WI: UK Deploys Atomic Weaponry in the Suez Crisis

What if in a desperate bid to preserve empire, the British-French-Israeli pact deploys at least one UK-produced nuclear weapon against an Egyptian target(s) of tactical or strategic importance?
 
The Egyptian navy then?
What I mean to say is, the British and French achieved their initial objectives with relatively little difficulty, and after all, the core asset in the dispute is one that they're, you know, planning to use again afterwards. This does not seem like a situation where nuclear weapons would be helpful.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
What I mean to say is, the British and French achieved their initial objectives with relatively little difficulty, and after all, the core asset in the dispute is one that they're, you know, planning to use again afterwards. This does not seem like a situation where nuclear weapons would be helpful.
I'm just throwing out ideas-I doubt nukes would have helped much in the endeavor.
 
There is absolutely no conceivable reason to do this because the British, French, and Israelis manhandled the Egyptian military. They lost politically because Eisenhower and the U.N. forced them to knock it off, not on the battlefield. So using a nuke does nothing militarily but it turns their political situation from baleful to utterly toxic.

Not going to happen.
 
There is absolutely no conceivable reason to do this because the British, French, and Israelis manhandled the Egyptian military. They lost politically because Eisenhower and the U.N. forced them to knock it off, not on the battlefield. So using a nuke does nothing militarily but it turns their political situation from baleful to utterly toxic.

Not going to happen.
This. In fact the only target worthy of such attention in the area was <drum roll> the US Navy. Maybe a little "demonstration" in the Med if the American obstructionism got too annoying?
Also, remember that in 1956 Britain had a small handful of fission bombs, of the Blue Danube pattern, and the Valiants to carry them.
 
But would Britain really be willing to do that on the U.S. Navy? Hell no.

As said earlier, Britain, France & Israel achieved their initial objectives so that was out the window. Plus the U.S. intervened because Egypt was going to be an ally of Saudi Arabia, of whom the U.S. was courting as an ally. No matter how you swung it, unless the U.K. and France was willing to go its own way (which the latter did...sorta). It had no choice but to climb down and accept Egyptian control of the Suez.
 
But would Britain really be willing to do that on the U.S. Navy? Hell no.
Hell no. Not without some really interesting PoD years earlier.

As said earlier, Britain, France & Israel achieved their initial objectives so that was out the window. Plus the U.S. intervened because Egypt was going to be an ally of Saudi Arabia, of whom the U.S. was courting as an ally. No matter how you swung it, unless the U.K. and France was willing to go its own way (which the latter did...sorta). It had no choice but to climb down and accept Egyptian control of the Suez.
Yep. You could go with a scenario where the UK call's Eisenhower's bluff, only to find he's not bluffing...
 

Deleted member 94680

Just. Not. Going. To. Happen.

Total ASB.

Having just read a book on suez, given the clusterf*ck at the political level in Britain, I severely doubt they would have been able to agree a target if the decision had been taken. Which it wouldn’t, to clarify.
 
Just. Not. Going. To. Happen.

Total ASB.

Having just read a book on suez, given the clusterf*ck at the political level in Britain, I severely doubt they would have been able to agree a target if the decision had been taken. Which it wouldn’t, to clarify.

Do you mean the book "The Suez Crisis of 1956", the Alternate History novel by some obscure Brit? It has clearly an anglophobic and anti-imperialist leftie agenda. British PM is a drug addict, they plan a military operation against Egypt which proceeds at glacial pace, they make a conspiracy (sign of a BAD novel!) with France and Israel (which was killing British servicemen just a few years before!) which anyone can see through. Now, when they attack the USA forcefully protests (like US would protest against it's closest ally!) instead of supporting UK and France, their NATO allies! Finally, the ending is some globalist fantasy. US organizes a run on Pound which makes economical situation difficult with Britain, USSR threatens with nuclear weapons and finally, an UN force under the blue flag (!!) comes to monitor the ceasefire.

The novel is total ASB. Now, don't get me started with the novel "Falklands War"....

http://www.changingthetimes.net/samples/brooks/review_of_the_alternate_history.htm

By the way, the same leftie wanker who wrote "The Suez Crisis of 1956" is now in process of writing an alternate history novel about joint US-British invasion of Iraq in 2003. I wonder what kind of idiots it will present the US and UK adminstrations? Sneak peeks have things like no planning for occupation of Iraq etc.
 
Last edited:
Top