11:50: Three Mile Island didn't actually melt down. It was a close call, but it didn't. Chernobyl and Fukishima are still two of the biggest individual industrial disasters of modern history, though, even if the long-term effects of their radiation on the environment are usually overstated. (E.g, wildlife is thriving around Chernobyl, meaning that the radiation levels are doing less harm to local animals than the things people do in the surrounding areas.)
I'd just like to take a second to point out that India and Pakistan, two of the most mutually hostile countries in the world, haven't fought in large scale conflict (compared to 47, 65, and 71) with one another since India got their own Nuke.
It may seem more notable to me because I am French, but the United Kingdom and France have certainly maintained a significant part of their influence through the possession of the bomb. We each have a seat on the security council, but as the video says, it would have taken a larger army to feel safe from the Soviet Union. The only ways I see to do that are: to rely more on the American army or to unite in a more important union such as a European federation. (for example, the French extreme right was pro-European before 1991).
In such a scenario. I wouldn't be surprised if there was were multiple pan-European command structures organized between NATO, the European Community and individual countries. Or even joint Bio and Chemical weapon programs. This reddit post i.redd.it/3rx3i2wtz4821.png has some good outlines on how they may play out. For the western European ones. Even if it's for the present day. Personally I think their would be more French-West German cooperation. But I digress.
During World War II, while the Manhattan Project was going on, there was a project to train a team of bats to drop flaming prices of paper over Tokyo and other Japanese cities. They tested them with models, it worked wonderfully, they were all prepped and ready to go. Then the bombs were invented, and it was decided they’d make a bigger impact. In a nukeless world, it is possible the bats would get their chance to serve in the war.
Ready to go? I heard there were problems with controlling them since, you know, they were bats. Once some of them escaped containment and accidentally burned part of an American town.
So what about other weapons of mass destruction. And an exchange of Biological and Chemical weapons between the USSR and US would still be plausible deterrent against a conventional third world war. Not to mention them being used conventionally at a tactical level and what is preventing them from developing orbital kentic strike weapons for a simliar effect to nuclear weapons. Especially if both have stronger space programs as you implied in the video?
I don't think I implied the space program would be stronger. My argument was that assumption that space programs would be weaker or non-existent without nuclear weapons was implausible. I was simply trying to argue the Space Race would still happen. With that said, I did originally set off to answer that question in the video, but in the end I dropped that section due to the amount of research it needed and the script was already on the long side. Honestly, I don't know the answer to that question and I will leave that to the people in the comments to discuss. Personally I lean toward the idea that preexisting agreements to not use those weapons would stay in place and thus they wouldn't necessary kick off an arms race, even if both superpowers continue to research and stockpile such weapons just in case.
A nuclear weapon is an explosive device that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions, either fission (fission bomb) or from a combination of fission and fusion reactions (thermonuclear bomb). Both bomb types release large quantities of energy from relatively small amounts of matter. The first test of a fission ("atomic") bomb released an amount of energy approximately equal to 20,000 tons of TNT (84 TJ). The first thermonuclear ("hydrogen") bomb test released energy approximately equal to 10 million tons of TNT (42 PJ). A thermonuclear weapon weighing little more than 2,400 pounds (1,100 kg) can release energy equal to more than 1.2 million tons of TNT (5.0 PJ). A nuclear device no larger than traditional bombs can devastate an entire city by blast, fire, and radiation. Since they are weapons of mass destruction, the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a focus of international relations policy. Nuclear weapons have been used twice in war, both times by the United States against Japan near the end of World War II. On August 6, 1945, the U.S. Army Air Forces detonated a uranium gun-type fission bomb nicknamed "Little Boy" over the Japanese city of Hiroshima; three days later, on August 9, the U.S. Army Air Forces detonated a plutonium implosion-type fission bomb nicknamed "Fat Man" over the Japanese city of Nagasaki. These bombings caused injuries that resulted in the deaths of approximately 200,000 civilians and military personnel. The ethics of these bombings and their role in Japan's surrender are subjects of debate. Since the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weapons have been detonated over two thousand times for testing and demonstration. Only a few nations possess such weapons or are suspected of seeking them. The only countries known to have detonated nuclear weapons-and acknowledge possessing them-are (chronologically by date of first test) the United States, the Soviet Union (succeeded as a nuclear power by Russia), the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Israel is believed to possess nuclear weapons, though, in a policy of deliberate ambiguity, it does not acknowledge having them. Germany, Italy, Turkey, Belgium and the Netherlands are nuclear weapons sharing states. South Africa is the only country to have independently developed and then renounced and dismantled its nuclear weapons. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons aims to reduce the spread of nuclear weapons, but its effectiveness has been questioned, and political tensions remained high in the 1970s and 1980s. Modernisation of weapons continues to this day.
