Would you have attacked the Soviet Union?

[Ed Anger]

I would have enslaved occupied "liberated" western Europe and made them toil in toy factories.

How would you fit them into the factories?

saws.

[jimmy olsen]

1946? No. I wouldn't sacrifice millions of Americans because the Soviets might, someday, get the bomb. The Soviets have upwards of 12 million people under arms, and I don't fancy sending Shermans up against tens of thousands of superior Soviet tanks. Not to mention that the rest of the world, even if not outright hostile, would not have been able to contribute.

Now, in 1962 I might be singing a different tune.

Not to say I would attack, but how are the Soviets going to keep that many men under arms and produce enough food to feed their population at the same time? IIRC when Truman cut off agricultural aid, Stalin had to demobilize millions of men to work on the farms.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think there was ever a time when we had sufficient nuclear bombs to defeat the Soviet Union without suffering a significant counter strike.

[Razgovory]

1946? No. I wouldn't sacrifice millions of Americans because the Soviets might, someday, get the bomb. The Soviets have upwards of 12 million people under arms, and I don't fancy sending Shermans up against tens of thousands of superior Soviet tanks. Not to mention that the rest of the world, even if not outright hostile, would not have been able to contribute.

Now, in 1962 I might be singing a different tune.

Not to say I would attack, but how are the Soviets going to keep that many men under arms and produce enough food to feed their population at the same time? IIRC when Truman cut off agricultural aid, Stalin had to demobilize millions of men to work on the farms.

Likely they'd take the food from eastern Europe and let them do the starving.

[Ed Anger]

1946? No. I wouldn't sacrifice millions of Americans because the Soviets might, someday, get the bomb. The Soviets have upwards of 12 million people under arms, and I don't fancy sending Shermans up against tens of thousands of superior Soviet tanks. Not to mention that the rest of the world, even if not outright hostile, would not have been able to contribute.

Now, in 1962 I might be singing a different tune.

Not to say I would attack, but how are the Soviets going to keep that many men under arms and produce enough food to feed their population at the same time? IIRC when Truman cut off agricultural aid, Stalin had to demobilize millions of men to work on the farms.

Likely they'd take the food from eastern Europe and let them do the starving.

Sounds like a win-win situation.

[Faeelin]

I don't think there was ever a time when we had sufficient nuclear bombs to defeat the Soviet Union without suffering a significant counter strike.

In 1962, the US would've effectively gotten its hair mussed in exchange for annihilating Communism.

Rough on Europe, of course.

But I'm more interested in a scenario in which Truman had ramped up bomb production and had the power to hit the USSR with, say, 10-40 bombs.

[Admiral Yi]

In 1962, the US would've effectively gotten its hair mussed in exchange for annihilating Communism.

Rough on Europe, of course.

But I'm more interested in a scenario in which Truman had ramped up bomb production and had the power to hit the USSR with, say, 10-40 bombs.

Hair mussed?  How many warheads did they have capable of reaching NA?

[The Brain]

I don't think there was ever a time when we had sufficient nuclear bombs to defeat the Soviet Union without suffering a significant counter strike.

In 1962, the US would've effectively gotten its hair mussed in exchange for annihilating Communism.

Rough on Europe, of course.

But I'm more interested in a scenario in which Truman had ramped up bomb production and had the power to hit the USSR with, say, 10-40 bombs.

It would take more than destroying the biggest cities to defeat the SU. And even if that were sufficient 20 kton firecrackers wouldn't get the job done, assuming that you actually manage to land them on target.

[DGuller]

What was the realistic reach of the US air force inside Soviet Union?  I think that if you could drop a couple of nukes inside strategically important cities, you would set back the Soviet atomic bomb program, which would give US more time to make more nukes and drop more of them.

[CountDeMoney]

Of course not.  What a douchebag Timmay alt-thread.

I'd have attempted to assassinate him six ways from Sunday, though.

[Kleves]

Hair mussed?  How many warheads did they have capable of reaching NA?

Not very many, if they had them at all. That was why putting missiles into Cuba was such a big deal.

[The Brain]

Of course not.  What a douchebag Timmay alt-thread.

I'd have attempted to assassinate him six ways from Sunday, though.

Why do you hate Truman?

[Ideologue]

I don't think there was ever a time when we had sufficient nuclear bombs to defeat the Soviet Union without suffering a significant counter strike.

1945-1949?

I would have tried to leverage the atomic bomb for greater political freedom for occupied Europe, but probably wouldn't have dropped one unless the Soviets struck first.

At first, I thought this thread was about Hitler's decision.

[The Brain]

Is nothing sacred? Now he's hating on Hitler.

[Lettow77]

  Absolutely start a war. Reconstituted wehrmacht divisions is a good idea. Try to portray it as soviets initiating it- that shouldn't be hard.

Save millions of lives, crush world communism. GOOD END.