DBWI: Los Alamos Survives

Perhaps you've heard of the U.S. project to develop an atomic bomb during World War Two. It (called the Manhattan Project) was at a New Mexico site called Los Alamos. However, just before taking the bomb to the test site, the facility was destroyed in what appears to have been an atomic blast, presumably from a premature detonation. (It is unclear how this could have happened, however, do to extensive safety precautions at the site). What would have happened if the bomb had not detonated, resulting in the survival of Los Alamos? Would the United States have used an atomic bomb in the war? How would this impact history?
 
Perhaps you've heard of the U.S. project to develop an atomic bomb during World War Two. It (called the Manhattan Project) was at a New Mexico site called Los Alamos. However, just before taking the bomb to the test site, the facility was destroyed in what appears to have been an atomic blast, presumably from a premature detonation. (It is unclear how this could have happened, however, do to extensive safety precautions at the site). What would have happened if the bomb had not detonated, resulting in the survival of Los Alamos? Would the United States have used an atomic bomb in the war? How would this impact history?

No, I don't think that Roosevelt would have used the Bombs in the war even if they were available before the war ended.

Nukes have never been used in war outside of tests, so I see no reason for this fact not to reflect in TTL.
 
No I don't think the USA would have used the bombs anyway. If the explosion in question and the calculations made of the weapon's effects are anything to go by then an atomic bomb in WW2 would have been devastating for the Axis powers already brutally damaged.

But the main reason I think they would never have used it is once the bomb is dropped on a civillian population, the cat is out the bag forever. We don't know for certain the number of casualties an attack of this kind would have if used on a city e.g Berlin or Tokyo but it's probably safe to assume that 30,000 could die at the absolute MINIMUM. They would have a hard time keeping something like that under wraps.

I'm probably mistaken here, but weren't they planning to sign a treaty actually banning the future development of all nuclear weapons to stop all information on their existence getting out to eager third parties, or am I just being too idealist here? But I suppose once they started the tests they decided it wasn't going to work.

When one person wants a bomb, another wants a bomb. They would have probably preferred to keep things under wraps.
 
Last edited:
I read the Manhattan Project Director's "De-Classified" notes last year when they were released. Now, all of the information about how to build a bomb was edited out, but General Groves' was of the opinion that Oppenheimer had set the bomb off deliberately. He has no proof of course, but his theory points to the fact that Oppenheimer had seen the firsthand effects of radiative poisoning and had decided to never let this cat out of the bag.
 
but his theory points to the fact that Oppenheimer had seen the firsthand effects of radiative poisoning and had decided to never let this cat out of the bag.
I'm probably mistaken here, but weren't they planning to sign a treaty actually banning the future development of all nuclear weapons to stop all information on their existence getting out to eager third parties, or am I just being too idealist here? But I suppose once they started the tests they decided it wasn't going to work.

When one person wants a bomb, another wants a bomb. They would have probably preferred to keep things under wraps.

Problem is the Explosion itself was enuff to let everyone knew that it was possible.
True it took till the late 70's for a second Bomb to be built, but the advances in Technology, meant that it cost only 250,000 man Years instead of the 750 ~800,000 man years the US had invested at the time of the Explosion.
No, I don't think that Roosevelt would have used the Bombs in the war even if they were available before the war ended.

Nukes have never been used in war outside of tests, so I see no reason for this fact not to reflect in TTL.
I tend to disagree, while the delay due to the Novembre Hurricane in Okinawa, lead to the Allies losing only 50,000 men when they invaded Tokyo Bay in Operation Coronet. Instead of Kyushu in Operation Olympic
But with out that delay their estimates were for 120~200,000 causalities.

I believe that if whe had used the Bomb and forced a surrender in Octobre 1945, whe would not have had the American Holocaust, with 15~20 million [There never has been a finally tally] Japanese killed in the Fire bombing and by Starving.
Those pictures of Starving Children in the Refugee camps will haunt the US for Generations to Come.
 
But how do you know for sure that the Japanese would have even surrended? The tragedy of the American Holocaust is proof that the Japanese would have literally fought to the last man if they could. They were beaten even long before the invasion but still refused to give up.

My grandfather took part in Operation Coronet. He remembered the absolute fanaticism on the Japanese soldier's faces. He watched as his men attacked a Japanese camp, ending with it being clearly outnumbered and surrounded. It's troops continued to fight to the death, forcing his British comrades to burn it to the ground. Civilians were killed in the attack, the soldiers who burnt it down had to live with what they did. I shudder to think of the guilt a pilot would have had to live with had he dropped a monster like that on a civilian target.

I'm sceptical whether the Japanese, after seeing what happened in the land invasion would have given up had a nuke been used. Of course had the damage of been fatal enough, the Government may have accepted surrender. But I reckon it would have had to have been bombed two or three or even several times before they even considered the idea and the USA wouldn't have had a huge supply of the things. We may still have needed to invade but with the added horror of radiation and fallout to contend with. A million more Japanese could have died.
 

King Thomas

Banned
Maybe the Soviets would not have invaded and turned half of Japan into the communist hellhole, as bad as North Korea, that it is today. We were lucky that we managed to take control of the other half.
 
maybe if people had seen the damage the nukes could have caused in the second world war they would not have been used in the third, and half the world would not be radiated right now as i type this from my secluded village in the central yukon mountains...
 
maybe if people had seen the damage the nukes could have caused in the second world war they would not have been used in the third, and half the world would not be radiated right now as i type this from my secluded village in the central yukon mountains...
OOC: Is someone channeling Straha?
 
Hmm, I was told that no nukes were used? I hope that man didn't sell me a house in a nuclear fallout zone. No wonder it was so cheap :confused:


But still the wars happened. I'm not willing to say that if each side armed themselves to the teeth any of these wars would have been avoided. Too much like the pro-gun lobby to me claiming all guns = no crime.

Whats a pillar of hellfire to you if you have a cozy nuclear proof bunker in the mountains with the rest of your millionaire and government buddies?
 
Top