Leo Szilard patented the idea of the atomic bomb with an Admiralty patent which could be covered by the Official Secrets Act. What if the British government pursued development of atomic bombs before World War 2? Would they finish before the Americans? Do they even have the resources to finish before World War 2? How do you think they would use it against Nazi Germany if they did achieve it in say 1942?
WI: The British Created the First Atomic Bomb
- Thread starter SirFez
- Start date
- Status
BlondieBC
Banned
While they might hid the patent, their is no way to hide the weapons program. And at any realistic prewar funding levels, the bomb will not be finished by the war, and once the war comes, funding will be cut. Where did you plan to build the massive labs and factories at?
IMO, much of the funding for this program would come from other defense programs and would make the UK even weaker entering WW2. The army would take the largest cuts, and the navy would take the smaller cuts.
IMO, much of the funding for this program would come from other defense programs and would make the UK even weaker entering WW2. The army would take the largest cuts, and the navy would take the smaller cuts.
Thinking about this...
...I wondered if the CANDU idea of heavy water (deuterium oxide) moderation of natural uranium was a runner. Then I thought of using existing power-station cooling-towers to partially enrich cooling water by differential evaporation. The slightly-enriched water could have been transported to other power stations for concentration, with the final batch being concentrated to a high enough level for moderation. Slow, but easier on energy than the Norwegian system or the USN evaporators. The main part is administration and rail tankers.
So, no need for Capenhurst enrichment factory (the UK Oak Ridge) or for synthetic graphite production.
D2O is probably the most efficient moderator if you want to short-circuit enrichment of uranium hexafluoride and go the plutonium route to a fission bomb. And the UK certainly had the technical minds to do the job.
...I wondered if the CANDU idea of heavy water (deuterium oxide) moderation of natural uranium was a runner. Then I thought of using existing power-station cooling-towers to partially enrich cooling water by differential evaporation. The slightly-enriched water could have been transported to other power stations for concentration, with the final batch being concentrated to a high enough level for moderation. Slow, but easier on energy than the Norwegian system or the USN evaporators. The main part is administration and rail tankers.
So, no need for Capenhurst enrichment factory (the UK Oak Ridge) or for synthetic graphite production.
D2O is probably the most efficient moderator if you want to short-circuit enrichment of uranium hexafluoride and go the plutonium route to a fission bomb. And the UK certainly had the technical minds to do the job.
ANYONE with an abomb in 42 is close to asb without an early pod. Too much stuff happened right before the war to be able to speed things up by much more than a year.
Moreover, it was VERY expensive, both in terms of money and resources. Note that the soviets, with eveything short of the us blueprints, still took until 1949, four years after the us bomb.
Ok, what if the British got funding from their allies? And when the Americans join the Allies, could they use British R&D to speed up creation of an atomic bomb? Would they be able to make one before, let's say the Normandy landings? Or Market Garden? Or the Allied invasion of Germany?
Edit: Hypothetically, if the Allies do gain a nuclear weapon (or two), what would they're most probable target be? Would they even use it?
Edit: Hypothetically, if the Allies do gain a nuclear weapon (or two), what would they're most probable target be? Would they even use it?
IIRC about 80% of the entire Manhatten Project budget was spent on buying the land, and building the base at Los Alamos, the total cost for the bomb itself wasn't all that great in comparison.
This is why nations like Iran and North Korea can build atomic weapons, because the key problem is getting yourself set up with the staff to produce the enriched material, and developing the detonation method in the first place.
Arguably Britian was one of three nations that could have produced an atomic bomb within the war years, assuming that generally everything is much the same as it was. This is because Britian had the expertise, and had access to the materials and resources needed. What Britian didn't have, was serious political backing. This is why Tube Alloys had as small a budget as it did, and why later on the British effort was added to the American effort...because that's where the money was...¬.¬
Therefore, what you really need is a British version of the famour letter.
POD:
So instead of Szilard writing to the American president, have him write to Churchhill or King George with the warning, reminding either that London is within bombing range of Germany, and if the Germans have this weapon before Britian, then Britian cannot hope to prevail.
This sets seeds in motion.
Key point: Come 1940 with the Battle of Britian now being fought and the Blitz falling on London, you now have a very real threat, that was stated in that letter. Therefore you are going to have a frenzy of activity to 'get it done'.
Key point: Stalin wanted a second front in '42. Well the Brits can't exactly give Stalin that, but what they do know is that if they can get the weapon finished, they can use that instead, plus it puts Stalin in his place.
Really, that's the kind of thing it requires. What many people forget, or don't want to believe, is that the Manhatten Project doesn't represent a pinical of achievement. It simply represents when there is political backing to science, wonders get acomplished.
Another example is going to the moon.
Sure there are costs involved, but the biggest 'cost' is expertise. If you don't have that to begin with, that's when costs cost. If you do have it, its more a question of getting the people together then asking them what do they need and letting them get on with it.
