No Nuclear Weapons?

Without the nuclear bomb, Japan's prospects are bleak.

I know many think wow how can you say that they lost two cities. It would have been much worse had the Allies had to invade the mainland.

You would probably be looking at the use of biological/chemical weapons to soften up the Japanese mainland, followed or in concert with an immense bombing campaign similar to what destroyed much of Europe. By the time the troops actually landed you'd probably have millions of casualties in Japan, virtually no infrastructure, navy or air force remaining. Disease and famine would be rampant. Probably less than 10% of the Japanese people survive the fall out of such an event. This would butterfly of course into all kinds of potential changes. The war would of dragged on for another 3-5 years at least. With perhaps pockets of resistance surviving for a decade or two in the former Japanese Empire.

Few people on this board would argue that Operation Olympic was the better alternative to the atomic bombs on Japan. It's more or less agreed that while it wasn't a nice option, it was "the better" one.
 
WW3 would have begun. Or it could even be considered part of WW2. Without the Nuke Japan would have been invaded through airborne and naval landings. There would have been millions of casualties and Japan would have been a far weaker country.
The USSR would have invaded Europe in the 50's and it would have resulted in a farther more war torn Europe and a Communist loss. China would have joined the USSR in fighting the Democracy's. This would have resulted in Alaska or Canada or the northern pacific or the USA and Europe being the 2 theaters of war.

If China decided to invade the US first they would have lost utterly and completely. Due to superior air and naval power China wouldn't have been able to supply or reinforce there troops. If they decided to invade Alaska they would have been able to take most of it before being pushed back by a Canadian-American army. An invasion into Canada would have ended in a similar way to the US. Although they would have been able to take more territory before losing it.

The Soviet invasion of Europe would have been a hugely costly war on a still recovering continent. With a combined French-Anglo-American army the Soviets would have gained little territory due to the already large concentration of troops before being pushed back.

The war would have ended in either a treaty or forced surrender.
With Russia losing all of its territory that isn't in the actual Russian state. Either that or the Allies taking Moscow and all of western Russia. The new Pacific war would have been far more costly. The Chinese wouldn't have surrendered until the Russians already had and the Allies were on there territory. The Chinese war would cost China it's military and it would enter into a forced Democracy. The government that had been forced to Taiwan would be reinstated and China would not be the economic power it is today.
 
WW3 would have begun. Or it could even be considered part of WW2. Without the Nuke Japan would have been invaded through airborne and naval landings. There would have been millions of casualties and Japan would have been a far weaker country.
The USSR would have invaded Europe in the 50's and it would have resulted in a farther more war torn Europe and a Communist loss. China would have joined the USSR in fighting the Democracy's. This would have resulted in Alaska or Canada or the northern pacific or the USA and Europe being the 2 theaters of war.

One word: why? That seems completely unlike both Stalin and Khrushchev.

If China decided to invade the US first they would have lost utterly and completely. Due to superior air and naval power China wouldn't have been able to supply or reinforce there troops. If they decided to invade Alaska they would have been able to take most of it before being pushed back by a Canadian-American army. An invasion into Canada would have ended in a similar way to the US. Although they would have been able to take more territory before losing it.

They'd never get past the US Navy, and they'd know it. They couldn't invade Taiwan, much less Alaska.
 
Actually engineering a bomb that blows up when you want it to and not, when you dont is some significant engineering. But a back of the envelope calculation of the mass? That is easy.

Engineering the bomb is not even the most difficult part--it's just a matter of putting enough fissionable material in a small enough volume. Implosion and gun-type devices are both pretty simple, conceptually.

The creation of the first atomic weapon was a concerted national effort because they were figuring out as they went along how to build facilities to extract the proper uranium isotopes. From scratch, great centrifuges, atomic piles, and other facilities had to be constructed, when there was no prior experience in anything like them.

The atomic bomb can be delayed a few years if the relevant politicians and generals decide that the resources needed to develop these facilities would be better spent on another few B-29 squadrons, or a tank division, but sooner or later someone is going to use it as a Wonder Weapon. The possibilities, especially when the Teller-Ulam Design is figured out, are just too enticing.
 
Additionally, if the atom bomb is discovered later, it probably has worse consequences.

For Japan, it was able to hurry a surrender. During a war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO? Would probably infuriate the other side, and cause the one who launched it to get too bold.
 
Again, for those who say it can't be delayed, you can kill precisely two people back in 1918, and seriously delay it.
 
Again, for those who say it can't be delayed, you can kill precisely two people back in 1918, and seriously delay it.

I haven't seen anyone saying it can't be delayed. It can't be stopped, but it can certainly be delayed. Your method works. So does having the Allies decide it won't be ready before the war's over and is therefore not worth the money, that would buy you at least five years and probably more, maybe even a decade or two. It becomes a lot harder to justify that kind of speculative investment in peacetime.
 
Having the allies decide its not worth it doesn't hold it off nearly as long though, because it will be on again in the early '50s due Soviet aggression.
 
I haven't seen anyone saying it can't be delayed. It can't be stopped, but it can certainly be delayed. Your method works. So does having the Allies decide it won't be ready before the war's over and is therefore not worth the money, that would buy you at least five years and probably more, maybe even a decade or two. It becomes a lot harder to justify that kind of speculative investment in peacetime.

Although in that case the Soviets may (Or may not) develop the nuke first.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Reserch question, what civilian developments (asides from reactors) are tied to nuclear weapons?

Cancer treatment. PreWW1, Radium was the most valuable element in the world, and some people predicted that Radium mining would be worth more than all other mining combined. I don't remember the exact price, but it was some ridiculous number like 100,000 times worth more than gold. Radium is found in Uranium ores. By the late 1930's, people knew their was a decay chain, maybe earlier. The profit motive will insure that someone figures out the reaction chains in a lab. Somewhere in trying to create these hugely valuable elements Plutonium will be discovered. This happens with or without WW2. It happens even if most of the prominent scientist in the field believe it is impossible.

It is just a matter of when it happens, not if.

You can seriously delay the Mass Spectrometer back in 1918 with the Spanish Flu (killing both A. J. Dempster in the US and F. W. Aston in the UK isn't hard considering how many did die), which sets back the discovery of U-235 back many years.

Yes, this is a big help.

As were the numerous young men who would become engineers and physicists that died in WW1 was a bigger help. As was the much more limited funding after WW1 for basic research. Another powerful way to delay the bomb is to have the war last long and bring greater physical and financial destruction.
 
The Oncoming Storm said:
either way there would have been millions of casualties
That is the most patent & total nonsense.:eek: Casualties for the total force the U.S. sent would not have been over 500K (KIA, WIA, & MIA); for Japan, maybe triple that. Hardly the bloodbath it's usually made out.
The Oncoming Storm said:
Japan would either have been the scene of a terrible invasion
I have my doubts. And it wasn't necessary, Bomb or no Bomb.
or starved into submission
This is the most likely outcome IMO. Nor would it have taken much more than about 6mo IMO. Japan was already on the brink of national famine; it wouldn't have taken much to push her over.
Corbell Mark IV said:
You want to go into a budget meeting and discuss how you're smarter than Einstein?
:D:D:D
Corbell Mark IV said:
THe Fall of Japan would have been a Holocaust.
:rolleyes:
Derek Jackson said:
WI Japan had surrendered b4 Hiroshimer, and the nukes had not been developed (possible but not certain)

Woud there have been a war over say Berlin
I find that extremely probable, & very frightening.:eek: Before the Wall, Berlin was a persistent flashpoint. Without nukes, indeed (it's been said) without the Bomb being used, it's very possible war would've started over it.
 
Last edited:
Top