Discussion:
Alternate History of the World 1983-2003
(too old to reply)
Josh
2003-08-03 07:00:16 UTC
Permalink
1983: Yuri Andropov receives kidney transplant.
1984: Ronald Reagan reelected President of the United States. Soviet
strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 10,000 H-bombs.
1985: B-1B enters service with USAF.
1987: TU-160 enters service with Soviet Air Force.
1988: American strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 15,000 H-bombs.
George Bush elected President of the United States.
1989: USSR withdraws from Afghanistan.
1990: Iraq invades Kuwait.
1991: Persian Gulf War. USSR vetoes UN sanctions on Iraq and UN
resolution that would've created commission to inspect Iraq for
nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Numerous countries,
including US, impose sanctions independently. US, UK and France
impose no-fly zones on Iraq.
1992: Bill Clinton elected President of the United States. F-22
enters service with USAF.
1993: B-2 enters service with USAF.
1996: Bill Clinton reelected President of the United States.
1998: Soviet strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 15,000 H-bombs.
1999: Peacekeeper II and Trident III missiles, which have 20 warheads
each, enter service with USAF and USN respectively.
2000: Al Gore elected President of the United States. B-2 force
reaches full deployment of 133 bombers. Soviet SS-30, which has 20
warheads, enters service.
2001: Terrorist attacks destroy World Trade Center and damage
Pentagon. US invades Afghanistan, deposes Muhammad Omar.
2002: American strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 20,000 H-bombs.
2003: United States begins work on developing anti-matter bomb and
unmanned space bomber.
David Johnston
2003-08-03 07:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh
1983: Yuri Andropov receives kidney transplant.
1984: Ronald Reagan reelected President of the United States. Soviet
strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 10,000 H-bombs.
1985: B-1B enters service with USAF.
1987: TU-160 enters service with Soviet Air Force.
1988: American strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 15,000 H-bombs.
George Bush elected President of the United States.
1989: USSR withdraws from Afghanistan.
1990: Iraq invades Kuwait.
1991: Persian Gulf War. USSR vetoes UN sanctions on Iraq and UN
resolution that would've created commission to inspect Iraq for
nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Numerous countries,
including US, impose sanctions independently. US, UK and France
impose no-fly zones on Iraq.
No they don't. Not if the USSR opposes action against Iraq.
But what the hell is the USSR still doing being around at all?
I think you missed a step or two.
Post by Josh
1992: Bill Clinton elected President of the United States. F-22
enters service with USAF.
1993: B-2 enters service with USAF.
1996: Bill Clinton reelected President of the United States.
1998: Soviet strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 15,000 H-bombs.
1999: Peacekeeper II and Trident III missiles, which have 20 warheads
each, enter service with USAF and USN respectively.
2000: Al Gore elected President of the United States. B-2 force
reaches full deployment of 133 bombers. Soviet SS-30, which has 20
warheads, enters service.
2001: Terrorist attacks destroy World Trade Center and damage
Pentagon. US invades Afghanistan, deposes Muhammad Omar.
Don't be absurd. In a world in there is still a USSR in 2001 there
is positively no way that those terrorist attacks would still occur
and turn out the same way.
Post by Josh
2002: American strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 20,000 H-bombs.
2003: United States begins work on developing anti-matter bomb and
unmanned space bomber.
FreakyDeacon
2003-08-03 13:59:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh
2003: United States begins work on developing anti-matter bomb and
unmanned space bomber.
And how did THIS happen?

OTL, CERN can't produce antimatter in any meaningful amounts. Why the
technology leap?

Aside from that, I'm pretty sure that anti-matter would, ya know, _destroy the
earth_.
James Nicoll
2003-08-03 14:18:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by FreakyDeacon
Post by Josh
2003: United States begins work on developing anti-matter bomb and
unmanned space bomber.
And how did THIS happen?
OTL, CERN can't produce antimatter in any meaningful amounts. Why the
technology leap?
Aside from that, I'm pretty sure that anti-matter would, ya know, _destroy the
earth_.
The gravitational binding energy of the Earth is about
2x10^32 joules. Assuming a 50/50 matter/anti-matter mix, you'd
need over a trillion tonnes of AM to do the trick (If it's anti-
water, it would be a cube 10 km on edge). Not a short term problem,
I think.

What weapon abilities AM gets you that isn't possible more
cheaply with fusion or fission I am not sure. At least an H-bomb
can be easily stored without worrying that a power supply problem
will result in an accdental discharge.
--
"Sequels never enhance a work. They only serve to trivialize
it."
Frank Herbert
T.J. Swoboda
2003-08-04 05:00:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
The gravitational binding energy of the Earth is about
2x10^32 joules. Assuming a 50/50 matter/anti-matter mix, you'd
need over a trillion tonnes of AM to do the trick (If it's anti-
water, it would be a cube 10 km on edge). Not a short term problem,
I think.
I don't think this is the case, but I'm no expert. Let us know what
you think of this:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Swoboda+group:alt.destroy.the.earth&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.destroy.the.earth&safe=off&selm=9wZm9.12055%24OM4.6594824%40e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com&rnum=3

--T.J.
James Nicoll
2003-08-04 14:40:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by T.J. Swoboda
Post by James Nicoll
The gravitational binding energy of the Earth is about
2x10^32 joules. Assuming a 50/50 matter/anti-matter mix, you'd
need over a trillion tonnes of AM to do the trick (If it's anti-
water, it would be a cube 10 km on edge). Not a short term problem,
I think.
I don't think this is the case, but I'm no expert. Let us know what
You don't think what is the case?
Post by T.J. Swoboda
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Swoboda+group:alt.destroy.the.earth&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.destroy.the.earth&safe=off&selm=9wZm9.12055%24OM4.6594824%40e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com&rnum=3
But of course you can destroy the Earth with a Mars-sized mass
of anti-matter. You could do a good job of messing it up with a Mars-
sized mass of regular matter...
--
"Sequels never enhance a work. They only serve to trivialize
it."
Frank Herbert
Josh
2003-08-04 15:29:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by T.J. Swoboda
Post by James Nicoll
The gravitational binding energy of the Earth is about
2x10^32 joules. Assuming a 50/50 matter/anti-matter mix, you'd
need over a trillion tonnes of AM to do the trick (If it's anti-
water, it would be a cube 10 km on edge). Not a short term problem,
I think.
I don't think this is the case, but I'm no expert. Let us know what
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Swoboda+group:alt.destroy.the.earth&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=alt.destroy.the.earth&safe=off&selm=9wZm9.12055%24OM4.6594824%40e3500-atl1.usenetserver.com&rnum=3
--T.J.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_binding_energy
Jordan179
2003-08-04 19:24:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
What weapon abilities AM gets you that isn't possible more
cheaply with fusion or fission I am not sure. At least an H-bomb
can be easily stored without worrying that a power supply problem
will result in an accdental discharge.
If you can miniaturize the containment field, antimatter offers the
prospect of tremendous yields in very small packages, far smaller than
hydrogen bombs.

But note, that's a very big "if," especially on a mere 20-year
timescale. And miniaturized EM containment fields would also allow
things like widespread fusion power, which would certainly have BIG
effects on history.

(for one thing, it would put paid to a lot of Arab oil income).

Sincerely Yours,
Jordan
David Johnson
2003-08-03 14:27:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by FreakyDeacon
Post by Josh
2003: United States begins work on developing anti-matter bomb and
unmanned space bomber.
And how did THIS happen?
OTL, CERN can't produce antimatter in any meaningful amounts. Why the
technology leap?
Aside from that, I'm pretty sure that anti-matter would, ya know,
_destroy the earth_.
Well, if you had _enough_ of it. Fun thing about antimatter is, though,
that you could make any size explosion you want, just by varying the
amount of it. Dust-speck size, you've got the equivelent of a thousand-
pound bomb. Baseball size, a few hundred megatons*.

Assuming the confinement mechanism isn't too large (and that's not a
good assumption, actually - you're going to need a lot of power for the
larger sizes. And you _really_ don't want the power to run out
unexpectedly!) you could put an entire "nuclear" arsenal in a Cessna.
Heck, doesn't even leave any (well, many) radioactives around!

BTW, if we can produce antimater in bomb-size amounts we can build
antimater-powered spaceships (and planes and ships and whatever) which
will so change things that after this point your timeline is not really
recognizable as OTL.

David


* Note, these are approximates as I have seriously _not_ done the math
here!
James Nicoll
2003-08-03 16:43:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by FreakyDeacon
And how did THIS happen?
OTL, CERN can't produce antimatter in any meaningful amounts. Why the
technology leap?
Aside from that, I'm pretty sure that anti-matter would, ya know, _destroy
the
Post by FreakyDeacon
earth_.
I dunno. It always worked on Star Trek.
I seems to me that the problem is that the average explosive yield of a
nuclear weapon declined significantly from the mid-60s on. Nobody makes 20
megaton bombs anymore because you can make a smaller, cheaper 450 kt or 150
kt weapon that is going to hit within a 100 meters or so of its aim point.
So I'm not sure why more powerful nuclear weapons would be called for.
Do we know the AM bombs are bigger than conventional nukes?

Maybe it's the other way round: AM is used in tiny amounts,
precisely delivered. Little forwardian mirror matter rockets, slamming
into targets and liberating the rest of their energy in a quiet [1]
gamma ray [2] flashes.

James Nicoll

1: for values of quiet = loud.

2: and a mess of other particles, depending on what form of AM you are
using.
--
"Sequels never enhance a work. They only serve to trivialize
it."
Frank Herbert
Graham Broad
2003-08-03 16:03:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
Maybe it's the other way round: AM is used in tiny amounts,
precisely delivered. Little forwardian mirror matter rockets, slamming
into targets and liberating the rest of their energy in a quiet [1]
gamma ray [2] flashes.
James Nicoll
I see what you're saying. Of course, as recent events have demonstrated, the
military utility of nuclear weapons (if there ever was one after 1945, which
I think is highly doubtful, and certainly untrue by the time the USSR
attained rough nuclear parity) has declined steadily for the US as they have
developed highly accurate, very powerful non-nuclear weapons (many of them
of much greater, though less random, destructive power than the obsolete WMD
the Iraq war was ostensibly fought to root out). This is clearly one reason
why three successive administrations, including the current one, have been
so willing to make massive cuts to the number of actively deployed nuclear
weapons (by 2008 there will be roughly 1/10th the number that there were in
the middle of the Reagan years).

So one wonders, in this ATL, what the point of developing AM weapons would
be, even assuming such things are possible. If you can do in 2003 with
JDAMS and thermobaric bombs what tactical nukes were required to do in the
past, why up the ante in a very expensive sort of way?

