[Maxwell]

Evil does not always have a fluffy cat in its lap.

America was at the peak of its popularity in the post war years, and the communists were not. The Americans eventually spun that influence into becoming the worlds central superpower (which is what Germany failed to achieve).  If they had listened to men like Patton and Macarthur, things could have certainly  gone the route of world conquest with few complaints.
Looking back, with the cold war and our current troubles in mind, marching on Moscow seems like the lesser of two evils.
 
If the Russians were in our position do you think they would have list such an advantage pass them by?
Considering how Stalin was, and how they eventually treated their neighbor states... me thinks not.

[TrashMan]

You point being? 

US conquering the world by military might is a DREAM.

[Mobius]

You point being? 

US conquering the world by military might is a DREAM.

They will never be able to suppress thousands of big and small insurgencies.

[Mefustae]

Looking back, with the cold war and our current troubles in mind, marching on Moscow seems like the lesser of two evils.

It may well have been, but I believe that may have miffed the Red Army a tad. I won't profess to have any detailed knowledge of how the mid-1945 armies of the Allies and Soviets matched up, but you're kind of undercutting the strength of the Soviet armed forces here. With Little Boy still two months off, those two titanic armies would have gone up against each other in totally conventional warfare at a scale not likely experienced by American forces up to that point. I certainly don't want to get into armchair general mode here (I hate those people!), but the Soviets weren't exactly going to just lay down and let the Allies waltz straight into Moscow.

I'm going to have to agree with TrashMan here: American global domination of the planet, even at the end of World War II, is just bullocks.

[TrashMan]

Le'ts not forget the russains had comisars - there was no retreat or surrender for the russian tropps.. Either they keep marching forward (and possibly get killed by the enemy) or they definately will get killed by a bullet in their back.

Plus their sheer numbers & the russian winter...

[Mefustae]

Le'ts not forget the russains had comisars - there was no retreat or surrender for the russian tropps.. Either they keep marching forward (and possibly get killed by the enemy) or they definately will get killed by a bullet in their back.

Plus their sheer numbers & the russian winter...

Exactly. Even if the Allies would have been able to break the momentum the Soviets had worked up, any incursion into Soviet territory would have been impossible without a heck of a lot of preparation. Logic would dictate that the Soviets, if pushed back, would do all they could to deny such preparation given the rather public knowledge of how far off the first Atomic bombs were at that point. There's just no way the Allies would have been able to take the Soviets down, let alone the rest of the planet.

Pure military wank, that's all it is.

[Maxwell]

Here we start presuming America and the allies who stuck with it could never be as ruthless as the Fascists or the communists... which IS the point.

The US had at made at least a dozen more bombs between Nagasaki and Joe 1.   Simple fact is there would be no getting stuck in Stalingrad for the winter when theres no longer a Stalingrad to be stuck in. The allies already had experience taking down japan in similar fashion (a nation who's warrior code made Jihad look like a joke).

When any dictator or Emperor would have been ramping up their military might for the endgame, the Americans stopped short and started talking about long term stability.  They threw together stuff like the Marshall plan and helped to establish the UN then NATO among other things.
This does not sound like a nation with a world domination policy.
Maybe they want to always have their way on major issues... but doesn't everyone?

[TrashMan]

But we're talkinga bout a "what if" scenario here. USA didn'0t have enough bombs to force all the world to surrender...

Hell, a dozen A-bombs isn't even enough for the HUGE country like Russia (and no ICBM's then either...you had to carry it with a bomber...)

[jr2]

  Well, if we're talking "what-if" scenarios (and completely missing the point, yeah, well, that's par for the course), then you're forgetting the one area where the US and Britain had complete superiority:  Air Power.  The Russians' only good planes were the ones they got from us.  (At that point, at least.)  True, they were darned good at reverse-engineering them, building them again except only half as good, and slapping a new label on them, but there you go:  US airpower pwns.  Oh, and let me see... hmm.  By 1955 we had 740 B-52s...  Hmm....

[TrashMan]

but only a few bombs...and the russian were manufacturing tanks like crazy..I bet they good a lot of anti-air veichels too.

[Mobius]

US airpower pwns.  Oh, and let me see... hmm.  By 1955 we had 740 B-52s...  Hmm....

Have you ever heard of the Mig-25? And its successor, the Mig-31?

[m]

Also, our factories were in full-out build mode.  We could have built as many nukes as we needed as soon as we needed them; along with the bombers to deliver them.

As far as insurgencies go... that's kind of my point.  If your civilians are armed, then you can never truly (at least not for a long, long time) conquer the nation.  You can uproot its government, but unless you show some strength and discourage insurgency (an area in which we have admittedly failed in Iraq), you will have troubles for quite a while.

