Tactical nukes in 1945

Blair152

Banned
All right. Here's a thought. Bear with me because I'm going to get a tad freaky. Today we have tactical nukes. Nuclear weapons that can technically,
be used on the battlefield, and are AKA, battlefield nukes. What if the United
States, with the help of the Manhattan Project, had started using tactical nukes in 1945? For example, let's go back to Operation Downfall, for a minute. Shall we? Instead of developing nine more nuclear bombs for the
invasion of Kyushu, the United States develops a small warhead, "small" in 1945, being a relative term, for its sixteen inch shells. The battleships, including USS Texas, (BB-35), to use in the naval bombardment of Kyushu.
How would the Imperial Japanese Army deal with this new development?
 
Are you aware that the miniaturization of nukes has taken double as long and ate at least as much ressources as the Manhattan Project itself?
 
How would the Imperial Japanese Army deal with this new development?

It would be blown up. Seriously.

If your POD allows them enough time to learn, say a dozen attacks spaced over a few months, maybe the adoption of guerrilla-style dispersal. That requires large spaces, such as on Kyushu or Luzon, though. On smaller islands, there's no defense.
 

Blair152

Banned
Are you aware that the miniaturization of nukes has taken double as long and ate at least as much ressources as the Manhattan Project itself?
Yes, I am. That's why I said I was going to get a tad freaky and that "small"
in 1945, was a relative term.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Yes, I am. That's why I said I was going to get a tad freaky and that "small"
in 1945, was a relative term.


I would dearly love to have seen the USS Texas fire a 16" W19 nuclear bombardment round.

Be a bit of a chore seeing how she was armed with 14" guns.:rolleyes:
 
Actually I think there was plans to use nukes tactically for Downfall. To use a number of weapons on the landing beaches to clear them before the invasion forces went in.:eek::eek: [They had no real idea bout fall-out at the time;)]. Its just that this would be the sort of bombs used against Hiroshima, which have about the destructive power of many later 'tactical' nukes but were huge in physical terms because the technology was so new at the time.

The basic point is what you suggest can [and would probably have] be done in terms of tactical use of nuclear weapons. Its just that those weapons were not what we now think about as tactical weapons.

Steve
 
Even later tactical nukes would have actually been used on operational or theatre-strategic targets. The chances of using them against deployed troops at the FEBA is tiny and the results meagre compared to drilling a railyway yard or major road intersection.
 
Actually I think there was plans to use nukes tactically for Downfall. To use a number of weapons on the landing beaches to clear them before the invasion forces went in.:eek::eek: [They had no real idea bout fall-out at the time;)]. Its just that this would be the sort of bombs used against Hiroshima, which have about the destructive power of many later 'tactical' nukes but were huge in physical terms because the technology was so new at the time.

The basic point is what you suggest can [and would probably have] be done in terms of tactical use of nuclear weapons. Its just that those weapons were not what we now think about as tactical weapons.

Steve

I'd heard this as well.

The Decision to use nuclear weapons on troops instead of cities was a point of Operation Downfall, although that would probably have been in 1946.

It would be hard to imagine WW2 continuing for very long in the face of such tactics--the guys on the recieving end would be vaporized pretty quickly. The Best Defense against Nukes is to use your own nukes to destroy theirs. In 1945, there is only one guy with nukes, and that's the end of the story.
 
Top