Capto Iugulum Background Thread

[EQandcivfanatic]

@spryllino: If, hypothetically, Capto Iugulum were to become a world without nuclear weapons, I would not go so far as to changing the laws of physics. I would just say that perhaps the inspiration for splitting atoms may not be found among the scientific community. Or perhaps if it is, the scientist(s) involved decide that such power does not belong in the hands of man, and thus keep quiet. Perhaps this isn't a plausible scenario, though personally I'd like to think it was. Other than that, I'm not going to say when/if nuclear weapons or even the concept of nuclear weapons will appear in CI at all. Just the following two statements, which you all can take as you'd like, though personally I'm just making them to fuel paranoia:

1. A world without nuclear weapons in the latter half of the 20th century would certainly be a less static one than OTL. Probably bigger and bloodier wars, and if anything, there'd probably be a variation of WMD that's not a nuclear device.

2. If nuclear weapons could appear in CI, there's always the chance that someone already is working on them.

Not actually where I was going. I was interested in fact on the philosophical impact of the Uncertainty Principle, the ideas of wavefunction collapse and say also the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. They had rather powerful impacts on art, literature and self-identification with the universe in our timeline, so I suppose the weight of my question is how much does the public care about these ideas (particularly writers)?

Y'know, I'm a big enough man to actually say that I've not thought about the cultural ramification of such science. I'd wager that as of 1932, it's not really omnipresent in society, if such concepts have been theorized. I'm sure, as in OTL, science fiction writers would be intrigued, but for the purposes of the masses, I doubt anyone could say anything about what's ongoing or relevant in the scientific world.

 

[qoou]

You keep bringing this up. What are you basing that on? In RL, Columbia is 22nd in overall oil production with just over 1 million barrels produced per day, or roughly 0.97% of the global share of production. And that's as of today, using modern methods of refinement and offshore drilling. How can a nation as small as Columbia with such (comparably) limited oil deposits be the world leader in exports? I believe such a claim falls into the "bovine excrement" category

1. Venezuela was the world's largest oil exporter by a fairly comfortable margin until the 1970s OTL.
2. Pipelines carry most of both Venezuela's and Colombia's oil to the Panama Canal.
3. I purchase and resell Venezuela's oil for a token profit.
4. I am technically the world's largest crude oil exporter, Milo Minderbinder style.
(5. Lend me 500 EP at 9% compounded annual interested?)

 

[TheLastJacobite]

1. Venezuela was the world's largest oil exporter by a fairly comfortable margin until the 1970s OTL.
2. Pipelines carry most of both Venezuela's and Colombia's oil to the Panama Canal.
3. I purchase and resell Venezuela's oil for a token profit.
4. I am technically the world's largest crude oil exporter, Milo Minderbinder style.
(5. Lend me 500 EP at 9% compounded annual interested?)

1. You're not Venezuela

2. And?

3. By definition, you can't export a product that isn't produced in your country. Venezuela is exporting their oil to you, you are then reselling it. Therefore, it would count towards your overall oil sales, but not your production or the total amount you export.

4. As I haven't read Catch-22, I don't fully grasp the reference.

5. This goes to all random nations asking Russia for money, designs and/or weapons: You're going to have to give me a damn good reason to give you anything, especially over half of my yearly EP. A high interest rate is not a good enough reason. And to the American nations in particular, remember that IC-wise, your nations almost all have had either a strained or non-existent diplomatic relationship with Russia, which further decreases the likeliness of such a deal being approved. So stop asking unless you plan on bringing something really good to the table.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Well, qoou asked me for a loan literally 15 minutes after blasting Vinland diplomatically and quitting PADA, so he can usually be relied upon to ask for money in inappropriate scenarios.

 

[Luckymoose]

He is trying to say that by connecting the largest oil fields in the world at the moment to his pipeline network, which just happened, he is effectively controlling the flow of the majority of the world's oil through the Panama Canal refineries.

Brazil with a potential of >2,280,000 GWh/year is epic. :3

Russia and Brazil uber alles.

 

[Jehoshua]

On the prospect of nuclear weapons. Research into nuclear weapons only really proceeded apace with world war two, which as I hope everyone knows was a general world conflict. This also occured in a paradigm of the fascist threat and the omnipresent soviet menace. The historical moment as such served to push the development of nukes into reality.

