Rating: 
Summary: Bohr's idea of the "complemantarity of the bomb"
Review: As noted by Rhodes, the book encapsulates Bohr's notion of the complementarity of the bomb. The question becomes then, what is the complementarity of the bomb and how does it enter into the debate over nuclear proliferation and national security in the years when the bomb was first developed? The complementarity of the bomb is best understood as a paradox, a theory which epitomizes the danger of unintended consequences of technology. In Bohr's memorandum to President Roosevelt, he laid out his theory as a new language that is born out of the harnessing of nuclear power but necessary to grasp what such capabilities entail. According to Bohr, the bomb, ironically, was not so much a weapon as a threat. The magnitude of such a threat entailed that, "when nuclear weapons spread to other countries, as they certainly would, no one would be able any longer to win. A spasm of mutual destruction would be possible. But not war."(532) In this way, the idea of the bomb paradoxically destroyed the concept which it was designed to dominate long before it ever came to fruition. It destroyed the old conception of war and supplanted it with a possibility which was much darker, more ominous, and ultimately eschatological. Rhodes explains that in a world of international anarchy where nations compete for self-interested goals, war had been the method of final negotiation. The bomb created a situation where this old construct could no longer work because when applied the bomb would subvert the goals it was intended to meet. The power it contained was ultimate as Rhodes describes it in divine proportions. Under the old framework of arms build-up each new bomb would quantitatively increase security. However, because this new power was so ultimate it would in fact accomplish the opposite. "Because there would be no sure protection against so powerful and portable a mechanism, in the course of time each additional unit added to the stockpiles would decrease security by adding to the general threat..."(533) Simply, this paradox is reduced to the realization that "total security would be indistinguishable from total insecurity."(533) Paraphrased, the magnitude of this technology was such that it polarized the possibilities in war. There would be only two choices, precarious and nervous "peace" or total death. So what to do? It is in answering this question that the optimistic side of Bohr's quote, "...would offer quite unique opportunities to bridge the international divergencies," becomes clear. Faced with the new prospectus created by the bomb, Bohr thought that a constant and eternal standoff could be avoided by recognizing the logic that the bomb created, deciding not to continue production, and negotiating peace. "Negotiating peace rather than allowing the deus ex machina inhumanly to impose standoff might show the common threat to contain within itself, complementarily, common promise."(534) The common promise of which Rhodes speaks is that of a consortium of nations which would not only collectively and universally agree not to pursue nuclear proliferation but also would open themselves up to the eyes of the world in order maintain confidence that they are in compliance. There would be a collective of knowledge which would far outweigh the benefits of a perpetual yet temporary upper-hand in an arms race. In many ways, then, it seems that the bomb itself was neutral and it was the way in which humans attempted to understand it which presented such contention. The complementarity of the bomb had less to do with the actual bomb itself but the way men(and it seems that it was just men) and nations handled it. Men, in response to knowledge of the bomb, could eliminate inequality "by destroying rich and poor, democratic and totalitarian alike in one final apocalypse," and complementarily, could alleviate inequality by opening up the world to knowledge which represented a threat to world security.(535) The analogy is played out in the game of tick-tack-toe (from War Games fame). With full knowledge, it is impossible to truly defeat the opponent. Thus, the game is not fit for play. President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill, however, chose to do otherwise. In trying to understand why Churchill and Roosevelt "spoke another language" a view of the magnitude inherent in the notion of the complementarity of the bomb is revealed. Bohr, it seems, was suggesting an entirely new world order, one where the old rules of war no longer applied. He saw the realities and the logic of the bomb as an opportunity to make an unlikely yet incredible advancement in international relations, worldly social structures, and equality. According to Bohr, it was logical. However, when put into context, it also required a leap of faith. The world leaders worked on the old model of competition, of traditional warfare, of détente. They were Claude Fisher's "telegraph men" (from America Calling) who did not fully recognize the merit of their product.
Rating:
Summary: The Manhatten Project, and much more
Review: In the past few years I've read everything I can about the Manhatten Project, as research for my own book about Robert Oppenheimer. This is the standout volume, with more information about more aspects of the Project and the people on it than any other work, magnificently summarized and outstandingly presented. I've seldom read anything to touch it, on any subject. My highest reccomendation.
Rating:
Summary: A remarkable achievement!
