17-07-2005 10:01									#1
	Would the U.S./the world be better off if we never discovered nuclear fission? Inflate your Upload Space

If we never discovered fission it implies we never discovered fussion or any of the other technologies derived from nuclear fission.

Downsides, as I see it:

MASSIVE casualties for both the U.S. and the Japanese, possibly extending world war 2 for another year and a half.

If we were not too stupid as to refuse to put nukes into space, nuclear power can be a TREMENDOUSLY efficient form of space travel... build a massive sail of lunar soil or out of a strong synthetic material, attach it so a vehicle, so the vehicle is in the concave part... launch a nuke from the vehicle to the sail, detonate....... *ENORMOUS* speed is produced, tremendously energy efficient-the best form of space travel possible with todays technology.

Nuclear energy, if we utilized it properly, could proboably supply the worlds non-transportation energy needs till we find out how to beat entropy.

The upside: There can't be a nuclear armageddon.

Major American cities can't be nuked by terrorists, or our other enemies, which is seeming increasingly likley as time progresses.

	17-07-2005 10:12									#2
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

The continental euros would all be speaking commie right now.

	17-07-2005 10:15									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Are you so sure of that? The soviet military was in no condition after ww2 ended.... they also had enough trouble managing the land they already aquired.

	17-07-2005 10:18									#4
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Later, after Vietnam, they could have taken europe.

	17-07-2005 10:28									#5
	Inflate your Upload Space

edit: I posted something completley historically untrue, deleted it with this edit.

	17-07-2005 11:25									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

no, because without fission, we aren't going to get fusion.

	17-07-2005 12:10									#7
	Re: Would the U.S./the world be better off if we never discovered nuclear fission? Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Vesayen If we never discovered fission it implies we never discovered fussion or any of the other technologies derived from nuclear fission.

This is absurd even as a speculative, hypothetical setup because if there is something out there to be discovered, we WILL discover it at SOME point in time.

	17-07-2005 12:29									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

umm..


do you realise how far back science would be without the understanding that led to the atomic bomb...

Imean, I bet oiur computer tech would not be near as advanced.......

JM

	17-07-2005 18:44									#9
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

One could suppose that in some alternate universe there was an Earth without sufficient Uranium.

Without nuclear weapons I believe that there might have been a WW3. With non-nuclear 1970s or 1980s weapons the death toll would have been horrific, possibly worse than WW2.

	17-07-2005 18:51									#10
	Inflate your Upload Space

If the world was ruled by a religious dictatorship where scientific research was strictly forbidden, invention of nuclear power could be prevented, but I'm not sure that I would like to live such a place - though, probably wouldn't know better.

	17-07-2005 18:52									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

There was a episode of Sliders that dealt with this. They had to invent atomic weapons to stop an asteroid that was going to hit the earth.

	17-07-2005 22:51									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove Without nuclear weapons I believe that there might have been a WW3. With non-nuclear 1970s or 1980s weapons the death toll would have been horrific, possibly worse than WW2.

Almost certainly far worse than anyone ever dreamed during WWII.

	17-07-2005 23:21									#13
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Eh, not so sure. The europeans were loath to defend themselves. If one side has almost all the force, the casualties shouldn't be too high.

	18-07-2005 00:48									#14
	Suffering from ads?

Without nuclear fission and the bomb, the Cold War wouldn't have existed as we know it. Russia could have taken some decisive moves like invading Germany, which relied solely on American (and NATO) defense. Probably not in '45, though.
Russia could also have lended a hand in defeating Japan, and maybe imposed some sort of division of Japan, like Hokkaido being commie and the southern islands capitalist.
But then, it's quite possible that chemical or biological weapons would have been used against Japan instead of nukes, causing similar damage to the population.

There would also have been no Chernobyl, and the pollution today would probably be higher due to more electricity being generated through oil/carbon, though we wouldn't have to fear the long-term pollution from radioactive isotopes.

	18-07-2005 01:12									#15
	Re: Would the U.S./the world be better off if we never discovered nuclear fission? Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

No.

