
A Chunk of Trinitite Reminds Us of the Power of the Atomic Bomb - pseudolus
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/chunk-trinitite-reminds-sheer-devastating-power-atomic-bomb-180972848/
======
sefk
The author of this article wrote one of my all time favorite books, _The
Making of the Atomic Bomb_. Hr tells the story of the Manhattan Project
incredibly well.

The sequel, _Dark Sun_, about the making of the hydrogen bomb, is OK but has a
lot more Cold War espionage than science.

Both worth a read!

~~~
jhayward
I second the recommendation for _The Making of the Atomic Bomb_. That books
more or less defined the category of "narrative history" for me. So much
better than any other history I had ever read at the time.

~~~
hairytrog
Similar story but of a failed physics project is "Project Prometheus" by
George Dyson, Richard Dyson's son. It's about the project to use atomic
explosions for extremely efficient propulsion. With proper implementation,
such atomic bomb thrusters would have allowed for 100,000 ton payloads and a
truly space faring society.

------
pseudolus
The test site, which is located north of the White Sands National Monument
(New Mexico), is open twice a year (the first Saturday of April and the first
Saturday of October) to the public [0]. It's also located very close to the
Very Large Array (VLA), featured in quite a few movies, which is also open to
the public [1].

[0] [https://www.nps.gov/whsa/learn/historyculture/trinity-
site.h...](https://www.nps.gov/whsa/learn/historyculture/trinity-site.htm)

[1] [https://public.nrao.edu/visit/very-large-
array/](https://public.nrao.edu/visit/very-large-array/)

~~~
cr0sh
Regarding the VLA - is it as "open" as it appears to be from google maps?

That is, from what I could see, you can almost just turn off the highway the
drive to it, and I didn't see any kind of fencing or whatnot; there also
seemed to be more than a few "back ways" into it via jeep trails and such.

I've had the idea just to drive out there one weekend, camp overnight, then
explore the area for a day or two, then leave. But I don't know if that would
be considered trespassing on government property or something?

It just looks like a large collection of space telescopes and mostly empty
desert, with a few buildings scattered about, but not much in the way of
"people things" \- which I doubt are needed except for maintenance purposes
(which is probably what few buildings there are there are for).

Other than that, it just looks like a slightly-improved piece of desert
landscape - kinda like what wind farms look like and such on the
California/Arizona border area (which you can easily drive up to via
maintenance roads).

~~~
petschge
I have not been there for a decade, but back then there were cattle fences
along the road and around the telescopes and cows grazing in between. Also: be
aware of the rattle snakes if you go camping there.

~~~
cbanek
Also, watch out for the cops and be on your best behavior with respect to
speed. When I was out there, I was amazed how many cops would follow me for
miles and miles, because I had out of state plates. Other than that, it was a
great time, although there's really nothing much else in the area. The drive
west from there on 60 gets pretty through the mountains. Make sure to keep
your gas tank rather full.

------
blueintegral
You can order trinitite from United Nuclear. I stuck some in an HPGe and was
able to learn some interesting things: [https://www.hscott.net/analyzing-
trinitite-a-radioactive-pie...](https://www.hscott.net/analyzing-trinitite-a-
radioactive-piece-of-nuclear-history/)

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
That's a very fine write-up!

------
sandworm101
>> The 100-million-degree fireball vaporized the steel tower down to its
footings...

This is often discussed, that the tower was turned from solid steel to vapor,
but isn't what happened. The tower was no longer standing but was still there
to be founud. Many bits were melted and surely some bits disappeared, but the
bulk of the metal was still present on the ground after the blast. And this
mattered. How close a metal structure could be to the blast was a vital
question for project orion (A-bomb powered spacecraft).

------
doitLP
For an article about green glass, I wonder why their photo shoot decided to go
with purple and pink back lighting? It makes it look sinister but doesn’t show
the beautiful green Trinitite can be.

~~~
binarymax
Indeed! Here are some much better images:
[https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Trinitite&iax=images&ia=images](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Trinitite&iax=images&ia=images)

------
kstenerud
"the second and third atomic bombs after Trinity exploded over Japan and did
their part to end a war that killed more than 60 million human beings. “I was
one of those who said thank god for the atomic bomb,” Paul told me ruefully."

This myth about the effect of the atomic bombing of Japan just refuses to die
for some reason. The atomic bombing of Japan had literally zero effect on
Japanese policymaking. By that point in the war, all of the major cities were
rubble already, and only insignificant places in the backwoods of Western
Japan like Hiroshima were being bombed for want of fresh targets. The fact
that these bombs were "new" didn't mean much, and almost no one in power
understood any of their implications (nor could anyone inform anyone since
their communication lines were extremely primitive by that point, only
covering important things like troop movements, battle readiness, materials,
and foreign intelligence).

It was the mobilization of the Russians that prompted a Japanese surrender
because, much like the Germans knew, it was FAR, FAR more preferable to be
occupied by the Americans than by the Russians. The atomic bombs were just a
sideshow, and only became important when revealed to the rest of the world.

