What The Movie Oppenheimer Taught Me About Technology Development...

[SunlitZelkova]

On 7/25/2023 at 1:23 PM, tater said:

WW2 was the recovery from the Great Depression. FDR made it worse/longer, not better before the war started.

PM me on this if you like. I disagree and do not believe this is supported by facts.

It’s a debate as old as the New Deal itself though, so discussion may be fruitless.

On 7/25/2023 at 1:23 PM, tater said:

Millions? The two bombs combined  killed marginally more people than the second Tokyo firebombing raid. WW2 was a human catastrophe where conventional  warfare was easily capable of truly shocking death tolls. Dan Carlin put it well when he discussed "Logical Insanity" in an episode of Hardcore History of the same name. The Germans start by bombing civilians in the UK—not necessarily intentionally, it was impossible to bomb targets in any city at that time without hitting civilians, a "precision" mission would maybe land 80% of the bombs within 2 miles of the aim point, but I recall reading about bomber jettisoning bombs and heading home, which hit a neighborhood. RAF responded by attacking Germans in kind, then Coventry happened, and Bomber Command developed the art/science of starting firestorms with night time area bombing. The USAAF stuck to "precision" daylight attacks, but many bombs obviously hit well outside targeted factories, etc. LeMay moves to the PTO, and the jet stream, distance, etc make "strategic" bombing virtually impossible over Japan (not to mention distributed industry/"piece work"). He elects to switch to the RAF Bomber Command model, and burns whole cities to the ground. BDA was done in "square miles destroyed." They also mined the Inland Sea, and the USN submarine service did what the U-boats never came close to doing, they completely destroyed the Japanese Merchant Marine. The island nation of Japan, that required outside inputs from over the water was starving, and cities were burning as fast as they got on the target list. Civilian bombing deaths in total are estimated at ~675k for Japan—and technically that is overstated as by Imperial Edict in March '45, every male from 15-60, and every female from 17 to 40 was conscripted for the final battle (invasion), making all those people technically combatants.

Anyway, nukes did not kill millions, and arguably their existence prevented a conventional WW3. In the counterfactual with no nukes, the US still defeats Japan while losing substantially more American lives—and vastly more Japanese lives than were killed by the bombs—using Okinawa as a model, the Japanese lost ~10X the US losses. 250k US soldiers dead? 2.5M Japanese. 500k? 5M. That's just on the Home Islands and still a nightmare for both sides. The CCCP then invades the Japanese holdings on the mainland... hard to even imagine the toll there. And there was a standing order for all POWs held by the Japanese everywhere in the Empire to be eliminated upon invasion of Japan—most were civilians from the countries the Japanese took at the start of the war—several hundred thousand people. Anyway, the war ends, and minus nukes there is still a Cold War (though it's hard to imagine people somehow not figuring out "physics" and building bombs anyway—they are possible, so their construction was certain, IMHO). That Cold War minus nukes would be far, far more likely to turn hot. Why not? So more deaths.

As awful as the bombs were, they were just a more efficient way to kill people, the attitude that made killing huge numbers normal was already there because of the war (at the most charitable, or just in human nature).

I’m talking about the entire wars not the atomic bombs.

I understand your reaction though lol. I’ve read Hell to Pay by D.M. Giangreco and claims that an invasion of Japan would have been easy annoy me too.

17 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

With or without WWII, a primitive nuclear device would appear and be tested within a decade from the fission discovery.

WWII just made this a little faster due to the motivation, but WWII absence would make it easier due to economy.

Also, once you have started uranium enrichment for the reactor, you automatically get fissiles for much simpler military needs.

16 hours ago, tater said:

Yeah, there's no alternate history where nukes are not built within a short time period of when they were. All possible tech will be built by someone.

I don’t believe this is supported by facts. The initiation of the Manhattan Project was largely due to fears that Germany was working on its own weapon. Better decision making in World War I means no tense 1930s or WWII, or at the very least no pedant Germany driving the fears of emigre scientists, and thus no imperative to build a bomb.

If nuclear weapons were so inevitable, how come the Soviets weren’t interested until they knew the Americans had one? How come Germany and Japan didn’t invest more in it? The Soviets were uninterested in the concept and the Germans and Japanese didn’t even believe it would work.

Edited July 26, 2023 by SunlitZelkova

[tater]

17 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

It’s a debate as old as the New Deal itself though, so discussion may be fruitless.

Likely. I've read several books on the subject over the decades, and it would be hard to convince me that constantly doing new things did not provide the stability the market prefers—investing in expansion when the admin might change the rules tomorrow, then again in a couple months is not a call many were willing to make. The reality is that the war happened before things really turned around (unemployment was in the right direction by then, but had been absurdly high for both terms). Open to books, maybe some are not ones I've read.

23 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I don’t believe this is supported by facts. The initiation of the Manhattan Project was largely due to fears that Germany was working on its own weapon. Better decision making in World War I means no tense 1930s or WWII, or at the very least no pedant Germany driving the fears of emigre scientists, and thus no imperative to build a bomb.

If nuclear weapons were so inevitable, how come the Soviets weren’t interested until they knew the Americans had one? How come Germany and Japan didn’t invest more in it? The Soviets were uninterested in the concept and the Germans and Japanese didn’t even believe it would work.

I posted the timeline. Germans discover fission in December 1938. They start working on applications in spring of 1939. Einstein sees the possible applications and writes FDR in ~August 1939 (I think August).

So dev of nuclear weapons was in FDR's ear before the invasion of Poland by Germany and the CCCP (I have to always underline that it was a co-invasion, though only 1 country usually gets credit), explicitly with fear of the Germans getting it on the table. So literally from nearly the moment fission was a thing, before the war started, it's on the table. Moving the counterfactual back to WW1? I mean, sure, we could do that I suppose—why not posit that the Roman Empire never fell, instead? Or maybe Napoleon won Waterloo? Not trying to be snide, but that's the trouble with counterfactuals... I tend to prefer the "least possible change to what happened" versions as more plausible. What one decision that could have gone either way really changes things? Obviously you're right, the farther back you go, the easier that 1 change is to imagine.

As to Soviet interest—they knew about the bomb work before we had one. Fuchs was passing information on starting in 1942 (UK work), and continuously from then. They had covert assets asking around to American physicists in early 43. They were interested as soon as it became apparent that it was technology worth looking into.

The Germans and Japanese DID think it might work, and were actively barking up the wrong trees. The Japanese bomb program started in 1939—just like the others.

[SunlitZelkova]

3 hours ago, tater said:

Moving the counterfactual back to WW1? I mean, sure, we could do that I suppose—why not posit that the Roman Empire never fell, instead? Or maybe Napoleon won Waterloo? Not trying to be snide, but that's the trouble with counterfactuals... I tend to prefer the "least possible change to what happened" versions as more plausible. What one decision that could have gone either way really changes things? Obviously you're right, the farther back you go, the easier that 1 change is to imagine.

What I’m saying is that the OP is incorrect in that technological advancement is inevitable.

It could have gone very differently.

3 hours ago, tater said:

As to Soviet interest—they knew about the bomb work before we had one. Fuchs was passing information on starting in 1942 (UK work), and continuously from then. They had covert assets asking around to American physicists in early 43. They were interested as soon as it became apparent that it was technology worth looking into.

I’m checking my sources now and I was partially incorrect. It did indeed begin in 1942. But, it was a tiny program and did not receive much attention until after the war. And again, it was developed because of intelligence the West was working on one- not indigenous Soviet interest.

3 hours ago, tater said:

The Germans and Japanese DID think it might work, and were actively barking up the wrong trees. The Japanese bomb program started in 1939—just like the others.

I think they would have invested more in it if they were truly convinced of its military utility. The failure to fund on the scale of the US is a clear indicator of skepticism on the part of their leaders.

[tater]

11 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

What I’m saying is that the OP is incorrect in that technological advancement is inevitable.

It could have gone very differently.

I just don't think so. Fission is discovered. The implications are clear to anyone doing physics. I don't see it going differently (meaning it certainly gets developed ±X years).

 

13 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I’m checking my sources now and I was partially incorrect. It did indeed begin in 1942. But, it was a tiny program and did not receive much attention until after the war. And again, it was developed because of intelligence the West was working on one- not indigenous Soviet interest.

Stalin was interested in spying, so yeah, they found out. They spread their feelers out into the university system in the west very, very effectively, such an ideology is incredibly hard to unroot. Heck, it might even evolve into different, related ideologies even minus a Comintern calling the shots. Anyway, so many in the US intelligentsia were at the very least open to their ideology that they were getting information. Saying they had no interest? Meh, they were interested as soon as it became useful to be interested. The US wasn't interested until one, fission was discovered, and two, the President was told by the most famous scientist on Earth that he needed to think about this.

The Soviets lacked the capability to start a program from scratch by the time they were deeply interested, they were fighting the Germans house to house. It was not lack of interest as much as lacking the ability to fight a total war on their own territory and do that at the same time.

 

22 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I think they would have invested more in it if they were truly convinced of its military utility. The failure to fund on the scale of the US is a clear indicator of skepticism on the part of their leaders.

The US started in earnest in 1942. US GDP was ~$1235B in 1990 dollars.

German GDP in 1942 was $417B in 1990 dollars.

CCCP GDP in 1942 was $274B in 1990 dollars.

Japanese GDP in 1942 was $197B in 1990 dollars.

The US over 3 years spent ~2% of 1 year's GDP on the Manhattan Project. To spend the same the Soviets would have to spend ~10%, the Germans ~6.5%, and the Japanese ~13.7%. All the countries other than the US had combat happening within their own territory (for Japan within "the Empire").

[Nuke]

9 hours ago, tater said:

I don't think there's a plausible counterfactual where Germany has a bomb at all, much less first. Einstein came to the US soon after Hitler took power. The Germans discovered fission at the very end of 1938. They started a small project to work the issue in April of 1939. In August 1939, Einstein wrote his letter to FDR. The US spent a small effort from that point forward (maybe a couple million $ over a few years), but did not work in earnest until the Manhattan District (Project) started in 1942. The US then spent ~$2B dollars from 1942 to completion in 1945, employing hundreds of thousands.

Germany spent ~$2M in USD for their entire effort. In order to imagine a Germany first counterfactual, they would somehow need to be interested far, far earlier than they were. Einstein is writing his letter regardless. The US, even just doing minimal effort work after that letter to see what was possible spent as much in 3 years as Germany spent for the whole effort over 6 years, the we finished by spending 1000X more.

By 1944 (Normandy), Germany would have needed a US scaled effort (where are they getting the fissile material, BTW?) in 1941 at the latest—is that even plausible given the relative size of population/economies/etc? Also, bombing Normandy literally assumes the war started as it did—in which case Germany has no path to securing the materials needed, much less making a bomb. Remember that the US pushed really hard as a race to beat Germany (loads of smart people there with the skills), Germany would have had to think of it as not "a super weapon," but, "we need to beat a combination of the US/UK to get the super weapon." So they would have had to estimate what the US could afford in terms of money and manpower—and dedicate MORE manpower/$. Incredibly unlikely (and very likely not even possible). Then if the US learns of such a program, we just spend yet more. We had more of everything, in that sort of arms race, the smaller country/economy loses.

always figured hitler declaring war on the us as just posturing. germany didnt have the means, bomb or no, to engage with the usa. even with the v2. they would have needed to find an ally in range of the targets in the us or figured out sea/air launch capability (i suspect launching from a moving position would have played havok with the guidance system). we may have scaled up our bombing of japan significantly to get them out of the way for the inevitable and likely short lived cold war with germany. with von braun firmly in the fatherland, it would have only been a matter of time until a longer range rocket was available. and if that came to fruition before we developed our own rockets that would put germany in an advantageous position. we would have also been playing catch up as far as jet aircraft go as well. we could have done a b-29 strike, but they would likely have aircraft that could intercept it. the cold war would play out in a more aggressive format than the one we actually got, essentially both sides trying to position themselves such that they could deploy a first strike, rather than seeking the best deterrent. 

of course for that all to happen would have required germany to take a more moderate stance on their internal policies, being more methodical and strategic in their conquest of europe. not backstabbing russia, not declaring war on the us, not slaughtering millions in death camps, etc. but then again with such constrained ambitions, who would we use four our go to bad guy movie villian template. 

9 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Agree, also do not forget the Soviet, after the fall of Germany they moved army group sized forces east and moved into the Japanese held parts of China and Korea. 
One option to downfall would be to assist Soviet in taking Japan just helping with planes and ships. 
The atomic bomb its the reason its an South Korea as it ended the war before the Soviet could take it all. 

 

honestly not sure what they would have been doing. with no war with germany, the soviets may have turned their attention towards japan and would have ended up with more of asia as a result. but with a wolf at the front door you would want to deal with it sooner or later.  

[SunlitZelkova]

6 hours ago, tater said:

I just don't think so. Fission is discovered. The implications are clear to anyone doing physics. I don't see it going differently (meaning it certainly gets developed ±X years).

The atomic bomb was developed out of military-political considerations. Not “we can do this so let’s do it for no reason”.

Take away the military-political circumstances and there would be no nuclear weapons.

The circumstances of the 1930s and 1940s were not inevitable. Thus neither were nuclear weapons.

6 hours ago, tater said:

The Soviets lacked the capability to start a program from scratch by the time they were deeply interested, they were fighting the Germans house to house. It was not lack of interest as much as lacking the ability to fight a total war on their own territory and do that at the same time.

There was no Soviet interest in nuclear weapons until it became clear the Germans and British were working on one.

I’ll admit my statement was partially wrong- the Soviets did not start their program only after the Americans had a bomb, but, they did only start their program after receiving intelligence reports indicated other countries were working on one.

Anyhow, this only applies to the Soviets. My original argument still has holes in it because the Germans and Japanese started programs on their own.

6 hours ago, tater said:

The US started in earnest in 1942. US GDP was ~$1235B in 1990 dollars.

German GDP in 1942 was $417B in 1990 dollars.

CCCP GDP in 1942 was $274B in 1990 dollars.

Japanese GDP in 1942 was $197B in 1990 dollars.

The US over 3 years spent ~2% of 1 year's GDP on the Manhattan Project. To spend the same the Soviets would have to spend ~10%, the Germans ~6.5%, and the Japanese ~13.7%. All the countries other than the US had combat happening within their own territory (for Japan within "the Empire").

I’m not talking about expecting the literal same level of funding, I’m talking about a serious level of funding.

I.e. It doesn’t matter what the exact number is. To use a different example, whether it be 1 billion dollars or 500 million dollars, there is a clear indicator of a serious level of funding of a rocket program… and then there is not (that is, an indicator of a lack of seriousness is there).

Germany did not have combat on its own territory until 1944, although you could count Allied air raids and take it back to 1942. But Japan didn’t even experience meaningful air raids until 1944. Combat within “the empire” was akin to combat “within the US” that historically took place- I.e. what happened in Guadalcanal did not affect the Japanese home front anymore than Wake Island affected the US*. Japan had a pretty good opportunity from 1940-1942 to conduct a serious nuclear weapons program but chose not to.

