AHC: Plausible Third World War, without the invention of nuclear weaponss

How can we get a scenario where we end up with three world wars without the atom bomb being used in the second one? Perhaps FDR doesn't fund the project, the idea is shelved, the US starves Japan into submission, and the USSR invades from the north? Maybe then in the 1950s a hardliner like Beria or Molotov succeeds Stalin, and decides to export the revolution to Western Europe? Nuclear weapons CAN be used, however, if they are deployed as per OTL (towards the end of the war), just in the Third war and not the Second
Edit: Fixed it.
 
Last edited:
If the USA doesn't fund Manhattan, Britain will have a nuke by 1946/47

Best way to get a Japanese surrender is to have a political shakeup and have an advisor suggest they let the Japanese keep the emperor, or have the Japanese not get insanely lucky in the opening phase and get victory disease

Actual having a third war difficult, the USSR is in no shape for one until the 50's, and got hurt bad in the last one and will lack any way of hurting the US, they won't start one, neither will the west

OTL there was no nuke used in the First World war by the way, oh yea and Beria was not really a hard liner, on everything but security he would have liberalized
 
:confused: I said one was used where?

How can we get a scenario where we end up with three world wars without the atom bomb being used in the first one? Perhaps FDR doesn't fund the project, the idea is shelved, the US starves Japan into submission, and the USSR invades from the north? Maybe then in the 1950s a hardliner like Beria or Molotov succeeds Stalin, and decides to export the revolution to Western Europe? Nuclear weapons CAN be used, however, if they are deployed as per OTL (towards the end of the war), just in the Third war and not the Second

Here is where :rolleyes:
 
How can we get a scenario where we end up with three world wars without the atom bomb being used in the first one? Perhaps FDR doesn't fund the project, the idea is shelved, the US starves Japan into submission, and the USSR invades from the north? Maybe then in the 1950s a hardliner like Beria or Molotov succeeds Stalin, and decides to export the revolution to Western Europe? Nuclear weapons CAN be used, however, if they are deployed as per OTL (towards the end of the war), just in the Third war and not the Second




WWI breaks out Earlier; this butterflies WWII around and makes a non-nuclear war in the 60s possible.


With a PoD pre-1914, it's easy to imagine an alt-WWI breaking out.
 
If you want to stick close to OTL in the big events, kill off Arthur Jeffrey Dempster and F. W. Aston before or in the great war. Without their contributions to the mass spectrometer it's quite possible that U235 won't be discovered for quite a while longer (Dempster also discovered U235 BTW, so eliminating him is a double-whammy to any potential nuclear project ITL). Of course, without the Manhatten Project, the Americans will probably do even better up until they have a go at Operation Downfall.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War

Have the Sino-Indian war spiral out of control The us and its ally's send aid and men to the Indians, the soviet union and its ally's sends volenteer's and advisors to the Chinese. Lots of countries are involved but the war stays localised enough to advoid breaking out the nukes.

There world war 3 with out nukes.
 
How can we get a scenario where we end up with three world wars without the atom bomb being used in the first one? Perhaps FDR doesn't fund the project, the idea is shelved, the US starves Japan into submission, and the USSR invades from the north? Maybe then in the 1950s a hardliner like Beria or Molotov succeeds Stalin, and decides to export the revolution to Western Europe? Nuclear weapons CAN be used, however, if they are deployed as per OTL (towards the end of the war), just in the Third war and not the Second

Beria, a hardliner? Like hell he was. Oh sure he was an effective head of security and was certainly brutal, but he was definitely the most moderate communist in the inner circle, especially in regards to economics (Which is why he'll never, ever be able to take power) Molotov was also fairly moderate compared to Stalin, pretty close to Khrushchev's level in terms of foreign policy and economics.
 
WW1: Same as OTL except Russia collapses early, allowing Germany to fight to a standstill and then cease-fire. Brest-Litovsk happens, humiliates Russians.

WW2: Sino/Soviet-Japanese War in late 20s or early thirties, Soviet agitation in Ukraine and the general Ostland regions governed by Germany leads to breakout of European conflict. US does not get involved, Japan is fought to a standstill, and Germany gives USSR the Imperial 1914 border, while agreeing to something similar to Versailles, perhaps less drastic. War ends in mid-thirties.

WW3: Germany, having been humiliated, gets a radical government that turns into a dictatorship in the 40s. Directing its energy toward a fast-rising USSR, Germany allies with Japan and plots to take back the gains of Brest-Litovsk and for Japan, to invade Nationalist China (which is friendly to USSR) while the USSR is distracted. This war begins in 1951. USA supports China and to a lesser extent the USSR.
 
Brest-Litovsk would have crippled Russia far too much to allow it to easily fight, much less win, a Second World War in the 1920s or 1930s. Most of its major coal, agricultural, and industrial regions in the Ukraine would be under German control, including the vital Donets Basin.
 

gridlocked

Banned
Why is this hard? People are afraid of nuclear weapons. Even when nations are in extremis like Israel in 1973 they have not been used. Do you think if America and China got into a war over the invasion of Taiwan today that America or China would start tossing nuclear bombs?

Using Nuclear Weapons is a political decision not a military one.

So My Scenario:

Fearing the election of Ronald Reagan, the Soviets decide 1980 is the best chance they will ever have to shift the correlation of forces in Europe (win in a surprise attack on NATO). They invade using their conventional superiority. Carter refuses to use Nuclear weapons and risk Armageddon. Thus NATO military planning is rendered useless by politicians refusal to risk their use.

Carter States that any use of nuclear weapons by the Soviets will mean a retaliation on Soviet territory. France threatens to use its nuclear weapons, but the Soviets call the French bluff. 6 months later, after a secret Ultimatum by the side that is getting the worst of it, a negotiated peace is made. By 1981 WWIII is over, and like the Cuban Missile Crisis scholars debate how close we actual came to a Nuclear Armageddon.

By the way I used Carter in this example, but Reagan hated nuclear weapons too. I have a hard time imagining most of our modern Presidents dropping the bomb short of alien invasion or a suicidal first strike by another power.

Edit: To take care of WW2, simply have the bombs ready too late, perhaps due to lack of lavish funding. Japan surrenders after the twin blows of a successful beachhead is established by America and Stalin then declaring war on Japan. Japan surrenders and 3 month later the bombs are ready.
 
Last edited:
Top