Nothing's wrong with hypothesizing or speculation. We can learn a lot about the real world by doing that. For example, we might wonder what the consequences might have been, if, in 1940, a nationally prominent social worker in the US, who had gotten her start in a New York soup kitchen and who had once narrowly escaped being run over by a car, urged the President not to send the Pacific Fleet to Pearl Harbor, under the premise that it would be interpreted by the Japanese as a hostile act.
However, the OP has provided no link to the source of the timeline given in the OP post and no discussion of the methodology upon which it was based. He's tossed out some hypotheticals, but he didn't connect anything up with the timeline given in the OP. DarthTom
is apparently in contact with the person who created the timeline given in the OP. By my first question, I was implicitly hoping that he could disclose some of the methodology upon which it was based, or at least spell out the major assumptions, by consulting with the person who came up with it in the first place.
Since that hasn't happened, I'm not even sure what's being discussed. Is the discussion in relation to the OP timeline, or is this more a general discussion now of various what-if scenarios?
In my second post, I was primarily objecting to the idea that "Any assumption is as good as any other", because in science that is not so. In science, plausibility matters, and if an assumption is implausible it really must be identified as such. You seemed to concede that that was a valid point, which is the main thing I was looking for there. If it's not the case that any idea is as good as any other, then I believe that this discussion can fit in the context of science.
However, I would
like to know what the purpose of the OP was. Are we helping someone write a science fiction novel, or what? If we are, then I think that that really needs to be disclosed.