Atomic Bombs

The atomic bomb was transported by air on board a specially modified B-29 Superfortress bomber called the Enola Gay or Bockscar. The bombs were loaded onto the planes at the airbase and flown to their target cities before being dropped.

The atomic bomb was developed during World War II as part of the Manhattan Project. The project was spearheaded by the United States and led by scientists such as J. Robert Oppenheimer, who is often credited as the "father of the atomic bomb."

He played a role in its creation by sending a letter to convince president Roosevelt to start work on a nuclear weapon, and many of his theories went into the making of it. Einstein himself was a pacifist and regretted for the rest of his life that he had influenced the creation of nuclear weapons.

Opinions differ on this.

The bomb did kill a lot of civilians. However, it was an order of magnitude fewer than the official US military predictions of the number of Japanese civilians that would have been killed in a conventional invasion, so in a sort of twisted way, the bomb was actually a more humane choice.

The difference was little boy was droped on Hiroshima in world war 2, it is much smaller than the fat man used on Nagasaki and the little boy uses uranium to compress it. The fat man uses plutonium to detonate.

No, the Japanese did not think the atomic bomb was supernatural. They were aware of its devastating power and understood it as a powerful and destructive man-made weapon used by the United States during World War II.

The US used atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 during World War II to bring a swift end to the war against Japan and avoid a prolonged and costly invasion of the Japanese mainland. The bombings were intended to show the devastating power of nuclear weapons and to force Japan to surrender unconditionally.

The first atomic bomb landed in Switzerland. Most people believe that it landed in Japan but there was actually one before that. >which of course landed in Switzerland

This is a copy of a summer project that I did for my school on why Truman should not have dropped the bomb, which I hope answers your question.

Dear President Truman:

As your most trusted advisor, and having explored all possible options, I have decided to strongly suggest that you NOT DROP the atomic bomb.

First and foremost, the bomb would kill millions of innocent people who do not care about the war. They have not provoked us in any way, and should not be harmed. These people do not participate in the war, even if they reluctantly send their fathers and husbands off to fight in the army. They are forced to do this by their government. The Japanese are not savage people, and should be considered a human being, just like everyone in the United States and the other countries.

Another reason to not drop the bomb is that we can avoid this, which I know you would prefer over dropping it. Through careful examination, I have come to the conclusion that we can show the Japanese what the bomb can do, just like we did in the test. Hopefully, they would surrender. They know that know we know how to build it, and we can make many more before they have a chance to strike.

A third and last reason for you not to drop the bomb is that it would deplete our stores of material, so we could not build any other thing, unless we raised the taxes very, very high. Making this bomb is very taxing on what we have in store, and I don't know how much will be left after it is dropped, if you decide it should be so. The people of the United States are sure to want you out of office if you raise the taxes. I'm sure that you'd like to be reelected for office, and this would make your chances of winning at about zero.

Truly, it would be a wise idea to not drop the atomic bomb for the reasons stated above.

It could be argued that nuclear weapons provide a deterrent. Many believe that they did. They represent an "or-else scenario" wherein any aggression that is "over the top" will get a nuclear response. Certainly other powers can taunt and even attack a nuclear power on a limited basis, but no "full scale assault" will probably be risked because of the threat of a nuclear response. It is true that some non-nuclear powers have engaged nuclear powers in broad acts of war knowing that the risk of a nuclear response is minimal. But it is different with nuclear powers. They are more careful acting in ways that the other could interpret as overly aggressive. We could go on, but let's go to another aspect of the use of a nuc. There was a program called Plowshare back when, and it posed peaful use of nuclear weapons. A nuc could be used to dig a big hole for, say, a water reservior. The Russians did it as a test, and they set of several devices to try different applications. The U.S. did a small shot (Sedan) to test the application of a nuclear blast for mining. The radiation release, however, is just too great, even with a good shot. Public objection increased, and Congress, who holds the pursestrings, waved off further testing. Under Plowshare, the use of nuclear weapons was suggested as a "pressure reliever" for large, active geologic faults, like the San Andreas in California. If building pressure there could be relieved with a "big hammer" like a nuc, then there'd be less of a chance that a big quake would occur. But it was also pointed out that the nuc might actually trigger a big quake, and no one wanted to pay the freight on something like that. The liability was too great. Using a nuc to relieve pressure along a fault is a good idea, because it is possible that we could avert a really big quake. You know. The one that kills dozens or even hundreds and does billions of dollars in property damage. But the first shot is extremely risky. If we could "get past" that one, we might be able to take action regularly to squash those huge pressure buildups that, when released, cause the big quakes. But we didn't "break through" with that idea. Maybe for the best. Check the links below for more information.

