Resisting a nation with a nuclear weapon monopoly

[Kyro92]

I'm not really proposing a specific scenario here. Mostly because I'm aware of the implausibility of the Nazi regime developing nuclear weapons before the USA did, unless maybe we consider a scenario in which America is run by an isolationist president who doesn't enter the war at all.

Anyway, whether it's the Nazis or some other ethically dubious regime, the question is: if they're the first to develop nuclear weapons(and have a clear lead, as the Americans did OTL with the Soviets detonating their first nuke 4 years after the Americans did) can anything stand in their way? Assuming they're completely unencumbered by ethics?

I'm asking this because I've seen it claimed a few times that America could have conquered the world after WW2 given their years-long monopoly on nuclear weapons and being the least ravaged-by-war of all the powers. On the face of it that seems plausible- they could have killed off the political elites of a rival nation with a first strike, ruined it's major cities and industrial centers, and whatever's left shouldn't be capable of fighting a conventional resistance. And guerrilla warfare can be dealt with rather effectively if your willing to resort to genocidal ruthlessness.

I'm second guessing my initial assumption there, however. Once it becomes obvious that this nuclear empire is willing to resort to those sorts of measures, fearful countries are likely to adopt decentralized political structures(and, if they can, depopulate cities and decentralize industry).
Of course that won't necessarily save them from a determined invasion, but it may mean that nuclear weapons contribute little to the outcome one way or the other.

Thoughts?

tldr; is being the only nation with nukes really an instant win condition?

 

[Blue cat]

I'm doubtful that being the First Nation to develop fission based nuclear weapons would initially give that Nation a clear advantage over the rest of the world.

A coalition with the resources of say the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Japan and the British empire in 1944 that was determined to fight to the finish would IMHO take hundreds if not thousands of early fission based nuclear weapons to put down and could do significant amounts of damage with their own non nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

 

[Roland Traveler]

You'd have to have overwhelming conventional superiority, especially in the air so you can knock down bombers carrying the nukes. Barring that, I can't think of a particular way with any hope of success.

 

[Oceano]

If the Nuke-Monopolizers are tossing nukes like wedding rice, the others can bomb them with chemical and biological weapons.

 

[Kyro92]

could do significant amounts of damage with their own non nuclear weapons of mass destruction.

If the Nuke-Monopolizers are tossing nukes like wedding rice, the others can bomb them with chemical and biological weapons.

I hadn't considered that. Rather puts a dent in the whole scenario, doesn't it? Hmm, how capable were scientists in the 1940s and 50s of breeding a really scary virus/bacterium?

 

[King Augeas]

Entirely capable. Delivery, however, is a different matter.

 

[Insider]

Even the USA after the giant expeditures on Manchatan project, they could build one or two bombs a month. Thats enough to use it as a terror weapon, but against fully capable enemy that's not enough. To build up arsenal of thousands of weapons world powers have today would require long years. To destroy an empire at war you need many bombs, hundreds even when we take the armed resistance and duds in account. Unless the said Atomic Power is using stupidity virus on its enemy like Draka there is little hope their enemies would just sit on their hands and wait for the end. Especially since they know that the Bomb is possible.

 

[Viper81]

Even the US at the time was heavily dependent on uranium imports from the Congo. Given how little uranium worldwide had been discovered by the 1940s, it should be relatively simple to cut off supply to whatever nation has gone nuke-crazy. And a couple 10-20kt range nukes do not a world conqueror make. The power of the US post-war was in its economy, remaining manpower, and vast conventional forces (at least in the immediate post-war).

 

[sloreck]

With nukes and a strong conventional military, AND

 

[sloreck]

If the nuke nation has a strong conventional force and the ability to reliably deliver the nukes, yes they can call the shots against an opposing power, or perhaps a moderate coalition. Could the USA have imposed its will on the world 1945-49, no. Could they have made life miserable for the USSR and forced the withdrawal to the 1939 borders or something like that - possibly. Doing so would have been expensive in blood and treasure even with the exhausted state of the USSR in 1945. The USSR had zero ability to do anything about the export of uranium from the Congo to the USA.

In the period 1945-49 when the USA had an absolute nuclear monopoly (and a couple of years more before the USSR really had deliverable weapons) they simply could not have told everyone what to do by force - too big a world and not enough power. Now, the USA with a 1985 military and arsenal and no other nuclear powers, that's another story and also totally ASB.

 

[marathag]

Even the US at the time was heavily dependent on uranium imports from the Congo. Given how little uranium worldwide had been discovered by the 1940s, it should be relatively simple to cut off supply to whatever nation has gone nuke-crazy. And a couple 10-20kt range nukes do not a world conqueror make. The power of the US post-war was in its economy, remaining manpower, and vast conventional forces (at least in the immediate post-war).

Peak for imports during the Cold War was in 1960, around 36 million pounds of UO, about equal to domestic production at that time

 

[marathag]

Even the USA after the giant expeditures on Manchatan project, they could build one or two bombs a month. Thats enough to use it as a terror weapon, but against fully capable enemy that's not enough.

MP cost so much because they were going to mass produce bombs. Oak Ridge was expanding as the War ended.

Bomb core #3 was under hold orders from Truman on the West Coast when the 2nd bomb was dropped.
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/04/25/weekly-document-the-third-shot-and-beyond-1945/

• S[eaman]: … Then there will be another one the first part of September. Then there are three definite. There is a possibility of a fourth one In September, either the middle or the latter part.
• H[ull]: Now, how many in October?
• S: Probably three in October.
• H: That’s three definite, possibly four by the end of September; possibly three more by the end of October; making a total possibility of seven. That is the information I want.
• S: So you can figure on three a month with a possibility of a fourth one. If you get the fourth one, you won’t get it next month. That is up to November.
• H: The last one, which is a possibility for the end of October, could you count on that for use before the end of October?
• S: You have a possibility of seven, with a good chance of using them prior to the 31st of October.
• H: They come out approximately at the rate of three a month.

 

[Insider]

So three a month instead of my guestimate of two... still with such production rate its hardly an all powerfull force in a total war.

 

[Michel Van]

tldr; is being the only nation with nukes really an instant win condition?

Nope, if that Nation bomb it's enemy to show the rest of world "we have the Bomb and we use it"
Will let to international Arms race either Nuclear, Biological, Chemical and Radiological Weapons, off curse the Nation can nuke there potential threat
but on long term this gonna happen...

 

[marathag]

So three a month instead of my guestimate of two... still with such production rate its hardly an all powerfull force in a total war.

No nation could defend against every bomber.

And how long can you get city after city nuked, without being to visit similar destruction?

Regular firebombing didn't get the Japanese to give in.
Nukes did.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

In mid-1946, under contingency planning codenamed Operation Pincher the US concluded that in the event of war with the Soviet Union, it would have no choice but to be forced to abandon continental Eurasia, retreat to Japan and Britain, and undertake a three year crash build-up of their conventional and nuclear forces before they could return to the continent. Until then, there were too few bombs, bombers (it took the specially modified Silverplates to carry the bombs, you couldn't just use any old B-29), trained air crews, and trained bomb assembly teams for a massed nuclear strike to be feasible. Trying to utilize bombs as they were made available was too risky: the aircraft would have to fly in extremely small groups (large groups were too unwieldy to escape from the blast zones after bomb release and sending highly trained personnel on suicide missions is not a cost-effective use of resources) deep into the Soviet Union to strike targets worth hitting, well beyond the range of escort fighters.

So no, being the only nation with nukes is not necessarily an insta-win condition. You need to also have a significant arsenal of ready-to-use nukes. By the time the US had that, the Soviets already had their own bomb.