WI: Japan gets the bomb before 1945.

All this changes is higher Allied casualties and might make them go to Plan B: If it's yellow and speaks Japanese kill the fuck out of it. And I deliberately spoke in those racist terms because that would be the attitude of the allies who will win the war.
You didn't even need a nuclear weapon for that, to quote Admiral Halsey in the wake of the attack on Pearl Harbor "Before we're done with them, the Japanese language will be spoken only in Hell!" If the Japanese had managed to nuke Honolulu or San Diego then all it does is spread this sentiment even wider.
 
One way to facilitate Japanese development of an atomic bomb is for it not to be involved in WWII. Say, with the appropriate POD, no all-out Japanese invasion of China in 1937. The timeline meanders along, there's a little more money for Japanese scientists to tinker with nukes, butterflies result in slightly advanced nuclear program in other countries. Hitler goes crazy, WWII breaks out, it ends with atomic destruction. Japan is one of the countries that sees atomic weaponry is vital to be a 1st class power in the new world order and builds a weapon as fast as they can.

1945 is probably too optimistic. The Soviets did it in 1949 with the advantage of nuclear secrets and an economy that despite being devastated by war, was much larger than Japan's could be. The British did it in 1952, being screwed out of nuclear secrets and with a pretty lousy economy. So lets give Japan an atomic bomb in 1952.

This opens a possibility for a nice parallel to OTL. Maybe the Chinese decide to liberate Manchuria, and as they cross the Yalu into Korea, hardline Japanese generals press to use their atomic bombs and usher in an era where conventional use of atomic bombs is the norm...
 
That was Plan A OTL, and that was the attitude of the Allies OTL.

It wasn't Plan A as such, sure the Allies were ruthless but it was a ruthless war the occupation was a pretty civilised affair all things considered I'm thinking the main difference from even more hatred is a much more brutal occupation, say goodbye to the Emperor.
 
There's more chance of the Italians getting the bomb, if you want to give Japan WMD's have them use the biological ones they were already acquiring from Unit 731.
 
Hypothetically, if Japan could have developped a nuclear device in 1945, it would also have to need to develop some means to transport and deliver it at the same time. Early Nuclear devices were cumbersome and quite large heavy things, requiring a large strong carrier (an aircraft naturally) to transport and deliver it. As Japan lacked large and heavy bombers, it needed to develop one first, sicne the IJN and IJA OTL bombers all were medium sized and lacked the loading capacity for such large devices. Only the large slow flyingboats were of the required size, but these lacked internal loading capacity, so were unlogical to use as such.
 
There's more chance of the Italians getting the bomb, if you want to give Japan WMD's have them use the biological ones they were already acquiring from Unit 731.

I would tend to reverse them. While Italy had the better known (and probably just *better*) nuclear scientists, they lacked (more than any other power) a "middle of nowhere" to both develop and test their nuclear program which the Japanese had.

Having said *that* even if the two powers directly collaborated on a bomb, they'd still be behind both the US and the UK even if the US and UK worked separately.

And yeah, if the Japanese wanted to go WMD, Unit 731 is probably the source. :(
 

Cook

Banned
Early Nuclear devices were cumbersome and quite large heavy things, requiring a large strong carrier (an aircraft naturally) to transport and deliver it.
It has already been pointed out in this thread that a submarine would work as an alternative and Japan did have some extremely long range submarines capable of reaching the west coast of the United States.
 
It has already been pointed out in this thread that a submarine would work as an alternative and Japan did have some extremely long range submarines capable of reaching the west coast of the United States.

What would a submarine be capable of with a nuclear device? As long as it has no means to get the thing airborne, a nuclear device will rarely do the level of damage it is designed to do. Even when using a submarine as launchingplatform, you still need something to get the device in the air to make use of the blasteffect, the nuclear weapons all are designed for.

Transport fo the device is not the issue here, the launching and deployement of the thing is. (Even a simple cargoship can carry a nuclear weapon in its holds. The trick is to get some means to deploy it over a target.) Using a nuclear weapon on the surface of the ocean, or submerged, will not do the level of damage a nuclear blast can do in the air, as the much denser water absorbs much of the energy from that blast, while the less denser air can non do that, resulting in a wider radius of the energy blast of the weapon. physically the energy of an explosion will travel away from the more dense solid, or liquid surroundings, into the less dense air. If you want to do damage, you need to direct the blast on to the target, which means you have to detonate it above it in the air, as only then the blast will be spherically created, including downwards on top of the target erea.
 
Last edited:

Geon

Donor
Submarine kamikaze

What about using one of the I-400's or for that matter any large submarine with good range to sneak under an American invasion fleet, say at Iwo Jima or Okinawa and then detonating the bomb? It would be a kamikaze mission and yes the damage wouldn't be as severe as a land blast but from a Japanese perspective wouldn't one sub be worth the loss of maybe 10 American ships? (including possibly a fleet carrier) Also the sheer shock value shouldn't be underestimated.

Geon
 

J.D.Ward

Donor
What about using one of the I-400's or for that matter any large submarine with good range to sneak under an American invasion fleet, say at Iwo Jima or Okinawa and then detonating the bomb? It would be a kamikaze mission and yes the damage wouldn't be as severe as a land blast but from a Japanese perspective wouldn't one sub be worth the loss of maybe 10 American ships? (including possibly a fleet carrier) Also the sheer shock value shouldn't be underestimated.

This is probably the most realistic possibility for a Japanese A-bomb. Most others are either:

i) ASB

or

ii) Have a POD so early that the best description of the outcome is "It's a Second World War, but not as we know it".

If American strategy still proceeds as in OTL, the Americans then retain the unquestionable moral high ground after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Another possibility ITTL is that the first American A-bomb explodes over the Imperial Palace.
 
What about using one of the I-400's or for that matter any large submarine with good range to sneak under an American invasion fleet, say at Iwo Jima or Okinawa and then detonating the bomb? It would be a kamikaze mission and yes the damage wouldn't be as severe as a land blast but from a Japanese perspective wouldn't one sub be worth the loss of maybe 10 American ships? (including possibly a fleet carrier) Also the sheer shock value shouldn't be underestimated.

Geon


One problem might be the huge costs to develop such a device, which might be as much as a couple of year budget of the entire Japanese yearly income. Sinking a few enemy ships, for such a budgettary investment is not good, as the Japanese knew the USa could Always replace those ships lost quite easily, while Japan would get bankrupt early on, just for this single weapon.
 
Top