Challenge: No Nukes (with a twist...)

Create a scenario where nuclear weapons are either not developed or not developed to the extent there are today, but without the discovery of nuclear fission being removed.

What is the likely impact on the world? (Other than 'East and West butcher each other in WW3' type scenarios). Would nuclear energy be deemed feasible with no need to produce weapons-grade material (e.g. plutonium)?
 
If the technology is invented, it is just about inevitable that someone would develop nuclear weapons.
Even if it was just scientist A saying to scientist B: "You know, if we let the reactor get out of control, the math shows we'd have a pretty massive explosion on our hands. Like 'destroy a city' type explosion."
 
If it is known just how deadly these weapons are likely to be, would there be an incintive not to develop it? Are there any legitimate historical reasons which might remove any incentive to develop such weapons so quicky (e.g. would the pssibility the Germans might have been developing one in WW2 prompt the Americans to do so- what if, say, the intelligence was better and it transpired that said attempt wasn't coming to much? Or are there other factors here? What about no WW2?)
 
If it is known just how deadly these weapons are likely to be, would there be an incintive not to develop it? Are there any legitimate historical reasons which might remove any incentive to develop such weapons so quicky (e.g. would the pssibility the Germans might have been developing one in WW2 prompt the Americans to do so- what if, say, the intelligence was better and it transpired that said attempt wasn't coming to much? Or are there other factors here? What about no WW2?)
Sorry, but the bomb is going to happen. As much as we don't like it, w/o a prehistorical, or damn-near, POD, it'll happen eventually.
 
My thought is--what if early in the Earth's formation, all of the Uranium, Thorium and other actinides sink into Earth's core, quietly heating the planet?

Now, you'd still have fun experiments going in 1900 or after to determine that the Sun runs on nuclear Fusion, and Nuclear Fusion would be a massively desired dream--but there's no fission to start the reaction, because fission doesn't really happen without Uranium and other elements.

You might get a fun scientific discovery of some scientist managing to break a lead atom in half by shooting another nucleus at it, and fission will get found out, but Uranium is essentially inaccessible deep in the Earth's Core. You'd also determine the fusion is real and a pure fusion pathway will be seen as the holy grail of science.

Sooner or later, Pure Fusion weapons are going to emulate conventional nukes. But that sooner is probably decades away and the R&D involved would be insane. I think there would be little danger of Nuclear Weapons proliferation, as a Pure Fusion bomb would probably be really bulky--too large for missiles and perhaps too large even for bombers.

All this means is nukes delayed, not nukes denied. I think that sooner or later you are going to have to change the laws of physics to make fission and fusion prohibitively difficult in non-stellar conditions if you want nukes to get rolled after 2050 technology or so.
 
It might not be so inevitable as it looks in OTL hindsight. At the time OTL, even, nuclear power/weapons weren't considered practical or useful, & there was a lot of confusion over how much fissionable material was needed; at one time, it was considered to be tons.:eek: If it was that impractical to use, & that hard to do, all it took was the scientific & engineering community, or more importantly the governments paying for it,:rolleyes: to say, "That's a ridiculous amount to try & produce, forget it." Add (apparently genuine) OTL fears firing a nuclear weapon could ignite the atmosphere & turn the planet into an over-crisp marshmallow,:eek::eek: & you could get even the likes of General Strangelove saying, "Hmm...maybe not.":D
 
Nukes in some form seem pretty inevitable once the science is there, but it's not hard to imagine a world without as many massive stockpiles as ours has. The Cold War was a unique situation that I could see getting butterflied away rather often.

A multipolar rather than bipolar world, (say, after Central Power's victory in WWI, or a less expansionist Japan and/or Nazi Germany) for instance, might lead to less of an "arms race" mentality and more of a "everyone's gonna want some of these things, but perhaps we should try to limit their overall numbers" mentality. Alternately, things could just be worse...
 

Tellus

Banned
Well, I suppose a hegemonic power with absolute military supremacy would prefer such weapons never existed, considering they wouldnt need them to rule the world, and their existence would be the single largest military threat they'd face.

Obviously, creating a hegemonic power takes a pretty steep divergence from our timeline, but considering how small Earth is when you have modern technology, I suppose its not out of the realm of possibility that such a power would harness nuclear power for civilian purposes, but systematically ensures it is never refined beyond that; and that nobody has enough materials to try.

Just dont make the PoD about Sealion, please. :D
 
I can only see two possiblities.

Point of no return 1: they miscalculate the ammount needed and get some massivly bulky estimate for the amount needed for a nuke. it's the:
Sci 1: so we'll need X tons....
Sci 2: forget it, that's way too much for one bomb, not to mention they's kill us if it takes that much money for one.
this one's unlikly due to eventualy the calulations are made correctly or they somehow make a bomber that can carry a payload like that.


PoNR 2: Radiation paranoia. while they start experimenting with the possbility of a nuke, something goes wrong, spreading radiation poisoning. after the massive clean-up, decomtam, and public outcry, that may be enough to shut down any experiement.
this one seems more likely, but not by much.
 
Prevent Teflon from being discovered.

Without PTFE, there are not any suitable materials that can handle UF6.
Scientists could enrich trace amounts of uranium using mass-spectrometry,
but it would be impractical to manufacture enough for weapons or reactors.
Atomic fission would remain a laboratory curiosity.

Also, people would have to spend a lot more time scrubbing pots and pans.
 
Nukes in some form seem pretty inevitable once the science is there, but it's not hard to imagine a world without as many massive stockpiles as ours has. The Cold War was a unique situation that I could see getting butterflied away rather often.

A multipolar rather than bipolar world, (say, after Central Power's victory in WWI, or a less expansionist Japan and/or Nazi Germany) for instance, might lead to less of an "arms race" mentality and more of a "everyone's gonna want some of these things, but perhaps we should try to limit their overall numbers" mentality. Alternately, things could just be worse...

Agreed, it took tremendous resources to build the various systems that have developed.

Some general themes.

1. No nazi germany. Germany rises, pushes for status, gets it without bloodbath. Decolonization becomes focus of international politics.
"Who wants to waste money on high-tech when what we need are better jungle boots, and a lot of them?";)

2. Less aggressive SU. SU gets eastern europe, sets up friendly goverments. Bases significant forces to ensure continued friendlyness.

But stops there. Does not adopt aggressive force posture. Thus no marshall plan. Slowed rebuilding of europe. Faster decolonization. Much lower tempo arms race. No space race.

3. Nazi Germany gets bomb first. But only builds small number. Repeatedly nukes London and Moscow. But to late to win war. Convential bombing finially destroys bomb facilties. Nukes have very bad PR.
 
Agreed, it took tremendous resources to build the various systems that have developed.

Some general themes.

1. No nazi germany. Germany rises, pushes for status, gets it without bloodbath. Decolonization becomes focus of international politics.
"Who wants to waste money on high-tech when what we need are better jungle boots, and a lot of them?";)

2. Less aggressive SU. SU gets eastern europe, sets up friendly goverments. Bases significant forces to ensure continued friendlyness.

But stops there. Does not adopt aggressive force posture. Thus no marshall plan. Slowed rebuilding of europe. Faster decolonization. Much lower tempo arms race. No space race.

3. Nazi Germany gets bomb first. But only builds small number. Repeatedly nukes London and Moscow. But to late to win war. Convential bombing finially destroys bomb facilties. Nukes have very bad PR.

I like scenarios 1 and 2. Not so sure about 3, though. Complete and enforced denunciation of "Jewish Physics" does not do much good for your nation's weapons development when it comes to atomic weapons.
 
Top