WI: The British Created the First Atomic Bomb

[SirFez]

Leo Szilard patented the idea of the atomic bomb with an Admiralty patent which could be covered by the Official Secrets Act. What if the British government pursued development of atomic bombs before World War 2? Would they finish before the Americans? Do they even have the resources to finish before World War 2? How do you think they would use it against Nazi Germany if they did achieve it in say 1942?

[The Red]

You'd probably have to avert WW2 for this to happen, and even then Britain already was developing a much more cost effective WMD (vegetarian cattle cake anyone?) but Britain having the atomic bomb in 1942 is ASB anyway.

[BlondieBC]

While they might hid the patent, their is no way to hide the weapons program. And at any realistic prewar funding levels, the bomb will not be finished by the war, and once the war comes, funding will be cut. Where did you plan to build the massive labs and factories at?

IMO, much of the funding for this program would come from other defense programs and would make the UK even weaker entering WW2. The army would take the largest cuts, and the navy would take the smaller cuts.

[corditeman]

...I wondered if the CANDU idea of heavy water (deuterium oxide) moderation of natural uranium was a runner. Then I thought of using existing power-station cooling-towers to partially enrich cooling water by differential evaporation. The slightly-enriched water could have been transported to other power stations for concentration, with the final batch being concentrated to a high enough level for moderation. Slow, but easier on energy than the Norwegian system or the USN evaporators. The main part is administration and rail tankers.

So, no need for Capenhurst enrichment factory (the UK Oak Ridge) or for synthetic graphite production.

D2O is probably the most efficient moderator if you want to short-circuit enrichment of uranium hexafluoride and go the plutonium route to a fission bomb. And the UK certainly had the technical minds to do the job.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

You'd probably have to avert WW2 for this to happen, and even then Britain already was developing a much more cost effective WMD (vegetarian cattle cake anyone?) but Britain having the atomic bomb in 1942 is ASB anyway.

ANYONE with an abomb in 42 is close to asb without an early pod. Too much stuff happened right before the war to be able to speed things up by much more than a year.

Moreover, it was VERY expensive, both in terms of money and resources. Note that the soviets, with eveything short of the us blueprints, still took until 1949, four years after the us bomb.

[SirFez]

Ok, what if the British got funding from their allies? And when the Americans join the Allies, could they use British R&D to speed up creation of an atomic bomb? Would they be able to make one before, let's say the Normandy landings? Or Market Garden? Or the Allied invasion of Germany?

Edit: Hypothetically, if the Allies do gain a nuclear weapon (or two), what would they're most probable target be? Would they even use it?

[RamscoopRaider]

By expensive you could build 30,000 tanks for the cost of the program

[Hyperion]

It would probably be more practical to figure out a way to have the British ge the bomb within say two years of the US first setting off the Trinity test.

Behind the US but ahead of Russia, interesting butterflies, and in 1947 just in time for the Berlin Airlift.

[Genmotty]

IIRC about 80% of the entire Manhatten Project budget was spent on buying the land, and building the base at Los Alamos, the total cost for the bomb itself wasn't all that great in comparison.

This is why nations like Iran and North Korea can build atomic weapons, because the key problem is getting yourself set up with the staff to produce the enriched material, and developing the detonation method in the first place.


Arguably Britian was one of three nations that could have produced an atomic bomb within the war years, assuming that generally everything is much the same as it was. This is because Britian had the expertise, and had access to the materials and resources needed. What Britian didn't have, was serious political backing. This is why Tube Alloys had as small a budget as it did, and why later on the British effort was added to the American effort...because that's where the money was...¬.¬

Therefore, what you really need is a British version of the famour letter.

POD:
So instead of Szilard writing to the American president, have him write to Churchhill or King George with the warning, reminding either that London is within bombing range of Germany, and if the Germans have this weapon before Britian, then Britian cannot hope to prevail.

This sets seeds in motion.

