Thande
Donor
(I don't know by what POD). But let's just say that in 1945 Japan surrenders as per OTL, but merely in response to the firebombing of cities rather than the A-bomb.
Most important point: nuclear weapons have not been used in anger.
So the US can still explode ones for a test, but there won't be the same worldwide horror and respect for the real-world destruction wrought on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Furthermore the US might even keep the project secret for longer.
How does this alter the post-war situation? Can the US be as sure of getting its way on certain issues without the implicit threat? How does the USSR react? (You could say they'd go on to invade Western Europe, but I think Stalin at least knew about the power of the nuclear weapon through Fuchs and the other spies, so they wouldn't go through with it). Do Britain and France manage to remain closer to great powers if possession of nukes doesn't become such a mark of superpowerdom and thus they don't have to exhaust themselves producing their own so quickly?
Most important point: nuclear weapons have not been used in anger.
So the US can still explode ones for a test, but there won't be the same worldwide horror and respect for the real-world destruction wrought on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Furthermore the US might even keep the project secret for longer.
How does this alter the post-war situation? Can the US be as sure of getting its way on certain issues without the implicit threat? How does the USSR react? (You could say they'd go on to invade Western Europe, but I think Stalin at least knew about the power of the nuclear weapon through Fuchs and the other spies, so they wouldn't go through with it). Do Britain and France manage to remain closer to great powers if possession of nukes doesn't become such a mark of superpowerdom and thus they don't have to exhaust themselves producing their own so quickly?