Atomic Bomb durring WWI?

I don't see how it was a political decision that kept us from winning that war, both sides tried minor offenses before the stalemate set in that all failed. If we launched an all out offensive it wouldn't have ended when we took all over all Korea, China had entered the war too and we would've had to fight on their soil which would have most certainly brought more direct Soviet intervention into the conflict.There was no way to "win" the Korean war once China entered it without hundreds of thousands of more people dying.

 

Lafincoyote:
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.
----------------------

this is the point i was trying to make, they were reckless and careless of the suffering of their country's soldiers. we now have things like the Geneva convention that prevents stuff like chemical warfare and such, but back then, war was truly war, and this is what made me think the bomb would be used more freely and thoughtlessly.