outremer 55 catamaran price

• Yachting World
• Digital Edition

Outremer 55 first look: Efficient catamaran promises more sailing and less motoring

• October 14, 2020

Feedback from some 310 previous Outremer owners has gone into refining the design of the new Outremer 55

Plugging the gap between Outremer’s longstanding 5X and 51 models, the Outremer 55 will exhibit the brand’s typical balance of performance and comfort.

When the design was unveiled at the Düsseldorf Boat Show in January, we heard how VPLP ’s efficient hull shape will allow the boat to match wind speed up to around 12 knots.

“It means much less use of the engines,” explains commercial director Matthieu Rougevin-Baville. Outremer considers performance to be a key plank of its environmental policy. “If you can sail at 5 knots, you can sail 95% of the time,” he reasons.

Article continues below…

Discovery 50 review: This British bluewater catamaran could win over monohull purists

Many of us who dream of long-term cruising want to do it in comfort, preferably in a quality build from…

Lagoon 46 first look: Updating this catamaran is a significant step for the yard

Lagoon has sold 900 of its 450 catamaran model in eight years, maxing out the 130-a-year mould capacity in latter…

One Outremer owner has sailed round the world with his family yet filled the tanks only three times, we are told.

There are daggerboards for 15-degree better windward performance, and a swing helm pedestal that allows you to sit up on the side deck in fine weather, or shelter under the hard top when it turns inclement.

Tillers are still an option, but Outremer has worked hard to give the wheel better feedback. It is set up for short-handed bluewater sailing.

Outremer is part of the same Grand Large group which owns Gunboat, and there have been some technical improvements, notably on the lamination.

For instance, the coachroof is now stiffer, despite being lighter and having more openings. Powered winches are electric rather than hydraulic, saving kilos.

The yard also considers ventilation paramount for an eco-friendly cruiser, rather than fitting air conditioning, which needs more fuel and results in additional weight.

With 2.3kW of solar panels on the coachroof, Outremer claims the 55 is electrically self-sufficient – and that is despite having equipment such as watermakers and dishwashers.

The rear of the saloon completely opens to unite the cockpit and the interior, and there is the option of three or four good-sized double cabins.

Specification

LOA: 16.69m (54ft 9in) Beam: 8.28m (27ft 2in) Displacement (light): 13,500kg (29,762lb) Price: €1,215,000 (ex. VAT)

• Boat Tests , Catamarans and multihulls , News , SAILBOATS

Outremer 55: the perfect catamaran, an unforgettable sea trial

• Luca D'Ambrosio
• January 29, 2024

Outremer 55: a truly challenging sea trial.

The market is unfortunately getting us used to seeing sailing catamarans that look more and more like motor sailers. Boats that, in almost all cases, end up sailing mostly under power all the time. Don’t get me wrong, I like to be comfortable in a boat too, however, there are some limits that, when crossed, make sailing almost impossible. Outremer Catamaran is a French boatyard that, on the contrary, has been manufacturing catamarans that are instead designed for real sailing for 40 years, whether they are used for summer cruises or, as is often the case, to sail off and travel the world. They are boats that can go fast, ensure great comfort and luff up like a monohull, all while providing a very high level of safety.

You will therefore easily understand how, as soon as the chance arose, I jumped into my car and, rocketing off, drove to La Grande Motte to climb aboard an Outremer 55, the flagship of this iconic shipyard.

Outremer 55 Sea Trial

Our Outremer 55 is waiting for us in La Grande Motte, headquarters of the shipyard and a charming Camargue town near Montpellier. This is precisely where the Mistral is born, and today’s day confirms this unquestionably. We are still in port, the wind is already blowing between 20 and 25 knots and tends to strengthen later in the day.

Mark, the skipper, however, is as cool as a cucumber and, using the two engines, maneuvers smoothly between the posts and gets us out of the mooring. We sail slowly out of the breakwater and, while we’re still sheltered, set to windward and hoist the mainsail, then bear away, the boat rockets off and we turn the engine off. With just the mainsail we are already sailing at 9.5/10 knots!

These are the conditions I was looking for so, after asking the captain, I take hold of the windward wheel and set about steering.

This is certainly not the first sailing catamaran I have tested but this one is definitely different from anything I have sailed on before, the wheel is prompt, responsive and allows to “feel” the wind pressure on the sails: helming in these conditions is inebriating.

I pull away and from the transom drop down to 110 degrees of apparent wind, Outremer 55 sails fast and safe, with the legendary daggerboards lowered halfway, in a sea streaked white by the wind. The true wind is blowing at 24 knots and we are sailing peacefully at 16.8 knots!

I start to luff up; I need to see how the Outremer 55 performs against the wind and, more importantly, against the waves. The apparent wind, however, obviously increases a lot, so we trim the mainsail, roll the genoa and open the foresail.

By now we are far from the coast, the true wind is steadily above 25 knots and some gusts reach 30.

The waves have greatly increased and reached an average height of 1.5 meters.

Sailing windward, however, Outremer 55 is performing decidedly well, at 60 degrees from the apparent wind we are sailing at 11.8 knots and the waves are not a problem, of course we feel them, but the hulls’ passage over them is smooth, the catamaran does not slam and slows very little.

I luff up again and get to 35 degrees of apparent wind, in these wind and sea conditions I would not be able to make this angle with a cruising monohull, yet Outremer 55 continues to cruise at between 8 and 9 knots of speed, with no trouble at all.

What a catamaran guys, what a catamaran …

I bear away, reluctantly leave the helm and go down to the dinette, where the situation is surreal. Outside the wind and the sea are raging and it’s cold, but here we are sitting and chatting, warm and almost in silence.

We are sailing on autopilot and I am sitting comfortably at the center desk, close to the bow windows of the dinette. From here you can comfortably steer the boat, acting on the remote pilot controls, an extraordinary convenience during long sailings or, more simply, to stay sheltered at night.

If I wanted to be at the helm, however, I could still do so while staying under shelter, since the Outremer 55’s wheel is pivoting and allows it to be used in three positions: all out (maximum visibility on the sails), center (for mooring with the throttles at hand) and inside (when the weather is inclement) to stay completely sheltered.

In short, this Outremer 55 is a decidedly out-of-the-ordinary catamaran, hard not to be enchanted by this intriguing mix of performance and comfort.

The Outremer 55 in detail

Rigging, deck and sail plan.

Outremer 55 is a catamaran designed to be simultaneously fast and easy to handle. To the large 104-square-foot mainsail, the deck plan, in fact, allowa to match the most suitable headsail to the course and wind conditions under which you want or need to sail.

The bowsprit is easily accessible and allows a Code Zero or a Gennaker to be rigged on a foresail, while a 68 sq. m. genoa is on the main forestay. This configuration enables the boat to be quite fast in all ways, both when the wind is light and when it strengthens, up to an apparent of about 18 to 20 knots.

More importantly, all adjustments are deferred to the steering stations so it is really very easy and safe to handle this big, fast boat. Even lowering and stowing the mainsail, an operation that is often difficult with other boats, on the Outremer 55 is simple: from the bow, in fact, it is possible to climb up onto the Hard Top thanks to three steps and then operate on the lazy bag which is positioned at the correct height. A piece of cake in short.

Outremer 55 – Main Deck

The stern of the Outremer 55 , with its 8.30-meter beam, is a simply jaw-dropping masterpiece. The stern sections of the two hulls draw two beautiful and enormous descents to the sea, which, equipped with steps and bathing ladders, in addition to satisfying the view, make all sea-related activities easy.From here, in fact, you can get on the SUP, put on a scuba tank, or descend into the water in the easiest way possible.

Arriving in the dinette, which can moreover be completely enclosed with appropriate covers, we are greeted by an enormous space that, when the windows are fully open, eliminates the barriers between interior and exterior and creates a simply immense multifunctional area.

Outside this area, protected from the sun and the elements by the large Hard Top, a central sofa can comfortably seat about ten people. Looking forward, we are impressed by the large galley equipped with a central island that, in addition to being extraordinarily beautiful, also allows for safe cooking in rough seas by leaning into the port corridor.

To starboard we find another large L-shaped settee, which, equipped with a fold-down table with telescopic legs, allows this area to be converted at will to have a cocktail party, dinner, or to create a large watch berth.

The interior of the dinette facing forward houses the central helm station, which comprehensively and neatly gathers all of the on-board gear. From here it is possible to manage the boat, chart, communicate and, thanks to the autopilot, steer the boat.

The sleeping zone

Outremer 55 is available in three- or four-cabin versions, an option capable of satisfying even the largest crews. My favorite version is clearly the three-cabin one, which allows the owner to enjoy the entire starboard hull as well as a simply enormous bathroom. The port hull accommodates two cabins, equipped with double beds and dedicated facilities. The two aft cabins of Outremer 55 are really large, equipped with King Size beds, closets and plenty of storage volume to face long periods on board.

Outremer 55: conclusions

Outremer 55 is an out-of-the-ordinary sailing catamaran, capable to being brillianty ultra-fast, easy-to-handle and comfortabl at the same time. It’s the perfect boat for anyone wishing to enjoy pure sailing, forgetting the engine.

The only problem ? The addiction it creates, it’s really hard to get off such a boat….

CATAMARAN-OUTREMER.COM

Technical Specs

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Language switcher

Browse categories.

You might be interested in

The new 2 Bar 68, 12 people in less than 7 meters

Lucio Micheletti and Ice 66 RS: genesis of a masterpiece

Magazzù chooses Flexiteek for its Maxi-Ribs

The evolution of the C-Tender 40: even more spacious

© 2021 – THE INTERNATIONAL YACHTING MEDIA Designed by BLive Communication

ABOUT YACHTINGNEWS.COM

Yachting News is an interactive multimedia magazine dedicated to the world of boating.

The International Yachting Media is the worlds most widely read boating magazines network. Whit its portal It broadcast its original contents in five languages and in more than 200 countries developing 950,000 views a week. Our web portals are the main source of information for yacht and boat owners, the place where they can find anything about their boating passion.

THEINTERNATIONALYACHTINGMEDIA.COM  | SUPERYACHTS.NEWS | YACHT DIGEST

VIRTUAL BOAT SHOW |  TUTTTOBARCHE |  TOUSLESBATEAUX |  TODOSLOSBARCOS

BOATING NEWS FREE APP

Subscribe For Latest Updates

Sign up to receive the best of Yachting News, sea trials, boat review and world premieres .

The only ADVERTISING FREE newsletter

• The magazine

Current issue

• All the issues
• My magazines
• Technical specifications
• Multihull of the Year
• Classified Ads
• Destinations
• Online store
• All the magazines
• Subscriptions
• Accessories

Outremer 55

MULTIHULLS WORLD EXCLUSIVE  - 55 is reminiscent of a mythical model in the history of Outremer, the brand created by Gérard Danson back in 1984. Picking up on this vintage is therefore a challenge - a bit like what’s happening with the new Lagoon... 55! The aim of this new Outremer 55 is to offer the same level of performance as her illustrious predecessor, while providing the volume and level of comfort to correspond with the expectations of anyone signing on for ocean cruising in the 21st century. Multihulls World was the first to get aboard to ensure that this 55 is indeed the worthy heir to the... 55.

Practical info

• Builder : Outremer Yachting

• Finance your Outremer 55 (2021)
• Articles about the Outremer 55 (2021)
• Available in issue # 177

Boat Test price 5.00 € Inc. tax

Add several tests to your cart

and get an extra discount!

Test location: La Grande Motte, France Conditions: sea state slight, wind 8 to 25 knots

Looking at the first digital images unveiled in January 2019, the new Outremer 55 looked like she was going to mark a significant evolution within the very consistent range (45, 51 and 59 feet) developed by the manufacturer since 2008. In the words of Xavier Desmarest, Outremer Yachting’s CEO, there is a fierce determination not to fall into the Saab syndrome. The iconic Swedish car brand disappeared because it failed to renew itself. Why didn’t they change course? Probably for fear of losing their historical customers. When Xavier talks about this new 55, he talks about “a changing world” and the “need to have a fresh eye to adapt to the times”. The approach is all the more commendable given that the team in charge of the project has called on a high-flying trio (VPLP, Le Quément, and Darnet Design) but this is a trio that has already worked regularly for the brand, notably on the 5X. Will the dream team be able to pull off this renewal? By wanting to offer more space and more comfort, wasn’t there a risk that the catamaran would become too heavy to still guarantee the incomparable pleasu...

To read in full, Buy the boat test

What readers think.

Post a comment

No comments to show.

MW #197 - Oct / Nov 2024

Download all the Boat Tests

Over 500 multihull tests

Boat tests from the same builder

• Outremer 52

Outremer 45

• Outremer 45 - Danson

• Outremer 43

• Outremer 4.Zero

Place a classified ad Free of charge

on Multihulls World

Boat tests from the same range

• New Windelo 54

Greencat 52

• Greencat 52'

Classified ads

Bali Catspace 2021

LAGOON 400 S2 EXCELLENT ETAT

OUTREMER 55 L

Nautitech 54 Fly priced to sell !

Vous avez ajouté " " à vos favoris., vous avez supprimé " " de vos favoris., in order to add this article to your favorites, please sign in..

Catamaran Show.com

Outremer 55

Sail performance.

Description

Over 35 years of experience in the design of offshore cruising catamarans and millions of miles covered on every ocean allow us today to present an exceptional blue water cruising catamaran. The best naval architects and designers have been able to work in complete freedom to achieve the ideal compromise between quality of life, performance and sailing comfort. The Outremer 55, a liveaboard catamaran, is easy to maneuver, whether short-handed or even solo. It offers living spaces, circulation, light and ventilation that set new standards.

Explore in 3D

Performance Indicators

Performance

Bruce Number

(higher is faster)

Sail Area to Displacement

Displacement to Length

(lower is faster)

Specifications

Length (LOA)

Length (LWL)

Displacement ​ (light)

Payload capacity

Sail Area (main+jib)

Draft (min)

Draft (max)

Mast clearance

Bridgedeck clearance

Manufactured Since

Engine (hp) ​

Hull Material

VPLP, Patrick Le Quément

Daggerboards

Mechanical/Hydraulic

Fiberglass / grp

I'm interested in buying this catamaran  but have questions

There are many ways to buy a catamaran and the procedure varies between manufacturers. It's a process that takes time and you should not be afraid of starting talks with the manufacturer.

Here are some common questions you might have:

Can I afford it?  Talk to the manufacturer and they can advise you on financing options.

Can I sail it?  Arrange a test sail with the manufacturer, or ask them directly what kind of support and education they offer for boat buyers. 

If you need anything else, be it more details , an introduction to the manufacturer , a shipyard visit , a  test sail , or help with  customatization,  let us know on the Help  M e page after clicking below and we’ll help you take the next step.

You might also like

Length (ft):

6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.

8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

  Didn't Find Yours?  

Do Our Boat Quiz!

Answer  the 16 most critical questions when choosing a catamaran, and we give you 3 boats that best match your sailing plans. It's easy, fun!

Compare Favourites!

Compare three catamarans side by side. What better way to see and find out their differences in specifications and looks, and make an educated choice! 

Find Your Brand

Find out who is who when it comes to different catamaran manufacturers. They all serve a different clientele, find the brand story you vibe with!

You've made the Quiz, compared your favourites and gotten to know all the Brands but still havent found your boat. Dont worry, we are here for you!

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

• Sailing Blogs
• List Your Catamaran For Charter
• List Your Catamaran For Sale

Outremer 55

Outremer 55 Owner’s Review

Thanks to Marijke and Mark from Cat Greatcircle for their help on this extremely thorough owner’s review of the Outremer 55. I hope you enjoy it as much as we did!

This is very comprehensive feedback from two experienced sailors. We have pulled out some key points below, but we encourage you to read the whole article, as it has some fantastic insights into the Outremer 55 and performance catamarans in general.

Some Key Points

• This couple has migrated from a Lagoon 39 to a Lagoon 52S and onto a performance catamaran. When I asked “Would they swap the Outremer?”, they said “yes”. They are swapping her for a new Outremer 55 (!)
• The main reason? Higher daily average mileage and no flybridge (smoother ride)
• The best bit about the Outremer 55? It’s the best compromise between comfort, performance and looks available on the market.
• Save some budget for the carbon options, solar, traveller line driver and your sail locker.
• The 55 gets sailing from 3 knots of apparent wind and up. That’s eco sailing.
• 38 degrees AWA is the sweet spot for VMG going upwind.
• The flexible dual helm setup works well in all conditions.
• Cat Greatcircle plans on 230 nm days. That’s just under a 10kt average.
• The 55 has a high-quality finish. These yachts are built to last.
• Cat Greatcircle has tested the Outremer after-sales service to the max. It’s good.
• The other area that Outremer excels in is its sail training and owner/manufacturer community

Full Review

Reading time: 20mins

Can you tell us a bit about yourself and your Outremer 55 catamaran? You’ve crossed the Atlantic and the Pacific so far, right? What is the plan now from NZ? Marijke has been sailing monohulls since she was 6. After we met in 1997 we started sailing together, first on chartered monohulls in several sailing areas of the world. Later Marijke bought her former Rival 34 back and we sailed around Holland in it.

Nice boat but a bit small, so in 2015 we decided to buy our first cat, a Lagoon 39 and sailed it from France to above the Arctic Circle in Norway. As we were really enjoying the liveaboard life, after a year we upgraded to a Lagoon 52S and sailed it almost full-time for 3.5 years in the Med and crossed the Atlantic to the Caribbean and back to Holland.

Just before our first Atlantic crossing, we had already signed up for the brand new Outremer 55, hull number 4.

At that time the boat only existed on paper, but it already promised to be the ultimate combination of comfort, performance and looks.

The second Greatcircle was delivered mid 2021, just before the departure of the GLYWO500 rally, a rally with around 30 boats circumnavigating the globe.

In the meantime, we’ve sailed over 18.000 nautical miles with the Outremer 55, from the South of France via the Panama Canal to New Zealand.

At the end of March 2023, we will start the second half of the rally back to the Med. The route will take us via New Caledonia, Vanuatu, Australia, Indonesia to Mauritius and then South Africa this year. Next year we will cross via Sint Helena to Brazil and then via the Carib and the Azores to Lisbon.

Why did you choose the Outremer 55? Was it the helm position, the performance or the living space for example? Which layout did you go for? (eg the desk in the front cabin?) We have been looking at all of the cats on the market regularly since 2015. The Lagoon 39 was a perfect cat to start on and get used to the particulars of a catamaran.

At that time we already thought it was huge (at least compared to our Rival 34 that is still in front of our house). The upgrade to the L52S was easier than expected and the sailing characteristics and motion comfort were already way better than on the L39. The L52S is probably the best sailing Lagoon ever built.

After 3 years on the L52S, we decided to make another step in preparation for a circumnavigation and had a thorough look at the available brands and models on the market.

We were not looking for the fastest or lightest cat on the market as we are not racers but cruisers. We know that for boats on the lower end of the weight scale, comfort has to suffer both in terms of the equipment and in terms of motion comfort.

In the end, we chose between two boats that only existed on paper, a Lagoon 55 and the Outremer 55. In hindsight it was love at first sight when we saw the design of the Outremer.

That Lagoon stopped producing Sport-tops for their bigger models probably didn’t help either as we are sailing the boat double-handed most of the time.

We had no need for a flybridge, and it doesn’t help the sailing characteristics either. The new Outremer has half the weight of the Lagoon, and much more space and headroom in comparison to the previous generation.

We chose the three-cabin version with an owner’s hull and a normal front cabin in the guest hull.

When was she launched? 2021 right? How was the buying and building process? The build of the very first Outremer 55 was started in the second half of 2020 and we followed the production of the first 4 hulls very closely. We even rented an apartment in La Grande Motte to document the whole process and to discuss the different choices and options with the local experts.

Dealing directly with the manufacturer is quite different from what we were used to before with Lagoon in their dealer model. We loved being able to shape the boat to our wishes, but also to learn from experienced sailors with another background.

Greatcircle was launched in April and finished and optimised in the months thereafter. It’s nice to see that experiences and improvements found on the first three hulls were immediately transferred to our boat as well. Initially, we were OK with not having hull number one but to be honest we were surprised by the level that they were already able to reach building the very first copy of a completely new generation of yachts.

Outremer is also known for its sail training and owner community. Any feedback on that? eg Ladies Day. As we visited La Grande Motte a lot we met many existing and future Outremer owners. In addition to the pure performance-oriented sailors that already knew Outremer, more and more sailors like us started to explore the 55.

Many of them already saw our YouTube videos on the Lagoons and/or the videos from the design and build phase of the new Greatcircle. They reached out to us via Instagram and Messenger to discuss the pros and cons of the boat in general and of the different choices to make in the configuration process.

It’s a lot of fun to be involved in discussions like that and it has helped us as well to re-evaluate our own choices based on the experience of others.

Outremer Week is a very successful concept, twice a year now, where customers can learn a lot about all kinds of topics from manoeuvring in port to medical training to engine maintenance. It’s a perfect way to get to know a lot of other Outremer owners as well.

Even though Marijke, as a female captain, might not be in the core target group of Ladies Day, she was very impressed by the way experienced female sailors like Nikki Henderson transferred their knowledge.

It seems very important, especially on longer offshore cruising expeditions that the tasks on board can be shared by multiple people on board.

What’s the best thing about Greatcircle? To us, it’s the best compromise between comfort, performance and looks available on the market.

We have all the equipment we had on the Lagoon, we still have plenty of space, headroom and storage space and we’re crossing oceans 20-30% faster than we were used to. And as a bonus, the boat looks stunning.

If there was one thing that you would change, what would that be? Or wouldn’t you change anything? We have already sold our current Greatcircle for the end of 2024. We have reached an agreement on a new Outremer 55 some time ago. The specs would be nearly the same as we were pretty pleased with the choices we’ve made on the current one.

