Why was Civil Rights in the US punctuated equilibrium? (Short stretches of massive change separated by large stretches of few changes?)
1950 at the latest. Depends on Fermi and the funding source.Eventually yes since sooner or later a nuclear reactor would have been built, as nuclear fission had already been discovered before the war.
It's hard to tell when since there are a lot of possible outcomes and it depends on what circumstances WW2 doesn't happen. Also Manhattan Project required a lot of resources and funds, they basically built a small town from scratch to make the bomb.
But if some government (most likely the US as it's the biggest economy) funds Nuclear Reactor development projects, eventually they will fund a project looking to use nuclear power for military purposes.
Why was Civil Rights in the US punctuated equilibrium? (Short stretches of massive change separated by large stretches of few changes?)
There is some political science research on this phenomenon.I have no scholarship to support my thoughts, but there you are:
1. The struggle to get issues identified and raised to a legislative level have been exhausting exercises in commitment, organizing, fund-raising(its necessary), and frequently flat-out danger. Once you've had even a modest level of legislative success, there was a period of mental exhaustion for many of the foot-soldiers of the movements.
2. Legislators, even those committed to civil rights often burned up their political capital getting legislation passed - even modest levels. That took/takes recovery time.
3. There's a collective dusting off of hands - "Job done" Even though the job's not done.
4. Those opposed to civil rights advancements need time to sort out strategies to negate the gains made.
5. See step 1......
It is often the case that people on this forum have miscellaneous or frivolous questions that could be easily answered by the many experts on this forum but are difficult to find the answer to on Google Scholar/Books or Wikipedia because they don't often deal in alternatives.
There are other cases where people have miscellaneous or frivolous scenarios or challenges that they want to share about an idea they encountered that could perhaps provoke inspiration in other users but isn't deserving enough to be posted as a thread on its own.
These issues have been addressed in the Shared Worlds, ASB and <1900 forums but haven't been dealt with here.
This thread is intended to be a resource for those with questions about a timeline they want to construct which are minor and undeserving of their own thread, and a place to share ideas that people don't have time, skill or knowledge to write themselves.
Could wideapread Bazooka Planes had been effective against tanks in WW2 ?expand...
Sorry, I will just reply next time.@Byzantion As we've mentioned to you previously in other threads (for example here, here, here and here), there's no need to quote the first post when asking your question - it just clutters up the thread. Thank you.
@Byzantion As we've mentioned to you previously in other threads (for example here, here, here and here), there's no need to quote the first post when asking your question - it just clutters up the thread. Thank you.
Sorry, I will just reply next time.
It was tried. Decision was that FFARs were more effective.Could wideapread Bazooka Planes had been effective against tanks in WW2 ?
I'm not much of a movie business historian, but if Thalberg remains at Universal, doesn't that suck some wind out of MGM? And if that's so, does MGM even become the home of big-budget musicals, or even top line dramas?What if famed producer, writer, and editor Irving Thalberg had remained at Universal Studios?
Either way, what if he had lived to his sixties?
Here.How many U-boats did Germany operate on 1st September 1939?
Major Warship Strengths
Navies Royal Navy French Navy German NavyWarship types Home waters (a) Atlantic (b) Atlantic and Channel European watersAtlantic station Battleships 9 - 2 3 2(c)Carriers 4 - 1 - -Cruisers 21 14 3 7 -Destroyers 82 13 20 22 -Submarines 21 4 - 41(d) 16 Totals 137 31 26 73 18 plus escorts - - plus torpedo boats
Notes:
- Royal Navy was a mix of World War 1, modernised and recently completed ships. The French warships allocated to the Atlantic and the German were mainly modern.
(a) Home Fleet commanded by Adm Sir Charles Forbes with 7 capital ships, 2 carriers and 16 cruisers based at Scapa Flow and Rosyth; Channel Force with 2 battleships, 2 carriers and 3 cruisers; Humber Force with 2 cruisers; and various destroyer flotillas.
(b) North Atlantic Command based at Gibraltar with 2 cruisers and 9 destroyers; America and West Indies Command at Bermuda with 4 cruisers; and South Atlantic at Freetown with 8 cruisers and 4 destroyers.
(c) Pocket battleships "Admiral Graf Spee" in the South and "Deutschland" in the North Atlantic.
(d) included U-boats on patrol in the North Sea and British coastal waters.
Not sure you can have similar peace terms. OTL those were more or less negotiated without CP input, and then offered as sign or die. If there is an earlier surrender I'd assume CP do get to attend negotiations, with the ever present threat of going back to war. OTL terms likely won't be considered acceptable.How much better off would the world be economically in the decades after a late May/early June 1918 Central Powers surrender and similar peace terms? The major European powers would obviously still be heavily in debt and badly wounded by the loss of so many people and the spending of so much money, but would they be in a significantly better position economically in the coming decades compared to OTL?