Friday, Dec. 19, 2014

Nuclear weapons: How much do you know? (20 items)

By Deseret News

Aug. 8, 2014

August 6, 2014, marked 69 years since the United States dropped the first nuclear bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, with the attack on Nagasaki following on August 9, 1945.

The attacks accelerated Japan's surrender and the end of World War II, but also introduced a new type of warfare that changed the world forever.

See what you know about nuclear weapons and the history of the bomb with this quiz.

1 of 20. Question 1

What was the name of the project that developed the first atomic bomb?

A. The Chicago Project

B. The Manhattan Project

C. The Pittsburg Project

D. The Boston Project

2 of 20. Answer

B. The Manhattan Project.

The foundation for what would become The Manhattan Project was laid in 1939, which was also the year Albert Einstein presented information regarding uncontrolled fission chain reactions to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica.

In 1942, Brigadier General Leslie R. Groves was placed in charge of what was code-named The Manhattan Project.

3 of 20. Question 2

How much would the first atomic bomb cost if developed today?

A: About $26,000,000,000

B: About $22,000,000,000

C: About $18,000,000,000

D: About $10,000,000,000

4 of 20. Answer

A: About $26,000,000,000

According to PBS, the Allies spent some $2 billion developing the first atomic bomb, which translates into about $26 billion today.

5 of 20. Question 3

Which of these are the basic types of nuclear weapons?

A. Carbon Bombs

B. Atomic Bombs

C. Hydrogen Bombs

D. Only B and C

E. All of the above
1. george of the jungle
goshen, UT,
Aug. 9, 2014

If your not blinded by the flash, burned by the heat, thrown around or berried by the stuff from the concussion the wind that comes in to fill the void of air will cover you with nuclear dust. the air, water and ground will kill you from fallout. The cancers that you will get will last for ever. The destruction is horrendous.

2. JWB
Kaysville, UT,
Aug. 9, 2014

Having been a nuclear surety officer, nuclear weapons can't be called safe but have a program to ensure surety which is still a good program to ensure safety and security at a high level. There have been very few identified problems over the years. 40,000 people instantly is a lot of damage among civilians and military. The analysis would be different today but we had been in two theaters of war operations taking a lot of our resources of people and work from the whole nation. We have along with Russia and other nuclear nations have kept the world pretty sure from use of those weapons for a lot of years. Most nations could not afford to make weapons with that high of a cost, today. Loss of weapons to terrorists is a threat for all of us.

3. KellyWSmith
Sparks, NV,
Aug. 9, 2014

Well, that was an educational, although frightening list of statistics that I did not know and I am not sure I want to know. I pray that we will survive ourselves and someday turn "plowshares into pruning hooks" and "not learn war anymore".

It's amazing how much money has been spent over the centuries fighting evil and distracting us from doing better things. I am grateful for the knowledge given so that "no weapon formed against thee shall prosper" but that is only contingent on our righteousness as a people.

I feel we are losing that protection and our enemies have either become our equal, or are darn close to surpassing us.

4. PP
Eagle Mountain, UT,
Aug. 9, 2014

The data on deaths at Hiroshima is inaccurate. An estimated 66,000 died in the blast or from later causes and 66,000 were injured. This list seems to claim that all causalities were deaths.

By comparison the Tokyo fire bombings were far worse. Almost 100,000 dead and 125,000 wounded in an over night inferno that lasted for hours. It was also far cheaper to produce and deploy the incendiaries than the atomic bombs. So if the war had continued there may have not been another atomic bomb used.

I recently read a book that said the bomb probably had nothing to do with ending the war. The fire bombs were far worse and did not even phase the military leaders in Japan. However, the Russians declared war on Japan on August 9th and Japan surrendered the next day. Considering the history Russia and Japan had that was probably far more of an incentive to surrender.

My only real purpose in writing this is to say - if you are going to present "facts" for whatever purpose - get the facts right.

5. Sequoya
Stafford, VA,
Nov. 1, 2014

"if you are going to present "facts" for whatever purpose - get the facts right."

I concur.

But also ... facts without a context are meaningless. It is also a necessary (but insufficient) requirement to get the facts right, but the context (the relationship of the facts to each other and to other environmental variables) is needed to draw any proper conclusion. In that same vein, you also have to have the "right" (relevant) facts.

Sooo what are we trying to "prove" here? I think there is insufficient information herein -- and generally -- to compel any conclusions one way or the other; but, there is just enough for people to believe anything they want -- which they do!