No atomic bomb

Eurofed

Banned
How many more wars do you think would have happen if there is no atomic bomb?

How long do you wish butterflies to mess with nuclear research ? Since it seems reasonable that sooner or later, someone would get to develop the bomb.

To make nuclear fission impossible, IIRC, messes with physical laws in such subtle and no subtle ways that life in the universe as we know it becomes likely impossible.

Anyway, it is certainly possible that the Manhattan Project (hereby considering Tube Alloys integral part of it) and the Soviet nuclear research program screw up and turn all the wrong turns.

IIRC, the first point in the Cold War where the US nuclear advantage turned significant was to persuade Stalin to give up North Iran. This may or may not turn later into a Korea-style or Vietnam-style situation.

Afterwards, the big issue becomes how much hawkish in your view the USSR would turn in the lack of the US nuclear deterrent. At some point, Soviet leadership may be tempted to exploit its conventional advantage and add Western Europe to the Warsaw Pact, or go all the way against China. We might also have seen one more Indo-Pakistani war.
 
Last edited:
Generally, it's only possibly to delay the development of the atomic bomb, not to prevent it entirely. There were enough people aware of the possibility atomic bomb already when WWII broke out, however, the main incentive for the US to develop the atomic bomb was to develop it first because it was feared that Germany was working on it, too. This however, as we know, didn't happen, and the first atomic bomb wasn't ready until after Germany already had surrendered.

Now, the repercussions from the absence of the atomic bomb would probably the following:

- without the bomb, an invasion of Japan will become necessary. This will be an extremely costly affair, and possibly could lead to a divided Japan because the Soviets are able to grab a sizable amount of Latin from the north.

- without the bomb, there'll be less of a deterrent towards Stalin, and the Soviets would be more likely to attack Western Europe after WWII.

- it's also doubtful that the Soviets would have had an atomic bomb in a similar time frame if they didn't have the Manhattan project to spy on.
 

GundamZero

Banned
I believe there would be more wars between the USSR and the US. Arguing it would have happened anyways is like arguing the south would have freed the slaves. I doubt both would happened for a long time.
 

mowque

Banned
Also, I think we can question how many wars nuclear weapon stopped. Vietnam, Korea and such went on anyway. I can see the argument it stopped a WW3 consisting of Russian tanks into Europe but otherwise? I can't see areas like South America or Africa suddenly going up in flames.
 

Eurofed

Banned
- without the bomb, an invasion of Japan will become necessary. This will be an extremely costly affair, and possibly could lead to a divided Japan because the Soviets are able to grab a sizable amount of Latin from the north.

Yup, but even more likely than a divided Japan (Soviet amphibious capabilities in the Pacific weren't stellar) or conventional US invasion of Japan (political implications of expected GI casualties crapped the pants of the US leadership), the Americans may pick ways to crush it that mess it much more than OTL, such as large-scale blockade-induced starvation.

- without the bomb, there'll be less of a deterrent towards Stalin, and the Soviets would be more likely to attack Western Europe after WWII.

Sure. The big issue is when ? This impinges on the controversial issue of how much aggressive towards (Western) Europe a stronger Stalin would be.

- it's also doubtful that the Soviets would have had an atomic bomb in a similar time frame if they didn't have the Manhattan project to spy on.

Well, the OP implies that nobody has the nukes (at least for a while) so we need to assume that the Sakharov et co. screw up ITTL as well.
 
Yup, but even more likely than a divided Japan (Soviet amphibious capabilities in the Pacific weren't stellar) or conventional US invasion of Japan (political implications of expected GI casualties crapped the pants of the US leadership), the Americans may pick ways to crush it that mess it much more than OTL, such as large-scale blockade-induced starvation.

That's also a possibility.

Sure. The big issue is when ? This impinges on the controversial issue of how much aggressive towards (Western) Europe a stronger Stalin would be.

Well, I agree that it's a controversial issue, largely because it's mainly depended on how one interpretes Stalin's personality and goals. If you go by the stance that Stalin was trying to grab as much as he could (for which there is plenty of evidence), then it's likely to happen, but conversely it could be argued that he also wanted security and a solid border (for which there's equal evidence). There's also ambiguous evidence (the so-called "Stalin Note" sent to Adenauer, which suggests a neutral unified Germany), which can be interpreted both ways (either as a taunt to lure Germany into a position where it can be taken as a whole with impunity, or as a genuine attempt to create a completely neutral border with the West).

Well, the OP implies that nobody has the nukes (at least for a while) so we need to assume that the Sakharov et co. screw up ITTL as well.

Well, I've been wondering in general on how likely it would be for the Soviets to successfully develop a nuclear program anyways if it wasn't for the existence of the Manhattan project.
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
Well, I agree that it's a controversial issue, largely because it's mainly depended on how one interpretes Stalin's personality and goals. If you go by the stance that Stalin was trying to grab as much as he could (for which there is plenty of evidence), then it's likely to happen, but conversely it could be argued that he also wanted security and a solid border (for which there's equal evidence). There's also ambiguous evidence (the so-called "Stalin Note" sent to Adenauer, which suggests a neutral unified Germany), which can be interpreted both ways (either as a taunt to lure Germany into a position where it can be taken as a whole with impunity, or as a genuine attempt to create a completely neutral border with the West).

Here, corrected it for you, otherwise it makes no sense.

I'd say that Stalin wanted to grab as much as he could, but luckily for him and his country, he was a more cautious fellow than Hitler and Tojo. I dunno if he would dare risk a conventional WW3 soon after WWII, however. To defeat Nazi Germany had thoroughly exhausted the USSR, they had practically scraped the bottom of the manpower pool, the Soviet economy was in shambles and held together by Land-Lease in several critical parts. If they had tried by 1950-52, when the USSR had rebuilt itself a bit, it might have been a different picture.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, yes. It's a tad late here. ;)

But yeah, I agree regarding the assessment with Stalin. The threat of a WWIII immediately in 1945 is pretty low.
 
Top