WI No Nuclear Weapons?

amphibulous

Banned
Well, a world without nuclear weapons also needs to be one where conventional explosives have not reached our modern levels; some of the bigger conventional weapons available now are practically the size of a small nuclear explosion.

This is only because very sophisticated nukes can detonate with small yields. These aren't the weapons that everyone is scared of; they're irrelevant to the OP's intent.
 
Are you guys even reading the OP or the forum it's placed in? What is being asked is not "what if nukes were impossible", but "what if they weren't invented". There is a reason why this is in pre-1900.

Anyways, the answer is simple. Keep Europe in the Dark Ages for longer or somehow stunt its scientific growth. By present day we'll (meaning China, India, the Middle east) probably be at 1800-level technology.
Even without going that far back, it can be argued that, without WWII, there won't be any country willing or able to expend the fortunes the Manhattan Protect required in the '40s. That wouldn't prevent nuclear weapons, but it might very well delay them for decades, until further advances in atomic research, engineering, computing, etc., lower to cost to develop nuclear weapons.
 
Even without going that far back, it can be argued that, without WWII, there won't be any country willing or able to expend the fortunes the Manhattan Protect required in the '40s. That wouldn't prevent nuclear weapons, but it might very well delay them for decades, until further advances in atomic research, engineering, computing, etc., lower to cost to develop nuclear weapons.
Personally I think that you'd have to say "no big wars allowed", which is still possible to achieve after WW1 but not likely IMO given the Europeans' advances plus their habits of fighting each other all the time. I think the PoD would best be in the 1800s.
 
If nuclear weapons were never made, I think that WWIII would've definitely have occurred. I also think America would have to be militarised far more, so it's likely the generals who would've had significant power would've pushed it to a more fascist-style dictatorship. I think the Soviets would've "won" by which I mean taking more territory than the Americans, but it's hard to see an end point to the war. The Soviets and allies would've overrun Europe, the Vietnamese and Thais would have a stalemate, South Korea would be defeated, Japan would be hard to take, the Kurils and Sakhalin would be occupied by the USA. The UK stays on the Allied side, harassing the Soviets. NATO conquers Nicaragua and Cuba. South Africa would conquer Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Angola, but with lots of costly guerrilla activity. The Soviets would have a far bigger advantage if the Sino-Soviet split never happened.
 

Flubber

Banned
Are you guys even reading the OP or the forum it's placed in?

Are you even reading what the OP wrote?

What is being asked is not "what if nukes were impossible", but "what if they weren't invented".

That is NOT what he wrote. This is what he wrote:

What if nuclear weapons were not feasible?

What I mean is that they don't work.

What I mean is that they didn't work when they tested them.

Note the phrases "not feasible" and "don't work". He never states "not invented".

Anyways, the answer is simple. Keep Europe in the Dark Ages for longer or somehow stunt its scientific growth. By present day we'll (meaning China, India, the Middle east) probably be at 1800-level technology.

While that's a good way to have nuclear weapons not invented, the OP was asking about nuclear weapons not being feasible and not working.
 
Sorry, you're right. But in my defense, it was late. I rectify my response and shall state that the OP is badly envisioned.
 
Top