DOCSLIB.ORG

The Growth of Big Science Emerged at Same Time As the Onset of the Cold War and Was Integral to It – Notably in Development of the Hydrogen (Thermonuclear) Bomb

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Growth of Big Science Emerged at Same Time As the Onset of the Cold War and Was Integral to It – Notably in Development of the Hydrogen (Thermonuclear) Bomb Big Science Rob Iliffe Bigger Science • ‘Big Science’ is term (invented in 1961 by Alvin Weinberg) to describe the nature of post-WW2 government-funded astronomy and physics, • Involving the coordination between academia and what in 1960 President Dwight Eisenhower called the ‘Military-Industrial complex’ • The growth of Big Science emerged at same time as the onset of the Cold War and was integral to it – notably in development of the Hydrogen (thermonuclear) Bomb. • Now, research ‘teams’ comprising hundreds of individuals are managed by a team leader or director, and scientific articles may have tens or hundreds of authors. The Cyclotron • The Cyclotron became the quintessential piece of ‘Big Science’ equipment in the middle of the C20th. • Invented by Ernest Lawrence at Berkeley, California, it was a circular particle accelerator, which he called a ‘proton merry-go-round’ (carosello) • It accelerated a charged particle beam using high frequency alternating voltage applied between 2 ‘D-shaped’ metal electrodes inside a flat vacuum chamber. • Particle acceleration causes particles to move outwards in a spiral, exiting the D’s through a small gap, so as to hit a target. Lawrence’s Cyclotron • Cyclotron was originally a small (5-inch = 13cm) machine made up of glass, sealing wax and bronze, set on a kitchen chair, • It used hydrogen ions and boosted them to an energy of over 80,000 electron volts (MeV) • Lawrence gradually increased power with new machines throughout the 1930s, moving onto an 11-inch 24cm device in 1930, and reaching 1 million MeV in 1932 and then 5 MeV in 1935. • In 1939 his work culminated in a giant 220-ton 60-inch (1.6m) cyclotron, producing energies above 20 MeV. ‘Lawrence’s Laboratory’ • The ‘Radiation laboratory’ at Berkeley was lavishly supported despite the Depression, and became the prototypical ‘Big Science’ laboratory, • It engaged in competition with British scientists and elsewhere to produce transuranic elements. • British had success in 1932, with the discovery of the chargeless Neutron by James Chadwick and the splitting of the lithium atom by James Cockcroft and Ernest Walton using accelerated proton bombardment. • Meanwhile, Enrico Fermi and his group in Rome began to use ‘slow’ Neutron-bombardment to test the characteristics of different nuclei. The Berkeley Cyclotron • Ultimately the Americans produced much bigger scientific instruments than was possible anywhere else, with larger teams • and the Berkeley laboratory involved the collaboration between unprecedented numbers of physicists, chemists and medics. • It became concerned with ‘nuclear science’ more generally from 1936, including the new field of nuclear medicine. • In 1940 Glenn T. Seaborg and others discovered Carbon-14, neptunium and plutonium. • The 184-inch cyclotron with a 4000 ton magnet was opened in 1946, producing energies of over 100 MeV. Nuclear fission • The work of Seaborg and his colleagues took place in the context of the momentous series of discoveries in the Twentieth Century. • In 1938 Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner announced the possible fission (i.e. ‘splitting’) of a uranium atom when it absorbed a neutron. • At the start of 1939 Hahn and the chemist Fritz Strassmann showed that bombarding uranium with neutrons produced barium and krypton, along with a vast amount of energy. • Now in Stockholm with her nephew Otto Frisch, Meitner and Frisch quickly interpreted these results as due to nuclear fission, and calculated the phenomenal amount of energy released. • And within weeks a French group showed that two or three Neutrons were emitted, raising the possibility of a chain reaction. Lise Meitner (1878-1968) • B. Vienna, and privately educated in physics, gaining a PhD in physics at University of Vienna in 1905. • Went to work with Max Planck and Otto hahn in Berlin, becoming the first female professor in physics in Germany (1926), • and later head of physics at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Chemistry. • But had to leave Germany for Sweden because of the Nuremberg Laws, though she had converted to Catholicism in 1908. • While Hahn was given Nobel Prize in Chemistry for nuclear fission in 1944, she was not, leading to naming of element 109 as Meitnerium. Tube Alloys • Many – including Leo Szilard and Albert Einstein - realized that nuclear fission could produce a weapon, while Niels Bohr