Re: [Phys-l] Machining Tolerances (was Another uncertainties question...)

[Hugh Haskell <hhaskell@mindspring.com>]

At 00:02  -0800 1/26/08, Bernard Cleyet wrote:
> bc remembers Joe knew and didn't express curiosity or surprise at
> Potsdam.

Quite so. Stalin knew most of what was happening at Los Alamos, 
thanks mostly to Klaus Fuchs. And although work on nukes was going on 
in the USSR, it had all been moved East of the Urals because of the 
war, and the effort was relatively small.

>    He'd probably long before had ordered their Manhattan
> Project, which makes me think the machining, was irrelevant to history.

Well, if the project had been stalled, and the war had ended before 
any bombs could have been dropped, as might well have happened, based 
on what we know now, but didn't then, it is possible that no test 
would have been done, at least not until the cold war got quite a bit 
more intense, in which case, it is also possible that Stalin would 
not have ramped up his nuclear program, as he did as soon as he found 
out that it could be done.

Stalin was no scientist, and not much on speculation, and there is a 
reasonable possibility that he wouldn't have been willing to risk 
much on nuclear weapons without the knowledge that they could work. 
We'll never know if the Manhattan project would have been able to 
continue after the war if no bombs had been used during the war. As 
soon as the war was over, most of the physicists on the project left 
to head back to their academic careers, many of them, including 
Feynman, Szilard and Robert Wilson, carrying deep regrets over their 
involvement in the program.

If the program had continued, it likely would have eventually 
succeeded, but not on the schedule set during the war, and with many 
of the more stable of the scientists gone, Teller's influence would 
have risen even faster than it did, and we might have been diverted 
to the "super" before getting the fission weapons right, which would 
have slowed down the whole process even more.

> What would've changed history is if FDR's third Veep had been his last;
> I think.   OTOH, Edgar probably woulda had him assassinated.
I assume you are referring to Henry Wallace. Small point, but he was 
the second VEEP to FDR, John N. Garner having served the first two 
terms, then leaving in a huff when FDR declared for a third. As to 
what might have happened had Wallace continued as VEEP, you may well 
be right--things would have been different. But that is exactly why 
the Democratic leadership dumped him in '44. They all knew that FDR 
would not live through his fourth term and they were scared at where 
Wallace would have likely taken the party and the country. Be 
thankful that they chose Truman to succeed him rather than Jimmy 
Burns, who wanted the job more than maybe anyone in the country. 
Burns did enough damage as Sec'y of State. Think what he would have 
done as POTUS.

Hugh
--

************************************************************
Hugh Haskell
<mailto:haskell@ncssm.edu>
<mailto:hhaskell@mindspring.com>

(919) 467-7610

Hard work often pays off after time. But Laziness always pays off now.

			February tagline on 2007 Demotivator's Calendar