Help support TMP

"What if nuclear weapons were never invented?" Topic

16 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please be courteous toward your fellow TMP members.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Modern What-If Message Board

Areas of Interest


Featured Hobby News Article

Featured Recent Link

Featured Ruleset

Featured Profile Article

Scenario Ideas from The Third World War

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian harvests scenario ideas from The Third World War.

Current Poll

1,581 hits since 2 Jul 2018
©1994-2023 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP02 Jul 2018 9:17 p.m. PST

Interesting question…



skipper John03 Jul 2018 5:46 a.m. PST

I think we would STILL be fighting Japan!

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP03 Jul 2018 6:03 a.m. PST

Yep …

TNE230003 Jul 2018 6:33 a.m. PST

operation downfall


Allen5703 Jul 2018 7:09 a.m. PST

No nukes would be great. I remember "duck and cover" as a kid in school. SAM and AAA batteries in the parks. As a preteen coming to the realization that we could all be dead in a matter of minutes. Now I look at North Korea, Russia, and our president and some of the old chills come back.

Without nukes would chemical and bio weapons have stepped in to take their place? That might be worse.

Allen5703 Jul 2018 7:14 a.m. PST

Still fighting Japan? Don't think so. Attrition, exhaustion, industrial shortages would have ended the war. Perhaps in a negotiated peace without Japan losing face as they would from a surrender. Even so the Pacific would certainly be a different place.

TMPWargamerabbit03 Jul 2018 8:15 a.m. PST

Soviet army in Paris for an official holiday during the late 1940's after the Americans returned home.

goragrad03 Jul 2018 8:18 a.m. PST

Indeed, Japan was making overtures before the bomb – all that really stood in the way was the Unconditional Surrender demand.

pzivh43 Supporting Member of TMP03 Jul 2018 11:24 a.m. PST

I doubt the overtures were sincere. Too much face to lose. Conventional invasion with horrendous casualties on both sides.

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP03 Jul 2018 2:06 p.m. PST

I remember the "duck & cover" drills too waaay back then.

And pzivh43, I agree … It was the only way to save not only Allied lives but many Japanese lives, as well, in the long run …

goragrad03 Jul 2018 9:12 p.m. PST

Massacring the populations of cities to encourage the surrender of other cities or even kingdoms/countries has a long history of success.

And is a very pragmatic method of reducing casualties.

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP04 Jul 2018 7:32 a.m. PST

Sadly … all true …

Notice … seems there have been no World Wars after the use of Nukes. Maybe just a very good unintended consequence. As WWIII might really have been the "war to end all wars" … and much of humanity as well.

After WWII wars have been smaller and localized … e.g. Korea, Vietnam, the series of Arab-Israeli Wars, etc. etc., …

Zookie08 Jul 2018 5:02 p.m. PST

Hard to say because no nukes does not mean no weapons of mass destruction. Even with no nukes what the USSR and USA could have done do each other with biological and chemical weapons was almost as scary. As far as Japan is concerned the US may have justified the use of biological and chemical weapons based Japanese actions in China.

I don't think that Soviets aggression post WWII was only stopped by US atomic weapons. Neither side was in a position to wage an offensive war. The Allies could not have overcome the numerical superior of the Soviets and the Soviets would not have made it far after lead lease would be ended, they did not have the logistics to push into France (IMO).

Come 1950 NATO and the USSR could have clashed with a possible hope of victory but it is hard to say what kind of deterrent long range rockets with nerve agents would be.

Either way I don't think either side would have taken that conflict lightly.

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP09 Jul 2018 6:39 a.m. PST

Chem and Bio weapons are not always easy to use/deploy/dispense. Temperature, wind, weather, etc. considerations. And they generally are not as quick or lethal as Nucs. And Nucs are much more deadly in killing very, very, high numbers, very quickly … for better or worst … We all know this.

But those that are effected by chem or bio generally will not die an easy death, per se, e.g. Syria's use of Chem weapons today.

Man is the most efficient mass killer on the planet as we know. frown

Balthazar Marduk26 Nov 2018 10:45 a.m. PST

If chemical and biological weapons weren't used in significant amounts in the majority of major wars since WW1, I have my doubts they would be used in WW3.

Personal logo Legion 4 Supporting Member of TMP26 Nov 2018 3:43 p.m. PST

And again, generally chem & bio are harder to deploy and could also be weather dependent in some cases …

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.