As in the title, have the Brits get nukes before the Indians get independence, with a POD no earlier than Jan 1st 1939.
AHC: Have the UK get nukes before Indian independence
- Thread starter Vylon Disigma
- Start date
The UK having nukes is not going to directly affect India at all. Why it has nukes might affect India, for example if the UK has them because it is a richer/more technologically advanced country then there might be some Indian consequences, but these consequences do not come from the UK possessing nukes and would occur whether or not the UK used its extra resources to build nuclear weapons earlier. So the answer is no effect at all.
but does Ghandi know that. Well do you think that it would substantialy effect the style of independance for example more/fewer indian countries. Also would arguments along the lines of: its better to have india "protected" by a nuclear deterant than not, have any sway at all?
FillyofDelphi
Banned
With that late of a POD? Not a snowball's chance of it affecting Indian independence. Have it earlier, and it might give London enough confidence in the concept of victory from the air alone (Or, at least, convince the Germans that they need to play nice with a Britain more keen to limit her revanchism to justified levels on the Continent) that you can butterfly away a 2nd World War and retain Franco-British military resources and faith in the concept and viability of Empire (tm), but by 1939 its too late.
Deleted member 94680
Britain having nuclear weapons before Indian independence will not affect the independence movement per se but the means by which they gain them might do.
The way I understand it, Britain would be incapable of acquiring nuclear weapons independently without American aid (direction?).
Is independence delayed compared to OTL and with WWII as OTL means Britain acquires nukes via ‘tube alloys’ and Los Alamos etc? In that case no affect at all, it’d be the affect of the delayed process as opposed to nukes themselves.
If nukes arrive earlier, what has led to their earlier appearance? Is Britain even OTL capable of this? How is the world different that leads to early British nuclear weapons?
More needed from the OP, maybe.
The way I understand it, Britain would be incapable of acquiring nuclear weapons independently without American aid (direction?).
Is independence delayed compared to OTL and with WWII as OTL means Britain acquires nukes via ‘tube alloys’ and Los Alamos etc? In that case no affect at all, it’d be the affect of the delayed process as opposed to nukes themselves.
If nukes arrive earlier, what has led to their earlier appearance? Is Britain even OTL capable of this? How is the world different that leads to early British nuclear weapons?
More needed from the OP, maybe.
Not exactly true - if you look at the MAUD report they'd made all of the correct guesses as to how to design and build a nuclear weapon at minimum risk and acceptable cost (uranium enrichment by gaseous diffusion and a double-gun type weapon - and ICI had built a lab scale enrichment plant).
The problem is that it's still a seriously expensive project - the UK can afford it (it's rather cheaper than the OTL Bomber Command, for instance) but won't want to spend the money. Maybe an extended Cold War in Europe against the Nazis rather than the OTL declaration of war in September? Indian Independence was coming anyway, but was substantially accelerated by Lord Linlithgow declaring war on behalf of India without consulting any Indians: in that sort of scenario the MAUD weapon might be rapidly accelerated but Indian Independence delayed enough by the lack of a war that the UK manage their first nuclear test shortly before India becomes independent.
The UK having nuclear weapons would essentially have no effect on the independence process however - India isn't seriously threatened by anybody at the time, and the UK wouldn't ever use the weapons on Indian cities to try to retain control.
CaliGuy
Banned
Simple--just have the U.S. give a few nukes to Britain before India becomes independent in 1947 in order to more effectively protect Britain against the Soviet threat.
yeah if the UK nuke them (basically unprovoked) i'm sure their would be a backlash.
The U.S. used it after getting bombed and they still got a hell of a lot of backlash over the result. Imagine the UK doing it just to keep a colony, how do you logically explain that. Not to mention you'd probably galvanise the rest of the country to go for independence.
Assuming a tory PM is the one nuking i can't imagine the opposition or even any cross bench members sitting idly by.
Either way, the sitting PM is cooked.
The U.S. used it after getting bombed and they still got a hell of a lot of backlash over the result. Imagine the UK doing it just to keep a colony, how do you logically explain that. Not to mention you'd probably galvanise the rest of the country to go for independence.
Assuming a tory PM is the one nuking i can't imagine the opposition or even any cross bench members sitting idly by.
Either way, the sitting PM is cooked.