On this day in 1945 the scientists of the Manhattan Project exploded the world’s first atomic bomb, a plutonium weapon, in the Trinity Test near Alamogordo, New Mexico. (Cue sententious announcer: “… and the nuclear age began.”)
The Los Alamos lab opened in March, 1943, and so took slightly over two years to reach its goal. It involved eight Nobel laureates and around two thousand scientific and technical staff. Isolated on its New Mexico mesa—well worth a trip—it concentrated top theoretical physicists and their most promising apprentices, setting them to solve what was in the end chiefly an engineering problem.
As the prevalence of “a Manhattan project for” attests, a romance attends this episode, and a romance requires heroes. Beyond Newton, Darwin, and Einstein, the physicists at Los Alamos surely enjoy top scientific spot in the popular imagination. And they were such a variety of characters. Maybe you admire the archetypal lefty longhair J. Robert Oppenheimer. Possibly you enjoy the literary companionship of young Richard Feynman, the homesick kid from New York who hung a bagel over his bunk, who spent his time on the mesa playing practical jokes while wracked by his feelings for his dying wife. Or perhaps Edward Teller, who devoted himself to thinking of the next, bigger bomb—the thermonuclear weapon—and who thought nuclear energy could solve all problems, is more your kind of guy. Or the great theorist Hans Bethe, who, surrounded by his proteges, looked to Feynman like a battleship with its escorts. Or “Nicholas Baker.” Or Kenneth Bainbridge: at Trinity, Oppenheimer thought “I am become Death,” while Bainbridge said, “Now we’re all sons of bitches.”
Or maybe I. I. Rabi, who declined Oppenheimer’s invitation to direct a portion of the work at Los Alamos—was a bomb, Rabi asked, to be the “culmination of three centuries of physics”?—but who went to see the test at Trinity, anyway, and shared in the jubilant celebration.
Of course, whichever of those characters particularly interests you says as much about you as it does about them.


42 comments
July 16, 2008 at 1:13 pm
SomeCallMeTim
Of course, whichever of those characters particularly interests you says as much about you as it does about them.
Baker, Bethe, or Oppenheimer, probably in that order. So what does that say about me? (I think I was born under a moon sign, if that helps.)
July 16, 2008 at 1:18 pm
eric
Tim, this is an opportunity for quiet self-reflection, not an offer to read your palm.
July 16, 2008 at 1:20 pm
SomeCallMeTim
Damn.
July 16, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Vance Maverick
I’ve been quietly reflecting on what you might mean by your title allusion. Don’t fear death, because “death doth touch the resurrection”?
July 16, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Charlieford
My father worked for an electrical contracting company and did a lot of work at Princeton University. He got to know Oppenheimer slightly in the early 1960s, and when my father built an in-ground pool around 1963 or 4, Oppenheimer gave him his old pool-liner. That was the second nice thing Oppenheimer did for him. Before that, my dad had been in the Pacific during WWII (navy) and was of course slated to be part of the invasion of Japan. He was pretty convinced they would die. He had been at Okinawa (they were all at all the battles, basically) and his ship had been hit by a kamikaze. They say those concentrated the mind.
July 16, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Nathan Williams
Damn. I’ve been getting up early on this morning for years so I could be up for the anniversary (5:29:45, ignoring time zones and wartime time zone weirdness), and my calendar failed me last night, so I missed it (My grandparents met at Los Alamos during the Manhattan Project, hence the interest).
July 16, 2008 at 2:58 pm
neocynic
A nuclear weapon is just a leftist mechanism to pull out of a war-zone and deprives our soldiers their God-given rights to give their lives in the pursuit of freedom.
Appeasers.
July 16, 2008 at 4:11 pm
eric
I’ve been quietly reflecting on what you might mean by your title allusion.
Oppenheimer said that he had this poem in mind when thinking about what to call the test. Which isn’t the “batter my heart” poem but I guess got him there from here. He evidently read a lot of Dunne during the project.
July 16, 2008 at 4:14 pm
TF Smith
Second to Charlie’s comment; my father was radio officer aboard an ammunition ship in the Pacific in 1945, and had already been through the Marianas, the PI, and Okinawa…from his telling, no one was looking forward to Kyushu or Honshu.
Nicholson and Parsons, given their more than theoretical interest in the outcome of the program, have always struck me as interesting individuals. Groves, not as much.
