Suppose nuclear weapons were invented 1,000 years ago. Would we still be here?

The hypothetical only makes sense if we postulate an identical planet, except the laws of physics are such that nuclear weapons are about as easy to build as gunpowder weapons. That is, you dig up some radium and mercury, mix in a little jeweler’s rouge, and set it off with the emanations of the eighth ray. And the whole thing goes up like Little Man and Fat Boy. You don’t have any delivery systems other than horse-drawn wagons or fire ships. You could have some sort of fuse, but setting one of these things off is going to be pretty close to a suicide mission. No ICBMs or long range bombers, no industrial revolution, nothing changes except that some alchemical formulation releases tremendous amounts of energy on the scale of nuclear weapons. And we’ll also say that this alchemical process should have the same sort of secondary effects as nuclear weapons, just to keep it simple–fallout, and contamination.

And we’ll say that the spread of this secret will pretty much follow the time scale of the spread of gunpowder.

As was pointed out, the use of alchemical weapons means you’re destroying the very thing you’re trying to steal. Blow up a city and you can’t conquer the city. What’s the point of that? Populations are low, productivity is low. Wealth is produced by land, but land requires workers who only produce a tiny surplus to skim off. The reason you want to conquer a land is so that you can rule over it, and the more productive the land and the people the more rich and powerful you are.

In the medieval and ancient world cities existed because they were defensible against attack. The enemy army moves up, everyone runs into the fortified city, and the enemy has to besiege the city. Except now that doesn’t happen anymore. The enemy just sets off an alchemical bomb and blasts the fortified city off the map. But now the city is gone, so what was the point?

So what results is a much more decentralized world. No fortified cities, just farms and villages. Nomads like the Mongols rule the world, since they can wander wherever they like and loot and pillage the countryside and destroy any fortifications and any concentrations of force. Everyone is much poorer since trade centers are smoking craters. Populations are much lower. Formerly productive lands are contaminated wastelands. The good news is that since most people were already subsistence farmers, they continue to be subsistence farmers, you don’t have the mass die-offs you’d have in the modern industrial world as trade systems break down.

People would survive, but at much lower population densities and wealth, and any concentrations of wealth and population get eradicated with almost no possibility of defense. Warfare would consist of rapidly moving raiders looking for enemies trying to deliver alchemical weapons, and rapidly moving raiders trying to deliver alchemical weapons. Fire ships mean naval warfare is obsolete as are coastal cities. All you have left is viking-style longboat raids.

Agreed, take a look at the one war where nuclear weapons were used in the end; particularly take a look at what the war was like before the bombs were dropped. Entire cities being firebombed, civilians being murdered by the millions in Europe and China by the Nazis and the Japanese, the deliberate targeting of an enemies civilian population being considered the accepted norm regardless of treaties to the contrary. In 1945 it most certainly was not less warlike than the world was in 1018, if anything it was more warlike.

Do you think we’ll be here in 3018? There’s your answer, be it yes or no.

Ekers is right.

The goal was rape, pillage and burn.

Nukes do it in the wrong order.

The Mongols had a more powerful and practical strategy.

Crane

1982.

You’re suggesting we strive for nuclear winter?
On the other side, when India and Pakistan achieved nuclear deterrence the conflict between those nations was reduced significantly.

There is a serious argument that the problem comes with imbalance.

For example, if Iran and Israel had nuclear parity, it’s highly unlikely that they would blow themselves up in nuclear suicide.

The thing is, the leaders of Israel and Iran, like those who have invested so much in becoming the leaders of other countries, aren’t interested in suicide.

Took me awhile to find it, but this thread brought back a memory of Gahan Wilson’s take on this topic. So, just for a grin - Leonardo - Album on Imgur