	18-07-2005 01:23									#16
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare Without nuclear fission and the bomb, the Cold War wouldn't have existed as we know it. Russia could have taken some decisive moves like invading Germany, which relied solely on American (and NATO) defense. Probably not in '45, though. Russia could also have lended a hand in defeating Japan, and maybe imposed some sort of division of Japan, like Hokkaido being commie and the southern islands capitalist. But then, it's quite possible that chemical or biological weapons would have been used against Japan instead of nukes, causing similar damage to the population. There would also have been no Chernobyl, and the pollution today would probably be higher due to more electricity being generated through oil/carbon, though we wouldn't have to fear the long-term pollution from radioactive isotopes.

While the US was involved in Vietnam the euros did nothing to augment their forces to offset the weakened US commitment to NATO. The US OOB was pretty much the same but there were no replacement parts, few new weapon systems, etc. In the same period the Sovs came out with their T76 and later T 80, and the first of their modern infantry carriers, while we were still operating the M60 and the M113. It was as if the europeans were too busy making money to defend themselves, and the easiest way to deal with the border was to ignore it. The Sovs could have cut through NATO like a hot knife through butter.

	18-07-2005 02:53									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Lancer While the US was involved in Vietnam the euros did nothing to augment their forces to offset the weakened US commitment to NATO. The US OOB was pretty much the same but there were no replacement parts, few new weapon systems, etc. In the same period the Sovs came out with their T76 and later T 80, and the first of their modern infantry carriers, while we were still operating the M60 and the M113. It was as if the europeans were too busy making money to defend themselves, and the easiest way to deal with the border was to ignore it. The Sovs could have cut through NATO like a hot knife through butter.

Your assumption is invalid because you think that politics would be the same in a nonnuclear world as it has been in a nuclear world.

In an nonnuclear world WE would have reacted differently - they had to.


Oh, M60 and M113 was american toys - US wasn't any better than EU at that point

	18-07-2005 03:14									#18
	Suffering from ads?

BlackCat, I actually considered that before posting. WE did nothing to save themselves from getting nuked, why would they do anything to save themselves from getting overrun?

If NATO was getting beaten conventionally, the result would have been nuke weapons release, making the tactical use of nuke weapons available to battlefield commanders. In every exercise in the 70s and early 80s, this was the result. Why? Because europe failed to field conventional forces strong enough to defend against attack. Since it was NATO territory on which the battle would be fought, mostly Germany, it was NATO that would be nuking itself, as in it's land, and population. The answer to this dilemma was simple. To spend as much on defense as the US did. I think it was around 5.5% of GNP. Instead, europe spent on average 2.5% to 3% on its military. So, they had resigned themselves to nuking themselves and didn't have the political will to buy the forces to prevent it. If they are too weak to prevent their own nuking, where do you see them getting the will to defend themselves conventionally in a non nuke world when their personal individual survival is not at stake?

	18-07-2005 04:05									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Lancer . . . So, they had resigned themselves to nuking themselves and didn't have the political will to buy the forces to prevent it. If they are too weak to prevent their own nuking, where do you see them getting the will to defend themselves conventionally in a non nuke world when their personal individual survival is not at stake?

Which reminds me...did we ever get around to inventing & deploying the controversal "neutron bomb?"

IIRC, it was design to emit high initial radiation but not long-lasting radiation. The idea was to kill the guys in the invading tanks but not turn the cities and countryside of West Germany into radioactive wasteland. But there was a very negative PR-reaction to a nuke that would harm people but not property.

	18-07-2005 04:14									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Nuclear fission was discovered by a German physicist in 1939.

So, given the US never did discover nuclear fission, I have to say it would not have made a lick of difference..

	18-07-2005 04:18									#21
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

LOLOL GePap is funny LOL

	18-07-2005 04:19									#22
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Lancer BlackCat, I actually considered that before posting. WE did nothing to save themselves from getting nuked, why would they do anything to save themselves from getting overrun? If NATO was getting beaten conventionally, the result would have been nuke weapons release, making the tactical use of nuke weapons available to battlefield commanders. In every exercise in the 70s and early 80s, this was the result. Why? Because europe failed to field conventional forces strong enough to defend against attack. Since it was NATO territory on which the battle would be fought, mostly Germany, it was NATO that would be nuking itself, as in it's land, and population. The answer to this dilemma was simple. To spend as much on defense as the US did. I think it was around 5.5% of GNP. Instead, europe spent on average 2.5% to 3% on its military. So, they had resigned themselves to nuking themselves and didn't have the political will to buy the forces to prevent it. If they are too weak to prevent their own nuking, where do you see them getting the will to defend themselves conventionally in a non nuke world when their personal individual survival is not at stake?