Key point: Come 1940 with the Battle of Britian now being fought and the Blitz falling on London, you now have a very real threat, that was stated in that letter. Therefore you are going to have a frenzy of activity to 'get it done'.

Key point: Stalin wanted a second front in '42. Well the Brits can't exactly give Stalin that, but what they do know is that if they can get the weapon finished, they can use that instead, plus it puts Stalin in his place.


Really, that's the kind of thing it requires. What many people forget, or don't want to believe, is that the Manhatten Project doesn't represent a pinical of achievement. It simply represents when there is political backing to science, wonders get acomplished.

Another example is going to the moon.

Sure there are costs involved, but the biggest 'cost' is expertise. If you don't have that to begin with, that's when costs cost. If you do have it, its more a question of getting the people together then asking them what do they need and letting them get on with it.

[PhilKearny]

Thedelivery system would pose a bit of the problem. For the UK to have developed an airplane capable of lifting the bomb to a sufficient altitude and at a sufficient speed to survive the the trip and and the subsequent blast would have been difficult, particularly from an economic standpoint. (Incoming in 3, 2, 1....)

[Genmotty]

Thedelivery system would pose a bit of the problem. For the UK to have developed an airplane capable of lifting the bomb to a sufficient altitude and at a sufficient speed to survive the the trip and and the subsequent blast would have been difficult, particularly from an economic standpoint. (Incoming in 3, 2, 1....)

Very true. Tow a glider anybody?

I jest, but the point of the thread is not really about delivery, but could the British build a bomb in the first place.

[PhilKearny]

Thedelivery system would pose a bit of the problem. For the UK to have developed an airplane capable of lifting the bomb to a sufficient altitude and at a sufficient speed to survive the the trip and and the subsequent blast would have been difficult, particularly from an economic standpoint. (Incoming in 3, 2, 1....)Very true. Tow a glider anybody?

I jest, but the point of the thread is not really about delivery, but could the British build a bomb in the first place.If I read the question right, it is not "Could the British build a bomb?" but rather "What if the British had been able to?"

If the UK did build a bomb, it would be a white elephant with no way to deliver it. The bomb only would have been useful if it could have been delivered. If the UK had no way to deliver the bomb, it is just an expensive waste of resources.

[SirFez]

Why not manufactured the bomb to be the size and shape of an earthquake bomb? They could deploy it on an Avro Lancaster.

[Gunnarnz]

Another thing is that you don't have to deliver a bomb by air. The British could (and did) build miniature submarines that carried several tonnes of amatol as side-cargo. A similar design, perhaps with the bomb carried underneath, could be used against any target with a port. Yes, it would be more difficult and dangerous to deliver it; but it's not impossible.

[Alex1guy]

Is developing a plan capable of carrying the bomb really outside of British capacity?

[PhilKearny]

Is developing a plan capable of carrying the bomb really outside of British capacity?The short answer, though not palatable to many:

a) Technologically, no it is not beyond the capacity of the United Kingdom, even though they lacked the turbosupercharger technology of the United States.

b) Economically, probably it is, particularly if the United Kingdom was paying for the development of an atomic bomb.

[Gunnarnz]

b) Economically, probably it is, particularly if the United Kingdom was paying for the development of an atomic bomb.

That's the big problem - or one of them, anyway. I seem to recall that the B-29 programme cost just as much as the Manhattan project, if not more. While the Lancaster (and variants) can barely carry the weight required for an early atom bomb, they would struggle with the dimensions and would need at the very least a substantial redesign to carry a Fat Man-type weapon successfully. They also couldn't get high enough or fast enough to escape the blast, which is something of a problem as well.
Basically, if they want to get the crews back after delivering the weapon they need a new heavy bomber design, and that will cost a LOT. During the pressure of wartime, with a lot of other competing heavy bomber designs already in production, I doubt they can afford it.

