No Manhatten Project- what instead?

Derek Jackson

According to one contributor to "the accident that changed history" the Manhatten project cost an amount that was the equivalant to a significant fraction of US spending on the military in WW2

WI it did not happen.

What alternative uses would have the resources have been devoted to?
 
Shimbo

Shimbo

Rockets? IIRC the Germans spent an equivalent sum (as a percentage of their smaller economy) on building the V2 as the allies spent on building atomic weapons. Rather than (or more likely in addition to) building intercontinental range bombers the US could have decided to go down the rocket route.
 
Fenwick

Fenwick

Well the US still get sto cause widespread destruction to Japan with the.... BAT-BOMB! Its not a joke, look it up it was a surprisingly effective weapon.
 

alephh

Maybe all the money and scientists would have just been spreaded all around on different projects...

Especially since US/UK didn't have that much demand for rockets during WWII.


_
 
Glen

Glen

Moderator
Maybe jets....

More likely, it just doesn't get spent, and there is just that much less of a debt to be paid off at the end of the war.
 
Last edited:

alt_historian

Glen said:
Maybe jets....

More likely, it just doesn't get spent, and there is just that much less of a debt to be paid off at the end of the world.
Click to expand...

Now come on, I know that we had a long running-debt to the US - but not that long-running... :D

I think the funds in OTL earmarked for the Manhattan Project, in this TL could go to any number of things. Either:

a) the funds will be spread around among a number of different project, as part of general military spending. Perhaps this means some improved R&D - an earlier Pershing, for instance, or a US V-1 equivalent.
b) a similar amount of funding goes towards some other "Big Science" project. It would have to be seen as a potentially war-winning project, though, in order to gain the same level of funding as the OTL Manhattan Project. Possibly, as Shimbo suggests, something like the V-2 is mass produced - although without the slave labour conditions and occasional sabotage, quality should be higher.
 

Markus

Banned
Derek Jackson said:
What alternative uses would have the resources have been devoted to?
Click to expand...

IMO mostly conventional weapons, more merchant ships would have been nice. In spite of the massive shipbuilding effort there always was a shipping shortage. If you want some fancy high-tech weapon, I suggest a powered glide bomb to replace air dropped torpedoes. Even if the USN´s fished had worked, getting that close to the target is extremly dangerous.
 
Fenwick

Fenwick

NapoleonXIV said:
...awww...the poor, little things....:(
Click to expand...

Ehh... one bomb kills upwards of fifty bats, a bomber load kills maybe 1,000. Yet the army reported that the regular bombs would give probably 167 to 400 fires per bomber load where the bat bomb would give 3500 to 5000 fires. It was a much more effective weapon. The designer felt it would have been better then the A-bomb given how it would cause a high level of destruction, while lowering the chance for civilian deaths.
 

CDurham

Fenwick said:
Ehh... one bomb kills upwards of fifty bats, a bomber load kills maybe 1,000. Yet the army reported that the regular bombs would give probably 167 to 400 fires per bomber load where the bat bomb would give 3500 to 5000 fires. It was a much more effective weapon. The designer felt it would have been better then the A-bomb given how it would cause a high level of destruction, while lowering the chance for civilian deaths.
Click to expand...

I rather doubt the designer of the Bat Bomb knew about the A-bomb until after the fact.
 
Michel Van

Michel Van

BIOWEAPON

in 1941 the USA start Program for biological warfare
OTL they hab only $3,5 million (because Manhatten project)

to 1944 it resulted in the weaponization of tularemia, anthrax, brucellosis, and botulism toxin.

The center for U.S. military BW research was Fort Detrick, Maryland
the first director was pharmaceutical executive George W. Merck.
 

CDurham

The problem with bioweapons is that they don't know the difference between friend and foe. The same applies with chemical weapons but you can take some precautions against those.
 

tallwingedgoat

In early 1943 the Department of War cut Army's budget by 25% to boost aircraft and naval procurement. As a result the Army was not as well equipped as it could have been. Without the Manhatten Project, the Army would probably get a bigger share of spending.
 

Blue Max

Frankly, I doubt that the Nuclear Bomb was needed Japan in the first place. Firebombings of major cities was killing tens of thousands, a death toll roughly comparable to Atomic Weapons in the first place.

I think it a non-issue that Hirohito would break out of house arrest and urge his people to "endure the unendurable", and Japan would surrender to save the lives of its own people. If not as a result of continuous firebombings, Downfall would be an unparalleled for the Japanese People. While the US army was concerned of fanatic resistance, its important to understand that the Japanese Army Leadership was urging its people to launch a suicidal defense against the United States. They had lost their minds--and more Okinawa like behavior on the Japanese Mainland would force Hirohito's hand.

The problem is that the Nuclear Bomb would probably be developed in the 1960s or 70s without massive government involvement. Indeed, it's possible that a US energy company taps atomic power well before its destructive effects are fully understood.

However, if WW3 breaks out, the A-Bomb will be rushed into development...
 

PaleHorseRiding

Banned
then the chemical weapons program they had developed would have been used upon japan which would have genocided most of the civilians since gas masks dont work on things that attack your skin
 

tallwingedgoat

If we're talking about how the war would end without it. It would end with much more casualties.

Before Operation Downfall the US would launch massive bombing of Japan's rail transportation infrastructure to stop food movement throughout the islands. Projected deaths was in the millions. Even if the Japanese surrender it would be too late to move food aid to Japan to prevent most of the deaths.

If there is no surrender, Operation Downfall will commense with phase I: Operation Coronet - the invasion of Kyushu. This is the last chance for Japan's military to show it could make invasion too bloody for the Americans to endure. But this would be in vein, as there's no way US could lose in Kyushu. This operation would probably convince the Japanese to surrender before phase II: Operation Olympiad - the invasion of Honshu.

However, even if the Japanese surrendered after Coronet, they would already have suffered millions of deaths from starvation and fighting in Kyushu. Also it is almost certain the Soviets would have troops on Hokkaido by then, leading to a division of Japan.

The war would end with Japan divided, Korea entirely under Soviet control. And many more deaths on all sides. There were 20-30,000 deaths per week in China and Southeast Asia. Lengthing the war another year would mean millions more allied civilian deaths.

The atomic bombs saved those lives and Japanese lives as well.
 
Glen

Glen

Moderator
tallwingedgoat said:
In early 1943 the Department of War cut Army's budget by 25% to boost aircraft and naval procurement. As a result the Army was not as well equipped as it could have been. Without the Manhatten Project, the Army would probably get a bigger share of spending.
Click to expand...

Question: With the Army getting more money, could we see a similar production run, but of a higher quality, of a tank different from the Sherman?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top