Rating: 
Summary: Very cool book
Review: ...The part that I found interesting that I didn't get in the other books was the Story of E.O.Lawerence. In most of the other books I have read on the subject you just hear about Lawerence as the great man and hear about his Calutrons at Oak Ridge. This book told more of his story and the type of person he was. Although that was interesting to me over all I found this book lacking in a lot of areas. One was the fact that he didn't talk more about the tests at Livermore and Los Alamos. It seemed to be several stories that where not tied together well because it would jump from espionage to bomb building to jealousy between the three. I believe the book talked about the problems but not really the reasons. If Lawrence and Oppenheimer were such good friends at first why did Lawrence band his brother Frank from Berkley because he told a lie it just didn't seem to make sense and I thought there should have been more of an explanation. The book played Teller off in a more kinder light than I have seen in other books. It also seem to show that Oppenheimer was not an agent but someone who thought that nuclear energy had to be controlled and band because he thought the general public couldn't handle it. This showed especially when it talks about him crumpling the model of Rickover's sub. Another thing with this book is that you should keep a dictionary with you while reading this book unless you know the meaning of words like antithetical, proselytize and anathema. I don't mind this because I like to increase my vocabulary I just thought you should know. The book, to use one of the author's favorite words is an imbroglio, a confused mass. I got out of it what I wanted that some of the other books on the subject did not have. If you want to know about Lawerence this one tells more than other books. It was interesting to find out that all the people who died from cancer from the Rad lab because they didn't know about raditation early on.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting Story of Lawerence
Review: ...The part that I found interesting that I didn't get in the other books was the Story of E.O.Lawerence. In most of the other books I have read on the subject you just hear about Lawerence as the great man and hear about his Calutrons at Oak Ridge. This book told more of his story and the type of person he was. Although that was interesting to me over all I found this book lacking in a lot of areas. One was the fact that he didn't talk more about the tests at Livermore and Los Alamos. It seemed to be several stories that where not tied together well because it would jump from espionage to bomb building to jealousy between the three. I believe the book talked about the problems but not really the reasons. If Lawrence and Oppenheimer were such good friends at first why did Lawrence band his brother Frank from Berkley because he told a lie it just didn't seem to make sense and I thought there should have been more of an explanation. The book played Teller off in a more kinder light than I have seen in other books. It also seem to show that Oppenheimer was not an agent but someone who thought that nuclear energy had to be controlled and band because he thought the general public couldn't handle it. This showed especially when it talks about him crumpling the model of Rickover's sub. Another thing with this book is that you should keep a dictionary with you while reading this book unless you know the meaning of words like antithetical, proselytize and anathema. I don't mind this because I like to increase my vocabulary I just thought you should know. The book, to use one of the author's favorite words is an imbroglio, a confused mass. I got out of it what I wanted that some of the other books on the subject did not have. If you want to know about Lawerence this one tells more than other books. It was interesting to find out that all the people who died from cancer from the Rad lab because they didn't know about raditation early on.
Rating: 
Summary: It is House Committee on Un-American Activities
Review: All references to committees in the House are referred to as House Committees on whatever. It is not HUAC. It is HCUA. It changes the whole meaning it we continue to say House Un-American Activities Commitee. The House did not have an Un-American Activities Committee. The House had a Committee on Un-American Activities.
Rating:
Summary: It is House Committee on Un-American Activities
Review: All references to committees in the House are referred to as House Committees on whatever. It is not HUAC. It is HCUA. It changes the whole meaning it we continue to say House Un-American Activities Commitee. The House did not have an Un-American Activities Committee. The House had a Committee on Un-American Activities.
Rating: 
Summary: Bomb-Makers and Inevitability
Review: Despite a prose style I find to be rather dry (as if the author believes that responsible history must be informational in tone as well as content), Herken's story of the American nuclear weapons program's early years does succeed in giving us the key players in the drama before, during, and after Los Alamos in all their gloriously flawed humanness. Teller is seen as the uncomfortably single-minded father of the hydrogen bomb, planning and plotting that weapon even before Little Man and Fat Boy were produced, calling the atomic bomb a mere engineering project in comparison to the "Super." Lawrence is the organizer and initiator, fostering bigger and bigger cyclotrons and recruiting more and more scientists and technicians ("the boys") for his pet project. And then there's Oppenheimer, most brilliant and egoistic of all, whose nonchalant inattention seems to have been as great a factor in his fall from grace as his political leanings in the years before the war. In the exceptional feature film that could be made from this story, the substance of this book would serve a screenwriter well. However, since Herken's prose possesses more flatness of tone than enthusiasm, it would not be wise to attempt to translate its style to film. Viewers would likely nod off.
