Taft and Nuclear Proliferation

If Eisenhower doesn't run in 1952, for whatever reason, and Taft wins the election, it's going to spook a lot of European countries. According to his wikipedia page, he was opposed to NATO and thought the Korean War was unconstitutional. Even if he dies in his first year in office and his vice-president is Richard Nixon, the mere fact that the American public would elect him while the Korean War is still going on would lead Europe to reevaluate their dependence on the United States for defense. And, in the 50s, that means nukes.

What do you think? Which countries would pursue programs, and how long would it take to develop them? I'm thinking France and Italy immediately, and maybe the Benelux countries in a joint program. West Germany might or might not want them, but they're not going to get them. I'm not sure about Spain and Portugal, but I'm thinking probably not in the 50s; they might pursue them later. Possibly Turkey - I'm sure they'd want them, but I don't know if they could get them in the 50s.

The French nuclear project took five years IOTL (1956-1960). ITTL, I'm thinking six years for France, 1953-1958, and eight years for Italy, 1953-1960.

Thoughts?
 
Well, nuclear programs would take awhile, as you said, and given the fact that we're not likely to see Taft persist beyond late 1953, and if someone like Nixon takes over, his first action will be to immediately re-cozy back up to Europe, so it's not like the programs for, say, France would go much faster than OTL. At the beginning there'll be the fast er pace, true, but then Tricky Dick comes in and releases the pressure.
 
If Eisenhower doesn't run in 1952, for whatever reason, and Taft wins the election, it's going to spook a lot of European countries. According to his wikipedia page, he was opposed to NATO and thought the Korean War was unconstitutional. Even if he dies in his first year in office and his vice-president is Richard Nixon, the mere fact that the American public would elect him while the Korean War is still going on would lead Europe to reevaluate their dependence on the United States for defense. And, in the 50s, that means nukes.

What do you think? Which countries would pursue programs, and how long would it take to develop them? I'm thinking France and Italy immediately, and maybe the Benelux countries in a joint program. West Germany might or might not want them, but they're not going to get them. I'm not sure about Spain and Portugal, but I'm thinking probably not in the 50s; they might pursue them later. Possibly Turkey - I'm sure they'd want them, but I don't know if they could get them in the 50s.

The French nuclear project took five years IOTL (1956-1960). ITTL, I'm thinking six years for France, 1953-1958, and eight years for Italy, 1953-1960.

Thoughts?
Truman or Stevenson can barely defeat Taft in '53 because he was so conservative.

But if Taft wins, I assume things would be largely the same as OTL but with the US holding up less of the deal, which means a more effective NATO overall. Europe would probably have a less extensive welfare programs as a result, and the US probably has more.

It really depends on who Taft's VP is... Nixon, Knowland, MacArthur or McCarthy... decreasing by likelihood and increasing in potential to fuck things up
 
It really depends on who Taft's VP is... Nixon, Knowland, MacArthur or McCarthy... decreasing by likelihood and increasing in potential to fuck things up

The idea of MacArthur or McCarthy as vice president sends shivers down my spine.

Also, whats up with Irish names and evilness? MacArthur, McCarty, McDonald's...
 
Well, nuclear programs would take awhile, as you said, and given the fact that we're not likely to see Taft persist beyond late 1953, and if someone like Nixon takes over, his first action will be to immediately re-cozy back up to Europe, so it's not like the programs for, say, France would go much faster than OTL. At the beginning there'll be the fast er pace, true, but then Tricky Dick comes in and releases the pressure.

I'm thinking the main effect would be to get the programs started rather than to speed them up. Wikipedia says the French didn't start serious nuclear weapons development until 1956 IOTL. The Italians and Benelux never really pursued them at all, unless you count an Italian cruiser modified to carry dual-key Polaris missiles.

With Taft dead before the end of his first year, there won't be much immediate pressure to push the projects. But, in the longer run, the fact he could be elected at all will give impetus to the voices saying the US might abandon Europe if it ever came down to it - that the US wouldn't be willing to lose Des Moines to save Paris.

