Podcast appearances and mentions of Richard Rhodes

Clay speaks with Richard Rhodes, eminent author of numerous books, including The Making of the Atomic Bomb. The subject: industrial agriculture and the death of rural America. Other countries pass legislation protecting small family farms, but the U.S. government throws its weight behind agribusiness and industrial gigantism. Rhodes believes we need to alter our food production and consumption paradigm for the sake of our health, the planet, and our relationship with the earth and other species. Was Jefferson's utopian vision of a nation of sturdy and independent family farmers the right one? Was it ever viable? Can we regenerate rural America in the second half of the 21st century?

President Biden says there's nothing more the federal government can do for the people of North Carolina or other hurricane victims. Is it because the victims are Republicans or is it because they are mostly white? Not a single penny to Ukraine or to the illegals until Americans are take care of. Agree or disagree?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Richard Rhodes, noted historian and author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Making of the Atomic Bomb, returns to Listening to America for another discussion reflecting on America as it approaches its 250th birthday. In this poignant conversation, Mr. Rhodes and Clay discuss gun violence in America. Are humans inherently violent? What is the cause of the dramatic rise in mass shootings in the United States? Assuming that the Second Amendment is unshakable, are there things we can do to prevent or bring down the rate of gun violence in American life? Rhodes' conclusions are simple and stark. We are not different from other developed countries except in one crucial way.

“It's hard to find a good tasting salsa that doesn't look like spaghetti sauce”, says Richard Rhoades, founder of Red Pony Salsa, Clearmont, Wyoming, our guest today. Roughly 30 years ago, Richard planted around 30 different types of peppers in his garden, the impetus of creating a great salsa. Adding to his tomato crop, Richard experimented with other sauces and whatever exotic spice or vegetable that was on hand. However, moving to a commercial salsa meant he needed to focus on the ingredients that were accessible and in quantity. Jalapeno peppers and serrano peppers were abundant and Richard liked the flavors, so he spent about five years playing with the recipes until he got to a salsa to his liking. Richard then shared his concoction with friends and one in particular was Craig Johnson. Craig is the author of the novel, Longmire, which was turned into a Netflix series. Craig urged Richard to begin selling commercially and that was the start of the business. How those two met is a story in itself. Richard has always been an avid hunter, which had brought him to Wyoming at the age of 17. From there he had opened a Taxidermy studio in 1980, and also began outfitting hunters from the mountains to the open prairies. His personal hunts have taken him to Europe, Africa, Canada, Alaska, Mexico, and several US states. Craig had initially visited Richard as a customer of Richard's taxidermy and outfitting shop and their friendship began. It was in 2015 that Richard began to produce the salsa on a commercial scale. Richard had gotten his label with ingredients certified by Colorado State University and had things lined up. Right away, the product line grew. To avoid the spaghetti sauce look and keep the salsa thick, Richard drained the salsa of excess liquid. But he found the juice was so good he couldn't throw it away. At that point, the makings for a Bloody Mary Mix was created. So at this point, Richard had everything nailed down for the salsa and mix, ready to produce and bottle. Everything except a name. Then one night, after much debate, and many Rainier and scotches, Craig's wife Judy, suggested he use the Red Pony name, from Craig's books, and the company was set to launch. Originally, Richard made all the salsa but of course, ramping up volume meant larger facilities. He began with a co-packer in Denver who became too expensive. He then moved to one in California who was great but Richard's company was too small for them to work with. He's now talking to two others, one in California and one in Florida in order to have one on each coast. Such is the life of a foodpreneur. Red Pony Salsa is available in many stores in Wyoming and starting to branch into other states. Red Pony Salsa has three flavors, mild, medium and hot, plus the Red Pony Bloody Mary Mix is all available online at: https://www.redponysalsa.com/. Follow Richard on FB: Red Pony Salsa

Welcome to the Crazy Wisdom Podcast! I'm your host, Stewart Alsop, and today I have the pleasure of speaking with Ash Jogalekar, a science writer, communicator, and product developer known for his profound insights on the history of science. We connected on Twitter, where I was drawn to his thoughts on various scientific and philosophical topics. Our discussion covers an array of intriguing subjects, from the visionary ideas of Freeman Dyson, including the famous Dyson sphere, to the exciting potentials and challenges in genetic engineering and the future of nuclear power. Ash's thoughtful reflections provide a deep dive into how today's science fiction could soon become tomorrow's reality. For more of Ash's insights, you can follow his monthly column on Three Quarks Daily and his blog, Curious Wavefunction. Check out this GPT we trained on the conversation! Timestamps 00:05 - Introduction to Freeman Dyson and his contributions to science, including the Dyson sphere and its implications for detecting extraterrestrial civilizations. 00:10 - Discussion on the potential and regulation of genetic engineering, Dyson's vision of a future where genetic modifications become a common hobby, and the balance needed between innovation and regulation. 00:15 - Insights into the historical development and future potential of nuclear power, the impact of environmental and regulatory challenges, and innovations like small modular reactors. 00:20 - The significance of nanotechnology, particularly in drug delivery, and how nanoparticles can improve the stability and efficacy of medications by targeting specific areas in the body. 00:25 - The importance of recognizing outliers in scientific research, how unique cases can lead to significant breakthroughs, and the need for better statistical techniques and AI tools to identify and explore these outliers. 00:30 - Exploration of the interplay between philosophy and science, the implications of quantum mechanics on deterministic views, and the importance of being open-minded to fringe ideas in scientific exploration. 00:35 - Conversation about the psychological and societal adjustments required for long-term space travel, the feasibility of human missions to Mars, and the concept of von Neumann probes in nanotechnology. 00:40 - Further discussion on the practical challenges and future possibilities of nuclear propulsion in space travel, including the idea of using nuclear explosions to propel spacecraft. 00:45 - Overview of Jogalekar's day job involving molecular simulations to improve the properties of various molecules, the role of the cloud in handling large datasets, and the use of physics-based tools in this research. 00:50 - Discussion on the importance of effective science communication, highlighting key science writers like Freeman Dyson, James Gleick, and Richard Rhodes, and the principles of engaging and educating the audience. 00:55 - Reflections on the significance of interdisciplinary approaches in science, the potential of AI in identifying unique scientific insights, and the role of novel statistical methods in enhancing scientific research. Key Insights Freeman Dyson's Visionary Ideas: Freeman Dyson, a mathematical physicist and polymath, is celebrated for both his rigorous scientific work and his far-out ideas. One of his most famous concepts is the Dyson sphere, a theoretical structure built around a star to harness its energy. Dyson proposed that we could detect extraterrestrial civilizations by looking for the heat they generate, as all advanced civilizations would produce waste heat detectable as infrared radiation. His work exemplifies the blend of imaginative thinking grounded in scientific calculations. Genetic Engineering and the Future: Dyson was also enthusiastic about genetic engineering, predicting that it would become as commonplace as computer hobbyism. He envisioned a future where children could grow their own genetically engineered organisms at home, fostering innovation and creativity. This idea underscores the importance of balancing regulation with the need to allow new technologies to develop and demonstrate their potential. Regulation and Innovation: The conversation highlighted the critical balance needed in regulating emerging technologies like genetic engineering and AI. Overzealous regulation can stifle innovation, but a lack of regulation can lead to unintended consequences. Dyson and Jogalekar advocate for a cautious approach, allowing some room for trial and error to understand the full potential and risks of these technologies before implementing stringent controls. Nuclear Power's Potential and Challenges: The discussion touched on the historical and future potential of nuclear power. While nuclear energy faced setbacks due to regulatory and environmental challenges, there is renewed interest in its potential to provide clean and reliable energy. Innovations like small modular reactors and advanced recycling techniques for nuclear waste are promising areas of development. The historical context, including the failures and successes of past nuclear projects, provides important lessons for future advancements. The Role of Nanotechnology: Nanotechnology holds significant promise, particularly in fields like drug delivery. By packaging drugs in nanoparticles, we can improve their stability and ensure they reach their target within the body without breaking down prematurely. This precision in drug delivery could revolutionize treatments and increase the efficacy of many medications, showcasing how nanoscale innovations can have a substantial impact on healthcare. Outliers in Scientific Research: Jogalekar emphasized the importance of paying attention to outliers in scientific data. These unique cases, often dismissed as anomalies, can lead to significant breakthroughs. For example, a clinical outlier led to the discovery of a new method to reduce cholesterol. This approach underscores the need for more sophisticated statistical techniques and AI tools to identify and explore these outliers effectively, which can lead to new insights and innovations. The Interplay of Philosophy and Science: The episode delved into the philosophical implications of scientific discoveries, particularly in quantum mechanics and consciousness. The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics challenges traditional deterministic views and has inspired both scientific and philosophical exploration. Jogalekar advocates for an open-minded approach to these fringe ideas, recognizing that even seemingly far-fetched concepts can contribute to our understanding of reality and drive scientific progress.