One item we would like to optimise is that we want to expand the situations in which it is possible to sail the boat single-handed. For instance regarding reefing and furling the downwind gennaker when the sail is on port. We’re discussing this with Outremer, it’s still too early to tell but there might be a surprise outcome of this discussion.

Does she carry weight well, or do you have to be careful to not overload her with gear? The Outremer 55 has plenty of payload. We have everything on board you could wish for and there is still 2,5 tonnes of payload remaining even when fully loaded with water and fuel! More performance-oriented owners of a 55 have an even lighter boat (about a ton lighter) but during the GLYWO500 we’ve seen that the differences in average speed are marginal.

What are the “Must Have” Options when buying new in your opinion? eg Carbon cross-beam, carbon mast, watermaker (Dessalator), the convertible table in the saloon, generator (10,000i Fischer?), solar, carbon options, a/c, Esthec decking, extra invertor, extra freezer, water filter, scirocco fans, special galley worktop, Raymarine remote, induction plate, washing machine, folding props, ZF throttles, electric winches, windlass controller at helm For offshore cruising a water maker (preferably a backup water maker too) and a second autopilot are a must have. The other options depend on the personal preferences of the owner. I would recommend not having gas on board. In most cases, the 2000+ watts of solar are enough to cover the energy demand. In periods of bad weather, you still need a backup power source. We chose the genset over charging with engines and/or a hydrogenerator.

Can you give us an idea of what is in your sail locker? Which sails are your favourite? Gennaker, Spinnaker, Code 0, A2 Spinnaker etc We chose the DFI mainsail and self-tacking jib (solent) from Incidence as they are lighter (and Marijke likes black sails :-)). We didn’t choose the staysail/trinquette option and so far we never had a situation where we needed it.

As the 55 doesn’t need to be reefed very early the solent functions perfectly fine in all conditions we would like to sail in. We never had to furl the solent, a couple of turns so far.

Sailing around the world along the traditional routes there’s a lot of trade wind / downwind sailing. You need to have some flexibility and redundancy in the front sails.

We use the (flat and not too big) Code 0 both (close) reaching and downwind depending on the circumstances. Both this Code 0 and the downwind gennaker are perfect in changing conditions where it might be necessary to furl the sail now and then.

The A2 asymmetrical spinnaker is the perfect sail in lighter breezes, we use it to sail starting from three knots apparent wind. After 18.000 miles our engines still have only 350 hours …..

The S3 heavy duty symmetrical spi is made of polyester and we use it to sail almost dead downwind in breezes from 15 knots true. Most of the time we hoist in on the lower halyard and use it without the mainsail. You can leave it up during a squall, we had up to 40 knots of true wind without a problem.

What are the “Nice-to-Have Options”? As discussed the 55 is not very sensitive for a bit more weight. So I would say there is a long list of nice-to-have options that I would recommend. I love the carbon cross, as it makes the boat look fantastic. We choose induction cooking, a combi oven, a dishwasher, a full washer/dryer, aircon, a line driver for the main traveller and all electrical winches. As indicated we also have a genset.

Which options did you “pass” on? For the mast, we chose the non-rotating carbon mast. Reduces complexity and maintenance compared to a rotating one and the performance difference is again marginal.

How are the electrics, plumbing etc? Can you give us an idea of how you set your power system up, the amount of solar (over 2kW right?), hydrogeneration, lithium battery set up (200Ah/battery?) etc? How long can you stay autonomous on power? How often do you use the genset? We have three lithium batteries totalling 16,5 kWh. In normal circumstances, the 2048 watts of solar are enough to charge the batteries during daylight and to cover the total energy demand.

On anchor, it’s almost always enough. Upfront we didn’t realize though that during the longer crossings the sails quite often cover the solar panels.

In hindsight, we’re pretty happy that we stuck to our decision to install a genset to generate extra power when we need it. We installed 2 mass-combis so the genset can charge the batteries very efficiently, so far it has run for 130 hours only.

Is she easy to maintain? Servicing engines, standing rigging etc. You have had a few challenges to deal with on your circumnavigation so far, right? The regular maintenance so far after 1.5 years has been very limited. Of course, stuff breaks now and then, and in those cases it’s fantastic to be part of the Glywo500 rally where every couple of months a whole maintenance team is flown in to bring the boats back into perfect shape.

We did have a couple of incidents during our trip. The worst one was in Aruba when we were hit while asleep on anchor by a 70-ton tourist boat doing around 8 knots. Luckily nobody was injured, but the whole carbon cross was damaged beyond repair.

Without an extraordinary effort from Outremer, this would have meant the end of our rally. An Outremer team and the necessary parts were flown in, and within a month we were up and running again trying to catch up with the fleet before they left the Galapagos.

During this chase, we had a second incident while passing through the Panama canal. While rafted to two other boats and steering on the port side, the starboard gearbox cable broke with the gearbox in the forward position.

Pulling the throttle backward only made the boat go faster forward and the raft hit the wall before we even knew what the problem was. Easy to fix, very lucky that we could give it another go the next day, enough wind from Panama to the Galapagos and we managed to arrive there the day before the departure date of the fleet….

The third incident happened in Fiji where we just hit a reef with the port rudder tip and the rudder system broke. The rally brings you to poorly charted waters and due to the distances in some legs it’s not always possible to sail out in perfect (light) conditions only.

Sometimes if you wait longer to start the leg, you will arrive in the dark. We could have avoided this incident if we had motored along the advised route instead of following the boats in front of us sailing. We managed to stop the water ingress and were able to continue cruising, hopping from the east to the west side of Fiji where the boat could be lifted and repaired.

Is she easy to sail short-handed? To shorten sail? Is the running rigging complex? Do all the lines lead back to the helms, for example? What is the “German Sheeting” setup? You reef from the port side, right? In all situations, we can sail the boat double-handed (most of the time it’s only the 2 of us on board).

In many situations, the boat can be sailed single-handed. In general, I don’t think we would use the spinnakers single-handed. In our current setup you need two people to reef the main and to furl the gennaker or Code 0 when the sail is on port (the furling line of the front furler is on starboard).

The way we have set up the reefing system with reef lines on the back of the sail only 1 person has to go to the mast to apply or remove the loops for the luff of the main.

You can control the main sheet on both helm stations and also use the line driver to control the main traveller on both sides (and from the cockpit).

In general, the boat is on autopilot while navigating from either the saloon or the cockpit. If the sails need some adjusting you walk towards the port helm station. Only when the bigger front sails are on starboard you will use the helm station on starboard.

Is it easy to lower and raise the daggerboards and furl the head sails? You had some problems with the gennaker I think? You have a line driver for the traveller I see. Controlling the dagger boards is very easy, as is controlling the main. Indeed we did have some problems furling and unfurling the downwind gennaker.

The sail is pretty round and you need to pay attention not to entangle the sail in itself. In the meantime, we know how to prevent this from happening but still looking for ways to make this more foolproof (other furler?).

The line driver is a perfect option. Electronic buttons will be installed on both helm stations so you can easily control the traveller from the helm station while reefing or gybing.

What’s she like in heavy weather / a blow / big seas? How is the ride in general? (pitch/roll) We didn’t have real heavy weather yet. Most of the time the wind has been below 40 knots and the waves haven’t been over 4 meters yet. In these circumstances, the boat feels pretty relaxed and comfortable. Compared to our previous cat the thinner hulls slice through the water and the Outremer can maintain a higher constant speed.

There’s a lot less noise in general and a lot less slamming of waves against the hull.

How are the helm positions? Good in weather? How is the visibility when docking? Those swing helms look great, which position do you use the most? I like the feet steering option 😉 The two helm stations are really good when manoeuvring. You can see all 4 corners of the cat from either one of them and just choose the most suitable helm station when docking.

During cruising we often put 1 of the steering wheels (partly) inside the cockpit, especially in bad weather when we close up the cockpit tent. The boat will normally be on autopilot but if something happens or if there’s a glitch of the AP you can reach the steering wheel very quickly.

The benches at the helm station are very comfortable and ideal for catching the breeze, watching the waves and looking out for sea life.

How does she sail in light winds? You can sail the boat starting from 3 knots of apparent wind.

How does she sail close-hauled? How high does she point to true in a good sea state? Close-hauled she sails as high as a decent monohull but at a much higher speed. If the sea is flat sometimes you’re able to reach an even higher VMG by using the Code 0 instead of the solent and sailing a bit lower.

So far it seems that with both sails you reach optimal VMG at around 38 degrees apparent.

Typically, what’s your average speed on passage? What’s the top speed you have logged surfing? Talking about your top surfing speed is nice during anchor shots but is not so relevant for us. Our all-time high was set on the L52S doing 27,2 knots surfing of 3 consecutive waves. On the Outremer, we’ve surfed over 26 knots.

It’s the higher average speed during crossings that makes the real difference. Out the L52S we used to calculate 190 miles per day (downwind or reaching as upwind it will be a lot less).

On the Outremer 55 we calculate with 230 miles per day on average and it doesn’t make a big difference whether this is upwind or downwind. We crossed over 2000 miles from Cabo Verde to Barbados in 9 days and needed 13 days for the 3200 nm for the Pacific crossing from the Galapagos to Nuku Hiva.

What’s she like under power? Speed, manoeuvrability? 60 HP Volvo engines, right? We don’t use the engines a lot but in general, the 60HP Volvo engines are fine to manoeuvre the boat. As we don’t have a bow thruster it does make sense to anticipate what you’re planning to do as the bows tend to react to crosswinds.

If we use the engines while cruising we only use 1 engine, often at very low RPM using 1 to 2 liters per hour at 6 knots.

Is she easy to dock? How’s the windage coming in, any tips? As mentioned above you have to anticipate the bows reacting on crosswinds

What is she like at anchor? What anchor/chain setup did you go for? 70m chain, 50m rope right? We chose the Force 7 lighter chain with a nice and shiny 35 kg Ultra anchor. Indeed 70 meters of chain plus 50 meters of rope. We haven’t used the rope yet.

What’s she like when it’s raining hard? I like the way the clears fix down outside the helms When it’s raining we just close up the clears, and tilt one moveable helm inside. Both from the cockpit and the saloon you have perfect 360 degrees of vision so you only need to go out to adjust the sails and/or reefing.

Is she comfortable up top and down below? Cabins/saloon/galley/heads. Can you give us an idea of the configuration you went for? The island in the galley looks great. Electric heads? Wood option down below right? We chose a three “burner” induction plate and a combi microwave/oven. Works fine, I think the limitations are more on our side than related to the equipment. We have a freezer and a double refrigerator. We also installed a dishwasher and an extra water filter.

The space in the owner’s hull is more than enough, the beds are also nice and wide. We can’t walk around the bed like we could on our previous cat of course. The bathroom can compete with the one we had on the Lagoon and the spacy shower with rain shower and over 2m headroom is just perfect.

When we were visiting the interior designer Franck Darnet we found a different kind of wood and applied it to both the cabin and the hulls to create a warmer atmosphere. This might be a standard price list option in the meantime.

We also chose the option to implement the same Esthec flooring in both the saloon and the cockpit to emphasize that it is one big living space. The disadvantage of the Esthec in areas open to direct sunlight is that it gets REALLY hot.

Is there plenty of storage? The sail lockers look good. We still have a lot of unused storage space in the cockpit, cabin and hulls, so no complaints there. The bow compartments are huge, we use one for most of the front sails only so it’s easy to swap them. We use the other bow compartment for the lines, the toys and the spares.

On the foredeck, there are two storage lockers as well. In one of them, we installed the genset. The other one contains our bikes, the mooring lines and some shades.

How is the finish of the interior? Does she creak under sail? Both the extensive lamination of the deck and bulkheads and the quality of the finishing of the interior lead to a big difference in sound levels compared to our previous cat.

What is your favourite spot on the boat? Our favourite spot is in the saloon with the cabin table lowered and turned into a lounge area

Is she good for hosting guests? We have the three cabin version as we’re not looking to host too many people at the same time. The guests in the port hull share a separate toilet with a sink and a shower with a sink. The bed in the aft cabin is the same as the one in the owner’s hull, the one in the front cabin is a bit less wide.

What kind of modifications have you done and why? We didn’t do any major modifications that were not on the standard option list

Any plans for further customisation? No

What kind of dinghy/outboard do you carry? We’ve got a carbon  AST Coast 340 tender , the one with the jockey seat. It carries a 20HP Honda outboard

If you were to swap her for another boat, what would that be? Or maybe you wouldn’t swap her? As mentioned before, we have already sold her (from the end of 2024) and ordered a new Outremer 55!

How is the after-sales service from Outremer? It’s amazing. Instead of using too many words, I would suggest looking at the extraordinary after-sales efforts Outremer made when we were really in trouble like in Aruba in February/March last year. There’s a  YouTube video  on both the crash and the repairs on our channel.

What I also like a lot is that in case of problems discovered on other boats, they automatically review whether these changes should be applied to other boats including the ones already delivered. As an example, we will get new carbon davits on our boat in New Caledonia to upgrade the maximum dynamic load they can endure.

Are you happy with the safety aspects? Escape hatches, position of life rafts, clip-on points and so on In general we are happy with the safety aspects. We do feel more exposed at the helm station compared to our L52S and there is not a lot to hold onto when standing there in rough weather. We’re looking at options to improve this.

Anything else you would add to help people thinking of buying an Outremer 55? Different people have different questions and concerns. Everybody is welcome to post questions they might have to our social media accounts on Youtube, Instagram and Facebook.

How would you rate the Value for Money of an Outremer 55, bearing in mind future resale potential, quality, price and so on ? Our depreciation on the current boat will be 0 (and we could have made a profit if we would have sold it later.)

Would you recommend the Grand Large Yachting World Odyssey 500 (GLYWO500)? For sure! It’s fun to travel around the world with a lot of other boats. You can help each other in case of trouble and enjoy life together on the good days. The glywo organisation takes away a significant part of the bureaucracy and the technical stops are just perfect.

What is your favourite anchorage so far? Marijke’s favourite anchorage is the Bay of Virgins in the Marquesas. I really loved the anchorages in Maupiti and in the Lau Group in Fiji as well.

https://www.google.com/maps/embed?pb=!1m18!1m12!1m3!1d7295.192060516966!2d-138.67447822654512!3d-10.463990020135887!2m3!1f0!2f0!3f0!3m2!1i1024!2i768!4f13.1!3m3!1m2!1s0x763a1c28d027f6dd%3A0xa6108fb93ecf7576!2sBay%20of%20Virgins!5e1!3m2!1sen!2ses!4v1679336705537!5m2!1sen!2ses

Follow Cat Great Circle

You can follow Marijke and Mark on their travels on  Youtube  (it’s one of our favourite channels),  Insta  and  Facebook .

• Privacy Overview
• Strictly Necessary Cookies
• Cookie Policy

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.

More information about our Cookie Policy

A SPACE FOR EVERY NEED

DOUBLE BEDS

DESK/BUNKBEDS

SKIPPER CABIN

DRESSING ROOM

Basin with mixer tap

• Manual seawater toilet
• Opening portlight inboard

COMPANIONWAY

Fixed outboard hull portlight

2 opening deck hatches with integrated blackout blind and flyscreen

• Longitudinal berth 200cm x 150cm (6,5 x 5,9 ft) and HD mattress
• Large fixed outboard hull portlight
• Wardrobe, storage Opening deck hatch with integrated blackout blind and flyscreen
• 2 LED lights at the head of the bed

FORWARD CABIN

Escape hatch

SEPARATE SHOWER

• Longitudinal berth 200cm x 180cm (7,8 x 5,9 ft) with slatted base and HD mattress 
• Large fixed outboard hull portlight 
• Opening deck hatch with integrated blackout blind and flyscreen
• Portlight opening onto transom
• Wardrobe, storage below the berth
• 2 LED reading lights at the head of the berth

Sliding door

Wardrobe, storage and desk

• Sink basin with mixer tap
• Manual sea toilet
• Separate shower 
• Opening hatch to the inboard hull side
• Rail to hang fenders and lines
• Opening deck hatch
• LED lighting

SAIL LOCKER

MAIN CHARACTERISTICS

For those of you who prefer the comfort of an on-suite to an extra cabin, this 2 or 3 cabin version offers a large sumptuous bathroom instead of the usual forward cabin starboard side.

OWNERS VERSION

Wardrobe and storage

opening deck hatch with integrated blackout blind and flyscreen

Longitudinal berth 200cm x 180cm (7,8 x 5,9 ft) with slatted base and HD mattress

Wardrobe, storage below berth 2 LED reading lights at the head of the berth

Separate shower

Fixed outboard hull portlight 

Longitudinal berth 200cm x 150cm (6,5 x 5,9 ft) and HD mattress 

Wardrobe storage under the bed

Opening hatch onto the inner hull

2 LED  lights at the head of the bed

For those of you who require extra sleeping space, this version offers a third or fourth cabin starboard side depending on the configuration you choose below.

OFFSHORE VERSION

CONSTRUCTION

• Special NPG gelcoat
• Vinylester barrier coating on the external skin
• Sandwich bulkheads taped to hull and deck on both sides
• Mast bulkhead and roof bulkheads in carbon fiber
• Composite daggerboard trunks
• Composite daggerboards

Fully-battened mainsail with square top in Hydranet,

Solent jib in Hydranet, self-tacking on furler

STEERING SYSTEM

• 2 balanced rudders on aluminum stocks passing through self-aligning bearings
• Mechanical transmission with cables and torque tubes
• 1 emergency tiller

2 x 270L tanks + 40L hot water tank (220V + engine exchanger)

2 x 63L blackwater tanks

Transom shower (hot/cold fresh water)

• 2 x 60 hp sail drive engines
• 2 x 300L fuel tanks
• 2-blade folding propeller
• LED lighting in engine rooms

Crash boxes and watertight bulkheads

2 escape hatches

75 cm high stainless steel stanchions, double row of guardrails (dynema)

2 jacklines

Storage for liferaft

5 fire extinguishers

ELECTRICITY

2 x 12V 60A alternators + 2 x 24V 110A alternators

Multiplexed 24V network with 7 inches control panel

Pack USB outlets + 12V outlet

Battery monitor

2 x 12 V, 90 A/h engine starter batteries with bipolar battery isolating switches

4 x 440 A/h 24V gel service batteries with bipolar battery isolating

6 electric bilge pumps (2 per engine room + 1 per hull )

2 000 W electric windlass

Navigation lights, masthead light, mooring light and

Decklight, all LED

Shore power outlet with differential circuit breaker and galvanic protection

DECK LAYOUT

• Fixed aluminium roof-stepped mast
• Dyform stays and  upper shrouds
• Dyform shrouds triangulation
• Aluminium boom fitted with cams for the reefing lines
• Fiberglass/carbon composite compression beam, integrating the chain and the anchor strut
• Lazy bag and Lazy jacks
• Gennaker rigging

HELM STATIONS

2 canting composite steering wheels

2 standing posts

Electronic engine controls, steering compass

2 composite ergonomic helm seats

FOREDECK LOCKERS

Two large deck lockers

Access via deck hatch

2 propane 13kg bottles

Seating on starboard side + on the aft beam

Teak foldable cockpit table

Carbon bimini

White painted carbon davits

4 winches at the helms for sheets furlers halyards daggerboard controls and reefing lines

Mainsail track on aft beam

Self-tacking jib track with ball—bearing jib car

Quick-release clutches on deck and mast

Mooring cleats

Trampoline (white)

Swimming ladder

Versions and detailed specifications

SKIPPER ROOM

• Outremer 45
• Outremer 4X
• Outremer 4.zero
• Outremer 52
• Outremer 55
• Outremer 51
• Outremer 5X
• All the Outremer Fleet
• Personalized support
• Blue Water Sailing Seminars
• Our concept
• The Outremer team
• Our commitments
• Construction principles
• Our catamaran services
• After-sales customer service & Quality control
• Offshore Connected Catamaran Maintenance
• Concierge Services
• Our owners’ stories
• FAQ – Outremer catamarans

• Brokerage: used catamarans for sale
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Grand Large Yatching

FAQ – Outremer catamarans

Find here a non-exhaustive list of frequently asked questions such as what is the price of an Outremer catamaran, why go for a catamaran with daggerboards and more, to help you better refine your needs and understand the processes in place at Outremer.

Life expectancy of an Outremer

Are you looking for energy self-sufficiency on board, how much does an outremer catamaran cost, how much does it cost to live on a catamaran, why not offer a 100% electric model to the general public, do you have to pay the whole price for your outremer catamaran on signing the manufacturing contract or on delivery, what is the resale value of an outremer catamaran, what are the different stages in buying an outremer catamaran, how can i finance my new purchase, choice of equipment on board, why should i choose a high-performance catamaran, why go for a catamaran with daggerboards, why would i prefer a multihull to a monohull, do i have to be an experienced sailor to buy an outremer, performance or comfort, do i have to choose, should i go for a new or second-hand catamaran.

Other questions?

history of the manhattan project essay

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Manhattan Project

By: History.com Editors

Updated: July 21, 2023 | Original: July 26, 2017

The Manhattan Project was the code name for the American-led effort to develop a functional atomic weapon during World War II. The controversial creation and eventual use of the atomic bomb engaged some of the world’s leading scientific minds, as well as the U.S. military—and most of the work was done in Los Alamos, New Mexico, not the borough of New York City for which it was originally named.

The Manhattan Project was started in response to fears that German scientists had been working on a weapon using nuclear technology since the 1930s—and that Adolf Hitler was prepared to use it.

America Declares War

The agencies leading up to the Manhattan Project were first formed in 1939 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt after U.S. intelligence operatives reported that scientists working for Adolf Hitler were already working on a nuclear weapon.

At first, Roosevelt set up the Advisory Committee on Uranium, a team of scientists and military officials tasked with researching uranium’s potential role as a weapon. Based on the committee’s findings, the U.S. government started funding research by Enrico Fermi and Leo Szilard at Columbia University , which was focused on radioactive isotope separation (also known as uranium enrichment) and nuclear chain reactions.