July 16, 2008 at 4:18 pm
eric
Donne, I meant. Anyway, the title seemed to provide a nice question about the test.
July 16, 2008 at 4:22 pm
bob mcmanus
No mention of Leslie Groves?
The Brian Dennehy portrayal is much more sympathetic than the hatchet job Paul Newman did, as of course, David Straithairn was a the best Oppenheimer. Maybe not, little humourless.
But Groves deserves most of the credit. Period.
July 16, 2008 at 4:23 pm
bob mcmanus
Uhh, need a preview. Somebody help these guys out.
July 16, 2008 at 4:49 pm
neocynic
What happened at the Edge of the American West today?
Dunne Donne Done.
Only the Shadow knows . . .
July 16, 2008 at 5:12 pm
eric
Bob, you will note the post talks about physicists. Leslie Groves wasn’t a physicist.
July 16, 2008 at 5:50 pm
bob mcmanus
Bob, you will note the post talks about physicists
It involved eight Nobel laureates and around two thousand scientific and technical staff.
As the prevalence of “a Manhattan project for” attests, a romance attends this episode, and a romance requires heroes.
The post does focus on Los Alamos, possibly the smallest and least interesting part of the project. The Manhattan project was mostly about producing fissile material.
During wartime, for Groves to marshall the essential resources for a questionable & incomprehensible project, at the sacrifice of his own career, was the necessary heroic and romantic act.
July 16, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Brad
I would want to be Teller, but only if I get the cool black outfits and the red light saber….
Bizarrely, in the late-80s, I heard Teller speak (just the person to motivate high school kids to study math and science.) Just before Teller started, my friend turned to me and jokingly said, “oh, he is going to spend the next half hour talking about Star Wars.” My friend was wrong, it was 45 minutes.
July 16, 2008 at 6:33 pm
eric
Bob, inasmuch as Groves didn’t come up with thermal or gaseous diffusion, plutonium, electromagnetic or chemical separation, the “gun” or “implosion” models, I stand by my decision to focus on the physicists.
I don’t object to your bringing up Groves; I notice other people brought up the bombing of Hiroshima, which this post also isn’t about. But I do object to your suggesting I should have brought up Groves. Blogs are free, Bob. If you start one, I promise not to troll it.
July 16, 2008 at 6:33 pm
eric
I knew Teller’s grandson. Nice fellow.
July 16, 2008 at 6:34 pm
bob mcmanus
Ah well. It might be an interesting question why there is so much focus on the 2000 people at Los Alamos and these particular physicists, because surely among the 123,000 working around the rest of the country there may have even been a physicist or two. And the huge infrastructure designed & created by Groves in mere months, e.g. Oak Ridge & Hanford etc, created the momentum for military & civilian nuclear and may be critical to the understanding of the next decade and the Cold War & bi-polar world. Besides all other distributed R & D and manufacturing projects.
But you are right, Groves is only an engineer and administrator, and didn’t play saxophone. And you are the historian.
July 16, 2008 at 6:40 pm
bob mcmanus
Of course, whichever of those characters particularly interests you says as much about you as it does about them.
I didn’t read your post as, say, excluding the machinists who made the lenses. Maybe I would have found one of those interesting. It didn’t feel completely limited to a half dozen physicists. I apparently read you wrong.
July 16, 2008 at 6:42 pm
eric
And you are the historian.
Bob, please go troll some other blog.
July 16, 2008 at 6:56 pm
bob mcmanus
Is Leo Szilard excluded? I always liked him very much.
I don’t like you, Eric, and should have looked for the author of the post before I started. This post, history as the creation of romantic “heroes”, is one of the reasons.
July 16, 2008 at 7:03 pm
ari
Bob, you don’t like me, either, right? So maybe you should look for a new blog to troll, as Eric, rather more politely than I would have done, suggested.
July 16, 2008 at 7:04 pm
eric
Bob, this post isn’t about creating heroes, it’s about acknowledging their existence, and pointing out that it says much about us, and little about them.
And if you don’t like me, you may feel free, as I said, to troll some other blog.
July 16, 2008 at 7:05 pm
eric
Right, let me make that clearer. You’re not welcome here, Bob.
July 16, 2008 at 7:13 pm
neocynic
History blogs get a strange breed of troll.
