Talk:Manhattan Project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manhattan Project article.
Article policies

Archive: 0

Contents

[edit] Improving this page

The original author of this page seems to have set out to do something a bit too over-ambitious -- too much detail. As it is, the article is hopelessly top-heavy: if we wrote up the entire project with as much detail as the first year of it currently has then we'd have an article far too long to be useful. I say: let's scrap a lot of the existing text, try starting over, and try to first sketch out a schematic for the project as a whole. A general skeleton structure might be:

  1. Developments in 1930s physics (done)
  2. WWII breaks out, British interest in bomb, Einstein letter, British motivate a few US scientists to get the ball rolling again. Take over project from Nat. Bur. Standards. (done)
  3. Fission work at U of Chicago. Fermi's pile. Project given to Army. Becomes MED. Groves and his business style. Planning for Los Alamos. The University of California brought in.
  4. Construction for Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, Hanford. Research at Berkeley. Emphasize scope and scale, number of sites.
  5. Main difficulties of project: getting refined material, design issues. Uranium mined in Canada, US Southwest, Belgian Congo. Separation methods: electromagnetic, gaseous diffusion. Plutonium breeding at Hanford. Design goes on at Los Alamos and Project Alberta.
  6. Concerns about implosion. Discovery that Germans don't have the bomb. Trinity test. Truman informed, Potsdam.
  7. Little Boy and Fat Man, their differences and their ad hoc nature. Bombs moved to Tinian. Hiroshima. Nagasaki. End of war. Smyth Report.
  8. MED's postwar actions. Operation Crossroads. The question of whether or not the bomb should be controlled by the military or a civilian committee. Atomic Energy Act of 1946. Dissolution of MED, creation of AEC.

Suggestions/additions? Am I omitting anything or getting things mixed up? If these are all going to fit in a reasonably sized article, they should be only a few paragraphs each, which will be somewhat of a challenge, but is probably doable. --Fastfission 15:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


  • I tried to start from scratch the other day, and found it too overwhelming. I instead have started Timeline of the Manhattan Project which ought to, by the time it gets a little more under way, cover the major events which should be mentioned in this article, and hopefully provide some structure for a narrative. Help is of course appreciated. --Fastfission 23:06, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


I'm surprised the article says so little about the work that was done at Columbia University. Fermi's nuclear pile was built there and only moved to Chicago after the military began to worry that its New York location was vulnerable to a German attack. The article overlooks Columbia to the point that it doesn't even show up on the list or map of project sites.

As of 21:29 on the 1st of october some little child has vandalised this article. Can any one restore it to it's original content? celticosprey

[edit] "Trinity" plutionum test

The worry was not entirely extinguished in some people's minds until the Trinity test; though if Bethe had been wrong, we would never know.

This passage concerns the first fusion bomb, but generally in this article, and the Trinity article, "Trinity" refers to the first test of a fission bomb. Can anyone clarify? -- Coneslayer 16:09, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)

Short answer: the passage doesn't concern the first fusion bomb. It is about the fear that a fission weapon could hypothetically start a fusion reaction with the atmosphere (which was false). It turns out that fusion reactions are much harder to start and sustain than their initial fears thought (which is why making a hydrogen bomb was so difficult). --Fastfission 17:28, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
OK, but the paragraph still doesn't make sense: In Bethe's account, this ultimate catastrophe came up again in 1975 when it appeared in a magazine article by H. C. Dudley. . . . The worry was not entirely extinguished in some people's minds until the Trinity test. How could the worry be present in 1975, and then be completely extinguished in 1945? -- Coneslayer 17:36, 2005 Apr 15 (UTC)
I think what it is trying to say is that there an initial worry, extinguished in 1945, which was dredged out again in the mid 1970s through some shoddy reporting. However I'm not 100% sure I understand what the mid 1970s stuff was about (I've never heard of that being a real worry anytime after Trinity, and especially not by the 1970s, when the atmospheric testing was no longer being undertaken by the USA or USSR, and the largest bombs had already been set off without igniting the atmosphere). The confusing sentence, like much of the current entry, should probably be deleted. --Fastfission 20:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
To me, it seems like it meant that the atmosphere didn't explode with the Trinity testing, hence any fears about a nuclear bomb igniting the atmosphere were forgotten. Though if Bethe had been wrong, we would never know seems to imply that they weren't entirely sure about the whole atmosphere thing - and if Trinity and indeed caused the atmosphere to ignite, we'd all be dead so we couldn't exactly say "I told you so" to Bethe. This kind of uncertainty and lack of precaution concerning the consequences of dropping a nuclear bomb seems to be a disturbing familiarity surrounding the whole Manhattan Project.Jarrod 01:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, the reality of it happening ended being pretty difficult anyway. It turns out that starting self-sustaining fusion reactions is pretty damn hard, as they very quickly learned even during the Manhattan Project as they tried to design the hydrogen bomb. --Fastfission 10:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