correctly surmised that the fissile component was the isotope U-235. • In 1939-40 the British (under the deliberately meaningless heading ‘Tube Alloys’) began to develop techniques for building a Bomb –. • However, at war with Germany, they lacked the resources to increase production of U-235 to beat what they believed to be a vigorous German programme. • Hence, they began to collaborate with the Americans on what became known as the Manhattan Project. Enrico Fermi • B. Rome 1901 – as a boy he was fascinated by electrical and mechanical toys such as gyroscopes; • studied physics intently at High School, and went to the Scuola Normale Superiore in Pisa, • where he impressed teachers with his advanced knowledge of mathematics, quantum physics and General Relativity, but where he also showed an aptitude for experimental work. • In later 1920s he did pioneering work developing Wolfgang Pauli’s Exclusion Principle, and his work led to identification of the ‘neutrino’ (a term Fermi coined) and of a type of force known as ‘Weak interaction’. Roman Science • Fermi was already the outstanding Italian physicist, and was made Professor of Physics at the Sapienza University of Rome in 1926; • he was an excellent team leader (‘the pope of physics’) and gathered a group of talented students, making Rome an international centre of physics. • From 1934 Fermi and his team did numerous experiments firing neutrons into different elements and developing techniques for using ‘slow’ neutrons • He induced radioactivity in 22 elements, wrongly believing that he had discovered two new elements; he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1938 for this and his discovery of slow neutron-induced nuclear reactions. • At this point he decided to leave Italy because his wife was Jewish and felt threatened by new racial laws. Chain Reaction • Fermi arrived in New York on 2 Jan. 1939, moving to Columbia University; he was quickly told of Meitner and Frisch’s findings and within days began work confirming all the recent results. • He and Leo Szilard designed a ’pile’ with uranium oxide and graphite rods that would slow down the emitted neutrons. • After getting government support for purchase of graphite and uranium, Fermi moved his work to the University of Chicago soon after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor in December 1941. • Fermi moved to build the pile under the university squash court, and after meticulous planning, Pile-1 went critical on 2 December 1942. Soon after the pile went ‘critical’, the chairman of the National Defense Research Committee, James B. Conant, was told: ‘the Italian navigator has just landed in the new world’. Fermi later became known as ‘the architect of the atomic bomb’ The Manhattan Project • Managed by the US Army from June 1942, the programme was led by General Leslie C. Groves • while weapons research programme was directed at Los Alamos, New Mexico by Robert Oppenheimer. • The production of a working Atomic Bomb was not certain until the Chain Reaction at Chicago, after which two weapons were envisaged: • U-235 was used to produce a gun-type fission weapon (nicknamed ‘Little Boy’) though this required a vast facility for uranium enrichment, which took place near Oak Ridge Tennessee. • Reactors for producing plutonium (an implosion device nicknamed ‘Fat- man’) were built at Oak Ridge and Hanford Washington. The Gadget (Il Aggeggio) • Oppenheimer proposed a test of Plutonium (implosion by ‘high- explosive lens’) device in early 1944 - • Los Alamos Lab. now focussed on design of explosive arrangement. • ‘Trinity’ test site was chosen at Alamogordo, New Mexico • After many problems with explosives and the heat of the Plutonium core, the weapon was fully assembled by the evening of 15 July 1945. • Bets were taken on the yield; Fermi also offered to have a bet with members of the military about whether the atmosphere would ignite. • The Gadget detonated at 5.29 AM local time, with a yield of c. 22kt. Trinity test site, Alamogordo, New Mexico. The Decision to drop Bombs on japan • War ended in Europe on 8 May 1945, and Allies called for unconditional surrender of Japanese forces on 26 July. • New US President Harry Truman had to consider massive recent number of casualties sustained in Japanese conflict, • Along with likely future losses of US soldiers from an invasion of Japan • Also significant was imminent Soviet invasion from the North. • Plans for possible drop of a nuclear weapon began in December 1944, but this was not a viable option until the Trinity test in July 1945. • Two different committees discussed the area to be hit by any bombs, as well as the effects of a ‘non-combat’ demonstration. Hiroshima and Nagasaki • For different reasons, including the limited number of bombs, the idea