No Nuclear Weapons in 1945 or Thereafter

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
14,257
Project Manhattan is a failure and after spending billions of dollars to no result, the US pulls the plug on it... Other nations likewise see that this technology is way to complex and drop research in that area

Japan still surrenders in 1945 after the firebombing of all its major cities and the soviet intervention in Manchuria.

But what happens after that ? would the world be any different and how ?
 
Jun 2017
3,025
Connecticut
Project Manhattan is a failure and after spending billions of dollars to no result, the US pulls the plug on it... Other nations likewise see that this technology is way to complex and drop research in that area

Japan still surrenders in 1945 after the firebombing of all its major cities and the soviet intervention in Manchuria.

But what happens after that ? would the world be any different and how ?
There is probably a (non apocalyptic)world war in the early 1950s. Beyond that? Very hard to tell IMO because your scenario fundamentally changes everything else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Belgarion

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,807
Australia
The war drags on. Operations Olympic and Coronet go ahead as planned and the resultant Allied casualties means a very harsh occupation policy in Japan. The emperor is removed and executed along with most other high level politicians, military and industrialists. An allied military government is not interested in reconstruction and rehabilitation but only in using Japan as a giant military base to keep an eye on both the USSR and the newly emergent PRC. A world war in the late 50s or early 60s is quite liklely.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,728
Las Vegas, NV USA
WWIII is a conventional war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Who wins depends on when. In the later years the impending collapse of the USSR because of internal contradictions makes it weaker. Early on the damage of WWII needed to be repaired. In the 1970s the USSR was at its strongest. They might have defeated NATO at that time.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,371
SoCal
WWIII is a conventional war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Who wins depends on when. In the later years the impending collapse of the USSR because of internal contradictions makes it weaker. Early on the damage of WWII needed to be repaired. In the 1970s the USSR was at its strongest. They might have defeated NATO at that time.
If the Western Allies manage to defeat the USSR in WWIII, do they dismember the USSR into 15 separate independent countries?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,371
SoCal
The war drags on. Operations Olympic and Coronet go ahead as planned and the resultant Allied casualties means a very harsh occupation policy in Japan. The emperor is removed and executed along with most other high level politicians, military and industrialists. An allied military government is not interested in reconstruction and rehabilitation but only in using Japan as a giant military base to keep an eye on both the USSR and the newly emergent PRC. A world war in the late 50s or early 60s is quite liklely.
Does Hokkaido become a Japanese version of North Korea in this scenario if there's no WWIII?
 

starman

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
4,158
Connecticut
.......... In the 1970s the USSR was at its strongest. They might have defeated NATO at that time.
Yes indeed. Back in the ‘70s I heard the Warsaw Pact had a plan to overrun west Germany in the first day or two of a war and reach Paris by the fourth or fifth. The USSR has more divisions in East Germany than the US had worldwide. Only the fortuitous invention of nuclear weapons in ‘45 saved the democracies. Unlike in WWII they could no longer count on a vast preponderance of conventional might. As I noted years ago, the survival of democracy required the threat of annihilation.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
23,371
SoCal
Yes indeed. Back in the ‘70s I heard the Warsaw Pact had a plan to overrun west Germany in the first day or two of a war and reach Paris by the fourth or fifth. The USSR has more divisions in East Germany than the US had worldwide. Only the fortuitous invention of nuclear weapons in ‘45 saved the democracies. Unlike in WWII they could no longer count on a vast preponderance of conventional might. As I noted years ago, the survival of democracy required the threat of annihilation.
Having the Soviets get that quickly to Paris might be a real challenge for logistical reasons--especially if the West will blow up things such as roads, railroads, and bridges in order to slow the speed of the Soviet advance.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,728
Las Vegas, NV USA
If the Western Allies manage to defeat the USSR in WWIII, do they dismember the USSR into 15 separate independent countries?
Yes, more or less like what actually happened. Russia would still be large but the other soviet republics and Warsaw Pact members would be independent.
 
Last edited: