PC/WI: No Soviet espionage in the Manhattan Project?

IOTL, the USSR was able to infiltrate the Manhattan Project with spies, who proceeded to steal nuclear secrets and speed up the Soviet nuclear program substantially. But what if the spies were caught, or prevented from working on the project in the first place? If this is possible, what would the effects on the Cold War be?
 
if it is early enough, this means it will add up to the other uncovered soviet spies. this could backfire considerably.
for example a hugely reduce lendleased to russia. if the paranoia towards the ussr gets big enough it might also influence war strategy (no yalta/tehran meetings).
and even operation unthinkable might become more possible
 
if it is early enough, this means it will add up to the other uncovered soviet spies. this could backfire considerably.
for example a hugely reduce lendleased to russia. if the paranoia towards the ussr gets big enough it might also influence war strategy (no yalta/tehran meetings).
and even operation unthinkable might become more possible
Or Soviets cut the deal with Hitler in 1944 and Wallies can try to liberate the Europe. Cut LL and pay with your own blood. Curious how would US citizens react to casualties going into millions and Soviets watching.
 
IOTL, the USSR was able to infiltrate the Manhattan Project with spies, who proceeded to steal nuclear secrets and speed up the Soviet nuclear program substantially. But what if the spies were caught, or prevented from working on the project in the first place? If this is possible, what would the effects on the Cold War be?
It could also be a delayed atomic bomb. The FBI and the Defense Department considered banning foreign nationals and US citizens of known leftist sympathies from working on the project and also probably could have identified and apprehended the spies.

But... the theoretical physics and mathematical aspects of the project were heavily dependent on the skills and knowledge of a small number of people. Many of the these key people were refugees from Europe and more than a few had leftist sympathies. As a result, Oppenheimer recommended that the US accept the risk that there would be spying to avoid delays in the program.
 
Implosion might have been delayed a bit, gun not at all: the real wizardry was on the engineering side of things, not the theory where the big spies were.

Only way to slow the theory side would be keeping Fermi and the four Hungarian 'Martians' away from the Manhattan Project, not guys like Fuchs and Hall
 
Or Soviets cut the deal with Hitler in 1944 and Wallies can try to liberate the Europe. Cut LL and pay with your own blood. Curious how would US citizens react to casualties going into millions and Soviets watching.
I'm curious, does anyone know where this idea that the Soviets and the Nazis would cut a deal and the WAllies would bleed themselves dry against Festung Europa comes from? By 1944 the Nazis had spent the better part of two-three years raping and pillaging their way across Eastern Europe and had literally killed several million people and were well on their way to killing more than 15 million people, and the Nazis still had as their primary objective in the war securing a Sparta/Wild West for themselves in Eastern Europe. I really do think it's telling that every hair brained scheme the high ranking Nazis came up with OTL for a peace deal always focused on getting one in the West, not the East.
 
The Soviets have to get nukes on their own. It will happen, but it will happen a lot more slowly. This probably averts a lot of the Red Scare, but the scary possibility is this - more nukes used. If the USA feels it can threaten the Soviets or Red Chinese without fear of retaliation, it's going to.
 
I'm curious, does anyone know where this idea that the Soviets and the Nazis would cut a deal and the WAllies would bleed themselves dry against Festung Europa comes from? By 1944 the Nazis had spent the better part of two-three years raping and pillaging their way across Eastern Europe and had literally killed several million people and were well on their way to killing more than 15 million people, and the Nazis still had as their primary objective in the war securing a Sparta/Wild West for themselves in Eastern Europe. I really do think it's telling that every hair brained scheme the high ranking Nazis came up with OTL for a peace deal always focused on getting one in the West, not the East.

Stalin could cut a deal to screw the west, but there would be a heavy political price to pay for doing this, both internal and external.

Internally a lot of people are going to be enraged, not enough nessarly to risk getting purged but people kind of remember when you allow millions of your own people to go unavenged. Externally America and GB and the other allies arn't going to invade russia, but they have now just burned through a hell of a lot of political good will.

Germany probally gets nuked, and the bombs a good enough threat to keep the soviets out of poland and much of eastern europe. The soviet program is far enough behind at this point where by the time their able to contest it Poland will have western troups stationed there. Germany gets split up into occupation zones and a lot of nazi's are hanged. In the east if stalin remains true to form Korea ends up being united under the US. If they interviene and take the north. America will have to accept it but they won't consider the north to be legitament.

As a result the soviet union ends up with fewer allies, is most islolated and their collapse is sped up by a few years if not a decade.
 
The Soviets have to get nukes on their own. It will happen, but it will happen a lot more slowly. This probably averts a lot of the Red Scare, but the scary possibility is this - more nukes used. If the USA feels it can threaten the Soviets or Red Chinese without fear of retaliation, it's going to.

Some political scientists have theorized that mutually assured destruction prevented a direct war between the US and the USSR. We had a bipolar international order for 40 years without the two largest powers coming to blows. If that theory is correct, a delayed Soviet bomb might have resulted in a conventional war.

That's just throwing something out there. I'm not sold on the theory. The logistics of a conventional war are enough of a deterrent. Both countries have a massive amount of land for an invader to try to occupy, and Russia's climate and our heavily armed civilian population make it even harder to hold any conquered territory.
 
Some political scientists have theorized that mutually assured destruction prevented a direct war between the US and the USSR. We had a bipolar international order for 40 years without the two largest powers coming to blows. If that theory is correct, a delayed Soviet bomb might have resulted in a conventional war.

That's just throwing something out there. I'm not sold on the theory. The logistics of a conventional war are enough of a deterrent. Both countries have a massive amount of land for an invader to try to occupy, and Russia's climate and our heavily armed civilian population make it even harder to hold any conquered territory.

