Place In the Sun: What If Italy Joined the Central Powers? (1.0)
- Thread starter Kaiser Wilhelm the Tenth
- Start date
Germany isn't poor, either. They might be able to beat the Americans to the bomb if they start early enough, and get enough of a headstart. And before you say the Americans just make up the difference in available resources, that would still depend on how much they think of a headstart Germany is.
All the Germans really need to do is keep the lead long enough to build a bomb first. And while the USA will outbuild the Germans, so long as Germany has both a sizeable stockpile and the means to deliver them, that's still enough. MAD goes into effect.
I'd argue that know-how is more important than money - look at how many dead ends Oppenheimer and Schumann ran into.
Personally agree ultimately the massive amount of research that is required for nuclear i believe outstrips the industrial capacity for production. One of the driving reasons for America's development is that they could capitalise on german and just general brain drain allowing them to make up the difference of the late start ittl they have no such advantage they will be starting this program from scratch production and funding really only becomes the deciding factor once production for larger scale testing comes into play which accounts for 90% of the budget only really a fraction of the time.
can usa make up that difference of development i am not so sure. This is a very different Germany and one that encourages development far more then their nazi counterparts. Not just that but the economic difference between this germany and our Germany is substantial. This is a Germany that can very much afford the cost. HOWEVER, They can VERY MUCH outpace Germany in production but once Germany already has the nuke its only a matter of m.a.d. taking hold
as i stated before the V2 project cost just as much (or more) than the manhattan project, and this germany isn't economical curtailed.
and just look at otl, how much convincing it took to start the manhattan project (that letter cosigned by einstein). it was the scientists pushing it, the military had no influence in the decision to start development. that was purely political.
if there is no existential threat (or perceived as such) they might see it a waste of money, better invested in tanks, planes or ships.
Everyone seems to be forgetting that the two most accessible Uranium deposits in the world and the best for enrichment are in Bohemia and the (now German) Congo.
I didn't forget about the German Congo...I didn't know there were Uranium deposits in Bohemia. (in this case, can't forget what you never knew to begin with)
...Where in Bohemia is the Uranium? Because I find it hard to believe.
What some people seem to be forgetting is that the German Empire is not the Third Reich, and with an actually functioning economy and leadership, can afford a long-term nuclear program while keeping a powerful conventional military.
What I feel I don't understand is, why are we arguing over hypotheticals? I feel like this would be a debate that will go around, and around, and no end in sight. Because let's face it, both arguments are sound as to why Germany could or couldn't get the bomb, to the point where it pretty much falls into the hands of the author to determine "will they or won't they?"
Oh they mostly certainly can get the bomb but not before the US
Americawank, plain and simple. Germany is more than capable of beating America to the bomb depending on the circumstances.
Not a single country looked at nuclear weapons otl with anything more than curiosity before 1940 otl even though the knowledge existed since 1926. It was too costly and at the time seemed like an overhyped bomb. No country until forced into a new devastating war is going to invest in a hypothetical bomb. So really I don't get these arguments at all. The only country to look at the nuclear projects before 1940 was britain and that too to build nuclear energy not a nuclear bomb. Some in parliament believed that nuclear energy could provide more employment and relief some of the great depression recession. That's it.
i def realised that, and that congo ore it also the richest on the planet
american exceptionalism?
and i concur with Jaenera Targaryen the germans def have the potential to get there earlier.
the usual us method is to throw an overload of money at a project to force it through, however they will not have the scientists & knowledge to jumpstart the project like they did in otl with tube alloys.
and i assume the project will start in germany with the intent to use it for power generation, if the research is switched from purely academic to semi-commercial, you will very quickly see that most of the research will stay within the whatever german IG will do that research.
and thus stays secret, and any outsider might know it is possible to build a reactor, but the details, they will have to find out ( research at very high cost) themselves.
Last edited:
one correction the possibility of nuclear fission from a theoretical standpoint had been floating around with discussions and testing of nuclear reaction however, that is not really enough of a knowledge base you could really discuss something like a bomb that you need fission and the discovery of nuclear fission itself was only discovered in 1938 funny enough within the Kaiser Wilhelm society. the reason why the its important is because from that time frame it took 2 before Britain started really looking into how to make a bomb in 1940 with it that's surprisingly quick for brand spanking new technology. so the actual scientific knowledge on which nuclear weapons are based around fission didn't exist till pretty much the war was already on them a year later in 1939, so the discussion about cost and willingness i believe isn't a totally fair argument considering the timescale. to Steelman your point i would point out the incredibly short timespan of which these countries have to address this breakthrough and actually utilise this in such programs assuming that the war and scientific breakthroughs happen in roughly similar timeframes which isn't guaranteed. i think the whole argument between who gets it first fundamentally comes down to what you value more the resources one can dump into the project typically in the form of production or the academic background needed to kick start it because you need both. you may know how to make it but that doesn't mean you can build it, you may be able to build it but still in to know how to actually make the damn thing.
so assuming the tech is discovered on the same timescale and Kaiser's setup results in ww2 around the same time as otl then its important. hell more so if not on our timescale because ultimately it is factors into its eventual development why because you can point out the lack of will but that is only the case if no war when one of the countries are in it then the will, will come. why? because nearly every major player in otl ww2 recognised what potential the bomb had everyone pretty much which leaves it down to capability. so unless the scenario Kaiser has planed is the us doesn't enter then i don't see your point because i don't think many even have suggested that they make it pre 1940 but rather just how quickly once development starts with the war at which case well you have seen both sides of the debate.
but too explain my side for anyone who did miss it, to sum it up. most of the time developing a nuke is research and development not production, production does however account for most of the funding 90% in America's case. to illustrate my point it still took 2 years of development in the Manhattan project before production could even be conceived and that's working off the back of a lot of development which the British had done since Maud approved of its feasibility in 1940. and both of those nations where working off the back of knowledge of the science community fleeing Germany all of which will not happen in a world with a victorious Kaiser Reich. a community that is a lot better treated and funded with the Kaiser in play in Germany. America's production ability would not mean anything if they can't cook up a working design in time.
anyway i hope this all explained why i think these arguments are in play. its ultimately under the assumption that America will join a war but that's not guaranteed and if they don't then I would agree with you.
may i ask for clarification because too my understanding if you mean quantity of ore then that isn't the Congo but Australia if you mean quality then Canada. though if you mean at the time then i retract my statement
not quantity, but sheer grade of the ore.
it was this ore that the us tried to get most of during ww2
ore from this mine:
Shinkolobwe - Wikipedia
Thank younot quantity, but sheer grade of the ore.
it was this ore that the us tried to get most of during ww2
ore from this mine:
Shinkolobwe - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
And now for something completely different...
The 1920 US Presidential election is fast approaching and I need to start drawing up plans. Obviously, Charles Evans Hughes will be the Republican nominee. So, my question is twofold: who should the Democratic nominee be, and who should win in November 1920?
The 1920 US Presidential election is fast approaching and I need to start drawing up plans. Obviously, Charles Evans Hughes will be the Republican nominee. So, my question is twofold: who should the Democratic nominee be, and who should win in November 1920?