How do you think it would be if...

[Méo]

Originally Posted by Snestorm

Incendiary bombing has the same result because, the fires consume all the oxygen.

I'm talking about the psychological effect.

And waves of bombers are easier to detect and easier to counterattack than a single plane.

Originally Posted by Méo

I'm talking about the psychological effect.

And waves of bombers are easier to detect and easier to counterattack than a single plane.

You have a valid point.

[Méo]

Fortunately enough it did not end up to be a nuclear apocalyps.

The terrible devastation and the incommensurable lost of lives in WWII must prevent us FOREVER to use the ultimate bomb and go to war only in absolute necessity.

[Raptor1]

So they have a greater psychological effect. But if the population's morale was high after victories, it would probably not make a lot of people immediate defeatists.

It's not nessecarily true that a single bomber is easier to intercept than a large formation. Japan couldn't intercept the bombers because their fuel situation demanded that they decline to sortie against anything but large raids, while Germany would have plenty of fuel given a victory in the European land war, not to mention more planes and experienced pilots. Additionally, Germany had better radars which could detect the incoming raid. The fact that delivering a nuclear bomb to Germany would be so much more dangerous would probably have deterred the US from even sending such an attack, because it could very well be captured by the Germans.

Also, as I said, a successful invasion of Britain which would most likely have come following a victory on the mainland would mean it nearly impossible to bomb Germany with any sort of ordenance.

Eh, this is going nowhere. Suit yourself.

[Méo]

There are no infallible defence, this is especially true when there was no computer guided missiles.

And that did not prevent Britain from bombing Berlin from August 1940 to march 1944. (BTW, B-29 had a range of 5000 km, they could have attacked from elsewhere: Gibraltar, Cyprus, etc.)

But I agree with you again, this is going nowhere. You got your opinion and I got mine.

My opinion is that the U.S. were ahead of the curve by far with nuclear weapons and in the coming years the one with the nuclear power would prevail.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Méo

My opinion is that the U.S. were ahead of the curve by far with nuclear weapons and in the coming years the one with the nuclear power would prevail.

If Germany would've won the war in Europe, where do you suggest US would have dropped the nukes? I dont think Germany would have just given up if one of it's cities was nuked, after all, it would have been controlling the whole europe. Nuking the mainland europe would have been a HUGE propaganda asset for Germany "Pick up your arms and fight the evil US before they bomb you too!". Soon, US might have been fighting against all of europe.

[Méo]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Soon, US might have been fighting against all of europe.

Hmm, if the Soviet Union would have invaded & controlled your country and another country would later drop some nukes on Soviet cities, would you have fought under the Soviet flag...

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Méo

Hmm, if the Soviet Union would have invaded & controlled your country and another country would later drop some nukes on Soviet cities, would you have fought under the Soviet flag...

No. Like I said "Nuking the mainland europe". I meant nuking of germany and the countries it controlled.

But if someone would nuke Finland, even if we'd be under soviet control, then yes, I'd join the Soviet ranks to fight against the ones using the nukes. At that point it would be obvious that the greater threat would be the nuking country, not the soviets.

[Lt.Fillipidis]

Originally Posted by Dowly

If Germany would've won the war in Europe, where do you suggest US would have dropped the nukes? I dont think Germany would have just given up if one of it's cities was nuked, after all, it would have been controlling the whole europe. Nuking the mainland europe would have been a HUGE propaganda asset for Germany "Pick up your arms and fight the evil US before they bomb you too!". Soon, US might have been fighting against all of europe.

I agree with Dowly on this one. Most of the people who kept their mouth shut would react if USA had bombed Europe. And this could keep up even till today.
Many people on the occupied countries supported Germany so in an event that a nuke was dropped, those too would fight.
On the other hand, the Chinesse and other enemies of Japan, didnt had the chance to support Japan because many of them were slaughtered or captured.

And besides that, Hitler had nukes too, dont forget that.

Trivial: Actually the first bombing of London was an accident. The Luftwaffe pilot took it for military area thus bombed it.

[Catfish]

Hello,
regarding the atom bomb i think Heisenberg, Weizsäcker and other german scientists of the time would then probably not have indirectly hindered the development of the german nuclear bomb, had anyone used such a bomb against Germany. Remember a german kind of reactor was already running as early as in 1939, with the knowledge of creating a bomb with fissionable material. It was the "reluctance" of those scientists, who assured the military general staff that such a bomb would be impossible to build in time - against better knowledge.