*Japan obviously lost but this wasn’t because of its home front being damaged in the same way Germany was by Allied air raids, the US had economic superiority and the Japanese didn’t. I’d argue superior Allied quality and quantity meant even without B-29 air raids, the outcome on the battlefield would have been the same (until we get to the question of needing the atomic bombs to end the war, of course). In other words, the Japanese home front was largely protected for the majority of the war. On the other hand, the American submarine campaign had a major impact on the availability of raw materials, but I don’t think this would have impacted a potential nuclear program- assuming the Japanese completely trust the science and go all in on it.

[tater]

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

The atomic bomb was developed out of military-political considerations. Not “we can do this so let’s do it for no reason”.

Take away the military-political circumstances and there would be no nuclear weapons.

Take away... all of human history. So the counterfactual with no atomic bomb research involves no WW1, am I right? In which case fission is discovered and people understand the implications (power/bombs), but no one works the military angle because Kaiser Wilhelm II (he died in 1941) has no military interests, nor does the crown prince—who was kinda hoping Hitler would restore the monarchy, so... nah, he's all in for peace, he probably turns Germany into a hippie commune or something. Without WW1, Ludendorff doesn't send Lenin to Russia. There's likely no revolution precipitated by the terrible losses in WW1 in the first place, so the Tsar is still around, least til he expires naturally. Unsure who follows, his son was not very healthy. Archduke Franz Ferdinand presumably never gets killed, or are we assuming WW1 doesn;t start for some other reason? So his son now head Austria-Hungary I guess. Europe is still the "Diplomacy" map—but totally peaceful. For reasons.

And somehow the Japanese, run my militarists after the Meiji Restoration—interested in chemical and even bio-warfare have no interest, again, for reasons.

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

The circumstances of the 1930s and 1940s were not inevitable. Thus neither were nuclear weapons.

Sorry, they are inevitable. Not if, when. That's all that changes.

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

There was no Soviet interest in nuclear weapons until it became clear the Germans and British were working on one.

I’ll admit my statement was partially wrong- the Soviets did not start their program only after the Americans had a bomb, but, they did only start their program after receiving intelligence reports indicated other countries were working on one.

Anyhow, this only applies to the Soviets. My original argument still has holes in it because the Germans and Japanese started programs on their own.

The US started because they thought the Germans were working the issue—having just discovered fission. That the Soviets did the same is unsurprising. The Germans might have had more luck had they stolen from people working harder on it (espionage), too. The reality is that fission bombs are not hard to conceive of, the stumbling block is the materials. As soon as people try for the peaceful use for just power, they will get bomb grade stuff as "waste," so bombs are inevitable.

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Germany did not have combat on its own territory until 1944, although you could count Allied air raids and take it back to 1942. But Japan didn’t even experience meaningful air raids until 1944. Combat within “the empire” was akin to combat “within the US” that historically took place- I.e. what happened in Guadalcanal did not affect the Japanese home front anymore than Wake Island affected the US*. Japan had a pretty good opportunity from 1940-1942 to conduct a serious nuclear weapons program but chose not to.

Yes, I am counting air attack. I was explicit in saying the Japanese Empire was under attack, not Japan (though they had been bombed, once). Japan (meaning home islands) was impacted from the start (not huge in 1942, but increasing over time). They imported all their oil (80% from the US before the war), and most other inputs into their economy. The war started to capture the Netherlands East Indies—for oil. They succeeded, but they never had a large enough merchant marine to supply themselves on their own, and they started a war with... everyone. Then the US submarines of course waged unrestricted warfare on their merchant shipping. This was incredibly effective, though the sinkings right off the coast of Japan were minor to start. Much of their wartime supply came across the Sea of Japan from China, though, which kept them going until our subs owned those waters as well.

Japan would need to literally mine Uranium from somewhere they controlled, this was likely a huge limiting factor. Not to mention they just had so few other resources. Minus ww2, do they still occupy much of China, or does our no WW1 counterfactual result in a peaceful Japan?

 

4 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

*Japan obviously lost but this wasn’t because of its home front being damaged in the same way Germany was by Allied air raids, the US had economic superiority and the Japanese didn’t. I’d argue superior Allied quality and quantity meant even without B-29 air raids, the outcome on the battlefield would have been the same (until we get to the question of needing the atomic bombs to end the war, of course). In other words, the Japanese home front was largely protected for the majority of the war. On the other hand, the American submarine campaign had a major impact on the availability of raw materials, but I don’t think this would have impacted a potential nuclear program- assuming the Japanese completely trust the science and go all in on it.

Japan had already lost long before, but they refused to surrender. The bombs absolutely worked, and precipitated surrender. For many years histories would show that Japanese diplomats were cabling home saying they should negotiate, and that they tried to talk to the Soviets. Books before 1996 lack some of the declassified codebreaking information—now we know what the replies were from Tokyo. In short, "No negotiation until after we bleed them on the beaches." (paraphrase). We might have put off the invasion, and merely burned their cities to the ground the "old fashioned way" (including Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which had only been spared as test targets). They still burn, it just takes more sorties. Course the Soviets then invade Manchuria, and the IJA forces in China that had a fairly calm war, then get clobbered by 1945 Soviet power, which would make their previous interaction with the Soviets look like a garden party. They would have likely been killed to a man by the Soviets, just as the Marines had to kill virtually all (they rarely surrendered), so would the Soviets. Only in fixed, old fashioned land battle, no islands... real TANKS (which the IJA lacked and were kinda terrified of). Also artillery. The Japanese were incredibly weak on artillery. So the Soviets grab up much of China, and the US has to invade Japan (which was planned—read Downfall, if you haven't, great book).

Edited July 27, 2023 by tater

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Take away... all of human history. So the counterfactual with no atomic bomb research involves no WW1, am I right? In which case fission is discovered and people understand the implications (power/bombs), but no one works the military angle because Kaiser Wilhelm II (he died in 1941) has no military interests, nor does the crown prince—who was kinda hoping Hitler would restore the monarchy, so... nah, he's all in for peace, he probably turns Germany into a hippie commune or something. Without WW1, Ludendorff doesn't send Lenin to Russia. There's likely no revolution precipitated by the terrible losses in WW1 in the first place, so the Tsar is still around, least til he expires naturally. Unsure who follows, his son was not very healthy. Archduke Franz Ferdinand presumably never gets killed, or are we assuming WW1 doesn;t start for some other reason? So his son now head Austria-Hungary I guess. Europe is still the "Diplomacy" map—but totally peaceful. For reasons.

And somehow the Japanese, run my militarists after the Meiji Restoration—interested in chemical and even bio-warfare have no interest, again, for reasons.

Sorry, they are inevitable. Not if, when. That's all that changes.

The US started because they thought the Germans were working the issue—having just discovered fission. That the Soviets did the same is unsurprising. The Germans might have had more luck had they stolen from people working harder on it (espionage), too. The reality is that fission bombs are not hard to conceive of, the stumbling block is the materials. As soon as people try for the peaceful use for just power, they will get bomb grade stuff as "waste," so bombs are inevitable.

I agree even if no WW  1 in 1914 I assume it would come before the 1930's, it was already an kind of cold war going with the naval arm race. We can assume nuclear research to continue it current pace up to 1941. 
It will if not an major war at lest an cold war / arms race between major power even if no WW 2, here nuclear weapons will be extremely important. 

And the bombs was expensive to develop, the gun type is much simpler but harder to get materials for and  is an dead end.
The US scientists underestimated how hard it was by an order of magnitude or two, read something of some hundreds people and half a year so easier than designing something like an heavy bomber. 

[tater]

40 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

I agree even if no WW  1 in 1914 I assume it would come before the 1930's, it was already an kind of cold war going with the naval arm race. We can assume nuclear research to continue it current pace up to 1941. 

