radical_neutural
Banned
would that make an invassion of the soviet union possable? would the US use atomic weapons freely?
soviet atomic test failed, no cold war, USA only nuclear power.
- Thread starter radical_neutural
- Start date
Why would the Soviet Union stop trying to develop a nuclear weapon after one failed attempt? No doubt both the United States and the Soviet Union had failed attempts in both practice and theory when it came to trying to develop a nuclear weapon, although it remains classified still.
To answer your questions, no, it wouldn't make it easier to invade the Soviet Union, and no, the United States wouldn't use nuclear weapons freely. It would give the United States increased political leverage, but when it comes down to it, nuclear weapons or not, you can't push the Soviet Union around.
Also, even if the Soviet Union did stop trying to develop nuclear weapons after one failed attempt, this still has no bearing on the British, French and Chinese trying to develop it.
To answer your questions, no, it wouldn't make it easier to invade the Soviet Union, and no, the United States wouldn't use nuclear weapons freely. It would give the United States increased political leverage, but when it comes down to it, nuclear weapons or not, you can't push the Soviet Union around.
Also, even if the Soviet Union did stop trying to develop nuclear weapons after one failed attempt, this still has no bearing on the British, French and Chinese trying to develop it.
Well, the Soviets did have the advantage going in that their atomic project consisted of stuff they stole from the Manhattan project thanks to the Rosenbergs, Klaus Fuchs, and others, so they're bound to get an atomic bomb sooner or later. (Especially if Stalin is making it perfectly clear that if Beria [who oversaw the project] and the scientists didn't get him a bomb, then he'd find someone who would).
Assuming that the Soviets never get an atomic weapon (somehow), I can't really see the Americans attempting a conventional invasion of the USSR. Dropshot, a plan the Pentagon developed around 1948 that outlined how a conventional WW3 could be fought, made the pronouncement that the only way to defeat the Soviets once and for all would be to repeat Barbarossa, something I doubt anyone in the West would want to try so soon after WW2.
For the most part, I figure that the Americans would continue with their containment policy, though they'd try to browbeat the Soviets harder to make more concessions in Europe and East Asia. Of course, this may end up leading the Americans to try something really foolish out of a sense of invulnerability, like invading China to save it from Mao.
Oh, and nice to see you're still posting. Just ignore Straha; he's an ass.
Assuming that the Soviets never get an atomic weapon (somehow), I can't really see the Americans attempting a conventional invasion of the USSR. Dropshot, a plan the Pentagon developed around 1948 that outlined how a conventional WW3 could be fought, made the pronouncement that the only way to defeat the Soviets once and for all would be to repeat Barbarossa, something I doubt anyone in the West would want to try so soon after WW2.
For the most part, I figure that the Americans would continue with their containment policy, though they'd try to browbeat the Soviets harder to make more concessions in Europe and East Asia. Of course, this may end up leading the Americans to try something really foolish out of a sense of invulnerability, like invading China to save it from Mao.
Oh, and nice to see you're still posting. Just ignore Straha; he's an ass.
Stalker
Banned
Well, should Kurchatov have failed, and Beria failed "to persuade" him into more successful attempt, we may have USSR not getting A-Bomb until early 1950s. It's also interesting that Soviets also work on H-Bomb project (and Andrei Sakharov is in that group).
USA then have the chance for a strike. By that moment they've had 100 some A-Bombs. Will they have guts to try to make another Hiroshima and Nagasaki of Moscow, Kiev, Leningrad, Vladivostok, Khabarovsk, Murmansk and Sverdlovsk? They have bombers in Germany, Japan, Norway and Turkey capable of bringing bombs to targets. Russians have rich AA-defence in all area from GDR to Ukraine but they cannot cover all directions. There are always safe corridors to pass though.
Well, let's talk of the USA as agressor against "peace-loving" USSR?
Especially, after MacCartism and anti-Russian histeria during Truman's presidency?
USA then have the chance for a strike. By that moment they've had 100 some A-Bombs. Will they have guts to try to make another Hiroshima and Nagasaki of Moscow, Kiev, Leningrad, Vladivostok, Khabarovsk, Murmansk and Sverdlovsk? They have bombers in Germany, Japan, Norway and Turkey capable of bringing bombs to targets. Russians have rich AA-defence in all area from GDR to Ukraine but they cannot cover all directions. There are always safe corridors to pass though.
Well, let's talk of the USA as agressor against "peace-loving" USSR?
Especially, after MacCartism and anti-Russian histeria during Truman's presidency?
Max Sinister
Banned
But what if the US attack with nuclear bombers, one of them is shot down? Then the Soviets have a nuke at hand and didn't even have to do the work...
NapoleonXIV
Banned
Max Sinister said:
If the US was doing such an invasion they would use tactical nukes to back up a conventional invasion. Any aerial bombing would be done very short range, they might even trot out the infamous "Atomic Cannon"
Just one consequence of this would be a truly horrific crop of cancer about 1960 in Eastern Europe, Russia, probably even the US as well due to exposure of US military.