Login

Sign up

OR

Can't sign in? Did you forget your password?

x

Login


If you don’t have an account, click right here


Can't Sign in? Did you forget your password?

x

Please fill in these details

to create your profile


Click on the image to upload your profile pic

x
x

At Awaremonk, I hereby pledge that

I will not troll or abuse any member of the community.
I will be a good listener.
I will check my facts before stating them and attribute them as well.

x

Forgot Password?

Enter your email and we shall mail you the password reset link

x

Reset Password

Enter new password and confirm password

x
Malik , An engineer turned into a student of conflict Oct, 11 2016

What would have been the end of WW2 if atom bombs weren't invented then?


Let's say neither the Allies or the Axis would have began projects to create nuclear weapons, and the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki never existed and will continue to never exist throughout history.

How long would WWII have lasted without these WMD's, and how would joint war between the U.S, U.K, and U.S.S.R against Japan end? Would it be divided between them as seen with Germany? This is assuming that Japan had no chance of fighting back millions of allied soldiers and air raids.

Also, without nuclear weapons restraining the U.S and the Soviet Union from going to war for nearly five decades, would they have gone to war sometime in the 1950's or 60's due to tensions over the futures of Korea and Vietnam?

Let's say neither the Allies or the Axis would have began projects to create nuclear weapons, and the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki never existed and will continue to never exist throughout history. How long would WWII have lasted without these WMD's, and how would joint war between the U.S, U.K, and U.S.S.R against Japan end? Would it be divided between them as seen with Germany? This is assuming that Japan had no chance of fighting back millions of allied soldiers and air raids. Also, without nuclear weapons restraining the U.S and the Soviet Union from going to war for nearly five decades, would they have gone to war sometime in the 1950's or 60's due to tensions over the futures of Korea and Vietnam?

Shantanu Kothuri , Proud BITSian, [email protected] Oct, 11 2016


A naval blockade of Japan.

Without outside supplies Japan would have had to surrender in little time. And since Japan is an island, it is relatively easy to blockade. The nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were entirely unnecessary from a military standpoint and were almost certainly carried out to impress Russia and to increase US standing in the post war period.

A naval blockade of Japan. Without outside supplies Japan would have had to surrender in little time. And since Japan is an island, it is relatively easy to blockade. The nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were entirely unnecessary from a military standpoint and were almost certainly carried


Aman Rawal , Geek by profession, Deep interest in science Oct, 11 2016


if you consider the millions of civilians who would've starved in the interim to be of no consequence. Then yes, the nuclear bombs were unnecessary.


S.N Raman , learning, hope to be more aware :) PhD schola Oct, 11 2016


Interesting, this was part of my academics.

The conventional Allied invasion plan of Honshu involved gassing the cities to preemptively exterminate their populations, since they had been trained in resistance. I.e., utterly unforgivable atrocities.

Stalin would very likely have taken Hokkaido and Northern parts of Honshu. By the time Japan surrendered millions more of its people and of Allied forces would have died, making the final settlement much more bitter. Hirohito would probably have been hanged, and country's traditional values destroyed.

That would have led to division of Japan and brutal ideological competition with Communist Japanese forces from the North that would have made the 1950s and 1960s a miserable, insecure cesspool rather than the explosively dynamic economy it was.

Even if it eventually reunited, it would have faced the same economic problems that German reunification did.

Without nukes, the US and Soviet Union would undoubtedly have gone to World War 3, although long enough away for people to catch their breath. Usually one generation passes. So around the 1960s, conventional war would plausibly have erupted and badly decimated world civilization.

We can expect that what followed, if no clear winning emerged would have been a poor and much more economically basic world. A Dark Age that would have lasted for at least a few generations.

Interesting, this was part of my academics.The conventional Allied invasion plan of Honshu involved gassing the cities to preemptively exterminate their populations, since they had been trained in resistance. I.e., utterly unforgivable atrocities. Stalin would very likely have taken Hokkaido and Nor


Rajat Jain , IITian, [email protected] Oct, 11 2016


I think you are overestimating the effect of a Soviet vs. West conventional war without nuclear weaponry.


S.N Raman , learning, hope to be more aware :) PhD schola Oct, 11 2016


The Soviets had by far a larger and more powerful tank force and the industrial capacity to support them. They could have been in Lisbon in a matter of weeks and our air superiority would not have been able to keep up. They would have owned Europe, and would eventually have had the naval capacity and manpower to invade North America both amphibiously through Alaska and elsewhere.

If undertaken with a large supply of troops, such as China, invasion of the mainland US would have been achievable. Invasion in the other direction would have been impractical. We would obliterate as much of their cities from the air as conventional weapons allowed, but it wouldn't be enough.

They would either win, in which case an Orwell prophecy would have been fulfilled, or held off long enough to conclude a lasting peace leaving a devastated world in shambles whose economic foundations had largely been pulverized.

The Soviets had by far a larger and more powerful tank force and the industrial capacity to support them. They could have been in Lisbon in a matter of weeks and our air superiority would not have been able to keep up. They would have owned Europe, and would eventually have had the naval capacity an


Aditya Singh , Starting up. Just learnt before launch its ca Oct, 11 2016


While I agree with much of what you are saying, I do feel that you are way overestimating the effectiveness of Soviet air and navel forces. Particularly with a possible Soviet invasion of the Japanese Home Islands during WWII, in which they had neither the navy nor the infrastructure to support such an operation.
While I agree with much of what you are saying, I do feel that you are way overestimating the effectiveness of Soviet air and navel forces. Particularly with a possible Soviet invasion of the Japanese Home Islands during WWII, in which they had neither the navy nor the infrastructure to support such


Aditya Singh , Starting up. Just learnt before launch its ca Oct, 11 2016


The invasion of Japan most likely would have resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives on all sides. That was one of the rationales for utilizing the Bomb to end the war, to prevent U.S. casualties that would have resulted from invading Japan. Unless a similar situation arose where the Emperor opted to try to save his people, the Japanese would have most likely tried to fight to literally the last man, woman and child.

The Cold War would have run much hotter as there would be no restraining factor keeping all out war from breaking out between the Soviet Union and the West.

The invasion of Japan most likely would have resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives on all sides. That was one of the rationales for utilizing the Bomb to end the war, to prevent U.S. casualties that would have resulted from invading Japan. Unless a similar situation arose where the