DOCSLIB.ORG

ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: the PRINCIPAL UNCERTAINTY: U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: the PRINCIPAL UNCERTAINTY: U.S ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: THE PRINCIPAL UNCERTAINTY: U.S. ATOMIC INTELLIGENCE, 1942-1949 Vincent Jonathan Houghton, Doctor of Philosophy, 2013 Dissertation directed by: Professor Jon T. Sumida Department of History The subject of this dissertation is the U. S. atomic intelligence effort against both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in the period 1942-1949. Both of these intelligence efforts operated within the framework of an entirely new field of intelligence: scientific intelligence. Because of the atomic bomb, for the first time in history a nation’s scientific resources – the abilities of its scientists, the state of its research institutions and laboratories, its scientific educational system – became a key consideration in assessing a potential national security threat. Considering how successfully the United States conducted the atomic intelligence effort against the Germans in the Second World War, why was the United States Government unable to create an effective atomic intelligence apparatus to monitor Soviet scientific and nuclear capabilities? Put another way, why did the effort against the Soviet Union fail so badly, so completely, in all potential metrics – collection, analysis, and dissemination? In addition, did the general assessment of German and Soviet science lead to particular assumptions about their abilities to produce nuclear weapons? How did this assessment affect American presuppositions regarding the German and Soviet strategic threats? Despite extensive historical work on atomic intelligence, the current historiography has not adequately addressed these questions. THE PRINCIPAL UNCERTAINTY: U.S. ATOMIC INTELLIGENCE, 1942-1949 By Vincent Jonathan Houghton Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2013 Advisory Committee: Professor Jon T. Sumida, Chair Professor Thomas D. Cohen Professor David Freund Professor Whitman H. Ridgway Dr. David A. Rosenberg Acknowledgements This dissertation could not have been completed without the advice and guidance of Professor Jon T. Sumida, who suffered through draft after draft1 of my attempts to build a coherent argument. In addition, professors David Freund, Madeline Zilfi, Thomas Friedel, Kate Keane, Keith Olson, Nick Lambert, and Whitman Ridgway have made critical suggestions and offered their support. Outside of the Department of History, Thomas Cohen of the Department of Physics provided invaluable information about nuclear physics.2 Finally, I am grateful for the guidance and support of one of the world’s foremost experts on American nuclear policy, David A. Rosenberg. His knowledge of this subject, and his willingness to share that knowledge, was integral to the completion of this dissertation. Thanks have to go to the office staff of the Department of History: Jodi Hall, Paula Barriga-Sanchez, Catalina Toala, Courtney Lanier, and Star Angelopoulos. They truly run the department, and without their constant assistance this dissertation would have been impossible. Of course, this dissertation could not have been done without the support of my family, especially my wife Kate. It is only because of you that I had the strength and perseverance to get this done. 1 After draft, after draft, after draft… 2 Although he bears no blame for any scientific mistakes on my part. I am a historian after all. ii Table of Contents Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………ii Introduction………………………………………………………………………1 Chapter 1: A Reasonable Fear…………………………………..………………18 Chapter 2: Making Something Out of Nothing…………………………..……..52 Chapter 3: Alsos………………………………………………………………...97 Chapter 4: Transitions………………………………………………………….146 Chapter 5: Regression………………………………………………………….185 Chapter 6: Whistling in the Dark………………………………………………239 Conclusion……………………………………………………………….……..276 Bibliography……………….……………………………………………….…..288 iii Introduction: A “Curious Incident” In September 1949, the U.S. intelligence establishment was shocked to discover that the Soviet Union had detonated its first atomic bomb. Coming just four years after the United States had become the world’s first nuclear power, the Soviet atomic bomb was produced in half the time American intelligence had predicted. The consensus among the intelligence community, American scientists, the military, and the civilian political leadership had been that the earliest probable date for a Soviet atomic bomb was 1953. Somehow the Soviet Union had exceeded the expectations of American national security experts by almost four years. Compounding the confusion of U.S. leadership was the fact that, during the Second World War, American intelligence had engaged in an effort against Nazi Germany that had correctly assessed the status of the German atomic bomb program. The German program had been given considerable attention by American intelligence, yet despite the belief that the German atomic bomb project was significantly ahead of the progress of the American Manhattan Project, in 1944 U.S. intelligence discovered that the Germans would not develop an atomic bomb in time to affect the outcome of the war. Both of these intelligence efforts operated within the framework of an entirely new field of intelligence: scientific intelligence. For the first time in history a nation’s scientific resources – the abilities of its scientists, the state of its research institutions and laboratories, its scientific educational system – became a key consideration in assessing a potential national security threat. Information concerning a nation’s technological 1 capabilities had