What if nuclear weapons were not feasible? How would it effect history? Would there be a world war every twenty years or so?
WI No Nuclear Weapons?
- Thread starter American Empire
- Start date
What do you mean? If the planet had no radioactive materials, then that's ASB land...
Every nuke test coincidentally failing isn't exactly likely either.
Anaxagoras
Banned
No, it's actually a very interesting POD and one I have thought about many times. But what CandyDragon and The Red are saying is that PODs involving something like a change in the laws of physics need to be posted in the ASB forum rather than in one of the other forums.
Well, a world without nuclear weapons also needs to be one where conventional explosives have not reached our modern levels; some of the bigger conventional weapons available now are practically the size of a small nuclear explosion. Granted these don't have the fear associated with radiation, but they are still so huge as to be frightening. This is getting into more ASB (to do with futuristic technology) but kinetic bombardment is similarly destructive.
A timeline without nuclear weapons is likely to have had quite a different history, with physics developing at a different rate or with major wars happening at different times, or with the sciences focusing on different areas. Not only is the world quite different without nuclear weaponry but a world that did not give rise to nuclear weapons would be quite different in itself. I think a case can be made that many of the ancient and medieval timelines written on the site could conceivably lead to a 'modern' day scenario without nuclear weaponry.
A timeline without nuclear weapons is likely to have had quite a different history, with physics developing at a different rate or with major wars happening at different times, or with the sciences focusing on different areas. Not only is the world quite different without nuclear weaponry but a world that did not give rise to nuclear weapons would be quite different in itself. I think a case can be made that many of the ancient and medieval timelines written on the site could conceivably lead to a 'modern' day scenario without nuclear weaponry.
Look up a fellow by the name of Eleven11.
@OP: That requires the Germans not investing in it in the first place. As a result, the US sees no need to engage in such a science-fictiony project, and the bomb is never developed.
Its place might be taken by missiles tipped with nerve gas, or, if rockets are developed by the 1960s for satellite launches, by kinetic impactors.
Shorter term effects: Lots more death in Japan. Whether by invasion (some 3.3 million dead total in an invasion) or starvation (potentially 1/3 or more of the Japanese population). Maintenance of a large American standing army after 1945.
Ok if no nukes, does this imply that we don't have guns, bombs, or anything like that? If we had those things and no nukes, then I say that the Second World War would have been dragged out, with Japan sacrificing women and children to fight,with no guarantees that we would have won. Also, the Cold war would not have happened, and communism in Russia might still be around (though I think that it would have fallen anyways) and that the war on Terror now would not be so focused on finding Nukes in Iraq or Iran. Also, we wouldn't have to worry about a certain midget trying make nuclear winter with the world.
If no guns or bombs, then we shall sword fight until we invent light sabers (horrible joke)
If no guns or bombs, then we shall sword fight until we invent light sabers (horrible joke)
best chance to have a no nuke world, is to have the people on the manhattan project (and tbheir soviet counterparts) ruigged the trigger mechanism or something, to make it fail...and then come up with some bs about it not being able to work with their current level of tech or something (yes i suggested the idea used in sliders, but logically, its the only one feasible)
course this would lead to the deaths of millions world wide, what with the necesscity of a american land invasion of the japanese isles, the soviets rampaging through europe/asia and probaly africa, and the technological backwardness of such a world, until they actually went back and found the lie
course this would lead to the deaths of millions world wide, what with the necesscity of a american land invasion of the japanese isles, the soviets rampaging through europe/asia and probaly africa, and the technological backwardness of such a world, until they actually went back and found the lie
I agree that there would probably be no Cold War. There would be a Hot War instead, since without the ultimate nullifier it's likely that a direct war between the United States and the Soviet Union, rather than proxy wars, would be much more thinkable for both sides.
