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.
It's been said that we were out of atomic bombs after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But the world didn't know that. Japan certainly didn't. So who would have risked having their one of their cities be #3?
As mentioned, we had the capability to produce 3 more per month. That alone would have been more than enough to make examples of any states refusing to cooperate. But the first ones were prototypes and once you have a working prototype you can begin mass manufacturing. Within a few years - well before anyone else had nukes - we might have been churning out hundreds per year.
However, it would have been a very bad decision. We didn't have the people or the knowledge to administer government in all countries of the world. We would have needed to rely on local authorities to administer a central plan. Those authorities may have done so under duress but the intense hatred in them and their people would jump at any chance to rise up. Eventually, we would have been torn apart internally and the rest of the world would have been determined to extinguish our society from the planet in the way Nazis were. Our government would not only have been defeated but eliminated and banned. The "stars and stripes" would have been a banned symbol of evil alongside the swastika.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocko20 Colonization just doesn’t work. Europe tried it with Africa and we saw how that turned out.
Truth is, any white/western/developed country that takes over any developing/non-white country will always be seen as exploitation.
And the invaded country will eventually start a movement, by some ambitious locals, to “kick the invaders out.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
…
No significant movements have started in Puerto Rico, Guam, U.S. (or for that matter British) Virgin Islands, Cayman Island, Tahiti and I'm sure others. It all depends on how its done.
…
PR is the case I've looked @. There was hardly a US invasion of PR - TMK, it was not quite a walk in the park, unlike the fighting that characterized the assault on Cuba - the charge up San Juan Hill, for instance. In the PR Campaign, the US suffered 5 dead - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_Campaign
The Spanish/PR forces suffered 17 dead, & 10,000 surrendered.
PR itself since then (1898) is divided on whether to retain its status with the US, or go independent.
PR is the case I've looked @. There was hardly a US invasion of PR - TMK, it was not quite a walk in the park, unlike the fighting that characterized the assault on Cuba - the charge up San Juan Hill, for instance. In the PR Campaign, the US suffered 5 dead - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Rican_Campaign
The fighting was by Spanish colonial forces. The Cubans supported the U.S. efforts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by southwest88
PR itself since then (1898) is divided on whether to retain its status with the US, or go independent.
Surprisingly the independence forces have not been doing well in local elections. Or maybe not a surprise. The whole world comes to the U.S.
People over history migrate. Let's not breast-beat over that. As far as Hawaii most are quite happy. As Ricky Nelson said "you can't please everyone...."
My point is that America taking over the world wouldn’t be a good idea for anyone.
Other countries are just going to whine about exploitation and invasion, even as they fail to manage or govern themselevs as independent sovereign nations.
Again there was no need to take over the world - a role we were both practically and politically unable to accept.
The potential way was simply to ban anyone else from the atomic bomb with the threat to destroy any attempt to build one.
And yes we could have enforced such as ban.
This isn't true, nuclear weapons were no just developed by US scientists, it was simply developed in the relative safety of the US, even German scientists had an input.
My point is that America taking over the world wouldn’t be a good idea for anyone.
Other countries are just going to whine about exploitation and invasion, even as they fail to manage or govern themselevs as independent sovereign nations.
Would these countries (or really despots of those countries) be willing to forgo the long green that comes from the Western world, and goes into their wars and Swiss bank accounts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by easthome
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
Again there was no need to take over the world - a role we were both practically and politically unable to accept.
The potential way was simply to ban anyone else from the atomic bomb with the threat to destroy any attempt to build one.
And yes we could have enforced such as ban.
This isn't true, nuclear weapons were no just developed by US scientists, it was simply developed in the relative safety of the US, even German scientists had an input.
We could have and should have promised and delivered oblivion to any developer of the bomb. Can you imagine Israel allowing Iran or Iraq to develop them? That simply wasn't the mindset of the "United Nations" obsessed State Department types in the mid-1940's.
When the war with Japan ended, the United States was in a unique position. In fact they held this until August of 1949. With a massive lead in infrastructure, and the ability to produce truly horrifying weapons of mass destruction they had a opportunity.
They could have chosen to unify the world under one government. But it would have required a horrific moral and ethical cost. More nuclear weapons would have absolutely been deployed. America would have been the bad guys.
BUT-look at where we went because we did not. We live with the fear of global nuclear annihilation. Multiple countries can destroy the world, and many unstable countries have nuclear weapons. This was very predictable. By not doing this we risk the destruction of our species. Surely thats a bigger issue?
