Here's a thing to talk about...

[SmartIdiot]

Isn't that terrorism?

And yes, Hitler was a cunning bastard. Amazing what a few rallies and some propaganda can do.

What, the Iran/Israel/Korea developing a full-reach atom bomb? Maybe, but everyone has a different definition. Its much like the Christian Crusades; they believe they are doing "Gods work", when in fact they are brainwashed by power-crazed tyrants.

Funny you should mention that, I was having a conversation with a friend about the Crusades not so long ago and we drew a similar conclusion from it. Amazing how much misery people think they can cause and blame it on someone/something else.

 

[cynicalandbored]

He would have used it on Russia, America and England because they were at war with him.
Just like America used it on Japan.

Out of curiosity, how is Hitler making the bomb first any scarier then the U.S.A. making it first?

Or Israel having one.

God that thought scares me.

Israel has nuclear weapon over 35 years.

I know they do, and that scares me. No offence, and I saw in your profile you're Israeli, but I think that considering the situation Israel is in, and the warmongering maniacs that run it and all the countries surrounding it, it is the most likely catalyst for nuclear war. Think about it, somebody fires a nuke at Israel or Israel fires a nuke at somebody, America steps in on side of Israel, China or Russia steps in on side of person America is against, then it's fucking Fallout 3 time.

This worries me.

The way I see it, the nuclear bomb is a peace bomb. Every country knows that the other has a bomb, every country afraid to attack other countries, and anyone is safe. The possibility of using a bomb or being attacked by the bomb will stop any country when it wants to attack. Other thing is, Israel wants peace, and even if, let's say that a war will start on Gaza, then there is no chance Israel will use it. In the case of Iran, I find it kind of weird that some western country will go against Israel; as far as I know, Israel wont use the bomb against Iran either, Israel has other ways of attacking other countries, and by the way, Israel never started a war and I dont think it will. You right about something - we should not let such a situation as a nuclear war to ever hapen, yet one day there might be no other choice.

There's no such thing as a "peace bomb." Bombs by their very nature are intended for use as offensive weapons. So unless you could engineer a bomb that causes all people in the blast radius to become hippies and choose to never fight again, your peace bomb idea is out the window. All this crap we're fed about them being deterrents is pure rubbish. If people didn't have nuclear weapons then there'd be no chance of a nuclear war. You can't say there's no other choice, because the choice between using or not using a nuclear bomb will always be there. We can only hope noone's ever stupid enough to use one again. The best deterrent against a nuclear attack would be if noone had them. How could anyone use them if they didn't exist?

Hitler would've bombed London first. Britain was a real thorn in his side and he needed to break their spirit. It's hard to tell whether he would've targeted Leningrad, Stalingrad, or Moscow first. Possibly Stalingrad for the sheer symbolism of it. At that point Hitler and the Japanese between them would've had control of most of Europe and Asia, and the US very likely would've signed some kind of truce with them rather than risk nuclear weapons being used on American soil. Or so I see it.

 

[Jimmyjames]

Out of curiosity, how is Hitler making the bomb first any scarier then the U.S.A. making it first?

Gee, possibly because he was genocidal?

 

[stabnex]

London or Moscow. More likely London because it was within range of V2 rockets and Moscow wasn't. At least late in the war it wasn't.

What?

He woudlve used it on england and russia first, as "test Runs" as there closer

You're kidding.

Has everyone already forgotten that the first field bombings were literally "dropped" from airplanes? Distance has nothing to do with it when you attack from the sky.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

Don't get me wrong, I respect your opinions, and especially Pengiking for his knowledge of available weaponry of the time, but don't forget that there were more than a few historic airfights in that era.

 

[Pingieking]

*snip*

True, but you have to remember that the Germans had no strategic bombers capable of reaching the Americas. They may have been able to reach Moscow, but that's assuming that it makes it past the front lines without being intercepted. It would almost certainly be unable to reach London in one piece, given the great aerial detection net that the Brits constructed along their coast. Assuming late war conditions, with the allies having basically achieved aerial dominance over most of Europe, it is unlikely that the Germans would have been able to deliver the bomb in anything other than a V2 rocket.