So if you take away civilians' guns, any insurgency will pretty much be "I don't like you being here!  Go away or I'll hit you with a hoe!"

And that's not what we want in the US if someone (somehow) takes over.


As for MiG-25s, their engines burn out if they reach maximum speed... And it was only prototyped in '64; it entered service in '70, just 2 years before the F-15, which whips its A**.

And the MiG-31 sucks almost as badly; especially compared to the F-22 and F-35.    Even the Su-37 is nothing compared to the US's new aircraft.

And if Canada and Mexico attacked the US... here are the figures:

Canada: about 110,000 Military Personnel
Mexico: about 620,400 Military Personnel

USA: about 2.3 million Military Personnel

Figure it out.

-m

[karajorma]

I find "what-ifs" a pretty useless waste of time. Let me for instance point out that it's doubtful that the scientists behind the nuke would have built them for the totalitarian government the US would have needed to have been in order to use them for world domination.

It's doubtful that they would flee one totalitarian regime to go straight to another one. So why make the assumption America would have had the nuke in the first place?

[Mobius]

As for MiG-25s, their engines burn out if they reach maximum speed... And it was only prototyped in '64; it entered service in '70, just 2 years before the F-15, which whips its A**.

They were designed to intercept the Valkyirie(which was scrapped). No matter of what an F-15 is capable of, the Mig-31 was strong enough to neutralize all US bombers approaching Russia.

And the MiG-31 sucks almost as badly; especially compared to the F-22 and F-35.    Even the Su-37 is nothing compared to the US's new aircraft.

There wouldn't have been dogfights, just nuclear bombardments. The Mig-31 would have guaranteed a perfect protection from incoming bombers. And keep in mind that the other planes you mentioned are recent, too recent.

[Mefustae]

Here we start presuming America and the allies who stuck with it could never be as ruthless as the Fascists or the communists... which IS the point.

Not necessarily. Several people in the thread have mentioned the US "possessing the power to dominate the world" or claiming taking out the Soviets early would have prevented the Cold War. In such a case, the US would have maintained its righteous fury in going after them nasty commies, and it wouldn't have been too difficult to drum up the population against the Soviet threat without resorting to fascism.

The US had at made at least a dozen more bombs between Nagasaki and Joe 1.  Simple fact is there would be no getting stuck in Stalingrad for the winter when theres no longer a Stalingrad to be stuck in. The allies already had experience taking down japan in similar fashion (a nation who's warrior code made Jihad look like a joke).

Perhaps. Keep in mind that Little Boy was still two months off on VE Day, and relegating those early atomic bombs to Europe against the Soviets would have left the Pacific Theatre wide open. Regardless, the first bombs produced were both too small and too few in amount to really make a difference to a front as wide as what would be expected if US/Soviet aggression had started right then and there on VE Day (a fair assumption given the value of keeping the momentum of advance).

Also, our factories were in full-out build mode.  We could have built as many nukes as we needed as soon as we needed them; along with the bombers to deliver them.

There wasn't exactly a functioning production line for A-Bombs in 1945, and that's to say nothing of having to transport matierals to the front. The US industry on war-footing was a sight to behold, but that advantage was countered by that little puddle known as the Atlantic. The Soviets had no such obstacle.

Anyway, enough of this. I think we've established that there was quite a lot standing between the US and "world domination" after World War II.

[m]

As for MiG-25s, their engines burn out if they reach maximum speed... And it was only prototyped in '64; it entered service in '70, just 2 years before the F-15, which whips its A**.

They were designed to intercept the Valkyirie(which was scrapped). No matter of what an F-15 is capable of, the Mig-31 was strong enough to neutralize all US bombers approaching Russia.

And the MiG-31 sucks almost as badly; especially compared to the F-22 and F-35.    Even the Su-37 is nothing compared to the US's new aircraft.

There wouldn't have been dogfights, just nuclear bombardments. The Mig-31 would have guaranteed a perfect protection from incoming bombers. And keep in mind that the other planes you mentioned are recent, too recent.

Too recent? I wasn't the one who brought up a 1970's plane to counter the fact that the US had over 500 B-52's in service by '55.

-m

[TrashMan]

Russia had planes....hordes of em.. even if they sucked, the russian ordes would PWN you

[jr2]

Oh, rly?  How many did they have? 

[Mobius]

It's classified. Do you really think that public informations about air forces are 100% true? Come on...

Hey everyone! Do you know that this region of our country is more vulnerable? The air abse is poorly defended and there only are <insert number> <insert name of the fighter> defending it. Attack now!

Modern "superfighters" are 10 or so years old design. Do you really think that there's nothing else?

[Mars]

If the US and USSR had gone to war there really wouldn't have been a winning side.