Arms Development Without a Cold War?

[KuboCaskett]

I'm kicking around the idea of a world that never had the Cold War happen after WWII ends (mainly with Stalin dead and replaced by a reformist fellow like Beria in spite of the odds and FDR living), and that many of the allied powers engage in a series of disarmament campaigns (yet still have a sizeable arsenal for UN stuff of which most of the resources are going into it). So I wonder how would this post-WWII disarmament thing affect military developments? For one thing nuclear weapons would cease to exist and that Germany's and Japan's militaries (or something close to one in regards to the latter) would be either smaller or non-existent given the lack of a need to keep them around; the space race may or may not exist depending on how much stuff the world powers are willing to give in the post-war years.

 

[Mumbles]

For one thing nuclear weapons would cease to exist .

Why? Fusion weapon development might be delayed, but I can't see unilateral A-bomb disarmament happening.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Why? Fusion weapon development might be delayed, but I can't see unilateral A-bomb disarmament happening.

Yeah I don't see them disappearing either

Certainly you are not going to get the massively oversized cold war arsenals of the US and USSR, but some are going to exist for the major powers, they are too useful a trump card for major countries. A lot of the individual delivery systems may never appear (nuclear SAMs, nuclear AAMs, nuclear mines, the nuclear Recoilless rifle etc.), but I still see all of the triad making an appearance for the USA at least

 

[KuboCaskett]

Why? Fusion weapon development might be delayed, but I can't see unilateral A-bomb disarmament happening.

With the lack of a cold war there wouldn't be a need for deterrence; though I'm not sure why would you suggest that nuclear weapons would still exist in some shape and form ITTL.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

With the lack of a cold war there wouldn't be a need for deterrence; though I'm not sure why would you suggest that nuclear weapons would still exist in some shape and form ITTL.

Deterrence would not be the need in everybody's mind, that's more of a Cold War thing, and 60's at that. The fact that a nuke does the job of 1000s bombs means you don't need to pay for 1000 bombers to carry all those bombs, you only need one, which is far cheaper. One bomb to wipe out a division, cripple a city's infrastructure or render a task force combat ineffective, that is what everyone is thinking about at this time, using them, not holding them as a threat

Plus just because the Soviets are gone does not mean the possibility of war is gone. The US and UK and France had disagreements OTL, without a USSR to force them to hang together those will probably be worse. Plus of course, even a non-Communist Russia could still be a threat, and then there is nationalist China, and India is going to be going independent

Plus of course if Russia survives as a coherent country it will want the bomb as deterrence, to prevent something like Barbarossa from ever happening again, China would probably want something to prevent the hell they suffered from the Japanese from happening again, and India to prevent a repeat of colonialism, plus France wanting something to ensure they are never occupied again

 

[Mumbles]

With the lack of a cold war there wouldn't be a need for deterrence; though I'm not sure why would you suggest that nuclear weapons would still exist in some shape and form ITTL.

Because they can't be uninvented. It's not a deterrence thing, it's an insurance thing.

 

[KuboCaskett]

Deterrence would not be the need in everybody's mind, that's more of a Cold War thing, and 60's at that. The fact that a nuke does the job of 1000s bombs means you don't need to pay for 1000 bombers to carry all those bombs, you only need one, which is far cheaper. One bomb to wipe out a division, cripple a city's infrastructure or render a task force combat ineffective, that is what everyone is thinking about at this time, using them, not holding them as a threat

Plus just because the Soviets are gone does not mean the possibility of war is gone. The US and UK and France had disagreements OTL, without a USSR to force them to hang together those will probably be worse. Plus of course, even a non-Communist Russia could still be a threat, and then there is nationalist China, and India is going to be going independent

Plus of course if Russia survives as a coherent country it will want the bomb as deterrence, to prevent something like Barbarossa from ever happening again, China would probably want something to prevent the hell they suffered from the Japanese from happening again, and India to prevent a repeat of colonialism, plus France wanting something to ensure they are never occupied again

Because they can't be uninvented. It's not a deterrence thing, it's an insurance thing.

Makes sense for the UN to keep nuclear weapons around to impose their will on the world, I think; IOTL the US has this mindset of using relying on nukes first to wage peace in the early stages of the Cold War so I can this being extended to the UN ITTL.

 

[KuboCaskett]

Any other inputs for arms development in the absence of a cold war? I'm surprised no one ever brought up how this would effect small arms along with the tanks and planes of the world's militaries.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Any other inputs for arms development in the absence of a cold war? I'm surprised no one ever brought up how this would effect small arms along with the tanks and planes of the world's militaries.

