DOCSLIB.ORG

Physics, Physicists and the Bomb

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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. Although Oppenheimer and the has been unleashed cannot be ‘unknown’. Although allies during the war, rising Manhattan Project have certainly become Although driven by the US government political and military tensions between the part of the popular narrative of the events and associated with Los Alamos, it is United States and the Soviet Union stoked leading to the end of the Second World also interesting to consider the genesis of by nuclear weapons soon gave rise to the War and the beginning of the nuclear industrial-scale nuclear research programmes Cold War. In Half-Life — reviewed on age, many other figures and events are, to more broadly. Britain had the lead for a short page 207 by Andrea Taroni — Frank Close the general public at least, much less well while in the early 1940s, mostly because of tells the story of Bruno Pontecorvo, the known. However, as popular sitcoms such as two scientists based there, Rudolf Peierls and only Western scientist involved in wartime The Big Bang Theory attest, there currently Otto Frisch, who first realized that the amount nuclear projects to have defected to the seems to be an appetite for accurate portrayals of uranium required to sustain a nuclear chain Soviet Union. What emerges from this of scientists on television and cinema screens. reaction was roughly five kilograms — far less biography is a brilliant physicist and a Given the upcoming anniversaries associated than previously thought. But after May 1940, complex man, with a multitude of possible with the war, now is a good time for cultural they also had a prime minister who had an reasons for choosing to defect. Like many of events that seek to shed light and bring interest in nuclear technology, in the shape his colleagues in the 1940s, his early aversion attention to the fascinating history of nuclear of Winston Churchill. His largely under- to fascism and his international outlook research in the 1940s. appreciated scientific legacy is the topic of made him sympathetic to communist ideals. Tom Morton-Smith’s Oppenheimer, a new Churchill’s Scientists, an exhibition at London’s But as outdated and misplaced as these ideals play performed by the Royal Shakespeare Science Museum — reviewed on page 209 by may appear today, any moral judgement of Company in Stratford-upon-Avon, England, Luke Fleet. Pontecorvo is almost beside the point, at is a case in point. As Iulia Georgescu describes The history of Britain’s role in the race least compared with the ethical quandary in her review on page 208 of this issue, the play to develop the atomic bomb, although little posed by the invention of the bomb itself. not only provides an engrossing account of known, has recently been examined in The ‘original sin’ of modern physics is the first ever ‘big science’ project — a template Graham Farmelo’s book, Churchill’s Bomb. therefore something all physicists have to live that continues to influence the way science is Although it paints a picture of diplomatic with, one way or another. However, although carried out today — it also provides a realistic misunderstandings and missed opportunities by no means the only template for carrying description of the excitement, pressure on both sides of the Atlantic, in the end it out fundamental research, big science and worries that scientists working on the was inevitable that the British atomic bomb projects such as CERN are now synonymous Manhattan Project would have experienced at project, known as Tube Alloys, would be with international collaboration and the time, and indeed the serendipity, teamwork subsumed into the far larger and more achieving a fundamental understanding of and managerial brilliance that helped to focused Manhattan Project. And although nature’s inner workings. Perhaps it is a search ensure the project was, ultimately, successful he eventually became intensely preoccupied for atonement, as much as pure curiosity, that in delivering the bomb. It is by placing things with easing tensions in the Cold War arms now drives these incredible endeavours. ❐ NATURE PHYSICS | VOL 11 | MARCH 2015 | www.nature.com/naturephysics 201 © 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Secrets Jeremy Bernstein
    INFERENCE / Vol. 6, No. 1 Secrets Jeremy Bernstein Restricted Data: The History of Nuclear Secrecy in the decided to found a rival weapons laboratory. Even if Teller United States had offered me a job, I doubt that I would have accepted.3 by Alex Wellerstein After obtaining my degree, I was offered a job that University of Chicago Press, 528 pp., $35.00. would keep me in Cambridge for at least another year. One year became two and at the end of my second year I was uclear weapons have been shrouded in secrecy accepted at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. from the very beginning. After plutonium was It was around this time that the chairman of the physics discovered at the University of California in department at Harvard, Kenneth Bainbridge, came to me NDecember 1940, researchers led by Glenn Seaborg submit- with an offer. Bainbridge had been an important figure at ted a pair of letters to the Physical Review. The details of Los Alamos during the war. Robert Oppenheimer had put their discovery were withheld from publication until after him in charge of the site in New Mexico where the Trinity the war.1 Once the project to make a nuclear weapon got test had taken place.4 Bainbridge told me that the labora- underway, secrecy became a very serious matter indeed. tory was offering summer jobs to young PhDs and asked The story of these efforts and how they evolved after the if I was interested. I was very interested. Los Alamos had war is the subject of Alex Wellerstein’s Restricted Data: an almost mystical significance for me due to its history The History of Nuclear Secrecy in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2013.Pdf
