|
|
Post by mostlyharmless on Dec 1, 2019 17:54:19 GMT
If Japan had surrendered in July 1945, when would details of atomic weapons have been publicly released by the USA? What might have been the consequences of a substantial delay?
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608 
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Dec 1, 2019 19:29:03 GMT
If Japan had surrendered in July 1945, when would details of atomic weapons have been publicly released by the USA? What might have been the consequences of a substantial delay? It is an interesting scenario. Maybe a demonstration - in the sky or off-shore - is used against China should the Korean War still happen as in OTL with Mao's intervention. Should the knowledge be released but no known use of the weapon (the tests in New Mexico were a secret), many people wouldn't believe the 'supposed' power of such weapons, I guess. |
|
markp
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 51
Likes: 11
|
Post by markp on Jan 22, 2020 1:33:29 GMT
Without the know effects of the atomic bombs Stalin would have probably been even more aggressive in his stance to the west after WW2. An invasion of West Germany by the USSR would have been more likely since the US would still have been under great pressure to bring the troops home. If that scenario did not happen than use in Korea would have been quite possible.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,003
Likes: 49,404
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 22, 2020 16:06:26 GMT
If Japan had surrendered in July 1945, when would details of atomic weapons have been publicly released by the USA? What might have been the consequences of a substantial delay? Is this before ore after July 24th 1945, as in OTL Truman told Stalin during the Potsdam Conference on July 24th 1945: Stalin that, after long experimentation, we had developed a new bomb far more destructive than any other known bomb, and that we planned to use it very soon unless Japan surrendered.
How Much Did Stalin Know? |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Jan 22, 2020 17:20:10 GMT
Without the know effects of the atomic bombs Stalin would have probably been even more aggressive in his stance to the west after WW2. An invasion of West Germany by the USSR would have been more likely since the US would still have been under great pressure to bring the troops home. If that scenario did not happen than use in Korea would have been quite possible. I would disagree on Stalin's actions there. The NKVD knew a lot about the atomic bomb: they had inside knowledge to quite the degree. They knew the results of the live test too. Korea could very well have been a location for a first use though. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,003
Likes: 49,404
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 22, 2020 17:49:43 GMT
Without the know effects of the atomic bombs Stalin would have probably been even more aggressive in his stance to the west after WW2. An invasion of West Germany by the USSR would have been more likely since the US would still have been under great pressure to bring the troops home. If that scenario did not happen than use in Korea would have been quite possible. I would disagree on Stalin's actions there. The NKVD knew a lot about the atomic bomb: they had inside knowledge to quite the degree. They knew the results of the live test too. Korea could very well have been a location for a first use though. Using it on North Korea will not make China happy. |
|
Zyobot
Fleet admiral
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Posts: 17,352
Likes: 7,260
|
Post by Zyobot on Jan 22, 2020 17:53:54 GMT
I would disagree on Stalin's actions there. The NKVD knew a lot about the atomic bomb: they had inside knowledge to quite the degree. They knew the results of the live test too. Korea could very well have been a location for a first use though. Using it on North Korea will not make China happy. Indeed. As such, I wonder if we’d see the communist bloc fracture more than IOTL? To my knowledge, there was already some degree of tension between Maoist China and the USSR, over both ideological differences and geopolitical considerations. |
|
dayton3
Chief petty officer
Posts: 118
Likes: 26
|
Post by dayton3 on Jan 24, 2020 14:38:45 GMT
IIRC when Stalin did learn of the atomic bomb he was not overly impressed. IIRC he said the Red Army could do the same thing to a city with massed artillery in a day.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,003
Likes: 49,404
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 24, 2020 14:44:55 GMT
IIRC when Stalin did learn of the atomic bomb he was not overly impressed. IIRC he said the Red Army could do the same thing to a city with massed artillery in a day. Was he taking about Berlin being pounded by Soviet artillery which was greater than the total tonnage dropped by Western Allied bombers on the city. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,841
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Jan 24, 2020 14:49:21 GMT
IIRC when Stalin did learn of the atomic bomb he was not overly impressed. IIRC he said the Red Army could do the same thing to a city with massed artillery in a day.
I suspect that was probably him BSing to cover the fact that he didn't have such a weapon and the resultant potential vulnerability of the USSR as a result. After all the USAAF killed more people in one conventional fire-bomb attack on Tokyo than either of the nuclear attacks. If you concentrated enough Red Army artillery it might be able to do a similar amount of damage but it would take a huge effort and consumption of artillery plus modern western cities would probably be pretty relisiant in terms of generating a lot of rubble that protects at least some of the population. However the key point is while a B-29 can reach Moscow from a suitable base the Red Army are highly unlikely to get anywhere near London say let alone New York.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,003
Likes: 49,404
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 24, 2020 14:54:38 GMT
IIRC when Stalin did learn of the atomic bomb he was not overly impressed. IIRC he said the Red Army could do the same thing to a city with massed artillery in a day. I suspect that was probably him BSing to cover the fact that he didn't have such a weapon and the resultant potential vulnerability of the USSR as a result. After all the USAAF killed more people in one conventional fire-bomb attack on Tokyo than either of the nuclear attacks. If you concentrated enough Red Army artillery it might be able to do a similar amount of damage but it would take a huge effort and consumption of artillery plus modern western cities would probably be pretty relisiant in terms of generating a lot of rubble that protects at least some of the population. However the key point is while a B-29 can reach Moscow from a suitable base the Red Army are highly unlikely to get anywhere near London say let alone New York.
Not until they have perfectly copied the B-29 that is. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,841
Likes: 13,227
|
Post by stevep on Jan 24, 2020 14:58:38 GMT
I suspect that was probably him BSing to cover the fact that he didn't have such a weapon and the resultant potential vulnerability of the USSR as a result. After all the USAAF killed more people in one conventional fire-bomb attack on Tokyo than either of the nuclear attacks. If you concentrated enough Red Army artillery it might be able to do a similar amount of damage but it would take a huge effort and consumption of artillery plus modern western cities would probably be pretty relisiant in terms of generating a lot of rubble that protects at least some of the population. However the key point is while a B-29 can reach Moscow from a suitable base the Red Army are highly unlikely to get anywhere near London say let alone New York.
Not until they have perfectly copied the B-29 that is.
And of course a suitable nuclear warhead to go in it.  |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,003
Likes: 49,404
|
Post by lordroel on Jan 24, 2020 15:00:02 GMT
Not until they have perfectly copied the B-29 that is. And of course a suitable nuclear warhead to go in it. Of course, we do not need to forget the most important thing. |
|
