Talk:Manhattan Project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manhattan Project article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
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).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/n/Talk%7EManhattan_Project_1d7f.html"