Atomic Bomb durring WWI?

.

 

No, apparently WWI didn't teach us that, because not only did we use two atomic bombs, we had the holocaust with 6 million dead.

 

We wouldn't have used it, we couldn't have. We didn't have the plane technology in WW1 to deliver an atomic bomb.

 

The atomic bomb was used in wwII specifically to bring about an end to the war. To understand why this was necessary we would have to get into the Japanese mind set at the time of world war II. Everyone including the United States military was shocked by the destruction wort by the bombs. This is one of the reasons the bomb has never been use sense. It's why we have international treaties (That no one pay attention to.) to try and control who can get the bomb.
As far as learning lesson from past wars. We can make and sign treaties controlling weapons of mass destruction. But, if one side is bent on using them the best we can do is to protect ourselves as much as we can.
One lesson we do not seem able to learn is we can not appease nut balls bent on destruction. It did not work with Hitler. It will not work with Iran or North Korea. Our best protection against this type of threat is to take them out before they can do us in. Harsh, I know. But that real life. Anyone who think they can talk these depots into behaving themselves is a fool.

 

firstly, sorry iv been gone an havnt kept up with this,


this was meant to be a hypothetical question, i know they didnt have planes for it...but they also didnt have the atomic bomb, so of corse its hypothetical, and hypotheticly, these new planes do not effect anything other than able to use the bomb, just to be clear.



happydude:

i know we used them, but what if we had them back in WWI? would we have used them as freely as air raids in WWII?




jnorton:

true that about the crazies, give a moose a cookie....(read the story, its awsome )

 

The atomic bombs were not used freely in WW2, there was great consideration by Truman and his cabinet whether to use them or not. I assume in WW1 the situation would've been the same after 4 years of near stalemate, bomb 1 or 2 cities to show the power you now possess and assume that will be enough to force the other side to capitulate.

 

In the history of the human species, whenever a new technology has been developed that could be used to: A) make a profit, or B) make a weapon, then it will be used, sooner or later.

If initially there are moral or ethical objections to the technology, then if either of the two conditions are met -- profit or weapon -- eventually the objections will be overcome, normally within a generation or two.

This little axiom has proven to be true since the beginning of time. So to answer the initial question, in my opinion yes, atomic weapons would probably have been used in WWI if they'd been available.

As far as appeasing dictatorial "nut jobs", I'm afraid I have to agree with the previous poster. People like Hitler or Saddam Hussein do not understand negotiations made in good faith. They do not understand the concept of international cooperation. The only thing they understand is force.

This leads us to the subject of "justifiable wars". I hate the concept of large-scale murder of other human beings who only want the same things in life that I want, and who never did anything to me. But if their leaders are one of the aforementioned "nut jobs" who attacks me first, then I don't know what other choice I have. Negotiation with them doesn't work. So as much as I hate the idea, this becomes a "justifiable war".

I do think that as soon as the nut job is brought down, however, the justification for the war is gone. This is why I think the Iraq War should have been called off as soon as Saddam went down. Nothing useful has been accomplished since then, that I can see.

Well, I guess I've hacked up this thread enough. I'll be quiet now.

 

You are quite correct about the consideration given the bomb at the end of WWII.
There are a great deal of deference between WWI and WWII. Besides the technological advancements between the two wars. The enemies were also quite different. WWI was primarily a European war, fought over petty difference. An extension of hostilities that had been going on for centuries.
WWII was something else entirely. Hitler and the Japanese were looking for world domination. And, the Japanese were willing to sacrifice ever last person for the honor of Japan. The only way to end the war without mass suicide was for the empire to surrender. The use of the atomic bomb at the end of WWII was horrific and regrettable, but unavoidable.

 

They used everything in the book to kill and mame in WWI, and if they would have had the technology to develop a nuclear weapon, then I feel they would have used it also. There were 1.5 million casualties in the battle of the Somme in 1916, 3/4 of a million at Verdun in 1917, all that before the US even got troops into battle. The war lasted 4 years, 1914-1918 and cost 37 million casualties. The people in power would not have even blinked at using nuclear weapons. My own grandfather was mamed for life by poison gas in the battle of the Argonne Forest in 1918.

 

I agree that war is repugnant, and would be very nice if you could do away with it completely. But, that not the world we live in.
If it was just a matter of removing the head "nut job" we could simply have a sniper assassin take them out. No war needed. The trouble is that there is another "nut job" standing behind him waiting to take over the job of head nut case. And, that why the war continues. We need to be sure the next "nut job" is our nut job, and not their* nut job. (*Their = the presumed enemy.)

