It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Didn't America Take Over the World (1945-1950)

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 09:11 PM
link   
In 1945 , Due to Mr. Eisenstein and Mr Oppenheimer America became the first major world power to enter the atomic age. Weapons technology had taken a leap far farther than the leap from stone clubs to the Artillery of the day.

For the first time in all human history one man had the power to kill a billion people in an afternoon.

It was a weapon honestly to big for millitary purposes, unless that purpose was genocide. Espeacially the later hydrogen bombs, you might can think of a strategic military reason to turn 10 or 20 square miles to glass, but a thousand square miles?!?! There is no strategic value to that...

More importantly is what comes after your not the only one who has them..then you have the very real fear of global thermonuclear war..


Faced with the unexplainable devastation of atomic weapons from 1945 to 1950 the US and specifically President Truman had a few very important question to answer...

Do you use them?!?!

Do you ever let anyone else have them too??!?!?!?

What are you willing to do to stop others from getting them?!?!

So now back to the title;


Should the US have conquered the world in the short window we were the only atomic power on the planet??


Sure, we would prob have had to nuke Russia, China and I'm guessing at least one of the European powers doesn't give up without a fight...

But with only the one nuclear power in the world , you effectively take an atomic Armageddon off the table.

Sure you prob have a lone terrorist get one from time to time, and we have to drop a dozen or so conquering the world, but even so wouldn't it be worth it just to take Armageddon off the table???

Thoughts



+16 more 
posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 09:18 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Life isn't a strategy game where infinite troops can be built. America doesn't have the man power to take over the world. Its population is less than half of China or USSR(just like Hitler underestimating the land mass of USSR). What America really want was China and USSR fight each other which never happened. It won't happen today either because US already pissed off the entire world already.

edit on 27-1-2017 by makemap because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-1-2017 by makemap because: (no reason given)


+2 more 
posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Because the people had had enough of their sons and daughters dying in warfare.

Almost every family lost someone.

Most people want peace not war.

Only the power hungry ass hats want war after bloody war.

P



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 09:28 PM
link   
America had big business arrangements with

wait for it...............

Russia !




posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Damn!!!! At the time, and with as much as they had invested in the weapons, they could have ended all civilization on the other half of the globe. They had already killed so many. What was the difference? I don't know know why they didn't. But if they had, it would have made for a hell of a different future.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

In a way they did.

There's a McDonalds and Starbucks in every Modernized Country in the world 'nearly', minus the muslim countries. Apart from India which sells only veggie stock, no meat.

A Starbucks on the Great Wall of China, who'da thunk it? ha.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


Adolf, is that you ?

Did you even think about that before you asked the question ? What did you think WWII was about, Hitler wanted to rule the world. Would you really want to stoop to his level ?


+12 more 
posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 10:07 PM
link   
Because... back then the military-industrial complex was still in its infancy, and we, for the most part, wanted nothing else to do with war. America was still in an isolationist mood... Eisenhower recognized this, and warned us as well.

We didn't listen.

JFK tried to shut them down, and was murdered for his efforts.

Again, we didn't listen.

The Founding Fathers warned us against foreign entanglements...

We didn't listen.

America doesn't need to rule the world. America needs to start taking care of its own, for once...



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 10:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Underfire2
Damn!!!! At the time, and with as much as they had invested in the weapons, they could have ended all civilization on the other half of the globe. They had already killed so many. What was the difference? I don't know know why they didn't. But if they had, it would have made for a hell of a different future.


If nukes were used it would have been a hell a lot worse because US didn't have proper tech to deal with nuclear radiation. Should have see US military being test subjects to nuclear radiation by nuclear bombs within a few distances. All of them die from radiation cancer sickness. That would've been the only option. Also Japan only surrender in 1945. US sending troops in to fight USSR or China. You don't even know what the Japs will actually do during that time. They could rebel and invade America this time.
edit on 27-1-2017 by makemap because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: makemap
Life isn't a strategy game where infinite troops can be built. America doesn't have the man power to take over the world. Its population is less than half of China or USSR(just like Hitler underestimating the land mass of USSR). What America really want was China and USSR fight each other which never happened. It won't happen today either because US already pissed off the entire world already.


It did right after ww2 when it was the only "still standing" world power and the only state in the planet with nukes. If they were willing to use them (they weren't)....