Clay Jenkinson interviews Pulitzer Prize winning historian Richard Rhodes, the author of 23 books including The Making of the Atomic Bomb. Topics include Rhodes' path to one of the most productive and acclaimed writing careers in recent American history; the strengths and weaknesses of Christopher Nolan's film Oppenheimer; the time Edward Teller abruptly stopped an interview and asked Rhodes to leave; the current status of the Doomsday Clock that tells us how close we are to nuclear war; and what's next in the illustrious career of the much awarded and universally celebrated author. 

This week the Brothers discuss Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer, not the movie they necessarily expected but a good film nonetheless. Along the way they discuss Richard Rhodes's books about nuclear weapons.   File length 1:09:29 File Size 48.4 MB   Theme by Jul Big Green via SongFinch Subscribe to us on Apple Podcasts Listen to us on Stitcher Like us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Send your comments to show@notinacreepyway.com Visit the show website at Not In A Creepy Way  

In this special episode of the Karma School of Business Podcast, we bring you a curated list of impactful book recommendations from our esteemed private equity industry guests, offering a wealth of knowledge to enhance your strategic thinking and personal growth. 1:34 – Author Nick Shaw's poignant and insightful "My Teacher, My Son," is a book that promises to transform your perspective on life and leadership My Teacher, My Son: https://www.amazon.com/My-Teacher-Son-Lessons-Life/dp/B0CH7F5MGW 5:06 - Dive into the intricacies of technological advancements with Managing Partner Scott Estill's picks, "Chip Wars" by Chris Miller and "AI 2041" by Kai-Fu Lee and Chen Qiufan Chip Wars: https://www.amazon.com/Chip-War-Dominate-Critical-Technology/dp/B09TX24J5Y/ AI 2041: https://www.amazon.com/AI-2041-Ten-Visions-Future/dp/B08SFL53HL/ 9:50 - Gain historical business insights from private equity operating partner Joe DeLuca's favorite, “The Making of the Atomic Bomb” by Richard Rhodes. The Making of the Atomic Bomb: https://www.amazon.com/Making-Atomic-Bomb-Richard-Rhodes/dp/1451677618 13:00 – Entrepreneur and attorney Scott Becker emphasizes the significance of team building with “Good to Great” by Jim Collins and the importance of health and longevity with “Outlive” by Peter Attia. Good to Great: https://www.amazon.com/Good-to-Great-Jim-Collins-audiobook/dp/B003VXI5MS/ Outlive: https://www.amazon.com/Outlive-Longevity-Peter-Attia-MD/dp/0593236599/ 16:25 – Private equity partner John Kirk reminds us of the power of collective success over individual correctness through “Us” by Terrence Real Us: https://www.amazon.com/Us-Getting-Build-Loving-Relationship/dp/B09BBN9LGW/ 19:48 – PE operating partner Brit Yonge explores the sovereignty of choice in Viktor Frankl's “Man's Search for Meaning.” Man's Search for Meaning: https://www.amazon.com/Mans-Search-for-Meaning-audiobook/dp/B0006IU470/ 23:35 – Private equity managing director Doug Horn provides a glimpse into the future of industry and geopolitics with “The End of the World is Just the Beginning” by Peter Zeihan and celebrates American entrepreneurial spirit in “Americana” by Bhu Srinivasan The End of the World is Just the Beginning: https://www.amazon.com/End-World-Just-Beginning-Globalization/dp/B09CS8FRRD/ Americana: https://www.amazon.com/Americana-Bhu-Srinivasan-audiobook/dp/B075659K9K/ 26:41 – PE managing director Mohit Kansal underscores the value of data over narrative with “Moneyball”by Michael Lewis. Moneyball: https://www.amazon.com/Moneyball-Michael-Lewis-audiobook/dp/B005FFRQYS/ 28:23 – Private equity managing director Marshall Phelps draws leadership lessons from "Washington" by Ron Chernow and delves into the intrigue of "Conspiracy" by Ryan Holiday Washington: https://www.amazon.com/Washington-Ron-Chernow-audiobook/dp/B0045XYQ12/ Conspiracy: https://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Ryan-Holiday-audiobook/dp/B0794CLD44/ 32:35 – Private equity managing partner Doug McCormick offers a refreshing perspective on global progress with "Factfulness" by Hans Rosling. Factfulness: https://www.amazon.com/Factfulness-audiobook/dp/B07BFDCWZP/ Join us as we explore these diverse and thought-provoking works that have shaped the minds of business leaders and will undoubtedly influence your approach to business and life.

Germantown Area Chamber of Commerce's Janie Day sits down with Richard Rhodes of Hampline Brewing Company in Memphis, Tennessee. During the conversation he talks about the culture of the brewery, their history, philanthropy, and more.Learn more: https://www.hampline.com

In this episode of THE MENTORS RADIO, Host Tom Loarie talks with Navy fighter pilot and test pilot, Tom Burbage about Burbage's remarkable rise to Executive Vice President and General Manager at Lockheed Martin, and then going on to lead the world's most complex and ambitious aerospace endeavor ever; the development of the F-35, Lightning II. Burbage was also the long-term leader of both the F-22 Raptor development program. In the episode, Burbage shares his insights and tips on leading and managing "the RUBIKS Cube of all weapons development program," the F-35. It is a fascinating and inspiring saga indeed! From the inception of the F-35 Lightning II as a near-impossible dream, its long and troubled gestation, the building of an international partnership and its current standing as the West's frontline fighter world wide, this is a hang-on-to-your-seats, master mentoring conversation, crammed with take-away tips and insights no matter what your business, work, passion or life ambitions. You'll also learn from Tom Burbage, a man who has served his country nobly for his entire life, how service can transform each of us and the society in which we live. Exceptional episode! Listen to episode below, or on ANY PODCAST PLATFORM here. BE SURE TO LEAVE US A GREAT REVIEW on Apple Podcasts or Spotify and share with friends and colleagues! SHOW NOTES: TOM BURBAGE: BIO: https://www.usna.edu/LeadershipConference/Archive/2012/Panelist-Burbage.php BOOK: F-35: The Inside Story of the Lightning II, by Tom Burbage, et.al. Book teaser: The inside story of the most expensive and controversial military program in history, as told by those who lived it.The F-35 has changed allied combat warfare. But by the time it's completed, it will cost more than the Manhattan Project and the B-2 Stealth Bomber. It has been subject to the most aggressive cyberattacks in history from China, Russia, North Korea, and others. Its stealth technology required nearly 9 million lines of code; NASA's Curiosity Mars rover required 2.5 million. And it was this close to failure.F-35 is the only inside look at the most advanced aircraft in the world and the historic project that built it, as told by those who were intimately involved in its design, testing, and production. Based on the authors' personal experience and over 100+ interviews, F-35 pulls back the curtain on one of the most heavily criticized government programs in history from start to finish: the dramatic flights that won Lockheed Martin the contract over Boeing; the debates and decisions over capabilities; feats of software, hardware, and aeronautical engineering that made it possible; how the project survived the Nunn-McCurdy breach; the conflicts among all three branches of the U.S. military, between the eight other allied nation partners, and against spy elements from enemies.For readers of Skunk Works by Ben Rich and The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes, F-35 will pique the interest of airplane enthusiasts, defense industry insiders, military history aficionados, political junkies, and general nonfiction readers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TagDqxdyA9A #2023 #art #music #movies #poetry #poem #photooftheday #volcano #news #money #food #weather #climate #monkeys #horse #puppy #fyp #love #instagood #onelove #eyes #getyoked #horsie #gotmilk #book #shecomin #getready

