What Would Have Happened if Hitler had got the A Bomb First?

The history of the A bomb is well-known, and most people know there was a race for the bomb throughout most of World War II. Indeed, the Germans had a big advantage initially as the fundamental discovery that led to the bomb took place in Germany. It was the discovery of nuclear fission by Hahn and Strassman in 1938. Even more important was the interpretation of the result by the German scientist, Lise Meitner, a short time later. As a result the Germans soon realized that a very powerful bomb could be built. About the same time the British and Americans came to the same conclusion as a result of Neils Bohr's visit to the US.
      Werner Heisenberg, one of Germany's leading physicists, was soon selected as the leader of the German project, and there's no  doubt that he knew what was needed to build a bomb. Things developed more slowly in the US, but the Manhattan Project, as it was called, was finally set up. The US program had an advantage in that it had more and better resources for such a large project. Nevertheless, both programs moved forward, but lucky for us, Hitler was impatient. He was anxious for new super- weapons of any type that would give him an advantage. And at the time German scientists were also developing the V1 and V2 rockets, and he was preoccupied with them, and as a result progress on the German A-bomb was relatively slow.
      It is possible, however, that Germany could have developed the A-bomb first, and there is no doubt that if it did, Hitler would have used it. After all, the Germans developed both rockets (the V1 and V2) and jet planes before the Allies did and they were used. Hitler would likely have used them to bomb some of the larger cities such as London and Paris.
       How would this have affected the outcome of the war and the history of the world? It's an interesting thought.

Barry Parker:   author of "The Physics of War: From arrows to Atoms"

The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb on Japan: Right or wrong?


With the Trinity test of July, 1945, it was obvious that the atomic bomb would work. But the war with Germany was over and it couldn't be used there. The war with Japan, however, was far from over, but it was obvious that an invasion of the mainland of Japan would be needed to defeat Japan. The big question then was: should the A bomb be used against Japan? As expected, there were arguments on both sides. The Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, the stubbornness of the Japanese at Okinawa, Iwo Jima and other places in the Pacific, showed that surrender was a foreign word to them. They would likely fight to the last man, and a large number of American and Allied soldiers would no doubt be lost in the process. In addition, Tokyo had been firebombed almost to oblivion and the Japanese still refused to surrender.
     Many  people, however, worried about the ramifications of using the A bomb. The scientist Leo Szilard was one of the most vocal. He tried desperately to meet with President Truman; he even sent him a petition that had been signed by 53 scientists. He argued that the destructive power of the bomb should be demonstrated to the Japanese first. Truman apparently looked closely at both sides of the argument and decided to go ahead with the bombing. After all, air raids using conventional bombs had already produced devastating effects equivalent to 20,000 tons of TNT, which was energy equivalent of the A bomb, and the Japanese had still not surrendered.
     Two atomic bombs were therefore dropped: one on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, and one on Nagasaki on August 9. A few days later the Japanese surrendered.
     Many people are still debating whether we needed to drop the bombs  -- in particular, whether we needed to drop two bombs. What is your opinion?

Barry Parker, author of "The Physics of War: From Arrows to Atoms

The Genius of Leonardo Da Vinci

There's no doubt that Leonardo Da Vinci was a genius of the highest caliber. Today, however, he is known mainly as a painter, and he did paint some of the more famous early paintings, including the Mona Lisa and the Last Supper. But he was also a master engineer, an inventor, and a scientist with an incredible curiosity about nature. His studies spanned several areas including physics, astronomy, mathematics, optics, hydrodynamics, chemistry and anatomy, yet he had little formal education.
     Among his most imaginative inventions were his contributions to the military. Despite these contributions he was not a war-monger. In fact, he hated war so much he could not kill even small animals. But it seemed to be the only way for him to make a decent living, and he finally accepted it. And as it turned out, his war inventions were years ahead of his time. He designed an armored tank, a machine gun, a parachute, and various types of flying machines including a glider. None of his inventions, however, were built during his lifetime because he kept his drawings secret, and they were not discovered for over a hundred years after he died.
     One of his major interests was manned flight and he spent hundreds of hours watching and studying birds in flight. He invented a device that he hoped would allow humans to soar through the sky like birds, and there is some evidence that he actually tried to build and test it. In particular, he noticed the similarity between the flow of water around objects of various sizes and shapes to the flow of air around similar objects. He made a detailed study of the dynamics of turbulent flow.

