How long can nuclear weapons be delayed?

Sir Chaos

Banned
Exactly what it says in the thread title... what is the latest plausible date up to which the development of nuclear weapons can be delayed?

I´m thinking that, had then nuclear physicists in Nazi service decided to take their research in a direction not prone to be weaponized, or agreed among themselves to keep the weapons potential of their research secret, because they did not want Hitler and his fellows to have such an awesome weapon, there would have been no Nazi nuclear bomb project.

Without a Nazi project trying to develop nuclear weapons, Leo Szilard will not write that letter to President Roosevelt, Einstein not sign it, and there will almost certainly be no Manhattan Project, and thus no US nuclear weapons.

Now, this sounds all fine and dandy (read the Protect and Survive timeline to see why), but what are the consequences? No Hiroshima and Nagasaki means WW2 in the Pacific ends in one of three ways - Japan is starved into surrender by blockade, Japan is firebombed down to bedrock, or Japan is invaded. Either way, lots and lots more Japanese die through starvation, ground combat or bombing - and in case of the invasion, a lot more Americans as well.

Then, once WW2 is over, no nuclear weapons means there is one less incentive for Stalin not to start WW3. In the worst case, WW3 kicks off in the late 40s or early 50s; in the best base, the Soviet have one less reason not to intervene in Korea. In any case, the Cold War might get uncomfortably warm - and then perhaps rumors that Stalin has begun a project to develop nuclear weapons drives Einstein to write a certain letter to President Truman...
 
I disagree with some of the points you make...

First of all, the letter may very well have been written either way. It came about only due to vague hints that Germany might be working on a bomb. If you read the letter, there were two clues: Germany ceasing the exportation of Czechoslovakian uranium, and Germany having duplicated some of America's work in uranium. That latter would've happened either way, even if the German scientists then get together and decide to hide the potential of their work. The former probably wouldn't have, but just the potential of a nuclear Germany would've been enough to make American scientists skittish.

And, if Szilard and Einstein hadn't sent the letter, someone else would've. They were brilliant, yes, but they weren't America's only brilliant physicists. What about Fermi, who had recently moved to the states? Oppenheimer had previously done some work in nuclear physics. There are British scientists that were talented in nuclear physics; the Manhattan Project could've started off as the Manchester Project and then would assuredly spread to the US shortly after.

So, at most, the Manhattan Project is only delayed by a bit. Say, a year or so before Westerners start to not only recognize the implications of their work but decide to act on it.

Your second point I disagree with is the way you think the Pacific War will turn out. The fact is, Japan surrendered far more as a result of the Soviet Union joining the war than they did because of the A-Bomb. The bomb helped persuade the leaders of Japan, yes. The war might've gone on a little longer than OTL, yes. But the instant that the USSR invaded Manchukuo, the war was over. It was just a matter of time for Japan to accept the Potsdam Proposal. At worst, they'll surrender when the USSR has either taken Japan's puppets in mainland China, or the instant Russians land on Japanese soil. This won't take particularly long. Japan doesn't want to surrender to the Allies. But they sure as fuck don't want to surrender to the USSR. They realize they'll get much better terms from the US.

Cold War may or may not go as you see it. I don't think the difference will be due to nukes—since they'll be developed at most a couple of years after OTL, anyway—but since their destructive potential has not been seen. The nuke's side effect as an area denial weapon isn't known. Its blast radius could be seen in tests or scientific estimates, but there's a big difference between some numbers on a chalkboard, and having pictures of Japanese children with their flesh boiled off. The former just allows it to be written off on paper as part of acceptable losses when doing the military planning. The latter provides an emotional appeal that you do not want to fuck with a nuclear power.

Now, if you really want it to take longer for the nuke to be developed, you're going to need to butterfly away a militant Germany. If the WAllies don't feel threatened by anyone in particular, there won't be an impetus to build the bomb. It'll still be done sooner or later, anyway, because of the USSR, but it won't be as early, nor will it receive OTL's level of funding.
 
Last edited:
Well, this question has been asked a few times before, and been discussed in detail repeatedly here. However, because I"m nice, I'll give you an answer as to my opinion.

First and foremost, Soviet nukes were developed as a result of research stolen from the manhattan project in the US and information gained from captured Nazi scientists. If the Germans never have a bomb program and manhattan never gets any kind of funding, it is entirely possible that Stalin never assigns resources in his wartorn country to develop a soviet weapon either. this is not to say that the Soviets couldn't have developed an A-bomb on their own, but the soviets took their lead from the American project, and the Americans started an A-bomb project because of the thread of NAzi nukes. So with no Nazi bomb program, then you get no US bomb program and by extension the Russians probably devote much needed resources toward military production or rebuilding their shattered country in stead.

Now with a POD such as this, your best candidate for the first possible A-bomb would be the British, their tube alloys program started before the war IIRC. So they have the most ground work laid down to produce the first bomb. However with their economy in the crapper and plenty of their own problems to deal with the British may defund the project in favor of dealing with some other problem, especially after the war. At the same time, they may be scared enough of the Russians to keep it going, especially if the US pulls too many troops out of Europe.

