yes

alone it would have been a stalemate

nuke the fuck outta them

no nukes

they had 2

or USSR would have taken mainland europe

at worst

you cant just take out a variable in war

neither side can invade the other

we had nukes

we could use nukes

you fucking used them

on japs

no nukes left

we could easily make more

kek

@Rael we had enough material for like two or three in 45

it wasnt a fast process

it didnt pick up til the 50s

the nukes from the 40's were only good as a show of force

somewhat untrue i mean

as weapons they were kinda shit due to their expense and low amount

well they were pretty effective

well we also had a better military

and they would have to go thru siberia

they were effective but wouldnt win a war

no

you could knock out a whole lot of industry or administration

we could just bomb the railroads

they just werent tactical weapons

bomb moscow lel

actually macarthur's idea during the korean war was very smart

he wanted to bomb the mountain passes in manchuria

yeah it would be an easy win tbqhwy famalam

it was smart but set a dangerous precedent

basically destroy the method the chinese used to get troops into korea

plus, even if america had enough nukes to bomb a handful of cities in the soviet union, the manufacturing and industrial infrastructure was moved so deep into the soviet union that no contemporary bomber could have hit those cities

dangerously cheesy

geist is right

but they were already heavily damaged from fighting with germs

nukes arent a factor in a hypothetical us-soviet war in 45