[defrost]

MAUD made repeated paper approaches to the US to convince them of the feasibility of a weapons program, these were ignored.

Mark Oliphant made several advances and presentations in person before the US were convinced.

It's on record that regardless of any papers read, whether from the UK group, the Germans, the Japanese, et al. US scientists largely remained skeptical that a bomb was possible until repeated outside influence resulted in outside scientists baby walking them through the approach and the numbers.

> You are mixing the order of events.

* The German Instrument of Surrender was a legal document effecting the unconditional surrender of the remaining German armed forces to the Allies, ending World War II in Europe. It was signed at 22:43 CET on 8 May 1945

* Trinity was the first detonation of a nuclear weapon, conducted by the United States Army at 5:29 a.m. Mountain War Time (11:29:21 GMT) on July 16, 1945, as part of the Manhattan Project.

It would appear Germany did, as stated, surrender before the US had an actual working atomic bomb.

> Every part of the engineering and design of the bombs was done in secret in the US without any other country collaboration.

is straight up ahistorical; both the UK and Canada were deeply invovled in the project until, at least, the Atomic Energy Act of 1946. They played a crucial role in technique (magnetic seperation, etc.), raw material provision, provided a number of personal, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_contribution_to_the_Ma...

[aydyn]

You aren't correctly following the discussion.

The relevant order of events is when the US entered the war and when they received the report.

When Germany surrendered is not relevant to the hypothetical discussion.

The Manhattan project was an enourmous effort of 100,000. It was entirely self sufficient without the UK, and the results from the MAUD report were all replicated anyway. The most important advancements in chain reaction physics, plutonium reactor design, uranium enrichment architecture were all done without the british.

Its true that Britain made important early theoretical contributions and also supplied valuable British scientists, but the Manhattan Project’s success was overwhelmingly American in funding, manpower, industrial capacity, and scientific leadership. The U.S. would certainly have achieved the bomb on the same timeline without UK assistance.

[defrost]

You seem woefully misinformed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Agreement

  The Quebec Agreement was a secret agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States outlining the terms for the coordinated development of the science and engineering related to nuclear energy and specifically nuclear weapons.

  It was signed by Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt on 19 August 1943, during World War II, at the First Quebec Conference in Quebec City, Quebec, Canada. 

  British scientists performed important work as part of the British contribution to the Manhattan Project, and in July 1945 British permission required by the agreement was given for the use of nuclear weapons against Japan.

> The U.S. would certainly have achieved the bomb on the same timeline without UK assistance.

In real history the US didn't even consider a nuclear weapons program w/out being pushed by the Bitish.

In real history both Churchill and Stalin wer better informed as to the progress of the Manhattan Project than was Truman who wasn't even aware of the project until On April 25, 1945.

In the realm of speculative history, the atomic bombing of Germany has often been discussed by real informed historians, the bulk of these discussions, the better informed ones at least, conclude such a thing to be unlikely to impossible .. but still worthy of a good beer table hypothetical.

See, for one example: Would the atomic bomb have been used against Germany? - https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/10/04/atomic-bomb-used-...

I'm still chuckling that you actually thought the US developed the bomb in total secrecy with no help from any other country.

[aydyn]

The UK being kept in secrecy from the Manhattan project is absolutely correct.

Yes, they were part of the beginning (MAUD report) but later cut off from full Manhattan Project information after 1942 due to U.S. security concerns and then formally cutoff by the McMahon Act of 1946, which made sharing of nuclear technology fully illegal. This is why for example Britain went on to develop its own bomb independently after the war, because they were not privy to the full development. And why any sort of collaboration only resumed more than a decade later in 1958, after the UK independently became a nuclear power.

If they were part of it, why would they need to design their own? Think about it logically.

I am really not saying anything that isnt widely known or understood. The american nuclear program in general was highly controlled information that was not shared to allies. The Manhattan project was kept in secrecy from the UK, contrary to your claim.

Are you from the UK?

There is this bizarre yet pervasize belief that Britain is still relevant on the global stage. I wonder if the overstating of Britain's very minimal role in the Manhattan project stems from the same vein.

In reality the UK is roughly the economic size of one US state and its modern role is that of a sports venue and tourist destination for more powerful countries. If you are from the UK, this discussion makes sense.