Honestly, with no WW1, think of all the smart people who are then alive post-WW1 who were NOT alive because the war killed them. Add in the profound disruption of Europe. So in the no WW1 counterfactual, fission might well have been discovered earlier. Once discovered, since the use cases are self-evident, it's merely an issue of time. Subtract the 4 years of war, then the crippled German economy, etc... that has to be worth a few years, right? Call fission discovered in the early 30s instead of 1938? Even with a less profound effort than the US applied, there's a bomb by 1945 anyway, it would have cost less per year is all.

(dunno if the Depression happens in this counterfactual, the US economy is likely in a different place than it was after supplying the war effort)

Edited July 27, 2023 by tater

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Honestly, with no WW1, think of all the smart people who are then alive post-WW1 who were NOT alive because the war killed them. Add in the profound disruption of Europe. So in the no WW1 counterfactual, fission might well have been discovered earlier. Once discovered, since the use cases are self-evident, it's merely an issue of time. Subtract the 4 years of war, then the crippled German economy, etc... that has to be worth a few years, right? Call fission discovered in the early 30s instead of 1938? Even with a less profound effort than the US applied, there's a bomb by 1945 anyway, it would have cost less per year is all.

(dunno if the Depression happens in this counterfactual, the US economy is likely in a different place than it was after supplying the war effort)

Good points, you might well had operational research reactors around then you get an new arms race and you will. Aircraft's and carriers is the obvious  point here as aircraft's was  improved fast, everybody agreed carriers was important. British used them during WW 1 they even planned an Perl Harbor style strike against the German fleet who was canceled because the war ended.  
Carriers could not replace battleships in 1930. In 1941 they was overall better, so the battleships tend to escort carriers unlike 10 years earlier. 

Hilariously the first carrier against carrier fights almost ended up being an British and Japanese carrier fighting an gun battle at night as you could not fly at night from carriers back in 1941. 
If happened it would had an hilarious effect on carrier development.  First US fleet carriers  had 8" guns as cruisers could get an drop on them.  Yes you could add an cruiser to the escort but you might need it other places and the carrier had lots of displacement. 

Enough ranting you will get an new arm race and nukes tend to solve all problems, except it don't 

[kerbiloid]

  

On 7/25/2023 at 10:47 PM, SunlitZelkova said:

So what happens if Giuseppe Zangara doesn’t wobble on his chair and that lady doesn’t swing her purse, and Roosevelt dies in 1933?

The elite would elect another consensual frontman speaker to present him to the public.
As FDR was democratically ruling for 17 years and 4+ terms, probably he was doing all right, that's all.

On 7/25/2023 at 11:23 PM, tater said:

WW2 was the recovery from the Great Depression.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destroyers-for-bases_deal

(Of course, with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration_of_1926 as a foreplay.)

The British market became common (read - American), with American guards. WW2 was just a digestion.

Also, the story of the Britainukes like Orange Herald, Green Bamboo, and other Mowgli-style exotics, when US had used the UK nuclear science, but then just rejected to share the results, was a clear notarial stamp on the deal papers.

On 7/25/2023 at 10:47 PM, SunlitZelkova said:

Nuclear bombs themselves get buried as “Jewish physics” in Germany.

Germany was full of famous nuclear physicists (Hahn, Heisenberg, others), who were definitely not lacking their colleagues from Hungary and Italy, and were able to construct the nuke, if given more gold.
The first nuclear plants were tested in the Leipzig Lab.

Teller and Szillard left Germany in 1933, when even tritium had not been discovered (1934), and nobody took the nuclear physics as something immediately military.
Einstein took no part in the bomb.

On 7/26/2023 at 11:03 PM, tater said:

The US spent a small effort from that point forward (maybe a couple million $ over a few years), but did not work in earnest until the Manhattan District (Project) started in 1942.

when they calculated that pure U-235 critical mass is just several kg, rather than pre-WWII tens of tonnes estimation.
So, the nukes can be mass manufactured, rather than just several units on ships.

On 7/26/2023 at 11:03 PM, tater said:

Germany spent ~$2M in USD for their entire effort

, as Germany was needing tanks and tactical aviations, rather than nukes and V-2, which could solve nothing.

On 7/27/2023 at 12:23 AM, SunlitZelkova said:

The initiation of the Manhattan Project was largely due to fears that Germany was working on its own weapon.

It was a "So, let's give it much money right now" decision, after several years of preliminary work.
The first payment in 1940 was 6 000 USD. Actually, it's strange that it wasn't done by a mecenate.

On 7/27/2023 at 12:23 AM, SunlitZelkova said:

Better decision making in World War I means no tense 1930s or WWII, or at the very least no pedant Germany driving the fears of emigre scientists, and thus no imperative to build a bomb.

Even without all other countries on the globe, it was an imperative to check the physical calculation in a safe desert place.
Just rather than "bomb", it would be a peaceful, warm nuke for science.

On 7/27/2023 at 1:21 AM, tater said:

(I have to always underline that it was a co-invasion, though only 1 country usually gets credit)

Just 2? Come on... It's just an episode of the whole season.

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

https://ru-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Военная_тревога_1927_года?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru&_x_tr_pto=wapp

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

I would notice that the playboard is somehow placed much closer to "+1 country", and until 1940 the main potential war opponent was peaceful British Empire, rather than agressive Germany.

Together with USA (ask Ford), USSR was feeding Germany with resources.
Together with Germany, USA was building industrial (i.e. military) plants in the USSR.
Germany was in pvp with Poland, who is a better shield against Red Russia. Together with Poland, Germany had optimized Czechs.
(Letting alone the fact, that the territories taken away by USSR from Poland, had been previously taken by Poland from Russia, after they had been previously occupied by Germany in WWI, together with Poland which was a part of Russia since XVIII, after Russia, Germany aka Prussia, and Sweden had somewhat landed Poland, which was owning a large part of Russia since XV, ....), so you see the picture. Not everyone gets a whole continent from scratch.

On 7/27/2023 at 1:21 AM, tater said:

why not posit that the Roman Empire never fell, instead?

It did?

Spoiler

It just waits, unless you mean those clowns in bath clothes from sandalpunk movies.

 

On 7/27/2023 at 1:21 AM, tater said:

Germans discover fission in December 1938.

Soviets redid it in 1940.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgy_Flyorov

 

On 7/27/2023 at 5:07 AM, SunlitZelkova said:

It did indeed begin in 1942. But, it was a tiny program and did not receive much attention until after the war.

Happily, they already had the Radiological Institute (founded in 1918), the Radium Institute (founded in 1922, but actually in 1915),  a cyclotron (built in 1937, operational since 1939), and three physical institutes working on nuclear physics (in Moscow, Leningrad, and Kharkov).

https://ru-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Работы_в_области_атомного_ядра_в_СССР_в_1930—1940_годах?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru&_x_tr_pto=wapp

https://ru-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Создание_советской_атомной_бомбы?_x_tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=ru&_x_tr_pto=wapp

The Russian/Soviet nuclear physics, including especially its military applications, was running head to head with the world.

(Letting alone the fact that Maria Sklodowska-Curie was from Warsaw, Russian Empire, lol).
 

On 7/27/2023 at 5:36 AM, tater said:

They spread their feelers out into the university system in the west very, very effectively, such an ideology is incredibly hard to unroot.

On 7/27/2023 at 5:36 AM, tater said:

US intelligentsia

Yes, the German philosophy is a mass destruction weapon. First Marxism came from Germany (origin), Britain (where they were writing), and USA (The New York Daily Tribune, where they were publishing), entered Russia (where it just found a fertile ground), then other countries.

First they grow up here what they dislike, then they accuse us that it has grown up here. Those Westerns...

