[HN Gopher] What John von Neumann Did at Los Alamos ___________________________________________________________________ What John von Neumann Did at Los Alamos Author : paulpauper Score : 161 points Date : 2021-09-27 17:12 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (3quarksdaily.com) (TXT) w3m dump (3quarksdaily.com) | not2b wrote: | The repeated use of "Johnny" on almost every reference is really | jarring and inappropriate. | stagger87 wrote: | That's what he went by. | aerostable_slug wrote: | He went by "Johnny" ("Jancsi" in Hungarian) his entire life. | | Here's Freeman Dyson calling him "Johnny" throughout a talk | Dyson gave at Brown University: | https://www.ams.org/notices/201302/rnoti-p154.pdf | not2b wrote: | I know that. Freeman Dyson was his friend. The author of this | article was not his friend, so it would be cool to use | "Johnny" in a quote. Using it in every reference is weird, | false familiarity, kind of disrespectful. | JoeAltmaier wrote: | Funny they list Feynman in the familiar 'cast of characters' | responsible for the Los Alamos effort. He was a lowly graduate | student at the time, responsible for organizing others in the | compute lab using mechanical calculators (if I remember his | biography right). Not a shining star. More of a pain in the side | - he messed with security protocols and made life hard for | everybody. | | But its fun to put famous names in the article I guess. | psanford wrote: | Feynman was the youngest group leader at Los Alamos. He was | also fairly instrumental in ensuring Oak Ridge didn't have an | accidental criticality incident due to the way they were | storing uranium oxide. | JoeAltmaier wrote: | Sure but it didn't require a Nobel Prize to do that. He was | definitely on the administration side there, don't you think? | LgWoodenBadger wrote: | Wasn't that where he invented (or adopted) pipelining for | improving the mechanical calculators throughput? | ndr wrote: | The people he was leading definitely used it (against | original instructions), and most likely invented, to his | surprise. But he does not credit himself for it in Surely | You're Joking Mr Feynman. | heavenlyblue wrote: | > More of a pain in the side - he messed with security | protocols and made life hard for everybody. | | Messing with security protocols is actually a good thing to | ensure they keep getting followed | bryan0 wrote: | Anyone have recommendations for a good biography of von Neumann? | e4325f wrote: | Prisoner's Dilemma | kryptiskt wrote: | There's a fairly old book by William Poundstone "Prisoner's | Dilemma: John von Neumann, Game Theory, and the Puzzle of the | Bomb". I can't vouch for it, as I read it long ago and don't | remember just how much of a biography it was. It's very | readable though. | bobcostas55 wrote: | There aren't any, though there's a new one coming out very soon | which might be good. | biofox wrote: | I can recommend the one published by the AMS. | dgs_sgd wrote: | I found "John von Neumann and Norbert Wiener: From Mathematics | to the Technologies of Life and Death" excellent, if you don't | mind learning about Norbert Wiener as well :). | csbartus wrote: | A short one can be found in The Computer And The Brain written | by his wife as foreword. | https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300181111/computer-and-b... | clint wrote: | Turing's Cathedral has a lot about Neumann | inasio wrote: | The buried lede for me was that the slopes in the Pajarito ski | mountain were created by one of the scientists just grabbing a | bunch of explosives and blowing up trees: | | - Oppenheimer invited George Kistiakowsky from Harvard who was a | world-class expert in explosives; in his spare time Kistiakowsky | would use his explosives knowledge to raze trees and create ski | slopes on the mesa for recreation for the scientists. | scarecrowbob wrote: | That's super interesting. My local ski pass includes | pajarito... it's hard to get me to want to ski in New Mexico | but I might have to make a trip down this season | inasio wrote: | It's a nice little mountain, but depending on the year it | might not have enough snow to open. People at Los Alamos | sometimes do laps over the lunch break... | dogman144 wrote: | Taos is worth a visit | RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: | The more I read about the Manhattan Project, the more I become | convinced that if it were not for the Manhattan Project, we might | not have nuclear weapons even now. | | There were a bunch of things that came together perfectly. | | 1) A bunch of intellectuals of the higher caliber that could be | brought into a single location. A lot of this