If Capto Iugulum lacks for such a moment, then perhaps the impetus for the state to sponsor the development of nuclear weapons would be absent, and the possibility that such devices remain purely theoretical (out of lack of apparent necessity to actually commit to building such monstrous weapons) increases. At the very least in the absence of universal world war one can expect the advent of nukes to be delayed by 20 or so years from when they appeared IRL, since the drive for that technology would be much smaller.

 

[Crezth]

It is virtually impossible to have a world where scientists discover the relationship between energy and mass and not a single government would invest in the creation of nuclear weapons. That's all I'll say about that.

 

[spryllino]

It is virtually impossible to have a world where scientists discover the relationship between energy and mass and not a single government would invest in the creation of nuclear weapons. That's all I'll say about that.

This. What you are hypothesising, EQ, is bloody silly.

 

[Luckymoose]

This. It's bloody silly.

Unless you specifically say no. Which, you know, is possible. EQ runs the universe, thus he can say whatever he wants and we go with it.

 

[spryllino]

Unless you specifically say no. Which, you know, is possible. EQ runs the universe, thus he can say whatever he wants and we go with it.

This is absolutely no refutation whatsoever of what I have said. Of course EQ can do what he likes, as you said; and what he likes may be bloody silly, as I said. I myself judge that it makes a better game if EQ does maintain verisimilitude.

 

[ChiefDesigner]

It is virtually impossible to have a world where scientists discover the relationship between energy and mass and not a single government would invest in the creation of nuclear weapons. That's all I'll say about that.

Any universe with electricity will eventually stumble into Jewish physics. Even an inquisition that kills all the physicists can only hold back technological progress so long.

 

[Symphony D.]

@spryllino: If, hypothetically, Capto Iugulum were to become a world without nuclear weapons, I would not go so far as to changing the laws of physics. I would just say that perhaps the inspiration for splitting atoms may not be found among the scientific community. Or perhaps if it is, the scientist(s) involved decide that such power does not belong in the hands of man, and thus keep quiet. Perhaps this isn't a plausible scenario, though personally I'd like to think it was.

There is no such thing as avoiding nuclear power. One doesn't even need relativity to harness it.

The idea that no scientist would seek the prestige of such a discovery and that no nation would seek to possess such an advantage is such a fundamental misreading of Human character and behavior that it's far worse a crime than simply declaring physics different.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

I'd like to avoid discussing my actual intent for the future of the NES. I would not mind a debate on human philosophy, science, and the nature of man and inspiration. On that note, the views below aren't definitively my own and someone already wrote down my actual opinion, and I'm really just pointing out a view for the sake of argument:

In theory, a theory which is impossible to test or find examples of, couldn't humanity or science simply "miss" an advancement? Some basic idea, theory, or concept, that could be overlooked through scientific development. For all we know, this could have happened already, but it's impossible to determine because we don't know what we've missed. Perhaps, in relevance to the case at hand, science just missed some fundamental step that would have led to the concept or idea of an atomic bomb.

 

[spryllino]

It progressively becomes less likely the more you have scientists thinking about it, to the point of becoming implausible, though. I mean, you could say that about the wheel. Sure, it's vageuly and narrowly theoretically possible that by now we might not have realised that using wheels was a good idea, but in practice I reckon it's unlikely to the point of absurdity that someone wouldn't have thought of it sooner or later...

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

Yes, but there could also be an expiration date on an innovation. Say, for example, there was a combination of herbs, able to be commonly grown, that if fed to a horse, would allow it to go three times as fast as a normal gallop. Two hundred years ago, or even longer, this would have been a revolutionary advancement, while today it'd be a mild curio at best. So even if someone did think of it now what use would it be?

In theory, the development of any such theory could be (note: not definitely would be) highly dependent upon the time, place, and environment. Of course in a modern scientific environment with stolid expectations and developments, perhaps this grows increasingly less likely. Also, we could allow for the possibility of the development of flawed assumptions, even in nuclear research. At multiple points in human history, scientific advancement has been based upon flawed assumptions, and there's no reason, even in the OTL modern, why some science may not STILL be based on flawed assumptions. The problem, as I've pointed, is that we can't be certain any assumptions are flawed or not flawed. In terms of the nuclear problem, without having to look up any specifics, what if some initial assumption of physics was flawed here? In theory, this could lead to a landslide of changes in the development of physics perhaps to the point of not enabling the trains of thought and ideas that lead to nuclear weapons in our timeline. I'm not going so far as to say that nuclear weapons may never exist in this hypothetical situation, just that under the circumstances created by flawed assumptions, they would not exist as we know them at this given point in time.

