What would have happened if the USSR got the atomic bomb first?

Oct 2015
885
Norway
#1
Let's say the Soviets got the atonic bomb at the time the US got it in reality, and the US got it when the USSR really got the bomb. Let's also assume the Soviets had the number and size of bombs the US really had in that time period. What would have happened?
 
Oct 2015
885
Norway
#3
They could have dropped it on Japan to get more (all of?) Japan under their control. They could also have used (threaths or actual use) to get control of more of Europe.
I find it dificult to belive a person Stalin would have monopoly on such a weapon and do absolutely nothiong about it.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2010
6,210
Indiana
#4
They could have dropped it on Japan to get more (all of?) Japan under their control. They could also have used (threaths or actual use) to get control of more of Europe.
I find it difficult to believe a person Stalin would have monopoly on such a weapon and do absolutely nothiong about it.
If Russia had reached Japan before the US they would have taken Japan without it and dropping a bomb in Europe would have blown back on Russian controlled territory.
 
Sep 2012
8,757
India
#5
Stalin being the blackmailer that he was, could have threatened a war-weary West with its eventual use in Europe. If the USA then declares that it also has developed a nuclear bomb and will retaliate against the USSR, Stalin might have backtracked. It would have been the start of a bad version of a Cold War. Was there not a movie titled something like ' Dr.Strangeglove or how I stopped worrying and started loving the Bomb ' on this theme. Persons who have seen this movie may comment.
 
Last edited:

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,381
Dispargum
#6
The US didn't test their first bomb until after Germany surrendered, so the Soviets using their bomb against Germany is off the table. I can see the Soviets using the bomb against Japan as a way to say to the US and the world "Look what we can do!" One question: What kind of long range bombers did the Soviets have? Was it realistic for them to drop a bomb on Tokyo or some other major Japanese city, given the flying distances involved?
 
Sep 2012
8,757
India
#7
The US didn't test their first bomb until after Germany surrendered, so the Soviets using their bomb against Germany is off the table. I can see the Soviets using the bomb against Japan as a way to say to the US and the world "Look what we can do!" One question: What kind of long range bombers did the Soviets have? Was it realistic for them to drop a bomb on Tokyo or some other major Japanese city, given the flying distances involved?
I am not able to give exact distances but surely, Vladivostok is quite near Tokyo. No long-range bombers may be required.
 

Chlodio

Ad Honorem
Aug 2016
3,381
Dispargum
#10
I am not able to give exact distances but surely, Vladivostok is quite near Tokyo. No long-range bombers may be required.
It's more than 600 miles/900 km so they would need something like a B-17. The TB-3 and Pe 8 both had the range and probably had the load capacity but both were only available in small numbers in 1945. Of course, it only takes one bomber to drop a nuke, but I'm thinking more along the line of expertise. Enola Gay benefitted from the experiences of thousands of wartime bomber crews. I doubt the Soviets had that kind of collective expertise. Reading up on it now it seems the Soviets only rarely attempted deep penetrations against strategic targets. The lack of fighter escort was a problem, and Soviet bombers sometimes took heavy losses.
 

Similar History Discussions