It really depends on who Taft's VP is... Nixon, Knowland, MacArthur or McCarthy... decreasing by likelihood and increasing in potential to fuck things up

I'm thinking Nixon, although that is subject to change. I'd rather butterfly away Taft's cancer then put MacArthur or McCarthy in charge - the board has enough WW3 timelines. Besides, they've both been done already.
 
I'm thinking the main effect would be to get the programs started rather than to speed them up. Wikipedia says the French didn't start serious nuclear weapons development until 1956 IOTL. The Italians and Benelux never really pursued them at all, unless you count an Italian cruiser modified to carry dual-key Polaris missiles.

In reality Italy had planned to become a nuclear power it was a project in cooperation with Switzerland in the late 60's begin of the 70's IRC and at least for us was a response to Yugoslavia trying to become part of the nuclear club, the moment Tito closed the project and the USA begin the policy to nuclear sharing the need of all that ended and so the project
 
Guys

If that happened then you might have a more efficient NATO in that the US is less dominant. The Europeans provide an even greater majority of the forces but also get more of the command and control. This could cause problems as there was a lot less trust on the continent at the point, so close after WWII. Also you might get a resentful US trying to regain control later on.

The other possible significant butterfly is if the Europeans, including Britain, are more cautious about US reliability and possibly have slightly stronger forces, what happens when 1956 come up and the Egyptians seize the canal? [Although some other points in that probably the French are forced out of Vietnam earlier and possibly over Persian seizing of the oilfields which could also strain relations between Europe and the US].

Steve
 
In a situation were Europe (Marshall plan aside) is almost alone the project of the Europen Defense Community will almost certain see the light and the UK will probably be more friendly towards european integration as the 'special relationship' can sour.
The terrible moment will be the Suez crisis of 1956, i don't know if in the White House Eisenowher will be in charge or a Taft presidency butterfly him away, but a policy like OTL without the framework of NATO or even a good relatioship can create a real rift between the two side of the Atlantic.
In the end we can have a even more 'interesting' Cold war with USA vs URSS and Europe try to mantain independence from the two big guys and her colonial empire (or at least more part than OTL) and at the same time trying to not antagonize them too much, probably Europe will go to France type of deterrence as: we cannot destroy you sure,but we can make you pay so much you for the effort than it's better be civilized and make business like usual.
Maybe the fact that the U.S. armed forces don't need a great standing army to stationing in Europe (and more isolationist) can make them try the TBOverse approch to armed forces a great...sorry total enphasis in the power of the air force with an army greatly reduced in numbers, tech and importance and with the Navy with the role of glorified aircraft ferry (yes i know, i know this is almost ASB but nevertheless )
 
In reality Italy had planned to become a nuclear power it was a project in cooperation with Switzerland in the late 60's begin of the 70's IRC and at least for us was a response to Yugoslavia trying to become part of the nuclear club, the moment Tito closed the project and the USA begin the policy to nuclear sharing the need of all that ended and so the project

Oh, I did not know that. Do you have any links on the subject?

In a situation were Europe (Marshall plan aside) is almost alone the project of the Europen Defense Community will almost certain see the light and the UK will probably be more friendly towards european integration as the 'special relationship' can sour.
The terrible moment will be the Suez crisis of 1956, i don't know if in the White House Eisenowher will be in charge or a Taft presidency butterfly him away, but a policy like OTL without the framework of NATO or even a good relatioship can create a real rift between the two side of the Atlantic.
In the end we can have a even more 'interesting' Cold war with USA vs URSS and Europe try to mantain independence from the two big guys and her colonial empire (or at least more part than OTL) and at the same time trying to not antagonize them too much, probably Europe will go to France type of deterrence as: we cannot destroy you sure,but we can make you pay so much you for the effort than it's better be civilized and make business like usual.

I like the idea of using the Suez Crisis to drive a wedge between the US and Europe. I was thinking something along those lines, but a little less extreme - a Western Europe that's nuclear-armed and more independent, but still allied to the US, and with fewer American troops in Europe. And then the "third world" starts pursuing nuclear arms in earnest, due to the proliferation domino and the perception that all the major powers have them.

Eisenhower would definitely be butterflied away - if he doesn't run in 1952, he won't run in 1956.