[PMN1]

Well, having a British atomic bomb program would put a serious dent in what is said to be the main argument against Barnes Wallis' Victory bomber...that it could only carry one large bomb rather than lots of smaller ones to scatter round.

Of course, you've still go to develop and build the aircraft from scratch.........but its construction would make effective use of Vickers facilities that were building Wellingtons right to the end of the war as they couldn't build anything else without major re-tooling.

[Genmotty]

If I read the question right, it is not "Could the British build a bomb?" but rather "What if the British had been able to?"
Quite right. Thanks for correcting me.

-----------------------------------------------

Quite seriously, a towed glider is viable. The GAL had a weight capacity of about 7 tonnes. Fatman weighed about 5 tonnes IIRC. Therefore, you stick it on a towed glider, fly at night, high, with escort...

While your going to be 'inaccurate' once you cut the tow rope and dive for home. It's not beyond the brits to use radar to create an early form of triangulation and radar RC device to fly the gilder onto its target.

The key worry is it being shot down en route.

Given that near the end of the war the Allies controlled much of the air space over Germany and in the Pacific this is much less of a worry, then you might think at first.

It's completly plausible that the British can think of many clever solutions. Afterall why must Alternate History use the same methods as in our own. That smacks of shortsightedness.

[MarkA]

IIRC about 80% of the entire Manhatten Project budget was spent on buying the land, and building the base at Los Alamos, the total cost for the bomb itself wasn't all that great in comparison.

This is why nations like Iran and North Korea can build atomic weapons, because the key problem is getting yourself set up with the staff to produce the enriched material, and developing the detonation method in the first place.


Arguably Britian was one of three nations that could have produced an atomic bomb within the war years, assuming that generally everything is much the same as it was. This is because Britian had the expertise, and had access to the materials and resources needed. What Britian didn't have, was serious political backing. This is why Tube Alloys had as small a budget as it did, and why later on the British effort was added to the American effort...because that's where the money was...¬.¬

Therefore, what you really need is a British version of the famour letter.

POD:
So instead of Szilard writing to the American president, have him write to Churchhill or King George with the warning, reminding either that London is within bombing range of Germany, and if the Germans have this weapon before Britian, then Britian cannot hope to prevail.

This sets seeds in motion.

Key point: Come 1940 with the Battle of Britian now being fought and the Blitz falling on London, you now have a very real threat, that was stated in that letter. Therefore you are going to have a frenzy of activity to 'get it done'.

Key point: Stalin wanted a second front in '42. Well the Brits can't exactly give Stalin that, but what they do know is that if they can get the weapon finished, they can use that instead, plus it puts Stalin in his place.


Really, that's the kind of thing it requires. What many people forget, or don't want to believe, is that the Manhatten Project doesn't represent a pinical of achievement. It simply represents when there is political backing to science, wonders get acomplished.

Another example is going to the moon.

Sure there are costs involved, but the biggest 'cost' is expertise. If you don't have that to begin with, that's when costs cost. If you do have it, its more a question of getting the people together then asking them what do they need and letting them get on with it.

The British effort was added to the US program because Churchill gave over to the US everything the British had on the A Bomb - technical, theoretical - everything. It was the only reason the US was able to build the bomb in the first place.

[MarkA]

Quite right. Thanks for correcting me.

-----------------------------------------------

Quite seriously, a towed glider is viable. The GAL had a weight capacity of about 7 tonnes. Fatman weighed about 5 tonnes IIRC. Therefore, you stick it on a towed glider, fly at night, high, with escort...

While your going to be 'inaccurate' once you cut the tow rope and dive for home. It's not beyond the brits to use radar to create an early form of triangulation and radar RC device to fly the gilder onto its target.

The key worry is it being shot down en route.

Given that near the end of the war the Allies controlled much of the air space over Germany and in the Pacific this is much less of a worry, then you might think at first.

