I heard once on the history chanel that the B29 cost twice what the Mathattan project cost. So maybe not easier
Did they say why?
Apparently many aircraft have been designed from the B-29 airframe. But how hard is that? It’s a big tube with wings. 
Slightly off topic, but I’ve always wondered what Hitler’s reaction would have been if he had still been alive to witness the bombings.
(That’s one thing I do regret about us having to use said bombs – that Hitler was already dead and couldn’t witness it.)
Hell, I wish he’d lived long enough to hear a whistling sound over his bunker in Berlin.
Here’s a story on the development of the B-29.
A lot of problems with the engines, among other things.
Right, it was just another weapon. The USA was fighting for it’s very national life, it’s freedom. Today we look back and think “Oh, of course the Allies were going to win, the Allies could afford to be magnanomous”, but defeat by the Axis was a very real threat and one the Allies took very seriously.
Only since the 50’s have we been conditoned (and rightly so) to consider using Nukes as “unthinkable”.
I don;t think a demo would have cut it.
[moderating]
And it’s speculating you’re getting!
Which belongs in IMHO, not where the thread was posted in GQ.
I moved it.
[/moderating]
Sure. But the issue also becomes getting an aircraft that could carry the nuclear weapon, take off from a carrier with it, travel far enough to reach the target, not get shot down on the way there or while making the attack, and, preferably (although not a complete requirement), not killing the crew in the process.
In fact, the Navy’s first nuclear-capable carrier aircraft didn’t fly until 1949 (though the aircraft model was from '47)—and it not only wasn’t designed as a bomber, it wasn’t even intended as a carrier aircraft. It was the “P2V-C3” variant of the P-2 “Neptune,” and it would have to take off with the use of JATOs, and either land at a friendly base after making the attack, or ditch near a Naval vessel. The first purpose designed naval nuclear bomber was the AJ Savage, which first flew in '49.
You’re bang on if we were talking about events as they happened, with the bomb coming to fruition in 1945 after years of vicious struggle with the Japanese. But in 1939, it certainly might have made cooler heads prevail in the decision regarding Pearl Harbour. Yamamoto even threatened to resign, as the plan faced much opposition. On the course of the war, Yamamoto is attributed with the quote;
“I can run wild for six months … after that, I have no expectation of success”. [3]
Now imagine that with “…oh, and they have a bomb that can vaporise cities.”
For anyone doubting that the U.S. would still focus on Europe and use the bomb on Germany even early in the war, look up the Plan Dog Memorandum, in which Chief of Naval Operations Stark writes;
“As I have previously stated, I also believe that Great Britain requires from us very great help in the Atlantic, and possibly even on the continents of Europe or Africa, if she is to be enabled to survive. In my opinion Alternatives (A), (B), and (C) will most probably not provide the necessary degree of assistance, and, therefore, if we undertake war, that Alternative (D) is likely to be the most fruitful for the United States, particularly if we enter the war at an early date. "
Alternative (D) was " D - Go on the offensive in the Atlantic (against Germany and Italy) while remaining on the defensive in the Pacific.”.
[quote=“Mr.Kobayashi, post:50, topic:547703”]
[quote=“DrDeth, post:47, topic:547703”]
When a space shuttle placed a satellite in orbit to spy on Iraq, I thought Saddam Hussein would back off. Some Esther would tell his Ahasuerus, “My master, we have antiquated Russian tanks. They have space ships.”
[quote=“carnivorousplant, post:51, topic:547703”]
[quote=“Mr.Kobayashi, post:50, topic:547703”]
And he would have been wise to heed those words, since he finished up at the end of a rope. In any case, Yamamoto was not a stupid man - every objective of the Pearl Harbour attack would be undermined if the United States had an unknown number of atomic bombs at her disposal. With these bombs, the U.S. could interfere with Japanese plans in East Asia at will, and at great cost to Japan. There would be no hope of an early ‘knockout blow’ to her morale or capability to fight.
I thought his transport aircraft was ambushed by a flight of P-38s.
Ok true, Once commited I am sure a demo would not have done it. But beforehand, you may be right.
carnivorousplant: Hussein was hanged, Yamamoto was shot down.
Yeah, I was talking about Saddam - although the analogy is flawed, as there we invaded, rather than being attacked. The Japanese weren’t suicidal enough (that early on - the first kamikazes were in 1944) to attack a U.S. with an unknown number of a-bombs. Getting them there might have been a problem, but the Japanese didn’t know that, and necessity is the mother of invention. It would be like playing Russian roulette with a loaded revolver; Pearl Harbour in itself was seen as a massive risk that counted on ‘decisive battle’ doctrine to free Japan from U.S. involvement in the Pacific.
I obviously misunderstood your post.
A risk in that the attack might not succeed, or that it would awaken “a sleeping giant”?
Both and more; that it would not have accomplished any of the objectives it set out to accomplish - which, in the end, it didn’t. American morale was not shattered and the Pacific fleet was still relatively intact (what with Lexington and Enterprise being out of port).
Well, it certainly pissed of my Paternal Grandmother! To misquote Richard Blaine, “There are certain Grandmothers I wouldn’t advise anyone to piss off.”
Haha, I bet. This was another area Pearl Harbour badly backfired, rather than break the will to fight the enemy it strengthened it (which is also what the blitz did to us Brits). And to quote the terminator, anger is more useful than despair.
She had a son killed in the Army Air Corps in WWII.
She believed that the German Q boat guys in WWI ate babies, too. Despite living near a colony of German immigrants in Stuttgart, Arkansas and describing them as good and kind people.