It isn't quite true that WE didn't have nukes - both UK and francedid and still have.

Another thing - conventional forces actually existed in WE and they might have been better, but still they existed and was quite capable to do thier jobs.

The defense of WE wasn't purely based upon US forces - they actually was a minority, but still welcomed

	18-07-2005 06:52									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I know all that, but it wasn't nearly enough. Any objective estimate has NATO crushed and the Sovs on the Rhine within...hmm, 72 hrs? I don't recall exactly, that seems too quick. The arnmored cavalry regiment I was in expected 80% casualties in the first 24 hours. Basicly we were going to be anialated trying to slow them down enough for the main divisions to get off their asses and get on line. Also to provide the reforger divisions a bit of time to get over and get ready.

The Germans were the biggest force in NATO, but it really wasn't enough. The Russians had close to 50 divisions ready for a cold jump off attack, I don't recall the exact term. It means there is no prep, just the word go from Moscow. Behind that they had huge reserves in second line divisions for a total of 120 divisions. The entire US army and marines had 12 divs iirc, the Germans eight I think, the Dutch two, the Belgians I don't recall. The French had a few but they were out of NATO. Likely they would help, but not sure. Then there were the Italians, Greeks, Turks and Norwegians...not much there. A couple of air mobile Canadian brigades. Anyway, it was hopeless.

	18-07-2005 07:10									#24
	Support Apolyton

Some years ago i read a book about such an USSR attack and how it was handled.

Unfortynatedly, it's 4 o'clock in the morning here so I can't find the book at my library. The essence was though that what you call a hot knife in warm butter, more likely was a tempered knife in cold butter.

	18-07-2005 08:24									#25
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Red Star Rising? Clancey, thinking wishfully.

	18-07-2005 08:29									#26
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

That was also late 80s iirc. We had the Abrams by then, and the Sov forces had degenerated. I recall reading a news reprt back then of how a bunch of Russian tank crewmen had sold their tank to a Czech metal buyer for scrap and bought booze with the proceeds.

Their window was from the late 60s into the early 80s. Prime time was when I was there, in the late 70s. Iirc, Clancey even states early on how many of the defeciencies had been correected by then (the start of the book)

	18-07-2005 08:57									#27
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Lancer Red Star Rising? Clancey, thinking wishfully.

Red Storm Rising.

	18-07-2005 19:35									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by GePap Nuclear fission was discovered by a German physicist in 1939. So, given the US never did discover nuclear fission, I have to say it would not have made a lick of difference..

You must remember that the Germans didn't know what fission was...they discovered it alright, but they didn't know they did, in fact, their conclusions were at first wrong...

It was an Italian that actually had correct conclusions...

The Germans eventually figured out what they had discovered, but they couldn't create a chain reaction...

It was the good ol' Americans at Chicago University under a football field in a Squash court that maintained the first controlled chain reaction...the solution to the numerous problems the Germans had was graphite...

If you ask me, the Americans accomplished the hard part...

	18-07-2005 19:36									#29
	Support Apolyton

During the Manhattan project, a hyrdrogen bomb was almost built before a fission bomb...just imagine if that was dropped on Japan...

	18-07-2005 21:03									#30
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Commy You must remember that the Germans didn't know what fission was...they discovered it alright, but they didn't know they did, in fact, their conclusions were at first wrong... It was an Italian that actually had correct conclusions... The Germans eventually figured out what they had discovered, but they couldn't create a chain reaction... It was the good ol' Americans at Chicago University under a football field in a Squash court that maintained the first controlled chain reaction...the solution to the numerous problems the Germans had was graphite... If you ask me, the Americans accomplished the hard part...

And yete everyone had a good clue what happened when Uranium got split. Once that little bit of knowledge came out, someone would eventually come up with nuclear power.

Also, what are you talking about "Squash Court"? It was under the old bleachers, I should know having worked on top of that old football field for 4 years.