Review: This book may be the best ever written about science and technology for a lay audience. Most authors sacrifice rigor in order to tell such stories, but Richard Rhodes miraculously gets the science right, while weaving a narrative every bit as gripping as the best works of fiction. How he managed to organize the huge volume of material in this wonderful way is truly a remarkable achievement. It's been said by many others: It is no wonder that he won the Pulitzer for this book! --Prof. Tom Lee, Stanford University
Rating:
Summary: Definitive, Nearly Perfect, and Important
Review: I recommend this work to you for two reasons: first, I believe it important for a citizen of the world to understand the development and initial employment of this "gadget" (as its creating physicists designated the bomb), and second, this is a fine read: significant history with minimal political taint. This is a story more fascinating than Clancy's best, due simply to its veracity. No wonder this won the Pulitzer! This is well-written and captivating history. Rhodes includes dialog and writings to allow his reader to meet the physicists, soldiers, and politicians. His technical descriptions of the involved science satiate me, a chemist, yet he supplies the definitions and background to permit ready comprehension by readers not versed in nuclear theory. Finally, his account of the events in the two decades prior to and during the Manhattan Project educates without boredom. Much of this work concerns the men and women discovering the constituents of the atom and of its potential to be affected for some utility. The science is not overwhelming, but well-written and clear. This is written as a historical text book, with documentation galore. I concur with my fellow reader who remarked on their amazement that one man could compile this. What a tome of research! I shall limit my complaints to two. I found the account to be heavy on the early days and developers of nuclear theory. I also tired of reading Bohr's philosophy on the need to share science with the world. Anyone interested in the history of the 20th Century or in atomic weapons would not regret reading The Making of the Atomic Bomb. What struck me most? How quickly the industrial capability of the United States put this into motion, once committed. Trinity, the first test shot, was July 16, 1945. Less than one month later, Little Boy dropped. Los Alamos was established for only two years prior to the first bombing. These men and women were not evil: they were giants and pioneers in science. Many of the key players were European, serving their adopted nation to beat the enemy to discovering a bigger stick. Several were forced to leave their home lands due to some Jewish blood in a spouse. They were chilled to observe the power they had made when they watched Trinity through their welders glass, several miles distant. Hitler, the Japanese, and the Russians were working on atomic weapons of their own. Would the world be a better place if they had beaten the US in this race? Some seem to forget that the conventional fire bombings, poison gases, flame throwers, and concentration camps were also unspeakably horrible. Remarkable prescience: as these scientists were assembling their first bombs, they realized that a policy of mutual deterrance via escalation in the US and USSR would ensue. I was humbled to read of the brilliance of so many involved. I do not consider myself to be a pessimist, but I think there remain few men and women like these men and women. Imagine a place Where it all began They gathered from across the land To work in the secrecy of the desert sand All of the brightest boys to play with the biggest toys-- More than they bargained for. . . "Manhattan Project," Neal Peart, 1985 (Rush, Power Windows)
Rating:
Summary: From discovery of electron to history of Quantum Mechanics
Review: When I found out that I had to read a book for the Modern Physics class I was a bit scared. I am a slow reader and cannot read boring books. Since the day I picked up this book I have not been able to put it down. I am a Physics student and now I know the importance of history. I have been able to understand the technicality of Modern Physics so much better now then before. I recommend it to all Physics and science lovers out there.
Rating:
Summary: An outstanding, fascinating read.
Review: Richard Rhode's The Making of the Atomic Bomb is outstanding. As a nuclear-trained engineer, I am able to appreciate the genius of the men whose vision and brilliance made the bomb possible. As an individual concerned with the human condition, I am also able to appreciate Rhode's treatment of the moral and psychological aspects of his topic. Fascinating.
Rating: 
Summary: Very Detail History
Review: About 75% of the book is history behind the people who made the bomb. If you're just looking for the science behind it be prepared to skip many pages. At the end of the book there is a short section on the H-bomb which was nice. Overall the book had too much history for me, wanted more science.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent when he writes about the Making of the Bomb
Review: This is a wonderful history of the science that was required to build the bomb, and it was also an excellent description of the political and engineering decisions that led to the building of the bomb. While the book is on these subjects it is an excellent, wonderful history. However, as the book moves towards the dropping of the bomb, Mr. Rhodes moves on to several descriptions that seem out of place, particularly his thinly veiled contempt for Curtis LeMay. The descent continues until the book ends with a horrible ending chapter on the sciological impact of the bomb, whose tone was totally inconsistent with the rest of the book. Despite this final chapter, this is an excellent history, and I would recommend it to anyone who was interested in a twentieth century history of Physics. I would just tell them to stop after the description of Teller and Ulam's building of the Hydrogen Bomb.
Rating:
Summary: If you like science history, you must read this book!
Review: The detailed description of the scientific discoveries that led to the atomic bomb is absolutely fascinating. The book is very well written and you will not want to put it aside before reading the last page.
Rating:
Summary: The Greatest Scientific Development of the 20th Century...
Review: ...deserves a narrative documentary of the highest quality. Fortunately for us, Richard Rhodes was up to the task. He delves into the physics that made the bomb possible and the personalities who nearly made it impossible. For instance, he has the courage to move Albert Einstein slightly off center-stage of 20th Century physics and to give credit more to the ensemble effort that led to the creation of the bomb. The bomb was really the product of industrial might (backed with an enormous commitment of finances), military resources and discipline, scientific wit and intelligence, human creativity and imagination, and political will. That all of these things could be focused and brought into convergence is almost unthinkable in today's terms. As a subterranean national priority, very few of the general public had the foggiest notion that it was going on. Simpler times. The author has managed to assemble the diverse research that was obviously necessary in a way that is comparable to the building of the bomb. That would have been enough for the record, but Mr. Rhodes exceeds himself in the quality of his writing, never slipping into the tempting morass of techno-jargon. Rather, he actually manages to explain all the key elements that renders the subject understandable by the layperson. Not least of all is his effectiveness in showing the protaganists as three-dimensional humans. He raises the important ethical and social consequences of the development without much of a rhetorical bias one way or the other. Close the windows, lock the doors and read this book.
| 
