Could the human race have prevented the development of nuclear weapons if those working on the various projects collectively decided to falsify/lie about the data from tests. Would we have dropped the idea if initial tests told the military it wouldn’t work and they were none the wiser the scientists lied.

Cymek said:

Could the human race have prevented the development of nuclear weapons if those working on the various projects collectively decided to falsify/lie about the data from tests. Would we have dropped the idea if initial tests told the military it wouldn’t work and they were none the wiser the scientists lied.

Science doesn’t work that way.

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

Could the human race have prevented the development of nuclear weapons if those working on the various projects collectively decided to falsify/lie about the data from tests. Would we have dropped the idea if initial tests told the military it wouldn’t work and they were none the wiser the scientists lied.

Science doesn’t work that way.

No but what if you lied about the data and the results told the military it wouldn’t work, would they have given up.
I’d think no but in the early days it would have been a lot of effort and if it fizzled out maybe resources would have been used elsewhere

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

Could the human race have prevented the development of nuclear weapons if those working on the various projects collectively decided to falsify/lie about the data from tests. Would we have dropped the idea if initial tests told the military it wouldn’t work and they were none the wiser the scientists lied.

Science doesn’t work that way.

No but what if you lied about the data and the results told the military it wouldn’t work, would they have given up.
I’d think no but in the early days it would have been a lot of effort and if it fizzled out maybe resources would have been used elsewhere

What if your enemies scientists won’t lie to their superiors?

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

Could the human race have prevented the development of nuclear weapons if those working on the various projects collectively decided to falsify/lie about the data from tests. Would we have dropped the idea if initial tests told the military it wouldn’t work and they were none the wiser the scientists lied.

Science doesn’t work that way.

There’s a rumour that this actually happened.

One specific number is wrong in Heisenderg’s calculations, for the neutron absorption by water. And that killed off the German effort to produce a nuclear bomb.

Was the wrong number deliberate or accidental? We’ll never know for sure.

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

Could the human race have prevented the development of nuclear weapons if those working on the various projects collectively decided to falsify/lie about the data from tests. Would we have dropped the idea if initial tests told the military it wouldn’t work and they were none the wiser the scientists lied.

Science doesn’t work that way.

No but what if you lied about the data and the results told the military it wouldn’t work, would they have given up.
I’d think no but in the early days it would have been a lot of effort and if it fizzled out maybe resources would have been used elsewhere

I accept the hypothetical proposition but don’t believe it in the real world.
There was a lot of preliminary maths published & the Nazis for one would have exploited it.

mollwollfumble said:

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

Could the human race have prevented the development of nuclear weapons if those working on the various projects collectively decided to falsify/lie about the data from tests. Would we have dropped the idea if initial tests told the military it wouldn’t work and they were none the wiser the scientists lied.

Science doesn’t work that way.

There’s a rumour that this actually happened.

One specific number is wrong in Heisenderg’s calculations, for the neutron absorption by water. And that killed off the German effort to produce a nuclear bomb.

Was the wrong number deliberate or accidental? We’ll never know for sure.

There is a second case where this happened, too. This time in the USA.

The first article on the atomic bomb in the Magazine “Scientific American” is titled “Don’t worry, it can’t happen.” It’s an excellent introduction to the atomic bomb, going into much more detail than just the chain reaction. It explains in detail why an atomic bomb can’t be made.

For those of you who are interested, it can’t be made because the fission cross section of all candidate isotopes decreases rapidly with neutron energy.

Is it a deliberate lie by the scientists? Given the timing, i think it is a deliberate lie. Released in order to stop development of atomic bombs. It’s not a lie by falsification but a lie by omission.

Collective action between adversaries is unlikely.

dv said:

Collective action between adversaries is unlikely.

No it was a hypothetical, just wondering if you falsified data and experiments and a number of tests failed, the people who built it would know its been done but would the less smart military be aware

Cymek said:

dv said:

Collective action between adversaries is unlikely.

