HH 59 : The Destroyer of Worlds

[ssu]

I would say the main issue in 1953, was just the limited number of bombs available, these bombs were supposed to be for fighting World War Three if necessary, Korea itself wasn't World War Three, so unless and until it escalated beyond the Korean Peninsula, the Americans were loathe to use their bombs, because they just didn't have that many of them at this juncture.

And, as I said, they are furiously working on the hydrogen bomb, but in terms of being a deliverable weapon which could be dropped from a bomber, having that in significant quantities is also some years off yet at this point.

If the Americans dropped all the atomic bombs they had in 1953, that wouldn't even amount to one hydrogen bomb worth of firepower, Castle Bravo was twice as powerful as all the atomic bombs in the 1953 arsenal combined.

Interesting to think that the military doctrine of "nuking back Russia to the stoneage" was the reason why those precious nukes weren't used in a tactical/operational environment in Korea. Especially after Cuban Missile Crisis the way people felt about nukes had changed. It wasn't anymore natural to use nuclear weapons.

Yet the late 40's and 50's was a time when the use of nuclear weapons were truly thought to be used as an extension of firepower, as quite "conventional" weapons. The interesting debate around supporting the French forces in Dien Bien Phu with nukes is interesting too. See for example "We might give them a few." Did the US offer to drop atom bombs at Dien Bien Phu?

No nukes saved the French from this defeat:

[Smitty-48]

Those nuclear bombs weren't much more effective than conventional bombing, that was the problem, the atomic bomb was not actually intended to win the war at a push of a button, it was simply a way of saving bomber crews, less bombers, to do the same job, but the effects weren't going to exponentially greater than a thousand bomber raid, the raid could be executed with one bomber, but that did not mean the war was over as soon as you dropped the bomb, the atomic bomb simply wouldn't have been that decisive, the Communists would have fought on.

At Dresden they killed 25,000, at Hiroshima, 66,000; it's not going to make that big of a difference.

[Fife]

Those nuclear bombs weren't much more effective than conventional bombing, that was the problem, the atomic bomb was not actually intended to win the war at a push of a button, it was simply a way of saving bomber crews, less bombers, to do the same job, but the effects weren't going to exponentially greater than a thousand bomber raid, the raid could be executed with one bomber, but that did not mean the war was over as soon as you dropped the bomb, the atomic bomb simply wouldn't have been that decisive, the Communists would have fought on.

That kind of depends on the target, though, right?

Could the U.S. have gotten a couple of B-29s directly over the Kremlin in August 45? I don't know the answer to that.

[Smitty-48]

Those nuclear bombs weren't much more effective than conventional bombing, that was the problem, the atomic bomb was not actually intended to win the war at a push of a button, it was simply a way of saving bomber crews, less bombers, to do the same job, but the effects weren't going to exponentially greater than a thousand bomber raid, the raid could be executed with one bomber, but that did not mean the war was over as soon as you dropped the bomb, the atomic bomb simply wouldn't have been that decisive, the Communists would have fought on.

That kind of depends on the target, though, right?

Could the U.S. have gotten a couple of B-29s directly over the Kremlin in August 45? I don't know the answer to that.

Supposes that the Soviet regime collapses simply because you bomb the Kremlim. They bombed Berlin and Tokyo into the stone age, but that didn't end Wold War Two overnight.

The Soviet regime comes about, as reactionary to Russia being attacked, if you attack them with nukes, you may simply be inciting the Russians to retrench and rally around that regime all the more.

Hitler completely encircled Leningrad and got to the suburbs of Moscow, but the Soviets never came close to capitulating, it's a big country, they were just going to move east and keep on fighting.

You can nuke the Kremlin, but how does that stop the Red Army from overrunning Western Europe?

The Soviet government could just move the Politburo to Paris, you gonna nuke Paris too?

Hitler killed 20 million plus Soviets, which is "hydrogen bomb" like attrition; how'd that work out for him?

