Kyle Rose AMH 11:30 SSC Altamonte

The Manhattan Project

If you were to ask person who developed the atomic bomb, most likely you would hear Albert Einstein. Einstein played a significant role in the bombs development; however, he was not the sole contributor. Scientists like Enrico Fermi, Leo Szilard, J. Robert Oppenheimer, and Leslie Groves were also major contributors in creating an atomic bomb. (Web Source 3) The basis for nuclear research and development, code named The Manhattan Project, came from Einsteins relativity theories. These equations described a relationship between energy and mass with the equation where c represents the speed of light. (Sherrow 7)

This equation did not create the atomic bomb as many are lead to believe. In fact, no one could even prove that Einstein s theories were valid. It wasn t until 1932, when John Crockcroft and E.T.S. Walton split the atom, that Relativity was proven. As a result, a physicist by the name of Leo Szilard realized that it was to have a nuclear chain reaction. (Web Source 2) What is meant by a nuclear chain reaction is that if a heavy enough atom such as uranium is shot with a neutron then that atom will split into lighter elements, two neutrons and radiation/energy. Those two neutrons can then split two other *uranium atoms which will yield four available neutrons and so on. Not long after this idea came about Enrico Fermi achieved the first nuclear fission which was followed by The Theory of Nuclear Fission being released by Lise Meitner and Otto Hahn. (Web Source 2) By 1940 the theoretical bases for building an atomic bomb were widely known and Germany, Britain and the Soviet Union were all perusing the technology; secretly of course. (Sherrow 20) On October 11, 1939 Franklin D. Roosevelt receives letter written by Leo Szilard, Einstein and Eugene Wigner about German atomic research. All were German immigrants who fled Germany in the face of the Nuremburg Laws and the rise of the Nazis. The initial concern came from Szilard who knew that the Germans had split the uranium atom and understood the gravity of such a feat. However, Szilard knew it was unlikely that the president would take an unknown

Kyle Rose AMH 11:30 SSC Altamonte scientist seriously, so he contacted Einstein whom the president had actually met. (Sherrow 18-22) In response to the letter, President Roosevelt set up a secret meeting to explore the military implications. (Web Source 2) Though some military officials were skeptical about fantastical claims of a few kilograms destroying a city, Roosevelt gave the go ahead for full scale bomb development in 1941. (Web Source 2) The Manhattan Project was in full effect and the race for the bomb had begun. After the discovery of Plutonium, which was discovered to be a superior fissile material, the project called for large amounts of both Plutonium and Uranium (for two types of bombs). (Web Source 4) Testing was also a necessity because no one knew for sure what the extent of nuclear power was. The biggest question to answer was if and how could a nuclear reaction be controlled. On December 2, 1942, Fermi who lead the S-1 group stationed at the University of Chicago, achieved the world s first controlled nuclear reaction. Operations begin to escalate following this event. In 1943 the bomb building project, code named: Project Y, was moved to remote Los Alamos, New Mexico. Naturally, the project leader Robert Oppenheimer wanted a secluded place where the team could draw as little attention as possible. Also in 1943, the nuclear reactor in Oak Ridge, Tennessee and the plutonium plant in Hanford, Washington began operations. (Sherrow 7) At this time, one major problem stood in Oppenheimer s way. Neither Plutonium nor Uranium had ever been produced in quantities large enough to see with the naked eye.

(Sherrow 47) To create the required uranium, workers used electromagnetic separation and gaseous
diffusion to purify uranium, separating U-235 from U-238. This process proved to be very slow and required an enormous amount of energy; for every two tons of fuel put in, less than an inch in diameter worth of usable material would be put out. By operating the plants for 18 hours a day and six days a week , enough fissionable material was eventually created for the bombs. (Sherrow 50-51) In 1945 the bombs were nearing completion and the Target Committee of the Manhattan Project selected four cities as possible targets for the atomic bomb. They were: Kyoto, Hiroshima, Kokura, and Niigata. (Web Source 2) In July of 1945, Oppenheimer and the team at Los Alamos finally had a bomb that could be

Kyle Rose AMH 11:30 SSC Altamonte tested, code named the Gadget. The bomb, which was a plutonium device, was exploded on July 16th.

(Sherrow 60) After witnessing the explosion Oppenheimer said, We knew the world would not be the
same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, "Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." I suppose we all felt that one way or another. (Sherrow 64) After the Trinity Test , President Truman orders the atomic bombs to be used on Japan. The Potsdam Declaration was issued July 26th calling for unconditional surrender of the Japanese. Of course, this was declined two days later. Then on August 6th and 9th, Little Boy and Fat Man were detonated over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (Web Source 2) The Manhattan Project had been completed, for better or for worse, and Oppenheimer would become known as the Father of the Atomic Bomb . With any issue there are always those who oppose and those who support. Many people, including Leo Szilard opposed or disagree with the use of the atomic bomb on Japan. I find it hard to believe that Szilard could oppose the use of a weapon that would quickly end a bloody conflict. I understand the moral strife associated with knowing that something you worked to create would end the lives of thousands but consider the alternative. If the bomb isn t dropped, then an invasion of mainland Japan would have been required. D-day in the European theater had proved costly enough and that was to an enemy that didn t mind surrendering if the situation called for it. An invasion of Japan would be much more costly because no Japanese soldier would dare surrender when his homeland was in jeopardy, in other words they would fight to the death. So by that logic, not only did the atomic bombs save American lives by avoiding the invasion but in all likelihood they saved many Japanese lives as well. As for the second bomb being dropped on Nagasaki, which is considerably more controversial than the first, I don t see any problem with it. First, just because the bombs are dropping doesn t mean that fighting elsewhere has ceased. There were young men fighting for their lives in the