Soon we will face another such opportunity. Perhaps more then one. AI, and nanotechnology both can give a country the ability to rule the world-if they are first. And right now its not truly clear who will be the first. Will a country face the choice of using a weapon first, or allow that opportunity to pass as America did? I am not hopeful. Did the US make mistake at the end of WW2?
That would have been a disaster. The world is too diverse to function under one government. And trying to govern the world would have destroyed us, as it's destroying us now.
The fighting was by Spanish colonial forces. The Cubans supported the U.S. efforts.
Surprisingly the independence forces have not been doing well in local elections. Or maybe not a surprise. The whole world comes to the U.S.
Dude how old are you? You need to travel more if you think the whole world idolizes and depends on the US. Again read some history. We DID not beat Germany alone. The Soviets killed 75% of Nazi troops, did you know that? You have such a distorted view of the US military power in WW II. Really you do. Every American general except nut job Patton was dead set against starting a war with the Soviet Union right after WWII. First off the American people would have revolted. They were sick of war, and didn't even get a single bomb dropped on them. And secondly because American and British generals foresaw a bloodbath with the Soviets wiping the floor with us and the Brits. We only had like 5M men to their 30M. Are you kidding me. They were much more battle hardened and tougher. That is fact.
You realize that thousands and thousands of civilians were killed in the UK, thousands in France, millions in Germany, China, Soviet Union and Japan? We destroyed every Japanese city.
Yes, we pretty much defeated Japan alone, a much weaker opponent than Germany.
You obviously are another of these right wing blame everything on FDR types. FDR took the reins of this country cause the useless Hoover just sat there wringing his hands. Most economists of the day were predicting the depression to last decades. FDR gave the people hope and did enough govt intervention to stave off a revolution in this country that would have seen us go much more socialist or communist. Look up Huey P Long. He ran against FDR on a platform of redistribution of wealth and almost beat FDR for the democratic nomination. That is how desperate Americans were then in the 1930's.
FDR saved the US big time and is one of the greatest Presidents we have ever had.
You need to travel more if you think the whole world idolizes and depends on the US. Again read some history.
Don't worry, I read plenty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom77falcons
We DID not beat Germany alone. The Soviets killed 75% of Nazi troops, did you know that?
They basically used a human wave approach, sending people to their deaths. Yes, it had the side benefit of draining the Nazis but I'm not sure that Stalin was such a bargain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom77falcons
You have such a distorted view of the US military power in WW II. Really you do. Every American general except nut job Patton was dead set against starting a war with the Soviet Union right after WWII. First off the American people would have revolted. They were sick of war, and didn't even get a single bomb dropped on them. And secondly because American and British generals foresaw a bloodbath with the Soviets wiping the floor with us and the Brits. We only had like 5M men to their 30M. Are you kidding me. They were much more battle hardened and tougher. That is fact.
We could have easily not allowed Eastern Europe to be enslaved. That was sinful. And as to the U.S. role the U.S. has always been the world's top destination for immigration. It isn't by accident that the world's people want to come. The leaders like us when we're playing "sugar daddy" as in the Marshall Plan, the deliberate overvaluation of the U.S. dollar after WW II and Obama's numerous giveaways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom77falcons
You realize that thousands and thousands of civilians were killed in the UK, thousands in France, millions in Germany, China, Soviet Union and Japan? We destroyed every Japanese city. Yes, we pretty much defeated Japan alone, a much weaker opponent than Germany.
Japan was hardly a weak adversary. And the Japanese people were spared a bloodbath far worse than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom77falcons
You obviously are another of these right wing blame everything on FDR types. FDR took the reins of this country cause the useless Hoover just sat there wringing his hands. Most economists of the day were predicting the depression to last decades. FDR gave the people hope and did enough govt intervention to stave off a revolution in this country that would have seen us go much more socialist or communist. Look up Huey P Long. He ran against FDR on a platform of redistribution of wealth and almost beat FDR for the democratic nomination. That is how desperate Americans were then in the 1930's. FDR saved the US big time and is one of the greatest Presidents we have ever had.
I am not a "right-winger." In fact quite the contrary. The anti-depression programs were not particularly effective. The outbreak of war was quite effective in lifting the economy. My problem with FDR was his enabling of the Holocaust. And deliberate restriction of Jewish entry to the U.S.
And yes, I am Jewish.
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.
Was it a US invasion of PR?
