atomic bomb research paper ideas

87 Hiroshima Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best hiroshima topic ideas & essay examples, 📌 simple & easy hiroshima essay titles, 👍 good essay topics on hiroshima, ❓ hiroshima essay questions.

• “Hiroshima” by John Hersey The book Hiroshima traces some of the survivors of the war and lists two women, two religious people, and two doctors who narrate the events from a few hours before the bomb was dropped up […]
• Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombing In addition, the refusal of Japanese troops to surrender and Japan’s “all-out war” have also been put forward as arguments in favor of the bombing that stopped the atrocities of the “all-out war” of Japanese […]
• Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Long-Term Health Effects Nevertheless, exposure to neutrons from the incidence of A-bomb in Japan, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is currently thought to have been the sources of just 1-2% of the entire dose of ionizing radiation.
• Hiroshima and Its Importance in US History Hiroshima is the capital city of Hiroshima district, which is situated in the south west of the province Honshu in Japan.
• The Atomic Bomb of Hiroshima The effects of the bombing were devastating; the explosion had a blast equivalent to approximately 13 kilotons of TNT. Sasaki says that hospitals were teaming with the wounded people, those who managed to survive the […]
• Hiroshima Bombing in Berger’s, Hardy’s, Hersey’s Works Berger used excerpts of the actual witnesses of the bombing to illustrate the scope of the tragedy and made generalizations concerning the horrors of Hiroshima in the historical and global context.
• Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Theory of Just War The theory of Just War is meant to provide a philosophical framework, upon which the use of military force is justified. Was the use of the bomb a last resort?
• Hiroshima Bombing Occurrence and Impacts Additionally, all the other disasters follow a path that is off firebombing as compared to the Hiroshima that saw the only use of nuclear weapons. However, research that is more empirical should to establish the […]
• Did the USA need to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? However, the war continued along the Pacific Ocean due to the resistance of the Japanese Emperor to sign the instrument of surrender.
• Hiroshima: Rising from the Ashes of Nuclear Destruction After a few years, the city of han was abolished and Hiroshima became the capital city of the whole Hiroshima region.
• Memory by Analogy: Hiroshima Mon Amour It is quite painful to recall the events that took place in Japan during the Second World War in the aftermath of the atomic bombing of the cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
• The Atomic Weapons Attacks On Hiroshima And Nagasaki
• Lifton and Mitchell’s Hiroshima in America
• The War Of Hiroshima And Nagasaki Ended The World War II
• Hiroshima And The Inheritance Of Trauma
• Was Bombing Hiroshima And Nagasaki Necessary To End World War 2
• US Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Cannot be Justified
• Truman ‘s Announcement On Bombing Of Hiroshima
• Speculations about the Cause and Effect of the Atomic Bomb and Its Consequences on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
• US Government Justifies Dropping of Atomic Bomb in Hiroshima
• Things Fall Apart By Chinua Achebe And Hiroshima
• Was the U.S. Right or Wrong Using the Atomic Bomb in Hiroshima
• Swallowing the Poison Mushroom – America After Hiroshima
• The Atomic Explosion Of Hiroshima And Nagasaki
• The Events Before and After the Explosion in John Hersey’s Hiroshima
• The Alternatives to Dropping the Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
• To What Extent Were The Bombings Of Hiroshima And Nagasaki
• The Dropping of the Atomic Bomb the Japanese City of Hiroshima
• John Hersey’s Interviews of Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Victims
• Weapons Of Mass Destruction Of Hiroshima And Nagasaki
• The Bombing Of Hiroshima And Nagasaki During World War II
• The Devastation in the City of Hiroshima After the Atomic Bombing in 1945
• Hiroshima And The American Naval Base At Pearl Harbor
• Horrors Caused by the Dropping of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
• The Aftermath When the Bomb Went off in the Book Hiroshima by John Hershey
• Why President Truman Decided To Drop Atomic Bombs On Hiroshima And Nagasaki
• Saving Lives by Dropping Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
• The Background Information of the Hiroshima Bombing and Its Place in U.S. History
• The Events in 1945 During the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima in Japan by the U.S
• Was the Dropping of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Justified
• The Background of the Atomic Bomb Little Boy Dropped on Hiroshima in 1945
• The Consequences of the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States
• The Unnecessary Nuclear Attacks On Nagasaki And Hiroshima
• The Controversy and Justification Around the Use of Nuclear Weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki
• Imperil Global Disarmament Efforts After Nagasaki and Hiroshima Bombings
• The Ethical Analysis of the Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
• Literary Documentation of the Cold War in John Hersey’s Hiroshima
• The Attack On Hiroshima And Nagasaki
• Was America Justified in Dropping the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima in August 1945
• Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings as the Events that Ended World War II
• The Bombing of Hiroshima Changed Six Individuals
• The Debate Over the Ethics of the Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
• Why Did The Americans Drop The Atomic Bomb On Hiroshima
• Was the US Justified in Dropping Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
• The US Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb in Hiroshima
• Hiroshima Nagasaki: Entering Into The Atomic Age
• Why the United States Should Have Dropped the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima
• Why America Bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki
• Was The Atomic Bombing Of Hiroshima And Hiroshima Justified
• Hiroshima Almost Wiped off From the Face of the Earth
• The Bombing of Hiroshima and the Attack on Pearl Harbor During the WWII
• Were Bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki Necessary to End World War 2?
• Was the Atomic Bomb Dropped on Hiroshima Justified?
• Was the U.S. Right or Wrong Using the Atomic Bomb in Hiroshima?
• Why Did the US Pick Hiroshima To Bomb?
• What Did the Hiroshima Bomb Do to Humans?
• How Many Were Killed in Hiroshima?
• Were the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings the Acts of Genocide?
• How Do the Japanese Feel About Hiroshima Many Years Later?
• How Many Years Does It Take for Hiroshima To Fully Recover?
• How Long After Hiroshima Did Japan Surrender?
• Why Was the Bombing of Hiroshima Immoral?
• Was Hiroshima a Human Rights Violation?
• Was Hiroshima Bombing a Secret Message to Soviets?
• What Were the International Politics Before and After Hiroshima?
• What Is the Hiroshima Exhibit Controversy?
• What Is the Incidence of Leukemia in Survivors of the Atomic Bomb in Hiroshima?
• Does Tourism Illuminate the Darkness of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
• What Is the Effect of Bombing on Pregnancy Termination in Hiroshima?
• Why Did the US Drop the Second Atomic Bomb After Hiroshima?
• Is There Still Radioactivity in Hiroshima?
• How Long Until Hiroshima Was Habitable and Why It Takes Time?
• How Did Hiroshima Recover So Quickly?
• Did the US Help Japan After the Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
• How Hiroshima Atomic Bomb Survivors Have Transformed Our Mindset?
• What Were the Genetic Effects of Radiation in Hiroshima Survivors?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, September 26). 87 Hiroshima Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/hiroshima-essay-topics/

"87 Hiroshima Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 26 Sept. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/hiroshima-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '87 Hiroshima Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 26 September.

IvyPanda . 2023. "87 Hiroshima Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/hiroshima-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "87 Hiroshima Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/hiroshima-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "87 Hiroshima Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." September 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/hiroshima-essay-topics/.

• Genocide Essay Titles
• Conflict Research Topics
• Evacuation Essay Topics
• Global Issues Essay Topics
• Landfill Essay Titles
• North Korea Titles
• Third World Countries Research Ideas
• Disaster Essay Titles

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Course: US history   >   Unit 7

• Beginning of World War II
• 1940 - Axis gains momentum in World War II
• 1941 Axis momentum accelerates in WW2
• Pearl Harbor
• FDR and World War II
• Japanese internment
• American women and World War II
• 1942 Tide turning in World War II in Europe
• World War II in the Pacific in 1942
• 1943 Axis losing in Europe
• American progress in the Pacific in 1944
• 1944 - Allies advance further in Europe
• 1945 - End of World War II

The Manhattan Project and the atomic bomb

• The United Nations
• The Second World War
• Shaping American national identity from 1890 to 1945
• The United States detonated two atomic bombs over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, killing 210,000 people—children, women, and men.
• President Truman authorized the use of the atom bombs in an effort to bring about Japan’s surrender in the Second World War . In the days following the bombings Japan surrendered.
• The Manhattan Project was the US government program during World War II that developed and built these first atomic bombs.
• Detonation of these first nuclear bombs signaled arrival of a frightening new Atomic Age .

The Manhattan Project

Hiroshima and nagasaki, was the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki necessary, what do you think.

• David M. Kennedy, Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929–1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 658-668.
• See Kennedy, Freedom from Fear , 658-668.
• See Ira Katznelson, Fear Itself: The New Deal and The Origins of Our Time (New York: Liveright Publishing, 2013), 349.
• See Katznelson, Fear Itself , 350.
• Katznelson, Fear Itself , 614.

Want to join the conversation?

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

• Directories
• Start Your Research
• Research Guides
• University of Washington Libraries
• Library Guides
• UW Libraries
• History Day Topic Guide: Atomic Bomb - Hiroshima & Nagasaki

History Day Topic Guide: Atomic Bomb - Hiroshima & Nagasaki: Home

Quick context.

The ruins of Nagasaki Medical College, Japan, 1945.

In 1942, just months after the United States entered World War II, a secret program, the Manhattan Project was created under the command of Brigadier General Leslie Groves and the scientific direction of J. Robert Oppenheimer.  British and American scientists began developing a new kind of weapon, an atomic bomb.  By July 1945 the weapons were ready to be used against the one remaining Axis nation, Japan (the war in Europe ended with the surrender of Germany on May 8, 1945).

On the clear morning of August 6, 1945 a single plane, the Enola Gay, made it's way across southern Japan to the city of Hiroshima and dropped an uranium bomb nicknamed "Little Boy."  In an instant the city was leveled and and estimates of those killed by the blast and its aftermath range from 70,000 to over 200,000.  Three days later, on August 9, the  plutonium bomb nicknamed "Fat Man"  was dropped on the city of Nagasaki.  Casualty estimates range from 40,000 to 70,000 dead.  On August 10, 1945 Japan offered to surrender to the United States and the Allies. World War II ended.

Historians continue to debate the rationale behind the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan.  Were the bombs necessary?  What would have been the human costs of an invasion of Japan? What role did the entrance of the Soviet Union into the Pacific War play?  Did racism have an affect on the decision? 

For more background information on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki see:

Recommended Websites

• Decision to Drop the Atom Bomb
• Ground Zero 1945: Pictures by Atomic Bomb Survivors
• Memories of Hiroshima & Nagasaki
• Voices of the survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Recommended Books @ UW Libraries

The UW Libraries has many books dealing with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. See this list of recent books  available at the UW Libraries on the topic. 

Recommended Primary Sources @ UW Libraries

• A dimly burning wick : memoir from the ruins of Hiroshima
• The effects of atomic bombs on health and medical services in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
• Encounter with disaster : a medical diary of Hiroshima, 1945
• Hiroshima diary : the journal of a Japanese physician, August 6-September 30, 1945
• Nagasaki 1945 : the first full-length eyewitness account of the atomic bomb attack on Nagasaki
• The witness of those two days : Hiroshima & Nagasaki, August 6 & 9, 1945

Search for Articles from the Time @ UW Libraries

Recommended films @ uw libraries.

Request DVDs at the Central Circulation desk on the first floor of Suzzallo Library. You can view DVDs in the Government Publications, Maps, Microforms & Newspapers (GMM) area on the ground floor of Suzzallo. Streaming films can be viewed while in the Libraries on your own devices. Ask for a guest UW NetID at a information desk to access streaming films.

• Atomic journeys : welcome to ground zero
• Hiroshima : why the bomb was dropped
• Survivors : forty years after Hiroshima
• Twice bombed, twice survived : the doubly atomic bombed of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
• White light, black rain : the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
• Last Updated: May 12, 2023 1:08 PM
• URL: https://guides.lib.uw.edu/research/qg4

Subscribe or renew today

Every print subscription comes with full digital access

Science News

How understanding nature made the atomic bomb inevitable.

A chain reaction of basic discoveries preceded the bombing of Hiroshima 75 years ago

By Tom Siegfried

Contributing Correspondent

August 6, 2020 at 6:00 am

75 years ago, on August 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan (shown). Three days later, another was dropped on Nagasaki.

509th Operations Group/Wikimedia Commons

Share this:

Atomic bombs hastened the end of World War II. But they launched another kind of war, a cold one, that threatened the entire planet with nuclear annihilation. So it’s understandable that on the 75th anniversary of the atomic bomb explosion that devastated Hiroshima (August 6, 1945), reflections tend to emphasize the geopolitical dramas during the decades that followed.

But it’s also worth reflecting on the scientific story of how the bombs came to be.

It’s not easy to pinpoint that story’s beginning. Nuclear fission — the source of the bomb’s energy — was discovered in 1938 , less than seven years before Hiroshima. But the science behind nuclear energy originated decades earlier. You could say 1905, when Einstein revealed to the world that E = mc 2 . Or perhaps it’s better to begin with Henri Becquerel’s discovery of radioactivity in 1896. Radioactivity revealed a new sort of energy, of vast quantity, hidden within the most minuscule components of matter — the parts that made up atoms.

In any case, once science began to comprehend the subatomic world, no force could stop the eventual revelation of the atom’s power.

But the path from basic science to the bomb was not straightforward. There was no clear clue to how subatomic energy could be tapped for any significant use, military or otherwise. Writing in Science News Bulletin (the original Science News precursor) in 1921, physicist Robert Millikan noted that a gram of radium, in the process of disintegrating into lead, emits 300,000 times as much energy as burning a gram of coal. That wasn’t scary, Millikan said, because there wasn’t even enough radium in the world to make very much popcorn. But, he warned, “it is almost a foregone conclusion that similar stores of energy are also possessed by the atoms which … are not radioactive.”

Sign Up For the Latest from Science News

Headlines and summaries of the latest Science News articles, delivered to your inbox

Thank you for signing up!

There was a problem signing you up.

In 1923 editor Edwin Slosson of Science News-Letter (the immediate precursor to Science News ) also remarked that “all the elements have similar stores of energy if we only know how to release it.” But so far, he acknowledged, “scientists have not been able to unlock the atomic energy except by the employment of greater energy from another source.”

By then, physicists realized that the atom’s wealth of energy was stored in a nucleus — discovered by Ernest Rutherford in 1911 . But accessing nuclear energy for practical use seemed unfeasible — at least to Rutherford, who in 1933 said that anyone planning to exploit nuclear energy was “talking moonshine.” But just the year before, the tool for releasing nuclear power had been discovered by James Chadwick , in the form of the subatomic particle known as the neutron.

