A /r/HistoricalWhatIf user asks: "What if nuclear bombs were impossible to develop?" One commenter is not pleased and explains how they are indeed possible to develop. Drama ensues. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
69 ups - 23 downs = 46 votes
62 comments submitted at 14:00:24 on Dec 21, 2013 by Volesco
Poptart2nd's right, it's a terribly formed question for that subreddit.
He was being so pedantic that if the question had been "What if nuclear weapons were never invented?" he probably would have said "There's no way physicists couldn't have noticed the incredible energy in an atomic nucleus. For that to be true, modern science as we know it would have to not exist!"
But you can nonetheless understand the spirit of the question.
It all could have been resolved in one post if he had just offered an alternative wording that fit within his parameters.
> But you can nonetheless understand the spirit of the question.
Only in the most general sense, but the details would be very important to know if one wants to answer the question with any specificity.
Specificity is not the point. Most of the fun of 'what if' scenarios is in the exploration. We don't need every missing detail to be filled in before we can answer the question. Just start from simple stuff, and if the more detail-oriented stuff helps you tell the story better, go for it.
If you go to the thread itself, people start talking about all sorts of things as a consequence of the lack of nuclear weapons. I think this would have happened with Japan. The Cold War would have gone this way. Science progresses this way for the next twenty years.
> Science progresses this way for the next twenty years.
This in particular is quite dependent on the reasons why the bomb was not invented.
Sure, you can run with that too! Maybe the greater scientific community saw the threat of nuclear weapons early on, and nonproliferation became a thing before the bomb did. Maybe nuclear science was just never discovered, somehow, which is a good what-if topic in and of itself. Maybe early attempts to build the bomb went so disastrously, that society as a whole just decided to just not see it through.
I mean you can go back, forth, laterally, whatever. That's the beauty of what-if. Just take that one point and explore.
e: In Other Words:
> Maybe the greater scientific community saw the threat of nuclear weapons early on, and nonproliferation became a thing before the bomb did.
Which is more or less equivalent to saying that maybe magic fairies descended on the world and granted peace to all mankind.
> Maybe nuclear science was just never discovered, somehow, which is a good what-if topic in and of itself.
What part of nuclear science? What was so different that this branch was never explored, but was not so different that the universe continued to function essentially the same as it does now?
> Maybe early attempts to build the bomb went so disastrously, that society as a whole just decided to just not see it through.
This is a feasible item of discussion and is a much better question, though it still runs counter to the 'impossible' part of the initial question.
Someone should've let you fingerpaint more as a kid or something.
And someone should have taught you critical thinking.
Y'ever hear that ol' saying, that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds?
Then say "Its a terribly formed question" and go from there. Don't go off on a pedantic rant and try to pick apart the basis of the question when your problem is with the question itself. Doing so makes you a douche of gigantic proportions.
And when people say, "No, it's a perfectly fine question, there's nothing wrong with it. You're an idiot." Then what?
If poptart2nd had been forthright in his question asking and willing to concede his point before he mentioned it, none of this drama would have ever happened.
Why should he be willing to concede his point? He was correct.
He was also kind of a confrontational asshole. He could have asked a clarifying question or two then either given a hypothetical or given up. It's the internet.
Because being correct isn't (shouldn't be) the goal of every human interaction ever.
Then accept that you're an idiot because it's perfectly clear what OP is asking from the title of the post and the question OP put in the actual post.
But it's not perfectly clear unless you are willing to ignore details that would be vital to shaping your answer.
I mean, it's cool that you're OK with half-assing things in life, but you shouldn't expect everyone else to adhere to your low standards.
I guess I'll just disagree with you about the specificity of OP's question.
>it's cool that you're OK with half-assing things in life, but you shouldn't expect everyone else to adhere to your low standards.
Implying that a vague (assuming that it is vague) question posted on an anonymous internet message board means that everything the poster does in their life is half-assed. Nice.
> Implying that a vague (assuming that it is vague) question posted on an anonymous internet message board means that everything the poster does in their life is half-assed. Nice.
Actually, I was outright stating that anyone who is willing to accept that question without some valid clarifications and to try to answer it is clearly OK with half-assing some things in their life.
You may also want to note that I didn't say 'everything' in life, just 'things'.