No WWI, which nation or empire do you think would develop the A-bomb first ?
- Thread starter fockewulf
- Start date
-
- Tags
- atomic bomb ww1
I think the the British, the Germans and the Japanese could prove to be the powers more likely to obtain nuclear weapons, but it won't be easy.
The British were the first ones to discover nuclear fission and in March 1940, discovered that as little as 1 kilogram of pure uranium-235 would be enough to create a nuclear explosion. The Manhattan Project could not have gotten off the ground without British help. The problem is that the British do not have the manpower or the resources of the United States. Without WWI, I suppose they could've went to their colonies for resources and manpower, but without WWI, the fate of Europe's colonies is up in the air.
There is also a bigger problem that would inhibit a British nuclear weapons program: the economic burden.
When there was a serious gap in the British-American scientific relationship during World War II, the British crunched the numbers on how much it would cost to build their own atomic bomb, without outside assistance.
3,000,000 pounds in research and development
5,000,000 pounds to build a nuclear reactor to create 1 kilogram of plutonium
Between 5,000,000 and 10,000,000 pounds to create facilities to produce heavy water
500,000 tons of steel
5000,000 kilowatts of electricity
If the British wanted to create their own nuclear weapons program in this timeline, it would be a burdensome effort and I highly doubt you would see a government crazy enough to authorize such a program, unless there was a world war.
Before World War I, Germany was effectively the heart of the European scientific community. It's where you went if you wanted to study something serious. If anti-Semitism can be suppressed, then I think the Germans could use their reservoirs of Jewish scientists to get a head start on the nuclear program.
As for uranium, in OTL, the Soviets and East Germans effectively scarred the Ore Mountains by mining it for uranium and during the Cold War, East Germany was the world's third biggest producer of uranium ore behind the US and Canada, so Germany definitely has the uranium resources to create nuclear weapons.
As for heavy water, I suppose Germany could lean on Norway for assistance in that regard. In OTL, Norway did have the Norsk hydroelectric plant. I don't think Germany could've produced heavy water on it's own, but I could be wrong.
As for Japan, they have the brains to get a project going, as even the Manhattan Project Intelligence Group admitted. In the 1930s and '40s, the Committee of the Application of Nuclear Physics was led by famous Japanese physicist Yoshi Nashida.
During World War II, the most successful Japanese nuclear weapons project was the Japanese Navy's F-Go Project, based in Kyoto, which by September 1945, had obtained 20 grams a month of heavy water from ammonia plants in Korea and Burma. Speaking of ammonia, in 1926, industrialist Jun Nuguchi had founded the Korean Hydroelectric Company in what is now Hungman, North Korea. This site eventually became the site for fertiliser production and contained a heavy water production facility whose output rivalled the Norsk Hydroelectric Plant in Norway. Japan never used this facility in their efforts to produce nuclear weapons, however. Have a Japanese nuclear weapons project use this facility and they'd have limitless heavy water.
The problem, however, was that the Japanese nuclear weapons project, of course, needed uranium. In 1945, the Japanese had requested the Germans ship them 560 kilograms of unprocessed uranium oxide by U-Boat. This U-Boat surrendered to US forces in April 1945 after Germany's surrender. So, Japan would either be dependent on foreign powers for the uranium (which I doubt they were just going to hand over) or you would have to have the Japanese extensively explore regions such as Fukushima Prefecture in the Home Islands and Korea, just as they did in our timeline, with the express intent of acquiring uranium.
So two out of these three nations would have to rely on outside assistance if they want to get anywhere close to building a nuclear bomb if they lack the resources in their own country or if the cost is simply too burdensome and depending on what prevents WWI in this timeline, I doubt you would see much interest in nuclear weapons.
The British were the first ones to discover nuclear fission and in March 1940, discovered that as little as 1 kilogram of pure uranium-235 would be enough to create a nuclear explosion. The Manhattan Project could not have gotten off the ground without British help. The problem is that the British do not have the manpower or the resources of the United States. Without WWI, I suppose they could've went to their colonies for resources and manpower, but without WWI, the fate of Europe's colonies is up in the air.