Those depend on a lot of specifics we don't have unless you want real generalities

Without a Cold War no mass conscript armies, so likely no, or much fewer, bullpup firearms

Planes, well probably fewer interceptors, probably nothing like an SR-71.

Tanks, probably no flirtation with pure guided missile tanks ala M60A2, Sheridan or MBT-70. Probably none of the cold war era Heavy Tanks as well

Makes sense for the UN to keep nuclear weapons around to impose their will on the world, I think; IOTL the US has this mindset of using relying on nukes first to wage peace in the early stages of the Cold War so I can this being extended to the UN ITTL.

Impose their will on who? Can't do that to any permanent member, and that's almost all of the world, either in territory, colonies or SOI, until decolonization starts in earnest UN ain't doing anything but maybe taking over occupation duties

Plus why the hell is the US giving away their trump card to the UN? UK and Canada yes, because they had agreed to that and if FDR lives that agreement doesn't get lost in his papers

 

[KuboCaskett]

Those depend on a lot of specifics we don't have unless you want real generalities

Basically a world where the US and the USSR that has been liberalized after Stalin's death put aside their differences and cooperate peacefully and the UK and France roll with it somehow; that's the gist of this TL.

Impose their will on who? Can't do that to any permanent member, and that's almost all of the world, either in territory, colonies or SOI, until decolonization starts in earnest UN ain't doing anything but maybe taking over occupation duties

Plus why the hell is the US giving away their trump card to the UN? UK and Canada yes, because they had agreed to that and if FDR lives that agreement doesn't get lost in his papers

Good point, though I was trying to figure out why in a world without a cold war would nukes still exist if almost anyone is getting along in this UN thing. Besides I didn't mention that the US has to give its nukes to the UN, but rather point out the early cold war strategy of responding to Soviet threats with JUST nukes.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Basically a world where the US and the USSR that has been liberalized after Stalin's death put aside their differences and cooperate peacefully and the UK and France roll with it somehow; that's the gist of this TL.

Good point, though I was trying to figure out why in a world without a cold war would nukes still exist if almost anyone is getting along in this UN thing. Besides I didn't mention that the US has to give its nukes to the UN, but rather point out the early cold war strategy of responding to Soviet threats with JUST nukes.

You need way more than killing Stalin, none of his plausible successors would be willing to go that far, save Beria but no one is going to tolerate him, psychopathic, pedophiliac rapist he is. No plausible Soviet government is going to be willing to go without a buffer in Eastern Europe if they have the ability to enforce that, and them violating the free election promise will start the Cold War, so you need to either wreck the Soviets ability to project power into Eastern Europe, or kill almost all of their back bench until you get someone who could take over and is willing to cooperate with the West that much

Responding to Soviet threats with just nukes was done because at that point the US could actually be said to win a nuclear war (until ~1965), and because they had let conventional forces atrophy so much because nukes were much cheaper

 

[KuboCaskett]

You need way more than killing Stalin, none of his plausible successors would be willing to go that far, save Beria but no one is going to tolerate him, psychopathic, pedophiliac rapist he is. No plausible Soviet government is going to be willing to go without a buffer in Eastern Europe if they have the ability to enforce that, and them violating the free election promise will start the Cold War, so you need to either wreck the Soviets ability to project power into Eastern Europe, or kill almost all of their back bench until you get someone who could take over and is willing to cooperate with the West that much

Responding to Soviet threats with just nukes was done because at that point the US could actually be said to win a nuclear war (until ~1965), and because they had let conventional forces atrophy so much because nukes were much cheaper

Well Beria is THE dude to take over the USSR after Stalin dies ITTL in spite of his s---y ways to accomplish a no cold war world IMO, just for the sake of the argument and this TL.

Edit: Now let's just get back to the discussion on general weaponry development with a cold war averted since we can take this Beria succession thing elsewhere; matter of fact I think this kind of no cold war thing is underutilized in AH discussion.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

This usually involves mooing the PoD back to 1917 & waiving away the Bolshivks. Some sort of Russian republic or whatever surviving past 1948

 

[Roches]

In the absence of a Cold War, would a full triad really be necessary? Perhaps in the beginning, but if there were no compelling reason to keep in place every possible deterrent then I see bombers being phased out by the late 1960s and ICBMs by the early 1980s. Without a Cold War the US nuclear arsenal would have much less funding and so issues of inter-service rivalry would be less successful in maintaining two legs for the Air Force and a leg for the Navy ... Just Because. I think nuclear weapons would still exist, but SLBMs would be given most if not virtually all of the arsenal.