The inside story of the most expensive and controversial military program in history, as told by those who lived it.  The F-35 has changed allied combat warfare. But by the time it's completed, it will cost more than the Manhattan Project and the B-2 Stealth Bomber. It has been subject to the most aggressive cyberattacks in history from China, Russia, North Korea, and others. Its stealth technology required nearly 9 million lines of code; NASA's Curiosity Mars rover required 2.5 million. And it was this close to failure.  F-35: The Inside Story of the Lightning II (Skyhorse, 2023) is the only inside look at the most advanced aircraft in the world and the historic project that built it, as told by those who were intimately involved in its design, testing, and production. Based on the authors' personal experience and over 100+ interviews, F-35 pulls back the curtain on one of the most heavily criticized government programs in history from start to finish: the dramatic flights that won Lockheed Martin the contract over Boeing; the debates and decisions over capabilities; feats of software, hardware, and aeronautical engineering that made it possible; how the project survived the Nunn-McCurdy breach; the conflicts among all three branches of the U.S. military, between the eight other allied nation partners, and against spy elements from enemies. For readers of Skunk Works by Ben Rich and The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes, F-35 will pique the interest of airplane enthusiasts, defense industry insiders, military history aficionados, political junkies, and general nonfiction readers. AJ Woodhams hosts the "War Books" podcast. You can subscribe on Apple here and on Spotify here. War Books is on YouTube, Facebook and Instagram. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

The inside story of the most expensive and controversial military program in history, as told by those who lived it.  The F-35 has changed allied combat warfare. But by the time it's completed, it will cost more than the Manhattan Project and the B-2 Stealth Bomber. It has been subject to the most aggressive cyberattacks in history from China, Russia, North Korea, and others. Its stealth technology required nearly 9 million lines of code; NASA's Curiosity Mars rover required 2.5 million. And it was this close to failure.  F-35: The Inside Story of the Lightning II (Skyhorse, 2023) is the only inside look at the most advanced aircraft in the world and the historic project that built it, as told by those who were intimately involved in its design, testing, and production. Based on the authors' personal experience and over 100+ interviews, F-35 pulls back the curtain on one of the most heavily criticized government programs in history from start to finish: the dramatic flights that won Lockheed Martin the contract over Boeing; the debates and decisions over capabilities; feats of software, hardware, and aeronautical engineering that made it possible; how the project survived the Nunn-McCurdy breach; the conflicts among all three branches of the U.S. military, between the eight other allied nation partners, and against spy elements from enemies. For readers of Skunk Works by Ben Rich and The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes, F-35 will pique the interest of airplane enthusiasts, defense industry insiders, military history aficionados, political junkies, and general nonfiction readers. AJ Woodhams hosts the "War Books" podcast. You can subscribe on Apple here and on Spotify here. War Books is on YouTube, Facebook and Instagram. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/military-history

The inside story of the most expensive and controversial military program in history, as told by those who lived it.  The F-35 has changed allied combat warfare. But by the time it's completed, it will cost more than the Manhattan Project and the B-2 Stealth Bomber. It has been subject to the most aggressive cyberattacks in history from China, Russia, North Korea, and others. Its stealth technology required nearly 9 million lines of code; NASA's Curiosity Mars rover required 2.5 million. And it was this close to failure.  F-35: The Inside Story of the Lightning II (Skyhorse, 2023) is the only inside look at the most advanced aircraft in the world and the historic project that built it, as told by those who were intimately involved in its design, testing, and production. Based on the authors' personal experience and over 100+ interviews, F-35 pulls back the curtain on one of the most heavily criticized government programs in history from start to finish: the dramatic flights that won Lockheed Martin the contract over Boeing; the debates and decisions over capabilities; feats of software, hardware, and aeronautical engineering that made it possible; how the project survived the Nunn-McCurdy breach; the conflicts among all three branches of the U.S. military, between the eight other allied nation partners, and against spy elements from enemies. For readers of Skunk Works by Ben Rich and The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes, F-35 will pique the interest of airplane enthusiasts, defense industry insiders, military history aficionados, political junkies, and general nonfiction readers. AJ Woodhams hosts the "War Books" podcast. You can subscribe on Apple here and on Spotify here. War Books is on YouTube, Facebook and Instagram. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/science-technology-and-society

The inside story of the most expensive and controversial military program in history, as told by those who lived it.  The F-35 has changed allied combat warfare. But by the time it's completed, it will cost more than the Manhattan Project and the B-2 Stealth Bomber. It has been subject to the most aggressive cyberattacks in history from China, Russia, North Korea, and others. Its stealth technology required nearly 9 million lines of code; NASA's Curiosity Mars rover required 2.5 million. And it was this close to failure.  F-35: The Inside Story of the Lightning II (Skyhorse, 2023) is the only inside look at the most advanced aircraft in the world and the historic project that built it, as told by those who were intimately involved in its design, testing, and production. Based on the authors' personal experience and over 100+ interviews, F-35 pulls back the curtain on one of the most heavily criticized government programs in history from start to finish: the dramatic flights that won Lockheed Martin the contract over Boeing; the debates and decisions over capabilities; feats of software, hardware, and aeronautical engineering that made it possible; how the project survived the Nunn-McCurdy breach; the conflicts among all three branches of the U.S. military, between the eight other allied nation partners, and against spy elements from enemies. For readers of Skunk Works by Ben Rich and The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes, F-35 will pique the interest of airplane enthusiasts, defense industry insiders, military history aficionados, political junkies, and general nonfiction readers. AJ Woodhams hosts the "War Books" podcast. You can subscribe on Apple here and on Spotify here. War Books is on YouTube, Facebook and Instagram. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/technology

EPISODE 1796: In this KEEN ON show, Andrew talks to Richard Rhodes, author of SCIENTIST, about E.O. Wilson and the great biologist's life in natureRichard Rhodes is the author or editor of 22 books, including The Twilight of the Bomb, the last volume in a quartet about nuclear history. The first, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, won the Pulitzer Prize, a National Book Award, and a National Book Critics Circle Award. He has received numerous fellowships for research and writing, including grants from the Ford Foundation, the Guggenheim Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation, and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. He has been a visiting scholar at Harvard and MIT and a host and correspondent for documentaries on public television's Frontline and American Experience series. An affiliate of the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University, he lectures frequently to audiences in the United States and abroad.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.

Episodio 473 con Kuna e Luca ai microfoni con le nuove hit dell'estate (no).Luca ci parlerà di un dispositivo a ultrasuoni portatile in grado di poter eseguire una ecografia del seno per lo screening preventivo di tumori al seno. Il dispositivo, agganciabile al reggiseno, permette di acquisire immagini con una risoluzione pari a quella di una ecografia ospedaliera.Nel nostro intervento esterno Marco Casolino intervista Francesca Ballarini, Prof. Associato all'università di Pavia. Con Francesca parliamo di radiazione spaziale e di metodi di protezione degli astronauti nelle attuali e future missioni spaziali. Dopo una barza pietosa,Kuna ci dà qualche anticipazione sui temi e gli approcci che dobbiamo aspettarci da Oppenheimer, il film di Nolan che in Italia uscirà nelle sale mercoledì 23 agosto. Qualche consiglio di lettura:Bomba atomica, di Roberto Mercadini, Rizzoli (2020)La bomba. L'incredibile storia vera della bomba atomica, di Alcante, Boillée, Rodier Ippocampo Edizioni (2020)Per chi non ha paura dei libri corposi:L'invenzione della bomba atomica, di Richard Rhodes, Rizzoli (2005, momentaneamente esaurito in italiano, disponibile in inglese e reperibile in molte biblioteche)La biografia a cui si ispira il film Oppenheimer, di Bird & Sherwin, Garzanti (2023)Qualche anticipazione per chi non teme gli spoiler:La recensione di Stanlio Kubrick su EsquireLe reazioni dei fisici e di altri esperti a Oppenheimer (in inglese; sul Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists si trovano moltissimi altri articoli a tema)

