What If The Manhattan Project Failed?

The Actual History

The Manhattan Project was one of the most significant scientific and military undertakings in history, resulting in the development of the first nuclear weapons during World War II. This massive secret research and development project fundamentally altered warfare, international relations, and humanity's relationship with technology.

Origins and Development

The Manhattan Project emerged from growing scientific understanding and wartime necessity:

1. Scientific Background: In 1938, German scientists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann discovered nuclear fission. Subsequent research by Lise Meitner, Otto Frisch, and others revealed the enormous energy potential of this process.

2. Early Concerns: Scientists, including Leo Szilard and Albert Einstein, grew concerned that Nazi Germany might develop atomic weapons. In August 1939, Einstein signed a letter to President Roosevelt warning of this possibility and urging American research.

3. Initial Research: The U.S. government began modest funding for uranium research in 1939, which expanded after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941.

4. Project Establishment: In August 1942, the Manhattan Project was formally established under the direction of General Leslie Groves, with physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer later appointed to lead the scientific laboratory at Los Alamos, New Mexico.

5. Scale and Scope: The project ultimately employed more than 130,000 people and cost nearly $2 billion (equivalent to about $23 billion today). Major facilities were built at Oak Ridge, Tennessee (uranium enrichment), Hanford, Washington (plutonium production), and Los Alamos (weapon design and assembly).

Technical Challenges and Solutions

The Manhattan Project overcame numerous scientific and engineering obstacles:

1. Uranium Enrichment: Natural uranium contains only 0.7% of the fissile isotope uranium-235. The project developed multiple enrichment methods, including gaseous diffusion and electromagnetic separation, to produce weapons-grade material.

2. Plutonium Production: Scientists discovered that plutonium-239, produced in nuclear reactors, could also serve as fissile material for weapons. The Hanford site built massive production reactors to create this entirely new element.

3. Weapon Design: Two distinct weapon designs were developed:

   • The "Little Boy" gun-type design for uranium-235, which was relatively simple but highly inefficient
   • The "Fat Man" implosion design for plutonium-239, which required precise explosive lenses to compress the core to supercriticality

4. Trinity Test: On July 16, 1945, the first nuclear device was successfully detonated at the Trinity site in New Mexico, validating the implosion design and confirming the weapons' devastating power.

Deployment and Impact

The successful development of nuclear weapons had immediate and far-reaching consequences:

1. Hiroshima and Nagasaki: On August 6 and 9, 1945, atomic bombs were dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing an estimated 210,000 people by the end of 1945 and demonstrating the unprecedented destructive power of these weapons.

2. Japanese Surrender: On August 15, 1945, Japan announced its surrender, ending World War II. While other factors contributed to this decision, including the Soviet declaration of war against Japan, the atomic bombings played a significant role.

3. Soviet Response: The Soviet Union, aware of the Manhattan Project through espionage, accelerated its own nuclear program, testing its first device in 1949 and ending the American nuclear monopoly.

4. Nuclear Arms Race: The successful development of nuclear weapons launched a decades-long arms race, with the United States and Soviet Union building thousands of increasingly powerful weapons.

5. Cold War Framework: Nuclear deterrence became the cornerstone of Cold War strategic thinking, with the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) eventually emerging as the primary safeguard against nuclear conflict.

6. Proliferation: Despite efforts at control, nuclear technology gradually spread to other nations. By the early 21st century, nine countries had developed nuclear weapons.

The Manhattan Project thus not only helped end World War II but also inaugurated the nuclear age, fundamentally altering international relations, military strategy, and humanity's understanding of existential risk. The ethical questions surrounding the development and use of these weapons continue to be debated, while the specter of nuclear warfare remains one of the defining challenges of the modern era.

The Point of Divergence

In this alternate timeline, a series of scientific setbacks, technical failures, and strategic decisions in 1943-1944 prevent the Manhattan Project from developing a functional atomic bomb during World War II.

Scientific Obstacles

The first key divergence occurs at the theoretical level:

1. Neutron Capture Problem: In this timeline, experiments in early 1943 incorrectly suggest that neutron capture in uranium-238 is significantly higher than in our timeline, leading scientists to believe that a sustained chain reaction with enriched uranium would be nearly impossible to achieve in a weapon design.