There is also a bigger problem that would inhibit a British nuclear weapons program: the economic burden.
When there was a serious gap in the British-American scientific relationship during World War II, the British crunched the numbers on how much it would cost to build their own atomic bomb, without outside assistance.
3,000,000 pounds in research and development
5,000,000 pounds to build a nuclear reactor to create 1 kilogram of plutonium
Between 5,000,000 and 10,000,000 pounds to create facilities to produce heavy water
500,000 tons of steel
5000,000 kilowatts of electricity
If the British wanted to create their own nuclear weapons program in this timeline, it would be a burdensome effort and I highly doubt you would see a government crazy enough to authorize such a program, unless there was a world war.
Before World War I, Germany was effectively the heart of the European scientific community. It's where you went if you wanted to study something serious. If anti-Semitism can be suppressed, then I think the Germans could use their reservoirs of Jewish scientists to get a head start on the nuclear program.
As for uranium, in OTL, the Soviets and East Germans effectively scarred the Ore Mountains by mining it for uranium and during the Cold War, East Germany was the world's third biggest producer of uranium ore behind the US and Canada, so Germany definitely has the uranium resources to create nuclear weapons.
As for heavy water, I suppose Germany could lean on Norway for assistance in that regard. In OTL, Norway did have the Norsk hydroelectric plant. I don't think Germany could've produced heavy water on it's own, but I could be wrong.
As for Japan, they have the brains to get a project going, as even the Manhattan Project Intelligence Group admitted. In the 1930s and '40s, the Committee of the Application of Nuclear Physics was led by famous Japanese physicist Yoshi Nashida.
During World War II, the most successful Japanese nuclear weapons project was the Japanese Navy's F-Go Project, based in Kyoto, which by September 1945, had obtained 20 grams a month of heavy water from ammonia plants in Korea and Burma. Speaking of ammonia, in 1926, industrialist Jun Nuguchi had founded the Korean Hydroelectric Company in what is now Hungman, North Korea. This site eventually became the site for fertiliser production and contained a heavy water production facility whose output rivalled the Norsk Hydroelectric Plant in Norway. Japan never used this facility in their efforts to produce nuclear weapons, however. Have a Japanese nuclear weapons project use this facility and they'd have limitless heavy water.
The problem, however, was that the Japanese nuclear weapons project, of course, needed uranium. In 1945, the Japanese had requested the Germans ship them 560 kilograms of unprocessed uranium oxide by U-Boat. This U-Boat surrendered to US forces in April 1945 after Germany's surrender. So, Japan would either be dependent on foreign powers for the uranium (which I doubt they were just going to hand over) or you would have to have the Japanese extensively explore regions such as Fukushima Prefecture in the Home Islands and Korea, just as they did in our timeline, with the express intent of acquiring uranium.
So two out of these three nations would have to rely on outside assistance if they want to get anywhere close to building a nuclear bomb if they lack the resources in their own country or if the cost is simply too burdensome and depending on what prevents WWI in this timeline, I doubt you would see much interest in nuclear weapons.
Germany, but only assuming that manage to retain their scientific prowess (should be easier without the lose of WWI and the subsequent rise of Nazis, but anything could happen in the meantime).
That's really the problem, anything could happen in the decades that'll take for the scientific and industrial base to be enough for such a project.
That's really the problem, anything could happen in the decades that'll take for the scientific and industrial base to be enough for such a project.
Britain has the most money and natural resources to throw at the problem and Germany the best scientists, I think the two would be very close together in developing an Abomb.
Deleted member 1487
How is this even a question? Germany by far. They had the organized science, brains, population, and funding to make it happen.
Not as much as you'd think without WW1. Plus I don't think they had the uranium mines. The navy got all the funding. Once Germany got it and Britain realized it though they'd go for it hard, but it may take a bit. France though has a good shot to be number 2 as well.
Uranium was known to exist in Australia in the late 19th century and was being extracted before the outbreak of WWI. All other issues aside, I don't think a lack of raw materials would be an issue for the British Empire.