    ATOMIC HERITAGE FOUNDATION Preserving & Interpreting Manhattan Project History & Legacy preserving history ANNUAL REPORT 2013 WHY WE SHOULD PRESERVE THE MANHATTAN PROJECT “The factories and bombs that Manhattan Project scientists, engineers, and workers built were physical objects that depended for their operation on physics, chemistry, metallurgy, and other nat- ural sciences, but their social reality - their meaning, if you will - was human, social, political....We preserve what we value of the physical past because it specifically embodies our social past....When we lose parts of our physical past, we lose parts of our common social past as well.” “The new knowledge of nuclear energy has undoubtedly limited national sovereignty and scaled down the destructiveness of war. If that’s not a good enough reason to work for and contribute to the Manhattan Project’s historic preservation, what would be? It’s certainly good enough for me.” ~Richard Rhodes, “Why We Should Preserve the Manhattan Project,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May/June 2006 Photographs clockwise from top: J. Robert Oppenheimer, General Leslie R. Groves pinning an award on Enrico Fermi, Leona Woods Marshall, the Alpha Racetrack at the Y-12 Plant, and the Bethe House on Bathtub Row. Front cover: A Bruggeman Ranch property. Back cover: Bronze statues by Susanne Vertel of J. Robert Oppenheimer and General Leslie Groves at Los Alamos. Table of Contents BOARD MEMBERS & ADVISORY COMMITTEE........3 Cindy Kelly, Dorothy and Clay Per- Letter from the President..........................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Cold War Requisitions, Scientific Manpower, and the Production of American Physicists After World War II
    DAVID KAISER* Cold War requisitions, scientific manpower, and the production of American physicists after World War II 1. RAYMOND BIRGE’S “MAIN OBJECTIVE” “THE MAIN OBJECTIVE of this department of physics,” Raymond Birge wrote in late May 1955, “is to train Ph.D.’s in physics.” Birge— iconic, somber, a displaced Yankee who traced his New England ancestry nine generations back—had been chair of Berkeley’s physics department for twenty-two years; by the mid-1950s, it was the nation’s largest. At the time he explained his department’s “main objec- tive,” Birge was the retiring president of the American Physical Society (APS). Birge and his colleagues in Berkeley’s physics department had emphasized the importance of its graduate program many times before in annual budget requests to the university administration and in funding reports to private industries; it would be easy to read such remarks as thinly-veiled requests for more funding, since training physics Ph.D.s became expensive after World War II. This time, however, Birge articulated his department’s mission in a letter to a local citizen, far outside of the university bureaucracy, who had no funds to offer and who had requested no such pronouncement. 1 *Program in Science, Technology, and Society, and Department of Physics, Building E51- 185, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139; [email protected]. My thanks to Shane Hamilton for his research assistance, and to Alexis De Greiff, Kenji Ito, John Krige, Elizabeth Paris, and John Rudolph for their helpful comments on an earlier draft. The following abbreviations are used: AIP-EMD, American Institute of Physics, Edu- cation and Manpower Division Records, Niels Bohr Library, American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD; BAS, Bulletin of the atomic scientists; BDP , University of California, Berkeley, Department of Physics Records, Bancroft Library, Berkeley, CA; HDP, Harvard University Department of Physics Records, Pusey Library, Cambridge, MA; PDP, Princeton University Department of Physics Records, Seeley G.
    [Show full text]
  • THE MEETING Meridel Rubenstein 1995
    THE MEETING Meridel Rubenstein 1995 Palladium prints, steel, single-channel video Video assistance by Steina Video run time 4:00 minutes Tia Collection The Meeting consists of twenty portraits of people from San Ildefonso Pueblo and Manhattan Project physicists—who met at the home of Edith Warner during the making of the first atomic bomb—and twenty photographs of carefully selected objects of significance to each group. In this grouping are people from San Ildefonso Pueblo and the objects they selected from the collections of the Museum of Indian Arts and Culture to represent their culture. 1A ROSE HUGHES 2A TALL-NECKED JAR 3A BLUE CORN 4A SLEIGH BELLS 5A FLORENCE NARANJO Rose Hughes holding a photograph of WITH AVANYU One of the most accomplished and (Museum of Indian Arts and Culture) Married to Louis Naranjo; her father, Tony Peña, who organized (plumed serpent) made by Julian and recognized of the San Ildefonso Sleigh bells are commonly used in granddaughter of Ignacio and Susana the building of Edith Warner’s second Maria Martinez, ca. 1930 (Museum of potters. Like many women from the ceremonial dances to attract rain. Aguilar; daughter of Joe Aguilar, who house. Hughes worked at Edith Indian Arts and Culture) Edith Warner pueblos, she worked as a maid for the Tilano Montoya returned with bells like helped Edith Warner remodel the Warner’s with Florence Naranjo one was shown a pot like this one in 1922 Oppenheimers. these from Europe, where he went on tearoom. Edith called her Florencita. summer. She recalls that Edith once on her first visit to San Ildefonso, in the tour with a group of Pueblo dancers.
