We noticed Soviets suddenly stopped publishing on effects X-Rays on polymeric material. Reason detected flaw in our nuclear warheads
HT: @AtomicAnalyst for clearer actual post test photo!
#Nukespic.twitter.com/5TZkpLi3cl
-
David Holloway's Stalin and the Bomb covers this well: https://books.google.com/books?id=ICO6aUnQ2KcC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA78#v=onepage&q&f=false …pic.twitter.com/HCb4YKgoZQ
-
-
Wasn’t Szilard a big driver in the early initial self censorship movement on the atomic fission front? If so, it’s kind of ironic as he later seemed to despise it later on.
-
In general scientists support practices of secrecy when they feel they are in control of them, when they don't impinge on their autonomy. When they feel it is externalized (in Szilard's case, controlled by others, esp. the military), they rapidly find it inhibiting.
-
To put it another way, it's the difference between self-regulation (which scientists often support) and government regulation (which they don't) of potentially dangerous research.
-
In the case of the Manhattan Project the secrecy regimes shifted from self-censorship (Szilard) --> control by civilian scientific agencies (Bush) --> control by the military (Groves). Szilard was lukewarm about the second step and hated the third.
-
What about Bohr? It somewhat seemed like there were some real concerns with him keeping secrets.
-
Bohr was considered a semi-loose cannon by both the UK and US security folks because of his lack of attention to protocol and procedure, and Bohr explicitly advocated getting rid of all secrecy in the postwar as a means of international control.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Your blog had a whole post on this, right? Unless I'm conflating things I've read on Tweeter with things I've read elsewhere. Tremendously interesting stuff.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.