Axis Nuclear Weapons Development. Real and Imagined.

[rickshaw]

Question I would like answered is where did Igor get the shapes from? Are they from actual drawings ?

They are based on conventional bombs that the Germans developed.

[GTX]

I think everyone is overlooking the shockvalue such an attack even
with conventional weapons may have against the US.  The Doolittle
Raid brought the war with the US to the homelands in a way that it
hadn't previously which the B-17s and B-29s continued.  The very fact
that the Japanese make the attack could have been the whole point.  It
would shift the mental advantage back to the Japanese. 

Americans felt very secure and confident between the Atlantic and this is why initally
there was a lack of support for getting involved in "European Affairs".
Indeed Pearl Harbour by the Japanese may have been the thing that did tip the balance
from limited support by the US to full support in helping Europe.

This is somewhat the thinking behind this:  Die Staudammbrecher

Regards,

Greg

[sequoiaranger]

>It (Japanese attack on the American homeland) would shift the mental advantage back to the Japanese.<

I really doubt it. The Japanese "attacked" America previously with a submarine firing shells, and the "balloon bombs" that make a LITTLE stir, but not much. Sure, an "atomic attack" would have been a big shock, but would have been a "one-off" attack. No "campaign". Even Doolittle's raid had little effect on the Japanese people--but it did give Yamamoto some leverage to try his "Decisive Battle" strategy for Midway.
 
>Indeed Pearl Harbour by the Japanese may have been the thing that did tip the balance from limited support by the US to full support in helping Europe.<

Hmmm. I think "the thing that tipped the balance" was three days AFTER Pearl Harbor when Germany declared war on us!!

RE: German or Japanese A-bombs---I think most people really have no idea just how MASSIVE and expensive nuclear engineering/research was to make an atomic bomb. There is just NO WAY either the Japanese or the Germans were going to get an operational nuke going with the paltry resources alloted to them. This was no "garage workshop" kind of thing, and just because someone might come up with the THEORETICAL IDEA of how to build a working a-bomb doesn't come close to the amount of effort required to actually create a product.

[Taiidantomcat]

>It (Japanese attack on the American homeland) would shift the mental advantage back to the Japanese.<

I really doubt it. The Japanese "attacked" America previously with a submarine firing shells, and the "balloon bombs" that make a LITTLE stir, but not much. Sure, an "atomic attack" would have been a big shock, but would have been a "one-off" attack. No "campaign". Even Doolittle's raid had little effect on the Japanese people--but it did give Yamamoto some leverage to try his "Decisive Battle" strategy for Midway.
 
>Indeed Pearl Harbour by the Japanese may have been the thing that did tip the balance from limited support by the US to full support in helping Europe.<

Hmmm. I think "the thing that tipped the balance" was three days AFTER Pearl Harbor when Germany declared war on us!!

RE: German or Japanese A-bombs---I think most people really have no idea just how MASSIVE and expensive nuclear engineering/research was to make an atomic bomb. There is just NO WAY either the Japanese or the Germans were going to get an operational nuke going with the paltry resources alloted to them. This was no "garage workshop" kind of thing, and just because someone might come up with the THEORETICAL IDEA of how to build a working a-bomb doesn't come close to the amount of effort required to actually create a product.

Agreed. At one point 1/8 of all electricity in the US was going to the Manhattan project. Thats an incredible amount of resources. I also think that even if the axis powers A-bombed an American City it would do nothing more than fuel an already enraged allied populace.  It would create more dead people, but wouldn't force the allies to negotiate or stop the war. So the end is the same.

[icchan]

If you hit the yards at San Francisco, you'd put a hurt on the shipbuilding and repair for a chunk of time, but not a critical one.  The facilities at Pearl and Los Angeles still exist, and especially after May 8 1945 all the east-coast shipbuilding and ports would be focused entirely on Japan.  And frankly, the rest of the US could rebuild SF pretty quick - Japan couldn't rebuild Hiroshima and Nagasaki right away because of the significant damage to the rest of the national infrastructure and resource base.  The US had been pretty untouched, and could easily have come back from such an attack.  Frankly, in the end it was akin to the Germans vs the Soviets - they just would have been outbuilt and outgunned by increasing orders of magnitude (see the Soviet bombardment of Berlin for truly terrifying numbers for a single artillery barrage) and eventually swarmed.  A group of nuclear weapons hitting the west coast, taking San Diego, Los Angeles, Seattle, San Francisco, and Pearl again, that might well have brought things to a stop, but a hell of a lot of damage would have to be done for the Americans to consider crying uncle.

