USA Declares Nuclear Monopoly After WWII

Wallet

Banned
The Manhattan program was a joint program between the US, Britain, and Canada. Scientists from the commonwealth went back home after the war and contributed to their nation’s nuclear programs.

Why would the US piss off it’s two closest allies? Nor would the American public be for it. The American Marshall plan also depended on Canadian involvement
 

FBKampfer

Banned
What if the plan from the start is to use the SU as the meatshield in WWII and then back stab them?

B-36 is funded full-tilt along with Manhattan as part of the key component for subduing the USSR, UK is on board and given access to any technologies it needs, France and West Germany are tooled up to above wartime and prewar levels, and before the Soviets have time to consolidate and begin draft/implement adequate plans, then the United States declares its monopoly towards the end of 46, and the UK and France back them.
 
If the USSR tested a nuke, they might still be way behind in the number of nukes and the means to deliver them. So after a single test, the US could theoretically nuke Moscow without fearing a nuclear counterattack.

I do agree that the US would be very hesitant to do so.

As a pure thought experiment, let's say the USSR tests in 1949 as in OTL in defiance of the ban. The US makes the grave decision and nukes Moscow justifying it as an act of self defense because the test is a declaration of war. The USSR is ordered to surrender unconditionally or more attacks will follow.

What happens next?

The USSR didnt surrended unconditionally even when the Nazis were stomping it and at the gates of Moscow.

Not even Adolf "Russians are subhumans that need to be exterminated" Hitler asked or would had asked unconditional surrender to the Soviets, his terms were everything North of the Urals.

What makes you think a way stronger USSR is going to even consider accepting terms worse than the Nazis just because a flashy bomb was used?

What would happen? The USSR would be very pissed and the US has virtually given up any moral claim in Europe, excepr maybe in the UK, say bye bye to US occupation in Germany.

Each time the US insist in bombing the USSR, each time the USSR will retaliate by taking more and more of Western Europe and Asia.

Either the US cut their loses and leave, having given an edge to the Soviets or this turns into Unthinkable, the result of which will be the US folding and the USSR gaining whatever demand they want.

Now, make no mistake, it is not that I think the Soviets were unbeatable, far from it. I believe pound per pound the US can defeat the Soviets. The problem is that the US would simply not have the stomach to put the body count needed to bring a brutal dictarorship like the USSR to its heel. The reality is that only Hitler and Stalin could beat each other in a total war. The US is not going to put 5-10 million dead for geopolitical gains, no way. The moment the US starts to need to pay an even remotely prohibitive blood price, the moment they will sack Truman, go away and allow the Soviets to do whatever they want in Europe and Asia.

What if the plan from the start is to use the SU as the meatshield in WWII

This is exactly what happened in OTL, it only succeeded in giving the Soviets the strongest most experienced ground force on Earth.

and then back stab them?

This was planned and was called Operation Unthinkable, which was never done because it was considered suicidal.

Had it happened the Soviets would win, having way more troops in Europe. While the nukes would hurt, it wouldnt bring down a continent sized power. In the end the Wallies would fold and make peace, because while they materially can win, the US-UK is not going to put the multi million bodycount needed for this.

In the end everything up to the Atlantic has a shiny red color in Europe (only the UK remains free and US allied) while in Asia everything up to the Home Islands also have this shiny red. The USSR is now way bigger, stronger and with the resources that might allow it to win the economic Cold War.
 
Last edited:
No but as the B-36B was the main B-36 variant when the MiG-15 was the primary Soviet fighter and the service ceiling on that (according to the National Museum of the US Air Force website) was only 42,500 ft.

Even the B-36H Featherweight could only make 47,000 ft.

If you ask guys who actually flew them, what they actually did was a bit different from what was printed.
 
The Manhattan program was a joint program between the US, Britain, and Canada. Scientists from the commonwealth went back home after the war and contributed to their nation’s nuclear programs.

Why would the US piss off it’s two closest allies? Nor would the American public be for it. The American Marshall plan also depended on Canadian involvement

Though it seems Fuchs passed a lot more to the Soviets, that to the people who were actually employing him
 
1st and 2nd Gen USAF aircraft did really badly at B-36 intercepts, and yes, including the F-86. The B-36 was far more maneuverable than the jets of that era, flying in Coffin Corner, stalls and spins just around the corner

The Soviets won’t be flying those American fighters whose designs neglected to maneuver at stratospheric heights. But even in those cases, the maeneuver ability tests were a red-herring: A fighter doesn't have to turn with its target to shoot it down. If their faster (which they were) all it needs is to make a comparatively small aiming adjustment to bring its guns on a target as it flies by, particularly if the target is a B-36 which is HUGE. That’s one of the reasons energy fighters have always had a advantage over turn fighters.

That Soviet MiGs would be incapable at getting at the B-36 represents less objective analysis and more wishful thinking. So is the belief that the 1949 B-36s, with their mechanical problems and ladened down with an actual payload, will be flying in excess of 42,000 a routine basis instead as the rule instead of the exception.

If you ask guys who actually flew them, what they actually did was a bit different from what was printed.

