# Did The USA plan To Use Atomic Bombs On Germany? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 23, 2003, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-usa-plan-to-use-atomic-bombs-on-germany/220734 "2003-12-23T22:28:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-usa-plan-to-use-atomic-bombs-on-germany/220734/1 "2003-12-23T22:28:01Z")
Suppose the Germans had prolonged the war into 1946…were there any plans to drop A-Bombs on Germany? By 1945, Berlin had been bombed into rubble…so i wonder what german cities were even worth bombing? As far as our capability to build more bombs…I understand the main bottleneck was the supply of enriched uranium…was the Oak Ridge plant capable of turning out sufficient U235 (by 1945) to build a lot of bombs? Incidentally, when did the germans give up on their own nuclear weapons program? ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-usa-plan-to-use-atomic-bombs-on-germany/220734/2 "2003-12-23T23:13:07Z")
Germany surrendered in May, and the first prototype bomb wasn’t tested until June…so… No… Obviously, _if_ things had gone differently, different plans might have been made… Trinopus ---
**Author:** ![bunyip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e19b73/32.png) [@bunyip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bunyip)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-usa-plan-to-use-atomic-bombs-on-germany/220734/3 "2003-12-23T23:45:58Z")
The following article suggests, perhaps surprisingly, that from May 1943, Japanese not German forces were the target for the atomic bomb. > **[Where the presidential candidates stand on nuclear issues - Bulletin of the...](https://thebulletin.org/2008/01/where-the-presidential-candidates-stand-on-nuclear-issues/)** > > With primary season upon us, the presidential candidates have been busy debating and making policy presentations so that we can begin to glean some ideas of their views on everything from the economy to national defense. As is often the case, the... ---
**Author:** ![KenGr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecc23a/32.png) [@KenGr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KenGr)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-usa-plan-to-use-atomic-bombs-on-germany/220734/4 "2003-12-24T02:06:34Z")
Under the OP hypothesis, perhaps. However, after the Germans took great losses against the Russians it was pretty much understood that the fall of Germany was mainly a question of how long and how many losses, not whether it would happen. Also, it was believed (correctly) that if Germany was defeated in the occupied areas, great losses would not be sustained in taking Germany itself. Therefore, the bomb would not have strategic importance. Japan was a different story in that it appeared that Japan could not be truly defeated without hand to hand combat in Japan itself. ---
**Author:** ![Tripler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripler/32/21807_2.png) [@Tripler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tripler)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-usa-plan-to-use-atomic-bombs-on-germany/220734/5 "2003-12-24T02:10:47Z")
If I may, let me ask this: Did fallout patterns have anything to do with a decision, or were they not even considered at the time? Given that fallout over Japan would have passed over and into the Pacific, where fallout over Germany would have fallen over Europe. Did anyone forsee this? Was it a part of the decision? Tripler I’m genuinely curious as well. . . ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-usa-plan-to-use-atomic-bombs-on-germany/220734/6 "2003-12-24T02:35:18Z")
Although this idea that The Bomb was designed for use against Asians does appear from time to time, I am aware of no evidence for it. Operating this morning with no coffee and no cites, I seem to recall the large number of European Jews working on The Bomb presumed it was destined for the Germans. The issue of fallout was certainly not addressed in any of the documents I have seen. I would be most interested in any sort of meat to the bones of this accusation. While not trying to raise anyone hackles, the subtext of the idea seems to be one of American racism operating in the target-selection process. Certainly it might have been true, but that is not the same as saying it was in fact true. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-usa-plan-to-use-atomic-bombs-on-germany/220734/7 "2003-12-24T02:42:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Trinopus \* > \*\*Germany surrendered in May, and the first prototype bomb wasn’t tested until June…so… \*\* Nope. July 16, 1945. ---
**Author:** ![Lizard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dfb087/32.png) [@Lizard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lizard)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-usa-plan-to-use-atomic-bombs-on-germany/220734/8 "2003-12-24T03:20:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Paul in Saudi \* > \*\*I would be most interested in any sort of meat to the bones of this accusation. While not trying to raise anyone hackles, the subtext of the idea seems to be one of American racism operating in the target-selection process. Certainly it might have been true, but that is not the same as saying it was in fact true. \*\* I would like to see any facts to back up this idea as well. Anyone familiar with how the U.S. fought WWII is aware we bombed the holy _shit_ out of the civilan