I have often thought about this. You had many Nobel winners focused on something they would never otherwise have dreamed of doing. On the other hand, thinking of Feymann’s role, for example, the Monte Carlo simulations they ran (invented?) to figure out how to focus the primer explosion would probably be trivial today. This would be an excellent retirement project.
To add to sheer statistical unlikelihood of the Manhattan project getting off the ground, you have the baffling entry of its Secret Weapons Project lead, J. Robert Oppenheimer. I'm current listening to Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers" (excellent so far). In a recent chapter he covered the unorthodox and seemingly self-destructive character of Oppenheimer. This man, whom we now all associate with the creation of the atomic bomb, suffered some form of mental break and tried to poison his physics professor in grad school at Cambridge. While he was there, he wanted only to focus on theoretical physics, but this same professor (his post-graduate mentor) pushed him to study more practical physics. Somehow, through charisma and societal standing, he only received minor punishment. He later had to impress Brig Gen. Groves (Manhattan Project Dir.) by having a practical first principles approach to the intersection of scientific disciplines. When interviewed for a spot on the "Secret Weapons Project team" he proposed that to create such a bomb a multi-disciplinary team of experts would need to collaborate in areas such as kinetic physics, metallurgy, material chemistry, engineering and so on. This was crucial in convincing the project director of being hired on. Gladwell quotes the book "American Prometheus" which covers Oppenheimer's life and work, which I have added to my reading list as well.
We'd still be facing off a numerically large force that terrifies most Germans and Polish to this day. Nuclear weapons or not, nobody wants to open that can annihilation. Besides the weaponry has substantially increased the effective destruction capability without nuclear weapons. If you only read the popular press then practically Russia has lost all of its men and what's left is riding into battle in defenceless tin cans as Ukraine is defended by everybody who believes in democracy. On the ground the Russians are concentrating on taking out the military infrastructure in a very methodical manner. This is not a case where nuclear weapons are the main issue. Probably, if truth be told, its the revenues of the pipelines stretching across Ukraine and the rather fratricidal struggle over who controls them that has been the genesis of numerous ongoing misfortunes.
Wouldn’t the potential energy applications of nuclear fission eventually push more investment? The technology doesn’t have only one use. It might have taken longer but someone would have done it. And once you have the energy side, weaponization is inevitable. Probably what we’ll see with fusion, energy first, weapon second.
That's a really interesting question. But a similar problem -- the first step is ultra-expensive with no guarantee of success -- would still pertain. (On the last point, the H-bomb is fusion.)
Not a nuclear physicist, but I think the H bomb is fission. The breaking of nuclei, as I understand it. Fusion, the energy potentially generated from the combination of atoms, ie the sun, remains elusive. But we are collectively working on it, which I think we would have done with fission even if there had been no military application.
I would love to read a well researched alternative-history novelization of the latter half of the 20th century if nuclear weapons were never created. I’m not smart enough to think through the massive implications but it’s a fascinating question.
I have often thought about this. You had many Nobel winners focused on something they would never otherwise have dreamed of doing. On the other hand, thinking of Feymann’s role, for example, the Monte Carlo simulations they ran (invented?) to figure out how to focus the primer explosion would probably be trivial today. This would be an excellent retirement project.
To add to sheer statistical unlikelihood of the Manhattan project getting off the ground, you have the baffling entry of its Secret Weapons Project lead, J. Robert Oppenheimer. I'm current listening to Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers" (excellent so far). In a recent chapter he covered the unorthodox and seemingly self-destructive character of Oppenheimer. This man, whom we now all associate with the creation of the atomic bomb, suffered some form of mental break and tried to poison his physics professor in grad school at Cambridge. While he was there, he wanted only to focus on theoretical physics, but this same professor (his post-graduate mentor) pushed him to study more practical physics. Somehow, through charisma and societal standing, he only received minor punishment. He later had to impress Brig Gen. Groves (Manhattan Project Dir.) by having a practical first principles approach to the intersection of scientific disciplines. When interviewed for a spot on the "Secret Weapons Project team" he proposed that to create such a bomb a multi-disciplinary team of experts would need to collaborate in areas such as kinetic physics, metallurgy, material chemistry, engineering and so on. This was crucial in convincing the project director of being hired on. Gladwell quotes the book "American Prometheus" which covers Oppenheimer's life and work, which I have added to my reading list as well.
We'd still be facing off a numerically large force that terrifies most Germans and Polish to this day. Nuclear weapons or not, nobody wants to open that can annihilation. Besides the weaponry has substantially increased the effective destruction capability without nuclear weapons. If you only read the popular press then practically Russia has lost all of its men and what's left is riding into battle in defenceless tin cans as Ukraine is defended by everybody who believes in democracy. On the ground the Russians are concentrating on taking out the military infrastructure in a very methodical manner. This is not a case where nuclear weapons are the main issue. Probably, if truth be told, its the revenues of the pipelines stretching across Ukraine and the rather fratricidal struggle over who controls them that has been the genesis of numerous ongoing misfortunes.
Wouldn’t the potential energy applications of nuclear fission eventually push more investment? The technology doesn’t have only one use. It might have taken longer but someone would have done it. And once you have the energy side, weaponization is inevitable. Probably what we’ll see with fusion, energy first, weapon second.
That's a really interesting question. But a similar problem -- the first step is ultra-expensive with no guarantee of success -- would still pertain. (On the last point, the H-bomb is fusion.)
Not a nuclear physicist, but I think the H bomb is fission. The breaking of nuclei, as I understand it. Fusion, the energy potentially generated from the combination of atoms, ie the sun, remains elusive. But we are collectively working on it, which I think we would have done with fission even if there had been no military application.
I would love to read a well researched alternative-history novelization of the latter half of the 20th century if nuclear weapons were never created. I’m not smart enough to think through the massive implications but it’s a fascinating question.