had to do with the | rise of Nazism which led to a lot of these high powered | intellectuals fleeing Germany and Eastern Europe for the US. | | 2) A bunch of money that could be poured into the project. At | that time, the USA was completely committed to using every | resource it had to win WWII. | | 3) Convince all those intellectuals that working on creating the | most destructive weapon ever was a good thing. If there was ever | a "good war" in the history of the world, it was the war against | Hitler. I think almost everyone in the West understood at that | time that stopping Hitler was of the highest moral imperative and | that massive amounts of violence was the only way to stop him. | Even with all this, people like Oppenheimer had their doubts. (Of | course this would end up being used, not against Hitler and the | Germans but against the Japanese). | | 4) The theoretic foundations for all this work were just laid a | few decades before. This could not have happened before then. | | I don't see such a convergence of factors happening afterward. I | don't think you could get the top 100 leading scientists together | to build a superweapon now. | | If it were not for the Manhattan Project, I think it is likely | that we would still be living in a nuclear weapon free world. | Though, if that is a good thing or a bad thing with respect to | great power wars, I am uncertain. | UncleOxidant wrote: | > A lot of this had to do with the rise of Nazism which led to | a lot of these high powered intellectuals fleeing Germany and | Eastern Europe for the US. | | The Nazis managed to drive out a large portion of Europe's best | scientists & mathematicians (Von Neumann, Einstein, Godel | [eventually... it took him a while to realize how bad things | were] just to name a few). Most of which ended up in the US or | the UK. Which in turn meant that in WWII Nazi Germany was at | something of a scientific disadvantage without realizing it was | of their own making. Add to this the Nazi critique of of what | they called "Jewish science" - things like relativity, quantum | mechanics, even Godel incompleteness theorem got this label - | did not allow them free inquiry into many of these areas. | [deleted] | dragonwriter wrote: | > I don't see such a convergence of factors happening | afterward. I don't think you could get the top 100 leading | scientists together to build a superweapon now. | | It wouldn't have taken the top scientists a generation later, | with advancements in all the related fields diffusing through | the scientific community, even without those strictly depend on | thr Manhattan Project and nuclear weapons, abd without the | political context created by Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the first | use might well have been by a nation with dozens of devices | available, and no reason for restraint in using them. | CheezeIt wrote: | The Soviets were going to do it in a few years anyway. Maybe it | would not be as quickly as they got it done. Japan even had a | wisp of a program. Everybody knew that an atom bomb program was | a thing to do. | | At the barest minimum, we would still develop nuclear reactors, | and then plutonium would get discovered, and it's easy to | manufacture and purify (compared to U-235), and the bomb is | just a matter of time. | foobarian wrote: | > 1) A bunch of intellectuals of the higher caliber that could | be brought into a single location. A lot of this had to do with | the rise of Nazism which led to a lot of these high powered | intellectuals fleeing Germany and Eastern Europe for the US. | | It's amusing that this is very much like how the bomb worked. | Take fissile material and bring it all together into the same | place at the exact same moment so that a chain reaction can | occur :-) | acidburnNSA wrote: | It's almost a certainty that at least enriched U-235 gun-type | weapons would be made regardless of the Manhattan Project as | the relatively simple technology of uranium enrichment came | online. It's almost literally a cannon shooting a U-235 bullet | into a U-235 sphere welded to the end of the cannon. Given the | pure material (which you can make by spinning natural uranium | in a tube), it's basically easy. Heck, the Manhattan Project | people didn't even bother testing it like they did with the far | more complex plutonium implosion device (Trinity). | stan_rogers wrote: | The outer part was the projectile; the slug was the target. | Making it the other way around - the way most of us always | assumed it would have worked - would have forced the ring | into criticality. So it _is_ an easy concept, but the first | guess is almost bound