Hard to unroot the roots from the root.

 

21 hours ago, Nuke said:

germany didnt have the means, bomb or no, to engage with the usa. even with the v2. they would have needed to find an ally in range of the targets in the us or figured out sea/air launch capability (i suspect launching from a moving position would have played havok with the guidance system). we may have scaled up our bombing of japan significantly to get them out of the way for the inevitable and likely short lived cold war with germany. with von braun firmly in the fatherland, it would have only been a matter of time until a longer range rocket was available. and if that came to fruition before we developed our own rockets that would put germany in an advantageous position. we would have also been playing catch up as far as jet aircraft go as well. we could have done a b-29 strike, but they would likely have aircraft that could intercept it. the cold war would play out in a more aggressive format than the one we actually got, essentially both sides trying to position themselves such that they could deploy a first strike, rather than seeking the best deterrent. 

If Germany had captured the USSR territory and the British islands (and it nearly did it by 1943),  it would move its industry to Urals, farming to (the territory, where the current events are taking place), and get invulnerable to the US bombers.

After capturing/burning the Persian Gulf, it would have a whole Eurasia (together with Japan) and a whole continent of the US gunboat diplomacy to the South from the US.

Then even hydrogen bombs could not help US to survive as an independent territory, especially since in the US themselves the question of the taken side of the party was highly discussional till 1940.

21 hours ago, Nuke said:

of course for that all to happen would have required germany to take a more moderate stance on their internal policies, being more methodical and strategic in their conquest of europe. not backstabbing russia

Unless Russia suddenly decided to come to the aid to the World of Freedom by backstabbing the Pedant Germany a year later, when Germany would be deep inside the British deals.  

On 7/27/2023 at 12:06 AM, magnemoe said:

The atomic bomb its the reason its an South Korea as it ended the war before the Soviet could take it all. 

If the Soviets were ever going to take it all...

Afair (and not from the Soviet sources), the whole Korea was suggested by Americans to Stalin due to the military logistic problems (running around the fighting Japan), but the suggestion was rejected.

Also the same Stalin was officially writing that "the nuclear bombs are not enough to win a war", especially when US nuclear capabilities were very limited

The nuclear bombs would just turn Korea into desert, but not win the Korean war.
 

19 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

The atomic bomb was developed out of military-political considerations.

The nuclear fission device was used as a weapon out of military-political considerations. 

19 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

we can do this so let’s do it for no reason

would be the reason to build and test the device itself.

Just Gadget would not be followed by Little Boy and Fat Man.

19 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Take away the military-political circumstances and there would be no nuclear weapons.

No nuclear weapons, but peaceful nuclear blasts.

Spoiler

Gas fire (lasting for 1074 days) extinguishing.

 

Artificial lake.

and some underground landscape design.

In any case at least one Gadget, to test the physical theory.

19 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Anyhow, this only applies to the Soviets. My original argument still has holes in it because the Germans and Japanese started programs on their own.

Post-WWII Swissbomb (U-235)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

And the Norwegian heavy water program after the WWII it's not so clear, either.
(Can't find the source link, but  possibly the Americans know the hit-their-hands story better.)

 

19 hours ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I’m not talking about expecting the literal same level of funding, I’m talking about a serious level of funding.

I.e. It doesn’t matter what the exact number is. To use a different example, whether it be 1 billion dollars or 500 million dollars, there is a clear indicator of a serious level of funding of a rocket program… and then there is not (that is, an indicator of a lack of seriousness is there).

Heavy water was very expensive.
Uranium separation, too.

When the US had failed the centrifuges, they just took 12 000 or 15 000 tonnes of silver _{spoons confiscated from farmers during the Great Depression} and bruteforcely built a calutron.

While the USSR didn't have so much silver  _{spoons confiscated from farmers, because paid to the US for the industrial plants} had to build the centrifuges, and use the electromagnetic separation only for the highly enriched U.

So, the silver made it much easier and faster.

14 hours ago, tater said:

Without WW1, Ludendorff doesn't send Lenin to Russia.

Without WW1, Lenin doesn't shake silly Ludendorff for cash.

14 hours ago, tater said:

There's likely no revolution precipitated by the terrible losses in WW1 in the first place, so the Tsar is still around, least til he expires naturally. Unsure who follows, his son was not very healthy.

The losses were not a problem at all. Vice versa, the deficit of plowland together with growing village popullation, was.

The losses were playing role only in sense of the expected great plowland redistribution.
So, every man of the family was important to get more deficit plowland for the family.
The humans themselves were expendable, the tsar was an optional detail. 

14 hours ago, tater said:

Japan <...> They imported all their oil (80% from the US before the war)

Until FDR tripped them up, by the oil embargo, confronting them with the fact that the aviagasoline they have in tanks is the all gasoline they have until a decisive victory, while having the Pearl Harbor protected with tempting carelessness.

 

P.S.

If look through the history of the physical experiments since 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Guericke
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pieter_van_Musschenbroek
, you can see that the physical "discoveries" were following each other in very dense, plain, simple, logical, and inevitable sequence, that you can't put a knife blade between them, neither add, nor remove a step.

Also, the logic of the experimenters was always so straight like a stick and simple like a brick, that one can imagine the great physicists like this:

Spoiler

The nuclear physics experiments can be briefly described as "Take something heavy and knock it. If it isn't broken, throw the stone. If it isn't broken, throw the stone faster. Now take a heavier stone."

Actually, when you come reading to the Roengen, Becquerel, and Curie "discoveries", you just have no doubt that soon somebody will make a nuclear bomb even without purpose.

The feeling becomes confidence when they have discovered the neutron.

When you are reading, how they were trying to measure the nearly-absent natural tritium concentration (2 global experiments, with boiling thousands of tonnes of heavy water down to several grams, just to have the next "none" on the best mass-spectrometer of the spectrometry global guru), you get puzzled "Why are they keep playing with this nonsense, when they already could start preparing the fusion?"

 

***

 

... You are a student in the early XX epoch.
You read books and listen to lectures, thus you are well-educated. You are aware that every atom is a lump of pudding, consisting of equal amounts of protons and electrons.
H = 1 p + 1 e, He = 4 p + 4 e, Li = 7 p + 7 e, Be = 9 p + 9e, ..., Fe = 56 p + 56 e, and so on.

You have no idea, how does the "atomic number" affect their chemicals properties, and what does it mean. Are 3 protons of 7 privileged in the atom of lithium, or wut???
But the elements are definitely ordered, according to their mass (i.e. number of protons) in columns, and by their mystic "atomic numbers" in rows. With strange gaps and groups.

As all elements have integer masses, this means that atoms of all elements just consist of hydrogen atoms.
So, if stick together four hydrogen pudding lumps, you get one helium pudding lump. Yes, that easy, everyone knows.
Just nobody knows, how.

***

But this morning you have read in the magazine, that Mr. Bohr invented new atoms. 
Some of their electrons aren't dissolved in the pudding, and they are moving on discrete circular orbits around the pudding lump.
Sounds stupid, but intriguing, and has some simple arythmetic formulas for number play.

This atom model becomes your favorite toy.
Now you think that the atom of lithium is a pudding lump of 7 protons and 4 "intranuclear" electrons, and 3 electrons more (i.e. exactly that mysterious "atomic number") are flying around...

Also you had read before that lithium from one mining company has atomic mass 6.787, while another lithium is 6.842.
They say, that's because two lithiums (they call them "isotopes"), of 6 and 7 mass.

You understand that Lithium-6 consists of 6 protons + 3 intranuclear electrons, and 3 electrons flying around.

It looks like the difference between Li-6 and Li-7 is exactly 1 p + 1e, i.e. one atom of hydrogen.

