Nuclear fission impossible

(Inspired by the 'fission blanket' from Emprise)

Say, for whatever reason, the physics of nuclear fission are tweaked to make the creation of a controlled fission reaction (ie, a bomb or a power station) impossible, or at least impractical in the current century.

Presumably, this has little or no effect up until 1945--but how do things diverge from there?
 

Hendryk

Banned
Well, for one thing, if nuclear fission is impossible, the universe as we know it does not exist, so any speculation about human history is moot.
 
Well, for one thing, if nuclear fission is impossible, the universe as we know it does not exist, so any speculation about human history is moot.

Hence the 'or just impractical'. Heck, it doesn't have to be a physics-y thing, let relatively be quickly discredited or something--just prevent the creation of nuclear weapons for a couple of decades...
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Well, for one thing, if nuclear fission is impossible, the universe as we know it does not exist, so any speculation about human history is moot.

True, but this has always been a question that has interested me. Why don't we place a butterfly blanket over it, allowing the rest of history to remain unchanged, leaving only the fact that nuclear power and nuclear weapons, for whatever reason, do not work.
 
Somewhere down the line there would have been huge global war between communism and capitalism, probably not later than the 80's. As their economy went down the drain and without nukes to deter them, Soviet leadership might have chosen to leash out Red Storm style. On the other hand chemical and biological weapons would prove to offer reasonable MAD deterrence tool, so it might end up the same. The world would probably face major energy crises around 60's and economic growth in major powers would be slower without nuclear fission. Probably major environmental problems too, as there would have been more coal and oil fired power plants around.
 
(Inspired by the 'fission blanket' from Emprise)

Say, for whatever reason, the physics of nuclear fission are tweaked to make the creation of a controlled fission reaction (ie, a bomb or a power station) impossible, or at least impractical in the current century.

Presumably, this has little or no effect up until 1945--but how do things diverge from there?

What you are proposing is an alteration of physical laws, which is ASB by definition. If atomic structures are inviolate then not only is fission impossible, but fusion also; stars would simply be really large planets, heated only by gravitational compression; life would probably never form in such a universe.

Whether fission is controlled or not is beside the point; if fission is possible it is controllable. Simply keep the fissile material sufficiently spread out and at an even temperature; nothing more is required.

Given that naturally radioactive materials exist someone will investigate them, and find out what makes them tick. From there it's only a matter of time until nuclear fission and fusion are harnessed. That might be delayed, but it will come. You can't let the genie out of the bottle if he was never in it to begin with.
 
What you are proposing is an alteration of physical laws, which is ASB by definition. If atomic structures are inviolate then not only is fission impossible, but fusion also; stars would simply be really large planets, heated only by gravitational compression; life would probably never form in such a universe.

I suggest, rather than mucking with physical laws, eliminate all uranium and thorium from the Earth's surface and deploy butterfly nets until the 1930s. Still probably goes in the ASB forum, but it gets the desired results without requiring changes in physical laws.
 
I suggest, rather than mucking with physical laws, eliminate all uranium and thorium from the Earth's surface and deploy butterfly nets until the 1930s. Still probably goes in the ASB forum, but it gets the desired results without requiring changes in physical laws.

ASB, without the radioactive ores in the core the planet is a snowball. A cold one...
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
(Inspired by the 'fission blanket' from Emprise)

Say, for whatever reason, the physics of nuclear fission are tweaked to make the creation of a controlled fission reaction (ie, a bomb or a power station) impossible, or at least impractical in the current century.

Presumably, this has little or no effect up until 1945--but how do things diverge from there?


Well it has little or no effect until, well...

Physics as it exists in our universe fails, resulting in the universe never forming.

BTW: a nuclear detonation is NOT a controlled fission reaction. That it is uncontrolled is rather the point of the entire exercise.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I suggest, rather than mucking with physical laws, eliminate all uranium and thorium from the Earth's surface and deploy butterfly nets until the 1930s. Still probably goes in the ASB forum, but it gets the desired results without requiring changes in physical laws.

Uh...

Without radioactive decay the Earth would be dead as Mars. Among MANY other things the molten core would be a big solid chunk of pig iron so there would be not magnetic field to keep the solar wind from stripping off the atmosphere one atom at a time.
 
ASB, without the radioactive ores in the core the planet is a snowball. A cold one...

Uh...

Without radioactive decay the Earth would be dead as Mars. Among MANY other things the molten core would be a big solid chunk of pig iron so there would be not magnetic field to keep the solar wind from stripping off the atmosphere one atom at a time.

I said SURFACE:


I suggest, rather than mucking with physical laws, eliminate all uranium and thorium from the Earth's surface.

Edit to Add: Thinking about it more, that may not work after all, since volcanic action would bring material up from the mantle...
 
Last edited:
What about if we simply butterfly away Otto Hahn shortly before 1938? Obviously, this would only delay discovery of nuclear fission, but possibly long enough to remove it as a factor in WWII.
 
What about if we simply butterfly away Otto Hahn shortly before 1938? Obviously, this would only delay discovery of nuclear fission, but possibly long enough to remove it as a factor in WWII.
Nah, kill Arthur Jeffrey Dempster and Francis William Aston, then you'll set the whole field back by years for lack of a decent mass spectrometer, which will include (probably) setting back the discover of U-235.
 
Top