The Advisory Committee on Uranium’s name was changed in 1940 to the National Defense Research Committee, before finally being renamed the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) in 1941 and adding Fermi to its list of members.

That same year, following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor , President Roosevelt declared that the U.S. would enter World War II and align with Great Britain, France and Russia to fight against the Germans in Europe and the Japanese in the Pacific theater.

The Army Corps of Engineers joined the OSRD in 1942 with President Roosevelt’s approval, and the project officially morphed into a military initiative, with scientists serving in a supporting role.

The Manhattan Project Begins

The OSRD formed the Manhattan Engineer District in 1942 and based it in the New York City borough of the same name. U.S. Army Colonel Leslie R. Groves was appointed to lead the project.

Fermi and Szilard were still engaged in research on nuclear chain reactions, the process by which atoms separate and interact, now at the University of Chicago , and successfully enriching uranium to produce uranium-235.

Meanwhile, scientists like Glenn Seaborg were producing microscopic samples of pure plutonium, and Canadian government and military officials were working on nuclear research at several sites in Canada.

On December 28, 1942, President Roosevelt authorized the formation of the Manhattan Project to combine these various research efforts with the goal of weaponizing nuclear energy. Facilities were set up in remote locations in New Mexico , Tennessee and Washington , as well as sites in Canada, for this research and related atomic tests to be performed.

The Unsung African American Scientists of the Manhattan Project

At least 12 Black chemists and physicists worked as primary researchers on the team that developed the technology behind the atomic bomb.

The Trinity Test

In the early 1940s, the U.S. government authorized a top‑secret program of nuclear bomb testing and development, codenamed “The Manhattan Project.”

J. Robert Oppenheimer: 5 Facts About the ‘Father of the Atomic Bomb’

The theoretical physicist read Sanskrit, loved horseback riding in New Mexico and was targeted during the Red Scare.

Robert Oppenheimer and Project Y

Theoretical physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer was already working on the concept of nuclear fission (along with Edward Teller and others) when he was named director of the Los Alamos Laboratory in northern New Mexico in 1943.

Los Alamos Laboratory—the creation of which was known as Project Y—was formally established on January 1, 1943. The complex is where the first Manhattan Project bombs were built and tested.

On July 16, 1945, in a remote desert location near Alamogordo, New Mexico, the first atomic bomb was successfully detonated—the Trinity Test —creating an enormous mushroom cloud some 40,000 feet high and ushering in the Atomic Age.

Scientists working under Oppenheimer had developed two distinct types of bombs: a uranium-based design called “the Little Boy” and a plutonium-based weapon called “the Fat Man.” With both designs in the works at Los Alamos, they became an important part of U.S. strategy aimed at bringing an end to World War II.

The Potsdam Conference

With the Germans sustaining heavy losses in Europe and nearing surrender, the consensus among U.S. military leaders in 1945 was that the Japanese would fight to the bitter end and force a full-scale invasion of the island nation, resulting in significant casualties on both sides.

On July 26, 1945, at the Potsdam Conference in the Allied-occupied city of Potsdam, Germany, the U.S. delivered an ultimatum to Japan—surrender under the terms outlined in the Potsdam Declaration (which, among other provisions, called for the Japanese to form a new, democratic and peaceful government) or face “prompt and utter destruction.”

As the Potsdam Declaration provided no role for the emperor in Japan’s future, the ruler of the island nation was unwilling to accept its terms.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Meanwhile, the military leaders of the Manhattan Project had identified Hiroshima , Japan, as an ideal target for an atomic bomb, given its size and the fact that there were no known American prisoners of war in the area. A forceful demonstration of the technology developed in New Mexico was deemed necessary to encourage the Japanese to surrender.

With no surrender agreement in place, on August 6, 1945, the Enola Gay bomber plane dropped the as-yet untested “Little Boy” bomb some 1,900 feet above Hiroshima, causing unprecedented destruction and death over an area of five square miles. Three days later, with still no surrender declared, on August 9th, the “Fat Man” bomb was dropped over Nagasaki , the site of a torpedo-building plant, destroying more than three square miles of the city.

The two bombs combined killed more than 100,000 people and leveled the two Japanese cities to the ground.

The Japanese informed Washington, which following Roosevelt’s death was under the new leadership of President Harry Truman , of their intention to surrender on August 10th, and formally surrendered on August 14, 1945.

Legacy of the Manhattan Project

With the development of weapons designed to bring about the end of World War II as its stated mission, it’s easy to think that the story of the Manhattan Project ends in August 1945. However, that’s far from the case.

Following the end of the war, the United States formed the Atomic Energy Commission to oversee research efforts designed to apply the technologies developed under the Manhattan Project to other fields.

Ultimately, in 1964, then-President Lyndon B. Johnson put an end to the U.S. government’s effective monopoly over nuclear energy by allowing for private ownership of nuclear materials.

The nuclear fission technology perfected by the Manhattan Project engineers has since become the basis for the development of nuclear reactors, power generators, as well as other innovations, including medical imaging systems and radiation therapies for various forms of cancer.

Manhattan: The Army and the Atomic Bomb. U.S. Army Center of Military History . The Manhattan Project—Its Story. U.S. Department of Energy: Office of Scientific and Technical Information . Leo Szilárd, a traffic light and a slice of nuclear history. Scientific American . J. Robert Oppenheimer (1904—1967). Atomic Archive .

HISTORY Vault: World War II

Stream World War II series and specials commercial-free in HISTORY Vault.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Encyclopedia of the History of Science

Manhattan project.

• Alex Wellerstein – Stevens Institute of Technology

The Manhattan Project was the Anglo-American effort to build nuclear weapons during World War II. It is commonly regarded as one of the most successful, if controversial, mega-projects of the 20th century, bringing together scientific expertise, industrial production, and military coordination to create an entirely new industry, and new form of weaponry, in an unusually compressed timescale. Within the literature of the history of science and technology, the Manhattan Project has been examined from a number of different vantage points, often centering on the role of the thousands of academic scientists in hundreds of centers who participated in the weaponization of a new scientific discovery to facilitate the mass slaughter of civilians, but also portraying the project as a prototype of future military-industrial-academic collaborations.

Historiographical background

The Manhattan Project per se specifically refers to the overarching weapons-production program begun in late 1942, and not to earlier research and pilot programs. It is related to but not exactly the same as the Manhattan Engineer District, the division of the US Army Corps of Engineers that was in charge of implementing the development of the atomic bomb, and which maintained control over the technology until January 1947, when the civilian US Atomic Energy Commission took over all production operations.

This definitional issue is not an insubstantial one. If one assigns the moniker of the Manhattan Project to the earliest investigations into nuclear fission, it results in a significantly different narrative about the purpose and origins of the weapons project, and obscures the distinct change of direction that took place in late 1942. At times, it was in the interest of government officials involved in making the atomic bomb to stress the continuity with earlier research, as the original motivation for the project (fear of the Nazis) was seen as easier to justify than the later stages of it. 1

The background story of events leading to the Manhattan Project has been told in several different modes. The most common is as the history of physics: the discovery of X-rays in 1895 led directly to new theories and models of the world that, in turn, posed questions about the fundamental nature of atomic structure. These in turn led to the discovery of nuclear fission, through which subatomic neutrons can be made to split heavy atomic nuclei (like uranium) and release extremely large amounts of energy. The discovery of the nuclear chain reaction suggested that this energy release could be exponentially amplified by human intervention. This mode of background story is favored in popular accounts and was also the one preferred by the scientists who crafted the first version of this history, in part because it reflected their institutional interests (the promotion of basic scientific research), but also because it fit in with their historical self-identification as physicists. 2

There have been other ways to frame this story. Historians of technology in particular have tended to look at the continuities with other industrial-governmental operations in the United States, such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, and some historians of science have also emphasized the important bureaucratic aspects necessary as a prerequisite for undertaking such an extremely risky project. And several historians of science have also emphasized that the “first” nuclear age, ranging from the discovery of radioactivity and ending with the discovery of fission, was responsible for many of the scientific and cultural frameworks that were later applied to the problem of atomic weapons. 3

An endeavor as large as the Manhattan Project can contain multitudes of historical frameworks simultaneously. It is difficult to overemphasize the scale of the work. Its wartime cost ($2 billion 1945 USD, around $30-50 billion USD today, depending on the conversion factors used) was more impressive at the time than it is in the context of later American military expenditures (for comparison, the most expensive wartime project by the United States was the research and production of the B-29 Superfortress, which cost about $3 billion 1945 USD). Its cost alone does not do justice to its scale, however. At its peak, it employed over 125,000 direct staff members, and probably a larger number of additional people were involved through the subcontracted labor that fed raw resources into the project. Because of the high rate of labor turnover on the project, some 500,000 Americans worked on some aspect of the sprawling Manhattan Project, almost 1% of the entire US civilian labor force during World War II. In 1943, the project was estimated to be consuming approximately over half of all Army construction labor and steel production, and the Oak Ridge site alone used approximately 1% of the electrical power produced for the entire country. The Manhattan Project was responsible for the generation of thousands of new inventions, as represented by patent claims processed in secret by the project, which if filed would have represented some 1% of all patents in force at the end of World War II. And while much attention has been given to the “big three” project production sites (Hanford, Los Alamos, and Oak Ridge), the total project sites across the United States number into the hundreds, including work done at over two dozen universities. It was not merely a scientific research project: it entailed the creation of an entirely new industry as well as the military coordination required to mobilize its byproducts as usable weapons, all under an unusually heavy cloak of military and governmental secrecy. 4

All of this, it should be emphasized, was done on a project that literally emerged in part out of a genre of science fiction and carried a significant risk of failure. 5 As it was, the project just managed to produce three atomic bombs by the summer of 1945; had it been delayed a few months more, it very easily could not have produced nuclear weapons prior to an American invasion of Japan, or the end of the war by some other means. This possibility of failure was acutely felt by those who worked on the project at the time, though knowledge of its outcome has led many narratives about its history to carry an air of inevitability. 6 Most exceptional about the Manhattan Project was its haste: all of its major activity took place within the span of three years (1942-1945), which is still the world-record for any nuclear weapons production program.

The decision to make the atomic bomb

The Manhattan Project, and the atomic bomb itself, could not have been imagined as plausible prior to the discovery of nuclear fission by Otto Hahn, Fritz Strassman, Lise Meitner, and Otto Frisch in the winter of 1938. Nuclear fission — the splitting of heavy nuclei (originally uranium) through the bombardment of neutrons — and the subsequent (early 1939) concept of the nuclear chain reaction provided the first concrete mechanism towards controlling the rate of nuclear reactions and inducing them towards exponential reactions that might cause explosions. For the context of the Manhattan Project, it suffices to note that by the early 1940, scientists in several nations (France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States, with Japan following in 1941 and the Soviet Union in 1942) had petitioned their governments to support further research into the possible military applications of the fissioning of uranium. 7

The early programs of Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States are of brief note in relation to the later Manhattan Project. In Germany, a Uranverein (“Uranium Club”) was created under the auspices of the Reich Research Council with the blessing of Army Ordnance, and had the goal of exploring whether nuclear reactions could have military application, notably through the use of nuclear reactors. Similar work was undertaken by the Uranium Committee in the United States, created within the National Bureau of Standards in late 1939 by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt as a result of the urging of a letter signed by Albert Einstein (drafted at the impetus and with the input of Leo Szilard, the Hungarian refugee physicist who had first conceived of the nuclear chain reaction). In the United Kingdom, similarly, a small group of scientists sparked by the concerns of continental refugees, later known as the MAUD Committee, commenced with research at a small scale. 8

None of these efforts started in 1939 constituted a nuclear weapons production program. Their goals were, in essence, to answer the question of feasibility regarding the military application of nuclear fission, whether in terms of nuclear reactors (machines that produced controlled nuclear fission reactions) or weapons (machines that produced explosive reactions). Their work was, by the later standards of the Manhattan Project, extremely small scale. To put it into perspective, the entire budget expended by the US government on nuclear fission research between 1939 and 1941 was around $15 million USD. For the year of 1944, by contrast, the Army spent on average $2.5 million USD per day on the effort. 9

This early work proceeded at a pace not exceptionally different from “normal” scientific research. Innumerable uncertainties, unknowns, and questions existed; it was not at all clear that the technology was weaponizable in the short term. In Germany, in early 1942, the work was reviewed by Army Ordnance with the question of whether it was worth committing to a major effort — whether it would play a favorable role in the war’s outcome. The decision was negative. Though the idea of a nuclear weapon was judged technically feasible, the expense, risks, and time-scale involved, coupled with the German belief that the war would conclude in the near-term in their favor, motivated them to pursue only a relatively small nuclear reactor development program and not an expansive weapons program. (If the nuclear reactor program had been successful in producing a working reactor, it is possible that might have changed their position on the feasibility of nuclear weapons, though even then it is hard to imagine, with the knowledge of the state of Germany in the later portion of the war, that the program would have been successful in producing a weapon in time to be useful.) Though the German program has often been judged negatively (e.g., as “failure” in the “race” for the atomic bomb), considerable careful scholarship has demonstrated that the German understanding of the feasibility of nuclear weapons in 1942 was not a matter of ignorance so much as it was a decision of resource-allocation and risk-assessment. 10

The effort of the United States, left to its own devices, very well could have gone the same way. The early program was not exceptionally well-managed (it was, some participants later argued, plagued by too much secrecy at too early a period of time), and the top American scientist-administrators who controlled the direction of American wartime research and development, such as Vannevar Bush and James B. Conant, were skeptical that the effort was worth a great expenditure of resources and scientific manpower. Again, the problem here was not so much a lack of understanding, but perhaps too much understanding: it was felt that the technical difficulties of producing fuel for the weapon (enriched uranium) were extraordinarily high and that the coming war’s requirements for scientific manpower were going to be large even without such a program. 11

The British program, by contrast, came to very different conclusions. Otto Frisch and Rudolf Peierls, two refugee scientists from Europe who especially feared the prospect of Nazis armed with nuclear weapons, concluded through theoretical calculation that the enriched-uranium fuel requirements for a bomb would be considerably smaller than had been believed (they were in retrospect overly optimistic; ironically, the Germans actually made more accurate predictions about this), and that while the effort would be a significantly risky undertaking for the wartime United Kingdom, it would be a feasible undertaking for either the United States or Germany. These conclusions were codified by the MAUD Committee, with the recommendations that they be sent to American scientific authorities, meant both to warn them of the German possibility and encourage them to broader action. This occurred in the spring of 1941, though the report was not given broad circulation. In the summer of 1941, the British sent a scientific emissary to the United States to investigate the lack of action, and this emissary (Mark Oliphant) succeeded in getting the attention and interest of several key American scientists (the aforementioned Bush, along with Ernest Lawrence, Arthur Compton, and Harold Urey). 12

The American program was soon completely re-organized and renamed. Gone was the revealing moniker of the Uranium Committee, and in its place the work was renamed the S-1 Committee, the blandness of the name a sure sign of its newfound perceived importance. This work was not yet a weapon production program: the goal of the S-1 work was to produce proof-of-concept facilities that would demonstrate the means by which uranium could be enriched and a new element, plutonium, could be produced from nuclear reactors. 13

The S-1 work began in the fall of 1941, under the auspices of the Office for Scientific Research and Development, the civilian agency created by Roosevelt at the behest of Vannevar Bush (who would oversee it), to coordinate scientific research and development for defense purposes. By the summer of 1942, Bush was confident enough in the enterprise to recommend to Roosevelt that an all-out “crash” effort to develop an atomic bomb should be put into place, with the majority of the organization taken over by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The initial work had its offices in New York City, near to the headquarters of major industrial contractors and the scientific work being done at Columbia University, and the new organization was thus named the Manhattan Engineer District. The recommendation was based on technical promise, but also on the strong and, at the time authentic, belief that the Germans could be even farther ahead at that point and that they were in a genuine “race” for the bomb. 14

In several reports in the summer and winter of 1942, Bush and Conant recommended Roosevelt increase the effort involved in fission research. Though their optimism was somewhat tempered by the end of the year (in June, they believed weapons would be ready by 1944; in December, they believed that they would have six bombs by the first half of 1945), they recommended an all-out effort that would cost $400 million USD, to be dispensed through secret channels. These funds would be used to construct several plants for the enrichment of uranium, as well as the construction of at least one industrial-sized nuclear reactor and the facilities necessary to create plutonium. Roosevelt approved their initiatives without reservation, and the Army Corps of Engineers was brought in to coordinate the work of constructing the requisite plants; at this point, the American effort was indeed a weapons-production program, with the aim of producing usable weapons within the span of the war, though the specifics of their use had not yet been discussed. 15

To reiterate: The American decision to develop nuclear weapons was hardly straightforward. Despite American scientists’ conclusion that producing nuclear weapons would be extremely difficult, key figures in the conduct of wartime science were convinced by the United Kingdom’s advocacy that it was a risk worth taking. The peculiar structure of American wartime scientific planning also meant that the question was given considerably little oversight — all information on the issue was funneled from Bush to Roosevelt, who himself approved the creation of a sweeping program without apparent consultation with any outside bodies or advisors. Had the overall program been somewhat more bureaucratically controlled, with further stakeholders involved in the decision-making process, it is very easy to imagine that at the very least any initiative would have been delayed or avoided altogether. The development of nuclear weapons during World War II is, in many ways, an unexpected and improbable outcome, and instead of asking why other nations did not develop such weapons, it is more fruitful to look instead at the various contingent and at times even coincidental factors that led to the United States being the only nation to pursue such a program with vigor.

The work of the Manhattan Project

In the initial stages of the American fission effort (1939-1942), scientists at a variety of university laboratories — notably Columbia University, the University of Chicago, and the University of California–Berkeley, among many others— identified key processes for the development of the “fissile material” fuel that is necessary for a nuclear weapon to operate.

The first approach considered was the isotopic enrichment of uranium. (Chemical elements can vary in the number of neutrons in their nucleus, and these different forms are known as isotopes.) It was discovered as early as 1939 that only one isotope of uranium was fissionable by neutrons of all energies, and by 1941 it was understood that to make a fission weapon required a reasonably pure amount of material that met this criterion. Less than 1% of the uranium as mined is the fissile uranium-235 isotope, with the other 99% being uranium-238, which inhibits nuclear chain reactions. It was understood by 1941 that to make a weapon the fissile uranium-235 would need to be separated from the non-fissile uranium-238, and that because they were chemically identical this could only be accomplished through physical means that relied on the small (three neutron) mass difference between the atoms. Isotopic separation had been undertaken for other elements (for example, the separation of the hydrogen isotope deuterium from the bulk of natural water), but never on a scale of the sort contemplated for the separation of uranium. 16

Several methods were proposed and explored at small scales at various research sites in the United States. The preferred candidates by the end of the first year of the Manhattan Project (1942) were:

Electromagnetic separation, in which powerful magnetic fields were used to create looping streams of uranium ions that would slightly concentrate the lighter isotope at the fringes. This work was related to the cyclotron concept pioneered by Ernest Lawrence at the University of California, and the bulk of the research took place at his Radiation Laboratory.

Gaseous diffusion, in which a gaseous form of uranium was forced through a porous barrier consisting of extremely fine passageways. The gas molecules containing the lighter isotope would navigate the barrier slightly faster than the gas molecules containing the heavier isotope, although the effect would have to be magnified through many stages before it resulted in significant separation. This work was originally explored primarily at Columbia University under the guidance of Harold Urey and others.

Thermal diffusion, in which extreme heat and cold were applied to opposite sides of a long column of uranium gas, which also resulted in slight separation, with the lighter uranium isotope concentrating at one end. This was initially investigated by Philip Abelson at the Naval Research Laboratory.

Centrifugal enrichment, in which the rapid spinning of a uranium gas allowed for the slight concentration of the lighter element at the center of the whirling mixture, a process that would also require a large number of “stages” to be successful. This was pursued by physicist Jesse W. Beams at the University of Virginia and at the Standard Oil Development Company in New Jersey. 17

Over the course of 1943, centrifugal enrichment proved less promising than the other methods, and by 1944 the method was essentially abandoned (though it would, in the postwar period, be perfected by German and Austrian scientists working in the Soviet Union). Because it was unclear which of the other techniques would be most successful at scale, both the electromagnetic and gaseous diffusion methods were pursued with great gusto, and arguably constituted the most substantial portion of the Manhattan Project. The construction and operation of the two massive facilities required for these methods (the Y-12 facility for the electromagnetic method, and K-25 facility for the gaseous diffusion method) alone made up 52% of the cost of the overall project, and all of the Oak Ridge facilities together totaled 63% of the entire project cost. While thermal diffusion was initially imagined as a competitor process, difficulties in achieving the desired level of enrichment led to all three methods being “chained” together as a sequence: the raw uranium would be enriched from the natural level of 0.72% uranium-235 to 0.86% at the thermal diffusion plant, and its output would then be enriched to 23% at the gaseous diffusion plant, and then finally enriched to an average level of 84% at the electromagnetic plants. 18

The plants for the production of enriched uranium were constructed in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, an isolated site that was chosen primarily for its proximity to the large electrical resources provided by the Tennessee Valley Authority. The Oak Ridge site (Site X) employed over 45,000 people for construction at its peak, and had a similar number of employees on the payroll for managing its continued operations once built. A “secret city,” the facility relied on heavy compartmentalization (“need to know”) so that practically none of its thousands of employees had any real knowledge of what they were producing. Every aspect of life in Oak Ridge was controlled by contractors and the military, in the aim of producing weapons-grade material in maximum haste and with a minimum of security breaches. Situated in the Jim Crow South, the facility was entirely segregated by law, and living conditions between African-Americans and whites varied dramatically. Various industrial contractors managed the different plants (for example, the Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation operated K-25, and the Tennessee Eastman Corporation operated Y-12). 19

In the process of researching the possibility of nuclear fission, another road to a bomb had made itself clear. Nuclear reactors had been contemplated as early as nuclear weapons. Where a nuclear weapon requires high concentrations of fissile material to function, a reactor does not: a controlled nuclear reaction (as opposed to an explosive one) can be developed through natural or slightly-enriched uranium through the use of a substance called a “moderator,” which slows the neutrons released from fission reactions. Under the right conditions, this allows a chain reaction to proceed even in unenriched material, and the reaction is considerably slower, and much more controllable, than the kind of reaction that occurs inside of a bomb.