Kyle Rose AMH 11:30 SSC Altamonte south pacific islands. Useless fighting if command plans on using a war ending weapon. Second, I believe that if the Japanese truly intended on surrendering after the first blast then they would have done so within the three day window between the bombings. When a city gets vaporized and a decision to surrender can t be made within three days, I would assume that surrender isn t coming and drop another bomb. I know it sounds like I have little regard for life, but you have to think differently when you fight an enemy that isn t afraid to die. If you take away the honor of dying in battle, then that may make death slightly less desirable. Finally, I think that the usage of the atomic bombs against Japan whether it is right or wrong, has served as an example to the world of how much responsibility comes with nuclear capabilities and how dangerous the technology can be. After all, not one has fallen on a populated city since August 9th, 1945. Another thing to consider, the theory behind building an atomic bomb had been around since 1940. In all likelihood, every industrialized country was probably trying to start a nuclear program. Realistically, the Japanese were probably not very close to developing a nuclear bomb or even the technology for it. However, in matters with such gravity I feel that it is better to assume the other side has the capability rather than underestimate them and pay the consequences. The basic idea is to get the bomb before they do and use it before they can. Another way to look at the situation is the Japanese had no qualms with surprising our troops at Pearl Harbor, what is to say that they would have acted morally with a nuclear weapon in their arsenal? Take the example of a repeating rifle or a Gatling gun versus Native Americans in the 19th century. Soldiers didn t think twice before mowing down hundreds of Native Americans with a superior technology that only they possessed. They were not afraid to use it. Granted there is a considerable difference between guns and a nuclear weapon, but the point is that if one side has a tactical advantage it will almost certainly utilize that advantage. In my opinion, the morality issues faced by the creators of the atomic bomb are dwarfed by the various emotions that must have come over them during the Cold War. I cannot even imagine what it

Kyle Rose AMH 11:30 SSC Altamonte would have been like during the height of the Cold War to know that you caused the arms race. The race for the most and best nuclear weapons and coming to the brink of nuclear war may have been inevitable but, to know that you helped built the first bomb that sparked the Soviets to complete theirs who then try to out do the United States who then tries to one up the Soviets. It must have been extremely upsetting for men of academia to see that. One positive result of the research done developing atomic weapons is the development of nuclear power plants. From what I understand, nuclear power is one of the cleanest sources of power we have today. The idea behind a nuclear reactor is to use the heat generated by fission to heat water and use the steam produced to turn turbines which convert either mechanical or magnetic energy to electrical energy. I believe that nuclear fission reactors or possibly fusion reactors are the best and most reliable alternatives to fossil fuels. To explain, there is virtually no air pollution, they reduce carbon emissions and they help to break the dependence on foreign oil. Although, I wouldn t say that the technology is perfect. In modern reactors the safety measures are extensive and there are fail safes for virtually every part of the system. However, when incidents like Three Mile Island and the situation in Japan occur I think it scares the public away from the idea. Not to mention, it gives the opposition a fear factor tool. Ideally reactors could be built away from populated areas, that way the public could be more at rest with the idea of nuclear power plants. In summation, the Manhattan Project was an extremely important event from our past that is also shaping our future. The Manhattan Project and its results are criticized by some for unnecessary killing with the second bomb drop. Its results brought the world dangerously close to a nuclear war during the Cold War. However, the Manhattan Project can be seen as a miracle in that dropping the atomic bombs saved hundreds of thousands of lives by avoiding another devastating invasion by American troops. It has given mankind a sustainable and clean form of energy that may one day serve as a replacement for fossil fuels. But I think the most important result of the Manhattan Project is that the

Kyle Rose AMH 11:30 SSC Altamonte United States at first, but the world too would eventually see the power that we as a race wield. With that power comes great responsibility that we will either choose to accept or face annihilation.

Kyle Rose AMH 11:30 SSC Altamonte

Works Cited
1. Sherrow, Victoria. The Making of the Atom Bomb. San Diego, CA: Lucent, 2000. Print.

2. "American History Timelines - The Manhattan Project." American History From About. Web. 05 June 2011. <http://americanhistory.about.com/library/timelines/bltimelinemanhat.htm>.

3. "Manhattan Project." Spartacus Educational - Home Page. Web. 04 June 2011. <http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmanhattan.htm>.

4. "The Manhattan Project." The Nuclear Weapon Archive - A Guide to Nuclear Weapons. Web. 05 June 2011. <http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Med/Med.html>.