2 ms·

That's not what I meant by a new international order. At the same time everyone was signing treaties and creating UN, it would have been real easy for nearly ev

That's not what I meant by a new international order. At the same time everyone was signing treaties and creating UN, it would have been real easy for nearly every shell-shocked nation to commit not to building nukes, in a way that would make violations really hurt. Like such a nation would immediately suffer 50% tariffs from every other nation. Or they would be fair game for any aggression from neighbors. It wasn't easy to build nuclear weapons in 1946. Only one nation had done it. Sure one can imagine that a nation could decide to take a flyer on nukes and thereby suffer global opprobrium, but most of the nations we'd imagine in that role didn't exist in 1946 in the way that they exist now. That included Israel, which didn't actually exist at all then.

boomboomsubban 6y ago
They don't need a bomb in 1946 though, presumably nuclear power will eventually spread and suddenly it's 1963 and Israel is performing an underground test.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  And? Would the Israel of that world have escaped somehow all the consequences that would have been in place for decades? Having escaped those consequences, would they then have subjected the globe to a rampage of nuclear holocaust? This is a sort of magical thinking: sure it's good to have less nukes, but only up to a point. After that, less nukes actually means more nukes! Good grief. Nuclear power absent the support of militarists in control of public money would be, absent. Only by the most skewed of accounting methods does it even begin to pay for itself. The war pigs have a different lie for every different constituency, and "nukes are green" has somehow been swallowed by a small number of very vocal (on HN anyway) internet environmentalists.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    >Would the Israel of that world have escaped somehow all the consequences that would have been in place for decades They would essentially be UN consequences, they don't have a great track record of enforcing things like that. >Having escaped those consequences, would they then have subjected the globe to a rampage of nuclear holocaust Looking only at nukes, dropping one more on a populated area is worse than reality so far. And it's impossible to guess what kind of warfare a world without MAD would gave faced. >Nuclear power absent the support of militarists in control of public money would be, absent. Only by the most skewed of accounting methods does it even begin to pay for itself. Nuclear power obtained without the focus placed on weapons would be a completely different economy. Not only are design choices often made allowing more bombs to be created, the control of information and resources drives the price up.
    - jessaustin 6y ago
      Definitely, nuclear power has been developed with bomb production in mind. Now, that's what we have. Lots of bombs and a nuclear power industry that costs more than renewables and endangers the public. I'm not happy about either aspect of our situation. No more of that please.

boomboomsubban 6y ago

They don't need a bomb in 1946 though, presumably nuclear power will eventually spread and suddenly it's 1963 and Israel is performing an underground test.

jessaustin 6y ago
And? Would the Israel of that world have escaped somehow all the consequences that would have been in place for decades? Having escaped those consequences, would they then have subjected the globe to a rampage of nuclear holocaust? This is a sort of magical thinking: sure it's good to have less nukes, but only up to a point. After that, less nukes actually means more nukes! Good grief. Nuclear power absent the support of militarists in control of public money would be, absent. Only by the most skewed of accounting methods does it even begin to pay for itself. The war pigs have a different lie for every different constituency, and "nukes are green" has somehow been swallowed by a small number of very vocal (on HN anyway) internet environmentalists.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  >Would the Israel of that world have escaped somehow all the consequences that would have been in place for decades They would essentially be UN consequences, they don't have a great track record of enforcing things like that. >Having escaped those consequences, would they then have subjected the globe to a rampage of nuclear holocaust Looking only at nukes, dropping one more on a populated area is worse than reality so far. And it's impossible to guess what kind of warfare a world without MAD would gave faced. >Nuclear power absent the support of militarists in control of public money would be, absent. Only by the most skewed of accounting methods does it even begin to pay for itself. Nuclear power obtained without the focus placed on weapons would be a completely different economy. Not only are design choices often made allowing more bombs to be created, the control of information and resources drives the price up.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    Definitely, nuclear power has been developed with bomb production in mind. Now, that's what we have. Lots of bombs and a nuclear power industry that costs more than renewables and endangers the public. I'm not happy about either aspect of our situation. No more of that please.