# Would the world be better now if we nuked Moscow at/after the end of WWII? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 1, 2011, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-world-be-better-now-if-we-nuked-moscow-at-after-the-end-of-wwii/576862 "2011-04-01T21:46:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2011, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-world-be-better-now-if-we-nuked-moscow-at-after-the-end-of-wwii/576862/21 "2011-04-02T02:40:59Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Who, the Soviet government, or the Russian people? The Soviet government. ---
**Author:** ![G-SE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f0a364/32.png) [@G-SE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/G-SE)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2011, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-world-be-better-now-if-we-nuked-moscow-at-after-the-end-of-wwii/576862/22 "2011-04-02T02:56:38Z")
I think alot of you are underestimating how much of a game changer the introduction of nuclear weapons was and would have been if we had turned them against the Soviets. When a repeat of the battle of Stalingrad can be decisively won in a single day with a single bomb, it makes irrelevant the Soviets’ numerical superiority- their biggest strength. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2011, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-world-be-better-now-if-we-nuked-moscow-at-after-the-end-of-wwii/576862/23 "2011-04-02T03:01:55Z")
And how do you intend to occupy them? For how long? Do you intend to nuke a city every time a Russian resistance fighter kills a US soldier? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2011, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-world-be-better-now-if-we-nuked-moscow-at-after-the-end-of-wwii/576862/24 "2011-04-02T03:05:33Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > I did not endorse war against the USSR, I was merely responding to your post. I hadn’t posted anything for you to respond to. I intended my questions for the OP. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2011, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-world-be-better-now-if-we-nuked-moscow-at-after-the-end-of-wwii/576862/25 "2011-04-02T03:09:38Z")
I think if Truman or any other American politician had suggested starting another war in 1945, he would have been impeached. If we had declared war against the Soviet Union and seen it through, I think we probably would have won eventually. But I think that war would have taken five to ten more years of fighting and several million American casualties. ---
**Author:** ![blindboyard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blindboyard/32/2833_2.png) [@blindboyard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blindboyard)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2011, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-world-be-better-now-if-we-nuked-moscow-at-after-the-end-of-wwii/576862/26 "2011-04-02T09:27:28Z")
How would these nukes have been delivered? The Soviets didn’t have a totally destroyed air defence infrastructure like Japan. ---
**Author:** ![Crusoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/49beb7/32.png) [@Crusoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crusoe)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2011, 10:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-world-be-better-now-if-we-nuked-moscow-at-after-the-end-of-wwii/576862/27 "2011-04-02T10:24:27Z")
At the very least you’d be condemning tens of thousands of Allied soldiers and airmen, concentration camp victims and civilians to death. I don’t believe the Russian military would fold instantly; I think they’d keep fighting, and without a large number of spare nuclear weapons to hand you’re looking at weeks, if not months, of bloody conventional warfare in Europe. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2011, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-world-be-better-now-if-we-nuked-moscow-at-after-the-end-of-wwii/576862/28 "2011-04-02T17:22:32Z")
I would pose a follow-on question. Stipulating, for the sake of argument, that the Soviet Union was made to collapse circa 1950, what would the following 50 years have been like? We can grant that life would have been better for people of Eastern Europe, but what about the world situation altogether? There were no wars in Europe after WWII until the Soviet Empire did collapse, Islamic terrorism is much worse since the collapse, wars in Africa and Central Asia are worse, I think. Am I wrong? I think a case can be made that the superpower struggle led to a geopolitical stability we don’t have today. (I’m just throwing a scattered thought out, expecting a quick refutation. :dubious: ) ---
**Author:** ![New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/9d8465/32.png) [@New\_Deal\_Democrat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Deal_Democrat)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2011, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-world-be-better-now-if-we-nuked-moscow-at-after-the-end-of-wwii/576862/29 "2011-04-02T17:29:32Z")
> [@Darth\_Ayebaw](#): > > First off, I know why it didn’t happen. But > > _“Once the war against Nazi Germany was over, Patton spoke of “pushing on to Moscow,” if need be with help from what remained of the Wehrmacht, while Montgomery called for the immediate establishment of “a flank facing east.” In Patton’s view, the United States had come to Europe to give the peoples there the right to govern themselves. The Nazis had denied them this right, and now the Soviets were threatening to do so. Thus America’s “job” in Europe was not yet done. “We must finish the job now, while we are here and ready,” he declared in May 1945, “or [finish it] later under less favorable circumstances”_ > > No Cold War, democracy to all of Europe 50 years earlier allowing it to start spreading from then, rather than the 90s. Less military spending, and a US nuclear monopoly for much longer. > > On the other hand, many of the advances of the last century were brought on by the military. Would we have still gone into space, invented the internet? We would have more resources to do so, but would the drive to do so have existed? What does the Dope think about this? Do not assume that a war with the Soviet Union would ever have been easy. An unprovoked nuclear attack on Soviet cities would have been immoral and resulted in the just hatred of much of the world. The American people were war weary from World War II, and would not have supported World War III. Patton was a loose cannon who died after he was no longer useful, and before he could have done some real harm. ---