GB
James Nicoll
2003-08-03 20:45:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham Broad
Post by James Nicoll
Maybe it's the other way round: AM is used in tiny amounts,
precisely delivered. Little forwardian mirror matter rockets, slamming
into targets and liberating the rest of their energy in a quiet [1]
gamma ray [2] flashes.
James Nicoll
I see what you're saying. Of course, as recent events have demonstrated, the
military utility of nuclear weapons (if there ever was one after 1945, which
I think is highly doubtful, and certainly untrue by the time the USSR
attained rough nuclear parity) has declined steadily for the US as they have
developed highly accurate, very powerful non-nuclear weapons (many of them
of much greater, though less random, destructive power than the obsolete WMD
the Iraq war was ostensibly fought to root out). This is clearly one reason
why three successive administrations, including the current one, have been
so willing to make massive cuts to the number of actively deployed nuclear
weapons (by 2008 there will be roughly 1/10th the number that there were in
the middle of the Reagan years).
So one wonders, in this ATL, what the point of developing AM weapons would
be, even assuming such things are possible. If you can do in 2003 with
JDAMS and thermobaric bombs what tactical nukes were required to do in the
past, why up the ante in a very expensive sort of way?
Massive cool points. I mean, lasers that can carve your
name into the Moon are about the only weapons that compare.

It could be argued that thermonuclear devices weren't
all that useful but *everyone* with nukes tried for them in
the 1950s and 1960s.
--
"Sequels never enhance a work. They only serve to trivialize
it."
Frank Herbert
Graham Broad
2003-08-04 16:52:45 UTC
Permalink
No it's not.
Well the one or two colleagues I have who work in arms control say that
you're wrong, but, whatever.

The size of the American strategic nuclear arsenal has
been cut because the cold war ended. There's unfortunately no longer
any need for a giant nuclear arsenal (sigh).
I'm sorry - you consider the massive post-Cold War reductions in the size of
nuclear arsenals "unfortunate"???? There's a new one.
Smart weapons are
obviously no substitute for nukes when it comes to sheer destructive
power. And sheer destructive power was what was needed for
deterrence.
I see...so if sheer destructive power was what was needed, why did
megatonnage decrease steadily in the United States from 1964 onwards? And in
the Soviet Union from 1975 onwards? In fact, the very high point of US
megatonnage was in 1958/59.

Incidentally - a "conventional" thermobaric bomb dropped with a circular
error probable of 13 meters, like the BLU-118/B, several of which proved
themselves capable of penetrating and destroying a hardened target in the
recent Iraq war, IS in every way a substitute for a tactical nuke. And
weapons like these are *one* reason why three successive administrations
have been willing to make massive cuts in the number of the operationally
deployed nuclear weapons.

GB
Josh
2003-08-04 22:16:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham Broad
No it's not.
Well the one or two colleagues I have who work in arms control say that
you're wrong, but, whatever.
The size of the American strategic nuclear arsenal has
been cut because the cold war ended. There's unfortunately no longer
any need for a giant nuclear arsenal (sigh).
I'm sorry - you consider the massive post-Cold War reductions in the size of
nuclear arsenals "unfortunate"???? There's a new one.
Smart weapons are
obviously no substitute for nukes when it comes to sheer destructive
power. And sheer destructive power was what was needed for
deterrence.
I see...so if sheer destructive power was what was needed, why did
megatonnage decrease steadily in the United States from 1964 onwards? And in
the Soviet Union from 1975 onwards? In fact, the very high point of US
megatonnage was in 1958/59.
Incidentally - a "conventional" thermobaric bomb dropped with a circular
error probable of 13 meters, like the BLU-118/B, several of which proved
themselves capable of penetrating and destroying a hardened target in the
recent Iraq war, IS in every way a substitute for a tactical nuke. And
weapons like these are *one* reason why three successive administrations
have been willing to make massive cuts in the number of the operationally
deployed nuclear weapons.
GB
Actually the total yield of the American strategic nuclear arsenal
peaked in 1960 at 19,000 megatons. But the size of the American
strategic nuclear arsenal didn't peak until 1975 and the size of the
Soviet strategic nuclear arsenal didn't peak until 1989. Even though
the total yield of their respective strategic nuclear arsenals
decreased, the United States and Russia still had more than enough
nukes to annihalate eachother's countries. You can't achieve
deterrence with conventional weapons when the country you want to
deter has enough nukes to annihalate your country. That's common
sense. AND WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP TALKING ABOUT TACTICAL NUKES? My
timeline doesn't mention tactical nukes! Who cares about tactical
nukes?!
Graham Broad
2003-08-05 01:48:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh
Actually the total yield of the American strategic nuclear arsenal
peaked in 1960 at 19,000 megatons. But the size of the American
strategic nuclear arsenal didn't peak until 1975 and the size of the
Soviet strategic nuclear arsenal didn't peak until 1989. Even though
the total yield of their respective strategic nuclear arsenals
decreased, the United States and Russia still had more than enough
nukes to annihalate eachother's countries. You can't achieve
deterrence with conventional weapons when the country you want to
deter has enough nukes to annihalate your country. That's common
sense. AND WHY DO PEOPLE KEEP TALKING ABOUT TACTICAL NUKES? My
timeline doesn't mention tactical nukes! Who cares about tactical
nukes?!
It's fairly obvious by now that you're bordering on being a troll, but I'll
restate a few points anyway, in the hopes that you're merely obstinate and
pig-headed as opposed to a genuine troll. I said that one reason why the
US has been willing to make cuts to its operationally deployed arsenal of
nukes is because of the existence of weapons like the ones I described
above, and you said it wasn't. I explained that, in fact, it was. The
discussion was about nukes in general, not strategic or tactical nukes.

Second, you've not satisfactorily explained why the US would attempt to
develop this fantastical "anti-matter" bomb, since, as I said above, and you
agreed, US megatonnage has declined significantly for decades, steadily
since 1964, according to my source (Miller's "Cold War: A Military
History" - that's a BOOK, by the way). Why go for more powerful bombs
against a 40 year trend, especially since in your utterly bizarre hardware
geek masturbation fantasy timeline the US has, by your own admission, enough
nuclear weapons to utterly destroy the Soviet Union (and, may I add,
probably the biosphere in general if they were all used). "Gosh I wish we
had one of those doomsday weapons."

GB
William Baird
2003-08-05 06:06:41 UTC
Permalink
Josh is posting from Road Runner. Admittedly RR in southern California
rather than Florida but still a worrying sign.
Actually, I've been wondering if we're not seeing that individual,
but rather someone a little young. Say, around 18-22, and hasn't
yet been forced to example their ideologies beyond their own musings.
But if you look at his screen name, it's "bigbomber". Consequently his
advocacy is unsurprising. But it _is_ advocacy, and thus a violation of
the BoP. The problem here is that bigbomber is airing his opinions, not
that his opinions are just plain nuts.
ach. IWN (IDK). I'd have to say that some of his opinions fly in
the face of his PoD and we're calling him on it.

Now, this is one of the reason I love SHWI: we really have people that
know about just about everything here. A little rough handed correction
never hurts and Josh, if he'd stop being such a silly, ummm, got an Ozzy
term that'd fit? Anyways, he has some gems hidden in his ramblings.

A 9-11 under the Cold War conditions...*shivers* That one might be a
chilling TL that'd warm SHWIs cold heart.

Or the consequences of the US flipping to a new R&D paradigm. Does the
world get twitchier if/when we get a Shrubbish President?

Or an alternate 1980s with a survival of the Soviet Union. That'd be an
even more depressing place and I'd not have met Luda for damn sure.
(depressing thought that...:S) Hrm. USSR as North Korea writ large.

Or an alternate Cold War where the 1970s on treaties on nukes never
happened.

I'm sure there are others...we just need to break this one in.
Unfortunately, IDK if this one will break. He's...acting a little
young and cocksure.

Y'know...there's almost a Yoshida-esque (or young Harold Hutchinson
(re smn)) quality to this one...hrm

Will
- Syd
--
William P Baird Do you know why the road less traveled by
Speaking for me has so few sightseers? Normally, there
Home: ***@hotmail is something big, mean, with very sharp
Work: ***@nersc teeth - and quite the appetite! - waiting
Add .com/.gov somewhere along its dark and twisty bends.
Josh
2003-08-05 19:46:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Baird
Josh is posting from Road Runner. Admittedly RR in southern California
rather than Florida but still a worrying sign.
Actually, I've been wondering if we're not seeing that individual,
but rather someone a little young. Say, around 18-22, and hasn't
yet been forced to example their ideologies beyond their own musings.
But if you look at his screen name, it's "bigbomber". Consequently his
advocacy is unsurprising. But it _is_ advocacy, and thus a violation of
the BoP. The problem here is that bigbomber is airing his opinions, not
that his opinions are just plain nuts.
ach. IWN (IDK). I'd have to say that some of his opinions fly in
the face of his PoD and we're calling him on it.
Now, this is one of the reason I love SHWI: we really have people that
know about just about everything here. A little rough handed correction
never hurts and Josh, if he'd stop being such a silly, ummm, got an Ozzy
term that'd fit? Anyways, he has some gems hidden in his ramblings.
A 9-11 under the Cold War conditions...*shivers* That one might be a
chilling TL that'd warm SHWIs cold heart.
Or the consequences of the US flipping to a new R&D paradigm. Does the
world get twitchier if/when we get a Shrubbish President?
Or an alternate 1980s with a survival of the Soviet Union. That'd be an
even more depressing place and I'd not have met Luda for damn sure.
(depressing thought that...:S) Hrm. USSR as North Korea writ large.
Or an alternate Cold War where the 1970s on treaties on nukes never
happened.
I'm sure there are others...we just need to break this one in.
Unfortunately, IDK if this one will break. He's...acting a little
young and cocksure.
Y'know...there's almost a Yoshida-esque (or young Harold Hutchinson
(re smn)) quality to this one...hrm
Will
- Syd
What's a PoD? What does hrm mean? I don't understand a lot of the
abbreviations on this newsgroup. Why does the thought of the
terrorist attacks happening during the cold war make you shiver? An
alternate 1980's with the survival of the USSR? The USSR DID survive
through the 1980's. Did you mean an alternate 1990's?
Oliver Neukum
2003-08-06 07:18:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh
What's a PoD? What does hrm mean? I don't understand a lot of the
PoD: point of divergence. That what happened differently leading to change
Post by Josh
abbreviations on this newsgroup. Why does the thought of the
terrorist attacks happening during the cold war make you shiver? An
Who would be blamed?
Post by Josh
alternate 1980's with the survival of the USSR? The USSR DID survive
through the 1980's. Did you mean an alternate 1990's?
No 1980es or quite possibly 1970es or 1960es.
An Empire like the SU doesn't simply collapse. It was a result of decades
of mismanagement. By 1990 it was far too late to save the SU.
IMHO the simplest way to ensure at least a longer survival of the SU
would have been Brezhnyew's death five years early.

