Larry Gude
Strung Out
...an interesting conversation the other day lead to this;
Did we join in WWII in order to develop the bomb first?
Consider. Our laws require the federal gummint to provide for the common defense. We were never under any remotely credible threat of invasion by either Japan or Germany. Germany had already failed, by December 1941, to even win the air war over Great Britain, let alone invade, let alone invade successfully. That was 20 miles across the channel from ground Germany controlled. Crossing the Atlantic was so far beyond their capabilities, and potential capabilities, as to be pure fantasy. Japan's attack was designed to deter us from coming across the Pacific in force and stopping them, a task they knew we could do if we decided to. Their best hope was attacking Pearl and running, not invading let alone staying in Hawaii, not yet even a US state. Never mind invading the mainland.
So, as a practical matter, the government knew the common defense was provided for by the simple fact that the mainland was under ZERO threat even if we built not one more weapon and put in uniform not one more soldier than we had 12/7/41.
However, what COULD be a threat would be a super bomb. A one off type attack. Or several bombs. Well before Pearl Harbor, it was commonly accepted that nuclear weapons were possible in the not too distant future. THAT could be a serious threat to anyone, including us.
Now, it makes no sense to send 100,000 men to their deaths kicking the Japanese off of island after island in revenge for 2,000 killed at Peal, never mind the million or more wounded or the cost. But, they did attack us so, fighting was at least justifiable and, of course, the public wouldn't be capable of thinking in terms of what the cost may well end up being.
As for Germany, they were fighting communism far more than any threat to our way of life, let alone the US itself. They couldn't even, didn't even want to, defeat England. So, spending 300,000 US lives and millions more wounded to save communism didn't make much sense.
However, again, the public, when Hitler declared war on us, couldn't be expected to think in terms of the cost to us let alone laughing off the threat as impossible for Hitler to carry out.
Unless he had the bomb.
So, in defense of FDR, something I never do, did he and his folks sit down and think;
"We're safe and sound from ANYONES convention military. We're safe and sound from EVERYONES conventional military. The real threat here is nuclear weapons. If Germany or Japan or Stalin come up with it first, that is the real risk to the US."
They probably did. Did they then, naturally, move on to;
"OK, we can't spend the money to build THE bomb unless the people are on board and they will not be on board unless we're at war and taking losses and come to believe and support the war effort which, naturally, will lead to accepting spending the money on making nuclear weapons"
Maybe this sounds obvious, but, I've never heard it expressed that clearly. We're always fed the bs that Japan and Germany not only could have but would have invaded the US so, we HAD to fight. We're always fed the crap about fighting for freedom when all we did was make the world safe for communism over fascism. However, if we say we HAD to get the bomb first because, otherwise, we truly would then be at risk, that makes a lot more sense to me.
Thoughts?
Did we join in WWII in order to develop the bomb first?
Consider. Our laws require the federal gummint to provide for the common defense. We were never under any remotely credible threat of invasion by either Japan or Germany. Germany had already failed, by December 1941, to even win the air war over Great Britain, let alone invade, let alone invade successfully. That was 20 miles across the channel from ground Germany controlled. Crossing the Atlantic was so far beyond their capabilities, and potential capabilities, as to be pure fantasy. Japan's attack was designed to deter us from coming across the Pacific in force and stopping them, a task they knew we could do if we decided to. Their best hope was attacking Pearl and running, not invading let alone staying in Hawaii, not yet even a US state. Never mind invading the mainland.
So, as a practical matter, the government knew the common defense was provided for by the simple fact that the mainland was under ZERO threat even if we built not one more weapon and put in uniform not one more soldier than we had 12/7/41.
However, what COULD be a threat would be a super bomb. A one off type attack. Or several bombs. Well before Pearl Harbor, it was commonly accepted that nuclear weapons were possible in the not too distant future. THAT could be a serious threat to anyone, including us.
Now, it makes no sense to send 100,000 men to their deaths kicking the Japanese off of island after island in revenge for 2,000 killed at Peal, never mind the million or more wounded or the cost. But, they did attack us so, fighting was at least justifiable and, of course, the public wouldn't be capable of thinking in terms of what the cost may well end up being.
As for Germany, they were fighting communism far more than any threat to our way of life, let alone the US itself. They couldn't even, didn't even want to, defeat England. So, spending 300,000 US lives and millions more wounded to save communism didn't make much sense.
However, again, the public, when Hitler declared war on us, couldn't be expected to think in terms of the cost to us let alone laughing off the threat as impossible for Hitler to carry out.
Unless he had the bomb.
So, in defense of FDR, something I never do, did he and his folks sit down and think;
"We're safe and sound from ANYONES convention military. We're safe and sound from EVERYONES conventional military. The real threat here is nuclear weapons. If Germany or Japan or Stalin come up with it first, that is the real risk to the US."
They probably did. Did they then, naturally, move on to;
"OK, we can't spend the money to build THE bomb unless the people are on board and they will not be on board unless we're at war and taking losses and come to believe and support the war effort which, naturally, will lead to accepting spending the money on making nuclear weapons"
Maybe this sounds obvious, but, I've never heard it expressed that clearly. We're always fed the bs that Japan and Germany not only could have but would have invaded the US so, we HAD to fight. We're always fed the crap about fighting for freedom when all we did was make the world safe for communism over fascism. However, if we say we HAD to get the bomb first because, otherwise, we truly would then be at risk, that makes a lot more sense to me.
Thoughts?
