AHC: Nuclear weapons considered "horribly impractical"

Inspired by this Pre-1900 thread https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/probability-of-nukes.478277/ and a discussion on chemical warfare at another forum.

In the real world what makes poison gas a consensus evil weapon isn't that it kills people, pretty much all military weapons kill people, it is that it permanently disables the survivors WITHOUT necessarily stopping them from fighting and the wind could blow it back over your own position (and even if it doesn't, for offensive use you have your own guys advancing into the cloud).

So you permanently cripple large numbers of soldiers from both sides, without necessarily taking them out of the current combat, and it's not even particularly good at winning the battle.

If gas were a war-winner or really useful, it would never have been banned or the ban would never have held. After WWI the consensus was, "It's horrible, and it doesn't even work."
While the reasoning above may have it flaws, it's an anecdotal post and not a scientific opinion, what does it take for nukes to be regarded as "expensive stuff that does not work as well as convenient weapons"? I've seen a discussion that in situation when the first nuclear bomb is used on army in the field and not on the city it can give this result.
 

Derek Pullem

Kicked
Donor
Inspired by this Pre-1900 thread https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/probability-of-nukes.478277/ and a discussion on chemical warfare at another forum.


While the reasoning above may have it flaws, it's an anecdotal post and not a scientific opinion, what does it take for nukes to be regarded as "expensive stuff that does not work as well as convenient weapons"? I've seen a discussion that in situation when the first nuclear bomb is used on army in the field and not on the city it can give this result.
Longer testing process and a deeper understanding of the issues of fall-out?

I don't think it would prevent deployment in a Japan situation in WW2 but it would probably prevent any consideration of an attack in Europe (too many allies too close)
 
Inspired by this Pre-1900 thread https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/probability-of-nukes.478277/ and a discussion on chemical warfare at another forum.


While the reasoning above may have it flaws, it's an anecdotal post and not a scientific opinion, what does it take for nukes to be regarded as "expensive stuff that does not work as well as convenient weapons"? I've seen a discussion that in situation when the first nuclear bomb is used on army in the field and not on the city it can give this result.

Through 1939 there was no accurate idea on what it would take to produce a atomic detonation. Have folks decide the research priorities should go elsewhere & the physicists are on radar projects or researching death rays or something.

Atomic research does not pick up again until post war & is slower
 
Through 1939 there was no accurate idea on what it would take to produce a atomic detonation. Have folks decide the research priorities should go elsewhere & the physicists are on radar projects or researching death rays or something.

Atomic research does not pick up again until post war & is slower

We could be a lot further along on death ray research.

I mean ... modern military radars ARE death rays. I wouldn't stand in front of one.
 
Top