been a priority for U.S. intelligence organizations since the American Revolution. Yet scientific intelligence was a product of the Second World War and the development – and strategic implications – of the atomic bomb. The atomic bomb itself was a direct application of scientific theory to a weapon of war, the culmination of four decades of scientific research into the physics of the atom. Nuclear weapons, therefore, made intelligence about an enemy nation’s scientific abilities an integral part of strategic planning. It was no longer sufficient to know just the ramifications of an enemy’s deployed weapons systems or technological achievements. With the advent of a weapon of unprecedented destructive force, it became paramount to acquire information about an enemy’s scientists, research laboratories, universities, and overall scientific infrastructure in order to correctly assess the immenseness of dire strategic threat. Such information was indeed crucial to national survival. Scientific intelligence also forced a change in thinking about intelligence collection and analysis. Other types of intelligence can base their collection and analysis efforts on tangible things: technological intelligence can look at an aircraft and calculate the air speed, payload, survivability; military intelligence can count tanks, troops, divisions; economic intelligence can determine industrial capability, monitor debt, calculate GDP. Yet scientific intelligence is primarily focused on future potential, on how the scientific abilities of a particular state might, at some point, threaten national security. In doing so, scientific intelligence takes general assessments of a nation’s scientific ability and presupposes that these findings are indicators of a potential strategic threat. In other words, assessments made about particular scientific research with strategic 2 applications – such as the ability to develop nuclear weapons – are extrapolated from general assumptions made about the totality of a nation’s scientific abilities. The subject of this dissertation is the U. S. atomic intelligence effort against both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in the period 1942-1949.1 In 1942 American scientists began to fear the possibility that Germany would develop and deploy an atomic bomb before the Manhattan Project could build its own weapon. As a result, American scientists created an ad hoc organization for atomic intelligence, drawing upon their scientific contacts in Europe and their scientific experience to learn and discern what they could about the German atomic bomb program. In the summer of 1943 the U.S. Government authorized Manhattan Project director Brigadier General Leslie Groves to take complete control of all atomic intelligence-related operations. This action was a response to the acute fear of German scientific ability, the ineffectiveness of American scientists in collecting any actionable intelligence on their own, as well as the recognition that there were no existing intelligence organizations that could carry out such a difficult task. In doing so, the government gave Groves unprecedented power to centralize and consolidate intelligence functions. A little over a year later, the decision to give Groves that responsibility paid off. The Manhattan Engineer District (MED - the formal name of the Manhattan Project) 1 During the Second World War, American atomic intelligence made no considerable effort to collect information on atomic developments in Japan. There were several reasons Japan was dismissed as a potential atomic threat. First, it was believed that Japan did not have the necessary raw materials to produce an atomic weapon. Second, U.S. intelligence assumed that Japan did not have the necessary industrial capability for an atomic program on the scale needed to produce deployable atomic weapons. Third, while the American scientific
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nuclear Technology
    Nuclear Technology Joseph A. Angelo, Jr. GREENWOOD PRESS NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY Sourcebooks in Modern Technology Space Technology Joseph A. Angelo, Jr. Sourcebooks in Modern Technology Nuclear Technology Joseph A. Angelo, Jr. GREENWOOD PRESS Westport, Connecticut • London Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Angelo, Joseph A. Nuclear technology / Joseph A. Angelo, Jr. p. cm.—(Sourcebooks in modern technology) Includes index. ISBN 1–57356–336–6 (alk. paper) 1. Nuclear engineering. I. Title. II. Series. TK9145.A55 2004 621.48—dc22 2004011238 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data is available. Copyright © 2004 by Joseph A. Angelo, Jr. All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced, by any process or technique, without the express written consent of the publisher. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 2004011238 ISBN: 1–57356–336–6 First published in 2004 Greenwood Press, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881 An imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. www.greenwood.com Printed in the United States of America The paper used in this book complies with the Permanent Paper Standard issued by the National Information Standards Organization (Z39.48–1984). 10987654321 To my wife, Joan—a wonderful companion and soul mate Contents Preface ix Chapter 1. History of Nuclear Technology and Science 1 Chapter 2. Chronology of Nuclear Technology 65 Chapter 3. Profiles of Nuclear Technology Pioneers, Visionaries, and Advocates 95 Chapter 4. How Nuclear Technology Works 155 Chapter 5. Impact 315 Chapter 6. Issues 375 Chapter 7. The Future of Nuclear Technology 443 Chapter 8. Glossary of Terms Used in Nuclear Technology 485 Chapter 9. Associations 539 Chapter 10.
