What are the primary problems for testing a nuke in a Volcano? Does the radioactivity get spread farther if the Volcano gets set off?
A Blunted Sickle
- Thread starter pdf27
- Start date
-
- Tags
- france germany world war ii
- Status
What are the primary problems for testing a nuke in a Volcano? Does the radioactivity get spread farther if the Volcano gets set off?
Saphroneth
Banned
Earthquakes are a good way of activating a magma chamber that's not quite low enough pressure to cause problems - it can cause already tense rock to fracture.
Decius00009
Banned
Would conscription in Quebec be as much of an issue with France still in the war?
In short the Manhattan Project considered a lot of wrong answers as well and unlike the Germans, they had enough money, people, infrastructure and flexibility to try *all* (or almost all) of the possible answers until they found the right one and then threw the money, people and infrastructure at the right solution. (And all while the US was fighting *two* wars
)Absolutely - in both world wars there was far more fellow-feeling between the Anglophone areas of Canada and the UK than there was between Quebec and France. Just because they spoke the same language didn't mean that they actually cared about the French very much.
More than that - they had the money and resources to implement two different ways to make a bomb, from two different metals, and found three industrially practicable ways of creating one of those metals. All in wartime, in four years. That's before considering the wrong answers they looked at.In short the Manhattan Project considered a lot of wrong answers as well and unlike the Germans, they had enough money, people, infrastructure and flexibility to try *all* (or almost all) of the possible answers until they found the right one and then threw the money, people and infrastructure at the right solution. (And all while the US was fighting *two* wars
The British and French don't have that level of resources - they can only really take on approach to a bomb, and that forces them to take a lot of guesses. Fortunately for them, they made an awful lot of correct guesses in OTL so it would have worked out OK.
So more correct to pluralize "...until they found the right oneS and then threw the money, people and infrastructure at the right solutionS.
If the British and French made the wrong guesses at the beginning, they could be working for another decade or more. (Hmm. AHC, with a POD after 1938, see if we can delay Atomic Weapons to 1960)
Thinking about OTL WWII gets much more interesting when you start comparing the industrial production of the US State of Pennsylvania to that of Italy or that of Japan.
The French in Quebec had been, in their view, abandoned by France when it chose the Caribbean islands instead of Quebec in the Treaty of Paris. Then they got to watch from the sidelines while France went thought the Revolution, the Terror and Napoleon. For most Quebecois the France that emerged was not their France or the France of their ancestors. So they had no particular attachment to either France or their British overlords. The general feeling much the same as in isolationist circles in the US, let the Europeans stew in their own juices, nothing to do with us. The feeling was somewhat less in WWII though it still existed. To be fair the opposition to conscription was not limited to Quebec and many who opposed conscription did support the war effort in general.
For Canadian politicians it would be a win/win. Investment in industrial infrastructure and under NRMA they could conscript workers into the appropriate industries without the political costs of conscription for overseas service.
Donald Reaver
Donor
Not sure though if it might not build more resentment between English and French Canada. English Canadians go over to fight and die, French-Canadians stay at home and get high paying jobs.
Not that much different from OTL though. While many French-Canadians did in fact volunteer and serve overseas, most of the conscripts never left Canada and were used in home defence formations where they were contemptuously known as "zombies". Coupled with the fact that the Canadian army refused to organize any French language formations larger than battalions, even though there were sufficient units to at least form a brigade if not a division, led to a lot of resentment anyways.
Oh my god. I finally caught up with this. Just before page 500, too!
This has been an amazing read so far and it's still just as good.
This has been an amazing read so far and it's still just as good.
I've seen references to some studies that found the difference in enlistment rates between French and English Canadians could be explained almost entirely by the length of time a family had been in the country. Ontarians whose ancestors had immigrated over 100 years earlier were no more eager to die for Britain than the Quebecois. On the other hand, towns in Alberta that were formed within the last decade from Britons often saw all their young men sign up.
Errolwi
Monthly Donor
I expect similar patterns in the other settler colonies. NZ's younger age was reflected in stuff like conscription being accepted prior to the war. In NZ there was the added feature of Maori participation rates mapping quite well to how much land had been confiscated from their fathers (WW1) and grandfathers (WW2) in the 1860's.
So very true.
And they won't be building the 3/month that the US planned on for late '45. Maybe 1 every second month for the first year?
So Loyalist Iwi had higher levels of service than those that carried on fighting and thus suffered more severe confiscations? I guess Tainui were not big fans for one
I do remember seeing a Maori war memorial in Rotorua one year, very moving stuff, very proud of their service and their connection to the king emperor.
Saphroneth
Banned
To be honest the Maori of the Land Wars were such difficult opponents one wonders if they'd have been right at home in 20th century wars.
I've assumed 4 weapons per year once they've got the kinks worked out. By the standards of the 1940s that's an enormously powerful arsenal - enough to end a war in a single day: I don't think going for Manhattan Project production levels is plausible given the likely priorities, budgets and constraints. This will have obvious impacts once the nuclear arms race starts after the war...
- Status