Suppose it simply wasn’t possible to build fission bombs. Maybe the laws of physics were subtly different so that fission didn’t happen, or A-bombs would “fizzle” rather than explode, or maybe just postulate that the Earth’s crust just didn’t contain any U-235. Whatever. How would world history be different post 1945? I can think of a few obvious things, but can anyone add to the following:
[ul]
[li]United States invades Japan in late fall or early winter 1945. Casualties high on both sides[/li][li]Red Army occupies all of Korean peninsula, and part of Japan after letting US forces break most resistance[/li][li]VJ day in 1946 or 1947[/li][/ul] It’s at this point I’m not sure what happens next. Other than the victory over Japan, the next world event I’m aware of that was influenced by nuclear weapons was the United States forbidding the Soviet Union to occupy Iran. My guess is that both the US and USSR were too worn out to seriously contemplate going to war again so soon; but how would brinksmanship play out without nukes?
[ul]
[li] No Korean War of course, since ALL of Korea would be communist, but what about Berlin, the Iron Curtain, etc?[/li][li] Weapons developement in the 50s would have had to been focused on fighting another large scale war rather than strategic nuclear systems. Some ballistic missile research but satellites would have been developed 10-15 years later than they were, and would have initially been tiny Vanguard-type things developed from sounding rockets. A big debate over whether strategic bombing was proven or disproven by the WW2 experience, and whether bombers could survive against guided missiles and jet fighters.[/li][li] Almost certainly a conventionally fought WW3 by the 60s.[/li][/ul]Anything else?
[QUOTE=Lumpy]
[list]
[li]United States invades Japan in late fall or early winter 1945. Casualties high on both sidesQUOTE][/li]
I happen to disagree. Because project casualities were so high, the invasion planner people would have forgoed Operation Olympic. Instead, what I think is they would have done is capture all the little island that Japan had, and then start a blockade on the whole country. Then use the superior air power to bomb industrial capacity, then the rice patties and all other food sources. Make Japan surrender, or starve to death.
Ok, the debate starts:
Maybe a “starve 'em out” strategy would have worked, and might even have been the smart thing to do; but was it politically possible for the US leaders to do this? Democracies get pretty darn tired of war after about four years, and a bomb & blockade strategy could have taken another two or three years to work. And there was the Soviet Union to consider after all.
Without the threat of a nuclear counter-attack, the United States would have had to either maintain a sizeable conventional army in Europe and Japan to plausibly deter the Soviets from overruning them. This would have been a major economic drain (especially after a longer war). There probably wouldn’t have been funds for the Marshall Plan on top of this, so Europe would have taken much longer to rebuild.
Weapons technology would be different. Missiles with nuclear payloads are an inaccurate and expensive methods of delivering ordnance. The money would have been spend on building conventional bombers instead. So no space program, reduced submarine development, and airbase buildups in Europe and Japan.
Another factor would be without nuclear armed missiles, the United States would feel safer from direct attack. This could lead to a resurgent isolationist impulse or to a sense of adventurism.
I disagree. The Soviets would have beelined straight for Japan. Part of the (theoretical) reason we used the bombs when we did was to prevent Soviet occupation of Manchuria and Japan.
I believe you have to consider what would happen politically to America. Either the war time economy would collapse under its own weight, and/or we would become a permanent war time government.
Without nuclear weapons, the war would have dragged on at least through 1946 and perhaps 1947. This would have given the Soviets the rationale and ability to occupy large chunks of the far east.
The end result, in my opinion, would have been another world war some time in the 1950’s - 1960’s at the latest. The world today wouldn’t look remotely like it currently does.
The blockade and bombardment of Japan through airpower were already well underway by the time Olympic was being prepped and readied to be carried out. Most Japanese cities had already been firebombed, and the USAAF was planning on dropping another 115,000 tons of incendiary bombs on Japanese cities every month. Japan’s merchant fleet had been decimated, from the USAAF Strategic Bombing Survey
The early stages of starvation had already begun in Japan. Operation Olympic might have been canceled in favor of a continued bomb and starve strategy in the end, but preparations were well underway to carry it out even while bombing and blockade were well underway.
The USSR could have taken Manchuria, but would have been dependant upon the US providing sealift to move their forces to Japan unless Japan had already collapsed and they could simply unload troops at a port without having to seriously fight their way ashore. The USSR’s amphibious sealift capacity in the Pacific was negligible. In a sustained land campaign against Japan, the US could very well have provided amphibious sealift or more likely provided the use of captured ports to allowed Soviet forces in order to spread the burden of casualties.
