DOCSLIB.ORG

Npr 2.1: Enriched Uranium Versus Plutonium

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Npr 2.1: Enriched Uranium Versus Plutonium Joel Ullom ENRICHED URANIUM VERSUS PLUTONIUM: PROLIFERANT PREFERENCES IN THE CHOICE OF FISSILE MATERIAL by Joel Ullom Joel Ullom has worked at Princeton University's Center for Energy and Environmental Studies and at the Arms Control Studies Department of Sandia National Laboratory. He is currently pursuing graduate studies in physics at Harvard University.* ecent events in Iraq and cal record amply demonstrates that a naturally occurring element, has North Korea have sparked a state's rationale for seeking fissile a number of isotopes. The preferred R renewed concern over the material has often played an impor- isotope for weapons— U235— comprises spread of nuclear weapons. A re- tant role in determining the mate- only 0.7 percent of natural ore. current question in discussions of rial chosen. Mastery of the nuclear Typically, the concentration of U235 nuclear proliferation is which fis- fuel cycle can yield new sources of must be increased to about 90 per- sile material, enriched uranium or electricity, commercial revenue, and cent before uranium is suitable for plutonium, states prefer for their naval propulsion. Programs that weapons, though lower concentra- weapons programs? An answer yielded nuclear weapons have been tions can be used. Increasing the would shed light on the development undertaken with a mix of military concentration of U235 relative to the of nuclear weapons programs in the and non-military applications in more plentiful isotope U238 is a la- past, and also serve as a predictive mind, and the benefits listed above, borious process known as “enrich- mechanism to help understand how among others, have often played a ment.” Plutonium is not a naturally future programs may develop. This significant role in the choice of fis- occurring element and therefore study is an attempt to evaluate the sile material. Foreign assistance and must be produced, typically by bom- factors influencing a state’s choice the urgency of production have also barding U238 with neutrons in a of fissile material. The bulk of the been important influences. This ar- nuclear reactor. The chemical ex- article is comprised of a discussion ticle concludes with a rough tax- traction of plutonium from spent of earlier nuclear programs: those onomy of the aforementioned pro- reactor fuel is known as “reprocess- of the United States, Soviet Union, grams in order to identify forces that ing.” Considerably less plutonium United Kingdom, France, China, have repeatedly influenced states’ than uranium is needed to make a Israel, India, South Africa, Pakistan, choices of fissile material. Only a simple fission weapon. Brazil, Argentina, and Iraq.1 A full modest fraction of the programs will It would be difficult to generate history of these programs is not in- be identified as having been pre- dollar/kiloton of yield figures for the tended; rather, the factors that in- dominantly influenced by the innate two metals, and plots of cost versus fluenced the choice of fissile mate- technological accessibility of the two production time would be even more rial in each case are discussed. metals. The choice of fissile material must Both enriched uranium and plu- be preceded by the more basic deci- tonium were produced for the first * This work was supported by the sion to produce fissile material at time in the early 1940s by research- United States Department of Energy all. An examination of the histori- ers in the United States.2 Uranium, under Contract DE-AC04- 94AL85000. The Nonproliferation Review/Fall 1994 1 Joel Ullom elusive. The necessary production sublimation, the ionic centrifuge, shaken the whole world. The balance has been de- facilities are complex and technically gaseous thermal diffusion, ether- stroyed. Provide the bomb demanding and so defy easy esti- water, chemical and photochemical -- it will remove a great dan- mations of cost. Many types of en- separation, and the isotron. Both ger from us.3 richment techniques, reactors, and uranium and plutonium programs Stalin’s urging was not the start reprocessing facilities exist, and culminated successfully at about the of the Soviet program; work had even a single label, say “centrifuga- same time: the devices exploded at already begun in earnest in 1943 tion,” in reality describes a wide Trinity and over Nagasaki used plu- after a two-year lull in nuclear re- range of technologies. Production tonium, the explosion at Hiroshima search caused by the German inva- techniques have developed over de- used uranium. sion. Rather, the American explo- cades and presumably