populations of both countries. If fewer Germans than Japanese died, it was probably because so many of the latter’s houses were made out of wood and paper, and burned very easily. Certainly, equal effort was expended in both arenas to kill as many people as possible. I think, given the above, that had it been considered necessary the bomb WOULD have been used against Germany. The Manhattan Project was started in response to a similar German program, after all. ---
**Author:** ![MMI](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@MMI](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MMI)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-usa-plan-to-use-atomic-bombs-on-germany/220734/9 "2003-12-24T04:02:41Z")
The development of the atomic bomb was originally intended as a counter to the Nazi’s atomic program. By 1943 it had become clear that the German atomic bomb program was not going to be a threat. Work on the American bomb continued however. When it looked like the bomb might not be ready in time for use against Germany a whole unpleasant laundry list of radiological weapons were considered briefly for use against Germany, before sanity returned. See The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes If Germany had held out to late '45 and showed no signs of giving up the fight - no German armies surrendering, allied casualties mounting - there is little doubt that the bombs would have been dropped on whatever targets remained. Most likely, if the first two to three bombs did not persuade the Germans to throw in the towel further bombs would be used tactically to wipe out concentrations of Axis troops. This was the plan in the Pacific if the Japanese did not surrender when they did (use the next few A-bombs to clear a patch off the beach for the troops to go through). ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-usa-plan-to-use-atomic-bombs-on-germany/220734/10 "2003-12-24T04:10:09Z")
I expect if the Normandy Invasion had been thwarted, Munich would have been reduced to a glowing puddle. ---
**Author:** ![pixelfreak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f19dbf/32.png) [@pixelfreak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pixelfreak)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-usa-plan-to-use-atomic-bombs-on-germany/220734/11 "2003-12-24T04:32:25Z")
how much does an atomic bomb cost? how much money does bill gates have? ---
**Author:** ![adirondack\_mike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b5a626/32.png) [@adirondack\_mike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adirondack_mike)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-usa-plan-to-use-atomic-bombs-on-germany/220734/12 "2003-12-24T04:40:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bryan Ekers \* > \*\*I expect if the Normandy Invasion had been thwarted, Munich would have been reduced to a glowing puddle. \*\* If they were lucky - otherwise they would have faced the Red army. ---
**Author:** ![KenGr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecc23a/32.png) [@KenGr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KenGr)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-usa-plan-to-use-atomic-bombs-on-germany/220734/13 "2003-12-24T06:49:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pixelfreak \* > \*\*how much does an atomic bomb cost? > how much money does bill gates have? \*\* The exact cost of a bomb is classified, I think. However, the US has spent about 5.5 trillion dollars on the nuclear program in the last 60 years. Most of that is research, delivery systems, security, etc. About 400 billion actually went into the weapons. We peaked at a bit over 32,000 warheads and bombs in the 60’s so we’ve probably had around 40,000 total over the years. So for a nice round number, you get $10 million per bomb. However, a lot of that is development work. I would guess you could put together a nice thermonuclear device today for about $1 million if you have the infrastructure in place. Maybe less if you use cheap overseas labor. ---
**Author:** ![KP](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/a9adbd/32.png) [@KP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KP)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-usa-plan-to-use-atomic-bombs-on-germany/220734/14 "2003-12-24T11:48:59Z")
> [@](#): > > Maybe less if you use cheap overseas labor. I get that you’re probably joking, but I find the economics of private nukes intriguing. Aside from the whole 60s evil world domination thing (It’s just so charmingly retro, and I’m a sentimentalist), there’s an extraterrestrial angle I’m not ready to discuss. Aside from the fact that the idea of exporting this job sends chills down my spine, I wonder if the cost of overseas labor would have any substantial impact. This isn’t a job for 14 year-old sweatshop labor, and though some excellent training and talent is available overseas, I doubt either skilled personnel or labor would amount to a major fraction of production costs. Refining fissile material to weapons grade (or obtaining weapons grade material secretly) won’t be cheap. I suppose “cheap overseas labor” could include existing nuclear weapons (or pre-production development) programs in other nations, but I’m not sure it would be much cheaper or evendesirable to enlist their aid: their nations would have their own agendas. Messy situation, that. ---
