I totally disagree that no Nukes = no ICBM’s. I think accurate Missiles, that did not endanger pilots, would be a convention godsend. I mean most U.S. missiles today carry non-nuclear warheads. Same is true of with Satellites: Military exploitation of Space to a large extent had nothing to do with Nuclear technology per se.
In fact, without the Expensive Manhattan project, Nuclear studies and building and continually updating the nuclear infrastructure more money would not necessarily need to be spent on R& D and developing conventional forces.
We could have roughly the same size military we did and (true for both NATO and Warsaw Pact) spend significantly more on conventional/specialized non-nuclear weapon development, without spending all that much more greatly more on defense.
As a result I would expect Mid-70’s conventional weapons, on both sides, by the late 50’s-early 60’s. I am not positive that society would be significantly advanced – as mentioned any one of the sore spots: the Middle East, Berlin, Cuba etc could have turned “hot”: that would have retarded society’s growth. In fact I think a big bloody, expensive and timeline distorting WWIII would be very likely before the Soviets fell.
I’m sticking by my original theory that without nukes there’d be no space program. It’s true that Germany spent money building rockets but they did so mainly because they failed to build and maintain a conventional bomber force. Countries like Britain and the US used airplanes to drop bombs and knew this was a better way to deliever conventional explosives to a target. This why neither power bothered to support any significant rocket research during the war to oppose the German dominance of that field. Only once it was possible to put a nuclear explosive in a rocket did it make sense to build them as a military weapon; you could now put enough explosives in a single missile to justify the high cost to payload ratio. The space program and conventionally armed missiles were just an offshoot of the development of ICBMs. Without the ICBMs, there wouldn’t have been enough reason to support spending billions of dollars for a secondary weapons system.
As for the issue of Japan’s surrender, we’ve beaten that horse a dozen times already. There was a peace faction in Japan in 1945 just like there was one in Germany in 1944. But in both cases, the war faction had control of all of the guns and a willingness to use them, so there was no way the peace faction was going to win the argument. The Japanese were aware of the possibilities of invasion, blockade, and aerial bombing and had made planes to continue fighting in the face of all three. There’s no reason to think they would have changed their minds.
jimmmy , your post gives me a headache. Cruise missiles, like the early Bomarc system, using jet engines for unmanned atmospheric flight, would have been easier, more cost-effective, & less industrially demanding.
And while spaceflight had nothing to do with nuclear technology (note: no capitalization for “nuclear”), it had everything to do with Cold War posturing & chest-thumping.
Some very well informed and thought out alternate history here…
My gut feel is that all the major parties would have been considering some kind of technological end to the war by 1944, after the millions of soldiers lost in combat and the sheer cost of running their ‘war machines’ across the globe.
I believe that more accurate missile technology (leading to ICBMS) with chemical payloads would have been developed at around the same time as the A-Bomb was in our version of history. The elimination of every living thing in Hiroshima or Manchester by nerve gas, combined with the threat of MAD would, I feel, have a similar effect of essentially ending overt hosilities and would usher in the start of a new cold war.
You vastly overstate the capabilities of nerve gas. VX is wild stuff, but nerve and other chemical agents are incredibly difficult to use as effectively as explosives.
Sorry Chief. Little dyslexia – but re the 'tude right back atchya re your user name
Amen. I think cruise missiles would be a logical step, as would something like the old Saturns. Still, the early development of the ICBM’s the Atlas pre-dated any possibility of a nuclear warhead being attached – although it is true in theory the designers had their eye on the nuclear deliverable ball – the *concept wasn’t tied * to nuclear warheads. For you to be right here we need to imagine the U.S. having a great deal more R&D money and looking for ways to deliver all kinds of crap to the USSR and not coming up with ICBMs. I think given the technological start of WWII that this is unlikely.
Could have happened certainly. I doubt it though. We know Wernher von Braun is going to be in White Sands from 47-50 developing missiles and writing about missions to Mars and the Moon … writings that will create international excitement and the U.S. is going to ignore that? Maybe. Maybe until some version of Sputnik is sent up. This may be a question of semantics though. You are certainly not saying this forever right? – you are just saying it wouldn’t be where it is today … or *are you * saying No ICBMs= no space program?
