English A-bomb

[Fenwick]

I was thinking about this for awhile, and I was curious if England had the ability to create the worlds first atomic bomb. They had the scientists, the resources, and even the will to use it. Could they have pulled it off?

[Floid]

Originally Posted by Fenwick

I was thinking about this for awhile, and I was curious if England had the ability to create the worlds first atomic bomb. They had the scientists, the resources, and even the will to use it. Could they have pulled it off?

The UK started the world's first atomic bomb program, which later turned in to the Manhattan Project; they had to stop it due to WW2 though and handed over information and control to the US.

[nemo1986]

maybe before the war but the window was short. after WW2 started all the money was sent to just keeping the Nazis out of Britain and defending themselves. they sent everything they had in britain about the A-bomb to the US for safekeeping should Britain fall.

[Fenwick]

Right but I am talking about WI they tried to finish it all.

[nemo1986]

Originally Posted by Fenwick

Right but I am talking about WI they tried to finish it all.

maybe. maybe not. it depends on if they can get the project finished before the nazi disrupt it by sabotage or stealing the data. but its possible.

[carlton_bach]

I think for Britain to develop its own atomic bomb, you'd need to have no WWII, or maybe a very different one. The British had considerable brainpower, a good research lead on most competitors, and an interest. However, absent the huge resources of America's dormant industrial potential, its treasury, and its administrative muscle(1), it would take much longer than the Manhattan Project. The NNFMRL was a flyspeck in comparison. But if they only had to contend with a German programme (which was pitiful), I think they could win it. Someone with a better grasp of the administrative and financial burden involved - would 1949/50 be reasonable?

1) It is not unreasonably to say that while PhDs developed the nuclear science and rocketry, MBAs put the bomb on Hiroshima and a man on the moon.

[Thande]

Originally Posted by Floid

The UK started the world's first atomic bomb program, which later turned in to the Manhattan Project; they had to stop it due to WW2 though and handed over information and control to the US.

...who then proceeded never to give it back

The Tube Alloys project, as it was called, was quite advanced, but the problem was that the war meant we couldn't devote enough resources to it. OTOH if there hadn't been a war then it might not have been financed in the first place...catch-22.

I think it might end up being built in Canada or Australia if we were going to do the whole massive-industrial approach that the Americans used rather than the less dramatic one we used in OTL (which was simply to replicate a bomb which we already knew worked).

[Brandonazz]

Might America not be so powerful as today? It depends on how and when britain used it. If they used it on Hamburg, Munich or some other German city to force a Nazi surrender or coup, we might be looking at a slightly sooner end to WW2 in Europe. If they accomplished this, how would the war in the Pacific would have ended? Rather than D-Day and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it could be the invasion of Japan and the bombings of Munich and Hamburg

[Mike Stearns]

I think the Brits could have done it, most likely before the war, in which case, I don't think that there'd be a war.

[Brandonazz]

Maybe we get a far more generous US at the outset of the war, so the British are able to use their money to fund their own nuclear program, rather than pour every last ounce of it into keeping the Germans out. With a more generous US, the war might go a little faster as is, and the A-Bombs might still end up being used in the pacific. That is, if the British are feeling generous when the Americans tell them of the gruesome casualty prediction of their invasion of Japan.

[Mike Stearns]

Originally Posted by Brandonazz

Maybe we get a far more generous US at the outset of the war, so the British are able to use their money to fund their own nuclear program, rather than pour every last ounce of it into keeping the Germans out. With a more generous US, the war might go a little faster as is, and the A-Bombs might still end up being used in the pacific. That is, if the British are feeling generous when the Americans tell them of the gruesome casualty prediction of their invasion of Japan.

I could see where the Germans simply decide not to touch the Brits because of the Bomb.

[Brandonazz]

Originally Posted by Mike Stearns

I could see where the Germans simply decide not to touch the Brits because of the Bomb.

They would develop the bomb so late that the war would have progressed in at least a similar way (Euro front) to OTL, and the germans would find out the hard way that nuclear weaponry hurts too late.

[Mike Stearns]

Originally Posted by Brandonazz

They would develop the bomb so late that the war would have progressed in at least a similar way (Euro front) to OTL, and the germans would find out the hard way that nuclear weaponry hurts too late.

Well, I think it would depend how advanced their research is when the war starts, I think. If the Brits are ready to test a bomb in 1939, then Germans may well leave them alone, whereas if they are still a year or two away from producing a functioning weapon, they yes the war may progress as it did in OTL.

[Brandonazz]

Might we end up looking at a cold war where Britain and USSR are leading players then, or will the USA eventually get the technology and produce them far beyond Britain? Might American industry be producing bombs exclusively for the British?

[Ofaloaf]

Originally Posted by nemo1986

maybe before the war but the window was short. after WW2 started all the money was sent to just keeping the Nazis out of Britain and defending themselves. they sent everything they had in britain about the A-bomb to the US for safekeeping should Britain fall.

Maybe if the French had been able to hold off the Germans for longer, then Britain might've been able to have enough funds and security for such a project on home ground?

[Thande]

Originally Posted by Brandonazz

Might we end up looking at a cold war where Britain and USSR are leading players then, or will the USA eventually get the technology and produce them far beyond Britain? Might American industry be producing bombs exclusively for the British?

I don't think the quantity of nuclear weapons involved is an issue before the 1960s at least. Merely the fact that you possess them.

[Brandonazz]

I don't think the quantity of nuclear weapons involved is an issue before the 1960s at least. Merely the fact that you possess them.

True. I mean, Russia had enough nuclear weapons to destroy earth several times, whereas destroying NATO would be enough Maybe they had something against single-celled organisms that might survive a complete nuclear holocaust and just wanted to be safe

[Karlos]

Interesting. If the british have the bomb before the war, what would Hitler do? He would try to get territories in the east but would have to avoid Poland. Maybe attack the USSR through Romania in 1940? It all may end up with a more succesfull Reich, ironically.

[Thande]

Originally Posted by Brandonazz

True. I mean, Russia had enough nuclear weapons to destroy earth several times, whereas destroying NATO would be enough Maybe they had something against single-celled organisms that might survive a complete nuclear holocaust and just wanted to be safe

I think the idea for both sides to ensure that no trace of the other's ideology would remain if the neutral states then proceeded to rise to dominate what was left of the Earth. Still crazy of course.

[Tizoc]

I think UK could be very likely in a scenario like this:

1939 - Germany attacks Poland, Poles hold longer - or rather are able to put a defensive line on San-Vistula-Narew; French start a full offensive against Germany and because of above factors Stalin decides to not stab Poland in the back. In the end there is a successful assassination attempt against Hitler and soon Germany asks for peace.

1942 - 1. Japan starts war against USA, UK, France and Holland
2. USSR starts communist crusade against "capitalistic pigs" -> war against Poland, possibly Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Finlandia, maybe Romania ans Turkey too... Of course UK and France go against USSR in this scenario.

The above wars will take about 2-3 years, I think - enough uncentive to build a nuke...