Making of the Atomic Bomb

The book would have earned five stars if the author had not injected as much of his naive and politically correct view of the world as he does. Specifically, he spends a good deal of the last chapter and parts of earlier chapters indulging a woolly-headed belief that somehow the Stalin would have allowed the Soviet Union to become an open society in order to avoid the perils of a nuclear arms race, if only the U.S. and Britain had just done things differently. Also, while he does not entirely ignore the excellent reasons for dropping the atomic bombs, he devotes a great deal of space to those who, in ignorance of the the military realities of the war with Japan or because they could not bring themselves to make a hard decision which would save millions of Japanese and Allied lives, whined and railed against the use of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

There are a few other subjects on which the author's "Late 20th Century Politically Correct" viewpoint comes through, but for the most part these were merely minor annoyances. Overall, and especially if you skip the last part of the last chapter, the book is excellent.


Vade mecum to the modern age   June 1, 2004
Bibliophile
For me, the most dramatic - and scariest - part of the whole book is probably on p. 275: "Enrico Fermi...was standing at his panoramic office window high in the physics tower [of Columbia University] looking down the gray winter length of Manhattan Island, its streets alive as always with vendors and taxis and crowds. He cupped his hands as if he were holding a ball. 'A little bomb like that,' he said simply, for once not lightly mocking, 'and it would all disappear.'"

This was one day in the winter of 1938/1939, probably in Jan or Feb of 1939. Fermi was of course referring to the atomic warhead yet to be invented. Fermi's estimates of the size of the fissile material required to produce such a devastating effect remain as true today in this post-911 age as then.

I entirely agree with Rhodes that the key personality in the whole saga was not Einstein or Oppenheimer or even Fermi but Niels Bohr, who was the godfather to modern nuclear physics, who was the guiding spirit if not a working technician at Los Alamos, and whose complementarity principle, originally devised to explain quantum mechanics, became applicable to the dilemma of the bomb itself. Rhodes's emphasis on Bohr's complementarity both surprises and impresses me.

If I'm allowed one criticism, it would be that a timeline of the major developments is missing.


Masterpiece of Thoroughness   April 20, 2004
Mr. Hasta Pasta (Oz, Lithuania)
This book is so good that words fall short. Suffice it to say that this is one of the most well-researched, thorough, well-written, insightful and wise histories of a phenomenon ever produced. It is an epic story with tragic overtones, populated with a cast of characters as diverse and rich as a Russian novel. It is the WHOLE story of the development of the atomic bomb -- historical, scientific, political. The lengthy description of the physical processes instigated by the explosion of the first A-bomb in history in New Mexico is like a brilliant prose poem. The chapter called "Tongues of Fire," which concerns the fate of the Japanese upon whom the bombs were dropped, is one of the most nightmarish and horrifying things I've ever read, and I literally had to fend off tears. If you're interested in the subject, you simply must read this book.

I only have one tiny, tiny criticism to offer, which is almost not worth mentioning, though I'll mention it anyway. Though Rhodes' assessment of Robert Oppenheimer's character and qualifications is exemplary, the book left me slightly unclear over exactly why he was chosen to head the Manhattan Project. In other words, I would have liked more material about the decision-making processes that went on behind the scenes which ultimately lead to his appointment.