JF Ptak Science Books Post 2811
On the heels of the sale of a letter [https://historyofideasblog.com/thesciencebookstore/2013/03/william-shockley-on-the-economics-of-atomic-bombing-1945.html] written by transistor pioneer and then mega problem child William Shockley on the economics of atomic bomb a friend told me about a potentially similar account by J. Robert Oppenheimer. Leaving the modern racist Shockley behind in this post for time consideration, the Nobelist (sharing the 1956 award with co-workers Walter Brattain and John Bardeen), the man wrote an appraisal on the monetary aspect of conventional vs. atomic attack for one of the Vannevar Bush groups in 1944/5. It may seem pretty harsh—especially when he came out with the unsurprising finding that the economics of the situations were firmly positive for the use of nuclear weapons—but it was a job that someone had to do, somewhere, and Shockley turned out to be that person, probably to the surprise of very few.
Oppenheimer is a different story. Philosophically conflicted and occasionally torn, the man who announced himself as the “destroyer of worlds” while still bathed in the light of the successful atomic test shot in the Jornada del Muerto also contributed some thought to this issue. The original reference to this was told to me to be in Scientific Information Transmitted to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission…June 14, 1946, a set of seven slender volumes prepared under the direction of the always-present Bernard Baruch. The reference came in the first volume (which also has a short and simple and brilliant 18-page history by Richard Feynman and Robert Bacher of atomic energy and the building of the atomic bomb) in a paper by Philip Morrison in which he records a one-line quote of Oppenheimer’s overall assessment of the dollars and cents of atomic bombing. The Oppenheimer quote was referenced to its source in a Congressional special report on atomic energy published a few months earlier in 1946, and there he speaks for about one page on these explosive economics.
As I said it is far easier finding this thinking in Shockley—but for Oppenheimer as disagreeable as this thinking might’ve been, it was still a pertinent question and one that needed to be researched and answered, and I believe Oppenheimer did just that, with no extra-emotional attachments to the issue. It was an issue/problem/question, and the scientist answered it.
So for the general interest I’m reprinting Oppenheimer’s testimony on this one aspect of the use of the atomic bomb, which you will find below.
- The source: Hearings before the Special Committee on Atomic Energy, United States Senate, 79th Congress, first session, pursuant to S. Res. 179, A resolution Creating a Special Committee to Investigate Problems Relating to the Development, Use, and Control of Atomic Energy. Part 2: December 5,6,10 and 12, 1945. USGPO 1946.
“Senator Hart [Thomas C. Hart of Connecticut]. Doctor I think perhaps you may be misunderstood at one point on account of brevity.
You said that atomic weapons can be cheap instruments of devastation and then explained it briefly.
I think it would be better for purposes of the record if you expanded that.
Dr Oppenheimer. Well I have seen a figure I don t know whether it is a reliable figure but it is surely not a crazy one that it has cost us in this war $10 a pound to deliver explosive on the enemy. I am unable to give an accurate cost figure on atomic weapons partly because I don t know and partly because if I did know it I would be prevented by that knowledge from saying it but I think that I can say that even taking account of the in some ways diminished effectiveness of concentrated bombing it is somewhere between 10 and 100 times cheaper to deliver atomic weapons which is simply in terms of the area destroyed it is 10 or 100 times cheaper.
I don t know if it is 10 times or 30 times and this will depend on policy but it is an enormous factor. It is not a trivial change.
Senator Hart. Cheaper for instance than TNT?
Dr Oppenheimer. That is right and I am using a figure which may well be criticized but which is I believe the figure used by Army Ordnance for over all cost of delivering a pound. You can see what that means if you take a round figure of 10,000 tons as a possible effective equivalent for an atomic bomb. That is 20,000,000 pounds which is $200,000,000. Now without revealing any secrets I can say that an atomic bomb and the equipment for delivering it is not going to cost that by an enormous factor.
Senator Hart. But those large TNT bombs which are the usual comparative figure though the destruction in any one point any one small area is by no means as great it is sufficient and is spread over a wider area is it not?
Dr Oppenheimer. I used a somewhat conservative figure of the 10,000 tons rather than the actual equivalent in part to take this into account. The actual atomic bomb releases more energy than this.
Senator Hart. But it is true that the comparison as is usually made is a little faulty because of the respective areas involved?
Dr Oppenheimer. What I would say is this and I will be somewhat sharper about it if you wish. For the equivalent tonnage the factor of cost will be more than 100. For equivalent area it will be somewhere between 10 and 100 and that is to try to take account of this effect which you mentioned. Of course if you want to knock out three houses somewhere you will not use an atomic bomb.
Senator Byrd [Harry Flood Byrd, Virginia]. Doctor, when you spoke of destroying the stock pile of bombs would that mean too destroying the organization and the factories that made the bomb?
Dr Oppenheimer. In the first place I did not speak of destroying it. I was asked about it.
Senator Byrd I understood you to say that if you had faith in other nations you would then favor the destruction of the bombs we accumulate during this period before we can ascertain what other nations are going to do.
Dr Oppenheimer I would say this country should do for the problem of atomic armament what we expect other nations to do If we expect them and are convinced that they wish not to arm atomically then I think that we should not arm atomically and if we want to keep the plant some place. I think we should have that plant completely open and should allow the representatives of the powers with whom we are dealing to know as much about what we are doing as we would want to know about their plants…”
