4 ms·

Lol. This topic is just about the most sensitive things I can imagine. The concept that America "won" both the pacific and European wars is an integral part o

Lol. This topic is just about the most sensitive things I can imagine. The concept that America "won" both the pacific and European wars is an integral part of American identity. Shortly after the war, with the rise of the cold war, US students were brought up on the one narrative. Any suggestion that the Soviets were a driving force in ending the war forces them to confront deeply held beliefs regarding the use of force and violence generally. Another aspect not covered in the OP is the efficiency of US nukes. Much/most of the damage done was not from the bombs. If you measure damage through the heat energy released, most came from the burning of the cities rather from the fission in the bomb itself. The firebombing of a city releases as much energy as a nuclear explosion, doing a comparable amount of damage. At the time, a firebombing raid required fewer resources than a nuke. So, from an energy standpoint, the nukes were not an economical means of destroying Japanese cities. Why then were they used? Why were they used in the pacific and not in europe? (Insert massive screaming rants here.)

Someone 12y ago
The trinity test was in july 1945, two months after the surrender of Germany. We don't know whether atomic bombs would have been used on, say, Berlin or the Ruhr area (maybe even tactically, to speed up the allied advance in the west), but I think the USA would have used one, if only to send a message to the soviets.
- sandworm 12y ago
  I have heard discussion that those in control were worried about dropping a nuke over Germany for fear that, should it not explode, it would wind up in the hands of enemy scientists. Japan was not considered capable of repaiting and turning around such a device. Some artillery and anti-aircraft shells during WWII were not permitted to be used over land for similar reasons. The timelines, the actual dates that the bombs became available, are a little secondary imho as this was a multi-year developmental program. I still doubt they would have dropped a bomb on germany for a variety of reasons both technological and sociological.
- walshemj 12y ago
  That's what they where designed for and if d day had stalled they would have been used in the rhur. There is also strong evidence that Stalin wanted to get to berlin first to grab some of the German nuclear materiel in Berlin
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
mc32 12y ago
They were used on Japan and not Germany because they barely were okayed for use a few weeks prior to their detonation over enemy territory. The Germans had no compunction about dropping them on us had they had a working one so I don't think we would have had any issue deploying one over Germany --just like we had little issue firebombing Dresden. At the time saw both Japan and Germany as mortal enemies and would have used any resource at hand to defeat them militarily.
- rhino369 12y ago
  Actually, I think there is a big open issue about the difference between the US policy on strategic bombing in Japan and against Germany. US bombing in Germany was designed to specifically attack industry. They flew during daytime, despite that leading to much higher causalities among their crews, and used bomb targets. It was the UK that firebombed Dresden during night without bothering to aim at specific targets. The British always flew night raids and just aimed to cause carnage. American policy on the Western campaign didn't target civilians. They used precision bombing (what it was called at the time, it wasn't very precise) to target real targets. Yet, the policy against Japan ended up much different. At the beginning precision bombing was attempted. But by 1945 they started to resort to firebombing entire cities. I wonder if there was a racial aspect to it. A lot of Americans consider themselves ethnically German.
  - mc32 12y ago
    I don't think there was a racial aspect in the sense that Germans were seen as more 'us'. We demonized both Germans and Japanese pretty similarly. There were Americans of German ancestry who changed their surnames to avoid discrimination and unpleasantness from other non German whites. I think we started firebombing Japan when it became difficult to tell industry apart from the general pop as they moved factories into non industrial areas
    - PythonicAlpha 12y ago
      Still, I think, that Japan directly attacked the US at Pearl Harbor made a big difference. Germany was also seen as having a bad regime with war criminals, but they started the war with the US not with such a carnage. So, I think politicians and parts of the US people in this time saw Japan as the worse "beast".
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

Someone 12y ago

The trinity test was in july 1945, two months after the surrender of Germany. We don't know whether atomic bombs would have been used on, say, Berlin or the Ruhr area (maybe even tactically, to speed up the allied advance in the west), but I think the USA would have used one, if only to send a message to the soviets.

sandworm 12y ago
I have heard discussion that those in control were worried about dropping a nuke over Germany for fear that, should it not explode, it would wind up in the hands of enemy scientists. Japan was not considered capable of repaiting and turning around such a device. Some artillery and anti-aircraft shells during WWII were not permitted to be used over land for similar reasons. The timelines, the actual dates that the bombs became available, are a little secondary imho as this was a multi-year developmental program. I still doubt they would have dropped a bomb on germany for a variety of reasons both technological and sociological.
walshemj 12y ago
That's what they where designed for and if d day had stalled they would have been used in the rhur. There is also strong evidence that Stalin wanted to get to berlin first to grab some of the German nuclear materiel in Berlin
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

mc32 12y ago

They were used on Japan and not Germany because they barely were okayed for use a few weeks prior to their detonation over enemy territory. The Germans had no compunction about dropping them on us had they had a working one so I don't think we would have had any issue deploying one over Germany --just like we had little issue firebombing Dresden. At the time saw both Japan and Germany as mortal enemies and would have used any resource at hand to defeat them militarily.

rhino369 12y ago
Actually, I think there is a big open issue about the difference between the US policy on strategic bombing in Japan and against Germany. US bombing in Germany was designed to specifically attack industry. They flew during daytime, despite that leading to much higher causalities among their crews, and used bomb targets. It was the UK that firebombed Dresden during night without bothering to aim at specific targets. The British always flew night raids and just aimed to cause carnage. American policy on the Western campaign didn't target civilians. They used precision bombing (what it was called at the time, it wasn't very precise) to target real targets. Yet, the policy against Japan ended up much different. At the beginning precision bombing was attempted. But by 1945 they started to resort to firebombing entire cities. I wonder if there was a racial aspect to it. A lot of Americans consider themselves ethnically German.
- mc32 12y ago
  I don't think there was a racial aspect in the sense that Germans were seen as more 'us'. We demonized both Germans and Japanese pretty similarly. There were Americans of German ancestry who changed their surnames to avoid discrimination and unpleasantness from other non German whites. I think we started firebombing Japan when it became difficult to tell industry apart from the general pop as they moved factories into non industrial areas
  - PythonicAlpha 12y ago
    Still, I think, that Japan directly attacked the US at Pearl Harbor made a big difference. Germany was also seen as having a bad regime with war criminals, but they started the war with the US not with such a carnage. So, I think politicians and parts of the US people in this time saw Japan as the worse "beast".

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]