Best strategy for a nuclear campaign against Germany

Share Glider's opinion (post #2).

tyrodtom said:

Like someone else already pointed out, we set off the first nuclear bomb in our own country.
Do you honestly think we'd care more about Europe.

Click to expand...

But you'd have needed approval from your allies, including Britain and France which are close to Germany. British approval was sought and given for the Japanese bombs too.

Cheers

Steve

What we now know about nuclear fallout and it's long term consiquences wasn't very widely known in 1945, or even 1950.
To a lot of the decision makers it may have just seemed like hysterical hype from the limp wristed scientists.

tyrodtom said:

What we now know about nuclear fallout and it's long term consiquences wasn't very widely known in 1945, or even 1950.

Click to expand...

But everyone would have seen the results of the Japanese bombs.
By 1950 all the studies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were completed and much was known, albeit not yet generally in the public domain.
Cheers
Steve

Radiation was a poison, this was obvious. When the bomb was tested in the US, they had to have measured this. So, I guess they were more or less aware of the effects in broad terms, or at least that such effects could occur.

The impact of exposure to gamma radiation was known and was measurable by 1944 - 45. Marie Curie died as a result of exposure to radiation. Although this was not known immediately, it was soon worked out that that was what killed her. She used to carry vials of radium in her pocket with her. Her papers and diaries are kept in protective confines due to their radioactivity.

From Wikipedia

"The dangers of radioactivity and radiation were not immediately recognized. Acute effects of radiation were first observed in the use of X-rays when electrical engineer and physicist Nikola Tesla intentionally subjected his fingers to X-rays in 1896.[3] He published his observations concerning the burns that developed, though he attributed them to ozone rather than to X-rays. His injuries later healed.

The genetic effects of radiation, including the effect of cancer risk, were recognized much later. In 1927, Hermann Joseph Muller published research showing genetic effects, and in 1946 was awarded the Nobel prize for his findings.

Before the biological effects of radiation were known, many physicians and corporations began marketing radioactive substances as patent medicine in the form of glow-in-the-dark pigments. Examples were radium enema treatments, and radium-containing waters to be drunk as tonics. Marie Curie protested this sort of treatment, warning that the effects of radiation on the human body were not well understood. Curie later died from aplastic anemia, likely caused by exposure to ionizing radiation. By the 1930s, after a number of cases of bone necrosis and death of enthusiasts, radium-containing medicinal products had been largely removed from the market (radioactive quackery)."

The effects of direct exposure to ionising radiation were understood by the 1940s. Tyrodtom was alluding to the fall out from the blasts. He is correct that the nature of this, its dispersal etc, and how it could be ingested by humans, as well as the consequent effects on human health, was not known before the attacks on Japan.
How could it be? With the exception of the Trinity test, far too recent to have processed any meaningful results, this had never occurred before in human history.
Cheers
Steve

and how it could be ingested by humans, as well as the consequent effects on human health, was not known before the attacks on Japan.

Click to expand...

I don't understand what the difference is; nuclear fallout carries gamma radiation; the result of radioactive decay - Rutherford discovered this way back. Sure, the patterns of fallout would not have been known, but the effects that a detonated atom bomb might have had on humans was known. The immediate scale of injury to humans might not have been predicted, however.

"In 1903, Rutherford considered a type of radiation discovered (but not named) by French chemist Paul Villard in 1900, as an emission from radium, and realised that this observation must represent something different from his own alpha and beta rays, due to its very much greater penetrating power. Rutherford therefore gave this third type of radiation the name of gamma ray. All three of Rutherford's terms are in standard use today – other types of radioactive decay have since been discovered, but Rutherford's three types are among the most common."

"Rutherford's research, and work done under him as laboratory director, established the nuclear structure of the atom and the essential nature of radioactive decay as a nuclear process."

"Fallout protection is almost exclusively concerned with protection from radiation. Radiation from fallout is encountered in the forms of alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, and as ordinary clothing affords protection from alpha and beta radiation,[13] most fallout protection measures deal with reducing exposure to gamma radiation."

