Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesnmlaw
"If Hitler had nukes, or had them within his grasp, he would have expenses all resources to develop them and would have used them. The fact that he didn't proves that he didn't have them."
Interesting logic. Herr Schicklgruber had poison gas and didn't use that on enemy armies. Not that I'm defending the little goose-stepping *******.
|
I was told that the reason Hitler didn't use chemical weapons was that the Allies let it be known that they had stockpiles too and would retaliate in kind if Hitler used chemical weapons. The Allies actually did not have chemical weapons, but Hitler didn't know that. Also, there are logistical problems with chemical weapons. You can't just spray it at your opponent. You have to have an effective delivery device that kills the other side but keeps the gas away from you. When you think of it, it wouldn't have been very practical for the Germans to use chemical the way the war was fought. It would have been easier as the Germans retreated. They could have left gas bombs behind. But even then, what real good would they have done? They would have killed people in the immediate area but they wouldn't have done any strategic or even tactical good.
Nukes on the other hand are decisive. Drop one by bomb, put one in a rocket, load one onto an airplane - now you have a delivery device and a payload that will cause massive destruction behind the other guy's lines.
If Hitler had nukes he would have used them. He just didn't have them.