 

[KuboCaskett]

In the absence of a Cold War, would a full triad really be necessary? Perhaps in the beginning, but if there were no compelling reason to keep in place every possible deterrent then I see bombers being phased out by the late 1960s and ICBMs by the early 1980s. Without a Cold War the US nuclear arsenal would have much less funding and so issues of inter-service rivalry would be less successful in maintaining two legs for the Air Force and a leg for the Navy ... Just Because. I think nuclear weapons would still exist, but SLBMs would be given most if not virtually all of the arsenal.

IBCMs sure, but bombers? I think they might still be of use in a cold war-less world, albeit on a limited scale at the most and surely not for strategic nor nuclear purposes.

 

[Roches]

IBCMs sure, but bombers? I think they might still be of use in a cold war-less world, albeit on a limited scale at the most and surely not for strategic nor nuclear purposes.

You might be right, and I think the ultimate US/USSR arsenal would be something like that of OTL France, with a small bomber component. Masses of strategic bombers was a "leg" never really achieved by the USSR and really mostly a US development. Bombers would still exist, certainly, but they wouldn't necessarily be funded as if they were a critical strategic nuclear asset.

 

[KuboCaskett]

You might be right, and I think the ultimate US/USSR arsenal would be something like that of OTL France, with a small bomber component. Masses of strategic bombers was a "leg" never really achieved by the USSR and really mostly a US development. Bombers would still exist, certainly, but they wouldn't necessarily be funded as if they were a critical strategic nuclear asset.

Me, I like to think of most of the world powers' arsenals would like that of OTL's Japan to an extent, only for peacekeeping and humanitarian purposes and a few carriers and bombers...and a few nukes.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

In the absence of a Cold War, would a full triad really be necessary? Perhaps in the beginning, but if there were no compelling reason to keep in place every possible deterrent then I see bombers being phased out by the late 1960s and ICBMs by the early 1980s. Without a Cold War the US nuclear arsenal would have much less funding and so issues of inter-service rivalry would be less successful in maintaining two legs for the Air Force and a leg for the Navy ... Just Because. I think nuclear weapons would still exist, but SLBMs would be given most if not virtually all of the arsenal.

Necessary no, but likely to happen at least for a decade for the US, they are likely to build a jet bomber in the 50's, and that will have 20+ year lifespan (OTL they are talking 100 years for the BUFF), air force will want missiles, as they are cheaper, so ICBMs get deployed in the 60's, and the Navy wants in on the Triad so SSBNs in the 60's

Airforce probably gives up its ICBMs by the 80's as you say, while cheaper than bombers, bombers can do more than just nuke things. For the US it probable, but not certain, that a new bomber comes along to replace the 50's era ones, useful for dropping lots of bombs in permissive airspace and as a cruise missile/anti-ship missile truck, even a low performance bomber can do those. Stealth or high performance has more roles but not sure of the cost

Bombers are still useful for nuclear delivery, as they can be told to abort up to the last second, and they can be used to saber rattle

Me, I like to think of most of the world powers' arsenals would like that of OTL's Japan to an extent, only for peacekeeping and humanitarian purposes and a few carriers and bombers...and a few nukes.

Japan is a rather bad model for that, their military is defensive focused, not for projecting power. In a peaceful world, the world powers would not need to seriously worry about defending their territory, so would optimize their military for projecting influence around the world, OTL France is a good model for this

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

I'm looking at the trends in US Army & the others during the 1920s for some clues. In that decade everyone was trying to prepare for the Next BIG ONE, drawing on Great War experience to guide their doctrines and R&D. There were actually some progressive development in that first decade. That was interrupted by a combination of the Depression, and a gradual stagnation in military thinking. Everyone including the Germans were trying to build armies according to the ideas developed in the 1920s, or reverting to earlier models. From 1938 that trend started to reverse. Absent a Cold War any other mass war threat I'd suspect R & D would have slowed and the fielding of many of the 1960s & 70s style equipment would have slowed. If there were only small wars on the horizon then the trends would have been to items suitable only for small wars.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

...

Bombers are still useful for nuclear delivery, as they can be told to abort up to the last second, and they can be used to saber rattle
...s

That all well and good until General Ripper disconnects the fail safes :O