Difference between atomic and nuclear bomb

carlowplayer

What's the difference I ask because Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed in the Second World War yet people still live don't atomic bombs leave an area uninhabitable for millennia like nuclear bombs?i mean isn't Chernobyl uninhabitable?

gctest50

A nice look at nearly all of them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W_lLhBt8Vg

AngryHippie

:eek:^^^^^:eek:

Accidents are one thing, but they were all deliberate. premeditated.
Why do week keep funding warmongers:(

gctest50

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were "only" little things - few kilotons

Russia did a little better - 100 Megatons :eek:

( turned down to 50Mt )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9AMtUeyDP0

Morbert

carlowplayer wrote: »

What's the difference I ask because Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed in the Second World War yet people still live don't atomic bombs leave an area uninhabitable for millennia like nuclear bombs?i mean isn't Chernobyl uninhabitable?

An atomic bomb is a nuclear bomb. It is fuelled by nuclear fission. While radiation is a problem, (in the form of fallout, for example), it is different to the more sustained pollution that occurs during a nuclear meltdown.

Capt'n Midnight

The bombs were detonated at altitude to reduce the contamination

FISMA

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The bombs were detonated at altitude to reduce the contamination

The fundamental purpose of an altitude detonation (AD) is to maximize blast radius and damage.

Here is paper by William Penney, the head of the British effort in the Manhattan project from December 1944 entitled “The Height of Burst of the Gadget.”

It is a cold, scientific, assessment of how to maximize damage. The purpose of the height of burst is clear.

I am sure there is an argument to be made that an AD can avoid fallout. However, that was not the fundamental reason. Or any serious reason, in my opinion.

Some of those from the Manhattan Project may have argued likewise long after the fact. However, I would say there was little, if any, concern for contamination at the time.

Any documents prior to the drop discussing the topic would be greatly appreciated.

EoghanIRL

Bit off topic but don't they Initiate fusion reactions in fusion bombs by setting of an atomic bomb first inside the fusion bomb . I mean fission bomb when I say atomic bomb .

Capt'n Midnight

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Bit off topic but don't they Initiate fusion reactions in fusion bombs by setting of an atomic bomb first inside the fusion bomb . I mean fission bomb when I say atomic bomb .

Yes and no

Yes - A fission bomb is used to produce the temperatures and pressures that fusion can occur in.

No - The fusion then generates a lot of neutrons which can convert fertile materials into fissionable ones which are then fissioned. This means you don't need to use bomb grade uranium. This happened during the first test when the half of the natural lithium they used got upgraded and there was an oops moment when it became suddenly clear that explosion was hundreds of Hiroshima's more than predicted


The long and the short of it is that the biggest H-bombs actually get most of their energy from the final fission step rather than from fusion.