of a demonstration detonation was rejected before Trinity test. • With no Japanese surrender, Truman authorized the use of the ‘special bomb’ after getting agreement from the British. • Hiroshima was target of first U-235 ‘Little Boy’ fission weapon on 6 August, detonating at 8.15 a.m. local time and killing 70-80,000. • Afterwards, Truman warned the Japanese that they should expect an unprecedented ‘rain of ruin’ if they did not surrender – • When this did not happen, the US dropped a second Bomb (‘Fat man’) on the industrial city of Nagasaki, killing 50-60,000 people. Science and ethics • Scientists such as Fritz Haber were deeply compromised by their work during the First World War, • even earlier, the pioneers of eugenics may have some responsibility for the mistreatment of various groups in the 1930s and 40s.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • George De Hevesy in America
    Journal of Nuclear Medicine, published on July 13, 2019 as doi:10.2967/jnumed.119.233254 George de Hevesy in America George de Hevesy was a Hungarian radiochemist who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1943 for the discovery of the radiotracer principle (1). As the radiotracer principle is the foundation of all diagnostic and therapeutic nuclear medicine procedures, Hevesy is widely considered the father of nuclear medicine (1). Although it is well-known that he spent time at a number of European institutions, it is not widely known that he also spent six weeks at Cornell University in Ithaca, NY, in the fall of 1930 as that year’s Baker Lecturer in the Department of Chemistry (2-6). “[T]he Baker Lecturer gave two formal presentations per week, to a large and diverse audience and provided an informal seminar weekly for students and faculty members interested in the subject. The lecturer had an office in Baker Laboratory and was available to faculty and students for further discussion.” (7) There is also evidence that, “…Hevesy visited Harvard [University, Cambridge, MA] as a Baker Lecturer at Cornell in 1930…” (8). Neither of the authors of this Note/Letter was aware of Hevesy’s association with Cornell University despite our longstanding ties to Cornell until one of us (WCK) noticed the association in Hevesy’s biographical page on the official Nobel website (6). WCK obtained both his undergraduate degree and medical degree from Cornell in Ithaca and New York City, respectively, and spent his career in nuclear medicine. JRO did his nuclear medicine training at Columbia University and has subsequently been a faculty member of Weill Cornell Medical College for the last eleven years (with a brief tenure at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (affiliated with Cornell)), and is now the program director of the Nuclear Medicine residency and Chief of the Molecular Imaging and Therapeutics Section.
    [Show full text]
  • I. I. Rabi Papers [Finding Aid]. Library of Congress. [PDF Rendered Tue Apr
    I. I. Rabi Papers A Finding Aid to the Collection in the Library of Congress Manuscript Division, Library of Congress Washington, D.C. 1992 Revised 2010 March Contact information: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/mss.contact Additional search options available at: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/eadmss.ms998009 LC Online Catalog record: http://lccn.loc.gov/mm89076467 Prepared by Joseph Sullivan with the assistance of Kathleen A. Kelly and John R. Monagle Collection Summary Title: I. I. Rabi Papers Span Dates: 1899-1989 Bulk Dates: (bulk 1945-1968) ID No.: MSS76467 Creator: Rabi, I. I. (Isador Isaac), 1898- Extent: 41,500 items ; 105 cartons plus 1 oversize plus 4 classified ; 42 linear feet Language: Collection material in English Location: Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Summary: Physicist and educator. The collection documents Rabi's research in physics, particularly in the fields of radar and nuclear energy, leading to the development of lasers, atomic clocks, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and to his 1944 Nobel Prize in physics; his work as a consultant to the atomic bomb project at Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory and as an advisor on science policy to the United States government, the United Nations, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization during and after World War II; and his studies, research, and professorships in physics chiefly at Columbia University and also at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Selected Search Terms The following terms have been used to index the description of this collection in the Library's online catalog. They are grouped by name of person or organization, by subject or location, and by occupation and listed alphabetically therein.