I am sure you would not like my solution to these problems. For if was up to me I would not put one America Service Men or Women in danger over these disputes. What I would do is just nuke them (the presumed enemy.) out of existence and be done with it. So, it's a very good thing that I am not commander and chief.

 

You have to remember, very few of the enormous number of casualties in World War I were civilians. The technology wasn't really there, and I think there didn't seem to be much point. Yes, both sides made bombing raids on each other's cities, and the Germans shelled Paris with a long-range gun--the effect was more propaganda than military--but they could have dropped poison gas on each other, and didn't. In World War II there was a conscious effort by both sides to destroy civilian targets. I think if a bigger and better bomb had been available in 1918, it would have been used like artillery--to destroy staging areas behind enemy lines, followed by an infantry assault. Of course, once there was a realization of what the bomb could do, maybe there'd have been a change in strategy.

 

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. If it was, we'd have taken out bin Laden by now. And how long did it take to get Saddam? And no one ever took out Hitler.

I don't disagree, and in fact that's what happened with Japan and Germany after WWII, for example. So it doesn't necessarily follow that it requires the war to continue dragging endlessly on.

Yes, it is a very good thing that you're not, although I suspect you're pulling my leg. But just stop and think for a second how that would affect the entire world, for many generations to come.

 

That's a good point. I don't think anyone, not even the generals or the physicists who created the thing (except maybe Oppenheimer) truly understood what the atomic bomb was capable of before it was actually used. Not that you can blame them, I guess ... it is a humbling experience to discover that your imagination has been dwarfed.

 

No one tried to take out Hitler until late in the war and they failed. Before that we were to busy kissing his ass to try to kill him. We invaded a country to get Saddam, and I think a bullet it he head would have been much easier, but we would have only ended up with another one just like him in his place. As far as bin laded is concerned bill clinton let him go on at least two occasions. We could have had him before 9/11 if not for the out right incompetence of the clinton administration. Also, it much harder to kill a terrorist being hid by other terrorist in an area like Pakistan.

Unfortunately it only works that way when the war is left to the generals to fight. When the politicians get involved we get Korea, Vet Nam, and now our never end war on terrorism.

My mom calls it jesting in earnest.

The planet will survive. I am not at all sure about the rest of us. No matter who wins. I am sure if the Islamic terrorist win that I will be on there list of those to be executed. So why should I not kill them before they can kill me?

 

What was wrong with Korea? North Korea invaded South Korea in clear violation of international law and a multi-national force voted on by the UN responded. It wasn't just us fighting it, 600,000 South Koreans, 400,000 Americans, 64,000 British, 28,000 Canadian, 17,000 Australians, 8,000 Filipinos, 6,000 Turks, 4,000 from France and another 4,000 from the Netherlands, ect. I don't think Korea counts as a politician's war.

 

You must not be aware that the Korean war technically has never ended. We only agreed to end hostilities. But we are still in a state of war with North Korea. Look it up for yourself.

"The Korean War is a war between North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, DPRK) and South Korea (Republic of Korea, ROK) that started on 25 June 1950 and paused with an armistice signed 27 July, 1953. To date, the war has not been officially ended through treaty, and occasional skirmishes have been reported in the border region."

 

And the North actually withdrew from the armistice treaty earlier this year actually, but what's the point? Japan and Russia(Soviet Union) have yet to sign a peace treaty ending WW2 over island disputes, but it's safe to say they're not at war.

 

I don't see how, reading your post you can believe the Korean war was not political. It was politicians that partitioned Korea in the first place. It was a political decision on the part of the north to invade the south. The UN reaction to that invasion was also political.

But that is not what I was talking about. I was referring to the restraints placed on the rules of engagement imposed by politicians that make winning wars impossible. Such as what happened in Korea and in Vet Nam. And, is now going on with the so called "war on terrorism."

While you are correct about the great number of countries that fought in Korea. The United States of America was in command of the forces there. And it was political decisions that kept us from winning that war, and setting the stage for the situation we face today.

Yes, the Korean War was very much a politicians war.

 

Suddam Hussain was instilled into Goverment by the United States of America, and was Pro-American for a long time. It was in 1991 when he went against American wishes that Iraq made it's way onto the list of Failed States.

And the CIA made several assassination attempts on his life and failed every time...