Best strategy for a nuclear campaign against Germany

[Jenisch]

Which would be the best way to inflict more destruction in Germany by a hypotetical nuclear bombardment? I was thinking that in order to maximize civilian casualities, two or more bombs should be dropped at the same target with an interval of time. For example, Berlin had almost 3 million inhabitants by mid-1945. The city would be nuked one time, then after some hours it would be nuked again, and perhaps again. By doing that, it would be possible to seriously affect the majority of the population? (short term radiation effects included).

Notes to the thread:

1) Let's keep the discussion within the effects of the bombs in the German cities. Let's not discuss trivialities such as what the LW could to intercept the B-29s, how the Germans could retaliate, etc.

2) It would be assumed that there would be 30 bombs equal to the Fat Man dropped in Nagasaki, and all would have to be used to create the largest destruction as possible.

3) At the start of the nuclear bombings, Germany is assumed to be at the same level of destruction by conventional bombing as it was by May 1945.

 

[Glider]

The best strategy would be not to use it.

 

[wuzak]

I would say drop several films of teh nuclear tests and address them to the German hierarchy (except, maybe, Hitler).

 

[tyrodtom]

Assuming they'd have 30 bombs availible is quite a stretch, in the real world they didn't have that many assembeled till around 1947.
And I see no benefit in using 3 on one target, or 2, that's just overkill, wasteful of resources.

I don't think anyone would believe anything just documented with film, too easy to pass off as fake. Sadly the only way to demonstrate a weapon with such a quantum leap in power was to use it as designed, otherwise no one would believe it existed.

By May of 45, there was nothing much left to use it on.

 

[stona]

Germany would almost certainly retaliate with nerve agents. They had them, tons of them, and we did not.

If that's an escalation that you think is worth risking you are a braver man than me.

Cheers

Steve

 

[VBF-13]

Which would be the best way to inflict more destruction in Germany by a hypotetical nuclear bombardment? I was thinking that in order to maximize civilian casualities, two or more bombs should be dropped at the same target with an interval of time. For example, Berlin had almost 3 million inhabitants by mid-1945. The city would be nuked one time, then after some hours it would be nuked again, and perhaps again. By doing that, it would be possible to seriously affect the majority of the population? (short term radiation effects included).

Yeah, I'd think so. Berlin I'd think was the highest civilian population center. Of course the War was over by then. But you want to kill civilian population Berlin I'd think is the biggest bang for your nuclear bombs.

 

[tyrodtom]

Berlin fell to the Russians on May 2nd.
I don't think it would be too good a idea to set a bomb off with them in the city.
May 45 is just too late for nukes to do anything useful in WW2 Europe.

 

[davebender]

I agree.

V-1 carried 850kg HE warhead. If Germany gets nuked then V-1s will carry 850kg of Tabun.

British government would be smart to oppose use of nuclear weapons in Europe. They are the ones who will suffer German retaliation, not USA.

 

[gumbyk]

What would the justification be for using nukes in Berlin in 1945?

Not a shortening of the war to 'save lives'
Not targeting military targets.

 

[VBF-13]

What would the justification be for using nukes in Berlin in 1945?

Not a shortening of the war to 'save lives'
Not targeting military targets.

Yeah, that's kind of what I was hinting at. Didn't seem I got the hint across, though.

 

[wuzak]

I agree.

V-1 carried 850kg HE warhead. If Germany gets nuked then V-1s will carry 850kg of Tabun.

British government would be smart to oppose use of nuclear weapons in Europe. They are the ones who will suffer German retaliation, not USA.

Hadn't V-1 launches been shut down by then? Or at least pushed back, out of range of the UK?

 

[DonL]

Indeed wuzak.

But I think the V2 is the weapon for retaliation and much more dangerous, because anything could intercept a V2/A4 and it carried a 1000kg warhead.

 

[VBF-13]

May I ask why we're even talking about needlessly killing civilians? If I'm out of line asking that, please understand, I sincerely don't get this.

 

[DonL]

That's a good question.
But you must ask the thread starter.

This issue (atomic bombs drop to germany) come up pretty regular, also on this forum.

We have discussed this issue more then one time and my very strict personal opinion is, that at 1945 the Allied had not droped a Nuke to Germany, because it was to risky, Germany wasn't defenseless through their tabun warheads in conjunction with the A4 and targets like GB and France in range.

Also to me it is pretty hard to understand why a very escalated war should be more escalated, but both sides did terror attacks on the civilian people of the other sides. Dresden for example wasn't necessary, it was pure terror for the civilians at the end of the war.

So nobody knows if the drop of a atomic bomb to a german city had lead to immediately surrender or a escalation and retaliation with A4's with tabun heads.
Many depends how closed is the german commanding structure at the time of the drop and how far Hitler and the commanding regime will go.

But I think the allied intelligence was highly aware of the possibiltys of the german retaliation with A4's with tabun heads, so nobody want to risk such a escalation.

 

[bob44]

Why would you want to target German civilians?
How about targeting military and industrial targets?

 

[tyrodtom]

Was any British population centers within the A4's range from German controlled territory as it was in May 45 ?
This is operational A4's, not almost developed A4s.
The same question for V1s ?

 

[VBF-13]

Thanks, Don. I guess the timing of these drops is what throws me. I mean we did have an unconditional surrender around then.

 

[altsym]

Its not like Germany is an Island in the middle of the sea of Japan, the US isn't stupid enough to use a Nuclear weapon on mainland Europa,
especially with the Russians to the east, prevailing winds, etc., not by a long shot.

IF Germany truly had deadly chemical agents capable to be used with V1/2's, its truly impressive they withheld there use, especially near the end.

I know this is a hypothetical thread, but I just cannot envision the use of Nukes in Europa.. real or not.

 

[DonL]

Was any British population centers within the A4's range from German controlled territory as it was in May 45 ?
This is operational A4's, not almost developed A4s.
The same question for V1s ?

Can you please give me a reason, why anybody should drop a atomic bomb to germany with the original occupation at May 1945?
Where do you want to drop it, without any danger to Allied troops (inclusive russian troops)?

The A4 had a range of 300km and 3000 were fired at 1944/45 (1400 to London).

Edit:

The bases for firering London were Den Haag

 

[gumbyk]

Its not like Germany is an Island in the middle of the sea of Japan, the US isn't stupid enough to use a Nuclear weapon on mainland Europa,
especially with the Russians to the east, prevailing winds, etc., not by a long shot.

The US tested nukes at White Sands, so why would they have any problem dropping one on mainland Europe?