Is atomic weaponry inevitable?

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

I did a search for the topic, but couldn't find anything decent.

The question is fairly simple; is it inevitable that the atomic bomb will eventually come into existence?

If so, why?

If not, when is the right time to try and prevent it?

Obviously, leave all personal thoughts and feelings about nuclear weaponry and stockpiling at the door. I don't give a hoot whether you think they're necessary or not; I'm looking for facts. What POD might prevent the nuclear bomb from ever being created, if such a POD could exist?

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

I'm thinking yes. The concept did not spring soley from a few physicists in Europe. In 1939 the USN budgeted funds for researching atomic power. The original idea may have concerned propulsion or electrical generation, but sometime in 1940-41 weapons were on the table. This USN research project has been relatively obscure. Its documents seem to be lost to sight when the navys project was rolled into the Manhatten Project in 1942.

I'm not clear on when the Soviet nuclear research started to include weapon development.

 

[Delta Force]

I'm thinking yes. The concept did not spring soley from a few physicists in Europe. In 1939 the USN budgeted funds for researching atomic power. The original idea may have concerned propulsion or electrical generation, but sometime in 1940-41 weapons were on the table. This USN research project has been relatively obscure. Its documents seem to be lost to sight when the navys project was rolled into the Manhatten Project in 1942.

I'm not clear on when the Soviet nuclear research started to include weapon development.

Do you have more information on the Navy program and why it was started?

 

[Glen]

Common, yes. Inevitable, no. The amount of expense it would take to develop the first nuclear weapon might be a major deterrent to development in the absence of something like a serious wartime situation ala WWII.

 

[ronaldo]

My point of view the only way to not exist nuclear weapons would be in a period before the 20th century any nation possibly the British Empire or Spanish Empire (Iberian Union) conquer the whole planet, perhaps preventing the independence of the United States and French Revolution or The Romans or mongois survive and conquer the world, so a Unified planet would not need to have weapons of mass destruction.

But considering the Butterfly Effect it is not possible to predict the effects of a Unified planet we could even with the united Earth have nuclear weapons and nuclear technology since the technological evolution is only a matter of time

But if we take into account our timeline is inevitable nuclear weapons if the United States did not, Europe would not, countries like China, Middle East and South America could do (Brazil and Argentina had a rivalry and the Beginning of a South American arms race), perhaps without nuclear weapons would lead to a divided Japan like Germany, probably countries like India and Pakistan could have the first nuclear weapons.

But creating a timeline where nuclear weapons never existed I could see a world in which the second war lasted some more time and the space race would be much slower I can bet that the internet would not even exist where we are still with the technology of the The 1980s and the early 1990s, nuclear weapons being for good or ill exist for a reason to get nations to achieve their goals, then it is inevitable that any nation tries to have nuclear weapons developed by an African nation. Superpowers will continue to seek new technologies and nuclear technology would be a matter of time we could postpone but it is not inevitable.

 

[Retroactive Effect]

In the Sliders TV show there was a world they landed on where the US nuclear weapon program failed and Albert Einstein had said there wasn't enough fissionable resources on earth to build a nuclear weapon after a failed test.

While that may have worked for a few years I do think that by 1990 a nuclear weapon would have been developed by someone. Really I think a nuclear weapon being developed by now is all but inevitable if the US had failed in WW2.

 

[Locke01]

I'm thinking yes. The concept did not spring soley from a few physicists in Europe. In 1939 the USN budgeted funds for researching atomic power. The original idea may have concerned propulsion or electrical generation, but sometime in 1940-41 weapons were on the table. This USN research project has been relatively obscure. Its documents seem to be lost to sight when the navys project was rolled into the Manhatten Project in 1942.

I'm not clear on when the Soviet nuclear research started to include weapon development.

Soviet nuclear weapons development basically remained at the blackboard stage until Hiroshima, after which it became their number one priority.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Do you have more information on the Navy program and why it was started?

Post 2005 there was a brief half page item in the US Naval Institute Proceedings. Perhaps six years ago. Probablly take me a hour or more to track down the Volume, date, & page. Like I wrote the initial interest may have been in power generation.

 

[King Augeas]

I think so. It seems to me that even if you can avoid the idea of a bomb - which in itself seems to be very difficult - you also need to avoid the energy programmes, because they will drive the understanding of nuclear physics that will enable a bomb to be conceived.

Once the idea of a bomb is out there, someone will think that someone else is going to develop it and that they need to have it first - which was Britain's attitude to Germany. To avoid that you kinda need global peace... tricky in a twentieth century context!

 

[Nik]

IIRC, wasn't long after the Curies etc 'discovered' radioactive isotopes that people began speculating about 'radium' and 'atomic' bombs...

Also, IIRC, thorium was being extensively mined for use as a 'thermoluminescent' agent in gas mantles. Uranium usually comes gratis...

The BIG problem is separating enough of the relevant isotopes to do more than a 'china syndrome' at critical mass. That would make for a very 'dirty' bomb, but NOT a city-leveller. IIRC, separation was initially done 'atom by atom' in a 'MassSpec' writ huge. Then, the gas-diffusion cascades were built...

Given 'E = mc^2', the hunt would be on...

