Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't need a bomb in 1946 though, presumably nuclear power will eventually spread and suddenly it's 1963 and Israel is performing an underground test.
And? Would the Israel of that world have escaped somehow all the consequences that would have been in place for decades? Having escaped those consequences, would they then have subjected the globe to a rampage of nuclear holocaust? This is a sort of magical thinking: sure it's good to have less nukes, but only up to a point. After that, less nukes actually means more nukes! Good grief. Nuclear power absent the suppor…
They would essentially be UN consequences, they don't have a great track record of enforcing things like that.
>Having escaped those consequences, would they then have subjected the globe to a rampage of nuclear holocaust
Looking only at nukes, dropping one more on a populated area is worse than reality so far. And it's impossible to guess what kind of warfare a world without MAD would gave faced.
>Nuclear power absent the support of militarists in control of public money would be, absent. Only by the most skewed of accounting methods does it even begin to pay for itself.
Nuclear power obtained without the focus placed on weapons would be a completely different economy. Not only are design choices often made allowing more bombs to be created, the control of information and resources drives the price up.