**Author:** ![voltaire](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voltaire/32/313_2.png) [@voltaire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/voltaire)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2011, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-world-be-better-now-if-we-nuked-moscow-at-after-the-end-of-wwii/576862/30 "2011-04-02T18:16:13Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > I would pose a follow-on question. Stipulating, for the sake of argument, that the Soviet Union was made to collapse circa 1950, what would the following 50 years have been like? > > We can grant that life would have been better for people of Eastern Europe, but what about the world situation altogether? There were no wars in Europe after WWII until the Soviet Empire did collapse, Islamic terrorism is much worse since the collapse, wars in Africa and Central Asia are worse, I think. Am I wrong? I think a case can be made that the superpower struggle led to a geopolitical stability we don’t have today. > > (I’m just throwing a scattered thought out, expecting a quick refutation. :dubious: ) Yeah, I think you’re underestimating the proxy wars and general global militarization that took place during the Cold War - Korea and Vietnam being the two big standouts. But the effects of others, such as the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent arming and training of the mujaheddin, are quite considerable. ETA: There was quite a lot of cold war nastiness in Africa too. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Ayebaw](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darth_ayebaw/32/9870_2.png) [@Darth\_Ayebaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Ayebaw)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2011, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-world-be-better-now-if-we-nuked-moscow-at-after-the-end-of-wwii/576862/31 "2011-04-02T19:03:34Z")
Can’t believe I totally forgot about Operation Unthinkable. Were they any similar plans in the following months or couple years that did include nuclear weapons? Probably, but have they been declassified? If so, what did they conclude? I’m talking about war after Japan surrenders. If we attacked sooner the USSR and Japan may have kept a nonaggression deal, and without using the nukes in Japan we may have faced a two front conventional war. So think a preemptive nuke of Moscow in late '45 with Stalin and other leaders confirmed gone in the first strike. After that it’s up for grabs. and discussion, which has been quite interesting so far. No need to declare war against Britain. They’re effectively occupied already, and too weak and bankrupt from WWII. Either they go along peacefully but maybe resentfully, or they oppose us but can’t really do anything about it. One way or another, they’re certainly not a world power, at least not comparable to the US. Don’t know how we’d occupy the USSR, or what we would do if we faced a resistance. It was an organized entity though, and Japan/German citizens didn’t engage in any significant guerrilla warfare after their armed forces were neutralized. Then, Russia is different in many ways, and I wouldn’t mind any input as to how their citizens might have responded. Interesting question septimus, and similar to what I was asking. How would the world be different with no Cold War? Sure, there was more stability, but only in that there were clearly defined sides, and people were on one or the other instead of the mishmash of motivations and groups today. Hard to say if violence would be less or more, given the places the Cold War was regionally hot, and the countless other military actions in Africa/Asia/South America. I do wonder how Vietnam would’ve turned out with no Soviet support. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-world-be-better-now-if-we-nuked-moscow-at-after-the-end-of-wwii/576862/32 "2011-04-04T08:11:04Z")
The 1945 USSR had an massive air force in being. It also had 10s of 1000s of artillery pieces which could have been turned skyward. Without looking it up I believe US bombers would have had over a 2000-mile trip one-way if their airfields could be located out of Soviet fighter range. Even at half that distance there would certainly have been no guarentee they could have reached Moscow, and I expect you would hesitiate before launching an attack with nuclear weapons where there was a significant chance of losing your plane and its bomb. Furthermore, the Soviet army, the largest in all of history, with millions of veteran troops armed to the teeth, would with no doubt have inflicted a terrible bloodletting on US-UK-French forces in Europe, and it might well have driven them into the sea in a reenactment of Dunkirk. Thank God for that road left untaken. ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 8:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-world-be-better-now-if-we-nuked-moscow-at-after-the-end-of-wwii/576862/33 "2011-04-04T08:42:28Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > Would the UK and other allies have backed such a program? I have my doubts. There’s no way that the UK could have fought on for another couple of years, and certainly not against a foe as formidable as the Red Army. WWII already cost an Empire ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Ayebaw](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darth_ayebaw/32/9870_2.png) [@Darth\_Ayebaw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Ayebaw)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2011, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-world-be-better-now-if-we-nuked-moscow-at-after-the-end-of-wwii/576862/34 "2011-04-04T17:47:51Z")