    [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]
  • Trinity Site July 16, 1945
    Trinity Site July 16, 1945 "The effects could well be called unprecedented, magnificent, beauti­ ful, stupendous, and terrifying. No man-made phenomenon of such tremendous power had ever occurred before. The lighting effects beggared description. The whole country was lighted by a searing light with the intensity many times that of the midday sun." Brig. Gen. Thomas Farrell A national historic landmark on White Sands Missile Range -- www.wsmr.army.mil Radiation Basics Radiation comes from the nucJeus of the gamma ray. This is a type of electromag­ individual atoms. Simple atoms like oxygen netic radiation like visible light, radio waves are very stable. Its nucleus has eight protons and X-rays. They travel at the speed of light. and eight neutrons and holds together well. It takes at least an inch of lead or eight The nucJeus of a complex atom like inches of concrete to stop them. uranium is not as stable. Uranium has 92 Finally, neutrons are also emitted by protons and 146 neutrons in its core. These some radioactive substances. Neutrons are unstable atoms tend to break down into very penetrating but are not as common in more stable, simpler forms. When this nature. Neutrons have the capability of happens the atom emits subatomic particles striking the nucleus of another atom and and gamma rays. This is where the word changing a stable atom into an unstable, and "radiation" comes from -- the atom radiates therefore, radioactive one. Neutrons emitted particles and rays. in nuc!ear reactors are contained in the Health physicists are concerned with reactor vessel or shielding and cause the four emissions from the nucleus of these vessel walls to become radioactive.
    [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]
  • Character List
    Character List - Bomb ​ Use this chart to help you keep track of the hundreds of names of physicists, freedom fighters, government officials, and others involved in the making of the atomic bomb. Scientists Political/Military Leaders Spies Robert Oppenheimer - Winston Churchill -- Prime Klaus Fuchs - physicist in ​ ​ ​ designed atomic bomb. He was Minister of England Manhattan Project who gave accused of spying. secrets to Russia Franklin D. Roosevelt -- ​ Albert Einstein - convinced President of the United States Harry Gold - spy and Courier ​ ​ U.S. government that they for Russia KGB. Narrator of the needed to research fission. Harry Truman -- President of story ​ the United States Enrico Fermi - created first Ruth Werner - Russian spy ​ ​ chain reaction Joseph Stalin -- dictator of the ​ Tell Hall -- physicist in Soviet Union ​ Igor Korchatov -- Russian Manhattan Project who gave ​ physicist in charge of designing Adolf Hitler -- dictator of secrets to Russia ​ bomb Germany Haakon Chevalier - friend who ​ Werner Reisenberg -- Leslie Groves -- Military approached Oppenheimer about ​ ​ German physicist in charge of leader of the Manhattan Project spying for Russia. He was designing bomb watched by the FBI, but he was not charged. Otto Hahn -- German physicist ​ who discovered fission Other scientists involved in the Manhattan Project: ​ Aage Niels Bohr George Kistiakowsky Joseph W. Kennedy Richard Feynman Arthur C. Wahl Frank Oppenheimer Joseph Rotblat Robert Bacher Arthur H. Compton Hans Bethe Karl T. Compton Robert Serber Charles Critchfield Harold Agnew Kenneth Bainbridge Robert Wilson Charles Thomas Harold Urey Leo James Rainwater Rudolf Pelerls Crawford Greenewalt Harold DeWolf Smyth Leo Szilard Samuel K. Allison Cyril S. Smith Herbert L. Anderson Luis Alvarez Samuel Goudsmit Edward Norris Isidor I.
