dorbie 0 #26 June 6, 2006 Well now at least we're agreeing a chain reaction would happen. You certainly could get a runaway chain reaction. It would be a fizzle yes but it would be a fucking mess with all sorts of undesirable effects including a potentially huge release of energy. The likely cause of the "premature disassembly" in a deformation scenario that went critical would be the energy released by nuclear chain reaction. Ask the folks at Chernobyl if you need a spherical implosion to start a runaway chain reaction, then consider the prospect of little balls of happiness flying overhead with a boron chain between you and disaster. I only mentioned this because of the Strangelovian joy of the image it invokes not to get into an exchange over nit-picks, my original post stands. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #27 June 6, 2006 Quote>I'm thinking about x-Ray driven implosion and more significantly the > Teller-Ulam "spark plug" fission trigger not just stuffing a few exotic >isotopes in an A-bomb. No question that the Teller-Ulam design was pretty elegant. If we didn't have it, we might now have inelegant thermonuclear weapons - but we'd still have em. Heck, it doesn't take a 'rocket scientist' to realize that detonating a fission trigger in a D-T bath is going to initiate fusion. It's just not very efficient. .) Sakharov didn't go that (Ulam) route, and he came up with a pretty elegant weapon for the USSR. Very quickly, too.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,282 #28 June 6, 2006 QuoteI only mentioned this because of the Strangelovian joy of the image it invokes Best sentence ever.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #29 June 6, 2006 QuoteQuoteI only mentioned this because of the Strangelovian joy of the image it invokes Best sentence ever. I met Teller twice in the 1980s, and he was indeed Strangelovian.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #30 June 6, 2006 Quote I met Teller twice in the 1980s, and he was indeed Strangelovian I believe it was Szilard (the Hungarian guy with a lot of spare time on his hands, who also got Einstein to write both letters to the president) that got Teller into the inner loop to begin with. Szilard bought him along to one of the first face to face meetings with Air Force officials.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,487 #31 June 6, 2006 >You certainly could get a runaway chain reaction. Definitely. Such things happen with some regularity in labs and in poorly-designed nuclear reactors (specifically those with a high positive void coefficient like the RBMK-type that Chernobyl used.) The problem with gun-type bombs is that one event, a shock to the detonator or a mechanical deceleration, can cause assembly of the critical mass and resulting nuclear detonation. If you drop a gun-type bomb, it can go off with an explosive force similar to its design yield. This isn't true of implosion type weapons. If you drop _any_ nuclear weapon and it breaks open, or you set off one detonator of an implosion weapon, it will make a huge mess, with chunks of plutonium everywhere. But you wouldn't vaporize Manhattan accidentally - which is why they are treated a bit differently. >Ask the folks at Chernobyl if you need a spherical implosion to start a runaway chain reaction . . . You don't, nor do you need one for a gun-type bomb. But keep in mind that what caused all the grief at Chernobyl was not that the plant exploded like a nuclear bomb. It was a thermal transient that caused a steam explosion. That allowed air to reach the core, which was made of a flammable material. The resulting fire is what caused the massive irradiation of the surrounding area. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,282 #32 June 7, 2006 QuoteI met Teller twice in the 1980s, and he was indeed Strangelovian. Sweet! Was it the wheelchair or the Nazi arm? My mum had quite a few lectures at university from a Manhatten project scientist, I think it was Joseph Rotblat, but he sounded about as anti-Strangelovian as it gets.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
zoobrothertom 5 #33 June 9, 2006 Who are you?____________________________________ I'm back in the USA!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #34 June 9, 2006 QuoteFurthermore, per Discovery Channel we dropped the first on Hiroshima so we could see the damage done to an unmolested city, as Hir had never been conventionally bombed. 70k per bomb, plus 100'2 of 1000's later..... no blood shed.... please. He said the LEAST amount of blood shed. A Ground invasion would have been worse than any of the other Islands combined. This is a country that perfered suicide to surrender in a large number of cases. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,683 #35 June 9, 2006 QuoteQuoteFurthermore, per Discovery Channel we dropped the first on Hiroshima so we could see the damage done to an unmolested city, as Hir had never been conventionally bombed. 