premise : did atomic weapons R&D actually prolong WWII ?

and interesting question that occured to me yesterday and i sounded off a couple of mates last night

so - did atomic weapons R&D actually prolong WWII ?

as far as ` the war in europe ` is concerned - it is my opinion that allied R&D did indeed prolong the war .

my reasoning - nothing produced by either the " tube alloys " project , or the manhattan project was actually used in the defeat of germany or italy ,

and if the massive resources expended on these projects had been redirected to conventional weapons and other war research - then they may have produced quicker allied victories .

the role of nazi atom bomb R&D is of course tricker - as they to acheived zero tangible results for massive expediture - and the same argument applies - would the nazis have prolonged the war - if they had redirected all recorces of atomic R&D into other programs ???

of course if the nazis abandoned thier atom bomb program - and the allies maintained thiers - its likley that at least germany would have been a target of a nuclear attack

but what if both sides abandoned them ? - this in my opinion is simpler - it would have made little difference - with no atom bomb - germany would have either faced an allied nuclear strike - or the amercican juggernaut would have just moved more slowly

now onto the war against the empire of japan :

i do not believe that japanese programs significantly impacted thier war-fighting capabilities - nor had they any chance of developing thier own weapon in the period after august 6th 1945 . the allied build up and capacity to destroy the home islands from the air and invade on multiple fronts renders any lack of an allied atom bomb moot .

so what if the allies had abandoned all thier programs - in this case the war against japan would have dragged on into the autum of 1945 - with carnage and casualty figures that would have made hiroshima // nagasaki seem insignificant

by the end of july 1945 - the USN had an almost total sea blocade - and the RN RCN and free french navies were all set to supply additional seapower - in adition to the USN atlantic fleet being redeployed

further the RAF and USAAF were set to redeploy all sutible planes - lastly ground forces in europe were recieving training at allow reserves to bolster US effors - and of course the soviets were redeploying in massive numbers

japan was doomed - and it was going to be messy .

there ends my case - what says you ATS ?

i know ATS rules do not allow me to " ban " people from participation in my thread , but - nor do i have to reply to revisionist fantasies either

by this i mean vril spaceships and other such idiocy

if your argument is - " the engineering expertise wasted on the german atom bomb project could have produced a jumo jet engine with 200 hours service intervals " i shall respond

if you want to talk about nazi saucers - you will get silence

thats all folks

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
and if the massive resources expended on these projects had been redirected to conventional weapons and other war research - then they may have produced quicker allied victories .

What, precisely, could have been done with those transferred resources that would have made a difference?
That's what you need to establish.
Without an answer to that question, the case falls to the ground.

a reply to: DISRAELI

hi - if i wanted you just spew my own views - i would have posted it on a blog - this is a discussion forum

collaboration and the free market place of ideas is the point here

and i already did give one example :

the engineering expertise wasted on the german atom bomb project could have produced a jumo jet engine with 200 hours service intervals "

further :

in the US

mathematical genius redirected to - crypoto analysis and compuring

computing - redicercted to crypot analysis and artillery tables

steel and other metals - 100 extra destroyers - deployed as anti uboat packs - independant of convoys

all disciplins - guided munitions [ introduce tarzran earlier and deploy more ]

engineering talent - radar - faster development of 2cm radar sets - and more of them in use

i could go on

but DISCUSS

a reply to: ignorant_ape

That's an interesting question, but it's not so simple. Those resources could have just been redirected into other projects that resulted in nothing. Redirection doesn't mean success. There are quite a few things both the Allies and the Axis invested in that ended up being wastes of resources and time.

I mean, you could just as easily be asking, "what if Hitler didn't spend so many resources and time researching the occult?" It's not like he produced any meaningful tech from that research or anything. Even the mythical bell didn't help them win the war. At the most it helped them escape consequences (though I don't think it even worked).

Also, keep in mind that the Manhattan Project was mostly a result of trying to beat Hitler to a bomb. It wasn't like we had much choice in the development of the thing. If Hitler got it first, the war would have gone in a VERY different direction. At the time, we had no way of knowing that D-Day would result in a turnaround either. Things were VERY desperate there for a time. When you start getting desperate, you attempt riskier things. Hence D-Day and the development of the atomic bomb.