 

[ChiefDesigner]

Yes, but there could also be an expiration date on an innovation. Say, for example, there was a combination of herbs, able to be commonly grown, that if fed to a horse, would allow it to go three times as fast as a normal gallop. Two hundred years ago, or even longer, this would have been a revolutionary advancement, while today it'd be a mild curio at best. So even if someone did think of it now what use would it be?

In theory, the development of any such theory could be (note: not definitely would be) highly dependent upon the time, place, and environment. Of course in a modern scientific environment with stolid expectations and developments, perhaps this grows increasingly less likely. Also, we could allow for the possibility of the development of flawed assumptions, even in nuclear research. At multiple points in human history, scientific advancement has been based upon flawed assumptions, and there's no reason, even in the OTL modern, why some science may not STILL be based on flawed assumptions. The problem, as I've pointed, is that we can't be certain any assumptions are flawed or not flawed. In terms of the nuclear problem, without having to look up any specifics, what if some initial assumption of physics was flawed here? In theory, this could lead to a landslide of changes in the development of physics perhaps to the point of not enabling the trains of thought and ideas that lead to nuclear weapons in our timeline. I'm not going so far as to say that nuclear weapons may never exist in this hypothetical situation, just that under the circumstances created by flawed assumptions, they would not exist as we know them at this given point in time.

Honestly, I disagree pretty strongly with this viewpoint.

First, you seem to imply relativity and quantum mechanics could be untestable in certain circumstances. This is incorrect; the mathematical predictions relativity makes were experimentally verified in 1919, with nothing more complicated than a good optical telescope and a camera. Quantum mechanics is testable with the sun, a battery, and a voltmeter.

Second, flawed assumptions do drive science, but not in the way that you think -- science is all about producing experiments that demonstrate that our assumptions are wrong. Prestige, in science, comes from demonstrating that an assumption is incorrect; every great revolutions in physics has been the result of overthrowing a previous assumption about the world. All the incentives in the scientific community (and physics in particular), are towards constantly examining and re-examining theories, hoping to prove that they're wrong and you're smarter than the guy who came before you.


Third, given the technical advances you've described, a modern understanding of the atom is inevitable. This is why:


Part I: The Chemistry Approach

* Germany was able to win the last war.

* Thus, Germany must not have had a shortage of nitrate compounds (saltpeter) for explosives.

* Germany holds no nitrate-producing colonies, and has embargoed South America, specifically Peruvian and Argentine nitrates, where the entire world's supply was mined.

* Thus, the Haber process for nitrogen fixing and the artificial production of nitrate, for both fertilizer and explosives, must exist.

* If the Haber process is producing nitrogen on an industrial scale, physical chemistry *must* be well understood; specifically, the relationship between the temperature of a system and the oscillation energy of its components must be well known.

* The approximation that best describes this system explodes at short wavelengths -- specifically, it predicts that a perfectly absorbent object must radiate infinite energy.

* Obviously, this is Wrong.


Part II: The Physics Approach

* Electrical generators are a thing.

* Thus, someone must have conducted a rigorous examination of the relationship between magnetism and electricity -- a moving electrical current deflects a compass, and a magnet spinning in a coil of wire produces current. Specifically, some form of the law of induction must be known, in order for engineers to be able to build these electrical generators to spec.

* The law of induction has a very strange term in it:

. Both mu-nought and epsilon-nought are constants -- mu-nought describes how quickly magnetic fields propagate in a vacuum, and epsilon-nought describes how quickly electrical fields propagate in a vacuum.

*

is exactly equal to the speed of light. Anybody working out these equations will notice that.

* The speed of light is a derived phenomenon, based on the nature of space.

* F*ck yeah, science!



At this point, you have all of the pieces needed for a truly modern understanding of physics. The existing system for blackbody radiation is wrong; the speed of light is a constant, the product of two other constants; and you've already got X-ray photographs and other indications that the atom is divisible, and that electricity is both a particle (as described by atomic theory and X-rays) and a wave (laws of electricity, above).