2. Plutonium Complications: The discovery of plutonium-240 contamination in reactor-produced plutonium (which did occur in our timeline) presents more severe challenges. In this alternate timeline, scientists miscalculate the degree of spontaneous fission, leading them to believe that a plutonium bomb using the simpler gun-type design would always pre-detonate and fail.

3. Implosion Theory Setbacks: The development of the implosion design, necessary for using plutonium, encounters more fundamental theoretical problems. Key calculations regarding the behavior of shock waves and the compression of the plutonium core yield contradictory results, creating doubt about the viability of the approach.

Technical Failures

These theoretical challenges are compounded by more severe technical failures:

1. Uranium Enrichment Inefficiency: The gaseous diffusion plant at Oak Ridge experiences more significant technical problems than in our timeline. The barriers designed to separate uranium isotopes suffer from unforeseen material degradation issues, drastically reducing enrichment efficiency.

2. Hanford Reactor Poisoning: The B Reactor at Hanford (the world's first large-scale nuclear reactor) experiences more severe xenon poisoning than in our timeline. Rather than being solvable, this problem recurs unpredictably, making plutonium production unreliable and insufficient for weapons purposes.

3. Detonation System Failure: The complex explosive lens system designed for the implosion device cannot be made to work with the precision required. Multiple test failures throughout 1944 demonstrate that the technology of the time cannot achieve the perfectly synchronized detonation needed.

Strategic Decisions

In response to these mounting challenges, key strategic decisions alter the project's course:

1. Resource Reallocation: By late 1944, with the Allied advance in Europe progressing and conventional bombing campaigns showing results, General Groves and military leadership recommend scaling back the increasingly troubled Manhattan Project. Resources are partially redirected to other war efforts that show more immediate promise.

2. Focus Shift: Rather than abandoning nuclear research entirely, the project shifts focus toward more achievable goals: developing the theoretical groundwork for future weapons, improving nuclear reactors for potential power generation, and exploring radiological materials for potential tactical military use.

3. Trinity Cancellation: The planned July 1945 Trinity test is canceled after pre-test calculations conclusively show that the device would fail to achieve a significant nuclear yield. The implosion design is deemed unworkable with 1940s technology.

The Outcome

By August 1945, when in our timeline atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Manhattan Project in this alternate timeline has failed to produce a deployable nuclear weapon:

1. Technical Status: The project has produced:

   • Small amounts of enriched uranium, but far below weapons-grade concentration
   • Trace amounts of plutonium, insufficient for weapons purposes
   • Significant theoretical knowledge about nuclear physics
   • Functioning experimental reactors, but with persistent operational problems

2. Military Reality: The United States has no nuclear capability to deploy against Japan. The war in the Pacific continues along a conventional path, with American forces preparing for a potential invasion of the Japanese home islands and the Soviet Union entering the war against Japan as in our timeline.

3. Scientific Understanding: The scientific community now understands that while nuclear weapons are theoretically possible, their development requires technological capabilities, precision manufacturing, and computational power beyond what is currently achievable. Estimates suggest that functional weapons might be possible in 10-15 years with significant continued investment.

This failure of the Manhattan Project—turning theoretical possibility into practical impossibility in the near term—sets the stage for a dramatically different conclusion to World War II and subsequent development of the Cold War without the shadow of immediate nuclear annihilation.

Immediate Aftermath

End of World War II (August-December 1945)

Without atomic weapons, the conclusion of World War II unfolds differently:

1. Pacific War Continuation: After the Soviet entry into the war against Japan on August 8, 1945 (as in our timeline), Japan faces a two-front war but does not experience the psychological shock of atomic attacks:

   • Conventional bombing of Japanese cities continues with high casualties
   • The Soviet invasion of Manchuria proceeds rapidly, threatening Japan's position on the Asian mainland
   • American forces prepare for Operation Downfall, the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands

2. Japanese Surrender Negotiations: The Japanese government, already seeking terms for surrender through Soviet intermediaries, accelerates these efforts after the Soviet declaration of war:

   • The Supreme Council for the Direction of the War (the "Big Six") remains divided between hardliners demanding minimal concessions and moderates seeking to end the war
   • Emperor Hirohito, seeing the Soviet entry as removing any hope of a negotiated peace through Moscow, intervenes more forcefully than in our timeline
   • By late August, Japan offers surrender on the sole condition of preserving the imperial system