I have read through this a few times and it seems to me as if the whole article is poorly organized. I think someone needs to go through the page and arrange the information in a more methodical fashion.

  • I agree, but it will take a lot of work, so it hasn't happened yet. --Fastfission 01:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Einstein letter photo

the photo of the Einstein letter is NOT a facsimile of the original. It has been retyped. Other books show the letter with serif typeface, eg The Uranium People Libby,1979, frontispiece. GangofOne 03:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

      • Searching for "einstein letter roosevelt" on Google turns up the following pages, all of which use a serif typeface: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] The latter of which in particular looks pretty credible (the source is the FDR library). --Fastfission 21:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Amazing, Fastfission, Interesting. As I said it was a freebie and you could have one too, Just visit the ORNL visitors center and they have a bunch just laying there on the counter as handouts. Good research, Good job Scott 22:02:08, 2005-08-29 (UTC)
    • Here [6] is the closest thing to a primary source, LANL where the letter is on display in the museum. nobs 22:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Here's some interesting photographs from the National Atomic Museum [7] declassified in 1995.
        • Nice photographs. I converted all of the ones of decent quality to JPEGs and uploaded them to Commons [8]. --Fastfission 03:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keeping this article to a manageable size

I have just removed two sentences that describe Rutherford's thoughts about the feasibility of nuclear power. These do not even appear in the article on Rutherford and their appearance here is even less relevant. Rutherford's ideas could legitimately be included in a book on the history of the science leading to the atomic bomb, but not in an encyclopedia article about the Manhattan Project and its origins. JMcC 09:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I think the beginning nuclear physics section is pretty useless at the moment, anyway. Personally I'd prefer something a bit more like the first section on the History of nuclear weapons article (though it would have to be shortened considerably) which emphasizes both the relevant developments in physics (that is, those which led directly to fission and bomb research, and those which the reader will need to know to understand the basics of bomb development) while paralleling them with the relevant political developments (why people wanted to make a bomb in the first place, why the physicists were enthusiastic about it). --Fastfission 17:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Russian spying?

This site makes a mention that the Russian nuclear program was kick started by stealing from the Manhatten project. Should this get a mention? Or is it bunk? -> http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/Sovwpnprog.html ~ Si.

It's in some other nuclear article; this article can't say everything, it's too big. The Russians didn;t inflitrate, people trusted in the project gave them the stuff. See Klaus Fuchs, German-born physicist, part of the British contingent , convicted after the war of giving secrets to an ally. (15 year sentence) Theodore Hall. Fuchs and Hall didn't know about each other, though both were at Los Alamos. Then some lower level guy, was it Greenglass ? Maybe others. One motivation was the fear of a fascist monopoly on the bomb. That is, the fear that the US would become fascist. GangofOne 23:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "ignition of the atmosphere was impossible.... though if Bethe had been wrong, we would never know."

because we wouldn't exist. GangofOne 23:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I get it, but it's still a silly and not very encyclopedic comment. --Fastfission 01:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I know you get it, it's only intended to be read by those who don't get it. As far as silly goes, I don't know, but unencyclopedic , yes, the hope is that it would cause thinking, and thus get more people familiar with the sensation. GangofOne 03:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
The point of an encyclopedia is to inform people, not pose little riddles to them. --Fastfission 03:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
You're being normative. GangofOne 03:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Any interest in helping out with the Y-12 National Security Complex article?