    [Show full text]
  • Des Origines Du Programme Nucléaire Français À Nos Jours
    Résistance et Dissuasion Des originesRésistance du programme et nucléaire Dissuasion français à nos jours Des originesRésistance du programme et nucléaire Dissuasion français à nos jours Des origines du programme nucléaire français à nos jours EXPOSITION Résistance et Dissuasion Des origines du programme nucléaire français à nos jours © D.R. – ECPAD/Défense / Archives historiques CEA / Archives © D.R. – ECPAD/Défense Résistance et Dissuasion Des origines du programme nucléaire français à nos jours LE RÔLE PIONNIER DE LA FRANCE DANS LE DOMAINE DE L’éNERGIE NUCLÉAIRE De la découverte de la radioactivité naturelle à celle de la radioactivité artificielle Extrait du discours de réception du prix Nobel de physique, le 6 juin 1905, par Pierre Curie « (…) On peut concevoir encore que dans des mains criminelles le radium puisse devenir très dangereux, ès la fin du XIXe siècle, la France exerce un rôle majeur dans la Ci-dessus : Henri Becquerel dans son laboratoire, 1903 – D.R. et ici on peut se demander si l’humanité a avantage découverte de l’énergie atomique. C’est ainsi que le physicien Henri à connaître les secrets de la nature, si elle est mûre Becquerel découvre en 1896 le rayonnement émis par les sels À gauche : Pierre et Marie Curie dans leur laboratoire, vers 1898 pour en profiter ou si cette connaissance ne lui sera D Musée Curie (coll. ACJC) d’uranium ; c’est une découverte considérable car il vient de mettre en pas nuisible. Ci-dessous : Frédéric Joliot et Irène Curie dans leur laboratoire, évidence le phénomène de la radioactivité naturelle. L’étape suivante vers 1934 – Musée Curie (coll.
    [Show full text]
  • Revisiting One World Or None
    Revisiting One World or None. Sixty years ago, atomic energy was new and the world was still reverberating from the shocks of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Immediately after the end of the Second World War, the first instinct of the administration and Congress was to protect the “secret” of the atomic bomb. The atomic scientists—what today would be called nuclear physicists— who had worked on the Manhattan project to develop atomic bombs recognized that there was no secret, that any technically advanced nation could, with adequate resources, reproduce what they had done. They further believed that when a single aircraft, eventually a single missile, armed with a single bomb could destroy an entire city, no defense system would ever be adequate. Given this combination, the world seemed headed for a period of unprecedented danger. Many of the scientists who had worked on the Manhattan Project felt a special responsibility to encourage a public debate about these new and terrifying products of modern science. They formed an organization, the Federation of Atomic Scientists, dedicated to avoiding the threat of nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation. Convinced that neither guarding the nuclear “secret” nor any defense could keep the world safe, they encouraged international openness in nuclear physics research and in the expected nuclear power industry as the only way to avoid a disastrous arms race in nuclear weapons. William Higinbotham, the first Chairman of the Association of Los Alamos Scientists and the first Chairman of the Federation of Atomic Scientists, wanted to expand the organization beyond those who had worked on the Manhattan Project, for two reasons.
