Alternate History

[mythbuster43]

I have to wonder if the Civil War would have played out differently--and earlier--if John C. Fremont won the Election of 1856.

[Shane for Wax]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BUzxvrWNBY" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BUzxvrWNBY</a>

I've read the book, Fatherland. I got shit for it because of the swastika on the cover. It was an interesting read.

I wrote an alt. history where the Korean war didn't happen, but instead World War 2 "restarted".

[mythbuster43]

Wouldn't that be World War III.

[Lt. Fred]

I wrote an alt. history where the Korean war didn't happen, but instead World War 2 "restarted".

Against the Soviets? How did you get around nuclear weapons?

[Sixth Monarchist]

I wrote an alt. history where the Korean war didn't happen, but instead World War 2 "restarted".

Against the Soviets? How did you get around nuclear weapons?

The safest assumption is that they don't get fired. The thing is, despite many, many near-misses since 1945, there's never been a nuclear war for good reason: even the most cynical, megalomaniacal zealot of a politician would struggle to find a scenario in which ruling a barren wasteland from a bunker is desirable, and you'd have to be incredibly cynical to believe that of an opponent - even the North Korean government would want people to forcibly starve and shove into labour camps.

[Lt. Fred]

I wrote an alt. history where the Korean war didn't happen, but instead World War 2 "restarted".

Against the Soviets? How did you get around nuclear weapons?

The safest assumption is that they don't get fired. The thing is, despite many, many near-misses since 1945, there's never been a nuclear war for good reason: even the most cynical, megalomaniacal zealot of a politician would struggle to find a scenario in which ruling a barren wasteland from a bunker is desirable, and you'd have to be incredibly cynical to believe that of an opponent - even the North Korean government would want people to forcibly starve and shove into labour camps.

This is why World War 3 was impossible (and nuclear weapons are a good thing). You can't threaten the vital interests of a nuclear state; you can't beat a nuclear state in a war, in other words. You basically only exist because they let you.

Even if you assume you could beat them eight times out of ten, the risk of nuclear destruction is still much, much too high to be acceptable. So you don't go to war in the first place. This is precisely why two nuclear powers have never fought a major war.

[Sigmaleph]

I wrote an alt. history where the Korean war didn't happen, but instead World War 2 "restarted".

Against the Soviets? How did you get around nuclear weapons?

The safest assumption is that they don't get fired. The thing is, despite many, many near-misses since 1945, there's never been a nuclear war for good reason: even the most cynical, megalomaniacal zealot of a politician would struggle to find a scenario in which ruling a barren wasteland from a bunker is desirable, and you'd have to be incredibly cynical to believe that of an opponent - even the North Korean government would want people to forcibly starve and shove into labour camps.

This is why World War 3 was impossible (and nuclear weapons are a good thing). You can't threaten the vital interests of a nuclear state; you can't beat a nuclear state in a war, in other words. You basically only exist because they let you.

Even if you assume you could beat them eight times out of ten, the risk of nuclear destruction is still much, much too high to be acceptable. So you don't go to war in the first place. This is precisely why two nuclear powers have never fought a major war.

Nuclear weapons have drastically reduced the "amount of things we need to go wrong for human extinction"* threshold. I wouldn't call that a good thing.



*"Things" is a very vague measure, I know. Weigh them by probability or whatever, you get the basic idea.

[Shane for Wax]

I didn't think anyone would actually give a shit about it...

I wrote it ages ago. I was like 14. I hadn't world built enough to tell you much of anything.

Also I actually called it World War 2 1/2 in-verse. The thing is that 1) Hitler didn't commit suicide, and 2) Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed, but it didn't end the Pacific side. I still didn't get very far with the whole world building thing, like I said. And I've lost all motivation really to try to get back to it.

It was ten years ago and I was mostly fiddle-farting with the idea of okay, Hitler is still alive and yada yada. I don't know why you expect me to go into detail. I barely remember what I was even trying to do with it.

I don't have the manuscript on this computer either so I can't really check.

As for the actual question, the Soviets were Allies. A lot of different things went down when WW2 went into a 'lull' as it were.

Basically: world building, or lack thereof, is why I can't answer the questions wanted and I'm sorry.

Also as for nuclear war all I have to say is Fallout. And before anyone says anything it's AU where nuclear fallout is concerned amongst other things. And I recognize that.

[Lt. Fred]

I wrote an alt. history where the Korean war didn't happen, but instead World War 2 "restarted".

