No Nuclear Weapons - Where does the US' money go?

[Mike D]

In OTL the US spent a lot of money on their early nuclear weapons - the money spent on actually developing the bomb itself then the money spent designing and building a range of bombers from the B-29 to the B-52 to carry them.

But what would happen in a world where nuclear weapons were never invented?

Supposing WW2 in Europe ends as OTL in May 1945 and the war with Japan ends with an invasion of Japan by US and UK/Commonwealth forces in 1946 then the US is still left with a similar problem to what it faced in 'real life' - the rise of the Soviet Union and how to hold them back in Europe and the Far East.

Assuming the US' economy is roughly where it was OTL how does the US hold back the spread of Communism and the USSR's empire without nuclear weapons?

Off the top of my head I can see three possibilities

Massive Conventional Build Up

The first option would be to maintain a huge standing army, navy and air force in Europe (mostly) and Japan/Far Eastern locations. This has some advantages - all of the money stays in the US as weapons are almost exclusively procured from American companies and it gives the US total control over the majority of 'anti-Communist' forces with the UK and France unable to afford anything like that amount of military spending, Germany disarmed and the other European nations too small to think of building huge militaries. On the downside though you're taking a lot of working age men out of the economy (even more than the OTL US forces did) with possible consequences to US industry. It could also be unpopular with US voters who see it as their taxes and their sons being sacrificed to protect Europe again.

Expanded Foreign Aid

Lend/gift more money to European and South American nations to buy/cement their alliances (in the case of South/Central America) or to fund post war reconstruction and allow larger European militaries to support US forces. Again there are advantages - probably an easier sell to the US taxpayer and parents and stronger friendly European and South/Central American right wing/centre right governments reduce the risk of nations drifting left and coming under Soviet influence. There are also disadvantages too - although it may be more palatable to American families than seeing little Johnny packed off to West Germany to defend Europe it is still American taxpayers going to work to fund Belgian spending.

Isolationism

Build/maintain a strong enough air force and navy to defend the US from any possible Soviet attack and let Europe and Asia look after themselves. Has the advantage of keeping US servicemen out of harm's way but may be seen as surrendering large portions of the world to Communism which could be unpopular with more right wing/anti-Communist American politicians and voters and may have a long term affect on the US economy as their major trading partners possibly fall under Soviet influence or actual occupation.

So which path does AH see the US taking?

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Might be useful if some info on how much this actually was. Difficult to write a wish list without a budget.

 

[CalBear]

Chemical and bio weapons. Replacement platforms for the two, possibly three, major land wars in Europe & Asia that would have happened without MAD. Death benefits for the 500,000 thousand or so U.S. troops who wind up killed in those wars.

Nuclear weapons, for all their horror, managed to keep the peace between major powers in Europe since 1945. Same goes for Asia.

At a guess 70 or 80 million people managed to die a natural death thanks to MAD.

 

[Mike D]

Might be useful if some info on how much this actually was. Difficult to write a wish list without a budget.

Cost is something I'm not an expert on - apparently the Manhattan Project cost $2bn at the time (equivalent to ~$23bn in 2007) but I'm no expert on economics and I suppose cost would also come down to choices made - would the US still develop their heavy bombers without a nuclear weapon to drop?

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Cost is something I'm not an expert on - apparently the Manhattan Project cost $2bn at the time (equivalent to ~$23bn in 2007) but I'm no expert on economics and I suppose cost would also come down to choices made - would the US still develop their heavy bombers without a nuclear weapon to drop?

Uh yeah, the B-29, which cost more than the A-Bomb was I believe based on a requirement that preceded the Manhattan Project. I know the B-36, which succeeded it was also based on a requirement from before the A-Bomb was even seriously considered. B-47, B-52, B-58, B-1 and B-2 are more questionable, arguments both ways

 

[Wimble Toot]

Cost is something I'm not an expert on - apparently the Manhattan Project cost $2bn at the time (equivalent to ~$23bn in 2007) but I'm no expert on economics and I suppose cost would also come down to choices made - would the US still develop their heavy bombers without a nuclear weapon to drop?

The Boeing B-29 program cost one third more than the Manhattan Project, the development costing 3 billion 1943 USD, and each aircraft cost over $500,000 each

The Convair B-36D (the 6 piston, 4 jet version) cost $4.1 million apiece.

 

[CalBear]

Uh yeah, the B-29, which cost more than the A-Bomb was I believe based on a requirement that preceded the Manhattan Project. I know the B-36, which succeeded it was also based on a requirement from before the A-Bomb was even seriously considered. B-47, B-52, B-58, B-1 and B-2 are more questionable, arguments both ways

If anything more is spent on manned bombers. Without the Bomb the aversion to strategic bombing would be much lower, if not entirely absent.

 

[CalBear]

...

The Convair B-36D (the 6 piston, 4 jet version) cost $4.1 million apiece.

...and it was STILL a POS.

 

[wtw]

Chemical and bio weapons. Replacement platforms for the two, possibly three, major land wars in Europe & Asia that would have happened without MAD. Death benefits for the 500,000 thousand or so U.S. troops who wind up killed in those wars.

Nuclear weapons, for all their horror, managed to keep the peace between major powers in Europe since 1945. Same goes for Asia.

At a guess 70 or 80 million people managed to die a natural death thanks to MAD.

This my guess both, but bioweapons get the nuke fears due to how haphazard it can spread

 

[Wimble Toot]

...and it was STILL a POS.

And you could have two Boeing B-47s for the same money.

 

[marathag]

And you could have two Boeing B-47s for the same money.