This is why nations like Iran and North Korea can build atomic weapons, because the key problem is getting yourself set up with the staff to produce the enriched material, and developing the detonation method in the first place.
Arguably Britian was one of three nations that could have produced an atomic bomb within the war years, assuming that generally everything is much the same as it was. This is because Britian had the expertise, and had access to the materials and resources needed. What Britian didn't have, was serious political backing. This is why Tube Alloys had as small a budget as it did, and why later on the British effort was added to the American effort...because that's where the money was...¬.¬
Therefore, what you really need is a British version of the famour letter.
POD:
So instead of Szilard writing to the American president, have him write to Churchhill or King George with the warning, reminding either that London is within bombing range of Germany, and if the Germans have this weapon before Britian, then Britian cannot hope to prevail.
This sets seeds in motion.
Key point: Come 1940 with the Battle of Britian now being fought and the Blitz falling on London, you now have a very real threat, that was stated in that letter. Therefore you are going to have a frenzy of activity to 'get it done'.
Key point: Stalin wanted a second front in '42. Well the Brits can't exactly give Stalin that, but what they do know is that if they can get the weapon finished, they can use that instead, plus it puts Stalin in his place.
Really, that's the kind of thing it requires. What many people forget, or don't want to believe, is that the Manhatten Project doesn't represent a pinical of achievement. It simply represents when there is political backing to science, wonders get acomplished.
Another example is going to the moon.
Sure there are costs involved, but the biggest 'cost' is expertise. If you don't have that to begin with, that's when costs cost. If you do have it, its more a question of getting the people together then asking them what do they need and letting them get on with it.
Thedelivery system would pose a bit of the problem. For the UK to have developed an airplane capable of lifting the bomb to a sufficient altitude and at a sufficient speed to survive the the trip and and the subsequent blast would have been difficult, particularly from an economic standpoint. (Incoming in 3, 2, 1....)
Very true. Tow a glider anybody?
I jest, but the point of the thread is not really about delivery, but could the British build a bomb in the first place.
If I read the question right, it is not "Could the British build a bomb?" but rather "What if the British had been able to?"
If the UK did build a bomb, it would be a white elephant with no way to deliver it. The bomb only would have been useful if it could have been delivered. If the UK had no way to deliver the bomb, it is just an expensive waste of resources.
Another thing is that you don't have to deliver a bomb by air. The British could (and did) build miniature submarines that carried several tonnes of amatol as side-cargo. A similar design, perhaps with the bomb carried underneath, could be used against any target with a port. Yes, it would be more difficult and dangerous to deliver it; but it's not impossible.
The short answer, though not palatable to many:
a) Technologically, no it is not beyond the capacity of the United Kingdom, even though they lacked the turbosupercharger technology of the United States.
b) Economically, probably it is, particularly if the United Kingdom was paying for the development of an atomic bomb.
That's the big problem - or one of them, anyway. I seem to recall that the B-29 programme cost just as much as the Manhattan project, if not more. While the Lancaster (and variants) can barely carry the weight required for an early atom bomb, they would struggle with the dimensions and would need at the very least a substantial redesign to carry a Fat Man-type weapon successfully. They also couldn't get high enough or fast enough to escape the blast, which is something of a problem as well.
Basically, if they want to get the crews back after delivering the weapon they need a new heavy bomber design, and that will cost a LOT. During the pressure of wartime, with a lot of other competing heavy bomber designs already in production, I doubt they can afford it.
Well, having a British atomic bomb program would put a serious dent in what is said to be the main argument against Barnes Wallis' Victory bomber...that it could only carry one large bomb rather than lots of smaller ones to scatter round.
Of course, you've still go to develop and build the aircraft from scratch.........but its construction would make effective use of Vickers facilities that were building Wellingtons right to the end of the war as they couldn't build anything else without major re-tooling.
Of course, you've still go to develop and build the aircraft from scratch.........but its construction would make effective use of Vickers facilities that were building Wellingtons right to the end of the war as they couldn't build anything else without major re-tooling.
Quite right. Thanks for correcting me.
-----------------------------------------------
Quite seriously, a towed glider is viable. The GAL had a weight capacity of about 7 tonnes. Fatman weighed about 5 tonnes IIRC. Therefore, you stick it on a towed glider, fly at night, high, with escort...
While your going to be 'inaccurate' once you cut the tow rope and dive for home. It's not beyond the brits to use radar to create an early form of triangulation and radar RC device to fly the gilder onto its target.
The key worry is it being shot down en route.
Given that near the end of the war the Allies controlled much of the air space over Germany and in the Pacific this is much less of a worry, then you might think at first.
It's completly plausible that the British can think of many clever solutions. Afterall why must Alternate History use the same methods as in our own. That smacks of shortsightedness.
The British effort was added to the US program because Churchill gave over to the US everything the British had on the A Bomb - technical, theoretical - everything. It was the only reason the US was able to build the bomb in the first place.
- Status