OK … not sure why not having nukes would matter here or to the discussion at hand. Thanks for the punctuation tip - you should outta write a book on grammar.
Saturn 5s were rocket propelled. Bomarcs & cruise missiles are pilotless jet aircraft, basically.
And to the best of my knowledge, no Saturn 5 was ever considered for use as anything other than a manned space vehicle. The Saturn was not an ICBM at any time.
Asprin, asprin, talking with jimmmy leaves me with a great need for asprin. :smack:
I just skimmed through the responses, so I’m not sure if anyone else mentioned this, but U235 isn’t absolutely necessary for a fission bomb. In fact, the Manhattan Project developed a purely U235 bomb and a purely Pu (plutonium) bomb in parallel. The Hiroshima bomb was the U235 bomb, the Nagasaki bomb was the first Pu bomb. Eventually, bomb research settled on a mix of them.
Here’s some alternative history:
U235 production proves to be impossible (that is, it exists but we’re unable to get enrichment to work). The Pu bomb fizzles; we can’t get Pu to work in a real bomb. The war drags on into September. USSR takes Manchuria, but wants US to invade Japan, because the USSR isn’t dumb enough to get murdered trying to go ashore. US steps up the conventional bombing and blockade. By spring 1946, mass starvation and disease in Japan; military and civil authorities at a standstill. Manhattan Project scientists decide to drop dirty bombs containing large amounts of radioactive isotopes including cobalt and strontium. Secret tests in the desert to check wind effects, etc. In April through July 1946, US 20th Air Force drops radioactive bombs on key cities other than Tokyo, tells Japan what it has done. Japan still holds out. By November 1946, starvation and radiation disease have caused 75% casualties in Japan. USSR now holds all of Manchuria, much of China, no Japanese forces outside of Japanese mainland exist. Blockade is nearly total. Japanese society collapses. In March 1947, specially trained US paratroops land in Tokyo, overpower Palace guards, take Emperor hostage. Japanese army officers make a suicide charge, US takes 75% casualties, all the officers and the Emperor are killed. In April 1947, US lands in Japan, finds no coordinated resistance. USSR lands in the north in May 1947. US and USSR split Japan in 2. Sporadic fighting until 1949.
In Europe, US and USSR in standoff. USSR waits to see if US backs off; US never does. US steps up rocket development and development of dirty bombs, also germ and gas warfare. Truman still wins in 1948, promising to be tough with the Russians. McArthur wins the nomination over Eisenhower in 1952, promises to keep Western Europe free. US continues draft and mobilization throughout the 1950s, the country is constantly on a war footing.
US Navy doesn’t get nuclear reactors in submarines (a U238 reactor is too bulky, and U235 is unavailable) until small Pu reactors are available in the 1970s. No nukes means no missile subs; US spends money on fast jet bombers and short-range rockets that carry dirty bombs. Missile subs not available until 1980s.
McArthur runs for 3rd term in 1960. Castro takes over Cuba, throws in with Russians; McArthur delivers ultimatum: back off or we attack. Castro refuses. US invades Cuba in 1960, USSR invades Berlin. Fighting in Cuba until 1970, when last of pro-Castro rebels are captured. USSR captures all of Berlin in 6 weeks, US retreats to West German border but holds. Berliners stage an uprising; USSR reveals it has its own dirty bombs when it drops them on Berlin. By spring of 1961, 50% of Berlin population is dead. USSR builds a wall around the city to prevent “diseased” citizens from leaving.
France is forced to leave Vietnam in 1954. Vietnam is partitioned. The North starts sending guerillas into the South, US responds by invading the North and bombing Hanoi. US occupies all of Vietnam, is still there today. Constant guerilla fighting.
No money for a space program. US orbits military satellites for communication, etc. GPS is available by mid 1960s. By 1955, universal military conscription in the US, 2 years mandatory full-time service for every man and woman who turn 18, then reserve service until age 35. US forces are integrated in 1955, mostly to provide more manpower. Segregation in the South lasts until the mid-1970s.
The USSR still exists in 2004, but it is tottering. At the same time, use of dirty bombs in many local conflicts has raised the background radiation level significantly. Leukemia is a common ailment that afflicts 1 out of 5 people in the US. Various therapies boost the survival rate significantly. The population of the US slowly begins to migrate to the Midwest. By 2004, Japan has 1/20 the population it did before the war.