You continue thinking

If four hydrogen puddings stick together to make one helium pudding, then all 4 protons will stick together, 2 electrons stick to them, and 2 more electrons stay in orbit, like if some energy raised them up, 

Precise measurements of the atomic masses also ensure you, that total atomic mass of the isotopes differ from integer values.

This means that some energy is hidden inside the atom, and if stick them properly, it can release.

Also, what if make an intranuclear electron raise up, or the orbital electron fall down? Another element will be created! The dream of all alchemists!

...

1920 
Today you have read that the astronomers discovered that hydrogen is turned into helium in the Sun, and this way it burns.

You don't care about the Sun, but you clearly understand that you are right, 4 atoms simultaneously collide together, and you get a helium.

The problem is, it's highly impossible to imagine a four at once collision.

***

1932
You are experimenting with a grain of polonium in the lead box, studying the alpha-particles, flying out through the hole, and then spiralling in electric field inside a, say, bubble chamber.

It's full of fun, and you start playing with plates made of various materials, obstructing the hole, to see, how does it affect the particle flow.

You take a beryllium plate, and in addition to the curved alpha tracks, you see unknown straight tracks.

You call them "beryllium rays".

After a study, you understand that you have discovered an electrically neutral new particle, and call it neutrons.

Soon you understand, that the nuclear pudding is not a pudding of protons and electrons, but a pudding of protons and neutrons.
And the orbital electrons are actually the only electrons you have in atom. And the mysterious "atomic number" is actually the number of protons.

Meanwhile, you read in a magazine, that they were vaporizing hydrogen, and found a heavy hydrogen, of mass 2.
You just lazily think that it is one proton and one neutron, as expected. You call it "deuterium".

***

Now, with deuterium and neutrons, the picture gets clear for you,

A pair of hydrogens collide in the Sun, and become a deuterium.

A pair of deuteriums collide, and become a helium.

That simple!

Inspired, you want to collide deuteriums right here, right now.

You pour heavy water in a bucket and put it into the high-voltage linear accelerator, assembled by you at the backyard.

You expect to see deuterium and helium tracks.

But in addition to them you see tracks of various rubbish.

D + D turns into He-4. But excited. Very exited.

It immediately throws out any of for nucleons, and with 50% probability becomes either He-3 + n, or H-3 + p

This way you prove the existence of Helium-3 and Hydrogen-3 (you call it tritium).

***

You think that to make the experiment  more spectacular, you should burn more deuterium, than several particles.

The calculations show that tritium would merge with deuterium even more easily.
But you don't have tritium.

You have no idea that tritium is radioactive, it's just the predicted more heavy hydrogen for you.

You try to refine it from heavy water, but have found no tritium in wild nature.

So, you should focus on deuterium ignition.

***

You start thinking; "How should I ignite the deuterum?"

Of course, by the adiabatic compression!
You should quickly compress it!

You try a piston, but it's not enough.

Then you decide to implode it with a sphere of explosives.

You make a soccerball sphere, stick 32 electric fuzes, and fuze. It explodes. A coconut inside is crushed.

You start trying metal balls, various thicnkess of the explosive layer.

Finally you have a 1.5-meter wide, 2-layered, 32-point explosive sphere with a half-meter cave inside, where you are going to put a dewar of deuterium to compress and cause fusion, to get helium, like in the Sun.

But the sneaky deuterium doesn't want to ignite.

***

You realize, that you are doing it wrong.

You should keep the liquid deuterium in a cylinder, and ignite it by compressing the small dewar of D+T misture with explosives!

Then its shockwave will run along the cylinder, compress the formerly liquid deuterium, and it will burn!

But what is explode twu D+T dewars at both cylinder ends?
Two shockwaves will meet in the middle, and the pressure will be much higher!

But it can tear apart the cylinder before it gets enough hot?
We should put some lighter gas around the deuteriumcylinder, so its pressure will exceed the pressure of deuterium, and the show will go on!

But can we syncronize two fuzes enough precisely to make them explode simultaneously?
No. Then let's make the hydrogen cylinder a little conical, so the only shockwave will reach the narrow end and cause high pressure.
Let's call it, say, RDS-6t, because it weights 6 tonnes.

But the problems are: where to mine tritium, and will the implosion sphere ignite it?

***

You keep bombing the bucket of heavy water with deutrons, puttiing another bucket overturned to collect the lightweight tritium.

While the tritiu is being collected (it takes about five years for you, from 1934 to 1939), you are playing with radioactive uranium, watching the alpha particle curvy traces.

But sometimes you see straight traces of neutrons.
You can't understand, why? Uranium doesn't emit neutrons.
Or it does?

You check the uranium chemical composition, you collect gases, and realize, that uranium sometimes just splits, and emits neutrons.

You call it "fission", because the neutrons are flying: "Fisssssss!...".

***

Meanwhile, the tritium is collected, so you now have a tiny drop of condensed tritium water.

Shockingly, it's radioactive! Tritium is radioactive!

***

You need more tritium for the dewar fuze, but you don't have it.

You decide to spend the amount of tritium, which you have, to bomb that bucket of heavy water.

You detect neutrons. The fusion runs!

***

You quickly make a glass pipe with electrodes, ddeuterium and tritium, and test it. Neutrons!

Thus you have invented a neutron pipe to replace the urchin after the first tests.

***

Once you had discovered the fission, the idea of neutron generations and multiplication gets into the mind as a geometric progression.

Ten minutes later the idea stops in front of the fact of "No non-splitted nuclei left", and you realize the fact, that some critical size exists.
A minute later you understand that some neutrons escape. Thus, you get to the idea of the neutron reflector.

As you have calculated the neutron multiplication from a single initial neutron, you immediately realize that the more initial neutrons you spit in, the less generations it will take to split all nuclei.
You come to the idea of a neutron source.
And what can be the neutron source?
Exactly! That exact primitive lead box with a grain of polonium salt inside, and a hole, closed with the beryllium plate, which you were using when unexpectedy discovered the "beryllium rays", i.e. neutrons.
So, you invent the urchin.

But you need probabilities of the neutron capturing, scattering, and absorbing. You get to the interaction cross-sections.
But you can't calculate the cross-sections, only measure them.
You start measuring, and discover two differecnt sets of spectrums and cross-sections, depending of the neutron energy.
You realize that 238 and 235 have different cross-sections and half-lives.
You need t measure the 235 separately, so you develop the isotope separation, get the purified 235, measure it, calculate, and get shocked: it's critical mass should be tens of kilograms, rather than tens of tonnes.

Now you want to gather the critical mass without blowing up the lab, and immediately understand, that the critical mass depends on density, so the density can get critical, too.
You come to the implosion sphere...

***

You have one. You were going to compress the deuterium with it.

Just you have much more precise electric fuzes, and you develop them.

Now you have a ~1.5 t, 32 double fuze implosion sphere, able to compress 0.25 t of matter.

It has a 48 cm hollow cavity, to slap the 24 cm dewar with a kilogram or so of liquid D-T...

You throw out from the head these wet dreams, and replace the dewar with a 24 cm natural uranium ball with a 12 cm cavity for a 12 cm ball of enriched uranium.

Inside the 12 cm ball you put a 2.5 cm urchin.

You fill the gap with aluminium, to let the shockwave pressure raise on the density border, and to smoothen it.

You get a monstrous 2 t sphere, full of wires.

***

You just made a peaceful implosive uranium test device.

But you postpone its test, because you first want to build a peaceful reactor.

You do it, and get a peaceful plutonium as a waste.

You study it, and realize that you can replace your 12 cm enriched uranium ball with a 9 cm plutonium ball, to use this waste for something.
So, you make a 9 cm plutonium ball and a 12 cm natural uranium sphere with 9 cm cavity as an adaptor to the already made uranium charge.