No it was a hypothetical, just wondering if you falsified data and experiments and a number of tests failed, the people who built it would know its been done but would the less smart military be aware

Obviously the chances that you could get everyone involved to agree would be slim, and even if you could, in a few years’ time another country would just successfully develop the weapons any way, so a) you’d be in disgrace as a scientist and b) you’re now part of the expanded Soviet Union.

dv said:

Cymek said:

dv said:

Collective action between adversaries is unlikely.

No it was a hypothetical, just wondering if you falsified data and experiments and a number of tests failed, the people who built it would know its been done but would the less smart military be aware

Obviously the chances that you could get everyone involved to agree would be slim, and even if you could, in a few years’ time another country would just successfully develop the weapons any way, so a) you’d be in disgrace as a scientist and b) you’re now part of the expanded Soviet Union.

In the USSR 10 minutes in the Lubyanka with the KGB & your “error” would be corrected.

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

Tamb said:

Science doesn’t work that way.

There’s a rumour that this actually happened.

One specific number is wrong in Heisenderg’s calculations, for the neutron absorption by water. And that killed off the German effort to produce a nuclear bomb.

Was the wrong number deliberate or accidental? We’ll never know for sure.

There is a second case where this happened, too. This time in the USA.

The first article on the atomic bomb in the Magazine “Scientific American” is titled “Don’t worry, it can’t happen.” It’s an excellent introduction to the atomic bomb, going into much more detail than just the chain reaction. It explains in detail why an atomic bomb can’t be made.

For those of you who are interested, it can’t be made because the fission cross section of all candidate isotopes decreases rapidly with neutron energy.

Is it a deliberate lie by the scientists? Given the timing, i think it is a deliberate lie. Released in order to stop development of atomic bombs. It’s not a lie by falsification but a lie by omission.

You’re not listening to me.

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

There’s a rumour that this actually happened.

One specific number is wrong in Heisenderg’s calculations, for the neutron absorption by water. And that killed off the German effort to produce a nuclear bomb.

Was the wrong number deliberate or accidental? We’ll never know for sure.

There is a second case where this happened, too. This time in the USA.

The first article on the atomic bomb in the Magazine “Scientific American” is titled “Don’t worry, it can’t happen.” It’s an excellent introduction to the atomic bomb, going into much more detail than just the chain reaction. It explains in detail why an atomic bomb can’t be made.

For those of you who are interested, it can’t be made because the fission cross section of all candidate isotopes decreases rapidly with neutron energy.

Is it a deliberate lie by the scientists? Given the timing, i think it is a deliberate lie. Released in order to stop development of atomic bombs. It’s not a lie by falsification but a lie by omission.

You’re not listening to me.

So it seems like some people tried as they realised the obvious potential for destruction.
Can’t put the genie back

AFAI recall, the soviets knew so something was up when atomic research stopped.

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

There is a second case where this happened, too. This time in the USA.

The first article on the atomic bomb in the Magazine “Scientific American” is titled “Don’t worry, it can’t happen.” It’s an excellent introduction to the atomic bomb, going into much more detail than just the chain reaction. It explains in detail why an atomic bomb can’t be made.

For those of you who are interested, it can’t be made because the fission cross section of all candidate isotopes decreases rapidly with neutron energy.

Is it a deliberate lie by the scientists? Given the timing, i think it is a deliberate lie. Released in order to stop development of atomic bombs. It’s not a lie by falsification but a lie by omission.

You’re not listening to me.

So it seems like some people tried as they realised the obvious potential for destruction.
Can’t put the genie back

I used to think that. But consider.

Suppose you open a can of worms. You can’t put the worms back, but sooner or later they all die.

Nuclear weapons degrade, rather rapidly. Technology can be lost. More than technology, though, finance can be lost.

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

You’re not listening to me.