will continue The relationship between bomb sions transformed the Soviet effort to evolve. Hence, an a priori assess- design and the choice of fissile ma- into a crash program to build a ment of the innate technological ac- terial became apparent for the first bomb. Stalin directed that work cessibility of enriched uranium and time during the American program. should proceed “on a broad front, plutonium is difficult; hopefully, Fission weapons can be built in two on a Russian scale.”4 Concerned some insight can be gleaned from basic configurations: “gun-type” de- now with time more than expense, the historical record. vices where two subcritical masses the Soviets went on to develop both of fissile material are rapidly as- the uranium and plutonium routes. THE UNITED STATES sembled into a critical whole, and The scant evidence available sug- implosion devices where a single gests that although serious research Technological accessibility was subcritical mass is compressed into not the critical factor in the Ameri- on isotope separation (mass spec- a critical state. In the midst of the trography and thermal diffusion for can program’s choice of fissile ma- American effort, it was discovered terial. In the early 1940s, the pro- instance) was on-going as early as that plutonium, because of its higher 1940, the Soviets had concerns duction of fissile material involved rate of spontaneous fission, was technologies that were either entirely about the practicality of enriching unsuitable for the far simpler gun- 5 novel, in the case of reactors, or uranium. At their strongest in type design. The simultaneous de- 1940-41, these concerns persisted unproven at the relevant scale of velopment of implosion and enrich- application, in the case of enrich- after the resumption of the ment was then absolutely necessary, 6 ment techniques. A conscious de- program ; a 1943 memo from each in the event the other proved Kurchatov emphasizes the prospects cision was made to pursue many unworkable. paths in parallel to guard against of using plutonium especially since “this solution will obviate the need failure and speed the production of THE SOVIET UNION a weapon that could end the war. to separate the uranium ...” [empha- 7 The paths competed among them- Important similarities can be es- sis as in original]. A falling out selves for funds and resources; when tablished between the initial Soviet between Peter Kapitsa, another it became clear that centrifuge tech- and American efforts to build prominent weapons scientist, and nology could not contribute before nuclear weapons. Just as fear of a Lavrenti Beria, the head of Stalin’s the end of the war, the program was German weapons program catalyzed secret police and overall leader of dropped. By the war’s end, four the American effort, the explosion the weapons program from 1945 to technologies had been industrial- at Hiroshima catalyzed the Soviet 1953, has been attributed to ized: production reactors and repro- program. Stalin is reputed to have Kapitsa’s reluctance to work on en- 8 cessing facilities, gaseous diffusion, told a group including Igor richment. Kapitsa is said to have electromagnetic separation, and liq- Kurchatov, director of the Soviet written to Stalin complaining that uid thermal diffusion. Many other nuclear effort: by imitating the American program enrichment techniques were ex- (presumably by pursuing enrichment A single demand of you technologies), the Soviets were pur- plored: centrifuges, countercurrent comrades. Provide us with electromigration, countercurrent atomic weapons in the suing a way that “is very long and 9 molecular distillation, fractional shortest possible time. You expensive.” know that Hiroshima has 2 The Nonproliferation Review/Fall 1994 Joel Ullom At both the research and produc- American K-25 gaseous diffusion less important, industrial applica- tion stages, the Soviet uranium pro- plant and when the cascade was first tions of the two materials were also gram lagged behind the plutonium charged with UF6; and an additional considered, and plutonium was rated effort. Whether the dilatory progress eight months elapsed before the plant slightly more desirable on this ba- of the uranium program is a reflec- was truly complete.18 If the Soviet sis as well. (Production reactors tion or a confirmation of the Sovi- effort followed a similar time scale, would generate electrical power and ets’ concerns about the practicality it is likely to have been initiated plutonium could be used in the fu- of the process is unclear. There is, before criticality in the first produc- ture as reactor fuel, whereas an en- however, solid evidence that serious tion reactor. richment program would require less