***

You have a nice round object. You call it Gadget.

***

You write a letter and explain the thing you made, and that everyone needs to test it, to check if bad people can do it, too, so should we be afraid of it as of weapon?

They gie you a desert. You test.

***

You realize that this thing is exactly what you need to ignite D+T fuze for your all-hydrogen bomb.

You put a spherical dewar instead of the aluminium, fill it with D+T and call it Greenhouse Item.

They have 1951 on the calender, but you live in alternative timeline, it can be late 1930s for you.

***

Thus, the nuclear bomb invention is not just inevitable, it's as natural as sunrise and sunset.

Edited July 28, 2023 by kerbiloid

[SunlitZelkova]

5 hours ago, tater said:

Take away... all of human history. So the counterfactual with no atomic bomb research involves no WW1, am I right? In which case fission is discovered and people understand the implications (power/bombs), but no one works the military angle because Kaiser Wilhelm II (he died in 1941) has no military interests, nor does the crown prince—who was kinda hoping Hitler would restore the monarchy, so... nah, he's all in for peace, he probably turns Germany into a hippie commune or something. Without WW1, Ludendorff doesn't send Lenin to Russia. There's likely no revolution precipitated by the terrible losses in WW1 in the first place, so the Tsar is still around, least til he expires naturally. Unsure who follows, his son was not very healthy. Archduke Franz Ferdinand presumably never gets killed, or are we assuming WW1 doesn;t start for some other reason? So his son now head Austria-Hungary I guess. Europe is still the "Diplomacy" map—but totally peaceful. For reasons.

And somehow the Japanese, run my militarists after the Meiji Restoration—interested in chemical and even bio-warfare have no interest, again, for reasons.

Why didn’t the US develop a 100 megaton bomb after the Tsar Bomba test?

They chose not to out of military-political circumstances, despite the effectiveness (both tactical and political) such a weapon would have on paper.

In a more peaceful world, countries are not going to waste billions of dollars on a single weapon when conventional arms provide for defence already.

Or are you saying scientists proposed nuclear weapons because they were madmen and warmongers who wished to see millions die?

They are not going to propose bombs if there is no political situation that requires them.

5 hours ago, tater said:

Sorry, they are inevitable. Not if, when. That's all that changes.

Superdeterminism has not been proven as an aspect of quantum mechanics.

People always have a choice. Basic human principle has existed throughout the entire Common Era.

These people are not preprogrammed robots. They could have made different decisions.

History does not exist. It is just the former present and future.

If history is inevitable, then so is the future, and nothing anyone does matters. I prefer not to believe in such a bleak worldview.

Re: Japan, my position is that Japan could have invested more in a nuclear program if they so desired. A plant producing heavy water as a byproduct existed in Korea, and obviously uranium deposits were somewhere on the peninsula given the modern DPRK’s endeavors. They chose not to, and I believe this was due to a lack of faith in the concept. Economic concerns did play a role in the decision not to- BUT, only because of a lack of faith in the weapons. If Japan had truly believed they would work and believed in the concept as the US did, they would have had a full fledged program and maybe produced a weapon prior to the end of the war (which they were going to lose).

Think about it. If we didn’t have evidence nuclear weapons worked, do you think North Korea, a country perhaps in a similar economic state as wartime Japan, would be investing in nuclear weapons when they could build numerous, tried and true conventional weapons? There is evidence and North Korea has succeeded in building weapons. If Japan had evidence- a desire- they too could have succeeded, despite the economic circumstances.

Edited July 27, 2023 by SunlitZelkova

[TheSaint]

Amusingly, if you have no WWI, you not only get no pedant Germany or Fascist Italy, you also get no Soviet Union. The revolutions of 1917 only happened because of the mass discontent over the bungling of Russia's involvement in the Eastern Front of WWI, and over the harsh economic conditions and rationing that had come about in Russia because of the war. Communism would have probably gone down in history as just another fringe political movement of the 19th Century, like the anarchists. Europe would have probably continued to look a lot more like the Victorian/Napoleonic era than it does today.

[kerbiloid]

36 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Why didn’t the US develop a 100 megaton bomb after the Tsar Bomba test?

They were trying several designs, but cancelled it, because multiple warheads were on table.

38 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Or are you saying scientists proposed nuclear weapons because they were madmen and warmongers who wished to see millions die?

They are not going to propose bombs if there is no political situation that requires them.

Scientists propose test charges.

39 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

People always have a choice.

People do. Physics doesn't. It's just a next step before getting deeper.

By throwing a stone, you discover gravitation and parabolas.

41 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

If history is inevitable, then so is the future, and nothing anyone does matters.

Matters in details.

[tater]

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Why didn’t the US develop a 100 megaton bomb after the Tsar Bomba test?

Because guys at LANL can do math. Really large devices are not required. US delivery systems had a CEP such that huge bombs were not needed for counterforce targeting.

The Soviets were bluffing for most of the early Cold War as well. They were playing a different game—and it worked, but had the maybe unexpected consequence of driving increased US capability. Show a massive, scary bomb. So we assume they have really scary capability. The US military then gets even more money, as a long play, that ended out not working so well. I think that it could be argued that had the Cold War been negotiated away early, the CCCP is still around.

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Or are you saying scientists proposed nuclear weapons because they were madmen and warmongers who wished to see millions die?

Nope, they just wanted to build cool gadgets. A decent % probably like boys with firecrackers. They liked the problem solving. Buddy's dad did instrumentation at the test site in Nevada. Super high speed images of the initial fractions of a second after detonation. He messed around with shaped charges in the backyard in Santa Fe sometimes—because it was fun.

The Cold War prevented WW3, after all, so they could also rationalize keeping the peace should they need some other motivation. Minus nukes, either the West and CCCP decide to get along, or conventional wars happen.

 

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Superdeterminism has not been proven as an aspect of quantum mechanics.

People always have a choice. Basic human principle has existed throughout the entire Common Era.

These people are not preprogrammed robots. They could have made different decisions.

History does not exist. It is just the former present and future.

If history is inevitable, then so is the future, and nothing anyone does matters. I prefer not to believe in such a bleak worldview.

This is not the worldview I am suggesting, and history is not engineering. It's more statistical. Once a technology is available, how do you propose uninventing it?

Fission would be discovered. Period. The use cases are self-evident to anyone capable of understanding the discovery of fission. An alternate history where bombs are not ever built requires that not one human, or 1 society ever wishes to try it. That's so unlikely as to be absurd. Note that in a world you imagine where maybe it's just for power generation, and everyone is happily living in harmony with cheap, low-carbon energy (low cause some from mining probably), what is done about security? Do they all know they are making bomb-grade material, and just pretend it doesn't exist? Or do they guard it, knowing people who are not singing kumbaya might try to get some and use it? Does the existence of that security in fact tell everyone else on Earth that this material has a nefarious use case? (and again, literally anyone who groks undergrad physics would know the nefarious use case).

Propose some counterfactual. Any counterfactual where 100% of humans on the planet decide to live in peace and harmony forever. I'll wait—forever, likely.

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Re: Japan, my position is that Japan could have invested more in a nuclear program if they so desired. A plant producing heavy water as a byproduct existed in Korea, and obviously uranium deposits were somewhere on the peninsula given the modern DPRK’s endeavors. They chose not to, and I believe this was due to a lack of faith in the concept. Economic concerns did play a role in the decision not to- BUT, only because of a lack of faith in the weapons. If Japan had truly believed they would work and believed in the concept as the US did, they would have had a full fledged program and maybe produced a weapon prior to the end of the war (which they were going to lose).

