There were calculations done before the bomb was tested, which confirmed people’s strong priors against an atmospheric ignition effect. But the report is dated August 1946, after the first nuclear tests and the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Presumably the report is elaborating on the earlier calculations, but the analysis before the first nuclear detonations is more important than the analysis after.
I suspect, without any evidence, that the analysis was carried out to a sufficient extent to convince all of the physicists involved, saving the formal writeup for later. There was a war on, you know.
Nowadays, as I understand it, most areas of science are carried out through informal circulation of preprints long before papers are formally published for the record. I imagine the same thing went on at Los Alamos, especially given the centralization of that community.
I suspect, without any evidence, that the analysis was carried out to a sufficient extent to convince all of the physicists involved, saving the formal writeup for later.
Based on the evidence of reading about the Teller story, yes the calculations were enough to settle the issue internally. Indeed, others thought it a bit silly in the first place. The procedure clearly had a very low expected failure rate in general, and the danger was low prior. OTOH, it’s not clear what p “convincing” translated into.
In any case, those calculations eliminated most of the subjective expected value of atmospheric nuclear ignition risk, as asteroid searches have eliminated most of the expected value of asteroid extinction risk.
There were calculations done before the bomb was tested, which confirmed people’s strong priors against an atmospheric ignition effect. But the report is dated August 1946, after the first nuclear tests and the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Presumably the report is elaborating on the earlier calculations, but the analysis before the first nuclear detonations is more important than the analysis after.
I suspect, without any evidence, that the analysis was carried out to a sufficient extent to convince all of the physicists involved, saving the formal writeup for later. There was a war on, you know.
Nowadays, as I understand it, most areas of science are carried out through informal circulation of preprints long before papers are formally published for the record. I imagine the same thing went on at Los Alamos, especially given the centralization of that community.
Based on the evidence of reading about the Teller story, yes the calculations were enough to settle the issue internally. Indeed, others thought it a bit silly in the first place. The procedure clearly had a very low expected failure rate in general, and the danger was low prior. OTOH, it’s not clear what p “convincing” translated into.
In any case, those calculations eliminated most of the subjective expected value of atmospheric nuclear ignition risk, as asteroid searches have eliminated most of the expected value of asteroid extinction risk.