WI: Soviets get first bomb

[Stonewall]

Probably ASB, but what if the Soviets detonate the first nuclear bomb?

 

[DirtyCommie]

Well, when do you project it happening, for starters? Cause if Germany still isn't defeated when they get THE BOMB, there'll probably be some nukes dropped in Central Europe. And then Stalin might decide that he doesn't want this whole "spheres of influence" crap and go on a nukespree throughout Europe and the rest of the world.

Cue nuclear winter and Pyrrhic victory for Stalinism.

 

[carlton_bach]

Well, when do you project it happening, for starters? Cause if Germany still isn't defeated when they get THE BOMB, there'll probably be some nukes dropped in Central Europe. And then Stalin might decide that he doesn't want this whole "spheres of influence" crap and go on a nukespree throughout Europe and the rest of the world.

Cue nuclear winter and Pyrrhic victory for Stalinism.

Nah. Stalin would think himself lucky to break double digits in the first years of production (and keep in mind one of the first major Soviet sources of uranium was in Germany - erm). Assuming this is possible at all (I suspect it would have to be post-WWII and involve some catastrophic fuckup late in the Manhattan Project that comnvinces the Americans it's not viable in the medium term, but still provides the KGB with the data they need), Stalin would use the bomb as a political tool. Noisy testing, threats, creating insecurity about his real arsenal, delivery capabilities, and willingness to use the weapon. Given his usual MO, I don't think we'd see Korea go nuclear, but the threat would hang over it perpetually.

A Soviet bomb during WWII would probably be used against tactical targets at the front due to the iffiness of delivery over Berlin. But IMO a Soviet bomb during the war is borderline ASB.

 

[Riain]

I think the Soviets would struggle to reliably deliver it to a deep strategic target. Perhaps it could be used operationally in conjunction with a major ground offensive elsewhere.

 

[Intosh]

Nah. Stalin would think himself lucky to break double digits in the first years of production (and keep in mind one of the first major Soviet sources of uranium was in Germany - erm). Assuming this is possible at all (I suspect it would have to be post-WWII and involve some catastrophic fuckup late in the Manhattan Project that comnvinces the Americans it's not viable in the medium term, but still provides the KGB with the data they need), Stalin would use the bomb as a political tool. Noisy testing, threats, creating insecurity about his real arsenal, delivery capabilities, and willingness to use the weapon. Given his usual MO, I don't think we'd see Korea go nuclear, but the threat would hang over it perpetually.

OTL, the main source of Soviet Uranium was in Poland... Today there is no more.

Even if the Soviet had a bomb before the US, I don't think the Soviet had the delivery capacities...

A copy of the B-29 in the late forties called Tupolev Tu-4 Bull.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Nah. Stalin would think himself lucky to break double digits in the first years of production (and keep in mind one of the first major Soviet sources of uranium was in Germany - erm). Assuming this is possible at all (I suspect it would have to be post-WWII and involve some catastrophic fuckup late in the Manhattan Project that comnvinces the Americans it's not viable in the medium term, but still provides the KGB with the data they need), Stalin would use the bomb as a political tool. Noisy testing, threats, creating insecurity about his real arsenal, delivery capabilities, and willingness to use the weapon. Given his usual MO, I don't think we'd see Korea go nuclear, but the threat would hang over it perpetually.

A Soviet bomb during WWII would probably be used against tactical targets at the front due to the iffiness of delivery over Berlin. But IMO a Soviet bomb during the war is borderline ASB.

With a PoD late enough to make it recognizably "WWII" (ours, as opposed to some generic Second World War), I suspect it's totally ASB, not just borderline.

With such a PoD, the Soviets getting the bomb first in any time frame is probably borderline ASB.

 

[Wolfpaw]

I believe that there were/are large deposits of uranium in Kazakhstan that the Soviets later used. Perhaps if these are discovered earlier?

 

[Jim Smitty]

I dont see the soviet getting the bomb first because they didn't the engineering to do it. The war would be over before they getting the bomb but the start of cold war be crazy, and most likey to go hot.

 

[chris N]

The Russians lacked the capacity to produce a bomb. They also lacked the capacity to both fight a war against Germany and provide the resources to make a nuclear weapon. Most of the information that they got was provided by spies in the US and Great Britain.

 

[Wolfpaw]

I'm gonna be frank here: this is a "What if?" not a "Why didn't?" Most people have a tendency to just ignore the "What if?" part and say why it was impossible for such a thing to occur without actually providing an analysis of what the effects might be if such an extraordinary thing were to ever occur. Not to say that the input isn't valuable or isn't well-intentioned, and I freely admit that I am myself guilty of this from time to time, but it doesn't seem to really be in the spirit of "What if ____?"

Sorry if this comes off as crotchety and whiny, but it's just something that really sticks in my craw.

 

[Gridley]

I'm gonna be frank here: this is a "What if?" not a "Why didn't?" Most people have a tendency to just ignore the "What if?" part and say why it was impossible for such a thing to occur without actually providing an analysis of what the effects might be if such an extraordinary thing were to ever occur. Not to say that the input isn't valuable or isn't well-intentioned, and I freely admit that I am myself guilty of this from time to time, but it doesn't seem to really be in the spirit of "What if ____?"

Sorry if this comes off as crotchety and whiny, but it's just something that really sticks in my craw.

Probably because this is the After 1900 section, not the ASB section. :-}

 

[Intosh]

I'm gonna be frank here: this is a "What if?" not a "Why didn't?" Most people have a tendency to just ignore the "What if?" part and say why it was impossible for such a thing to occur without actually providing an analysis of what the effects might be if such an extraordinary thing were to ever occur. Not to say that the input isn't valuable or isn't well-intentioned, and I freely admit that I am myself guilty of this from time to time, but it doesn't seem to really be in the spirit of "What if ____?"

Sorry if this comes off as crotchety and whiny, but it's just something that really sticks in my craw.

You wrote yourself, this is "probably ASB"...

So can you provide a interessing POD how the Soviet get the A-Bomb first ?

Without a POD, you cannot say what happend after, because the POD change a lot of things...

It is the same with every WI about the Confederation won the ACW.

My first answer is when (1861, 1862, 1864 ???), the second is how (Bull Run-wank, british and french intervention, McLellan President and the Union accepted peace)

So how the SU get an A-Bomb, spying from the US, a super soviet scientist, how many it cost, does it implied that the Red Army received mess funds ?

When, because OTL the US A-Bomb was in July 1945 ???

TTl, the US A-Bomb was a failure ?

It was produced at OTL time but the Soviet A-Bomb was in April-May 1945 ???

For me, a good WI is more that one sentence and provide a POD or a beginning of POD.

Sorry for the bad flak...