U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-07-2020, 11:22 AM
 
10,911 posts, read 8,905,290 times
Reputation: 9748

Advertisements

The upside of nuclear weapons is that they don't engage in a direct confrontational war that threatens radioactive fallout to the rest of the world. The downside is that there are massive deaths, displacements, and injustices in the rest of the world as the two sought to gain the upper hand through conventional warfare. Something above 70 million people are currently displaced as a result of the wars grouped under the fake Global War on Terrorism.

Last edited by lchoro; 03-07-2020 at 12:18 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-07-2020, 11:22 AM
 
Location: Earth
7,223 posts, read 4,540,925 times
Reputation: 5332
this is why we need to colonize space immediately


need a back up
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2020, 05:59 PM
 
23,373 posts, read 13,429,264 times
Reputation: 24373
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mindraker View Post
The idea was, that if each side (US/USSR) had enough power to blow up the world, then nobody would be MAD ("Mutual Assured Destruction") enough to start nuclear war.

"Mutual Assured Destruction" was never actually an espoused US strategy. The espoused nuclear strategy of the US was to have a nuclear deterrent that would clearly and convincingly survive any likely first strike by the Soviets or any other nuclear power.



"MAD" was not the strategy, "We will always have the final strike" was the strategy.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2020, 06:08 PM
 
Location: North America
3,543 posts, read 1,232,678 times
Reputation: 14712
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
"Mutual Assured Destruction" was never actually a US strategy.
It also has nothing to do with the why the U.S. and USSR developed nuclear weapons. Simultaneous full-scale tosses of thousands of nuclear weapons by both sides was not a concept on anyone's mind when the first nuclear weapons were being cobbled together. It really wasn't a theoretical possibility until the Soviets reached a semblance of ICBM parity in the late 1960s. Prior to then, they didn't have the ability to obliterate the U.S. - they didn't have the requisite numbers of bombers, and NORAD would have taken down a significant number of those that were sent this way. Certainly, it would have ruined everyone's day, to put it mildly. But national destruction? No.

Really, MAD as a concept wasn't fully realized until over a quarter century after the first real efforts to develop nuclear weapons began.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2020, 06:58 AM
 
Location: New York Area
22,159 posts, read 8,753,982 times
Reputation: 17379
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op View Post
Nuclear weapons were developed at the height (or depths) of World War II -- the darkest chapter of human history -- and the United States was the only proven democracy of the three contenders.

Does anyone among the Goody Two-shoes at this site want to tell us, with a straight face, that either the Nazis or Soviets would have refrained from pursuit of the most powerful (and terrifying) weapon yet devised?
Or Tojo for that matter. Remember he was lining up to slaughter millions of his own people as well as American G.I.'s. We effectively had no choice. Our reaction should have been a lot stronger when the U.S.S.R. developed them; at that point they were destitute and if we had stood up to them they may well have thought better of developing the technology. Nobody could seriously expect the unprovoked use of nukes by the U.S.; the U.S.S.R. under Stalin, quite possibly.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2020, 09:17 AM
 
11,127 posts, read 10,684,454 times
Reputation: 35666
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
Or Tojo for that matter. Remember he was lining up to slaughter millions of his own people as well as American G.I.'s. We effectively had no choice. Our reaction should have been a lot stronger when the U.S.S.R. developed them; at that point they were destitute and if we had stood up to them they may well have thought better of developing the technology. Nobody could seriously expect the unprovoked use of nukes by the U.S.; the U.S.S.R. under Stalin, quite possibly.
Well, Tojo resigned as Prime Minister after the fall of Saipan in 1944. But, of course, the Japanese leadership was preparing for an invasion of its islands and they were prepared to sacrifice millions of people.

I don't think we really knew the Soviets were developing an atomic bomb until they detonated one in 1949.

Things were much in 1949 than they were at the end of the war in 1945. For example, we had conducted a massive demobilization of our armed forces that left us with weak conventional forces in Europe and elsewhere. One reason the Korean War occurred is that our forces in that part of the world were also very weak. For the first few weeks of that war we were rolled over by a ragtag army from North Korea.

At that time, our only military recourse against the USSR would have been dropping atomic bombs by B-29 aircraft. I don't think absent an invasion of western Europe by the USSR, we would have been willing to consider something like that.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2020, 09:25 PM
 
Location: New York Area
22,159 posts, read 8,753,982 times
Reputation: 17379
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
At that time, our only military recourse against the USSR would have been dropping atomic bombs by B-29 aircraft. I don't think absent an invasion of western Europe by the USSR, we would have been willing to consider something like that.
That's exactly what the threat or actual course of action should have been.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top