lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,007 
Likes: 49,410
|
Post by lordroel on Dec 6, 2018 16:31:58 GMT
Historically the USA had 18,638 in 1960 and the Soviets had 1602. The Dark Earth 1945-1960 buildup: USA 1945: 12 1946: 68 1947: 125 1948: 354 1949: 598 1950: 932 1951: 1565 1952: 2437 1953: 4410 1954: 6796 1955: 10431 1956: 13759 1957: 16245 1958: 19824 1959: 21675 1960: 25469 Britain 1945: 2 1946: 14 1947: 49 1948: 87 1949: 206 1950: 389 1951: 625 1952: 892 1953: 1236 1954: 1648 1955: 2142 1956: 2637 1957: 3154 1958: 3642 1959: 4298 1960: 4967 USSR 1950: 8 1951: 39 1952: 96 1953: 240 1954: 468 1955: 870 1956: 1332 1957: 2127 1958: 3088 1959: 4262 1960: 5478 I'll dig out France, China and the others tomorrow. Germany has been under pressure to build up its own deterrent, but the changes of 1960 and 1961 are repositioning the Western umbrella over its head. 1945 for the United Kingdom, when did they test their first device and was it a separate program ore did they get help from the United States. |
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,978
Likes: 5,841
|
Post by simon darkshade on Dec 6, 2018 20:41:41 GMT
Historically the USA had 18,638 in 1960 and the Soviets had 1602. ..... Germany has been under pressure to build up its own deterrent, but the changes of 1960 and 1961 are repositioning the Western umbrella over its head.
I didn't realise Soviet numbers were that low in 1960? Knew they did a lot of misinformation, leading to Kennedy's raising concerns about a missile gap but thought they had more than that at the time, especially since we're talking about all nukes, not just the longer ranged stuff.
Yes I think the latter would be a good move in part because it would reduce the internal pressure for a German nuke, which would worry a lot of people. Presuming the same applies to Austria-Hungary?
There was a lot of public misinformation, as that total included the predominant numbers of tactical bombs and short range missiles. Their capacity to hit CONUS with anything substantial was even less than 1962, when it was very, very small. A German bomb would alarm all of its neighbours and be seen as an open act of provocation by the Soviets. Austria-Hungary...not so much. They tend to fly under the collective radar, although haven't been given the carte blanche of Italy. |
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,978
Likes: 5,841
|
Post by simon darkshade on Dec 6, 2018 20:44:39 GMT
Historically the USA had 18,638 in 1960 and the Soviets had 1602. The Dark Earth 1945-1960 buildup: USA 1945: 12 1946: 68 1947: 125 1948: 354 1949: 598 1950: 932 1951: 1565 1952: 2437 1953: 4410 1954: 6796 1955: 10431 1956: 13759 1957: 16245 1958: 19824 1959: 21675 1960: 25469 Britain 1945: 2 1946: 14 1947: 49 1948: 87 1949: 206 1950: 389 1951: 625 1952: 892 1953: 1236 1954: 1648 1955: 2142 1956: 2637 1957: 3154 1958: 3642 1959: 4298 1960: 4967 USSR 1950: 8 1951: 39 1952: 96 1953: 240 1954: 468 1955: 870 1956: 1332 1957: 2127 1958: 3088 1959: 4262 1960: 5478 I'll dig out France, China and the others tomorrow. Germany has been under pressure to build up its own deterrent, but the changes of 1960 and 1961 are repositioning the Western umbrella over its head. 1945 for the United Kingdom, when did they test their first device and was it a separate program ore did they get help from the United States. The British Empire and US programs were combined between mid 1942 and 1945. The first British test was in 1945 in Australia. That gave sufficient development of parallel infrastructure that there wasnt too much of a postwar drop-off. The first 'truly British' devices and bombs came in 1946. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,007
Likes: 49,410
|
Post by lordroel on Dec 6, 2018 20:50:19 GMT
1945 for the United Kingdom, when did they test their first device and was it a separate program ore did they get help from the United States. The British Empire and US programs were combined between mid 1942 and 1945. The first British test was in 1945 in Australia. That gave sufficient development of parallel infrastructure that there wasnt too much of a postwar drop-off. The first 'truly British' devices and bombs came in 1946. World War II in Europe most likely ended i assume in 1945 when the British detonated their bomb in Australia because i can assume that a certain smoking, former First Sea Lord would like to have tested it on Berlin. |
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,978
Likes: 5,841
|
Post by simon darkshade on Dec 6, 2018 21:13:56 GMT
France
1952: 4
1953: 25
1954: 74
1955: 138
1956: 254
1957: 316
1958: 420
1959: 509
1960: 623
China
1954: 3
1955: 17
1956: 58
1957: 123
1958: 237
1959: 335
1960: 456
Canada
1946: 1
1947: 6
1948: 15
1949: 25
1950: 42
1951: 76
1952: 124
1953: 156
1954: 187
1955: 201
1956: 224
1957: 261
1958: 295
1959: 327
1960: 369
|
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,978
Likes: 5,841
|
Post by simon darkshade on Dec 6, 2018 21:17:43 GMT
