3 ms·
Teller's work on the hydrogen bomb (after the Manhattan Project) probably solidify his mind set. Immediately post WW2, Teller was in the minority view of believ
by icegreentea2 3y ago
Teller's work on the hydrogen bomb (after the Manhattan Project) probably solidify his mind set. Immediately post WW2, Teller was in the minority view of believing that hydrogen bombs were feasible. But we all know how that ended up.
- pfdietz 3y agoYou can see how that would affect a person. Advocate exploring a far out idea against resistance, then be dramatically proved correct when an unexpected advance makes the goal achievable.
- jonathankoren 3y agoIt wasn’t a goal with achieving.
- philwelch 3y agoI disagree. Nuclear deterrence has prevented direct warfare between great powers for the longest period since at least the Roman Empire.
- jonathankoren 3y agoNuclear deterrence was perfectly capable with fission bombs
- philwelch 3y agoI’m not sure it was. Hiroshima and Nagasaki (but especially Hiroshima) had outsized effects because of how Japanese cities were built of readily flammable materials at the time; incendiary bombing of Japanese cities was also far more effective than that of German cities. (Which is saying something because the German cities were very effectively bombed!) There’s disagreement over exactly how bad a major nuclear conflict would be, but everyone agrees that it would be significantly worse with an exchange of 500 kt thermonuclear warheads than with an exchange of 21 kt fission warheads. And the point of deterrence is to make that potential exchange as bad as possible.
- pfdietz 3y agoOne can make larger fission bombs, but they end up being very unsafe, since they contain several critical masses of material. I believe the UK made a 500 kT fission bomb. Fusion devices are smaller and safer to handle and, most importantly, are considerably cheaper per yield.