[sagallacci]

Another point to ponder is that an early atomic would have "relatively" limited damage, especially against sprawling cities. Here in Seattle, a 15-20 KT device could take out Boeing, or the shipyards on Harbor Island, or the big docks at the north end of Elliot bay, but not all three. Even a more compact target, like the Bremerton shipyard, is a fairly tough target, needing a near surface shot to actually destroy the drydocks and other robust infrastructure. True, the personell living close by would be lost too, but the kill/destruction radius versus American city sizes and robustness of target elements means that these early bombs would not, by themselves, take the US out of the war.

[icchan]

Don't need to kill the city, just hit the target industrial area.  Docks/shipyards, for example.  They're massive, but considering the yards at Nagasaki and Hiroshima easily trashed the yards and factories there - a good portion of Nagasaki was spared from the initial blast by intervening hills, so the entire city itself wasn't destroyed.  And since the war against the Japanese was so critically fought in naval actions,  that would have made a tremendous difference.

[rickshaw]

Another point to ponder is that an early atomic would have "relatively" limited damage, especially against sprawling cities. Here in Seattle, a 15-20 KT device could take out Boeing, or the shipyards on Harbor Island, or the big docks at the north end of Elliot bay, but not all three. Even a more compact target, like the Bremerton shipyard, is a fairly tough target, needing a near surface shot to actually destroy the drydocks and other robust infrastructure. True, the personell living close by would be lost too, but the kill/destruction radius versus American city sizes and robustness of target elements means that these early bombs would not, by themselves, take the US out of the war.

I suspect you'd find that those cities weren't quite so "sprawling" in 1941-45 as they are now.   People traditionally lived in higher density housing then, than they do now.  Transport was relatively expensive and difficult so it was usually easier to live closer to work.

While I agree that a nuclear strike on such a limited number of targets would not effected the overall outcome, it could have delayed it.  Personally, if I was the Japanese high command I would place the West Coast cities of the US on the second tier of targets I would select.  At the top would be the shipyards at Pearl Harbor and the canal locks at Panama.   Destruction of both would severely incapacitate the US war effort in the Pacific.  The first would force US Navy ships to return to the West Coast for repairs and refit.  The second would limit the US to either the output of the West Coast dockyards (not inconsiderate, I admit but still much more limited than the East Coast) or accept a much longer sailing time around either Cape for replacements. Even a submarine explosion in the harbours of either would render them unusual for months if not years.  Again, it wouldn't effect the outcome but it may delay it more effectively. 

[jcf]

I suspect you'd find that those cities weren't quite so "sprawling" in 1941-45 as they are now.   People traditionally lived in higher density housing then, than they do now.  Transport was relatively expensive and difficult so it was usually easier to live closer to work.

Newsflash Brian, the physical locations of the Seattle 'targets' mentioned by my fellow Puget Sound resident have not moved in 70 years,
so "Greater Seattle" did in fact sprawl that much during WWII.

As to your comment about higher density housing and transport being expensive, single family houses and cheap cars were in fact both common in the US prior to WWII, the former particularly so in the West. The cities of the Western US have been sprawling for decades, I suggest not using use the Eastern US, Europe or Australia as a model for the physical or social makeup of the Western US.

[sagallacci]

The real point of the comment re targets in a US city is that, other than the shock and awe factor, early atomics would have a disproportionate LACK of effect on mainland US war making. As mentioned, only the dense, high-value targets of Pearl Harbor and the Panama Canal would have any kind of telling effect.
For Germany, given the mind set of the High Command, US/Allied targets would more likely be those with dramatic/emotional effect, as they beleived their own propaganda about breaking Allied will to fight. It also means they wouldn't "waste" an atomic on the Russians, as they were too beastial to be impacted by such an attack.