Nuclear reactors had been explored as possible energy sources, though engineering difficulties would make this use of them more difficult than was anticipated (the first nuclear reactors for power purposes in the United States did not go critical until 1958). More importantly for the wartime planners, it was realized that the plentiful uranium-238 isotope, while not fissile, could still be quite useful. When uranium-238 absorbs a neutron, it does not undergo fission, but instead transmutes into uranium-239. Uranium-239, however, is unstable, and through a series of nuclear decays becomes, in the span of a few days, the artificial element plutonium-239. Isolated for the first time in February 1941, plutonium was calculated and confirmed to have very favorable nuclear properties (it is even more reactive than uranium-235, and thus even less of it is necessary for a chain reaction). 20

The first controlled nuclear reaction was achieved in December 1942 at the University of Chicago, by a team led by Enrico Fermi. The first reactor, Chicago Pile-1, used purified graphite as its moderator and 47 tons of natural (unenriched) uranium in the form of metal ingots. Even while the pilot Chicago Pile-1 reactor was still being constructed, plans were being made for the creation of considerably larger, industrial-sized nuclear reactors at a remote site in Hanford, Washington, constructed and operated by E.I. du Pont Nemours & Co. (DuPont). The Hanford site (Site W) was chosen largely for its proximity to the Columbia River, whose water would be used for cooling purposes. On dusty land near the river, three large graphite-moderated reactors were constructed starting in 1943, with the first reactor going critical in September 1944. A massive chemical facility known as a “canyon” was constructed nearby, by which, largely through automation and remote control, the irradiated fuel of the reactors was chemically stripped of its plutonium. This process involved dangerously radioactive materials, chemically noxious substances (powerful acids), and was fairly inefficient (every ton of uranium fuel that was processed yielded 225 grams of plutonium). 21

The labor conditions at Hanford varied considerably from Oak Ridge. Where Oak Ridge was imagined as a cohesive community, Hanford was not, and employed an abundance of cheap labor in far inferior work conditions (and those at Oak Ridge were not so great to begin with). The radioactive and chemical wastes at the site were treated in an expedient, temporary fashion, with the idea that in the less-hurried future they would be more properly eliminated. Subsequent administrations continued this approach for decades. Hanford became regarded as the most radioactively contaminated site in the United States, and since the end of the Cold War has been involved in expensive cleanup and remediation efforts. The Hanford project constituted about 21% of the total cost of the Manhattan Project. 22

The work of these two sites — Oak Ridge and Hanford — constituted the vast bulk of the labor and expense of the Manhattan Project (roughly 80% of both). Without fuel, there could be no atomic bomb: it was and remains a key chokepoint in the development of nuclear weapons. As a result, it is important to conceptualize the Manhattan Project as much more than just basic science alone: without an all-out military-industrial effort, the United States would not have had an atomic bomb by the end of World War II.

The head of the Manhattan Project’s entire operation was Brigadier General Leslie R. Groves, a West-Point trained engineer who had previously been instrumental in the construction of the Pentagon building. Groves had accepted the assignment reluctantly, liking neither the risk of failure nor the fact that it was a home-front assignment. But once he accepted the job, he was determined to see it through to success. His unrelenting drive resulted in the Manhattan Project being given the top level of priority of all wartime projects in the United States, which allowed him nearly unfettered access to the resources and labor necessary to build a new atomic empire. Groves amplified the degree of secrecy surrounding the project through his application of compartmentalization (which he considered “the very heart of security”), and his own autonomous domestic and even foreign intelligence and counter-intelligence operations, making the Manhattan Project a virtual government agency of its own. (Despite these precautions, the project was, it later was discovered, compromised to the Soviet Union by several well-placed spies.) While it is uncharacteristic to associate the success or failure of massive projects with single individuals, it has been plausibly argued that Groves was perhaps the most “indispensable” individual to the project’s success, and that his willingness to accelerate and amplify the work being done in the face of setbacks, and to bully his way through military and civilian resistance, was essential to the project achieving its results when it did. 23

Though the scientific research on the project was initially dispersed among several American universities, as the work moved further into the production phase civilian and military advisors to the project concurred that the most sensitive research work, specifically that on the design of the bomb itself, should be located somewhere more secure than a university campus in a major city. Bush, Conant, and Arthur Compton had all come to the conclusion that a separate, isolated laboratory should be created for this final phase of the work. In late 1942, Groves identified Berkeley theoretical physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer as his preferred candidate for leading the as-yet-created laboratory, and on Oppenheimer’s recommendation identified a remote boys’ school in Los Alamos, New Mexico, as the location for the work. Initially imagined to be fairly small, the Los Alamos laboratory (Site Y) soon became a sprawling operation that took on a wide variety of research projects in the service of developing the atomic bomb, ending the war with over 2,500 people working at the site. 24

Though the work of the bomb was even at the time most associated with physicists, it is worth noting that at Los Alamos, there were roughly equal numbers of physicists, chemists, metallurgists, and engineers. The physics-centric narrative, promulgated in part by the physicists themselves after the war (in part because the physics of the atomic bomb was easier to declassify than other aspects), obscures the multidisciplinary research work that was required to turn table-top laboratory science into a working weapon. 25

It is not exceptionally hyperbolic to say that the Los Alamos laboratory brought together the greatest concentration of scientific luminaries working on a single project that the world had ever seen. It was also highly international in its composition, with a significant number of the top-tier scientists having been refugees from war-torn Europe. This included a significant British delegation of scientists, part of an Anglo-American alliance negotiated by Winston Churchill and Roosevelt. For the scientists who went to the laboratory, especially the junior scientists who were able to work and mingle with their heroes, the endeavor took on the air of a focused and intensive scientific summer camp, and the numerous memoirs about the period at times underemphasize that the goal was to produce weapons of mass destruction for military purposes. 26

Los Alamos grew because the difficulty and scope of the work grew. Notably a key setback motivated a massive reorganization of the laboratory in the summer of 1944, when it was found that plutonium produced by nuclear reactors (as opposed to the small samples of plutonium that had been produced in particle accelerators) could not be easily used in a weapon. The original plan for an atomic bomb design was relatively simple: two pieces of fissile material would be brought together rapidly as a “critical mass” (the amount of material necessary to sustain an uncontrolled chain reaction) by simply shooting one piece into the other through a gun barrel using conventional explosives. This “gun-type” design still involved significant engineering considerations, but compared to the rest of the difficulties of the project it was considered relatively straightforward. 27

The first reactor-bred samples of plutonium, however, led to the realization that the new element could not be used in such a configuration. The presence of a contaminating isotope (plutonium-240) increased the background neutron rate of reactor-bred plutonium to levels that would pre-detonate the weapon were two pieces of material to be shot together, leading to a significantly reduced explosion (designated a “fizzle”). Only a much faster method of achieving a critical mass could be used. A promising, though ambitious, method had been previously proposed, known as “implosion.” This required the creation of specialized “lenses” of high explosives, arranged as a sphere around a subcritical ball of plutonium, that upon simultaneous detonation would symmetrically squeeze the fuel to over twice its original density. If executed correctly, this increase in density would mean that the plutonium in question would have achieved a critical mass and also explode. But the degree of simultaneity necessary to compress a bare sphere of metal symmetrically is incredibly high, a form of explosives engineering that had scarcely any precedent. Oppenheimer reorganized Los Alamos around the implosion problem, in a desperate attempt to render the plutonium method a worthwhile investment. Modeling the compressive forces, much less achieving them (and the levels of electrical simultaneity necessary) required yet another massive multidisciplinary effort. 28

As of summer 1944, there were two designs considered feasible: the “gun-type” bomb which relied upon enriched uranium from Oak Ridge, and the “implosion” bomb which relied upon separated plutonium from Hanford. The manufacture of the factories that produced this fuel required raw materials, equipment, and logistics from many dozens of sites, and together with the facilities that were involved with producing the other components of the bomb, there were several hundred discrete locations involved in the Manhattan Project itself, differing dramatically in size, location, and character. To choose a few interesting examples: a former playhouse in Dayton, Ohio, was converted into the site for the production of the highly-radioactive and highly-toxic substance polonium, which was to be used as a neutron source in the bombs, without any knowledge of the residents who lived around it; most of the uranium for the project was procured from the Congo; and a major reactor research site was created in Quebec, Canada, as part of the British contribution to the work. 29

The uncertainties involved in the implosion design meant that the scientists were not confident that it would work and, if it did work, how efficient, and thus explosive, it would be. A full-scale test of the implosion design was decided upon, at a remote site at the White Sands Proving Ground, 60 miles from Alamogordo, New Mexico. On July 16, 1945, the test, dubbed “Trinity” by Oppenheimer, was even more successful than expected, exploding with the violence of 20,000 tons of TNT equivalent (20 kilotons, in the new standard of explosive power developed by the project participants). 30 (They had considerably more confidence in the gun-type bomb, and in any case, lacked enough enriched uranium to contemplate a test of it.)

Along with the work of the creation of the key materials for the bombs and the weapons designs themselves, additional thought was put into the question of “delivery,” the effort that would be required to detonate the bomb over a target. This aspect of the project, more a concern of engineering than science per se, was itself nontrivial: the atomic bombs were exceptionally heavy by the standards of the time, and the implosion bomb in particular had an ungainly egg-like shape. The “Silverplate” program created modified versions of the B-29 Superfortress long-range heavy bombers (most of their armaments and all of their armor were removed so that they could fly higher and faster with the heavy bombs), while Project Alberta, headquartered at Wendover Army Air Field in Utah, developed the ballistic cases of the weapons while training crews in the practice of delivering such weapons with relative accuracy. 31

The use of the bombs and the legacy of the project

All of the above has been told with a minimum of attention to the ultimate questions of the Manhattan Project: whether and how to use the bombs. Indeed, from late 1944 through mid-1945, as the notion of the atomic bomb moved from the possible to the real, a large amount of policy and military planning began to go into effect. Notably, this project that had been ostensibly created to counter the threat of a German atomic bomb shifted almost imperceptibly into one dedicated to the first use of such a weapon onto Japan. By the time that serious planning for use of the weapon was beginning, in late 1944, Manhattan Project officials were more or less convinced that Germany was no longer a possible target, and posed no atomic threat.

Two committees were particularly important. The first was the Interim Committee, created by the Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, at the request of Bush and Conant in late 1944. This committee was ostensibly concerned with matters affecting the “interim” period that would exist between the use of the bombs as a weapon (or some other revelation of their existence to the world) and the creation of permanent peacetime authorities (both domestic and international) for the future control of nuclear weapons. This “interim” remit however proved extremely expansive, covering everything from the consideration of the use of the bombs in war (because that would presumably affect what came afterwards) to the preparation of press releases and plans for both domestic legislation and for the introduction of proposals to the nascent United Nations for the international regulation of nuclear technology. A Scientific Panel composed of Oppenheimer, Compton, Fermi, and Lawrence were consulted on several topics, including the postwar priorities for new nuclear research, as well as the question (sparked by a committee of scientists at the University of Chicago headed by physicist James Franck) of whether the United States would be better served by first demonstrating their new weapon in a non-violent way to Japan, rather than by using it militarily (the Scientific Panel ruled against the demonstration idea). 32

The second committee, the Target Committee, consisted of military and scientific representatives who met three times in the spring of 1945 to make the final recommendations as to exactly how the weapons ought to be used. While the initial idea of the atomic bomb was flexible enough to imagine a variety of uses (for example, against a naval base such as Japan’s Harbor of Truk), the weapon as developed, through a multitude of small and seemingly inconsequential technical decisions, was one whose idealized use could only really be against a large urban target — a city. The scientists on the Target Committee, including Oppenheimer, were themselves enthusiastic about the possibility, and agreed that the weapon could not be effectively used against a small or purely military target. In the meeting notes, it is evident that they regarded the destruction of a large urban area containing at least one “military” (their scare quotes) facility to be the real marker of success for the weapon, apt to produce an awed and terrified reaction not only among the Japanese, but the rest of the world. The Target Committee recommended that the cities of Kyoto, Yokohama, Hiroshima, and Kokura be considered as possible targets (the final target list of Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata, and Nagasaki was not agreed upon until late summer). 33 (No systematic consideration was made of using the weapon in the European theatre of the war, because it was clear that the war in Germany would be over by the time the bombs were ready for use. 34 )

Between these two committees, one can see both that the planning involved in the “use of the bombs” was much more than the short-term, and that several key scientists were themselves involved in some of these determinations. Bush, Conant, and Oppenheimer are in particular marked by their concern with the question of the postwar situation: all foresaw a world in which secret nuclear arms races would abound, and in which new weapons (like the hydrogen bomb and the ballistic missile) would greatly multiply the power of the weapons and their threat. Stimson was particularly convinced by such overtures, regarding the bomb as not merely a new weapon, but “as a new relationship of man to the universe,” as he opined at one Interim Committee meeting. These particular, well-connected historical actors addressed this fear with a hope for future international control of atomic energy, and believed that the best means of effecting this was to make the first use of the bomb particularly horrific, a wake-up call to the rest of the world. 35

One should not get the impression, however, that scientific perspectives were in general consulted on such policy matters. At Los Alamos, Oppenheimer worked to explicitly discourage discussions of long-term policy or even the question of the use of bombs, arguing that such matters were for political authorities to decide and not the scientific participants. (That he himself felt free to violate this notion repeatedly was, after the war, noted by several of his critics.) The high-intensity work at Los Alamos in the spring and summer of 1945 very nearly precluded such discussions in any event.

Other scientists, particularly Franck and colleagues at the University of Chicago, organized several committees for the discussion of “postwar problems,” as they put it, including the continued application of secrecy after the war (they were against it), and the need for funding postwar peaceful nuclear research (they were for it). One of these committees, on “Political and Social Problems,” penned a carefully-argued plea against the first use of the atomic bomb against a city. The Franck Report, as it was called, was considered by the Interim Committee, but opposed by Oppenheimer and several other high-ranking scientists who were consulted on the matter.

Leo Szilard, who had initially proposed the nuclear fission chain reaction and was involved in the creation of the first reactors, attempted in vain to raise substantive policy questions and was actively inhibited by the military chain of command. In short, the scientists who were in positions of influence lobbied strongly along lines that were acceptable to the military and political authorities, and the handful of others who were motivated to influence authorities in a different direction were deliberately blocked. 36

News of the successful results of the “Trinity” test was conveyed to Secretary of War Stimson and President Truman, both attending the Potsdam Conference, immediately after its detonation. By late July 1945, a strike order was drafted (by Groves) and approved (by Stimson) which specified that the “first special bomb” could be dropped “after about 3 August 1945” on one of the four approved targets. Another clause specified that, “additional bombs will be delivered on the above targets as soon as made ready by the project staff.” The weapon components were shipped to the island of Tinian in the South Pacific, along with a team of scientists and engineers who were necessary to assemble them. The 20th Air Force, led by Maj. Gen. Curtis LeMay, the architect of the firebombing campaign against Japan, aided in the logistics of “delivering” the weapons. 37

Weather conditions delayed the dropping of the first bomb, the gun-type weapon code-named “Little Boy,” over the city of Hiroshima until August 6, 1945. The mission was a success by the standards of the project: the city was completely disabled and about half of its occupants were killed, around 90% of them civilians. A coordinated “publicity” campaign was immediately launched by Manhattan Project officials to inform the world about the new weapon, including a Presidential press release and numerous newspaper stories written by a New York Times science journalist, William L. Laurence, who was “embedded” in (or co-opted by) the project. With no immediate response from the Japanese (they were, it was later discovered, verifying the truth of said statements, which was a difficult thing to do given the disruption of infrastructure caused by the bombing), and weather conditions increasingly unfavorable, the date of the second bombing attack was moved up by the forces on Tinian to August 9, 1945. This effort, using the implosion weapon code-named “Fat Man,” was more problematic: numerous errors and mishaps characterized the bombing run, with the bomb being detonated somewhat off-target on the secondary target city, Nagasaki. On August 10, 1945, Groves reported to his superiors that a third bomb would be ready for use by August 17, which resulted in the immediate order by Truman to halt further bombing until explicit Presidential authorization was given. Japan attempted to surrender with a condition (preservation of the Emperor) on August 10, which was rejected by the United States. After continued conventional bombing and a failed coup attempt, Japan surrendered unconditionally on August 14. The exact cause of surrender remains controversial: another “shocking” event, from the perspective of the Japanese high command, took place in that time period, namely the declaration of war against Japan by the previously-neutral Soviet Union, and the overwhelming Soviet invasion of Manchuria. Historians have long debated whether the atomic bombings, the Soviet invasion, or some combination of the two were responsible for the final decision to surrender, but in the Anglo-American sphere it has been common since 1945 to attribute it almost exclusively to the atomic bomb attacks, in part as an explicit justification of said attacks. 38

There have been many historical interpretations and arguments, both scholarly and popular, regarding the political decisions behind the use of the atomic bombs. Briefly, the crafters of the “orthodox” interpretation argued that the bombs were dropped exclusively to end the war as soon as possible, and were the product of a rational, deliberative process that took into account a delicate moral calculus, and had, on balance, a positive effect. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this interpretation was created very deliberately by a small group of Americans directly involved in the high-level atomic policymaking — Conant, Compton, Groves, Stimson, and Truman, among others — and was mobilized only in late 1946, when criticisms of the bombings were beginning to mount. The most important American critics from the time of the necessity of the bombings were, interestingly, high-ranking members of the US military, who felt their accomplishments were being overshadowed by a technological marvel. The various alternative (“revisionist”) positions have argued that the bombs were dropped to satisfy geopolitical concerns (e.g., to “scare Russia”), were unnecessary (e.g., the Japanese were “on the verge of surrender”), or were inhumane to the point of being war crimes (e.g., the deliberate massacre of tens of thousands of non-combatants). These debates have continued in various forms, and with various degrees of vehemence, over the decades, with a peak around the 50th anniversary of the bombings (1995), symbolized by the controversy over the Smithsonian Museum exhibit of the Enola Gay , the B-29 which dropped the bomb over Hiroshima. Both versions of the story have evidence in their favor, though both also have a tendency to “over-rationalize” a process that was in many ways quite haphazard. In general, historians of science and technology have tended to downplay the importance of high-level political deliberation, and instead emphasize the momentum that the project developed and the inordinate amount of resources consumed as it moved towards completion, making the use of the weapons almost inevitable. 39

The Manhattan Engineer District continued to exist, as an organizational entity, into the immediate postwar period. Despite the wartime attempts to streamline the question of transition into peacetime, there were significant delays. Some of these were inherent to the questions of broader nuclear policy: what should the peacetime footing of the new nuclear industry be? Should the United States proceed on a program to create more atomic bombs, and should it pursue greater innovation in their designs, or should it be angling for a world where atomic weapon development was intentionally limited through international agreements? Other delays, notably over legislation governing the domestic regulation and control of nuclear technology, were encouraged by former project scientists: a “Scientists’ Movement” formed specifically to derail the legislation proposed by the military which would, in the scientists’ eyes, maintain an undue degree of military control over atomic energy research and production. Organizations of scientists, such as the Federation of Atomic Scientists (later renamed Federation of American Scientists), composed largely of Manhattan Project veterans, engaged in lobbying Congress and the American people in favor of policies they considered crucial to avoiding a future arms race and future nuclear weapons use. Their policies were boiled down to a simple marketing mantra: “No secret, no defense, international control.” In short, an American monopoly on the atomic bomb could not be kept indefinitely in a world with arms races, no technology was likely to emerge that would render the threat of nuclear weapons impotent, and the only solution was an international treaty controlling the spread of the weapons.

The Scientists’ Movement had its one major success in pushing for the McMahon Bill, which in its initial form more closely followed their positions (but in its final form as the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 undermined many of them). The Act established a wholly civilian Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), in deliberate contrast to the military-run wartime operation. The AEC would take over all Manhattan Project operations starting in January of 1947, officially ending the Project. 40

The scientists involved in the Manhattan Project had mixed feelings about the legacy of their work. They had, in their eyes, opened up entirely new questions about the role of science in society. Even during the war, scientists at Los Alamos began to contemplate scenarios that would have previously been almost unthinkable: the ability, through the application of basic scientific discoveries, for civilization to render itself extinct. The Super, or hydrogen bomb, which had been envisioned as a possibility as early as 1941, put this in the starkest terms. At the end of the war, Los Alamos scientists calculated that while it might take the detonation of 10,000-100,000 implosion-style weapons “to bring the radioactive content of the Earth’s atmosphere to a dangerously high level,” it might require only “10 to 100 Supers” to do the same. When both the hydrogen bomb and the general question of proliferation became hot topics of debate only a few years after the war, the high level of engagement by scientists in questions of policy was seen by many as an explicit referendum on their seeming lack of concern when designing and making the first atomic bombs. The ethical questions of the “social responsibility of scientists” raised by the Manhattan Project—as well as the groundwork laid for close integration of universities and corporations in developing science useful for military applications—would resonate throughout the Cold War. 41

The Manhattan Project remains one of the prototypical examples of a massive and resource-intensive scientific-industrial-military-governmental collaboration that produced world-shattering results in an unusually short amount of time (the production phase of the project ran only 2.5 years, which is still the record for any national nuclear weapons program). As a result, there have been many invocations of the Manhattan Project as a symbol of technoscientific success: there are frequently calls for “Manhattan Projects” for things as diverse as solar power, cybersecurity, and cancer. But invoking the Manhattan Project as a symbol of intensive resource investment ignores many important factors, notably its decidedly undemocratic nature, its extensive use of militarized secrecy, its vast budget overruns, and the deep, difficult questions raised in its wake about whether it had resulted in a better or worse world.