to be the wrong one. | [deleted] | dtgriscom wrote: | Interesting: citation? | int0x2e wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-type_fission_weapon | Look at the diagram on the right - it's the cylinder | that's the target. | wrycoder wrote: | Where did you hear that? It seems to me that the only thing | that matters is the relative speed of the two components. | Was the ring much lower mass than the core? | | Edit: it was more. Nonetheless, accelerating the ring had | advantages, according to WP! I didn't know that. | stan_rogers wrote: | It's not the mass _per se_ , but the need for the thing | to be contained at the target end. If the ring is already | at the target end, you have a relatively large mass of | enriched uranium surrounded by a neutron reflector. | That's not going to make things go bang, but it _is_ | enough to be rather exciting. By sitting the core | cylinder in the middle of the containment vessel with a | gap around it and filling that gap with the ring on | firing, nothing goes critical until it 's supposed to go | supercritical. (The ring is carried on a sort of sabot.) | supperburg wrote: | Is it easy? You have to spin the tube at 50k rpm and flow a | gaseous form of uranium through it. It's dangerous and | expensive and certainly hard if you've never built a | centrifuge before. | int0x2e wrote: | I hope you understand that enriching Uranium isn't as simple | as "spinning natural uranium in a tube". The Manhattan | project used multiple different processes at the time, simply | because time was of the essence and they didn't know which | would work and which would be most efficient when they | started. At peak, they used 10-15% of total US electrical | power, as well as quite a bit of important material (mostly | metals for particle accelerators). They didn't have access to | centrifuge or laser based enrichment processes, which are | significantly more power efficient, but neither of these are | simple plants to build. Centrifuges in particular are very | delicate pieces of machinery, constructed of special | materials and balanced in an extremely delicate way. Oils | from your hands would be enough to destroy a unit due to the | crazy speeds involved. Not to mention you're still working | with gaseous uranium hexafluoride which isn't OSHA approved | :-). | | TL;DR - even if bomb design is trivial for a gun type bomb, | generating enough enriched U235 for a proper bomb requires a | significant, prolonged, well funded effort. I agree we would | probably have nukes at some point, but I'm not sure when. | jjk166 wrote: | Centrifuges are delicate but they're not especially | difficult for an industrial society to produce. They are | comparable to jet engine shafts in terms of both loading | and components. The manhattan project didn't utilize them | because a single individual overlooked a simple method of | making them more stable - you add a flexible section so any | vibrations damp themselves out. German scientists claimed | to have figured out this trick during the war, and the | soviets implemented it shortly thereafter in their nuclear | program, allowing them to enrich enough material for their | weapons with only a fraction of industrial effort of the | American project. Gas centrifuges for enrichment of | chlorine isotopes had already been in use since 1934. | | Much smaller nation states have since been able to | effectively generate enough uranium for nuclear weapons | programs in short periods of time using centrifuges. The | main challenge for them has not been production itself, but | hiding the activity from international scrutiny. Tracking | shipments of materials and parts necessary for centrifuge | construction has been one of the leading methods of | avoiding nuclear proliferation, but still centrifuges are | so effective that even a small number is enough. North | Korea, for example, is believed to have two buildings worth | of centrifuges, but we only know where one of them is, and | only because they have given international inspectors a | tour of that location. For context, North Korea's current | GDP is about 1/64th of the US's GDP in 1939. | pdm55 wrote: | "Gernot Zippe, an Austrian physicist, .. in the early | 1950s figured out (with others) how to fix the problems | that Beams had with his centrifuges. Amazingly, he did | this while being a prisoner of war in the Soviet Union." | http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/05/28/zippes- | centrifuges... | abraae wrote: | It's also possible that if it wasn't for the Manhattan project, | there would have been nuclear armageddon in the 50s or 60s. | | The bomb arrived at a time when