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.
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?
“Whoever fights monsters should take care during the process he does not become one. For when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes back into you.” Nietzsche
There is no rational reason why the US would have been interested in world conquest after WW2. The whole thought is absurd.
The sad thing though is that we passed on the Peace Americana. Which we could have compelled with our nuclear might. The correct issue is why we did not force the rest of the world to be nuclear free. I would be of the opinion it was a wonderful opportunity lost.
Of course lost in all of this “idea” is that America did not win the war alone. The Soviet Union went toe to toe with Germany and inflicted 8 in 10 German casualties in some of the most savage fighting in world history. “The hour of revenge has struck. Do not count days. Do not count miles. Count ONLY the number of Germans that you have killed. Kill the German. That is the cry of your Russian Earth.” The thought that the American public would have supported turning on our ally and starting another war at the culmination of defeating Japan and Germany is absurd. Not to mention, could we have even defeated the Russians at all in Europe? Doubtful.
Of course lost in all of this “idea” is that America did not win the war alone. The Soviet Union went toe to toe with Germany and inflicted 8 in 10 German casualties in some of the most savage fighting in world history. “The hour of revenge has struck. Do not count days. Do not count miles. Count ONLY the number of Germans that you have killed. Kill the German. That is the cry of your Russian Earth.” The thought that the American public would have supported turning on our ally and starting another war at the culmination of defeating Japan and Germany is absurd. Not to mention, could we have even defeated the Russians at all in Europe? Doubtful.
Sorry but you are not getting the message straight. The issue is not a war. Under no circumstances does the US get into a land war with Russia or China.
It simply refuses to allow anyone else nuclear arms and enforces the edict by threatening and then actually blowing anyone who tries to kingdom com.
Would the Russians sacrifice Moscow and 10 other cities to build an illicit nuclear capability? Could they have actually defended Moscow against the US getting a single bomber overhead? Could they have developed a defense before the US got a nuclear weapon on a missile?
We did not go there. Too bad. Though who knows how the tale would have twisted.
It was an absolutely unique moment in world history. And we chose not to play. Would love to have seen the dialog of the discussions. Did they understand or just miss the whole thing? They obviously were aware of the potential of the device. But did they actually think it through?
Sorry but you are not getting the message straight. The issue is not a war. Under no circumstances does the US get into a land war with Russia or China.
It simply refuses to allow anyone else nuclear arms and enforces the edict by threatening and then actually blowing anyone who tries to kingdom com.
Would the Russians sacrifice Moscow and 10 other cities to build an illicit nuclear capability? Could they have actually defended Moscow against the US getting a single bomber overhead? Could they have developed a defense before the US got a nuclear weapon on a missile?
We did not go there. Too bad. Though who knows how the tale would have twisted.
It was an absolutely unique moment in world history. And we chose not to play. Would love to have seen the dialog of the discussions. Did they understand or just miss the whole thing? They obviously were aware of the potential of the device. But did they actually think it through?
No, I get exactly what he or she was saying.
You’re basically suggesting the U.S would have started wars of aggression against allies at a time when the American public just sacrificed fighting a two front war for half a decade. What gives the U.s the right to attack and kill millions of people...for some what if scenario that someone else might attack and kill millions of people someday? Why would the United States sacrifice it’s morals and basically become Nazi Germany?
Plus...did we even have aircraft with the range to accomplish that mission of bombing Moscow?
In fact, maybe a better solution could have been to stand down our own nuclear capacity. Instead of having other countries in fear, racing to build their own...we could have recognized what we had created and stopped advancing the feild and eliminated weapons. At that stage, the U.s was the only unwrecked power on the planet commanding half of world gdp and all of the post war international institutions.We could have dictated perhaps how others behaved with our own behavior. Countries who pursued them could have been cut off economically from the world. Instead we choose to advance the technology with stronger bombs, better delivery, and more bombs.
As Eisenhower said (5 star general...who eventually became president around this time period...who openly worried about someone ever taking office who didn’t understand the military as well as he did)
”why this isn’t away of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war lies humanity hanging from a cross of iron. Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket launched signifies in the final sense is theft from those who hunger and are not fed. Those who are cold and not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It’s spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, and the hopes of its children.”
Last edited by Thatsright19; 08-24-2018 at 04:56 AM..
Sorry but you are not getting the message straight. The issue is not a war. Under no circumstances does the US get into a land war with Russia or China.
It simply refuses to allow anyone else nuclear arms and enforces the edict by threatening and then actually blowing anyone who tries to kingdom com.
Would the Russians sacrifice Moscow and 10 other cities to build an illicit nuclear capability? Could they have actually defended Moscow against the US getting a single bomber overhead? Could they have developed a defense before the US got a nuclear weapon on a missile?
We did not go there. Too bad. Though who knows how the tale would have twisted.