Having no electric charge, the neutron was the ideal bullet to shoot into an atom, able to penetrate the nucleus and destabilize it. Such experiments in Italy by Enrico Fermi in the 1930s did actually induce fission in uranium. But Fermi thought he had created new, heavier chemical elements. He had no idea that the uranium nucleus had split. He concluded that he had produced a new element , number 93, heavier than uranium (element 92).

Not everyone agreed. Ida Noddack, a German chemist-physicist , argued that the evidence was inconclusive, and Fermi might have produced lighter elements, fragments of the uranium nucleus. But she was defying the prevailing wisdom. As the German chemist Otto Hahn wrote years later, the idea of breaking a uranium nucleus into smaller pieces was “wholly incompatible with the laws of atomic physics. To split heavy atomic nuclei into lighter ones was then considered impossible.”

Nevertheless Hahn and Lise Meitner, an Austrian physicist , continued bombarding uranium with neutrons, producing what they too believed to be new elements. Soon Meitner had to flee Germany for Sweden to avoid Nazi persecution of Jews. Hahn continued the work with chemist Fritz Strassmann; in December 1938 they found that an element they thought was radium could not be chemically distinguished from barium — apparently because it was barium. Hahn and Strassmann couldn’t explain how that could be.

Hahn wrote of this result to Meitner, who discussed it with her nephew Otto Frisch, a physicist studying at Niels Bohr’s institute in Copenhagen. Meitner and Frisch figured out what happened — the neutron had induced the uranium nucleus to split. Barium was one of the leftover chunks. Frisch told Bohr, about to board a ship to America, who realized instantly that fission confirmed his belief that an atomic nucleus behaved analogously to a drop of liquid. Upon arrival in the United States, Bohr began collaborating with John Archibald Wheeler at Princeton to explain the fission process. They quickly found that fission occurred much more readily in uranium-235, the rare form, than in the more common uranium-238. And their analysis revealed that an as yet undiscovered element, number 94, would also be especially efficient at fissioning. Their paper appeared on September 1, 1939, the day Germany invaded Poland to begin World War II.

Between Bohr’s arrival in Amer­ica in January 1939 and the publication of his paper with Wheeler, news of fission’s reality spread, stunning physicists and chemists around the world. At the end of January, for instance, word of fission reached Berkeley, where the leading physicist was J. Robert Oppenheimer, who eventually became the scientist that led the Manhattan Project to build the bomb.

Among the attendees at the Berkeley seminar introducing fission was Glenn Seaborg, a young chemistry in­structor (who in 1941 discovered the unknown element 94 predicted by Bohr and Wheeler, naming it plutonium). Seaborg recalled that at first Oppenheimer didn’t believe fission happened. But, “after a few minutes he decided it was possible,” Seaborg said in a 1997 interview. “It just caught every­body by surprise.”

After the initial surprise, physicists quickly established that fission was the key to unlocking the atom’s energy storehouse. “Lots of people verified that indeed when ura­nium is bombarded by neutrons, slow neutrons in particular, a process occurs which releases tremen­dous amounts of energy,” physicist Hans Bethe said in a 1997 interview. Soon the implications for warfare occupied everybody’s attention.

“The threat of war was getting closer and closer,” Wheeler said in an interview in 1985. “It was impossible not to think about what this business (fission) could mean in the event of war.” In early 1939, physicists meeting to discuss fission concurred that a fission bomb was thinkable. “Everybody agreed that it was perfectly pos­sible to make a nuclear explosive,” Bethe remembered.

Concerns that Germany might develop a nuclear bomb prompted Albert Einstein’s famous letter to President Franklin Roosevelt , sent in August 1939, that eventually led to the Manhattan Project. It became clear that building a fission bomb would require generating a “chain reaction” — the fission process itself would need to release neutrons capable of inducing further fission. In December 1942, Fermi led the team at the University of Chicago that demonstrated a sustained chain reaction , after which work on the bomb proceeded in Los Alamos, N.M., under Oppenheimer’s direction.

At first some physicists thought a bomb could not be developed rapidly enough to be relevant to the war. Bethe, for instance, preferred to work on radar.

“I had considered the whole enterprise a boon­doggle,” he said. “I thought this had nothing to do with the war.” But by April 1943 Oppenheimer succeeded in recruiting Bethe to Los Alamos. By that time the science was in place, and the path to designing and building a bomb was straightforward. “All we had to do was to find out that there were no unforeseen difficulties,” Bethe said.

Ultimately the prototype was exploded at Alamogordo in July 1945, about three weeks before the bomb’s use against Japan.

It was a weapon more horrifying than anything humankind had ever encountered or imagined. And science was responsible. But only because science succeeded in understanding nature more deeply than before. Nobody knew at first where that understanding would lead.

There was absolutely no way to foresee that the discovery of radioactivity, or the atomic nucleus, or even the neutron would eventually enable the construction of a weapon of mass destruction. Yet once it was known that a bomb was possible, it was inevitable.

After Germany’s surrender in World War II, the Allies detained several top German scientists, including Werner Heisenberg, leader of the Nazi bomb project, and eavesdropped on their conversations. It was clear that the Germans failed to build a bomb because they did not think it was practically possible. But after hearing of the bombing of Hiroshima, Heisenberg was quickly able to figure out how the bomb had, in fact, been feasible. Once scientists know for sure something is possible, it’s a lot easier to do it.

In the case of the atomic bomb, basic research seeking nature’s secrets initiated a chain reaction of new knowledge, impossible to control. So the mushroom cloud that resulted symbolizes one of science’s most disturbing successes.

More Stories from Science News on Physics

Scientists developed a sheet of gold that’s just one atom thick

Newfound ‘altermagnets’ shatter the magnetic status quo 

Separating science fact from fiction in Netflix’s ‘3 Body Problem’ 

Physicists take a major step toward making a nuclear clock

During a total solar eclipse, some colors really pop. Here’s why

A teeny device can measure subtle shifts in Earth’s gravitational field

Timbre can affect what harmony is music to our ears

50 years ago, superconductors were warming up

Subscribers, enter your e-mail address for full access to the Science News archives and digital editions.

Not a subscriber? Become one now .

On the History and Technology of the Atomic Bomb. The Commitment of the Scientists

• First Online: 01 January 2015

Cite this chapter

• Vincenzo Cioci 3 , 4  

Part of the book series: History of Mechanism and Machine Science ((HMMS,volume 27))

1372 Accesses

The development of the atomic bomb in the first half of the twentieth century marked a turning point in the history of nuclear science because it revealed the close relationships that exist among science, technology and society. In this paper the main discoveries that led to the scientific and technological development of the atomic bomb are presented together with the commitment of scientists who tried to avoid possible harmful uses of the results of their researches.

In this work a deep examination of the writings of some of these scientists is introduced, some of which are still unpublished, although already quoted by several authors, with the purpose to highlight the relevance of their position against the bomb to the present day. In this sense the content of the paper may appear as a novelty within the history of science and technology; even if it cannot be a unique story.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

1 Rutherford won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1908 “for his investigations into the disintegration of the elements and the chemistry of radioactive substances”, although the chemist of the team was Soddy. He gained due recognition only with the Nobel Prize in 1921 “for his contributions to our knowledge of the chemistry of radioactive substances and his investigations into the origin and nature of isotopes”. In 1913, in fact, he had found that certain elements exist in two or more forms with different atomic weights but they are chemically indistinguishable. Between 1911 and 1913, he had also formulated the Law of radioactive displacement, which refers to the fact that the emission of an α particle by an element moves it back two places in the periodic table, while the emission of a β particle situates it in one position forward. His naming to the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences was proposed by Rutherford (and supported by Thomson), as if to repay the debt contract with Soddy on the occasion of the Nobel Prize in 1908.

In March 1903, Pierre Curie (1859–1906) and Albert Laborde (1878–1968) had measured the heat developed in a Bunsen ice calorimeter from a known amount of radio in a defined time. They found enormous values of the order of 100 calories per hour for a single gram of radium (Curie and Laborde 1903 ). These authors, however, did not consider it possible that this heat was developed at the expense of the internal energy of the radium but they thought that it came from a source outside the atom, of unknown nature (on this topic see Soddy 1904b , Chap. XI entitled “The energy of radio-active change”, pp. 165–170).

Soddy ( 1953 , f 282, 2, line 6).

In this science fiction novel, H. G. Wells predicts, about 20 years in advance, the discovery of artificial radioactivity, the industrial use of atomic energy and a global conflict resulting from the use of “atomic bombs”, with the devastation of the main cities of the planet (Wells 1914 ).

See the 6th paragraph and Cioci ( 2008 ).

Soddy ( 1915 , p. 13, line 19).

The Sydney Morning Herald ( 1935 , f 124, line 43).

Soddy ( 1949 , p. 128, column 1, line 52). For the significant contribution made by Soddy to economics, linked to his commitment to the prevention of war, see Cioci ( 2009a ).

Heavy water was considered to be slow motion par excellence because deuterium has a light nucleus, suitable to subtract kinetic energy from neutrons, and being already formed by a neutron and a proton it was believed to be not “inclined” to absorb neutrons. The research started eventually in Montreal after the war with construction of the atomic pile ZEEP, the origin of the CANDU reactors.

F. Rasetti ( 1958–1968 , p. 11, line 2). Information about this document can be found in Amaldi ( 1990 , p. 175, footnote 15). The document was widely quoted by Battimelli and De Maria in the “Preface” of Amaldi ( 1997 ) and by Maltese ( 2003 ).

Ivi, line 4.

Battimelli ( 2002 ), Maltese ( 2003 ). These authors reported Edoardo Amaldi’s assessments; he considered the decision to work in the Manhattan Project as a necessary assumption of responsibility by scientists to prevent the world being conquered by the Nazis using nuclear weapons: “If I had found myself there (in front of this dramatic dilemma), after deep and painful considerations on which it was my moral duty of man asked to decide whether cooperate in the defense of democracies … or lock myself in my private life, doing nothing to fight the dictatorship, I would have eventually opted for the first solution” (Amaldi 1997 , p. 98, line 32).

Amaldi ( 1979 , p. 199, column 2, line 13).

Associated Press ( 1933 , p. 1, line 18). A summary of the presentation at the British Association is published in the Times of September 12, 1933, p. 7 and of Nature, no. 132, pp. 432–433 (16 September 1933).

Szilard ( 1972 , pp. 729–732; 1978, pp. 45–46).

E. Amaldi ( 1984 , p. 160, line 27).

The exact critical mass for uranium 235 is 52 kg. The critical mass for plutonium 239 is 10 Kg.

Frisch and Peierls ( 1940b , p. 86, line 15).

United States Atomic Energy Commission ( 1971 , p. 12, line 4).

Weisskopf ( 1967 , p. 40, column 1, line 19; 42, column 1, line 11).

Smyth ( 1945 , p. 254, line 16).

Rotblat ( 1985 , p. 18, line 22).

Committee on Social and Political Implications ( 1946 , p. 3, column 3, line 34).

Oppenheimer ( 1948 , p. 66, line 45).

The account of A. K. Smith is entitled “A peril and a Hope” by a famous expression of Oppenheimer according to which nuclear weapons would constitute a danger and a hope for humanity because given the power of these terrible means of destruction humankind would have to give up war to settle international disputes and would have to create a united world under the law and humanity.

Smith and Weiner ( 1980 ).

Oppenheimer ( 1966 , line 20).

Lilienthal et al. ( 1946 , p. 24, line 15).

For further arguments in favour of this conclusion see Cioci ( 2004 ).

General Advisory Committee ( 1949 , p. 155, line 39).

Ivi, line 21.

Ibidem, 156, line 6.

See Capuozzo and Cioci ( 2010 ).

E.g. see: Teller ( 1950 ).

Amaldi E (1979) Gli anni della ricostruzione (The years of reconstruction). Giornale di Fisica 20(3):186–225

Google Scholar  

Amaldi E (1984) From the discovery of the neutron to the discovery of nuclear fission. Physics Reports 111(Sept):1–332

Article   Google Scholar  

Amaldi E (1990) The case of physics (Il caso della fisica. Le conseguenze culturali delle leggi razziali. Atti dei convegni lincei, Roma 84: 107–133). In: Battimelli G, Paoloni G (eds) 20th century physics: essays and recollections. A selection of historical writings by Edoardo Amaldi (1998). World Scientific, Singapore

Amaldi E (1997) Da via Panisperna all’America (From via Panisperna to America). Editori Riuniti, Roma

Anderson HL, Fermi E, Hanstein HB (1939) Production of neutrons in uranium bombarded by neutrons. Physical Review 55:797–798.

Associated Press (September 1933) Atom-powered world absurd, scientists told. New York Herald Tribune, pp 1, 37

Battimelli G (2002) Era un ragazzo di via Panisperna (He was a boy from via Panisperna). Lett Matematica 42:15–21

Bohr N (1936) Neutron capture and nuclear constitution. Nature 137:344–348, 351

Article   MATH   Google Scholar  

Bohr N (1939) Disintegration of heavy. Nuclei. Nature 143:330.