Hi! Would anyone working on this article be interested in helping out with the article on the Y-12 National Security Complex? I just stubified it because it was mostly .gov website copy/pastes. The article could certainly use any help it can get. --Takeel 18:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Parallel Processing

Maybe some note should be given to the fact that modern parallel processing concepts were developped at this time to efficiently do the required computations for the design of the bomb (though the 'computers' were still human at this point). Just a thought. -Mr. Tachyon

  • Well, there's a lot of things that came out of the project that should be discussed but currently aren't, and that's definitely one of them... --Fastfission 18:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rv last 2 edits

The Manhattan Project evolved from the Briggs Uranium Committee, which was formed well after FDR got the Einstein letter, which was after Hitler took Poland in early Sept., 1941. Also the rewording of the previous edit says that WW2 caused the scientists to fear ....blah blah blah. The previous wording was better; it wasn't the "war", it was Hitler and Germany they feared, and they did so before there was a WW2.Sfahey 02:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree with your edits. --Fastfission 15:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serber?

This might be an inaccuracy--I could be wrong. Wasn't Serber of Columbia University, not the University of Illinois? There is nothing in Serber's wikipedia article to suggest he was ever at U of I.

Serber was a Columbia professor for many years until his retirement. I believe he was there during the relevant period but I am not sure.

Looking at the preface Serber wrote to The Los Alamos Primer, suggests it is as follows: He got his PhD from Wisconsin, was going to take a postdoc at Princeton when he met Oppenheimer and instead went to California (Berkeley and Pasadena) where he stayed until 1938, at which point he went to work at U. of I. at Urbana until 1942, when he went to Berkeley and from there Los Alamos. I've added this information to his page here. --Fastfission 20:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The road towards nuclear fission accelerated in the 1930s

The road cannot accelerate, it's the movement on the road that accelerates 85.11.148.60 09:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MilHist Assessment

I've got nothing to add or to criticize. This article is incredibly long, detailed, and thorough. It includes a multitude of pictures, and an extensive list of references, even if they're not cited in-line. I would love to see this accelerated to A-class or FA status as soon as feasible. LordAmeth 13:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

It needs a lot of work, IMO. It is missing quite a lot, and the narrative goes between being very (too) detailed and being very sparse. --Fastfission 00:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)



This article is not that bad overall. I have researched on this topic before, and i believe that overall it is a very good article with a few sticky points. I like the amount of detail, though in some places it does seem a bit too much. Either way, this article deserves a rating higher than the B it has now, and this could easily get there with a bit of editing. Eaglestrike7339 03:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] which countries where involved besides USA?

I've heard that this project involved several nations?

  • See section called "Similar efforts", second paragraph. JMcC 16:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is Inaccurate

Is it me or is this article very inaccurate? I mean this article is talking about russians stealing the idea and stuff well ITS TRUE THE DAMN RUSSIAN CAN NEVER THINK UP ANYTHING BY THEIR SELF....AND THAT GOES FOR ALL THEM DAMN IDEA STEALING COUNTRIES OUT THERE.......STAY OUT OF OUR DAMN BUISNESS!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks A Cencerned Reader --- The above comment posted (12:17, 2 February 2007) by 12.106.245.80

[edit] What does this sentance mean?

Under the Early UK and US research heading this sentence appears: "There was little sex elsewhere until Oliphant visited Ernest Lawrence, James Conant, chairman of the NDRC, and Enrico Fermi and told them of the MAUD Report"

Am I missing something or did some one screw with this page? (pun intended) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.209.70.149 (talk) 23:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

This is one of the problems with Wikipedia. Of course, it cannot be fixed unless it is brought to our attention. I am 99% sure that the above statement is false and created by someone who knows nothing of the subject and edited just to be an idiot. I will delete it.

[edit] Einstein's involvement (or lack of) in the project

Altered 1st section sentence:

"There were many scientists who worked on the project; one of which was Albert Einstein."

Einstein never worked directly on the project,

Sources:

1) "Einstein's FBI dossier grew to 1,427 pages, and denied a security clearence his was not permitted to know about the work of the Manhatten project even though his letter to President Roosevelt helped launch it"

Begley,Sharon "Newsweek" April 16th 2007 pg. 98

2) "In July 1940, the U.S. Army Intelligence office denied Einstein the security clearance needed to work on the Manhattan Project. The hundreds of scientists on the project were forbidden from consulting with Einstein, because the left-leaning political activist was deemed a potential security risk."

American Museum of Natural History http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/peace/manhattan.php

Woofmaster 03:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] British Motives

What exactly are the British Motives that the Americans were weary of which I have seen referred to in several pages on Anglo-American Nuclear co-operation

[edit] Similar Efforts

This section ends with the paragraph "Together with the cryptographic efforts centered at Bletchley Park and also at Arlington Hall, the development of radar and computers in the UK and later in the US, and the jet engine in the UK and Germany, the Manhattan Project represents one of the few massive, secret, and outstandingly successful technological efforts spawned by the conflict of World War II." The V-2 program in Germany deserves to be mentioned in this list. Vgy7ujm 07:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 90 Church Street?

