Hi!
Consider the following POD. During the countdown to the detonation of the Trinity device, a wire breaks or suffers some kind of damage after all the circuits are tested. This causes the device's yield to drop from OTL's 20 kT to 0.5 kT.
The scientist flip the switch and there's a big boom much larger than that of any bomb exploded before. Clearly, a yield like this could never have been reached without splitting the atom. The Manhattan Project has paid off.
Or has it?
Think about it from the perspective of one of the scientists on the site. The physicists are guessing that the device will yield 20 kT. However, it actually yielded only 500 T. No one has ever detonated a device like this before, so are no other tests or bomb designs to compare this against. The scientist therefore has no way to tell if the yield was lower because (a) the physicists messed something up in their calculation and you're supposed to get 500 T, or (b) the device malfunctioned and fizzled. The device has been completely destroyed in the blast, so there is no way to look at the evidence.
If the authorities start assuming the former, things get interesting. The government spent so much money on the Manhattan Project that they'll be very pissed if they only get 500 T out of their new weapon. What use is splitting the atom if it only gets you roughly the same yield as a typical bombing run? In a situation like this, putting all of your yield in one device could be a recipe for disaster if the aircraft carrying the bomb is shot down or the device malfunctions. The government concludes that nuclear devices are only worth it if you get 10 kT or more out of them. And since we only got 500 T despite all of the assurances of the scientists...
Here is what I foresee happening. The people at Alamogordo have only two more devices left. They can't risk detonating another one to double check physics for several reasons:
(a) if the yield is still 500 T they've not only seemed to confirm the theory that the physicists were wrong but they've lost a potentially powerful bomb to boot (albeit one which is not as powerful as they hoped),
(b) even if they get a 20 kT blast that only leaves one device to drop on the Japanese, something the enemy could conclude was a one-shot deal, and
(c) the greater the possibility that a Japanese spy or someone like that can see the blast and warn the Japanese that the Americans have a new weapon -- to the point where a Japanese defender may be willing to fire on a single aircraft if he thinks the aircraft is carrying a WMD (imagine what would have happened had antiaircraft fire taken out either Enola Gay or that bomb parachuting down).
I can imagine the deployment of the two remaining bombs delayed long enough to force the Americans to start invading the Japanese islands (Olympic, was it?). With American troops on the islands, the risk of using WMD's to destroy things risks hundreds, if not thousands, of friendly fire casualties. Considering that Olympic would probably been VERY unpopular anyway (given the possibility of a stalemate and high casualties on both sides), large friendly fire casualty totals would get the populace even angrier at the government and lead to people complaining that the government is wasting their time on big bombs.
Now what happens to nuclear technology after the war? If the Americans don't detonate any bombs during the war, the Russians may be the first to detonate a 20 kT weapon (if the Russians still believe that 500 T blast was in fact a fizzle). Perhaps the Russians will take the lead in the Cold War (or win it). Perhaps nuclear technology doesn't go anywhere at all (at least for weaponry purposes). What would a Cold War without nukes have been like? Turned hot in Europe again with no major deterrents?
Any thoughts?
ACG
Consider the following POD. During the countdown to the detonation of the Trinity device, a wire breaks or suffers some kind of damage after all the circuits are tested. This causes the device's yield to drop from OTL's 20 kT to 0.5 kT.
The scientist flip the switch and there's a big boom much larger than that of any bomb exploded before. Clearly, a yield like this could never have been reached without splitting the atom. The Manhattan Project has paid off.
Or has it?
Think about it from the perspective of one of the scientists on the site. The physicists are guessing that the device will yield 20 kT. However, it actually yielded only 500 T. No one has ever detonated a device like this before, so are no other tests or bomb designs to compare this against. The scientist therefore has no way to tell if the yield was lower because (a) the physicists messed something up in their calculation and you're supposed to get 500 T, or (b) the device malfunctioned and fizzled. The device has been completely destroyed in the blast, so there is no way to look at the evidence.
If the authorities start assuming the former, things get interesting. The government spent so much money on the Manhattan Project that they'll be very pissed if they only get 500 T out of their new weapon. What use is splitting the atom if it only gets you roughly the same yield as a typical bombing run? In a situation like this, putting all of your yield in one device could be a recipe for disaster if the aircraft carrying the bomb is shot down or the device malfunctions. The government concludes that nuclear devices are only worth it if you get 10 kT or more out of them. And since we only got 500 T despite all of the assurances of the scientists...
Here is what I foresee happening. The people at Alamogordo have only two more devices left. They can't risk detonating another one to double check physics for several reasons:
(a) if the yield is still 500 T they've not only seemed to confirm the theory that the physicists were wrong but they've lost a potentially powerful bomb to boot (albeit one which is not as powerful as they hoped),
(b) even if they get a 20 kT blast that only leaves one device to drop on the Japanese, something the enemy could conclude was a one-shot deal, and
(c) the greater the possibility that a Japanese spy or someone like that can see the blast and warn the Japanese that the Americans have a new weapon -- to the point where a Japanese defender may be willing to fire on a single aircraft if he thinks the aircraft is carrying a WMD (imagine what would have happened had antiaircraft fire taken out either Enola Gay or that bomb parachuting down).
I can imagine the deployment of the two remaining bombs delayed long enough to force the Americans to start invading the Japanese islands (Olympic, was it?). With American troops on the islands, the risk of using WMD's to destroy things risks hundreds, if not thousands, of friendly fire casualties. Considering that Olympic would probably been VERY unpopular anyway (given the possibility of a stalemate and high casualties on both sides), large friendly fire casualty totals would get the populace even angrier at the government and lead to people complaining that the government is wasting their time on big bombs.
Now what happens to nuclear technology after the war? If the Americans don't detonate any bombs during the war, the Russians may be the first to detonate a 20 kT weapon (if the Russians still believe that 500 T blast was in fact a fizzle). Perhaps the Russians will take the lead in the Cold War (or win it). Perhaps nuclear technology doesn't go anywhere at all (at least for weaponry purposes). What would a Cold War without nukes have been like? Turned hot in Europe again with no major deterrents?
Any thoughts?
ACG