So What If We Never Built The Bomb...?

[SteyrAUG]

What if there was no Manhattan Project, what if there was no Einstein letter in 1939. The German efforts to develop a bomb were not successful after two significant attempts.

Let us assume we had to go forward with the invasion of Japan (Operation Olympic and Operation Coronet) which would have been costly in men and material. It is reasonable to assume Stalin would have invaded the Hokkaido islands from the north resulting in a partitioned Japan similar to Korea. The war in the Pacific may not have ended until 1946 or even 1947.

So if World War II ended without the US building "the bomb" there would have been nothing for Klaus Fuchs to give to the Russians and it is unlikely they could have developed a successful atomic program with captured German scientists.

The US would still be capable of putting together a team capable of producing the results of the Manhattan project, but given the cost of the war and the removal of the threat of an "atomic Nazi Germany" (which was the primary motivator in 1939) would the US is unlikely to have done it in a post war environment.

The Cold War was inevitable as soon as the iron curtain fell across eastern Europe. But without "atomic bombers" to hold over each others heads we might have simply settled into acceptable "spheres of influence." Likely everything would have hinged on Berlin, and without the bomb Stalin may have simply rolled in tanks and there would have been little we could do.

Given the above, what do you think the 1950s, 60s and 70s would have been like? Would there be a flashpoint significant enough to get us into the bomb building business?

[NWPilgrim]

Don't know about the rest of the world, but without the bomb I would not be here. Dad was a Marine in the first three waves of every landing he was in, including Guam and Okinawa. He was in preparation for landing in Japan at the time of surrender. Very few of the first couple hundred thousand would have survived.

Back in WWII they did not have one year tours. You fought a battle, rotate out yo rest and refit and cycle back in until you die, get seriously wounded or the war ends. So a LOT of guys would have died trying to subdue the main islands.

Other than ending the war in the Pacific I am not sure that the atomic bomb accomplished much for anyone. The Soviets took over several countries during the Cold War, which was not so cold for the Czechs, Hungarians, etc. not so sure the Soviets would have invaded Western Europe had we not had the Bomb. It did nothing to help us in Korea or Vietnam, or Iraq or Afghanistan.

[Trajan]

The Cold War really started in 1918 when we along with the Allies went into Russia during their civil war.

Without the bomb, had we have gotten into a shooting conflict with the Soviets, we most likely would have lost.

Then again, the Germans really only lost because they had to fight a two front war. Had the North African campaign not occurred, they could have won that. Had we not sent supplies to the Soviets, the Germans could have also won.

[montanadave]

Don't know about the rest of the world, but without the bomb I would not be here.

Ditto. My dad was sitting on a PT boat in Manila Bay staging for the invasion. I doubt his survival odds would have been too good.

As for not developing a nuclear weapon, I think it would have been a matter of when, not if, and who, if not us. The scientific knowledge was out there; the eggheads knew they could make it work. And since when have we not done something, sooner or later, once we figured out it was possible?

If anything, the atomic bombs at the conclusion of WWII provided the world with a demonstration of what we might seriously want to avoid doing again anytime soon and provided the rationale for MAD during the cold war. If we hadn't used them then, somebody probably would have used them later with far more serious consequences for the U.S.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Who knows?

[MountainRaven]

I believe one of the arguments made against the deployment of American nukes is that they actually did not achieve anything. In effect, Japan would have surrendered the the US sooner than be subjugated by the Soviets (something the Japanese genuinely feared, especially after the Soviet's month-long blitzkrieg that liberated all of Manchuria).

Further, without the threat of atomic annihilation it is possible that the Cold War would have been a very, very hot one. You may note, for instance, that maps of Europe and Asia changed greatly in the first half of the 20th Century (as they had throughout history) and almost not at all in the second half (something more unique in history, perhaps last seen during the days of the Mongol and Roman empires). Instead of fighting the Soviets through intermediaries in backwaters like Vietnam and Afghanistan, it may have been fought in Germany and France, Korea, China, and Japan.

[uffdaphil]

I wonder if Uncle Joe might not have taken advantage of our logistical and troop commitments for a Japan invasion by going after territory far from where we were invested. Some feints toward western Europe while driving to the Persian Gulf or Med for his warm water ports and/or oil. He had just seen Hitler's two-front folly. The lesson may have made him reluctant to risk his western gains for far east dreams.

What would our occupation of Japan be like after a long, bitter campaign digging civilians out of their hidey-holes? I doubt we would be in the mood to help them modernize. Without their manufacturing innovations and competitive pressure 2014 might more resemble 1980. And if V-J Day came not with sudden relief, but with the foul taste of massive casualties and visions of GIs fighting civilians, would we have ever fought in Korea or Viet Nam?

Significant enough flash points to initiate a crash bomb program? I think it inevitable as the tech progresses and Commie adventurism is not sufficiently threatened.



Harry Turtledove is my go to guy for alternate history. Hoping to see one where OPEC never formed, V8's only competition was V10,12,16 etc., and no one imagined Rap, texting, or an income tax.

[BoringGuy45]

If there had been no bomb? Our final number of dead in World War II would probably have exceeded over a million as we fought to take Japan. After that, we probably we would be years behind where we are in now space exploration and communication network, as gaining a foothold in space would have been less of a priority. We wouldn't have nearly as many satellites and probably wouldn't have gone to the moon. We probably would not have the level of technology in computers and there's a good chance that the internet would be, as of 2014, in its infancy if not in existence at all. With no MAD, we would have gotten into World War III with the Soviet Union, possibly starting as early as Korea.

[jpmuscle]

Rocky IV probably wouldn't have been as good.


Sorry, couldn't resist. But in all honesty someone would had eventually gotten the bomb irrespective of our initial scientific spearheading efforts.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

[Todd00000]

I believe one of the arguments made against the deployment of American nukes is that they actually did not achieve anything. In effect, Japan would have surrendered the the US sooner than be subjugated by the Soviets (something the Japanese genuinely feared, especially after the Soviet's month-long blitzkrieg that liberated all of Manchuria).

Further, without the threat of atomic annihilation it is possible that the Cold War would have been a very, very hot one. You may note, for instance, that maps of Europe and Asia changed greatly in the first half of the 20th Century (as they had throughout history) and almost not at all in the second half (something more unique in history, perhaps last seen during the days of the Mongol and Roman empires). Instead of fighting the Soviets through intermediaries in backwaters like Vietnam and Afghanistan, it may have been fought in Germany and France, Korea, China, and Japan.

This is possible, but when you look at the history of the project and who all was behind it we still would have built the bombs maybe just not as quickly.

[Todd00000]

I believe one of the arguments made against the deployment of American nukes is that they actually did not achieve anything. In effect, Japan would have surrendered the the US sooner than be subjugated by the Soviets (something the Japanese genuinely feared, especially after the Soviet's month-long blitzkrieg that liberated all of Manchuria).

Further, without the threat of atomic annihilation it is possible that the Cold War would have been a very, very hot one. You may note, for instance, that maps of Europe and Asia changed greatly in the first half of the 20th Century (as they had throughout history) and almost not at all in the second half (something more unique in history, perhaps last seen during the days of the Mongol and Roman empires). Instead of fighting the Soviets through intermediaries in backwaters like Vietnam and Afghanistan, it may have been fought in Germany and France, Korea, China, and Japan.

This is possible, but when you look at the history of the project and who all was behind it we still would have built the bombs maybe just not as quickly.