What was known by scientists didn't matter, it was what was known by the people making the decisions that matter.
I'm sure all had access to some research, but how they'd let what they read influence them is a unknown.
Two people could have completely different reactions to reading the same information, that's human.

In the 1950s, the general public believed all life forms would be instantly atomised by the blast, but the effects wouldn't last more than a year or so, and new life could (theoretically) begin thereafter.
Neville Shute's novel 'On the Beach' is a very interesting (and haunting) read on this subject, as is 'When the Wind Blows' by Raymond Briggs.

Yes, Evan, granted they could not predict how long radiation exposure would continue for, but they knew the damage would be widespread.

how it could be ingested by humans, as well as the consequent effects on human health

Click to expand...

The instantaneous release of radioactive material into the atmosphere and its impact on people was known, however. Studies had been conducted into the effects of exposure to radioactive material by then, scientist Hermann Muller had been warning of the results of exposure to radiation since the late 1920s and wrote a widely read paper on it. The primary interest from a scientific point of view is the degree of injury depending on the distance from Ground Zero. The problem is that the rate of decay of gamma radiation is still unpredictable and immeasureable today.

When a nuclear weapon explodes it emits a pulse (or pulses) of radiations across a large spectrum. The hazard of exposure to these types of radiations was known if not fully understood in 1945. By far the most lethal radiation statistically in 1945 was in the infra red range, simply, heat. This is not the case for modern nuclear devices, some of which are specifically designed to emit a lethal "burst" of radiation rather than create blast and heat, though these remain an inevitable by product.

Fallout comes in many forms but is radioactive material made radioactive by the explosion (several complicated processes) or may comprise parts of the original radioactive components of the bomb (or reactor) and other residues. In the case of the Japanese bombs, both air bursts, I assume that most fall out comprised the latter.
This material can be widely spread, dependent upon local meteorological conditions, and contaminate widely. Direct external exposure is an obvious hazard but ingestion of the material (typically by swallowing or inhalation) caused longer term health problems in Japan. In Japan it contaminated water courses which caused people to ingest the radioactive material with consequently devastating health implications.

Gamma radiation is the most penetrating of the three types typically present in the fall out from one of the early devices. Alpha and Beta radiations are relatively easy to protect against, unless the source has been ingested.

Fallout really wasn't understood at all prior to the analyses of the two bombs used against Japan

Cheers

Steve

I confirm what steve wrote #72. I work in a medical field not far from this and one thing I know from my Radiation Protection colleagues is that the results of the bombings were intensively studied, are even to this day, trying to refine industrial, military and medical exposure limits. So no, the effects of fallout were not well understood at the time.

I also happen to know that before the war, before the chemical weapons research was moved to Aldermaston, production was centred in Flintshire Wales. The UK had many tons of BMG and was developing other agents. They would not be caught in a unilateral threat.

So it seems there was no shortage of the mindset needed to do such a terrible thing at high levels of government. I'm not sure if I am reassured or deeply troubled by the idea that only dropping a nuke 'a long way away' fit the popular mindset at the time as well.

As to the mindset of posts here, I'm all in favour of free speech and appreciate appreciation of the flyers caught up in the missions and the planes they flew, and of commanders grappling with big issues. I'm no pacifist or critic, but - please just remember those are human beings, the ones who left nothing but a shadow on a wall. thanks.

Fallout really wasn't understood at all prior to the analyses of the two bombs used against Japan

Click to expand...

Yes, okay, you are right, but the impact of immediate exposure to gamma radiation was, hence my posts.

So it seems there was no shortage of the mindset needed to do such a terrible thing at high levels of government. I'm not sure if I am reassured or deeply troubled by the idea that only dropping a nuke 'a long way away' fit the popular mindset at the time as well.

Click to expand...

You're probably right, bbear and not the only one who feels that way for sure; but the "Nuclear Age" of warfare has changed everything. There's no going back and the powers that be have to plan for such eventualities, such as if the United States could build a nuclear weapon in 1945...

please let me say that all your posts were accurate as far as they went,

thanks nuuumannn, understood, i'm just a little wary of mass destruction in a sentence - it's too easy to think about acceptable losses. But the current undercurrents and preparations, yes that's inevitable planning in depth needed. No need to complete the thought...