    [Show full text]
  • J. Robert Oppenheimer
    Priscilla J. McMillan The Ruin of J. Robert Oppenheimer and the Birth of the Modern Arms Race VIKING VIKING Published by the Penguin Group Penguin Group (USA) Inc., 375 Hudson Street, New York, New York 100I4, U.S.A. Penguin Group (Canada), 10 Alcorn Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4V 3B2 (a division of Pearson Penguin Canada Inc.) Penguin Books Ltd, 80 Strand, London WC2R oRL, England Penguin Ireland, 25 St. Stephen's Green, Dublin 2, Ireland (a division of Penguin Books Ltd) Penguin Books Australia Ltd, 250 Camberwell Road, Camberwell, Victoria 3124, Australia (a division of Pearson Australia Group Pry Ltd) Penguin Books India Pvt Lrd, II Community Centre, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi-no 0I7, India Penguin Group (NZ), Cnr Airborne and Rosedale Roads, Albany, Auckland 1310, New Zealand (a division of Pearson New Zealand Ltd) Penguin Books (South Africa) (Pry) Ltd, 24 Srurdee Avenue, Rosebank, Johannesburg 2196, South Africa Penguin Books Lrd, Registered Offices: 80 Strand, London WC2R oRL, England First published in 2005 by Viking Penguin, a member of Penguin Group (USA) Inc. 7 9 10 8 6 4 2 Copyright © Priscilla Johnson McMillan, 2005 All rights reserved Photograph credits appear on page 374- LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA McMillan, Priscilla Johnson. The ruin of J. Robert Oppenheimer / Priscilla J. McMillan. p. ern. Includes index. ISBN 0-670-03422-3 I. Oppenheimer, J. Robert, 1904-1967. 2. Physicists-United States-Biography. 3. Manhattan Project (U.S.) 4- Atomic bomb-United States-s-History. 5. Nuclear physics- United States-Histoty-20th century. 6. Teller, Edward, 1908- I.
    [Show full text]
  • LRB · Steven Shapin: Don't Let That Crybaby in Here Again
    LRB · Steven Shapin: Don’t let that crybaby in here again http://www.lrb.co.uk/v22/n17/print/shap01_.html HOME SUBSCRIBE LOG OUT CONTACTS SEARCH LRB 7 September 2000 Steven Shapin screen layout tell a friend Don’t let that crybaby in here again Steven Shapin In the Shadow of the Bomb: Oppenheimer, Bethe and the Moral Responsibility of the Scientist by S.S. Schweber Atomic Fragments: A Daughter’s Questions by Mary Palevsky The rhetorical yield from the first atomic explosion was low – only one entry for the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations. When the plutonium bomb exploded on the Jornada del Muerto near Alamogordo, New Mexico, on 16 July 1945, Robert Oppenheimer, the Scientific Director of Los Alamos, remembered the line from the Bhagavad Gita where Vishnu says: ‘Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.’ One other remark deserves to be immortalised, which Oppenheimer himself later judged the best thing said at the time. When the blast subsided, the physicist Kenneth Bainbridge, in charge of the test, turned to Oppenheimer and declared: ‘Now we’re all sons of bitches.’ In general, however, the test was a rhetorical dud. After the physicist Samuel Allison had counted off ‘two, one, zero, NOW,’ a general standing by commented: ‘What a wonderful thing that you could count backwards at a time like this!’ Allison recalled saying to himself: ‘Still alive, no atmospheric ignition.’ The chemist George Kistiakowsky rushed up to Oppenheimer to remind him of a bet they’d struck on the outcome: ‘Oppie, you owe me ten dollars.’ General Leslie Groves, the overall Director of the Manhattan Project, immediately appreciated the military significance of what he’d just seen: ‘The bang must certainly have been a pretty big one .
    [Show 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Making the Bomb by John Lamperti
    November, 2012 Thoughts on Making the Bomb by John Lamperti I recently finished reading Martin Sherwin and Kai Bird’s monumental American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer.1 It's an admirable book, although I think the title might better have been American Faust. (No less than Freeman Dyson said Oppenheimer made a "Faustian bargain."2) There have been many books about Oppenheimer and the atomic bomb project in general; I've read some but not all of them. This one seems to be definitive. Everything we need to know is there – and it's a fascinating read. Two things struck me especially, and neither was directly about Oppenheimer. One was the ideological rigidity, and the blindness, of the crowd of Army and FBI "security" operatives who dogged Oppenheimer and the whole Manhattan Project from the beginning. To a man (no women are mentioned) they were obsessed with the pre-war leftist politics of many of the scientists, which they found highly suspicious and probably indicative of disloyalty. But while these agents were hounding leftists and "premature anti-fascists" (as supporters of the Spanish Republic were called) at Los Alamos and elsewhere and finding little or nothing, real spies were sending real scientific information to the USSR under their noses, apparently unsuspected. If the "security" people, especially Lt. Col. Boris Pash of Army Counter– Intelligence, had been given free rein, Oppenheimer and many others (but not the actual spies!) would have been banished from the Project and the "Trinity" test, as well as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, might never have happened.
    [Show full text]