WI if for some reason such as extra resoruces or starting earlier or just ore luck the scientists working on bomb are able to finish them in march or april 1945 instead of august? How will this affect hte remainder of the war in both europe and the pacific?
atomic bomb developed four months early?
- Thread starter zeppelin247
- Start date
Four months is relatively easy.
Im not sure where the bombs drop. Thats a very high level decision, and could go either way.
Given the otl rampup, they might well have been producing 3 bombs a month by august, which would make a huge difference.
If the first bomb or two land on Germany, which promptly surrenders, asthey were about to otl, how DOES that affect Japan? Do they surrender early on news of the awful weapon, do they have time to recoverfrom the shock, and plan to fight on even longer?
I think the end of the war could go so many different ways.
Im not sure where the bombs drop. Thats a very high level decision, and could go either way.
Given the otl rampup, they might well have been producing 3 bombs a month by august, which would make a huge difference.
If the first bomb or two land on Germany, which promptly surrenders, asthey were about to otl, how DOES that affect Japan? Do they surrender early on news of the awful weapon, do they have time to recoverfrom the shock, and plan to fight on even longer?
I think the end of the war could go so many different ways.
Paul V McNutt
Banned
The easy German target is Berlin, you kill Hitler and the German military leaders surrender.
This could have an enormous impact on Japan's surrender. She was looking for terms as early as April; if FDR is still alive (& he might live another week or two), he might say, "Okay, we'll let you keep an Emperor, just stop fighting." (Or Truman might, if FDR dies even a week or two sooner, no longer needing to hang on til the bitter end; IDK which is more likely: FDR dying early gives Truman a few extra days to get briefed-in.)Dathi THorfinnsson said:
You've saved thousands of lives. More important, you've kept the Sovs out of Manchuria, & avoided 50yr of Communist North Korea.
Without the Sov invasion of Manchuria, you've also probably allowed Chiang to win the Civil War. (AIUI, left-behind equipment gave Mao the needed edge.)There's half a chance FDR or Truman realizes turning French colonies back is a bad idea, & Vietnam doesn't stay a warzone until 1990.
(That effectively butterflies away Oliver Stone's career. And "Rambo". Not to mention "Tour of Duty". Probably "Magnum" as OTL, too.)This. To work properly the bomb a) needs to leave someone with sufficient authority to surrender and b) hit a city that hasn't been bombed flat (assuming there are any in Germany). World War era nuclear weapons were most effective as weapons of terror not as actual instruments of destruction. (Although though they were good at that as well...)
teg
Dan Reilly The Great
Banned
Agreed. Sure, killing Hitler removes the single biggest supporter for holding out to the end, but you also wipe out a massive chunk of the Nazi leadership which makes finding someone high enough to offer a surrender kind of hard. However, once Hitler starts receiving news that the Allies are vaporizing German cities with impunity, he may opt for self administered lead poisoning anyway.
Whether or not the Japanese surrender is a difficult question to answer. IOTL despite the fact that they were on the receiving end of the nuking, it took two tries before they decided to give in, so seeing it happen to someone else might not have the desired effect. Also, it's been argued that the Japanese didn't surrender as a result of the atomic bombings, but rather as a result of finding out that the Soviets had declared war, so the Soviet Occupation of Manchuria and all the accompanying effects may be inevitable. Although a higher rate of production may mean that the USAAF is able to drop four, five, or six A-bombs on Japan which may be enough to do the job.
Robert
Banned
FDR Drops the Bomb
If the Atomic Bomb had been ready in April, FDR would have ordered it used on Berlin. The scientist would have no objection to using it on the Germans. With Hitler gone the German Army would have surrendered quickly afterwards. FDR dying soon after would have been seen as perhaps a sign of provendence.
The Japanese would have been aware of the damage the Atomic Bomb could do, but would need to be the victims of one in order to be convinced to surrender. There would be no objections because they would be clearly warned of the consequences of their actions.
If the Atomic Bomb had been ready in April, FDR would have ordered it used on Berlin. The scientist would have no objection to using it on the Germans. With Hitler gone the German Army would have surrendered quickly afterwards. FDR dying soon after would have been seen as perhaps a sign of provendence.
The Japanese would have been aware of the damage the Atomic Bomb could do, but would need to be the victims of one in order to be convinced to surrender. There would be no objections because they would be clearly warned of the consequences of their actions.
deathscompanion1
Banned
How would Hitler die?
He spent most of his time in his bunker and in Hiroshima people survived in sturdy buildings near ground zero.
Dan Reilly The Great
Banned
A firestorm resulting from the bombing could have sucked the air out of the bunker, and radiation could have killed him and his cronies in a few days if they are unlucky enough, though I'm not sure how much radiation would have been emitted by a Little Boy or Fat Man style atomic weapon or how effective Hitler's bunker would have been at shielding against it. Obviously, the Germans were not expecting anything like radiation, and the bunker would not have been designed to protect against it, any protective effects would have been pure coincidence and luck.
Also, dropping an A-bomb would have effectively cut off the bunker from the outside world for at least a couple days as a massive portion of the police, military, and government personnel in the city would have died or be too damn busy dealing with the fires and destruction wrought by the bomb.
deathscompanion1
Banned
Berlin was much better built than Hiroshima and Nagasaki and had been taking bombing raids for years at this point I highly doubt that the A-bomb could really do that much more damage than the usual bombing raids involving hundreds of aircraft.
I don't know about the asphyxiation issue, but radiation is unlikely to be a problem. I haven't done any actual numbers for this, but concrete and earth tend to be pretty good radiation shields, and a 20-kT airburst is unlikely to leave militarily significant quantities of lingering fallout.
The war in europe was already over by May. There'd be literally no reason not to use it in japan.
Doubt it'd be used on Germany if it was finished developed in April. By then the Anglo-Americans were over the Rhine and exploiting unopposed, the Red Army was on the verge of besieging Berlin, and victory was weeks away. By the time the bomb was brought to Europe, loaded on a bomber, and the go ahead was give, the war would already be over.