Are there any Energy Sources that Could Give an Even More Powerful Bomb than the Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs?

At the present time we have two extremely powerful bombs: the atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb In practice, it actually takes an atomic bomb to trigger a hydrogen bomb. And of course everyone knows that the hydrogen bomb is much more powerful than the atomic bomb. Each of these bombs is based on a process that is critical to the existence of the universe. The atomic bomb depends on a process called fission in which heavy atoms split and give off energy in the process. Atomic bombs use either uranium-235 or plutonium, and as it turns out they are limited in power. You cannot build an atomic bomb of unlimited power. Hydrogen bombs, on the other hand, are possible because of a process called fusion. It is the process that powers our sun, and every other star in the universe, and it is generated when light atoms come together and join, or fuse. One of the problems in this case is that you need extremely high temperatures for the process to take place. This is where the atomic bomb comes in. An atomic explosion produces temperatures high enough for fusion to occur. And unlike the atomic bomb, there is -- at least in theory -- no limit to the power of a hydrogen bomb. The most powerful American hydrogen bomb had an explosive equivalent of about 50 megatons of TNT. The Russians, however, built one that was even more powerful than this. It's unlikely, however, that any nation will try to build one that is even more powerful. The problems that would occur may be insurmountable. And thankfully, there's no other process in nature -- aside from fission and fusion -- that we know of that could be used to build a larger bomb.

Barry Parker: author of "The Physics of War: From Arrows to Atoms"

What are Some of the New Weapons?

Throughout history new and more powerful weapons have been introduced in each new war. And of course nations are always searching for more powerful and destructive weapons. This is continuing even now. Some of the latest weapons are the e-bomb, more powerful x-ray lasers, smart grenade launchers, smart bullets, robots of various types and more advanced types of drones. The e-bomb is of particular interest, and unlike most weapons it will cause little loss of life. It is a device that creates an electromagnetic pulse that generates high electrical currents which, in turn, destroy all electrical and electronic equipment. It could cripple a nation, or at least part of it, as all mobile units of any kind, including cars and airplanes would be stopped immediately by this pulse. Indeed, all the electricity in homes and factories would be stopped so all activity would quickly come to a standstill.
     Another new weapon is the "smart" grenade launcher, which is equipped with a laser range-finder and an on-board computer. It could be guided to its target using a laser beam. In the same way, "smart" bullets are also likely being worked on. They would be controlled and maneuvered in flight using a tiny computer guidance system. And of course there are drones and robots. They are being improved significantly, and no doubt will be used extensively in future wars. In fact, the day may come where most of the fighting will be done by drones and robots.

With future wars likely being fought between drones and robots, is it likely that war will become more common?
     Future wars will, no doubt, be fought more and more between drones and robots, so there will be less danger to live soldiers. I don't think this will necessarily increase the frequency of wars, but it will certainly change their nature. I think the generals would soon realize that having a war between two armies of robots and drones doesn't make a lot of sense and would not solve any  problems. But again, as in any war, it will depend who has the best new weapons, or super weapons. If it's obvious that one army could easily defeat the other, several wars may follow, and in this respect things will be no different from present or earlier wars. Also, a lot depends on the leaders of the countries. Dictators or single rulers are much more likely to go to war. Nevertheless things would be better if most of the casualties were drones and robots rather than people.

Military leaders from ancient times to the present have ceaselessly searched for elusive "wonder weapons" that provide their armies with crucial advantages on the filed of battle. In ancient times, strong blades and sturdy armor, swift chariots and precision-crafted bows and arrows could make the difference between glorious victory and bloody defeat. In modern times, the outcome of warfare is often determined in large part by a nation's industrial capacity and the vitality and organization of its scientific community as was the case in WWII in the race to develop faster and more maneuverable planes, more sensitive radar and sonar detection systems, long-range artillery, more durable tanks, complex computer systems capable of decoding secret enemy messages, and ignition systems that could unleash  the energy of the atom.
 The book "The Physics of  War" invites you into the lives of scientists and engineers who unlocked the secrets of nature allowing the development of new wonder weapons. and also onto the battlefields in which these weapons were used. A simple explanation of the physics behind these weapons is given in many cases.