    [Show full text]
  • Leo Szilard in Physics and Information By
    Leo Szilard in Physics and Information by Richard L. Garwin IBM Fellow Emeritus IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center P.O. Box 218, Yorktown Heights, NY 10598 www.fas.org/RLG/ Email: [email protected] Presented in the invited APS session R17 “The Many Worlds of Leo Szilard” Savannah, Georgia April 7, 2014 at 11:21 AM _04/07/2014 Leo Szilard in Physics and Information.doc 1 Abstract: The excellent biography1 by William Lanouette, ``Genius in the Shadows,'' tells it the way it was, incredible though it may seem. The 1972 ``Collected Works of Leo Szilard: Scientific Papers,'' Bernard T. Feld and Gertrud W. Szilard, Editors, gives the source material both published and unpublished. Szilard's path-breaking but initially little-noticed 1929 paper, ``On the Decrease of Entropy in a Thermodynamic System by the Intervention of Intelligent Beings'' spawned much subsequent research. It connected what we now call a bit of information with a quantity k ln 2 of entropy, and showed that the process of acquiring, exploiting, and resetting this information in a one-molecule engine must dissipate at least kT ln 2 of energy at temperature T. His 1925 paper, ``On the Extension of Phenomenological Thermodynamics to Fluctuation Phenomena,'' showed that fluctuations were consistent with and predicted from equilibrium thermodynamics and did not depend on atomistic theories. His work on physics and technology, demonstrated an astonishing range of interest, ingenuity, foresight, and practical sense. I illustrate this with several of his fundamental contributions to nuclear physics, to the neutron chain reaction and to nuclear reactors, and also to electromagnetic pumping of liquid metals.
    [Show full text]
  • 4. Marie Curie, Ethics and Research
    CATHERINE MILNE 4. MARIE CURIE, ETHICS AND RESEARCH INTRODUCTION Recently Chemistry and Engineering News (Bard, Prestwich, Wight, Heller, & Zimmerman, 2010) carried a series of commentaries on the culture of academic research in chemistry with a focus on the role of funding in research. Initially, Alan Bard decried how decisions about tenure seem more and more to focus on grant getting rather than consideration of the applicant’s accomplishments generated because of access to this funding. Bard argued further that often this funding was based, not on the quality of the proposed research but on a researcher’s ability to “hype their research” and damming truth in the process (Bard et al., 2010, p. 27). According to him, there was a disturbing trend in universities for researchers to be encouraged, almost expected, to generate patents and from there, even to be involved in initiating “start up” companies. Other researchers responded. Glen Prestwich and Charles Wight (Bard et al., 2010) argue that if researchers were able to present a clear connection between “taxpayer dollars” and funded research, the public would realize the value that science delivers. Prestwich and Wight argue further that a new cadre of researchers is involved in identifying real world problems, translating basic research into applications, and creating products as well as publications. Moving from basic research to applications that address real world problems is called translational research, and Prestwich and Wight see this research as a positive development in chemistry. Adam Heller (Bard et al., 2010) weighs in claiming that the pursuit of “patent-protected, people-serving products” was not “a sad sign of our times but a reawakening of the proud history of academic chemistry and chemical engineering” (p.