the US and Russia were allies. | They were focused on winning the war. By the time they started | snarling at each other in earnest, the Russians had the bomb | (1949) and detente had been established. WWII gave us a smooth | glide path to both superpowers having the bomb and MAD doctrine | was established. | | If instead the bomb had arrived say in the 60s, there would | have been an entirely different political landscape. Perhaps | even more bitter than the cold war. If one side had then got | the bomb, just when they were at each other's throats, they | could well have used it. | ProjectArcturis wrote: | Then you'd probably have had the US and USSR go to war sometime | in the 50s or 60s, and we'd probably have built the A bomb | then. | netless wrote: | Lack of geniuses of this caliber today is reason why we don't | have to fear AI dominance (or hope for fully autonomous vehicles | 99,99999%). There is nobody capable of creating it. | phkahler wrote: | I'm not sure its lack of geniuses. It might be an inability to | utilize them effectively. | | The book "Influx" presents another possibility which both | interesting and depressing. | UncleOxidant wrote: | I recently read the new Godel biography _Journey to the Edge of | Reason: The Life of Kurt Godel_ and it was pretty clear that Von | Neumann played a key role in getting Godel out of Austria just | prior to WWII. Godel had been a visiting lecturer at the IAS at | Princeton off and on in the 30s but probably due to his mental | illness he would go back to Austria often with little notice - | which didn 't put him in good stead with IAS administration. In | 1938 Godel applied to teach at the University of Vienna but was | turned down (Though not Jewish, he was considered to be too tied | to what was labelled "Jewish science"). He was about to be | conscripted into the German army which would have been a disaster | given his many health problems. When Von Neumann became aware of | Godel's dire situation he lobbied his many powerful contacts in | DC to come to Godel's aid. Through diplomacy the Germans | eventually allowed Godel to leave under the condition that he | would have to come back to serve in the army. He barely made it | out in late '39 and probably wouldn't have without Von Neumann's | intervention. | AvAn12 wrote: | "Turing's Cathedral" by George Dyson has a nice history of von | Neumann, among others. | Radim wrote: | There's a story by George Dyson that gave me chills. He's | playing in a barn as a kid and finds an ancient (clunky, weird) | computer abandoned there. (George's dad, Freeman Dyson, was a | heavyweight close to von Neumann & co) | | George then realizes that computer was a prototype built by von | Neumann - one of the first "modern design" computers, _ever_. | | That's like coming into contact with the first life, directly, | physically, in a barn. | | There's something magical about these origin stories. What's it | like to face such a sharp historic discontinuity, to hold it in | your fingers, knowing what comes next? | csbartus wrote: | Neumann is underrated. Everything might be relative, but one | thing is sure: we are all reading this on a computer running on | the von Neumann architecture. | wmf wrote: | Although there are stories that von Neumann architecture was | invented by Eckert and Mauchly. | [deleted] | jtsiskin wrote: | I'm not sure he's "underrated", almost everything I've heard | about him describes him as one of the most intelligent people | to have ever lived. I have seen more than one article proposing | cloning his DNA as the best way to save humanity | csbartus wrote: | I mean, underrated in popular culture compared to Einstein, | let's say. | | But, I've just learnt an anecdote about Neumann, Einstein and | Godel. | | When Neumann signed for Princeton, he had two conditions: a | 16k annual salary (others earned ~2k at that time) and to | bring in that two people who are smarter than he. | | (Source, in Hungarian, someday we will have the subtitles | from the AI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pu6xoHlr0zk) | | UPDATE: The talk is about miracles and geniuses. According to | the speaker, a genius is somebody who sees something which | wasn't in the air, up until that time. Neumann wasn't a | genius, rather a polymath who saw all what was in the air at | that time | foobiekr wrote: | Is his dna even available? It would be interesting to | analyze. | Koshkin wrote: | They'd be all men. | hervature wrote: | You are probably making a comment on diversity, but men's | DNA encodes everything needed for a women simply by | duplicating the X chromosome. Of course, more likelihood of | genetic