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