Regarding the OP, I could see a serious likelihood of a third World War erupting at some point. Much as I despise nuclear weapons, the sheer horror and futility of a nuclear exchange made another war unlikely, but with MAD out of the equation a “winnable” war is possible again.
In any case, without a cleaner end to the Pacific War, the U.S. military and political presence in East Asia would have lasted longer with far greater troops and resources diverted there. Arguably the same would have happened in Europe. The U.S. and USSR came very close to armed conflict on several occasions in reality. In this fiction, disputes over the reconstruction of Europe and the Pacific would have taken a harsher tone and the USSR’s strength would be even greater then in what actually happened. Without the U.S.'s demonstrated nuclear ability, the USSR would have pushed harder for what it wanted around the globe. Undoubtebly, the United States and Britain would push back. Whether or not this would come to blows or become more of a cold war is hard to say. My instincts tell me that it would have been a much hotter Cold War. I can imagine the U.S. feeling more compelled to keep the Republic of China in control of mainland China, as well as other theaters. Maintaining and spreading democracy would take a new furver throughout the world. Socially and Economically, both nations were already in a warfare mode, and both seemed to be at least a little short of exhaustion.
But I think the American people were unwilling to suffer such a high number of causalites. According to Dissonance’s cite, air power wasn’t used against the railnetworks yet. Also, there was a possibility that the allies could have used chemical warefar against the Japanese food sources. No matter how much you want to fight, if your people are starving and unable to, you will surrender.
I agree the Soviets were a force to worry about. If they went with this strategy, they run a high risk of the Soviets gaining some land in Japan, and we’d have another Berlin…but this time in Tokyo, but Tokyo was the question at that moment.
Well, think everyone covered the Japan theater. Definitely the war would have dragged on for at least another year, maybe two. Even starving them out wouldn’t have worked swiftly, and in the end the US probably would have had to resort to an armed invasion.
Now, after Japan surrenders I see the US/Britian and what is left of western Europe going at it. Most likely the US and China/USSR start hitting head to head when North Korea becomes troublesome. After all, the only thing that prevented a general war at that time was the threat of nuclear weapons on both sides. If this war doesn’t become WWIII, then certainly the dust up in Germany over Berlin pushes the button on a general war. With Western Europe still so shakey it probably goes initially the Soviets way, though I doubt they would get much further than through western Germany. The US probably would mobilize the remnants of the German military, as well as the French. Britian would of course weigh in on the new allies sides. THe biggest problem the Soviets face is logistics, though unrest in their ‘conquered’ territories also hinders them. In the end using tactical air the US manages to force the Soviets back out of Germany and probably Poland and the other Eastern Bloc countries. Its a long and bloody slog, and basically in the end there is an uneasy peace as the Soviets retreat to their own boarders.
After that, its anyone’s guess. 
-XT
Just to clarify, in my previous post I meant “Missiles without nuclear payloads are an inaccurate and expensive methods of delivering ordnance.”
I’m going to rock the boat.
Japan would have surrendered in late 1945 - the firebombing of their cities was far more effective and costly than the nuclear exchange. They were already looking for an excuse to surrender and the nuclears gave them an easy one - it might have taken an internal unheaval but they were finished already. Without nuclear on the way the Allies might not have insisted on unconditional surrender but again found a form of words that allowed an honourable surrender.
Also I think you are all overplaying the Soviets expansionist plans and underestimating the violent anti-communism of the US/UK. If anything the push would have been in the direction and it was Soviet nukes that would have deterred the US. After all Russia had already been invaded by the Western Allies after WW1 and were paranoid that it would happen again. Russia thus would still have wanted a series of buffer states in Eastern Europe, and got them, but was never willing to risk War with the US.
Without nukes the USSR would have been forced to keep even larger conventional forces for longer. I do not have the information whether that would have been more economically draining than running a nuclear programme but I suspect so. That, combined with a more aggressive Cold War stance by the US against a non-expansionist USSR may well have led to an earlier collapse of the Soviet system under the weight of military defences. If a hot war had started with the USSR it would have been started by the US thinking they could win it - probably with airpower. The US may have been more aggressive against communist China too.
The world would been a poorer place, and Western democratic society more militaristic, with larger standing forces and with more effort diverted into advanced conventional weapons.
There now, somebody has got to disagree with all that! 
VJ day no earlier than 48. Likelier 49.
No ICBMs = no Space Programs.
Both sides captured Biological/Chemical weapons, so the Arms Race would have included these.