Regards
Oliver
Oliver Neukum
2003-08-06 16:25:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oliver Neukum
No 1980es or quite possibly 1970es or 1960es.
An Empire like the SU doesn't simply collapse. It was a result of decades
of mismanagement. By 1990 it was far too late to save the SU.
IMHO the simplest way to ensure at least a longer survival of the SU
would have been Brezhnyew's death five years early.
Regard
Oliver
Glasnost destroyed the USSR. There were basically two groups of
In the short run it did. But we have to dig deeper to understand the
situation. Why did the Politburo go along with Gorbachov?
These people didn't do things out of sheer kindness.
people in the USSR: people who wanted their particular republic to be
independent and people who didn't care. There were very few who
wanted the USSR to stay together. This is reflected in the attitudes
of people from the former USSR who I've talked to. With Glasnost, the
Then what is to replace communism?
If it is the obvious answer, Russian nationalism, then who imposes this
on the republics?
will of the people meant something, which it never had before. So
you ended up with a large group of people wanting their republics to
be independent and hardly anyone opposing them. Empires historically
have taken centuries to fall. Nobody in 1985 thought that the USSR
would break up any time in the near future.
The USSR in 1980 was in trouble. The economy was shrinking and the
Russian population shrinking, especially in respect to other nationalities.
So reform there had to be. In order to have a Chinese course of reform
somebody needs to impose it. Who and how does he get to power?

Regards
Oliver
William Baird
2003-08-06 17:28:01 UTC
Permalink
I Wrote.
Post by William Baird
but rather someone a little young. Say, around 18-22, and hasn't
yet been forced to example their ideologies beyond their own musings.
^^^^^^^
examine, damnit, examine...grrr.
What's a PoD?
Point of Departure.
What does hrm mean?
variant on 'hmmm', but with irritation or just not as mellow.
I don't understand a lot of the abbreviations on this newsgroup.
Did you look up the FAQ?
Why does the thought of the terrorist attacks happening during
the cold war make you shiver?
It makes me shiver because of several reasons. Who gets the blame?
Will they be Soviet clients? Will they be based within Soviet clients?
If they are, will the Soviet Union protect the states that are harboring
the attackers? Does that mean there will be a lot more because we will
not respond? Does that mean we'll declare war on the USSR?

Or will we split the world with the Soviets and cooperate on a joint
'War on Terrorism'?
An alternate 1980's with the survival of the USSR? The USSR DID survive
through the 1980's. Did you mean an alternate 1990's?
No. As Oliver said, a different 1980s with the actions that led up to the
fall of the USSR being different. If we have a different 1980s we might
end up with the USSR as a giant North Korea. Potentially it might even
have some crazy dictator at its head like NK does now.

Alternately, if its a 'healthy' USSR, the actions that, as Oliver pointed
out, changed in the 1970s that led that way instead of OTL.

With a PoD in the late 80s, it'll be nigh impossible to get the USSR to
last. It'll disentegrate one way or another. It's actually amazing that
it did so as relatively peacefully as it did. There's another possible
dark TL...the Soviet Civil War...possibly even with nukes popping off and
such. That really bites, cuz St Basil's as a radioactive slag heap is
rather depressing esp when you consider all those that would have died
along with. :S

Will

--
William P Baird Do you know why the road less traveled by
Speaking for me has so few sightseers? Normally, there
Home: ***@hotmail is something big, mean, with very sharp
Work: ***@nersc teeth - and quite the appetite! - waiting
Add .com/.gov somewhere along its dark and twisty bends.
Josh
2003-08-06 21:49:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Baird
I Wrote.
Post by William Baird
but rather someone a little young. Say, around 18-22, and hasn't
yet been forced to example their ideologies beyond their own musings.
^^^^^^^
examine, damnit, examine...grrr.
What's a PoD?
Point of Departure.
What does hrm mean?
variant on 'hmmm', but with irritation or just not as mellow.
I don't understand a lot of the abbreviations on this newsgroup.
Did you look up the FAQ?
Why does the thought of the terrorist attacks happening during
the cold war make you shiver?
It makes me shiver because of several reasons. Who gets the blame?
Will they be Soviet clients? Will they be based within Soviet clients?
If they are, will the Soviet Union protect the states that are harboring
the attackers? Does that mean there will be a lot more because we will
not respond? Does that mean we'll declare war on the USSR?
Osama is Saudi and so were 15 of the 19 hijackers. Al Qaeda was
headquartered in Afghanistan, which was no longer a Soviet ally after
the communist government fell.
Or will we split the world with the Soviets and cooperate on a joint
Post by William Baird
'War on Terrorism'?
An alternate 1980's with the survival of the USSR? The USSR DID survive
through the 1980's. Did you mean an alternate 1990's?
No. As Oliver said, a different 1980s with the actions that led up to the
fall of the USSR being different. If we have a different 1980s we might
end up with the USSR as a giant North Korea. Potentially it might even
have some crazy dictator at its head like NK does now.
Alternately, if its a 'healthy' USSR, the actions that, as Oliver pointed
out, changed in the 1970s that led that way instead of OTL.
With a PoD in the late 80s, it'll be nigh impossible to get the USSR to
last. It'll disentegrate one way or another. It's actually amazing that
it did so as relatively peacefully as it did. There's another possible
dark TL...the Soviet Civil War...possibly even with nukes popping off and
such. That really bites, cuz St Basil's as a radioactive slag heap is
rather depressing esp when you consider all those that would have died
along with. :S
Will
With a PoD in the late 80s, it'll be nigh impossible to get the USSR
to
Post by William Baird
last.
That may be true, but my PoD isn't in the late 80's.

Daniel Silevitch
2003-08-04 12:12:04 UTC
Permalink
I read in Discover recently that the technology to make anti-matter in
quantity already exists. Besides, I put that the United States BEGINS
work on developing an anti-matter bomb in 2003.
Discover magazine is about one step above Popular Science for accuracy.
PS is about one step above the National Enquirer. Neither should be
trusted. Scientific American is better, though sadly diminished from
what it was 20-30 years ago. If you're near a library that carries
them, _Science_ and _Nature_ are the gold standard.

Our current antimatter production technology works one antiproton or
positron at a time. Barring a massive breakthrough in theoretical
physics, this situation will remain for the forseeable future. The big
colliders (Tevatron at Fermilab, LHC under construction at CERN, etc.)
do one particle at a time fabrication on a grand scale. According to
Fermilab's website (www.fnal.gov), the Tevatron produces 200 billion
antiprotons/hour. This may seem like a lot, but it only works out to 3
kJ of stored energy/hour. A chemical plant producing TNT will beat that
by many orders of magnitude, for a comparable investment in
manufacturing capability.

-dms
k***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2003-08-05 21:54:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel Silevitch
According to
Fermilab's website (www.fnal.gov), the Tevatron produces 200 billion
antiprotons/hour.
There is also the problem of efficiency. Any idea of the input power?

The time line also defies current trends in weapon development. As
accuracy improved weapons have got smaller allowing the mounting of
smaller warheads and more decoys. See the Polaris Chevaline thread on
sci.military.naval. About the only advantage AM weapons might have is
size, and that depends on containment systems.

Ken Young
***@cix.co.uk

Those who cover themselves with martial glory
frequently go in need of any other garment. (Bramah)
David Johnston
2003-08-03 22:23:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Josh
1983: Yuri Andropov receives kidney transplant.
1984: Ronald Reagan reelected President of the United States. Soviet
strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 10,000 H-bombs.
1985: B-1B enters service with USAF.
1987: TU-160 enters service with Soviet Air Force.
1988: American strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 15,000 H-bombs.
George Bush elected President of the United States.
1989: USSR withdraws from Afghanistan.
1990: Iraq invades Kuwait.
1991: Persian Gulf War. USSR vetoes UN sanctions on Iraq and UN
resolution that would've created commission to inspect Iraq for
nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Numerous countries,
including US, impose sanctions independently. US, UK and France
impose no-fly zones on Iraq.
No they don't. Not if the USSR opposes action against Iraq.
But what the hell is the USSR still doing being around at all?
I think you missed a step or two.
Post by Josh
1992: Bill Clinton elected President of the United States. F-22
enters service with USAF.
1993: B-2 enters service with USAF.
1996: Bill Clinton reelected President of the United States.
1998: Soviet strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 15,000 H-bombs.
1999: Peacekeeper II and Trident III missiles, which have 20 warheads
each, enter service with USAF and USN respectively.
2000: Al Gore elected President of the United States. B-2 force
reaches full deployment of 133 bombers. Soviet SS-30, which has 20
warheads, enters service.
2001: Terrorist attacks destroy World Trade Center and damage
Pentagon. US invades Afghanistan, deposes Muhammad Omar.
Don't be absurd. In a world in there is still a USSR in 2001 there
is positively no way that those terrorist attacks would still occur
and turn out the same way.
Post by Josh
2002: American strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 20,000 H-bombs.
2003: United States begins work on developing anti-matter bomb and
unmanned space bomber.
The USSR was around at the time of the Persian Gulf War in OTL!
Remember?
Not really. Wasn't it making the transition into the CIS?