    [Show full text]
  • Enriching the Earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the Transformation of World Food Production. by Vaclav Smil. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2004
    Book Reviews / 383 nessing water power to produce scythes for farmers, spindles for textile mills, and cotton thread. Small emphasizes that these were not the activities of ab- sentee investors but of local men and women who mixed manufacturing with agriculture. Beauty and Convenience focuses on a farming community that has received scant attention from historians, but Small makes a convincing case that the way in which the farmers of Sutton fashioned and re-fashioned their houses and landscape reveals their full participation in the historic transformations of their era. Kenneth Hafertepe Baylor University Enriching the Earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the Transformation of World Food Production. By Vaclav Smil. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2004. 360 pp., $19.95, paperback, ISBN 0-262-69313-5. What is the most important technological invention in the twentieth century? Vaclav Smil makes the cogent argument that it is the discovery and industrial- ization of ammonia synthesis by Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch. Without indus- trial N-fixation, as much as two-fifths of the world’s population would starve for want of available protein in their diet, and major advances in high-pressure industrial processes would have been delayed. Likewise, the Haber-Bosch process facilitated world munitions production; encouraged agricultural ex- pansion onto marginal lands, leading to greater greenhouse emissions and soil degradation; and (because of inherent inefficiencies in nitrogen recovery by plants) has led to an unbalanced enrichment of natural ecosystems by nitrogen. It is an odd book given the title. History and society would be unalterably different without Haber and Bosch, but these protagonists do not appear un- til chapters four and five, respectively; then their lives are described in the most perfunctory manner.
    [Show full text]
  • EUGENE PAUL WIGNER November 17, 1902–January 1, 1995
    NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES E U G ENE PAUL WI G NER 1902—1995 A Biographical Memoir by FR E D E R I C K S E I T Z , E RICH V OG T , A N D AL V I N M. W E I NBER G Any opinions expressed in this memoir are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences. Biographical Memoir COPYRIGHT 1998 NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS WASHINGTON D.C. Courtesy of Atoms for Peace Awards, Inc. EUGENE PAUL WIGNER November 17, 1902–January 1, 1995 BY FREDERICK SEITZ, ERICH VOGT, AND ALVIN M. WEINBERG UGENE WIGNER WAS A towering leader of modern physics Efor more than half of the twentieth century. While his greatest renown was associated with the introduction of sym- metry theory to quantum physics and chemistry, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics for 1963, his scientific work encompassed an astonishing breadth of sci- ence, perhaps unparalleled during his time. In preparing this memoir, we have the impression we are attempting to record the monumental achievements of half a dozen scientists. There is the Wigner who demonstrated that symmetry principles are of great importance in quan- tum mechanics; who pioneered the application of quantum mechanics in the fields of chemical kinetics and the theory of solids; who was the first nuclear engineer; who formu- lated many of the most basic ideas in nuclear physics and nuclear chemistry; who was the prophet of quantum chaos; who served as a mathematician and philosopher of science; and the Wigner who was the supervisor and mentor of more than forty Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Gregg Herken Papers, Circa 1980-1990
    Gregg Herken Papers, circa 1980-1990 Finding aid prepared by Smithsonian Institution Archives Smithsonian Institution Archives Washington, D.C. Contact us at [email protected] Table of Contents Collection Overview ........................................................................................................ 1 Administrative Information .............................................................................................. 1 Descriptive Entry.............................................................................................................. 1 Names and Subjects ...................................................................................................... 1 Container Listing ............................................................................................................. 3 Gregg Herken Papers https://siarchives.si.edu/collections/siris_arc_252109 Collection Overview Repository: Smithsonian Institution Archives, Washington, D.C., [email protected] Title: Gregg Herken Papers Identifier: Accession 96-060 Date: circa 1980-1990 Extent: 2 cu. ft. (2 record storage boxes) Creator:: Herken, Gregg, 1947- Language: Language of Materials: English Administrative Information Prefered Citation Smithsonian Institution Archives, Accession 96-060, Gregg Herken Papers Access Restriction Donor permission required, Transferring office; 2/8/1996 Agreement of Transfer; Contact reference staff for details. Descriptive Entry This accession consists personal papers created by military historian Gregg Herken, Chairman of
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Barriers to Anglo-American Nuclear Cooperation