defects due to a single copy of an X as men are. | effie wrote: | Von Neumann wasn't _that_ important in development of the | present-day computers. He just wrote a paper where he | formalized the designs that were already appearing in real life | due to other people - computer pioneers like Konrad Zuse and | Eckert & Mauchly (ENIAC). Then other people started calling | standard computers "von Neumann architecture". Pretty sure we | would have similar to present-day computers without John von | Neumann. | davidw wrote: | > He was convinced that the Soviet Union posed an existential | danger to the security of the United States and advocated not | just a preemptive but a preventive strike on that country; | thankfully that part of his advice was not taken. | | Yikes! | | I'm reading a biography of Eisenhower, and it's remarkable what a | 'steady hand' he was in some ways in terms of hot-headed notions | like those. Also very much in favor of curtailing defense | spending to what was strictly necessary. He had some misses, too, | but I found it interesting to contemplate. | generationP wrote: | This was probably back in Stalin's days, where an attack by the | Soviet Union on the West was reasonably viewed as a matter of | time. The whole idea of separate spheres of influence and | mutual deterrents wouldn't become believable until Khrushtchov. | cbHXBY1D wrote: | Citation needed for "reasonably viewed". For example, Stalin | said this to Mao in 1949: | | "In China a war for peace, as it were, is taking place. The | question of peace greatly preoccupies the Soviet Union as | well, though we have already had peace for the past four | years. With regards to China, there is no immediate threat at | the present time: Japan has yet to stand up on its feet and | is thus not ready for war; America, though it screams war, is | actually afraid of war more than anything; Europe is afraid | of war; in essence, there is no one to fight with China, not | unless Kim Il Sung decides to invade China? Peace will depend | on our efforts. If we continue to be friendly, peace can last | not only 5-10 years, but 20-25 years and perhaps even | longer." | | https://china.usc.edu/conversation-between-soviet-unions- | jos... | philwelch wrote: | Von Neumann once said of the Soviets: "If you say why not bomb | them tomorrow, I say why not today? If you say today at five o' | clock, I say why not one o' clock?" | Koshkin wrote: | This almost sounds like sarcasm. | SquishyPanda23 wrote: | He also described himself as "violently anti-communist, and | much more militaristic than the norm". | | In that context it doesn't sound as sarcastic. | Koshkin wrote: | Well, he did get himself a crater (on the far side of the Moon, | mind you) named after him. | DonHopkins wrote: | Better than getting a crater in Moscow named after you. | Andrew_nenakhov wrote: | It would be hard to sell the attack on the USSR to the american | public, after years building them as good allies in their fight | against Hitler. Such things take 2-3 years of concentrated | efforts by state propaganda. | | Even in USSR it was a problem to explain why our trustworthy | allies have suddenly became evil and took a couple of years. | nickff wrote: | To be fair to Von Neumann, you're displaying hindsight bias. It | is possible that with the knowledge they had at the time, a | preventative or pre-emptive attack would have been rational, | maybe even with the best 'expected outcome'. | waffle_ss wrote: | Bertrand Russell, famous logician, made essentially that | argument at the time. | ashtonkem wrote: | Sounds like a pretty flippant way to think about war crimes. | [deleted] | [deleted] | GDC7 wrote: | How is that possible? | | Even if the US bombed the USSR and prevented a counterstrike | the US would have been worse off. | | You don't get to subtract 100M people out of 2.7B , the 2nd | country in GDP and expect things to remain as they were | before. | | Also the entire world would have reacted, anticipating that | they too were going to be nuked as soon as they did something | which would have even remotely alerted paranoid Uncle Sam. | qersist3nce wrote: | > Also the entire world would have reacted | | Hard no. No one "reacted" after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were | glassed. | GDC7 wrote: | In fact they reacted before. | | With spies inside Project Manhattan. Both the UK and USSR | reacted with what they could, meaning their intelligence | and espionage. | | It's kind of a selection bias considering that the only | country capable of building the Atomic Bomb was the US. | radicalbyte wrote: | The UK provided key expertise to the Manhattan Project, | so to say that they were "spying" is not fair. The UK | bomb project had been going on for longer, and making it | a joint US/UK project sped up development. | nickff wrote: | > _" Even if the US bombed the USSR and prevented a | counterstrike the US would have been worse off."