BlondieBC
Banned
More likely Congressional hearings and a few prosecutions. In WW1, the USA spent 1-2 billion dollars on airplanes with little to show for it. It was an issue of money being spent, and the planes not making it to combat in large numbers. In this case with new technology, it is easier to understand why there are no useful results. The republicans would use the "waste" to argue that they would have won the war faster, which is true in the ATL. Dewey beats Truman, and Dewey probably forms a "blue ribbon" panel of handpick people to produce the "official report" condemning the waste. FDR would probably be exempt, but someone like General Groves would get the full "Admiral Kimmel" treatment. Even today, Republicans would occasionally bring up the waste to show Democrats are poor at running wars.
100% agree. Fear of nuclear war has kept the larger powers from engaging in a hot war. Without nuclear weapons, some event like the Berlin Crisis or Vietnam would lead to general war. These events are likely butterflied away, but at some point, either the Soviets or USA will push too hard and cause a war.
Grey Wolf
Donor
Don't forget that Physics is not Revealed Truth but consists of one layer of rules built upon another layer, over and again, each one consisting of Best Known Approximates. Thus, whilst it might be possible the theories might turn out not to lead there, but to a failure.
It could be the same with Time Travel etc, Invisibility, the idea of a nuclear bomb would be seen as something for the Future
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
It could be the same with Time Travel etc, Invisibility, the idea of a nuclear bomb would be seen as something for the Future
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Flubber
Banned
That has to be one of the saddest statements I've read here. It goes right on through Misunderstanding, then Incomprehension, and then right out the other side.
"Failed" or "false" theories do one thing and one thing only; they create the need for their own replacements. If you come up with a theory about the structure of the atom and that theory cannot account for experimental observations, you or someone else is going to come up with another theory which does account for the experimental observations.
Like any human activity, science is far from perfect. Unlike many human activities however, science does have a self-correcting feature. If one theory cannot explain their observations, scientists generally keep plugging away until they come up with another theory which will.
Using your well-meaning, but fundamentally flawed, example of physics being a one layer of approximations built atop another layer over and over again, the first four nuclear powers managed to build fission weapons and the first two nuclear powers managed to build fusion weapons without anyone on Earth even guessing that particles called quarks existed. You don't need the whole truth or perfect knowledge in order to do a great many things. We were using steam engines decades before Carnot equations were codified and submarine telegraph cables before Maxwell.
Enough theory was known by the 1930s for fission weapons to be possible. The only hurdles were engineering ones and not theoretical one. If you want to delay or prevent the development of nuclear weapons by the 1930s, you're going to have to delay or prevent advances in scientific theory and engineering practice across a myriad of fields for decades. Suggesting that an incorrect theory here or there could lead people down a blind alley long enough won't work because too many theories and too much knowledge is interconnected.
An incorrect appreciation of the structure of the atom, for example, is going to have significant and noticeable effects on chemistry and the industries dependent on chemistry long before there are any effects on nuclear weapon research. Those effects mean that an incorrect theory will be replaced by one that is more correct. Not a perfect theory mind you, just one that is more correct because it correctly makes more predictions.
Are you guys even reading the OP or the forum it's placed in? What is being asked is not "what if nukes were impossible", but "what if they weren't invented". There is a reason why this is in pre-1900.
Anyways, the answer is simple. Keep Europe in the Dark Ages for longer or somehow stunt its scientific growth. By present day we'll (meaning China, India, the Middle east) probably be at 1800-level technology.
Anyways, the answer is simple. Keep Europe in the Dark Ages for longer or somehow stunt its scientific growth. By present day we'll (meaning China, India, the Middle east) probably be at 1800-level technology.
If nuclear weapons were never invented, we would be looking at the extension of the the war in the Pacific by at least 9 months possibly a year. Although we had the Japanese completely on the defensive and almost pushed to its limit, we would still have to contend with millions of fiercely loyal Japanese citizens who were fabricating rifles and weapons in their own homes. We would be fighting a mob that was willing to sacrifice themselves for their country.
After the end of World War 2 some time in middle 1946, you would also see multiple changes in military policy, foreign policy, intelligence, etc. all simply because the concept of mutually assured destruction doesn't exist.