But they couldn't carry the largest H-Bombs, like this guy, the 20MT Mk 17

 

[Dunning Kruger]

Massive conventional build up, particularly after Korea. No nuclear trip wire - a lot more tanks, planes, and soldiers.

 

[Roches]

A possibility on a different tack: maybe they wouldn't spend the money at all. It'd result in smaller deficits and a lower national debt.

Here are some interesting articles on the cost of the program:
http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/costs-us-nuclear-weapons/ "a minimum of $5.5 trillion" from 1940-1996
http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/us-nuclear-weapons-budget-overview/ "$179 billion" 2010-2018

 

[marathag]

A possibility on a different tack: maybe they wouldn't spend the money at all. It'd result in smaller deficits and a lower national debt.

Here are some interesting articles on the cost of the program:
http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/costs-us-nuclear-weapons/ "a minimum of $5.5 trillion" from 1940-1996
http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/us-nuclear-weapons-budget-overview/ "$179 billion" 2010-2018

But without the Nuclear umbrella, you would have to spend more on conventional forces.
That's why Ike went the 'Nukes for everybody' in the '50s.
High levels of conventional troops, ships and aircraft cost money

 

[The Red]

Nuclear weapons, for all their horror, managed to keep the peace between major powers in Europe since 1945. Same goes for Asia.

At a guess 70 or 80 million people managed to die a natural death thanks to MAD.

Whilst MAD arguably had a role in keeping the peace there are a myriad of other factors that would have made a conventional WW3 unlikely. Arguably the OTL obsession over killer pre-emptive strikes created a greater potential for an accident or misunderstanding to trigger a conflict that would have been far more devastating than any potential conventional war.

 

[NOLAWildcat]

...and it was STILL a POS.

CalBear, I know you're a font of knowledge on a wealth of topics, and likely can run rings around my knowledge of the early Cold War USAF, but what exactly leads you to deem the B-36 a "POS"?

I'm well aware it was very expensive (both to design, build, and operate), had significant teething problems upon service entry, and was relatively slow. But it was the only USAF bomber capable of hitting targets within the Soviet Union from US bases unrefueled at a time when the Air Force's midair refueling infrastructure was still in its infancy. It was, as previously pointed out, was the only bomber capable of delivering the US's high-yield citybusters in a pre-MIRV era when you needed megaton-sized warheads to guarantee the destruction of big targets like Moscow. My understanding is that its high cruising altitude (particularly in RB-36 form) also made it a hard intercept for early Soviet jet fighters. It was definitely a design with flaws, and the B-52 couldn't come soon enough, but it had a useful role in the Air Force in the early 1950s. I'm not sure standardizing the nuclear bomber fleet around the Stratojet until the BUFF could come into service would have been a good idea as some posters have implied.

It's not like we're talking about the Alaskas here.

 

[CalBear]

CalBear, I know you're a font of knowledge on a wealth of topics, and likely can run rings around my knowledge of the early Cold War USAF, but what exactly leads you to deem the B-36 a "POS"?

I'm well aware it was very expensive (both to design, build, and operate), had significant teething problems upon service entry, and was relatively slow. But it was the only USAF bomber capable of hitting targets within the Soviet Union from US bases unrefueled at a time when the Air Force's midair refueling infrastructure was still in its infancy. It was, as previously pointed out, was the only bomber capable of delivering the US's high-yield citybusters in a pre-MIRV era when you needed megaton-sized warheads to guarantee the destruction of big targets like Moscow. My understanding is that its high cruising altitude (particularly in RB-36 form) also made it a hard intercept for early Soviet jet fighters. It was definitely a design with flaws, and the B-52 couldn't come soon enough, but it had a useful role in the Air Force in the early 1950s. I'm not sure standardizing the nuclear bomber fleet around the Stratojet until the BUFF could come into service would have been a good idea as some posters have implied.

It's not like we're talking about the Alaskas here.

It was too big, WAY too slow, and by the time they had reached the point the wings stopped burning off (the joke used to be that rather than announcing "six turning and four burning" B-36 flight engineers used to report "four turning, four burnin', two on fire) the B-52 had arrived and turned it into a relic of bygone era. The Air Force used to brag that the bomber "flew too high to intercept", which was BS, the USAF didn't have a fighter that could do it, but the USN did, and more importantly so did the PVO (MiG-15@50K, MiG-17@55K, MiG-19@58K).

The range issue is also something of myth. The Peacemaker had terrific range, but it couldn't reach any deeper into the USSR than B-47s bases in the UK or Japan unless the B-36 was deployed to, you guessed it, the UK or Japan. From the U.S. the Peacemaker runs out of range short of Central Russia

The B-36 was the only ride available so SAC took it.

In 1946 it would have been the Hand of the Almighty. By 1949 it was big silvery place to die.

 

[CalBear]

Whilst MAD arguably had a role in keeping the peace there are a myriad of other factors that would have made a conventional WW3 unlikely. Arguably the OTL obsession over killer pre-emptive strikes created a greater potential for an accident or misunderstanding to trigger a conflict that would have been far more devastating than any potential conventional war.

We will have to agree to disagree here. Without MAD as a tamper NATO and the Soviets would have gone after each other no later than 1956, probably sooner. Go 25 years to 1981, Round 4. We'd still be sweeping up from Round 5.

 

[Ward]

With out the bomb taking up the money after the war I can see more money spent on the Railroads and highways in the US . Also I can See American men spending more on their cows .

 

[jsb]

....

Should this not also be adjusted for growth in the US economy as that would make the earlier peaks even higher competitively, at the moment this makes it look like WWII was only a third more than GWOT and makes Korea and Vietnam look cheap....