How the ‘Little Boy' Hiroshima nuclear bomb transformed modern warfare forever
Hiroshima, in Japan, was the target of the first ever nuclear weapon, dropped by the US Air Force on 7 August 1945 - killing more than 150,000 people in the months afterwards, according to some estimates.
Although victory had been declared in Europe four months earlier, American forces continued to fight Japan over the summer, in what would be the final months of the protracted Pacific War.
Just three days after the catastrophic nuclear attack on Hiroshima, Nagasaki met a similar fate. It had been just weeks since the first successful test of a nuclear weapon was masterminded by J. Robert Oppenheimer.
Eighty years later, The Independent takes a look at the direction nuclear warfare took after that seminal day - and how different nuclear weapons are now
How has the nuclear bomb developed since 1945?
Nicknamed 'Little Boy', the bomb dropped on Hiroshima exploded some 1,800 feet above the city, where it delivered around 12.5 kilotons of TNT.
Large sections of the city - five square miles - were razed to ashes. Within just four days, 120,000 people were killed, many instantly vaporised and others dying due to the impact of the burns and radiation in the days afterwards.
''Little Boy' was a gun-type weapon, which detonated by firing one mass of uranium down a cylinder into another mass to create a self-sustaining nuclear reaction,' the National Museum of the US Air Force explains. 'Weighing about 9,000 pounds (4.5 tons), it produced an explosive force equal to 20,000 tons of TNT [explosive].'
Delivered by the USAAF B29 bomber `Enola Gay', 'Little Boy' has now been entirely taken out of operational use - but its creation had set US and Russian scientists into a frantic race to develop the largest and most powerful nuclear weapons, in the largest quantities.
Seven years after the two Japanese cities were decimated by the atomic bomb, the US tested a brand new type of nuclear weapon: the hydrogen bomb.
First tested at Enewetak Atoll in the Marshall Islands, the hydrogen bomb was 500 times more powerful than the one used in Hiroshima. It is believed that many if not all current nuclear weapons in America's stockpile are hydrogen - or thermonuclear - weapons.
The largest ever bomb test was conducted by the Soviet Union, who tested a 58-megaton atmospheric nuclear weapon nicknamed the 'Tsar Bomb' near northern Russia.
In recent decades, following many years of international efforts to prevent the production of new nuclear weapons, the US has focussed on modernising its existing stockpile. According to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS), the US has begun a modernisation programme which will 'ultimately see every nuclear delivery system replaced with newer versions over the coming decades'.
How large have nuclear arsenals grown?
The Hiroshima bomb was dropped a mere three weeks after the Trinity test, the first successful test of a nuclear weapon the world had ever seen.
At the time, the American nuclear arsenal consisted of two weapons: the bombs which were used to destroy large areas of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a catastrophe for the Japanese people, hundreds of thousands of whom were killed. But it was seen by some as one of the main reasons World War Two came to an end when it did.
Fast forward five years and the US had developed 299 more nuclear weapons, a nuclear arsenal nearly 60 times larger than that of the Soviet Union, which contained five, having tested its first nuclear bomb just one year earlier in 1949.
After a rapid period of dramatically increasing stockpiles during the Cold War saw the US stockpile hit a peak of 31,255 in 1961 and the Russian stockpile peak at 45,000 in 1986 - according to BAS estimates - numbers steadily decreased for decades.
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) says the US has approximately 5,044. Russia is estimated to have around 5,580, making it the world's largest stockpile. In descending order of the size of their arsenal, the other seven countries believed to have nuclear weapons are China, France, United Kingdom, Pakistan, India, Israel, North Korea. Not all of these countries openly admit they possess the weapons.
