What if - Japan discovers Nuclear weapons first

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t374270-4/
"The truth is Hitler was not tough enough in the end. I mean he felt a kinmanship toward the Brits and allowed 300,000 British soldiers to escape. He put the Jews in camps complete with showers, kitchens, beds and recreation. Be nice to the enemy and see where it gets you."

I have no idea which battle was it.

That was Dunkirk. And Hitler did not let them escape. The Luftwaffe tried to destroy them but were held off long enough for the Royal Navy to evacuate everyone. If they think that the land forces could have smashed the BEF, excuse me while I laugh. The supply lines were far too long, that three day delay before Dunkirk fell was necessary to allow the supplies to catch up.

If Japan had nukes, there is no way many cities could be hit. Chinese cities or military positions could be hit, Bejing will not be since it is controlled by the Japanese at this time. Soviet cities will not be hit since the Soviet Union did not enter the war against Japan until 1945. Their best be would have been to hit as much of the U.S. carrier fleet as possibe.

In the end they lose anyway, when the Americans strike back with their own atomic bombs in retaliation.
 
Would they share such technology with the Nazis. It always struck me as a strange partnership. Had they suceeded, surely there would be a showdown between them ultimately for the whole world - I don't know who I would back in that one!
 

Gochoson

Banned
That was Dunkirk. And Hitler did not let them escape. The Luftwaffe tried to destroy them but were held off long enough for the Royal Navy to evacuate everyone. If they think that the land forces could have smashed the BEF, excuse me while I laugh. The supply lines were far too long, that three day delay before Dunkirk fell was necessary to allow the supplies to catch up.

If Japan had nukes, there is no way many cities could be hit. Chinese cities or military positions could be hit, Bejing will not be since it is controlled by the Japanese at this time. Soviet cities will not be hit since the Soviet Union did not enter the war against Japan until 1945. Their best be would have been to hit as much of the U.S. carrier fleet as possibe.

In the end they lose anyway, when the Americans strike back with their own atomic bombs in retaliation.

Nukes againts ships? What a waste of rescoures.
Nukes should be used againts BIG land targets - like cities and military bases. The bigger the better.
 

Gochoson

Banned
Nukes against single ships are a waste, against an entire fleet, is not.

Ah, now I understand. Well, it's usefull then.
But one fleet? Why not blow up a shipyard, so they can't repair their demaged ships? That would be the point. If you blow their fleet up, they gonna build new ones (it will cost lotsa money tho and will take a long time).
But if you blow up their shipyards and factories.... no more ships will spawn.
 
Nukes against single ships are a waste, against an entire fleet, is not.


First generation nukes against a fleet - unless you nuke the port it happens to be sitting in - are a waste too. Don't confuse the power of nuclear with thermonuclear weapons or even the power of Little Boy with the Able and Baker test shots.

Anyway, it's best to let this thread drop as the OP is nothing more than a troll. Along with employing a 4Chan vocabulary, he committed a banning offense almost immediately, originally asked a Done to Death(tm) question, and has asked baiting questions since.
 
Then Hitler decides to stop being 'nice' to everybody. Except showers for the Jews. They'll probably still get that. Delousing is an important part of hygiene.
 
Well you see technically Japan had a working Nuclear project in the 1930s to 1940s I saw this documentory on History channel Forgot what it was called, which said that at the start of 1930s the Japanese had two choices to work with Nukes or Death rays( Tesla Death rays.) they chose the latter although some of the Historians on the documentory( mind you proffesors of universities) agreed that had Japan focused on Nukes they could have developed them by 1944 and the war in Pacific would have a different outcome.... Not sure if I should trust the source but.... History Channel is a valid source for info...... I guess and it was said by Historians who have proffesional degrees and proffesors... Not sure if I should believe them or not, because most sources agree it was impossible for Japan to develop nukes and i agree IMO:)
 

Freizeit

Banned
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t374270-4/
"The truth is Hitler was not tough enough in the end. I mean he felt a kinmanship toward the Brits and allowed 300,000 British soldiers to escape. He put the Jews in camps complete with showers, kitchens, beds and recreation. Be nice to the enemy and see where it gets you."

