Tube Alloys and a British nuclear programme
- Thread starter Gunnarnz
- Start date
Abgrund, Yeah, but, name ONE country that's done it from scratch, alone, in under four years, to the amount of time between Tube alloys' start and the end of '45. Even the US took vast labor and resources expended and tons of TUBE ALLOY HELP to do it. And it took us more like 3 2/3 years; research started under a different name, earlier.
And, remember, you're pretty late in the war even IOTL.
And, the UK's economy was both smaller than ours and rather more occupied in other things like building and fighting.
Personally, BTW, I think we've been ungracious about acknowledging the amount of help we had.
And, remember, you're pretty late in the war even IOTL.
And, the UK's economy was both smaller than ours and rather more occupied in other things like building and fighting.
Personally, BTW, I think we've been ungracious about acknowledging the amount of help we had.
How many have tried to do it in that time frame? For most (if not all) the nations that have pursued nuclear weapons, there simply hasn't been that level of urgency. India, Pakistan, South Africa, China, France... most members of the nuclear club have had the luxury of time in which to develop that capability, and they've taken advantage of that. The states which may have felt some degree of pressure (Iran, North Korea) aren't exactly economic powerhouses to start with.
Wikipedia indicates that the Tube Alloys group started work in 1939, although it wasn't using that name then. According to the same site, France decided in the mid 1950s to acquire nuclear weapons, and tested their first in 1960. The time between 1955-1960 compares quite closely to that between 1939-1945. Granted France in the 1950s had less external security issues than the UK in the early 1940s, but it would be difficult to claim they were significantly wealthier or had a greater sense of urgency with respect to the programme. They also had internal security problems which would presumably have been less of an issue in the UK.
I agree that the UK economy was preoccupied with other things, which might mean they're unable to divert enough resources to a nuclear programme to finish it in a timely fashion. But it seems that there are ways to take shortcuts around some of the things that the US programme did - not using all methods of producing materials, using simpler designs, etc. Could those, with a moderate amount of good luck, shave enough off that the project becomes practical?
Well, Berlin is an extreme example fothe difficulties , given German radar I would say a standard Lancaster would have problems even against a coastal city.
You could possibly do a spoof raid using the rest of Bomber Command as the spoof but even that is not guarenteed to draw all the nightfighters, the loss of aircraft on Gardening missions shows that.
To be fair a Uranium gun type bomb should be within the British capabilities during the war, after all South Africa was able to build some in a few years too.
Nevertheless enriching the Uranium to the correct proportion will be a huge technical challenge, even with gaseous diffusion. The Uranium for the Little Boy bom, was enriched by several processes, first by thermal diffusion (0,7% to 2%), then by gaseous diffusion (2% to 23%) and finally using the Oak Ridge calutrons (23% to c90%). Going all the way from 0,7% to 90% U235 using only gaseous diffusion is theoretically possible, but the engineering and scientific challenges are going to be massive for this to happen in a timely manner. While the choice of gaseous diffusion, was a lucky one on paper, there is a huge difference between science on paper, small scale science in a laboratory and then large scale industrial production. Problems will inevitably arise at some point during the process, especially as Uranium hexafluoride is a highly corrosive material, whose properties where not well understood at the time.
Don't forget too that most gaseous diffusion plants today are only enriching urnaium to reach a 4% to 5% content of U235, which is sufficient for thermal nuclear reactors but not enough for a nuclear weapon.
It is also worth noting that gaseous diffusion requires a lot of energy, where will the energy come from in the context of a war economy where coal and electricity are rationned?
While I would not say that it would have been impossible for a combined British-Commonwealth effort to bear fruits, doing so would have been costly and meant that other parts of the war effort would have been affected.
The best bet is for a small scale independent programme to carry on during the war, looking at gaseous diffusion and building a small nuclear pile in Britain and in Canada. This would make Britain a nuclear power by 1947/8 instead of 1952 OTL.
Nevertheless enriching the Uranium to the correct proportion will be a huge technical challenge, even with gaseous diffusion. The Uranium for the Little Boy bom, was enriched by several processes, first by thermal diffusion (0,7% to 2%), then by gaseous diffusion (2% to 23%) and finally using the Oak Ridge calutrons (23% to c90%). Going all the way from 0,7% to 90% U235 using only gaseous diffusion is theoretically possible, but the engineering and scientific challenges are going to be massive for this to happen in a timely manner. While the choice of gaseous diffusion, was a lucky one on paper, there is a huge difference between science on paper, small scale science in a laboratory and then large scale industrial production. Problems will inevitably arise at some point during the process, especially as Uranium hexafluoride is a highly corrosive material, whose properties where not well understood at the time.
