Critical Assembly: A Technical History of Los Alamos during the Oppenheimer Years, 1943–1945 by Lillian Hoddeson, et al

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE Book Reviews 1053 matics in World War II. Portions of the story appear here and there in particular contexts. The mathematicians of the Applied Mathemat­ ics Panel of the Office of Scientific Research and Development voted down the possibility of a volume in the series of official popular histo­ ries of Bush’s agency. Burke ends with a topic most readers will find very fresh: the post­ war attempt to develop automated documentation systems as steps to the visionary Bush Memex. The center of attention is the attempt by Ralph Shaw to automate the library with the Rapid Selector based on the use of microfilm. The rise of documentalists and of information science is treated briefly but intriguingly. More attention should have been paid to the actions of medical librarians, nor does the author grasp what was happening circa 1945—60 in the library world in gen­ eral. But, like his earlier pages, there are many leads to individuals, events, and trends badly in need of historical illumination. Nathan Reingold Dr. Reingold is senior historian emeritus at the National Museum of American History. Critical Assembly: A Technical History ofLos Alamos during the Oppenheimer Years, 1943—1945. By Lillian Hoddeson, Paul W. Henriksen, Roger A. Meade, and Catherine Westfall. New York: Cambridge Univer­ sity Press, 1993. Pp. xv + 509; illustrations, notes, indexes. $39.95. We now have a groaning shelf full of books tracing the develop­ ment of atomic weapons during World War II, so why another? Lil­ lian Hoddeson and her coauthors tell us that this volume provides “a technical history” of Project Y, an examination in great detail of the organization and conduct of research at a technical level. Indeed, this book takes a very narrow perspective and examines only the Los Alamos laboratory, mentioning Hanford, Oak Ridge, or Chicago only when necessary and only in passing. Politics and grand strategy are absent, and there is not even much discussion of personalities; one short chapter treats wartime life at Los Alamos. Yet we learn much here, although readers should bring to this book knowledge of the general history of the Manhattan Project, its people, and accomplish­ ments. After opening with two background chapters on physics and fission between 1933 and 1943, the book then examines the origins of the laboratory at Los Alamos. From that point, the work is organized around the main problems confronting the laboratory: understand­ ing the nuclear properties of uranium and plutonium, constructing a gun-type weapon, and developing an implosion device. The book follows these stories in chronological fashion; indeed, chapters can be read out of sequence in order to follow each problem without detours. Special attention is given to the experiments and diagnostic 1054 Book Reviews TECHNOLOGY AND CULTURE equipment used to gain knowledge of materials and principles. The plutonium bomb was the most difficult challenge, and truly intriguing experiments were designed to furnish information on implosion, det­ onation, and the development of proper high explosives. The book concludes with a discussion of the technical aspects of dropping the bombs, and summary chapters on the lab’s significance. At one level, this is an official history, although the only official intrusion was the deletion of some material,during classification re­ views. The project was supported by the Los Alamos laboratory in the interest of preserving the fading memories and lessons of the war. To this end, the lab added a program of oral interviews to its efforts to maintain important historical documents. Both sources are used very well throughout the book and permit a new level of knowledge about the lab’s work. Indeed, official support brought advantages, including access to all relevant classified documents (these are cited for the first time), and comments, editorial assistance, and corrections by a number of technical experts and others closely involved in the lab. But a downside of the official connection may be a tendency to focus on who did what, when, and for what technical reason. The analysis focuses on research methods, not on individual motivation, personal­ ity, or laboratory structure. Little attention is given to the role of regular seminars in the process of solving problems, for example, and other books...