It's completly plausible that the British can think of many clever solutions. Afterall why must Alternate History use the same methods as in our own. That smacks of shortsightedness.

The Lancaster (modified) carried Tall Boy bombs that were as heavy as Fat Man.

[StevoJH]

Could an Avro Lincoln do the job? If more speed is required could Griffon engines be shoehorned into it? (Basically giving a proto-shackleton).

[The Oncoming Storm]

The Lancaster (modified) carried Tall Boy bombs that were as heavy as Fat Man.

And IIRC the Americans adapted the Tall Boy shackles for the A Bomb, so the Lancaster could have carried a nuclear bomb but it couldn't fly fast or high enough to avoid being caught in the blast.

Now if the situation had been desperate enough then perhaps there would have been enough volunteers for a suicide mission? I've read several accounts from Cold War bomber crews who said that they realised that if the attack order had ever come they would have been on a one way trip as there would have been nothing left to return to yet there were still prepared to carry out their mission.

[hipper]

The Lincon was a fairly simple development of the Lancaster it had the altitude and speed to drop an early A bomb.

I can't see any reason why a modified Lancaster would not do to drop an early British A bomb.

Cheers

[wietze]

I think it is within the technical capabilities of britain of both developing the bomb and appropriate transport for it. it would probably less costly than the manhattan project because i don't see them taking the multiple path approach (using mutiple ways of enrichment) the us did.

How long it would take would depend highly on how much support then would get, with only slightly more than otl i do see the soviets produce one before them. But with all out support it would be possible.

The soviets are the other problem, considering the fact that stalin probably knew more about tube alloys than most war cabinet members. If the british go further developing the bomb, the soviets will also get lots more info on how to build it, unless the brits get a lucky break and discover the nkvd spy ring. Which means they soviets will be able to build it soon after the brits

[Just Leo]

The Lincon was a fairly simple development of the Lancaster it had the altitude and speed to drop an early A bomb.

I can't see any reason why a modified Lancaster would not do to drop an early British A bomb.

Cheers

The RAF ordered Boeing Washingtons to expand on it's capabilities, OTL. I can't see any reason why they did that, keeping in mind the capabilities of a modified Lancaster.

[PMN1]

The RAF ordered Boeing Washingtons to expand on it's capabilities, OTL. I can't see any reason why they did that, keeping in mind the capabilities of a modified Lancaster.

As I understand it, Lincolns were considered vulnerable and the Washingtons were ordered as a stopgap until jet bombers entered service.

[Joyeux]

Now if the situation had been desperate enough then perhaps there would have been enough volunteers for a suicide mission? I've read several accounts from Cold War bomber crews who said that they realised that if the attack order had ever come they would have been on a one way trip as there would have been nothing left to return to yet there were still prepared to carry out their mission.

I don't know about you, but I would volunteer for a suicide mission if I knew it would end the war. Also, being a hero and going into the history books is nice.

[KillerT]

There were hundreds of chaps who volunteered for jobs they knew they probably wouldn't return from-choose any from Op Frankton, any commando, SOE, etc. Crewing the thing is no problem at all.

[PhilKearny]

I think it is within the technical capabilities of britain of both developing the bomb and appropriate transport for it. it would probably less costly than the manhattan project because i don't see them taking the multiple path approach (using mutiple ways of enrichment) the us did.

How long it would take would depend highly on how much support then would get, with only slightly more than otl i do see the soviets produce one before them. But with all out support it would be possible.

The soviets are the other problem, considering the fact that stalin probably knew more about tube alloys than most war cabinet members. If the british go further developing the bomb, the soviets will also get lots more info on how to build it, unless the brits get a lucky break and discover the nkvd spy ring. Which means they soviets will be able to build it soon after the britsI highlighted the key idea here.

If the United Kingdom does spend the resources to develop the atomic bomb on its own and a delivery system, then they would not have the resources to build other things. The result of such reallocation of resources could result in a far worse fate for the United Kingdom. While it is popular for folks to ignore these unintended consequences, these are real concern--resources are scarce and decisions have consequences, many of which are unanticipated.