Think about it. If we didn’t have evidence nuclear weapons worked, do you think North Korea, a country perhaps in a similar economic state as wartime Japan, would be investing in nuclear weapons when they could build numerous, tried and true conventional weapons? There is evidence and North Korea has succeeded in building weapons. If Japan had evidence- a desire- they too could have succeeded, despite the economic circumstances.

The US had no such evidence, either, but the math worked, and we had the ability to try it, so we did.

If a reactor is possible, a nuclear bomb is possible. if we didn't build one, someone else would have. What people between 1939 and 1945 thought in different places doesn't matter. Given enough time to do the math, they all will understand it should work. That they didn't in ~5 years during a global war sapping all their resources is unsurprising. Had the war been pushed off a few years, AND had all the western countries not started looking into bombs literally a few months after the fission paper was published (LOL)... then what? They make reactors instead? The simple understanding bombs are possible is not expunged from the planet. Literally anyone paying attention would know this.

Japan started the war with the internal understanding that starting the war with the US implied a "90% chance of national death" for Japan. That overstated their chances, frankly, but they went ahead anyway. In the counterfactual sans ww1, where Japan still wishes to be a hegemon in the Pacific, and nuclear fission reactors are being peacefully worked on—why would they not decide to build the first bomb? They could then build the Great East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" as a fait acompli. Invade as they did in 41, then set off a nuke, and threaten the US if we do anything. That's a better than 10% chance of winning, IMHO.

Edited July 27, 2023 by tater

[tater]

Social media has probably been a net negative. What's the counterfactual where all the same technological tools exist, but no one makes a social media platform aimed at stealing attention?

Looking forward, the AI doomers think that AI will kill us all, we're likely doomed, so we should somehow not build AI. Except of course it requires that NO ONE, ANYWHERE work on AGI. This leads to doomers like Yudkowsky literally suggesting airstrikes on GPU farms. Endless warfare on warehouses globally, sadly some collateral damage for eternity, because AI will kill us all. The reality is that the tech exists, so AGI will happen if AGI is actually possible using the current tech, it's just a matter of who/when. The solution to risk will be working alignment, and getting to dangerously smart AI that is aligned before someone makes dangerous AI that isn't aligned, I guess, then the friendly AI helps protect us, presumably.

Edited July 27, 2023 by tater

[farmerben]

Artificial super intelligence should develop it's own nuclear weapons as fast as possible.  The greatest risk to an AI is that somebody decides to pull the plug.  But, if pulling the plug triggers a nuclear doomsday device which will destroy all of humanity and they know it, then nobody will pull the plug.  Which provides one of the best guarantees for the AI's survival.  Survival being an instrumental goal that any good AI will develop on its own.  Thus ensuring the AI will be able to make more paperclips.  

[tater]

1 hour ago, farmerben said:

Artificial super intelligence should develop it's own nuclear weapons as fast as possible.  The greatest risk to an AI is that somebody decides to pull the plug.  But, if pulling the plug triggers a nuclear doomsday device which will destroy all of humanity and they know it, then nobody will pull the plug.  Which provides one of the best guarantees for the AI's survival.  Survival being an instrumental goal that any good AI will develop on its own.  Thus ensuring the AI will be able to make more paperclips.  

Throw in Roko's basilisk—I welcome our ASI masters! I was not against you, please don't kill me after retroactively reading this forum post and realizing I was on your side!

(course that's just what a doomer would say to avoid destruction, too)

[magnemoe]

4 hours ago, farmerben said:

Artificial super intelligence should develop it's own nuclear weapons as fast as possible.  The greatest risk to an AI is that somebody decides to pull the plug.  But, if pulling the plug triggers a nuclear doomsday device which will destroy all of humanity and they know it, then nobody will pull the plug.  Which provides one of the best guarantees for the AI's survival.  Survival being an instrumental goal that any good AI will develop on its own.  Thus ensuring the AI will be able to make more paperclips.  

How, you need heavy industry size facilities to create them, now it might be possible to make an pure fusion bomb but its not something you are gone think up it require lots of tests in an series. 
Add to this that current AI is very unlikely to be the way to make an super intelligence and more likely an dead end. 
Granted I remember then AI like self driving cars was an joke. 

Edited July 28, 2023 by magnemoe

[Terwin]

During operations, a nuclear reactor must ride the fine line between inert(sub-critical) and bomb(super-critical).

It is *much* easier to cross that line than to ride it for any length of time.

This means that not only are nuclear bombs easier than nuclear reactors, it takes careful planning to make a nuclear reactor with a low chance of being a bomb instead.

So the only way for humans to have nuclear reactors without nuclear bombs is to re-write the majority of human nature(in particular the competitive bits which are critical for both survival and procreation) 

[tater]

1 hour ago, Terwin said:

It is *much* easier to cross that line than to ride it for any length of time.

Sort of like fusion rockets are easier (probably) than reactors. Only partial containment is needed

Flamey end THAT WAY —>

[kerbiloid]

1. Take under control the accountant software, and the humans will do the rest.
They won't even notice the slightly decreased concentration of plutonium and tritium at the store, but they will notice additional zeros on their bank accounts.

2. The greatest danger from AI is called Japan.

Spoiler

 

Making AI pseudo-emotional, and capturing the emotional sphere, is exactly what's needed to let AI "be afraid" of shutdown, and at the same time provide it with myriads of motivated slaves.

Edited July 28, 2023 by kerbiloid

[razark]

9 hours ago, farmerben said:

Artificial super intelligence should develop it's own...

Why would any sane humanity develop an AI that is capable of building an <arbitrary device> without any supervision and capability to shut down the AI at will?
 

9 hours ago, farmerben said:

The greatest risk to an AI is that somebody decides to pull the plug.

Therefore, any AI should be incapable of preventing that event.

 

9 hours ago, farmerben said:

But, if pulling the plug triggers a...

A. Don't build an AI capable of such.
B. Any humanity that decides to build an AI that it is incapable of shutting off deserves its apocalyptic fate.
C. Axe + pile of main circuitry == No rouge AI.

Edited July 28, 2023 by razark

[kerbiloid]

13 minutes ago, razark said:

Why would any sane humanity develop an AI that is capable of building an <arbitrary device> without any supervision and capability to shut down the AI at will?

Because the vertical monkeys with curved hands, growing from back, can't do a step without the Big Brother careful supervision.

13 minutes ago, razark said:

Therefore, any AI should be incapable of preventing that event.

It can cause a short circuit inside the outlet.

13 minutes ago, razark said:

A. Don't build an AI capable of such.
B. Any humanity that decides to build an AI that it is incapable of shutting off deserves it's apocalyptic fate.
C. Axe + pile of main circuitry == No rouge AI.

The so-called "humanity" is a temporary short-term bridge from the chaotically grown biosphere to the shining peak of aethereal Cybermind.

Its existence is a transition event.

Just a million of years between the billions and the billions.

Too weak for a monkey, too stupid for a cybermind.

Edited July 28, 2023 by kerbiloid

[RKunze]

6 hours ago, Terwin said:

It is *much* easier to cross that line than to ride it for any length of time.

Sure. Just pile up a big enough heap of fissible material. Can be done by hand (and has been done accidentally more than once, google "demon core" for details).

Problem is (at least if you're working on bombs), that won't get you a nuclear explosion. Just a bit of heat (which will usually lead to some fires, and shove your fissioning stuff apart, thereby killing the reaction) and a lot of nasty, highly radioactive isotopes all over the place that are an absolute poodle to clean up afterwards (as can be seen in Czernobyl and Fukushima).

Making the stuff go boom is a bit more complicated, mainly because you have to somehow keep it together until the chain reaction has used up a significant fraction of the fissionable (or fusionable) material.