AH Challenge: Earliest Possible Nuclear Weapon
- Thread starter HueyLong
- Start date
burmafrd
Banned
Any way you look at it the resources and costs involved would have been daunting to any country. which means only a very determined leader would have been able to push it through. Obviously you are talking either Hitler or Stalin. Of those two Hitler is more likely since he did like his expensive toys. Stalin was usually a lot more pragmatic. Still, the resources necessary would have been a huge strain on Germany- something else would have had to have been stopped and that means either the Army or the Luftwaffe loses resources= not likely. As with Stalin, just do not see him wanting to spend the money either unless he thought someone else was trying as well. So its just possible if Hitler started something and Stalin found out, it is possible = but then again most of the scientists who could have made it happen were already gone from Germany by the late 30s, and Russia never really had many to begin with.
In a WW1 CP victory I'd think the MittelEuropa based around the KaisrerReich could gather the talent, physical resources and money to conceivably build a nuke before the US. But I'd think that in the 30s geopolitics was such that Europe, America and the rest of the world interacted. So the circumstances which promt the KaiserRiech to try to nuke up would also promt the US and others to have a go, and I doubt that the KR could get a nuke into action many months sooner than the US in those circumstances.
Hnau
Banned
A nuclear weapon by October 1944 with a pretty simple POD.
A German Empire after a wankish Great War would have the best chances to create a nuclear bomb the earliest. Nuclear science was Germany's forte until they started subjugating all of Europe's best scientists. Give them a reason to make a nuclear bomb and I bet it could be done by the late 1930s.
A German Empire after a wankish Great War would have the best chances to create a nuclear bomb the earliest. Nuclear science was Germany's forte until they started subjugating all of Europe's best scientists. Give them a reason to make a nuclear bomb and I bet it could be done by the late 1930s.
Firstly, technically a nuclear reactor isn't a weapon, it's just in this case powering one.
Secondly, nuclear bombs come first and then portable nuclear reactors as far as technological development goes.
I propose an addendum:
If you can get Marie Currie involved in this bomb project, you will get 10,000 cookies.
Thought it might help the discussion.
If you can get Marie Currie involved in this bomb project, you will get 10,000 cookies.
Thought it might help the discussion.
Sachyriel
Banned
Says who? A nuclear weapon can be a reactor. Heck, you can use a reactor as a mine if it's underground!
And no one says that nuclear bombs come first. In times of peace, we could have found nuclear reactors as a better thing than bombs, and discovered the bomb aspect much later.
Anyways, my suggestion is that the Germans build a giant nuclear mine under Stalingrad, retreat and send the city into a firery inferno, breaking morale and killing massive amounts of troops needed by the Soviets.
With this, the Empire of Japan races into Russia, breaking it's treaty in a desperate attempt to reach the German forces and recieve aid to fight the Americans. The Americans and other Allies send a large force to India, go north and reinforce the middle of the Soviet Union.
Stalin can barely stand this, has a heart attack and the Soviet Union begs for peace with the Reich. Hitler, satisfied he has beaten communism down enough to take care of it later, and basking in the love of the german people, decides, alright. But they have to get rid of the other Allies in the USSR, and let German and Japanese Commanders use their tactics.
<_< >_> could be a scary 2008...
Jasen777
Donor
I think it happened pretty fast in OTL. Only a country with the money, and just as importantly the geographical safety, of the U.S. can afford to dump the huge amount of resources on the project that the first development requires. Without a pre-1900 PoD, I can only see it pushed forward a few years, if a WWII analogue happens a bit earlier.
Other issue. Prior to reliable 4 engined monoplanes how do you deliver such a device?
I'll try, but I'll have to think awhile. Expect something later today.
Though in ASB land, I read a short story once where there was one in the crimean war, but it had little effect
That sounds like "Queen Victoria's Bomb", although that's a novel, not a short story. I believe it counts as secret history not AH though, as it postulates a bomb being built (and tested) in the 1850's, but then being suppressed as the Victorians thought such a thing was uncivilised.
However to get a significantly earlier bomb would itself require an early POD, as uranium metal wasn't isolated until 1841 - and U-235 wasn't discovered until 1935. To bring forward the date of the bomb by even as much as a decade you'd probably need a POD no later than 1900 and ideally no later than about 1850 or so. A WW1 nuke would require a POD so early that WW1 as we know it would probably be butterflied away.