And I didn't put that it opposed action against Iraq. I put
that it vetoed sanctions against Iraq and the resolution that would've
created a commission to inspect Iraq for nuclear, biological and
chemical weapons.
So it vetoed sanctions but had no problem with military action?
Why not?
Josh
2003-08-04 07:25:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Post by Josh
1983: Yuri Andropov receives kidney transplant.
1984: Ronald Reagan reelected President of the United States. Soviet
strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 10,000 H-bombs.
1985: B-1B enters service with USAF.
1987: TU-160 enters service with Soviet Air Force.
1988: American strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 15,000 H-bombs.
George Bush elected President of the United States.
1989: USSR withdraws from Afghanistan.
1990: Iraq invades Kuwait.
1991: Persian Gulf War. USSR vetoes UN sanctions on Iraq and UN
resolution that would've created commission to inspect Iraq for
nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Numerous countries,
including US, impose sanctions independently. US, UK and France
impose no-fly zones on Iraq.
No they don't. Not if the USSR opposes action against Iraq.
But what the hell is the USSR still doing being around at all?
I think you missed a step or two.
Post by Josh
1992: Bill Clinton elected President of the United States. F-22
enters service with USAF.
1993: B-2 enters service with USAF.
1996: Bill Clinton reelected President of the United States.
1998: Soviet strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 15,000 H-bombs.
1999: Peacekeeper II and Trident III missiles, which have 20 warheads
each, enter service with USAF and USN respectively.
2000: Al Gore elected President of the United States. B-2 force
reaches full deployment of 133 bombers. Soviet SS-30, which has 20
warheads, enters service.
2001: Terrorist attacks destroy World Trade Center and damage
Pentagon. US invades Afghanistan, deposes Muhammad Omar.
Don't be absurd. In a world in there is still a USSR in 2001 there
is positively no way that those terrorist attacks would still occur
and turn out the same way.
Post by Josh
2002: American strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 20,000 H-bombs.
2003: United States begins work on developing anti-matter bomb and
unmanned space bomber.
The USSR was around at the time of the Persian Gulf War in OTL!
Remember?
Not really. Wasn't it making the transition into the CIS?
And I didn't put that it opposed action against Iraq. I put
that it vetoed sanctions against Iraq and the resolution that would've
created a commission to inspect Iraq for nuclear, biological and
chemical weapons.
So it vetoed sanctions but had no problem with military action?
Why not?
The USSR broke up on December 26, 1991. The Russians wouldn't have
wanted Saddam to be removed from power because that would've open up
the possibility of the US gaining another ally in the middle east. The
Russians would've had no reason to oppose the Persian Gulf War as long
as they got assurances from the Americans that Saddam would not be
removed from power, which the Americans would've been willing to do
since there were no plans to remove Saddam from power anyway. But it
would've had reasons to oppose economic sanctions and the creation of
a commission to inspect Iraq for nuclear, biological and chemical
weapons. The Russians would've wanted a stable postwar Iraq with
Saddam in charge. And the best way to ensure that was to make sure
Iraq got money after the war. UN economic sanctions would've (and did)
deprive Iraq of money with which to rebuild its military. This made
Iraq more vulnerable to external threats (like Iran) and internal ones
(like the Kurds). Not only that, but a 1991 veto of economic
sanctions would've given the USSR a bargaining chip in future
negotiations with the US. As for the inspections commission
resolution, this carried no advantages for the USSR and a couple of
potential disadvantages. If they allowed the resolution to pass, the
Iraqis would've either allowed inspectors in or they wouldn't have.
If they did, that would've carried no advantage for the USSR. If they
didn't, the US might threaten military action. That would put the
USSR in a dilemma. If the USSR backed Iraq, that would put it in a
direct military confrontation with the United States. The Russians
wouldn't have wanted that. If they didn't back Iraq, then the United
States might invade and remove Saddam from power. They didn't want
that either. So it would've been better from their point of view to
prevent the dilemma from occuring by simply vetoing the resolution.
David Johnston
2003-08-04 18:43:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh
Post by David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Post by Josh
1983: Yuri Andropov receives kidney transplant.
1984: Ronald Reagan reelected President of the United States. Soviet
strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 10,000 H-bombs.
1985: B-1B enters service with USAF.
1987: TU-160 enters service with Soviet Air Force.
1988: American strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 15,000 H-bombs.
George Bush elected President of the United States.
1989: USSR withdraws from Afghanistan.
1990: Iraq invades Kuwait.
1991: Persian Gulf War. USSR vetoes UN sanctions on Iraq and UN
resolution that would've created commission to inspect Iraq for
nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Numerous countries,
including US, impose sanctions independently. US, UK and France
impose no-fly zones on Iraq.
No they don't. Not if the USSR opposes action against Iraq.
But what the hell is the USSR still doing being around at all?
I think you missed a step or two.
Post by Josh
1992: Bill Clinton elected President of the United States. F-22
enters service with USAF.
1993: B-2 enters service with USAF.
1996: Bill Clinton reelected President of the United States.
1998: Soviet strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 15,000 H-bombs.
1999: Peacekeeper II and Trident III missiles, which have 20 warheads
each, enter service with USAF and USN respectively.
2000: Al Gore elected President of the United States. B-2 force
reaches full deployment of 133 bombers. Soviet SS-30, which has 20
warheads, enters service.
2001: Terrorist attacks destroy World Trade Center and damage
Pentagon. US invades Afghanistan, deposes Muhammad Omar.
Don't be absurd. In a world in there is still a USSR in 2001 there
is positively no way that those terrorist attacks would still occur
and turn out the same way.
Post by Josh
2002: American strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 20,000 H-bombs.
2003: United States begins work on developing anti-matter bomb and
unmanned space bomber.
The USSR was around at the time of the Persian Gulf War in OTL!
Remember?
Not really. Wasn't it making the transition into the CIS?
And I didn't put that it opposed action against Iraq. I put
that it vetoed sanctions against Iraq and the resolution that would've
created a commission to inspect Iraq for nuclear, biological and
chemical weapons.
So it vetoed sanctions but had no problem with military action?
Why not?
The USSR broke up on December 26, 1991. The Russians wouldn't have
wanted Saddam to be removed from power because that would've open up
the possibility of the US gaining another ally in the middle east. The
Russians would've had no reason to oppose the Persian Gulf War as long
as they got assurances from the Americans that Saddam would not be
removed from power,
Oh yes. And the Russians would believe American assurances?
Even after the Americans established a permanent presence in
Iraqi airspace? In any case what's the point of the timeline
if everything turns out the same?
Josh
2003-08-04 21:52:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Josh
Post by David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Post by Josh
1983: Yuri Andropov receives kidney transplant.
1984: Ronald Reagan reelected President of the United States. Soviet
strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 10,000 H-bombs.
1985: B-1B enters service with USAF.
1987: TU-160 enters service with Soviet Air Force.
1988: American strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 15,000 H-bombs.
George Bush elected President of the United States.
1989: USSR withdraws from Afghanistan.
1990: Iraq invades Kuwait.
1991: Persian Gulf War. USSR vetoes UN sanctions on Iraq and UN
resolution that would've created commission to inspect Iraq for
nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Numerous countries,
including US, impose sanctions independently. US, UK and France
impose no-fly zones on Iraq.
No they don't. Not if the USSR opposes action against Iraq.
But what the hell is the USSR still doing being around at all?
I think you missed a step or two.
Post by Josh
1992: Bill Clinton elected President of the United States. F-22
enters service with USAF.
1993: B-2 enters service with USAF.
1996: Bill Clinton reelected President of the United States.
1998: Soviet strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 15,000 H-bombs.
1999: Peacekeeper II and Trident III missiles, which have 20 warheads
each, enter service with USAF and USN respectively.
2000: Al Gore elected President of the United States. B-2 force
reaches full deployment of 133 bombers. Soviet SS-30, which has 20
warheads, enters service.
2001: Terrorist attacks destroy World Trade Center and damage
Pentagon. US invades Afghanistan, deposes Muhammad Omar.
Don't be absurd. In a world in there is still a USSR in 2001 there
is positively no way that those terrorist attacks would still occur
and turn out the same way.
Post by Josh
2002: American strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 20,000 H-bombs.
2003: United States begins work on developing anti-matter bomb and
unmanned space bomber.
The USSR was around at the time of the Persian Gulf War in OTL!
Remember?
Not really. Wasn't it making the transition into the CIS?
And I didn't put that it opposed action against Iraq. I put
that it vetoed sanctions against Iraq and the resolution that would've
created a commission to inspect Iraq for nuclear, biological and
chemical weapons.
So it vetoed sanctions but had no problem with military action?
Why not?
The USSR broke up on December 26, 1991. The Russians wouldn't have
wanted Saddam to be removed from power because that would've open up
the possibility of the US gaining another ally in the middle east. The
Russians would've had no reason to oppose the Persian Gulf War as long
as they got assurances from the Americans that Saddam would not be
removed from power,
Oh yes. And the Russians would believe American assurances?
Even after the Americans established a permanent presence in
Iraqi airspace? In any case what's the point of the timeline
if everything turns out the same?
The no-fly zones weren't created until AFTER the Persian Gulf War. You
need to look over the timeline again if you think everything turns out
the same. There are BIG differences between it and OTL.
Josh
2003-08-05 19:49:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh
Post by David Johnston
Post by Josh
Post by David Johnston
Post by David Johnston
Post by Josh
1983: Yuri Andropov receives kidney transplant.
1984: Ronald Reagan reelected President of the United States. Soviet
strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 10,000 H-bombs.
1985: B-1B enters service with USAF.
1987: TU-160 enters service with Soviet Air Force.
1988: American strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 15,000 H-bombs.
George Bush elected President of the United States.
1989: USSR withdraws from Afghanistan.
1990: Iraq invades Kuwait.
1991: Persian Gulf War. USSR vetoes UN sanctions on Iraq and UN
resolution that would've created commission to inspect Iraq for
nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Numerous countries,
including US, impose sanctions independently. US, UK and France
impose no-fly zones on Iraq.
No they don't. Not if the USSR opposes action against Iraq.
But what the hell is the USSR still doing being around at all?
I think you missed a step or two.
Post by Josh
1992: Bill Clinton elected President of the United States. F-22
enters service with USAF.
1993: B-2 enters service with USAF.
1996: Bill Clinton reelected President of the United States.
1998: Soviet strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 15,000 H-bombs.
1999: Peacekeeper II and Trident III missiles, which have 20 warheads
each, enter service with USAF and USN respectively.
2000: Al Gore elected President of the United States. B-2 force
reaches full deployment of 133 bombers. Soviet SS-30, which has 20
warheads, enters service.
2001: Terrorist attacks destroy World Trade Center and damage
Pentagon. US invades Afghanistan, deposes Muhammad Omar.
Don't be absurd. In a world in there is still a USSR in 2001 there
is positively no way that those terrorist attacks would still occur
and turn out the same way.
Post by Josh
2002: American strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 20,000 H-bombs.
2003: United States begins work on developing anti-matter bomb and
unmanned space bomber.
The USSR was around at the time of the Persian Gulf War in OTL!
Remember?
Not really. Wasn't it making the transition into the CIS?
And I didn't put that it opposed action against Iraq. I put
that it vetoed sanctions against Iraq and the resolution that would've
created a commission to inspect Iraq for nuclear, biological and
chemical weapons.
So it vetoed sanctions but had no problem with military action?
Why not?
The USSR broke up on December 26, 1991. The Russians wouldn't have
wanted Saddam to be removed from power because that would've open up
the possibility of the US gaining another ally in the middle east. The
Russians would've had no reason to oppose the Persian Gulf War as long
as they got assurances from the Americans that Saddam would not be
removed from power,
Oh yes. And the Russians would believe American assurances?
Even after the Americans established a permanent presence in
Iraqi airspace? In any case what's the point of the timeline
if everything turns out the same?
The no-fly zones weren't created until AFTER the Persian Gulf War.
Your point is?
You
Post by Josh
need to look over the timeline again if you think everything turns out
the same. There are BIG differences between it and OTL.
No. There aren't. Or if there are, you haven't told us what they
are. So the United States and Russia both have big weapons
stockpiles. So what?
That's a big difference. In this alternate timeline, military power
is important. The thing that bothers me about this timeline is it's
not as important as it used to be. The end of the cold war caused
that.
David Johnston
2003-08-05 20:47:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh
You
Post by Josh
need to look over the timeline again if you think everything turns out
the same. There are BIG differences between it and OTL.
No. There aren't. Or if there are, you haven't told us what they
are. So the United States and Russia both have big weapons
stockpiles. So what?
That's a big difference. In this alternate timeline, military power
is important.
Obviously not if there are no consequences for having a lot more
of it. Who cares?
Horrigan
2003-08-04 03:04:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Josh
1991: Persian Gulf War. USSR vetoes UN sanctions on Iraq and UN
resolution that would've created commission to inspect Iraq for
nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Numerous countries,
including US, impose sanctions independently. US, UK and France
impose no-fly zones on Iraq.
No they don't. Not if the USSR opposes action against Iraq.
But what the hell is the USSR still doing being around at all?
I think you missed a step or two.
In real life:

USSR technically still existed in 1991 but was in an advanced state of
collapse. The USSR government, such as it was at the time, supported Gulf War
I.

