History of the atomic bomb

I've always shied away from science, either because I found it boring or incomprehensible. I've had to take a bird course about the history of 18th-19th century science to fullfill some distribution requirement for my university. For the most part I've just tried to get the course over with, however this last unit we've been covering really has peaked my interest. We've been talking about the growth of theoretical physics from Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, etc. and how it eventually turned into a worldwide race to create the first nucleur weapon. The actual science has been tough for me to grasp, but I think I've got a decent handle of it. The actual history of the relationships between these physicists and the impact that their differring nationalities had is pretty damn interesting.

I'm actually just finishing an essay about Heisenberg and his research for the Nazi government during the second World War. There are so many accounts of what he was trying to do: varying from saying he was actively trying to recruit/elicit information from his colleagues to build a nuclear weapon for Hitler to saying he purposely stalled his own country's research while all the while giving the hope of success so that he could keep the project in his own hands and prevent Hitler from getting a bomb. I think I'm leaning a bit to the latter, although I'm hesitant to make a bold claim because there's so much ambiguity about it all (Heisenberg was closely watched by the Gestapo and as a result, was very cryptic with his colleagues). There's one incident in particular in 1942, when he went to Copenhagen to meet his friend and mentor Niels Bohr. They're friendship essentially ended after that meeting, but no one's really sure what was said during it. There's actually a well-written play that tried to come to terms with that meeting, and I'm about halfway through it (its called "Copenhagen," I recommend it).

That's a bit of a long-winded post, but I figured it was worth sharing. Anybody else have a similar interest or any knowledge on the topic? I plan on reading more about it, after the course is finished.

 

I read WW2 books like every month. I'm fascinated by history, especially during that period.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Aug 6 2008, 10:00 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Those scientists were pacifists for the most part. Einstein was convinced that Hitler was going to obtain a bomb, so he wrote a letter to FDR that basically sparked the Manhattan Project. He then campaigned against its use.</div>
Yep. Its pretty crazy the amount of tensions and pressures these pacifist scientists faced during the war. Heisenberg probably wanted to make sure Hitler didn't end up with such a powerful weapon however he knew that the Allies were working on a similar project and, having grown up in post-WWI Germany, he was afraid that his fellow countrymen would be put through another horrible period of starvation/poverty. I think that's what he wanted to talk to Bohr about in Copenhagen, but it was obviously doomed from the start (Bohr was half-Jewish and Denmark had just been occupied by the Germans).

Almost everyone came out thinking they had blood on their hands. It's interesting to note that there was a mass exodus to the study of molecular biology and chemistry after the war, because those physicists couldn't come to terms with the fact that their research had been used to take so many lives.

 

Cobalt bombs are pretty interesting. I had never heard of them.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The fallout would have a half-life of 5.27 years and would be intensely radioactive, a combination which caused Szilárd to suggest that such bombs could wipe out all life on the planet. One gram of 60Co contains approximately 1.85 terabecquerels (50 Ci) of radioactivity. Held at close range, this amount of cobalt-60 would irradiate a person with approximately 0.5 gray of ionizing radiation per minute. A prompt, full body dose of approximately three to four grays would kill 50% of the population in thirty days, and could be accumulated in just a few minutes of exposure to a gram of 60Co.

Smaller amounts of 60Co would take longer to kill, but would be effective over a large area. Even so, critics of the cobalt bomb concept point out that the mass needed would still be unreasonably large: 1 gram of 60Co per square kilometer of Earth's surface is 510 tonnes. The sheer size and cost of such a weapon makes it unlikely to be built, although it is technically possible because there is no maximum size limit for a thermonuclear bomb.

The significance of such a bomb is that the 5.27 year half-life of its radioactive fallout is long enough to permit worldwide dispersal of the fallout before its radioactivity decays significantly (thus making it impractical for anyone to shelter from the contamination), yet is short enough to ensure sufficient intensely lethal radiation is produced. After fifteen to twenty years, the 60Co radiation would decrease by a factor of eight to sixteen, presumably making the area habitable again. The 60Co would have decayed to stable, and thus harmless, 60Ni.</div>
I wonder how expensive it would be to get 150 tonnes of 60Cobalt, and how unstable it is to store it. (I don't think 510 tonnes would be needed, because the Earth's surface is 2/3s water.)

I'm hoping it's too difficult to attain.