear though. It could be argued the turning point was really boots supplementing the ongoing strategic bombing. Or maybe the key event was Hitler exiting and handing things to Dönitz, who immediately suspended operations and began winding down all the madness.* Interesting tour of how air control fluctuated in WWII here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_supremacy#World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_supremacy#World_War_II *Maybe because the writing was on the wall, but I think a case could be made that Hitler was a little crazy and other leaders might have been more pragmatic, seeking earlier options for peace. Who knows though.
  - Scramblejams 12y ago
    Yes, delivery systems must be considered. Wonder what the Allies would have built to deliver a 10,000 lb bomb in contested airspace if one had been ready well before the B-29.
jjoonathan 12y ago
He didn't consider your particular (bad, IMO) analogy, therefore his story is "excessively colored by his idealistic mindset"? What is it about your analogy that makes you think it's such a good litmus test for serious thought on the subject?
- Scramblejams 12y ago
  Wasn't an analogy, but I'll let that slide. The parent comment to mine answers your question. And remember, downvotes aren't for disagreement.

wavefunction 12y ago

Atomic weapons were not feasible for use until we destroyed the Imperial Navy and the expert aircraft pilots that made up their offensive and defensive air-service, from what I know, which admittedly is not expert-level.

brownbat 12y ago
You're right, the parallel for Europe occurred in early to mid 1944. Might have shortened the war six months? It's not clear though. It could be argued the turning point was really boots supplementing the ongoing strategic bombing. Or maybe the key event was Hitler exiting and handing things to Dönitz, who immediately suspended operations and began winding down all the madness.* Interesting tour of how air control fluctuated in WWII here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_supremacy#World_War_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_supremacy#World_War_II *Maybe because the writing was on the wall, but I think a case could be made that Hitler was a little crazy and other leaders might have been more pragmatic, seeking earlier options for peace. Who knows though.
- Scramblejams 12y ago
  Yes, delivery systems must be considered. Wonder what the Allies would have built to deliver a 10,000 lb bomb in contested airspace if one had been ready well before the B-29.

jjoonathan 12y ago

He didn't consider your particular (bad, IMO) analogy, therefore his story is "excessively colored by his idealistic mindset"? What is it about your analogy that makes you think it's such a good litmus test for serious thought on the subject?

Scramblejams 12y ago
Wasn't an analogy, but I'll let that slide. The parent comment to mine answers your question. And remember, downvotes aren't for disagreement.