According to the guys who flew them, what they actually they was what was planned. On average, 3 out of every 4 with the B-36 missions took place at 25,000 and 30,000 feet as mandated by doctrine. And these were ‘36 variants of the 1950s, with significantly improved mechanical reliability and performance.
 
Last edited:
So? As I noted, the relative maeneuverability doesn’t even matter all that much and most intercepts won’t be occurring at those heights anyways.

Other than the fact that actual SAC plans were to go as high as possible for a real attack on the USSR?
Fact: USSR had a pathetic Early Warning Network
Fact: USAF craft had trouble with B-36 intercepts until the F-101 and F-102, and the Army and USA had a far better Radar Net to work with
Fact: MiG-15 were worse than USAF craft at the altitudes the B-36 were going to be running at
 
Other than the fact that actual SAC plans were to go as high as possible for a real attack on the USSR?

Well to start with, the actual realities of being loaded down for a combat situation means that “as high as possible” in this case roughly means 38,000 feet assuming the bomber doesn’t suffer any sort mechanical trouble despite the fact that the favorite saying among crews about the ‘36 was "two turning, two burning, two smoking, two choking, and two more unaccounted for". 38,000 feet isn’t going to give the MiG-15 any trouble.

But even ignoring that, there’s the fact you are wrong: SAC doctrines was that the missions would be undertaken at 30,000 feet. This is explicitly laid out in black and white in all the War Plans devised in the late-1940s, from Broiler through to Dropshot. This is also roughly the height the gross majority of B-36 patrol missions took place at. So the evidence from both doctrine and practice is that nuclear bombing raids in 1949 would take place at 30,000 feet, hardly any sort of challenge for the MiG-15.

Fact: USSR had a pathetic Early Warning Network

Assertion without evidence. Had Soviet early warning networks not been a concern, SAC wouldn’t have had to bother probing them in the early-50s so as to be able to develop electronic countermeasures. Countermeasures that do not yet exist in 1949...

Fact: USAF craft had trouble with B-36 intercepts until the F-101 and F-102, and the Army and USA had a far better Radar Net to work with

Fact: said tests were rigged against the fighter as they not only asked the fighter to try and dogfight with the ‘36 but also uses stripped down bombers not flying in their mission configurations. In reality, bomber intercepts would involve little such maeneuvering for reasons I have already illustrated.

Fact: MiG-15 were worse than USAF craft at the altitudes the B-36 were going to be running at

Fact: in tests MiGs were able to actually get intercepts in on the B-36 at altitudes in excess of those the B-36 would actually be running at in the nuclear delivery role. So obviously this is untrue.
 
Last edited:
But even ignoring that, there’s the fact you are wrong: SAC doctrines was that the missions would be undertaken at 30,000 feet. This is explicitly laid out in black and white in all the War Plans devised in the late-1940s, from Broiler through to Dropshot. This is also roughly the height the gross majority of B-36 patrol missions took place at. So the evidence from both doctrine and practice is that nuclear bombing raids in 1949 would take place at 30,000 feet, hardly any sort of challenge for the MiG-15.

And there were only a very few B-36's, with most missions being taken by B-50's and B-29's. Most of the approach would be flown even lower, within medium altitudes for maximal fuel economy. The links I posted show the planned ingress route.

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/special/doc03c.pdf

Bomber strength for April 1950: 27 B-36's, 512 B-29/B-50 with 256 A-bomb carriers. The initial strenght of attack would have been 10 B-36's and 201 B-29's/B-50's. Of the UK based mediums, 112 would have taken the northern route through North Sea, Sweden and Finland, 89 the southern route through France, Italy and Balkans.
 
Bomber strength for April 1950: 27 B-36's, 512 B-29/B-50 with 256 A-bomb carriers. The initial strenght of attack would have been 10 B-36's and 201 B-29's/B-50's. Of the UK based mediums, 112 would have taken the northern route through North Sea, Sweden and Finland, 89 the southern route through France, Italy and Balkans.

Heavy Bomber tracks were at lower altitudes until border penetration, by time high altitude would have been achieved.

And how many SAC Pilots do you personally know who flew B-50s and B-36s? Fewer than me, I think.
For my sources, FY1949 had this for force levels
(36) B-36 (99)B-50 (390) B-29

FY 1950
(38) B-36 (196)B-50 (286)B-29

Not including tankers or recon aircraft, like the RB-36 and RB-45

Strategic Air Command: people, aircraft, and missiles edited by Norman Polmar ; chronology by the Office of the Historian of the Strategic Air Command, under the direction of John T. Bohn
 
Heavy Bomber tracks were at lower altitudes until border penetration, by time high altitude would have been achieved.

And how many SAC Pilots do you personally know who flew B-50s and B-36s? Fewer than me, I think.
For my sources, FY1949 had this for force levels
(36) B-36 (99)B-50 (390) B-29

FY 1950
(38) B-36 (196)B-50 (286)B-29

Not including tankers or recon aircraft, like the RB-36 and RB-45

Strategic Air Command: people, aircraft, and missiles edited by Norman Polmar ; chronology by the Office of the Historian of the Strategic Air Command, under the direction of John T. Bohn

The numbers I mentioned are from actual war plan, which naturally assumes lower level of aircraft than book strength. The mention about use of medium altitudes for ingress comes from the primary documents as well.
 
Top