Where did OTL's introduction of atomic weapons sit in multiversal probability curve of outcomes for
Jun 28, 2022 0:22:29 GMT
stevep likes this
Post by raharris1973 on Jun 28, 2022 0:22:29 GMT
Well that question was a mouthful, wasn't it?
Here's what I mean, OTL's history of atomic weapons and their introduction, had several notable features:
- Theoretical physics leading up to it was worked out in the decades before the invention of the atomic bomb
- More advanced theoretical and practical physics making chain reactions possible was worked out over the decade preceding the invention of the bomb
- The motivation to achieve nuclear fission, in the form of an explosive bomb, and the industrial investment to attempt to do so was only brought about by a world war
- The bomb was not available in the middle of the war, or while victory and defeat was at issue between the sides; the bomb was in no way going to be available to the side that was struck by it
- The bomb was only available at the end of the war, after Japanese ability to win and meaningfully power project and successfully resist determined assaults was already destroyed by other means (naval warfare, amphibious warfare, submarine and mine-based blockade, conventional bombing) despite Japan still having men under arms, holding ground, and able to exact potentially high costs against attackers.
- So all in all, it was a "finishing weaponing", more than a 'tide-turning' weapon. Only two were used before Japan to surrender, it coincided with other damaging military-diplomatic blows - the Soviet DoW and attack. It was a such a "tail-end" part of WWII and demonstrative weapon that it generated some longstanding controversy over if it was necessary. (and what it was necessary for) ... --not the purpose of the thread to re-hash that...
- The new atomic weapons were seen as revolutionary in their implications, and shaped post-war strategies, and the US, and later USSR, and France and other countries designed their military capabilities around these weapons.
- These weapons were never used in war again over the next 75 years, still thousands of them were built and kept ready. Mid-sized wars of armies of significant countries like China and the USA fought each other in later years, with the use of atomic and nuclear weapons being taboo and off-limits.
Based on the general advance of natural science to where they were by 1900 AD, I would say that if you re-ran the 20th century from 1900 AD to 2000 AD, one hundred times, you could confidently say that in at least over 50% of the resulting timelines nuclear fission and probably nuclear fusion, would be discovered and demonstrated. Fission and fusion were more likely than not, barring some other disaster intervening to set back human technology.
But the politics of the 20th century could have been wildly different. The 8 particular characteristics of how atomic weapons were introduced in the world, used in combat twice, then never again except in tests, were not foreordained. Re-running one-hundred timelines from 1900 you could get many results quite different from what we had in OTL.
To name a few examples, we could have ended up with a world where:
- An atomic weapons program creates a usable weapon at an early stage of a war or at what appears to be a middle or equilibrium point in a war, and the weapon in small quantities (single-digits), or larger quantities (double-digits) is employed and is accurately seen as the decisive factor changing the outcome of the war. Conceivably this could lead to an era of single world government, empire, or at a minimum unipolarity under one power.
- Two atomic weapons programs create usable atomic weapons in wartime, between two adversaries or adversary coalitions, that are large and resilient enough, and in close enough succession, that the first atomic war, unlike OTL's, has two atomic combatants and lasts for more than three days, and sees significant widespread destruction beyond that known in OTL.
- An atomic weapon is developed in peacetime, and the power developing uses this impressive and revolutionary advantage in destructive power for diplomatic and political coercion, and/or adopts a ruthless program to ensure its monopoly on the technology. Such programs of coercion may succeed in forcing acquiesence, may be called out as BLUFs, and may or may not be ultimately enforced with atomic fire.
- Two or more powers develop atomic weapons in peacetime and those weapons deter anyone from attacking them, or if secret, the newly atomically armed powers do not up at war soon out of pure dumb luck. Eventually atomic capabilities are revealed, and much like OTL, there is a deterrent against their use, and their use is considered taboo, but without them ever being used in war, or outside a test setting
- An atomic weapon is developed in peacetime and the first atomic power attacks the second atomic power in the critical "window of opportunity" when the second power is about to catch up in terms of matching the first power in terms of weapon production capability, a usable weapon, a reliable delivery system, or a robust arsenal or atomic/nuclear weapons.
- An atomic weapons program is stimulated by a great war and makes great progress but does not reach all the way to completion and combat use before other circumstances end the war. Final development is put on ice. Alternative the device is demonstrated on a test range, but not an dramatic urban or simulated military target designed to terrify. A few years later there is a war or some regional conflict that the atomic armed power gets involved in. The atomic armed power makes an ultimatum it will use the weapon. The opposing side takes the ultimatum as a BLUF. The atomic power uses the weapon and achieves adversary surrender.
- Regardless of the specifics of atomic introduction, mass nuclear exchanges occur after mass nuclear forces are built, perhaps more than one time.
So that's seven ways the nuclear weapons introduction and history of the world could have gone differently than OTL.
If we re-ran the century a hundred times, which of these would be more common than OTL's scenario? Which would be less common?