[jayel]

Quite right. Thanks for correcting me.

-----------------------------------------------

Quite seriously, a towed glider is viable. The GAL had a weight capacity of about 7 tonnes. Fatman weighed about 5 tonnes IIRC. Therefore, you stick it on a towed glider, fly at night, high, with escort...

While your going to be 'inaccurate' once you cut the tow rope and dive for home. It's not beyond the brits to use radar to create an early form of triangulation and radar RC device to fly the gilder onto its target.

The key worry is it being shot down en route.

Given that near the end of the war the Allies controlled much of the air space over Germany and in the Pacific this is much less of a worry, then you might think at first.

It's completly plausible that the British can think of many clever solutions. Afterall why must Alternate History use the same methods as in our own. That smacks of shortsightedness.
and who is piloting the glider? one way mission anyone?

[BlondieBC]

I highlighted the key idea here.

If the United Kingdom does spend the resources to develop the atomic bomb on its own and a delivery system, then they would not have the resources to build other things. The result of such reallocation of resources could result in a far worse fate for the United Kingdom. While it is popular for folks to ignore these unintended consequences, these are real concern--resources are scarce and decisions have consequences, many of which are unanticipated.

Agreed.

Baring other butterflies that help the UK, the UK will be in much, much worse shape. Lets take two scenarios:

1) Starts in 1934, after patent is approved. The most likely place to find the money is the existing R&D budget for the military, and the second most likely is diverting resources from university hard science budgets. So for this part, a good way to simulate would be to delay the development of technology across the board by 2-4 years. Imagine the Battle of Britain fought with the 1937 radar network. Or the battle of the Atlantic fought with two year older sonar/radar. Another great place to find bright young minds is the teams breaking the German codes.

Now at some point the program goes from pure R&D to applied R&D. It will now need a lot more funding than the R&D can provide. So we are now looking at delaying canceling ship, tanks, and airplane budgets combined with fewer active regiments and squadrons. This is harder to model, but one scenario might be two weapons in late 1943 in exchange for a 10% reduction is size of UK military using that introduces equipment 1-4 years behind OTL. And once France falls, which will be even easier in this ATL, the UK likely defunds the Tube Alloy.

2) Some have suggested a latter start. So lets say a start after Munich. It is hard to see where the resources would come from and how the bomb could be completed before 1947. But lets say the decision was made, and for simplicity of modeling, it consumes 10% the military budget of Canada, which should be about the right order of magnitude. So in 1938, Canada uses its vast hydroelectric resources and uranium mines and people to start working on the bomb. Even with this huge commitment, the bomb is still after the war. The Allies are short 130,000 men and about 10% of the overall budget. Initially it would not be that bad, only losing a division. But for example, Canada produced 800,000 trucks, so what it only produces half as many? Someone is losing a lot of mobility, quite possibly the Russians. Ships = 400. Bomber command personnel = 1/6 of UK forces and even higher % of training bases. Hard to model exactly, but clearly the UK is net harmed.

[Astrodragon]

Its difficult to get an early start past the Dec 1939 experiment that showed viability of a fission device. Until then, no-one was keeping any of the science particulary secret, so any earlier discovery sets everyone off earlier (with rather unpredictable results!)

An earlier British bomb probaby requires concentrating on the Plute bomb only (the U-235 was the expensive one). That is easily within the UK/Commonwealth capability (much of the costs dont impact on existing programs). Ideally you need a PoD to start them off seriously as soon as its realized you only need kilos, not tonnes, of Plute for a vialble bomb.

Ready by 1945? Its by no means impossible, it requires some things to go right or better, but its certainly not ASB. A stronger comittment from Canada (maybe the UK agreeing to share the bomb with the Dominion early on) will help.