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Reflections on "Making the Atomic Bomb", published by boazbarak on August 17, 2023 on LessWrong. [Cross posted on windowsontheory; see here for my prior writings] [it appears almost certain that in the immediate future, it would be] possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium by which vast amounts of power and large quantities of new radium-like elements would be generated.- Letter from Albert Einstein (prepared by Leo Szilard) to F.D. Roosevelt, August 1939 Do you know, Josef Vassarionovich, what main argument has been advanced against uranium? "It would be too good if the problem could be solved. Nature seldom proves favorable to man." - Letter from Georgi Flerov to Joseph Stalin, April 1942. I've heard great things about Richard Rhodes' "The Making of the Atomic Bomb." Finally, on vacation, I managed to read it. (Pro-tip: buy the Kindle version - the hard copy is far too big to lug around.) It's as great as people say. Can't recommend it enough. I can't remember when, if ever, I've read a book that combines so well popular science and history. Indeed, the Atomic bomb is the one setting where the precise details of the smallest particles have profoundly impacted human history. Here are some quick thoughts after reading the book. (Warning: spoilers below for people who don't know how WWII ended.) The level of investment in the Manhattan Project was truly staggering. I knew it but didn't fully grasp this. This is not just the numbers ($2B, which was almost 1 percent of GDP at the time) but also the project's sheer size, employing more than 100,000 people, and the massive construction of buildings, factories, and roads at multiple sites. As just one example, when they didn't have enough copper, the treasury department lent the project 15,000 tons of silver to be used in the electromagnetic separation plant (to be later melted and returned after the war). Much of this cost was due to the compressed schedule. The staggering cost was mainly due to the need to get the bomb done in time to use in the war. Time and again, whenever the project faced a choice between approaches A, B, or C, they chose to pursue all three in parallel, so if two failed, they could still go ahead. Whenever there was a choice between saving money or time, they opted for the latter. The fact that the cost was primarily due to time is also evidenced by the fact that, following the war, many countries could set up their own atomic bomb programs or reach the threshold of doing so at a much lower cost. This seems to be a general principle in technological innovation: the cost of achieving a new advance decreases exponentially in time. Thus, achieving X transitions over time from being impossible to being inevitable. This is related to Bill Gates' famous quote that in technology, we tend to overestimate progress in two years and underestimate progress in ten years. The Manhattan Project was trying to achieve the Atomic bomb just at the cusp of it being possible. The project got going when General Groves was appointed (September 1942), and it took a little less than three years until the successful test (July 1945). Of course, they could have started much earlier: Einstein and Szilard sent their famous letter to Roosevelt in August 1939. The "impossible vs. inevitable" phenomenon is manifested in another way. The U.S. drastically underestimated how long it would take for the Soviet Union to achieve the bomb (even considering the Soviet advantages due to spying, which the Americans should at least have partially anticipated as well). The government fully trusted the scientists on the science. The project was authorized primarily based on pen and paper calculations. At the time the project was approved, no chain reaction had been demonstrated, and the total quantity of Uranium 23...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Reflections on "Making the Atomic Bomb", published by boazbarak on August 17, 2023 on LessWrong. [Cross posted on windowsontheory; see here for my prior writings] [it appears almost certain that in the immediate future, it would be] possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium by which vast amounts of power and large quantities of new radium-like elements would be generated.- Letter from Albert Einstein (prepared by Leo Szilard) to F.D. Roosevelt, August 1939 Do you know, Josef Vassarionovich, what main argument has been advanced against uranium? "It would be too good if the problem could be solved. Nature seldom proves favorable to man." - Letter from Georgi Flerov to Joseph Stalin, April 1942. I've heard great things about Richard Rhodes' "The Making of the Atomic Bomb." Finally, on vacation, I managed to read it. (Pro-tip: buy the Kindle version - the hard copy is far too big to lug around.) It's as great as people say. Can't recommend it enough. I can't remember when, if ever, I've read a book that combines so well popular science and history. Indeed, the Atomic bomb is the one setting where the precise details of the smallest particles have profoundly impacted human history. Here are some quick thoughts after reading the book. (Warning: spoilers below for people who don't know how WWII ended.) The level of investment in the Manhattan Project was truly staggering. I knew it but didn't fully grasp this. This is not just the numbers ($2B, which was almost 1 percent of GDP at the time) but also the project's sheer size, employing more than 100,000 people, and the massive construction of buildings, factories, and roads at multiple sites. As just one example, when they didn't have enough copper, the treasury department lent the project 15,000 tons of silver to be used in the electromagnetic separation plant (to be later melted and returned after the war). Much of this cost was due to the compressed schedule. The staggering cost was mainly due to the need to get the bomb done in time to use in the war. Time and again, whenever the project faced a choice between approaches A, B, or C, they chose to pursue all three in parallel, so if two failed, they could still go ahead. Whenever there was a choice between saving money or time, they opted for the latter. The fact that the cost was primarily due to time is also evidenced by the fact that, following the war, many countries could set up their own atomic bomb programs or reach the threshold of doing so at a much lower cost. This seems to be a general principle in technological innovation: the cost of achieving a new advance decreases exponentially in time. Thus, achieving X transitions over time from being impossible to being inevitable. This is related to Bill Gates' famous quote that in technology, we tend to overestimate progress in two years and underestimate progress in ten years. The Manhattan Project was trying to achieve the Atomic bomb just at the cusp of it being possible. The project got going when General Groves was appointed (September 1942), and it took a little less than three years until the successful test (July 1945). Of course, they could have started much earlier: Einstein and Szilard sent their famous letter to Roosevelt in August 1939. The "impossible vs. inevitable" phenomenon is manifested in another way. The U.S. drastically underestimated how long it would take for the Soviet Union to achieve the bomb (even considering the Soviet advantages due to spying, which the Americans should at least have partially anticipated as well). The government fully trusted the scientists on the science. The project was authorized primarily based on pen and paper calculations. At the time the project was approved, no chain reaction had been demonstrated, and the total quantity of Uranium 23...

Welcome to Episode 50 Part 1 of the Play It Up Podcast!! This is the first in a 2-part series covering the ins and outs of the Brisbane Pinball and Arcade Collective (BPAC) 2023 event which took place from the 14-23rd July at Brewdog Dogtap in Murrarie, QLD. And honestly, what better way to celebrate 50 episodes of your favourite podcast, with TWO episodes of your favourite podcast? Wow! We hope you enjoy our flyover of BPAC's Arcade events in classic Play It Up Podcast fashion, and please join us in Episode 50, Part 2 for a deep-dive into the event with a few extra special guests – So stay tuned for more shortly!! A HUGE, HUGE Play It Up Podcast shoutout to: Your Australian Kong Off 6 guns: Michael ‘Bonerforce' Edwards, Sean ‘Taggsta' Tagg, Dr. Aaron Raynor, Greg Pell, Geoff ‘80sarcadekid' Suttor, Matt Tecchio, Shane Sawle, Michael Kibbey, Patrick Silva, Allen ‘muscleandfitness' Staal, Luke ‘Busho' Bushell, Danny ‘SimpleDack' Fazackerley, Jack Philippi, Ky Staal, Derek Broadfoot, Pat Mortiss, Connor Weekes, Matthew Tolhurst, Tim Bragg, Alix McLean, Marc Bell, Andrew ‘Barra' Barrow and Chris Sommersville Our awesome mates at Brewdog Brisbane (thank you) Ultra big Play It Up shoutouts to Tanya Lowe and Adam Lee ANZAP Hall of fame recipients Jimmy Nails, Michael Kibbey, Richard Rhodes, Rob McAuley, Paul Hornitzky, Andrew Barrow, Danielle Peck, Dave Peck, Yee Fong, Peter Watt, Steven Edwards (and anyone else we may have missed we deeply apologise!) Yewww we love you guys Chapter Guide: 0:00 – Hi Denny Hi Mike Hi Neil Hi Shaun 1:35 – BPAckin' up post BPAC 3:30 – Shaun's experiences with his first BPAC since 2019 8:10 – Neil Cairns ANZAP Hall of Fame Induction 10:25 – ANZAP and other Hall of Fame Inductees 15:15 – Donkey Kong L3 Comp 19:55 – AKO6 Qualifying day 29:35 – Australian Kong Off Juniors comp 33:00 – Back to qualifiers!! 34:10 – Taggsta and Denny drawn game 39:10 – Taggsta and Denny second game 40:00 – Neil's 1st round vs. Allen 41:30 – Shauno v Shano 45:20 – other games round 2 47:12 – Neil v GEF second round 49:38 – Denny v Barra second round 50:30 – Neil v Tech third round 53:13 – Neil v Shane game for third place (Where's the Beef??) 55:50 – To be continued… In Part 2!! We hope you enjoy the episode! Feel free to drop us a line about BPAC or anything Arcade and classic gaming on Anchor at the link below and your question could be featured on the podcast! https://anchor.fm/playituppodcast Want moar Play It Up Podcast? You can also find us here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZnONv0hcDWXCA29BdpmV9Q (Full Video Podcast) https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/play-it-up/id1489273083?uo=4 https://open.spotify.com/show/0BJmmWLtgkDnd5l4JVTOju?si=f273f3a11f4142fb https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5idXp6c3Byb3V0LmNvbS83MzYyNDQucnNz https://www.breaker.audio/play-it-up https://pca.st/5tm92if5 https://radiopublic.com/play-it-up-WdLrZL https://instagram.com/playituppodcast/ https://www.facebook.com/PlayItUpPodcast Contact on us on Anchor for any questions for the team or feedback. Thanks you absolute legends, and we will see you in Episode 50, Part 2!! --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/playituppodcast/message