The British Empire and US programs were combined between mid 1942 and 1945. The first British test was in 1945 in Australia. That gave sufficient development of parallel infrastructure that there wasnt too much of a postwar drop-off. The first 'truly British' devices and bombs came in 1946. World War II in Europe most likely ended i assume in 1945 when the British detonated their bomb in Australia because i can assume that a certain smoking, former First Sea Lord would like to have tested it on Berlin. The decision not to use nuclear weapons against Germany was taken, as in @, in mid 1944, as the progress of the war made it very likely that Germany's fall would precede the development of an atomic bomb. Berlin was not a target, again for similar reasons to history and with parallels to Tokyo - one doesn't want to destroy the enemy's administrative capacity to surrender. A few cities were kept off the earlier iterations of the Combined Bomber Offensive targeting list as potential A-bomb targets, but then added back on and hit in early 1945. One was Dresden. The first British test was on July 30th, 1945. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,007
Likes: 49,410
|
Post by lordroel on Dec 7, 2018 11:35:06 GMT
The first British test was on July 30th, 1945. And i presume this American-British program latter became a British-India-Australia program. |
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,978
Likes: 5,841
|
Post by simon darkshade on Dec 8, 2018 0:24:30 GMT
British-Canadian-Australian-South African in the main in the 1940s.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,007
Likes: 49,410
|
Post by lordroel on Dec 8, 2018 9:24:35 GMT
British-Canadian-Australian-South African in the main in the 1940s. But no India. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,230
|
Post by stevep on Dec 8, 2018 9:37:20 GMT
British-Canadian-Australian-South African in the main in the 1940s. But no India.
That was in the 40's. I would assume that India would have been added later, when it had settled down as a dominion in its own right?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,007
Likes: 49,410
|
Post by lordroel on Dec 8, 2018 10:10:52 GMT
That was in the 40's. I would assume that India would have been added later, when it had settled down as a dominion in its own right?
I think in the near future India could rival the United Kingdom in power, both conventional and nuclear. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,230
|
Post by stevep on Dec 8, 2018 10:57:04 GMT
That was in the 40's. I would assume that India would have been added later, when it had settled down as a dominion in its own right?
I think in the near future India could rival the United Kingdom in power, both conventional and nuclear.
Very likely, its got a hell of a lot of people and resources, even more than OTL and seems a lot more stable.
|
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,978
Likes: 5,841
|
Post by simon darkshade on Dec 8, 2018 22:55:12 GMT
India does have an exceptionally large potential power base, but it won't be a rival or equivalent to Britain in the near or medium term future.
It lacks the global presence, bases and most significantly the need for a superpower sized navy.
Insofar as nuclear weapons are concerned, it would take a few decades to get to the level of the British arsenal of 1960; there is also considerable expense involved in the development and manufacture of atomic weapons. Indian future programmes in this area will depend on the path it takes politically. If it stays aligned with the West and the Empire, then the issue of duplication comes up.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,007
Likes: 49,410
|
Post by lordroel on Dec 11, 2018 16:50:46 GMT
India does have an exceptionally large potential power base, but it won't be a rival or equivalent to Britain in the near or medium term future. It lacks the global presence, bases and most significantly the need for a superpower sized navy. Insofar as nuclear weapons are concerned, it would take a few decades to get to the level of the British arsenal of 1960; there is also considerable expense involved in the development and manufacture of atomic weapons. Indian future programmes in this area will depend on the path it takes politically. If it stays aligned with the West and the Empire, then the issue of duplication comes up. Would India main focus be their attention to China,. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,843
Likes: 13,230
|
Post by stevep on Dec 11, 2018 19:42:54 GMT
India does have an exceptionally large potential power base, but it won't be a rival or equivalent to Britain in the near or medium term future. It lacks the global presence, bases and most significantly the need for a superpower sized navy. Insofar as nuclear weapons are concerned, it would take a few decades to get to the level of the British arsenal of 1960; there is also considerable expense involved in the development and manufacture of atomic weapons. Indian future programmes in this area will depend on the path it takes politically. If it stays aligned with the West and the Empire, then the issue of duplication comes up. Would India main focus be their attention to China,.
Might be split between China and Russia depending on the relative strengthen of China here. IIRC since it includes Pakistan and parts of Iran and possibly of Afghanistan it either has a border with the Soviets or is very close to and the Soviets are I think a greater overall power than China at this point. Also being a dominion still closely linked with Britain India isn't in a position as OTL of taking a non-aligned stance which would move it down the Soviet target list.
On the other hand China, if reasonably compared to OTL China under Mao in terms of power, is a still far from fully woken giant. Plus its more likely to clash in the longer run with India over regional issues in Indo-China and neighbouring areas. So their likely to be more important possibly in the longer run, especially if the Soviet empire collapses as OTL.
|
|