work had begun on isotope separa- Like the American program, the natural uranium initially and would tion before the first Soviet reactor Soviet effort after 1945 was charac- make possible reactors moderated by went critical in December 1946.10 terized by a driving sense of urgency. light-water.)20 The decision to de- Kapitsa’s letter to Stalin was written A solid argument can be made that velop reactors came in spite of the in November 1945.11 A group of the Soviets felt plutonium the more extensive experience Britain had had German physicists taken to the So- promising route, and indeed their with gaseous diffusion during the viet Union after Germany’s surren- reactor program matured more Manhattan Project.21 der began work on enriching ura- quickly.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Manhattan Project Spies and Oak Ridge, Part 1 (As Published in the Oak Ridger’S Historically Speaking Column on December 1, 2014)
    Manhattan Project Spies and Oak Ridge, part 1 (As published in The Oak Ridger’s Historically Speaking column on December 1, 2014) This is the first in a series of four Historically Speaking columns on Manhattan Project spies with connections to Oak Ridge. For many years, I was not sure that any spies were actually in Oak Ridge. Bill Wilcox and I discussed this at length and he too was doubtful at that time. Even though some names were mentioned, evidence seemed lacking. However, of late, so much additional information has been declassified and made available to the public regarding those activities of some 65 – 70 years ago. Much more is now known regarding the detailed activities of those who passed sensitive classified information to the Russians during the Manhattan Project. We will look first at George Koval, next at Klaus Fuchs and finally at Al Slack. Recently there seems to be more and more information coming available about spies during the Manhattan Project. The Spy Who Stole The Urchin: George Koval’s Infiltration of the Manhattan Project by Owen N. Pagano, an Atomic Heritage Foundation intern, posted on the Atomic Heritage Foundation’s web site: http://www.atomicheritage.org/ is the most recent information I have seen about George Koval. Koval is the ONLY official Soviet spy known to have infiltrated the Manhattan Project and the early Cold War era developments. His deep penetration only came to light in the recent past after over 50 years of obscurity. Some of the most notable spies were: George Koval; Theodore “Ted” Hall who was never caught; David Greenglass; Ethel and Julius Rosenberg; Harry Gold; and Klaus Fuchs.
    [Show full text]
  • Peace Studies Program
    CORNELL UNIVERSITY PEACE STUDIES PROGRAM Occasional Papers COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR POWER AND NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION by Steven J. Baker Number 5 Commercial Nuclear Power and Nuclear Proliferation Steven J. Baker Research Associate Peace Studies Program Cornell University PEACE STUDIES PROGRAM OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 5 May 1975 Steven J. Baker holds a doctorate in political science from the University of California at Los Angeles. Dr. Baker's paper was written while he was a post-doctoral Research Associate of the Peace Studies Program of Cornell University's Center for International Studies. Commercia1 Nuclear Power and Nuclear Proliferation INTRODUCTION In the last year concern has grown over the implica­ tions of nuclear energy exports: intense competition among advanced industrial countries to export nuclear reactors, fuels, and fuel processing facilities has increased fears about accelerating the acquisition of nuclear weapons capabilities in Third World countries. This concern has reportedly generated an examination of the possibility of a common approach to the problem of nuclear exports on the part of some of the nuclear exporting nations—the United States, Britain, the Soviet Union, France, West Germany, Canada, Japan, and Italy. In the United States, congressional concern has resulted in a proposal to revise the standards and procedures govern­ ing nuclear exports. Opposition to these unilateral restric­ tions is strong in various parts of the bureaucracy, in the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, and in the nuclear industry. This paper surveys the development of the international nuclear energy market, with particular reference to America's role in this process. The emphasis is on the interplay between the commercial promotion of nuclear energy and the proliferation of nuclear weapons, between domestic and foreign policies, and the implications of domestic energy policy choices for future nuclear weapons proliferation.