So it seems like some people tried as they realised the obvious potential for destruction.
Can’t put the genie back

I used to think that. But consider.

Suppose you open a can of worms. You can’t put the worms back, but sooner or later they all die.

Nuclear weapons degrade, rather rapidly. Technology can be lost. More than technology, though, finance can be lost.

Yes I’ve read about that they are expensive to build and maintain and have them on alert all the time (do they still do that)
I have wondered also if they prevented WWIII as if we didn’t have them a conventional war would most likely have happened by now, they prevent full scale wars as the belligerents might use them.

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

So it seems like some people tried as they realised the obvious potential for destruction.
Can’t put the genie back

I used to think that. But consider.

Suppose you open a can of worms. You can’t put the worms back, but sooner or later they all die.

Nuclear weapons degrade, rather rapidly. Technology can be lost. More than technology, though, finance can be lost.

Yes I’ve read about that they are expensive to build and maintain and have them on alert all the time (do they still do that)
I have wondered also if they prevented WWIII as if we didn’t have them a conventional war would most likely have happened by now, they prevent full scale wars as the belligerents might use them.

The strategy of MAD.

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

I used to think that. But consider.

Suppose you open a can of worms. You can’t put the worms back, but sooner or later they all die.

Nuclear weapons degrade, rather rapidly. Technology can be lost. More than technology, though, finance can be lost.

Yes I’ve read about that they are expensive to build and maintain and have them on alert all the time (do they still do that)
I have wondered also if they prevented WWIII as if we didn’t have them a conventional war would most likely have happened by now, they prevent full scale wars as the belligerents might use them.

The strategy of MAD.

Yes it kind of works

Cymek said:

Tamb said:

Cymek said:

Yes I’ve read about that they are expensive to build and maintain and have them on alert all the time (do they still do that)
I have wondered also if they prevented WWIII as if we didn’t have them a conventional war would most likely have happened by now, they prevent full scale wars as the belligerents might use them.

The strategy of MAD.

Yes it kind of works

Maybe, but MAD isn’t the only nuclear doctrine that exists. NUTS – Nuclear Utilization Target Selection

“Nuclear utilization target selection (NUTS) is a hypothesis regarding the use of nuclear weapons often contrasted with mutually assured destruction (MAD). NUTS theory at its most basic level asserts that it is possible for a limited nuclear exchange to occur and that nuclear weapons are simply one more rung on the ladder of escalation pioneered by Herman Kahn. This leads to a number of other conclusions regarding the potential uses of and responses to nuclear weapons….

“In criticising US policy on nuclear weapons as contradictory, Slavoj Zizek has suggest that NUTS is the policy of the US with respect to Iran and North Korea while its policy with respect to Russia and China is one of mutual assured destruction (MAD).”

Cymek said:

mollwollfumble said:

Cymek said:

So it seems like some people tried as they realised the obvious potential for destruction.
Can’t put the genie back

I used to think that. But consider.

Suppose you open a can of worms. You can’t put the worms back, but sooner or later they all die.

Nuclear weapons degrade, rather rapidly. Technology can be lost. More than technology, though, finance can be lost.

Yes I’ve read about that they are expensive to build and maintain and have them on alert all the time (do they still do that)

I have wondered also if they prevented WWIII as if we didn’t have them a conventional war would most likely have happened by now, they prevent full scale wars as the belligerents might use them.

Do they still do that? Excellent question. Question also applies to Pakistan, India and China as welp as USA amd Russia.

They’ve stopped flying nuclear bombers overvthe North Pole. That i do know.

This is a photo of the US nuclear football. This is how close we came to WW III.

The US still has nuclear missiles on alert all the time. Independent confirmation of this came on 8 Nov 2017 when chinese security tried to take the nuclear football away from the visiting Trump.

Cheget is the Russian counterpart. Was photographed in 2012.

France and Pakistan also have nuclear missiles on immediate alert. In the case of Pakistan, footage was released April 2019.