Maybe the fact that the U.S. armed forces don't need a great standing army to stationing in Europe (and more isolationist) can make them try the TBOverse approch to armed forces a great...sorry total enphasis in the power of the air force with an army greatly reduced in numbers, tech and importance and with the Navy with the role of glorified aircraft ferry (yes i know, i know this is almost ASB but nevertheless )

I'm not familiar with the TBOverse. I was thinking of something a little similar, but for different reasons - part of the setup for getting Taft into the White House would be a delayed Korean War leading to the end of the draft in 1950. Then, Brien McMahon's cancer gets butterflied away and he wins the presidency in 1960, and he wanted a military that was almost purely atomic-armed for cost reasons. So there's still an Army and a Navy, but the Army is a small, professional force with Davy Crockett atomics as standard kit, the Navy's primarily (but not exclusively) a convoy protection force, and the savings go to the USAF.
 
Oh, I did not know that. Do you have any links on the subject?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/12844348/Achille-Albonetti-Storia-segreta-della-bomba-Italiana-ed-europea (sorry is in italian try google translate)

http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1073048798/1073340609/Italian+Nuclear+Weapons+(1960s)





I'm not familiar with the TBOverse. I was thinking of something a little similar, but for different reasons - part of the setup for getting Taft into the White House would be a delayed Korean War leading to the end of the draft in 1950. Then, Brien McMahon's cancer gets butterflied away and he wins the presidency in 1960, and he wanted a military that was almost purely atomic-armed for cost reasons. So there's still an Army and a Navy, but the Army is a small, professional force with Davy Crockett atomics as standard kit, the Navy's primarily (but not exclusively) a

It's a series of alternate history books written and self published by Stuart Slade (an air power afiocionados and 'toss the atomic weapons like candy' proponent) very good from the technical POW but extremely weak in the History and Geopolitical department (ok from that POW they are totally ASB)...and the author had the habit to shoe in his political view and his bias a little too much for my taste (just to use a little euphemism). It has a wiki: http://tbo.wikidot.com/ maybe it help.
For the relationship between Europe and USA much depend on how decolonisation go. The USA (and the URSS) were strong proponent of the latter for ideological motive and to gain influence, Europe get along for financial and military reason but a succesfull Suez can embold them to try to hold more of their empire and this can create a lot of friction, just to make another example the Netherlands left Papua at the Indonesian (1963) because asked by the American as Sukarno was considered a bulk against communist and after all the Netherlands cannot leave NATO (from a military POW) or even try to seriously oppose Indonesia without help, or Israel, originally France (and UK) had the role the now is of the USA maybe there were never the switch and the Jewish nation is in Europe orbit or even a member of the EU equivalent of this TL.
 
If he is elected would you also handwave the death/prolong his life substantially? Because if the VP nominees someone mentioned before are elected, you could ironically have a MUCH hotter Cold War.

And a Nuclear Winter.
 

Thanks!

It's a series of alternate history books written and self published by Stuart Slade (an air power afiocionados and 'toss the atomic weapons like candy' proponent) very good from the technical POW but extremely weak in the History and Geopolitical department (ok from that POW they are totally ASB)...and the author had the habit to shoe in his political view and his bias a little too much for my taste (just to use a little euphemism). It has a wiki: http://tbo.wikidot.com/ maybe it help.

Thanks! Talking a glance through that, it has some superficial similarities, but I have a very different destination in mind. I was thinking the whole "point" of the TL, from a literary standpoint, is the struggle to control nuclear weapons and put the genie back in the bottle.

Brien McMahon, in particular, wanted both an atomic-armed army and nuclear arms control. He could be a nuanced guy on occasion. I'm not sure, but I suspect his thinking was that the US should not be fighting little wars, so we should not prepare for them; we should be ready to fight a big war, and a big war will be nuclear, so we should focus on nuclear weapons. He also suggested paying countries to not build A-bombs, although that was in 1948 and I'm not sure how serious he was.

For the relationship between Europe and USA much depend on how decolonisation go. The USA (and the URSS) were strong proponent of the latter for ideological motive and to gain influence, Europe get along for financial and military reason but a succesfull Suez can embold them to try to hold more of their empire and this can create a lot of friction, just to make another example the Netherlands left Papua at the Indonesian (1963) because asked by the American as Sukarno was considered a bulk against communist and after all the Netherlands cannot leave NATO (from a military POW) or even try to seriously oppose Indonesia without help, or Israel, originally France (and UK) had the role the now is of the USA maybe there were never the switch and the Jewish nation is in Europe orbit or even a member of the EU equivalent of this TL.