Bibliography

Badash, Lawrence, 1995. Scientists and the Development of Nuclear Weapons: From Fission to the Limited Test Ban Treaty, 1939-1963 . Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press.

Barnhart, Megan, 2007. “‘To Secure the Benefits of Science to the General Welfare’: The Scientists’ Movement and the American Public during the Cold War, 1945–1960.” Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles.

Bernstein, Barton J., 1974. “The Quest for Security: American Foreign Policy and International Control of Atomic Energy, 1942-1946.” The Journal of American History 60, no. 4 (March): 1003–1044. https://doi.org/10.2307/1901011 .

Bird, Kai, and Martin J. Sherwin, 2005. American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer . New York: Knopf.

Brown, Kate, 2013. Plutopia: Nuclear Families, Atomic Cities, and the Great Soviet and American Plutonium Disasters . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Campos, Luis A., 2015. Radium and the Secret of Life . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Coster-Mullen, John, 2013. Atom Bombs: The Top Secret inside Story of Little Boy and Fat Man . United States: Self-published.

De Groot, Gerard J., 2005. The Bomb: A Life . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Farmelo, Graham, 2013. Churchill’s Bomb: How the United States Overtook Britain in the First Nuclear Arms Race . New York: Basic Books.

Feynman, Richard, 1986. “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!”: Adventures of a Curious Character . New York: Bantam.

Galison, Peter, 1997. Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Galison, Peter, and Barton Bernstein, 1989. “In Any Light: Scientists and the Decision to Build the Superbomb, 1952-1954.” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 19, no. 2: 267–347. https://doi.org/10.2307/27757627 .

Goldberg, Stanley, 1998. “General Groves and the Atomic West: The Making and Meaning of Hanford.” In The Atomic West , edited by Bruce W. Hevly and John M. Findlay, 39–89. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

———, 1992. “Inventing a Climate of Opinion: Vannevar Bush and the Decision to Build the Bomb.” Isis 83, no. 3 (September): 429–52. https://doi.org/10.1086/356203 .

Gordin, Michael D., 2007. Five Days in August: How World War II Became a Nuclear War . Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Gowing, Margaret., 1964. Britain and Atomic Energy, 1939-1945 . New York: St Martin’s Press.

Groves, Leslie R., 1962. Now It Can Be Told: The Story of the Manhattan Project . New York: Harper.

Hasegawa, Tsuyoshi, 2005. Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan . Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Hawkins, David, Edith C. Truslow, and Ralph C. Smith, 1983. Project Y, the Los Alamos Story . Los Angeles: Tomash Publishers.

Helmreich, Jonathan E., 1986. Gathering Rare Ores: The Diplomacy of Uranium Acquisition, 1943-1954 . Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Herken, Gregg, 2002. Brotherhood of the Bomb: The Tangled Lives and Loyalties of Robert Oppenheimer, Ernest Lawrence, and Edward Teller . New York: Henry Holt.

Hewlett, Richard G., and Oscar E. Anderson, Jr., 1962. A History of the Atomic Energy Commission . Vol. I: The new world, 1939-1946. University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Hoddeson, Lillian, Paul W. Henriksen, Roger A. Meade, and Catherine Westfall, 1993. Critical Assembly: A Technical History of Los Alamos during the Oppenheimer Years, 1943-1945 . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hounshell, David A., 1998. Science and Corporate Strategy: Du Pont R&D, 1902-1980 . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hughes, Thomas Parke, 1989. American Genesis: A Century of Invention and Technological Enthusiasm 1870-1970 . New York, NY: Viking.

Jerome, Fred, 2002. The Einstein File: J. Edgar Hoover’s Secret War Against the World’s Most Famous Scientist. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Jones, Vincent C., 1985. Manhattan, the Army and the Atomic Bomb . United States Army in World War II. Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History, US Army.

Kemp, R. Scott, 2012. “The End of Manhattan: How the Gas Centrifuge Changed the Quest for Nuclear Weapons.” Technology and Culture 53, no. 2: 272–305. https://doi.org/10.1353/tech.2012.0046 .

Kevles, Daniel J., 1987. The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Kiernan, Denise, 2013. The Girls of Atomic City: The Untold Story of the Women Who Helped Win World War II . New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Kohn, Richard H., 1996. “History and the Culture Wars: The Case of the Smithsonian Institution’s Enola Gay Exhibition.” Journal of American History 82, no. 3: 1036–63.

Kragh, Helge, 1999. Quantum Generations: A History of Physics in the Twentieth Century . Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Leslie, Stuart W., 1993. The Cold War and American Science: The Military-Industrial-Academic Complex at MIT and Stanford . New York: Columbia University Press.

Malloy, Sean L., 2007. “‘The Rules of Civilized Warfare’: Scientists, Soldiers, Civilians, and American Nuclear Targeting, 1940 – 1945.” Journal of Strategic Studies 30, no. 3 (June): 475–512. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390701343482 .

Manhattan District History, 2013 [1947] . Washington, D.C.: US Department of Energy, Office of History and Heritage Resources. https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan_district.jsp .

Nobile, Philip, 1995. Judgment at the Smithsonian . New York: Marlowe & Co.

Norris, Robert S., 2002. Racing for the Bomb: General Leslie R. Groves, the Manhattan Project’s Indispensable Man . South Royalton, Vt.: Steerforth Press.

Reed, Bruce Cameron, 2014. The History and Science of the Manhattan Project . Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

———, 2015. The Physics of the Manhattan Project . 3rd ed. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

Rhodes, Richard, 1986. The Making of the Atomic Bomb . New York: Simon and Schuster.

Schwartz, Rebecca Press, 2008. “The Making of the History of the Atomic Bomb: Henry DeWolf Smyth and the Historiography of the Manhattan Project.” Ph.D. diss., Princeton University.

Sherwin, Martin J., 1987. A World Destroyed: Hiroshima and the Origins of the Arms Race . New York: Vintage Books.

Smith, Alice Kimball, 1965. A Peril and a Hope: The Scientists’ Movement in America, 1945-47 . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Smyth, Henry DeWolf, 1946. Atomic Energy for Military Purposes: The Official Report on the Development of the Atomic Bomb under the Auspices of the United States Government, 1940-1945 . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Szasz, Ferenc Morton, 1984. The Day the Sun Rose Twice: The Story of the Trinity Site Nuclear Explosion, July 16, 1945 . Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Thorpe, Charles, 2006. Oppenheimer: The Tragic Intellect . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Walker, J. Samuel, 2016. Prompt and Utter Destruction: Truman and the Use of Atomic Bombs against Japan . 3rd ed. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

———, 2005. “Recent Literature on Truman’s Atomic Bomb Decision: A Search for Middle Ground.” Diplomatic History 29, no. 2: 311–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7709.2005.00476.x .

Walker, Mark, 1989. German National Socialism and the Quest for Nuclear Power, 1939-1949 . New York: Cambridge University Press.

———, 1995. Nazi Science: Myth, Truth, and the German Atomic Bomb . New York: Plenum Press.

Weart, Spencer R., 2012. The Rise of Nuclear Fear . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Wellerstein, Alex, 2010. “Knowledge and the Bomb: Nuclear Secrecy in the United States, 1939-2008.” Ph.D. diss., Harvard University.

———, 2008. “Patenting the Bomb: Nuclear Weapons, Intellectual Property, and Technological Control.” Isis 99, no. 1: 57–87. https://doi.org/10.1086/587556 .

In particular, a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed by Albert Einstein and warning of potential German development of atomic bombs has been central to the official histories, to the point of distorting both the letter’s contents (which do not argue for building, much less using, an atomic bomb) and its impact (it was less directly important to the making of the bomb than is often implied). To put the reasons for its prominence simply, if Einstein was in favor of something, who would dare oppose it? That Einstein was deliberately excluded from the Manhattan Project as a security risk makes for a somewhat bitter irony. See Jerome 2002. ↩

For examples of a physics-driven narrative, see Rhodes 1986; De Groot 2005; Badash 1995; Kevles 1987; and Smyth 1946. See also Kragh 1999, esp. chapter 18. ↩

E.g., Hughes 1989, chapter 5; Hounshell 1988, chapter 16; Reed 2014; Hewlett and Anderson 1962; Weart 2012; Campos 2015. ↩

The recently-declassified Manhattan District History is the source of immensely useful details on the operation of the project; see Wellerstein 2014 for contextual notes and copies of the files. Personnel figures come from Manhattan District History , Book 1, Volume 8 (“Personnel”), notably figures in Appendix A (charts 1, 1.1, and 6). The figures for 1943 were cited by a skeptical James Byrnes, head of the Office of War Mobilization, in an attempt to learn more about the project: James Byrnes to Henry Stimson (11 September 1943), Harrison-Bundy File, Roll 1, Target 8, Folder 8, “Manhattan (District) Project.” On the electrical supply, see Reed 2014, on 203; on patents, see Wellerstein 2008, on 78-79; on secrecy, see Wellerstein 2010. ↩

On the influence of science fiction imagery for early advocates of the effort, notably the work of H.G. Wells, which influenced both scientists and politicians, see Rhodes 1986, Farmelo 2013, and Weart 2012. ↩

Goldberg 1998, Groves 1962. ↩

Rhodes 1986, Hewlett and Anderson 1962, Weart 1976, Weart 2012, Kragh 1999. ↩

Walker 1989, Walker 1995, Weart 1976, Rhodes 1986, Gowing 1964, Farmelo 2013. ↩

Manhattan District History, Book 1, Volume 5 (“Fiscal Procedures”), Appendix B, table 3. ↩

Walker 1989, esp. chapter 2. ↩

Hewlett and Anderson 1962, Goldberg 1992. ↩

Rhodes 1986, Farmelo 2013. ↩

Hewlett and Anderson 1962, Reed 2014. ↩

Ibid. On the creation of the Manhattan Engineer District, see Jones 1985 and Norris 2002. The project had several code-names in the early days, including the Development of Substitute Materials, but in the end the blandness of the geographic nomenclature was appealing from a security standpoint. ↩

Reed 2015. ↩

On the various methods, see Jones 1985, chapters 6-8. ↩

On centrifuges, see Kemp 2012. On the other enrichment, see Reed 2015, chapter 5. For cost breakdowns of specific programs (here and elsewhere), see Hewlett and Anderson 1962, appendix 2. ↩

Jones 1985, chapters 6-8; Kiernan 2013. ↩

Jones 1985, chapter 9. Reed 2014 also contains an excellent overview of the technical processes, and Reed 2015 goes into even more depth. Personnel figures come from Manhattan District History , Book 1, Volume 8 (“Personnel”), notably figures in Appendix A (charts 1, 1.1, and 6). ↩

The 225-gram figure comes from Hanford Site History of Operations, 1 January 1944-20 March 1945, Book 4, Nuclear Testing Archive, Las Vegas, Nevada, document NV0716547: https://www.osti.gov/opennet/detail.jsp?osti-id=905678 . The Nuclear Testing Archive, available through the Department of Energy’s OpenNet website, is an immensely useful collection of records related to the American wartime and Cold War nuclear program. ↩

Findlay and Hevly 2011; Brown 2013. ↩

Norris 2002; Groves 1962, quote on 140. ↩

Bird & Sherwin 2005, Herken 2002, Thorpe 2006; data on staff at Los Alamos comes from Hawkins et al. 1983, on 484. ↩

Hoddeson et al. 1993; Schwartz 2008; Galison 1997, chapter 4; on the distribution of scientists by discipline, see the division graph in Hawkins et al. 1983, on 487. ↩

Hewlett and Anderson 1962. Of the memoirs, none demonstrates this disconnect in tone more than Feynman 1986. ↩

Hoddeson et al. 1993, chapters 7 and 13. ↩

Hoddeson et al. 1993, chapters 7 and 13; see also Reed 2014 and Reed 2015. ↩

Manhattan District History covers most of this far-flung work. On American efforts to acquire uranium during the war, see Helmreich 1986. Total uranium comes from Manhattan District History , Book 5, Volume 6 (“Electromagnetic Project – Operations”), Top Secret Appendix; plutonium data comes from C.S. Garner, “49 Interim Processing Program No. 24,” (30 August 1945), DOE OpenNet Document ALLAOSTI126018: https://www.osti.gov/opennet/detail.jsp?osti-id=896738 . ↩

Szasz 1984. ↩

Gordin 2007; Coster-Mullen 2013. Coster-Mullen’s book, though self-published (and constantly being updated), contains a wealth of primary sources, notes, and detailed information about the construction and deployment of the first atomic bombs. ↩

Hewlett and Anderson 1962, chapters 10-11; Sherwin 1987; Smith 1965. ↩

Malloy 2007. ↩

According to Groves’ later recollection, Roosevelt expressed some interest in using the weapon against Germany in December 1944. However, no weapons were yet available. See Norris 2002, 334. ↩

Sherwin 1987, with Stimson’s quote on 296. ↩

Smith 1965, Badash 1995, Norris 2002. ↩

Gordin 2007, Coster-Mullen 2013, Hasegawa 2005. ↩

Coster-Mullen 2013, Wellerstein 2010, Gordin 2007, Weart 2012, Walker 2005, Hasegawa 2005. ↩

Walker 2005, Walker 2016, Nobile 1995, Kohn 1996. For those who emphasize the “momentum” of the project, see Goldberg 1998, Gordin 2007, and Malloy 2007. ↩

Bernstein 1974, Hewlett and Anderson 1962, Smith 1965, Barnhart 2007. ↩

Manhattan District History , Book 8, Volume 2 (“Los Alamos–Technical”), on XIII-10. On the H-bomb, see Galison and Bernstein 1989. On later work and controversies, see, e.g., Leslie 1993. ↩

Alex Wellerstein, "Manhattan Project," Encyclopedia of the History of Science (April 2019), accessed 19 August 2024. https://doi.org/10.34758/swph-yq79 .

Citation Information and Article Archives

July 21, 2023

What Was the Manhattan Project?

The top-secret Manhattan Project resulted in the atomic bombs dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945

By Tom Metcalfe

Sign marking the explosion of the test of the atomic bomb at the Trinity site, N.M.

Education Images/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

The Manhattan Project was a top-secret program to make the first atomic bombs during World War II. Its results had profound impacts on history: the subsequent nuclear arms race has radically changed the political world order in ways that are still evident today.

Thousands of scientists, including theoretical physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer , took part in the Manhattan Project, often while they and their families were lodged at secret military bases in remote locations. It resulted in the two atomic bombs dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, which brought World War II to its end and probably killed more than 100,000 people .

“The Manhattan Project harnessed the enormous energy in the nucleus of the atom for the first time,” explains Cynthia Kelly, founder and president of the Atomic Heritage Foundation, a nonprofit dedicated to the history of the project and the atomic age.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

One of the project’s consequences was the creation of terrifying opposing arsenals of nuclear weapons . But it also resulted in innovations from medicine to space exploration and in the science and engineering of civilian nuclear energy, Kelly says.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers created the Manhattan Engineer District in June 1942 to hide the development of the atomic bomb during the war—hence that effort’s name of the “Manhattan Project.”

But historian of science Alex Wellerstein explains in an online overview that the project originated in an idea from the late 1930s—that Nazi Germany might build an atomic bomb, so the U.S. should do so first. Historical records reveal that Germany didn’t get far , but the prospect of a Nazi bomb was horrifyingly real.

Several leading researchers worked for wartime Germany, including Werner Heisenberg . Even so, many scientists who favored an American atom bomb, including Hungarian-born physicist Leo Szilard , had fled the Nazis in Europe. had fled the Nazis in Europe. 

In July 1939 Szilard and others enlisted the help of the renowned physicist Albert Einstein , then on holiday on Long Island, N.Y., to support them by writing a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Einstein-Szilard letter , as it’s known, changed history. It prompted Roosevelt to convene a committee to investigate the possibility of building an atomic bomb, and 1941 this group became a new committee to  lay the groundwork for the full project.

These early stages involved key contributions from the U.K. and Canada. But in the end, the atomic bomb was mostly an American weapon.

After 1942 the Manhattan Project was the recognized Allied effort to build an atomic bomb. It mainly used uranium ore from a mine in what is now the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which was kept secret from the Germans.

Otherwise the project was conducted in the U.S., primarily at three top-secret towns: Oak Ridge, Tenn., where uranium was enriched until it was radioactive enough for nuclear fission; Hanford, Wash., where reactors transformed uranium into plutonium, an even more powerful nuclear fuel; and Los Alamos, N.M., where Oppenheimer directed the laboratory that designed and built experimental atomic bombs.

There were also dozens of smaller sites . And officials went to extraordinary lengths to keep it all secret.

World War II historian Alexandra Levy says most of the more than 600,000 people involved—including the thousands of scientists, engineers and technicians who worked on the weapons, as well as construction workers and the people who kept the three secret towns going—were deliberately not told their purpose.

“Most of those people did not know that the goal of the project was to build a new type of bomb,” Levy says. “Today, between the Internet and social media, it’s difficult to imagine such a large-scale endeavor remaining secret for long.”

Kelly adds, “We live in a very, very different world. Aside from one or two key senators agreeing to a blank check for the Manhattan Project, Congress and the press were kept in the dark. That would be impossible today.”

The Manhattan Project culminated in the Trinity test in New Mexico on July 16, 1945—the first detonation of a nuclear weapon. By that time, the U.S. had spent around $2.2 billion —the equivalent of around $37 billion today.

But the dangers of a Nazi bomb had faded, and Japan was now the designated target. Although Japan never had an atomic bomb program, the idea of stopping its aggression with a show of awful destruction became fixed among Manhattan Project leaders, science historian Wellerstein says.

He notes that Oppenheimer, then the charismatic director of the Los Alamos laboratory, twice voted in favor of the initial atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima —which killed tens of thousands of civilians—instead of a purely military target.

Oppenheimer is seen as essential to the success of the American atomic bomb project. “He contributed to some of the early scientific breakthroughs of the project,” Levy says. “His great gift was bringing together scientists, engineers and other technicians to collaborate on and solve problems.”

But Oppenheimer was also ambivalent about its results. In recalling his experience at the Trinity test in 1965, he quoted a story from the Hindu scripture the Bhagavad Gita about a prince, reluctant to kill his enemies, who witnessed the transformation of Krishna, an incarnation of the Hindu deity Vishnu: “ Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds .”

Oppenheimer was the reluctant prince, not Krishna. “He didn’t want to kill people,” Wellerstein says. “But he knew that nuclear weapons were going to be built anyway, and he felt that he had a duty to do this horrible thing.”

51f. The Manhattan Project

Early in 1939, the world's scientific community discovered that German physicists had learned the secrets of splitting a uranium atom. Fears soon spread over the possibility of Nazi scientists utilizing that energy to produce a bomb capable of unspeakable destruction.

Scientists Albert Einstein , who fled Nazi persecution, and Enrico Fermi , who escaped Fascist Italy, were now living in the United States. They agreed that the President must be informed of the dangers of atomic technology in the hands of the Axis powers. Fermi traveled to Washington in March to express his concerns to government officials. But few shared his uneasiness.

Einstein penned a letter to President Roosevelt urging the development of an atomic research program later that year. Roosevelt saw neither the necessity nor the utility for such a project, but agreed to proceed slowly. In late 1941, the American effort to design and build an atomic bomb received its code name — the Manhattan Project .

At first the research was based at only a few universities — Columbia University, the University of Chicago and the University of California at Berkeley. A breakthrough occurred in December 1942 when Fermi led a group of physicists to produce the first controlled nuclear chain reaction under the grandstands of Stagg Field at the University of Chicago.

After this milestone, funds were allocated more freely, and the project advanced at breakneck speed. Nuclear facilities were built at Oak Ridge, Tennessee and Hanford, Washington. The main assembly plant was built at Los Alamos, New Mexico . Robert Oppenheimer was put in charge of putting the pieces together at Los Alamos. After the final bill was tallied, nearly $2 billion had been spent on research and development of the atomic bomb. The Manhattan Project employed over 120,000 Americans.

Secrecy was paramount. Neither the Germans nor the Japanese could learn of the project. Roosevelt and Churchill also agreed that Stalin would be kept in the dark. Consequently, there was no public awareness or debate. Keeping 120,000 people quiet would be impossible; therefore only a small privileged cadre of inner scientists and officials knew about the atomic bomb's development. In fact, Vice-President Truman had never heard of the Manhattan Project until he became President Truman.

Although the Axis powers remained unaware of the efforts at Los Alamos, American leaders later learned that a Soviet spy named Klaus Fuchs had penetrated the inner circle of scientists.

By the summer of 1945, Oppenheimer was ready to test the first bomb. On July 16, 1945, at Trinity Site near Alamogordo, New Mexico , scientists of the Manhattan Project readied themselves to watch the detonation of the world's first atomic bomb. The device was affixed to a 100-foot tower and discharged just before dawn. No one was properly prepared for the result.

A blinding flash visible for 200 miles lit up the morning sky. A mushroom cloud reached 40,000 feet, blowing out windows of civilian homes up to 100 miles away. When the cloud returned to earth it created a half-mile wide crater metamorphosing sand into glass. A bogus cover-up story was quickly released, explaining that a huge ammunition dump had just exploded in the desert. Soon word reached President Truman in Potsdam, Germany that the project was successful.

The world had entered the nuclear age.

Report broken link

If you like our content, please share it on social media!

Copyright ©2008-2022 ushistory.org , owned by the Independence Hall Association in Philadelphia, founded 1942.

THE TEXT ON THIS PAGE IS NOT PUBLIC DOMAIN AND HAS NOT BEEN SHARED VIA A CC LICENCE. UNAUTHORIZED REPUBLICATION IS A COPYRIGHT VIOLATION Content Usage Permissions

National Museum of Nuclear Science & History

The Manhattan Project

• Manhattan Project History

The Manhattan Project was the result of an enormous collaborative effort between the U.S. government and the industrial and scientific sectors during World War II. Here is a brief summary of the Anglo-American effort to develop an atomic bomb during its World War II and its legacies today.