------
Synaesthesia
One quote that I always remember regarding the Japanese atomic bombs, is that
survivors of Hiroshima ere in such agony, they begged nurses to kill them.

~~~
ThrowawayR2
The survivors of the firestorms caused by the Allied firebombing campaign
undoubtedly did the same and there were an order of magnitude more of them,
since firebombing was used to level most of Japan's cities in the final phase
of the war.

Take care not to fall for over-dramatization by people with an agenda. While
the atomic bomb is a fearsome weapon, in that specific regard, its effects
were not special.

EDIT: A 2015 Japan Times article expresses it well:

 _"...On March 10, 1945, U.S. B-29 bombers flew over Tokyo in the dead of
night, dumping massive payloads of cluster bombs equipped with a then-recent
invention: napalm. A fifth of Tokyo was left a vast smoldering expanse of
charred bodies and rubble.

Today, a modest floral monument in a downtown park honors the spirits of the
105,400 confirmed dead, many interred in common graves.

It was the deadliest conventional air raid ever, worse than Nagasaki and on a
par with Hiroshima. But the attack, and similar ones that followed in more
than 60 other Japanese cities, have received little attention, eclipsed by the
atomic bombings and Japan’s postwar rush to rebuild..."_

[https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/03/10/national/deadly...](https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/03/10/national/deadly-
wwii-u-s-firebombing-raids-on-japanese-cities-largely-ignored/#.XV6y5C2ZO00)

(And if you find yourself recoiling at the brutality visited upon the
Japanese, bear in mind the combined death toll from the Japanese occupations
across Asia are nearly triple of even that of the German Holocaust. While
nobody's hands were clean in WW2, some hands were much, much dirtier than
others.)

~~~
dredmorbius
Conventional firebombing took _fleets_ of B-29 bombers, many flying fairly low
(within flak and fighter range), presenting tremendous cost and risk.

The WWII city-leveling low-yield atom bombs were delivered by a single
aircraft (plus a non-combat escort).

Today's nukes are launched from armoured bunkers or invulnerable submarines,
fly without pilot or crew, include multiple reentry warheads, and can
devastate multiple cities from a single launch vehicle.

There is no comparision.

~~~
ceejayoz
There's no comparison between modern ICBMs and WWII weaponry, but you
overstate things a bit.

B-29s operated with relative impunity over Japan. They had a cruising altitude
higher than most Japanese fighters and anti-aircraft guns could reach, could
operate at night (Japan had minimal night fighter capability by that point),
and only ~150 were lost over Japan to enemy action. (In contrast, the US lost
nearly 5,000 B-17s in the war.)

Cost-wise, B-29 design production and production cost $3B. The Manhattan
Project cost about $2B.

~~~
dredmorbius
You'd need to include the infrastructure to be able to launch B-29 _fleets_
over Tokyo, which was much of the Pacific Theatre effort. That itself was a
major share of the total $288 billion (1945 dollars) US expense of the war
itself, far more than the Manhatten Project itself.

Mainland US flights were unable to reach Japan, even from Hawaii or Alaska.
Large-scale effort required control of a large portion of the Pacific and
_both_ launch _and_ recovery capabilities.

A significant number of aircraft for the Doolittle raids (early in the war)
were ditched before they could reach their designated LZs in China. The
aircraft, B25B Mitchell medium bombers, could _launch_ from carriers (easier
to arrange for than island occupation), but lacked either the range or raw
capability to _land_ on the _Hornet_. The raids were effective as a shock and
demonstration of US reach and capabilities, but had minimal direct military
effect.

~~~
ceejayoz
Winning the war required control of a large portion of the Pacific - it's not
like we were doing it just to give B-29s a place to park. The atomic bomb
required the same thing, as it was B-29 carried just like incendiaries.

~~~
dredmorbius
Supporting a single aircraft, or a small flight of seven, is vastly different
from the hundreds of aircraft engaged on the Tokyo firebombing raids:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Tokyo)

Dresden required nearly 1,300 bombers.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_Wa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II)

The ultimately produced bombs were deliverable via B-29, as that aircraft was
available. The carrier-launched Mitchell B25B was also available and had a
payload capacity of 3,000 lb., though that is 1/3 the weight of Little Boy
(the Hiroshima bomb). Whether or not a smaller package, or alternative
delivery vehicle, could have been provided, I'm not sure. Though the challenge
might have been surmountable.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_B-25_Mitchell](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_B-25_Mitchell)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy)

Casualties _per mission_ over the European theatre were tremendous. I don't
recall the specific per-mission losses, but overall crew survival over a 25
mission tour was on the order of 50%. Japan's defences were less effective,
but again, looking at use of atomic weapons generally, the statistics are
relevant, and _during the planning_ of the Manhattan Project, use of the bomb
against Germany _was_ considered.

[http://www.ww2f.com/threads/bomber-crew-survival-rates-
durin...](http://www.ww2f.com/threads/bomber-crew-survival-rates-during-the-
war.56599/)

There's also the possibility that smaller flights might escape detection
(smaller radar target).