This will drive physicists insane until they figure it out. The entire scientific community will jump on this like starving lions, trying to figure out whether light is a particle or a wave; when they realize that it's both, and that it's only emitted in discrete packets (quanta), and that emission of quanta explain blackbody radiation and a whole host of other unsolved problems, the theory will gain grudging, but broad, acceptance.

And the engineering implications of this are obvious.

 

[EQandcivfanatic]

You make a strong case for inevitably, which I don't contest. I do have a couple nitpicks with your logic (i.e. Germany only embargoed Brazil, not Peru or Argentina) and specifics, but overall, while arguing from this perspective, I have few problems with the statements as you've made them.

My argument however is that it could be plausible that the engineering implications are not obvious, for whatever reason. For the sake of the argument I'd point out that some scientists were concerned that there was a chance that the Manhattan Project could turn the Earth into a charred cinder. Hypothetically, what if this became the prevailing opinion of scientists instead that it could be used as a bomb. Now, I know there are reasons against this specific example, but I'm just pointing out that misinterpretations of the concept could lead to a different approach.

If, for whatever reason, at a given point in time, let's say the 1930s, scientists believe that the bomb isn't feasible, you're right, that does not mean that later scientists would prove them wrong. My earlier argument however that was perhaps, such an advancement could be delayed to a point where other weapons or technologies would render atomic development moot. Obviously, because such technology is not known as of now OTL, I cannot name an example, nor could I even argue if you say that such advancement would only be delayed perhaps by a single generation. Overall, when speaking of technological futures in this respect, it's kind of hard for me, at least, as I am not a physicist, to say what alternatives there could be.

 

[J.K. Stockholme]

I might point out that this world hasn't done much towards banning chemical weapons and making them particularly taboo, and they could be rendered very powerful with missile and other modern technologies, which, although by no means obsoleting nuclear weapons, could drive countries' attentions to this form of WMD. Point being, WMDs are exchangeable in terms of the simple application of extremely deadly force, and thus, while theoretically in science people would know about the energy created from cracking atoms, countries would consider it a needless expense when they have other WMDs already in production lines. The input would comparatively not be worthwhile compared to the other WMD categories.

I would still consider it pretty inevitable, but I wouldn't say it had to happen any time soon. The scientists on the Manhattan project were extremely uneasy about the project, and it pretty much was the fear of a fascist world, and the need to end the biggest war in human history by orders of magnitude (by any measure), that compelled them and compelled the US government to build the thing.

To me there are three likely ways nuclear weapons would be built, the first obviously being a dire total war for determining the entire future mentioned above.

The second, I would contend, would come from a regional power, such as Germany right now, which needed to threaten it's neighbours to maintain regional power. This implied power would be very useful for keeping countries all across the wide lands of Europe in a sphere, and because missile technologies would become very useful for shooting over countries at one's enemies. I think Europe right now would be a good example of a place with the impetus to develop at least a test worthy weapon, if not a whole stockpile, and thus reduce the input costs by conducting this first experiment.

The final way would be a crackpot dictator, who is willing to waste his entire country's fortune on a world defying weapon. Frankly, dictators are pretty uncreative, and this would be the least likely scenario, but if nuclear weapons were neglected for a hundred years, even with new weapons and militaries progressively obsoleting them, they would remain attractive to a third-rate totalitarian dictatorship, and by random mutation (as it were) surely some dictator will finally have a crappy 1940s nuclear bomb to drop on its neighbour.

 

[Luckymoose]

No one ever stopped me from using chemical weapons. I used gas on the UPRA and would probably use gas in a naval engagement.

 

[Quisani]

It progressively becomes less likely the more you have scientists thinking about it, to the point of becoming implausible, though. I mean, you could say that about the wheel. Sure, it's vageuly and narrowly theoretically possible that by now we might not have realised that using wheels was a good idea, but in practice I reckon it's unlikely to the point of absurdity that someone wouldn't have thought of it sooner or later...

With regards to the bit about the wheel. The wheel was "invented" twice; once by the Sumerians and the other by what we would regard as who would become Aztecs, or those inhabiting modern day Mexico. The former were able to capitalize and implement the wheel in a practical manner, while the Aztecs did not. With regard to applications of chemistry and atomic theory, I'm more inclined to take a route that the others have taken. Another world might have the knowledge, but have no need, for whatever military reasons, to try and build a bomb. I'd say it is probably an unlikelier scenario, but not one that should simply be ruled out.