[Ex-California]

Those nuclear bombs weren't much more effective than conventional bombing, that was the problem, the atomic bomb was not actually intended to win the war at a push of a button, it was simply a way of saving bomber crews, less bombers, to do the same job, but the effects weren't going to exponentially greater than a thousand bomber raid, the raid could be executed with one bomber, but that did not mean the war was over as soon as you dropped the bomb, the atomic bomb simply wouldn't have been that decisive, the Communists would have fought on.

That kind of depends on the target, though, right?

Could the U.S. have gotten a couple of B-29s directly over the Kremlin in August 45? I don't know the answer to that.

Supposes that the Soviet regime collapses simply because you bomb the Kremlim. They bombed Berlin and Tokyo into the stone age, but that didn't end Wold War Two overnight.

The Soviet regime comes about, as reactionary to Russia being attacked, if you attack them with nukes, you may simply be inciting the Russians to retrench and rally around that regime all the more.

Hitler completely encircled Leningrad and got to the suburbs of Moscow, but the Soviets never came close to capitulating, it's a big country, they were just going to move east and keep on fighting.

You can nuke the Kremlin, but how does that stop the Red Army from overrunning Western Europe?

The Soviet government could just move the Politburo to Paris, you gonna nuke Paris too?

Hitler killed 20 million plus Soviets, which is "hydrogen bomb" like attrition; how'd that work out for him?

And before the Soviets got their bomb in 47, the US had what, maybe 50 A bombs max? I don't think event that many could have broken down the Soviets.

However, I'm seeing that B29s could have made it to Moscow and back from the UK and France? Am I calculating wrong?

https://www.freemaptools.com/radius-around-point.htm using a 2915 mile range around Moscow

http://www.boeing.com/history/products/ ... tress.page max range 5830 miles

[Smitty-48]

Might have made it to Moscow, might not have, that's a long way to fly through the teeth of the Soviet air defenses, I don't think Enola Gay would make it all the way by herself, let's put it that way, you might have to put every bomb you have in the 29's and hope that a handful get through, while you lost the rest of them to attrition.

Bear in mind, the Soviets were not averse to taking bombers down, by simply ramming them with their fighters and then bailing out.

The Germans learned the hard way; once you get Ivan riled up, he's Crazy Ivan then.

[SuburbanFarmer]

That kind of depends on the target, though, right?

Could the U.S. have gotten a couple of B-29s directly over the Kremlin in August 45? I don't know the answer to that.

Supposes that the Soviet regime collapses simply because you bomb the Kremlim. They bombed Berlin and Tokyo into the stone age, but that didn't end Wold War Two overnight.

The Soviet regime comes about, as reactionary to Russia being attacked, if you attack them with nukes, you may simply be inciting the Russians to retrench and rally around that regime all the more.

Hitler completely encircled Leningrad and got to the suburbs of Moscow, but the Soviets never came close to capitulating, it's a big country, they were just going to move east and keep on fighting.

You can nuke the Kremlin, but how does that stop the Red Army from overrunning Western Europe?

The Soviet government could just move the Politburo to Paris, you gonna nuke Paris too?

Hitler killed 20 million plus Soviets, which is "hydrogen bomb" like attrition; how'd that work out for him?

And before the Soviets got their bomb in 47, the US had what, maybe 50 A bombs max? I don't think event that many could have broken down the Soviets.

However, I'm seeing that B29s could have made it to Moscow and back from the UK and France? Am I calculating wrong?

https://www.freemaptools.com/radius-around-point.htm using a 2915 mile range around Moscow

http://www.boeing.com/history/products/ ... tress.page max range 5830 miles

If we had 50 cities vaporized, America would collapse. Probably only take 1-2 of the big ones (NYC, Chicago, LA) for everyone to stream out of the rest, and start starving/raiding the countryside. Total societal collapse.

[Ex-California]

That's us, not them.

As Smitty said, the USSR had H-bomb level casualties already and was getting stronger. Beyond that, he's also right in saying that even if we had 50 bombs at the time we wouldn't have gotten 50 in

[Fife]

Follow up question to you historians.... if not the Kremlin, was there ANY target(s) in the USSR that would have crippled the war effort in one day if destroyed?

[SilverEagle]

Nuke Map. Fun to play with.
http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/