Higher numbers of revolutions funded by both sides.
Rapid developement of guided/precision munitions, & FAE bombs.
Events like the Berlin Airlift probably would have happened as one of the few confrontations between the USSR and the USA. Cuba would remain a viable asset to the Soviets but without the threat of nuclear attack, the US could have kept that easily under control. I believe that even with a desperate push by the Soviets their lack of naval logistics (thanks to Dissonance) would mean Japan would become the South Korea of the time.
There would be no theatre other than Europe that the two sides could meet directly and so without weapons like ICBM’s, if a “hot war” started it would be here. Soviets would probably build a better navy, and start a battle of brinkmanship in the Pacific. Apart from this the two sides (through agencies like the CIA and KGB) may start fighting dirty, using “secret” terror campaigns which would involve chemical and biological weapons. Otherwise without the need for superiority that nukes brought or the fearful hate derived from them, the two sides may have become neutral.
(See, now you got my head turning.)
Let’s say we have the spies going at it with chemical and bio-weapons. Would there be a biological version of Cherobyl?
Also would there be a Vietnam? Probably not, so would we have the peace-loving anti-war generation that has helped mould today’s society.
If we had neutrality, would the USSR be around today. It’s ecomony would not have been geared for war and so may have sustained itself and if it couldn’t, would it then be a struggling society held in place by the economic support (and control) of the USA.
Agree with most of the above apart from “no Space Program”. The captured German technology was not that many years away from ICBMs and they did not have nukes. Surely if there were just technical problems with their development that could not be overcome they would have still developed ICBMs but just not the nukes for them to carry. Would still be useful for some very nasty chemical and biological payloads.
Also both sides would have seen the benefits of satellite intelligence - and space being the ultimate high ground would surely have had some value.
No nukes = no ICBMs period. Without nukes, it just ain’t cost effective.
No ICBMs = no Space programs. They were originally ways of “sending a message” to the opposite side in the Cold War.
No Space Programs = no satellites.
No satellites = no concept of satellite intel, as the concept of the cart cannot precede the concept of the wheel.
No Cuba crisis either. I seriously doubt there would BE a communist Cuba in the Soviet sphere. After all, they have no way to protect it without the threat of nukes. If Castro even attempts to come to power and declare for the communists and put himself into the Soviets sphere, the US invades and the Bay of Pigs never happens because the US supports fully the Cuban exiles invasion. God only knows what we’d end up with there in the end, but it wouldn’t be Castro or communism. Probably not in ANY of the Latin American countries for that matter for the same reason.
I’m unsure that no nukes=no ICBMs=no space program though. Basically the Nazi’s had proved the concept and we had captured the technology and the scientists. The military would have at least done tests with the captured hardware, even if in the end it wasn’t efficient to use. Even this aspect I’m unsure of given a decent guidance system which was certainly feasible and high explosive warheads (or Chem or Bio). The Nazi’s themselves pushed the V2 out the door prematurely before they could impliment the guidence system that would have made their rockets MUCH more accurate (saw this on the History Channel btw so I assume its at least in the ball park). I’m sure the appeal of a stand off weapon with the capabilities or at least potential to do things you don’t need to risk a pilot for would have been appearent to the various militaries…after all, look at how effective things like cruise missiles with conventional warheads are to the US in both gulf wars and in Afghanistan. Perhaps without nuclear warheads it would have pushed development even faster as better and more accurate launchers were needed.
Now, it might have DELAYED a space program, no doubt, but I think the idea was already there and someone would have started thinking of the implications eventually…if nothing else some Arthur C Clarke (or more likely some greedy capitalist :)) would have had a brain storm about using space for commercial benifits. Perhaps it would have been a complete civilian program as far as space goes, something in the exploration field. Civilian organizations could have developed incremental launchers just testing the technology as well. And once they started developing launchers that could orbit the earth, the benifits of satelites would have become appearent, as they did in our history.
Of course, I forsee that if there were no nukes to hold things back, the US and the Soviets (and their respective allies) would have gone at it hammer and tongs sooner or later (probably sooner). I just don’t see a likely scenerio where the two could co-exist peacefully with the situation as it was right after the war. Almost everything externally Stalin did could and probably would have triggered a general war. And on Stalin’s side, he HAD to secure those buffer states in Eastern Europe (to his mind) to protect the USSR from another attack, as well as to swipe materials and even technology the Russians needed (I remember reading that the Soviets took whole factories from Eastern Germany and shipped em back to Russia). China would also have been a sore point. North Korea was a powder keg that was already lit…no way that was going to change. Vietnam also…remember Ho Chi Mien was fighting originally against the French in the 50’s and that also wouldn’t have changed. Any or all of these would have been sufficient, without the deterence of nukes, to throw the world back into the fire IMO.