Bohr N, Kalckar F (1937) On the transmutation of atomic nuclei by impact of material particles. I. General theoretical remarks. Mat-Fys Medd Dan Vidensk Selsk 14(10):1–40

Bohr N, Wheeler JA (1939) The mechanism of nuclear fission. Physical Review 56:426–450

Brown A (2012) Keeper of the nuclear conscience. The life and works of Joseph Rotblat. Oxford University Press, New York

Butcher SI (2005) The origins of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto. Pugwash History Series 1:3–35

Capuozzo L, Cioci V (2010) La Fisica, le origini della biologia molecolare e dell’Ingegneria genetica: il caso della conferenza di asilomar (Physics, the origins of molecular biology and genetic engineering: the case of the Asilomar Conference). In: Giannetto E, Giannini G, Toscano M (eds) Relatività, quanti, chaos e altre rivoluzioni della fisica (Proceedings of the XXVII SISFA Congress). Guaraldi, Rimini, pp 357–364

Cioci V (2004) Una rivisitazione del caso Oppenheimer (A review of Oppenheimer case). In: Tucci P, Garuccio A, Nigro M (eds) Proceedings of the XXIII SISFA Congress. Progedit, Bari, pp 131–144

Cioci V (2007) Storia e confronto di tre diverse posizioni di fisici contro la bomba atomica (History and comparison of three different positions of physicists against the atomic bomb). In: Leone M, Preziosi B, Robotti N (eds) L’eredità di Fermi Majorana e altri temi. Atti del XXIV Congresso della Società Italiana degli Storici della Fisica e dell’Astronomia. Proceedings of the XXIV SISFA Congress. Bibliopolis, Naples, pp 211–215

Cioci V (2008) Science fiction e realtà: La liberazione del mondo di H. G. Wells e il suo influsso sugli scienziati atomici. (Science fiction and reality: The world set free by HG Wells and his influence on the atomic scientists). In: Pitrelli N, Ramani D, Sturloni G (eds) Proceedings of the VI Italian national conference on science communication. Polimetrica, Monza, pp 97–102

Cioci V (2009a) Frederick Soddy, un chimico alle frontiere della conoscenza, fra Fisica, Economia, Matematica ed Ecologia (Frederick Soddy, a chemist at the frontiers of knowledge, among physics, economics, mathematics and ecology). In: Calascibetta F (ed) Proceedings of the XIII National Congress of History and Fundamentals of Chemistry, Excerpt from vol 127, Memoirs of Physical and Natural Sciences, Proceedings of the Italian National Academy of Sciences called Academy of Forty, ser. 5, vol 33, part II, vol II, pp 319–330

Cioci V (2009b) Edoardo Amaldi e il rifiuto delle applicazioni militari della fisica nucleare (Edoardo Amaldi and the refusal of the military applications of nuclear physics). Proceedings of the XLVII AIF Congress, Supplement to LNFS 42(3): 50–58

Committee on Social and Political Implications (1946) A report to the secretary of war (Frank report). Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 1(10):2–4, 16

Curie P, Laborde A (1903) Sur la chaleur dégagée spontanément par les sels de radium. Comptes Rendus 136(sem.1):673–675

Einstein A (1905) Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content? (Ist die Trägheit eines Körpers von seimen Eneirgieinhalt abhängig? Annalen der Physik, ser. 4, 18:639–641). In: Einstein A (1989) Collected papers of Albert Einstein, vol 2. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 172–174

Einstein A (1907) On the relativity principle and the conclusion drawn from it (Relativitätsprinzip und die aus demselben gezogenen Folgerungen, Jahrbuch der Radioaktivität 4:411–62; 5:98–99). In: Einstein A (1989) Collected papers of Albert Einstein, vol 2. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 252–311

Einstein A (1910) Principe de relativité et ses conséquences dans la physique moderne. Archives des sciences physiques et naturelles (Series 4), 29:5–28,125–244

Einstein A (1989) Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, vol 2. The Swiss years: writings, 1900–1909. Princeton University Press, Princeton. (English translation supplement. Beck A (tr), Havas P (con), Buchwald DK (g ed))

Fermi E (1934) Possible production of elements of atomic number higher than 92. Nature 133:898–899

Fermi E, Amaldi E, D’Agostino O, Rasetti F, Segré E (1934) Artificial radioactivity produced by neutron bombardment—I. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A 146(857):483–500

Frisch O (1939) Physical evidence for the division of heavy nuclei under neutron bombardment. Nature 143:276

Frisch O, Peierls R (1940a) Memorandum on the properties of a radioactive “superbomb”. In: Serber R (ed) The Los Alamos primer. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 80–83

Frisch O, Peierls R (1940b) On the construction of a “super-bomb”; based on a nuclear chain reaction in uranium. In: Serber R (ed) The Los Alamos primer. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 83–88

General Advisory Committee (1949) Report of GAC to the U. S. atomic energy commission, October 30. In: York HF (ed) The advisors. Oppheneimer, teller and the superbomb (1976). Freeman and Company, San Francisco, pp 150–159

Hahn O, Strassmann F (1939) Concerning the existence of alkaline earth metals resulting from neutron irradiation of uranium (Über den Nachweis und das Verhalten der bei der Bestrahlung des Urans mittels Neutronen entstehenden Erdalkalimetalle. Die Naturwissenschaften 27:11–15). Am J Phys 32:9–15 (English Translation)

Hinshaw VGJ (1949) Einstein’s social philosophy. In: Schilpp AP (ed) Albert Einstein: philosopher-scientist. Volume VII in the Library of Living Philosophers, MJF Books, New York, pp 649–661

Jonas H (1984) The imperative of responsibility: in search of an ethics for the technological age (Das Prinzip Verantwortung, Insel Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, 1979) (trans: H Jonas, D Herr). University of Chicago Press, Chicago

Jonas H (1997) Tecnica medicina ed etica. Prassi del principio responsabilità. (Technik, Medizin und Ethik: Zur Praxis des Prinzips Verantwortung. Insel Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, 1985) (trans: P Becchi, A Benussi). Einaudi, Torino. (Not translated into English yet)

Jones VC (1985) Manhattan: the army and the atomic bomb. United States Army, Washington (Center of military history)

Kipphardt H (1964) In the matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer; a play freely adapted on the basis of the documents. Hill & Wang, New York

Lilienthal DE (Chairman), Barnard CI, Oppenheimer JR, Thomas CA, Winne HA (1946) A report on the international control of atomic energy prepared for the secretary of state’s committee on atomic energy (Acheson-Lilienthal report). U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington

Maltese G (2003) Enrico Fermi in America. Una biografia scientifica: 1938–1954 (Enrico Fermi in America. A scientific biography: 1938–1954). Zanichelli, Bologna

Meitner L, Frisch OR (1939) Disintegration of uranium by neutrons: a new type of nuclear reaction. Nature 143:239–40

Oppenheimer JR (1948) Physics in the contemporary world. Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 4(3):65–68, 85–86

Oppenheimer JR (1966) Draft letter to David Bohm, 2 December Library of congress. Manuscript division, Papers of J. R. Oppenheimer, box 20

Pais A (1982) Subtle is the lord. The science and the life of Albert Einstein. Oxford University Press, New York

Peierls R (1974) Oppenheimer J. Robert. In: Gillispie CC (ed) Dictionary of scientific biography, vol X. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, pp 213–218

Ramsay W, Soddy F, (1904) Further experiments on the production of helium from radium. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 73:346–358

Rasetti F (1955) Fermi. Science 121(1344):449–451

Rasetti F (1958–1968) Biographical notes and scientific work of Franco Rasetti, unpublished typescript preserved in the Amaldi Archives, Department of Physics, Rome University “La Sapienza”, sc. 1E, fasc. 22

Rasetti F (1968) Enrico Fermi e la fisica italiana (Enrico Fermi and the Italian physics). In: Celebrazioni Lincee in ricordo di Enrico Fermi. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Roma, pp 11–19

Rhodes R (1986) The making of atomic bomb. Simon & Schuster, New York

Rotblat J (1985) Leaving the bomb project. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 41(7):16–19

Russell BAW, Einstein A (1955) Texts of scientists’ appeal for abolition of war. The New York Times, 10 July, p 25. (The Russell-Einstein Manifesto). Issued in London, 9 July 1955, and signed also by Born M, Bridgman PW, Infeld AL, Joliot-Curie F, Muller HJ, Pauling L, Powell CF, Rotblat J, Yukawa H. Reprinted in: Bone AG (ed) The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, vol 28. Man’s Peril, 1954–1955. Routledge, London and New York, pp 259–262

Rutherford E, Soddy F (1902a) The cause and nature of radioactivity, parts I and II. Philosophical Magazine (Series 6) 4:370–396, 569–585

Rutherford E, Soddy F (1902b) The radioactivity of thorium compounds, parts I and II. Transactions of Journal of the Chemical Society 81:837–860, 837–851

Rutherford E, Soddy F (1903) Radioactive change. Philosophical Magazine (Series 6) 5:576–591

Smith AK (1971) A peril and a hope. The scientists’ movement in America 1945–47. The MIT Press, Cambridge

Smith AK, Weiner C (eds) (1980) Robert Oppenheimer. Letters and recollections. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

Smyth HD (1945) Atomic energy for military purposes. The official report on the development of the atomic bomb under the auspices of the United States Government, 1940–1945. Princeton University Press, Princeton. (Reprinted by Maple Press, York, Pennsylvania)

Soddy F (1903a) Some recent advances in radioactivity. Contemporary Review 83(May):708–720

Soddy F (1903b) Possible future applications of radium. Times Literature Supplement 17:225–226

Soddy F (1904a) Radium. Professional Papers of the Royal Corps of Engineers 29:237–251

Soddy F (1904b) Radio-activity: an elementary treatise from the standpoint of the disintegration theory. The electrician, London

Soddy F (1906) The internal energy of elements. Journal of the Institution of Electrical Engineers 37:140–147

Soddy F (1909) The interpretation of radium. G. P. Putnam’s Sons, New York

Soddy F (1915) The social effect of recent advances in physical sciences. In: Professor Frederick Soddy Papers, Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS Eng Misc b179, ff. 542–556

Soddy F (1926) Wealth, virtual wealth and debt. The solution of the economic paradox. George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London

Soddy F (1934) Suggestion to the ordinary fellows of the royal society for a reform group to uphold their rights. In: Professor Frederick Soddy Papers, Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS. Eng. misc. b170, f 147

Soddy F ( 1945) The moving finger writes […] Cavalcade, August 18, pp 8–9

Soddy F (1949) The story of atomic energy. Nova Atlantis, London

Soddy F (1953) Correspondence with Sir Harold Hartley. In: Professor Frederick Soddy Papers, Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS Eng Misc b189, ff 281–285

Szilard L (1972) The collected works of Leo Szilard: scientific papers. Edited by Feld BT, Weiss Szilard G. The MIT Press, Cambridge

Szilard L (1978) His Version of the Facts. Selected Recollections and Correspondence. Edited by Weart SR, Weiss Szilard G. The Mit Press, Cambridge

Szilard L, Zinn WH (1939) Instantaneous emission of fast neutrons in the interaction of slow neutrons with uranium. Physical Review 55:799–800

Teller E (1950) Back to the laboratories. Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 6(3):71

The Sydney Morning Herald (1935) Royal society. Demand for Reform., December 23, N.S.W., Australia. In: Professor Frederick Soddy Papers, Bodleian Library, Oxford, MS. Eng. misc. b170, f 124

United States Atomic Energy Commission (1971) In the matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Transcript of hearing before personnel security board and texts of principal documents and letters. Foreword by Stern PM. The MIT Press, Cambridge

von Halban H, Joliot F, Kowarski L (1939) Liberation of neutrons in the nuclear explosion of uranium. Nature 143:470–471

Weart S (1982) The road to Los Alamos. Journal De Physique (Colloque C8, suppl au n 12) 43:301–313

Weisskopf V (1967) The Los Alamos years. In: A memorial to Oppenheimer. Physics Today 20(10):39–42

Wells HG (1914) The world set free. A story of mankind. Macmillan and Company, London

Download references

Acknowledgments

I thank Professor Giovanni Battimelli, Referent for Documents and Sources for the History of Physics, Department of Physics, University “La Sapienza” of Rome, who helped me in the consultation of the Edoardo Amaldi Archives.

My special thanks is addressed to Colin Harris, Superintendent of the Special Collections Reading Rooms, for his help in finding the unpublished writings of Frederick Soddy , to Dr. Chris Fletcher, Keeper of Special Collections, and to the Bodleian Library, Oxford University, which owns them, for permission given on the basis of ‘non-exclusive rights’ to quote and to paraphrase them.

I am grateful to Bonnie Coles for helping me in the examination and retrieval of the writings of Robert Oppenheimer at the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress (USA).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Research Centre for the Theory and History of Science, University of West Bohemia, Pilsen, Czech Republic

Vincenzo Cioci

Research Group on Physics Education and History of Physics, University of Calabria, Cosenza, Italy

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vincenzo Cioci .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Physics, Lille 1 University Science and Technology, Villeneuve d’Ascq, France

Raffaele Pisano

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cioci, V. (2015). On the History and Technology of the Atomic Bomb. The Commitment of the Scientists. In: Pisano, R. (eds) A Bridge between Conceptual Frameworks. History of Mechanism and Machine Science, vol 27. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9645-3_7

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9645-3_7

Published : 01 July 2015

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-94-017-9644-6

Online ISBN : 978-94-017-9645-3

eBook Packages : Engineering Engineering (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Atomic Bomb History

By: History.com Editors

Updated: November 9, 2022 | Original: September 6, 2017

The atomic bomb and nuclear bombs are powerful weapons that use nuclear reactions as their source of explosive energy. Scientists first developed nuclear weapons technology during World War II. Atomic bombs have been used only twice in war—both times by the United States against Japan at the end of World War II, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. A period of nuclear proliferation followed that war, and during the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union vied for supremacy in a global nuclear arms race.

Nuclear Bombs and Hydrogen Bombs

A discovery by nuclear physicists in a laboratory in Berlin, Germany, in 1938 made the first atomic bomb possible, after Otto Hahn, Lise Meitner and Fritz Strassman discovered nuclear fission.

In nuclear fission, the nucleus of an atom of radioactive material splits into two or more smaller nuclei, which causes a sudden, powerful release of energy. The discovery of nuclear fission opened up the possibility of nuclear technologies, including weapons.

Atomic bombs get their energy from fission reactions. Thermonuclear weapons, or hydrogen bombs, rely on a combination of nuclear fission and nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion is another type of reaction in which two lighter atoms combine to release energy.

Manhattan Project

On December 28, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the formation of the Manhattan Project to bring together various scientists and military officials working on nuclear research.

The Manhattan Project was the code name for the American-led effort to develop a functional atomic bomb during World War II . The project was started in response to fears that German scientists had been working on a weapon using nuclear technology since the 1930s.

Who Invented the Atomic Bomb?

Much of the work in the Manhattan Project was performed in Los Alamos, New Mexico , under the direction of theoretical physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer , the “ father of the atomic bomb .”

On July 16, 1945, in a remote desert location near Alamogordo, New Mexico , the first atomic bomb was successfully detonated—the Trinity Test . It created an enormous mushroom cloud some 40,000 feet high and ushered in the Atomic Age.

Hiroshima And Nagasaki Bombings

Scientists at Los Alamos had developed two distinct types of atomic bombs by 1945—a uranium-based design called “the Little Boy” and a plutonium-based weapon called “the Fat Man.” (Uranium and plutonium are both radioactive elements.)

