Consequences of no use of nukes in combat?

[The Oncoming Storm]

Lets say Japan decides to surrender in July or early August 1945 so that the use of the atomic bomb becomes unnecessary. How would nuclear weapons be viewed without the experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the thousands killed or badly affected by radiation, would it make the subsequent use of the bomb in a minor conflict more likely? How long would the Americans keep the bomb a secret from the general public and what impression would they have of it?

 

[Falecius]

I'd imagine the lack of an atomic device exploding over Hiroshima/Nagasaki won't stop an atomic weapon being used later on in combat, partly given that, outside of testing, there isn't as great an idea of the weapons' potential.

In answer to the second question, I think, in the interests of intimidating the Soviets, the Americans will make the weapon public knowledge.

I can see them intimidating the Soviets by the means of nuking a Soviet city or two around 1946/47.

 

[gridlocked]

No change. Once the Hydrogen Bomb is tested circa 1950 it is clear that these are doomsday weapons, even to those even without imaginations. Even in the old style A-bombs were not considered just another stick of dynamite. It did not take us that long to learn about Fallout and radiation hazards either.