PS: Plus the biggest difference maker, imo, about what could have been done differently is if Hitler didn't invade Russia. I feel like that was the key decision to second guess.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
hi - if i wanted you just spew my own views - i would have posted it on a blog - this is a discussion forum

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to have done wrong. I thought I was discussing, remarking on the need to show that real alternative options would have been available.
If a possible project was under consideration, but not pursued because Atom bomb development was pursued instead, that would have been an answer to the question.
If the German counter at the Battle of the Bulge, for example, was made possible because physical resources were held back for Atom bomb development, that would have been an answer to the question.
Concrete examples.

I wasn't expecting such a snappy reaction to an observation made in good faith.

a reply to: DISRAELI

how many freaking examples do you want ? - i have given you examples - you are ignoring them and just blathering - one wonders why

final time - this is a discussion forum - discuss it

a reply to: ignorant_ape



I would tend to think that you've been around ATS long enough that it is unwise to put limits on how you will accept replies to your threads. You...we...only offer our opinions here and scant bits of actual proof of anything. To post yet another hypothetical scenario about a topic that has been fairly well laid out over the decades is simply asking for what you don't want.

a reply to: Aliensun

please cite the previous discussions on this topic

further - i am not limiting replies - i am simply warning that i shall not engage with people peddling bollox

a reply to: ignorant_ape
You are obviously operating some private definition of "discuss" which I don't understand.
You are not really entitled to give me any "final" warnings, but I can't be bothered to put my hand in the wasps' nest any more.

God, it's worse than trying to debate with Hugh Trevor-Roper.

a reply to: DISRAELI

no - i am not persuing any " private " definition of discuss - i am using the one that everyone who understands english excet you - understands

i havnt giben you any warning - your just making crap up

if you dont want to discuss this - the fook off - simples

otherwise address the actual topic

a reply to: Krazysh0t

hi - as i have stated clearly - my main argument was the re-investment in sucessfull projects that were already underway

ie - how many RR merlin engines could have been built with the recources that went into the unraniam enrichment program ???

or how many destroyers could have been built instead of the atomic reactors needed for manhatten ????????

as for - what if hitler did not lauch op barbarossa - yup - counter question - at what point would stalin have invaded the nazi empire ?????????

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Krazysh0t

hi - as i have stated clearly - my main argument was the re-investment in sucessfull projects that were already underway

ie - how many RR merlin engines could have been built with the recources that went into the unraniam enrichment program ???

or how many destroyers could have been built instead of the atomic reactors needed for manhatten ????????

as for - what if hitler did not lauch op barbarossa - yup - counter question - at what point would stalin have invaded the nazi empire ?????????

So do you think it would be a realistic assumption to make on the part of either the axis or the allies to not have an R&D part of the war? Especially if you are reasonably sure the other side has one? The Allies spent 3/4ths of the war outgunned techwise. They certainly had a vested interest in trying to one up the Axis in technology.

I mean your question is interesting, but only because we know how the war ultimately ended and can look back with hindsight and say, "well what if THIS was done differently?" But I don't believe this was a choice that either side was going to make. R&D is and always will be one of the more expensive things you undertake. It's just how things work. But one thing wars of the past have definitely shown is that the people with the superior technology ultimately end up winning out.

So even if the money used to invent the atomic bomb was reinvested, I highly doubt it would have been reinvested outside of research and development.

So to start this discussion, we should first ask, did the Axis or the Allies have the ability to make the CHOICE not to invest in these projects? I certainly don't think the Allies did. The Axis, being better equipped, likely could have made that choice, but Hitler was a megolomanic, so likely wouldn't have considered such things. I mean, if anything he shouldn't have invested into the occult like he did. Those funds DEFINITELY could have been used to buffer his existing forces like you are suggesting.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

hi - as i said in the OP it was a discussion we had IRL last night after the idea poped into my head - we came to various conclusions

and i was interested to see what conclusions ATS would draw from this premise

a reply to: ignorant_ape

It is fun to play "what-if". That's why I like reading alternative history books. There's a really good one about what if the south won the Civil War.

