Why didn't America nuke SSSR in 1945/1946. That would have beaten communism and won the Cold War in the fastest and most efficient way possible. The Russkies didn't have a nuke 'till 1949. Instead, America opted for an arms race and proxy conflicts lasting 50 years.
Why didn't America nuke SSSR in 1945/1946...
Thomas Thomas
Other urls found in this thread:
freemaptools.com
nsarchive2.gwu.edu
twitter.com
Jaxon Mitchell
Becuase even if they beat communism (which is not a sure thing) it would be WW3 on the ashes of WW2, and nobody wanted to see another war which would result in tens of millions dead last god knows how long.
Elijah Morales
>That would have beaten communism
that would have destroyed a few russian cities, nothing else
Connor Morales
They didn't have enough nukes to do serious armywide or nationwide damage.
The domestic public would have been outraged too.
I'm not sure what's your angle on this too. Either a retard or a naziboo who would like to see the world burn.
Jace Foster
Didn't have enough nukes, for one thing. The USSR was sort of big, and even nuking Moscow and St. Petersburg, while it certainly would have thrown the country into chaos, would not have crippled the military, or the militaries of its allies. Congratulations, the Red Army is now rampaging across a Europe that has only just begun to heal from the last war. You just committed a massive war crime and got basically nothing out of it.
Carson Torres
Americans can't stomach a war over 4 years without throwing a hissy fit.
Jason Russell
No ICBMs or nuclear subs back then
Noah Rogers
>and even nuking Moscow and St. Petersburg, while it certainly would have thrown the country into chaos, would not have crippled the military, or the militaries of its allies. Congratulations, the Red Army is now rampaging across a Europe that has only just begun to heal from the last war. You just committed a massive war crime and got basically nothing out of it.
Wyatt Ramirez
Apart from the fact that I called it St. Petersburg instead of Leningrad (euch), there's nothing wrong with what I just said. It's an oversimplification of what would have happened, of course, but broadly true.
Quick, quote this post with another drooling face, and whatever you do don't respond with anything of substance.
Landon Torres
Whats your rebuttal?
Evan Foster
If they have done so, the other civs would've denounced America and declare that their warmongering will sink the world in a new Dark Age.
Benjamin Scott
only have like handful of nukes. your only delivery vector would be a B-29.
the b-29 cannot fly far enough to get deep into russia and drop a bomb on something significant. meanwhile you have millions of soviet troops spread out over europe.
Jason Roberts
>the b-29 cannot fly far enough to get deep into russia and drop a bomb on something significant
That isn't true at all. The two atomic strikes historically were launched from Tinian. It is 2,526 kilometers from Tinian to Hiroshima. Play around with this. freemaptools.com
And you can see some rather horrifying implications. From just three bases, one in London, and another on Crete, and a third on Islamabad the Allies can hit just about anywhere that matters in the USSR.
Henry Turner
see
Adrian Phillips
Because Truman thought the Manhattan Project was airtight, dropping them on Japan was a good enough demonstration, and that Stalin would bend the knee. Russia probably would have worked closer with us and not claimed all of Eastern Europe had we not been obsessed with rebuilding and rearming Germany.
Thomas Gonzalez
You sure showed him, wow.
Oliver Green
The Americans didn't have enough nukes or the means to transport them safely to the target destinations. Even if they did nuke Moscow or some other major city the Soviets aren't gonna just quit.
Brody Williams
We actively thought about it. Aside from the fact that we didn't feel like killing 100 million people, understand that after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we only had like 5-6 of them left.
Jackson Lewis
>not enough nukes
This. Understand that the US had MAYBE 10 nukes total at the end of WW2, we used 2 of them already, and apparently it took us a full month just to make one back then.
David Taylor
nsarchive2.gwu.edu
>They come out at approximately the rate of three a month.
Liam Baker
I don't think you understand the scale of atomic destruction. One bomb, one physical object, dropped on a city in Japan, killed such an enormous number of people. Two bombs were around a 1/20th of the power of ALL bombs dropped during the entirity of Rolling Thunder, and those two bombs were small by comparison to what the United States had in its arsenal in years to come. That number doesn't really translate well into severity of lives lost, but the prospect of not only killing, but ANNIHILATING, millions of innocent civilians in a matter of hours was not something either side took lightly.
Brayden Cook
Oh, my bad. Still, nowhere near the kind of firepower you'd need for a country as massive and populated as russia.
Daniel Cooper
We just got done fighting a war that killed 3% of the entire human population. We weren't in a hurry to keep killing.
Lincoln Bennett
Because the state department was filled with communist infiltrators.
Ayden Nguyen
Nah, it's okay. I just try to spread the document around, it only became declassified relatively recently, so a lot of people aren't aware of it.
Adrian Thomas
hahahaha XDDDDD!!!!!!11
Zachary White
>WWII just ended
>"Hey guys, let's start WWIII lol"