If the Soviets had voted to OPPOSE Gulf War I, as you theorize, the USSR (in my
opinion) still would have collapsed. In fact it probably would have collapsed
even quicker, because there would have been less American and European aid and
investment. However, this anti-GW1 vote might have started a chain of events
which would have culminated in US involvement in the Caucusus, which in turn
might have touched off a nuclear World War III. And in THAT case, we would not
be sitting around writing stupid usenet posts!



*****
Tim Horrigan <***@aol.com>
*****
Oliver Neukum
2003-08-04 07:13:06 UTC
Permalink
Why don't you think Clinton would've gotten the Democratic nomination
in 1992? The only thing Osama might have against the Russians in
He wasn't a leading member of his party. He was given the nomination
because nobody thought him to have a realistic chance.

Therefor his nomination was more or less random.
particular is the war in Chechnya. But that wouldn't have happened if
the cold war hadn't ended and the USSR hadn't broken up. So Al Qaeda
would've had no reason to attack the USSR. And if Al Qaeda didn't
The USSR would oppress Islam within its borders. It has no choice
in that regard.
Demographics still mean an Islamic reawakening. There'll be a larger
clash with the USSR than with Russia OTL. Probably not as bloody,
but much more effective. Osama might still be an US ally.
attack the USSR, the Russians would have no reason to kill Osama.
Afghanistan would've been the same. Andropov would've realized the
war was essentially unwinnable just like Gorbachev did and would've
ordered Russian forces to withdraw just like Gorbachev did. By the
Perhaps, but the Taliban would not come to power. The nasty proxy
war would most likely go on.

Regards
Oliver
Josh
2003-08-04 18:44:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oliver Neukum
Why don't you think Clinton would've gotten the Democratic nomination
in 1992? The only thing Osama might have against the Russians in
He wasn't a leading member of his party. He was given the nomination
because nobody thought him to have a realistic chance.
Therefor his nomination was more or less random.
particular is the war in Chechnya. But that wouldn't have happened if
the cold war hadn't ended and the USSR hadn't broken up. So Al Qaeda
would've had no reason to attack the USSR. And if Al Qaeda didn't
The USSR would oppress Islam within its borders. It has no choice
in that regard.
Demographics still mean an Islamic reawakening. There'll be a larger
clash with the USSR than with Russia OTL. Probably not as bloody,
but much more effective. Osama might still be an US ally.
attack the USSR, the Russians would have no reason to kill Osama.
Afghanistan would've been the same. Andropov would've realized the
war was essentially unwinnable just like Gorbachev did and would've
ordered Russian forces to withdraw just like Gorbachev did. By the
Perhaps, but the Taliban would not come to power. The nasty proxy
war would most likely go on.
Regards
Oliver
Assuming Clinton's nomination was random, a continuing cold war
wouldn't have affected the outcome of the random selection. Osama has
a particularly big beef with the United States: the American military
presence is Saudi Arabia. Not only is Saudi Arabia the holy land, but
it's also Osama's home country. The presence of infidel there is an
affront of the highest order to him. He would have no comparable beef
with the USSR. I'm sure he wasn't happy about the oppression of
Muslims there, but he's definitely not happy about the Israeli
occupation of the West Bank, and yet Al Qaeda has never launched a
terrorist attack against Israel. As for Afghanistan, I don't see
anything happening differently with Andropov in power instead of
Gorbachev. With Soviet forces gone, the communist government would've
fallen just as it did.
Oliver Neukum
2003-08-04 22:37:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh
Assuming Clinton's nomination was random, a continuing cold war
wouldn't have affected the outcome of the random selection. Osama has
But random chance would. The continuing cold war will affect a lot
f small things.
Post by Josh
a particularly big beef with the United States: the American military
presence is Saudi Arabia. Not only is Saudi Arabia the holy land, but
it's also Osama's home country. The presence of infidel there is an
affront of the highest order to him. He would have no comparable beef
with the USSR. I'm sure he wasn't happy about the oppression of
Muslims there, but he's definitely not happy about the Israeli
occupation of the West Bank, and yet Al Qaeda has never launched a
terrorist attack against Israel. As for Afghanistan, I don't see
anything happening differently with Andropov in power instead of
Gorbachev. With Soviet forces gone, the communist government would've
fallen just as it did.
Correct, but the Mujahiddin wouldn't. With the Soviet Union alive
and kicking nobody would allow a bunch of Qoran students to hold
a country right on the border. Neither the US nor the SU would be
happy with them. They'd have the chance of a mouse fighting ten cats.

Regards
Oliver
Josh
2003-08-05 19:52:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh
Post by Oliver Neukum
Why don't you think Clinton would've gotten the Democratic nomination
in 1992? The only thing Osama might have against the Russians in
He wasn't a leading member of his party. He was given the nomination
because nobody thought him to have a realistic chance.
Therefor his nomination was more or less random.
particular is the war in Chechnya. But that wouldn't have happened if
the cold war hadn't ended and the USSR hadn't broken up. So Al Qaeda
would've had no reason to attack the USSR. And if Al Qaeda didn't
The USSR would oppress Islam within its borders. It has no choice
in that regard.
Demographics still mean an Islamic reawakening. There'll be a larger
clash with the USSR than with Russia OTL. Probably not as bloody,
but much more effective. Osama might still be an US ally.
attack the USSR, the Russians would have no reason to kill Osama.
Afghanistan would've been the same. Andropov would've realized the
war was essentially unwinnable just like Gorbachev did and would've
ordered Russian forces to withdraw just like Gorbachev did. By the
Perhaps, but the Taliban would not come to power. The nasty proxy
war would most likely go on.
Regards
Oliver
Assuming Clinton's nomination was random, a continuing cold war
wouldn't have affected the outcome of the random selection. Osama has
a particularly big beef with the United States: the American military
presence is Saudi Arabia. Not only is Saudi Arabia the holy land, but
it's also Osama's home country. The presence of infidel there is an
affront of the highest order to him. He would have no comparable beef
with the USSR.
Right... I mean it's not like he spent years fighting the USSR and
only turned on the United States when the USSR was finally out
of the Middle East...
Oh wait, that's exactly what happened OTL.
But once the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan, he had no more reason
to pay attention to the USSR.
David Johnston
2003-08-05 20:50:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh
Post by Josh
Post by Oliver Neukum
Why don't you think Clinton would've gotten the Democratic nomination
in 1992? The only thing Osama might have against the Russians in
He wasn't a leading member of his party. He was given the nomination
because nobody thought him to have a realistic chance.
Therefor his nomination was more or less random.
particular is the war in Chechnya. But that wouldn't have happened if
the cold war hadn't ended and the USSR hadn't broken up. So Al Qaeda
would've had no reason to attack the USSR. And if Al Qaeda didn't
The USSR would oppress Islam within its borders. It has no choice
in that regard.
Demographics still mean an Islamic reawakening. There'll be a larger
clash with the USSR than with Russia OTL. Probably not as bloody,
but much more effective. Osama might still be an US ally.
attack the USSR, the Russians would have no reason to kill Osama.
Afghanistan would've been the same. Andropov would've realized the
war was essentially unwinnable just like Gorbachev did and would've
ordered Russian forces to withdraw just like Gorbachev did. By the
Perhaps, but the Taliban would not come to power. The nasty proxy
war would most likely go on.
Regards
Oliver
Assuming Clinton's nomination was random, a continuing cold war
wouldn't have affected the outcome of the random selection. Osama has
a particularly big beef with the United States: the American military
presence is Saudi Arabia. Not only is Saudi Arabia the holy land, but
it's also Osama's home country. The presence of infidel there is an
affront of the highest order to him. He would have no comparable beef
with the USSR.
Right... I mean it's not like he spent years fighting the USSR and
only turned on the United States when the USSR was finally out
of the Middle East...
Oh wait, that's exactly what happened OTL.
But once the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan, he had no more reason
to pay attention to the USSR.
Throughout the cold war the Russians were all over the Middle East
competing for influence with the Americans. If the cold war doesn't
end, the Russians don't leave. I And that's the reason
why the Russians would not allow the Americans to invade Iraq.
Iraq was one of the nations that the Russians tried to be cosy with.
Josh
2003-08-06 05:00:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Josh
Post by Josh
Post by Oliver Neukum
Why don't you think Clinton would've gotten the Democratic nomination
in 1992? The only thing Osama might have against the Russians in
He wasn't a leading member of his party. He was given the nomination
because nobody thought him to have a realistic chance.
Therefor his nomination was more or less random.
particular is the war in Chechnya. But that wouldn't have happened if
the cold war hadn't ended and the USSR hadn't broken up. So Al Qaeda
would've had no reason to attack the USSR. And if Al Qaeda didn't
The USSR would oppress Islam within its borders. It has no choice
in that regard.
Demographics still mean an Islamic reawakening. There'll be a larger
clash with the USSR than with Russia OTL. Probably not as bloody,
but much more effective. Osama might still be an US ally.
attack the USSR, the Russians would have no reason to kill Osama.
Afghanistan would've been the same. Andropov would've realized the
war was essentially unwinnable just like Gorbachev did and would've
ordered Russian forces to withdraw just like Gorbachev did. By the
Perhaps, but the Taliban would not come to power. The nasty proxy
war would most likely go on.
Regards
Oliver
Assuming Clinton's nomination was random, a continuing cold war
wouldn't have affected the outcome of the random selection. Osama has
a particularly big beef with the United States: the American military
presence is Saudi Arabia. Not only is Saudi Arabia the holy land, but
it's also Osama's home country. The presence of infidel there is an
affront of the highest order to him. He would have no comparable beef
with the USSR.
Right... I mean it's not like he spent years fighting the USSR and
only turned on the United States when the USSR was finally out
of the Middle East...
Oh wait, that's exactly what happened OTL.
But once the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan, he had no more reason
to pay attention to the USSR.
Throughout the cold war the Russians were all over the Middle East
competing for influence with the Americans. If the cold war doesn't
end, the Russians don't leave. I And that's the reason
why the Russians would not allow the Americans to invade Iraq.
Iraq was one of the nations that the Russians tried to be cosy with.
If you're referring to the Iraqi War of this year, I agree. Note it
doesn't happen on the ATL. If you're referring to the Persian Gulf War
of 1991, I disagree.
Josh
2003-08-06 15:58:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnston
Post by Josh
Post by Josh
Post by Oliver Neukum
Why don't you think Clinton would've gotten the Democratic nomination
in 1992? The only thing Osama might have against the Russians in
He wasn't a leading member of his party. He was given the nomination
because nobody thought him to have a realistic chance.
Therefor his nomination was more or less random.
particular is the war in Chechnya. But that wouldn't have happened if
the cold war hadn't ended and the USSR hadn't broken up. So Al Qaeda
would've had no reason to attack the USSR. And if Al Qaeda didn't
The USSR would oppress Islam within its borders. It has no choice
in that regard.
Demographics still mean an Islamic reawakening. There'll be a larger
clash with the USSR than with Russia OTL. Probably not as bloody,
but much more effective. Osama might still be an US ally.
attack the USSR, the Russians would have no reason to kill Osama.
Afghanistan would've been the same. Andropov would've realized the
war was essentially unwinnable just like Gorbachev did and would've
ordered Russian forces to withdraw just like Gorbachev did. By the
Perhaps, but the Taliban would not come to power. The nasty proxy
war would most likely go on.
Regards
Oliver
Assuming Clinton's nomination was random, a continuing cold war
wouldn't have affected the outcome of the random selection. Osama has
a particularly big beef with the United States: the American military
presence is Saudi Arabia. Not only is Saudi Arabia the holy land, but
it's also Osama's home country. The presence of infidel there is an
affront of the highest order to him. He would have no comparable beef
with the USSR.
Right... I mean it's not like he spent years fighting the USSR and
only turned on the United States when the USSR was finally out
of the Middle East...
Oh wait, that's exactly what happened OTL.
But once the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan, he had no more reason
to pay attention to the USSR.
Throughout the cold war the Russians were all over the Middle East
competing for influence with the Americans. If the cold war doesn't
end, the Russians don't leave. I And that's the reason
why the Russians would not allow the Americans to invade Iraq.
Iraq was one of the nations that the Russians tried to be cosy with.
If you're referring to the Iraqi War of this year, I agree. Note it doesn't happen on the ATL. If you're referring to the Persian Gulf War
of 1991, I disagree.
Note it doesn't happen on the ATL.

