WI france had developed nuclear bombs in the run up to the Second World War

[Kalki]

I am sure everyone here has heard of the Maginot Line. I was reading up about it today and was surprised to learn that is cost 3 billion Francs when it was built between 1929 and 1938.

3 billion Francs back then is comparable to 1.5 billion Euros (2007). That is a lot of money, comparable in scale to the project cost of the B-29 bomber or the Manhattan Project (which cost 2 billion USD back then).

Aside from the political will is it possible that France would have managed to develop nuclear weapons just before the outbreak of WW2?

The biggest issue I see is that fission had not been discovered till 1938 itself by Hahn and Strassmann, after the construction of the wall was over, and was not explained theoretically till 1939 by Meitner and Frisch.

But what if, fission had been discovered a decade earlier. Assuming the political will, would France have had the technical capability to develop a nuclear weapon?

Also anyone know any French bomber that could have deployed a crude nuclear bomb, something like a gun-type bomb? What other alternative delivery system could've been used?

 

[RLBH]

But what if, fission had been discovered a decade earlier. Assuming the political will, would France have had the technical capability to develop a nuclear weapon?

Just about, maybe. But, if France can do it, so can Britain, Germany, Italy, the Soviet Union, Japan.... but only the US can manage high production rates. Atomic bombs ITTL would be an expensive novelty.

Also anyone know any French bomber that could have deployed a crude nuclear bomb, something like a gun-type bomb? What other alternative delivery system could've been used?

Plenty of facetious ones. Realistically, a midget submarine or unmanned bomber would be called for. Any manned aircraft available in 1939 would be one of the world's largest aircraft; to escape the initiation, it would need a laydown delivery.

Whilst obviously impractical, I have this image of a gigantic French bomber casting a shadow over the Tiergarten as it glides down the Under den Linden. Half of Berlin is staring up at it, asking "What the heck was that thing?", whilst the other half are looking at an unexploded bomb, festooned with antennae, dangling from the Brandenburg Gate by a parachute asking "What the heck is that thing?"

 

[Kalki]

Just about, maybe. But, if France can do it, so can Britain, Germany, Italy, the Soviet Union, Japan.... but only the US can manage high production rates. Atomic bombs ITTL would be an expensive novelty.


Plenty of facetious ones. Realistically, a midget submarine or unmanned bomber would be called for. Any manned aircraft available in 1939 would be one of the world's largest aircraft; to escape the initiation, it would need a laydown delivery.

Whilst obviously impractical, I have this image of a gigantic French bomber casting a shadow over the Tiergarten as it glides down the Under den Linden. Half of Berlin is staring up at it, asking "What the heck was that thing?", whilst the other half are looking at an unexploded bomb, festooned with antennae, dangling from the Brandenburg Gate by a parachute asking "What the heck is that thing?"

Yes of course only the US could manage those rates of production which it had in the build up to the cold war and in the early cold war. But they were still not impressive. In 1945, the us only had a handful of bomb assembly teams and could make 6 bombs a year, something which Stalin didn't know. They only had 3 bombs when they dropped two on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In the end the early cold war was all about the US and Russia building up their bomb making capabilities.

As such I think at least initially the other powers would be able to compete with the US in terms of bomb numbers produced per year. At least for a couple of years. Maybe a decade.

There is another issue. If France takes the lead in Nuclear bombs and the others dismiss it as science mumbo-jumbo then France could have a head start in developing nukes. The soviets caught up with the Americans pretty soon in the nuclear arms race because they had spies. In the absence of the extensive access to the research of the Manhattan project the Russians enjoyed, they might have taken at least a couple of years longer to develop nukes of their own.

Assuming that nuclear fission is a thing in 1928 and is theoretically explained in 1929, a decade before OTL and then the French get cracking asap, they can have a nuclear bomb in 4-5 years flat.

Meanwhile, simple bureaucratic inertia can keep the British from pursuing the bomb for at least a year if not two, by which point France is half way there. In the absence of a war and FDR leading the nation, the Americans wouldn't have gone after an insanely expensive project in the middle of the Great Depression. The Japanese would probably have a Navy vs Army fight over who gets the bomb which will just delay them developing the bomb. The Russians have barely begun industrializing, and have Stain at the helm who loves killing half the scientists working on the project or shipping them to Siberia, or shipping them to Siberia and letting the hunger and cold kill them at regular intervals. And the Germans don't want anything to do with filthy Jewish drivel.

The France would easily test a bomb and have the basic set up to build a lot more, before the other powers even get half way to a bomb at best.

If and only if the political will existed.

 

[Archibald]

Well, France had the Joliot-Curie couple, they would certainly help

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

...
Whilst obviously impractical, I have this image of a gigantic French bomber casting a shadow over the Tiergarten as it glides down the Under den Linden. Half of Berlin is staring up at it, asking "What the heck was that thing?", whilst the other half are looking at an unexploded bomb, festooned with antennae, dangling from the Brandenburg Gate by a parachute asking "What the heck is that thing?"

..and then they saw the light

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

...

Assuming that nuclear fission is a thing in 1928 and is theoretically explained in 1929, a decade before OTL and then the French get cracking asap, they can have a nuclear bomb in 4-5 years flat.

A few things would make it easier for France:

1. the US had two bomb projects going on simultaneously. The Uranium bomb project was sidelined once it was clear the Plutonium bomb would work. Pursuing a single project would simplify and reduce cost.