Preliminary Organization

The story of the Manhattan Project began in 1938, when German scientists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann inadvertently  discovered nuclear fission . A few months later, Albert Einstein and Leo Szilard sent a letter to President Roosevelt warning him that Germany might try to build an atomic bomb. In response, FDR formed the Uranium Committee, a group of top military and scientific experts to determine the feasibility of a nuclear chain reaction.

Nevertheless, initial research moved slowly until the spring of 1941, when the MAUD Committee (essentially the British equivalent to the Uranium Committee) issued a report affirming that an atomic bomb was possible and urging cooperation with the United States. The U.S. government responded by reorganizing its atomic research under the S-1 Committee , which was in turn under the jurisdiction of the newly created Office of Scientific Research and Development, led by Vannevar Bush . As the project progressed from research to development, however, Bush realized that the S-1 Committee did not have the resources for full-scale construction, eventually opting to turn to the Army for support.

Preliminary Research

Meanwhile, at Columbia University, a team of scientists, including  Enrico Fermi ,  Leo Szilard ,  Walter Zinn , and  Herbert Anderson , conducted experiments using chain-reacting nuclear “piles” to measure the neutron emission from fission. Production was moved to the Metallurgical Laboratory at the University of Chicago in February 1942. On December 2, Chicago Pile-1 went critical, creating the world’s first self-sustaining chain reaction. The experiment not only proved that nuclear energy could generate power, but also showed a viable method to produce plutonium.

Forming the Manhattan Project

The Manhattan Project was officially created on August 13, 1942. The name itself, “Manhattan Project,” is commonly thought to be a misnomer, but its first offices were actually in Manhattan, at 270 Broadway. General Leslie R. Groves , who was appointed to head the project, decided to follow the custom of naming Corps of Engineers districts for the city in which they are located. The atomic bomb project thus became known as the Manhattan Engineer District (MED), or Manhattan Project for short.

Its first major funding came in December, when President Roosevelt ordered an initial allotment of $500 million. The headquarters of the project would soon be moved to Washington, D.C., while numerous project sites were scattered across the country.

Project Sites

The Manhattan Project’s weapons research laboratory was located at Los Alamos, New Mexico . Under the direction of J. Robert Oppenheimer , the Los Alamos laboratory would conduct the bulk of the remaining research and construction of the bomb. Physicists, chemists, metallurgists, explosive experts, and military personnel converged in the secret town, which grew to be the home of thousands of project workers. Meanwhile, the Army was charged with supplying, supporting, and guarding the top-secret work being done at Los Alamos.

Another important Manhattan Project site was located at Oak Ridge, Tennessee . By this time, the Manhattan Project was pursuing both a uranium and a plutonium based atomic bomb. Oak Ridge was thus the home of the uranium enrichment plants, K-25, Y-12, and S-50, and the pilot plutonium production reactor, the X-10 Graphite Reactor. Equally important was the site at Hanford, Washington , where the full-scale plutonium production plant, the B Reactor, was constructed, and was eventually joined by other reactors.

Dozens of other sites were also involved with the Manhattan Project. In Cambridge, Massachusetts , scientists conducted further research at Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In Dayton, Ohio , the Manhattan Project tasked the Monsanto Chemical Company with separating and purifying the radioactive element polonium (Po-210), which was to be used as the initiator for the atomic bombs. Even in Canada , the Manhattan Project coordinated its efforts with the Montreal Laboratory and the Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories in Ontario, the site for one of the world’s first heavy water nuclear reactors. Meanwhile, the 509 th Composite Group of the Army Air Forces, which would drop the atomic bombs on Japan, trained at Wendover Airfield in Utah and in Cuba before shipping out to the launching point for the atomic bomb attacks at Tinian Island in the Pacific.

It is estimated that more than 600,000 people worked on the project . For a list of more Manhattan Project sites, please click here .

Producing Results

On July 16, the atomic age officially began when the world’s first atomic bomb was tested at the Trinity site in the New Mexico desert. The “Gadget” plutonium bomb exploded with approximately 20 kilotons of force and produced a mushroom cloud that rose eight miles high and left a crater that was ten feet deep and over 1,000 feet wide.

On August 6, the United States dropped its first atomic bomb on Hiroshima . Known as “Little Boy,” the uranium gun-type bomb exploded with about thirteen kilotons of force. The B-29 plane that carried Little Boy from Tinian Island in the western Pacific to Hiroshima was known as the Enola Gay, after pilot Paul Tibbets’ mother. Between 90,000 and 166,000 people are believed to have died from the bomb in the four-month period following the explosion. The U.S. Department of Energy has estimated that after five years there were perhaps 200,000 or more fatalities as a result of the bombing, while the city of Hiroshima has estimated that 237,000 people were killed directly or indirectly by the bomb’s effects, including burns, radiation sickness, and cancer.

Three days later, a second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki – a 21-kiloton plutonium device known as “Fat Man.” It is estimated that between 40,000 and 75,000 people died immediately following the atomic explosion, while another 60,000 people suffered severe injuries. Total deaths by the end of 1945 may have reached 80,000. Japan surrendered on August 14.

The debate  over the bomb – whether there should have been a test demonstration, whether the Nagasaki bomb was necessary, and more – continues to this day.

Finally, the Manhattan Project remains to this day a controversial subject. For example, the proposed Enola Gay Exhibition at the National Air and Space Museum (NASM) in 1995 was ultimately canceled. In 2015, however, the U.S. Congress established the Manhattan Project National Historical Park at Oak Ridge, Hanford, and Los Alamos. The new park works to interpret the Manhattan Project’s history and legacy for our world today.

“Ranger in Your Pocket” – Virtual Tours of Manhattan Project Sites

“Voices of the Manhattan Project” – audio/video oral history collections of Manhattan Project veterans and their families

Database of Manhattan Project Veterans

Manhattan Project Timeline

Articles on Manhattan Project History

Manhattan Project Key Documents

AHF News and Articles

The Story of the Century

• © 2020
• Bruce Cameron Reed 0

Emeritus, Alma College, Bedford, Canada

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

• Is the only popular-level treatment of the Manhattan Project by a recognized expert on the topic
• Covers all aspects of the project from the underlying science to the effects of atomic bombs
• Includes a wealth of photos and details on leading personalities and significant research sites

12k Accesses

1 Citations

69 Altmetric

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this book

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

Licence this eBook for your library

Institutional subscriptions

About this book

Though thousands of articles and books have been published on various aspects of the Manhattan Project, this book is the first comprehensive single-volume history prepared by a specialist for curious readers without a scientific background. 

This project, the United States Army’s program to develop and deploy atomic weapons in World War II, was a pivotal event in human history. The author presents a wide-ranging survey that not only tells the story of how the project was organized and carried out, but also introduces the leading personalities involved and features simplified but accurate descriptions of the underlying science and the engineering challenges. The technical points are illustrated by reader-friendly graphics.  . 

Similar content being viewed by others

Introduction

Nuclear Weapons in 2122: Disaster, Stability, or Disarmament?

Israel and Nuclear Weapons

• Popular account of Manhatten Project
• Science, Society and the A-Bomb
• Nuclear Weapon development
• Atomic Bomb history
• Los Alamos and the bomb
• Robert Oppenheimer

Table of contents (9 chapters)

Front matter, the big picture: a survey of the manhattan project.

Bruce Cameron Reed

From Atoms to Nuclei: An Inward Journey

Organizing: coordinating government and army support 1939–1943, piles and secret cities, u, pu, cew and hew: securing fissile material, los alamos, trinity , and tinian, the german nuclear program: the third reich and atomic energy, back matter, authors and affiliations, about the author.

Bruce Cameron Reed  is the Charles A. Dana   professor of Physics at Alma College (Michigan), emeritus. He has published four textbooks and over 50 journal papers and semi-popular articles on the Manhattan Project; two of the texts are with Springer. In 2009 he was selected as Fellow of the American Physical Society in recognition of his contributions to promoting understanding of the history and physics of the Project.

Bibliographic Information

Book Title : Manhattan Project

Book Subtitle : The Story of the Century

Authors : Bruce Cameron Reed

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-45734-1

Publisher : Springer Cham

eBook Packages : Physics and Astronomy , Physics and Astronomy (R0)

Copyright Information : Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Hardcover ISBN : 978-3-030-45733-4 Published: 03 June 2020

Softcover ISBN : 978-3-030-45736-5 Published: 03 June 2021

eBook ISBN : 978-3-030-45734-1 Published: 02 June 2020

Edition Number : 1

Number of Pages : XIV, 553

Number of Illustrations : 127 b/w illustrations, 25 illustrations in colour

Topics : Popular Science in Physics , History and Philosophical Foundations of Physics , Nuclear Physics, Heavy Ions, Hadrons , Nuclear Chemistry

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Home — Essay Samples — War — Atomic Bomb — The History of Manhattan Project: How American Nuclear Bombs Were Made

The History of Manhattan Project: How American Nuclear Bombs Were Made

• Categories: Atomic Bomb Hiroshima

About this sample

Words: 2260 |

12 min read

Published: Mar 1, 2019

Words: 2260 | Pages: 5 | 12 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: War History

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 1114 words

1 pages / 655 words

5 pages / 2648 words

3 pages / 1829 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Atomic Bomb

The detonation of atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 left an indelible mark on human history. Beyond the immediate devastation and loss of life, these nuclear weapons had lasting environmental and anthropocentric [...]

The essay delves into the significant impact of the atomic bomb on global politics and warfare, particularly as a catalyst for the Cold War. It explores how the bomb fueled the nuclear arms race, influenced diplomatic [...]

The advent of the atomic bomb in 1945 marked a watershed moment in human history, ushering in an era of unprecedented destructive power and fundamentally altering the dynamics of warfare. The sheer destructive force of these [...]

The atomic bomb, a devastating creation of science and engineering, has cast a long shadow over the world since its use in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. In 2023-2024, we continue to ponder the atomic bomb's past and present [...]

In the 1940’s, the world was at war between Germany, Italy, Japan and the Allies. This whole war could have been very catastrophic. Nazi Germany was planning on taking over the world. During the war, a brave and smart group of [...]

J. Robert Oppenheimer, renowned for his pivotal role in the development of the atomic bomb, is a figure both enigmatic and iconic. Beyond his scientific contributions, his life and legacy have been explored through various [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

History of Manhattan Project in US Research Paper

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

The new technology derived from the manhattan project, benefits and dangers of the new technology, social and cultural effects of the manhattan project, political and technological effects of the manhattan project, the manhattan project and its use in medical science.

The Manhattan Project was a code name for a military project that was conducted during World War II between 1942 and 1946. It is however believed to have officially started in 1939 after President Roosevelt responded to a letter written by the famous physicist, Albert Einstein, expressing his concern that nuclear weapons were being developed by the Nazis. This concern was also fuelled by recent research that had shown uranium could produce large chain reactions that could be used in powerful bombs.

The purpose of the Manhattan project was to develop atomic bombs that were the first to ever be created in the world. The atomic bombs would be used in the War against Germany by countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. The atomic bombs were made of nuclear material that would biologically destroy a large section of the target area and its inhabitants.

Albert Einstein drafted his letter to the President together with Leo Szilard who had escaped the Nazi regime in Germany to the United States. Both Einstein and Szilard believed that the German’s were creating nuclear weapons that would be used in destroying countries that opposed Fascist oppression.

President Roosevelt responded to Einstein’s letter by informing him that he had set up a committee that would be used to conduct research on uranium and its use in atomic bombs. President Roosevelt appointed Robert Oppenheimer to head the Manhattan Project and to oversee the research and project facilities that were based in various parts of America (Gosling, 1999).

The Manhattan project derived its name from the location of its early operation centers which was Manhattan Island in New York City. The island was chosen because of its port facilities as well as a large military presence. Other locations that were used in the production and research of the atomic bombs included New Mexico, Tennessee, Richland, Washington, Canada, Oak Ridge and Los Alamos. These locations were chosen because of their remoteness and because they allowed for secrecy of the research facilities.

The secrecy and remoteness made it possible to obtain large supplies of raw materials and labor as well as make decisions without any political interference. The amount of money that was invested in the project amounted to $2.2 billion dollars that was mostly used in conducting research on the effects of uranium and how this compound could be used in developing atomic bombs (Gosling, 1999).

The Manhattan Project has been considered by many chemical and nuclear scientists to be the revolution in technology, warfare and moral ethics. The technology that was used in creating the atomic bomb was viewed to be more advanced and developed than the scientific technology that existed before that time.

The high level of scientific and technological innovations used in separating the uranium neutrons was used in the development of chemical weapons and technology that would be used by the US military and scientific institutions (Hughes, 2002).

The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) was a nonpartisan organization established in 1945 by scientists and chemical engineers who were involved in the Manhattan Project. This organization was created because of the important part that science and technology played during the development of the atomic bomb.

The main goal of the FAS was to develop and advance scientific technology that would be used in providing solutions to security and scientific problems in the US. The main programs that fell under the FAS included the strategic security program, the bio security program, the earth systems program and the educational technologies program (FAS, 2010).

The strategic security program was developed to control atomic energy developed during the Manhattan Project. The program was focused on reducing the risks that came from nuclear exposure. The technologies that emerged from this program included portable air defense systems and chemical, nuclear weapons.

The bio security program concentrated on researching on ways that would be used to balance science and security. The scientific and technological work that emerged from the bio security program included biodefense research and biosecurity policies. The educational technologies program focused on how innovative technologies derived from the Project could be used for teaching and learning purposes (FAS, 2010).

The program designed and developed games and learning tools that would be used in the learning process. A major project of the educational technologies program is the Immune Attack game simulation that teaches high school students the inner workings of the body by navigating a tiny drone through the various circulatory and immune systems within the human body.

The Immune Attack project developed by FAS was a program that was meant to introduce molecular and cellular biology in a more visual way to high school and college students.

The earth systems program was developed to examine how the earth’s natural resources interacted with international security. This program was developed as a means of allowing people to use technology to better their lives. The technological innovations that emerged from this program included prefabricated components, composite materials, indoor air quality, and energy efficiency (FAS, 2010)

Since the development of the bomb, chemical scientists and physicists the world over continued to conduct research on how nuclear or atomic technology could be used to make even more powerful bombs. Research into how nuclear energy could be used to power submarines, ships and power whole cities was also been conducted.

This research was mostly based on the Atomic Energy Commission’s (AEC) atomic energy research program that saw the development of the hydrogen bomb, the nuclear-powered submarine and the first public utility nuclear power plant in the United States (Herrera, 2006).

The research was also based on the technology that went into the creation of the atomic bomb has been used in creating volatile anesthetic agents such as methoxyflurane, halothane and halogenated ethers. The atomic bomb technology also improved the research information that existed on organofluorine chemistry and halogen agents. This was possible when the chemical engineers and nuclear physicists developing the bomb conducted the exercise of separating uranium 235 from uranium 238 (Angelo, 2004).

The collaboration that has taken place over the years between state, military, industry and university specialists in the development of military and scientific technology has been a result of the Manhattan Project. The institutions that were used in creating the atomic bomb in the Manhattan Project formed the foundations of postwar technology.

The most important wartime technology organization that emerged in the US was the National Defense Research Committee which was later changed to the Organization for Scientific Research and Development (OSRD).

This organization oversaw many scientific and technological projects that were used during and before World War II. The two most important projects that emerged from the OSRD included radar research and uranium project research work. The radar research which was later renamed to Radlab developed 150 technological innovations in the form of radar and electronic systems (Herrera, 2006).

The energy crisis that took place in 1973 saw the United States experiencing a sharp increase in fuel and oil prices as well as related oil products. Until the energy crisis, energy research and development activities were mostly focused on the development of nuclear power which was under the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC).

The commission was formed by the U.S. Congress after the Manhattan Project to manage civilian and military projects that were related to nuclear and atomic energy in 1946. To respond to the energy crisis, the US Congress incorporated the research and project facilities that were used in the Manhattan Project into the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) and the Atomic Energy Commission (Stine, 2009).

The technologies were proposed to improve the energy problem that was being experienced by the United States included developing alternative technology vehicles that would require less harmful energy sources, developing and building energy efficient buildings that would use no more than 50 percent of the energy used by buildings of a similar size and type, constructing a large scale solar thermal power plant that would be capable of generating 300 megawatts or more at a cheaper cost.

Other technologies included developing biofuels that do not exceed 105 percent and developing carbon capture facilities that will be used in large scale coal burning (Stine, 2009).

Some of the scientists who were involved in the Project used radionucleides in localizing radioactive isotopes that would be used in destroying cancerous cells. Before the Project was started, cancer patients were mostly treated through surgery which most of the times was not successful.

But after the Project was completed radiographic and chemotherapy technology was developed by engineers involved in the project to treat cancerous cells and tumors. This involved introducing the radioactive isotopes in the radiographic and chemotherapy treatments (Lenoir & Hays, 2010).

The Manhattan Project also saw the improvement and development of Aerospace technology such as the American heavy bombers (B-29 Super fortress) that were used in the Japan bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The sophisticated weaponry used these bombers included the bombsights, radar technology and high performance engines that would be used in bombing locations. This technology mostly relied on the scientific innovations that were used in the Manhattan Project (Kelly & Rhodes, 2007).

While the Manhattan Project achieved its goal of creating the first atomic bomb, there were several benefits and dangers that emerged from the technology that was used to develop the bomb. The benefits of the Manhattan project and the technology used in developing the nuclear weapons were used in the medical field to perform radiography operations as well as chemotherapy for cancer patients.

The atomic bomb technology was also used in developing CAT scan machines that would be used in hospitals and medical practices. Another benefit of the Manhattan Project and its technology was that it led to the end of World War II and the Cold War (Elish, 2008).

The fact that the United States possessed a powerful weapon that would cause devastating effects such as those experienced in Hiroshima ended any form of communist era and dictatorship.

The large scale defense program also paved the way for other government research installations that would be used in developing military weapons. The technology that was used in developing the nuclear bombs also paved the way for scientific research work that would be used in developing alternative energy sources from oil such as nuclear or atomic power.

The project also demonstrated the fast response of the government and top scientists when it came to responding to the Nazi threat. The development of the bomb in such a short period of time also showed that the US government was determined to protect the livelihoods of American citizens regardless of the consequences. The dangers or pitfalls of the Manhattan Project were in evidence after the Hiroshima bombings in Japan (Kelly & Rhodes, 2007).

The rain that accompanied the bomb explosion was heavily contaminated with radioactive particles that led to radiation poisoning on the affected civilians. High levels of poisoning led to the death of many innocent people while those who survived the bombings suffered from sever burns, vomiting, hair loss, loss of eyesight, nausea and vomiting. The Manhattan Project was also infiltrated by spies from the Soviet Union who were also keen in developing nuclear weapons.

Klaus Fuchs was a Soviet spy who had infiltrated the Los Alamos research facility as a scientist. Fuchs gathered information and technology that was used in developing the atomic bomb and relayed it to the Soviet Union who speeded up the development of the Soviet bomb. Another Soviet spy was Donald Maclean who also relayed information on the potential of the atomic bomb to the Soviet Union (Kelly & Rhodes, 2007).

Other spies included Theodore Hall, Allan Nunn May and Bruno Pontecorvo who all served as scientists in the Manhattan Project. Such a high number of spies in the United States created an environment of anxiety and fear amongst the American Citizens feared an attack by the German Nazis. The Manhattan Project also increased the emotional and psychological well being of American civilians and civilians in the rest of the world because of the threat of nuclear power and its devastating consequences.

The period of World War II and the Cold War saw the United States experiencing the varied and far reaching effects of the two wars. The country experienced an increase in economic activity and the production, manufacturing industry began to pick up. There were notable developments in aerospace, electronic and atomic energy technology which was mostly attributed to the Manhattan Project.

While the Manhattan Project was lauded by many to be a major breakthrough in research and development as well as in energy technology, there were fundamental forces that would seem unethical in today’s socio cultural context that drove the creation of this historical technological achievement (Koistinen, 2004).

These forces included the ability to change the program from a threat or cause of national concern to a concrete goal that can be used in future innovations and the future use of the technology that was used in developing the atomic bomb. The first factor describes the goal of the Manhattan Project which was to respond to a threat of enemy development of a nuclear bomb by the Nazis in Germany.

The second factor describes the use of the technology which was primarily shifted to the government which had little or no concern on the environment and the devastating consequences of the nuclear weapons on innocent civilians (Stine, 2009).

Most of the researchers who took part in the Manhattan Project weighed their ethical values when they got involved in the development of a weapon that would cause unprecedented death and destruction when released to the general population. The risks had to be outweighed against the anticipated benefits of using the biological product during the war.

The knowledge that the US government was in possession of nuclear weapons also created some levels of apprehension and anxiety amongst the American citizens. This was at a time when the country was experiencing poor economic growth and the American citizens were struggling to make ends meet. The quality of life during World War II and the Cold War was also poor as many American’s lived under the constant fear of being attacked by the Soviet’s and the Germans (Koistinen, 2004).

The Manhattan Project marked the beginning of nuclear science that transformed the everyday lives of the average American. Civilians found themselves within a new global context that was characterized by the presence of dangerous atomic bombs and nuclear weapons.

The detonation of the first atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki marked the end of one era and the beginning of another. The localized effects of the Manhattan Project challenged the social purpose of the project as well as the ethical practices of the US government, politicians, scientists and engineers involved in the making of the bomb.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was viewed by most Americans to be an unthinkable engagement by the government in ending human life. The nuclear bomb was seen to be an incomprehensible national and cultural project whose effects constantly exceeded the modern logistics needed to build nuclear facilities.

The communities that were most affected by the Manhattan Project included the Los Alamos community in New Mexico where most of the nuclear tests were performed. The community members benefited from the research facility as they were able to gain employment in the laboratories (Masco, 2006).