While the war in Europe had ended in April, fighting in the Pacific continued between Japanese forces and U.S. troops. In late July, President Harry Truman called for Japan’s surrender with the Potsdam Declaration . The declaration promised “prompt and utter destruction” if Japan did not surrender.

On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped its first atomic bomb from a B-29 bomber plane called the Enola Gay over the city of Hiroshima , Japan. The “Little Boy” exploded with about 13 kilotons of force, leveling five square miles of the city and killing 80,000 people instantly. Tens of thousands more would later die from radiation exposure.

When the Japanese did not immediately surrender, the United States dropped a second atomic bomb three days later on the city of Nagasaki . The “Fat Man” killed an estimated 40,000 people on impact.

Nagasaki had not been the primary target for the second bomb. American bombers initially had targeted the city of Kokura, where Japan had one of its largest munitions plants, but smoke from firebombing raids obscured the sky over Kokura. American planes then turned toward their secondary target, Nagasaki.

Citing the devastating power of “a new and most cruel bomb,” Japanese Emperor Hirohito announced his country’s surrender on August 15—a day that became known as ‘ V-J Day ’—ending World War II.

The Cold War

The United States was the only country with nuclear weaponry in the years immediately following World War II. The Soviet Union initially lacked the knowledge and raw materials to build nuclear warheads.

Within just a few years, however, the U.S.S.R. had obtained—through a network of spies engaging in international espionage—blueprints of a fission-style bomb and discovered regional sources of uranium in Eastern Europe. On August 29, 1949, the Soviets tested their first nuclear bomb.

The United States responded by launching a program in 1950 to develop more advanced thermonuclear weapons. The Cold War arms race had begun, and nuclear testing and research became high-profile goals for several countries, especially the United States and the Soviet Union.

Cuban Missile Crisis

Over the next few decades, each world superpower would stockpile tens of thousands of nuclear warheads. Other countries, including Great Britain, France, and China, developed nuclear weapons during this time, too.

To many observers, the world appeared on the brink of nuclear war in October of 1962. The Soviet Union had installed nuclear-armed missiles on Cuba, just 90 miles from U.S. shores. This resulted in a 13-day military and political standoff known as the Cuban Missile Crisis .

President John F. Kennedy enacted a naval blockade around Cuba and made it clear the United States was prepared to use military force if necessary to neutralize the perceived threat.

Disaster was avoided when the United States agreed to an offer made by Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev to remove the Cuban missiles in exchange for the United States promising not to invade Cuba.

Three Mile Island

Many Americans became concerned about the health and environmental effects of nuclear fallout—the radiation left in the environment after a nuclear blast—in the wake of World War II and after extensive nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific during the 1940s and 1950s.

The antinuclear movement emerged as a social movement in 1961 at the height of the Cold War. During Women Strike for Peace demonstrations on November 1, 1961 co-organized by activist Bella Abzug , roughly 50,000 women marched in 60 cities in the United States to demonstrate against nuclear weapons.

The antinuclear movement captured national attention again in the 1970s and 1980s with high profile protests against nuclear reactors after the Three Mile Island accident—a nuclear meltdown at a Pennsylvania power plant in 1979.

In 1982, a million people marched in New York City protesting nuclear weapons and urging an end to the Cold War nuclear arms race. It was one of the largest political protests in United States history.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

The United States and Soviet Union took the lead in negotiating an international agreement to halt the further spread of nuclear weapons in 1968.

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (also called the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT) went into effect in 1970. It separated the world’s countries into two groups—nuclear weapons states and non-nuclear weapons states.

Nuclear weapons states included the five countries that were known to possess nuclear weapons at the time—the United States, the U.S.S.R., Great Britain, France and China.

According to the treaty, nuclear weapons states agreed not to use nuclear weapons or help non-nuclear states acquire nuclear weapons. They also agreed to gradually reduce their stockpiles of nuclear weapons with the eventual goal of total disarmament. Non-nuclear weapons states agreed not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990s, there were still thousands of nuclear weapons scattered across Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Many of the weapons were located in Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. These weapons were deactivated and returned to Russia.

Illegal Nuclear Weapon States

Some countries wanted the option of developing their own nuclear weapons arsenal and never signed the NPT. India was the first country outside of the NPT to test a nuclear weapon in 1974.

Other non-signatories to the NTP include: Pakistan, Israel and South Sudan. Pakistan has a known nuclear weapons program. Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, though has never officially confirmed or denied the existence of a nuclear weapons program. South Sudan is not known or believed to possess nuclear weapons.

North Korea

North Korea initially signed the NPT treaty, but announced its withdrawal from the agreement in 2003. Since 2006, North Korea has openly tested nuclear weapons, drawing sanctions from various nations and international bodies.

North Korea tested two long-range intercontinental ballistic missiles in 2017—one reportedly capable of reaching the United States mainland. In September 2017, North Korea claimed it had tested a hydrogen bomb that could fit on top an intercontinental ballistic missile.

Iran, while a signatory of the NPT, has said it has the capability to initiate production of nuclear weapons at short notice.

Pioneering Nuclear Science: The Discovery of Nuclear Fission. International Atomic Energy Agency . The Development and Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. NobelPrize.org . Here are the facts about North Korea’s nuclear test. NPR .

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

National Museum of Nuclear Science & History

Student Research and Study Topics

• Early Atomic Science
• Nuclear Fission
• Scientific Exodus
• The Einstein Letter – 1939
• Britain’s Early Input – 1940
• Moving Forward
• Chicago Met Lab
• Corporate Partners
• Meet DuPont
• Isotope Separation Methods
• Atomic Accidents
• The Alsos Mission
• Special Engineer Detachment
• USS Indianapolis
• Nuclear Power Today
• Nuclear Weapons Today

National Archives News

The Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, August 1945

Photograph of Hiroshima after the atomic bomb. (National Archives Identifier 22345671 )

The United States bombings of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and August 9, 1945, were the first instances of atomic bombs used against humans, killing tens of thousands of people, obliterating the cities, and contributing to the end of World War II. The National Archives maintains the documents that trace the evolution of the project to develop the bombs, their use in 1945, and the aftermath.

Online Exhibits

The Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki   features a letter written by Luis Alvarez, a physicist who worked on the Manhattan Project, on August 6, 1945, after the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan.

[Photograph: The atomic cloud rising over Nagasaki, Japan, August 9, 1945. National Archives Identifier 535795 ]

A People at War looks at the 509 Composite Group, the unit selected to carry the atomic bomb to Hiroshima.

[Photograph: Col. Paul Tibbets, Jr., waves from the cockpit of the Enola Gay before departing for Hiroshima, August 6, 1945. National Archives Identifier  535737 ]

Photograph Gallery

"Little Boy" atomic bomb being raised into plane on Tinian Island before the flight to Hiroshima. National Archives Identifier  76048583

Hiroshima after the atomic bomb. National Archives Identifier  22345671

Hiroshima after the atomic bomb. National Archives Identifier  22345679

Hiroshima after the atomic bomb. National Archives Identifier  22345680

Hiroshima after the atomic bomb. National Archives Identifier  148728174

Nuclear weapon of the "Fat Man" type, the kind detonated over Nagasaki, Japan. National Archives Identifier  175539928

The atomic cloud rising over Nagasaki, Japan. National Archives Identifier  535795

Nagasaki after the atomic bomb. National Archives Identifier  39147824

Nagasaki after the atomic bomb. National Archives Identifier  39147850

Additional Photographs

Atomic Bomb Preparations at Tinian Island, 1945

Photographs used in the report Effects of the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima, Japan

Manhattan Project Notebook

Atomic bomb/Enola Gay preparations for the bombing missions

Post-bombing aerial and on-the-ground images of Hiroshima

Empty bottle of Chianti Bertolli wine signed by scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project

Archival Film

Hiroshima and Nagasaki Effects, 1945

The Last Bomb ,  a 1945 film, done in Technicolor, by the Army Air Forces Combat Camera Units and Motion Picture Units covering the B-29 bombing raids on Japan

Effects on the human body of radiation from the atomic bomb

Additional Records

Photos: Atomic Bomb Preparations at Tinian Island, 1945

Atomic bomb/ Enola Gay preparations for the bombing missions

Post-Hiroshima bombing aerial and on-the-ground images

Color image of Hiroshima after bombing

Manhattan Project records from Oak Ridge, TN

Blogs and Social Media Posts

Unwritten Record:  Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Unwritten Record:  Witness to Destruction: Photographs and Sound Recordings Documenting the Hiroshima Bombing

Forward with Roosevelt:  Found in the Archives: The Einstein Letter

Pieces of History:  Little Boy: The First Atomic Bomb

Pieces of History:  Harry Truman and the Bomb

Pieces of History:  Morgantown Ordnance Works (part of the Manhattan Project) Panoramas, 1940–1942

Today's Document:  Petition from Manhattan Project Scientists to President Truman

For Educators

Docs Teach resources on the atomic bomb

Teaching with Documents:  Photographs and Pamphlet about Nuclear Fallout

Kennedy Library: “The Presidency in the Nuclear Age”

At the Presidential Libraries

Roosevelt Library: Albert Einstein’s letter to FDR regarding the atomic bomb

Truman Library: “The Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb ”

Truman Library: Additional records on the bombing of Hiroshima

Truman Library:  President Truman's Diary Entry for July 17, 1945 (the day before Truman learned that the United States had successfully tested the world's first atomic bomb)

Truman Library: Memo for the Record, Manhattan Project, July 20, 1945

Truman Library: Petition from Leo Szilard and other scientists to President Truman

Eisenhower Library: Atoms for Peace

Kennedy Library: “ The Presidency in the Nuclear Age: The Race to Build the Bomb and the Decision to Use It”

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• NEWS Q&A
• 26 July 2023

Why Oppenheimer has important lessons for scientists today

• Davide Castelvecchi

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Director Christopher Nolan’s ambitious, three-hour film Oppenheimer , about the US theoretical physicist who led the development of the world’s first nuclear weapons, opened in UK and US cinemas on 21 July to widespread acclaim. Since the film’s release, the scientific world has been abuzz about its accuracy — and whether it does justice to the many facets of the story of the atomic bomb.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 620 , 16-17 (2023)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-02409-8

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Related Articles

How the United States plans to trap its biggest stash of nuclear-weapons waste in glass

• Nuclear physics

The dream of electronic newspapers becomes a reality — in 1974

News & Views 07 MAY 24

How to stop students cramming for exams? Send them to sea

News & Views 30 APR 24

Ancient DNA traces family lines and political shifts in the Avar empire

News & Views 24 APR 24

Laser spectroscopy of triply charged 229Th isomer for a nuclear clock

Article 17 APR 24

The science of Oppenheimer: meet the Oscar-winning movie’s specialist advisers

News Q&A 11 MAR 24

Space and nuclear pioneers show the value of empowering women in STEM

Correspondence 05 MAR 24

Dozens of Brazilian universities hit by strikes over academic wages

News 08 MAY 24

Argentina’s pioneering nuclear research threatened by huge budget cuts

News 07 MAY 24

How to meet Africa’s grand challenges with African know-how

World View 01 MAY 24

W3-Professorship (with tenure) in Inorganic Chemistry

The Institute of Inorganic Chemistry in the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences at the University of Bonn invites applications for a W3-Pro...

53113, Zentrum (DE)

Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität

Principal Investigator Positions at the Chinese Institutes for Medical Research, Beijing

Studies of mechanisms of human diseases, drug discovery, biomedical engineering, public health and relevant interdisciplinary fields.

Beijing, China

The Chinese Institutes for Medical Research (CIMR), Beijing

Research Associate - Neural Development Disorders

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Staff Scientist - Mitochondria and Surgery

Recruitment of talent positions at shengjing hospital of china medical university.

Call for top experts and scholars in the field of science and technology.

Shenyang, Liaoning, China

Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Articles on Atomic bombs

Displaying 1 - 20 of 24 articles.

Despite its big night at the Oscars, ‘Oppenheimer’ is a disappointment and a lost opportunity

Naoko Wake , Michigan State University

Atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki left survivors wrestling with spiritual questions – here’s how Buddhists and Catholics responded

Yuki Miyamoto , DePaul University

The Hiroshima Panels are a remarkable artistic exploration of trauma

Barbara Hartley , The University of Queensland

How soil changes the danger of a buried IED – new research

Sam Clarke , University of Sheffield

Nuclear threats are increasing – here’s how the US should prepare for a nuclear event

Cham Dallas , University of Georgia

This is what happened the morning the first atomic bomb created a new world

Daniel Cordle , Nottingham Trent University

This is why nuking a hurricane will not work, Mr Trump

Liz Ritchie-Tyo , UNSW Sydney

A brief history of black holes

Carla Rodrigues Almeida , Max Planck Institute for the History of Science

World politics explainer: The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Amy Maguire , University of Newcastle

Operation Gunnerside: The Norwegian attack on heavy water that deprived the Nazis of the atomic bomb

Timothy J. Jorgensen , Georgetown University

Atomic age began 75 years ago with the first controlled nuclear chain reaction

Artemis Spyrou , Michigan State University and Wolfgang Mittig , Michigan State University

Black Mist Burnt Country asks: what remains after the mushroom cloud?

Joanna Mendelssohn , UNSW Sydney

Sixty years on, Maralinga reminds us not to put security over safety

Liz Tynan , James Cook University

How a rich uranium mine thrust the Congo into the centre of the Cold War

Susan Williams , School of Advanced Study, University of London

Bikini islanders still deal with fallout of US nuclear tests, more than 70 years later

Why do we pay so much attention to Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Matthew Seligmann , Brunel University London

The little-known history of secrecy and censorship in wake of atomic bombings

Janet Farrell Brodie , Claremont Graduate University

Hiroshima: stifled stories and one man’s memory of a cataclysm

Elizabeth Chappell , The Open University

The deep influence of the A-bomb on anime and manga

Frank Fuller , Villanova University

Even before Hiroshima, people knew the atomic bomb

Matt Lavine , Mississippi State University

Related Topics

• Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs
• Nuclear weapons
• Radioactivity
• World War II

Top contributors

Assistant Professor of History, Mississippi State University

Associate Professor in English and American Literature, Nottingham Trent University

Director of the Health Physics and Radiation Protection Graduate Program and Professor of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University

Associate Professor in Human Rights and International Law, University of Newcastle

Lecturer in Contemporary Literature, La Trobe University

Associate Professor of International Relations, The University of Queensland

Professor of History, Claremont Graduate University

Adjunct Professor of Political Science, Villanova University

University Professor Department of Health Policy & Management, University of Georgia

PhD Candidate, Department of English Language & Literature, The Open University

Senior Research Fellow, Institute of Commonwealth Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London

Professor of Nuclear Physics, Michigan State University

Professor of Physics, Michigan State University

Visiting assistant professor, Universidade Federal do ABC (UFABC)

Senior Lecturer in Geotechnical Engineering, University of Sheffield

• X (Twitter)
• Unfollow topic Follow topic

Read the May magazine issue on food and climate change

1947: How the American people feel about the atomic bomb

By Sylvia Eberhart | December 7, 2020

Editor’s note: Early in 1946 the Committee on the Social Aspects of Atomic Energy, of the Social Science Research Council, proposed a study of “the thinking of the American public on matters relating to the development of the atomic bomb and its effect on attitudes on international relations.” A sub-committee was formed for the planning of such a study, and funds were provided through Cornell University by the Carnegie Corporation and the Rockefeller Foundation. This report was prepared by Mrs. Eberhart at the request of Dr. Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr., chairman of the sub-committee. It  was originally published in the June 1947 issue of the Bulletin. It is republished here as part of our special issue commemorating the 75 th year of the magazine.