3. Allied Response: The Allies accept the conditional surrender in early September 1945:

   • President Truman, facing estimates of massive casualties from an invasion, approves the condition while establishing strict limitations on the Emperor's authority
   • The Soviet Union, advancing rapidly in Manchuria and preparing to invade Hokkaido, reluctantly agrees after securing territorial concessions
   • The formal surrender ceremony takes place in mid-September 1945, about two weeks later than in our timeline

4. Occupation Arrangements: The occupation of Japan proceeds with significant differences:

   • The Soviet Union secures a occupation zone in northern Hokkaido
   • The United States maintains control of the rest of Japan, including Tokyo and the Emperor
   • General MacArthur still leads the American occupation, implementing democratization and demilitarization policies
   • Tensions between Soviet and American occupation forces foreshadow Cold War divisions

Scientific and Military Reassessment (1945-1947)

The failure of the Manhattan Project prompts significant reevaluation:

1. Scientific Analysis: A comprehensive review of the Manhattan Project is conducted to understand its failures:

   • The fundamental science is confirmed as sound, but the technical challenges are deemed beyond current capabilities
   • Estimates suggest that with continued research, functional weapons might be possible by the late 1950s
   • The relationship between theoretical physics and practical engineering is reassessed, leading to new approaches to big science projects

2. Military Planning: U.S. military strategy develops without the nuclear component:

   • Conventional forces remain the cornerstone of American military power
   • Greater emphasis is placed on strategic bombing capabilities and long-range delivery systems
   • Research continues into other advanced weapons technologies, including precision guidance, jet propulsion, and chemical/biological weapons

3. Soviet Program: The Soviet nuclear program, which benefited from espionage against the Manhattan Project, encounters similar technical obstacles:

   • Soviet scientists, now aware of the specific challenges that defeated the American effort, adjust their approach
   • Stalin, initially furious at the lack of quick results, is persuaded to maintain the program as a long-term strategic investment
   • Soviet resources are also directed toward conventional military buildup and consolidating control over Eastern Europe

4. International Control Proposals: With nuclear weapons now seen as a future possibility rather than a current reality:

   • The United Nations establishes the Atomic Energy Commission in early 1946 (as in our timeline)
   • The Baruch Plan for international control of atomic energy is proposed but with less urgency
   • Negotiations are more theoretical, focusing on preventing future weapons development rather than controlling existing arsenals

Political and Diplomatic Developments (1946-1948)

The absence of nuclear weapons shapes early Cold War dynamics:

1. U.S.-Soviet Relations: Cold War tensions develop, but with different characteristics:

   • The power balance is perceived as more conventional and traditional
   • Spheres of influence are contested through proxy conflicts and political maneuvering
   • Without the existential threat of nuclear war, confrontations are less restrained by fears of escalation
   • The Berlin Blockade of 1948-1949 becomes a more dangerous flashpoint with greater potential for conventional conflict

2. European Recovery: The Marshall Plan proceeds as in our timeline, but with adjusted priorities:

   • More resources are available due to reduced spending on nuclear research
   • European recovery focuses more on conventional industrial and military rebuilding
   • The formation of NATO in 1949 emphasizes traditional military cooperation rather than nuclear sharing

3. Asian Developments: The Chinese Civil War and Korean tensions evolve with subtle differences:

   • Soviet support for communist movements is more overt without fear of nuclear retaliation
   • American policy in Asia emphasizes stronger conventional alliances and forward military positioning
   • Japan's recovery proceeds under a divided occupation, creating tensions similar to those in Germany

4. Public Perception: The public understanding of international relations develops differently:

   • Nuclear weapons remain a theoretical future threat rather than an immediate reality
   • Fear focuses on conventional war, which is more comprehensible but also more immediately probable
   • Science fiction and popular culture explore the potential of nuclear technology with more emphasis on its peaceful applications

Technological and Scientific Directions (1946-1950)

The failure of the Manhattan Project influences technological development:

1. Nuclear Energy: Research on peaceful nuclear applications continues but follows a different path:

   • The first experimental nuclear power reactors are developed later than in our timeline
   • Safety and reliability take precedence over rapid deployment
   • The Atomic Energy Commission focuses more on fundamental research and less on weapons development

2. Alternative Technologies: Resources are directed toward other advanced technologies:

   • Jet aircraft development accelerates
   • Rocket technology receives greater investment
   • Electronic computing, which supported nuclear weapons design in our timeline, develops with different priorities
   • Chemical and biological weapons research continues with fewer ethical constraints than nuclear weapons faced

