118 points
*

I know this is just a meme, but I’m going to take the opportunity to talk about something I think is super interesting. Physicists didn’t build the bomb (edit: nor were they particularly responsible for its design).

David Kaiser, an MIT professor who is both a physicist and a historian (aka the coolest guy possible) has done extensive research on this, and his work is particularly interesting because he has the expertise in all the relevant fields do dig through the archives.

It’s been a long time since I’ve read him, but he concludes that the physics was widely known outside of secret government operations, and the fundamental challenges to building an atomic bomb are engineering challenges – things like refining uranium or whatever. In other words, knowing that atoms have energy inside them which will be released if it is split was widely known, and it’s a very, very, very long path engineering project from there to a bomb.

This cultural understanding that physicists working for the Manhattan project built the bomb is actually precisely because the engineering effort was so big and so difficult, but the physics was already so widely known internationally, that the government didn’t redact the physics part of the story. In other words, because people only read about physicists’ contributions to the bomb, and the government kept secret everything about the much larger engineering and manufacturing effort, we are left with this impression that a handful of basic scientists were the main, driving force in its creation.

permalink
report
reply
48 points
*

That’s how it is in almost every field, isn’t it? The ones who designed the space shuttle were not the same ones turning wrenches and welding on the actual vehicle.

permalink
report
parent
reply
29 points

Yeah, I thought it was well known that Scientists discover new things, engineers do things with what’s discovered

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Sometimes even engineers and scientists need it put in an understandable perspective.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

Well, I should’ve said “build or design,” maybe.

But yes, this should be obvious when you think about it, because it’s just how things work. Still, in our culture, we regularly refer to physicists as the people who made the atomic bomb happen. Kaiser writes about this too, and the influence it had on McCarthyists, who regularly panicked that physicists were secretly communists because they associated physicists with building the atomic bomb.

It had other weird influences on culture too. For a couple decades after the Manhattan project, being a physicist was considered mainstream cool. Social magazines ran articles with pieces about how no hip dinner party is complete without a physicist.

The whole thing is a super interesting cultural phenomenon and I highly recommend anything he’s ever written.

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points
*

No, the real engineers design and supervise everything. High skilled technicians assemble everything through the engineers guidance

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Put another way, everyone in science and technololgy stands on the backs of giants.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Not Aperture Science! They do all their science from scratch - no hand-holding.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Sort of but ,its also reasonably well promoted that 130,000 people worked on the project. I suppose people think they are all physicists?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I think people see it the same way a movie is made by the director, even though a ton of people work on it, and, according to Kaiser, that is a misunderstanding of how it happened based on the information made available by the government.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Nuclear bombs are actually extremly simple from a physics standpoint.

Make Uranium dense. Boom.

permalink
report
parent
reply
28 points
*

I’ve read somewhere that he never regretted building the bomb, because he believed it prevented more wars/deaths from happening. Maybe I can find the article

Edit: Found it. https://12ft.io/proxy?&q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.derstandard.de%2Fstory%2F3000000180215%2Fzehn-fakten-ueber-j-robert-oppenheimer It’s german though. He even sued an author who wrote a play where oppenheimer was struggling with his doings

permalink
report
reply
10 points

I think he was right in that belief. Invasion of Japan by US forces would be far more deadly and devastating to both nations in terms of lost lives.

Apparently the purple hearts manufactured in anticipation of such an invasion during WWII are still awarded today with about 120k still in stock.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

After the absolute horrors of Saipan and Okinawa an invasion of the main islands would have made Stalingrad look like a playground

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Uh huh.

So why did they need to drop two?

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Unconditional surrender was not assured the first time. It was the second time. The Japanese do not give up easily.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

Japan was unwilling to surrender for a long time even though Japanese cities got bombed on a near daily basis near the end of the war. The US gambled on, for a lack of a better word, the wow-factor of the atomic bomb. They guessed correctly that Japan’s leaders would assume that there’s no way in hell the US could produce another one of these “special” bombs. They dropped the second one to basically say: “Hey, we got a huge stockpile of these things so we can do this as long as you like”. Or to put it simply: It was a show of force. When Nagasaki got hit Japanese leaders were in a council meeting about the Hiroshima bombing and the Soviet’s declaration of war on Japan and even after the news arrived in Tokyo half the cabinet was still insistent on their own terms of surrender. They didn’t know how many more bombs America had and that fear played a huge part in Hirohito’s decision to end the war after more than 14 hours of debate that day.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

The first one to prove that it exists, the second to prove that America had the resources, manufacturing, and still had the balls to do it again even after seeing what it did. America dropped one to get the world’s attention and respect, and again to establish horrifying dominance. “I can do this all day” energy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

The conventional ordinance dropped on Tokyo killed many more people than Little Boy killed in Hiroshima. The Japanese barely surrendered after the nuclear attacks. I would suggest listening to Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History miniseries Countdown to Armageddon if you want to know more.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

I read somewhere the shock was more due to the bomb being way more powerful than anticipated… I am not certain though.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I can imagine him saying that, and I can imagine long drunken nights staring into a mirror before he did his best to move on.

permalink
report
parent
reply
38 points

In my mind, Oppenheimer figured out this when he said that:

permalink
report
reply
11 points

are you really both-sidesing the literal nazis?

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

We never nuked the Nazis…But even if we did, are you saying that the Nazis being Nazis would’ve justified vaporizing every civilian man, woman, and child in a city or two?

Whether or not you’d say it was justified is a different beast altogether than having to be the one that made it possible in terms of responsibility.

Tangentially, many firing squads will have only one person have a real bullet(s) while the rest have blanks so that they don’t all have to feel responsible for ending a life. Even that is setting justification aside.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points
*

the Nazis being Nazis would’ve justified vaporizing every civilian man, woman, and child in a city or two

  • The bomb didn’t “vaporize every man woman and child”.
  • 175 000 Volksturm (civilians pressed into service by their government, including women and children) died fighting the Allied advance into Germany. Dropping the bomb to end the war early would have prevented these deaths.
  • This isn’t to mention the number of civilians who died as a result of being too close to the fighting. 125 000 civilians died in the Battle of Berlin alone.
  • Also consider the number of soldiers who died on both sides which wouldn’t have happened had the war been ended early. The US produced so many Purple Heart medals (given to those who are killed or wounded while serving) in preparation for their invasion of Japan that they’re still using them today.

So yes dropping the bomb to end the war in Europe early would have been justified. Now please stop being a literal nazi apologist.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

The belief was that the bombs would save lives compared to an invasion on both sides. There’s been a lot of retrospective analysis, but most of it agrees with that assessment. An invasion of Japan would have been absolutely ruinous for Japan’s civilian population. But it’s still a question of whether the ends justify the means in a lesser of two evils situation.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Memes

!memes@lemmy.ml

Create post

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

Community stats

  • 8.5K

    Monthly active users

  • 13K

    Posts

  • 288K

    Comments