The USSR was responsible for roughly 6 million German deaths. Assuming you obtain 200,000 average deaths per nuclear detonation, you need 30 to match the destruction. The presence of jet interceptors means that some nuclear weapons will likely not get through, as well as possibly allowing the Germans to obtain a functional nuclear weapon themselves. That is definitely not achievable in 1945 whatsoever and probably not in 1946 either even with maximum nuclear production. The 25 million losses suffered by the USSR would require 125 weapons using the same calculation and they still won the war at that level of casualties.
To add to what Sherman said... You are looking at raw numbers. The biggest factor with the A bomb was the level of fear. No one was safe. The fact that there were only 17 bombs was not common knowledge. And even if it were, 17 cities destroyed in a flash... 17 cities that get the "Dresden" treatment, but with only ONE bomb... The fear would have been incredible...
As a dreamer of dreams and a travellin' man, I have chalked up many a mile.
Read dozens of books about heroes and crooks and I've learned much from both of their styles!
You're making a fallacy, pointing out important successes the Western Allies made while oversimplifying Soviet ones. As an example, I could say that the Soviets conquered half of Europe, accounted for 80% of German casualties not to mention Roumanian, Hungarian, and other Eastern European countries, and finally conquered Berlin, while all the Western allies did was throw bombs from the air, but it's obviously a fallacy.
Also, the Soviets were certainly not unarmed, badly trained, and incompetently led during the latter years of the war.
I don't think so. I am pointing out that the USA and Britain contributed more to various other things than the Russians... That doesn't mean they were more important, just more dynamic.
Originally Posted by apdst
The Supreme Court can't interpret The Constitution. They don't have that power.