# What if the United States maintained a nuclear monopoly after WWII? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 5, 2018, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-the-united-states-maintained-a-nuclear-monopoly-after-wwii/810057 "2018-03-05T14:38:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2018, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-the-united-states-maintained-a-nuclear-monopoly-after-wwii/810057/21 "2018-03-06T20:01:42Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > It’d have a lot more radioactive craters in the Soviet Union and China, and Europe would be devastated probably as far west as Paris. A lot? Probably one where the Kremlin used to be and that’s about it. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2018, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-the-united-states-maintained-a-nuclear-monopoly-after-wwii/810057/22 "2018-03-06T22:52:08Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > A lot? Probably one where the Kremlin used to be and that’s about it. Well, until another giant hole appears where New York used to be. Any country that goes ahead and develops nukes covertly (and there’s no practical way to monitor them, especially with pre-1980s technology) may as well test the first one by putting it on a ship and sailing it into New York harbor, with the threat that other bombs have been hidden in various U.S. cities. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2018, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-the-united-states-maintained-a-nuclear-monopoly-after-wwii/810057/23 "2018-03-06T23:54:48Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Well, until another giant hole appears where New York used to be. Any country that goes ahead and develops nukes covertly (and there’s no practical way to monitor them, especially with pre-1980s technology) may as well test the first one by putting it on a ship and sailing it into New York harbor, with the threat that other bombs have been hidden in various U.S. cities. Yeah, but if the USA figures out who did it - even if they aren’t guilty - it almost has to slaughter the whole country. Set up a series of attacks to kill the entire population. Otherwise other nations might be tempted to do the same. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2018, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-the-united-states-maintained-a-nuclear-monopoly-after-wwii/810057/24 "2018-03-07T00:24:33Z")
And hence “a lot” of craters. And if we do it before the Russians finish their bomb, then they’re going to fight back the only way they can, which is how Europe gets devastated. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2018, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-the-united-states-maintained-a-nuclear-monopoly-after-wwii/810057/25 "2018-03-07T00:48:38Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > Yeah, but if the USA figures out who did it - even if they aren’t guilty - it almost has to slaughter the whole country. Set up a series of attacks to kill the entire population. Otherwise other nations might be tempted to do the same. And get a retaliatory series of bombings that lay waste to multiple additional American cities. The OP’s hypothetical is fundamentally flawed in that once the concept was proven, there isn’t really any way to prevent another country, if sufficiently determined, from developing their own nukes. Either the U.S. has to bankrupt itself trying to monitor every other industrialized nation across that nation’s entire territory (what are you going to do if your spies get expelled or your U2 planes get shot down? Retaliate with nukes?) or just pre-emptively destroy all perceived or potential enemies. Assuming global genocide is unpalatable, suppose another nation _doesn’t_ strike, but just stages a conventional test, demonstrating that they have nukes, and they announce that they’ve covertly placed a dozen or so across multiple American cities, ready to go if America attacks. Then what? Is suicide preferable if you can’t have monopoly? Would the U.S. turn itself into a police state trying to find the hidden nukes, assuming they’re not a bluff? Can you afford to assume they \*are \*a bluff? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2018, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-the-united-states-maintained-a-nuclear-monopoly-after-wwii/810057/26 "2018-03-07T17:29:04Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > The United States was not particularly opposed to colonialism during most of its history. It was opposed to European influence in the Americas (e.g. the Monroe Doctrine) and under Woodrow Wilson’s and Franklin Roosevelt’s administrations encouraged the European colonial powers to grant greater autonomy to colonies, but the US has supported colonial powers when it suited them, i.e. part of the Eight Nations Alliance against the Boxer Rebellion which overthrew the Qing Dynasty in China (and is arguably the first major expansion of executive authority in foreign relations in granting the president the ability to deploy military forces in overseas conflicts for an indefinite period without a Congressional declaration of war). The US has engaged in its own form of ‘colonialism’ in terms of control of territories such as Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and other South Pacific islands for strategic use, albeit not in the labor and resource exploitative fashion of European colonization of Africa or Asia. I disagree. The Monroe Doctrine, which was clearly aimed against European imperialism, was pretty much the only foreign policy the United States had for the first half of our country’s history. American participation in the military attacks in China wasn’t about imperialism. It was about free trade. The United States explicitly wanted the Open Door policy in China which allowed every country to trade in China and not set up exclusive territories. The military attacks were about forcing China to accept foreign trade not to divide it up into colonies. (Granted, some powers did claim exclusive zones in China but this was done over American objections.) And, yes, there was a brief period when America itself became an imperial power and grabbed part of Spain’s collapsing empire. But that was an exception to the general trend of American politics and was strongly opposed by many Americans even when it was occurring. Besides, let’s not overlook hypocrisy; it was perfectly possible for the United States to oppose European imperialism while engaging in its own imperialism. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2018, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-the-united-states-maintained-a-nuclear-monopoly-after-wwii/810057/27 "2018-03-07T18:04:46Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I disagree. The Monroe Doctrine, which was clearly aimed against European imperialism, was pretty much the only foreign policy the United States had for the first half of our country’s history. The Monroe Doctrine was about keeping Europe out of American affairs; it was not opposed to colonialism in Africa, Asia, or Oceania. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![WillReadmore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/6f9a4e/32.png) [@WillReadmore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillReadmore)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2018, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-the-united-states-maintained-a-nuclear-monopoly-after-wwii/810057/28 "2018-03-07T19:55:16Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > Imagine an alternative history scenario, where the United States was able to maintain a monopoly on the possession of nuclear weapons from WWII to the present. We credibly threatened to nuke anyone that tried to develop nukes. What would the world look like today? The very act of nuking some nation purely for having progressed toward nuclear arms would be proof to every nation in the world that they will not be safe or free until they develop nuclear deterrence. That would be a clear motivating factor in forming the largest and most unified opposition we’ve ever contemplated facing. And, it would be centered on creating nuclear arms to aim at us. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2018, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-the-united-states-maintained-a-nuclear-monopoly-after-wwii/810057/29 "2018-03-09T05:22:14Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > The Monroe Doctrine was about keeping Europe out of American affairs; it was not opposed to colonialism in Africa, Asia, or Oceania. The United States opposed European imperialism on two continents. How is that not opposition to European imperialism? ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2018, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-the-united-states-maintained-a-nuclear-monopoly-after-wwii/810057/30 "2018-03-09T06:21:03Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The United States opposed European imperialism on two continents. How is that not opposition to European imperialism? It opposed European intervention in the American (US-dominated) sphere of influence. This is vested self-interest, not opposition to colonialism on any principled basis. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2018, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-the-united-states-maintained-a-nuclear-monopoly-after-wwii/810057/31 "2018-03-13T23:15:34Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > What if the United States maintained a nuclear monopoly after WWII? > > Imagine an alternative history scenario, where the United States was able to maintain a monopoly on the possession of nuclear weapons from WWII to the present. We credibly threatened to nuke anyone that tried to develop nukes. What would the world look like today? Stalin’s attempts to force his particular brand of communism on the rest of the world would have been greatly hindered/delayed. Nations rebuilding after WWII would have had more time to create their own governments without, or with limited, Russian interference. Could the WWII Allies, U.S. and U.K. have prevented any other country from developing fission/fusion weapons? No. That technological genie was out of the bottle. If one nation had found a way to make “the bomb”, others would know that it could be done. It was only a matter of time, lots-of-scarce-money, testing facilities, and determination. Would there even have been a Cuban Missile Crisis if Stalin, and Khrushchev, had failed to create a Soviet nuclear bomb? No. Would Kennedy have sent 18,000 more U.S. troops into Vietnam’s civil war, if he could have simply threatened the Communists with annihilation? No. Would there be radioactive craters thru out Europe? Why would there be? Why would anyone assume that the U.S. would bomb their former allies while capitalism was proving to be more effective? ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2018, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-the-united-states-maintained-a-nuclear-monopoly-after-wwii/810057/32 "2018-03-14T00:50:49Z")
In 1946 the USA, UK and Canada offered to turn control of nuclear weapons over to the United Nations: [Baruch Plan - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baruch_Plan) This was rejected by the Soviet Union, whose counter-proposal was that the United States (I don’t know if Britain had its own arsenal yet) unilaterally disarm, and that everyone promise not to build any atomic bombs. ( :rolleyes: :dubious: :smack:) An obvious point of departure, and indeed what some parties proposed, is that a USA/UK alliance declare that it would regard the possession of atomic bombs by any other party as an automatic _casus belli_, which would be responded to by an ultimatum of disarm or be bombed. That this didn’t happen was probably due to the following: WW2 was only just ended and no one was ready for another war; the USA didn’t know that the Soviet Union was as close to a bomb as it was; and at that date the Cold War hadn’t fully set in yet. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2018, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-the-united-states-maintained-a-nuclear-monopoly-after-wwii/810057/33 "2018-03-14T04:36:25Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > It opposed European intervention in the American (US-dominated) sphere of influence. This is vested self-interest, not opposition to colonialism on any principled basis. As I’ve written, American opposition to imperialism was generally based on American self-interest. One of the main tenets of imperialism was that it gave favored status to trade within the empire. That was one of the main reasons countries created empires; they wanted markets where they could sell their goods on favorable terms. Companies in the United States didn’t like that. They wanted to be able to buy and sell on equal footing in places like Africa and Asia. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2018, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-the-united-states-maintained-a-nuclear-monopoly-after-wwii/810057/34 "2018-03-14T14:01:24Z")
> [@](#): > > Would there be radioactive craters thru out Europe? Why would there be? Why would anyone assume that the U.S. would bomb their former allies while capitalism was proving to be more effective? Note that I never said there’d be radioactive craters throughout Europe. I said radioactive craters in the USSR and China, and Europe devastated. The craters in Russia and China would be from our efforts to stop their nuclear programs. The devastation in Europe would be from Russia’s conventional-military response to our bombings. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-if-the-united-states-maintained-a-nuclear-monopoly-after-wwii/810057.md?page=1)