Rating:
Summary: OK But Not Entirely Satisfying
Review: Gregg Herken's BROTHERHOOD OF THE BOMB is subtitled: "The
Tangled Lives And Loyalties Of Robert Oppenheimer, Ernest
Lawrence, And Edward Teller". This statement implies that
this book is something of a three-way biography of three
important nuclear scientists, but it actually has a broader
focus, discussing not merely the lives of these three men but
traces through the story of the US nuclear weapons program in
World War II; the American Communist Party; the Red spy
network in the US; McCarthyism and the Red witch hunts of the
Cold War; and the rise of the nuclear arms race. In a sense, this relatively broad focus makes this book, if
not exactly frustrating because it's an okay read, at
least a little unsatisfying, since it gives enough of these
stories to be intriguing but not enough to give a clear
picture -- while distracting enough from the story of Lawrence,
Oppenheimer, and Teller so that they never seem to really
come alive. This is a pity, since at least Oppenheimer and Teller are
fascinating individuals -- Oppenheimer was brilliant and
arrogant, impatient with lesser intellects, but still
much admired; and Teller is brilliant as well, with the odd
unintentional humor of the single-minded. (In an interview
a few years ago he told the reporter up front: "If you
mention Strangelove ONE TIME, I will THROW YOU OUT!") In the end I get the feeling like I would have been happier
with something with much more scope, detail, and length;
or, with the scope it has, less detail and length. The
story of Oppenheimer's political persecution is laid out
blow-by-blow, but for myself I think a more concise
description would have let me see the forest for the trees
much better. I must admit that the description of AEC Chairman Lewis
Strauss, who orchestrated the charge on Oppenheimer, was
vivid enough to be creepy, since Strauss was the sort of
fellow whose faith in his own convictions so strong that
he could burn any number of witches at the stake without
a second thought. It's good to be reminded that there are
people like that out there! OK, I don't want to go too far. This isn't a bad book.
It's well-researched and provides worthwhile information.
There are fascinating bits in it, for example how
Oppenheimer was not merely given a clean bill of health
by the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, but even
praised as something of a national hero by the prominent
HUAC member, Congressman Richard M. Nixon of California.
(There always was a "Good Dick Nixon" and a "Bad Dick
Nixon".) It just left me wanting much more -- which, I suppose, is
a good thing as well.
Rating:
Summary: First rate account of the creation of the bomb
Review: Gregg Herken's Brotherhood of the Bomb manages to overcome the most common obstacle with history books--it makes the subjects and the events come alive. Herken had access to The Smithsonian Archieves as well as interviews with the primary sources involved in the creation of the bomb. The book is a fair balanced account of the difficult personalities and politics that went into the creation of the first nuclear bomb and the later more powerful "super". Only two other books has been this impressive (both by Richard Rhodes)and exhaustive. Herken's book has the advantage of additional resources. The personalities and egos of Oppenheimer, Teller and Lawrence contributed to the rise and downfall of each man. Oppenheimer's eventual ethical objections to the development of the super came as much from his personal beliefs as it did his distaste for Teller's ideas. Teller became a hawk regarding nuclear policy and, ultimately, his opinions on Oppenheimer contributed to his loss of his security clearence. Lawrence was as driven as both men and largely apolitical until politics and science intersected. Herken's book is a fascinating portrait of the players and time that helped shape the modern world.
