WI: One of the nuclear bombs used against Japan in 1945 malfunctioned?

[Nell_Lucifer]

As asked in the title, what if one of the nuclear bombs used over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima on August 6th or Nagasaki on August 9th, failed to detonate for whatever reason? (High altitude messing with some components, incorrectly armed, faulty parts etc)
What would the fall-out both from the US side and the Japanese side be? (I assume if the Plutonium bomb failed to detonate then the Japanese would have a better understanding of what exactly the lone bomb sitting in a highly populated city is.)

 

[Garrison]

As asked in the title, what if one of the nuclear bombs used over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima on August 6th or Nagasaki on August 9th, failed to detonate for whatever reason? (High altitude messing with some components, incorrectly armed, faulty parts etc)
What would the fall-out both from the US side and the Japanese side be? (I assume if the Plutonium bomb failed to detonate then the Japanese would have a better understanding of what exactly the lone bomb sitting in a highly populated city is.)

If its failed to detonate then all the Japanese have is a lot of shrapnel.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Also, bomb 3 gets dropped a few days later....

 

[Flying Sorcerer]

It might have some interesting implications for post-war nuclear strategy. A failure rate of 50% (or 33.33% if the 3rd bomb is successful) might give planners pause about the reliability of nuclear weapons. No doubt there would be accusations of sabotage during the Red Scare era.

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

A failure rate of 50%

Wouldn't the overall rate of failure include successful/failed test detonations?

I think Dathi is right, if Bomb 1 fails, Bomb 2 will succeed, and then there would probably be a Bomb 3 if Bomb 2 doesn't do the job of getting the Japanese to surrender.

 

[Post]

AFAIK they were so certain that bomb 1 would detonate, that they didn't even test it.
So the chances of it not detonating must be really slim.

 

[Crazy Boris]

Also, bomb 3 gets dropped a few days later....

Was there a third bomb? I always heard that they only had time to make two before the US offered surrender or nuke

 

[Turrosh Mak]

Was there a third bomb? I always heard that they only had time to make two before the US offered surrender or nuke

Yes, there was a third bomb that would have been ready to go within two weeks of Nagasaki (Aug 19). Let me tell you the story of ... THE DEMON CORE (/shriek of terror).

Edit - reading error (On August 13, the third bomb was scheduled. It was anticipated that it would be ready by August 16 to be dropped on August 19)

 

[ivanotter]

The uranium gun-type bomb would work. there was no doubt abut that one.

It was the plutonium bomb that was 'tricky'. In the plutonium bomb, it was a matter of timed and accurate TNT blocks firing and compressing a sphere to critical mass. That was a lot more tricky than just smashing two halves of uranium together. If anyone should try that with plutonium it would create a great sparkle and other unpleasant things, but no fission.

That was the New Mexico test.

It would have been the plutonium bomb that could have malfunctioned.

That said, Japan was not unaware of nuclear bombs after all. Germany sailed a uboat across to them with the German material, but it got intercepted! so what was supposed to go to Japan ended up in the US bombs!

However, even if Japan would have got the failed bomb, there would not have been enough time to go analyse and build one with whatever was left.

So, no change!

(in my opinion)

 

[Onslow123]

In late 1990s or very early 2000s (about late 1998 to early 2000) there were some rumors, that third bomb was dropped and did malfunction. Because of parachute dropping the bomb did reach the earth quite intact or at least on one whole. The rumor ended with the claim that the Japanese handed the bomb ower to the Soviet Union.

 

[I want to learn]

If one of the bombs fails it's conceivable Japan doesn't surrender. I don't know if anyone can say for sure which factors were decisive but the decision was a narrow one and AIUI the Japanese war council did consider the pace of the bombings as one reason to surrender.

 

[Alanith]

In late 1990s or very early 2000s (about late 1998 to early 2000) there were some rumors, that third bomb was dropped and did malfunction. Because of parachute dropping the bomb did reach the earth quite intact or at least on one whole. The rumor ended with the claim that the Japanese handed the bomb ower to the Soviet Union.

