What if the US left Europe after Britain and France developed their own nuclear weapons

[Jiraiyathegallant]

Let’s say Eisenhower, after Britain and France develop their own nuclear weapons, begins drawing the US down from Europe with a goal of leaving by the end of his second term. He argues that Europe has rebuilt itself to the point that by 1960 they should not need American support as they can nuke Soviet forces by the 60s if they prioritize it, have rebuilt the economy of Europe to new heights in per capita terms by 1960, and have enough strength to fight colonial wars?

How would this effect the development of Europe going forward?

 

[Riain]

France didn't explode it's first nuclear device until 1960, which is a bit late for Ike to do anything.

When Britain tested their own thermonuclear device Ike restarted nuclear sharing which was stopped by Truman in 1946, the opposite of stepping away from Europe.

 

[Bob in Pittsburgh]

When Britain tested their own thermonuclear device Ike restarted nuclear sharing which was stopped by Truman in 1946, the opposite of stepping away from Europe.

When Churchill became PM for the second time he dusted off the agreement Roosevelt signed agreeing to share nuclear knowledge. Apparently Atlee know nothing about it. Whether Truman was similarly unknowing is a good question.

 

[Riain]

When Churchill became PM for the second time he dusted off the agreement Roosevelt signed agreeing to share nuclear knowledge. Apparently Atlee know nothing about it. Whether Truman was similarly unknowing is a good question.

Surely Churchill could have showed the agreement to Ike?

 

[MickCz]

When Churchill became PM for the second time he dusted off the agreement Roosevelt signed agreeing to share nuclear knowledge. Apparently Atlee know nothing about it. Whether Truman was similarly unknowing is a good question.

The problem was that there was no formal written agreement by the USA to share nuclear knowledge with Britain. Any agreement was informal and oral between Roosevelt and Churchill.
That is how the USA could exclude Britain. And yes, British nuclear knowledge undoubtedly helped the development of the atomic bomb, but the USA paid for it. "We paid for it, it's ours" is a fairly good argument, along with "why prop up a failing Empire, whose Establishment is riddled with Soviet spies and sympathisers?"
Whether the British like it or not, (they didn't...) the USA made the right choice for their own interests.

 

[Nathan Bernacki]

When there was a serious gap in the British-American scientific relationship during World War II, the British crunched the numbers on how much it would cost to build their own atomic bomb, without outside assistance.

3,000,000 pounds in research and development

5,000,000 pounds to build a nuclear reactor to create 1 kilogram of plutonium

Between 5,000,000 and 10,000,000 pounds to create facilities to produce heavy water

500,000 tons of steel

5000,000 kilowatts of electricity

If the British wanted to create their own nuclear weapons program in a timeline where Eisenhower decides to pull back on supporting Europe, it would be a burdensome effort and I highly doubt you would see a government crazy enough to authorize such a program, unless there was a world war.

The problem was that there was no formal written agreement by the USA to share nuclear knowledge with Britain. Any agreement was informal and oral between Roosevelt and Churchill.

Quebec Agreement - Wikipedia

On 19 August Roosevelt and Churchill signed the Quebec Agreement, which was typed on four pages of Citadelle notepaper,[80] and formally titled "Articles of Agreement governing collaboration between the authorities of the USA and UK in the matter of Tube Alloys".[81] The United Kingdom and the United States agreed that "it is vital to our common safety in the present War to bring the Tube Alloys project to fruition at the earliest moment",[81] and that this was best accomplished by pooling their resources.[81] The Quebec Agreement stipulated that:

1. The US and UK would pool their resources to develop nuclear weapons with a free exchange of information;
2. Neither country would use them against the other;
3. Neither country would use them against other countries without consent;
4. Neither country would pass information about them to other countries without consent;
5. That "in view of the heavy burden of production falling, upon the United States", the President might limit post-war British commercial or industrial uses of atomic energy.

 

[Comte de Dordogne]

Knowing that France was entangled in the Algerian war and that General De Gaulle was not the kind of man to let himself be taken over by the Americans, I am not sure that the Americans would have left the defense of Europe to France.

 

[Riain]

When there was a serious gap in the British-American scientific relationship during World War II, the British crunched the numbers on how much it would cost to build their own atomic bomb, without outside assistance.

3,000,000 pounds in research and development

5,000,000 pounds to build a nuclear reactor to create 1 kilogram of plutonium

Between 5,000,000 and 10,000,000 pounds to create facilities to produce heavy water

500,000 tons of steel

5000,000 kilowatts of electricity

If the British wanted to create their own nuclear weapons program in a timeline where Eisenhower decides to pull back on supporting Europe, it would be a burdensome effort and I highly doubt you would see a government crazy enough to authorize such a program, unless there was a world war.




Quebec Agreement - Wikipedia

The British did develop their own nuclear weapons. The US didn't extend their offer of nuclear cooperation until the British unequivocally proved they could develop thermonuclear weapons with their own resources by conducting the Grapple series of tests.

 

[MickCz]

When there was a serious gap in the British-American scientific relationship during World War II, the British crunched the numbers on how much it would cost to build their own atomic bomb, without outside assistance.