_ | | Von Neumann may have been advocating for a strike before | the Soviets had operational nuclear capabilities. | | > _" You don't get to subtract 100M people out of 2.7B , | the 2nd country in GDP and expect things to remain as they | were before."_ | | It is unlikely that an American nuclear strike would have | wiped out the entire population of the Soviet Union; one | would expect a targeted strike on critical government and | army facilities, or something like what happened against | the Japanese. | | > _" Also the entire world would have reacted, anticipating | that they too were going to be nuked as soon as they did | something which would have even remotely alerted paranoid | Uncle Sam. "_ | | The rest of the world didn't conquer and subjugate all of | Eastern Europe, then steal from them and kidnap people in | large numbers. | jasonwatkinspdx wrote: | > or something like what happened against the Japanese. | | By the time the nukes were dropped, the 60 or so largest | cities in Japan had been decimated by bombing (Kyoto was | famously spared largely because of the sympathies of a | single officer). When Tokyo was firebombed over 100k | civilians were burned alive in a single night, the | overwhelming majority of them women, children, and old | men. | | Justified as it may have been, we shouldn't promote a | mythology that WW2 was a clean and narrowly targeted | campaign by the allies. | | There's an excellent documentary by Errol Morris named | The Fog of War that has McNamara's very frank commentary | on these issues. You also can find some letters Churchill | wrote where he was engaging with these questions, such as | asking himself if the fire bombing was morally much | different from the use of chemical agents during WW1. | | Any sort of pre-emptive strike by the US vs the USSR | would have been similarly ugly, with very real human cost | to ordinary people with no agency in the situation. | WitCanStain wrote: | It's interesting to appeal to the plight of Eastern | Europeans given that they were also on the list of | targets. The Soviets are harming Eastern Europeans, we | must nuke the Eastern Europeans! | GDC7 wrote: | > It is unlikely that an American nuclear strike would | have wiped out the entire population of the Soviet Union; | one would expect a targeted strike on critical government | and army facilities, or something like what happened | against the Japanese. | | USSR lion share of the population is/was in Moscow and | St. Petersburg. A decapitation strike would have killed | many in those 2 cities for sure. Add the fires, the | confusion, the famine and the fact that you must followup | with an invasion because nukes radiations dissipate fast | and other countries around would see it as a huge | opportunity to expand. It's easy to imagine the countries | of the Marshall plan abandon said plan and saying "screw | it! We'll get the eastward land instead" | | 100M is not far fetched. | | > The rest of the world didn't conquer and subjugate all | of Eastern Europe, then steal from them and kidnap people | in large numbers. | | The US is magnanimous . Meaning like some guy who got out | of the hood and lets it slide when somebody dents his | Ferrari. Had that person missed on a lucky break and | still be in the hood, his reaction would be very | different and much more violent , and it doesn't even | need to be a Ferrari, just a light fender bender on a | Civic will cause trouble. | | The US is magnanimous because of its standards of living | , not the other way around. | tashoecraft wrote: | You have to understand where Von Nuemann came from to see | why he wanted to initiate a first strike prior to the USSR | developing nuclear weapons. | | He lost lots of family and friends due to the nazis. He saw | his people get slaughtered due to a nation with crazy | ideology being technically superior. He never wanted to be | put in that situation again and worked on the Manhattan | project because he believed in the USA. | | He viewed the USSR as another threat just like the nazis. | For many it seemed like a guarantee that war would happen. | Many also claimed that early attack could save lives. | | I'm not here to claim what he felt was right, but given the | environment and conditions he lived through, I don't | pretend that I wouldn't hold similar views given the | circumstances. | trhway wrote: | that is the