In terms of military policy, American and Soviet leaders would be more open to first trike and pre-emptive options, essentially the same exact rules or war that we have seen for centuries. Because of nuclear weapons, neither side wanted to commit to a first strike and risk retaliation from their cold war enemy. Because of this, military leaders were usually hushed by their own leaders.
Foreign policy wouldn't have changed at all since the beginning of the 20th century. Foreign policy changed after WW2, more empahsis on alliances with similar cultures. It is quite possible that organizations such at NATO, the United Nations, Warsaw Pact would have never existed since these organizations were built around nuclear detterence and nucear assistance (i.s. if the Soviet Union launched a nuclear weapon at the United States, the United Kingdom and France would launch back in kind.)
The biggest one, the largest of them all is that our concept of national intelligence, overhead and espionage would not exist. Right after WW2, an Air Force Major petitioned to the Air Force that the United States needed to invest in a military aircraft (U-2 and later, the A-12 (SR-71 military designation)) that would be able to fly at extremely high altitudes to look to see if the Soviet Union was working on nuclear weapons. The military was more interested in nuclear deterrence by developing a betrter first strike weapon, however the CIA was very interested.
Actually, believe it or not but the CIA and KGB did more to prevent nuclear war than any other agency on the planet, both organizations spend billions thwarting the other side and even on a rare occasion, worked together through a third party to prevent WW3. Without the threat of nuclear destruction, no agency would have any incentive to prevent war.
It is my firm believe that the threat of nuclear war that caused the cold war did more for peace in the twentieth century than anything else. Both sides refused to ever fight first and both sides refused to piss the other side off so they simply just had the world's longest staring contest. Without the threat of nuclear weapons being the end game for a conflict, the United States and the Soviet Union would have been more than happy to go to blows, possibly having a WW3 in the early fifties and depending on the out come, a WW4 and WW5. Nuclear weapons kept us from being brash and made us more pragmatic from 1945 to present.
After the end of World War 2 some time in middle 1946, you would also see multiple changes in military policy, foreign policy, intelligence, etc. all simply because the concept of mutually assured destruction doesn't exist.
In terms of military policy, American and Soviet leaders would be more open to first trike and pre-emptive options, essentially the same exact rules or war that we have seen for centuries. Because of nuclear weapons, neither side wanted to commit to a first strike and risk retaliation from their cold war enemy. Because of this, military leaders were usually hushed by their own leaders.
Foreign policy wouldn't have changed at all since the beginning of the 20th century. Foreign policy changed after WW2, more empahsis on alliances with similar cultures. It is quite possible that organizations such at NATO, the United Nations, Warsaw Pact would have never existed since these organizations were built around nuclear detterence and nucear assistance (i.s. if the Soviet Union launched a nuclear weapon at the United States, the United Kingdom and France would launch back in kind.)
The biggest one, the largest of them all is that our concept of national intelligence, overhead and espionage would not exist. Right after WW2, an Air Force Major petitioned to the Air Force that the United States needed to invest in a military aircraft (U-2 and later, the A-12 (SR-71 military designation)) that would be able to fly at extremely high altitudes to look to see if the Soviet Union was working on nuclear weapons. The military was more interested in nuclear deterrence by developing a betrter first strike weapon, however the CIA was very interested.
Actually, believe it or not but the CIA and KGB did more to prevent nuclear war than any other agency on the planet, both organizations spend billions thwarting the other side and even on a rare occasion, worked together through a third party to prevent WW3. Without the threat of nuclear destruction, no agency would have any incentive to prevent war.
It is my firm believe that the threat of nuclear war that caused the cold war did more for peace in the twentieth century than anything else. Both sides refused to ever fight first and both sides refused to piss the other side off so they simply just had the world's longest staring contest. Without the threat of nuclear weapons being the end game for a conflict, the United States and the Soviet Union would have been more than happy to go to blows, possibly having a WW3 in the early fifties and depending on the out come, a WW4 and WW5. Nuclear weapons kept us from being brash and made us more pragmatic from 1945 to present.