So, the Germans would use early atomic weapons as battlefield tactical weapons? There's a million ways that could go wrong, and wouldn't impact the end of the war in the slightest, other than Germany getting first dibs on being nuked before Japan (and probably an all out Allied air assault on Germany with chemical weapons).
>So, the Germans would use early atomic weapons as battlefield tactical weapons?
Pre-Trinity, pre-Hiroshima most people had no idea what a nuclear weapon could do. You can tell a general twenty kilotons of TNT, but he isn't going to believe it until he sees it. See also: the Davy Crockett tactial nuke.
>There's a million ways that could go wrong,
Another thing that everyone knows, now. Remember, we used to do atmospheric testing of the things mere tens of miles from populated areas. https://imgur.com/gallery/8j0VRkn
My point was that the way the US delivered nuclear weapons to Japan and the delivery mechanisms upon which Cold War and contemporary nuclear arsenals are optimized, is not the sole way in which nuclear weapons can be used for effect.
Continuing our conversation, the fact that using nuclear weapons carries a risk of retaliation has defined geopolitics for seventy years and is what has given us the term Mutually Assured Destruction.
I am not certain that the US and UK would have been tremendously invested in retribution in 1945 had the Nazi's had used atomics against the Soviets in the East. This feeling is based on the shape of post war real-politik toward many former Nazi's despite the atrocities that were actually committed.
Finally, the implication that Allied fire bombing was somehow less ruthless than chemical weapons does not resonate with me. My take is that white phosphorous is simply easier to turn into a reliable stockpilable weapon than poison gas [particularly given changes in air pressure and temperature that bombs in a bomber undergoe]. It is my opinion that the Allies actual use of atomics speaks to the no holds barred nature of their bombing campaign.
