mcjagdflieger wrote:
UON wrote:
what you said
yes, we are arguing the hypothetical situations, but an invasion of the japanese mainland is a little more likely than germany having nukes in 1942. i know your trying to make a point, but i feel it is a little to farfetched than most. and necessary in terms of human loss, in your argument, you dont think that killing a bunch of russians with nukes would be better than having them smashed down to surrender, which ultimately would've killed more of them? even if germany won, wouldnt you rather have less loss of life all around? im just replying to your situation. i dont think that is even a remote possibility, hypothetical it may be.
Actually, Hitler was millimetres away from getting the bomb, and actually it was probably an error in the choice of lead scientist which actually stopped him from doing so:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4598955.stmIt was the Nazi nuclear program that spurred America to develop the A-bomb. If the Nazi lead scientist had been more positive about the possible success when asked back in 1942, or had understood the concept better during the 3 years of development before that point, then it's conceivable that it could have happened. Less likely perhaps, but lot's of unlikely things happened during WW2. Knowledge of a weapon which would definitely be ready in a couple of years may have persuaded Hitler to hold of attacking Russia until the weapon was ready, since there would be no pressing need to preemptively strike.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/07/31/INGAKDUJFV1.DTL wrote:
For three years, Heisenberg and his Uranium Club made sporadic progress toward a self-sustained chain reaction designed to breed plutonium for an atomic bomb. But in June 1942, Albert Speer, Minister of Armament and War Production, asked Heisenberg pointedly whether this newfangled weapon, which was costing the Reich a lot of money, was going to be ready anytime soon. In typical fashion, Heisenberg dithered and said probably not -- but could he please keep getting the money anyway, just in case?
Anyway, the exact specifics aren't important, but the main question is if Germany had used the nuke to win the war, assuming that the saying "history is written by the winners" held true and the Holocaust was somehow forgotton or forgiven, would using the nuke have been necessary?
If Russia had got the nuke first, would it have been necessary to use it?
Essentially, would it have been necessary for whoever got the nuke first to use it?
Last edited by UON (2007-02-02 13:41:36)