At the time we were still an ‘ally’. The bomb could have been brought in by a plane supposed to have been bringing aid. Of course, after that first one, the chances of any other making it through are admittedly very small. Taking out Stalin and most of the head honchos, who would take charge, and how quickly? ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-world-be-better-now-if-we-nuked-moscow-at-after-the-end-of-wwii/576862/35 "2011-04-05T00:14:30Z")
At one point the US had bombers that could fly higher than any Soviet fighters - but I don’t know when that window was (I THOUGHT it was during the Berlin airlift). The B29 could get above 30k feet thanks to a pressurized cabin - could the Soviets get that high? (Thinking purely tactical here - I also agree that the Allies were in no shape to go to war with the Soviets at the end of WWII). ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-world-be-better-now-if-we-nuked-moscow-at-after-the-end-of-wwii/576862/36 "2011-04-05T01:32:46Z")
Attacking the USSR in that timeframe would definitely have some interesting possibilities. Like instead of East Germany/Poland being the Soviet border it’d be Spain’s Atlantic coast. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-world-be-better-now-if-we-nuked-moscow-at-after-the-end-of-wwii/576862/37 "2011-04-05T03:05:55Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > They were both evil, thus we allied with the lesser danger to destroy the greater one. Not sure we had much of a choice. Russia was going to wreck the Nazis whether we tagged along for the ride or not. ---
**Author:** ![medicated](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@medicated](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/medicated)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-world-be-better-now-if-we-nuked-moscow-at-after-the-end-of-wwii/576862/38 "2011-04-05T03:19:49Z")
Hmm. I’d imagine that an atomic bomb dropped on Moscow would have eventually led to a unified communist Germany, and perhaps even Soviet troops in the low countries. How’s that for a scary thought? Also, massive unrest on the western allied home fronts. Communism as a concept wasn’t anywhere near so quaint or silly back then as might appear to most people today. I suspect that the USA and Britain (and Canada for that matter) would have seen a LOT of industrial strikes, at the very least. And then there’s that little logistical problem: if Germany couldn’t win a war against the USSR, why would anyone think that much more distant powers would be able to pull it off? Don’t get me wrong…the Soviet Union under Stalin was a monstrosity beyond belief. I don’t dispute that. However, attacking them would have been astonishing hubris. ---
**Author:** ![Great\_Antibob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Great\_Antibob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Great_Antibob)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-world-be-better-now-if-we-nuked-moscow-at-after-the-end-of-wwii/576862/39 "2011-04-05T15:36:02Z")
> [@Darth\_Ayebaw](#): > > At the time we were still an ‘ally’. The bomb could have been brought in by a plane supposed to have been bringing aid. Of course, after that first one, the chances of any other making it through are admittedly very small. Taking out Stalin and most of the head honchos, who would take charge, and how quickly? A sneak attack on an ally while the US was wrapping up a war initiated by a sneak attack on Pearl Harbor? You don’t see any potential internal problems with this? Popular support would absolutely wither. And you’d have to find one hell of a loyal bomber crew to willingly bomb a major civilian population center of an allied country. Wartime bombing of a strategic manufacturing or political center is considered ‘acceptable’. A sneak attack killing potentially millions of innocent civilians (Communist or not) would not only be considered ‘cowardly’ but would rightly earn the condemnation of many members of Congress, the military, and the general American population, not to mention the allies we’d be royally pissing off. Also, what happens if the bomb doesn’t kill the Soviet high command? Hate to break it, but there were a lot of survivors of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After all, the firebombing of Tokyo did more damage than either of the atomic bombs. Not to mention the likely presence of several of your own military and diplomatic corps in the city. So, you’d not only be risking failure but also sentencing your own people to death. Inauspicious beginning to a ‘righteous’ war. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2011, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-world-be-better-now-if-we-nuked-moscow-at-after-the-end-of-wwii/576862/40 "2011-04-05T16:04:08Z")
Another possibility is that the Soviet troops poised to invade Japan would instead move north and take Alaska. Having done that, they can use Alaska as a base to attack the northwestern United States. Even if Canada tried to remain neutral in the war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union might ignore Canadian neutrality an carry out a land invasion of the United States. How well prepared is the U.S. for that, with much of its military deadlocked with the Soviets fighting over Germany? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-world-be-better-now-if-we-nuked-moscow-at-after-the-end-of-wwii/576862.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/would-the-world-be-better-now-if-we-nuked-moscow-at-after-the-end-of-wwii/576862.md?page=3)