How does the time-traveling USS Nimitz change the Cold War?

[TokyoBayer]

@Airman_Doors_USAF

The Nimitz and other carriers in its class are nothing more than large aircraft carriers with unusual propulsion. There’s no magic there.

I disagree. It’s not the Nimitz which is so important, it’s the knowledge from the future; knowing before hand what is going to work, what won’t, who are your good and your bad generals and admirals.

Knowing with certainty on December 7, 1941 that your torpedoes sucked could have them fixed in months rather than taking until the summer of 1943 to straighten out just one of the many problems it suffered.

Likewise, understanding that some of your strategies were dismal failures could have produced enormous changes. One obvious example would be the Second Happy Time, in January through August of 142, when the German submarines sank over 3 million tons with little risk to themselves, as the US was disorganized and distracted by the war in the Pacific. That amount is equal to 60% of the total amount which US sank again against the Japanese.

There would be the strategic knowledge, knowing that for the Japanese, you cut their oil and they are finished. While the US finally were able to achieve this in the historic war, it took several years before the US was able to sever their oil, where “future knowledge” would allow you to target this commodity much quicker.
The other thread was more restrictive, in that the Nimitz appeared in the flight path of the Japanese planes. With a Final Countdown moment where they would arrive soon enough to plan a counter attack, the *Nimitz *would be able to sink the Kido Butai the six carriers and support ships sent to attack Pearl Harbor.

My WAG is that the war in the Pacific would last at most two years, if not less, with the same result of the total destruction of Japan and a their military completely defeated. I agree with others that it wouldn’t magically end the war in Europe, but I think it would end it much sooner.

Here is my comments from the tread in question.

@TokyoBayer

There are a number of potential game changers, the most obvious of which is the nuclear bomb and Klaus Emil Fuchs which would give us another several years before they developed their own.

Another would be the respective positions of how the war ended what concessions would have been granted to Stalin. Had the US been able to defeat the Japanese without the necessary for the Soviets to join the attack, less concessions would have been required. Same thing in Europe if the knowledge of the future where to give more comfort to Churchill.

The third would be that the US would have known prior to the end that there would be a cold war coming, and made better decisions. There were differences between how they handled the end of the war in the Pacific and in Europe because the US knew better what were the Soviet intentions.

You look at what went right and wrong after the war. You want to make sure that you still turn Germany and Japan into democracies and allies of the US. The goal would be to try to keep as much territory post war in democracies hands and less under the influence of the Soviets.

Roosevelt would be wise to consider a different tack in China. Perhaps find a way to keep the Communists from taking over. But then you are stuck with a corrupt ally.

I think that life is messy and even though you could avoid the exact problems which occurred historically, others would appear. People thought that post-Cold War, there would be more peace, but the type of conflict changed, it didn’t go away.