I need to work on my taxonomy.
July 16, 2008 at 7:22 pm
ari
We go way back with Bob, neocynic. Truth be told, we have very few trolls around these parts. And those that do show up are usually much appreciated. Or at least tolerated. But Bob works awfully hard to get under our/my skin. And look, he succeeded!
July 16, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Michael Elliott
Joseph Masco has a great little piece on the the commemoration of the anniversary that takes place at the Trinity Site in this book. He points out that the visitors can’t even get close enough to see the location where the bomb detonated, and so in fact end up looking at pictures of an obelisk that’s placed there.
Masco’s book also sounds pretty interesting.
July 16, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Michael Elliott
OK, that almost worked.
July 16, 2008 at 7:35 pm
davenoon
we have very few trolls around these parts.
which is why I’m here….
July 16, 2008 at 7:38 pm
grackle
A great anecdote about Teller, about which I don’t know the veracity , has him commenting on being called an asshole to the effect of what a wonderful and complex valve the asshole is: It is able to differentiate among gases, liquids and solids, allowing the proper ones to pass, something science has been more or less unable to effect with artificial valves. Not an observation of heroism but still, of some minor interest.
July 16, 2008 at 7:39 pm
ari
Fixed that for you, Michael. And no, dave, you and Neddy are here because the neighborhood association suggested that we had too many Jews occupying this place. We were dragging down property values throughout the academic blogosphere. Plus, there seemed to be possibilities for dog blogging synergy.
July 16, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Vance Maverick
I find it very strange, frivolity/blasphemy/megalomania, that Oppenheimer should associate those poems with himself and the bomb. A complex figure.
July 16, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Vance Maverick
Um, just to forestall misunderstanding (I’ve managed to be misunderstood this way here before), I’m not concerned with whether Oppenheimer actually belonged to the sect whose doctrines inform the poems.
July 17, 2008 at 3:32 am
iain
May I mention Rudolf Peierls, who did not only crucial theoretical work (he and Otto Frisch calculated the amount of Uranium required – something the rival German project never managed to do correctly) but assembled by hand the first bomb?
July 17, 2008 at 6:37 am
eric
May I mention Rudolf Peierls
Of course; Peierls is an interesting character. And I’m sorry if I’ve given the impression it’s not okay to supplement, argue with, or rocket off at a tangent to the post. It’s fine, and even delightful.
What Bob does that’s not okay is to shift the ground of his disagreement and to get belligerent about it. As here: he moves from (1) Groves was the real hero to (2) Other physicists not at Los Alamos were the real heroes to (3) We shouldn’t talk about heroes to (4) “I don’t like you.”
But by all means, diverge and disagree in civil fashion.
July 17, 2008 at 6:59 am
eric
Although actually it went, “(3) ‘I don’t like you’ and (4) We shouldn’t be talking about heroes”. But you get the point.
July 17, 2008 at 7:57 am
TF Smith
What’s the general view of using Richard Rhodes’ various “atomic age” works as supplementary texts in terms of WW II/Cold war/postwar history?
Not exactly on point, I suppose, but I’m interested in the opinions of people currently teaching.
Thanks to all
July 17, 2008 at 8:11 am
John B.
Feynman was a true pleasuire to hear talk and give lectures. I saw him a couple of times in Santa Fe in the early 80’s talk at SJC. He had a broad mind that was curious about everything and truly could make the very difficult seem accessible and intimately interesting to the merely pedestrian, like me.
July 17, 2008 at 9:46 am
ajay
Eugene Wigner? “The conscience of the project from beginning to end”, one of the other Los Alamos crew called him (can’t remember which one, but it’s in Rhodes).
But, to be honest, the Manhattan Project wasn’t a great triumph of physics. It was a great triumph of engineering and management; there were no great physical discoveries made there.
July 17, 2008 at 10:06 am
TF Smith
Groves, Parsons, and Nicholson were systems engineers before systems engineering was cool.
July 17, 2008 at 10:37 am
Student
“possibly the smallest and least interesting part of the project”.
There’s no question that making fissile material was very important and very difficult; yet you could make the material til the cows come home and you wouldn’t have much without the “physics package” would you? And as the poster notes, what happened today is the anniversary of the date one of the “packages” was tested. Find another day to commemorate when Manhattan produced the first few grams of HEU.
.