Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think there are really 2 parts of this discussion.
Part 1: I'm sure all of us wish that we were the only country that had nukes. Of course, that would pretty much defy history. Americans aren't the only ones smart enough to create anything. Once we took the genie out of the bottle, he was there for everyone.
Part 2: What in international law gives us the right to decide that we are the only country that can have _____________? Let's say that tomorrow Russia or China announced that their scientists had a breakthrough in some TOTALLY new weapons system that outranked nuclear weapons, and that they declared that they would not allow any other country, including the United States, to develop that type of weapon system? Would we accept that? Of course, the answer is no. It seems to me that some of you think confuse power with morality -- the old might makes right concept. Of course the problem with might makes right is that there might come a time when we are not the mightiest.
We didn't go to war because we didn't want to start another massive conflict. We weren't exhausted as you say. The entire world was exhausted. If necessary, the US could have easily gone to war with the USSR and possibly would have won if we used nuclear weapons early enough. That last part about the nukes is important as it sets the window of opportunity. The initial reason to avoid invasion was mainly due to not wanting to start a massive war. As time passed, the reason was trying to avoid total annihilation. Nuclear arms changed everything. They acted as a deterrent and only a few times did the threat of a nuclear war actually surface. As the war waged on, the bombs got bigger and bigger, to the point that they lost their deterrent value. There is, after all, not tactical use for a 50 megaton hydrogen bomb. That's just annihilation, and neither side, even the "evil" communists, weren't intersted in doing that.
Luckily, by the time the bombs were creating natural disasters and mile wide fireballs, the USSR largely calmed down. The cruelty of Joseph Stalin was long gone, replaced instead by a still radically authoritarian government, but mellow by contrast. It was still expanding, and had spread to places like Cuba and China, sometimes causing wars, often thought of as proxy wars, but big picture, the world avoid destruction.
In the age of nukes, I'm glad we didn't start a war. If we had, many of us would likley not be here. However, I can sympathize with the point if it's pre-nuclear age. If we had nukes, and the USSR didn't, we could probably win the war. We'd have to act fast, and again, the reason we didn't is the generation in charge lived through the first world war and just recently saw the second. It's hard to blame them for not wanting to move. But if they had, the world would be very different. Possibly objectively better. See, at this time, America and the West were beacons of hope. Truly the greatest democracies ever. As the Cold War went on, we moved from constitutional republic to a national security state, which has since been institutionalized as of 2001. The Cold War changed America for the worst. In many ways, we became the very evil we stood up against.
As odd as it seems, I think I agree with the OP. Swift military action immediately following the end of WWII could have saved us from many of the current problems we face. As I said, I don't blame the people who made the decisions that actually happened for making those decisions. I may not like the decisions, but I can't blame them.
... then again, perhaps the world would have been worse had this happened. Imagine if the US went to war, thought the atom bomb would save us, but then we use them all up (which at that time, wasn't that many), but the USSR stands strong, and pushes back and then THEY win the war. What then? These are the questions we deal with when we talk about historical hypotheticals. As I said, I don't blame the decision makers for the controversial calls they made... they saw a different world than I did after all. This fear I just expressed almost certainly crossed some minds back in 1945.
We didn't go to war because we didn't want to start another massive conflict. We weren't exhausted as you say. The entire world was exhausted. If necessary, the US could have easily gone to war with the USSR and possibly would have won if we used nuclear weapons early enough. That last part about the nukes is important as it sets the window of opportunity. The initial reason to avoid invasion was mainly due to not wanting to start a massive war. As time passed, the reason was trying to avoid total annihilation. Nuclear arms changed everything. They acted as a deterrent and only a few times did the threat of a nuclear war actually surface. As the war waged on, the bombs got bigger and bigger, to the point that they lost their deterrent value. There is, after all, not tactical use for a 50 megaton hydrogen bomb. That's just annihilation, and neither side, even the "evil" communists, weren't intersted in doing that. Luckily, by the time the bombs were creating natural disasters and mile wide fireballs, the USSR largely calmed down. The cruelty of Joseph Stalin was long gone, replaced instead by a still radically authoritarian government, but mellow by contrast. It was still expanding, and had spread to places like Cuba and China, sometimes causing wars, often thought of as proxy wars, but big picture, the world avoid destruction.
Quite true. And during the brief era that weapons were only good for annihilation there was a period of stasis. That didn't last long. skepticratic seems to understand if not totally agree with my logic that no nukes, or nukes in the hands of "beacon of hope" countries" would have been better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticratic
In the age of nukes, I'm glad we didn't start a war. If we had, many of us would likley not be here. However, I can sympathize with the point if it's pre-nuclear age. If we had nukes, and the USSR didn't, we could probably win the war. We'd have to act fast, and again, the reason we didn't is the generation in charge lived through the first world war and just recently saw the second. It's hard to blame them for not wanting to move. But if they had, the world would be very different. Possibly objectively better. See, at this time, America and the West were beacons of hope.
*****
Truly the greatest democracies ever.
******
As odd as it seems, I think I agree with the OP. Swift military action immediately following the end of WWII could have saved us from many of the current problems we face.
That's basically where I'm coming from. Even the worst U.S. Presidents, Johnson, Nixon and Carter (jury is out on Trump for bad or good) would not have willfully annihilated the world. Having as a world power a country such as the former Soviet Union that was, since the year 1000 or so bent on expansion benefited nobody. And nowadays having a basically tribal Islamic world riding high is creating waves of misery at best and at worst creating almost insoluble political and human problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticratic
As the Cold War went on, we moved from constitutional republic to a national security state, which has since been institutionalized as of 2001. The Cold War changed America for the worst. In many ways, we became the very evil we stood up against.
I couldn't agree more. Homeland "security" is never a substitute for lack of threats. Homeland "security" is basically theater, since in a society that remains basically open no amount of office, airport and school checkpoints can really snuff out threats. Basically we're tying ourselves in knots for no good purpose other than to avoid offending certain national groups.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skepticratic
As I said, I don't blame the people who made the decisions that actually happened for making those decisions. I may not like the decisions, but I can't blame them.
*******
... then again, perhaps the world would have been worse had this happened. Imagine if the US went to war, thought the atom bomb would save us, but then we use them all up (which at that time, wasn't that many), but the USSR stands strong, and pushes back and then THEY win the war. What then? These are the questions we deal with when we talk about historical hypotheticals. As I said, I don't blame the decision makers for the controversial calls they made... they saw a different world than I did after all. This fear I just expressed almost certainly crossed some minds back in 1945.
I happen to have rather like Truman's record. I think that Roosevelt holdovers influenced the decision not to drill down on the former Soviet Union when we had a chance. We let them develop nukes, take Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, and neutralize Austria, Finland and Sweden.
Given the Soviet Union's financial bankruptcy and physical ruin it probably would not have been hard.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
