If nuclear/atomic weapons did not function, would the United

>>3370934
>If nuclear/atomic weapons did not function, would the United States have gone to war with the Soviet Union after WWII?
Probably not. The fundamental logic of deterrence still works; it is not worth the time, energy, and trouble to defeat the USSR, and the USSR does not have the material capabilities to defeat the U.S. It raises costs, but atomic weapons don't actually do anything else. And a country that was unwilling to shitstomp places like Korea and Vietnam isn't going to have the stomach for an all out total war against the USSR unless their hands are forced in some manner.

>Who would have won?
In a total war? The U.S./NATO. They have far larger economies and manpower pools than the Warsaw Pact.

>Also, how long would it have taken for the US to beat Japan?
Hard to say. Olympic predicated a landing sometime in September and occupation of most of Japan by November, but then again, the plans they had for D-Day were wildly optimistic.

>but isn't it pretty much agreed upon that the main reason was to show the USSR that the USA is not to be fucked with?
No it is not.

>>3370958
>And a country that was unwilling to shitstomp places like Korea and Vietnam

It was unwilling to do so precisely because of MAD

>>3371007
MAD had not existed by Korea. You could make an argument applied to Vietnam, but the fear in Korea was escalation of normal, conventional conflict to a point that wasn't worth it for half of a shitty little peninsula.

>>3370958
>Olympic predicated a landing sometime in September and occupation of most of Japan by November
Top kek. Realistically they would need a year minimum, probably even more