this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2025
100 points (96.3% liked)

Ask Science

13875 readers
2 users here now

Ask a science question, get a science answer.


Community Rules


Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.


Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.


Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.


Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.


Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.


Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.


Rule 7: Report violations.Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.


Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.


Rule 9: Source required for answers.Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.


By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.

We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] foodandart@lemmy.zip 47 points 1 week ago (4 children)

It was possible, but both bombs - Fat Man and Little Boy were in the kiloton range of size, and not like the modern nuclear arsenal that are in megatons of size, so the nuclear fallout at the time was much more limited.

Also, given the prevailing winds flow from west to east, much of the radioactive material fell into the Pacific just east of Japan. Now the rampant nuclear testing (once the scientific community worked out that a nuclear detnation would NOT set the atmosphere on fire - like some suspected it might..) which happened in the Pacific and in the Southwestern US during the 50's and 60's, was an entirely different animal.

That caused a lot of problems in the US and on the Pacific Islands and atolls downwind.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 28 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I always love that bit .... scientists wondering if the first test would set the entire planet's atmosphere on fire ...

Scientist getting ready to pull the trigger on the first bomb: .... if we don't fuck around .... how are we ever gonna find out?

[–] Devadander@lemmy.world 27 points 1 week ago (2 children)

It wasn’t a real concern. Calculations showed very minimal chance. But I guess it’s not zero until you try it

[–] Krudler@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

For real. The first one that incorporated Lithium ended up being like 2x the power that was calculated, and something new was discovered about Lithium lol

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

Calculations also predicted the Castle Bravo test would be 14X less powerful.

I'm sure this would never happen today, with AI.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

It's back down to kilotons, actually, albeit hundreds. The tens of megatons thing was to make up for the inaccuracy of early delivery methods; now firing more small bombs is preferred. And the Tsar Bomba was undeliverable - purely for show.

They're also a lot cleaner now, too - Fat Man and Little Boy were quite dirty, so significant fallout did happen. Little Boy was used in an airburst, and so it's mess was distributed pretty globally through the stratosphere, but Fat Man's came right back down in black rain.

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Undeliverable? They dropped it from a plane.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Okay, undeliverable in the same sense their tanks are by air. Sure, you can load a T-34 (which looks like it also comes in at 27 tonnes) on an aircraft, but it's not intended as a scalable way to use them. You'll remember the plane was almost knocked out of the sky by the blast as it flew away. It was also the only model they had that could do it, and it couldn't go very far with such an unusually heavy load.

The largest nuke that saw actual service was the 25 MT American B41, which had impressive yield for it's size, despite, as you can see in the wiki's picture, still being a very significant device. There was also a project to design bombs of unlimited yields, but the scientists were basically just goofing off, and the army told them to stop it.

The modern Western (and Chinese?) design is at the other end of the space - being as small as possible while maintaining efficiency. They have just enough of a fusion stage to support full burnup in the fission stage.

[–] captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

See, you say "undeliverable" and I picture Castle Bravo, which was the size and shape of a microbrewery.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 week ago

I'd guess the reason they didn't go the Castle Bravo route is probably just that it's hard to work deep in the arctic, where you as the USSR can test with minimal (but not zero, RIP Severny) impact. There was also the official justification that the extremely clean burn was the point of the test, which would be defeated by contact with and activation of the ground. It seems SHRIMP from Castle Bravo weighed 10 tonnes, so picture adding a nose and tailfins and maybe some electronics to it and you'd still have a more practical weapon.

Here's the aerodynamic casing for the Tsar Bomba (empty, which is how it can sit on that dolly):

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago

Yeah, it's important to remember how tiny these bombs were, considering what came after them. Which is especially crazy if you consider they were large enough to obliterate entire cities and kill hundreds of thousands of people.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Fallout is not necessarily proportional to yield. In fact, small bombs like this can be much “dirtier” than the fusion boosted fission designs.

The detonation height also plays a counterintuitive role; lower is worse. Though I’m not sure how this applies to the Fat Man and Little Boy fireballs, I remember their detonation heights being kinda low.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 46 points 1 week ago (2 children)

They did not understand radiation sickness and fallout well.

In fact, after the war, the US set up clinics with the ulterior motive of studying the survivors. They talk about it in this documentary, that I’d highly recommend:

https://www.pbs.org/articles/hibakusha-stories-of-survivors-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki

[–] Forester@pawb.social 11 points 1 week ago

We knew what radium poisoning was for quite a while the question was would this work the same way.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They did not understand radiation sickness and fallout well.

oh yes they did. No one in the military cared.

Fermi thought the Trinity blast would ignite the atmosphere, they did it anyway.

Then the USA continued with above ground testing for another decade in the West, knowing prevailing winds would carry fallout across the country. Military refused to move testing to the East Coast where fallout would have been carried over the ocean.

Everyone knew the dangers, but so much money had been invested and they feared Russians developing bigger bombs.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Fermi thought the Trinity blast would ignite the atmosphere, they did it anyway.