Could you try to do a video on a Dutch congo? It's a cliché I keep seeing but it makes no sense, since the Congo was in belgian hands almost entirely due to Leopold II.
2:50 I would say under a 20 thousand on the American side since Russia is closer and would be much more brutal because they lost the war to Japan and they have something to prove Joseph Stalin doesn't mind using his troops as bullet fodder
I disagree with your analysis of impact on Space exploration. It would be impacted very much, since the ENTIRE early rationale for developing large multi-stage rockets was intrinsically tied to nukes. The Soviet R7 missile was large and heavy because the Soviet thermonuclear weapons of the era were large and heavy; this made it possible to convert it into a carrier rocket for large satellites and later even manned spaceships. The US fell behind the Soviets because their nukes were more advanced and miniaturised and so the Americans didn't need large rockets (also the US had a large bomber fleet). Large inter-continental ballistic missiles are useless without nukes as they can't accurately hit anything (well, perhaps today they could but that's 1990s/2000s technology, which relies on satellite navigation, which is by itself a by-product of the space age that was kicked off with the early nuclear-tipped ICBMs). None of this would happen without nukes. At most, USA, USSR and perhaps others would have small sounding (suborbital) rockets in the 1950s and 1960s. Later, perhaps, someone would recognize the value of satellites and perhaps the guy would have enough political clout to convince governments to spend billions to develop larger multi-stage carrier rockets, but that's very much in doubt. Oh, BTW, the radioisotope thermal generators that power probes to the outer solar system would not exist either (the material powering them is produced in nuclear reactors), hence even if we got to space at all, we'd be very much limited to the inner solar system and our knowledge of Jupiter and the other gas giants and their moons would be very limited. This of course depends on how long the notion that "atoms can't be split" would have dominated scientific discourse. If forever, it's dead end for the entire civilisation.
Converted ICBMs weren't necessarily needed to kick off the space race. The first American satellite and astronaut were launched from the Redstone rocket family. It was built upon the Redstone missile, which was a short-range missile and used in one of the stages, something that still would have been pursued without nuclear warheads. The U.S. was preparing to launch stuff into space before the R7 launched Sputnik (things accelerated after they did). So maybe a few years off, but even without starting with ICBMs technology would progress where satellites and people would be sent into space, and the space race would still happen.
As for the entertainment stuff, superheroes without a world of radiation would be alot more mythology based. So we wouldnt have Hulk or Spiderman so we'd have alot more Thor, Hercules, & mythology based heroes.
15:24 that’s exactly right. Operation Downfall (1945 - 1947) November 1st, 1945 - January 28th, 1947 Then WW3…. World War III depends how it occurs it would Most likely look like this in two ways. (1955 - 1967) or (1961 - 1967) If it were bloodier then… World War III (1955 - 1967) November 15th, 1955 - December 22nd, 1967 But if it’s just bloody then just this. World War III (1961 - 1967) October 28th, 1961 - December 22nd, 1967 It can go either way.
I'm surprised that your list of nuclear-themed popular culture didn't include _A Canticle For Leibowitz_ given that it was visible behind you throughout the video. :)
Good video man. I like how you laid out how not having nukes doesn't mean an invasion of Japan and WW3 are inevitable. Better hope Whatifalthist doesn't see this because it undermines his entire sourceless video on the topic. But I disagree with the idea that no nuclear power wouldn't affect the climate. Nuclear plants at sea and on land kept countless amounts of greenhouse gases from burning oil and coal out of the atmosphere. The latest studies say if we don't reduce emissions by the 2030s the environmental effects would be catastrophic. All those emissions since the 50s being released might accelerate that. Then again without nuclear power there might be more focus on renewables after the 1970s oil crises so it could even out. However the nuclear disasters are outliers (Chernobyl was badly built). They're generally safer and regular oil plants have accidents and deaths more regularly. Also, what "conventional ICBMs" are there? There are conventional short and medium range missiles, but no intercontinental ones.
The USA was never isolationist! We took Native American lands and later intervene in Latin America, also America aided French and English global colonialism!