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of Military Nuclear Strategy And
    The Development of Military Nuclear Strategy and Anglo-American Relations, 1939 – 1958 Submitted by: Geoffrey Charles Mallett Skinner to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History, July 2018 This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. (Signature) ……………………………………………………………………………… 1 Abstract There was no special governmental partnership between Britain and America during the Second World War in atomic affairs. A recalibration is required that updates and amends the existing historiography in this respect. The wartime atomic relations of those countries were cooperative at the level of science and resources, but rarely that of the state. As soon as it became apparent that fission weaponry would be the main basis of future military power, America decided to gain exclusive control over the weapon. Britain could not replicate American resources and no assistance was offered to it by its conventional ally. America then created its own, closed, nuclear system and well before the 1946 Atomic Energy Act, the event which is typically seen by historians as the explanation of the fracturing of wartime atomic relations. Immediately after 1945 there was insufficient systemic force to create change in the consistent American policy of atomic monopoly. As fusion bombs introduced a new magnitude of risk, and as the nuclear world expanded and deepened, the systemic pressures grew.
    [Show full text]
  • Bringing out the Dead Alison Abbott Reviews the Story of How a DNA Forensics Team Cracked a Grisly Puzzle
    BOOKS & ARTS COMMENT DADO RUVIC/REUTERS/CORBIS DADO A forensics specialist from the International Commission on Missing Persons examines human remains from a mass grave in Tomašica, Bosnia and Herzegovina. FORENSIC SCIENCE Bringing out the dead Alison Abbott reviews the story of how a DNA forensics team cracked a grisly puzzle. uring nine sweltering days in July Bosnia’s Million Bones tells the story of how locating, storing, pre- 1995, Bosnian Serb soldiers slaugh- innovative DNA forensic science solved the paring and analysing tered about 7,000 Muslim men and grisly conundrum of identifying each bone the million or more Dboys from Srebrenica in Bosnia. They took so that grieving families might find some bones. It was in large them to several different locations and shot closure. part possible because them, or blew them up with hand grenades. This is an important book: it illustrates the during those fate- They then scooped up the bodies with bull- unspeakable horrors of a complex war whose ful days in July 1995, dozers and heavy earth-moving equipment, causes have always been hard for outsiders to aerial reconnais- and dumped them into mass graves. comprehend. The author, a British journalist, sance missions by the Bosnia’s Million It was the single most inhuman massacre has the advantage of on-the-ground knowl- Bones: Solving the United States and the of the Bosnian war, which erupted after the edge of the war and of the International World’s Greatest North Atlantic Treaty break-up of Yugoslavia and lasted from 1992 Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP), an Forensic Puzzle Organization had to 1995, leaving some 100,000 dead.
    [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]
  • The Russian-A(Merican) Bomb: the Role of Espionage in the Soviet Atomic Bomb Project
    J. Undergrad. Sci. 3: 103-108 (Summer 1996) History of Science The Russian-A(merican) Bomb: The Role of Espionage in the Soviet Atomic Bomb Project MICHAEL I. SCHWARTZ physicists and project coordinators ought to be analyzed so as to achieve an understanding of the project itself, and given the circumstances and problems of the project, just how Introduction successful those scientists could have been. Third and fi- nally, the role that espionage played will be analyzed, in- There was no “Russian” atomic bomb. There only vestigating the various pieces of information handed over was an American one, masterfully discovered by by Soviet spies and its overall usefulness and contribution Soviet spies.”1 to the bomb project. This claim echoes a new theme in Russia regarding Soviet Nuclear Physics—Pre-World War II the Soviet atomic bomb project that has arisen since the democratic revolution of the 1990s. The release of the KGB As aforementioned, Paul Josephson believes that by (Commissariat for State Security) documents regarding the the eve of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, Soviet sci- role that espionage played in the Soviet atomic bomb project entists had the technical capability to embark upon an atom- has raised new questions about one of the most remark- ics weapons program. He cites the significant contributions able and rapid scientific developments in history. Despite made by Soviet physicists to the growing international study both the advanced state of Soviet nuclear physics in the of the nucleus, including the 1932 splitting of the lithium atom years leading up to World War II and reported scientific by proton bombardment,7 Igor Kurchatov’s 1935 discovery achievements of the actual Soviet atomic bomb project, of the isomerism of artificially radioactive atoms, and the strong evidence will be provided that suggests that the So- fact that L.
