WW2 with more nukes

With a POD after 1919, how can as many nations create and deploy nuclear weapons before the end of WW2?
 
I'm interested if a nuclear slog at the end of the war is possible, where cities are destroyed back and forth.
 
Not really possible without butterflying away WWII as we know it. Developing the bomb was expensive and required intensive research by the world's top scientists. The Nazis politicized science and drove out many of the best minds while their project itself was poorly organized and considered unessential given other war needs. The Soviet Union and Japan also had far more pressing wartime needs and couldn't allocate the resources necessary to construct a device.
 
The prevailing data I have heard on this site is that the US was capable of producing something like 2 bombs a month in 1945. Others can comment on the sources for that (I don't have them). I think you'd need several PODs to get an axis nation producing nukes with the capability to deliver them in order for the nuclear slog to be a possibility - and then, as RightHoJeeves said it, you're butterflying away WWII as we know it.
 
Once the problems were solved, the building could commence. But solving them, that was the tricky part. It took so much, hardly possible to have multiple nations ge it done before any world war has ended, not unless its a cold war.
 
The prevailing data I have heard on this site is that the US was capable of producing something like 2 bombs a month in 1945. Others can comment on the sources for that (I don't have them). I think you'd need several PODs to get an axis nation producing nukes with the capability to deliver them in order for the nuclear slog to be a possibility - and then, as RightHoJeeves said it, you're butterflying away WWII as we know it.

But by the time the US could produce more, Nazi germany was gone and Japan was half starving to death and short on everything, so no "enemy" nukes are coming up...
 
The prevailing data I have heard on this site is that the US was capable of producing something like 2 bombs a month in 1945. Others can comment on the sources for that (I don't have them). I think you'd need several PODs to get an axis nation producing nukes with the capability to deliver them in order for the nuclear slog to be a possibility - and then, as RightHoJeeves said it, you're butterflying away WWII as we know it.

But by the time the US could produce more, Nazi germany was gone and Japan was half starving to death and short on everything, so no "enemy" nukes are coming up...

Let's put it this way: while all the other belligerents are desperately scrounging up whatever resources they can to produce weapons and war material the US government decided to give the Manhattan Project a blank check to investigate something completely theoretical on the chance that it could produce what is really just a bigger bomb from a strategic viewpoint. They know it's not necessary to win the war but they did it anyway just because they could.

That's how utterly huge the gap was between the US and the rest of the world in technology, industrial capacity and finance.
 
If WW2 had somehow lasted another 5 years or so and it could have then it is possible Stalin and the Soviet Union MIGHT have had the bomb. Understand that the USA Manhattan Project was the USAs second most expensive war time project. The B29 heavy bomber was first. That being said, it took the USA all that time and tons of wealth to create the bomb. Other nations other than the USSR probably would not have been able to do so.
 
For the scenario to actually work, i'm going to make some basic assumptions.

1. All state heads give their complete and unilateral support for the project.
2. Nazi Germany might exist earlier - otherwise a ww2 situation wouldn't really work, alongside some real life brain drain mechanics not working.
3. Theres essentially a hard limit of 1936-1937 anyway because the understanding of nuclear fission wasn't advanced enough before then.


To be entirely honest, the basic points have been stated on this thread already.
Nazi Germany probably isn't getting any nukes. Driving out basically all the scientists essential for a atom bomb program basically killed the Nazi bomb project before it had really begun. However, one of the killing blows was due to high command assuming it would be a short war. Remove that, and you have more potential. It should be noted that in this situation, its assumed that all great powers of the time would work on a atomic bomb project - And that would include France. Maybe French scientists and material captured during the fall of France would help timewise. No idea.

The US has a more debatable outcome. If they were too start by themselves in 1936 or 1937 and persist by themselves without allied help, They might be able to have a functioning nuclear weapon by late 1944, early 1945. On the other hand, OTL the Manhattan project was only really possible with the knowledge addition of the British "tube alloys" project, alongside various Canadian scientists, and of course, all of the scientists fleeing from Germany and Italy. Assuming allied cooperation, mid or early 1944 might be possible. Early 1945 would definitely be possible.