15 years late but I'm starting to develop some taste!In July 2023 we reviewed 5 books on this channel. My two favourites of this month both have what I would call 'style'. The content within them was interesting but what made them stand out was the way they were written. I used to really suck at understanding this as artsy type things were never intuitive for me. But I think reading a lot of fiction over the last couple of years has made me understand why these unquantifiable factors can make a big difference.Big thanks to Cole McCormick (from the America+ podcast), Petar & The Wild Hustle for supporting the show. Very much appreciated!I hope you have a fantastic day wherever you are in the world. Kyrin out!Timeline:(0:00) - Intro(2:36) - No Longer Human: Osamu Dazai(6:31) - Fiesta/The Sun Also Rises: Ernest Hemingway(8:43) - Energy/A Human History: Richard Rhodes(14:02) - The Double: Fyodor Dostoyevsky(14:54) - Discipline Is Destiny: Ryan Holiday(17:01) - Boostagram Lounge(21:47) - Housekeeping(27:14) - Coming up in August 2023(29:35) - V4V: Give me a recommendationValue 4 Value Support:Boostagram: https://www.meremortalspodcast.com/supportPaypal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/meremortalspodcastConnect with Mere Mortals:Website: https://www.meremortalspodcast.com/Discord: https://discord.gg/jjfq9eGReUInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/meremortalspodcast/TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@meremortalspodcastSupport the show

Technology is going so fast I can't see .... ahhhhhh .....'Energy: A Human History' by Richard Rhodes is a brief flash through 400 years of human technology and history. It begins in the 1600's and shows the transition from wood to coal/steam to oil/gas and to nuclear (and beyond). It is comprised of stories and told via the numerous inventions of innovators across the centries.I summarised the book as follows. "It's thick & lengthy but it doesn't feel like a tome. The overall theme felt relatively unbiased but I'm sure many of the stories were spruced up a bit. Unless you haven't read much history there's nothing astoundingly new, however there's nuggets of great info that can be useful to know later."I hope you have a fantastic day wherever you are in the world. Kyrin out!Timeline:(0:00) - Intro(0:31) - Synopsis(3:37) - Technology: The art/craft of unlocking energy(11:04) - Transitions: Why do they take so long?(25:55) - Observations/Takeaways(33:50) - SummaryValue 4 Value Support:Boostagram: https://www.meremortalspodcast.com/supportPaypal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/meremortalspodcastConnect with Mere Mortals:Website: https://www.meremortalspodcast.com/Discord: https://discord.gg/jjfq9eGReUInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/meremortalspodcast/TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@meremortalspodcastSupport the show

Richard Rhodes, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of 'The Making of the Atomic Bomb,' discusses the life of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the Manhattan Project, the history of nuclear weapons, and the new film on his life by Christopher Nolan. If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at PlainEnglish@Spotify.com. You can find us on TikTok at www.tiktok.com/@plainenglish_ Host: Derek Thompson Guest: Richard Rhodes Producer: Devon Manze Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Richard Rhodes is an American historian and the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb. Full transcript available at: thejspod.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

st

The closing argument of our two-part Oprahsode starts in a Texas courtroom, wanders through some British slaughterhouses and ends with an emu.  Support us:Hear bonus episodes on PatreonDonate on PayPalGet Maintenance Phase T-shirts, stickers and moreBuy Aubrey's bookListen to Mike's other podcastLinks!"How the Cows Turned Mad" by Maxime Schwartz“Deadly Feasts” by Richard Rhodes "Mad Cow USA"UK Parliamentary inquiryTexas Cattle Feeders v. Oprah Winfrey: The First Major Test of the “Veggie Libel Law”Having a Cow: Reactions To "Veggie Libel" Laws and the Oprah TrialsThe Unconstitutionality Of Iowa's Proposed Agricultural Food Products Act And Similar Veggie Libel LawsAppealOriginal LawsuitFood Safety Vs. Promotion Of Industry: Can The USDA Protect Americans From Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy?Apocalypse CowHarvard Risk Assessment of Bovine Spongiform EncephalopathyMad Cow congressional hearingGAO reportThe Harvard Risk AssessmentThanks to Doctor Dreamchip for our lovely theme song!Support the show