And it probably would have been a stalemate in the end with an uneasy peace and periodic flare ups. I can see the US and Britian throwing the Soviets out of Eastern Europe (the Soviets would have had a logistical nightmare trying to supply its army with the US and Britian shooting up its supply trains). It would be bloody but I doubt the Soviets could have held there…remember how battered they were, while the US was relatively unscathed and we had a hell of a lot more industrial capacity then the Soviets ever had.
However I also doubt that the US/Britian could have made many inroads into Russia, though I can see them bombing the shit out of the Soviets industrial base while being secure themselves. No chance the Soviets would ever have a navy to compete with the British, let alone the Americans, so the allies would control the seas essentially land locking the Soviets. China though…I can’t see how the US could or would have stopped the communists from taking control, though I’m sure we would have tried.
-XT
Point 1: Hadn’t the Japanese ruling council already started talking about opening peace negotiations with the US? The firebombing campaigns were devastating and ultimately much more destructive than the nuclear blasts, particularly since we were in a position to conduct far more firebombing runs.
Point 2: I disgree with this based in part on everyone else’s reasoning. Germany had already developed rockets, that research would have continued. The primary effect that I see is a slowing of Space program development along with an increased commercial/private component.
Point 3: Agreed - probably would have focused on them.
Point 4: Ehhh - I’d like to see your reasoning for this. With a lack of WMD, it would have been far easier for each country to directly intervene and prevent direct intervention by the other (at least within their respective hemisphere’s of influence).
[ol]
[li]No. The Emperor supported it, but it took the use of nukes to force many officers to choose his position.[/li][li]Between the end of WW2 & the Sputnik launch, the Space Program was starved for cash, & had to constantly point out its missile developement applications. No A-Bomb, no ICBM, no Space Program. Look at Hovercraft. Despite the obvious applications, it has had to fight for its existance every step of the way. It almost died out. Only visionary thinkers supported it at times. Rocket funding could have died the death of the half-track very easily.[/li][li]We agree.[/li][li]Counterpoint–if you use overt (& very expensive ) military force to supress every single uprising, you don’t have the troops to stand ready against conventional war. So extra rebellions would be funded to dilute main force units.[/li][/ol]
Right, but there was a real turf fight between the services post WWII as the military was downsized and each branch sought to justify ITS budget at the cost of the other branches. And the Air Force focused on strategic nuclear capabilities, claiming that all the US needed was a bomber force (nuclear) and maybe some troops to occupy the glass after the bombs fell and the ground cooled (ya, its stupid but only in retrospect). A lot of civilian planners bought into this concept (mostly because it was a lot cheaper in the long run). The Navy was literally fighting for its life (up to Vietnam really when it became obvious that the Air Force was full of shit and that the Navy still had a major role), and the Army was downsized big time (look at the shape of the troops when Korea happened…and that was only 5 years after WWII ended!).
So, you are correct in OUR universe. However, in this alternative universe there would BE no downsizing, there would BE no huge expense nor dominance (however brief) of the Air Force due to its nuclear monopoly, and there would be a LOT of money spent in development of new weapons systems, including the jet (much sooner) and strategic and tactical rocket research IMO. Why? Well, IF we were to go to war with the Soviets, wouldn’t it be a nice flexable option if we could hit them with rockets (no defense) as opposed to sending pilots and crews in harms way? Maybe the concept wouldnt’ have born out in the end (but, of course it WOULD have) but it would be worth the resources to at least look into it. Again, we had the rockets (even the tooling to make them), we had the scientists and the engineers. And we DID capture them to look into the capability initially (remember, at first there was no way to PUT a nuke on a rocket because they were too small…so the initial research was into using them conventionally anyway) even in OUR universe.
This is one of those situations where everyones opinion weighs about the same…but for my part I don’t see how eventually it wouldn’t have occured to someone to use rockets to achieve orbit, and move on from there. After all, people had been speculating about it for a long time, and Verner Von Braun (prolly spelled his name wrong :)) for one was totally focused on this…thats the only reason he put up with the Nazi’s at all if the History Channel is to be believed…because he thought that they were the means to the end of space travel. The US with much greater resources and more public imagination…ya, I can see us doing something along those lines just as a prestige project. Maybe in the '80’s :)…but eventually.
-XT