As to delivery, its a lot easier to make a small number of modified aircraft to carry the bomb than a whole class of them. Again, the resources were there - the British were looking later in the war at follow-ons to the Lancaster, this time they'd concentrate probably on modding a few and only doing one replacement class. Alternative Germany has lots of vulnerable ports. Even using a Lancaster, it isnt necessarily suicide. Its very dangerous, but with a good pilot you do have a chance. Paradropping the bomb would help a lot, of course...

[Astrodragon]

Agreed.

Baring other butterflies that help the UK, the UK will be in much, much worse shape. Lets take two scenarios:


Now at some point the program goes from pure R&D to applied R&D. It will now need a lot more funding than the R&D can provide. So we are now looking at delaying canceling ship, tanks, and airplane budgets combined with fewer active regiments and squadrons. This is harder to model, but one scenario might be two weapons in late 1943 in exchange for a 10% reduction is size of UK military using that introduces equipment 1-4 years behind OTL. And once France falls, which will be even easier in this ATL, the UK likely defunds the Tube Alloy.



You are completely misunderstanding the way money was being allocated to defence spending by the UK in the runup to WW2.
In general, spending was limited by what could be built by 1938. The resources required for a bomb dont overlap those used to build weapons. They do overlap with those used to build weapons plants, but the Uk was being rather active in that respect.

The nuclear scientists werent being employed in codebreaking, so thats another red herring. (a glow-in-the-dark herring? :p)

[BlondieBC]

You are completely misunderstanding the way money was being allocated to defence spending by the UK in the runup to WW2.
In general, spending was limited by what could be built by 1938. The resources required for a bomb dont overlap those used to build weapons. They do overlap with those used to build weapons plants, but the Uk was being rather active in that respect.

The nuclear scientists werent being employed in codebreaking, so thats another red herring. (a glow-in-the-dark herring? :p)

No, I was talking an early to mid 1930's start. Many of these bright and gifted math minds would have been diverted to the project. There are a limited number of people able to do the math for advance physics and a limited number of people able to do codebreaking. Many, if not most of the people in these two talent pools overlap. And even with a 1940 started, some of these will overlap, even though less than if started in 1935 due to education issues.

I simply don't buy you "all weapons built by 1938". Where did the weapons built in 1939 come from? Or the new weapons systems deployed in 1939, 40 or 41. Someone was working on the newer engines, newer tanks, newer air frames. How do you explain the 5 battleships of the KGV class, each started before 1938 and finished after 1939? Or the Illustrious class of CV?
Or the newer versions of the Spitfire?

If the UK does a major investment in the atomic bomb, these type of programs will be cancelled, delayed, or smaller production runs. And these cancellations will mean the UK does worse in WW2, not better.

[BlondieBC]

An earlier British bomb probaby requires concentrating on the Plute bomb only (the U-235 was the expensive one). That is easily within the UK/Commonwealth capability (much of the costs dont impact on existing programs). Ideally you need a PoD to start them off seriously as soon as its realized you only need kilos, not tonnes, of Plute for a vialble bomb.

Ready by 1945? Its by no means impossible, it requires some things to go right or better, but its certainly not ASB. A stronger comittment from Canada (maybe the UK agreeing to share the bomb with the Dominion early on) will help.




A paper documenting the discovery was prepared by the team and sent to the journal Physical Review in March 1941.[33] The paper was withdrawn before publication after the discovery that an isotope of the new element (plutonium-239) could undergo nuclear fission in a way that might be useful in an atomic bomb. Publication was delayed until a year after the end of World War II due to security concerns.[18]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium

So you are talking a mid 1941 project start unless you have the UK beginning an Uranium project much earlier, which will get into the delays in my other posts. The UK is going max effort in 1941 against the Nazi's, so what other programs did you plan to take the resources from? I just don't see the UK getting a bomb before the war ends IOTL, and the project will harm the UK in WW2 because the USA is not going to replace the UK lost resources devoted to this program. We are talking 10,000's of skilled men be they machinist, physicist, engineer, or other skill trades. And the impact of moving say engineers from airplane design and production will be felt almost immediately in lower production of airplanes and lower quality. The physicists moved from radar and sonar projects will also have an impact.