    3 HISTORIC BARRIERS TO ANGLO- AMERICAN NUCLEAR COOPERATION ANDREW BROWN Despite being the closest of allies, with shared values and language, at- tempts by the United Kingdom and the United States to reach accords on nuclear matters generated distrust and resentment but no durable arrangements until the Mutual Defense Agreement of 1958. There were times when the perceived national interests of the two countries were unsynchronized or at odds; periods when political leaders did not see eye to eye or made secret agreements that remained just that; and when espionage, propaganda, and public opinion caused addi- tional tensions. STATUS IMBALANCE The Magna Carta of the nuclear age is the two-part Frisch-Peierls mem- orandum. It was produced by two European émigrés, Otto Frisch and Rudolf Peierls, at Birmingham University in the spring of 1940. Un- like Einstein’s famous letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, with its vague warning that a powerful new bomb might be constructed from uranium, the Frisch-Peierls memorandum set out detailed technical arguments leading to the conclusion that “a moderate amount of U-235 [highly enriched uranium] would indeed constitute an extremely effi- cient explosive.” Like Einstein, Frisch and Peierls were worried that the Germans might already be working toward an atomic bomb against which there would be no defense. By suggesting “a counter-threat with a similar bomb,” they first enunciated the concept of mutual deterrence and recommended “start[ing] production as soon as possible, even if 36 Historic Barriers to Anglo-American Nuclear Cooperation 37 it is not intended to use the bomb as a means of attack.”1 Professor Mark Oliphant from Birmingham convinced the UK authorities that “the whole thing must be taken rather seriously,”2 and a small group of senior scientists came together as the Maud Committee.
    [Show full text]
  • PERSPECTIVES in AMERICAN HISTORY by Leo Szilard Edited By
    OFFPRINT FROM PERSPECTIVES IN AMERICAN HISTORY VOLUME II • 1968 Reminiscences by Leo Szilard edited by Gertrud Weiss Szilard and Kathleen R. Windsor REMINISCENCES* by LEO SZILARD edited by Gertrud Weiss Szilard and Kathleen R. Winsor [EDITORs' NOTE: Leo Szilard at various times considered writing his own biography, but he never did. He had a sense of history, however, and care­ fully preserved, in folde~s marked "History," all correspondence and other documents which he thought to be of historical signiftcance. In 1951, when he seriously contemplated writing the history of the Manhattan Project, he organized the pertinent documents into ten folders, by different topics and time periods. The documents which are appended here come largely from this collection which Szilard selected himself. He also drafted an outline for his memoirs. During a period of serious illness in 1960, which kept him in the hospital for a year, he used a tape recorder-which had been put into his sick room for the purpose of an oral history project-to dictate instead the first draft of The Voice of the Dolphins and Other Stories (New York, 1961), a whimsical history of the future twenty-five years, which seemed vastly more important to him than the history of the past quarter century. However, at times he enjoyed giving interviews to interested visitors. On a few such occasions his wife switched on his tape recorder. What follows is an exact transcription of parts of these tapes, with editing limited to the minimum necessary to change spoken to written English. These highly personal, pungent, and incisive comments by a leading par­ ticipant in three great episodes in recent American history-the migration of intellectuals from Hitler's Europe to America; the development of a nuclear chain reaction; and the effort to prevent the use of atomic bombs and to estab­ lish civilian control of atomic energy-are published here by courtesy of Mrs.
    [Show full text]
  • M-1392 Publication Title: Bush-Conant File
    Publication Number: M-1392 Publication Title: Bush-Conant File Relating to the Development of the Atomic Bomb, 1940-1945 Date Published: n.d. BUSH-CONANT FILE RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ATOMIC BOMB, 1940-1945 The Bush-Conant File, reproduced on the 14 rolls of this microfilm publication, M1392, documents the research and development of the atomic bomb from 1940 to 1945. These records were maintained in Dr. James B. Conant's office for himself and Dr. Vannevar Bush. Bush was director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD, 1941-46), chairman of the National Defense Research Committee (NDRC) prior to the establishment of OSRD (1940-41), chairman of the Military Policy Committee (1942-45) and member of the Interim Committee (May-June 1945). During this period Conant served under Bush as chairman of the National Defense Research Committee of OSRD (1941-46), chairman of the S-1 Executive Committee (1942-43), alternate chairman of the Military Policy Committee (1942-45), scientific advisor to Maj. Gen. Leslie R. Groves (1943-45), and member of the Interim Committee (May-June 1945). The file, which consists primarily of letters, memorandums, and reports, is part of the Records of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, Record Group (RG) 227. The Bush-Conant File documents OSRD's role in promoting basic scientific research and development on nuclear fission before August 1942. In addition, the files document Bush and Conant's continuing roles, as chairman and alternate chairman of the Military Policy Committee, in overseeing the army's development of the atomic bomb during World War II and, as members of the short-lived Interim Committee, in advising on foreign policy and domestic legislation for the regulation of atomic energy immediately after the war.