Uranium was in many places, but was locked up in Uranium Oxide. somewhat popular for glass tinting and ceramics glaze.
Getting that to pure metal is neither cheap or easy.
The early processes for turning Uranium Oxide to Uranium Metal was $20 a gram
Dr Frank Spedding of Iowa State University, Rare-Earth metal expert- one of the best in the World, the price dropped to a few Dollars a pound, and of far higher purity than anyone else had been able to achieve. Was also able to scale that up, so that with a few months, was able to make tons of it a month at ISU
Without WW1 it’s Germany easy, the theoretical and experimental physicists were there, industrial base, economic base, all there. Maybe not an actual A Bomb at first but sustained fission first leading to the bomb itself. Look at everyone at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute and the support they had. Look at the title, no WW1, KWI keeps everyone.
Jessicajess
Banned
The Germans would have all those Jewish scientists who ran away OTL, they would've capital and would also have the need of super weapons to deal with the growing Russian threat.
Without the World Wars is it possible that growing knowledge about radiation leads to the international treaties banning weapons that cause radiological contamination? The evidence to support such a ban was already there in the 20's with the effects of radium paint on the women painting clock and watch dials. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_jaw
The original unit for measuring the amount of radioactivity was the curie (Ci)–first defined to correspond to one gram of radium-226 and now defined as:
1 Curie = 3.7x1010 radioactive decays per second
1 Curie = 1,000,000 microcuries, or μCi
One gram of natural Uranium has an activity of 0.67 μCi. Of this 0.67 μCi, 48.9% of the activity is due to U-234, 2.2% of the activity is from U-235, and 48.9% of the activity is from the to U-238
So that natural Uranium, made into one gram of pure metal, has 0.00000067 Curies emission.
HEU as used for bombs, that's 0.0000000311215 Curies emission.
At that amount, you need to worry about the K40 Potassium isotope in Bananas more.
It took till 1896 for the fact that Uranium was actually radioactive to be accepted. Most Uranium minerals put out more radiation than the pure metal.
Both are Radium and Uranium are Alpha emitters. Radium also does Beta and Gamma
Alpha, That means it can't penetrate a thick piece of paper.
Beta, an Aluminum Can
Gamma, Plenty of Lead
Uranium Metal, don't worry about that unless ingested, and that it's a Toxic Heavy Metal like Mercury or Lead is more an issue than the Radioactivity that's what having a Half Life in Billions of years
Until the first Bomb goes off, Fallout wouldn't even be thought of as an effect. Neutron pulse was expected. the effects of that, beyond causing Uranium-235 to Fission were not tested, or even theorized over.
1 Curie = 3.7x1010 radioactive decays per second
1 Curie = 1,000,000 microcuries, or μCi
One gram of natural Uranium has an activity of 0.67 μCi. Of this 0.67 μCi, 48.9% of the activity is due to U-234, 2.2% of the activity is from U-235, and 48.9% of the activity is from the to U-238
So that natural Uranium, made into one gram of pure metal, has 0.00000067 Curies emission.
HEU as used for bombs, that's 0.0000000311215 Curies emission.
At that amount, you need to worry about the K40 Potassium isotope in Bananas more.
It took till 1896 for the fact that Uranium was actually radioactive to be accepted. Most Uranium minerals put out more radiation than the pure metal.
Both are Radium and Uranium are Alpha emitters. Radium also does Beta and Gamma
Alpha, That means it can't penetrate a thick piece of paper.
Beta, an Aluminum Can
Gamma, Plenty of Lead
Uranium Metal, don't worry about that unless ingested, and that it's a Toxic Heavy Metal like Mercury or Lead is more an issue than the Radioactivity that's what having a Half Life in Billions of years
Until the first Bomb goes off, Fallout wouldn't even be thought of as an effect. Neutron pulse was expected. the effects of that, beyond causing Uranium-235 to Fission were not tested, or even theorized over.
Deleted member 94680
Belgian Congo had a good source of uranium and Britain had a better chance of getting it from Belgium than Germany.