The butterflies for the war could be pretty big, as without tons of money and resources going to Manhattan, the US war effort could possibly produce additional numbers of some form of conventional weapons. Perhaps you see an earlier P-80 in the war, or perhaps more Pershing tanks, or maybe even the monstrous T-28 gets its day in the sun. Or maybe even the B-36 sees wartime service, although IIRC it was developed specifically for carrying nukes. This could in turn butterfly in a further east iron curtain, maybe even an independent Poland. This in turn leads to a weaker USSR and thus less need for a nuclear deterrent for the western allies to rely on. In the east it is most likely that Japan surrenders following the Soviet DOW on Japan much as it did OTL, they were more scared of Soviet occupation than American occupation, although the longer war in the east may result in harsher terms on Japan(the emperor being deposed amongst them).

It is entirely possible that the first A-bomb may not be developed for decades. You would need someone with the right influence to decide that an A-bomb has the potential to be an important weapon, which considering how military leaders can get enamored with certain ways of fighting a war may take a while. If nobody sees the potential of the A-bomb until late enough, the USSR may collapse before a bomb project completes, and then funding cuts could spell doom for the project, thus leading to no nukes even in the present day. However this is an unlikely scenario. In all likelihood, the longest nuke development can be delayed within reason is probably the 70's or 80's.

The thing about atom bombs is that to develop them takes lots of cash and resources by 1940's standards, and the only major power that had the ability to throw tons of cash and resources at an A-bomb project that also didn't have tons of other urgent places to spend it (like rebuilding roads and cities), was the US, and even then the manhattan project only got the priority it did due to fear that the nazi's would get nukes first. Combined with the fact that nobody realized just how big of a game changer the atom bomb was, but they did have an idea of just how effective things like better tanks, guns, and jets were, so it becomes quite easy for any fledgling nuke program to get the short end of the stick in favor of building a bigger bomber, or a more effective rifle.

As a side note, a possible conventional WWIII in the late forties may still result in an allied victory. This is heavily dependant on just how butterflies from no manhattan project effected things. Although public support for fighting a long drawn out war may not be there for the western allies, it may not be nessissary. As such a war will probably be decided within one or two years, western leaders may be able to maintain enough support to fight the war to completion. This however is a debate for another thread.
 
How about butteflying away Nazi Germany and, thus, no WWII? With the world relative at peace, no country has a real incentive to expend the huge resources a nuclear project would require.
 
Exactly what it says in the thread title... what is the latest plausible date up to which the development of nuclear weapons can be delayed?

I´m thinking that, had then nuclear physicists in Nazi service decided to take their research in a direction not prone to be weaponized, or agreed among themselves to keep the weapons potential of their research secret, because they did not want Hitler and his fellows to have such an awesome weapon, there would have been no Nazi nuclear bomb project.

Without a Nazi project trying to develop nuclear weapons, Leo Szilard will not write that letter to President Roosevelt, Einstein not sign it, and there will almost certainly be no Manhattan Project, and thus no US nuclear weapons.

Now, this sounds all fine and dandy (read the Protect and Survive timeline to see why), but what are the consequences? No Hiroshima and Nagasaki means WW2 in the Pacific ends in one of three ways - Japan is starved into surrender by blockade, Japan is firebombed down to bedrock, or Japan is invaded. Either way, lots and lots more Japanese die through starvation, ground combat or bombing - and in case of the invasion, a lot more Americans as well.

Then, once WW2 is over, no nuclear weapons means there is one less incentive for Stalin not to start WW3. In the worst case, WW3 kicks off in the late 40s or early 50s; in the best base, the Soviet have one less reason not to intervene in Korea. In any case, the Cold War might get uncomfortably warm - and then perhaps rumors that Stalin has begun a project to develop nuclear weapons drives Einstein to write a certain letter to President Truman...

It's hard to see Nuclear weapons getting delayed beyond the 1960s. An Isolationist USA and a completely battered Soviet Union wouldn't engage in a cold war, which may well delay their development even longer. The thing is, in 1940, a nuclear program was a gigantic undertaking that required billions of dollars.

In 1960, such a project would be much easier, requiring less expensive computers and having scientific understanding continuing to advance on the wings. Delaying a nuclear project after 1960 would require skillful use of butterflies to ensure a peaceful and undermilitarized world, as opposed to simply killing Manhattan and avoiding WWIII.

With such a butterfly hunt in play, it may be possible to avoid nuclear weapons even at the present day. It would mean no nuclear power, probably a majorly gimped focus on science in general, and great vulnerability to the price and costs of fossil fuels, but it is plausible that no nation attempts to try the power of the Atom if butterflied around enough.
 
The question is meaningless noise without a POD date.

Development is tied to research in Physics, engineeering development and political will, all of which will vary with the date.
 
The question is meaningless noise without a POD date.

Development is tied to research in Physics, engineeering development and political will, all of which will vary with the date.

Yes, but given the forum you can assume a post-1900 date. That sets a lot of constraints--you're not going to be able to keep people from figuring out that nuclear weapons are possible, for instance, unless you posist some boring "rocks fall (almost) everyone dies" scenario.

