WI No "Hiroshima/Nagasaki"?

Say, for some reason, that WWII, or at least the Pacific War, lasts a few weeks or months longer, with the American President not wanting to use the bomb to make Japan surrender. Granted, the Japanese were too proud to surrender, but for this scenario, let's say that no bomb was used, and Japan eventually signed an ultimatum.

Now for the question: With the world not truly knowing the horrors that an atomic bomb can do, would it be more likely for nuclear bombs to be used in the Cold War, Cuban Missile Crisis or even a WWIII? Just a thought.
 
Say, for some reason, that WWII, or at least the Pacific War, lasts a few weeks or months longer, with the American President not wanting to use the bomb to make Japan surrender. Granted, the Japanese were too proud to surrender, but for this scenario, let's say that no bomb was used, and Japan eventually signed an ultimatum.
Let's just say that Japan is slightly less irrational, and surrenders without being nuked or invaded, somewhat later than OTL's V-J Day.
Now for the question: With the world not truly knowing the horrors that an atomic bomb can do, would it be more likely for nuclear bombs to be used in the Cold War, Cuban Missile Crisis or even a WWIII? Just a thought.

Well, first, the Cold War could be different if Japan's surrender is delayed. It's probable that the USSR occupies all of Korea, for instance.

Second, U.S. military strategy after the war was based largely on the idea that the U.S. had an irresistable air-delivered weapon, and didn't need any other military or naval forces. The next war would be a "push-button" war.

The Army, Navy, and Marine Corps were almost completely demobilized after the war, while the Air Force was elevated to a separate service.

In fact at the time, even more radical proposals were made - abolition of the Marine Corps and reduction of the Navy to a convoy escort force. There was a very bitter dispute over these questions. The Air Force tried to have naval aviation abolished (or merged into the Air Force, as had been the case in Britain between the wars).

If the Bomb has not been dropped - these policies would have far less impetus. The post-war drawdown would be less severe.

OTL, during the 1948 Berlin Crisis, U.S. policy was constrained by the fact that the U.S. Army had almost no fighting ability. There were at most five divisions that were fully manned and equipped. ATL, the U.S. will have retained a larger conventional-arms force, and may be more willing to risk open war.

By OTL 1950 the U.S. had recognized the folly of trying to rely exclusively on air power, but the U.S. was still seriously under prepared for Korea. ATL U.S. can put up a better fight.

As to the use of the Bomb: it would be used somewhere as a tactical weapon.
 
Probably the Soviets occupy Hokkaido with a divided Japan. The Japanese atre eventually defeated either through blockade/straegic bombing or when Operation Olymic starts it will probably be a bloodbath of proportions shocking enough to affect post war US perceptions of war and willingness to engage in war in the future.
 
Since the basic division lines had been drawn up Korea is divided as per this TL...

It'd depend on how far Red Army would get, in the end. Especially if the Soviets invaded Hokkaido and US would've tried to keep as little of Japan Soviet occupied as possible in exchange of more Korea ending red.
 
Assuming that it's literally just no use of Atomic weapons in WWII, I don't see it lasting a great deal longer than OTL. The only difference is that Atomic weapons will get a battlefield use in Korea instead. Maybe during the initial NK surge, maybe not until the Chinese come over the border.
Chances are though, that by then the Soviets will have atomic weapons as well, would Stalin try their atomics out against the Americans?
 
Assuming that it's literally just no use of Atomic weapons in WWII, I don't see it lasting a great deal longer than OTL. The only difference is that Atomic weapons will get a battlefield use in Korea instead. Maybe during the initial NK surge, maybe not until the Chinese come over the border.
Chances are though, that by then the Soviets will have atomic weapons as well, would Stalin try their atomics out against the Americans?

I agree that the Bomb is sooner or later going to be used, and Korea is a strong possibility if Russia hasn't occupied it during the extra month or two that the war has gone on. But would Stalin invest so much into the Soviet bomb program if there hasn't been an actual use yet? If there isn't quite as much of a sense of urgency in Russia, we could see the completion of the Soviet weapon pushed back - not forever, but for a year or two.
 
I agree that the Bomb is sooner or later going to be used, and Korea is a strong possibility if Russia hasn't occupied it during the extra month or two that the war has gone on. But would Stalin invest so much into the Soviet bomb program if there hasn't been an actual use yet? If there isn't quite as much of a sense of urgency in Russia, we could see the completion of the Soviet weapon pushed back - not forever, but for a year or two.

Interesting point.

But Stalin was actually pretty interested in the Bomb long before one was made. In 1942, Flerov, a young Soviet physicist serving in the Army, wrote Stalin to alert him to the possibility of the Bomb as a wonder-weapon.

Stalin read the letter, and called in senior Soviet physicists to ask if Flerov had something. They told him that they thought the Bomb was possible, and could be as powerful as Flerov thought. But it would take years to build - and resources the USSR couldn't afford during the war. Stalin then ordered that a shadow Bomb project be established, to be activated at the end of the war.

Now one might say that the project would get lower priority if the Bomb had not been used; but the Bomb would have been tested, and its power demonstrated.

So I think Stalin still goes for it.

Here's a question: if the Bomb had not been used, how long would it remain secret?

Not tremendously long, but... till after V-J Day? Six months? A year?

And what would be the public reaction to a $2 billion wonder weapon that was never actually used?
 
But Stalin was actually pretty interested in the Bomb long before one was made. In 1942, Flerov, a young Soviet physicist serving in the Army, wrote Stalin to alert him to the possibility of the Bomb as a wonder-weapon.

Stalin read the letter, and called in senior Soviet physicists to ask if Flerov had something. They told him that they thought the Bomb was possible, and could be as powerful as Flerov thought. But it would take years to build - and resources the USSR couldn't afford during the war. Stalin then ordered that a shadow Bomb project be established, to be activated at the end of the war.

Now one might say that the project would get lower priority if the Bomb had not been used; but the Bomb would have been tested, and its power demonstrated.

So I think Stalin still goes for it.

I think he still goes for it, and it's still a priority project, but I don't think he necessarily goes for it as hard. So Russia gets the bomb in 1950 or 1951 instead of 1949.

Or he goes for it just the way he did IOTL and gets it in 1949; that's possible too.

Here's a question: if the Bomb had not been used, how long would it remain secret?

Not tremendously long, but... till after V-J Day? Six months? A year?

I don't think they'd be able to keep it secret for very long. If they're smart, they'll publicize it themselves, to control the spin the media puts on the story.

And what would be the public reaction to a $2 billion wonder weapon that was never actually used?

That is precisely why I think it would probably be used in Korea. They have to show that all the money they've spent on this wasn't just a useless boondoggle. The wildcard there is Truman; would he still have the same view of the Bomb as had IOTL if he hadn't used it on Japan?
 
Top