Talk:Fat Man

Assembly section contradiction?

At the bottom of the color key in the Assembly section is a note that indicates the uranium tamper contributed up to 20 percent of the weapon's final yield. A paragraph following then seems to contradict this saying the uranium tamper contributed 30 percent. Is this a misread on my part, a broad approximation, or something else? Each seems to cite a difference source. Even if I misread it still seems confusing. Maybe this could be generalized into "20-30%" kind of compromise? StrontiumDogs (talk) 22:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Checked both sources in case it was a typo. Both are correctly cited. But Wellerstein cites a more recent and comprehensive source, so used the 30% figure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit request for the "Bombing of Nagasaki - Assembly" section

I propose the line "The cores were transported to North Field" in the first paragraph of this section should be changed to "The assemblies were transported to North Field". There was only one plutonium core involved, addressed earlier in the paragraph. This part refers to the three pre-assemblies with no fissile material, for which I believe the term "core" to be inaccurate. I'm making the request here due to the article being protected. 88.193.155.226 (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect labelling and description of Fat-Man

Fat-Man was not a 'nuclear' weapon - it was a plutonium implosion atomic fission device. Until the Ivy Mike shot on 1st November 1952 when the first Teller-Ulam design at Eniwetok Atoll in the Marshall Islands was successfully detonated - a true thermonuclear, or Hydrogen, weapon - nothing prior to this test was a 'nuclear' weapon. Only an atomic weapon. The second sentence of the second paragraph in the introduction is factually incorrect and misconstrues - meaning it is a falsehood - the type of atomic device the article is talking about. As this is a protected and locked page, someone with permission, and understanding of these matters, needs to correct this entire sentence.

The link utilised is also misrepresenting the type of device Fat-Man was because the section of the article it is linked to does not mention the word 'nuclear' once, yet the hyperlink does??

Furthermore, the entire article itself misrepresents what an atomic and nuclear device is because it is titled "Nuclear weapon design" in the first place. Simply put, nothing prior to November 1952 is a 'nuclear' weapon, they are only atomic weapons, this article needs quite a heavy amount of correcting for the fact nuclear is being euphemistically applied to all such devices, which is factually incorrect. There is a picture of the Trinity test device being labelled a 'nuclear' explosion, when it was only an atomic explosion. In fact, the first line of the article's introduction has a hyperlink to an article labelled "Nuclear weapon" which in and of itself is also incorrect. However, that article's first line, albeit somewhat confusingly, at least denotes and articulates the difference between a fission (atomic) and fusion (hydrogen or thermonuclear) device or weapon.

All of these articles need correcting, fellow contributors, by someone with permission to do so. I'm currently writing a thesis on Nuclear Proliferation and Nuclear Deterrence Theory, and I came across these misrepresentations via various other hyperlinks looking for specific dates about when specific designs of these weapons occurred. The entire series of atomic and/or nuclear weapons testing and invention seems to be extremely haphazardly articulated and jumbled together in very misrepresented context people. I honestly mean no personal offence to the original writers but this needs correcting in a world of disinformation now days... WolfStonerRocker ^G'DÄŸ 23:54, 22 February 2025 (UTC)