5 ms·
The heart of TFA: Holden, however, reveals documents that indicate on one occasion he risked leaking information of such potential magnitude that the FBI might
by teachrdan 8y ago
The heart of TFA:
Holden, however, reveals documents that indicate on one occasion he risked leaking information of such potential magnitude that the FBI might well have taken drastic action against him had he been discovered. Certainly, it imperilled the cooperative relationship between the two nations regarding weapons research – by revealing that the cooperation was, in fact, only going one way.
The researcher details a 1944 meeting at Berkeley, California, between Oliphant, Nobel laureate Ernest Lawrence and the military man in charge of the Manhattan Project, General Leslie Groves. At the fiery meeting, Groves – usually a very discreet operator – let it slip that there were some parts of the research that were not being shared with the British.
An imminent visit to Washington DC by one of Winston Churchill’s closest advisors, Lord Cherwell, was to be an exercise in misdirection. Further, Groves revealed, after the end of World War II the US intended to ensure that nuclear weapons manufacture and the storage of nuclear material would happen only in the central portions of North America.
Secretly appalled by this, Oliphant – Holden plausibly suggests – stopped work almost immediately and then travelled, perhaps for three days on a train, to the British embassy in Washington DC, and there sent a confidential memo to the British authorities, blowing the whistle on the US intentions.
Was putting nuclear weapons manufacture and storage in the central parts of the US part of keeping the technology secret?
- madengr 8y agoAlso further away from long range bombers, though I don't know if that was an immediate concern prior to the cold war, but surely anticipated. Fissile materials are made further towards the coasts, but production and assembly is in Kansas City and Amarillo. Not to mention missile fields and bombers also in the central states.
- bpye 8y agoThere is an interesting documentary about how Britain dealt with nuclear materials despite not having remote locations like the US. It may be "Windscale: Britain's Biggest Nuclear Disaster", but I'm sorry if that's the wrong title.
- madengr 8y agoSaw that recently on YouTube. A plutonium fire in an air cooled reactor; what a mess.
- sgt101 8y agoLuckily the chimney had a filter - known as a cockcrofts folly when it was constructed. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cumbria-29803990 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cumbria-29803990
- boomboomsubban 8y agoPresumably "only in the central portions of North America" also meant "not in Britain." So not vital to the secrecy, but seemed as though they were planning on stopping Britain from housing or constructing their own.
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoThis was in 1944. Remember that definitely in 1941 (and perhaps even later), there was the very real possibility that Britain would fall to Germany. "Not in Britain" had some very recent and very serious grounds. And that applied to the knowledge as well. If Britain fell and the information on building a bomb fell into German hands, that was much worse than just Britain falling.
- boomboomsubban 8y agoBy 1944, this wasn't much of a risk. Even if you assume it was, it would be a violation of the Quebec Agreement that was signed in 1943. Violating that part of the agreement casts doubt over which other parts of the agreement that they would violate. The US post war strategy was always a concern, more so during what was an election year. Great Britain's outrage is understandable.
- alehul 8y agoI'd argue that agreements mean much less when genocidal dictators can obtain nuclear weapons. Also, even if a situation ends, we'll always feel that it's decently probable it can happen again throughout our lifetimes. Ex: Anyone who lived through WWII is much more concerned (and rightfully so) that it could happen again. The fact that Britain was nearly conquered in 1941 would be enough, with that bias considered.
- boomboomsubban 8y agoThe deal was signed knowing there was a possibility of the Germans intercepting the bomb. That risk was known, it does not justify reversing the decision. >Also, even if a situation ends, we'll always feel that it's decently probable it can happen again throughout our lifetimes Yes, and imagine how terrifying that scenario becomes if the enemy has nuclear weapons and you don't. >The fact that Britain was nearly conquered in 1941 would be enough, with that bias considered. Nearly conquered is a massive overstatement for a start. If you consider that too much of a risk to allow Britain to have nukes, the Business Plot was enough to forbid the US from having nukes.
- jacquesm 8y ago> Further, Groves revealed, after the end of World War II the US intended to ensure that nuclear weapons manufacture and the storage of nuclear material would happen only in the central portions of North America. Besides the implications for international cooperation there is a good argument to be made that this was to avoid as much as possible damage after a nuclear accident.