Don't forget too that most gaseous diffusion plants today are only enriching urnaium to reach a 4% to 5% content of U235, which is sufficient for thermal nuclear reactors but not enough for a nuclear weapon.
It is also worth noting that gaseous diffusion requires a lot of energy, where will the energy come from in the context of a war economy where coal and electricity are rationned?
While I would not say that it would have been impossible for a combined British-Commonwealth effort to bear fruits, doing so would have been costly and meant that other parts of the war effort would have been affected.
The best bet is for a small scale independent programme to carry on during the war, looking at gaseous diffusion and building a small nuclear pile in Britain and in Canada. This would make Britain a nuclear power by 1947/8 instead of 1952 OTL.
Which is why this thread is making the words "The Windscale Fire 1943" appear in my mind.
PMN1
Sounds like some more could have been done, especially in the Montreal group without the Americans doing so much to block their work. Could be that Groves was playing sabotage rather than any real fears about security. Although from what I've read I got the impression he was rather a big obstacle to the main Manhattan project because of his desire to keep the scientists in the dark as much as possible about what they were doing. Which given that the project was well penetrated by the Soviets and supporters proved rather pointless.
Steve
Which is why this thread is making the words "The Windscale Fire 1943" appear in my mind.
However it seems the reason Britain went the graphite route was because the US was blocking access to heavy water.
At least according to the link PMN1 posted.Steve
The UK could have developed a nuclear weapon first but as others have pointed out, at the time it was just scene as one of many so called "Wonder Projects." Unless the UK could put in some serious research and funding before the war starts then chances are drastically lowered. The UK was the front line. Any resources had to be devoted to defence, so any weapon the could change the war had to show promise by the fall of France or there about.
Of course you may have to figure away out of the UK trade pacts with the USA. A reason as to why the UK gave away most of it's secrets was because the UK knew it didn't have the resources to fight this war on it's own. It needed the USA on side and willing to fight. So improving infrastructure and resource extraction in the UK and it's colonies before war would be important.
Maybe and economic/arms race between France or Germany?
Of course you may have to figure away out of the UK trade pacts with the USA. A reason as to why the UK gave away most of it's secrets was because the UK knew it didn't have the resources to fight this war on it's own. It needed the USA on side and willing to fight. So improving infrastructure and resource extraction in the UK and it's colonies before war would be important.
Maybe and economic/arms race between France or Germany?
Which is why this thread is making the words "The Windscale Fire 1943" appear in my mind.
A garden of roses, promise you I did not
I know its wiki but was the pile pushed beyond what it was designed for?
If the UK isn't after tritium at this stage??
The Windscale facility was built to produce plutonium for the first British atom bomb. After the successful explosion of the atom bomb, the USA designed and exploded a thermonuclear bomb requiring tritium. Britain did not have any facility to produce tritium and decided to use the Windscale piles. Higher temperatures were needed and it was decided to reduce the size of cooling fins (totalling approximately 500,000 individual fins) of the aluminium cartridges containing the fuel. By pushing the first-generation design beyond its intended limits, the safety factor was reduced but tritium could be produced. After a first successful production run of tritium in Pile 1, the heat problem was presumed to be negligible and full-scale production began, but by raising the temperature of the reactor beyond the design specifications, the scientists had altered the normal distribution of heat in the core, causing "hot spots" to develop in Pile 1. These spikes of heat went unnoticed by the scientists because the thermocouples used to measure the core temperatures were positioned based on the original heat distribution design and were not measuring the hottest parts of the reactor, leading to falsely optimistic readings.
If the UK isn't after tritium at this stage??
The Windscale facility was built to produce plutonium for the first British atom bomb. After the successful explosion of the atom bomb, the USA designed and exploded a thermonuclear bomb requiring tritium. Britain did not have any facility to produce tritium and decided to use the Windscale piles. Higher temperatures were needed and it was decided to reduce the size of cooling fins (totalling approximately 500,000 individual fins) of the aluminium cartridges containing the fuel. By pushing the first-generation design beyond its intended limits, the safety factor was reduced but tritium could be produced. After a first successful production run of tritium in Pile 1, the heat problem was presumed to be negligible and full-scale production began, but by raising the temperature of the reactor beyond the design specifications, the scientists had altered the normal distribution of heat in the core, causing "hot spots" to develop in Pile 1. These spikes of heat went unnoticed by the scientists because the thermocouples used to measure the core temperatures were positioned based on the original heat distribution design and were not measuring the hottest parts of the reactor, leading to falsely optimistic readings.