70k per bomb, plus 100'2 of 1000's later..... no blood shed.... please. He said the LEAST amount of blood shed. A Ground invasion would have been worse than any of the other Islands combined. This is a country that perfered suicide to surrender in a large number of cases. Avoiding the need for a ground invasion (which is fine by me) is still no excuse for targeting an city with minimal strategic or tactical importance in order to ease bomb damage assessment.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #36 June 9, 2006 Quote Avoiding the need for a ground invasion (which is fine by me) is still no excuse for targeting an city with minimal strategic or tactical importance in order to ease bomb damage assessment. So, in the context of this discussion, what would you have done?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #37 June 9, 2006 QuoteSo, in the context of this discussion, what would you have done? Difficult one. On the one hand, Japan was VERY near surrender. A month or two of blockade would have broken them. On the other hand, Russia was due to enter the war against Japan (on August 8th) and American policy was that Japan was to be exclusively occupied by Americans. The month or two to starve Japan into reality would almost certainly have resulted in Russian invasion from the North and japan being partitioned like Germany. Hence the use of the atomic weapons, and the decision to allow Japan a conditional surrender (allowing them to keep their Emporer but no other conditions IS NOT "Unconditional-Surrender"). I really don't think that Truman's actions could be faulted at the time... Anything to hasten Japans surrender before Stalin had an excuse to make yet another of his infamous land-grabs! Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,282 #38 June 9, 2006 QuoteHence the use of the atomic weapons, and the decision to allow Japan a conditional surrender (allowing them to keep their Emporer but no other conditions IS NOT "Unconditional-Surrender"). I really don't think that Truman's actions could be faulted at the time... Anything to hasten Japans surrender before Stalin had an excuse to make yet another of his infamous land-grabs! I think the question of whether it was right to target Hiroshima, an untouched city with no value as a target in its own right is an interesting one. Thing is though, once the decision has been made to use the bomb what do you go for? Somewhere with real strategic value like a manufacturing centre or port city? Well you're still going to be killing a huge amount of people and utterly destroying facilities that you will want to use to help rebuild the country you've just won. Destroying actual targets wasn't what those bombs were for, they were weapons of terror (psychological warfare, whatever), and at that they succeeded. From that viewpoint I don't really see how to argue that we'd have been more justified in attacking a 'real target' than a purely psychological one like Hiroshima. Shit, at least it wasn't Tokyo.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #39 June 9, 2006 Any decision to use atomic weapons and their targetting has to be examined within the overriding considerations facing Truman at the time. Stalin had already undertaken to declare war and begin offensive operations against Japan within 3 months of the defeat of Germany. Stalin had negotiated the movement of Polands borders westwards (in effect ensuring that he would keep the part of poland he had gained in co-operation with the Nazis in 1939)! Stalin was known to be "Territory-Hungry". The Red Army did not willingly or easily cede territory it had occupied. Truman WAS aware of The Katyn Forest Massacre and was surely aware of the consequences thereof. Bear in mind that both Churchill and Roosevelt / Truman were fully aware that the alliance with Stalin was the result of nothing more than having a common enemy. Once the common enemy had been defeated, then there was no longer any direct reason for alliance. Therefore, the overriding objective was to end the war with Japan as quickly as possible to prevent Russian intervention and to ensure that the occupation (& subsequent reconstruction) of Japan was entirely in US hands. This had already been negotiated with Churchill along with the rapid rehabilitation of Japan, but Stalin's actions couldn't be trusted. Because of this, the "bloodless" option of continued air raids and blockade was unacceptable. Similarly, invasion of the home islands was rejected not because of casualty rates (actually projected as lower than D-Day), but because invasion & occupation would take too long and let the Russians in! From there, having decided to use the nuclear option, targets must be chosen to best achieve the overriding objective. An otherwise undamaged target makes a perfect choice to demonstrate what the weapon is capable of. Bear in mind that surrender negotiations vai the Swedish Embassy were ongoing at the time. Similarly, the choice of Nagasaki with it's historical and cultural significance made a good second target far beyond the presence of The Mistubishi Shipyards (which were producing bugger-all by then). These two uses allowed the Japanese Government of the time to go to their people with the statement that further fighting is futile, and that they should"Bear their suffering with fortitude". More to the point, Stalin's Red Army wasn't occupying Japan North of the 37th or 36th Parrarel. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #40 June 10, 2006 Quote Difficult one. Is that you Kallend? Quote On the one hand, Japan was VERY near surrender. Who told you that? Quote The month or two to starve Japan into reality... Who told you that? Quote I really don't think that Truman's actions could be faulted at the time... I think you're right.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Icon134 0 #41 June 10, 2006 I find it interesting the way this discussion is going. When I lived in Japan I noticed that the older generations were adament pacifists. Didn't like the idea of a large standing offensive military (opting for at most a defensive military) The younger generations are much more vocal politically... and such... I'm interested to see how the Japanese involvment in world politics changes in the next few decades...Livin' on the Edge... sleeping with my rigger's wife... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #42 June 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote Since you quote the Rhodes book, perhaps you should re-read the sections on MAUD, Tube Alloys, and the Frisch-Peierls memorandum. Just curious. Why should he reread this? What's your point, if there is one. The point John makes is that the atomic bomb project was about as American as their space program! I.E. As far as the contributions to The Manhattan project went... America supplied the money, and emigre British & European scientists spent it! "Little Boy" was a British design based on British theoretical work (but could only have been made with the massive industrial resources America had available). Likewise, it's been argued that "Fat Man" was unworkable until Dr. Heinz Schlicke provided his research & expertise on precision thyristor fusing to The Americans in June 1945. Mike. And don't forget that it was Albert Einstein's (a German Jew) letter to Roosevelt that also contributed mightily to the effort. It was General Leslie Groves (an American) who ran the show and kept things moving. The war itself was an Allied effort; the Bomb was also an allied effort. The scientists in New Mexico knew what the stakes were. BTW I recall that the budget for the Manhattan Project was approx US $25B in today's dollars. It pales beside what we piss away today, but back then, that was a pretty significant part of the Federal Budget. mh"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jasmin 0 #43 June 11, 2006 Quote Avoiding the need for a ground invasion (which is fine by me) is still no excuse for targeting an city with minimal strategic or tactical importance in order to ease bomb damage assessment. I'm with you on this one Edited to add: On a side note, why is it that every thread in this forum that hints at anything nuclear or radioactive, rapidly becomes a pissing contest?!xj "I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with the earth...but then I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with a car either, and that's having tried both." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #44 June 11, 2006 QuoteQuote Avoiding the need for a ground invasion (which is fine by me) is still no excuse for targeting an city with minimal strategic or tactical importance in order to ease bomb damage assessment. I'm with you on this one THe ease of bomb-damage-assessment was purely incidental to the reason for selecting Hiroshima. The real impact to the Japanese Government of the time was that ALL the damage to Hiroshima was done by a single plane, and more importantly, a single bomb! THus the true horrendous power of the weapon was demonstrated. This was for political-pressure reasons. Similarly, Nagasaki was historically the only point in Japan where foreigners could trade or visit. Successive Japanese Emperors had closed the remainder of Japan to foreigners to a greater or lesser extent to preserve their culture. The political significance being that The US would both isolate AND destroy Japan unless it surrendered promptly. In short, the two atomic bombs used on Japan weren't bein used tactically or even strategically. They were being used politically to bring the greatest pressure on the Japanese Government. QuoteEdited to add: On a side note, why is it that every thread in this forum that hints at anything nuclear or radioactive, rapidly becomes a pissing contest?! Naah... There's no pissing contest! At the most, there's a little sour-grapes by americans in the face of yet more British-Genius! Mike. PS: A Brit comedian AL Murray describes Pearl Harbour, Hawaii thus: "That's where America was attacked and taken completely by surprise.... Two years into a major global war!" Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingloom 0 #45 June 11, 2006 QuoteIt's a little like Tesla and the wireless or Edison and the lightbulb. At least a few other folks were working on these inventions and it was only a matter of time. Fixed that for you. The Supreme Court ruled in 1943 that the inventor of the radio was in fact Nikola Tesla. Guglielmo Marconi's patents were deemed invalid. Nikola Tesla was also the creator of the electric grid!!! The first was built in Niagara Falls, New York. Tesla, Nikola (1856–1943), Serbian-born American physicist, electrical engineer, and inventor, recognized as one of the outstanding pioneers in the electric power field. Tesla was born to Serbian parents in Smiljan, Croatia (then part of Austria–Hungary), and educated at the Polytechnic School in Graz, Austria, and at the University of Prague. After working for three years as an electrical engineer he immigrated (1884) to the United States, where he later became a naturalized citizen. For a brief period he was employed by Thomas Edison, but he left that position to devote himself exclusively to experimental research and invention. In 1888 Tesla designed the first practical system of generating and transmitting alternating current for electric power. The American rights to this epoch-making invention were bought by the American inventor George Westinghouse, who demonstrated (1893) the system for the first time at the World's Columbian Exposition in Chicago. Two years later Tesla's alternating-current motors were installed at the Niagara Falls power project. Tesla's many inventions include high-frequency generators (1890) and the Tesla coil (1891), a transformer with important applications in the field of radio communications. He was, indeed, the "Lord of the Lightening"!!! http://www.flyingloomembroidery.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jasmin 0 #46 June 11, 2006 QuoteIn short, the two atomic bombs used on Japan weren't bein used tactically or even strategically. They were being used politically to bring the greatest pressure on the Japanese Government. Hmmmm beg to differ. But its 2am here, so whatever. QuoteNaah... There's no pissing contest! At the most, there's a little sour-grapes by americans in the face of yet more British-Genius! British-genius???? In terms of oxymorons, that's right up there with army intelligence and Microsoft Works!! Feel free to keep flaming the Americans...I'm Australian.xj "I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with the earth...but then I wouldn't recommend picking a fight with a car either, and that's having tried both." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
flyingloom 0 #47 June 11, 2006 "With the splitting of the atom, everything in the world changed except our way of thinking. Now we are drifting to unparalleled catastrophe." Albert Einstein http://www.flyingloomembroidery.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
twibbles 0 #48 June 12, 2006 Might be a bit off topic here, but wasn't Nagasaki the secondary site, with Kokura being the primary? And... QuotePS: A Brit comedian AL Murray describes Pearl Harbour, Hawaii thus: "That's where America was attacked and taken completely by surprise.... Two years into a major global war!" Brillant!! Eugene "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #49 June 13, 2006 Quote... wasn't Nagasaki the secondary site, with Kokura being the primary? Yes. Kokura was another city which, like Hiroshima hadn't been attacked at all. Nagasaki had suffered some raids to Mitsubishi's yards and as such was slightly damaged and thus an unsuitable target from a damage point of view, but given its historical significance was still a suitable target. On a very minor side note... Prior to Bock's Car dropping Fat Man, Nagasaki WAS the centre of Japanese Christianity. Fat Man, dropped by a wholly Christian crew, literally annihilated the thriving Christian population of Japan using their cathedral as a target marker! Mike. Edited to add link: http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/pre-cold-war/hiroshima-nagasaki/article-kohls-gary_2001-08-09.htm Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
twibbles 0 #50 June 13, 2006 Nuclear weapons are weapons of terror. I suppose they could have dropped it anywhere and get the same effect, just need people close by to see and report the result. I remember reading about American tests where they get soldiers to watch nukes go off in test, then make them walk through the area to see what the effects are. If it is decided to use a nuclear weapon, for the first time against a real target, it won't be too far a stretch to choose the target that allows bomb damage assestment. As an machine, i marvel at the design of nukes and how it works. As a weapon, i wished it'll never be used again. And as a political tool, i wish that there's never a reason to use it. Eugene "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