3. Scientific Organization: The relationship between government, military, and scientific research is reconfigured:

   • The model of large-scale government-funded research continues but with more diverse objectives
   • Universities maintain stronger independence without the security concerns of nuclear weapons research
   • International scientific cooperation remains more open in fields not directly related to potential weapons applications

By 1950, this alternate world stands at a significantly different threshold than our own. The immediate post-war period has unfolded without the shadow of nuclear weapons, creating different patterns of international relations, military development, and scientific research. The Cold War is taking shape, but its character—lacking the defining feature of nuclear deterrence—follows a distinctly different trajectory.

Long-term Impact

The Conventional Cold War (1950-1965)

Without nuclear weapons, the Cold War develops as a more traditional great power competition:

1. Military Buildups: Both superpowers invest heavily in conventional military capabilities:

   • The United States maintains a larger standing army than in our timeline, with permanent large-scale deployments in Europe and Asia
   • The Soviet Union develops more advanced conventional forces, particularly in armor, artillery, and tactical aircraft
   • Military spending as a percentage of GDP remains higher for both powers without the "efficiency" of nuclear deterrence

2. Proxy Conflicts: Limited wars and proxy conflicts become more numerous and intense:

   • The Korean War (1950-1953) involves larger forces and potentially direct U.S.-Soviet clashes
   • Conflicts in Indochina, the Middle East, and Africa see greater superpower involvement
   • Without the fear of nuclear escalation, conventional interventions occur more frequently

3. Alliance Systems: Military alliances focus on integrated conventional defense:

   • NATO develops more robust conventional capabilities, with larger European contributions
   • The Warsaw Pact functions as a more genuine military alliance rather than a mechanism of Soviet control
   • Regional defense arrangements in Asia and the Middle East take on greater importance

4. Crisis Management: International crises play out differently:

   • The 1956 Suez Crisis involves greater risk of superpower confrontation
   • The Berlin crises of the late 1950s and early 1960s are resolved through conventional military posturing
   • The Cuban situation in 1962 focuses on conventional military balance in the Caribbean rather than missiles

The Nuclear Development Race (1950-1970)

Nuclear weapons development continues as a long-term project:

1. Breakthrough Timeline: Both superpowers achieve functional nuclear weapons significantly later:

   • The United States conducts its first successful nuclear test around 1955-1957
   • The Soviet Union follows within 1-2 years, as in our timeline's pattern
   • The United Kingdom, with its independent program, achieves success in the late 1950s
   • France and China develop nuclear capabilities in the late 1960s

2. Weapons Integration: The integration of nuclear weapons into military strategy occurs gradually:

   • First-generation weapons are large, cumbersome, and few in number
   • Delivery systems are initially limited to strategic bombers
   • Tactical nuclear weapons emerge only in the late 1960s
   • Nuclear submarines and ballistic missiles develop more slowly

3. Nuclear Strategy: Nuclear doctrine evolves differently:

   • Nuclear weapons are initially seen as super-powerful conventional weapons rather than a separate category
   • Concepts of limited nuclear war remain more credible with smaller arsenals
   • Mutual Assured Destruction emerges later and less definitively
   • Civil defense receives greater emphasis with the gradual introduction of nuclear threats

4. Arms Control: Nuclear arms control develops proactively rather than reactively:

   • Initial test ban and non-proliferation efforts begin before large arsenals are built
   • Verification mechanisms are established earlier in the nuclear age
   • The nuclear taboo develops differently, with greater possibility of limited use in conflict

Geopolitical Developments (1950-1980)

The different Cold War environment reshapes global politics:

1. European Evolution: European politics develops along different lines:

   • Germany remains divided but with more militarized confrontation along the border
   • European integration proceeds with greater emphasis on collective defense
   • The Soviet hold on Eastern Europe faces more frequent conventional challenges
   • Finland-style neutrality becomes a more common model for smaller nations

2. Decolonization and Third World: The end of colonial empires occurs in a different context:

   • Superpower competition for influence in newly independent states is more militarized
   • Non-aligned movement has less leverage without playing superpowers against nuclear fears
   • Regional powers like India, Brazil, and Egypt develop stronger conventional capabilities
   • Resource conflicts become more prominent without the stabilizing/paralyzing effect of nuclear deterrence

