WesWorld

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
At least Israel and South Africa worked closely, didn´t SA get nukes as well?

Yes, but they dismantled them in the 1990s, I believe. Only "former nuclear power" in the world. The Vela Incident is presumed to have been South Africa's one nuclear test.

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad

Quoted

Originally posted by thesmilingassassin

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
With to constant statements about how SEAR is going to stomp SATSUMA its only logical that Japan should look for an equalizer

Ironically enough those statements have come from those outside of SAER or SATSUMA so I think your just a little paranoid.

Seriously, did you expect to run roughshod over the Pacific unopposed? Sheeesh...

As they say its not paranoia if they are out to get you

Why are the Persians quoting the Dutch??

Arghhh! Clearly the Dutch has infiltrated Persia!

Quoted

You forgot to add that it is quite easy to surround San Hainando and starve the forces into surrender while fending off the reinforcements coming from Europe...

I would actually think that San Hainando might be self-sufficient for food, at least if rationed. Rice for everyone ! Things like fuel and ammunition would be finite.

Quoted

I for one agree with Walter. SEAR seriously destabilized the balance of power.

I actually look at it as SATSUMA destabilized the balance of power, it came first, and has continued to grow since. The next leap up was NATO. All and all too many countries are chummy with folks they should not be chummy with. Oh well.

Quoted

Dammit, people, I opened the thread to read about nukes, not bloc politics.

You expected a thread's content to relate to the subject line? You are SO weird.

Quoted

All I will say is that I am prepared to meet any Japanese challenge in this field. Roo just beat me to the start by one year,

Hmm I could swear I already had a news bit about a Kongo hydro dam that would provide processing for a uranium mine. Eh, maybe it's one that got skipped.

Congo Uranium was historically used in the Manhatten project, as in 1939 it was one of the largest producers. German uranium may have been Czech. According to one source
"80% of the uranium later used in the Manhattan project came from the Shinkolobwe deposit in Belgian Congo."

Quoted

Makes me curious. Is there some cost breakdown list somewhere of the Manhattan Project

Wiki says 2billion, and 24B in 2008 dollars. Taking 130,000 people and up to 1/6th the USA's electrical generation.

Quoted

We could limit only certain countries to develop the bomb in WW to those we know did it OTL first or we could limit it to one nation per bloc. This seems a little unfair but in reality even powers like the Dutch and Iberians could not afford such weapons, nor the Nords

Likely the case. Though given the Dutch seem to have about 3x the infrastructure they likely should, and have 90m, I could whine about the point.
Pretty much everyone under a certain # of factories and population, say 25 of each; and/or we could simply leave it at RA's estimate of you have to invest 100 IP. Once the 1st ones finished, the remainder should get price breaks.

IP is for dock infrastructure not other military or civilian research programmes.

I'm fine with a factory cap though. We could have a two-tier system, first nations who would be large enough to fund intial research and bombs and the second-tier nations who get the all the background data and just have to build the facilites themselves to put theory into practice.
What those factory limits should be though is hard to say.


I say again, Manhattan is not a good indicator of costs when we don't know how much the Soviets spent, nor how much the Nazi regime spent and nor the exact costs of Britain's own programme.

Also a sizable chunk of Manhattan's uranium stock was from Britian. When they pulled the plug on us post-war we demanded our uranium back and that helped slow down bomb production just when the Yanks wanted to rack it up to beat the Soviet attempts.