Different paths of scientific research.
Not sure what's meant there. I don't really see a different path for development of nuclear weapons, barring research into the biological sciences lagging so far behind that people are unaware of the effects of radiation for +10-20 years beyond OTL, which might see nukes built more aggressively as tactical terror weapons. Likewise, it isn't possible to leapfrog straight to the hydrogen bomb without a fission bomb in each one as the "starter" - unless the US gets some modern laser technology years ahead of time.
 
Not sure what's meant there. I don't really see a different path for development of nuclear weapons, barring research into the biological sciences lagging so far behind that people are unaware of the effects of radiation for +10-20 years beyond OTL, which might see nukes built more aggressively as tactical terror weapons. Likewise, it isn't possible to leapfrog straight to the hydrogen bomb without a fission bomb in each one as the "starter" - unless the US gets some modern laser technology years ahead of time.
That is, though, if WWII occurs the same way. Nukes weren't even a thought until wartime came about.
 
That is, though, if WWII occurs the same way. Nukes weren't even a thought until wartime came about.
I could very well be wrong, but to the best of my knowledge, the possibility of uncontrolled chain reaction in the nuclei of heavy elements was already generally understood by physicists in the late 30s. It was tensions leading into WW2 that pushed Germany, Britain, the US, and Japan into building of nuclear weapons, but the fact that all of the aforementioned nations had programs in the works shows that the idea didn't arise out of nowhere.
 
I could very well be wrong, but to the best of my knowledge, the possibility of uncontrolled chain reaction in the nuclei of heavy elements was already generally understood by physicists in the late 30s. It was tensions leading into WW2 that pushed Germany, Britain, the US, and Japan into building of nuclear weapons, but the fact that all of the aforementioned nations had programs in the works shows that the idea didn't arise out of nowhere.
Not sure what's meant there. I don't really see a different path for development of nuclear weapons, barring research into the biological sciences lagging so far behind that people are unaware of the effects of radiation for +10-20 years beyond OTL, which might see nukes built more aggressively as tactical terror weapons. Likewise, it isn't possible to leapfrog straight to the hydrogen bomb without a fission bomb in each one as the "starter" - unless the US gets some modern laser technology years ahead of time.
That is, though, if WWII occurs the same way. Nukes weren't even a thought until wartime came about.
One example that comes to mind is the ability to create the chain reaction needed for a nuke. You need a substance to slow the reaction to make it sustainable. Most countries use graffiti, but Nazis had ruled this out in favor of heavy water. Other things, too. Dynamite is one that comes to mind, even chewing gum is one. TV, radio, space travel, all could have turned out differently. Only the basic laws of science remain the same with any PoD
 
One example that comes to mind is the ability to create the chain reaction needed for a nuke. You need a substance to slow the reaction to make it sustainable. Most countries use graffiti, but Nazis had ruled this out in favor of heavy water. Other things, too. Dynamite is one that comes to mind, even chewing gum is one. TV, radio, space travel, all could have turned out differently. Only the basic laws of science remain the same with any PoD
Agreed, the principles of physics, biology, chemistry, etc are what they are. But historical and social context is arguably just as important to the development of science and technology (which of course itself influences history). I.e., HeX hasn't butterflying away the European and American industrial revolutions, and thus any future developments that relied on the basis of said industrialization are at least probable if not certain.

To take your example radio and television sets, I could certainly see the argument that they could have stayed solely as expensive community equipment, as in Reds!. However, given an America that's still individualist and capitalist (though wary of the power of unchecked wealth), I anticipate that families will still demand radios and eventually black and white TV boxes for themselves.
 
I do wonder what will be the cultural and historiographic effect of a nuclear bombing, if any occurs.

Will it be regarded as a necessary evil? A mistake of the League? Something that gives their detractors propaganda?
 
Agreed, the principles of physics, biology, chemistry, etc are what they are. But historical and social context is arguably just as important to the development of science and technology (which of course itself influences history). I.e., HeX hasn't butterflying away the European and American industrial revolutions, and thus any future developments that relied on the basis of said industrialization are at least probable if not certain.

To take your example radio and television sets, I could certainly see the argument that they could have stayed solely as expensive community equipment, as in Reds!. However, given an America that's still individualist and capitalist (though wary of the power of unchecked wealth), I anticipate that families will still demand radios and eventually black and white TV boxes for themselves.
To this point, the key pioneer for TV was Mormon, got funding from local church members, went to a Mormon school, AND all his teachers went to a mormon school. His entire staff was Mormons. So without Mormonism, TV can go a completely different way. Maybe color TV right off the bat?
 
I do wonder what will be the cultural and historiographic effect of a nuclear bombing, if any occurs.

Will it be regarded as a necessary evil? A mistake of the League? Something that gives their detractors propaganda?
To be honest, considering how this TL dealt with racial inequality and such, nuclear energy might be more popularized if nuclear weapons are used.

It can take the Fallout route, where nuclear energy is used to power everyday appliances in life.
 
Only God can change doctrine, and God is unchanging. Maybe instead of the Church changing doctrine it schisms?
Not a Catholic, so excuse my ignorance in advance.
Didn't the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility only become doctrine in 1854 and 1870, respectively?
 
Lastly, there's gridiron football. It's not America's premier sport ITTL, taking a backseat to the national pastime of baseball, but it's still very popular in the US, more so than basketball. It's also got more of a reach than OTL, with football leagues in many American countries like Mexico, Quebec, Brazil, Nueva Granada, and Argentina as well as a presence in places as far-flung as Russia.
My big doubt about this is climate: the gear for gridiron fb is heavy and hot, and players in the tropics will have a hard time lasting a full game. Quebec, Argentina and Russia, no problem; Mexico and Nueva Granada, not so much.

A case in point is Puerto Rico; while basketball and baseball ate LOVED, football is limited to schools that have a USA-oriented curriculum and promote assimilation.
 
My big doubt about this is climate: the gear for gridiron fb is heavy and hot, and players in the tropics will have a hard time lasting a full game. Quebec, Argentina and Russia, no problem; Mexico and Nueva Granada, not so much.

A case in point is Puerto Rico; while basketball and baseball ate LOVED, football is limited to schools that have a USA-oriented curriculum and promote assimilation.
Mmm, that's a very good point I neglected to consider. Okay, well, I'd say that gridiron football will be largely confined to the US north of Mexico (if Texas can handle the heat, I suppose Rio Grande can too) and the Southern Cone, and maybe some presence in, like, Australia.
 
Not a Catholic, so excuse my ignorance in advance.
Didn't the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility only become doctrine in 1854 and 1870, respectively?
That wasn't changing doctrine so much as it was making teachings official. I'll get more to you if I have more time.
 
Mmm, that's a very good point I neglected to consider. Okay, well, I'd say that gridiron football will be largely confined to the US north of Mexico (if Texas can handle the heat, I suppose Rio Grande can too) and the Southern Cone, and maybe some presence in, like, Australia.
What about newfoundland and qubeec
 
Top