Nazi nukes

What if the world was made of pudding?

>>290316
What if the world wasn't made of pudding?

>>290288
Unless they made the bomb in 1943 or earlier, no

They did but didn't use them. The US used the captured bombs against japan

>>290288

No. Look up the Farm Hall transcripts: The guys who were on the German atomic program were universally of the opinion that if they did get a bomb, America would just nuke them back ten times as hard.

Even if they solved the physics questions, you still have underlying problems with manufacture and delivery of an a-bomb, and there's no single target in range that would knock out the Allied war effort.

>>290339

Which is of course why Heisenberg couldn't even get a self-sustaining reaction going, putting them at least 2 and a half years behind the American efforts.

>>290288

When in World War 2?

By the time 1945 rolled around they had no airforce to deliver it in anymore. They could have shot it in a rocket I guess, but those things hade like 30% success rate so if you've only got ONE that's a waste of an A-bomb.

I'd say that >>290327

is right. In 1943 they could still have deployed it. With a lot of planning, so to in 1944 but their targets would have been diminished by then. What would they nuke? Moscow I guess, but unless they do it in January of 1944, Moscow is a far away target.

In 1944 they could still have deployed it against Britain. Had this happened, and the Brits had sued for peace then they would have avoided further bombing by the brits which would have helped. But would it be enough?

>protip
No, unless the brits gave them all their oil.

>>290353

The americans gave the Manhattan project almost endless resources.
Germany did not have that luxuary, considering they had the Eastern Front to worry about and their factories were continuously being bombed.

>>290368
I say before operation Barbarosa

>>290368

Even if they do develop it in 1943, they don't have a bomber capable of delivering something the size of the Fat Man, which means the development of a 4 engined bomber and trying to get it through air inferiority on either front.

And suppose they do. 1st generation nukes only had a 20 psi air blast radius of less than a kilometer. You're not going to obliterate Moscow or London with something like that. Make a big dent, sure. Kill a lot of people, sure. But wreck the city? No. Destroy the nation? No.

You're going to need a lot of nukes and consistently deliver them to accomplish that, and the Nazi state, even at the furthest extent, just didn't have a lot of access to uranium, which limits their ability to manufacture the weapons.

>>290378

Well, I'm not disputing it. But the assertion that the Germans actually had nukes and that the Americans snapped them up is completely unsupported by evidence.

>>290401

Anyone who believes that knows very little about the dire situation the Axis were in.

File: overhead.jpg (12KB, 582x386px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 582x386px

>>290417


This anon>>290339 claims that the Germans had nuclear weapons but didn't use them.

There is 0 evidence for this. There is considerable evidence against it, namely that Germany never historically accomplished several steps that were necessary to even get the practicalities of bomb building down, like getting a self-sustaining nuclear reactor going which could both give them hands on experience with fission reactions as well as produce plutonium.


The fact that they were being bombed and had less resources to work with and other priorities is yes, a part of how they got there, but it doesn't change the fundamental conclusion: The Germans almost certainly had no bomb or even a working theory as to how to build a bomb, and that therefore the assertion that the Americans captured either German bombs themselves or German knowledge to build a bomb is idiotic: The Americans were further along in nuclear physics than the Germans were.

>>290288
When, how, how many, can they keep making them, do they have a means of delivery, and how are they dealing with America making her own bombs faster and in larger numbers due to a superior scientific and industrial base?

Remember that the Manhattan project was basically funded with the leftovers of the war budget. If Hitler actually got the bomb then it would be getting a LOT more money and attention.

>>290438

I suspect that Anon might be joking.. Which is why I paid him no heed.

Also, nothing goes over my head. My reflexes are to fast.

>>290492
I don't care if it's memetastic, I love that movie.

>>290492

I'm less sure: I've seen a lot of people claiming similar things, that Paperclip brought over nuclear knowledge, that there is evidence of nuclear waste near Essen that "proves" the efficacy of a German atomic program, etc.


There's even this book by one Rainer Karlsch that tries to make the claim, although I have not read it and it got terribly panned by reviewers; but it does go to show that there are quite a few people who take the idea seriously.

>>290564
The only thing sillier than thinking the Germans had the bomb is thinking that the Japanese had the bomb.

>>290288
even if they somehow managed to make a bomb, they would have no way to deliver it anywhere of importance.
no strategic bombers like the B-29, no deal.

>>290288
If they had nuked Britain they could've gotten them out of the war, but I highly doubt Hitler would ever authorize nuking his pure Germanic Anglo-Saxon brethren. Hitler probably wouldn't have cared about nuking Moscow or something similar, but I doubt even that would be enough to get the Soviets out of the war.

Even if Hitler wanted to nuke the US, he's never be able to get a bomber to US soil in order to drop one.

Essentially, I don't think it'd change much other than even more Soviet butthurt leading to even most horrible Ostfront massacres from both sides.

>>292339
That isn't an argument, just an assertion.

>>293769
please provide proofs that the japanese were working on a nuclear weapon.

>>290564
/x/ is that way
<----