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: 10
11
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

My thought, as an Army Brat who grew up overseas, and who knows just how backward the rest of the world was in the '50s and '60's is you asked the wrong question.

The proper question is why did not the US concentrate its financial resources in massive scientific research to leave the rest of the world behind, establish Moon Bases and then on to Mars bases? Think about what it would have meant if the US had claimed the Moon and Mars for itself? Full Spectrum Dominance without war.




posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: JoshuaCox

My thought, as an Army Brat who grew up overseas, and who knows just how backward the rest of the world was in the '50s and '60's is you asked the wrong question.

The proper question is why did not the US concentrate its financial resources in massive scientific research to leave the rest of the world behind, establish Moon Bases and then on to Mars bases? Think about what it would have meant if the US had claimed the Moon and Mars for itself? Full Spectrum Dominance without war.



None of that matters in a world where you allow mulitiple world powers (mostly competitors ) to all have nukes.

Sooner or later you get another Hitler and global nuclear war.

Our tech today , nor in the foreseeable future trumps a global nuclear war.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990

I agree completely..the logistics involved and the fact they only had 2 weapons and used both..would of had to make a huge # of new ones.
It would not of been possible.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 11:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: JoshuaCox

At the end of WWII, notwithstanding our destruction of Japan with nuclear weapons, the US had the high moral ground. We brought the Nuremberg Trials and incorporated those principles into our legal code.


We did not want to take over the world, we wanted to enjoy the peace that was so hard won.

By 1947 the CIA had been created, and the moral high ground was quickly given away, taken away perhaps, by error and malicious humans.

50 some odd years after Nuremberg, our government rationalized and institutionalized torture, in violation of our legal code. Most americans embraced the torture, and today's POTUS wants to bring it back, assuming it ever left.

Time changes things.





Was it the right choice when global nuclear war is almost inevitable if you allow other great powers to have them??

What's more morally superior than using a dozen nukes to stop the fall of thousands??? Tens of thousands really. (I think we have like 20 thousand today, or at our height).


What isn't the moral high ground compared to that?



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: RAY1990

I agree completely..the logistics involved and the fact they only had 2 weapons and used both..would of had to make a huge # of new ones.
It would not of been possible.


We had over 200 before Russia became the second nuclear power.


How may does it take to scare the world into submission??

Prob less than 200.

You don't have to attack in late 1945..


I think most military historians would agree we had the ability, but not the will.

You get to wait till at least 1949.
edit on 28-1-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-1-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluesma

originally posted by: JoshuaCox


Everything you said is irrelevant if the other end of the scale is weighed down by a nulclear Armageddon..

Commercialism and who is the biggest world power doesn't matter if you let other people have them.


What is "them" in this sentence? I do not understand what you are saying.
America took over the world in a subtle way which kept people from even knowing they were owned.
It took it over in a way that was easy and was best suited for long distance control.

Nuclear Armageddon would have been a bad choice- it would damage the US (since it is part of the same planet) and ruin their ability to benefit from ressources other countries have. It would have been stupid. They were smart.
Atomic then thermonuclear weapons.


You don't have a thermonuclear or atomic war if only one country has them. Sure we would feel the effects, but not anywhere near the effects of if you have 2 countries using them against each other. I don't think there is a worse option than that.

Even if that meant a worse case scenerio Hitler ruled the world..it still prob beats a war between just 2 nuclear powers.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: vonclod

It is also based on the premise that the US wanted to rule the world.

(muahaha)



It has nothing to do with wanting to rule the world...

It has to do with the fact for that very short window, the US was the only nation state with the ability to truely conquer the world, and that since the only way to ensure you never have a nuclear war between the great powers is to only let one world power have them.


The exact same thought experiment works with any major power if you pretend they were the only power left standing after ww2 and they invented atomic power first.


On one end of the scale you have all the atrocities and crappyness that comes with a global empire.

On the other end you have the long term inevitablity of a global war between 2 or MORE super powers.


Which side weighs more?



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

But I though the concept was turn it all into glass?..scaring into submission would only be a temporary deal..all or nothing kinda thing? I'm not sure even 200 low yield weapons would of been enough to take the world.
Like I said earlier in the end too much land mass and people to control .."if" you didn't turn it all into glass.
The genie was out of the bottle, the idea of splitting the atom was not exclusive to the U.S., they just had the massive resources to make it happen at the time.