It was a tremendous honor & pleasure to interview Richard Rhodes, Pulitzer Prize winning author of The Making of the Atomic BombWe discuss* similarities between AI progress & Manhattan Project (developing a powerful, unprecedented, & potentially apocalyptic technology within an uncertain arms-race situation)* visiting starving former Soviet scientists during fall of Soviet Union* whether Oppenheimer was a spy, & consulting on the Nolan movie* living through WW2 as a child* odds of nuclear war in Ukraine, Taiwan, Pakistan, & North Korea* how the US pulled of such a massive secret wartime scientific & industrial projectWatch on YouTube. Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any other podcast platform. Read the full transcript here. Follow me on Twitter for updates on future episodes.Timestamps(0:00:00) - Oppenheimer movie(0:06:22) - Was the bomb inevitable?(0:29:10) - Firebombing vs nuclear vs hydrogen bombs(0:49:44) - Stalin & the Soviet program(1:08:24) - Deterrence, disarmament, North Korea, Taiwan(1:33:12) - Oppenheimer as lab director(1:53:40) - AI progress vs Manhattan Project(1:59:50) - Living through WW2(2:16:45) - Secrecy(2:26:34) - Wisdom & warTranscript(0:00:00) - Oppenheimer movieDwarkesh Patel 0:00:51Today I have the great honor of interviewing Richard Rhodes, who is the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb, and most recently, the author of Energy, A Human History. I'm really excited about this one. Let's jump in at a current event, which is the fact that there's a new movie about Oppenheimer coming out, which I understand you've been consulted about. What did you think of the trailer? What are your impressions? Richard Rhodes 0:01:22They've really done a good job of things like the Trinity test device, which was the sphere covered with cables of various kinds. I had watched Peaky Blinders, where the actor who's playing Oppenheimer also appeared, and he looked so much like Oppenheimer to start with. Oppenheimer was about six feet tall, he was rail thin, not simply in terms of weight, but in terms of structure. Someone said he could sit in a children's high chair comfortably. But he never weighed more than about 140 pounds and that quality is there in the actor. So who knows? It all depends on how the director decided to tell the story. There are so many aspects of the story that you could never possibly squeeze them into one 2-hour movie. I think that we're waiting for the multi-part series that would really tell a lot more of the story, if not the whole story. But it looks exciting. We'll see. There have been some terrible depictions of Oppenheimer, there've been some terrible depictions of the bomb program. And maybe they'll get this one right. Dwarkesh Patel 0:02:42Yeah, hopefully. It is always great when you get an actor who resembles their role so well. For example, Bryan Cranston who played LBJ, and they have the same physical characteristics of the beady eyes, the big ears. Since we're talking about Oppenheimer, I had one question about him. I understand that there's evidence that's come out that he wasn't directly a communist spy. But is there any possibility that he was leaking information to the Soviets or in some way helping the Soviet program? He was a communist sympathizer, right? Richard Rhodes 0:03:15He had been during the 1930s. But less for the theory than for the practical business of helping Jews escape from Nazi Germany. One of the loves of his life, Jean Tatlock, was also busy working on extracting Jews from Europe during the 30. She was a member of the Communist Party and she, I think, encouraged him to come to meetings. But I don't think there's any possibility whatsoever that he shared information. In fact, he said he read Marx on a train trip between Berkeley and Washington one time and thought it was a bunch of hooey, just ridiculous. He was a very smart man, and he read the book with an eye to its logic, and he didn't think there was much there. He really didn't know anything about human beings and their struggles. He was born into considerable wealth. There were impressionist paintings all over his family apartments in New York City. His father had made a great deal of money cornering the markets on uniform linings for military uniforms during and before the First World War so there was a lot of wealth. I think his income during the war years and before was somewhere around $100,000 a month. And that's a lot of money in the 1930s. So he just lived in his head for most of his early years until he got to Berkeley and discovered that prime students of his were living on cans of god-awful cat food, because they couldn't afford anything else. And once he understood that there was great suffering in the world, he jumped in on it, as he always did when he became interested in something. So all of those things come together. His brother Frank was a member of the party, as was Frank's wife. I think the whole question of Oppenheimer lying to the security people during the Second World War about who approached him and who was trying to get him to sign on to some espionage was primarily an effort to cover up his brother's involvement. Not that his brothers gave away any secrets, I don't think they did. But if the army's security had really understood Frank Oppenheimer's involvement, he probably would have been shipped off to the Aleutians or some other distant place for the duration of the war. And Oppenheimer quite correctly wanted Frank around. He was someone he trusted.(0:06:22) - Was the bomb inevitable?Dwarkesh Patel 0:06:22Let's start talking about The Making of the Bomb. One question I have is — if World War II doesn't happen, is there any possibility that the bomb just never gets developed? Nobody bothers.Richard Rhodes 0:06:34That's really a good question and I've wondered over the years. But the more I look at the sequence of events, the more I think it would have been essentially inevitable, though perhaps not such an accelerated program. The bomb was pushed so hard during the Second World War because we thought the Germans had already started working on one. Nuclear fission had been discovered in Nazi Germany, in Berlin, in 1938, nine months before the beginning of the Second World War in Europe. Technological surveillance was not available during the war. The only way you could find out something was to send in a spy or have a mole or something human. And we didn't have that. So we didn't know where the Germans were, but we knew that the basic physics reaction that could lead to a bomb had been discovered there a year or more before anybody else in the West got started thinking about it. There was that most of all to push the urgency. In your hypothetical there would not have been that urgency. However, as soon as good physicists thought about the reaction that leads to nuclear fission — where a slow room temperature neutron, very little energy, bumps into the nucleus of a uranium-235 atom it would lead to a massive response. Isidore Rabi, one of the great physicists of this era, said it would have been like the moon struck the earth. The reaction was, as physicists say, fiercely exothermic. It puts out a lot more energy than you have to use to get it started. Once they did the numbers on that, and once they figured out how much uranium you would need to have in one place to make a bomb or to make fission get going, and once they were sure that there would be a chain reaction, meaning a couple of neutrons would come out of the reaction from one atom, and those two or three would go on and bump into other Uranium atoms, which would then fission them, and you'd get a geometric exponential. You'd get 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, and off of there. For most of our bombs today the initial fission, in 80 generations, leads to a city-busting explosion. And then they had to figure out how much material they would need, and that's something the Germans never really figured out, fortunately for the rest of us. They were still working on the idea that somehow a reactor would be what you would build. When Niels Bohr, the great Danish physicist, escaped from Denmark in 1943 and came to England and then United States, he brought with him a rough sketch that Werner Heisenberg, the leading scientist in the German program, had handed him in the course of trying to find out what Bohr knew about what America was doing. And he showed it to the guys at Los Alamos and Hans Bethe, one of the great Nobel laureate physicists in the group, said — “Are the Germans trying to throw a reactor down on us?” You can make a reactor blow up, we saw that at Chernobyl, but it's not a nuclear explosion on the scale that we're talking about with the bomb. So when a couple of these emigres Jewish physicists from Nazi Germany were whiling away their time in England after they escaped, because they were still technically enemy aliens and therefore could not be introduced to top secret discussions, one of them asked the other — “How much would we need of pure uranium-235, this rare isotope of uranium that chain reacts? How much would we need to make a bomb?” And they did the numbers and they came up with one pound, which was startling to them. Of course, it is more than that. It's about 125 pounds, but that's just a softball. That's not that much material. And then they did the numbers about what it would cost to build a factory to pull this one rare isotope of uranium out of the natural metal, which has several isotopes mixed together. And they figured it wouldn't cost more than it would cost to build a battleship, which is not that much money for a country at war. Certainly the British had plenty of battleships at that point in time. So they put all this together and they wrote a report which they handed through their superior physicists at Manchester University where they were based, who quickly realized how important this was. The United States lagged behind because we were not yet at war, but the British were. London was being bombed in the blitz. So they saw the urgency, first of all, of eating Germany to the punch, second of all of the possibility of building a bomb. In this report, these two scientists wrote that no physical structure came to their minds which could offer protection against a bomb of such ferocious explosive power. This report was from 1940 long before the Manhattan Project even got started. They said in this report, the only way we could think of to protect you against a bomb would be to have a bomb of similar destructive force that could be threatened for use if the other side attacked you. That's deterrence. That's a concept that was developed even before the war began in the United States. You put all those pieces together and you have a situation where you have to build a bomb because whoever builds the first bomb theoretically could prevent you from building more or prevent another country from building any and could dominate the world. And the notion of Adolf Hitler dominating the world, the Third Reich with nuclear weapons, was horrifying. Put all that together and the answer is every country that had the technological infrastructure to even remotely have the possibility of building everything you'd have to build to get the material for a bomb started work on thinking about it as soon as nuclear fusion was announced to the world. France, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, the United States, even Japan. So I think the bomb would have been developed but maybe not so quickly. Dwarkesh Patel 0:14:10In the book you talk that for some reason the Germans thought that the critical mass was something like 10 tons, they had done some miscalculation.Richard Rhodes 0:14:18A reactor. Dwarkesh Patel 0:14:19You also have some interesting stories in the book about how different countries found out the Americans were working on the bomb. For