Delayed soviet nuke

Ok, we get a (mega)ton of "US nuke delayed" but what about if Soviet one is delayed for a few years? Some spies are caught, some Soviet scientists die.....

Effects on early Cold War? Korean War? Would US be willing to use nukes in Korea if they didn't have to feature in Soviet arsenal?
 
Effects on early Cold War? Korean War? Would US be willing to use nukes in Korea if they didn't have to feature in Soviet arsenal?

Truman wouldn't use the atomic bomb on Korea even if the Soviets didn't have their own atomic weapons. However, would Stalin still allow North Korea to invade South Korea if he didn't have the bomb? I'm inclined to think he would, but that's not my area of expertise.

A delay in the Soviet bomb probably also delays the US hydrogen bomb. Beyond that, I think it depends on how long it's delayed - if it's just a year or two I don't know if it would make that much difference in the long run.
 
No, no atomics used in Korea regardless of whether the USSR has them or not.

And yes Stalin is still likely to allow the North Korean invasion to proceed. It wasn't throught of as a risky operation at all. The US (Dean Rusk if I remember correctly) had just left South Korea out of a list of US interests (accidentally I think).
 
Ok, we get a (mega)ton of "US nuke delayed" but what about if Soviet one is delayed for a few years? Some spies are caught, some Soviet scientists die.....

Inetrestingly the Soviet's nuclear development was actually delayed by Stalin's insistence on using information from spies only. Scientists dying does little unless you kill off dozens, which is a rather unlikely occurence.
 
...if it's just a year or two I don't know if it would make that much difference in the long run.
If you could stretch it out to three that could possibly make the UK the world's second nuclear power. Don't think it would cause any major changes, other than giving the British government a bit of a confidence boost about still being a great power, but it amused me. :)
 
Top