Only have this in german :

" ...

Weiterhin berief das Heereswaffenamt Wissenschaftler für das Arbeitsprogramm ,"Uranverein" angeführt von Werner Heisenberg. Im Dezember ′39 proklamiert er, dass man Sprengstoff durch hochangereichertes Uran 235 herstellen kann, welches eine Explosionskraft besitzt, das die herkömmlichen Mittel um mehrere Zehnerpotenzen übersteigt. Im Juni 1940 kennzeichnet Weizäcker den im Kernreaktor aus U238 entstehenden Stoff als Element 93 oder 94. Damit besitzen die Deutschen die selben Kenntnisse wie die Amerikaner, die das Element 94 schon Plutonium genannt haben.

Werner Heisenberg
Das vorrangige Ziel beider Mächte [USA, and Germany] ist die Atombombe.
Anfang ′42 erklären [deutsche] Atomforscher Hermann Göring, dass die Atombombe in höchstens 2 Jahren entstehen könnte, da man zwar über das theoretische Wissen verfüge, aber diese technisch sehr schwierig zu bewerkstelligen sei. Man wußte, dass Kernenergie durch Uranspaltung freigesetzt wurde, wenn reiches oder angereichertes U 235 verwendet wird, und dass die Isotopentrennung theoretisch durchführbar war.
Ein zweiter Weg war, wenn U 238 Neutronen absorbiert und ein neuer Stoff (Plutonium) entsteht, der noch leichter zu spalten ist.
Aber die Großtechnische Verwirklichung stellte sich als schwierig heraus:

- Es gab kein praktisches Verfahren zur Isotopentrennung.
- Die Uranmengen in Deutschland waren beschränkt.
- Es waren keine Schwerwasseranlagen vorhanden, da sie zerbombt wurden

...."

The production plants for "heavy water" (Deuterium) were certainly attacked numerous times, and mostly destroyed (some were also used for the production of "T-Stoff" for the rocket-interceptors, and "Ingolin" for the U-boat Walter turbines).

" ...
Der inzwischen Großdeutsche Fritz Houtermans einer der Mitarbeiter beim deutschen Atomprogramm gab Reiche folgende Nachricht mit auf den Weg: Heisenberg will eine deutsche Atombombe verhindern, doch keiner weiß, wie lange er dem Druck der Regierung noch widerstehen kann. Nach dieser Aussage blieb der Ehrgeiz der amerikanischen Physiker, den Nazis beim Bau der Bombe zuvorzukommen, ungebremst.

Translated:
" ... The meanwhile german Fritz Houtermans, one of the colleagues of the german Atom program, gave Reiche a message on its way to the US: "Heisenberg wants to prevent a german atom bomb, but nobody knows how long he will be able to withstand the pressure of the government." After this statement, the ambition of the american physicists, to scoop the Nazis building of the bomb, was undamped.
... "

Also from some letter exchanges from Heisenberg, Weizsäcker and other scientists of the time it is known by now, that they internally despised the development of a fission bomb, and thus agreed to try to make it inaccessible for the Nazi command, by delaying its development. Those papers can be read in the german "ZZBW" or (Zentrum für Zeitgeschichte von Bildung und Wissenschaft), Hannover.

Greetings,
Catfish

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by Lt.Fillipidis

On the other hand, the Chinesse and other enemies of Japan, didnt had the chance to support Japan because many of them were slaughtered or captured.

Well, slaughter and capture usually does lose you support among the people you're slaughtering and capturing.

[Méo]

Originally Posted by Lt.Fillipidis

And besides that, Hitler had nukes too, dont forget that.

Where the hell have you seen this???

Originally Posted by Lt.Fillipidis

Many people on the occupied countries supported Germany.

Many people doesn't mean the Majority, if the occupied countries would have really supported Germany it would have been so easy and simple for the Germans.

Try to imagine youself in your country when it was occupied by Germans (BTW their leaders were considering you and your people as an inferior race...). Then Another country would launch an nuclear assault against your oppressor's country (I don't see why the hell would the U.S. nuke your own country???).

Would a such attack against your oppressor be enough to convince you and the majority of your people to fight beside the Germans???

I think it would have produce the opposite effet: the majority of people in occupied countries would have seen this as sign of hope that their oppressors is weakening.