Nuclear power: WI Truman doesn't drop the bomb

[Alon]

WI the US decides not to use nuclear weapons at the end of WW2? Note: I'm not looking for a discussion of whether Japan surrenders more or less on schedule or not; if it's important, then assume it does, as many serious historians believe and many serious people believed even in real time.

My question is, how does this impact the subsequent development of nuclear power? The research in the ATL has already been done, so the technology exists. My presumption is that it becomes much more widespread, as pacifists on the left don't associate it with war. Many are still against it because it's complex technology that's hard to trust (nuclear accidents like Three Mile Island still happen on schedule), and this includes the more localist strains on the left, but the main of the environmental movement is presumably strongly for nuclear power and not strongly against it, while few other people change their minds in the opposite direction.

But I'm willing to be convinced the answer is different. Perhaps without the demonstration of war mad scientists like Edward Teller don't get drunk on nuclear power and push for it so stridently. Perhaps the nuclear tests are so scary that pacifists still oppose nuclear power as in OTL. Perhaps without the horrors of the bomb in Japan the US decides to drop the bomb on North Korea.

 

[Alon]

Bump?

 

[Mumbles]

WI the US decides not to use nuclear weapons at the end of WW2?

Likely we'll now talk about some other placenames the way we talk IOTL about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

[Alex1guy]

Likely we'll now talk about some other placenames the way we talk IOTL about Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Yeah maybe somewhere in Korea if that still goes ahead..?

 

[Alon]

Yeah, I can see Truman drop the bomb in North Korea if WW2 hasn't established a taboo on the use of nuclear weapons. (Besides, without the show of prowess it's possible Stalin doesn't steal nuclear technology so early, so it takes longer for the USSR to develop nuclear weapons.)

 

[Histor32]

Yeah, I can see Truman drop the bomb in North Korea if WW2 hasn't established a taboo on the use of nuclear weapons. (Besides, without the show of prowess it's possible Stalin doesn't steal nuclear technology so early, so it takes longer for the USSR to develop nuclear weapons.)

eh.. im fairly certain Stalin will go ahead with plans for the bomb. It's a little hard to resist 1 bomb that can do that much damage that quickly. even with out the field test, the soviets already had the low down on what it was capable of, so once the cat is out of the bag, that part is a tad too late.

Now on the part of not being used in Japan, then I could see it used in korea or else where if the back is against the wall, in other words to stop the Chinese.

The bigger question will be what will be the end of WWII and Japan? Overlord? starvation? other means to force surrender? how much more do the soviets get in asia? does china still fall communist? Is the bomb still mass produced if it isn't used until the west finds someone else is making them?

No bomb being used in Japan to show strength of power, how does Berlin go in 48?