[Astrodragon]

No, I was talking an early to mid 1930's start. Many of these bright and gifted math minds would have been diverted to the project. There are a limited number of people able to do the math for advance physics and a limited number of people able to do codebreaking. Many, if not most of the people in these two talent pools overlap. And even with a 1940 started, some of these will overlap, even though less than if started in 1935 due to education issues.

I simply don't buy you "all weapons built by 1938". Where did the weapons built in 1939 come from? Or the new weapons systems deployed in 1939, 40 or 41. Someone was working on the newer engines, newer tanks, newer air frames. How do you explain the 5 battleships of the KGV class, each started before 1938 and finished after 1939? Or the Illustrious class of CV?
Or the newer versions of the Spitfire?

If the UK does a major investment in the atomic bomb, these type of programs will be cancelled, delayed, or smaller production runs. And these cancellations will mean the UK does worse in WW2, not better.

Any serious start by mid-30's requires a DRASTIC set of PoD's in nuclear research across the world, and would have massive effects on the start of WW2. Which is why it makes much more sense (for the idea suggested at the start) to look at events after December 1938/Jan 1939. Otherwise the worms are so much getting decanned as blasting their way out with high explosive....

[PhilKearny]

Precisely. Given the leaders of the UK realized at that point lacked the resources to make developing adequate aircraft in sufficient numbers forthe Fleet Air Arm and Coastal Command a top priority and instead relied on the unselfish generosity of the United States, I imagine the same leaders would choose not to devote resources to developing a bomb and a delivery system in late 1940 or 1941. The leaders of the UK would be more than smart enough to realize the inherent risk in trying to build an entirely new and untried type of weapon, particularly of which whose existence was only based on theories so new complicated that but a few people in the world new and understood them. This, after all, is a nation that views itself as a naval power but is cancelling battleships due to lack of resources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium

So you are talking a mid 1941 project start unless you have the UK beginning an Uranium project much earlier, which will get into the delays in my other posts. The UK is going max effort in 1941 against the Nazi's, so what other programs did you plan to take the resources from? I just don't see the UK getting a bomb before the war ends IOTL, and the project will harm the UK in WW2 because the USA is not going to replace the UK lost resources devoted to this program. We are talking 10,000's of skilled men be they machinist, physicist, engineer, or other skill trades. And the impact of moving say engineers from airplane design and production will be felt almost immediately in lower production of airplanes and lower quality. The physicists moved from radar and sonar projects will also have an impact.

[simonbp]

Setting the delivery system aside, I think the real question is: What do you consider British? ;)

While it would have perfectly plausible for the UK to design their own bomb (and they did in 1947), the practical difficultly is in actually making the fissile material. Both main methods (plutonium production and direct enrichment) require large amounts of land, very expensive raw materials, and huge amounts of electrial power. The latter is why both US production sites (Handford and Oak Ridge) were built next to hydroelectric dams in isolated areas.

It would be very difficult for Britain itself to supply the needed power, land, and material even before the war, much less during it. Canada, however, could easily supply all three, and was in fact the focus of OTL pre-1942 British nuclear development. So, if the UK had decided in the late 1930s to go full-bore on developing an atomic bomb, nearly all the build-up would actually have been in Canada, with the completed bombs being flown to the UK for actual usage.

[Peg Leg Pom]

No, I was talking an early to mid 1930's start. Many of these bright and gifted math minds would have been diverted to the project. There are a limited number of people able to do the math for advance physics and a limited number of people able to do codebreaking. Many, if not most of the people in these two talent pools overlap. And even with a 1940 started, some of these will overlap, even though less than if started in 1935 due to education issues.

