Thread

1. WalterBright · 1790963993 · focus · HN ↗

   It's generally forgotten that Japan was also developing a nuclear bomb. They were a long ways from making a viable one, though. It was abandoned after the surrender.

   1. fusslo · 1790964260 · focus · HN ↗

      I cant remember which, but a documentary about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki said that after the first bomb, Japanese scientists were deployed to confirm or deny the US's claim of an atomic weapon.

      If I remember right, the Japanese scientists confirmed signs of an atomic explosion, but the leaders were stuck in a debate as to whether or not to accept the findings

      Maybe someone better educated can correct me if I didn't get that history quite right

      Edit:

      <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Yoshio_Nishina#Atomic_bomb" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Yoshio_Nishina#Atomic_bomb

      <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Bunsaku_Arakatsu" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Bunsaku_Arakatsu (check out his academic advisor!)

      1. 7speter · 1790972386 · focus · HN ↗

         All the people dying from side effects of radiation wasn’t enough proof that an atomic weapon was used?

         1. AngryData · 1790973475 · focus · HN ↗

            Well the effects of radiation were still poorly understood, but also there wasn&#x27;t that much radioactive material left over in any concentration. And the gamma ray blast would appear superficially like normal burns from being near a firebomb until atleast a few days later.

            Contrary to Fallout lore, most nuclear bombs dont leave much concentrated radioactive material unless it was done on purpose. You either need a shittier and smaller explosion with the same material, or you need a ground burst which reduces the effective blast area.

            The US was on ground zero in under 2 weeks in Japan and couldn&#x27;t detect anything over the background in radioactive isotopes.

            1. Lumich · 1791020983 · focus · HN ↗

               « And the gamma ray blast would appear superficially like normal burns from being near a firebomb until atleast a few days later. »

               Would it? How so?

               First, the notion of “normal burns from being near a firebomb” is inadequate. There are various types of firebombs. The ones “generously” employed by Uncle Sam against the Japanese (primarily civilians, and later idem against the Koreans and the Vietnamese) are napalm bombs. The way they work is that burning napalm is blasted about in lumps and sticks to anything it hits, including clothes and human skin. The injuries caused by napalm lumps are special. They&#x27;re called keloids.

               Figure 9.3 on page 171 of Palmer&#x27;s book (free PDF available, link in 49938615, which is among the comments on this topic) shows keloid burns in Hiroshima bombing victims. These have been interpreted as “flash burns”. However, this defies common sense. First, they show characteristically strong locality, irregular shapes, sharply defined edges, and look exactly like napalm burns. Second, how would you explain a hypothetical “flash” (of whatever nature) from a distance more than a couple inches away to produce such conspicuously localized injuries? (And even from ten inches away you&#x27;d need strong directionality.) The forensics flatly contradict and preclude such a “flash” interpretation.

               Palmer, who is an MD, found that not much can be found about napalm in the medical literature, which curiously contrasts with its very wide-spread application against humans by the U.S. Air Force (p.140, referred to on p.175 and p.241):

                 As of this writing (in 2019), a simple search for “napalm” on
                 PubMed retrieves 29 articles, of which only 7 (seven) are written
                 in English, and none of these provides much useful detail.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.