I was wondering when someone would mention dust (“dirty”) bombs.
IIRC, Astounding Stories science-fiction magazine ran a story* in 1940 or so–before the nuclear explosion was publically-revealed, anyways–about the threat of nuclear warfare using such bombs, with nary a nuclear explosion in sight.
[sub]It was called either Blowups Happen or Solution Unsatisfactory, I can’t remember which.[/sub]
Both of the stories mentioned therein are Heinlein stories, one of which (Blowups HAppen, I think… Fenris will correct if I’m wrong, assuming he’s still around) deals with a madman trying to take over a Plutonium Power Plant, the other (Solution Unsatisfactory) deals with a Manhatten Project style program that works on making what is essentially a way to spread radioactive powder across a large surface area. After fighting a large war, and using these weapons to force a peace with an unnamed (but Asiatic) opponent, the US tries to inforce a Pax Americana. This results in a quick and nasty war with the Soviet Union, which we win, but the military ends up backing one man, who inforced a global peace, thorugh controlling the military which has the Dust. Very interesting, morese since it was written in (I think…) the 1930’s.
Tristan’s right about the stories mentioned being Heinlein, but Sunspace is wrong about them being the stories that got the feds all upset about ASTOUNDING.
The story that caused the Feds to pay John Campbell a visit was Cleve Cartmill’s story “Deadline” (March '44) which had a bit (two, three paragraphs, tops) of detail about how an atomic bomb would be constructed.
It’s been years since I read it–it’s a bad story…the two warring sides in Cartmill’s story were, God help us, the “Seilla” and the “Sixa” (spell 'em backwards :rolleyes: That part sticks in my mind. ) but there were like two paragraphs that were more-or-less written by John Campbell with some fairly accurate generalizations. One of 'em dealt with having to refine U235 out of regular uranium and the other was along the lines of “take the uranium, shape it into half-spheres, and whack 'em togther”…it’s not like he published schematics.
There’s a decent article with more info about the story here and here
The TV show “Sliders” a few years ago had an episode in a world without atomic weapons. In this world, Albert Einstein realized what damage atomic weapons could do, so he fudged his data and made up some bullshit theory that it was impossible to build them.
The US embargoes Japan against all - both Japanese and Russian - shipping and continues bombing. In Europe, WW2 does not stop with the fall of Berlin - the UK and US press the advantage against the USSR and encourage and support the Chinese. The Chinese and the British (Chindits) combine to annihilate the continental Japanese forces and America arms China against the Soviet Union. Squeezed on both sides, the Soviet Union collapses and the UK and Allies are victorious in the European theatre. Asia is left a mess as China and the British with the Indians fight each other to a stalemate over the area north from Afghanistan. What happens here depends upon whether the Chinese leader is Mao or Chain Kai Shek. Once semi-stabilised, India gains independence.
The retreat of Europe from Africa is much the same and Africa still becomes the shthle it is today.
I’m guessing that, after awhile, Chemical and Biological weapons would become the new “nukes.” Which means they’d get a whole lot nastier…can you imagine all the resources used for nuclear weapons research, devoted to chemical or germ warfare? Eek.
Maybe we would still have had a Cuban Missile crisis, but with Soviet missiles loaded with UltraSoman, or something.
Of course…we probably would have gotten into “WW II.5” with the Reds a lot sooner than that.
Say…didn’t H.G. Wells do a write up of a “futuristic” World War, featuring a lot of chemical weaponry, in The Shape of Things to Come? It’s been about half a billion years since I’ve last read it, so I can’t remember.
I wrote something up in the similar thread Should we have nuked the Russians?. The UK and the US were at a substantial disadvantage against the USSR in a purely conventional fight, a British study on a surprise attack against the USSR at the end of WWII found it militarily untenable. The embargo on Japan through the destruction of its merchant fleet by the end of WWII was complete; the USSR was not supplying Japan at all during the war (they had fought a number of border skirmishes in Manchuria from 1937-39) and Japan was in fact tacitly allowing the shipment of arms through lend-lease from the US to the USSR through Russia’s Pacific ports in fear of antagonizing the USSR into joining the war.
