What if: Early second use of the bomb?

What if the United States use the bomb within ten years of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, i.e. in the Chinese Civil War, the Korean War (especially in late 1950!), the Suez Crisis, or another war or conflict before 1955/56? Would this defuse the Cold War? Would the USSR "conquer Western Europe", as was feared by some politicians? Would MAD still arise?
 
One early '3rd use' would have been in September 1945. A second Plutonium core was already enroute to Tinian Island when the Japanese gave up. Several more implosion devices awaited the deadly table spoon size bits of Pu. It could have been easily been dropped in early September had the Japanese cabinet continued to dither, or the coup succeded.

Four more cores were either under construction of ready for transport & at least twice that many implosion devices were on Tinian or near completion in the US. So a total of five Plutonium bombs would have been ready for use Sept - December. Rhoades 'The making of the Atomic Bomb' estimates a minimum of 18 more could have been built in 1946.
 
One early '3rd use' would have been in September 1945. A second Plutonium core was already enroute to Tinian Island when the Japanese gave up. Several more implosion devices awaited the deadly table spoon size bits of Pu. It could have been easily been dropped in early September had the Japanese cabinet continued to dither, or the coup succeded.

Four more cores were either under construction of ready for transport & at least twice that many implosion devices were on Tinian or near completion in the US. So a total of five Plutonium bombs would have been ready for use Sept - December. Rhoades 'The making of the Atomic Bomb' estimates a minimum of 18 more could have been built in 1946.


This memo from Groves to the Chief of Staff seems to estimate 22 bombs by the end of 1945 with the rate of production "increasing decidedly" in 1946. Of course, this may have been an optimistic projection for the benefit of senior staff. In reality, with Japan defeated and no immediate requirement for more weapons, I believe production was scaled back to improve the devices.
 
One question I've had for a while is what might have happened if Trinity had fizzled and Manhattan had been reduced to relying on U235 gun bombs, each requiring more fissile material.
 
I can't see it in the Chinese Civil War, but let MacArthur and LeMay at it during Korea and Manchuria becomes a smoking irradiated ruin. Nine weapons were made available should they be needed; MacArthur wanted thirty to fifty. Either is probably enough to win the Korean War, but conventionalises nuclear weapons. They'll probably be released for VULTURE in 1953, for instance; probably not Suez, but I wouldn't bet on it. There won't be a Vietnam War, and probably no Cuban Missile Crisis.

I suspect that Stalin turns to Truman and says 'hey, wasn't us - that Mao was a loose cannon, we're glad you dealt with him'. Or something like that, rather than going to a general war. And a nice symbolic purge of any surviving 'volunteers'. The Soviets are unlikely to take Western Europe, but the demonstrated willingness to use nuclear weapons won't affect them too much. They planned on it themselves, and assumed we'd do the same.

In fact, it probably means the Nth-country problem becomes a bigger one - since nuclear weapons are a real, usable weapon rather than a symbolic capability, they're much more desirable. The Swedish bomb won't be cancelled, Canada's latent capability will be realised, Western European powers will get their own bombs, Australia will be strip-mining the Outback to keep up with demand for uranium. By the time a non-proliferation treaty is on the table, it's too late - the world is already mildly radioactive.

The consequences of ripping the industrial heart out of China, I can't be too specific on. But I think we can assume 'lots of casualties, economy ruined' as a starting point. It may well rekindle the Civil War. It certainly won't be pretty.

On the other hand, since going to war with any power worthy of the name means getting nuked, it doesn't happen very often. The result is a kind of uneasy peace, which could flare up into global thermonuclear war easily. That threat probably means there's lots of ABM - even if you're vulnerable to a massive attack from a superpower, it gives thinking time against light attacks and reduces the risk of escalation.
 
One question I've had for a while is what might have happened if Trinity had fizzled and Manhattan had been reduced to relying on U235 gun bombs, each requiring more fissile material.
Or detonated prematurely. The X-Unit was susceptible to electrical effects and there was a lot of lightning that night...
 
This memo from Groves to the Chief of Staff seems to estimate 22 bombs by the end of 1945 with the rate of production "increasing decidedly" in 1946. Of course, this may have been an optimistic projection for the benefit of senior staff. In reality, with Japan defeated and no immediate requirement for more weapons, I believe production was scaled back to improve the devices.

Looks like it. Note the remark about accelerating production raises the quantity of undesirable isotopes in the finished product. Rhoades remarks on how the Haniford reactors ceased production after VJ day to make repairs and improvements. It appears fast tracking construction left a lot of flaws to be corrected.
 
Last edited:
Top