example, the Russians saw that all the top physicists, chemists, and metallurgists were no longer publishing. They had just gone offline and so they figured that something must be going on. I'm not sure if you're aware that while the subject of the Making of the Atomic Bomb in and of itself is incredibly fascinating, this book has become a cult classic in AI. Are you familiar with this? Richard Rhodes 0:14:52No. Dwarkesh Patel 0:14:53The people who are working on AI right now are huge fans of yours. They're the ones who initially recommended the book to me because the way they see the progress in the field reminded them of this book. Because you start off with these initial scientific hints. With deep learning, for example, here's something that can teach itself any function is similar to Szilárd noticing the nuclear chain reaction. In AI there's these scaling laws that say that if you make the model this much bigger, it gets much better at reasoning, at predicting text, and so on. And then you can extrapolate this curve. And you can see we get two more orders of magnitude, and we get to something that looks like human level intelligence. Anyway, a lot of the people who are working in AI have become huge fans of your book because of this reason. They see a lot of analogies in the next few years. They must be at page 400 in their minds of where the Manhattan Project was.Richard Rhodes 0:15:55We must later on talk about unintended consequences. I find the subject absolutely fascinating. I think my next book might be called Unintended Consequences. Dwarkesh Patel 0:16:10You mentioned that a big reason why many of the scientists wanted to work on the bomb, especially the Jewish emigres, was because they're worried about Hitler getting it first. As you mentioned at some point, 1943, 1944, it was becoming obvious that Hitler, the Nazis were not close to the bomb. And I believe that almost none of the scientists quit after they found out that the Nazis weren't close. So why didn't more of them say — “Oh, I guess we were wrong. The Nazis aren't going to get it. We don't need to be working on it.”?Richard Rhodes 0:16:45There was only one who did that, Joseph Rotblat. In May of 1945 when he heard that Germany had been defeated, he packed up and left. General Groves, the imperious Army Corps of Engineers General who ran the entire Manhattan Project, was really upset. He was afraid he'd spill the beans. So he threatened to have him arrested and put in jail. But Rotblat was quite determined not to stay any longer. He was not interested in building bombs to aggrandize the national power of the United States of America, which is perfectly understandable. But why was no one else? Let me tell it in terms of Victor Weisskopf. He was an Austrian theoretical physicist, who, like the others, escaped when the Nazis took over Germany and then Austria and ended up at Los Alamos. Weisskopf wrote later — “There we were in Los Alamos in the midst of the darkest part of our science.” They were working on a weapon of mass destruction, that's pretty dark. He said “Before it had almost seemed like a spiritual quest.” And it's really interesting how different physics was considered before and after the Second World War. Before the war, one of the physicists in America named Louis Alvarez told me when he got his PhD in physics at Berkeley in 1937 and went to cocktail parties, people would ask, “What's your degree in?” He would tell them “Chemistry.” I said, “Louis, why?” He said, “because I don't really have to explain what physics was.” That's how little known this kind of science was at that time. There were only about 1,000 physicists in the whole world in 1900. By the mid-30s, there were a lot more, of course. There'd been a lot of nuclear physics and other kinds of physics done by them. But it was still arcane. And they didn't feel as if they were doing anything mean or dirty or warlike at all. They were just doing pure science. Then nuclear fission came along. It was publicized worldwide. People who've been born since after the Second World War don't realize that it was not a secret at first. The news was published first in a German chemistry journal, Die Naturwissenschaften, and then in the British journal Nature and then in American journals. And there were headlines in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, and all over the world. People had been reading about and thinking about how to get energy out of the atomic nucleus for a long time. It was clear there was a lot there. All you had to do was get a piece of radium and see that it glowed in the dark. This chunk of material just sat there, you didn't plug it into a wall. And if you held it in your hand, it would burn you. So where did that energy come from? The physicists realized it all came from the nucleus of the atom, which is a very small part of the whole thing. The nucleus is 1/100,000th the diameter of the whole atom. Someone in England described it as about the size of a fly in a cathedral. All of the energy that's involved in chemical reactions, comes from the electron cloud that's around the nucleus. But  it was clear that the nucleus was the center of powerful forces. But the question was, how do you get them out? The only way that the nucleus had been studied up to 1938 was by bombarding it with protons, which have the same electric charge as the nucleus, positive charge, which means they were repelled by it. So you had to accelerate them to high speeds with various versions of the big machines that we've all become aware of since then. The cyclotron most obviously built in the 30s, but there were others as well. And even then, at best, you could chip a little piece off. You could change an atom one step up or one step down the periodic table. This was the classic transmutation of medieval alchemy sure but it wasn't much, you didn't get much out. So everyone came to think of the nucleus of the atom like a little rock that you really had to hammer hard to get anything to happen with it because it was so small and dense. That's why nuclear fission, with this slow neutron drifting and then the whole thing just goes bang, was so startling to everybody. So startling that when it happened, most of the physicists who would later work on the bomb and others as well, realized that they had missed the reaction that was something they could have staged on a lab bench with the equipment on the shelf. Didn't have to invent anything new. And Louis Alvarez again, this physicist at Berkeley, he said — “I was getting my hair cut. When I read the newspaper, I pulled off the robe and half with my hair cut, ran to my lab, pulled some equipment off the shelf, set it up and there it was.” So he said, “I discovered nuclear fission, but it was two days too late.” And that happened all over. People were just hitting themselves on the head and saying, well, Niels Bohr said, “What fools we've all been.” So this is a good example of how in science, if your model you're working with is wrong it doesn't lead you down the right path. There was only one physicist who really was thinking the right way about the uranium atom and that was Niels Bohr. He wondered, sometime during the 30s, why uranium was the last natural element in the periodic table? What is different about the others that would come later? He visualized the nucleus as a liquid drop. I always like to visualize it as a water-filled balloon. It's wobbly, it's not very stable. The protons in the nucleus are held together by something called the strong force, but they still have the repellent positive electric charge that's trying to push them apart when you get enough of them into a nucleus. It's almost a standoff between the strong force and all the electrical charge. So it is like a wobbly balloon of water. And then you see why a neutron just falling into the nucleus would make it wobble around even more and in one of its configurations, it might take a dumbbell shape. And then you'd have basically two charged atoms just barely connected, trying to push each other apart. And often enough, they went the whole way. When they did that, these two new elements, half the weight of uranium, way down the periodic table, would reconfigure themselves into two separate nuclei. And in doing so, they would release some energy. And that was the energy that came out of the reaction and there was a lot of energy. So Bohr thought about the model in the right way. The chemists who actually discovered nuclear fusion didn't know what they were gonna get. They were just bombarding a solution of uranium nitrate with neutrons thinking, well, maybe we can make a new element, maybe a first man-made element will come out of our work. So when they analyzed the solution after they bombarded it, they found elements halfway down the periodic table. They shouldn't have been there. And they were totally baffled. What is this doing here? Do we contaminate our solution? No. They had been working with a physicist named Lisa Meitner who was a theoretical physicist, an Austrian Jew. She had gotten out of Nazi Germany not long before. But they were still in correspondence with her. So they wrote her a letter. I held that letter in my hand when I visited Berlin and I was in tears. You don't hold history of that scale in your hands very often. And it said in German — “We found this strange reaction in our solution. What are these elements doing there that don't belong there?” And she went for a walk in a little village in Western Sweden with her nephew, Otto Frisch, who was also a nuclear physicist. And they thought about it for a while and they remembered Bohr's model, the wobbly water-filled balloon. And they suddenly saw what could happen. And that's where the news came from, the physics news as opposed to the chemistry news from the guys in Germany that was published in all the Western journals and all the newspapers. And everybody had been talking about, for years, what you could do if you had that kind of energy. A glass of this material would drive the Queen Mary back and forth from New York to London 20 times and so forth, your automobile could run for months. People were thinking about what would be possible if you had that much available energy. And of course, people had thought about reactors. Robert Oppenheimer was a professor at Berkeley and within a week of the news reaching Berkeley, one of his students told me that he had a drawing on the blackboard, a rather bad drawing of both a reactor and a bomb. So again, because the energy was so great, the physics was pretty obvious. Whether it would actually happen depended on some other things like could you make it chain react? But fundamentally, the idea was all there at the very beginning and everybody jumped on it. Dwarkesh Patel 0:27:54The book is actually the best history of World War II I've ever read. It's about the atomic bomb, but it's interspersed with the events that are happening in World War II, which motivate the creation of the bomb or the release of it, why it had to be dropped on Japan given the Japanese response. The first third is about the scientific roots of the physics and it's also the best book I've read about the history of science in the early 20th century and the organization of it. There's some really interesting stuff in there. For example, there was a passage where you talk about how there's a real master apprentice model in early science where if you wanted to learn to do this kind of experimentation, you will go to Amsterdam where the master of it is residing. It's much more individual focused. Richard Rhodes 0:28:58Yeah, the whole European model of graduate study, which is basically the wandering scholar. You could go wherever you wanted to and sign up with whoever was willing to have you sign up. (0:29:10) - Firebombing vs nuclear vs hydrogen bombsDwarkesh Patel 0:29:10But the question I wanted