The War that Didn't End: A Different 1945

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by Asnys

It would take far less than a year for more weapons to be produced, even if one of the production plants was taken out. The US stockpile at the end of 1945 was 6 weapons; at the end of 1946, 11 weapons. This is after production rates fell off drastically due to the end of the war; if kept on a wartime footing, figures would likely be much higher.

Even knocking out an entire production facility won't be enough. The US had two completely separate paths to a bomb: uranium enrichment and plutonium. Damaging a facility responsible for one approach would not effect the other approach. Furthermore, in most cases production was spread out amongst multiple facilities that were too dispersed to all be damaged by a radiation leak. For example, the Hanford site had three separate reactors, deliberately built far enough apart that even a complete meltdown of one plant would not force the shutdown of another plant. (Of course, part of that was due to much lower radiation safety standards of the time). The US will have the bombs, one way or another.

ANd if Japan ups the ante with Chemical warfare against American cities, a fleet of B-29's flying at supercruise altitude will cause the home islands to cease to exist.

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by Julian

Stalin isn't a moron. He knows that his nation is crippled from WW2 and isn't about to start WW3 unless he's directly attacked.

Like I said, That makes no sense at all.

[rudebadger]

Originally Posted by alternatehistorian

A week latter, a disgruntled rail road worker attempts to shoot Truman during a rally. The president is wounded and develops an infection that is hard to treat. He dies in three days. Because he has no vice president, Truman leaves the US in a constitutional crisis.

I must have missed something. There isn't any reason for a constitutional crisis. Doesn't Truman have a vice-president already sworn into office? Even if he didn't the Speaker of the House (or someone like him) would take over until a new election for President can be held or a replacement is appointed.

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by rudebadger

I must have missed something. There isn't any reason for a constitutional crisis. Doesn't Truman have a vice-president already sworn into office? Even if he didn't the Speaker of the House (or someone like him) would take over until a new election for President can be held or a replacement is appointed.

Yeah, that one blindsided me and I had to go get an ice pack for myhead.

It's not good to be gobsmacked that hard.

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by alternatehistorian

And then the Soviets would use that during the Cold War for propaganda. There is a difference between war and a holocaust.

Are we talking about the same guy that had an army rape and burn and murder and pillage it's way west until they hit Berlin?

DUDE1 come the Frack ON!

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by alternatehistorian

Stalin would use anything as an excuse to grab more territory.

No, actually he wouldn't and especialy not when it would leave him that badly overextended.

[Julian]

Originally Posted by alternatehistorian

I don't think Truman had a vice president. Anyway, there would be political conflict about who would be next in line.

Not really. They would just appoint the Speaker of the House, who is next in line after the Vice President.

Originally Posted by alternatehistorian

And then the Soviets would use that during the Cold War for propaganda. There is a difference between war and a holocaust.

There is no Cold War in 1945. The American public sees the Soviets as their brave allies who fought staunchly against Nazi Germany, and the Soviet people see the Americans as the heroes who helped turn the tide and save the Rodina. No one will care what the Soviets, or the Allies, do to win the war.

Originally Posted by alternatehistorian

Stalin would use anything as an excuse to grab more territory.

Stalin wasn't some territory gobbling carricature, he was cautious, and in 1945 certainly didn't want to risk another major war. Read Stalin: A Biography and Stalin: Court of the Red Tsar, they're both good pieces on his personality, actions, and relationships.

[SergeantHeretic]

Stalin is not stupid, neither is he a parvenue like Hitler. Stalin knows that in terms of troops and matriale the AMericans are i na better chash position than he is. He only take urf when he KNOWS he can HOLD it.

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by Julian

Not really. They would just appoint the Speaker of the House, who is next in line after the Vice President.

Exactly it just goes on down the line until it hits a federal oficial that isn't dead.

SO no crisis.

[mrmandias]

This is piling implausibility on top of implausibility. It's like ASB Jenga.

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by mrmandias

This is piling implausibility on top of implausibility. It's like ASB Jenga.

YOu have been sigged, you get a cookie ()

[Julian]

Originally Posted by alternatehistorian

What's implausible is to say that the US could just eradicate Japan and that wouldn't mean anything.

If Japan attacked the US with bioweapons, the US would respond by destroying its capacity to wage war. Britain and the US had the exact same plan for Nazi Germany IOTL.

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by Julian

If Japan attacked the US with bioweapons, the US would respond by ruthlessley destroying its capacity to wage war. Britain and the US had the exact same plan for Nazi Germany IOTL.

Precisly, this is an environemnt in whitch total war was initiated by the agressor and the escalated by same.

Alternatehistorian REALLY needs to stop judging a pre cold war period by cold war standards.

[SergeantHeretic]

[QUOTE=alternatehistorian;5931755]

Originally Posted by Julian

Not really. They would just appoint the Speaker of the House, who is next in line after the Vice President.



There is no Cold War in 1945. The American public sees the Soviets as their brave allies who fought staunchly against Nazi Germany, and the Soviet people see the Americans as the heroes who helped turn the tide and save the Rodina. No one will care what the Soviets, or the Allies, do to win the war.

True enough. But it has been suggested that there would be no consequences down the line after the US obliterated Japan. This is obviously false. The more time passed, the worse the US image would become and the Soviets would scrupulously remind everyone what happened.

Give nthat by that point, much of what the SOviets say about anything is taken worth a grain of salt at best, it really isn't going to matter.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by alternatehistorian

And then the Soviets would use that during the Cold War for propaganda. There is a difference between war and a holocaust.

What after they've used Sarin? After Japan has loosed bio warfare on the US? There is only one logical outcome of Japan refusing to surrender and that's the utter destruction of Japan. You may not like that fact but you've offered nothing concrete to refute it.

[Julian]

Originally Posted by alternatehistorian

True enough. But it has been suggested that there would be no consequences down the line after the US obliterated Japan. This is obviously false. The more time passed, the worse the US image would become and the Soviets would scrupulously remind everyone what happened.

Yes, but in 1945 no one knows that will happen. All they care about is ending the war. And if Japan has used bioweapons, the US will inevitably respond. It would be like Pearl Harbor all over again, galvanizing public opinion against Japan.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by alternatehistorian

What's implausible is to say that the US could just eradicate Japan and that wouldn't mean anything.

IT would mean something and I'm sure decades later people would condemn them for it; none of which is going to save Japan from 'prompt and utter destruction' in 1945.

[mrmandias]

Originally Posted by alternatehistorian

What's implausible is to say that the US could just eradicate Japan and that wouldn't mean anything.

It would mean something, it would mean that Japan was toast.
It would mean that in 1945 the Allies had perhaps the most massive military and economic disparity with the rest of the world in the history of the world and could do pretty much whatever they wanted.
It would mean that what they wanted was total war ending in total victory.
It would mean that in the 1970s and maybe even the 1960s, revisionist academics would say not nice things about the Allies.
The end.

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by mrmandias

It would mean something, it would mean that Japan was toast.
It would mean that in 1945 the Allies had perhaps the most massive military and economic disparity with the rest of the world in the history of the world and could do pretty much whatever they wanted.
It would mean that what they wanted was total war ending in total victory.
It would mean that in the 1970s and maybe even the 1960s, revisionist academics would say not nice things about the Allies.
The end.

FULL STOP!

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by alternatehistorian

Of course they would. The Soviets are complete hypocrites.

And the rest of the world would know that, ergo their condemnation however sotto voiced would mean two things, jack and squat.