**Author:** ![Crusoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/49beb7/32.png) [@Crusoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crusoe)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-usa-plan-to-use-atomic-bombs-on-germany/220734/15 "2003-12-24T13:21:45Z")
[**The Guardian** : How to make a dirty bomb](http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,769645,00.html) (no, it’s not actual instructions) ---
**Author:** ![YWalker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/6f9a4e/32.png) [@YWalker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YWalker)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-usa-plan-to-use-atomic-bombs-on-germany/220734/16 "2003-12-24T16:16:23Z")
It took a lot of effort to get the uranium or plutonium to make a bomb back then. They had massive plants just to produce a small amount. The “gun” type of bomb dropped on Japan wasn’t even tested because they only had enough to make 1 bomb. They were pretty sure it was going to work and it did. The implosion design was the one tested in advance because they had more material - I think uranium. I don’t know how much they had left over to make more bombs, probably not a lot. ---
**Author:** ![pestie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e5b9ba/32.png) [@pestie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pestie)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-usa-plan-to-use-atomic-bombs-on-germany/220734/17 "2003-12-24T18:03:52Z")
The “gun” bomb used uranium and the “implosion” bomb used plutonium. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-usa-plan-to-use-atomic-bombs-on-germany/220734/18 "2003-12-24T18:22:54Z")
Back to the OP, the atomic bomb was considered a strategic weapon, not a tactical weapon. In other words, it was designed as a terror device to force the surrender of the country, not as a military instrument to take out a particular target. That’s why the first uses of the bomb in Japan were on Hiroshima and Nagasaki rather than on Tokyo directly. (Not that Tokyo was never a target, look up Tokyo, fire bombing of.) Remember that we were running a gigantic bluff: we only had the two bombs but were trying to make the Japanese think we had an unending supply that could be used on the rest of their cities. There is little doubt that the bomb would have been used on Germany if circumstances were different enough that the use of the bomb might have forced an earlier surrender. There certainly was a huge internal argument over whether to use the bombs even on the Japanese, so saying they were developed with racist intentions is simply incorrect. However, people being human, and racism against the Japanese being real, it is possible that the argument against using them on the Japanese was somewhat easier won than the argument against using them on the Germans would have been. We can never know. But in the end, I cannot conceive that they would not have been used in any instance that would have helped end the war. Lots of conditionals there, but we’re talking alternate history. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-usa-plan-to-use-atomic-bombs-on-germany/220734/19 "2003-12-24T22:20:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by adirondack\_mike \* > \*\*If they were lucky - otherwise they would have faced the Red army. \*\* Heck if you want to talk alternates:[ul][li]D-Day turns into a rout, with American, British and Canadian forces decimated and holding a bare footprint in France, unable to advance[/li][li]Truman sees the Soviet army crushing westward, though slowed down a little bit because Germany doesn’t have to fight the Battle of the Bulge.[/li][li]Truman decides to drop a nuke on an eastern German city before the Soviets can reach it, but clearly in their path, like Frankfurt, Cottbus or Görlitz. The ultimatum is delivered to Germany: surrender or be destroyed, with an implied threat to Stalin: stop your advance or be destroyed.[/li][li]Germany fights on briefly, but another city is nuked and Hitler is assassinated, successfully this time.[/li][li]Another round of D-Day landings occur. This landing is relatively calm, since the troops are coming as peacekeepers, rather than liberators.[/li][li]After that, I dunno. German infrastructure is relatively intact, as is the NAZI party. There wouldn’t be the decades-long East/West division. The Soviets don’t get to capture German rocket and atomic scientists, so it takes them longer to develop nukes of their own. By then, Britain and France have them, and they stand ready to go to town if Germany acts up again.[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![adirondack\_mike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b5a626/32.png) [@adirondack\_mike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adirondack_mike)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2003, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-usa-plan-to-use-atomic-bombs-on-germany/220734/20 "2003-12-24T23:05:27Z")
I was not talking about alternatives but what happened to German citizens in East Prussia and Konigsburg in 1945. The Russians were extremely brutal to the German population in the conquered areas - not that I can blame them - or forgive them. The Germans were at least as brutal in conquering the territories in the first place. If the Russians had continued on I don’t see how they would have stopped exacting revenge. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/did-the-usa-plan-to-use-atomic-bombs-on-germany/220734.md?page=2)