Serious question: Jow Forums and /leftypol/ tards need not apply

I know this thread has been made a million times already, but I want a definitive answer to this question: would dropping several 30-40kt yield atomic bombs on German cities in late fall of 44' end the European theater of ww2 before Christmas? For the sake argument the japs attacked us a year earlier in this time line and germany was actively trying to build a bomb (hence the added urgency).

From my understanding Hitler and Co were the morale of the Germany Army and what little remained of their air-force. Take them out and you can have peace. Furthermore the non-fanatics (regular wermacht guys) would realize that the enemy would just keep using bombs on them till they quit

Attached: atom bomb.jpg (1280x720, 42K)

Attached: IMG_4845.jpg (549x594, 82K)

Yes

The Soviets might be in a better position to take advantage of it.

You can't bank on a surrender happening, especially when the people with the authority to broker a surrender are all dead. What you can bank on is removing the administrative center of the enemy war machine.

So you'd have a bunch of aimless krauts wandering around without a reliable source of supplies or commands, and allied forces on both sides launching assaults in an effort to press the Wehrmacht to the point of collapse. This is still something that would require conventional military forces and resources, and the US wasn't in a fantastic logistical position in 1944.

So TL;DR maybe. Wouldn't hurt.

>Using first gen a-bombs against stone-building cities.

> That firebombing German cities wasn't just as, if not more, effective and devastating.

> That over 1m tons of ordinance was dropped on Germany.

> That hundreds of atomic bombs would be needed to produce the same level of infrastructure damage.

Can we delete this thread?
Waste of space

...

The German people probably wouldn't be very happy about it.
The firebombing was effective, but it is much more shocking for the effects of firebombing to occur in a fraction of a second than in the course of a night.
Hitler was a superstitious fellow and I'm sure he would come to his senses right before he was atomized

as soon as we got nukes and as soon as we saw the russkies couldn't be trusted we nuke moscow and cuck ivan into submission.

could it have been done? Quickly acquisition a V-2 and send the nukes that way?

> That an atomic weapon has enough energy to atomise/ vaporise anything.

rlly nigga?

Explain why you think otherwise.

Please don't show me the shadow pictures from Hiroshima.

>implying you wouldnt get hit with restitution from those fucking limpwristed kikes in Switzerland for "third hand nuclear fallout"

for the sake of argument let's be completely ahistorical and make up a timeline that suits our argument, then think we can't just continue to make up a result that suits us while we're there?

i don't know you fucking faggot, what do you think a country is going to do when it gets major cities instantaneously anihilated with no possibility of retaliation?

that's right the germans are going to continue to fight to the last man because they're aryan supermen or somesuch shit.

you're a fucking disgrace op. a thread died for this you cunt.

>Explain why you think otherwise
>No you can't use definitive proof

The Hiroshima shadow pictures are not definitive proof of vaporisation.

What they show is one object (human, bike, lamp post, whatever) shielding the thermal pulse from singeing an object behind it. There has never been a documented case of something completely vaporising during the thermal pulse of an a-bomb explosion. This is why metal, wood, leaves, and grass were all largely unaffected by the initial heat energy at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

As I said: light, superficial charring occurred on many items, and some "bleaching" occurred due to radiation.

An atomic weapon simply does not release enough heat energy for enough time to vaporise even objects with 1% water content; nevermind a human at 70%.

I'll sit here all day and argue with you.

I'm on TDY in a shit hotel with nothing better to do. I got my graduate degree in a related field, and there are dozens of governments all over the world who have spent the past half-century extensively testing and documenting these weapons and their effects to back me up.

Similarly, there is a half-century of movies, defense propaganda, and the like trying to make nuclear weapons seem sexier than they are.

what are the effects from fallout besides a lot of thyroid cancer

>Man turned to ash
>hurr durr I have a degree, man not dead
Fuck off. I know I'm strawmanning but Jesus Christ when I said "atomized" I didn't mean that molecules were ripped apart and shit. Learn how to into reading.

From fallout? Or radiation in general?

Fallout is truly dependent on weapon type, detonation altitude, atmospheric humidity, temperature, wind speeds, and soil composition.

A lot of fallout potential is mitigated by an airburst explosion. In both hiroshima and Nagasaki, what gamma-exposed particles that lingered in the air (fallout) were blown northwest by the wind. "Black rain" was a phenomena that occurred due to the relatively high humidity in the area, and tremendous heat produced by subsequent firestorming in the city. This also happened to release alot of soot, which produced the infamous black rain. This rain was largely uncontaminated, as it fell about an hour after detonation.

The worst fallout occurred in the form of rain to the northwest of Hiroshima, so it's hard to gauge its impact on people.

so its basically nothing to worry about

Radiation from a nuclear weapon does not necessarily mean death.

70% of deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were due to a COMBINATION of wounds AND radiation exposure. Radiation exposure reduces your white blood cell count, and subsequently makes it more difficult for your body to fight infection.

This is why nuclear weapons are so deadly to people. Low level radiation exposure and minor flash burns = infections.

In regard to cancer: ~60% of the 85k survivors of both bombs received 500+ millirems of radiation. In the late 90s a study was conducted and something like 4700 of them had developed cancer, with only ~400 being linked to the atomic bomb.

Doubtful. Neither the Japs or the Germans surrendered despite their cities having been turned to rubble with conventional weapons.

Hitler stuck out to the very end and the Japanese only surrendered because the Emperoro overruled the prime minister and cabinet, ordering them to accept the Allied terms.

then whats withthe gigantic outlier "holyshit" levels of cancer rates in northern nevada and utah, shits looks like maps of areas where people didnt realize threre was radon

>You can't bank on a surrender happening
I think in this case you could, back then no-one but the US had the bomb, so a simple demonstration bombing (of say, Dresden) would be enough to convince the Germans that the war was utterly lost. You cant fight back against something like that, it would break moral right down to an individual level. Even without any kind of command structure to relay an order to stand down, only the most extreme SS radicals and other psychos would keep fighting once they realised how utterly fucked they were.

You couldn't win when the Allies crossed the Rhine and the Soviet hordes were on their doorstep but it didn't stop them

It largely stems from the increase in Iodine 131 due to atmospheric testing.

Inhalation of contaminated air had a very small impact on thyroid cancer levels. Almost all of it came from drinking contaminated milk. I-131 contaminants would drift in the air, and land on pastures. Cows would eat the grass and their milk would become contaminated.

It's not a huge concern though. I-131 has a half life of 8 days, I think. There are documents with instructions for avoiding I131 exposure that literally say: don't eat milk. If you think your cow has eaten contaminated grass, wait 8 days to reduce your risks.

After each tests, I131 levels were below 2 percent in 3 months.

And I meant "don't drink milk"

>hurr I don't need no fancy cawlege degree you dag gum city slickers!

V-2 doesn't have a large enough payload to carry a 1st gen nuke.

unironically