2. The US was frantically fast tracking the two projects. Fast tracking any construction project can run up costs. A more conventional industrial approach would cut costs with less waste.

A old magazine article on my shelf has the cost of the Maginot fortifications as 7.012 billion Francs. Then there were the costs of the other secondary fortification projects south of Strausburg, along the Italian frontier, rehabbing some older pre 1914 forts, ect... How far can seven billion Francs & then some go for building a handful of simple Uranium bombs.

Assuming that nuclear fission is a thing in 1928 and is theoretically explained in 1929

These were exactly the same two years the proposal was made to fund the Maginot forts, specifically the CORF project. After design work was done & a demo fort was built the actual construction did not get underway until 1933-34. Would that be enough time for the alternative of a offensive weapon to be choosen instead? The CORF project set aside circa 1933 for a bomb project?

I'm fairly certain a Plutonium bomb would not be pursued in this case. the possibility may not have been understood, plus the implosion device may not have been practical without the early WWII research of the Brits on explosives.

So, what is the best course for the French to pursue to obtain the correct Uranium isotope in quantity for 3-4 devices by the end of 1939? If the decision is made in either 1933 or 1934? I am guessing with that much time building thousands of Calutrons is not necessary.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

These were exactly the same two years the proposal was made to fund the Maginot forts, specifically the CORF project. After design work was done & a demo fort was built the actual construction did not get underway until 1933-34. Would that be enough time for the alternative of a offensive weapon to be choosen instead? The CORF project set aside circa 1933 for a bomb project?

I'm fairly certain a Plutonium bomb would not be pursued in this case. the possibility may not have been understood, plus the implosion device may not have been practical without the early WWII research of the Brits on explosives.

So, what is the best course for the French to pursue to obtain the correct Uranium isotope in quantity for 3-4 devices by the end of 1939? If the decision is made in either 1933 or 1934? I am guessing with that much time building thousands of Calutrons is not necessary.

The problem is that you can't just handwave 'fission discovered 10 years early'.

For instance, the neutron wasn't even discovered until 1932, so you can't possibly get a viable explanation of fission before then.

Realistically, either you have to move up discoveries across a wide stretch of physics (which is going to have massive repercussions elsewhere), or you can only move forward the Abomb by a year or two.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

I expect you could if someone finances continual & concentrated research. Looking over the time line of the various 'discoveries' leading to atomic power one of the salient features is how thin on the calendar the research was. Someone would discover something, publish a paper later in the year or next. Others would digest it, someone else would decide to alter their research to follow that lead, funds would be applied for, funds would become available, & eventually another discovery made. The actual experiments seldom required more than a few months, some times just a few days.

Were the French, or anyone else, working a well funded multi lab research facility instead of single bench university back lot operations, the time between breakthrough discoveries tightens up. Let s consider if the Curies had been better funded earlier, leading to not only a larger lab, but more jr physicists from the universities. The inquiry & research become broader, and faster as lines of research move along in tandem & are cross fertilized faster from proximity. Interested researchers not able too get into the Curies lab would be boosting interest & research at the universities or other places they do land at. Something like this could lead to France becoming equal to or out pacing Germany in physics research in the 1920s.

After the Nazi racial laws have their effect in Germany France can benefit by taking in the new refugee professors, compounding its effort.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

...
For instance, the neutron wasn't even discovered until 1932, so you can't possibly get a viable explanation of fission before then.

Realistically, either you have to move up discoveries across a wide stretch of physics (which is going to have massive repercussions elsewhere), or you can only move forward the Abomb by a year or two.

If massive funds are needed one can redirect the CORF project funds as late as 1933 or 34. I'd need to check on what year wide spread ground breaking occurred & when production of the fortress weapons started.

 

[TFSmith121]

Fission? Not realistically, for lots of reasons, including

I am sure everyone here has heard of the Maginot Line. I was reading up about it today and was surprised to learn that is cost 3 billion Francs when it was built between 1929 and 1938.

3 billion Francs back then is comparable to 1.5 billion Euros (2007). That is a lot of money, comparable in scale to the project cost of the B-29 bomber or the Manhattan Project (which cost 2 billion USD back then).

Aside from the political will is it possible that France would have managed to develop nuclear weapons just before the outbreak of WW2?

The biggest issue I see is that fission had not been discovered till 1938 itself by Hahn and Strassmann, after the construction of the wall was over, and was not explained theoretically till 1939 by Meitner and Frisch.

But what if, fission had been discovered a decade earlier. Assuming the political will, would France have had the technical capability to develop a nuclear weapon?

Also anyone know any French bomber that could have deployed a crude nuclear bomb, something like a gun-type bomb? What other alternative delivery system could've been used?

Fission? Not realistically, for lots of reasons, including those outlined above.

Radiological weapons, however, would certainly have been a possibility, and given the general use of chemical weapons in WW I, not all that removed from potential acceptance.

Still have to be delivered, which is a crapshoot with the aircraft in service in France and elsewhere in the 1930s, but certainly make for a nasty operational environment for ground forces, especially if they are seeded into chemical weapons.

Of course, that opens the door to retaliation, and its not like the Germans didn't have a chemical industry.

Best,

 

[Simon]

For instance, the neutron wasn't even discovered until 1932, so you can't possibly get a viable explanation of fission before then.

The earliest point of divergence for a discovery of fission I've seen is with Ida Noddack in 1933, that gets you four to five years but nowhere near the decade suggested.