I don't really see the UK making an atomic bomb by themselves. OTL the tube alloys project was merged with the Americans for a reason - Britain just didn't have the industrial infrastructure to create conventional and nuclear weaponry at the same time, so that job was passed to the US. With this in mind, if the UK were to continue to produce an atom bomb themselves, I can't really see them making one before late 1945, but probably not at all. With allied cooperation, it would basically turn into an American project anyway.

French couldn't really complete anything before they get invaded by Germany. As previously discussed, any scientists, equipment, and scientific theories would probably go to the German atomic program.

The Japanese probably couldn't get anything functioning before the end of the war. OTL the Japanese atomic program was held down mostly by rivalries and a poor industrial capacity, not unlike Germany. The army and the navy had separate nuclear programs, both of which ended up at the same place at the end of the war. Scientist wise Japan wasn't much better than Germany, but because Japan wasn't against using Jewish or other expelled scientists, and while the did officially have a policy of antisemitism, in practice it wasn't actively enforced, and anyone who helped the Japanese war cause was overlooked. Given all of those factors, a bomb might be possible late 1945, but that honestly still seems unlikely.

The Soviet atom bomb project could be a little more successful due to Atomic spies, but I still can't see anything happening ww2. Maybe an earlier first test, most likely early 1947, possibly late 1946. Aside from that, not much could really be accomplished. Soviet nuclear industry was essentially non-existent, and the fact that they built an atomic bomb 1948 OTL was already a miracle, as American and British intelligence didn't expect a soviet nuke until early 1950s.

TL;DR - It doesn't really change. The situations I put forward were already stretching it as they were. OTL there was a reason that only America made nukes: they were basically the only country that actually could. The German project was doomed from the start, The Japanese never put anything towards a serious effort, The British project didn't have the industrial base, and the only nuclear industry the Soviets had was their spies. In this situation however, the Americans might get more nukes earlier, which would be interesting to see how that played out.
 
Look at it from a different starting point. Imagine WWI ends under different terms and Germany isn't punished to the point its economy collapses c.1923. Atomic science is a very esoteric subject and in most countries, highly classified. WW2 does not break out as scheduled and the time period sees American television and German tape recording usher in consumer prosperity in the forties. Multiple countries develop atomic "secret" weapons. You have cases where the top leaders know about the Bomb and the people who create the political tensions do not. When a conflict does break out, and it may earn the label "World War II," it will start with atomic/nuclear weapons. Hopefully, it will be short and the world will be stunned over the new technology.
 
I mostly agree with @kio , who has produced a good analysis of the situation. The only slight divergence of opinion I have is that I think it might just be possible for the British Empire to produce an atom bomb by themselves. They have all the raw materials they need in Australia and Canada, as well as all the space and scientific talent. While their industry is stretched, I understand that there are two possible paths to producing a bomb - one which requires a great deal of power and industry (this may be the uranium hexafluoride route, if I remember rightly) and one which requires substantially less (this may be the plutonium route). Tube Alloys had, whether by luck or insight, chosen the less demanding route. The Americans of course had the industrial capacity to do both, and develop the B-29 as well (which actually cost more than the bomb!), but this wasn't the only approach that would have been successful. It would certainly demand a lot, and the delivery system would probably be highly risky (perhaps a specially-lightened Lancaster dropping a parachute-retarded bomb), but I think it could have been done.
 
I don't really see the UK making an atomic bomb by themselves. OTL the tube alloys project was merged with the Americans for a reason - Britain just didn't have the industrial infrastructure to create conventional and nuclear weaponry at the same time, so that job was passed to the US. With this in mind, if the UK were to continue to produce an atom bomb themselves, I can't really see them making one before late 1945, but probably not at all. With allied cooperation, it would basically turn into an American project anyway.

The British are capable of doing it - Tube Alloys essentially got everything right about what was required for an atomic bomb, without some of the blind alleys of the Manhattan Project. They have the industrial and scientific capacity to develop a project and deliver a bomb.

BUT - the problem is that it's hard to come up with an alt-WW2 where they do so. It requires a long war without much UK-US collaboration. Yet a long war means France has fallen... but France falling means the US going apeshit at German domination of Europe and encroachment into the Americas, while Britain does its level best to tie itself economically to the US. So you end up with the historical outcome of British donations of technology to the US in exchange for finished goods - or a Britain that has too much on its plate to divert the resources to develop a bomb.
 