The V2 was carrying warheads only about 1/4 the size of the Little Boy dropped on Japan (1000 kg). But Little Boy only used about 60 kg of uranium, and had several features that would not have been needed on a V2 mounted warhead. Also, if the Germans ever got that far, they might have used the detonation technique of the Fat Man. I remember in a side question of my nuclear physics class, that it is theoretically possible to detonate a nuke using the kinetic energy of the rocket that carried it. So if you strip away the stabilizers (because V2 warheads don't need them, the rocket does all the stabilizing), outer armor, and the fuse (assuming that you can detonate a nuke using the kinetic energy of the V2 rocket), it may be possible for the Germans to fit a small version of the Fat Man onto a V2 rocket.

But there's also the range problem. The V2 had about 320 km range, which means that it had to be fired from either France or the Low Countries to hit London. Maybe they would just hit Paris out of spite. It depends on how late in the war that the Germans got a working nuke. If in 1944, then London was probably high on the list of targets. If in 1945, then maybe Paris or Warsaw was more likely. Or even Antwerp, since that was an important military port, and nuking that place would essentially disable the port for the rest of the war, wreaking havoc on the logistics of the Allied forces near the Rhine.

 

[Svenparty]

If Hitler had had nukes We would all be talking about what would have happened if the US(Now some German name for NEW NEW REICH LAND) had dropped some Blitzkrieg on our glourious Fazahland.

This thread would compose of "Heil Hitlers" as most threads elsewhere would have...

....and snacking on Bratwurst and Beer

 

[chronobreak]

Oh, sorry I thought you were going for the "The Nazis were evil and hated everyone and wanted everyone to die" thing.

Yeah, the Nazis didn't want to kill everyone, just the Jews, Gypsies, Gays, Americans, Russians...

If people didn't have nuclear weapons then there'd be no chance of a nuclear war.

Well, obviously. But, if there's no chance of a nuclear war, why not just go invade countries for the hell of it? As long as my country has more resources to throw at the war that is generated, I can be pretty sure we're going to win, so why not just take the land from those guys? Oh, wait, they have nukes? They could kill millions of our people? Well, I think I'll just stick with the land I have now...

 

[lostclause]

... one of Hitler's Foreign policies was "Grossdeutchland" (sp?) also known as living space,

I thought that was Libenstruan? Maybe just different terminology.

Anyway, ignoring the fact that it turned out the Nazis were doing it wrong, I would say he'd use it to subdue Britain then if things got bad enough on the eastern front maybe another one there. This is also assuming this is before the US joined the war.

 

[LeonLethality]

He would have used it on Russia, America and England because they were at war with him.
Just like America used it on Japan.

Out of curiosity, how is Hitler making the bomb first any scarier then the U.S.A. making it first?

it all depends on who your enemy is

 

[cynicalandbored]

Oh, sorry I thought you were going for the "The Nazis were evil and hated everyone and wanted everyone to die" thing.

Yeah, the Nazis didn't want to kill everyone, just the Jews, Gypsies, Gays, Americans, Russians...

If people didn't have nuclear weapons then there'd be no chance of a nuclear war.

Well, obviously. But, if there's no chance of a nuclear war, why not just go invade countries for the hell of it? As long as my country has more resources to throw at the war that is generated, I can be pretty sure we're going to win, so why not just take the land from those guys? Oh, wait, they have nukes? They could kill millions of our people? Well, I think I'll just stick with the land I have now...

People still invade countries for the hell of it. They just make sure that the countries they invade have no nuclear weapons.

And ok, your point is valid. But in that case, why not give every country in the world five nuclear bombs each? That way, nobody ever attacks anyone else for fear of a devastating nuclear counterstrike? Sound in theory, probably not in practice I'll admit, but still, if you support nuclear weapons as a deterrent, wouldn't every country having them mean world peace?