This is a myth. He had that idea and worked out the math, and concluded it would be extremely unlikely well before the test. He’s often misquoted as stating something like “I’m not entirely sure until we try it.”

Watch the PBS documentary. The US military had an intense interest in studying the effects on victims, not really knowing what the effects would be. The crime was treating them like experiments and PR control over helping them, but it’s clear they didn’t really know.

…And yeah. The suffering of Nevada’s nearby (minority) population, and indigenous people in the Pacific, is well documented :(

[–] yesman@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago

The two dropped bombs were detonated at altitude. This causes much less radiation near the blast than detonating on the ground because the radioactive contamination is dispersed in the atmosphere rather than in the soil and groundwater.

This is why the destroyed cities didn't have to be abandoned like Pripiat.

[–] gerowen@piefed.social 18 points 1 week ago (1 children)

When they first conceptualized the bomb some scientists weren't even sure the explosion would stop at all, or if it might create an unstoppable chain reaction that would just continue infinitely and consume the whole earth.

[–] towerful@programming.dev 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)

*consume the whole atmosphere

They weren't concerned about rock getting involved.
The concern was that the extreme temperature and pressure caused by the fission event would trigger fusion events of the nitrogen in the atmosphere, which would lead to a chain reaction of fusion of the atmosphere.

https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/could-a-nuclear-explosion-set-earths-atmosphere-on-fire/

[–] northernlights@lemmy.today 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

...and then they did it anyway?

[–] towerful@programming.dev 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeh, they did.
They were extremely smart people.
And they considered the possibility of that happening.
They calculated the probability of it happening, considered their known-unknowns and unknown-unknowns in their calculations, and concluded the possibility (including their error margin) was so incredibly low that it wouldn't happen.
And they were right.

A scary prospect, to be sure.
But ultimately, that's what experts do.
Anyone can build a bridge that will stay up, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that only barely stays up.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 week ago

And besides, if they were wrong, it would very quickly not matter any more.

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

They calculated it should be fine, but it remained extremely experimental technology.

But yes they did it anyway.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

Not all agreed with the calculations. Notably, Fermi.

[–] Forester@pawb.social 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Basically not a real issue. As both detonations were air bursts under 100kt anything bad was swept into the upper atmosphere and dispersed mostly over the Pacific. It did rain back down over years but in miniscule amounts world wide. In short any of those hot particles interacting with life is not great but the concentration and exposure period is what is actually bad. In short there was no fallout risk.

[–] Quilotoa@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Well, the 300 000 civilians who died because of the bombs weren't involved, so I'm guessing they didn't care.

[–] Forester@pawb.social 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Of the roughly 270k fatalities most were from the blunt force trauma (shockwave) and heat wave created by igniting the bombs not radiation. The lethal doses received at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were only possible during initial exposure when the immediate area was saturated by high energy particles. Radiation levels rapidly dropped and had returned to normal in a month on the ground.

[–] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So all the decades of horrible consequences are 'normal'?

I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.

[–] Forester@pawb.social 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

? I don't think you grasp what is being discussed here.

I'm not saying that if you were burned by nuclear fire it would disipate away I'm saying that if you avoided being irradiated for the first few weeks after detonation you had avoided all of the fallout risk.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

More of a history question than a science question.

I mean, Western nuclear powers tested pretty close to/deliberately on their own troops and civilians in the coming decades. It's possible the decisionmakers didn't fully appreciate the effect of radiation on health, although the scientists would have certianly known it's dangerous. At best they could have claimed ignorance of the exact long-term effects, and I'm not even sure about that.

Also consider the main landmasses nearby were Korea and China, which the US was also racist against, and which were at the time under Japanese occupation.

[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 week ago

Of course the military wasn't worried much. After all, they had just finished the test at Trinity, near Alamogordo, New Mexico, a month before Hiroshima. (July in New Mexico, August in Japan, 1945.)

If they weren't worried in July in the U.S., of course they wouldn't worry about August in Japan. And what neighboring countries were they going to possibly theoretically accidentally hurt? China, Korea, Russia, I guess possibly some Pacific islands ... all of which were considered far less important than the U.S. itself.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Local fallout is dust and ash from a bomb crater, contaminated with radioactive fission products. It falls to earth downwind of the crater and can produce, with radiation alone, a lethal area much larger than that from blast and fire. With an air burst, the fission products rise into the stratosphere, where they dissipate and become part of the global environment. Because Little Boy was an air burst 580 meters (1,900 ft) above the ground, there was no bomb crater and no local radioactive fallout.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy

Fat boy was dropped from 500 meters, so I guess there too was no fallout.

I don't know though if this was known before the drop though.

[–] notsosure@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 week ago

After the original tests in New Mexico, that risk was seen as very low

[–] Wilco@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 week ago

Modern nuclear bombs dont have the fallout problems that the ones dropped on Japan had. The WWIi bombs were way smaller than modern bombs. No nuclear bomb in existence can produce anything close to the fallout from Chernobyl. Its got to do with the inefficiency of the reaction.

The US knew there would be fallout ... but had a war to win.

load more comments
view more: next ›