    [Show full text]
  • Dr. Leo Szilard Dead at 66 Death Came Quietly Yesterday to Dr
    Dr. Leo Szilard Dead at 66 Death came quietly yesterday to Dr. Leo Szilard, 66, whose urging caused Dr. Albert E instein t o suggest work on the atomic bomb. and who devoted th est of hu; life to efforts to prevent the loosing of the invention on n1ankind. Page 32. ) - ) New York ]{eralb m'tioutte Sunday, May 31, 1964 Man Behind the A-Bomh-Dr. Leo Szilard Dies On March 3, 1939, Dr. Leo Enrico Fermi in starting the He came to the United him to "speak directly and television discussions about Weinberg shared the $150,000 Szilard and Dr. Walter H. first sustained nuclear chain States in 1938 and resumed personally to the American peace, quarrreled with Dr. Atoms for Peace award o! _ Zinn conducted a nuclear reaction at the University of his researches at Columbia people" on Russian proposals Teller about U. S. atomic po­ the Ford Motor Company experiment at Columbia Uni­ Chicago. University, working t here for postwar esettlement. The licy and continued to think Fund. versity, which Dr. Szilard The rest of his life w-as de­ until 1940. He , Dr. Fermi State Department refused up ways of averting an atomic At the University of Chb later described in there voted to efforts to keep lm­ and other scientists wel·e him permission to communi­ war. cago, Dr. Szilard did research _ words: manity from destroying itself greatly frustrated by the cate with Stalin and he pub­ In 1961 , he founded a in the biophysics of aging.,. "Everything was ready and with the atomic and hydro­ refusal of military leaders to lished it as an open letter in "Council for a Liveable and, in 1959, announced a all we had to do was to turn gen bombs.
    [Show full text]
  • Physics, Physicists and the Bomb
    editorial Physics, physicists and the bomb Scientists involved in nuclear research before and after the end of the Second World War continue to be the subjects of historical and cultural fascination. Almost 70 years since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the military, historical and moral implications of the nuclear bomb remain firmly lodged in the public’s consciousness. Images of mushroom clouds serve as powerful reminders of the destructive capability that countries armed with nuclear weapons have access to — a capability that continues to play a primary role in shaping the present geopolitical landscape of the world. For physicists, the development of the nuclear bomb generally brings up conflicting feelings. On the one hand, physicists played a central role in helping to create it; on the SCIENCE SOURCE/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY PHOTO SOURCE/SCIENCE SCIENCE other, they were also among the first to realize © its terrifying power. This contradiction is most Manhattan Project physicists at Los Alamos. From left to right: Kenneth Bainbridge, Joseph Hoffman, famously epitomized by Robert Oppenheimer, Robert Oppenheimer, Louis Hempelmann, Robert Bacher, Victor Weisskopf and Richard Dodson. the scientific director of the Manhattan Project, who, on witnessing the first test of the atomic bomb, the Trinity test, in July 1945, in this context that the public can truly come race following the Second World War, there was reminded of a quote from the Hindu to feel the growing sense of disillusionment is no question that Churchill was an early scripture Bhagavad Gita: “Now, I am become of those scientists as they realized their goal; and influential champion for government- Death, the destroyer of worlds.” a sense of lost innocence, that knowledge that sponsored science and technology in Britain.
    [Show full text]