Huh, a successful Suez Crisis is an interesting idea. I've been focusing on the early parts of this TL, 1945-1954, so I haven't really done much reading or thinking about later periods. Thanks for the idea. :)

If he is elected would you also handwave the death/prolong his life substantially? Because if the VP nominees someone mentioned before are elected, you could ironically have a MUCH hotter Cold War.

I haven't decided yet, but my order of preference from best to worst goes roughly Nixon, Earl Warren, surviving Taft, third Truman term. There will definitely not be WW3; I have neither the interest in nor the knowledge of military subjects to write one. Besides, we already have both "Protect & Survive" and "World War III: 1946" for WW3 TLs, and "Outrun My Gun" for MacArthur as president, and "Tailgunner in the Pilot Seat" for McCarthy as president.
 
Thanks! Talking a glance through that, it has some superficial similarities, but I have a very different destination in mind. I was thinking the whole "point" of the TL, from a literary standpoint, is the struggle to control nuclear weapons and put the genie back in the bottle.

Always glad to help. The idea seem interesting go on

Brien McMahon, in particular, wanted both an atomic-armed army and nuclear arms control. He could be a nuanced guy on occasion. I'm not sure, but I suspect his thinking was that the US should not be fighting little wars, so we should not prepare for them; we should be ready to fight a big war, and a big war will be nuclear, so we should focus on nuclear weapons. He also suggested paying countries to not build A-bombs, although that was in 1948 and I'm not sure how serious he was.

He can be serious in the sense to tie the Marshall plan to the promise to not build atomic weapons (we are talking of 48, lot less of nation here).
The problem with his idea to prepare to fight only big war is that Big War are very very rare (luckyly for us) but the post - WWII was charatecterizated by guerrilla (Vietnam and Afganistan in primis), bushwarfare and limited conventional conflict (Korea, Iraq, Yugoslavia and to lesser extent Afganistan and Libya) so when the american interest are menaced but throwing nuclear warhead is a little too much Washington will find itself short of idea. On the other hand, Europe probably must develop his conventional and not so conventional force to fight in the far flug empires, if NATO still exist maybe the USA will outsource conventional warfare to the europeans in exchange of military aid.

Huh, a successful Suez Crisis is an interesting idea. I've been focusing on the early parts of this TL, 1945-1954, so I haven't really done much reading or thinking about later periods. Thanks for the idea. :)

You are welcome
 
He can be serious in the sense to tie the Marshall plan to the promise to not build atomic weapons (we are talking of 48, lot less of nation here).

I don't have his original speech, just a later speech where he references the idea. It sounds like he was proposing a Point Four-style program rather than tying the idea to the Marshall Plan. (Also, I got the year wrong; it was late 1949).

The problem with his idea to prepare to fight only big war is that Big War are very very rare (luckyly for us) but the post - WWII was charatecterizated by guerrilla (Vietnam and Afganistan in primis), bushwarfare and limited conventional conflict (Korea, Iraq, Yugoslavia and to lesser extent Afganistan and Libya) so when the american interest are menaced but throwing nuclear warhead is a little too much Washington will find itself short of idea. On the other hand, Europe probably must develop his conventional and not so conventional force to fight in the far flug empires, if NATO still exist maybe the USA will outsource conventional warfare to the europeans in exchange of military aid.

That's an interesting idea. I'll need to think about it - like I said, I've been focusing my research to date on 1945-1952, and I've got a big stack of papers on the Soviet and North Korean governments I need to go through before anything else.

I don't think McMahon intended to specialize the Army to the point that it couldn't pull off something like the Dominican Republic action in the early 60s, just to the point that it couldn't do something like the Vietnam War. Which, in retrospect, might actually be a good thing, but it would be difficult for people at the time to see it that way. Also, since he died in 1952 IOTL, he'd have a further 8 years for his policy views to evolve before becoming president.
 
Top