    [Show full text]
  • Lew Kowarski
    Lew Kowarski 1907-1979 Avant-propos ~~~'\ John B. Adams Les textes publies dans le present document sont ceux directeur de son Departement des sciences naturelles. des allocutions prononcees !ors d'une reunion a la me­ Denis de Rougemont, comme Lew Kowarski, a done pris moire de Lew Kowarski, qui s'est tenue au CERN a une grande part a la creation du CERN et s'est trouve en Geneve le 20 decembre 1979. contact avec Kowarski, tant a ce moment-la que pendant Ces allocutions couvrent les differentes phases de la vie Jes annees ou ce dernier a travaille au CERN. Leurs rela­ et de !'oeuvre de Lew Kowarski, et chaque orateur s'est tions se resserrerent encore apres que Kowarski eut pris sa trouve en association etroite avec lui a differentes epoques retraite. de sa carriere. Jean Mussard a egalement concouru a la creation du Jules Gueron a rencontre Kowarski avant la seconde CERN car, a l'epoque ou !'UNESCO entreprenait d'ela­ guerre mondiale alors qu'il travaillait au laboratoire de borer le projet d'un Laboratoire europeen de physique Joliot a Paris. Ensemble, ils entrerent a «Tube Alloys», nucleaire, ii etait directeur adjoint de la Division pour la nom de code pour le projet d'energie nucleaire en Angle­ cooperation scientifique internationale a l'UNESCO et terre, et se rendirent au Canada quand ce projet y fut Pierre Auger le chargea de cette elaboration. C'est ainsi transfere en 1943. Apres la guerre, tous deux devinrent qu'il entra en contact avec Lew Kowarski et ii resta en directeurs au CEA, en France, puis leurs itineraires se rapport etroit avec lui jusqu'au deces de celui-ci.
    [Show full text]
  • UC San Diego UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations
    UC San Diego UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title The new prophet : Harold C. Urey, scientist, atheist, and defender of religion Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/3j80v92j Author Shindell, Matthew Benjamin Publication Date 2011 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO The New Prophet: Harold C. Urey, Scientist, Atheist, and Defender of Religion A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in History (Science Studies) by Matthew Benjamin Shindell Committee in charge: Professor Naomi Oreskes, Chair Professor Robert Edelman Professor Martha Lampland Professor Charles Thorpe Professor Robert Westman 2011 Copyright Matthew Benjamin Shindell, 2011 All rights reserved. The Dissertation of Matthew Benjamin Shindell is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically: ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________ Chair University of California, San Diego 2011 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page……………………………………………………………………...... iii Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………. iv Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………….
    [Show full text]
  • Der Mythos Der Deutschen Atombombe
    Langsame oder schnelle Neutronen? Der Mythos der deutschen Atombombe Prof. Dr. Manfred Popp Karlsruher Institut für Technologie Ringvorlesung zum Gedächtnis an Lise Meitner Freie Universität Berlin 29. Oktober 2018 In diesem Beitrag geht es zwar um Arbeiten zur Kernphysik in Deutschland während des 2.Weltkrieges, an denen Lise Meitner wegen ihrer Emigration 1938 nicht teilnahm. Es geht aber um das Thema Kernspaltung, zu dessen Verständnis sie wesentliches beigetragen hat, um die Arbeit vieler, gut vertrauter, ehemaliger Kollegen und letztlich um das Schicksal der deutschen Physik unter den Nationalsozialisten, die ihre geistige Heimat gewesen war. Da sie nach dem Abwurf der Bombe auf Hiroshima auch als „Mutter der Atombombe“ diffamiert wurde, ist es ihr gewiss nicht gleichgültig gewesen, wie ihr langjähriger Partner und Freund Otto Hahn und seine Kollegen während des Krieges mit dem Problem der möglichen Atombombe umgegangen sind. 1. Stand der Geschichtsschreibung Die Geschichtsschreibung über das deutsche Uranprojekt 1939-1945 ist eine Domäne amerikanischer und britischer Historiker. Für die deutschen Geschichtsforscher hatte eines der wenigen im Ergebnis harmlosen Kapitel der Geschichte des 3. Reiches keine Priorität. Unter den alliierten Historikern hat sich Mark Walker seit seiner Dissertation1 durchgesetzt. Sein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Kaiser Wilhelm-Gesellschaft im 3. Reich beginnt mit den Worten: „The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Physics is best known as the place where Werner Heisenberg worked on nuclear weapons for Hitler.“2 Im Jahr 2016 habe ich zum ersten Mal belegt, dass diese Schlussfolgerung auf Fehlinterpretationen der Dokumente und auf dem Ignorieren physikalischer Fakten beruht.3 Seit Walker gilt: Nicht an fehlenden Kenntnissen sei die deutsche Atombombe gescheitert, sondern nur an den ökonomischen Engpässen der deutschen Kriegswirtschaft: „An eine Bombenentwicklung wäre [...] auch bei voller Unterstützung des Regimes nicht zu denken gewesen.
