3 ms·

I was just thinking about what the alternatives to nuclear would have been, had it not been created. (Purely hypothetical, as I know it would require a vastly d

I was just thinking about what the alternatives to nuclear would have been, had it not been created. (Purely hypothetical, as I know it would require a vastly different timeline of scientific discovery to avoid nuclear entirely.) Would we still have an equivalent war deterrent today without nuclear? What would it look like? My guess is something biological. My tongue-in-cheek guess would be something zoological (laser sharks anyone? pigeon pirahna hybrids?)

runjake 3y ago
My guess is biological, too. And in the short-term future, I think synthetic biology will represent an even greater threat than nuclear. Why? Lethality, ease of manufacture once figured out, mishandling of process or materials, lack of regulation, ethnic/DNA targeting, etc.
- qup 3y ago
  Hard to pinpoint origin in the case of bad actors...
  - wongarsu 3y ago
    The only reason nuclear weapons are easy to pinpoint is because so few actors are capable of making them. If you had one you could load it onto a semi truck, drive into the middle of New York or Moscow and detonate it, with all evidence conveniently destroyed in the blast.
    - runjake 3y ago
      Keep in mind that there are nuclear detection sensors deployed throughout the US and if you tried to roll a nuke-containing semi into New York, there would be a heavily-armed team trying to intercept you[1]. Supposedly[2], they are sensitive enough that it's untenable to transport enough lead around to shield it. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Nuclear_Security_Administration#Nonproliferation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Nuclear_Security_Admi... 2. I have no inside info.
- dylan604 3y ago
  Biological has the advantage of not destroying the infrastructure of the place you are attacking nor making it inhabitable for thousands of years. So if you're wanting to take over the land after you remove the pesky opponents currently occupying it, nuclear is a really bad choice. Biological and chemical can be cleaned up and or inoculated against depending on method used.
  - runjake 3y ago
    From what I remember, the US's nuclear weapons make a place uninhabitable in terms of weeks, not years. But, point still noted.
jandrewrogers 3y ago
A strategic deterrent needs to be targetable and scalable. Biological and chemical weapons don't have this property. Before nuclear, strategic deterrence meant maintaining a massive standing army and navy. This was very expensive and also difficult to scale due to the logistical footprint, so most countries could not maintain it very long. There is also the issue that the economic cost of strategic deterrence is relatively much higher for smaller countries. What changed with nuclear is that you could maintain a credible and scalable strategic deterrent indefinitely at a tiny cost compared to maintaining conventional forces at an equivalent level of deterrence effect.
- wongarsu 3y ago
  Scalability is a bit of an issue, but a biological weapon like weaponized anthrax or chemical weapon like a powder that converts to 4highly effective nerve gas could conceivably delivered by methods similar to the nuclear triad. Strategic bombers could airdrop them over population centers, and with enough engineering we could probably make ballistic missiles with payloads that disperse such agents in an air burst, using a small amount of explosives to scatter it over an area the size of Manhattan
  - lupusreal 3y ago
    WW2 showed that strategic deterrence with chemical and biological weapons doesn't work. Both sides feared gas particularly and therefore didn't use war gas on each other (civilians is another matter.) Germany had very potent nerve gasses and had reason to believe the allies did as well, and didn't dare use them. But the threat of these gasses wasn't strong enough to deter the rest of the war.

runjake 3y ago

My guess is biological, too. And in the short-term future, I think synthetic biology will represent an even greater threat than nuclear. Why? Lethality, ease of manufacture once figured out, mishandling of process or materials, lack of regulation, ethnic/DNA targeting, etc.

qup 3y ago
Hard to pinpoint origin in the case of bad actors...
- wongarsu 3y ago
  The only reason nuclear weapons are easy to pinpoint is because so few actors are capable of making them. If you had one you could load it onto a semi truck, drive into the middle of New York or Moscow and detonate it, with all evidence conveniently destroyed in the blast.
  - runjake 3y ago
    Keep in mind that there are nuclear detection sensors deployed throughout the US and if you tried to roll a nuke-containing semi into New York, there would be a heavily-armed team trying to intercept you[1]. Supposedly[2], they are sensitive enough that it's untenable to transport enough lead around to shield it. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Nuclear_Security_Administration#Nonproliferation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Nuclear_Security_Admi... 2. I have no inside info.
dylan604 3y ago
Biological has the advantage of not destroying the infrastructure of the place you are attacking nor making it inhabitable for thousands of years. So if you're wanting to take over the land after you remove the pesky opponents currently occupying it, nuclear is a really bad choice. Biological and chemical can be cleaned up and or inoculated against depending on method used.
- runjake 3y ago
  From what I remember, the US's nuclear weapons make a place uninhabitable in terms of weeks, not years. But, point still noted.

jandrewrogers 3y ago

A strategic deterrent needs to be targetable and scalable. Biological and chemical weapons don't have this property. Before nuclear, strategic deterrence meant maintaining a massive standing army and navy. This was very expensive and also difficult to scale due to the logistical footprint, so most countries could not maintain it very long. There is also the issue that the economic cost of strategic deterrence is relatively much higher for smaller countries. What changed with nuclear is that you could maintain a credible and scalable strategic deterrent indefinitely at a tiny cost compared to maintaining conventional forces at an equivalent level of deterrence effect.

wongarsu 3y ago
Scalability is a bit of an issue, but a biological weapon like weaponized anthrax or chemical weapon like a powder that converts to 4highly effective nerve gas could conceivably delivered by methods similar to the nuclear triad. Strategic bombers could airdrop them over population centers, and with enough engineering we could probably make ballistic missiles with payloads that disperse such agents in an air burst, using a small amount of explosives to scatter it over an area the size of Manhattan
- lupusreal 3y ago
  WW2 showed that strategic deterrence with chemical and biological weapons doesn't work. Both sides feared gas particularly and therefore didn't use war gas on each other (civilians is another matter.) Germany had very potent nerve gasses and had reason to believe the allies did as well, and didn't dare use them. But the threat of these gasses wasn't strong enough to deter the rest of the war.