This is a response to my own message. The ATL has Al Gore getting
elected in 2000. The Iraqi War wouldn't have happened if Al Gore had
been elected President in 2000 regardless of whether or not the cold
war was still going on.
Alexander Malinowski
2003-08-03 14:22:59 UTC
Permalink
***@socal.rr.com (Josh) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...
You are forgetting here that Soviet Union, not only its leadership,
was petrified dead body for decades by 1989.
If you extend Andropow ruling to the end of ninties, you must take
into account that KGB was one of the initiators Gorbachov changes.
Simply, they were intelligent people with access to the true
information sources.
If there were no changes, economic crisis of the beginning 1990-ties
would have happenned any way, probably little bit later and also
little bit deeper.
So Andropow represented KGB and KGB wanted the changes. You can
discuss, if KGB would implement changes Chinese way, instead of
Russian and if it were successful.
My answer is no, taking into account that the government in Poland
between 1982 and 1988 implemented dosen of economic reforms and none
of them really worked. The only result of any reform was a proof, that
revolutionary changes are necessary. And Poland had far less problems
and less complex then Soviet Union.

One can take into account, that if we compare
1984 Andropow(KGB) with
2003 Putin(KGB)
that KGB strategy not necessarily failed. Obviously, between 1991 and
1998, KGB were not rulling so it was not responsible for fall down of
Soviet Union ;-), economic disaster and so on...
It is like in Germany
1917 Hindenburg
1919 another government signing peace treaty after defeat
1933 Hindenburg (obviously without responsibility for the defeat in
the war!

If yaou are a leader and you clearly see that your country is going to
fail, you should resign, let your successor fail and return to the
power. Simple?
bgarid
2003-08-03 18:49:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alexander Malinowski
My answer is no, taking into account that the government in Poland
between 1982 and 1988 implemented dosen of economic reforms and none
of them really worked.
I've heard that Polish economy was already recovering from the 1980s
crisis when 1989 happened and another crisis hit Poland.

Anyway, People's Republic of Poland was not really a socialist
country..
Alexander Malinowski
2003-08-03 22:13:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by bgarid
I've heard that Polish economy was already recovering from the 1980s
crisis when 1989 happened and another crisis hit Poland.
It depends, how you define recovery, if according to official figures
maybe yes.

However, the fact that reglamentation of the meat was still in place,
made people feel like crizes lasted all that time.
The communist leadership of Poland supposed that there is enough meat
produced in Poland, but the problem was the black market.
There were an anectode, probably true, that once there were a meeting
between the communist manager responsible for overall system of
reglamentation and
the locals communist leaders. Sudenly one of the leaders asked very
provocative question: "How it is possible that reglamentation system
of the III Reich did work, but ours doesn't?" The answer was quick:
"Nazis could send illegal food traders to Auschwitz. We don't have
such a means."
Anyway, the farmer that provided our family with the food ( each
delivery included 50 kg home made sossages - much better then market
products right now )
was proud that his grandfather sold illegally food in times of Hitler,
father in times of Stalin and he continued family mission...

Seriously, Polish economy became practically stagnant in 60-ties.
Communist had no illusions about the prospects, but sudenly in 1971
economy started to grow. Contemporary communist leader Gierek invented
his "big leap forward". He believed that if he invest enough money, it
will trigger autonomus growth. So started short living prosperity the
years 1972-1974. The strategy proved to be completely wrong: nothing
could force communist economy to be profitable. In addition communist
party in Poland had completely no space for manouvers: if something
went wrong they risked riots. They avoided to make difficult decision,
until martial law was introduced 1982 with kind of experimental
economic reform, that didn't went too far.
There are no exact figures online, but I remember approximately
(GDP growth)
1979 -3%
1980 -6%
1981 -12%
1982 -8%
1983 +5%
1984 +4%
and slowing down again. The next economic reform was introduced with
referndum in 1987 seemed more radical, but political situation already
changed. The last decision of the last communist government in 1989
declared free market in agriculture, and by doing so triggered
hiperinflation...
Post by bgarid
Anyway, People's Republic of Poland was not really a socialist
country..
I have many people that still believe that Poland is kind of socialist
country, so I wonder why you think otherwise?
Josh
2003-08-04 02:18:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alexander Malinowski
You are forgetting here that Soviet Union, not only its leadership,
was petrified dead body for decades by 1989.
If you extend Andropow ruling to the end of ninties, you must take
into account that KGB was one of the initiators Gorbachov changes.
Simply, they were intelligent people with access to the true
information sources.
If there were no changes, economic crisis of the beginning 1990-ties
would have happenned any way, probably little bit later and also
little bit deeper.
So Andropow represented KGB and KGB wanted the changes. You can
discuss, if KGB would implement changes Chinese way, instead of
Russian and if it were successful.
My answer is no, taking into account that the government in Poland
between 1982 and 1988 implemented dosen of economic reforms and none
of them really worked. The only result of any reform was a proof, that
revolutionary changes are necessary. And Poland had far less problems
and less complex then Soviet Union.
One can take into account, that if we compare
1984 Andropow(KGB) with
2003 Putin(KGB)
that KGB strategy not necessarily failed. Obviously, between 1991 and
1998, KGB were not rulling so it was not responsible for fall down of
Soviet Union ;-), economic disaster and so on...
It is like in Germany
1917 Hindenburg
1919 another government signing peace treaty after defeat
1933 Hindenburg (obviously without responsibility for the defeat in
the war!
If yaou are a leader and you clearly see that your country is going to
fail, you should resign, let your successor fail and return to the
power. Simple?
The Soviet economy started shrinking at a rate of 1% a year in 1980,
which is hardly catastrophic. Prior to that it grew. So the USSR was
not a petrified corpse when Gorbachev came to power, far from it. As
for the economic crisis, what happened was that Gorbachev
decentralized the economy too much and the people who he gave more
power to didn't know what to do with it. There was a developing
crisis before Gorbachev came to power, but Gorbachev intensified it.
The KGB was not an initiator of Gorbachev's reforms. Gorbachev was
the sole initiator of his reforms. The KGB was under Gorbachev's
control.
Alexander Malinowski
2003-08-05 22:53:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh
The Soviet economy started shrinking at a rate of 1% a year in 1980,
which is hardly catastrophic. Prior to that it grew.
-1% for the developing country it WAS a catastrphic stagnation. If you
take into account sacrifaces that Soviet people made in order for
brighter future, and the very fact that Soviet leadership promised to
catch up with developed countries, it was completely failure. Let's
imagine that China now grows -1%? Diasaster? Very likely! For China
less then 4% is a disaster, while for United States even a year with
negative growth is not so bad. It is way, because all the prestige of
the authority in China, bases on the success of its development
strategy. It was the same in Soviet Union.

In addition, the theory didn't say a word about the possibility of the
negative growth in socialist economy. For sure it was signal for
changes!
Post by Josh
for the economic crisis, what happened was that Gorbachev
decentralized the economy too much and the people who he gave more
power to didn't know what to do with it. There was a developing
crisis before Gorbachev came to power, but Gorbachev intensified it.
Bad for him and his country. 0:1 to humanity. If I have a thought that
without Gorbachov failure all of us would have been still closed
inside "The camp of progress and peace" I feel happy.
Post by Josh
The KGB was not an initiator of Gorbachev's reforms. Gorbachev was
the sole initiator of his reforms. The KGB was under Gorbachev's
control.
Somebody must have written the reports, that set Gorbachov on the way
to reforms. Who is writing such a reports? KGB. As a Russian pointed
out, the only place that bright person could have made a career.
Josh
2003-08-06 04:54:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alexander Malinowski
Post by Josh
The Soviet economy started shrinking at a rate of 1% a year in 1980,
which is hardly catastrophic. Prior to that it grew.
-1% for the developing country it WAS a catastrphic stagnation. If you
take into account sacrifaces that Soviet people made in order for
brighter future, and the very fact that Soviet leadership promised to
catch up with developed countries, it was completely failure. Let's
imagine that China now grows -1%? Diasaster? Very likely! For China
less then 4% is a disaster, while for United States even a year with
negative growth is not so bad. It is way, because all the prestige of
the authority in China, bases on the success of its development
strategy. It was the same in Soviet Union.
But it wouldn't have lead to the breakup of the USSR in the immediate
future. And who knows? Maybe Andropov would've been able to reverse
the shrinkage. The shrinkage actually did reverse, temporarily.
In addition, the theory didn't say a word about the possibility of the
Post by Alexander Malinowski
negative growth in socialist economy. For sure it was signal for
changes!
Post by Josh
for the economic crisis, what happened was that Gorbachev
decentralized the economy too much and the people who he gave more
power to didn't know what to do with it. There was a developing
crisis before Gorbachev came to power, but Gorbachev intensified it.
Bad for him and his country. 0:1 to humanity. If I have a thought that
without Gorbachov failure all of us would have been still closed
inside "The camp of progress and peace" I feel happy.
You really think the breakup of the USSR was a good thing? Millions
have died because of it.
Post by Alexander Malinowski
Post by Josh
The KGB was not an initiator of Gorbachev's reforms. Gorbachev was
the sole initiator of his reforms. The KGB was under Gorbachev's
control.
Somebody must have written the reports, that set Gorbachov on the way
to reforms. Who is writing such a reports? KGB. As a Russian pointed
out, the only place that bright person could have made a career.
Andropov and Chernenko got reports from the KGB, too. But they didn't
initiate Glasnost and Perestroika.
Alexander Malinowski
2003-08-06 18:28:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh
You really think the breakup of the USSR was a good thing?
Yes, I do. Most of Centraleuropeans will tell you the same answer. It
meant freedom for 350 milion people and this is very significant fact
in history. And without a war!
Post by Josh
Millions have died because of it.
Not because of that. Because of the mismanagement that followed
break-up of the Soviet Union. One of the conseqences of freedom is
that you can die if you are not managing yourself well or accidently.
Prisoners are usually not given a choice i.e. to die of starvation
that are given to free people.
In addition, break-up of Soviet Union could have brought death of
milions if it weren't peaceful.
By the way, in the years that followed the end of communism, Poles
extended life expectancy by few years. Especially women live now
longer, and the difference between life expectancy of male and female
person is around 6-7 years! In Western Europe less so. The biggest
difference between the le is now in Estonia, around 8 years.
(One of the explanation was that consumption of oranges makes people
healthier)