3. China's Position: China's role in international relations evolves differently:

   • The Sino-Soviet split still occurs but with different strategic implications
   • China develops as a conventional military power before pursuing nuclear weapons
   • U.S.-China rapprochement may occur earlier, driven by conventional balance of power considerations
   • Taiwan's status remains more precarious without the nuclear umbrella

4. Middle East Dynamics: The Arab-Israeli conflict and regional politics take a different form:

   • Israel pursues conventional military superiority more openly without a nuclear hedge
   • Arab-Israeli wars potentially become larger and more frequent
   • Oil politics intersects more directly with military security considerations
   • Regional powers like Iran, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia develop different security strategies

Technological and Cultural Trajectories (1950-2000)

The absence of early nuclear weapons influences broader technological and cultural development:

1. Space Exploration: The space race develops with different motivations and timing:

   • Without ICBMs driving early rocket development, space programs advance more slowly
   • Satellite technology emerges from different military requirements
   • Moon missions might occur later but with more sustainable long-term goals
   • International cooperation in space potentially develops earlier

2. Energy Development: Energy technology follows alternative paths:

   • Nuclear power develops more gradually with greater emphasis on safety and efficiency
   • Fossil fuel dependence continues longer without the nuclear alternative
   • Renewable energy research potentially receives earlier attention
   • Energy security remains tied more directly to conventional military security

3. Computing and Information Technology: Digital revolution proceeds differently:

   • Early computing development is less driven by nuclear weapons simulation needs
   • Military applications focus more on conventional warfare requirements
   • The internet or its equivalent might emerge later or with different characteristics
   • Cryptography and information security evolve with different priorities

4. Cultural and Psychological Impact: Public consciousness develops without early nuclear anxiety:

   • Post-war optimism potentially lasts longer without the existential dread of nuclear war
   • Environmental movement emerges from different concerns than nuclear fallout
   • Science fiction and popular culture explore different technological fears and hopes
   • Concepts of global catastrophic risk develop later and differently

The Modern World (1980-Present)

By the late 20th and early 21st centuries, this alternate world differs significantly from our own:

1. Military Realities: Global military posture reflects different priorities:

   • Conventional forces remain larger and more central to security planning
   • Nuclear arsenals are smaller, newer, and potentially less constrained by taboos
   • Military technology focuses more on precision, battlefield dominance, and space control
   • Defense spending patterns and military-industrial complexes have different characteristics

2. International Relations: The structure of international politics evolves differently:

   • The end of the Cold War, if it occurs, might be more gradual and less definitive
   • Regional powers play more significant roles in a more multipolar system
   • International institutions develop with different emphases and authorities
   • Concepts of sovereignty and intervention follow different trajectories

3. Technological Society: The relationship between technology and society takes different forms:

   • Public attitudes toward technological risk and benefit develop without the early nuclear example
   • Government involvement in scientific research follows different models
   • The relationship between civilian and military technology develops along different lines
   • Ethical frameworks for emerging technologies evolve from different historical experiences

4. Environmental and Global Challenges: Contemporary global issues emerge in a different context:

   • Climate change awareness and response develops without the precedent of nuclear winter concerns
   • International cooperation on global challenges follows different patterns
   • Resource conflicts potentially become more direct without nuclear constraints
   • Concepts of existential risk and long-term human survival develop differently

This alternate world—shaped by the absence of nuclear weapons in the crucial early Cold War period—would be recognizable but profoundly different from our own. International relations would be more traditionally competitive, military conflicts potentially more frequent but less existentially threatening, and humanity's relationship with technology would follow a different psychological and cultural path. The specific shape of the 21st century would depend on whether this world eventually developed robust nuclear arsenals and when, or whether alternative paths of technological development created different global challenges and opportunities.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Richard Rhodes, Pulitzer Prize-winning Historian of Nuclear Weapons:

"Had the Manhattan Project failed to produce a workable weapon during World War II, we would have seen a very different post-war world. The most immediate effect would have been on the conclusion of the war with Japan. Without atomic bombs, an Allied invasion of the Japanese home islands might have been necessary, potentially resulting in casualties on a scale that would have dwarfed Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

The longer-term implications are even more profound. The early Cold War was fundamentally shaped by nuclear weapons. Without them, I believe we would have seen more direct conventional confrontations between the superpowers. The Korean War, for instance, might have expanded into a larger conflict involving direct U.S.-Soviet combat. The stabilizing effect of mutual deterrence—what we came to call 'the long peace'—would have been absent.

