Oh please like I care what you bother to call any particular phenomena, theory, function etc... Its just a waste of time to go through the trouble.
Since when did "Nuclear fuel" become "Bombs"? I think i should have been notified of this in advance since well.. I am the one you are talking to.
Anyway back on topic. Albert Einstein and the Manhattan project. Put down the ground work and the possibility for the research into nukes to exist, driving force behind the programs creation, personal connections with other major people etc.. etc.. etc..
I wonder what would have happened to the project if Albert Einstein had not signed the letter. Would the allies simply have rejected it or perhaps not taken it seriously at all? Who knows. All i know is its like Einstein invented electricity and they made a battery.
I guess the cookie question was too much for you. When I was 19, it was all the rage in the crowd I ran with.
"The most common fissile nuclear fuels are uranium-235 (235U) and plutonium-239 (239Pu)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuelOnly fissile isotopes of certain elements have the potential for use in nuclear weapons. Additionally they must be produced in sufficient quantity and purity to be usable. Uranium-235 and plutonium-239 are well known examples for which this is the case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons-gradeU-235 and Pu-239 are both fuel and, in a more refined form, weapons grade material. I expected you to be familiar with this.
What if Albert Einstein had not signed the letter? No idea. What if Leó Szilárd didn't write it? What if Teller and Wigner had not agreed with the concerns in the letter? What if Alexander Sachs had failed to deliver it? Sounds like Al gets 20% of the credit.
BTW, it would be discovered electricity and invented the battery. One existed before it was discovered where the other one was created for the first time.