When the US was the only country having nukes in 1945 after WW2, should the US have conquered

[Superboy]

the whole wide world without a single loss in life? Even the Japanese surrendered. Who else wouldn't have?

 

[American_Millenium]

The US had only a couple dozen nukes even into the early 1950's. By the time the Soviets had detonated their first atom bomb it was too late. It would not have been possible to conquer the Soviet Union, much less the entire world, in the short time window of US nuclear supremacy that existed. In fact, it would have probably shortened the development time of the Soviet atomic program, not to mention the entire world's. And this new nuclear-armed world would turn the US into a pariah state.

So, no, it would not have been a great idea.

 

[Superboy]

The US had only a couple dozen nukes even into the early 1950's. By the time the Soviets had detonated their first atom bomb it was too late. It would not have been possible to conquer the Soviet Union, much less the entire world, in the short time window of US nuclear supremacy that existed. In fact, it would have probably shortened the development time of the Soviet atomic program, not to mention the entire world's. And this new nuclear-armed world would turn the US into a pariah state.

So, no, it would not have been a great idea.

Had the US used nukes to conquer the USSR in 1945, wouldn't that have been problem solved?

 

[American_Millenium]

Had the US used nukes to conquer the USSR in 1945, wouldn't that have been problem solved?

We had like 3 nukes in 1945. How do you conquer a nation with a handful of nukes in the 20-40 kiloton range? You could kill maybe 500,000 people, maybe a million.

 

[Superboy]

We had like 3 nukes in 1945. How do you conquer a nation with a handful of nukes in the 20-40 kiloton range? You could kill maybe 500,000 people, maybe a million.

Threaten capital? I think even 1 would have been enough, let alone 3. How many more nukes could the US have built in 1945?

 

[atatwolf]

Such a genious. Our Einstein of this forum.

 

[American_Millenium]

Had the US used nukes to conquer the USSR in 1945, wouldn't that have been problem solved?

Here's an excerpt:

Immediately after the atomic bombings of Japan, the status of atomic weapons in international and military relations was unclear. Presumably, the United States hoped atomic weapons could offset the Soviet Union's larger conventional ground forces in Eastern Europe, and possibly be used to pressure Soviet leader Joseph Stalin into making concessions. Under Stalin, the Soviet Union pursued its own atomic capabilities through a combination of scientific research and espionage directed against the American program. The Soviets believed that the Americans, with their limited nuclear arsenal, were unlikely to engage in any new world wars, while the Americans were not confident they could prevent a Soviet takeover of Europe, despite their atomic advantage.

Threaten capital? I think even 1 would have been enough, let alone 3. How many more nukes could the US have built in 1945?

Not enough. There were not enough resources to build the number it would take to threaten the Soviets. Within 5 years the US only had a couple multi-kiloton devices. Threatening the capital would do what exactly? The Soviets weren't known for surrendering easily.

 

[Superboy]

Possibly because of History, Travel, Arts, Science, People, Places | Smithsonian

 

[C130]

The US had only a couple dozen nukes even into the early 1950's. By the time the Soviets had detonated their first atom bomb it was too late. It would not have been possible to conquer the Soviet Union, much less the entire world, in the short time window of US nuclear supremacy that existed. In fact, it would have probably shortened the development time of the Soviet atomic program, not to mention the entire world's. And this new nuclear-armed world would turn the US into a pariah state.

So, no, it would not have been a great idea.

actually I think we had a few hundred by the early 1950's and Russia lacked a long range bombers to reach the U.S

we could of annihilated Russia and all chance of them acquiring the nuke and the means of striking back.

Fat Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mark 3 Fat Man
number built 120
yield 21kt
Produced 1945-49

Mark 4 nuclear bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mark 4
number built 550
yield 31kt
Produced 1949-53

so by 1953 we had well over 600 A-bombs and hundreds of B-29s and B-36 Peacemakers

 

[nvKyleBrown]

The problem with taking over the world is that you have to run it afterward. Less trouble to just trade with people on a voluntary basis. Too bad the USSR decided to suppress Eastern Europe though.

 

[Jungibaaz]

The American standard of conquering was/is opening up countries and regions to globalist free market capitalism, within the order set by them and their allies, and for certain governments in the Middle East, that desire goes a little further to encompass the natural resources belonging to these nations and to allow for market penetration.

That's all it is. That was the cold war. Whether they invade or not to achieve this, is a different subject. After WWII the world divided neatly between the US+allies sphere of influence and the USSR's sphere of influence, and they occasionally battled it out for the contested territory.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

What the hell would we do with the USSR after conquering it? Keep a few hundred thousand troops there to keep the people in check?

 

[Force-India]

People can fight on and on and on. Even if one country or religion takes over whole world, new sectors and differences will appear from within, human nature, i am right you are wrong, my thing is better your thing sucks, this is the right way to do not that way. US did't had any intentions to conquer any country and don't have now. US just wanta the human civilization to move forward. To do that they need researchs and funds which they earn other countries's rivalries and then sells the same technolgy back . Thier way of ruling .

 

[gambit]

Such a genious. Our Einstein of this forum.

People should leave Stuporboy and his posts alone.

 

[American_Millenium]

actually I think we had a few hundred by the early 1950's and Russia lacked a long range bombers to reach the U.S

we could of annihilated Russia and all chance of them acquiring the nuke and the means of striking back.

Fat Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mark 3 Fat Man
number built 120
yield 21kt
Produced 1945-49

Mark 4 nuclear bomb - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mark 4
number built 550
yield 31kt
Produced 1949-53

so by 1953 we had well over 600 A-bombs and hundreds of B-29s and B-36 Peacemakers

I don't think that is true. Do you have a source? The Soviets already detonated their first in 1949, so as long as they kept production running and devoted more resources to it, they could potentially have reached hundreds of nuclear warheads before we could wipe out the country. It's not a risk I'd be willing to take.

Also, check out the yields. 21kt... ummm, how do you wipe out a country as large and dispersed as the Soviet Union with 120 21kt weapons? This is also considering that a large numbers of the bombers would NOT have gotten through the air and fighter defenses, especially further into the country where Moscow, Stalingrad, etc. are located.