@Blue Max: But in such a world, nuclear power will actually be quite attractive, especially if people figure out that you can "breed" fuel in specially designed reactors. In a less militarized world, the US might respond to the (US) Hubbert peak by R&Ding nuclear reactors, and building a lot of them, for example, rather than bribing the Saudis and militarily ensuring low gas prices.
 
Yes, but given the forum you can assume a post-1900 date. That sets a lot of constraints--you're not going to be able to keep people from figuring out that nuclear weapons are possible, for instance, unless you posist some boring "rocks fall (almost) everyone dies" scenario.

@Blue Max: But in such a world, nuclear power will actually be quite attractive, especially if people figure out that you can "breed" fuel in specially designed reactors. In a less militarized world, the US might respond to the (US) Hubbert peak by R&Ding nuclear reactors, and building a lot of them, for example, rather than bribing the Saudis and militarily ensuring low gas prices.

As I said, the question as asked is, like so many of this type, meaningless noise.
Come up with a date and you may get some answers. Otherwise its just textual masterbation.
 
As I said, the question as asked is, like so many of this type, meaningless noise.
Come up with a date and you may get some answers. Otherwise its just textual masterbation.

It seems pretty straightforward to me: What is the latest post-1900 POD that will delay or prevent (consensus is that the latter is more interesting, or at least difficult) nuclear weapons from being built. So, pick a date.
 

Sir Chaos

Banned
Okay, then...

What is necessary (i.e. the latest POD with the smallest possible change in the timeline) for nuclear weapons not to be developed in time to be used in WW2?
Is Szilard and Einstein not sending that letter enough to cause such a delay? And if so, what would it take for them not to send the letter?
Does a WW2 that concludes without the use of nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki change the early years of the Cold War?
How does the end of WW2 affect any nuclear weapon research in progress - especially if it is not yet close to completion?
When will circumstances again be favorable for nuclear weapons research (I´m guessing the Korean War, at the time of Chinese intervention at the latest)?

Or... if we´re talking about larger and earlier divergences... what about a non-Nazi militaristic Germany, say a resurgent Empire? How much longer would it take the Allies to develop the A-Bomb if Germany does not drive all those talented Jewish scientists out of Europe?
 
Or... if we´re talking about larger and earlier divergences... what about a non-Nazi militaristic Germany, say a resurgent Empire? How much longer would it take the Allies to develop the A-Bomb if Germany does not drive all those talented Jewish scientists out of Europe?

well if you get rid of the nazi's, then you get rid of a faction that is scary enough for the scientists to want anyone to develope such a horrible weapon as long as it is before said scary faction(the soviets were almost as scary, but people back then didn't know that as well as we do today). The primary reason why szilard and einstein wanted to convince the US to build a-bomb first was because they thought that the nazi's were crazy and thus would use them all over the place, which is probably what would have happened. If germany is just a militarist dictatorship of some kind. Which is probably a revanchist monarchy that just wants to refight WWI, then there is a chance that WWII is nowhere near as nasty, you may not get coventry or dresden or the london blitz, in which case if anyone does decide to pursue a bomb, it would be considered as only a tactical weapon, which at the time with the technology available is not quite so practical. Since a lot of the people who call the shots just thought of the A-bomb as a bigger bomb, not an apocalyptic scale super weapon that can deny the enemy miles of the battlefield and kills more people weeks later than it does when it goes off.
 

Sir Chaos

Banned
well if you get rid of the nazi's, then you get rid of a faction that is scary enough for the scientists to want anyone to develope such a horrible weapon as long as it is before said scary faction(the soviets were almost as scary, but people back then didn't know that as well as we do today). The primary reason why szilard and einstein wanted to convince the US to build a-bomb first was because they thought that the nazi's were crazy and thus would use them all over the place, which is probably what would have happened. If germany is just a militarist dictatorship of some kind. Which is probably a revanchist monarchy that just wants to refight WWI, then there is a chance that WWII is nowhere near as nasty, you may not get coventry or dresden or the london blitz, in which case if anyone does decide to pursue a bomb, it would be considered as only a tactical weapon, which at the time with the technology available is not quite so practical. Since a lot of the people who call the shots just thought of the A-bomb as a bigger bomb, not an apocalyptic scale super weapon that can deny the enemy miles of the battlefield and kills more people weeks later than it does when it goes off.

So you think with a second Kaiserreich fighting WW1, Part Two instead of WW2, and a Soviet Union whose Stalinist excesses do not become common knowledge until after it has mellowed considerably (whatever "mellowed" means compared to Stalinism), we might not see nukes until a lot later than historically - maybe not until the technology is there to make them tactical weapons?
Maybe nukes will first be deployed as an anti-ship weapon - a bomb strong enough to destroy (or at least mission kill) a small task force at once - or an anti-bomber weapon similar to the AIR-2 Genie? With the US and UK using conventional heavy bombers in large numbers, and both being superior to the Soviet Union in naval forces, we might see the Soviet developing nuclear weapons primarily for these uses.
 
Top