I have no idea which battle was it.

Jesus Christ.

That site is possibly thd most fucking disgusting I've ever seen. Reported.
 
I saw this documentory on History channel...


The "History" Channel is as good a source as Wiki or Storm Front, which is to say it sucks.

It produces "documentaries which shade, spin, and otherwise ignore the truth in order to attract credulous fools. The more fools who watch, the higher ratings, and the more the "History" Channel gets in ad revenues.

... History Channel is a valid source for info ...

For a given value of "valid".
 

Gochoson

Banned
For me there are two kinds of alternate history:

Lightweight AH: almost pure fantasy, things which could have never happened, maybe in the creator's mind
Hardcore AH: 100% realistic, it tells what could have happened if something was planned otherwise
 
First generation nukes against a fleet - unless you nuke the port it happens to be sitting in - are a waste too. Don't confuse the power of nuclear with thermonuclear weapons or even the power of Little Boy with the Able and Baker test shots.

Anyway, it's best to let this thread drop as the OP is nothing more than a troll. Along with employing a 4Chan vocabulary, he committed a banning offense almost immediately, originally asked a Done to Death(tm) question, and has asked baiting questions since.

Agree about the troll. The link, in fact, goes to a thread titled "We need another Hitler!" :mad:

I mean, another Mussolini would be fine (trains run on time!), but Hitler? Seriously?

As for whether the use of a first-generation nuke against a fleet is valuable, it's debatable. Operation Crossroads, a nuclear test by the US against a small fleet of target ships, used 23 kiloton bombs, and was reasonably destructive. The Baker phase of the test set of a 23 kiloton bomb 27 meters underwater, and wiped out 10 ships immediately. One of these survived (Prince Eugen), but was too radioactive for repair. Another 2 were too heavily damaged for repair. If one decides that 12 ships are a suitable use for an atom bomb, it makes sense. It would be better to hit an invasion force, though, because that way the radiation would affect invading soldiers in addition to sailors.
 

Hendryk

Banned
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t374270-4/
"The truth is Hitler was not tough enough in the end. I mean he felt a kinmanship toward the Brits and allowed 300,000 British soldiers to escape. He put the Jews in camps complete with showers, kitchens, beds and recreation. Be nice to the enemy and see where it gets you."

And to think I had just decided to be nice to newbies who suggest cliché or implausible WIs. For my trouble I end up dealing with a troll, and a stupid one at that.
 
As for whether the use of a first-generation nuke against a fleet is valuable, it's debatable.


No, it isn't.

Operation Crossroads, a nuclear test by the US against a small fleet of target ships, used 23 kiloton bombs, and was reasonably destructive.

The test was deliberately skewed to be destructive.

This is from the Wiki page, but Richard Rhode's book Dark Sun contains the same information abeit more detailed.

A fleet of 95 target vessels was assembled in Bikini Lagoon. At the center of the target cluster, the density was 20 ships per square mile (7.7 per km²), three to five times greater than military doctrine would allow. The stated goal was not to duplicate a realistic anchorage, but to measure damage as a function of distance from the blast center, at as many different distances as possible.[31] The arrangement also reflected the outcome of the Army/Navy disagreement about how many ships should be allowed to sink.

Not only were the ships moored more closely together than they would have been in port, they were moored more closely together than they would have been if underway.

The Able and Baker tests were designed to see how much punishment individual ships could take and not whether a group of ships in their normally dispersed underway formation would be a plausible target.

Simply put, a first gen nuke doesn't pack enough wallop to sink enough ships underway. You'll get one or two, but the rest will be relatively unharmed thanks to the distances involved.
 

Gochoson

Banned
It would be better to hit an invasion force, though, because that way the radiation would affect invading soldiers in addition to sailors.

Yeah, that would be devestating.
Altrough I still think that nukes are meant to blow up cities and military bases.
Leave the ships to the rockets, and the armies to the bazookaes - in my opnion.

But then, everyone has different taste in tactics. I know, I am not so good in military tactics and strategy, but for some reason, i really love military history.
 
Top