This is why I'm thinking there would be more use of nukes - America decides, "You don't do what we want? The hell with you. What are you non-nuke-having bitches going to do?" Which means ohhhhh shit if the Russians DO get nukes. No one wanted a conventional war at the time, but nukes were seen as a pliable alternative.
 
This is why I'm thinking there would be more use of nukes - America decides, "You don't do what we want? The hell with you. What are you non-nuke-having bitches going to do?" Which means ohhhhh shit if the Russians DO get nukes. No one wanted a conventional war at the time, but nukes were seen as a pliable alternative.

Would Stalin risk greenlighting Korea without a Bomb?
 
Knowing that an atomic bomb was possible was the key step showing it could be done, not just some vague theory. having said that a lot of the engineering details needed experimental work and not just theoretical calculations on a blackboard. These sorts of details are what the espionage gave the Soviets saving them time, money, and wasted efforts trying things that would not work. No espionage means it is at least 2 years until the first atomic bomb which would be 1951 for them, and at least 3-5 years later before they had enough deliverable weapons to constitute a real threat.

Through the coup in Czechoslovakia nothing that Stalin did depended on having the bomb in his back pocket. Even though the USSR had few if any deliverable weapons being an atomic power gave Stalin more leverage. I agree that absent the atomic bomb Kim does not get the green light in 1950. I'm not sure the extra 2-+ years of atomic monopoly will make the USA swing a big stick. Until the USSR exploded its first device the US weapons program was in low gear, so I don't think an extra 2-3 years will result in a larger Us arsenal to a major extent until the Soviets join the club (not just numbers but also improved designs).
 
The Soviets have to get nukes on their own. It will happen, but it will happen a lot more slowly. This probably averts a lot of the Red Scare, but the scary possibility is this - more nukes used. If the USA feels it can threaten the Soviets or Red Chinese without fear of retaliation, it's going to.

It depends what you mean by "a lot" more slowly. David Holloway, *Stalin and the Bomb: The Soviet Union and Atomic Energy 1939-1956* (Yale University Press 1994), while acknowledging the major role played by espionage, adds (p. 366):

"The best estimates suggest, however, that the Soviet Union could have built a bomb by 1951 or 1952 even without intelligence about the American bomb. There already existed in the Soviet Union strong schools of physics and radiochemistry, as well as competent engineers. Soviet nuclear research in 1939-41 had gone a long way toward establishing the conditions for an explosive chain reaction. It was because Soviet nuclear scientists were so advanced that they were able to make good use of the information they received from Britain and the United States about the atomic bomb." https://books.google.com/books?id=ICO6aUnQ2KcC&pg=PA366

I suppose that it could be argued that if the Soviets didn't have the bomb by 1950, they wouldn't have finally gone along with Kim Il Sung's pleas to let him unify Korea by force:

"Following the meeting with Kim, Zhou visited the Soviet Ambassador Roshchin seeking clarification and an explanation in Stalin’s decision to support the North Koreans.250 Stalin was likely aware of Kim’s trip to China and prepared for the subsequent question from the Chinese leaders. His reply to Mao was sent less than six hour later. In the May 14 telegram, Stalin explains that “in light of the changed international situation, they agree with the proposal of the Koreans to move toward reunification.”251 There is room for doubt in what Stalin meant by ‘changed international situation.’ Since Stalin’s previous September 1949 denial to support Kim’s reunification, several changes had occurred that could have led toward Stalin’s shift: *successful testing of a Soviet atomic bomb*, the Sino-Soviet Alliance, and changes in American foreign policy toward rearmament.252 Stalin does not specify in his response to Mao the reason for the change, but again emphasized that any decision “must be made jointly by Chinese and Korean comrades.”253 This response continues Stalin’s plan to avoid direct Soviet involvement in Korea." [my emphasis--DT] http://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/44622/14Dec_Monger_Bradley.pdf

I am doubtful, though, that the Soviet bomb was really the decisive consideration with Stalin. Even if the US still had a nuclear monopoly, he would probably not believe that it would use it against the USSR over the Korean issue, as long as Soviet involvement in Korea was mainly done through proxies.
 
I'm curious, does anyone know where this idea that the Soviets and the Nazis would cut a deal and the WAllies would bleed themselves dry against Festung Europa comes from? By 1944 the Nazis had spent the better part of two-three years raping and pillaging their way across Eastern Europe and had literally killed several million people and were well on their way to killing more than 15 million people, and the Nazis still had as their primary objective in the war securing a Sparta/Wild West for themselves in Eastern Europe. I really do think it's telling that every hair brained scheme the high ranking Nazis came up with OTL for a peace deal always focused on getting one in the West, not the East.
There are often mentioned meetings from 1943, after Kursk when allegedly Soviets proposed Germans ante bellum deal. True? I don't know.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=78803
If LL was suddenly stopped I can immagine Stalin to be pissed.
 
Knowing that an atomic bomb was possible was the key step showing it could be done, not just some vague theory. having said that a lot of the engineering details needed experimental work and not just theoretical calculations on a blackboard. These sorts of details are what the espionage gave the Soviets saving them time, money, and wasted efforts trying things that would not work. No espionage means it is at least 2 years until the first atomic bomb which would be 1951 for them, and at least 3-5 years later before they had enough deliverable weapons to constitute a real threat.
I think there is a quote about when Heisenberg et Al were imprisoned by the allies and heard about the nuclear explosion, it took them very little time to think out how it was done (they were listened in to of course)
 
My major point is that going from the theory to a working to device to a deliverable weapon requires a lot of fiddly engineering detail and experimentation. If you can get most of that data handed to you the time to make a weapon is significantly shortened.
 
Top