    [Show full text]
  • Albert J. and Roberta Wohlstetter Papers
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt1489q8rg Online items available Register of the Albert J. and Roberta Wohlstetter papers Finding aid prepared by Aparna Mukherjee, David Jacobs, Natalia Porfirenko, and Ronald Bulatoff Hoover Institution Library and Archives © 2001, 2007, 2020 434 Galvez Mall Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-6003 [email protected] URL: http://www.hoover.org/library-and-archives Register of the Albert J. and 97076 1 Roberta Wohlstetter papers Title: Albert J. and Roberta Wohlstetter papers Date (inclusive): 1929-2007 Collection Number: 97076 Contributing Institution: Hoover Institution Library and Archives Language of Material: English Physical Description: 846 manuscript boxes, 5 card file boxes, 8 oversize boxes(343.4 Linear Feet) Abstract: Speeches and writings, correspondence, notes, memoranda, reports, studies, and printed matter relating to American military and national security policy, nuclear warfare strategic planning, and nuclear proliferation issues. Includes the papers of Roberta Wohlstetter, wife of Albert J. Wohlstetter. Digital copies of select records also available at https://digitalcollections.hoover.org. Creator: Wohlstetter, Albert Creator: Wohlstetter, Roberta Hoover Institution Library & Archives Access "Boxes 1-61, 201-354, 385-754, 815-821, and 838-859 closed. The remainder of the collection is open for research; materials must be requested at least two business days in advance of intended use." Publication Rights For copyright status, please contact the Hoover Institution Library & Archives. Acquisition Information Materials were acquired by the Hoover Institution Library & Archives in 1997. Preferred Citation [Identification of item], Albert J. and Roberta Wohlstetter papers, [Box no., Folder no. or title], Hoover Institution Library & Archives. Alternate Forms Available Digital copies of select records also available at https://digitalcollections.hoover.org.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Four Making Light of the Light Elements
    Chapter Four Making Light of the Light Elements Although itself a significant technical obstacle to the H-bomb project, Los Alamos found computing as only one of several critical problems. Other problems arose, as well, and weapons scientists acknowledged them at various times. Von Neumann, Teller, Wheeler and others early on established computing as a technical problem that stood in the way of understanding the Super configuration’s feasibility. Nuclear materials were also a bottleneck to the hydrogen weapon program, yet Los Alamos’s scientists recognized this problem later than they had the computing obstacle. Tritium in particular, from the time Konopinski had suggested incorporating this isotope into the Super theory, was a latent obstacle to the H-bomb program. After the Soviet Union detonated its first atomic weapon in 1949 tritium scientists began to view tritium as a serious critical problem facing the American thermonuclear project. Although the Russian A-bomb test represented in the United States a political event outside of the AEC technological system -- this event nevertheless forced both scientists and policymakers to reconsider the AEC’s pace and the intensity of nuclear weapons research. Only then the Commission called its materials production facilities into question. After President Truman instructed the AEC to explore further the hydrogen weapon in 1950, and when Ulam and his colleague’s calculations began to 174 show the ignition problems facing the Super, the tritium problem became blatant. Consequently, the Committee for Weapon Development demonstrate with reasonable certainty that the 1945-1946 ENIAC calculations were wrong. In 1949 the AEC found itself unprepared to begin a program of large- scale tritium production in part because its predecessor, the MED, had not constructed any facilities specifically for this purpose.