It was an absolutely unique moment in world history. And we chose not to play. Would love to have seen the dialog of the discussions. Did they understand or just miss the whole thing? They obviously were aware of the potential of the device. But did they actually think it through?
You know, a government that would rain nuclear weapons down upon tens of millions of civilians (in Moscow, London, Paris, Beijing just a few major cities from postwar powers that promptly sought nukes) to retain a nuclear monopoly is the same government that would have no compunction whatsoever about putting those who object up against the wall.
Or, anyone else.
Somehow, those who fantasize about governments using draconian force always manage to convince themselves that there would never come a time when that draconian-force-using government might decide that its erstwhile fanboys need to be put up against the wall.
No. It wouldn't have been good for us or the world.
Only one country ever took over the world successfully. For it and the world. England.
UK? They did OK - but it's a mixed set of results. & they didn't take over the world, of course. Just strategic bits of it. & they ran their naval/commercial empire on the cheap, for the most part.
They did better than the Roman Empire (in its various incarnations), the Spanish Empire. France & Japan & Italy also tried their hands, with extremely poor results, to date. But the wheel is still turning, so it's not yet time to declare a winner.
Plus...did we even have aircraft with the range to accomplish that mission of bombing Moscow?
Round trip flight distance from London to Moscow is 3,100 miles, while the B-29 had a range of 3,250, and the Consolidated B-32 which entered service in 1945 had a range of 3,800 miles, so yes they had the range but getting that far into the Soviet Union without fighter protection is another matter.
Quote:
In fact, maybe a better solution could have been to stand down our own nuclear capacity. Instead of having other countries in fear, racing to build their own...we could have recognized what we had created and stopped advancing the feild and eliminated weapons. At that stage, the U.s was the only unwrecked power on the planet commanding half of world gdp and all of the post war international institutions.We could have dictated perhaps how others behaved with our own behavior. Countries who pursued them could have been cut off economically from the world. Instead we choose to advance the technology with stronger bombs, better delivery, and more bombs.
This isn't very realistic though. As paranoid and untrustworthy as Stalin was he would have built the bomb regardless of what the United States did. Stalin also kept the massive Soviet military after the war was over, while the US went through a huge demobilization, from 12.2 million in 1945 down to 1.4 million by 1948. The bomb was seen as a check against any possible Soviet aggression.
As to the original question, absolutely not. It made no moral, economic, nor military sense to attempt something that crazy.
You know, a government that would rain nuclear weapons down upon tens of millions of civilians (in Moscow, London, Paris, Beijing just a few major cities from postwar powers that promptly sought nukes) to retain a nuclear monopoly is the same government that would have no compunction whatsoever about putting those who object up against the wall.
Or, anyone else.
Somehow, those who fantasize about governments using draconian force always manage to convince themselves that there would never come a time when that draconian-force-using government might decide that its erstwhile fanboys need to be put up against the wall.
Not clear raining nuclear destruction on anywhere would be required. But that we would do so was settled in Japan. So the morality of doing so was established.
Allowing some allies to participate in the effort would have been fine. But even there we could have insisted that the weapons come only from the US.
And note that you do not start out nuking Moscow. You nuke the facilities that are being used to produce the weapons. You could end up nuking Moscow...more to destroy those running the government. But that is after other lesser steps have failed.
I would also argue that "Peace Americana" had a very high probability of coming out well than what we did.
Why not the simple solution? The US will allow no nukes anywhere. The US says simply it will destroy any attempt to build a nuclear weapon. We send in inspectors. If not allowed we nuke the site or sites.
This is hilarious. Preventing countries like China and Russia from obtaining nukes is far from simple and said countries have every right to maintain nukes so long as we have them.
I understand the logic on paper, but in real life you can't tell a sovereign country how to defend itself.
Back to the OP, was there a time where America could've colonized/annexed/take over other countries? Sure. But as we saw with the Scramble to Africa, the "victim" country is just going to whine until you leave. So it's good that America largely refrained from doing so (outside of manifest destiny, Hawaii, Guam, etc.)
Furthermore, America paid its dues with the Korean and Vietnam war so if a country is still 3rd world or socialist, that's not our fault. Yes it's tragic, some countries will never become developed but we did everything we could.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lvmensch
The correct issue is why we did not force the rest of the world to be nuclear free. I would be of the opinion it was a wonderful opportunity lost.
Soviet Union stole half of America's blueprint with spies to build their own nukes, they also hired German scientists, we were not going to stop countries from getting nuclear weapons. Once they successfully created it, the cat was out the bag and they shared the information with China. There is no policy, doctrine, or treaty that would've kept America as the only country with nukes. It was inevitable, hello, Soviet Union had spies.
The Chinese conducted their first nuclear test, code-named 596, on 16 October 1964,[16] and acknowledged that their program would have been impossible to complete without the Soviet help
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.
Tumbling dice