The political and technological effects of the Manhattan Project were felt on different levels which were the individual, domestic and the international level. On the individual level, many people who were involved in the Project had their ethics and moral values tested when they were called upon to create a nuclear weapon that would kill many people within a certain radius. The ethical and moral integrity of the scientific and engineering team was put to the test because of the nuclear bombs.

Robert Oppenheimer who was the lead director of the Manhattan Project faced several ethical dilemmas as a scientist because of his role in the creation of a deadly weapon that was deemed to be illegal and detrimental to both human beings and the natural environment.

When President Roosevelt died, the helm of presidency was continued by Harry Truman who and made the decision to drop the bomb in Hiroshima after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. His decision was viewed by many people around the world to have been unnecessary as it lead to the loss of thousands of innocent civilian lives in Hiroshima. The bomb also caused unnecessary health complications to civilians who were within the radius of the nuclear bomb explosion (Edmondson, 2009).

The domestic effects of the Manhattan Project were felt in the United States when the money used in developing the bomb would be used in developing the country’s defense budget from that period to the present. The creation of the atomic bomb also made the United States to be the world’s superpower when it came to its military and defense.

The negative effects of the project to the United States residents was that it created a certain amount of fear in the American residents as they feared infiltration by communist dictators and sympathizers. This fear saw Senator Joseph McCarthy performing a witch hunt in the US that was meant to flash out the communist sympathizers and spies from the country. The result of this witch hunt was the destruction of many civilian lives that were suspected to be communist sympathizers (Kelly & Rhodes, 2007).

The international effects of the Manhattan Project saw the face of world politics during that time changing completely. After the Hiroshima bombings in Japan, the Soviet Union began developing itself to be the next country to develop nuclear power. The country was able to gain information on how to create an atomic bomb from Klaus Fuchs who was a Manhattan Project scientist and Soviet spy.

This situation created a security dilemma between the two countries as each increased its nuclear arsenal to counter any attacks from the other. The effects of this situation were that each of the countries sunk a huge amount of funds in developing the nuclear arsenals which saw them facing huge debts. There was also emotional and psychological effects on US citizens who lived with anxiety and fear of being attacked by the Soviet Union at any time (Kelly & Rhodes, 2007).

Since the end of the Cold War, policy makers have raised concerns over importance of federal investment in scientific research. Policy makers have called for a new contract to be developed between science and society that would foster a closer working relationship between scientific laboratories and scientific academicians. Such a model for the science and society contract is known as the Human Genome Initiative.

This initiative has been viewed as a potential Manhattan Project for biological work among scientists, engineers and physicists who are mostly concerned with the commercial production of biomedical technology that will be used in medical science. The Human Genome Initiative incorporates the same approaches and techniques that were used by the Manhattan Project in developing warfare weapons that would be used during the Cold War (Lenoir & Hays, 2010).

Lenoir and Hays (2010) note that after the Cold War there has always been a Manhattan Project in the field of biomedicine and medical science. The scientists and physicists who were involved in the Manhattan Project research contemplated on how to incorporate the project’s plans into various military and civilian fields such as physics, biophysics and nuclear medicine.

One of the initial research efforts that preceded the Manhattan Project was the use of radionucleides in physiological studies to localize radioactive isotopes that would be used in destroying cancerous cells.

These research efforts began in 1923 and they became fully operational in 1943 when the Manhattan Project was fully underway. The Manhattan Project also created a substantial amount of medical research programs that were used in the medical care of project workers that were based in Oak Ridge, Washington and Hanford. These programs were seen to be important as they created the means of reducing the hazardous side effects of radioactive materials (Lenoir & Hays, 2004).

The Manhattan Project has been viewed as the genesis of research and development in the field of scientific technology and atomic energy creation. The various locations that were used during the Manhattan Project were converted into research laboratories and institutions that are now being used for further scientific and technological developments. The creation of the atomic and nuclear bombs heralded the emergence of nuclear energy that could be used in powering huge cities and supporting the energy consumption of civilians.

The project also ensured that there were theoretical breakthroughs in the field of nuclear physics and chemistry that has improved experimentation and research work in the field. The Manhattan Project is therefore an important program in the history of the world because of the technological developments that were invented during the period of the project.

Angelo, J.A., (2004), Nuclear technology . Westport, US: Greenwood Press.

Edmonson, N., (2009), Technological foundations of cyclical economic growth: the case of the United States economy . New Jersey: Transaction publishers.

Elish, D., (2008). The Manhattan Project . Canada: Children’s Press.

Federation of American Scientists (FAS) (2010). Programs. Web.

Gosling, F.G., (1999). The Manhattan Project: making the atomic bomb . Washington: History Division, Department of Energy.

Herrera, G.L., (2006). Technology and international transformation: the railroad, the atom bomb and the politics of technological change . Albany, New York : State University of New York Press.

Hughes, J., (2002). The Manhattan Project: big science and the atom bomb . New York: Columbia University Press.

Kelly, C.C., & Rhodes, R., (2007). The Manhattan Project: the birth of the atomic bomb in the words of its creators, eyewitnesses and historians . New York: Black Dog and Leventhal Publishers.

Koistinen, P. A.C., (2004). Arsenal of World War II: The Political Economy of American Warfare, 1940-1945 . Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.

Lenoir, T., & Hays, M., (2010). The Manhattan project for biomedicine . Web.

Masco, J., (2006). The nuclear borderlands: the Manhattan project post Cold War . New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Stine, D.D., (2009). The Manhattan Project, the Apollo program, and the federal energy technology R&D programs: a comparative analysis . New York: Gale Cengage Learning.

• The Evolution of American Slavery
• Human Sanctity: Darfur Crisis
• Death Symbolism in "The Naked City" Film and "Manhattan Transfer" Novel
• Did the USA need to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
• Chapters 18-19 of O'Reilly's "Killing the Rising Sun"
• History of the American Independence
• Why the Great Depression Occurred - a Public Budgeting Stand Point
• Mysteries of the Salem Witch Trials
• US Government 1789-1821
• The History of Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich: An Appraisal of the Literature
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, December 27). History of Manhattan Project in US. https://ivypanda.com/essays/manhattan-project/

"History of Manhattan Project in US." IvyPanda , 27 Dec. 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/manhattan-project/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'History of Manhattan Project in US'. 27 December.

IvyPanda . 2018. "History of Manhattan Project in US." December 27, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/manhattan-project/.

1. IvyPanda . "History of Manhattan Project in US." December 27, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/manhattan-project/.

IvyPanda . "History of Manhattan Project in US." December 27, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/manhattan-project/.

Written by: edward g. lengel, the national world war ii museum, by the end of this section, you will:.

• Explain the causes and effects of the victory of the United States and its allies over the Axis Powers

Suggested Sequencing

Use this narrative with the Dropping the Atomic Bomb Decision Point and the Was the Use of the Atomic Bomb Justified? DBQ Lesson to show the development of the United States’ nuclear program and subsequent use in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings.

Fundamental discoveries about the nature of the atom took place during the most war-torn century in human history. By the 1920s and 1930s, scientists were intensively studying the military ramifications of atomic power. In 1938, German chemist Otto Hahn scored a breakthrough by not only splitting the uranium atom but also discovering the immense explosive potential of the process. He and other German scientists immediately moved on to focus their research on creating an atomic bomb for the Nazi state.

Scientists in other nations quickly became aware of the German work in this field and initiated atomic programs of their own. Nuclear research in Britain, led by German scientists who had fled the Nazi regime, surged ahead with the discovery that it would be possible to build a bomb with only small quantities of the rare isotope uranium-235. Lacking this knowledge, and assuming it would take many years to acquire the supplies necessary to build a bomb, German scientists had slowed their work by the early 1940s. But other scientists did not know this. On August 2, 1939, famed scientist Albert Einstein wrote to President Franklin Roosevelt urging him to accelerate his country’s atomic program to ensure that the Germans did not develop the bomb first.

An alarmed Roosevelt responded energetically, especially after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the American entry into World War II in Europe and Asia. Led by his scientific advisors to believe that, with great effort, an atomic weapon could be developed by 1944, on June 17, 1942, the president initiated the atomic program that came to be called the Manhattan Project. Unlike the Germans, who assumed they would win the war quickly and that continuing their atomic program was thus not worth the trouble, the Americans and British anticipated a long conflict and so were deeply committed to their projects. They shared information with each other along the way, but not with the Soviet Union. Soviet espionage nevertheless monitored the Anglo-American programs with a degree of success that was not known until many years later.

The Manhattan Project, named after a supervisory district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Manhattan, New York, oversaw the U.S. atomic program. It was headed by General Leslie R. Groves and carried out its work at facilities in Illinois, Tennessee, Washington state, and New Mexico ([link]Figure_12_03_ManProjMap[/link]). Progress was rapid, thanks not just to scientific work but to America’s vast industrial capacity. In December 1942, scientists Enrico Fermi and Arthur Compton created the first-ever uranium chain reaction in the basement of the University of Chicago’s football stadium. In a facility built the following year on a mesa at Los Alamos, New Mexico, meanwhile, scientist J. Robert Oppenheimer and his team worked to create the first atomic bomb.

(a) Enrico Fermi, one of the Manhattan Project scientists, created the first nuclear reactor, the Chicago Pile-1. (b) Important sites associated with the Manhattan Project were scattered across the country.

The expenses of the top-secret Manhattan Project were concealed from Congress, subsumed in appropriations for the War Department. By the time the war ended, they totaled approximately $2 billion, dwarfing every other wartime military project except the creation of the B-29 Superfortress bomber. Roosevelt ensured that his atomic scientists were never short of funds, however, knowing that if the project succeeded, no one would question the cost.

The first bomb was nearly complete at the time of President Roosevelt’s death on April 12, 1945. New president Harry S. Truman ordered the program to move forward despite Germany’s impending surrender, with a view toward possibly using the weapon against Japan. While the interim committee Truman created considered the military, political, and moral advisability of using the bomb, Oppenheimer’s team completed the first-ever atomic weapon and prepared it for testing.

The test, codenamed “Trinity,” took place on July 16, 1945, in the desert at Alamogordo, New Mexico, 200 miles south of Los Alamos. The device, mounted on a metal tower, consisted of just 13.5 pounds of plutonium encased in two-and-a-half tons of explosives. It exploded at 5:29 a.m. to devastating effect, equal to the detonation of almost 20,000 tons of TNT. Groves and Oppenheimer witnessed the atomic fireball expand into a mushroom cloud visible 60 miles away. Horrified by what he saw, Oppenheimer called to mind words from the Bhagavad Gita: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” But it was too late to turn back. The world had entered the nuclear age.

(a) In 1945, the mushroom cloud from the first atomic weapon test, “Trinity,” could be seen as far as 60 miles away. (b) J. Robert Oppenheimer and General Leslie Groves inspect the aftermath of the explosion at Alamogordo, New Mexico, in July 1945.

On August 6, the Enola Gay , a B-29 Superfortress, dropped the uranium bomb nicknamed Little Boy, which exploded with the force of 12,500 tons of TNT 1,900 feet above the Japanese city of Hiroshima. With a blinding flash and rising mushroom cloud, the blast and resulting firestorm obliterated the city and destroyed 70,000 buildings. People were vaporized from the blast and their shadows imprinted on walls. An estimated 70,000 to 80,000 civilians and soldiers were immediately killed, and thousands later died of radiation poisoning and burns. Tormented survivors were disfigured with hanging skin and burns. President Truman sent public messages announcing the dropping of an atomic bomb and threatened more if Japan refused to surrender. Still, the Japanese government fought on.

On August 9, another B-29 bomber dropped a plutonium bomb called Fat Man on Nagasaki, with an even larger blast equivalent to 22,000 tons of TNT. Due to significant cloud cover this second bomb missed its target by a wide margin, somewhat limiting its destructive impact. Nevertheless, it killed at least 30,000 people and caused suffering for thousands of survivors. Over the next five days, conventional bombings of other major cities killed an additional 15,000 Japanese. Finally, on August 14, Japan surrendered and World War II ended.

The development of the atomic bomb and the ensuing arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union, along with their allies, ushered in the nuclear age and imperiled all humanity. Although the only atomic bombs ever used were those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II, the Cold War led to the credible threat of their additional use and the fear of widespread destruction.

Review Questions

1. The costs associated with the Manhattan Project did not lead to protest primarily because

• Congress considered the costs to be justified
• President Roosevelt overruled any objections
• atomic bombs were inexpensive to build
• they were concealed from Congress

2. The atomic explosion at Alamogordo, New Mexico, on July 16, 1945

• failed to produce the desired results
• ended World War II
• proved the success of the Manhattan Project
• convinced President Truman the atomic bomb was too powerful to use

3. Development of the atomic bomb in the United States during the 1940s occurred

• at various locations throughout the United States
• primarily in Manhattan, New York
• exclusively under civilian leadership
• primarily using the research generated by American scientists

4. The American scientist who oversaw the Manhattan Project was

• Leslie Groves
• Enrico Fermi

5. The scientific advances behind the Manhattan Project primarily benefited from

• the work of émigré scientists from totalitarian regimes
• Anglo-American military cooperation
• American anticipation of a short military conflict
• exchange of nuclear scientific knowledge between the United States and the Soviet Union

Free Response Questions

• Analyze the factors that led the United States to build the first atomic bomb.
• Describe the organization of the Manhattan Project.

AP Practice Questions

“Sir: Some recent work by E. Fermi and L. Szilard . . . leads me to expect that the element uranium may be turned into a new and important source of energy in the immediate future. . . . I believe therefore that it is my duty to bring to your attention the following facts and recommendations. . . . It may be possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium . . . This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs . . . A single bomb of this type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory. However, such bombs might very well prove too heavy for transportation by air. . . . In view of this situation you may think it desirable to have some permanent contact maintained between the Administration and the group of physicists working on chain reactions in America.”

Albert Einstein, Letter to President Franklin Roosevelt, August 2, 1939

1. The sentiments expressed in the excerpt most directly led to the

• creation of the Manhattan Project
• implementation of the island-hopping strategy
• D-Day invasion
• defeat of Nazi Germany

2. Which group would most likely support the argument made in the excerpt?

• Critics of the military-industrial complex
• Opponents of the Treaty of Versailles
• Proponents of the Lend-Lease Act
• Isolationists such as the America First group

3. This excerpt was written in response to the

• federal programs created by the New Deal
• rise of fascism in Europe
• debates about the morality of using atomic weapons
• expansion of communist ideology in Southeast Asia

Primary Sources

Einstein, Albert. 1939 letter to President Roosevelt. http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/archives/pdfs/docsworldwar.pdf

“Trinity Test Eyewitnesses.” Atomic Heritage Foundation . https://www.atomicheritage.org/key-documents/trinity-test-eyewitnesses

Suggested Resources

Bird, Kai, and Martin J. Sherwin. American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer . New York: Knopf, 2005.

Chambers, John Whiteclay, ed. The Oxford Companion to American Military History . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Conant, Jennet. 109 East Palace: Robert Oppenheimer and the Secret City of Los Alamos . New York: Simon and Schuster, 2005.

Kelly, Cynthia C., ed. Manhattan Project: The Birth of the Atomic Bomb in the Words of its Creators, Eyewitnesses, and Historians . New York: Black Dog & Leventhal, 2009.

Kunetka, James. The General and the Genius: Groves and Oppenheimer – The Unlikely Partnership that Built the Atom Bomb . New York: Regnery, 2015.

Rhodes, Richard. The Making of the Atomic Bomb . New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987.

Weinberg, Gerhard L. A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Related Content

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

In our resource history is presented through a series of narratives, primary sources, and point-counterpoint debates that invites students to participate in the ongoing conversation about the American experiment.

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction & Top Questions

Early life and education

Oppenheimer and the manhattan project, security hearing and later years, oppenheimer’s legacy.

What did J. Robert Oppenheimer do in the Manhattan Project?

• What led to the Manhattan Project?
• Who were the most important scientists associated with the Manhattan Project?
• What did the Manhattan Project do?
• What were the immediate and long-term results of the Manhattan Project?

J. Robert Oppenheimer

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Famous Inventors - J. Robert Oppenheimer
• Atomic Heritage Foundation - J. Robert Oppenheimer
• Spartacus Educational - Biography of Robert Oppenheimer
• Famous Scientists - Biography of J. Robert Oppenheimer
• Institute for Advanced Study - J. Robert Oppenheimer: Life, Work, and Legacy
• United States History - Biography of J. Robert Oppenheimer
• J. Robert Oppenheimer - Children's Encyclopedia (Ages 8-11)
• J. Robert Oppenheimer - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
• Table Of Contents

J. Robert Oppenheimer was the director of the laboratory at Los Alamos , New Mexico, where the atomic bomb was designed. The theoretical work of how the atomic bomb would function had to be converted into a practical weapon that could be dropped from an airplane and explode above its target.

What is J. Robert Oppenheimer famous for?

J. Robert Oppenheimer is most famous for being director of the Manhattan Project ’s laboratory at Los Alamos , New Mexico, where the atomic bomb was designed. The revoking of his security clearance during the McCarthy era because of accusations of past associations with communists provoked outcry from the scientific community.

Recent News

J. Robert Oppenheimer (born April 22, 1904, New York , New York, U.S.—died February 18, 1967, Princeton, New Jersey) was an American theoretical physicist and science administrator, noted as director of the Los Alamos Laboratory (1943–45) during development of the atomic bomb and as director of the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton (1947–66). Accusations of disloyalty led to a government hearing that resulted in the loss of his security clearance and of his position as adviser to the highest echelons of the U.S. government. The case became a cause célèbre in the world of science because of its implications concerning political and moral issues relating to the role of scientists in government.

Oppenheimer was the son of a German immigrant who had made his fortune by importing textiles in New York City . During his undergraduate studies at Harvard University , Oppenheimer excelled in Latin, Greek, physics , and chemistry, published poetry, and studied Eastern philosophy. After graduating in 1925, he sailed for England to do research at the Cavendish Laboratory at the University of Cambridge , which, under the leadership of Lord Ernest Rutherford , had an international reputation for its pioneering studies on atomic structure. At the Cavendish, Oppenheimer had the opportunity to collaborate with the British scientific community in its efforts to advance the cause of atomic research.

Max Born invited Oppenheimer to University of Göttingen , where he met other prominent physicists, such as Niels Bohr and P.A.M. Dirac , and where, in 1927, he received his doctorate. After short visits at science centres in Leiden and Zürich, he returned to the United States to teach physics at the University of California at Berkeley and the California Institute of Technology .

In the 1920s the new quantum and relativity theories were engaging the attention of science. That mass was equivalent to energy and that matter could be both wavelike and corpuscular carried implications seen only dimly at that time. Oppenheimer’s early research was devoted in particular to energy processes of subatomic particles, including electrons, positrons, and cosmic rays. He also did groundbreaking work on neutron stars and black holes. Since quantum theory had been proposed only a few years before, the university post provided him an excellent opportunity to devote his entire career to the exploration and development of its full significance. In addition, he trained a whole generation of U.S. physicists, who were greatly affected by his qualities of leadership and intellectual independence.

The rise of Adolf Hitler in Germany stirred his first interest in politics. In 1936 he sided with the republic during the Civil War in Spain, where he became acquainted with communist students. Although his father’s death in 1937 left Oppenheimer a fortune that allowed him to subsidize anti-fascist organizations, the tragic suffering inflicted by Joseph Stalin on Russian scientists led him to withdraw his associations with the Communist Party—in fact, he never joined the party—and at the same time reinforced in him a liberal democratic philosophy. In 1939, Oppenheimer began an affair with Katharine Puening , a graduate student in botany at the University of California, Los Angeles. Puening divorced her husband and married Oppenheimer in 1940.

After the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany in 1939, the physicists Albert Einstein , Leo Szilard , and Eugene Wigner warned the U.S. government of the danger threatening all of humanity if the Nazis should be the first to make a nuclear bomb . Oppenheimer then began to seek a process for the separation of uranium-235 from natural uranium and to determine the critical mass of uranium required to make such a bomb. In August 1942 the U.S. Army was given the responsibility of organizing the efforts of British and U.S. physicists to seek a way to harness nuclear energy for military purposes, an effort that became known as the Manhattan Project . Oppenheimer was instructed to establish and administer a laboratory to carry out this assignment. In 1943 he chose the plateau of Los Alamos , near Santa Fe , New Mexico .

For reasons that have not been made clear, Oppenheimer in 1942 initiated discussions with military security agents that culminated with the implication that some of his friends and acquaintances were agents of the Soviet government. This led to the dismissal of a personal friend on the faculty at the University of California. In a 1954 security hearing, he described his contribution to those discussions as “a tissue of lies.”

The joint effort of outstanding scientists at Los Alamos culminated in the first nuclear explosion, on July 16, 1945, at the Trinity Site near Alamogordo , New Mexico, after the surrender of Germany. In October of the same year, Oppenheimer resigned his post. In 1947 he became head of the Institute for Advanced Study and served from 1947 until 1952 as chairman of the General Advisory Committee of the Atomic Energy Commission , which in October 1949 opposed development of the hydrogen bomb.

On December 21, 1953, he was notified of a military security report unfavourable to him and was accused of having associated with communists in the past, of delaying the naming of Soviet agents, and of opposing the building of the hydrogen bomb . The following year, a security hearing declared him not guilty of treason but ruled that he should not have access to military secrets. As a result, his contract as adviser to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission was canceled. The Federation of American Scientists immediately came to his defense with a protest against the trial. Oppenheimer was made the worldwide symbol of the scientist who, while trying to resolve the moral problems that arise from scientific discovery, becomes the victim of a witch hunt . He spent the last years of his life working out ideas on the relationship between science and society.