Investing it different ways allowed a country to find that technology which was a leaps ahead of the rest.

small payload to damage inflicted ratio was something to be thought about as the USA was an ocean away from either theater.

There were a lot of things that rapidly advanced that all contributed to the end of ww2.
radar, sonar, pennicilin, vt fuse, etc 100 things.

us amphib invasion of japan would have been very difficult, but it may have been soviets redeploying to the far east that lead to japan's surrender.

It is nice to speculate with 20/20 hindsight what might have happened. Personally I don't believe that abandoning the Manhattan Project would have had much of an effect on the war in Europe. From what I have read, I don't believe that D-day could have happened any sooner than it did. The U-boat threat was pretty well contained by mid 1943. The largest factor in that was improved convoy tactics, long range patrol aircraft and the Hunter-Killer groups with Escort Carriers.

In my opinion the reason that the war in Europe wasn't over in 1944 was the Germans defense and destruction of the Ports in France and Holland. In the Fall of 1944 the German Army was in a disorganized retreat. The Allied Armies could have cut off a large portion of the German Army and have crossed the border into Germany, but, were forced to hold up due to the lack of gasoline and supplies. It wasn't that there was a shortage, but, the ships carrying the supplies couldn't be unloaded efficiently due to the destruction of the Ports. This allowed the German Army to regroup and led to the Ardennes Offensive in December 1944.

The war against Japan is an entirely different story. Personally I believe that the Atomic Bomb shortened the war and saved millions of lives. During the invasion of Saipan and Okinawa thousands of civilians committed suicide. Japan was stockpiling aircraft, boats and vehicles to be used for kamikaze attacks.

If there would have been an invasion of Japan, I believe that the war would have lasted to 1947 or 48 at a cost of millions dead on both sides. When the use of the Atomic Bomb is discussed, little is mentioned of the 250,000 troops that Japan had in Manchuria. The surrender order given by the Emperor after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was complied with. If that order had not been given there would have been massive Chinese and Soviet casualties because I believe that those troops would have fought to the death.

Firstly the Japanese question. For a start I have never heard or read any definite development by the Japanese to acquire nuclear weapons. They were however more interested in chemical and biological weaponry. So really it's a moot point on the USA trying to beat Japan to develop a working atomic bomb. In my oppinion no amount of re-directed funds would not have any shortening effect in the Pacific campaign. The bombs were dropped for one specific reason only and that was to shock Japan into surrendering before in became necessary to invade their home islands causing horrific losses to the US forces. One must remember in war the enemies deaths and casualties do not even enter the equation.
As for Germany, I think that their nuclear program was vastly over-rated and they were not as near to producing a viable weapon as even now the allied countries want you to accept.
If you ever listen to the documentaries from the German men themselves the war was lost from late 1943 on (though Hitler and his close minnions did not want to recognise that fact) and from then they were fighting a rear guard action to delay the inevitable and even the Bulge offensive was not to win the war but to try and force the allies to the negotiation table for a constructed peace. So the deployment of a nuclear weapon in Europe (as far as I have read) was never an option at all.
This also answers your question as being the Germans knew well in advance that they were going to lose. The allies would not have any noticable benefit from re-directed funds from the Manhattan project as the "tools" they had were quite adequate to finish the job.

a reply to: crayzeed

For a start I have never heard or read any definite development by the Japanese to acquire nuclear weapons. They were however more interested in chemical and biological weaponry.

Exactly. The war in Europe would have continued at the same pace, but the war in the Pacific would have dragged on, giving Japan time to find ways to deliver chemical and biological payloads to the continental United States. While the American forces were island hopping, the American mainland would be subjected to terror attacks.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well said.

a reply to: crayzeed

The Japanese actually had two independent programs to develop the bomb. One was tasked to the Navy and one to the army.

Nothing as massive as the Manhattan Project. Japanese actually achieve a partial detonation somewhere in what is now N.K..

There was a full documentary on it on A&E's history channel. It even showed a headline from a newspaper announcing the flash of the detonation. It was a couple of days after Hiroshima.