No.. Entirely impossible. There've been a couple meltdowns such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, A few scattered partial meltdowns, and a bunch of Russian Submarines. But the reactor is in no way designed to explode. They have to MAKE it explode for atomic bombs. You can't just pick up some uranium and set it on fire and hope it blows up. Explosions can happen and kick radioactive material around, but there won't be some huge mushroom cloud a mile wide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown for more information.

A supercritical mass of fissile material rapidly assembled with explosives, then triggered by a carefully timed pulse of neutrons from a neutron source. That's about as simple and general as it gets.

There are 2 main nuclear weapons labs. 1 at Los Alamos, NM (established 1943) and 1 at Livermore, CA (established 1952). Each weapons lab eventually had a nearby branch of Sandia Labs (Los Alamos in Kirkland AFB in Albquequeque, NM and Livermore nearby in Livermore, CA) that designed the non-nuclear parts of the weapons. Once designed and prototypes built and tested production was moved to a factory like PANTEX outside Amarillo, TX. Dozens of facilities across the country supplied these labs and factories with nuclear and non-nuclear components; including Hanford, WA (plutonium metal), Oakridge, TN (enriched uranium metal), Fernald, OH (plutonium and uranium extrusions and machined parts), etc.

Pros: Highly destructive power can be a strong deterrent against aggression; can potentially end conflicts quickly.

Cons: Mass civilian casualties; long-term environmental impact from radiation; possibility of escalation and use in future conflicts.

The extent of destruction caused by an atomic bomb can vary significantly depending on several factors including the bomb's yield, height of detonation, and surrounding geography. In general, a fairly powerful atomic bomb could potentially cause destruction over an area of several square miles, with severe damage concentrated closer to the detonation point.

Albert Einstein did not invent the atomic bomb. He was a theoretical physicist who played no direct role in the development of the bomb, although his famous equation, E=mc^2, laid the foundation for understanding the energy release in nuclear reactions. The atomic bomb was developed and deployed during World War II as part of the Manhattan Project, primarily by scientists and engineers led by J. Robert Oppenheimer.

Albert Einstein's assistance to the Manhattan Project was in the form of a letter he wrote to FDR, encouraging him to persue research in atomic weapons.

Although Einstein was a pacifist and was strongly opposed to war, he viewed Nazi-Germany as the greater threat and used his prestige as a physicist to encourage atomic research.

As a Jewish-German, Einstein had seen first-hand what the Third Reich was willing to do, and did not want them being the sole owners of atomic weapons.

None, Einstein had no part in either inventing or making atomic bombs except to sign a letter to FDR that Leo Szilard had written. Leo Szilard is the inventor of both the atomic bomb and reactor.

J. Robert Oppenheimer was the first American physicist in charge of the development of the first atomic bomb during the Manhattan Project in World War II.

Yes, exposure to high doses of radiation from atomic bombs can increase the risk of developing leukemia. This is because radiation can damage the DNA within cells, leading to the development of cancer, including leukemia.

Nuclear bomb can mean either fission or fusion bomb. Hydrogen bomb means fusion bomb. The fusion bomb can be built with any yield one wants, just by adding more stages with more fuel. The fission bomb has a theoretical maximum yield that cannot be exceeded.