But otherwise, I’d agree Germany had the best chance as they had the better brains to move the research along.
Deleted member 1487
Without WW1? I don't think the German-Beglian relationship was any worse than the British-Belgian one was.
Deleted member 94680
Relations maybe. But British economic and financial penetration into the Congo was more advanced I believe. That’s all I was suggesting. A sudden German uptake in trade and possibly exploratory mining would be met with a British response. The British economic network in Africa was more extensive and advanced than the German one. This would allow British exploitation of Belgian resources to be more expansive than German attempts.
That and Wilhelmine Germany was notoriously cack-handed when it came to diplomatic overtures.
Everyone loves numbers.
Germany GDP 1913:
About 18-ish billion $ (1913)
Which is about 76 billion Mark
Cost of full Manhattan project, with everything including the things you can leave out:
5,8 billion Mark (2 billion 1939 $ -> 1,4 1913 $, 1 $ = 4,2 Mark)
Bonus: German labor is 40 % cheaper!
So use 3,5 billion Mark instead, which would be 4,6 % of the GDP!
And the Manhattan project was done in 4 years so:
Yearly costs would come in at 882 million Mark, or about 20 Kaiser class battleships
That's a lot of money considering countries at that time taxed only between 2 and 10 %, there's other bills to pay as well an no one likes taxes doubling.
Doing it over 10 years would be more sensible, yearly costs would only be 352 million Mark, just 8 battleships. Or you wait a decade or two until the economy has grown so the costs aren't quite as big a burden as they would be in 1913.
Edit: Who cares about the Congo when you've got one of the worlds biggest deposits in Saxony.
Germany GDP 1913:
About 18-ish billion $ (1913)
Which is about 76 billion Mark
Cost of full Manhattan project, with everything including the things you can leave out:
5,8 billion Mark (2 billion 1939 $ -> 1,4 1913 $, 1 $ = 4,2 Mark)
Bonus: German labor is 40 % cheaper!
So use 3,5 billion Mark instead, which would be 4,6 % of the GDP!
And the Manhattan project was done in 4 years so:
Yearly costs would come in at 882 million Mark, or about 20 Kaiser class battleships
That's a lot of money considering countries at that time taxed only between 2 and 10 %, there's other bills to pay as well an no one likes taxes doubling.
Doing it over 10 years would be more sensible, yearly costs would only be 352 million Mark, just 8 battleships. Or you wait a decade or two until the economy has grown so the costs aren't quite as big a burden as they would be in 1913.
Edit: Who cares about the Congo when you've got one of the worlds biggest deposits in Saxony.
Last edited:
Most all of the US Bomb Material thru the Cold War was HEU, made by gaseous diffusion, than Plutonium made in reactors. It took a lot of electricity to do Gaseous Diffusion. Calutrons were even far more energy hungry, and use was being scaled back in 1945 for more gaseous diffusion plants. The US gor so good at making HEU, that supply outstripped demand, and by the end of the 1960s, didn't need more HEU, and started Dismantling the plants.
By time the US was making more HEU than would be needed, development of the Gas Centrifuge was onway, more efficient yet,-but this was not possible in the 1940s.
Even with the access to the German and Czech Uranium Ore, the real shortage is in electrical production. USA had the mostly underutilized TVA hydropower and more Coal than it knew what to do with. Germany would have needed massive spending on their electric grid to do what the USA did. USA was a national grid, able to send power over vast distance. Germany used a lot of small power plants, and their grid was not really able to send large amounts of power to, say to Thuringia from the Ruhr.
This is why OTL, they didn't have the power to spare to make Heavy Water locally, but in Norway, not that they couldn't have made that in Germany. It was the choice of running aluminum refineries and smelters, or use the power to make D2O by electrolysis.
Thomas1195
Banned
You mean the British whose industrial base was becoming increasing obsolete, whose technical expertise and education was well behind both the US and Germany???
On OTL, they were the front runners before the Manhattan Project. Without the WWI economic disruption, they might fare even better while industrial growth patterns changed, with continental Europe and Britain converging.