Why didn't America unite the world under 1 flag in 1945 when it had nuke tech and no one else did?

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

NOW America wants hegemony. A bit too late for that. In hindsight, every country would have surrendered without a fight to America in 1945 after seeing Hiroshima. Japan is the hardest country to surrender, and Japan surrendered after bombed with nukes. America could have united the world under 1 flag for the first time in human history with a bloodless conquest, and chose not to. NOW America realizes it missed out on a one time opportunity. Now France has nukes, Britain has nukes, China has nukes, Russia has nukes.

 

[maithil]

Wow... what a deep thought. Very impressive.

 

[Corona]

America barely had 3 or 4 nukes at that time. And that too with a conventional aircraft delivery system.
It was big, it was spectacular, but it wasn't enough.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

America barely had 3 or 4 nukes at that time. And that too with a conventional aircraft delivery system.
It was big, it was spectacular, but it wasn't enough.

You mean American bombers could not reach Moscow without being shot down by Soviet air force fighter planes? I think a threat is more than enough. Stalin would have surrendered without a fight.

 

[Corona]

You mean American bombers could not reach Moscow without being shot down by Soviet air force fighter planes? I think a threat is more than enough. Stalin would have surrendered without a fight.

I don't think so, especially USSR. Japan was already broken and defeated when the bombs dropped. Japan was just being stubborn.
USSR on the other hand was still militarizing at an alarming rate when the war ended. The regular bomb production by all major Allies would've done more damage than a couple of nukes. Even if they dropped a nuke on a major Russian city there is still the enormous size of the country and its resources to deal with.

But you could say that the world was united to some extent at the end of WW2. UN went a long way to bring countries closer.

 

[FalconStar]

You mean American bombers could not reach Moscow without being shot down by Soviet air force fighter planes? I think a threat is more than enough. Stalin would have surrendered without a fight.

Japan lost the war way before Nukes were dropped. US did that to just show how powerful it was and they had to test their new weapon somewhere, so they dropped not one but two.

No body would have surrendered even with the Nuclear threat and even if some countries did USSR under Stalin was going to fight till the last man. That's what he did against the Germans, he sent his men even when they were being slaughtered by the Germans and when they won the war he killed all the people who were captured or sent them to Siberian camps as punishment for being captured. A man who can let his own men die and kill his own people would not care much if someone drops a bomb on them.

And if Nuclear threat really worked Vietnam would have surrendered, they didn't have Nukes and US almost dropped a bomb on them, but it was blocked by the President at the last minute and everyone knows how that turned out for the great US of A.

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

I don't think so, especially USSR. Japan was already broken and defeated when the bombs dropped. Japan was just being stubborn.
USSR on the other hand was still militarizing at an alarming rate when the war ended. The regular bomb production by all major Allies would've done more damage than a couple of nukes. Even if they dropped a nuke on a major Russian city there is still the enormous size of the country and its resources to deal with.

But you could say that the world was united to some extent at the end of WW2. UN went a long way to bring countries closer.

Nope. Stalin would have surrendered if America ordered USSR to disarm, surrender, and become a territory of United States governed by US laws. America had nuke technology, could make hundreds of nukes quickly. USSR didn't have nuke technology until 1949 when a couple of American Jews stole it and sent it to USSR.