I cannot find any other reference to 90 Church Street being the original location of the Manhattan Project. The website cited (travelgoat.com) does not look particularly reliable.

Can anyone confirm this?

71.106.172.78 05:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The NY Times published an article that gives the correct original locations. I corrected that information here.

I am sure there is lots of other stuff in the article and the book that can add to this page --Dogtown08 03:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

I have requested that the Military Policy Committee article be merged into this one, as the MPC does not appear to warrent a seperate article.Cromdog 03:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

It's just a stub now, but it could potentially expand into a full article. I don't see much advantage to merging this, as it will send people looking for that topic to search through a very large article (only to be disappointed by how little information they will find).--ragesoss 05:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I also oppose merger, as the tiny amount of information in the article would add nothing of value to the Manhattan Project article. Either expand Military Policy Committee to a meaningful article, or delete it. --Orlady 05:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

NO MERGE- WikiLuke —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.208.190 (talk) 09:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] military police integration

i agree that military police... should be integrrated into the article because they served a significant role in the project. that is all.



(81.158.75.114 09:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Highly purified??

This sentence: "Also, the bomb dropped used all the existing extremely highly purified U-235 (and even most of the highly purifed material)".. is that not duplication? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.8.108.142 (talk) 02:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Los Alamos site land price

FTR, I reverted a recent edit that added the detail that the Los Alamos site was bought by the government for $440,000. It was unsourced, and in the context of this article about the entire Manhattan Project it seems like irrelevant trivia. However, http://www.mphpa.org/classic/HISTORY/H-06c6.htm gives the total land price as $414,971. --Orlady (talk) 00:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Democritus came up with the theory of fission?

The roots of the theory of fission reach two thousand years back when Democritus expounded the theory that matter is made up of atoms, small particles that cannot be split into smaller parts.

1. The scientific method did not exist during the Ancient Greek period of learning; the scientific theory of fission was thus not rooted in Democritus's ideas. In fact, the term theory would be anachronistic.

2. Simply because the word "atom" owes its origin to the Greeks does not mean they actually studied, discovered, or hypothesized about the atom. They had no evidence to support its existence; these ideas of Democritus were purely philosophical, not scientific. Atomism, a philosophical school, and Atomic theory, a scientific area of study, are not the same thing! This is akin to grouping Astrology with Astronomy without proper context provided.

3. Democritus believed atoms are unbreakable (and he did not know of atoms in the way that we think of them; he simply considered it to be a nominal, uncuttable unit), so the notion that he would have come up with "fission" would actually contradict his philosophical school.

IMO, some of this history stuff needs to be reworded, because it is a misleading synthesis of material that suggests continuity in atomic theory from the time of the Ancient Greeks to today; this is simply not the case. -98.209.101.146 (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. It's a common move by non-historically savvy scientists to try and find the earliest possible author for something and then give them a ton of credit for it, even if it doesn't make any real historical sense. Democritus's "atom" had nothing to do with the modern atomic theory, had no influence whatsoever on the history of 20th century physics; H.G. Wells' "atom bombs" had nothing to do with actual nuclear weapons except that Leo Szilard was inspired by Wells in general. (Most people neglect to note as well that Wells' air-bombing fantasies were often combined with explicit genocide of other races for the good of the Europeans!)
In any case it isn't a useful use of space in the article: better to start with the atomic model of 1932 and go forward from there, as even starting with something apparently relevant as 1905's E=mc2 is not actually very informative for the reader. For the reader who wants more in-depth history of physics, there are other articles for this. For the Manhattan Project, what we need is a quick, "look, they were working on this, they discovered that, and it became really clear to some that you could make an atomic bomb." --98.217.8.46 (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] J Robert Oppenheimer

As a UC Berkeley grad student, I worked as a desk clerk in a retired residence in Berkeley where Oppenheimer's aunt lived. She was a wonderful person, and I believe that her husband was one of the founders of the School of Ethical Culture in New York.

One night Oppenheimer came in the building to visit his Aunt. I was shocked! I have never seen a face more lined and wracked with pain than his. I think he had a very difficult and disappointing life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.181.214.20 (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)