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: 8
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 02:23 AM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990

The OP's premise is an attack before the other countries figured it out(atomic weapons)




posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 02:24 AM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

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

(muahaha)



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 02:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Haha, the U.S, wanted no part of any of it I think.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 02:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99




You know damn well the deadhand is a real thing

Actually, I don't know that.

Yes you do



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

I know.

The production of nuclear weapons wasn't exactly cheap or easy then, Plutonium is a lot scarcer than uranium I believe.

It shouldn't be forgotten that nations were developing planes designed to intercept planes just like the B-29. The potential existed for bombs to fall in the wrong hands anyways.

Militaries don't exactly group together in one spot and make it easy for the enemy either.

I don't think it's feasible to nuke the enemy into submission in those 5 years the OP mentioned, especially considering it would be rogue USA vs the world.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 02:53 AM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990

How'd America fair in Korea, or Vietnam? A war of liberation is different than a war of occupation.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 02:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: RAY1990

How'd America fair in Korea, or Vietnam? A war of liberation is different than a war of occupation.

Well there is 2 Korea's now, and Vietnam isn't a bad place to visit anymore.

USA should have kept their noses outta there, or gone in gloves off, but to say the wars were a loss is faulty.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Terribly considering.

I know a guy (British, we fought Korea too) who thought his conscription time in Korea was hell, he served "occupation" roles in Africa too though admittedly he said things are a little easier when the enemy only has muskets.

You don't really mix well in a occupation scenario, whole different ballgame of segregation.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 03:17 AM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

But Japan had already surrendered, did you forget about that? Also Japan was dragged into the war by sanctions imposed on them.


en.wikipedia.org...


Beginning in 1938, the U.S. adopted a succession of increasingly restrictive trade restrictions with Japan. This included terminating its 1911 commercial treaty with Japan in 1939, further tightened by the Export Control Act of 1940. These efforts failed to deter Japan from continuing its war in China, or from signing the Tripartite Pact in 1940 with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, officially forming the Axis Powers.

Responding to Japanese occupation of key airfields in Indochina (July 24) following an agreement between Japan and Vichy France, the U.S. froze Japanese assets on July 26, 1941, and on August 1 established an embargo on oil and gasoline exports to Japan.[11][12] The oil embargo was an especially strong response because oil was Japan's most crucial import, and more than 80% of Japan's oil at the time came from the United States.[13]



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 03:23 AM
link   
a reply to: namehere



afghanistan was mostly fought by rebel war lords


LOL so you ignore the fact that the lucrative drug trade went from Taliban control to US control?



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 03:27 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight


But Japan had already surrendered, did you forget about that?

Are you claiming Japan surrendered before the bombs were dropped?



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 03:48 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Sorry I stand corrected - I recalled that in the minds of the US military the dropping of the bombs were not actually needed to get Japan to surrender. I was going off something I read a while ago.

www.globalresearch.ca...


Atomic Weapons Were Not Needed to End the War or Save Lives Like all Americans, I was taught that the U.S. dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end WWII and save both American and Japanese lives. But most of the top American military officials at the time said otherwise.

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that concluded (52-56): Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated. General (and later president) Dwight Eisenhower – then Supreme Commander of all Allied Forces, and the officer who created most of America’s WWII military plans for Europe and Japan – said: The Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Newsweek, 11/11/63, Ike on Ike Eisenhower also noted (pg. 380): In [July] 1945… Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. …the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 03:57 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


The Bomb was only able to be produced because of the input of British Science.
Britain had the lead in nuclear technology during WW II.

To inmply The U.S. alone produced The Bomb does Britain a great injustice.

Do some research on " Tube Alloys " I will start you off with these.

www.atomicarchive.com...

www.atomicarchive.com...

discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk...

www.tiki-toki.com...!date=1940-01-01_00:00:00!


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



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 04:01 AM
link   
ats slowly--quickly turning into nazi site lmao



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 04:06 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Fair enough. Refreshing to see someone admit to a mistake on these boards!
Yes, there is some evidence to indicate the nuclear devices did not have to be dropped on civilian cities to end the war.



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

Because they would have been no better than the evil they helped defeat.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 04:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox


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




Well, they did conquer the planet. They are the biggest world power.

I'm going to use an example that might seem off subject at first... but perhaps some can see what it is illustrating and what it has to do with how America took over the world, and why it was more effective than it would have been if it used nuclear force to do so.

Some people in the horse training business perceive a sort of split in methods one can use.

Some will claim there is the correct and good way, and there is the wrong way, period.
I have my own opinion on the issue, and it really depends upon who you are talking to.

But some people describe one of the ways in terms such as "natural horsemanship". Basically it refers to manipulating the horse using it's natural drives and instincts, in such a way that it never feels forced, and it always retains a sort of sense that it is free and that it chose it's actions without being coerced.

The other method is one in which the perception of the human as a forceful superior to obey or suffer the consequence of pain or rejection is used. It can be just as effective, but entails different ways of relating after that has been established.

For example, in the first method, a horse can be easily "ground tied" meaning we leave it in place, un attached to anything, and it will stay, under the mistaken impression that movement is impossible anyway. They aren't afraid of punishment, and do not perceive the human as forcing them there, they just feel it is "the way things are" .

Do this around people who use the second method, they freak out and proclaim you as irresponsible and dangerous. You never EVER leave a horse unattached for a moment. They must be aware of your hold on them at all times, otherwise they will bolt. This actually was said to me when I kept my horse at a place they used that method. It made the trainer there furious because her students saw my horses behavior and it contradicted all she was teaching.

With the first method, it often said, "make the horse think it was HIS idea to do it". It is, in fact , covert manipulation. The horse thinks he is free and all his movements are of his own choice. You are just a good buddy there doing things with them, not to them. This is especially used in equitation for work- in which you want a confident and highly autonomous working horse.

The other method finds it's roots in training horses for war. In which they don't have any sense of freedom or autonomy which could counter the self destructive acts they are required to do. It creates an animal highly obedient and reactive, but that is less autonomous and in need of more constant contact.

At the same time WW2 wound up, we didn't just have minds like Einstein and Oppenheimer- we also adopted ones like Edward Bernays. We learned how to use the natural drives of humans to control them in a way they never know they are controlled, they believe they are free, and are autonomous enough that they don't need constant contact.



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 04:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: 711117
ats slowly--quickly turning into nazi site lmao
elaborate please?



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 04:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: 711117
ats slowly--quickly turning into nazi site lmao
elaborate please?


don't have to



posted on Jan, 28 2017 @ 04:41 AM
link   
Covered at length in Dan Carlin's latest Hardcore History Podcast:

The Destroyer of Worlds
www.dancarlin.com...

It's 5 hours long but is done in chronological order so first 2 hours gives a pretty accurate summary of how Scientists, Politicians and Philosophers approached becoming death.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join