Not the least of the questions confronting the scientists and public leaders who must cope with the problem of the atomic bomb is, What is the public frame of mind? For better or for worse, the bomb is a political problem, and “public opinion,” however measured or guessed at, is a political instrument. Whatever social or political action is taken as a result of the discovery of the bomb will inevitably involve the people generally. What are their attitudes toward the bomb and toward the issues it has raised?

To some it will perhaps be incredible that as many as two percent of the American people should not by last August have heard of the atomic bomb. To the investigator of public opinion the fact that such an event as the release of atomic bombs over Japan came within the ken of 98 percent of the heterogeneous American public is most impressive. In the full report [2] of the survey, public cognizance of the bomb is described thus:

The impact of the atomic bomb on the minds of the American people has had few parallels in our history. All but the most inaccessible few know about the bomb. People who have never heard of the United Nations and have neither interest in nor knowledge of world affairs know that a new and tremendous force has been discovered.

Few people in present-day America venture to depreciate the power of the bomb. While public concepts of the bomb vary from the very simple to the highly sophisticated, they almost universally emphasize its destructiveness. Many people were surprised that the bombs did not destroy more ships at Bikini, but the Bikini tests did not alter the pervading belief that the atomic bomb stands in a class of its own, a weapon of awe-inspiring power.

But has the existence of the bomb aroused fear? Are the people worried by predictions that another war may bring unprecedented devastation into their own country? Are they following with anxious interest the efforts of their leaders to create safeguards against atomic war?

On the whole, it must be concluded from the survey that the threat of the bomb does not greatly preoccupy the people, and that they are not giving special attention to the issues in which it is involved.

Public awareness of the issues of control

That a very large part of the American public is not concerned about the issues involving the bomb is strongly indicated by the level of their information about the most prominent of these issues. At the time of the survey, more than a year after the United Nations had come into existence and in spite of the virtually unlimited attention devoted to it up to that time by press and radio, one-third of the people were unable to say what the United Nations was designed to accomplish, in even such general terms as “to work for peace” or “to get the countries of the world to cooperate.” These people were scarcely aware, if not totally unaware, of the existence of the organization to which it had been proposed that the control of the bomb should be entrusted.

It is of course possible to separate the opinions and attitudes of obviously uninformed people from those of people who are at least relatively well informed. But to the question, “Cannot the views of the uninformed on public issues, if they have any, be disregarded?” it must be answered that ignorance does not carry with it an automatic disenfranchisement. One-fifth of the people who reported that they had voted in the 1944 national elections were included among those who did not know what the United Nations is.

Moreover, many of the people who did have some cognizance of the UN and so were asked to express an opinion about the desirability of giving it control over the bomb did not recognize the meaning of the issue. They were overwhelmingly opposed to the proposal (Table 1), but it was quite clear in their reasoning that most of them understood it to mean giving the bomb secret away to foreign countries. Publicity since then on the debate over the issue may have increased public understanding. But it is plain that as late as last summer public understanding had a long way to go.

It is evident that many people’s—probably most people’s—thinking about the bomb must stop far short of the issues involving the bomb that actually confront the nation. But virtually the entire adult population of the country can think about the bomb itself, even if not in a way that is oriented toward solving the problems its development has raised. Is their failure to follow the news about control of the bomb a function of the beliefs they hold regarding the bomb itself? Is it due to a sense of security arising from our monopoly of the bomb? Or is it the result of more general attitudes, related not simply to the bomb but to any problem not intimately a part of their personal day-to-day preoccupations? The answer is that it is due in some degree to all these factors, but probably most of all to the last.

Understanding of the Bomb itself

When confronted with the direct question “How long do you think it will be before the other countries are able to make the atomic bomb?” (Table 2), at least a quarter of the people felt unable to give any answer. Those who did answer, however, were for the most part agreed that the time would not be very long. Only two in a hundred said that other countries could never make the bomb, and only five in a hundred that it would take them as long as ten years or simply “a long time.” Many said it was quite possible that some other country might already be making the bombs; very few felt sure that this was the case, but they spoke of it as a possibility.

The conjectures of experts on the length of time it will take other countries to develop the bomb appear, therefore, to have had a wide hearing. On the question of a defense against the bomb (Table 3), the pessimistic opinions of authorities are not nearly as widely accepted. A third of the people would venture no opinions when asked whether they thought we could develop a defense, a quarter expressed the opinion that “there is no defense against the bomb,” but well over a third believed that we would work out a defense before other countries could make the bomb.

No examination of newspaper treatment of the defense question at the time of the survey has been attempted, but it seems likely that the two questions received quite different kinds of treatment in the press and on the radio, for it is significant that even among people who gave evidence of being relatively well informed on world affairs the opinion that we would succeed in developing a defense was very widespread (Table 3a). The reasoning with which people supported this opinion points to an attitude that probably accounts for a good deal of public complacency. The people have immense faith in American science, American ingenuity, and American resources. They argue that since the scientists were able to invent the bomb, they can invent a defense, and that the United States “always keeps ahead.”

No doubt the deficiencies in people’s understanding of the bomb make it easier for them to put the bomb problem out of their minds. But mere reiteration that the development of the bomb is accessible to other countries and that there is no known defense against it will not necessarily jar the public into appreciably greater concern. People can accept such judgments without incorporating them into their attitudes and ways of thinking. For example, a large group of people argued in the survey that the development of the bomb had made peace easier to keep, rather than harder, because other countries were afraid of it and would not dare to provoke a war with us. Many of these same people, in answer to the direct question, declared freely that other countries would probably develop the bomb within a relatively short time. The information they had apparently absorbed had not shifted our monopoly of the bomb from the central position it occupied in their thinking.

This phenomenon—a not uncommon one—of public opinion is even more conspicuous in people’s attitude toward our keeping the secret of the bomb rather than relinquishing it to UN control. Most of the people who opposed turning the secret over to the UN had expressed the opinion, just before, that other countries could develop the bomb fairly soon; yet many of them made no acknowledgment of the bearing of that probability on the question of UN control of the bomb.

Moreover, descriptions of the extraordinary power of the bomb, including its inescapability, may offer a kind of psychological refuge. Many people reasoned that the bomb was a contribution to peace because it seemed unthinkable that governments would dare to provoke a war when so terrible a weapon might be used by any side. If the menace is universally inescapable, if retaliation is inevitable, then may we not all be safe? Such reasoning may be more an expression of hope than of conviction, but apparently it plays its part in enabling people to turn their backs on the bomb problem.

“I let the government worry”

To the question, “How worried do you think people in this country are about the atomic bomb? How about yourself?” half the people said they were not at all worried, many others that they were worried very little. Only a quarter admitted to being worried. The most striking aspect of the explanations people gave for not being worried was how little they were based on the argument that there is no threat to us in the bomb . Only one “non-worrier” in seven explained his frame of mind in that way—by the statement, for example, that we alone have the bomb, or that the bomb will never be used, that its dangerousness has been exaggerated (a remark made by only about one percent in the survey), that we will have a defense, or that no other country could make the bomb. Another smaller group said they felt personally safe, either because their advanced age made it unlikely that they would live to see another war, or because they lived in places that would never be subjected to attack.

Most of the “non-worriers” acknowledge in their explanations, openly or by implication, that the bomb constitutes a danger, and as a group their answers to the questions about other countries’ development of the bomb and our having a defense against it were only a little more optimistic than those of the people who said they were worried. Their reasons for not worrying were for the most part reasons that they might apply to any issue that does not immediately affect them—that “there is no use worrying about something you can’t help,” that they are too busy with their own affairs to think about anything so remote as the atomic bomb, that the bomb represents a problem for the government or the scientists to worry about, not the ordinary citizen. These quotations from interviews are illustrative of the variety of ways in which this attitude is expressed:

I’m not worried. I think that the head officials or whatever it is would know how to use it.

I feel like our government will take care of its own, and there is no need for me to worry about something I have no control over.

I know the bomb can wipe out cities, but I let the government worry about it.

I let the people who are qualified in those things do the worrying. I am just one of the many people who accept circumstances as they are. To me, it is just like if you were living in a country where there were earthquakes. What good would it do you to go to bed every night worrying whether there would be an earthquake?

In a personal sense I’m not worried. Of course I do have the hope that it’ll never be used . . . I have the feeling that worried or not it wouldn’t make any difference.

I don’t think I devote much time to worrying about it. The building business is too complicated now for me to worry about the bomb. It’s too remote.

I got everything I need. From the morning, when I get up, I pick apples and I get a dollar a bushel. So why should I worry about the bomb? I don’t need to worry. Let it come. I don’t think about it.

Here too there were evidences that people may take refuge from worry in the very power of the bomb itself; some professed to find comfort in the belief that “you wouldn’t even know it if one hit.” Others remarked that “you cannot be killed any deader by an atomic bomb than you can by a bullet or a block-buster.”

Such views as these are undoubtedly subject to hasty revision in the face of imminent danger. There can be no doubt of the people’s recognition of the terrible power of the bomb, and a threatening incident involving the bomb would certainly cause a strong public reaction. But for most of the people the danger is not on the horizon. Accordingly, the bomb problem suffers the same kind of popular neglect that many another less critical social issue receives.

Attitudes toward the United States’ role in world affairs

It must be recognized that for a sizable proportion of the American public international affairs have very little reality. The psychological imminence of world events varies enormously within the population. Despite the tremendous network of newspapers, radio, magazines, and other educational media, only a minority of the people can be considered actively conversant with contemporary world problems.

For the most part, public opinion regarding the role of the United States in world affairs deals in the broadest generalities. Current public opinion embraces the generalizations that the United States cannot remain aloof from the rest of the world, and that international cooperation is essential for the promotion of peace. The people in the survey overwhelmingly rejected the proposition that “we should keep to ourselves and not have anything to do with the rest of the world.” Similarly, they rejected the proposition that “we should use our army and navy to make other countries do what we think they should.” Those who had some familiarity with the UN expressed approval of the existence of such an organization, supported the principle that the United States should have no greater voice in it than any of the other large nations, and agreed that it should have the power to settle disputes between the United States and other countries. Many people even accepted the proposal that we should participate in a more extended form of world organization, when it was defined as one in which “we would have to follow the decisions of the majority of nations.”

But on specific issues the broad principles they espouse do not serve them as a guide. On specific issues they still tend to think of immediate American interests, in the narrow framework in which they are able to see them. For example, a majority were opposed to the British loan (a current topic at the time of the survey) on the grounds that the British were already too much indebted to us, and that we could not afford to lend them so much money. They were overwhelmingly opposed to our turning the bomb over to the UN, on the grounds that we would thus foolishly jeopardize our own security. It must be emphasized that they did not see in our monopoly of the bomb any suggestion of a hostile policy. They reasoned that so long as we alone have it, not only we but the rest of the world will be safe from atomic warfare, inasmuch as we have no ambitions that would make us the aggressors in a war. That the matter may not appear in this light to the other fellow entered into the thinking of very few, however. In principle they would undoubtedly acknowledge the truism that international cooperation involves willingness to compromise on everyone’s part, but the main criticisms they had to offer of our government’s conduct in its relations with other countries was that it was “giving in” too much.

Russia is very much in the minds of the people who give any thought to world affairs, and distrust and suspicion of her are very widespread. Most of the people believe that we cannot depend on her to be friendly to us, and their desire to keep the bomb secret, their criticisms of our giving in too much, their dissatisfactions with the progress of the UN are often related to misgivings about Russia. The proportion of people who expressed consistently favorable attitudes toward Russia in the survey was negligible, and evidences of even a tolerant attitude were sparse.

Public acceptance of the idea of international cooperation or international organization must be appraised in the light of all these limitations. How well the people’s tendency to look to cooperation with other countries as a promising approach to world peace will withstand the strain of the inevitable international discords is problematic.

A note about popular sources of information

The survey included a brief investigation of the sources of the people’s information about the bomb, as reported by themselves. Eighty-five percent of the people had radios (in working order), and an almost equal proportion read daily newspapers. More than half said they read magazines—mostly the monthly digest magazines and the weeklies containing fiction and miscellaneous articles. About a tenth read news magazines, and about twice as many the news-picture magazines. Magazines devoted to more extended discussion of public affairs were read by only a small percentage. All these figures, derived from the respondents’ statements, check closely with other sources of such data for the population as a whole.

About 1 person in 14 had available none of the popular media of information—had no radio, read no paper or magazine. Many, of course, had all three sources at hand.

Less than 4 people in 10 said they listen to radio programs dealing with world affairs. Even among people with college education, only 6 in 10 reported listening to any such programs. Among the most poorly educated, the incidence of listening was very low.

Generally speaking, people reported having learned something about the bomb from whichever of the media they reported having. A very large majority had read something about it in the papers and heard about it on the radio. Almost half had read about it in magazines. Only a third, however, remembered seeing any movies or newsreels of the bomb; among these people, movies ranked quite high as the medium that had given them “the best idea of how destructive the atomic bomb is,” but very low as the medium from which they had obtained most of their information. Less than one percent said they had obtained most of their information about the bomb from books.

It is of interest that the people who had had information about the bomb from both radio and newspapers tended to name radio as the more trustworthy source. Those to whom magazines were also available named magazines most frequently as the most trustworthy. The tendency to favor radio over newspapers was particularly pronounced among the less educated people; among the better educated, preferences were more equally divided between the two media.

