The first nuclear bomb test in 1945 didn’t ignite the atmosphere and engulf the planet in flames, but it was an open question at the time. Did scientists think it was likely? At what levels was it being debated?

by RusticBohemian

Our atmosphere has low enough pressure and levels of deuterium that nuclear fission in air doesn’t cause hydrogen atoms to fuse into helium. If things were a bit different, a nuclear explosion might have caught our atmosphere on fire.

So what was the debate like? Who wad debating the issue? Were there a lot of concerned scientists?

wotan_weevil

It wasn't much of a debate. The possibility of chain reactions in the atmosphere was considered (nitrogen fusion, nitrogen + nitrogen -> oxygen + carbon + energy, rather than deuterium fusion). This possibility had been suggested by Teller in 1942, and the general scientific opinion was that this was impossible. However, the consequences of such a reaction could be quite serious, so it was checked in more detail. Conclusion after further research: impossible. Arthur Compton had a dissenting opinion: not impossible, but highly unlikely; he estimate the probability of such a fusion reaction at about 1 in a million.

For a more detailed past answer, see:

and also, on the calculations of the possibility of such reactions, by u/restricteddata