That said, nuclear technology wouldn't have remained theoretical forever. By the mid-1950s, both superpowers would likely have developed functional weapons, but in a world already accustomed to more direct military competition. The nuclear taboo that has helped prevent use since 1945 might never have formed as strongly, creating a more dangerous world once these weapons eventually emerged."

Dr. Lynn Eden, Sociologist of Nuclear Weapons and Organizations:

"The organizational and institutional impacts of a Manhattan Project failure would have been fascinating. In our timeline, the project created a model for big science—massive government funding, multidisciplinary teams, and military-scientific collaboration—that shaped research for decades. Without this successful template, post-war scientific research might have developed along different lines, perhaps with more international collaboration and less centralized control.

The relationship between civilian and military technology would also have evolved differently. Nuclear power, for instance, might have developed more independently from weapons programs, potentially with greater emphasis on safety and efficiency rather than dual-use capabilities.

Perhaps most significantly, the failure of such a high-profile project would have tempered the post-war technological optimism that characterized American culture. The idea that any technical challenge could be overcome with sufficient resources and brilliant minds might have been replaced by a more nuanced understanding of technological limits and uncertainties."

Dr. Francis Gavin, Nuclear Historian and International Relations Scholar:

"International relations without early nuclear weapons would have followed more traditional patterns of great power competition. The bizarre situation we experienced—where direct conflict between the major powers became almost unthinkable—wouldn't have emerged until much later, if at all.

This would have created a more conventionally dangerous world in the short term, with higher likelihood of major power war, but potentially a safer one in the long term. The Cold War might have seen hot conflicts between American and Soviet forces, but these would have been limited by conventional military realities rather than risking global annihilation.

The geopolitical map would look quite different today. Without nuclear weapons guaranteeing their security, countries like West Germany and Japan might have remilitarized more significantly. The process of decolonization might have been more violent, with former colonial powers more willing to use military force without nuclear constraints. And smaller powers would have had fewer means to deter larger ones, potentially leading to more regional hegemony."

Dr. Nina Tannenwald, Expert on Nuclear Ethics and Taboos:

"The nuclear taboo—the powerful norm against using nuclear weapons that has helped prevent nuclear war—emerged from the horrific reality of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Without these early demonstrations of nuclear devastation, later development of nuclear weapons might have led to their being treated more like extremely powerful conventional weapons rather than as a separate moral category.

This could have created a much more dangerous world once nuclear weapons were eventually developed. The psychological barrier against their use would have been lower, and concepts like 'limited nuclear war' might have gained more acceptance. The first use of nuclear weapons might have occurred in a conflict like Korea or Vietnam, with catastrophic humanitarian consequences and potential for escalation.

On the other hand, without the early Cold War nuclear arms race, later nuclear development might have proceeded more cautiously, with greater international control. The absence of established nuclear powers might have made non-proliferation efforts more effective when the technology did become viable."

Dr. David Holloway, Historian of the Soviet Nuclear Program:

"The Soviet nuclear program would have faced many of the same technical challenges that defeated the Americans in this scenario. Stalin was determined to match American capabilities, but without the urgency created by Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the program might have developed more gradually.

This would have had significant implications for Soviet foreign policy. Without nuclear weapons to counterbalance American conventional superiority and economic strength, Stalin and his successors might have been more cautious in directly challenging Western interests. Conversely, they might have invested even more heavily in conventional military power and been more aggressive in areas where they held conventional advantages.

The internal politics of the Soviet Union would also have evolved differently. The prestige associated with the nuclear program helped legitimize the Soviet system both domestically and among communist movements worldwide. Without this achievement, the ideological competition with the West might have tilted more decisively against the Soviet model earlier in the Cold War."

Further Reading

• The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes
• The Cold War: A World History by Odd Arne Westad
• 15 Minutes: General Curtis LeMay and the Countdown to Nuclear Annihilation by L. Douglas Keeney
• The Bomb: Presidents, Generals, and the Secret History of Nuclear War by Fred Kaplan
• The General vs. the President: MacArthur and Truman at the Brink of Nuclear War by H.W. Brands
• Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety by Eric Schlosser