[1] Polling surveys use questions of the check-list type, to which the person interviewed responds simply by saying “Yes” or “No” or by choosing from a short list of prepared alternatives. Intensive surveys use “free answer” questions which the respondent answers in a conversational manner, these responses being recorded verbatim by the interviewer. Intensive methods of surveying are usually employed when it is desirable to obtain detailed information regarding the reasoning which lies behind opinion, the intensity with which opinions are held, and the explanation of changes or trends in opinion. In the present study, the intensive surveys were intended to simplify and supplement the findings of the polling surveys.

[2] Public Reaction to the Atomic Bomb and World Affairs , Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, April 1947.

Together, we make the world safer.

The Bulletin elevates expert voices above the noise. But as an independent nonprofit organization, our operations depend on the support of readers like you. Help us continue to deliver quality journalism that holds leaders accountable. Your support of our work at any level is important . In return, we promise our coverage will be understandable, influential, vigilant, solution-oriented, and fair-minded. Together we can make a difference.

Keywords: United Nations , archive75 , atomic bomb , nuclear weapons , public opinion Topics: Nuclear Weapons

• Copy link Linked copied

Sylvia Eberhart

Sylvia Eberhart is co-author, with Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr., of American Opinion on World Affairs in the Atomic Age , published 1948.... Read More

ALSO IN THIS ISSUE

The edge of our existence: A particle physicist examines the architecture of society

By Yangyang Cheng

Nuclear notebook: Chinese nuclear forces, 2020

By Hans M. Kristensen , Matt Korda

Transforming our nuclear future with ridiculous ideas

By Emma Belcher

2004: City on fire

By Lynn Eden

1950: What the scientists are saying about the H-bomb

By Albert Einstein , Edward Teller

1959: Science and art

By Martyl Langsdorf , Cyril Stanley Smith

RELATED POSTS

United States nuclear weapons, 2024

By Hans M. Kristensen , Matt Korda , Eliana Johns , Mackenzie Knight

Russian nuclear weapons, 2024

Introduction: Nuclear testing in the 21st century—legacies, tensions, and risks

By François Diaz-Maurin

New confidence-building measures can reduce tensions around subcritical tests

By Julien de Troullioud de Lanversin , Christopher Fichtlscherer

Preserving the nuclear test ban after Russia revoked its CTBT ratification

By Pavel Podvig

The horrors of nuclear weapons testing

By Walter Pincus

Bulletin Daily

How one Oregon county plans to make big oil pay for the 2021 heat dome

By Jeffrey B. Simon

France wants to extend its nuclear umbrella to Europe. But is Macron ready to trade Paris for Helsinki?

By Carine Guerout , Jason Moyer

May issue: The future of food in a time of climate change

By Dan Drollette Jr

Ukrainian journalist Illia Ponomarenko on the horror and absurdity of Russia’s senseless, existential war

By Susan D’Agostino

What India’s MIRV test adds to the ‘strategic trilemma’ in South Asia

By Huma Rehman

Trump says he’d disband the pandemic preparedness office—again

By Erik English

Republicans and Democrats investigating the origins of COVID-19 find a common target: Peter Daszak

By Matt Field

An Indigenous future for nuclear power in California?

By Jon Christensen , Matthew Crotty

Faculty of Humanities

The bertrand russell research centre, the atomic bomb, introduction.

The Bertrand Russell Research Centre is offering an electronic version of an edition-in-progress of Russell’s first anti-nuclear writing. The electronic version has a range of hypertext capabilities woven into the traditional Collected Papers structure of headnote, chronology, text, annotation, textual notes, bibliographical index, and sometimes illustrations. Maroon-coloured passages link to bidirectional annotations; green passages, to bidirectional textual notes. It is hoped this feature will prove both inobtrusive and useful.

Russell’s paper “The Atomic Bomb” (published as “The Bomb and Civilization”) was written in 1945. The editor of this paper, which is scheduled to be in Volume 24, is Kenneth Blackwell. Let him know of any errors. A conventional view of the headnote, paper and apparatus as they are to be printed in the edition is available in PDF format. This view is searchable, saveable, and printable.

This article, as Dr. Blackwell states in the headnote, is Russell’s first response to the news of the devastation caused by the first atomic bomb. Though written hurriedly, and in a frantic moment of history, it announces themes that will dominate Russell’s political programme for years to come. The article announces the urgency of the search for a structure of world peace, and it reiterates his faith in scientific progress and his hope that the United States will assume leadership in creating the global structures that are necessary for the survival of the human race. Russell’s mood is one which combines the composure of the sage and the panic of the prophetic Cassandra. As a man of science he wishes to reassure the public concerning the scientific achievement. He advises his readers that “The atomic bomb embodies the results of a combination of genius and patience as remarkable as any in the history of mankind”, that the men whose work made this bomb possible were for the most part “both high-minded and public spirited”, and finally that we should not look upon the bomb as a punishment “for impiety in inquiring too closely into the hidden secrets of nature”. On the contrary he reaffirms his faith that “Science is capable of conferring enormous boons.”

But the panic is equally vivid. Russell is clearly convinced that now that the weapon has been unleashed, a war for the possession of uranium is almost inevitable. Even before the war has ended, Russell is convinced of the outbreak of rivalry between the wartime Allies, the United States and the Soviet Union. He is convinced that another war is inevitable. After proposing and then dismissing the alternative of a Hobbesian contract in which all the nations of the world surrender their power and constitute a world government, or the next best solution, an American putsch in which, armed with the only available atomic weapons, the government of the United States will set up a world government by force (a programme which he advocated since the closing stage of the First World War), he ends with the hope that after the next world war “some one Power will emerge with such preponderant strength as to be able to establish a peaceful hegemony over the rest of the globe.”

Louis Greenspan (1934–2018) Past Director, Russell Editorial Project

“The Atomic Bomb” (1945)

Textual Notes

Bibliographical index.

The atom-bombing of Hiroshima on 6 August 1945 destroyed four square miles of the city. Three days later Russell was at work on this article. We know this because midway he remarks that he has just learned of the explosion of the second atomic bomb, over Nagasaki. This bomb was dropped about 2 a.m. GMT ( Weintraub 1995 , 482; Ham 2012 , 364). He abandons the exposition and history of atomic theory to dwell on the danger to civilization posed by the new weaponry, and immediately states: “The prospect for the human race is sombre beyond all precedent…. A great deal of new political thinking will be necessary if utter disaster is to be averted.” This is in contrast to the guarded optimism of paper 48 , finished a few days prior to the nuclear attack on Japan and perhaps, as a consequence, not published. In the last sentence quoted, Russell began using language that would occur repeatedly as he wrote about the prospect of nuclear warfare. In a cognate paper a month later ( 61 ) he wrote, “we must learn a new kind of political thinking” (324: 17–18). When the Soviets exploded their first atomic bomb, he gave a new paper the title “The Bomb: Can Disaster Be Averted?” ( 1949d ). In “Man’s Peril” he wrote: “All, equally, are in peril, and, if the peril is understood, there is hope that they may collectively avert it. We have to learn to think in a new way” ( 1954a ; Papers 28 : 86). He closely reiterated these lines in the Russell–Einstein Manifesto ( ibid ., 28: 318).

Russell does not refer to the Manhattan project by name, although he may well have been cognizant of the physicists’ pre-war curiosity about producing an atomic explosion. By the time of writing he knew of the 1938 discovery of nuclear fission and that scientists on both sides of World War II had been working on the problem. Newspapers carried this information in early days of the nuclear age (see The Times 1945q and, there officially on the bomb’s origins, Churchill 1945a ) . The Times covered military and scientific aspects extensively ( 1945p , 1945r , 1945s ) . Some of Russell’s information may have come from these sources.

The main outline and some details of his international policy for the next few years are visible, complete with an argument for forcing world government and a prediction that the U.S. would not internationalize the atomic secrets.

Russell could not comment here on whether the atomic bomb hastened the end of the war. Japan did not surrender until several days later, on 14 August. At the same time preparations were under way for massive Allied land invasions ( Giangreco 2017 ). It remains uncertain whether it was the atomic bomb or the prospect of the invasions, including that of the Russians, which brought Japan to surrender. It was “a common observation that Japan at war’s end was vastly weaker than anyone outside the country had imagined—or anyone inside it had acknowledged” ( Dower 1999 , 44). However, this is not ( Giangreco’s conclusion (see his 2017 , xvii–xix).

The copy-text is a photocopy and scan of the manuscript, which Russell titled “The Atomic Bomb” (RA3 Rec. Acq. 840). The manuscript survived in the papers of Forward ’s editor, Emrys Hughes (1894–1969; soon to be elected M.P. at this time). Its survival as the marked-up copy for the compositor is unusual in this volume. Additional changes were made, possibly to save space. There is no evidence that Russell read proofs of the newspaper publication, of which he kept two copies. Manuscript and print were collated. Several departures from Russell’s manuscript were made, none of which is accepted here. The substitution in the printed text of “hear” for the manuscript’s “learn” was a misreading of Russell’s hand, as was “expelled” for “repelled”. Forward silently deleted several commas in typesetting Russell’s manuscript, and others were inserted. The substantive variants are recorded in the Textual Notes .

Chronology (selected)

The atomic bomb (published as “the bomb and civilization”, 18 aug. 1945).

Uranium, the element chiefly used in the atomic bomb, has the heaviest and most complex of atoms. Normally there are 92 planetary electrons, while the nucleus is made up of about 238 neutrons (which have mass without electricity), 238 positrons (which have positive electricity and very little mass) and 146 electrons, which are like positrons except that their electricity is negative. Positrons repel each other, and so do electrons; but a positron and electron attract each other. The overcrowding of mutually attracted and repelled particles in the tiny space of the uranium nucleus involves enormous potentially explosive forces. Uranium is slightly radio-active, which means that some of its atoms break up naturally. But a quicker process than this is required for the making of an atomic bomb.

Rutherford found out, about thirty years ago, that little bits could be chipped off an atom by bombardment. In 1939 a more powerful process was discovered: it was found that neutrons , entering the nucleus of a uranium atom, would cause it to split into two roughly equal halves, which would rush off and disrupt other uranium atoms in the neighbourhood, and so set up a train of explosions so long as there was any of the right kind of uranium to be encountered.

Ever since the beginning of the war, the Germans on the one side, and the British and Americans on the other, have been working on the possibility of an atomic explosive. One of the difficulties was to make sure that it would not be too effective: there was a fear that it might destroy not only the enemy, but the whole planet, and naturally experiments were risky. But the difficulties were overcome, and now the possibility which scientists have foreseen for over forty years has entered into the world of practical politics. The labours of Rutherford and Bohr , of Heisenberg and Schrödinger , and a number of other distinguished men, the ablest men of our time, and most of them both high-minded and public-spirited, have borne fruit: in an instant, by means of one small bomb , every vestige of life throughout four square miles of a populous city has been exterminated. As I write, I learn that a second bomb has been dropped on Nagasaki.

The prospect for the human race is sombre beyond all precedent. Mankind are faced with a clear-cut alternative: either we shall all perish, or we shall have to acquire some slight degree of common sense. A great deal of new political thinking will be necessary if utter disaster is to be averted.

For the moment, fortunately, only the United States is in a position to manufacture atomic bombs. The immediate result must be a rapid end to the Japanese war, whether by surrender or by extermination . The power of the United States in international affairs is, for the time being, immeasurably increased; a month ago , Russia and the United States seemed about equal in warlike strength, but now this is no longer the case. This situation, however, will not last long, for it must be assumed that before long Russia and the British Empire will set to work to make these bombs for themselves. Uranium has suddenly become the most precious of raw materials, and nations will probably fight for it as hitherto they have fought for oil. In the next war , if atomic bombs are used on both sides, it is to be expected that all large cities on both sides will be completely wiped out; so will all scientific laboratories and all governmental centres. Communications will be disrupted, and the world will be reduced to a number of small independent agricultural communities living on local produce, as they did in the Dark Ages. But presumably none of them will have either the resources or the skill for the manufacture of atomic bombs.

There is another and a better possibility, if men have the wisdom to make use of the few years during which it will remain open to them. Either war or civilization must end, and if it is to be war that ends, there must be an international authority with the sole power to make the new bombs. All supplies of uranium must be placed under the control of the international authority , which shall have the right to safeguard the ore by armed forces. As soon as such an authority has been created, all existing atomic bombs, and all plants for their manufacture, must be handed over to it . And of course the international authority must have sufficient armed forces to protect whatever has been handed over to it. If this system were once established, the international authority would be irresistible, and wars would cease. At worst, there might be occasional brief revolts that would be easily quelled.

But I fear all this is Utopian. The United States will not consent to any pooling of armaments, and no more will Soviet Russia. Each will insist on retaining the means of exterminating the other, on the ground that the other is not to be trusted.

If America were more imperialistic there would be another possibility, less Utopian and less desirable, but still preferable to the total obliteration of civilized life. It would be possible for Americans to use their position of temporary superiority to insist upon disarmament, not only in Germany and Japan, but everywhere except in the United States, or at any rate in every country not prepared to enter into a close military alliance with the United States, involving compulsory sharing of military secrets. During the next few years, this policy could be enforced; if one or two wars were necessary, they would be brief, and would soon end in decisive American victory. In this way a new League of Nations could be formed under American leadership, and the peace of the world could be securely established. But I fear that respect for international justice will prevent Washington from adopting this policy.

In view of the reluctance of mankind to form voluntarily an effective international authority, we must hope, and perhaps we may expect, that after the next world war some one Power will emerge with such preponderant strength as to be able to establish a peaceful hegemony over the rest of the globe. The next war, unless it comes very soon, will endanger all civilized government; but if any civilized government survives and achieves supremacy, there will again be a possibility of ordered progress and of the utilization of science for happiness rather than for destruction.

One is tempted to feel that Man is being punished, through the agency of his own evil passions, for impiety in inquiring too closely into the hidden secrets of Nature. But such a feeling is unduly defeatist. Science is capable of conferring enormous boons: it can lighten labour, abolish poverty, and enormously diminish disease. But if science is to bring benefits instead of death, we must bring to bear upon social, and especially international, organization, intelligence of the same high order that has enabled us to discover the structure of the atom. To do this effectively we must free ourselves from the domination of ancient shibboleths, and think freely, fearlessly, and rationally about the new and appalling problems with which the human race is confronted by its conquest of scientific power.

