How long would it take the human race to develop nuclear tech again in this scenario?

50 – 100 years. Or sooner if we get another genius like Einstein again. It only took 100 years to master flying since the wright brothers jaunt at Kitty Hawk. Atomic power would be the same. Faster if the proof of concept is available.

The problem is that the only way to avoid the idea of nuclear weapons is through a lack of understanding nuclear processes. There are just too many avenues leading to the discovery of the energy locked up in matter. Say for example, research advances in search of an explanation for the workings of the sun. It is impossible to arrive at an explanation on how our sun (or any other star) puts out so much energy without arriving at a thermonuclear explanation—and once that explanation arrives —the cat’s out of the bag! It is impossible to imagine any civilization as advanced as our own being ignorant of the feasibility of nuclear weapons.

Any knowledge? It would really depend on how many people were trying, those people’s abilities, and what information, resources and ideas they did or didn’t have.

Who knows? There’s lost tech from the ancient world that we still haven’t figured out how it worked or how they did it.

This is such a strange hypothetical. Work with radio active materials started a long time ago. If you want to get rid of all knowledge nuclear then you’d have to dismiss work by Mdm Curie and lose all of the medical applications as well. I believe even xrays were developed by experiments with radiation. You’d have to erase a good portion of the elemental table. It was Oppenheimer that ushered in the era of the bomb, not Einstein. In fact, Einstein wrote a letter to the President appealing to stop the program. Einstein played no role in the Manhattan Project, having been denied a security clearance in July 1940 due to his pacifist tendencies. After World War II, he worked to control nuclear proliferation. He later regretted signing the letter to Roosevelt, saying in a Newsweek interview that “had I known that the Germans would not succeed in developing an atomic bomb, I would have done nothing.”

You would have to undo the last 100 years of scientific progress because all scientific knowledge is interlinked and inter dependent. If we did that I would guess it would take another 100 years to get back to where we are now.

But imagine a planet with virtually no naturally occurring fissionable elements. Let’s say beings like us inhabit that planet and advance in pace with ourselves. Even though they lack the transuranic elements, their own version of the periodic table would predict their existence and the prediction would be verified in their telescopes when they examined the spectra of other stars.

The spectrum of radiation is everywhere and would be, regardless if there was a lack of fusionable materials in the elements around us. So, yes, @stanleybmanly . I think so as well. Their raw materials might be different, but if they develop electricity and Cathode Ray Tubes, they got x-rays. Wild flying electrons are going to do what wild flying electrons gonna do.

Didn’t Einstein write a letter to FDR that Germany was developing a bomb hence the need for the US to do something?

@mazingerz88 he didn’t write the letter. He signed one in like, 1939 and that is what he was referring to as being regretful of signing. It was written by Leó Szilárd. He never worked on the project, but the letter is said to encourage FDR in the approval of the Manhattan Project. The Americans were concerned that the Germans were further along in their weapons program than what they actually were. Imagine that… false claims made by politicians of weapons of mass destruction. The Germans never successfully developed a bomb.

I think this is the letter. It is ironic that a pacifist like Einstein should have been instrumental in creating the most destructive weapon in history.

There was plenty of lobbying done to get the Manhattan Project going. Who is to say that it wouldn’t have been formed if the letter hadn’t been signed by Einstein. The Project was initiated in 1942, years after this letter was received by FDR. I’m sure FDR relied on other information coming out of Europe, like the heavy water projects and even some of the scientists working on the German side, getting their own information out. So, saying the letter started the project is a bit of an exaggeration and doesn’t even fit the timeline. If you want to give credit where credit is due, it should really go to Enrico Fermi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrico_Fermi

I think Einstein’s letter got Roosevelt interested in the possibility of the atomic bomb. Roosevelt’s reply shows he took the letter very seriously and the board he set up in 1939 went on to become the Office of Scientific Research and Development which funded Fermi and the Manhattan Project.

I think he confirmed that it wasn’t science fiction and that it was, indeed, how uranium worked. But the Manhattan Project wasn’t started until 1942. With Sachs and Fermi at the helm, and Oppenheimer a little later. Still, not proof that none of it happened because of the letter, which Einstein didn’t even write. He was convinced to sign it, basically on behalf of all the concerned scientist, because he was a ‘Celebrity Scientist’ of the time. Sort of like people listen to NDT these days. He expressed regret for doing so, because they didn’t realise the Germans really did not have the technology to build a bomb. I think the whole thing would have happened anyway, because of the intelligence coming out of Germany and all of the other, non-celebrity, concerned scientists. The scientists who actually worked on the project in Chicago, Tennessee, Washington State…. whose names no one ever remembers… because they weren’t celebrities.

Is this like in 2023, after Trump has ordered the burning of all books but The Art of the Deal, and the Bible?

It’s argued that the lead German scientist in Nazi Germany purposely stalled the project in basically what would be considered an act of treason. There is a movie out now about the CIA agent sent to kill the German scientist, but he never completed the plan, because he believed the scientist was a trader to the Nazi regime. The agent happened to be Jewish too. The movie is called The Catcher Was A Spy. He was a baseball player.

Not in the movie mentioned above, but in a mini series about Einstein the same German scientists says it’s quite easy to create the bomb. Again implying he purposely sabotaged his own government by not creating it.

But even lacking the impetus of Hitler or the war, does anyone here believe that we would not have arrived by now at the realization that nuclear weapons are feasible. And with that realization, does anyone believe that the military branches of world governments would ignore the opportunity to possess the most powerful weapons imaginable?

@JLeslie Yes, I believe you are referring to Heisenberg. From everything I’ve read, yes. I believe he did just that, but had to be very careful to not get shot. There is a book called Heisenberg’s War: The Secret History of the German Bomb. I haven’t read this particular book, but it basically says that Heisenberg stalled the plans. Then there were other acts of sabotage as well during the war.

@stanleybmanly that is such a good question. If WW2 hadn’t have happened would we have had the motivation to spend all the money and resources to create such a weapon? Knowing the risks and potential for death and failure and knowing the destruction the bombs contained? I think the contained energy was understood, but… geez. Yeah, good question.

I have no opinion to add, but I am watching this thread, because there is some very interesting sharing going on here.

Maybe we would have come up with using nuclear power simply for the safe generation of creating nuclear power and not enriching uranium. We probably would have gone the thorium route first, and if we had come up with a clean, safe form of power generation, perhaps the world would be a more stable place today. Imagine that. Safe nuclear plants. Cheap electricity. More electric cars, less reliance on oil and coal. Like Frankie said… War… what is it good for? Absolutely nothing.

Without wars, humans would still develop nuclear powered vessels like submarines and reactors to light up mega-cities. As weapons…well, naturally. It could be our only defense against future alien invasions from space….and yeah, those planet-killing meteors. I would name that first meteor busting nuclear missile the “Bruce Willis.” : )

I suppose I should feel uplifted by the general outlook here regarding the view that given the choice, nations of the world might agree to reject the road to nuclear weapons. Personally, I don’t believe there’s a chance in hell that our own country would make such a choice even at the risk of bankruptcy.

^You’re probably right. The US has not signed worldwide agreements on not using chemical weapons, or land mines… We, as a country, don’t practice what we preach…

There are so many variables that it is hard to reach an opinion on this subject. The possibility has to be thought of by someone who is capable and knowledgeable enough, and the need for the development needs to be there.
There was a Twilight Zone episode where an intelligent man went back in time to develop the technologies that would make him rich. But he couldn’t do it because of all of the other inventions that had to come first.

@kritiper Of Late I Think of Cliffordville I believe is the episode .

@RedDeerGuy1 Thanks.