To get the bomb much earlier, you need to push the discovery of chain reactions back. As that only happened in 1938 OTL. Correction, induced fission in 1938, chain reaction in 1939.
Given the state of nuclear labs, etc., I'd think the earliest possible would be 1933-4 when Leó Szilárd patented the theoretical concept of a chain reaction and actually tried it with Beryllium and Indium (why those, I have no clue). I suppose if he'd had some more support, he might have tried the classical radioactives including Uranium. Still, since he obviously had no idea what he was doing (Beryllium for crying out loud!?), I think it would be much longer before a feasible process was worked out. So pushing it forward by more than say a couple of years seems wildly unlikely too me.
Given the state of nuclear labs, etc., I'd think the earliest possible would be 1933-4 when Leó Szilárd patented the theoretical concept of a chain reaction and actually tried it with Beryllium and Indium (why those, I have no clue). I suppose if he'd had some more support, he might have tried the classical radioactives including Uranium. Still, since he obviously had no idea what he was doing (Beryllium for crying out loud!?), I think it would be much longer before a feasible process was worked out. So pushing it forward by more than say a couple of years seems wildly unlikely too me.
Taking the two dates together, if a chain reaction in 1939 gets a bomb in 1945 then a chain reaction theory in 1934 could get a bomb in 1940. That means that a Manhatten program has got to be initiated just about the time that governments were more worried about the state of their economies than leveling their enemies. Adolf Hitler might see it as a quick fix to Germany's foreign policy difficulties. I doubt that any one else will be interested in building one.
As for delivery, you are not only looking for a reliable 4 engined monoplane, but a big one at that. The Zeppelin is a bit of a non-starter; it is too slow and so be swamped by fighters. Also, can it fly high enough that it won't be hit by the shock wave from the bomb?
Hnau
Banned
That's a bit too simplistic. Are you postulating that a functioning nuclear chain reaction is discovered a short time after the chain reaction theory is discovered?
How about push the chain reaction theory back? Better than that, push the discovery of radioactivity back in history, as much as you can. That honor belongs to Henri Becquerel. All you need is potassium uranyl sulfate, photographic plates and black paper. Fox Talbot invented the calotype process in 1840, I believe in doing so created plates that could capture the negatives you needed for the experience. By 1848, someone studying phosphorence in uranium salts could discover radioactivity, the idea that a material can emit a ray that passes through materials.
After that, see what you can come up with...
Errr... but that's not going to help much. For some considerable time after the discovery of radioactivity, no one knew what was going on. Einstein didn't come up with E=mc^2 until special relativity in 1905, which was a development unrelated to radioactivity at all.
Let's back up a bit. Maxwell's equations were published together until 1884. Light as electromagnetic radiation wasn't predicted until 1865, and not experimentally demonstrated until 1887. Lorentz contractions are a consequence of Maxwell's equations, but not taken seriously.
Personally, I doubt that E=mc^2 could have realistically happened perceptibly earlier than it did. I think only the specific genius of Einstein allowed it to happen that early.
So, suppose you have 'radioactivity', Maxwell's equations, maybe even E=mc^2.
Your next problem is that the theory of what an atom was and looked like wasn't developed either. The electron wasn't discovered until 1897; JJ Thompson, its discoverer, thought the atom looked like a plum pudding with electrons studded through the body like fruit in a pudding. Rutherford's 'solar system' model was followed Bohr's model and then the Electron Cloud http://www.csmate.colostate.edu/cltw/cohortpages/viney/atomhistory.html
And we still have no clue as to what's going on in the center. Chadwick didn't discover the neutron until 1932.
You CAN'T have a theory of neutron chain reactions if you haven't discovered neutrons.
Really, there is a WHOLE lot of physics (let alone chemistry and engineering) that needs to be developed before an A-bomb is possible. You are NOT going to get it much earlier than OTL. One year, sure. Two, with some work. Three? needs a number of things to go just right. I think 4 or 5 years earlier requires either massive changes in the development or possibly ASBs.
Sorry.
Nuclear weapons are hard. They require large amounts of modern physics. Significant amounts of modernish math. Lots and lots modern chemistry and probalby industry. Lots of modern money.....