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

originally posted by: 711117

originally posted by: Vector99

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

elaborate please?

don't have to

Friday night and you are drunk again?

a reply to: JoshuaCox

A few reasons spring to mind.
1 there simply weren't enough bombs available.
2 What I think is more important. The people and the leadership at that time saw themselves as liberators, not conquerors. It would have gone against almost everything that American vets had fought for to try to turn a war of freedom into one of empire building.

As someone else pointed out, the projection of American soft power was ultimately far more effective than using military power would have been.

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?

Hong Kong was a British protectorate then, I think the Brits would have been rather unhappy... I presume you meant Bejing ?

originally posted by: 711117

originally posted by: Vector99

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

elaborate please?

don't have to

Hence the question mark, It's ok though i don't forsee ur ATS future going far.

Ruh?

originally posted by: RAY1990
a reply to: JoshuaCox

A nuclear exchange between two nations ends humanity as we know it. That's guaranteed since the 60's, maybe mid 50's.

Again, if the US started nuclear attacks against perceived enemies it would soon come to the same conclusion.

A world ill-fitted for human occupation.

Again, what's stopping an invasion by Canada and Mexico?

Why didn't Hitler kill every French, Belgian or other populations he controlled?

It's all fun and games till people get killed?

Not if they did it before anyone else had them and then attacked or nuked anyone who tried to start a nuclear program...

Directly after ww2 we had the only modern inferstructure on the planet. Everyone else was running on fumes and we hadn't lost a factory.


Today ? No chance, but in 1945......

We prob are the only country in human history who ever had the option to conquer the world.

originally posted by: pikestaff

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?

Hong Kong was a British protectorate then, I think the Brits would have been rather unhappy... I presume you meant Bejing ?

Might have to do Britain and Beijing too..

I'm sure to continue world dominance you would have to drop one every decade or so, but you gotta keep thermonuclear war on the oppposing end of the scale.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: JoshuaCox

A few reasons spring to mind.
1 there simply weren't enough bombs available.
2 What I think is more important. The people and the leadership at that time saw themselves as liberators, not conquerors. It would have gone against almost everything that American vets had fought for to try to turn a war of freedom into one of empire building.

As someone else pointed out, the projection of American soft power was ultimately far more effective than using military power would have been.

1) You don't need more than a dozen for the 1945 to 1950 era, and by 1950 we had 250+.


2) Patton and a lot of the US generals proposed exactly that, but Truman said no.

America's soft power will be meaningless the instant two nuclear powers launch at each other.

A nuclear Armageddon trumps any consequences of empire..

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: RAY1990

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

Yep

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: vonclod

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

(muahaha)

No it wasn't...

It was based on the choice between ruling the world, and the long term historical certainty that sooner or later 2 world powers kick off a global nuclear war.

originally posted by: RAY1990
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.

It worked on Japan.


So the only historical data disagrees with you. Does Japan surrender in 45 without nukes? Doubtful

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.

It doesn't matter who helped for the premises, only who had possession of the first one with the ability to make more.

originally posted by: Jukiodone
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.

And exactly what led me to start this thread. ...

Dan carlin rocks..

Look at my post history and a lot are ideas from his podcasts lol.

originally posted by: Bluesma

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.

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.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: JoshuaCox

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

What if a historically inevitable nuclear war between 2 world powers is the other option??

Ps it is the other option sooner or later...

Imho that trumps anything I can imagaine.

I mean take the worst case scenarios...


Slavery or thermonuclear war?? Gotta choose slavery..


A dozen nukes cities or a nukes planet earth?? Gotta take the dozen..

Nazi Germany ruling the world vs. a global nuclear war?? You sadly gotta take the nazis..

Nuclear war trumps everything else humanity has created...everything.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Patton thought we could and wanted to invade Russia and win, MacArthur wanted to invade China neither one thought that nukes to be necessary.

also some people don't know that churchhill had plans drawn up to invade the ussr. so tell me who was the real warmonger.

Operation Unthinkable was a code name of two related plans of a conflict between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union. The plannings were ordered by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in 1945 and developed by the British Armed Forces' Joint Planning Staff at the end of World War II in Europe.Text
Operation Unthinkable

although the plan turned from a offensive plan to a defensive one, churchill was all for invading and pushing the empires will.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

You keep ignoring the cost.

I've mentioned in other posts that other nations were working on jets that had a high ceiling range, the US could have lost bombs.

Nuclear weapons of the day were messy and inaccurate.

How are you going to kill every military power working on the bomb and who has military assets that are ALWAYS spread out?

It starts to become unfeasible.

Remember, no sattelite imagary those days and planes built to spy wouldn't have been launched from the USA, how the hell are you meant to spy on Russia and attack it's research & development centers that would be working on the bomb.

What's stopping US citizens giving foreigners the blueprints?

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.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Yes, Japan was more than ready to surrender.

The US wanted it to be unconditional.

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.