So the Japanese.... handed the bomb over to a group they were at war with?

Gonna hammer that X button there. Hard Doubt.

 

[marathag]

It took years to create parachutes that could hold up to the multi-ton weight of a hydrogen bomb used in laydown mode.
Thus was because only gun types were robust enough for ground impact, rather than airburst, needed for taking out command bunkers. The early multi-point implosion devices were not robust enough for that.
So a lot of effort on parachute. All earlier types were made to deploy at sub 200mph speeds

 

[Resurgam]

In late 1990s or very early 2000s (about late 1998 to early 2000) there were some rumors, that third bomb was dropped and did malfunction. Because of parachute dropping the bomb did reach the earth quite intact or at least on one whole. The rumor ended with the claim that the Japanese handed the bomb ower to the Soviet Union.

I've never heard that. Seems a bit hard to believe... why would they hand it to the Soviets?

 

[Alanith]

I've never heard that. Seems a bit hard to believe... why would they hand it to the Soviets?

Yeah the problem is two fold imo.

1. The japanese would be handing the bomb over to a group already at war with them, when there's quite frankly no time available for them to do so. Why would they not keep the bomb for themselves and try to figure out the American secret weapon?
2. The US would have *Torn apart* Japan trying to recover or at least verify what happened to any duds.

 

[Flying Sorcerer]

Wouldn't the overall rate of failure include successful/failed test detonations?

I think Dathi is right, if Bomb 1 fails, Bomb 2 will succeed, and then there would probably be a Bomb 3 if Bomb 2 doesn't do the job of getting the Japanese to surrender.

Wouldn't the overall rate of failure include successful/failed test detonations?

I think Dathi is right, if Bomb 1 fails, Bomb 2 will succeed, and then there would probably be a Bomb 3 if Bomb 2 doesn't do the job of getting the Japanese to surrender.

I forgot about Trinity. If Trinity and or the Nagasaki plutonium bomb failed would the US have become more reliant on the uranium gun barrel design? The latter seems to be inherently much more dangerous.

 

[Gunnarnz]

There was TL about this a few years ago, in which the topic was investigated in some detail. IIRC the consensus was that, because there was no backup plan, Japan would become a nuclear superpower. You can check it out for yourself here.
...
Uh, better bring some sedatives when you do. Just saying...

 

[Alanith]

There was TL about this a few years ago, in which the topic was investigated in some detail. IIRC the consensus was that, because there was no backup plan, Japan would become a nuclear superpower. You can check it out for yourself here.
...
Uh, better bring some sedatives when you do. Just saying...

I think I remember this one. The "Consensus" seemed to be mostly the Author ignoring everyone who told him otherwise.

Edit: Wait no I'm thinking of a story where the IJN... torpedoed and then boarded the USS Indianapolis while it had the physics packages aboard.

 

[Nell_Lucifer]

There was TL about this a few years ago, in which the topic was investigated in some detail. IIRC the consensus was that, because there was no backup plan, Japan would become a nuclear superpower. You can check it out for yourself here.
...
Uh, better bring some sedatives when you do. Just saying...

OH MY Ahhhhh. Sadly this requires a higher plane of thought to understand than what I currently have... Jesus...

 

[Protagoras]

While it is hard to say for certain, as the Japanese tried their best to keep their decision making process as secret as possible (and if I were involved in that, I certainly wouldn't want anybody to find out what was going on either!), the entry of the Soviet Union into the war and the loss of Manchuria had killed any remaining unrealistic hopes the Japanese had of getting a better deal than what they ended up with. It was just taking a while for the decision makers to accept and announce the inevitable (after all, they weren't the ones dying as the debates dragged on pointlessly). The nukes may have made them feel more comfortable about the PR aspects of surrendering, and so sped things up a tiny bit, but one nuke would have worked as well as two for that, so I think the most likely effect of one of the bombs failing would have been that the surrender would have happened at the same time (or within a day or two) and only one city would have been nuked.