It would of gone down as the most evil act by man to his fellow man in the history of the world..you know..killing billions of innocent people.
Then consider the U.S. citizenry ..would of been a civil war IMHO.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 12:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox


If Hitler wins, he gets the bomb first and doesn't have to occupy Europe...


Everything you said is irrelevant when compared to a global thermonuclear war...everything.



If you let a dozen states have nukes, how long till you have one?


My bad. From the thread title, I thought the discussion would be about the US taking over the people and resources of other nations following WW2. Perhaps a more descriptive title would have been, "Why didn't the US destroy as many living things as possible using radioactive fallout after WW2." The answer there would have been, "When it comes to radioactive fallout, what goes around comes around."

When the mob goes to take over a neighborhood, they don't waltz in and destroy all the businesses. There is no profit in that. They do just enough damage to use fear to generate a constant revenue stream.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Even they DID take over the world, it doesn't end the threat of nuclear Armageddon in the slightest. A third party can hijack the nukes, separatist groups will absolutely form against this new world government and they could try to obtain nukes. It's always just a matter of time.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

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?


Why you nuking Hong Kong chief, was British.


edit on 28-1-2017 by TheWisestCumbrian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheWisestCumbrian

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

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?


Why you nuking Hong Kong chief, was British.




Mainly because they were British.... their silly accents must be destroyed...
edit on 28-1-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: spite
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Even they DID take over the world, it doesn't end the threat of nuclear Armageddon in the slightest. A third party can hijack the nukes, separatist groups will absolutely form against this new world government and they could try to obtain nukes. It's always just a matter of time.



I allowed for that in the OP. You would have one or 2 get hijacked, but never the "America and allies launch 15,000 as the Russian and Chinese alliance's launch 12000 nukes. "Type stuff.

The big civilization destroying event never happens.
edit on 28-1-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-1-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-1-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-1-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: TheWisestCumbrian

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

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?


Why you nuking Hong Kong chief, was British.




Mainly because they were British.... their silly accents must be destroyed...


You need to go to the naughty step. Initiating armageddon and insulting the Commonwealth.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom

originally posted by: JoshuaCox


If Hitler wins, he gets the bomb first and doesn't have to occupy Europe...


Everything you said is irrelevant when compared to a global thermonuclear war...everything.



If you let a dozen states have nukes, how long till you have one?


My bad. From the thread title, I thought the discussion would be about the US taking over the people and resources of other nations following WW2. Perhaps a more descriptive title would have been, "Why didn't the US destroy as many living things as possible using radioactive fallout after WW2." The answer there would have been, "When it comes to radioactive fallout, what goes around comes around."

When the mob goes to take over a neighborhood, they don't waltz in and destroy all the businesses. There is no profit in that. They do just enough damage to use fear to generate a constant revenue stream.



What has more fall out??

Setting off a couple dozen atomic weapons ensuring your the only nuke power in 1949 and one or 2 every couple generations when needed?


Or any nuclear war between the world powers that took place after say 1975??

Plus you have all the redundant testing by nations unwilling to share data that comes from multiple superpowers.



edit on 28-1-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-1-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Then we would've become the same thing Adolf Hitler wanted to be.....



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheWisestCumbrian

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: TheWisestCumbrian

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

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?


Why you nuking Hong Kong chief, was British.




Mainly because they were British.... their silly accents must be destroyed...


You need to go to the naughty step. Initiating armageddon and insulting the Commonwealth.



Initiating Armageddon against the commonwealth ?!?!

It is not my fault they decided to use such a blasphemous accent...



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Then we would've become the same thing Adolf Hitler wanted to be.....




Absolutely, but might it still not be worth it??

If you ask whatever remnants of humanity survive whatever future thermonuclear war, would they agree with you??


It's hard to imagaine the situation where a global nuclear war is the lesser evil.
edit on 28-1-2017 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Another Hitler,
All the more reason the US should have sought its future in space and away from Earth, leaving the Earthlings to their pitiable fate. Plus, with Nukes on the Moon, or Earth Orbit, and anti-missle missles, the US could have told the rest of the world to stay outa space, AND, the US could have threatened any would be war mongering nation with annihilation from space.

We had the window...........we just didn't go through it, and instead, got mired down in Earth based problems in third world countries.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox



Thoughts






The Germans almost had the nuclear bomb before the US. Can you imagine the outcome of World War 2 if Hitler had gotten the bomb?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join