Like would OTL's scenario happen 5, 10, 20 times. Would Mass nuclear exchange happen 5, 10, or 20 times. One nuclear power domination - how often would that happen? No nukes used ever? how often?
Here's what I mean, OTL's history of atomic weapons and their introduction, had several notable features:
- Theoretical physics leading up to it was worked out in the decades before the invention of the atomic bomb
- More advanced theoretical and practical physics making chain reactions possible was worked out over the decade preceding the invention of the bomb
- The motivation to achieve nuclear fission, in the form of an explosive bomb, and the industrial investment to attempt to do so was only brought about by a world war
- The bomb was not available in the middle of the war, or while victory and defeat was at issue between the sides; the bomb was in no way going to be available to the side that was struck by it
- The bomb was only available at the end of the war, after Japanese ability to win and meaningfully power project and successfully resist determined assaults was already destroyed by other means (naval warfare, amphibious warfare, submarine and mine-based blockade, conventional bombing) despite Japan still having men under arms, holding ground, and able to exact potentially high costs against attackers.
- So all in all, it was a "finishing weaponing", more than a 'tide-turning' weapon. Only two were used before Japan to surrender, it coincided with other damaging military-diplomatic blows - the Soviet DoW and attack. It was a such a "tail-end" part of WWII and demonstrative weapon that it generated some longstanding controversy over if it was necessary. (and what it was necessary for) ... --not the purpose of the thread to re-hash that...
- The new atomic weapons were seen as revolutionary in their implications, and shaped post-war strategies, and the US, and later USSR, and France and other countries designed their military capabilities around these weapons.
- These weapons were never used in war again over the next 75 years, still thousands of them were built and kept ready. Mid-sized wars of armies of significant countries like China and the USA fought each other in later years, with the use of atomic and nuclear weapons being taboo and off-limits.
Based on the general advance of natural science to where they were by 1900 AD, I would say that if you re-ran the 20th century from 1900 AD to 2000 AD, one hundred times, you could confidently say that in at least over 50% of the resulting timelines nuclear fission and probably nuclear fusion, would be discovered and demonstrated. Fission and fusion were more likely than not, barring some other disaster intervening to set back human technology.
But the politics of the 20th century could have been wildly different. The 8 particular characteristics of how atomic weapons were introduced in the world, used in combat twice, then never again except in tests, were not foreordained. Re-running one-hundred timelines from 1900 you could get many results quite different from what we had in OTL.
To name a few examples, we could have ended up with a world where:
- An atomic weapons program creates a usable weapon at an early stage of a war or at what appears to be a middle or equilibrium point in a war, and the weapon in small quantities (single-digits), or larger quantities (double-digits) is employed and is accurately seen as the decisive factor changing the outcome of the war. Conceivably this could lead to an era of single world government, empire, or at a minimum unipolarity under one power.
- Two atomic weapons programs create usable atomic weapons in wartime, between two adversaries or adversary coalitions, that are large and resilient enough, and in close enough succession, that the first atomic war, unlike OTL's, has two atomic combatants and lasts for more than three days, and sees significant widespread destruction beyond that known in OTL.
- An atomic weapon is developed in peacetime, and the power developing uses this impressive and revolutionary advantage in destructive power for diplomatic and political coercion, and/or adopts a ruthless program to ensure its monopoly on the technology. Such programs of coercion may succeed in forcing acquiesence, may be called out as BLUFs, and may or may not be ultimately enforced with atomic fire.
- Two or more powers develop atomic weapons in peacetime and those weapons deter anyone from attacking them, or if secret, the newly atomically armed powers do not up at war soon out of pure dumb luck. Eventually atomic capabilities are revealed, and much like OTL, there is a deterrent against their use, and their use is considered taboo, but without them ever being used in war, or outside a test setting
- An atomic weapon is developed in peacetime and the first atomic power attacks the second atomic power in the critical "window of opportunity" when the second power is about to catch up in terms of matching the first power in terms of weapon production capability, a usable weapon, a reliable delivery system, or a robust arsenal or atomic/nuclear weapons.
- An atomic weapons program is stimulated by a great war and makes great progress but does not reach all the way to completion and combat use before other circumstances end the war. Final development is put on ice. Alternative the device is demonstrated on a test range, but not an dramatic urban or simulated military target designed to terrify. A few years later there is a war or some regional conflict that the atomic armed power gets involved in. The atomic armed power makes an ultimatum it will use the weapon. The opposing side takes the ultimatum as a BLUF. The atomic power uses the weapon and achieves adversary surrender.
- Regardless of the specifics of atomic introduction, mass nuclear exchanges occur after mass nuclear forces are built, perhaps more than one time.
So that's seven ways the nuclear weapons introduction and history of the world could have gone differently than OTL.
If we re-ran the century a hundred times, which of these would be more common than OTL's scenario? Which would be less common?
Like would OTL's scenario happen 5, 10, 20 times. Would Mass nuclear exchange happen 5, 10, or 20 times. One nuclear power domination - how often would that happen? No nukes used ever? how often?