    [Show full text]
  • A Bibliography of Publications By, and About, Edward Teller
    A Bibliography of Publications by, and about, Edward Teller Nelson H. F. Beebe University of Utah Department of Mathematics, 110 LCB 155 S 1400 E RM 233 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0090 USA Tel: +1 801 581 5254 FAX: +1 801 581 4148 E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] (Internet) WWW URL: http://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe/ 17 March 2021 Version 1.177 Title word cross-reference + [KT48, TT35a]. $100 [Smi85b]. $12.95 [Edg91]. $19.50 [Oli69]. $24.95 [Car91]. $3.50 [Dys58]. $30.00 [Kev03]. $32.50 [Edg91]. $35 [Cas01b, Cas01a]. $35.00 [Dys02a, Wat03]. $39.50 [Edg91]. $50 [Ano62]. − 7 $8.95 [Edg91]. = [TT35a]. [BJT69]. [CT41]. 2 [SST71, ST39b, TT35a]. 3 [HT39a]. 4 [TT35a]. 6 [TT35a]. β [GT36, GT37, HS19]. λ2000 [MT42]. SU(3) [GT85]. -Disintegration [GT36]. -Mesons [BJT69]. -Transformation [GT37]. 0 [Cas01b, Cas01a, Dys02a]. 0-7382-0532-X [Cas01b, Cas01a, Dys02a]. 0-8047-1713-3 [Edg91]. 0-8047-1714-1 [Edg91]. 0-8047-1721-4 [Edg91]. 0-8047-1722-2 [Edg91]. 1 [Har05]. 1-86094-419-1 [Har05]. 1-903985-12-9 [Tho03]. 100th 1 2 [KRW05, Tel93d]. 17.25 [Pei87]. 1930 [BW05]. 1930/41 [Fer68]. 1939 [Sei90]. 1939-1945 [Sei90]. 1940 [TT40]. 1941 [TGF41]. 1942 [KW93]. 1945 [Sei90]. 1947 [Sei90]. 1947-1977 [Sei90]. 1948 [Tel49a]. 1950s [Sei90]. 1957 [Tel57b]. 1960s [Mla98]. 1963 [Szi87]. 1973 [Kur73]. 1977 [Sei90]. 1979 [WT79]. 1990s [AB88, CT90a, Tel96b]. 1991 [MB92]. 1992 [GER+92]. 1995 [Tel95a]. 20 [Goe88]. 2003 [Dys09, LBB+03]. 2008 [LV10]. 20th [Mar10, New03d]. 28 [Tel57b]. 3 [Dic79]. 40th [MKR87]. 411-415 [Ber03b].
    [Show full text]
  • Nazi Nuclear Research: Why Didn’T Hitler Get the Bomb? Jim Thomson
    Nazi nuclear research: Why didn’t Hitler get the Bomb? Jim Thomson www.safetyinengineering.com 1 Nazi nuclear research 1. The German project and a brief comparison with the Manhattan and V-weapons projects 2. German project technical achievements and failures 3. Political and organisational factors 4. Motives, ethics, competence and honesty 5. Postscript: The lunatic fringes 2 Jim Thomson www.safetyinengineering.com 1. The German project and a brief comparison with the Manhattan and V-weapons projects 3 Jim Thomson www.safetyinengineering.com Arnold Kramish 1985 The Griffin 1947: April 1943: “Los ALSOS – Samuel Mark Walker 1989 German National Socialism and the Quest Dec 1942: for Nuclear Power 1939–1949 Alamos Primer” Goudsmit Chicago pile UK Government 1992 Farm Hall transcripts declassified lecture notes give (republished 1996) critical complete overview of David Cassidy 1992 Uncertainty: The Life and Science of Werner Heisenberg bomb project Frisch-Peierls 1944/1945: ALSOS 1956: Thomas Powers 1993 Heisenberg’s War memorandum mission to capture Brighter Than a Mark Walker 1995 Nazi Science: Myth, Truth, and the German March 1940 German researchers , Thousand Suns – Atomic Bomb July/Aug 1945: Einstein letter equipment and data Robert Jungk Paul Lawrence 1998 Heisenberg and the Nazi Atomic Bomb to Roosevelt Trinity, Little Boy and Rose Project: A Study in German Culture Fat Man. The Smyth 1968: Hans Bethe 2000 ‘The German Uranium Project’, Article in August 1939 Physics Today Report outlines the The Virus House - Jeremy Bernstein 2001
    [Show full text]
  • Making the Russian Bomb from Stalin to Yeltsin
    MAKING THE RUSSIAN BOMB FROM STALIN TO YELTSIN by Thomas B. Cochran Robert S. Norris and Oleg A. Bukharin A book by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. Westview Press Boulder, San Francisco, Oxford Copyright Natural Resources Defense Council © 1995 Table of Contents List of Figures .................................................. List of Tables ................................................... Preface and Acknowledgements ..................................... CHAPTER ONE A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE SOVIET BOMB Russian and Soviet Nuclear Physics ............................... Towards the Atomic Bomb .......................................... Diverted by War ............................................. Full Speed Ahead ............................................ Establishment of the Test Site and the First Test ................ The Role of Espionage ............................................ Thermonuclear Weapons Developments ............................... Was Joe-4 a Hydrogen Bomb? .................................. Testing the Third Idea ...................................... Stalin's Death and the Reorganization of the Bomb Program ........ CHAPTER TWO AN OVERVIEW OF THE STOCKPILE AND COMPLEX The Nuclear Weapons Stockpile .................................... Ministry of Atomic Energy ........................................ The Nuclear Weapons Complex ...................................... Nuclear Weapon Design Laboratories ............................... Arzamas-16 .................................................. Chelyabinsk-70
    [Show full text]
  • An Australian Nuclear Force This Book Was Published by ANU Press Between 1965–1991
    IAN BELLANY An Australian Nuclear Force This book was published by ANU Press between 1965–1991. This republication is part of the digitisation project being carried out by Scholarly Information Services/Library and ANU Press. This project aims to make past scholarly works published by The Australian National University available to a global audience under its open-access policy. $A0.90 Dr Ian Bellany, who is a Research Fellow attached to The Strategic and Defence Studies Centre of the Australian National University, is a graduate of Oxford University, having obtained his B.A. in 1962 and D.Phil. in atomic physics in 1966. From 1966 to 1968 he was a member of the Arms Control and Disarmament Research Unit of the British Foreign Office. He is at present engaged on a book-length study of the question of an Australian nuclear force. CANBERRA PAPERS ON STRATEGY AND DEFENCE An Australian Nuclear Force Some Economic Considerations IAN BELLANY A publication of The Strategic and Defence Studies Centre AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY PRESS CANBERRA 1969 First published 1969 This work is copyright in all countries subscribing to the Berne Convention. Reproduction in whole or in part, without the written permission of the Publishers, is forbidden. Printed and manufactured in Australia by Gillingham Printers Pty Ltd, Adelaide SBN 7081 0077 5 Library of Congress Catalog Card no. 79-75707 National Library of Australia reg. no. AUS 68-4151 AN AUSTRALIAN NUCLEAR FORCE Some Economic Considerations It is impossible to predict with absolute accuracy the cost of any major defence project: if anything can be said with certainty, it is that any official estimate will turn out too low by 50 per cent or 100 per cent, for such is the British and the American experience.
    [Show full text]
  • 2006 APS April Meeting Dallas, TX
    2006 APS April Meeting Dallas, TX http://www.aps.org/meet/APR06 i Saturday, April 22, 2006 10:45AM - 12:33PM — Session B5 DAP FHP: Cosmology I Hyatt Regency Dallas Pegasus B 10:45AM B5.00001 Why Aristotle took so long to die DENNIS DANIELSON, Univ. of British Columbia — Like young people looking askance at their parents, we often have trouble taking seriously the interests or even the intellects of “scientists” from centuries gone by (an attitude already betrayed by the urge to use quotation marks). After all, their theories were wrong. But the greatest wrong physicist of them all was Aristotle. The earliest thinkers we today classify as scientists (Bacon, Galileo, Newton) cut their teeth trying to show how he was wrong–but it wasn’t easy. In order to see why it was so hard, we need to transport ourselves mentally back to the period between ancient Greece and seventeenth-century Europe and try to think like Aristotelians. That way we can catch a taste of the intellectual pleasures of Aristotelian physics and cosmology–including Aristotle’s concepts of elements, cause, natural motion, and the “two-storey” universe. By becoming (temporary) Aristotelians, we’ll be able to see better, for example, why Copernicanism took a hundred years to catch on. For the heliocentric “celestial machine” demanded a new physics that nobody had yet provided. Finally, to examine Aristotle’s long monopoly on physics–based on what had grown to look like simple common sense–is also to stir up questions about how we might gain enough perspective on our present habits of thought to avoid getting stuck in our own orthodoxies.
