What Comes After A Third World War in 1948?

I don't imagine the US dropping nuclear weapons in a tactical manner. When they dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, they wound up being a full mile off. In a battlefield setting, you want a lot more precision, to make sure you don't nuke your own troops.

I don't completely disagree. It's just hard for me to see many NATO nations seeing the USSR rushing toward the Rhine and the US not using their nuclear weapons to disrupt it. These aren't H Bombs either, they could drop a pretty good amount of ordnance to keep supplies from getting to the war effort. My hangup is on delivery methods deep into soviet airspace in the late 1940s.
 

kernals12

Banned
Given the imbalance of conventional forces, unpreparedness of Western forces, and faster pace of Soviet mobilization there's pretty much no scenario I can see that doesn't see the Soviets reaching all the way to the Atlantic in a '48 war.
Given that it's started by the Berlin Blockade, there would probably be several weeks of warning before the War begins, and after the experience with Hitler, there'd be a lot less denial this time 'round.
 
Bombing the hell out of Japanese and German cities didn't make us a pariah state.

The media environment of the 40s and 50s was not that of the 60s or 70s.

America could and would control what images make the papers and newsreels for its population and it’s allies populations.
 
Last edited:
Here's what I assume the nuclear strikes would look like.
The USSR's major industrial areas, population centers, and ports would get hit, including 3 strikes on Moscow and 2 on Leningrad. The most important goal would be disrupting Russian tank production

To keep the Russians out of Iran and India, there would be strikes on the major cities in Central Asia

Vladivostok certainly would not be spared given its naval importance, and the major cities in the Communist controlled parts of China, plus Pyongyang would get hit.
In total that's 21 Atomic Attacks.

I see you got Nizhny Tagil. :)

Ashgabat's really too small and remote; perhaps Stalingrad instead for political impact, or Norilsk might be an option.
 
Only three airfields in the world can hold the B-36A in 1948.

It was only authorised for 3; the excess ground-pressure from the main gear would damage runways, but this damage would come from repeated use. In an emergency, like perhaps global war, some risks would be accepted.
 

Deleted member 94680

The media environment of the 40s and 50s was not that of the 60s or 70s.

America could and would control what images make the papers and newsreels for its population and it’s allies populations.

It doesn’t require “control of images” when it’s the very European nations that would be complaining that have been carpet bombed by nuclear weapons.

Granted, the continental USA may remain in ignorance of the devastation, but I don’t think the Army Newsreel people can stop Germans from knowing Poland is a nuclear wasteland.
 
It doesn’t require “control of images” when it’s the very European nations that would be complaining that have been carpet bombed by nuclear weapons.

Granted, the continental USA may remain in ignorance of the devastation, but I don’t think the Army Newsreel people can stop Germans from knowing Poland is a nuclear wasteland.

What the government of say Poland says is going to be assumed by the U.S. to be Stalin’s lips talking for them in the late 40s.

West Germans of the late 40s for instance yes would know Poland was being destroyed. Though this isn’t the 1980s West Germans, it’s still the 40s and their primary interest would be gaining back historically Prussian/German lands from Poland.

West Germany is likely to be the first conventional battleground of the war so their hands are going to be busy.
 
Last edited:
I think some of the 'lol Russia is going to glow' posts are getting a bit ahead of ourselves. Someone smarter than me kind find the total number, the US nuclear arsenal is somewhere below 200, and a lot of that is going to be used on trying to stop Soviet forces on the front lines and disrupting supply lines, and basically degrading the Soviet ability to wage war. I also wonder about the B-36's ability to penetrate deep into Soviet airspace. Delivery methods are available for the US to go after cities, but the US also would have to be willing to give up a lot of planes that could be used to stop the Soviet advance through Germany.

Given the crippling deficiencies in SACs training and maintenance as well as Soviet numerical superiority in aircraft and rough technical parity, I doubt the US could even successfully deliver against Central/East European targets for the first six months or so. Many people here are obsessing over the aircraft and bombs while ignoring that SACs organization and training in ‘48 is a complete trainwreck. Having the equipment means nothing without the people able to use it adequately.

Given that it's started by the Berlin Blockade, there would probably be several weeks of warning before the War begins, and after the experience with Hitler, there'd be a lot less denial this time 'round.

