No Soviet nuke - how far can the roll-back go?

OS fan

Banned
When the Soviet Union detonated their first nuclear bomb in 1949, it became obvious that the Cold War with its proxy wars, espionage and armament race would take some time, and the "roll-back" policy of the US was dead.

But what if the Soviet program hadn't been successful, maybe because their spies and collaborators are caught earlier? Could the US keep North Korea in the anti-Communist camp, or even retake parts of Communist Eastern Europe?
 
When the Soviet Union detonated their first nuclear bomb in 1949, it became obvious that the Cold War with its proxy wars, espionage and armament race would take some time, and the "roll-back" policy of the US was dead.

But what if the Soviet program hadn't been successful, maybe because their spies and collaborators are caught earlier? Could the US keep North Korea in the anti-Communist camp, or even retake parts of Communist Eastern Europe?
ummm...

There are a lot of problems with this question.

1) yes, the soviets had lots of spies. Yes, this gave them a big leg up. But they had plenty of world class physicists, lots of competant engineers, and the desire to catch up.

Not having any stolen information might well have delayed the first soviet abomb. Maybe by one year.

2) much of the soviet spying took place as the bomb was being developed. So, to remove the spying, you need to do it by '43, '44 at the latest, which will change the whole dynamic of wally/soviet relations.

3) the only serious hope the us has to maintain a monopoly on abombs is to announce they will attack any nation that carries out nuclear research. And then carry out those attacks. That would likely need to include canada and the uk.


So, any tl where the soviets dont get the bomb is a tl that is very different from ours.
 
Last edited:
Not having any stolen information might well have delayed the first soviet abomb. Maybe by one year.
(bold mine)

Where is this based on?

The US nuclear program - although it had redundancies which could be cut - took 4 years whilst the US program alone cost already 2 bn USD during WWII. Not to mention that the US program itself got a huge flying start thanks to the British-Canadian research (which in itself had some French based roots) prior to the US program.

An exhausted Soviet-Union with much more disadvantages compared to the US did it in 4 years too OTL.

If I had to guess, I'd think that a Soviet-Union without any outside help would take approximately as long as the UK to get it's first nuclear weapon; that is October 1952, 3 years later then OTL (August 1949).
Developing a nuclear weapon from scratch without any outside help in 7 years still sounds fairly optimistic IMHO.

However, a first test doesn't necessarily say much; after it's first test, it took the Soviet-Union more then two years to get a second weapon operational, due to problems while developing the necessary nuclear infrastructure. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/Sovtestsum.html
For at least those two years, the US effectively still had a nuclear monopoly.
 
This depends on what exactly is the divergence that leads to the Soviets acquisition of nuclear weapons being delayed. If the political leadership of the United States and their attitudes stays the same, then there probably won't be much difference in terms of rollback in the early Cold War. The US had a nuclear monopoly, and did nothing really with the Soviets underhanded measures in Poland, Hungary, Romania, or the Coup in Czechoslovakia. Losing Czechoslovakia seemed to be the last straw that galvanized any reservations that conflict was unavoidable.

The Chinese Civil War wouldn't probably change either, so the earliest divergence I can see is in Korea. Depending on how late it takes the Soviets to develop their nuclear weapons, if the Hungarian Uprising occurs as is then there might be a more overt response from the West to aid them. However, I think 1953 is a bit too long for the Soviets to not have developed nuclear weapons by then.

Edit: Also, the nuclear option was not really effective anyway in those cases. The Czechoslovak coup was ingenious because the Soviets had managed to sneak around the American's trump card. There's nothing that the U.S. could have done to stop it, except start a third war which nobody wanted. They couldn't have nuked Prague to stop the Communists from taking over. Rollback requires a poorer relationship between the Wallies and the Soviets, and public support to risk such aggression instead of focusing on demobilizing and returning to normalcy.
 
Last edited:
(bold mine)

Where is this based on?

The US nuclear program - although it had redundancies which could be cut - took 4 years whilst the US program alone cost already 2 bn USD during WWII. Not to mention that the US program itself got a huge flying start thanks to the British-Canadian research (which in itself had some French based roots) prior to the US program.

An exhausted Soviet-Union with much more disadvantages compared to the US did it in 4 years too OTL.

If I had to guess, I'd think that a Soviet-Union without any outside help would take approximately as long as the UK to get it's first nuclear weapon; that is October 1952, 3 years later then OTL (August 1949).
Developing a nuclear weapon from scratch without any outside help in 7 years still sounds fairly optimistic IMHO.

However, a first test doesn't necessarily say much; after it's first test, it took the Soviet-Union more then two years to get a second weapon operational, due to problems while developing the necessary nuclear infrastructure. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/Sovtestsum.html
For at least those two years, the US effectively still had a nuclear monopoly.

No, not true, table of soviet bomb stockpile.
1949: 1
1950:5
1951:25
1952:50

Their very second test involved a fusion boost! The didnt need to test more unboosted fission bombs, apparently.

The fact they went from pure fission to partial fusion weapons in two years suggests the program was a lot more capable than you imply.
 

OS fan

Banned
A more decidedly anti-Communist US leadership would indeed have helped. But it seems, the idea of changing their paradigm from "SU = strongest ally" to "SU = worst enemy" was too hard for them, even if it would have been the right thing to do.
 
A more decidedly anti-Communist US leadership would indeed have helped. But it seems, the idea of changing their paradigm from "SU = strongest ally" to "SU = worst enemy" was too hard for them, even if it would have been the right thing to do.

Starting a war against the largest, most battle-hardened land army in the world, in a country that already has a thousand years of history telling them that all foreigners strive to dismantle their country? That just won a war of survival against a genocidal enemy that a good many western politicians were egging on? A war that is almost certain to cause millions of casualties on each side, and which will almost certainly include atomic bombings and immense conventional bombing raids on cities from Germany to Vladivostok? That's the 'right thing to do'?
 
The two main things holding the Soviet bomb project back was the Nazi invasion and a lack of uranium. Until they destroyed the Axis, overran Hungary & found indigenous deposits in the U.S.S.R itself, these problems were insurmountable.

Intel on the US bomb project was useful not vital. The main benefit the Soviet bomb project gained vis-a-vis the US. Was proof that this newfangled super-weopen actually worked.
 
The two main things holding the Soviet bomb project back was the Nazi invasion and a lack of uranium. Until they destroyed the Axis, overran Hungary & found indigenous deposits in the U.S.S.R itself, these problems were insurmountable.

Intel on the US bomb project was useful not vital. The main benefit the Soviet bomb project gained vis-a-vis the US. Was proof that this newfangled super-weopen actually worked.

Another benefit was having better numbers for exactly how much uranium or plutonium they needed, sparing them the need to tickle the dragon's tail.
 
Top