3,000,000 pounds in research and development

5,000,000 pounds to build a nuclear reactor to create 1 kilogram of plutonium

Between 5,000,000 and 10,000,000 pounds to create facilities to produce heavy water

500,000 tons of steel

5000,000 kilowatts of electricity

If the British wanted to create their own nuclear weapons program in a timeline where Eisenhower decides to pull back on supporting Europe, it would be a burdensome effort and I highly doubt you would see a government crazy enough to authorize such a program, unless there was a

Ah, good stuff! An object lesson in checking before posting!

 

[Bob in Pittsburgh]

The problem was that there was no formal written agreement by the USA to share nuclear knowledge with Britain. Any agreement was informal and oral between Roosevelt and Churchill.
That is how the USA could exclude Britain

There was a written agreement signed by Roosevelt and Churchill at Quebec on August 19, 1943.
Avalon Project - The Quebec Conference - Agreement Relating to Atomic Energy (yale.edu)

 

[Riain]

I don't know how much Churchill was involved personally but in 1954 the Mcmahon Act was amended to allow the US to share nuclear information with foreign governments and private companies.

Atomic Energy Act of 1954 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I don't know the specifics but I'd guess this was a significant step from total freeze-out in 1946 to almost full integration in 1958.

 

[Simon]

There was a written agreement signed by Roosevelt and Churchill at Quebec on August 19, 1943. The Quebec Conference – Agreement Relating to Atomic Energy.

Which had absolutely no official standing. The only way to continue nuclear co-operation post-WWII is for their to be an official diplomatic agreement between the US and the UK, and I'm not sure that the Senate would give its approval of that.

 

[Intosh]

One of the reason, France developped it own A Bomb it is because the USA basically said in 1956 during the Suez War, "you are on your own against the Soviet Union and we will not protect you in your colonial wars",

 

[Bob in Pittsburgh]

Which had absolutely no official standing. The only way to continue nuclear co-operation post-WWII is for their to be an official diplomatic agreement between the US and the UK, and I'm not sure that the Senate would give its approval of that.

Certainly Congress went the other way with the 1946 Atomic Energy Act that prohibited sharing atomic information with other countries. Eisenhower was a vocal critic of the Atomic Energy Act and he signed had got ratification of the1958 US–UK Mutual Defense Agreement which shared nuclear data. It also sold the British nuclear material and eventually the complete Polaris and Trident missile systems.

 

[MickCz]

Which had absolutely no official standing. The only way to continue nuclear co-operation post-WWII is for their to be an official diplomatic agreement between the US and the UK, and I'm not sure that the Senate would give its approval of that.

Ah, that must be where I was confused! However, as always, MRDA!

 

[mial42]

There is no chance the US would do this. People remembered what happened the last time the US abandoned Europe after a World War, and had no desire to go through that again.

 

[Father Maryland]

Certainly Congress went the other way with the 1946 Atomic Energy Act that prohibited sharing atomic information with other countries. Eisenhower was a vocal critic of the Atomic Energy Act and he signed had got ratification of the1958 US–UK Mutual Defense Agreement which shared nuclear data. It also sold the British nuclear material and eventually the complete Polaris and Trident missile systems.

I wonder how much concern their was in terms of support for the 46 act (and similar anti nuclear proliferation policies of the time) besides sheer desire for US hegemony there was that the Brits/French might attempt to use nukes not just in defense against the Soviets but in order to keep their colonial empires. Say have the Brits attempt to hold onto India by dropping a nuke on Calcutta and threatening to burn more cities until the INC agreed to give in.

Not saying that was actually likely just wonder how much concern their was within the US leadership for that possibility.

 

[MickCz]

There is no chance the US would do this. People remembered what happened the last time the US abandoned Europe after a World War, and had no desire to go through that again.

The threat of the USSR had been built up, there had been the Korean War, so I agree that under Eisenhower there was no chance of a US withdrawal from Europe.
However, an earlier POD would make it possible, particularly if France and the UK had atomic weapons by then.
With regard to the UK, it could presumably have them by the late 1940s if it had enough money to do so. After all, the USSR did.
France would take longer.

 

[Riain]

The Quebec Agreement and it's addendum the Hyde Park Aide-Memoire have official standing, it's an Executive order. As Executive orders they stand while the President is in power and are not overturned by another Executive order, Legislation or Treaty. However the US copy of the HP A-M was misfiled and wasn't included in the general interia of US-UK nuclear cooperation and exchange that occurred once Roosevelt died and Churchill left office.

Truman and Attlee signed a communique in November 45, and it was linked to an MoI signed by General Groves, but in April 46 Truman said that this communique didn't obligate the US to assist Britain to build a nuclear reactor. Congress was unaware of the misplaced Hyde Park Aide-Memoire so enacted the Mcmahon Act which Truman, who knew about the Quebec Agreement and ongoing Committee activities, signed it into Law in August.

That said, the Mcmahon Act was revised and loosened in 1954, but by then it was obvious that the US didn't have a nuclear monopoly so nuclear cooperation was a better bet than denial.