The conclusion is that communism makes life of the women especially
miserable.
Post by Josh
Andropov and Chernenko got reports from the KGB, too. But they didn't
initiate Glasnost and Perestroika.
And this historical proof that individuals can influence the history.
Long live Gorbachov! ( despite the fact that he is full blooded
commie)
William Baird
2003-08-03 19:04:51 UTC
Permalink
***@socal.rr.com (Josh) wrote in message

Josh,

Forgive me, but its painfully obvious that you've not
worked for defense contractors. While they're often
not the evil things that are portrayed in movies by a
long shot, they're also far from able - at least the
set we have now - what you are suggesting here.
1992: F-22 enters service with USAF.
Simply not possible. The ATF program which the F-22 came
from had only settled on the F-22 (vs the F-23) in spring
of 1991. IIRC, it was April. The proposals that both
contractors had put forward required a lot more work on
the design to get it to what they promised: the EMD period.

The manufacturing and avionics were *NOT*EVEN*CLOSE*TO*DONE*.

AMAOF, the F-22 avionics are *STILL* having problems.
1998: Soviet strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 15,000 H-bombs.
Dude. *WHY* would both sides keeping churning out bazillions of
nukes when even under Reagan they had been working to reduce the
total. To level one or another state, even assuming a First Strike
(tm), both sides had plenty.
1999: Peacekeeper II and Trident III missiles, which have 20 warheads
each, enter service with USAF and USN respectively.
Why?
2000: Al Gore elected President of the United States. B-2 force
reaches full deployment of 133 bombers. Soviet SS-30, which has 20
warheads, enters service.
2002: American strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 20,000 H-bombs.
*THAT* is madness. Look, I'm a nuke fan, ok? I even grew up in
Los Alamos, NM.
2003: United States begins work on developing anti-matter bomb and
unmanned space bomber.
The first of these will require a massive, fundamental change to
power generation, physics, and all the host of engineering that
goes along with it. 20 years from *NOW* with consistant, deep
pocket funding that the US has historically never been able to do.

Well, strike that, the Navy has, but that's a different story.
Everybody likes a sexy ship.

Now, the latter, I had the glib answer that we already have them;
they're called MIRVs, but I realized that was unfair and this
post is harsh enough as it is. The USAF is still struggling with
the whole issue of UCAVs. They're not about to just to making
them stragetic bombers, especially if there is a chance that they
won't be recallable.

Besides, the current set of contractors would like to sit there
and slurp and suck off the federal teet for as long as possible.
Think I'm being unfair? I worked for DOD contractors for 5 years
before moving away from that. What I saw sickened me. Saying
that more oversight would fix it makes me laugh. The contractor
that pulled in to audit the previous contractor turned itself in
to a cancer and was metastatising all over the sodding place.
The govies, as in the civilian government employees (G-etc's),
were such incompetant goofuses (goofi?) that I wouldn't want to
trust them to hold a hat for 5 minutes and not lose it.

Now, as for the 9-11 attacks happening and getting a similar result?
Dude, you might have just found a way of coming up with Pournelle's
CoDo...between the US and Chinese after the Soviet Union melts down.

*breaths in and out*

Look. You are new. I shouldn't flame ya, but its a pet peeve.
I'm very promilitary and pro military tech. Just, don't fall into
the trap of thinking that money will solve all the problems. The
procurement cycle is badly broken. It has been breaking down since
the 60s. McNamara is a strong contributor (IMNSHO), but the
contractors have been certainly helping things along. Anyways...

You do have a good WI here: what-if a 9-11 level of attack happened
to the US during the Cold War? *THAT* with a lot of thought and
research would make an awesome TL to read...or potentially a very
frightening one.

Try again and harder.

Good luck.

Will

--
William P Baird Do you know why the road less traveled by
Speaking for me has so few sightseers? Normally, there
Home: ***@hotmail is something big, mean, with very sharp
Work: ***@nersc teeth - and quite the appetite! - waiting
Add .com/.gov somewhere along its dark and twisty bends.
Josh
2003-08-04 06:13:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by William Baird
Josh,
Forgive me, but its painfully obvious that you've not
worked for defense contractors. While they're often
not the evil things that are portrayed in movies by a
long shot, they're also far from able - at least the
set we have now - what you are suggesting here.
1992: F-22 enters service with USAF.
Simply not possible. The ATF program which the F-22 came
from had only settled on the F-22 (vs the F-23) in spring
of 1991. IIRC, it was April. The proposals that both
contractors had put forward required a lot more work on
the design to get it to what they promised: the EMD period.
The manufacturing and avionics were *NOT*EVEN*CLOSE*TO*DONE*.
AMAOF, the F-22 avionics are *STILL* having problems.
1998: Soviet strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 15,000 H-bombs.
Dude. *WHY* would both sides keeping churning out bazillions of
nukes when even under Reagan they had been working to reduce the
total. To level one or another state, even assuming a First Strike
(tm), both sides had plenty.
1999: Peacekeeper II and Trident III missiles, which have 20 warheads
each, enter service with USAF and USN respectively.
Why?
2000: Al Gore elected President of the United States. B-2 force
reaches full deployment of 133 bombers. Soviet SS-30, which has 20
warheads, enters service.
2002: American strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 20,000 H-bombs.
*THAT* is madness. Look, I'm a nuke fan, ok? I even grew up in
Los Alamos, NM.
2003: United States begins work on developing anti-matter bomb and
unmanned space bomber.
The first of these will require a massive, fundamental change to
power generation, physics, and all the host of engineering that
goes along with it. 20 years from *NOW* with consistant, deep
pocket funding that the US has historically never been able to do.
Well, strike that, the Navy has, but that's a different story.
Everybody likes a sexy ship.
Now, the latter, I had the glib answer that we already have them;
they're called MIRVs, but I realized that was unfair and this
post is harsh enough as it is. The USAF is still struggling with
the whole issue of UCAVs. They're not about to just to making
them stragetic bombers, especially if there is a chance that they
won't be recallable.
Besides, the current set of contractors would like to sit there
and slurp and suck off the federal teet for as long as possible.
Think I'm being unfair? I worked for DOD contractors for 5 years
before moving away from that. What I saw sickened me. Saying
that more oversight would fix it makes me laugh. The contractor
that pulled in to audit the previous contractor turned itself in
to a cancer and was metastatising all over the sodding place.
The govies, as in the civilian government employees (G-etc's),
were such incompetant goofuses (goofi?) that I wouldn't want to
trust them to hold a hat for 5 minutes and not lose it.
Now, as for the 9-11 attacks happening and getting a similar result?
Dude, you might have just found a way of coming up with Pournelle's
CoDo...between the US and Chinese after the Soviet Union melts down.
*breaths in and out*
Look. You are new. I shouldn't flame ya, but its a pet peeve.
I'm very promilitary and pro military tech. Just, don't fall into
the trap of thinking that money will solve all the problems. The
procurement cycle is badly broken. It has been breaking down since
the 60s. McNamara is a strong contributor (IMNSHO), but the
contractors have been certainly helping things along. Anyways...
You do have a good WI here: what-if a 9-11 level of attack happened
to the US during the Cold War? *THAT* with a lot of thought and
research would make an awesome TL to read...or potentially a very
frightening one.
Try again and harder.
Good luck.
Will
The B-29 first flew in 1942. It entered service in 1944. The B-36
first flew in 1946. It entered service in 1948. The B-52 first flew
in 1952. It entered service in 1954. The F-15 first flew in 1972.
It entered service in 1974. The F-22 first flew in 1990. 2 years
seems to be the standard time period from first flight to service
entry. As for nuclear arsenals, the Russian strategic nuclear arsenal
increased in size every year until 1990. The American strategic
nuclear arsenal peaked in size in 1975, shrank during the Ford and
Carter administrations, then began growing again during the Reagan
administration. It began shrinking again in 1988, but that was
because the cold war ended. If it hadn't, it would've continued to
grow and the Russian strategic nuclear arsenal would've continued to
grow past 1989, the year it peaked in size. As for the Peacekeeper II
and Trident III, the US and USSR developed numerous new missiles after
the ones they originally deployed in the late 50's. That wouldn't
have stopped. They would've continued to develop new missiles. You
say 20,000 H-bombs is madness? The American strategic nuclear arsenal
reached 14,955 H-bombs in 1987. So it would've had to build only 336
1/3 H-bombs a year on average to reach 20,000 in 2002. The United
States had 6 strategic nukes at the end of 1945. The American
strategic nuclear arsenal peaked in 1975 at 15,748 nukes. That's an
average annual increase of 524.733 strategic nukes. So the strategic
nuclear arsenal would actually have been growing slower from 1987-2002
than it did from 1945-1975 if it had reached 20,000 last year. As for
the anti-matter bomb, I recently read in Discover that the technology
for producing anti-matter in quantity already exists. Having grown up
in Los Alamos, you might be familiar with a little project called the
Manhattan Project (sarcasm). The United States developed the atom
bomb in just 3 years. So what makes you think it would take 20 to
develop the anti-matter bomb? As for the unmanned space bomber, of
course it would be recallable. That would be one of the advantages
over an ICBM. I do have a few questions. First of all, what is
Pournelle's CoDo? What's the procurement cycle and why is it broken?
Why has it been broken since the 60's and what did McNamara have to do
with it breaking?
Josh
2003-08-04 05:03:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh
1984: Ronald Reagan reelected President of the United States. Soviet
strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 10,000 H-bombs.
1988: American strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 15,000 H-bombs.
Where do you get your figures from? Both American and Soviet nuclear
arsenals had exceeded the number of warheads you cite above well before the
dates in your ATL. America's startegic nuclear arsenal peaked in the late
1960s.
Post by Josh
2002: American strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 20,000 H-bombs.
2003: United States begins work on developing anti-matter bomb and
unmanned space bomber.
How sad that history should be conceived of almost solely in terms of a
succession of developments in weapons systems.
STRATEGIC nuclear arsenals. http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datainx.asp.
GB
David Johnston
2003-08-05 06:13:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Josh
Post by Josh
2002: American strategic nuclear arsenal exceeds 20,000 H-bombs.
2003: United States begins work on developing anti-matter bomb and
unmanned space bomber.
How sad that history should be conceived of almost solely in terms of a
succession of developments in weapons systems.
STRATEGIC nuclear arsenals. http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datainx.asp.
As long as they aren't used...who cares?
FreakyDeacon
2003-08-04 05:12:56 UTC
Permalink
I read in Discover recently that the technology to make anti-matter in
quantity already exists. Besides, I put that the United States BEGINS
work on developing an anti-matter bomb in 2003.
We can produce anti-matter, but not in any real meaningful amounts, nor does it
tend to last very long.