 

[ElephantGuts]

I'm surprised no one seems to know this. Hitler was planning to drop his atomic bomb on Manhattan in an attempt to get the US out of the war. The plan was for a plane to fly across the ocean, drop the bomb, and then go down to the Caribbean where the crew would bail out and be picked up by U-boats.

 

[chronobreak]

If you support nuclear weapons as a deterrent, wouldn't every country having them mean world peace?

No, because some countries do not have stable or sustainable governments, and it would be foolish to put such a thing in their hands. Some governments do not even have the technology to operate such equipment anyways. You wouldn't give someone tremors in their hands a pair of scissors and tell them to cut on the dotted line.

 

[cynicalandbored]

If you support nuclear weapons as a deterrent, wouldn't every country having them mean world peace?

No, because some countries do not have stable or sustainable governments, and it would be foolish to put such a thing in their hands. Some governments do not even have the technology to operate such equipment anyways. You wouldn't give someone tremors in their hands a pair of scissors and tell them to cut on the dotted line.

That's what I meant about not working in practice. But your idea of people having nuclear weapons only as a deterrent doesn't work in practice either, because unstable regimes are developing nuclear weapons all by themselves, e.g. North Korea and Iran. And that's only the beginning. Terrorists could get their hands on nuclear devices. In this circumstance I'd think the world would be probably better off without nuclear weapons, because then at least maniacs and terrorists couldn't have them. The only countries that currently have nuclear weapons are the powerful ones that nobody in their right mind would dare to invade anyway (excepting Pakistan). Would anybody invade the US, Russia, China, Israel, or any of the European countries that currently possess nuclear weapons, even if nuclear weapons didn't exist? No, because they're too powerful, with too many allies, and too many resources. The countries that are poorest, with least resources are most in danger of being invaded, and these don't have any nuclear weapons to stop potential aggressors. Nuclear weapons make the powerful countries more powerful.

 

[chronobreak]

That's what I meant about not working in practice. But your idea of people having nuclear weapons only as a deterrent doesn't work in practice either, because unstable regimes are developing nuclear weapons all by themselves, e.g. North Korea and Iran.

Well, look, I can't argue much if you're going to say the world was better off without them ever being invented, because you would be right, except for all the other applications for nuclear power availible, but yes, if there was a way to eliminate them all and have them never come back I would be for it.

As for your point above about unstable regimes developing their own bombs, yes, it is going to and is happening. But, remember, we still have ours. And we have more. North Korea may be a threat to a smaller nation, but not to the US, or maybe not even to that small nation if we support them, but it was wrong of us to even let them get as far as they have in the first place. At the very least, I think the world should work on not making any more bombs anywhere, because we already have enough to blow up anything we want to. At least that way, they will be more of a precious commodity and will have even less of a chance of being used, because there would be no steady supply of them. People are always going to get them, though, but we have ours as well in case someone else makes a move.

 

[cynicalandbored]

Well, look, I can't argue much if you're going to say the world was better off without them ever being invented, because you would be right, except for all the other applications for nuclear power availible, but yes, if there was a way to eliminate them all and have them never come back I would be for it.

Well we're agreed there and I'll leave it at that. Most mentally stimulating conversation I've had all day. Had to be on the internet though... Now I look like a loser!!! Haha, anyway, we seem to be more in agreement now than we were to begin with, having reached some sort of accord. And as a citizen of a country with no nuclear weapons (hell, our entire navy only consists of three lightly armed ships), I really hope the nuclear powers of the world know what they're doing!!! Anyway, we've ended up severely off topic, even for an off topic thread.

To sum up, nuclear weapons are bad, less bad if people never intend to use them, but still a little bad, and very bad if Hitler has them. The End.

 

[NeonV]

... one of Hitler's Foreign policies was "Grossdeutchland" (sp?) also known as living space,

I thought that was Libenstruan? Maybe just different terminology.

Actually you're right it is Lebensraum, my bad. Lebensraum is living space, Grossdeutschland was Hitler's want to unite all Germans under the third reich. Oopsy!