In the eight decades since the catastrophes in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weapons have never been used in combat - but the incomparable destructiveness of hydrogen bombs and the sheer number of nuclear weapons in the world makes their risk far greater.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Great Barrier Reef sees sharpest annual coral decline in nearly four decades
Parts of the Great Barrier Reef have suffered the steepest annual decline in live coral cover following the worst bleaching events in nearly four decades. The Australian Institute of Marine Science, or Aims, said that two of the three areas monitored by researchers since 1986 have suffered coral losses this year. The hard coral cover on the reef has declined largely due to heat stress from climate change. This heat stress has sparked mass bleaching events, which have been worsened by cyclones, flooding, and outbreaks of crown-of-thorns starfish. The latest findings are a warning that the Great Barrier Reef faces a "volatile" future and may reach a 'point from which it cannot recover'. The Great Barrier Reef, located off the northeast coast of Australia, is the world's largest living coral reef system and one of the most biodiverse ecosystems on the planet. Stretching across 2,400km off the Queensland coast, it comprises thousands of individual reefs and hundreds of islands made of over 600 types of hard and soft corals. Aims surveyed 124 coral reefs between August 2024 and May 2025 and found that coral cover had dropped sharply after a record-breaking marine heatwave in 2024, 'prompting grave fears over the trajectory of the natural wonder'. "We are now seeing increased volatility in the levels of hard coral cover," said Mike Emslie, head of the institute's long-term monitoring programme. "This is a phenomenon that emerged over the last 15 years and points to an ecosystem under stress." Aims says repeated mass coral bleaching is becoming more frequent as the world warms. Coral bleaching is a stress response in which corals expel the algae that give them colour and energy, turning white because the water it lives in is too hot and risking death if conditions don't improve. Mass bleaching was extremely rare before the 1990s. The first two major mass bleaching events weren't recorded until 1998 and 2002. In the years since, Aims noted, the Great Barrier Reef has "experienced unprecedented levels of heat stress, which caused the most spatially extensive and severe bleaching recorded to date'. This was 'the first time we have seen substantial bleaching impacts in the southern region, leading to the largest annual decline since monitoring began', Dr Emslie said. In the wake of the latest mass bleaching event in 2024, aerial surveys showed around three quarters of the 1,080 reefs assessed had some bleaching. And on 40 per cent of those reefs, over half the corals had turned white. It was the fifth mass bleaching event on the Great Barrier Reef since 2016 and had the largest spatial footprint recorded, with high to extreme bleaching prevalence across the three regions, Aims CEO Professor Selina Stead said. Despite the significant losses, Aims said the Great Barrier Reef still had more coral than many other reefs worldwide and remained a major tourist attraction. 'It's possible to find areas that still look good in an ecosystem this huge,' Aims said, 'but that doesn't mean the large-scale average hasn't dropped.' Australia has lobbied for years to keep the reef, which contributes billions of dollars a year to the economy, off the list as it could damage tourism.
Sky News
6 hours ago
- Sky News
Fragmented and febrile - is threat of nuclear war worse than ever?
Why you can trust Sky News Eighty years ago today, an American B-29 bomber dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. It was the dawn of the atomic age, but the birth of the bomb can be traced beyond the deserts of New Mexico to Britain, five years earlier. A copy of a hand-typed document, now in the Bodleian library in Oxford, is the first description of an atom bomb small enough to use as a weapon. The Frisch-Peierls Memorandum was written by two nuclear physicists at the University of Birmingham in 1940. Otto Frisch and Rudolf Peierls don't feature in the film Oppenheimer, but their paper is credited with jump-starting the Manhattan Project that ultimately built the bomb. Both Jewish scientists who had both fled Nazi Germany, they built on the latest understanding of uranium fission and nuclear chain reactions, to propose a bomb made from enriched uranium that was compact enough to be carried by an aircraft. The document, so secret at the time only one copy was made, makes for chilling reading. Not only does it detail how to build a bomb, but foretells the previously unimaginable power of its blast. "Such an explosion would destroy life in a wide area," they wrote. "The size of this area is difficult to estimate, but it will probably cover the centre of a big city." Radioactive fallout would be inevitable "and even for days after the explosion any person entering the affected area will be killed". Both lethal properties of the bombs that would subsequently fall on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing around 100,000 instantly and more than 100,000 others in the years that followed - most of them civilians. 