• Atoms In The ABC of Atoms ( 1923a ), 9–10, Russell writes in much the same detail and with the same figures about the minuteness of atoms. He predicted of nuclear research that “It is probable that it will ultimately be used for making more deadly explosives and projectiles than any yet invented” ( 1923a , 11; quoted by Wood 1957 , 152).
• Rutherford Ernest Rutherford (1871–1937), New Zealand-born British physicist. He was Professor of Physics at McGill University 1898–1907, when he left for Manchester. He won the Nobel Prize for chemistry in 1908. In 1919 he became director of the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge.
• more powerful process Lise Meitner and O.R. Frisch concluded that the results of experiments done by the German chemist, Otto Hahn, in December 1938 could only have been obtained as the result of nuclear fission. Frisch verified their assumption with experiments done in Copenhagen in January 1939 ( Ham 2012 , 101–2).
• the Germans on the one side, and the British and Americans German research was led by Werner Heisenberg. The British and Americans at first worked separately, but during the Quebec Conference of August 1943 it was agreed they would work together. In 1951 Russell was to boast (his own word) of the British contribution and could not think of any Americans who had “contributed anything of any great importance at this stage” ( Papers 26 : 502).
• foreseen for over forty years 1905 was the year of publication of Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Wittner ( 1993 , 4) discusses H.G. Wells’ The World Set Free ( 1914a ), which depicts a war fought with nuclear weapons.
• Bohr Niels Bohr (1885–1962), Danish physicist, worked with Rutherford at Manchester before returning to Denmark. After escaping from Denmark in late 1943, he spent the remainder of World War II in the United States working on the Manhattan project. Bohr later favoured the internationalization of atomic weapons. Russell had gotten to know Bohr well on the former’s 1935 Scandinavian lecture tour. Indeed, Bohr tutored Russell at that time in quantum physics and indeterminism ( Stevenson 2011 , 115, 117).
• Heisenberg Werner Karl Heisenberg (1901–1976), German physicist. With Max Born, he worked in quantum mechanics, proposing the uncertainty principle in the 1920s. He won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1932. Russell got to know him in Copenhagen in 1935 ( Stevenson 2011 , 121n.1), and made his acquaintance again at a meeting on 3 March 1948 at the Master’s Lodge, Christ’s College, Cambridge. They corresponded and cooperated over Pugwash in the 1950s.
• Schrödinger Erwin Schrödinger (1887–1961), Austrian physicist. He won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1933 and left Germany for Oxford the same year. He spent World War II in Dublin. Russell and Schrödinger later corresponded.
• one small bomb Some British “Blockbuster” bombs, and especially the “Grand Slam”, weighed more than “Little Boy”, the uranium bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. This bomb weighed 9,700 pounds and was ten feet long with a diameter of 28 inches. Russell’s point, of course, concerns the size of the bomb relative to its target. New was the much greater explosive power (15–20 kilotons) of the “small bomb” and the slightly greater power of the plutonium bomb that levelled much of Nagasaki. It was also a fission bomb. In November 1945, in a House of Lords speech (paper 66 , 1945 , Russell forecast the development of the fusion bomb. For his still developing early views on thermonuclear weapons, see Papers 26 : lxii–lxiv, 85. He was later to write ( 1961d  ) on the U.S.S.R.’s 50-megaton hydrogen bomb, the most powerful yet exploded.
• every vestige of life throughout four square miles It was three days before photographic evidence was made public. Cf. the headline in The Times : “Hiroshima Inferno; 4 Square Miles Obliterated; Huge Death Roll” ( 1945r ). Devastation outside the city centre was not total, and lingering deaths from the survivors’ radiation sickness were yet to come ( Ham 2012 , Chap. 21).
• surrender or by extermination. Emperor Hirohito decided Japan should surrender on 10 August 1945, but the Japanese military did not agree to do so until 14 August. See Weinberg 1994 , 890, and Weintraub 1995 , Chap. 33. For the last severe months of the war of atrocity with Japan, see Beevor 2012 , 772–4.
• a month ago This was a reasonable belief at the time, since contested. In early July 1945 the U.S.S.R. had as yet no Far Eastern military presence to speak of but was overwhelmingly strong in Eastern Europe, Austria and East Germany. The U.S. was rapidly defeating the Japanese forces, except on the home islands Kyushu and Honshu, and was redirecting its troops from Europe to the planned invasion of Japan. Both the U.S.S.R. and U.S. had reached a peak of conventional weapons production. Thus in all factors considered together, they might have seemed equal in “warlike strength” before the explosion of America’s plutonium test bomb on 16 July 1945. It was the distribution of their respective strengths that was very unequal.
• British Empire Since 1931 the empire’s dominions and colonies had been known as the British Commonwealth of Nations (and from 1949 the Commonwealth of Nations). Russell began referring to it as “the British Commonwealth” in 1947, in which year India became a self-governing dominion.
• make these bombs for themselves The U.S. Atomic Energy Act (1946; in effect 1 Jan. 1947) restricted the exchange of information on atomic energy, thus reducing Anglo-American cooperation, even though Roosevelt and Churchill had agreed on it. On 8 January 1947 Attlee and his cabinet secretly authorized the manufacture of a British atomic bomb. The first British atomic test was on 3 October 1952. The Soviets exploded their first atomic bomb on 29 August 1949. They had been working separately on a bomb and accelerated their programme after Potsdam.
• control of the international authority One such authority that developed in the next two years was the Atomic Development Authority. See the papers 70a ( B&R B85), 73 ( B&R C47.12), where Russell discusses the A.D.A. See also in this volume ( Papers 24) the annotation at A121:14.
• League of Nations Although the United Nations Organization did not come into existence until 24 October 1945, the founding San Francisco Conference had been over since 25 June and the Charter signed on the 26th. Russell, who was critical of the veto power on the Security Council, appears here to dismiss the U.N.O.
• ordered progress Russell often invoked this faith of his youth: “We believed in ordered progress by means of politics and free discussion” ( Russell 1967 , 1: 70). See, e.g., 379 in this volume and Papers 13 : 137.

The links in the textual notes are to the passages in green type in Russell’s final text.

The copy-text is a photocopy plus a colour scan (RA3 Rec. Acq. 840) of the manuscript (“CT”) in the Emrys Hughes papers, National Library of Scotland. It is foliated 1, 2–8, seems to measure 211 x 268 mm., and is written in ink. An editorial hand rewrote, none too clearly, more than three dozen of Russell’s words in decipherment for the compositor. The same hand (or hands—sometimes with a blue pencil) added fifteen paragraph breaks and the instruction “Double Column”, all of which are ignored here. “45” is the publication, “The Bomb and Civilization”, Forward , Glasgow, 39, no. 33 (18 Aug. 1945): 1, 3. It has six section heads, also ignored here as non-authorial; so is a pair of non-Russellian-drawn commas around the restrictive clause “which scientists have foreseen for over forty years”.

• The hydrogen … scale. CT] inserted in lighter (blue rather than blue-black) ink at foot of leaf
• about CT] inserted
• repelled CT] expelled 45
• atomic CT] atom 45
• little CT] inserted
• off 45] of CT
• neutrons CT] above deleted positrons
• Schrödinger CT] Schrodinger 45
• learn CT] hear 45
• , if atomic bombs are used on both sides, it is to be expected that all large cities on both sides CT] replaced it is to be expected that all large cities on both sides < reiteration of on both sides deleted in pencil editorially and omitted in 45>
• over to it . CT] over. 45 struck through editorially in pencil>
• perhaps CT] perhaps 45
• will again be CT] will be 45
• of the utilization CT] the utilization 45
• of CT] written over &

Instead of page numbers, links are provided to the references to these citations.

• BEEVOR, ANTONY, 2012 . The Second World War . New York: Little, Brown and Company. Referred to: surrender
• BLACKWELL, KENNETH, and HARRY RUJA, B&R . A Bibliography of Bertrand Russell . 3 vols. London: Routledge, 1994. Referred to: headnote , control of the international authority
• CHURCHILL, WINSTON, 1945a . “Britain’s Share; Statement by Mr. Churchill”. 7 Aug., p. 4. Referred to: headnote
• DOWER, JOHN W., 1999 . Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II . New York: W.W. Norton. Referred to: headnote
• GIANGRECO, D.M., 2017. Hell to Pay: Operation Downfall and the Invasion of Japan, 1945–47 . Revised edition. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press. Referred to: headnote
• HAM, PAUL, 2012 . Hiroshima Nagasaki . London: Doubleday. Referred to: headnote , more powerful process , vestige of life
• RUSSELL, BERTRAND, 1923a . The ABC of Atoms . London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner. (B&R A45) (Russell’s library.) Referred to: atoms
• —— 1945 “The International Situation”. Parliamentary Debates , Lords, (5), 138 (28 Nov. 1945): cols. 87–92. Referred to: one small bomb
• —— 1949d .“The Bomb: Can Disaster Be Averted?”. Unpublished ms. RA1 220.019200. Referred to: headnote
• —— 1954a . “Man’s Peril from the Hydrogen Bomb”. The Listener , 52 (30 Dec.): 1,135–6. (B&R C54.35) Reprinted as “Man’s Peril” in 1956 and as 16 in Papers 28 . Referred to: headnote
• —— 1956 . Portraits from Memory and Other Essays . London: George Allen and Unwin. (B&R 102) (Russell’s library.) Referred to: Man’s Peril
• —— 1961d . “Thoughts on the 50-Megaton Bomb” New Statesman , 62 (3 Nov.): 638. (B&R C61.40) Referred to: one small bomb
• —— 1967. The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell. Vol. 1: 1872–1914. (B&R A142.1a) London: George Allen and Unwin. Referred to: ordered progress
• —— Papers 13. Prophecy and Dissent, 1914–16 . Edited by Richard A. Rempel et al. (The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, Vol. 13.) (B&R AA6) London: Unwin Hyman, 1988. Referred to: ordered progress
• —— Papers 26. Cold War Fears and Hopes, 1950–52 . Edited by Andrew G. Bone. (The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, Vol. 26.) (B&R AA20) London: Routledge, 2020. Referred to: the Germans , one small bomb
• —— Papers 28. Man’s Peril, 1954–55 . Edited by Andrew G. Bone. (The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell, Vol. 28.) (B&R AA16) London: Routledge, 2003. Referred to: headnote
• STEVENSON, MICHAEL D., 2011 . “ ‘No Poverty, Much Comfort, Little Wealth’: Bertrand Russell’s 1935 Scandinavian Tour”” . Russell , 31 (2011): 101–40. Referred to: Bohr , Heisenberg
• THE TIMES , London, 1945p . “First Atom Bomb Hits Japan”. 7 Aug., p. 4. Referred to: headnote
• —— 1945q . “The New Chemistry”; Releasing the Energy That Runs the Sun; Atomic Bombs Explained”. 8 Aug., p. 5. Referred to: headnote
• —— 1945r . “Hiroshima Inferno; 4 Square Miles Obliterated; Huge Death Roll”. 9 Aug., p. 4. Referred to: headnote , vestige of life
• —— 1945s . “Atom Bomb on Nagasaki; Second City Hit; Fleet Attack on Honshu”. 10 Aug., p. 4. Referred to: headnote
• WEINBERG, GERHARD L., 1994 . A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Referred to: surrender
• WEINTRAUB, STANLEY, 1995 . The Last Great Victory: The End of World War II July/August 1945 . New York: Dutton. Referred to: headnote , surrender
• WELLS, H.G., 1914a . The World Set Free . London: Macmillan. Referred to: foreseen
• WITTNER, LAWRENCE S., 1993 . The Struggle against the Bomb . Vol. I: One World or None: A History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement through 1953 . Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Referred to: headnote , foreseen
• WOOD, ALAN, 1957 . Bertrand Russell, the Passionate Sceptic . London: George Allen & Unwin. (Russell’s library.) Referred to: Atoms

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Exploring Atomic Bomb History Beyond Los Alamos

The Atomic Museum in Las Vegas explains to visitors that Nevada and other states also played a role — for better or worse — in the creation of nuclear energy.

By Michael Janofsky

Reporting from Las Vegas

This article is part of our Museums special section about how institutions are striving to offer their visitors more to see, do and feel.

The blockbuster movie about J. Robert Oppenheimer might have left the impression that only New Mexico was involved in developing America’s atomic bomb.

Hardly. Neighboring Nevada played a vital role, too. And the Atomic Museum in this glittery town known for gambling and big-name entertainment will tell you all about it — and more.

Here, just beyond the major hotels and casinos is a museum dedicated to the history and science of nuclear weapons as a critical part of America’s national security for more than 85 years. It’s one of 200 museums around the country affiliated with the Smithsonian Institution and a thematic partner to nearly a dozen others that highlight various aspects of the nation’s nuclear programs.

The Atomic Museum makes clear the genius and necessity of developing awesome nuclear power while not ignoring the lethal impact it had on ordinary people — the moral conflict at the core of “Oppenheimer,” winner of seven Academy Awards for 2023, including best picture and best actor for Cillian Murphy in the title role.

Among a wealth of actual and facsimile objects used in development and testing are an identical shell casing of the Fat Man bomb dropped on Nagasaki on Aug. 9, 1945, and a replica of the actual bomb that it would have encased. Elsewhere is a display meant to honor the Japanese people killed and injured by Fat Man and L ittle Boy, a smaller bomb dropped on Hiroshima three days earlier. T ogether, they killed more than 200,000 people by some estimates, effectively ending World War II.

“We understand the topic is complicated,” Joseph Kent, the deputy director and curator of the museum, said of exhibits that move visitors along a detailed chronology of the nation’s atomic program with an emphasis on Nevada’s role as a former site for atmospheric and underground testing. “We try to inform the public without getting into whether it’s all good or bad. That’s not really for us to decide.”

The starting point of the museum is a gallery dedicated to the Manhattan Project and the Trinity test overseen by Oppenheimer in July 1945, the world’s first nuclear detonation, set off in a remote area of New Mexico. At the time, Oppenheimer was the first director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

While the Trinity exhibit was opened in 2020 to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the test, it helped spur attendance at the museum once the Covid pandemic subsided. Kent said the film and recent nuclear saber-rattling toward Ukraine by Russian President Vladimir Putin helped the museum draw more than 50,000 visitors in 2023, the most in five years.

“After people watched ‘Oppenheimer’ and they hear about what’s going on in the world, they realize they don’t know as much about this topic as they probably should,” he said. “Atomic bombs, nuclear weapons, Oppenheimer, the Soviet Union, the Cold War — they want to find a place where they can learn about them in an addressable form.”