In 1963 U.S. Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson presented Oppenheimer with the Enrico Fermi Award of the Atomic Energy Commission. Oppenheimer retired from the Institute for Advanced Study in 1966 and died of throat cancer the following year. In 2014, 60 years after the proceedings that effectively ended Oppenheimer’s career, the U.S. Department of Energy released the full, declassified transcript of the hearing. While many of the details were already known, the newly released material bolstered Oppenheimer’s assertions of loyalty and reinforced the perception that a brilliant scientist had been brought low by a bureaucratic cocktail of professional jealousy and McCarthyism . In 2022 the Department of Energy formally vacated the revocation of Oppenheimer’s security clearance. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm claimed that the “bias and unfairness” of a “flawed process” had led to his exile from the nuclear establishment. Christopher Nolan ’s Oppenheimer (2023), cast Cillian Murphy in the title role of a film that explored Oppenheimer’s role in the development of the atomic bomb and the events that led to the 1954 security hearing.

• Skip to global NPS navigation
• Skip to this park navigation
• Skip to the main content
• Skip to this park information section
• Skip to the footer section

Exiting nps.gov

Alerts in effect, history & culture.

Last updated: April 7, 2023

Park footer

Contact info, mailing address:.

Manhattan Project National Historical Park c/o NPS Intermountain Regional Office P.O. Box 25287 Denver, CO 80225-0287

Hanford: 509.376.1647 Los Alamos: 505.661.6277 Oak Ridge: 865.482.1942

Stay Connected

Columbia university libraries.

Columbia university archives: manhattan project.

• Alumni Search
• Faculty Search
• Online Bulletins
• Master's Essays & Dissertations
• Individuals
• Student Life
• Buildings & Grounds
• Scanned Images
• 1968 Crisis
• 49th Street Campus
• Coeducation at Columbia
• Columbia and the Civil War
• Core Curriculum
• King's College
• LGBT Student Groups
• Seth Low Junior College
• Varsity Show
• University Presidents
• Schools & Departments
• Black Experience at Columbia
• Asian & Asian American Experience

University Archives

Phone: (212) 854-3786 Fax: (212) 854-1365 E-mail: [email protected]

Map | Hours | Directions

Related Collections

Barnard College The Barnard Archives and Special Collections serves as the final repository for the historical records of Barnard College, from its founding in 1889 to the present day. For more information, please contact [email protected] .

Health Sciences Library The Archives and Special Collections at the Augustus C. Long Health Sciences Library of Columbia University can help you find information about the schools of the Medical Center: College of Physicians & Surgeons, School of Nursing, College of Dental Medicine (formerly the School of Dental & Oral Surgery), Mailman School of Public Health, and the College of Pharmaceutical Sciences. For more information, please contact [email protected] .

How to find information about the Manhattan Project

The Department of Energy releases declassified Manhattan Project-related reports and documents on its  OpenNet  website. This searchable database includes bibliographical references to all documents declassified and made publicly available after October 1, 1994. Some documents can be viewed as full text. This website also provides a comprehensive Manhattan District History.

To start your research into Columbia's role in the Manhattan Project, read Laurence Lippsett's article "The race to make the bomb. The Manhattan Project: Columbia's wartime secret." The article appeared in Columbia College Today , Spring/Summer 1995, 18-21, 45. 

• The Manhattan Project: Columbia's wartime secret Lippsett, Laurence. "The race to make the bomb. The Manhattan Project: Columbia's wartime secret." Columbia College Today, Spring/Summer 1995, pp. 18-21, 45.
• Archival Collections
• Additional Sources

The following are the most often consulted resources available at the University Archives. Archival collections are  non-circulating  and  can only be viewed in the Rare Book & Manuscript Library's reading room  (RBML).  In order to use the University Archives collections at the RBML, y ou will be required to register your own Special Collections Research Account before your visit and to validate the account in person with government-issued photo identification or Columbia ID card. Once you have created your Special Collections Research Account , you will be able to request materials directly from the finding aid: click the check box located on the right for the box(es) you need, and then scroll back to the top of the container list document and click “Submit Request” button in the red-rimmed box at top. This should lead you directly to your Special Collections Research Account to complete the request form.

• Annual Reports The Annual Reports of the President and Treasurer to the Trustees offer a yearly "state of the University" from 1891 to 1946. You can find statements about Columbia's role in the 1945 Annual Report presented to the Trustees (starting on page 14).  
• Central Files, 1890-1984 Central Files contain the core administrative records of the University. The records that comprise Central Files originated in the Office of the President starting in 1890 and continue through the present. Central Files chiefly contains correspondence (sent and received) between Columbia University administrators and other University officers, faculty, trustees, and individuals and organizations from outside the University. Box 301, folder 1 contains the August 6 and 14, 1945 telegrams from War Department to President Butler about continuing the secrecy of atomic bomb research. In addition to the War Department, Central Files includes correspondence with Fermi, Dunning, US Atomic Energy Commission, etc.  
• George Braxton Pegram papers, 1903-1958 Nuclear physicist, professor of physics, and Dean of Graduate Faculties at Columbia University, Pegram conducted a great deal of defense-related research and was responsible for the famous meeting between Franklin Delano Roosevelt and American nuclear scientists prior to World War II that eventually led to the establishment of the Manhattan Project. The National Defense Research Committee contracts for work on uranium and the Physics Department, correspondence, 1940-1947 (declassified in 1960), can be found in the "Atomic Energy Commission" folder in Box 41. There is also a folder titled "Atomic Bomb Discussion" in this box. Box 41 is stored offsite and must be requested at least 48 business hours in advance of use in our reading room.  
• Historical Photograph Collection - Series V: Atomic Energy A small series of images related to atomic research conducted by Columbia. Included are images of the Nevis and Pupin Laboratories and a 1948 exhibit about atomic energy; including the Seventh Biennial Award Dinner for The Atomic Bomb Project, sponsored by Chemical & Metallurgical Engineering; Waldorf-Astoria, 1946.  
• "Atomic Energy Research, 1930s-1980s" in Box 6 folder 5
• "Manhattan Project, 1940s-2000s" in Box 41, folder 10
• "SAM Labs--Manhattan Project, 1940s-1990s" in Box 48, folder 3

For more information on how to access our collections, check out our Research & Access website. If you have any questions about how to find materials or how to access materials, please contact [email protected] .

Archival collections are  non-circulating  and  can only be viewed in the Rare Book & Manuscript Library's reading room  (RBML).  In order to use the University Archives collections at the RBML, y ou will be required to register your own Special Collections Research Account before your visit and to validate the account in person with government-issued photo identification or Columbia ID card. Once you have created your Special Collections Research Account , you will be able to request materials directly from the finding aid: click the check box located on the right for the box(es) you need, and then scroll back to the top of the container list document and click “Submit Request” button in the red-rimmed box at top. This should lead you directly to your Special Collections Research Account to complete the request form.

• C. S. (Chien-shiung) Wu Papers The collection consists of speeches, reports, publications, research notes, and correspondence. The bulk of the collection relates to Wu's involvement in the American Physical Society as well as her research activities. The correspondence is chiefly professional, relating to C. S. Wu's physics research, professional commitments, appointments, meetings, conferences, and publications. Correspondence also includes letters from individuals around the world praising Wu for her accomplishments, asking advice, arranging speaking engagements, discussing administrative matters, and trading research notes, as well as information on publications and other topics. In addition, the collection contains information on Wu's involvement in the development of an affirmative action program at Columbia University in the 1970s.  
• Selig Hecht papers, 1914-1937 Professor of biophysics at Columbia University, 1926-1947, and author of Explaining the Atom (1947).  
• Dana Paul Mitchel Papers, [ca. 1925]-1960 Professional and personal correspondence, administrative records, manuscript lecture notes, and some miscellaneous printed materials. The general correspondence file, 1927-1958, contains letters, both personal and professional, with colleagues, with and about his students, about laboratory equipment, about weapons for the Army and Navy, and with industry concerning his research.  
• Department of Physics Historical records, 1862-1997 This collection is made up of an assortment of historical material, consisting of photographs, negatives, faculty and guest lecturer correspondence, biographical materials for some of the faculty, programs from various lecture series given at Columbia, publications, picture postcards, and even a sheet of commemorative postage stamps. These documents were collected in The Columbia Physics Department: a brief history , a booklet of reproductions of some of the archival documents, correspondence, and photographs relating to the history of the Physics department of Columbia. It includes listing and photos of Columbia's Nobel Laureates and discussion of Columbia's involvement in the Manhattan Project. Correspondents include Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein, Enrico Fermi, H. A. Lorentz, R. A. Millikan, and Max Planck.  
• Department of Physics records, 1870-1983 This collection contains records of the Physics Department of Columbia University and several of its affiliated research laboratories: the Columbia Radiation Laboratory, the Pupin Cyclotron Laboratory, the Nevis Cyclotron Laboratory, and the Pegram Nuclear Physics Laboratory.  
• Columbia Alumni News Alumni News served as a Columbia news magazine in its earlier days, publishing biweekly issues during the academic year. The first September 1945 issue has as its main article " Columbia and the Atomic Bomb " as Columbia's role was no longer secret.    

Columbia News online article: Shea, Christopher D. " Seen 'Oppenheimer'? Learn About Columbia's Role in Building the First Atom Bomb,  24 July 2023.   

• Oral Histories The Columbia Center for Oral History Archives is one of the largest oral history collections in the United States. The Manhattan Project is discussed in a number of interviews under a number of projects. To search for these interviews,  begin by exploring the Oral History Portal . When you have found an oral history interview that interests you, please click the link to view the Full CLIO record .The CLIO record will include information about restrictions and whether or not this interview is open to researchers. You can request the transcripts to be read at the Rare Book & Manuscript Library's reading room by using your Special Collections Research Account . For more information, please visit the Oral History Archives website .

About the images

Top - Two graduate students assembling graphite blocks for the nuclear reactor. (Scan #3114)  Historical Photograph Collection ,  , University Archives, Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Columbia University Libraries.

Right - "Two leaders in atom work at Columbia -- Dr. John R. Dunning (right), one of the country's pioneer atomic scientists, points out to Dr. Pegram the workings of his "atomic pinball machine," which he uses to explain atomic energy to the public." (Scan #0638) Historical Photograph Collection ,  University Archives, Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Columbia University Libraries.

• << Previous: LGBT Student Groups
• Next: Seth Low Junior College >>
• Last Updated: Jul 2, 2024 5:15 PM
• URL: https://guides.library.columbia.edu/uarchives
• Donate Books or Items
• Suggestions & Feedback
• Report an E-Resource Problem
• The Bancroft Prizes
• Student Library Advisory Committee
• Jobs & Internships
• Behind the Scenes at Columbia's Libraries

Subscribe to this podcast

Listen & Learn: The Manhattan Project

• atomic bomb: a bomb that creates energy by splitting atoms
• refugee: someone who leaves a country to escape a threat, such as war or human rights violations
• nuclear fission: the process of splitting the nucleus of an atom to create energy
• peer: someone who belongs to the same social group as someone else, such as age, class, or job
• petition: a document that people sign to show support for a social change
• president: someone who leads a government
• controversial: causing a lot of anger and argument

Listening activity

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 1:52 — 2.6MB)

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | More

Gapfill exercise

Comprehension questions.

See answers below

• Nuclear fission was discovered in a. 1938 b. 1942 c. 1945
• The lead scientist on the Manhattan Project was a. Albert Einstein b. J. Robert Oppenheimer c. Leo Szilard
• 70 Manhattan Project scientists signed a petition to convince the US government a. that dropping the bombs on Japan was the only way to end the war b. to end all research on the bombs and never use them c. not to drop the bombs without warning Japan first

Discussion/essay questions

• How do you think the world would be different if the US hadn’t started the Manhattan Project? Do you think another country would have built and used an atomic bomb? Why or why not?
• Is scientific progress always a good thing? Why or why not? How can scientists be responsible when inventing new technology?

The Manhattan Project was a secret American project during World War II. The goal was to build an atomic bomb. Refugee scientists from Nazi Germany, including Albert Einstein, convinced the US government to begin the project after the discovery of nuclear fission in 1938. Einstein and his peers feared that the Nazis would use this discovery to build their own atomic bombs. The Manhattan Project began in 1942. The lead scientist was J. Robert Oppenheimer, who is now known as the “father of the atomic bomb.” The first successful atomic bomb test was in July of 1945. Soon after, 70 scientists who worked on the project signed a petition to convince the government not to use the bomb without warning . However, the petition never reached the president. The US dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese towns of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945, killing close to 200,000 people. It is still one of the most controversial military acts in history.

Answers to comprehension questions

I don’t have any comment

The last movie Oppenhaimer is amazing. If you see the movie you will be able to understand what happened.

I’m so sorry to hear nearly 2000,000 innocent people were killed in Japan.

Why People? Why War? Why the leaders of countries don’t try to stop wars?

I believe in this subject that the leaders of countries can make peace in our world while people of countries don’t have any role in starting wars.

I wish Einstein & Oppenheimer didn’t use their mind for this subject that finally signed a petition that NEVER reached the president.

I wish you all love & peace,

I find this activity so useful, especially after or before watching part of or the entre film that matches this topic. I will certainly use it with my students

Leave a comment

Email * (not published)

Advertisement

Supported by

Brooklyn? Bah. Manhattan? Meh. A New Book Calls the Bronx the City’s Best Borough.

Ian Frazier’s history roams far and wide, on foot and in the archives, celebrating (if not romanticizing) a perennially “in between” part of New York.

• Share full article

By Alexandra Jacobs

• Apple Books
• Barnes and Noble
• Books-A-Million
• Bookshop.org

When you purchase an independently reviewed book through our site, we earn an affiliate commission.

PARADISE BRONX: The Life and Times of New York’s Greatest Borough, by Ian Frazier

“The Bronx? No thonx,” wrote the poet Ogden Nash for The New Yorker in 1931.

It’s surprising that Ian Frazier’s latest book, a fat and occasionally even phat history of the borough, omits this memorable epigram, later recanted . First, like Nash, he’s a New Yorker man known as a humorist, though a mostly prose-y one (a hundred bloggers toddled so that his Cursing Mommy could run).

Second, “Paradise Bronx” aspires to great comprehension, stretching from before the glacier that 14,000 years ago covered the New York Botanical Garden — and indeed most of the city — to the fires that infamously punctuated Howard Cosell’s commentary on the Yankees during the 1977 World Series, and what has since risen from the ashes: hip-hop, murals, shiny new high rises.

“The Bronx? It honks!” is Frazier’s basic riposte.

His sentiment for the place isn’t entirely explained; certainly he’s not Ianny From the Block . A previous chronicler of Siberia and the Great Plains , Frazier writes about how in young adulthood, when New York was at its “Ford to City: Drop Dead” economic nadir , he was a self-identified “gentrifier” in Manhattan, living in a former candy factory in SoHo for a dozen years until he was priced out. He watched the underwhelming bicentennial fireworks from the West Side Highway and was dining with “my friend Jamaica” ( Kincaid ) in Chelsea during the ’77 blackout, seeing news of the subsequent riots uptown later that week on television from his home state of Ohio.

He now resides in Montclair, N.J., and when he compares complicated urban housing policy to “the details the contractor is telling you about why you are going to need a new basement” those of youse without ownership of a basement might wonder for whom exactly this book is intended.

As Bill Bryson did on the Appalachian Trail , though, Frazier has logged many, many steps in the Bronx, setting out, he writes, to walk a thousand miles there, sometimes 10 at a time. It is just as much of a hike, with steep hilly terrain that “registers in your calves,”, and arguably more treacherous, given the interstate highways, like the one Justice Sonia Sotomayor had to cross to get from Co-Op City, the massive housing development built in the 1960s, to Cardinal Spellman High School.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

The Manhattan Project was the code name for the American-led effort to develop a functional atomic weapon during World War II. The controversial creation and eventual use of the atomic bomb ...

Manhattan Project, U.S. government research project (1942-45) that produced the first atomic bombs. The project's name was derived from its initial location at Columbia University, where much of the early research was done. The first bomb was exploded in a test at Alamogordo air base in southern New Mexico on July 16, 1945.

The Manhattan Project was the Anglo-American effort to build nuclear weapons during World War II. It is commonly regarded as one of the most successful, if controversial, mega-projects of the 20th century, bringing together scientific expertise, industrial production, and military coordination to create an entirely new industry, and new form of weaponry, in an unusually compressed timescale.

The Manhattan Project was the codename for the secret US government research and engineering project during the Second World War that developed the world's first nuclear weapons. President Franklin Roosevelt created a committee to look into the possibility of developing a nuclear weapon after he received a letter from Nobel Prize laureate Albert Einstein in October 1939.

The Manhattan Project culminated in the Trinity test in New Mexico on July 16, 1945—the first detonation of a nuclear weapon. By that time, the U.S. had spent around $2.2 billion —the ...

The Manhattan Project [ushistory.org] 51f. The Manhattan Project. This once classified photograph features the first atomic bomb — a weapon that atomic scientists had nicknamed "Gadget." The nuclear age began on July 16, 1945, when it was detonated in the New Mexico desert. Early in 1939, the world's scientific community discovered that ...

Manhattan Project History. Date: Friday, May 12, 2017. The Manhattan Project was the result of an enormous collaborative effort between the U.S. government and the industrial and scientific sectors during World War II. Here is a brief summary of the Anglo-American effort to develop an atomic bomb during its World War II and its legacies today.

The Manhattan Project is one of the most famous scientific projects in United States history. Use these essay prompts to help students examine the Manhattan Project from multiple perspectives and ...

Though thousands of articles and books have been published on various aspects of the Manhattan Project, this book is the first comprehensive single-volume history prepared by a specialist for curious readers without a scientific background. This project, the United States Army's program to develop and deploy atomic weapons in World War II ...

The Manhattan Project: An Interactive History is intended to provide an overview of the Manhattan Project. Five main topical areas-Events, People, Places, Processes, and Science-are further divided into sub-sections, each with an introductory page and as many as a dozen or more sub-pages. The site is interactive in the sense that it is designed ...

Manhattan Project - American History Streaming Video Database The scientists and engineers who helped build the world's first nuclear weapon reflect on their accomplishments and legacy. The explosion took place, appropriately, in an area of the New Mexico desert called jornada del muerto—the journey of death. At 5:30 AM on July 16, 1945, the ...

Also among the primary project sites was Los Alamos, New Mexico. Designated "Project Y," Los Alamos was the site of the Manhattan Project's weapons research laboratory. This Los Alamos site would become the location for the construction of the atomic bombs. The last primary site Groves selected was Hanford, Washington, which he designated

The Manhattan Project was the secret name for the United States project prior to World War II in order to design and build a nuclear weapon. With the breakthrough of fission in 1939, scientists figured out that nuclear and radioactive materials could be used to make bombs of epic proportions.

Introduction. The Manhattan Project was a code name for a military project that was conducted during World War II between 1942 and 1946. It is however believed to have officially started in 1939 after President Roosevelt responded to a letter written by the famous physicist, Albert Einstein, expressing his concern that nuclear weapons were being developed by the Nazis.

The atomic explosion at Alamogordo, New Mexico, on July 16, 1945. failed to produce the desired results. ended World War II. proved the success of the Manhattan Project. convinced President Truman the atomic bomb was too powerful to use. 3. Development of the atomic bomb in the United States during the 1940s occurred.

After the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany in 1939, the physicists Albert Einstein, Leo Szilard, and Eugene Wigner warned the U.S. government of the danger threatening all of humanity if the Nazis should be the first to make a nuclear bomb.Oppenheimer then began to seek a process for the separation of uranium-235 from natural uranium and to determine the critical mass of uranium required to ...

The Manhattan Project was a massive, top secret national mobilization of scientists, engineers, technicians, and military personnel charged with producing a deployable atomic weapon during World War II. The project began as a multifaceted effort requiring the rapid advancement of nuclear physics and multiple engineering strategies to produce ...

In this spirit, I offer in this essay some very personal reflections on the Project and the legacies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, framed as responses to questions like those above. ... General Groves' official history of the Project, the Manhattan District History, can be downloaded from a Department of Energy website, ...

The Manhattan Project is discussed in a number of interviews under a number of projects. To search for these interviews, begin by exploring the Oral History Portal . When you have found an oral history interview that interests you, please click the link to view the Full CLIO record .The CLIO record will include information about restrictions ...

The Manhattan Project was the secret name for the United States project prior to World War II in order to design and build a nuclear weapon. With the breakthrough of fission in 1939, scientists figure ... Essays; History; Manhattan Project Thesis. Paper Type: Free Essay: Subject: History: Wordcount: 2334 words: Published: 11th Jul 2017 ...

70 Manhattan Project scientists signed a petition to convince the US government a. that dropping the bombs on Japan was the only way to end the war b. to end all research on the bombs and never use them c. not to drop the bombs without warning Japan first; Discussion/essay questions

Manhattan Project. Pages: 10 Words: 3708. Manhattan Project was one of the most documented events in American and World History. The discussion will provide an explanation of the Manhattan Project and how the project changed society forever. The purpose of this essay is to provide a historiographic discussion on the topic of the Manhattan project.

The Manhattan Project. On the morning of August 6, 1945, a B-29 bomber named Enola Gay flew over the industrial city of Hiroshima, Japan and dropped the first atomic bomb ever. The city went up in flames caused by the immense power equal to about 20,000 tons of TNT. The project was a success.

6 Pages • Essays / Projects • Year Uploaded: 2022. An essay exploring the decisions which led up to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well as the development of said bomb, otherwise known as the Manhattan Project (written for the AQA East vs West Conflict spec).

50 likes, 4 comments - nuclear_museum on August 14, 2024: "Save the date for Nuclear After Dark on Friday October 4th! We will show the History Channel's Modern Marvels: Manhattan Project in Heritage Park and we will have a DJ for fun music, all of our favorite food trucks and @bombsawaybeercompany. If that wasn't enough, we have added a fun,clever game with lots of clues to test your ...

Ian Frazier's history roams far and wide, on foot and in the archives, celebrating (if not romanticizing) a perennially "in between" part of New York.

banquo essay grade 9