The A-Bomb is a massive scientific gamble in the 1930's, no one could be sure it was really feasible. They could be sure it would expensive and time consuming to find out. Outside of the USA and the UK I don't think anyone has the resources to take the chance and the Uk would only do so because it was the ultimate weapon of last resort and of course the fear the German's might get one first.
 
Other nations other than the USSR probably would not have been able to do so.

Not only did the US spend the money for two different types of bombs, built the infrastructure to mass produces them. The throttle was barely pressed in August when the first cores were made
 
Tube Alloys essentially got everything right about what was required for an atomic bomb, without some of the blind alleys of the Manhattan Project.

Only the USA had enough money, manpower and resources to use each possible method of enrichment

Tube Alloya didn't foresee Pu-240 contamination in reactor made Pu-239, and once discovered in samples, realized a real problem, along with reactor made Pu would be many times more expensive than Tube Alloys assumed

This meant that the 'Thin Man' gun type assembly would never work, no gun was fast enough for critical mass before the Pu-240 went off

with von Neumann and Kistiakowsky in the USA, it's unlikely that that the UK group will come up with the fast implosion theory in time for WWII
Chadwick and Penney were good, just not in this area. Tube Alloys would need the Hungarian 'Martians' that were already long in the USA
 
If you want it to happen in OTL WW2, would need to be a longer (as in, much longer) war. Standard Nazi victory against the USSR, pushing the Soviets to the other side of the Volga. The Allies go all Downfall in Japan (and Manchuria), using a lot of eaely nukes to smash their way across the IJA. The germans realize that nukes are possible, and by the time an invasion of Europe is launched both sides have nukes.
 
perhaps a specially-lightened Lancaster dropping a parachute-retarded bomb)

It took the USA several years to get a drogue and parachute system that worked for bombs. Enola Gay had 43 seconds for a Little Boy, that was equipped with drag plate in the box fins, to be miles awya when the bomb goes off.
And the B-29 was far faster and flew far higher than the Lancaster.

If it was that easy, they would have done so, rather than admit defeat and ask for some some B-29s

0747306.jpg

That would be called the Washington, and used until the the first of the 'V' Bombers were ready
 
I mostly agree with @kio , who has produced a good analysis of the situation. The only slight divergence of opinion I have is that I think it might just be possible for the British Empire to produce an atom bomb by themselves. They have all the raw materials they need in Australia and Canada, as well as all the space and scientific talent. While their industry is stretched, I understand that there are two possible paths to producing a bomb - one which requires a great deal of power and industry (this may be the uranium hexafluoride route, if I remember rightly) and one which requires substantially less (this may be the plutonium route). Tube Alloys had, whether by luck or insight, chosen the less demanding route. The Americans of course had the industrial capacity to do both, and develop the B-29 as well (which actually cost more than the bomb!), but this wasn't the only approach that would have been successful. It would certainly demand a lot, and the delivery system would probably be highly risky (perhaps a specially-lightened Lancaster dropping a parachute-retarded bomb), but I think it could have been done.

The British are capable of doing it - Tube Alloys essentially got everything right about what was required for an atomic bomb, without some of the blind alleys of the Manhattan Project. They have the industrial and scientific capacity to develop a project and deliver a bomb.

BUT - the problem is that it's hard to come up with an alt-WW2 where they do so. It requires a long war without much UK-US collaboration. Yet a long war means France has fallen... but France falling means the US going apeshit at German domination of Europe and encroachment into the Americas, while Britain does its level best to tie itself economically to the US. So you end up with the historical outcome of British donations of technology to the US in exchange for finished goods - or a Britain that has too much on its plate to divert the resources to develop a bomb.

You guys are probably right. I got about halfway through the Tube Alloys project page on wikipedia before I got bored and switched over to the Japanese atomic bomb project. In any case, the conclusion @King Augeas arrived at wasn't that entirely different. Still though, thank you two for the corrections.
 

Wimble Toot

Banned
The A-Bomb is a massive scientific gamble in the 1930's, no one could be sure it was really feasible..

A nuclear weapons program would throttle Hitler's re-armament plans in the 1930s, overheat the Reich's economy yet more, and offer no discernible benefit within eighteen months/two years, so it would be shut down in 1940.
 
Top