Beyond weapons, the museum offers a window into the science that produced them, but also the everyday life they influenced. In one diorama of a 1950s family, the parents look away in fear from a boxy television set showing a nuclear explosion. Another display shows how the word “atom” became a cultural touchstone — a Kix cereal box promoting an “Atomic Bomb Ring” inside, an “Atoman” comic book and a canister once filled with “Atomic Fireballs” candy. Nearby is a scale model of a blazing red Ford Nucleon, a proposed nuclear-powered car from 1957 that the company never produced.

The visceral center of the museum is the Ground Zero Theater, which uses a 15-minute black-and-white film of an actual nuclear test to approximate what it was like to work on it. Watching from benches, visitors see the explosion, then experience what happens next — utter silence, followed by a deafening roar filling the room and the benches shaking to simulate waves of the aftershock.

Later, Troy Wade, who served as a test site controller, appears on the screen.

“When you see it here you recognize that it’s a very, very terrible weapon of war and when you see one, you understand what it can do and why it must never be used,” he says. “But you understand the value of having it and having your enemies know that you’re not afraid to use it if you want.”

Other areas have more artifacts of the early days of development. One showcase displays two dozen types of Geiger counters. Another has an authentic Fizeau instrumentation package , a huge cubic device of instruments, recorders and cameras that was positioned 500 feet above a test explosion to capture temperature, pressure and levels of radiation.

The museum pays tribute to other sites that contributed important elements of the nuclear program, including the vast expanse of rugged federal land 65 miles north of here, known in its early days as the Nevada Test Site. About 100 atmospheric tests were conducted there from 1951 through 1962 and more than 800 underground tests from 1963 through 1992. Renamed the Nevada National Security Sites, it’s now where scientists maintain warheads. Free public tours are held monthly.

There are also nods to those among America’s 18 national laboratories that continue to conduct research and development in energy, technology and related fields, including Los Alamos and the Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.

While the subject matter of the Atomic Museum may be more cerebral than other Las Vegas attractions, like the Burlesque Hall of Fame or the Mob Museum, it does serve to remind people of a nervous period of American history following World War II, when fear was pervasive, schoolchildren practiced hiding under their desks, families built fallout shelters and America kept developing ever more powerful weapons, just in case.

“One of our guiding principles is we are not here to try to change people’s minds,” Kent said of nuclear development. “Our goal is to provide an informed opinion. Whether you are for or against nuclear weapons testing, ultimately we can all agree that the history needs to be remembered.”

Special Features

Vendor voice.

Warren Buffett voices AI fears, likens tech to atom bomb

'used in a pro-social way, it's got terrific benefits to society. but, i don't know how you make sure that happens'.

Video You can add Berkshire Hathaway chief Warren Buffett to the list of folks worried about the implications of artificial intelligence on society.

During the firm's annual shareholder meeting on Saturday, Buffett compared the technology's potential to the Manhattan Project and the arms race that followed.

"I really don't know anything about AI," the super-investor admitted during the meeting, which you can watch below. "Used in a pro-social way, it's got terrific benefits to society. But, I don't know how you make sure that happens any more than I know how to be sure that when you use two atomic bombs in World War II that you'd know you hadn't created something that could destroy the world later."

Youtube Video

Buffett also implied that just as with nuclear warfare capabilities, our hands are somewhat tied in the development of AI technologies in that if we don't adopt it, someone else will.

Since the debut of OpenAI's ChatGPT, which sparked a flurry of investment in generative AI technologies, large language models, and the infrastructure on which they're built, the technology has been championed as a way to do more with less.

IBM CEO Arvind Krishna has been rather blunt about where this is headed at his business. Last spring, the exec boasted that as many as 30 percent of IBM's back office jobs could be automated with AI.

Big Blue has since joined a consortium of tech giants that aim to identify which IT jobs are likely to be eliminated by the technology first, with the stated goal of retraining staff to fill jobs that AI isn't ready for.

Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger, another member of the consortium, opined last month that AI could one day see the formation of the single-person unicorn (a business with a valuation over a billion).

• Microsoft doesn't want cops using Azure AI for facial recognition
• Not a Genius move: Resurrecting war hero Alan Turing as your 'chief AI officer'

Politicians call for ban on 'killer robots' and the curbing of AI weapons

• Tech titans assemble to decide which jobs AI should cut first

For Berkshire Hathaway's part, Greg Abel, who is slated to succeed Buffett as CEO, admitted that AI will displace labor, but hopefully there are other opportunities for those laid off. Whether those opportunities would afford the same benefits, he didn't say — there happens to be a shortage of janitors and truckers at the moment, so maybe that's what he means by "opportunities."

Unfortunately, Tesla, Figure, and an army of humanoid robotics startups seem keen to claim those before long, so those opportunities may be short lived.

For the moment, Abel says Berkshire Hathaway is largely investigating AI tools as a means to increase efficiency, effectiveness, and the safety of certain roles. However, he didn't clarify which tools the business was using nor where they were being deployed.

Buffett isn't the first to draw comparisons between AI's societal impact and the nuclear arms race and cold war that followed the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Last week, politicians from around the globe offered a stark warning about the potential for AI to further dehumanize war and called for a ban on weaponized AI and killer robots.

In one of the more evocative comparisons, Austrian foreign minister Alexander Schallenberg described the issue as the "Oppenheimer moment of our generation," before impressing the need for regulation to limit the use of AI in military applications. ®

• Large Language Model

Narrower topics

• Machine Learning
• Neural Networks
• Tensor Processing Unit

Broader topics

• Self-driving Car

Send us news

Other stories you might like

With run:ai acquisition, nvidia aims to manage your ai kubes, forget the ai doom and hype, let's make computers useful, big brains divided over training ai with more ai: is model collapse inevitable, easing the cloud migration journey.

Intel, Ampere show running LLMs on CPUs isn't as crazy as it sounds

Google search results polluted by buggy ai-written code frustrate coders, microsoft shrinks ai down to pocket size with phi-3 mini, investment analyst accuses palantir of ai washing, add ai servers to the list of idevices apple silicon could soon power, some scientists can't stop using ai to write research papers, mitre promises a cute little 17-pflops ai super for the rest of uncle sam's agencies.

• Advertise with us

Our Websites

• The Next Platform
• Blocks and Files

Your Privacy

• Cookies Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Ts & Cs

Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024

Suggestions or feedback?

MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology

• Machine learning
• Social justice
• Black holes
• Classes and programs

Departments

• Aeronautics and Astronautics
• Brain and Cognitive Sciences
• Architecture
• Political Science
• Mechanical Engineering

Centers, Labs, & Programs

• Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL)
• Picower Institute for Learning and Memory
• Lincoln Laboratory
• School of Architecture + Planning
• School of Engineering
• School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences
• Sloan School of Management
• School of Science
• MIT Schwarzman College of Computing

Physicists arrange atoms in extremely close proximity

Press contact :, media download.

*Terms of Use:

Images for download on the MIT News office website are made available to non-commercial entities, press and the general public under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives license . You may not alter the images provided, other than to crop them to size. A credit line must be used when reproducing images; if one is not provided below, credit the images to "MIT."

Previous image Next image

Proximity is key for many quantum phenomena, as interactions between atoms are stronger when the particles are close. In many quantum simulators, scientists arrange atoms as close together as possible to explore exotic states of matter and build new quantum materials.

They typically do this by cooling the atoms to a stand-still, then using laser light to position the particles as close as 500 nanometers apart — a limit that is set by the wavelength of light. Now, MIT physicists have developed a technique that allows them to arrange atoms in much closer proximity, down to a mere 50 nanometers. For context, a red blood cell is about 1,000 nanometers wide.

The physicists demonstrated the new approach in experiments with dysprosium, which is the most magnetic atom in nature. They used the new approach to manipulate two layers of dysprosium atoms, and positioned the layers precisely 50 nanometers apart. At this extreme proximity, the magnetic interactions were 1,000 times stronger than if the layers were separated by 500 nanometers.

What’s more, the scientists were able to measure two new effects caused by the atoms’ proximity. Their enhanced magnetic forces caused “thermalization,” or the transfer of heat from one layer to another, as well as synchronized oscillations between layers. These effects petered out as the layers were spaced farther apart.

“We have gone from positioning atoms from 500 nanometers to 50 nanometers apart, and there is a lot you can do with this,” says Wolfgang Ketterle, the John D. MacArthur Professor of Physics at MIT. “At 50 nanometers, the behavior of atoms is so much different that we’re really entering a new regime here.”

Ketterle and his colleagues say the new approach can be applied to many other atoms to study quantum phenomena. For their part, the group plans to use the technique to manipulate atoms into configurations that could generate the first purely magnetic quantum gate — a key building block for a new type of quantum computer.

The team has published their results today in the journal Science . The study’s co-authors include lead author and physics graduate student Li Du, along with Pierre Barral, Michael Cantara, Julius de Hond, and Yu-Kun Lu — all members of the MIT-Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms, the Department of Physics, and the Research Laboratory of Electronics at MIT.

Peaks and valleys

To manipulate and arrange atoms, physicists typically first cool a cloud of atoms to temperatures approaching absolute zero, then use a system of laser beams to corral the atoms into an optical trap.

Laser light is an electromagnetic wave with a specific wavelength (the distance between maxima of the electric field) and frequency. The wavelength limits the smallest pattern into which light can be shaped to typically 500 nanometers, the so-called optical resolution limit. Since atoms are attracted by laser light of certain frequencies, atoms will be positioned at the points of peak laser intensity. For this reason, existing techniques have been limited in how close they can position atomic particles, and could not be used to explore phenomena that happen at much shorter distances.

“Conventional techniques stop at 500 nanometers, limited not by the atoms but by the wavelength of light,” Ketterle explains. “We have found now a new trick with light where we can break through that limit.”

The team’s new approach, like current techniques, starts by cooling a cloud of atoms — in this case, to about 1 microkelvin, just a hair above absolute zero — at which point, the atoms come to a near-standstill. Physicists can then use lasers to move the frozen particles into desired configurations.

Then, Du and his collaborators worked with two laser beams, each with a different frequency, or color, and circular polarization, or direction of the laser’s electric field. When the two beams travel through a super-cooled cloud of atoms, the atoms can orient their spin in opposite directions, following either of the two lasers’ polarization. The result is that the beams produce two groups of the same atoms, only with opposite spins.

Each laser beam formed a standing wave, a periodic pattern of electric field intensity with a spatial period of 500 nanometers. Due to their different polarizations, each standing wave attracted and corralled one of two groups of atoms, depending on their spin. The lasers could be overlaid and tuned such that the distance between their respective peaks is as small as 50 nanometers, meaning that the atoms gravitating to each respective laser’s peaks would be separated by the same 50 nanometers.

But in order for this to happen, the lasers would have to be extremely stable and immune to all external noise, such as from shaking or even breathing on the experiment. The team realized they could stabilize both lasers by directing them through an optical fiber, which served to lock the light beams in place in relation to each other.

“The idea of sending both beams through the optical fiber meant the whole machine could shake violently, but the two laser beams stayed absolutely stable with respect to each others,” Du says.

Magnetic forces at close range

As a first test of their new technique, the team used atoms of dysprosium — a rare-earth metal that is one of the strongest magnetic elements in the periodic table, particularly at ultracold temperatures. However, at the scale of atoms, the element’s magnetic interactions are relatively weak at distances of even 500 nanometers. As with common refrigerator magnets, the magnetic attraction between atoms increases with proximity, and the scientists suspected that if their new technique could space dysprosium atoms as close as 50 nanometers apart, they might observe the emergence of otherwise weak interactions between the magnetic atoms.

“We could suddenly have magnetic interactions, which used to be almost neglible but now are really strong,” Ketterle says.

The team applied their technique to dysprosium, first super-cooling the atoms, then passing two lasers through to split the atoms into two spin groups, or layers. They then directed the lasers through an optical fiber to stabilize them, and found that indeed, the two layers of dysprosium atoms gravitated to their respective laser peaks, which in effect separated the layers of atoms by 50 nanometers — the closest distance that any ultracold atom experiment has been able to achieve.

At this extremely close proximity, the atoms’ natural magnetic interactions were significantly enhanced, and were 1,000 times stronger than if they were positioned 500 nanometers apart. The team observed that these interactions resulted in two novel quantum phenomena: collective oscillation, in which one layer’s vibrations caused the other layer to vibrate in sync; and thermalization, in which one layer transferred heat to the other, purely through magnetic fluctuations in the atoms.

“Until now, heat between atoms could only by exchanged when they were in the same physical space and could collide,” Du notes. “Now we have seen atomic layers, separated by vacuum, and they exchange heat via fluctuating magnetic fields.”

The team’s results introduce a new technique that can be used to position many types of atom in close proximity. They also show that atoms, placed close enough together, can exhibit interesting quantum phenomena, that could be harnessed to build new quantum materials, and potentially, magnetically-driven atomic systems for quantum computers.

“We are really bringing super-resolution methods to the field, and it will become a general tool for doing quantum simulations,” Ketterle says. “There are many variants possible, which we are working on.”

This research was funded, in part, by the National Science Foundation and the Department of Defense.

Share this news article on:

Related links.

• Wolfgang Ketterle
• MIT-Harvard Center for Ultracold Atoms
• Research Laboratory of Electronics
• Department of Physics

Related Topics

• Nanoscience and nanotechnology
• Quantum computing
• National Science Foundation (NSF)
• Department of Defense (DoD)

Related Articles

Physicists observe rare resonance in molecules for the first time

Physicists steer chemical reactions by magnetic fields and quantum interference

How ultracold, superdense atoms become invisible

Ultracold atoms reveal a new type of quantum magnetic behavior

New “refrigerator” super-cools molecules to nanokelvin temperatures

Previous item Next item

More MIT News

Using MRI, engineers have found a way to detect light deep in the brain

Read full story →

A better way to control shape-shifting soft robots

From steel engineering to ovarian tumor research

Professor Emeritus David Lanning, nuclear engineer and key contributor to the MIT Reactor, dies at 96

Discovering community and cultural connections

MIT Supply Chain Management Program earns top honors in three 2024 rankings

• More news on MIT News homepage →

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA

• Map (opens in new window)
• Events (opens in new window)
• People (opens in new window)
• Careers (opens in new window)
• Accessibility
• Social Media Hub
• MIT on Facebook
• MIT on YouTube
• MIT on Instagram