Against the Soviets? How did you get around nuclear weapons?

The safest assumption is that they don't get fired. The thing is, despite many, many near-misses since 1945, there's never been a nuclear war for good reason: even the most cynical, megalomaniacal zealot of a politician would struggle to find a scenario in which ruling a barren wasteland from a bunker is desirable, and you'd have to be incredibly cynical to believe that of an opponent - even the North Korean government would want people to forcibly starve and shove into labour camps.

This is why World War 3 was impossible (and nuclear weapons are a good thing). You can't threaten the vital interests of a nuclear state; you can't beat a nuclear state in a war, in other words. You basically only exist because they let you.

Even if you assume you could beat them eight times out of ten, the risk of nuclear destruction is still much, much too high to be acceptable. So you don't go to war in the first place. This is precisely why two nuclear powers have never fought a major war.

Nuclear weapons have drastically reduced the "amount of things we need to go wrong for human extinction"* threshold. I wouldn't call that a good thing.



*"Things" is a very vague measure, I know. Weigh them by probability or whatever, you get the basic idea.

I agree, and this is why I think post-Soviet nuclear clean-up is one of the most important things humanity isn't funding right now. The risk of accidental or crazy-person nuclear death is too high. But I think the risk posed by intentional great power war is now zero.

[Lithp]

I usually wonder what would happen if either the Cold War or WWII went in favor of the opposite party.

[R. U. Sirius]

Let's go farther back: What if the Renaissance-era rediscovery of America hadn't happened? Would the Aztec Empire have evolved to a power great enough to stand up to the Europeans if and when contact occurred? (Yes, I know that disease did most of the killing, but work with me here)

[Sixth Monarchist]

You know those little news articles about the man in Alabama, or Florida, or someplace, who decides to use a gun as a can opener and sees his plan figuratively and/or literally backfire? Those wouldn't happen.

[Lithp]

Let's go farther back: What if the Renaissance-era rediscovery of America hadn't happened? Would the Aztec Empire have evolved to a power great enough to stand up to the Europeans if and when contact occurred? (Yes, I know that disease did most of the killing, but work with me here)

Doesn't really answer my question.

Anyway, I don't think so. A lot of industrialization comes down to finding resources, & much of America was forested, which isn't exactly conducive to mining. If they had some kind of immunity to the European diseases & large enough numbers, maybe, but not because they had better guns, or anything.

On the other hand, if they turned to the sea, they might have been able to find something somewhere.

[Art Vandelay]

A rather interesting if commonly brought up scenario would be what if the US had opted to invade rather than nuke Japan in WWII. No doubt Japan would eventually fall, but they would certainly take huge numbers of allied soldiers with them, and end up with a quite a bit more bargaining power when it comes time to surrender. It's almost certain that there'd be no US military bases in Japan. Possibly no cap on their military and constitutional bans on fighting anything other than a defensive war would be imposed either. Then the US not keeping them on a tight leash could open the door for a lot of interesting shenanigans. Even going over to the communist side of the cold war is not inconceivable.

[Meshakhad]

Jared Diamond made the case that one of the big advantages the Old World had was the number of animals that can be domesticated. There are very few in the New World. However, there were a lot of candidates that died out at the end of the Ice Age, thanks to the Younger Dryas event.

So what if that hadn't happened? What if the New World's megafauna had survived? I think there would have been a chance of the New World developing at least to the point that they could hold off the Europeans. If the Europeans had encountered a civilization with at least Roman tech levels, it probably would have survived.

A rather interesting if commonly brought up scenario would be what if the US had opted to invade rather than nuke Japan in WWII. No doubt Japan would eventually fall, but they would certainly take huge numbers of allied soldiers with them, and end up with a quite a bit more bargaining power when it comes time to surrender. It's almost certain that there'd be no US military bases in Japan. Possibly no cap on their military and constitutional bans on fighting anything other than a defensive war would be imposed either. Then the US not keeping them on a tight leash could open the door for a lot of interesting shenanigans. Even going over to the communist side of the cold is not inconceivable.

A related scenario that I've explored is the possibility of a Soviet invasion of Hokkaido. The obvious consequence is that after the war, there would be American-dominated Japan and Soviet-dominated Hokkaido. However, it's plausible that the Soviets might try to exploit the cultural differences between the Japanese and the Ainu. If they did, they might permanently sever Hokkaido from Japan, even if Hokkaido later abandoned communism.