Rating:
Summary: "physicists have known power"
Review: Herken has written a wonderful account of the United States's programs to develop an atomic bomb during World War II and to build an H-bomb during the 1950s. But beyond chronicling scientific and technological developments, the book explores the world of American politics and government and how it was influencing the physics side of things. More importantly to the work's argument, however, Herken also delves into the scientists personal lives--their friendships, their hobbies, their activities. To that end, he focuses on three: --Ernest Orlando Lawrence, the driven, imperious, South Dakotan who directed the Rad(iation) Lab at Berkeley and created--ruled, some would say--a "cyclotron republic" there --Edward Teller, the temperamental Hungarian emigre who fled to the United States from Communists in his native land and from Nazis in Germany, and who, to the exclusion of almost everything else, pursued the H-bomb at Los Alamos and then at Livermore (an interesting anecdote describes how, at the Trinity test, he stunned his companions by putting on suntan lotion, gloves, and welder's glasses) --J. Robert "Oppie" Oppenheimer (according to Herken, the "J" stands for nothing; other sources have it as "Julius"), the introspective director of the Manhattan Project with an affinity for Eastern religions and leftist, even Communist, causes These three figure prominently in the tale which begins at Berkeley in the 1930s, where the great physicists of the day began to coalesce. World War II took most of them to Los Alamos in some way or another, although Lawrence's work was mostly at the Rad Lab developing ways of enriching uranium. By the end of the war, splits were beginning to appear as the scientists became more aware of the political and moral implications of their work. While Oppenheimer became something of a celebrity in the nation at large and served as an advisor to a handful of government commissions and committees, Lawrence fervently lobbied for government funding for bigger and faster cyclotrons, and Teller ever more energetically pursued his Super. Oppenheimer, who had been loosely affiliated with the Communist Party in the late 1930s, had been under FBI scrutiny--including wiretaps of his phone--ever since he became director at Los Alamos and gained a security clearance then only at Leslie Groves' insistence. In the mid-1950s, as the penetration of the bomb project came to light, and in the wake of the McCarthy hearings, and after Oppenheimer had voiced his opposition to the Super, the physicist's political leanings began to concern government officials. Hearings were held, which included somewhat ambiguous though negative testimony from Teller, and Oppenheimer's security clearance was revoked. Of course, this is just the briefest of summaries. Other books, notably and admirably Rhodes', have detailed both bomb programs, but Herken's adds depth to the stories by focusing on the personal relationships between the scientists and demonstrating how they impacted events. Loyalty was important. But loyalty to what? Friends? Family? Science? The government? Politics? Ideology? Humanity? More often that not, it was a combination--"tangled loyalties," as Herken calls it. And the end result was often ill will or resentment; disagreements over the ends of science often boiled over into broken friendships, or into political conflict. These men loom large in modern history. They were giants of nuclear physics as well as of their time. But they were human, too--flawed giants. "Physicists have known sin," said Robert Oppenheimer. In response, some years later, Edward Teller wrote, "Physicists have known power." No two statements better capture the status of physics (and physicists) in the world--and the differences separating these two men.
Rating:
Summary: "physicists have known power"
Review: Herken has written a wonderful account of the United States's programs to develop an atomic bomb during World War II and to build an H-bomb during the 1950s. But beyond chronicling scientific and technological developments, the book explores the world of American politics and government and how it was influencing the physics side of things. More importantly to the work's argument, however, Herken also delves into the scientists personal lives--their friendships, their hobbies, their activities. To that end, he focuses on three: --Ernest Orlando Lawrence, the driven, imperious, South Dakotan who directed the Rad(iation) Lab at Berkeley and created--ruled, some would say--a "cyclotron republic" there --Edward Teller, the temperamental Hungarian emigre who fled to the United States from Communists in his native land and from Nazis in Germany, and who, to the exclusion of almost everything else, pursued the H-bomb at Los Alamos and then at Livermore (an interesting anecdote describes how, at the Trinity test, he stunned his companions by putting on suntan lotion, gloves, and welder's glasses) --J. Robert "Oppie" Oppenheimer (according to Herken, the "J" stands for nothing; other sources have it as "Julius"), the introspective director of the Manhattan Project with an affinity for Eastern religions and leftist, even Communist, causes These three figure prominently in the tale which begins at Berkeley in the 1930s, where the great physicists of the day began to coalesce. World War II took most of them to Los Alamos in some way or another, although Lawrence's work was mostly at the Rad Lab developing ways of enriching uranium. By the end of the war, splits were beginning to appear as the scientists became more aware of the political and moral implications of their work. While Oppenheimer became something of a celebrity in the nation at large and served as an advisor to a handful of government commissions and committees, Lawrence fervently lobbied for government funding for bigger and faster cyclotrons, and Teller ever more energetically pursued his Super. Oppenheimer, who had been loosely affiliated with the Communist Party in the late 1930s, had been under FBI scrutiny--including wiretaps of his phone--ever since he became director at Los Alamos and gained a security clearance then only at Leslie Groves' insistence. In the mid-1950s, as the penetration of the bomb project came to light, and in the wake of the McCarthy hearings, and after Oppenheimer had voiced his opposition to the Super, the physicist's political leanings began to concern government officials. Hearings were held, which included somewhat ambiguous though negative testimony from Teller, and Oppenheimer's security clearance was revoked. Of course, this is just the briefest of summaries. Other books, notably and admirably Rhodes', have detailed both bomb programs, but Herken's adds depth to the stories by focusing on the personal relationships between the scientists and demonstrating how they impacted events. Loyalty was important. But loyalty to what? Friends? Family? Science? The government? Politics? Ideology? Humanity? More often that not, it was a combination--"tangled loyalties," as Herken calls it. And the end result was often ill will or resentment; disagreements over the ends of science often boiled over into broken friendships, or into political conflict. These men loom large in modern history. They were giants of nuclear physics as well as of their time. But they were human, too--flawed giants. "Physicists have known sin," said Robert Oppenheimer. In response, some years later, Edward Teller wrote, "Physicists have known power." No two statements better capture the status of physics (and physicists) in the world--and the differences separating these two men.