And why on earth is the US developing anti-matter bombs?

What is more, the US in 2003 isn't at a point to begin really applying the
technology such as it exists to military applications. How does an anti-matter
bomb even get _funding_?

So the Cold War is still going on; whoopadeedo. The US was in a general trend
of nuclear arms reduction even before your POD, meaning that we wouldn't
probably have the political desire to completely upset the balance, especially
when our conventional weapons kick such royal amounts of ass that tactical
nukes are effectively obsolete.
Josh
2003-08-04 15:40:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by FreakyDeacon
I read in Discover recently that the technology to make anti-matter in
quantity already exists. Besides, I put that the United States BEGINS
work on developing an anti-matter bomb in 2003.
We can produce anti-matter, but not in any real meaningful amounts, nor does it
tend to last very long.
What is more, the US in 2003 isn't at a point to begin really applying
the
Post by FreakyDeacon
technology such as it exists to military applications. How does an anti-matter
bomb even get _funding_?
The United States wasn't at a point in 1942 to begin applying nuclear
fission technology to military applications. But it sure as hell was
in 1945!

And why on earth is the US developing anti-matter bombs?
MORE POWER!

So the Cold War is still going on; whoopadeedo. The US was in a
general trend
Post by FreakyDeacon
of nuclear arms reduction even before your POD, meaning that we wouldn't
probably have the political desire to completely upset the balance, especially
when our conventional weapons kick such royal amounts of ass that tactical
nukes are effectively obsolete.
Why do people keep talking about TACTICAL nukes? Nowhere in my ATL do
I mention TACTICAL nukes. The American STRATEGIC nuclear arsenal
increased in size during the Reagan administration.
Oliver Neukum
2003-08-04 17:25:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by FreakyDeacon
And why on earth is the US developing anti-matter bombs?
MORE POWER!
No, it doesn't give you useful capabilities.
In case the cold war had continued the US might have
implemented the full Reaganite version of SDI, but not
AM weapons. AM weapons are useful only in deep space combat.
On our planet a fusion weapon will cover all contingencies.

Besides, a deathray is much cooler than a larger bomb.

Regards
Oliver
Coyu
2003-08-05 03:01:44 UTC
Permalink
The defense budget on January 1, 1987 was $286,300,000,000.
The GDP was $4,612,000,000,000. Defense spending was only
6.207% of GDP.
1 gram of anti-matter contains 89,875,517,870,000 Joules of
energy. It would take a 1 gigawatt powerplant only
89,875.51787 seconds (a little more than a day) to put out
that much energy.
Ah, numbers. And such a splendid grasp of significant figures!

US domestic electricity production in 2001 was 3.72 trillion
kilowatt-hours. That's 1.34 e19 Joules.

If all of that energy -- all the electricity the US makes in a
year -- were converted to antimatter with *perfect* efficiency,
you'd only get 149 kilograms of the stuff.

In megatonnage, that would only be 2.68 e19 Joules = 6400 MT.

Given that you have the US strategic arsenal as 20 thousand
H-bombs in 2000 -- let's figure them at 1 MT each -- you've
just wasted the US's entire domestic electrical production
into increasing its destructive "POWER" a measly thirty percent.

BFD.

Also, let's work out the cost. I'm going to completely ignore
supply and demand and call it a flat dime per kilowatt-hour.

That's 372 billion dollars, which is comfortably over the
1987 non-antimatter defense budget figure you give.

So, as we're all living in candlelight, our nuclear arsenal is
improved by maybe thirty percent (assuming perfect efficiency
in antimatter production), while our defense budget more than
doubles.

Sounds very... Soviet.
William Baird
2003-08-05 05:19:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Coyu
If all of that energy -- all the electricity the US makes in a
year -- were converted to antimatter with *perfect* efficiency,
you'd only get 149 kilograms of the stuff.
Ah, that's the wonderful, wonderful clincher though and you hit
it on the head, Carlos. My hat's off to you.

The efficiency for producing antimatter is pure, unadulterated
sh*t.

ahem.

As in thousandths (or less) of a percent.

:D
Post by Coyu
Sounds very... Soviet.
I've seen the results of that. It aint pretty.

*grimaces*

Will

--
William P Baird Do you know why the road less traveled by
Speaking for me has so few sightseers? Normally, there
Home: ***@hotmail is something big, mean, with very sharp
Work: ***@nersc teeth - and quite the appetite! - waiting
Add .com/.gov somewhere along its dark and twisty bends.
Wesley Taylor
2003-08-05 14:39:31 UTC
Permalink
You forgot about conservation of charge. For every particle of
anti-matter you make, you have to make its anti-particle (a particle
of matter). So actually, you'd only get 74.548 kg of anti-matter.
No. Conservation of charge has nothing to do with it. An atom of
anti-hydrogen is charge nuetral, having a positron in place of the
electron and a negatively charged version of hte proton in the center.
(forgot the name of the particle, oh well.)
Coyu
2003-08-05 16:07:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wesley Taylor
You forgot about conservation of charge. For every particle of
anti-matter you make, you have to make its anti-particle (a particle
of matter). So actually, you'd only get 74.548 kg of anti-matter.
No. Conservation of charge has nothing to do with it. An atom of
anti-hydrogen is charge nuetral, having a positron in place of the
electron and a negatively charged version of hte proton in the center.
Conservation of baryon number makes it a little more problematic.

But I am sure Big Bomber science can work its way around it. After
all, the US went from the start of the Manhattan Project to
producing an atomic bomb in three years and some change.
Josh
2003-08-05 19:55:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wesley Taylor
You forgot about conservation of charge. For every particle of
anti-matter you make, you have to make its anti-particle (a particle
of matter). So actually, you'd only get 74.548 kg of anti-matter.
No. Conservation of charge has nothing to do with it. An atom of
anti-hydrogen is charge nuetral, having a positron in place of the
electron and a negatively charged version of hte proton in the center.
(forgot the name of the particle, oh well.)
But anti-protons are negatively charged and positrons are positively
charged. To make a positively charged particle, you must make an
negatively charged one and vice versa.
David Johnson
2003-08-05 14:45:38 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Coyu
So, as we're all living in candlelight, our nuclear arsenal is
improved by maybe thirty percent (assuming perfect efficiency
in antimatter production), while our defense budget more than
doubles.
Sounds very... Soviet.
You forgot about conservation of charge. For every particle of
anti-matter you make, you have to make its anti-particle (a particle
of matter). So actually, you'd only get 74.548 kg of anti-matter.
Ummm, you've just argued that your "antimatter bomb" scenario is even
_less_ likely - 'cause now "we're all living in candlelight...while our
defense budget more than doubles" and it only "improves" our arsenal
_fifteen_ percent...

...and this still only happens with 100% efficency. Since it's more
like 0.001% effecency, you've only "improved" the arsenal by 0.015% - or
if you prefer, about three one-megaton bombs...

...cost per bang seems somewhat...high here...

...oh, don't forget to subtract out all the energy you need to maintain
containment.

David
Josh
2003-08-05 20:00:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Johnson
[snip]
Post by Coyu
So, as we're all living in candlelight, our nuclear arsenal is
improved by maybe thirty percent (assuming perfect efficiency
in antimatter production), while our defense budget more than
doubles.
Sounds very... Soviet.
You forgot about conservation of charge. For every particle of
anti-matter you make, you have to make its anti-particle (a particle
of matter). So actually, you'd only get 74.548 kg of anti-matter.
Ummm, you've just argued that your "antimatter bomb" scenario is even
_less_ likely - 'cause now "we're all living in candlelight...while our
defense budget more than doubles" and it only "improves" our arsenal
_fifteen_ percent...
...and this still only happens with 100% efficency. Since it's more
like 0.001% effecency, you've only "improved" the arsenal by 0.015% - or
if you prefer, about three one-megaton bombs...
...cost per bang seems somewhat...high here...
...oh, don't forget to subtract out all the energy you need to maintain
containment.
David
Not everything on the ATL is a logical projection. To be honest, the
events of 2003 were a flight of fancy, wishful thinking if you will.
Could they have happened? Yes. Would they have happened? I have no
idea. Is there any reason to think they would've happened? No. I
have no idea if Al Gore would've won the 2000 election or not if the
cold war had continued either.
Josh
2003-08-05 19:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Coyu
The defense budget on January 1, 1987 was $286,300,000,000.
The GDP was $4,612,000,000,000. Defense spending was only
6.207% of GDP.
1 gram of anti-matter contains 89,875,517,870,000 Joules of
energy. It would take a 1 gigawatt powerplant only
89,875.51787 seconds (a little more than a day) to put out
that much energy.
Ah, numbers. And such a splendid grasp of significant figures!
US domestic electricity production in 2001 was 3.72 trillion
kilowatt-hours. That's 1.34 e19 Joules.
If all of that energy -- all the electricity the US makes in a
year -- were converted to antimatter with *perfect* efficiency,
you'd only get 149 kilograms of the stuff.
In megatonnage, that would only be 2.68 e19 Joules = 6400 MT.
Given that you have the US strategic arsenal as 20 thousand
H-bombs in 2000 -- let's figure them at 1 MT each -- you've
just wasted the US's entire domestic electrical production
into increasing its destructive "POWER" a measly thirty percent.
BFD.
Also, let's work out the cost. I'm going to completely ignore
supply and demand and call it a flat dime per kilowatt-hour.
That's 372 billion dollars, which is comfortably over the
1987 non-antimatter defense budget figure you give.
So, as we're all living in candlelight, our nuclear arsenal is
improved by maybe thirty percent (assuming perfect efficiency
in antimatter production), while our defense budget more than
doubles.
Sounds very... Soviet.
And the United States could build more powerplants.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...