    [Show full text]
  • Undergraduate Lecture Notes in Physics
    Undergraduate Lecture Notes in Physics Series Editors Neil Ashby William Brantley Michael Fowler Michael Inglis Elena Sassi Helmy S. Sherif Heinz Klose For further volumes: http://www.springer.com/series/8917 Undergraduate Lecture Notes in Physics (ULNP) publishes authoritative texts covering topics throughout pure and applied physics. Each title in the series is suitable as a basis for undergraduate instruction, typically containing practice problems, worked examples, chapter summaries, and suggestions for further reading. ULNP titles must provide at least one of the following: • An exceptionally clear and concise treatment of a standard undergraduate subject. • A solid undergraduate-level introduction to a graduate, advanced, or non-stan- dard subject. • A novel perspective or an unusual approach to teaching a subject. ULNP especially encourages new, original, and idiosyncratic approaches to physics teaching at the undergraduate level. The purpose of ULNP is to provide intriguing, absorbing books that will continue to be the reader’s preferred reference throughout their academic career. Series Editors Neil Ashby Professor, Professor Emeritus, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA William Brantley Professor, Furman University, Greenville, SC, USA Michael Fowler Professor, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA Michael Inglis Professor, SUNY Suffolk County Community College, Selden, NY, USA Elena Sassi Professor, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy Helmy Sherif Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada Bruce Cameron Reed The History and Science of the Manhattan Project 123 Bruce Cameron Reed Department of Physics Alma College Alma, MI USA ISSN 2192-4791 ISSN 2192-4805 (electronic) ISBN 978-3-642-40296-8 ISBN 978-3-642-40297-5 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-40297-5 Springer Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London Library of Congress Control Number: 2013946925 Ó Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014 This work is subject to copyright.
    [Show full text]
  • Max Planck Institute for the History of Science Werner Heisenberg And
    MAX-PLANCK-INSTITUT FÜR WISSENSCHAFTSGESCHICHTE Max Planck Institute for the History of Science PREPRINT 203 (2002) Horst Kant Werner Heisenberg and the German Uranium Project Otto Hahn and the Declarations of Mainau and Göttingen Werner Heisenberg and the German Uranium Project* Horst Kant Werner Heisenberg’s (1901-1976) involvement in the German Uranium Project is the most con- troversial aspect of his life. The controversial discussions on it go from whether Germany at all wanted to built an atomic weapon or only an energy supplying machine (the last only for civil purposes or also for military use for instance in submarines), whether the scientists wanted to support or to thwart such efforts, whether Heisenberg and the others did really understand the mechanisms of an atomic bomb or not, and so on. Examples for both extreme positions in this controversy represent the books by Thomas Powers Heisenberg’s War. The Secret History of the German Bomb,1 who builds up him to a resistance fighter, and by Paul L. Rose Heisenberg and the Nazi Atomic Bomb Project – A Study in German Culture,2 who characterizes him as a liar, fool and with respect to the bomb as a poor scientist; both books were published in the 1990s. In the first part of my paper I will sum up the main facts, known on the German Uranium Project, and in the second part I will discuss some aspects of the role of Heisenberg and other German scientists, involved in this project. Although there is already written a lot on the German Uranium Project – and the best overview up to now supplies Mark Walker with his book German National Socialism and the quest for nuclear power, which was published in * Paper presented on a conference in Moscow (November 13/14, 2001) at the Institute for the History of Science and Technology [àÌÒÚËÚÛÚ ËÒÚÓËË ÂÒÚÂÒÚ‚ÓÁ̇ÌËfl Ë ÚÂıÌËÍË ËÏ.
    [Show full text]