Two questions on nuclear technology

[Sovietdolphin]

The first question: what would a world without nuclear weapons look like? I am not too sure about how it works, but I know nuclear weapons were a huge leap in understanding of physics, and I'd assume that there are many technologies today whose existence, in some way or another, require the same sorts of understanding that led to the nuclear bomb. Obviously, nuclear power would not be possible. On the other hand, what kind of technology could have been developed in a world without nuclear technology? This is especially important as regards the Internet, microprocessors, computer technology...

The second question: what kind of developments, beginning no earlier than 1920, could have led to a situation in which nuclear weapons were not invented - at the least, not as early as in OTL? Without completely destroying humanity (difficult, anyway, considering a lack of nuclear weapons!), how late could it take for nuclear weapons to be developed? The 1960s? The 1990s? Maybe physicists are persecuted widely as contrary to good Christian values? Maybe Albert Einstein never determines that it is necessary to give up his pacifism?

Thoughts!

 

[Glen]

The first question: what would a world without nuclear weapons look like?

I'm actually working on a timeline with something like that....

I am not too sure about how it works, but I know nuclear weapons were a huge leap in understanding of physics, and I'd assume that there are many technologies today whose existence, in some way or another, require the same sorts of understanding that led to the nuclear bomb.

Not exactly. Most of that could be learned with development of nuclear power.

Obviously, nuclear power would not be possible.

Um, no. A nuclear pile was built years before a nuclear bomb.

On the other hand, what kind of technology could have been developed in a world without nuclear technology?

Ah, now you are going into a different POD, namely one where there is no nuclear technology...that's a much harder one to get....

This is especially important as regards the Internet, microprocessors, computer technology...

All of which could develop independently of nuclear weapons and nuclear power.

The second question: what kind of developments, beginning no earlier than 1920, could have led to a situation in which nuclear weapons were not invented - at the least, not as early as in OTL?

You'll have to wait for me to start posting my timeline.

Without completely destroying humanity (difficult, anyway, considering a lack of nuclear weapons!), how late could it take for nuclear weapons to be developed? The 1960s? The 1990s?

Depends.

Maybe physicists are persecuted widely as contrary to good Christian values?

After 1920? Doubtful. A slightly more plausible timeline after 1920 would be an early and extreme victory for Nazis and Fascists. The Nazis might retard physics developments as a 'Jew' science, much in the way the Soviets tried to promote Lysenko's Lamarkianism over standard genetics.

Maybe Albert Einstein never determines that it is necessary to give up his pacifism?

Thoughts!

Maybe I should post the first rough parts of my timeline....

 

[Sovietdolphin]

That would be cool if you did!

Actually, German physics might be a possible avenue of this. My timeline will possibly have a slightly more long-lived Third Reich - probably lasting into the late 1950s or early 1960s. I also figure that the pacifism of Albert Einstein would help, if it were to last?

 

[Analytical Engine]

Well, if you delay, or prevent WWII, then nuclear reserch is going to go at a more sedate pace, with a bomb appearing in the 60s or so...

 

[Sovietdolphin]

I am wondering: could World War II have been less apocalyptic and good-vs.-evil? I am thinking that Albert Einstein, who hated World War One (which was a messy affair), could have refused to give up on his pacifist ideals if the Second World War hadn't been so... black and white. Adolf Hitler, genocide, total military aggression, fascist insanity and surety of purpose might have scared me, too. If it was less of a "good war" - for whatever reasons - who knows?

I also recognize that I MAY be overestimating Einstein's importance a little bit. I don't how much, though.

 

[67th Tigers]

The idea of making a nuclear bomb was not widespread. The Germans never considered the possibility, nor did the Americans before their declaration of war and the British revealed TUBE ALLOYS.

No WW2, no bomb programme, at least not for many decades more....