Not today..that ship sailed in 1950. Dis you even read the OP?



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358



I'm not sure that liminating the risk of a global thermonuclear war doesn't trump all that.

WW1 and ww2 together killed , what 40 million tops?


How many billions die if the Cuban middle crisis blew up?


I agree that's prob right, and the American people might not have been willing.
edit on 27-1-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: makemap

originally posted by: Underfire2
Damn!!!! At the time, and with as much as they had invested in the weapons, they could have ended all civilization on the other half of the globe. They had already killed so many. What was the difference? I don't know know why they didn't. But if they had, it would have made for a hell of a different future.


If nukes were used it would have been a hell a lot worse because US didn't have proper tech to deal with nuclear radiation. Should have see US military being test subjects to nuclear radiation by nuclear bombs within a few distances. All of them die from radiation cancer sickness.The would've been the only option. Also Japan only surrender in 1945. US sending troops in to fight USSR or China. You don't even know what the Japs will actually do during that time. They could rebel and invade America this time.



You don't have to send troops necessarily. The only real requirement would be stopping anyone else from getting the bomb.

Nuke Moscow and Hong Kong in 1948, and do they ever get nukes?



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
America had big business arrangements with

wait for it...............

Russia !




I think a global nuke war trumps buisness...every single day.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: LuXTeN
a reply to: JoshuaCox

In a way they did.

There's a McDonalds and Starbucks in every Modernized Country in the world 'nearly', minus the muslim countries. Apart from India which sells only veggie stock, no meat.

A Starbucks on the Great Wall of China, who'da thunk it? ha.



Once Russia got nukes that ship had sailed and the doomsday clock started.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 10:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: pheonix358



I'm not sure that liminating the risk of a global thermonuclear war doesn't trump all that.

WW1 and ww2 together killed , what 40 million tops?


How many billions die if the Cuban middle crisis blew up?


I agree that's prob right, and the American people might not have been willing.


Considering the global population was only 3 billion, I'd say a significant fraction.

And just 85 years prior.. . . Americans lost over 600,000 in a fight for freedom/control. . . . . where ever you stand.

America is supposed to stand for freedom, not tyranny.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

The others didn't use the bombs either right? You can't takeover land that gets nuked. People will die from radiation sickness before they can even march to the next Territory. OP is referring to taking over the world. Just nuking cities won't do a thing. You have to nuke the entire planet and that just becomes suicide. He said the world, this includes Europe and Africa.
edit on 27-1-2017 by makemap because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

For one: The amount of A bombs you are talking about didn't exist during that time period. The building of those bombs right then was a time consuming process, because of the amount of plutonium that would have been needed. Took quite a few years to gear up to that.

Two) The US at that time was confident that it would take much longer for the USSR to develop their own bomb, some estimates had it at decades. Unknown to the US at the time, a couple of scientist that helped with the original development of the first A bomb, had been feeding info to the USSR (they had been vetted by GB, but had strong communistic ties). By 1949, the USSR had detonated it's first A bomb. It was, as you put it: Too Late.

Three) The US population was tired of war. They'd been doing it for 4 years now, and were done. Fighting Hitler and Japan was something we did because we got pulled into that war. Once Germany and then Japan surrendered the US population was done with it. There would have been almost no support to go on a war of conquest.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 10:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: madmac5150
Because... back then the military-industrial complex was still in its infancy, and we, for the most part, wanted nothing else to do with war. America was still in an isolationist mood... Eisenhower recognized this, and warned us as well.

We didn't listen.

JFK tried to shut them down, and was murdered for his efforts.

Again, we didn't listen.

The Founding Fathers warned us against foreign entanglements...

We didn't listen.

America doesn't need to rule the world. America needs to start taking care of its own, for once...



I think you might be under selling the inevitability of a global nuclear war long term.

Historically it is almost a certainty sooner or later.



posted on Jan, 27 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: makemap

China has more people,russia while abit bigger then the usa land mass wise but they got hammered population wise during ww2 and have a bout half the population of the united states does today 300+ million for usa to some where around 145ish million for the russians ,Nigeria for example is about the same population as Russian federation

ww2db.com... russia lost more or less 26 million people or roughly a quarter of its population during ww2 ,compared to 400,000 dead Americans ,with a population of 139 million in 1945
edit on 27-1-2017 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join