Start an A Bomb project in 1935-6. You need a different Parliament to pull that off. This is the age of appeasement when Baldwin was resisting any proposals to rearm. That the country is just emerging from the Great depression doesn't help either. Yes it could probably have been within the technical abilities of Britain but there just wouldn't have been the political will to invest the time and money into what would seam at the time to be a science fiction dream.

[Simon]

Don't tell them? IIRC there are a number of budgets nowadays that aren't reported publicly such as the intelligence services or nuclear matters with funding for them being squirreled away in other department's lots. Back then I would of thought that government was likely to be much less open, hell even in the 60s they didn't bother to inform the Cabinet about Chevaline and that was back when a billion pounds was real money.

[BlondieBC]

Start an A Bomb project in 1935-6. You need a different Parliament to pull that off. This is the age of appeasement when Baldwin was resisting any proposals to rearm. That the country is just emerging from the Great depression doesn't help either. Yes it could probably have been within the technical abilities of Britain but there just wouldn't have been the political will to invest the time and money into what would seam at the time to be a science fiction dream.

Agreed it is a political issue, more than a technical issue. IMO, if the UK waits until WW2 starts to crash fund, it will not have a bomb before the war ends, nor a bomb before the USA has one. This is why I also looked at an earlier start date, that might allow enough of the basic research to be done and some applied research to allow the UK success before 1946. People have proposed the UK could go the Plutonium only route, but since the needed information on Plutonium was not found until 1942, one needs to at least move the isolation of Plutonium and probably Plutonium production to before France falls.

Any serious start by mid-30's requires a DRASTIC set of PoD's in nuclear research across the world, and would have massive effects on the start of WW2. Which is why it makes much more sense (for the idea suggested at the start) to look at events after December 1938/Jan 1939. Otherwise the worms are so much getting decanned as blasting their way out with high explosive....

I would categorize it as a very unlikely POD, more than drastic. The butterflies would be drastic once the information became public. There have been many odd military projects approved over the years such as the submarine that moves on the bottom of the bay, the Russian round ship, the German over sized guns of WW2, the French interwar cruiser/submarine combination, cold fusion, hot fusion, etc. Approving a project like this takes a similar "leap of faith" on some risky idea, and it would just happens that it worked.

Now for first pass on TL. By 1933, there was at least one important physicist who said a weapon could be made, but most disagreed. It was also an interesting energy source. The UK in 1934 forms a small team (less than a hundred) scientist and engineers to work on the basic physics under the official secrets act. They get good quality workers because jobs are hard to find in the 1930's. By 1937, the scientist have isolated plutonium, have a method for producing small quantities in a reactor lab, and understand it can be made into a bomb. You can then get the crash funding of the Plutonium only route, and have one before the end of WW2. This POD allows the UK to take the the cheaper Plutonium route and avoid the full $2 billion price tag the USA paid. All this POD really requires is Szilard gets the attention of one of the 10 most powerful leaders of the UK who champions the project. Now what I would find much harder to do is avoid negative side effects. IMO, at least 80% of the funding would come out of the existing military budget, so the largest impact is what is cancelled to free up the funding. Even if the UK spends 75% less than the USA, we are talking about a $400 million to $500 million budget hole in the defense budget.

IMO, January 1939 is too late for success. It would be a great TL to read, but it would be a TL about the UK under performing in WW2 due to less conventional resources.

[PMN1]

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq10.html

September 12, 1933 - Leo Szilard conceives the idea of using a chain reaction of neutron collisions with atomic nuclei to release energy. He also considers the possibility of using this to make bombs. This predates the discovery of fission by more than five years.

October 8, 1935 - The British War Office rejects Szilard's offer to turn over to them his patents of nuclear energy for free, an offer made to bring them under British secrecy laws.

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/biographies/bio_szilard-leo.htm

Could make an interesting change here.....