The US and Western European States simply can’t mobilize fast enough to field anything meaningful with even a few months of warning, never mind a few weeks. They have no system for rapid war mobilization. The one time in the late-40s the US attempted to implement a rapid mobilization system, Congress shot it down.
 

kernals12

Banned
I see you got Nizhny Tagil. :)

Ashgabat's really too small and remote; perhaps Stalingrad instead for political impact, or Norilsk might be an option.
How about Arzamas-16? Probably a good idea to wipe out the center of Soviet atomic weapons research. And Ashgabat is right on the border with Iran, it's probably the easiest target I picked, but it may not even be necessary. As I just found out, the city was completely destroyed by an earthquake in October 1948.
 
I don't imagine the US dropping nuclear weapons in a tactical manner. When they dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, they wound up being 800 feet off. In a battlefield setting, you want a lot more precision, to make sure you don't nuke your own troops.

Compared to most WWII bombing, that CEP was amazing.
Tacnukes were not needed to plink a single tank, but to wipe their HQ and much of the force
 
It was only authorised for 3; the excess ground-pressure from the main gear would damage runways, but this damage would come from repeated use. In an emergency, like perhaps global war, some risks would be accepted.

Bristol had heavy duty tarmac for their Brabazon, that did vist Paris and other cities.
Every bit the beast as the B-36A was
 
NATO did not exist in 1948. It only came into force in 1949

US had some 50 bombs in 1948 (see reference above)

There were only 35 silver-plate B-29 in 1948. Just one sortie will limit any follow-up in a bad way.

Wiki (for good or bad) says:

""""""""""""""
Believing that Britain, France, and the United States had little option than to acquiesce, the Soviet Military Administration in Germany celebrated the beginning of the blockade. General Clay felt that the Soviets were bluffing about Berlin since they would not want to be viewed as starting a WWIII. He believed that Stalin did not want a war and that Soviet actions were aimed at exerting military and political pressure on the West to obtain concessions, relying on the West's prudence and unwillingness to provoke a war. Commander of USAFE General LeMay reportedly favoured an aggressive response to the blockade, in which his B-29s with fighter escort would approach Soviet air bases while ground troops attempted to reach Berlin; Washington vetoed the plan.

"""""""""""""""""""
Amazingly, The Berlin airlift could then also have resulted in a US attack and then who is to blame when it goes 'pear-shaped'?

After all, Winston had his dream of Operation Unthinkable' which was a US/UK surprise attack on Russia. We have looked at that one and it is of course very feasible that say Poland would welcome 200,000 SS troops coming along - again - to liberate them (sarcasm rules OK).

As I mentioned above, nuclear drops would have to have been by B-29. It is not likely that all would have gone through, so where would the bombs have landed? France and Germany is my suggestion.

If Washington had supported LeMay we would have had Operation unthinkable in 1948 (versus June 1945 as was Winston's idea).
How well-prepared was US (in Europe!) for WWIII? I believe the draw-down was rather extensive which means that the USSR had the upper-hand in tanks and infantry and aircraft.

Rescuing a country from communism by killing all its people, devastate the industry, poison the soil and making it inhabitable for hundreds of years is not a great option. And that could well be the result for Germany and Poland.

Even with a total of (only) 1,25 Mega-tons of nuclear bomb power in 1948, devastation is indeed assured.
 
As I mentioned above, nuclear drops would have to have been by B-29. It is not likely that all would have gone through, so where would the bombs have landed? France and Germany is my suggestion.

Distance Norwich (ie UK bomber airfields) to St Petersburg 1054 miles.
 
There were only 35 silver-plate B-29 in 1948. Just one sortie will limit any follow-up in a bad way.

The first B-50As, the renaming of the B-29D, were delivered in June 1948 to the Strategic Air Command's 43d Bombardment Wing, based at Davis-Monthan AFB.
One of the delays OTL of the brand new planes being modified at Wichita to have in flight refueling gear would not happen in this TL, with a shooting War going on
 
Have to disagree, with a war with the USSR refueling becomes even more important and this is a priority.
Oh, refueling is very important, but being able to drop bombs ASAP is even more so, so those ready for active duty would be flown out immediately rather than waiting for the upgrades
 
With these targeting plans (do the Americans have the nuclear weapons in ‘47/‘48 to achieve this?) I refer you back to my comment of America being a pariah nation that has massacred millions of civilians.

The United States did far worse to Japan with firebombing than it would be capable of inflicting on the USSR, in 1948, with atomic weapons.
 

kernals12

Banned
One unknown: the Middle East. World War III would be starting right in the middle of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Would the Arabs and Zionists be willing to fight a common enemy like China's Nationalists and Communists were? And with Allied weapons production running at full tilt, the Israelis would find it much harder to get foreign arms.
 
Top