 

[chrnno]

The principles behind atomic bombs are related to a lot of other things, a pretty important part of the study of physics and many of the technologies people would pursue. I suppose without a conflict like WW2 or the Cold War people might not be willing to spend the effort required to go for something still uncertain early on but as science and technology progresses there would be more details on how it would work and the effort required would be lesser.

So given that I think it is fair to say someone would eventually build one. Unless there is a powerful international agreement against it anyway.

 

[Michel Van]

Once you understand the concept, someone try to build one and test and used it.

The moment Otto Hahn split the Atom
Scientist look into option if this concept is suitable for weapon system
Then in 1930s several government order Atomic bomb program
some run out of money, do lack material or were just wrong in there theoretical study.
Nazi Germany had 37 (thirty seven) rival programs (for christ sake even Reichs Postal service and Herman Göring had even one...)

Next to that had Nazi some race problem and chase away every european Jewish scientist to USA of USSR
while there "Aryan" scientist were complete wrong in there theoretical study and lacking needed material.
were the refugee scientist in USA already cooking Plutonium.

As USA had the Atomic Bomb ready, there politicians use it on Japan, since Nazi were wiped out.
and believed they are only one got Atomic bomb
until USSR got one, follow by Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and north Korea etc.

if you nor satisfied with my conclusion
try this one

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

Given the research in place 1938-39 I'm thinking the initial practical efforts would have been aimed at power generation. Its easier to get to, or at least looks easier from the perspective of 1940s technology. Once power plant technology progresses far enough the technical matters of bomb construction will move within reach item by item. So, we might seem early usefull power plants in the late 1940s & bomb programs in the 1950s. Then again if research is slowed by lack of interest/investment power plants and weapons may have come another decade later.

 

[Delta Force]

Given the research in place 1938-39 I'm thinking the initial practical efforts would have been aimed at power generation. Its easier to get to, or at least looks easier from the perspective of 1940s technology. Once power plant technology progresses far enough the technical matters of bomb construction will move within reach item by item. So, we might seem early usefull power plants in the late 1940s & bomb programs in the 1950s. Then again if research is slowed by lack of interest/investment power plants and weapons may have come another decade later.

The irony about nuclear technology is that it's far easier to build a nuclear reactor than a nuclear bomb, but the easiest routes to nuclear energy are also the easiest routes to a nuclear weapons program.

For example, natural uranium can be used to produce thermal energy when used with a graphite or heavy water moderator. Because natural uranium isn't fissionable in nuclear reactors for as long as low enriched or highly enriched uranium, designs using it tend to have provision for online refueling and spent fuel rapidly accumulates. Fuel that hasn't been in a reactor as long will have relatively more plutonium, particularly the fissionable Pu-239 isotope suitable for use in mixed oxide fuel and nuclear weapons.

From there it's a simple matter of someone discovering plutonium as an alternative fissionable material and deciding to extract it from the fuel by nuclear reprocessing.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

...so circa 1955 the USN is contemplating a true ship killer weapon

 

[BlondieBC]

You will always get some atomic weapons once technology is advance enough. IMO, if you avoid the economic devastation of WW1, you will get nukes sooner. About 1917 or so the atomic spectrometer is discovered. You will eventually find element 94. There was an experiment in 1933 or so in Italy which probably detected plutonium. We spend a lot of time on war motives driving a crash weapons program since this is OTL. But lets go to a more peaceful timeline. You will still get a bomb, but a different and much cheaper route. By about 1910, radium is being mined for cancer treatment. They are mining what we would call uranium ore. Roughly speaking, these radium mines were expected to be as valuable as gold mines. It was a mini mining boom. So someone will figure out how to make atomic isotopes for medical uses. In the process, you have also found laboratory size fission plants. You then scale up for electric production. Now it is much smaller step to work out how to build a plutonium bomb with the reactor waste.

 

[Apollo 20]

You have to reach back pretty far to stop nuclear weapons from being developed. Perhaps a world in which the Reformation fizzles and there is no Renaissance and the limits of scientific knowledge deemed to be necessary are defined by the Church, which remains a force in governance. But even here, this is a very Eurocentric perspective and nothing prevents science from advancing in other parts of the world. It is entirely possible that this happens anyway even if Europe remains a technological backwater, as long as physics theory advances somewhere.

 

[Napoleonrules]

Common, yes. Inevitable, no. The amount of expense it would take to develop the first nuclear weapon might be a major deterrent to development in the absence of something like a serious wartime situation ala WWII.

In a situation where there is never a serious situation as dire as WWII, and the nuke isn't created, would a more realistic and cheaper alternative that many nations would invest in be a "dirty bomb" radioactive material in a conventional bomb. And once rogue nations developed that, wouldn't it be more likely to be used than a nuke? Chemical warfare has been used quite a bit, is it possible dirty bombs would be used as often?

 

[GSpectre]

Have zeppelin deployed gas bombs hit Paris or London, with a cultural horror of civilian bombing growing out of those acts. While the science behind nuclear weapons probably will developed the will and economic assets won't be in place. Might not work perfectly but there is a strong chance that a taboo or international consensus could develop much like the one that allowed the outlawing of dumb dumb bullets.