Rating:
Summary: Still a Current Issue
Review: I finished reading, "Brotherhood Of The Bomb", by Gregg Herken on the same afternoon I read about new mini nuclear devices in two separate science magazines. These devices could theoretically change the policies regarding the use of these weapons as a first strike device by the Government of the United States. Small is a relative term, but these would be 1/100th the size of the Hiroshima bomb, or even smaller. There purpose would be to destroy bunkers that are located 250-300 feet below ground level. What should be done with atomic and thermonuclear weapons became and remained a divisive and astonishingly expensive issue for almost 40 years. The estimated cost of these weapons was estimated at $5.5 trillion dollars. And with the exception of the two used at the close of the war, none were ever used again in any conflict. The very existence of tens of thousands of warheads, and with them the ability to fundamentally alter or extinguish human life on earth, kept them in there silos or respective hangars and submarines. For readers new to the story of this part of scientific history you may wish to read more about the actual weapons before proceeding with this book. This book is about a few of the central personalities and their decades long fighting and deep-seated negative feelings that bordered on hatred. These emotions were the direct result of the differing views held by these scientists that grew from vying opinions of what was built, what was theoretically possible to construct, and how they should be used. It is naïve to feel that great scientific minds that create weapons that could possibly destroy our planet should be substantially different in temperament from the average human being. One would like to think they would be coldly objective when discussing what should be built, what can be built, and whether or not the weapons should be used. In this book Greg Herken shares conflict among some of the best known of the scientists and the lengths that were traveled to marginalize, and even criminalize one for the benefit of the other. Teller and Oppenheimer were compared by the author to Jefferson and Adams as two men who greatly changed the circumstances of the time they lived in, and then carried bitter differences between them to the grave. Teller remained active decades after the death of his nemesis, and of all the years he spent attacking Oppenheimer directly or in concert with members of the government. If this activity had been confined to the fruitcakes lead by McCarthy they would be easier to dismiss. But Teller never relented from leading the opposition against a man he wanted discredited, and criminally prosecuted. Oppenheimer was stripped of his Q Clearance security access one day before it was to expire. Since this came years after he helped lead the creation of a variety of weapons, the decision not to extend his clearance was worthy of the closed door kangaroo court he was judged by. What was even more disturbing were the absolutely illegal acts committed for years in an attempt to discredit him and any one he had contact with that the paranoids in Washington were concerned about. Imagine you are going to trial, behind closed doors, with the following handicaps. Your home, your office, and those of your attorney are illegally wiretapped so the prosecution knows everything you plan for your defense in advance. They know everything they have no right to know because the laws of the country forbid such invasions of privacy. Again another man of dubious mental stability was at the helm of these illegal wiretaps, the rather infamous J. Edgar Hoover. But even with all of the power of legal and illegal government, Oppenheimer was found guilty of nothing, and he lost his security clearance by a vote of 2 to 1, and this vote by a hand picked group guaranteed to vote against him. Security and infiltration by scientists, with communist politics, of the Manhattan Project did exist. They were in place from the very beginning with one example being Klaus Fuchs. Many others were guilty of youthful naiveté, but being a practitioner of pathetic judgment and turning over critical state secrets during a time of war are very different issues. I have never read any credible information that Oppenheimer was ever a communist much less a spy. His brother may have been a bit dimmer in his judgment, but again he was never even accused of passing secrets. But this was a time when lying about being present at a gathering at a person's home where radical issues were discussed could and did destroy many careers and lives. Telling the truth had basically the same effect. A refusal to take a loyalty oath also ended many careers. This is a great book on the human side of some of the men who are so well known as the creators of the most destructive weapons ever conceived. That they were brilliant has never been an issue, that they are human, and sometimes uncomfortably so, considering the positions they were in, is a new and somewhat troubling view.
| 