    [Show full text]
  • German Wartime Nuclear Research And
    German wartime nuclear research and FIGURE 1: (top) the the ‘Heisenberg B-VIII reactor being disassembled by US and British personnel myth’: A review in 1945, (bottom) a cross section of the By Jim Thomson assembled reactor: an array of U-nat metal 1. INTRODUCTION: THE OUTCOME OF GERMAN cubes suspended NUCLEAR RESEARCH IN 1945, AND in heavy water, COMPARISONS WITH THE MANHATTAN PROJECT surrounded by a AND V-WEAPONS PROJECT graphite reflector ission was discovered in Germany 1938 by Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann, with contribution from Lise The reasons for this comparative lack of progress are manifold FMeitner (who was by then an emigrée to Sweden). Yet and complex, and include technical failures, lack of political by early 1945, when the Manhattan project was nearing will, and the effects of Allied bombing. A comparison of the fruition, the principal tangible products of some 6 years’ outcomes of the Manhattan and German projects is presented R&D effort in Germany were: in Table 1. n a sub-critical heavy-water moderated natural uranium The major German accomplishment was the B-VIII reactor, ‘reactor’ (the B-VIII, Fig.1) in Haigerloch in southern Germany designed and built under a team which included Werner n some experiments led by Paul Harteck in gas centrifuge Heisenberg, Karl-Friedrich von Weiszacker and Carl Wirtz. enrichment at Celle in northern Germany, with limited success Construction of the B-VIII had begun in Berlin in 1943 but was n other sub-critical reactor experiments (led by Kurt Diebner) at moved to Haigerloch in 1944 because of Allied bombing.
    [Show full text]
  • Between Markets and the State: Scientists in Comparative Perspective
    Between Markets and the State Scientists in Comparative Perspective Etel Solingen This article examines patterns of relations between modem states--in their varying forms -and scientific communities.1 I trace such relations to broader structures defining the role of scientists in society, arguing that the internal nature of politicoeconomic systems, on the one hand, and of their international position, on the other, leads to different models of interaction between states and their scientific communities. Thus, throughout the twentieth century different patterns of relations developed, for instance, in pluralist market economies with low levels of external conflict and high levels of economic interdependence than in noncompetitive centrally planned systems involved in international conflict but with little exposure to global markets. This approach aims at making a threefold contribution to the study of scientists and the state: it defines political relations as the main dependent variables, outlines a more systematic comparative framework than attempted hitherto, and suggests the need to understand the domestic and international structural sources of state-scientist relations. The literature on scientists and the state, summarized in Table 1, has for the most part focused on the impact of politics on scientific activities and on the role of scientific advisers. First, the Mertonian tradition of historical macrosociology of science pioneered the comparative analysis of scientific communities. Yet this tradition was mostly interested in cultural differences and the internal norms and output of scientific activity (see cell I) and much less concerned with the political relations between scientists and the state.2 Even where the external sociopolitical context was taken into account, as in studies included in cell II, the content and development of science remained the main dependent variable in this tradition.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Why Us Policymakers Who Love the Bomb Don't Think
    WHY U.S. POLICYMAKERS WHO LOVE THE BOMB DON’T THINK “MORE IS BETTER” W. Seth Carus 1 Disconnects between the academic and the policy worlds are not unusual. Nevertheless, it still is striking when an academic debate, supposedly about a topic of vital national security concern, rages for decades but is totally ignored by those responsible for policymaking in that arena. This is certainly true for the argument offered by some academics that nuclear proliferation contributes to the stability of the international system, arguing that “more is better.” Yet, it would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to find any Washington policymaker accepting such a position. Indeed, during the past 50 years there has been a widespread consensus amongst U.S. policymakers, across the political and ideological spectrum, that “more is NOT better” and that nonproliferation efforts are an essential element of U.S. national security policy. The pages that follow will start by first examining the views of the academics who espouse the “more is better” argument, followed by a review of some of the perspectives that explain why almost all U.S. national security policymakers have ignored it. Who are the policymakers in question? They include executive branch officials, starting with the last 12 presidents and continuing with their immediate advisors—national security advisors, secretaries of defense and state, and other senior officials (deputy secretaries, undersecretaries, and assistant secretaries of various departments), as well as many members of Congress. This discussion is focused exclusively on Washington and the men and women responsible for creating and executing U.S. national security policies.
    [Show full text]