difference between theory and practice. Von | Neuman is a genius of theory, and the idea of atomic bombing | of USSR into oblivion has significant theoretical appeal even | with hindsight of today. Eisenhower was battle experienced | military general, not far from [if not the] pinnacle of | practice. Eisenhower saw USSR soldiers, and the history of | the guerilla war on Nazi occupied territory was well known. | As long as few Soviet soldiers or even just some general | population survive the atomic bombing ... | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attack_of_the_Dead_Men: | | "Over twelve battalions of the 11th Landwehr Division, making | up more than 7000 men, advanced after the bombardment | expecting little resistance. They were met at the first | defense line by a counter-charge made up of the surviving | soldiers of the 13th Company of the 226th Infantry Regiment. | The Germans became panicked by the appearance of the | Russians, who were coughing up blood and bits of their own | lungs, as the hydrochloric acid formed by the mix of the | chlorine gas and the moisture in their lungs had begun to | dissolve their flesh. The Germans retreated, running so fast | they were caught up in their own c-wire traps.[1]" | Koshkin wrote: | However impressive, this would only work in the case of | occupation following the bombing. (I am not sure if there | were such plans.) | trhway wrote: | that would open the game for China who was quickly coming | online - until of course China is bombed too. Though no | occupation could cover the territories beyond Ural | Mountains, so China would become the main player either | way, and much larger than it is today. Basically USSR | would be like US in the "Man in the High Castle" - the | part close to Europe occupied by US/NATO, large | unoccupied wild middle and the huge East by China. Such | configuration had already happened centuries ago - | Crusading European Knights on West and Mongols on the | East https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kyivan_Rus%27_122 | 0-1240.p... | mixmastamyk wrote: | As long as there are survivors, there are enemies. With | hindsight it's clear it would have been a poor choice. | wonnage wrote: | You can justify any decision with "with the knowledge at the | time", it's the same as "just following orders". | qersist3nce wrote: | Yeah, these are the parts conveniently ignored in almost all | documentaries on this subject. There was also a legal dispute | between Eckert-Mauchly and von Neumann about precedence of | invention of early computer architectures. | | Good thing there was a "steady hand" Eisenhower that green lit | dropping of the bombs on general population, otherwise who | could have known what kinds of justifications the japs | academics would have come up with to wash out the atrocities of | their imperial administration? | | As always, history is written by the winners. | | [Edit]: Confused Eisenhower with Truman | caned wrote: | > Good thing there was a "steady hand" Eisenhower that green | lit dropping of the bombs on general population | | "... in formulating policies regarding the atomic bomb and | relations with the Soviets, Truman was guided by the U.S. | State Department and ignored Eisenhower and the Pentagon. | Indeed, Eisenhower had opposed the use of the atomic bomb | against the Japanese, writing, 'First, the Japanese were | ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with | that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the | first to use such a weapon.'" | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower | qersist3nce wrote: | Sorry, I confused Truman with Eisenhower. Still, I have a | feeling I can find similar views even from him: | | > In 1953, he considered using nuclear weapons to end the | Korean War, and may have threatened China with nuclear | attack if an armistice was not reached quickly. | | > He supported regime-changing military coups in Iran and | Guatemala orchestrated by his own administration | | > He approved the Bay of Pigs invasion, which was left to | John F. Kennedy to carry out. | davidw wrote: | The biography was interesting. Other big misses were | essentially keeping in place the health care system we | have today, and not being much of a leader on civil | rights issues. | simonh wrote: | I'll settle for history being written by people who know what | they're talking about. Eisenhower opposed use of the bomb on | Japan. | [deleted] | rodarmor wrote: | Misread the title as "Which John von Neumann Died at Los Alamos?" | and now I really want to read that article. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-09-27 23:00 UTC)