'The most terrifying weapons ever created' Those bombs had the explosive power of around 16 and 20 kilotonnes of TNT respectively - a force great enough to end the Second World War. But compared to nuclear weapons of today, they were tiny. "What we would now term as low yield nuclear weapons," said Alexandra Bell, president of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which campaigns for nuclear disarmament. "We're talking about city destroyers…these really are the most terrifying weapons ever created." Many of these "high yield" nuclear weapons are thermonuclear designs first tested in the 1950s. They use the power of nuclear fission that destroyed Hiroshima to harness yet more energy by fusing other atoms together. Codenamed "Mike", the first test of a fusion bomb in 1952 yielded at least 500 times more energy than those dropped on Japan. Impractically devastating, but proof of lethal principle. Variants of the W76 thermonuclear warhead currently deployed by the US and UK are around 100Kt, six times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. Just one dropped on a city the size of London would result in more than a quarter of a million deaths. The largest warhead in America's current arsenal, the B83 has the explosive equivalent of 1.2 megatonnes (1.2 million tonnes of TNT) and would kill well over a million instantly. But modern intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are designed to carry multiple warheads. Russia's Sarmat 2, for example, is thought to be capable of carrying 10 megatonnes of nuclear payload. They're designed to strike multiple targets at once, but if all were dropped on a city like London most of its population of nine million would be killed or injured. If that kind of power is incomprehensible, consider how many nuclear warheads there now are in the world. Nine countries - the US, Russia, China, France, the UK, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel - have nuclear weapons. Several others are interested in having them. The US and Russia have around 4,000 nuclear warheads each - 90% of the global nuclear arsenal and more than enough to destroy civilisation. According to analysis from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, China us thought to have around 600 warheads, but has indicated a desire to catch up. Beijing is believed to be building up to 100 new warheads a year and the ICBMs to deliver them. Five more nuclear powers, including the UK, plan to either increase or modernise their existing nuclear stockpiles. The nuclear arms race that created this situation was one imagined by Frisch and Peierls in their 1940 memorandum. Given the mass civilian casualties it would inevitably cause, the scientists questioned whether the bomb should ever be used by the Allies. They wrote, however: "If one works on the assumption that Germany is, or will be, in the possession of this weapon… the most effective reply would be a counter-threat with a similar bomb." What they didn't believe was that the bomb they proposed, and went on to help build at Los Alamos, would ever be used. Devastated by its use on Japan, Peierls disavowed the bomb and later campaigned for disarmament. But that work is now as unfinished as ever. Non-proliferation treaties helped reduce the expensive and excessive nuclear arsenals of Russia and the US, and prevent more countries from building nuclear bombs. 'Everything trending in the wrong direction' But progress ground to a halt with the invasion of Ukraine, as nuclear tensions continued elsewhere. "After all the extremely hard, tedious work that we did to reduce nuclear risks everything is now trending in the wrong direction," said Alexandra Bell. "The US and Russia refuse to talk to each other about strategic stability. "China is building up its nuclear arsenal in an unprecedented fashion and the structures that were keeping non-proliferation in place stemming the spread of nuclear weapons are crumbling around us." 'New risks increasing the threat' The world may have come closer to nuclear conflict during the Cuban missile crisis of 1963, but the fragmented and febrile state of geopolitics now is more dangerous, she argues. Conflict regularly flares between nuclear armed India and Pakistan; Donald Trump's foreign policy has sparked fears that South Korea might pursue the bomb to counter North Korea's nuclear threat; some states in the Middle East are eyeing a nuclear deterrent to either nuclear-wannabe Iran or nuclear armed Israel. Add to the mix the military use of AI and stressors like climate change, and the view of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is the situation is more precarious than in 1963. "It's more dangerous, but in a different way," said Alexandra Bell. "The confluence of all these new existential risks are increasing the threat worldwide."
Reuters
8 hours ago
- Reuters
Australia's Great Barrier Reef suffers record coral decline following mass bleaching
SYDNEY, Aug 6 (Reuters) - Australia's Great Barrier Reef has suffered the largest decline in coral cover in two of its three regions over the last year, research released on Wednesday showed, following a mass bleaching of its corals that was among the worst on record. The Australian Institute of Marine Sciences said the reef has experienced the largest annual decline in coral cover in its northern and southern regions since monitoring began 39 years ago, with coral cover dropping between a quarter and a third after several years of solid growth. "We are now seeing increased volatility in the levels of hard coral cover," said Mike Emslie, head of institute's long term monitoring programme. "This is a phenomenon that emerged over the last 15 years and points to an ecosystem under stress." The reef, the world's largest living ecosystem, stretches for some 2,400 km (1,500 miles) off the coast of the northern state of Queensland. Since 2016, the reef has experienced five summers of mass coral bleaching, when large sections of the reef turn white due to heat stress, putting them at greater risk of death. The 2024 event had the largest footprint ever recorded on the reef, with high to extreme bleaching across all of its three regions, the report said. The Great Barrier Reef is not currently on UNESCO's list of world heritage sites that are in danger, though the UN recommends it should be added. Australia has lobbied for years to keep the reef - which contributes A$6.4 billion ($4.2 billion) to the economy annually - off the endangered list, as it could damage tourism.