to ask regarding the history you made of World War II in general is — there's one way you can think about the atom bomb which is that it is completely different from any sort of weaponry that has been developed before it. Another way you can think of it is there's a spectrum where on one end you have the thermonuclear bomb, in the middle you have the atom bomb, and on this end you have the firebombing of cities like Hamburg and Dresden and Tokyo. Do you think of these as completely different categories or does it seem like an escalating gradient to you? Richard Rhodes 0:29:47I think until you get to the hydrogen bomb, it's really an escalating gradient. The hydrogen bomb can be made arbitrarily large. The biggest one ever tested was 56 megatons of TNT equivalent. The Soviet tested that. That had a fireball more than five miles in diameter, just the fireball. So that's really an order of magnitude change. But the other one's no and in fact, I think one of the real problems, this has not been much discussed and it should be, when American officials went to Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the war, one of them said later — “I got on a plane in Tokyo. We flew down the long green archipelago of the Japanese home island. When I left Tokyo, it was all gray broken roof tiles from the fire bombing and the other bombings. And then all this greenery. And then when we flew over Hiroshima, it was just gray broken roof tiles again.” So the scale of the bombing with one bomb, in the case of Hiroshima, was not that different from the scale of the fire bombings that had preceded it with tens of thousands of bombs. The difference was it was just one plane. In fact, the people in Hiroshima didn't even bother to go into their bomb shelters because one plane had always just been a weather plane. Coming over to check the weather before the bombers took off. So they didn't see any reason to hide or protect themselves, which was one of the reasons so many people were killed. The guys at Los Alamos had planned on the Japanese being in their bomb shelters. They did everything they could think of to make the bomb as much like ordinary bombing as they could. And for example, it was exploded high enough above ground, roughly 1,800 yards, so that the fireball that would form from this really very small nuclear weapon — by modern standards — 15 kilotons of TNT equivalent, wouldn't touch the ground and stir up dirt and irradiate it and cause massive radioactive fallout. It never did that. They weren't sure there would be any fallout. They thought the plutonium and the bomb over Nagasaki now would just kind of turn into a gas and blow away. That's not exactly what happened. But people don't seem to realize, and it's never been emphasized enough, these first bombs, like all nuclear weapons, were firebombs. Their job was to start mass fires, just exactly like all the six-pound incendiaries that had been destroying every major city in Japan by then. Every major city above 50,000 population had already been burned out. The only reason Hiroshima and Nagasaki were around to be atomic bombed is because they'd been set aside from the target list, because General Groves wanted to know what the damage effects would be. The bomb that was tested in the desert didn't tell you anything. It killed a lot of rabbits, knocked down a lot of cactus, melted some sand, but you couldn't see its effect on buildings and on people. So the bomb was deliberately intended to be as much not like poison gas, for example, because we didn't want the reputation for being like people in the war in Europe during the First World War, where people were killing each other with horrible gasses. We just wanted people to think this was another bombing. So in that sense, it was. Of course, there was radioactivity. And of course, some people were killed by it. But they calculated that the people who would be killed by the irradiation, the neutron radiation from the original fireball, would be close enough to the epicenter of the explosion that they would be killed by the blast or the flash of light, which was 10,000 degrees. The world's worst sunburn. You've seen stories of people walking around with their skin hanging off their arms. I've had sunburns almost that bad, but not over my whole body, obviously, where the skin actually peeled blisters and peels off. That was a sunburn from a 10,000 degree artificial sun. Dwarkesh Patel 0:34:29So that's not the heat, that's just the light? Richard Rhodes 0:34:32Radiant light, radiant heat. 10,000 degrees. But the blast itself only extended out a certain distance, it was fire. And all the nuclear weapons that have ever been designed are basically firebombs. That's important because the military in the United States after the war was not able to figure out how to calculate the effects of this weapon in a reliable way that matched their previous experience. They would only calculate the blast effects of a nuclear weapon when they figured their targets. That's why we had what came to be called overkill. We wanted redundancy, of course, but 60 nuclear weapons on Moscow was way beyond what would be necessary to destroy even that big a city because they were only calculating the blast. But in fact, if you exploded a 300 kiloton nuclear warhead over the Pentagon at 3,000 feet, it would blast all the way out to the capital, which isn't all that far. But if you counted the fire, it would start a mass-fire and then it would reach all the way out to the Beltway and burn everything between the epicenter of the weapon and the Beltway. All organic matter would be totally burned out, leaving nothing but mineral matter, basically. Dwarkesh Patel 0:36:08I want to emphasize two things you said because they really hit me in reading the book and I'm not sure if the audience has fully integrated them. The first is, in the book, the military planners and Groves, they talk about needing to use the bomb sooner rather than later, because they were running out of cities in Japan where there are enough buildings left that it would be worth bombing in the first place, which is insane. An entire country is almost already destroyed from fire bombing alone. And the second thing about the category difference between thermonuclear and atomic bombs. Daniel Ellsberg, the nuclear planner who wrote the Doomsday machine, he talks about, people don't understand that the atom bomb that resulted in the pictures we see of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, that is simply the detonator of a modern nuclear bomb, which is an insane thing to think about. So for example, 10 and 15 kilotons is the Hiroshima Nagasaki and the Tsar Bomba, which was 50 megatons. So more than 1,000 times as much. And that wasn't even as big as they could make it. They kept the uranium tamper off, because they didn't want to destroy all of Siberia. So you could get more than 10,000 times as powerful. Richard Rhodes 0:37:31When Edward Teller, co-inventor of the hydrogen bomb and one of the dark forces in the story, was consulting with our military, just for his own sake, he sat down and calculated, how big could you make a hydrogen bomb? He came up with 1,000 megatons. And then he looked at the effects. 1,000 megatons would be a fireball 10 miles in diameter. And the atmosphere is only 10 miles deep. He figured that it would just be a waste of energy, because it would all blow out into space. Some of it would go laterally, of course, but most of it would just go out into space. So a bomb more than 100 megatons would just be totally a waste of time. Of course, a 100 megatons bomb is also a total waste, because there's no target on Earth big enough to justify that from a military point of view. Robert Oppenheimer, when he had his security clearance questioned and then lifted when he was being punished for having resisted the development of the hydrogen bomb, was asked by the interrogator at this security hearing — “Well, Dr. Oppenheimer, if you'd had a hydrogen bomb for Hiroshima, wouldn't you have used it?” And Oppenheimer said, “No.” The interrogator asked, “Why is that?” He said because the target was too small. I hope that scene is in the film, I'm sure it will be. So after the war, when our bomb planners and some of our scientists went into Hiroshima and Nagasaki, just about as soon as the surrender was signed, what they were interested in was the scale of destruction, of course. And those two cities didn't look that different from the other cities that had been firebombed with small incendiaries and ordinary high explosives. They went home to Washington, the policy makers, with the thought that — “Oh, these bombs are not so destructive after all.” They had been touted as city busters, basically, and they weren't. They didn't completely burn out cities. They were not certainly more destructive than the firebombing campaign, when everything of more than 50,000 population had already been destroyed. That, in turn, influenced the judgment about what we needed to do vis-a-vis the Soviet Union when the Soviets got the bomb in 1949. There was a general sense that, when you could fight a war with nuclear weapons, deterrence or not, you would need quite a few of them to do it right. And the Air Force, once it realized that it could aggrandize its own share of the federal budget by cornering the market and delivering nuclear weapons, very quickly decided that they would only look at the blast effect and not the fire effect. It's like tying one hand behind your back. Most of it was a fire effect. So that's where they came up with numbers like we need 60 of these to take out Moscow. And what the Air Force figured out by the late 1940s is that the more targets, the more bombs. The more bombs, the more planes. The more planes, the biggest share of the budget. So by the mid 1950s, the Air Force commanded 47% of the federal defense budget. And the other branches of services, which had not gone nuclear by then, woke up and said, we'd better find some use for these weapons in our branches of service. So the Army discovered that it needed nuclear weapons, tactical weapons for field use, fired out of cannons. There was even one that was fired out of a shoulder mounted rifle. There was a satchel charge that two men could carry, weighed about 150 pounds, that could be used to dig a ditch so that Soviet tanks couldn't cross into Germany. And of course the Navy by then had been working hard with General Rickover on building a nuclear submarine that could carry ballistic missiles underwater in total security. No way anybody could trace those submarines once they were quiet enough. And a nuclear reactor is very quiet. It just sits there with neutrons running around, making heat. So the other services jumped in and this famous triad, we must have these three different kinds of nuclear weapons, baloney. We would be perfectly safe if we only had our nuclear submarines. And only one or two of those. One nuclear submarine can take out all of Europe or all of the Soviet Union.Dwarkesh Patel 0:42:50Because it has multiple nukes on it? Richard Rhodes 0:42:53Because they have 16 intercontinental ballistic missiles with MIRV warheads, at least three per missile. Dwarkesh Patel 0:43:02Wow. I had a former guest, Richard Hanania, who has a book about foreign policy where he points out that our model of thinking about why countries do the things they do, especially in foreign affairs, is wrong because we think of them as individual rational actors, when in fact it's these competing factions within the government. And in fact, you see this especially in the case of Japan in World War II, there was a great book of Japan leading up to World War II, where they talk about how a branch of the Japanese military, I forget which, needed more oil to continue their campaign in Manchuria so they forced these other branches to escalate. But it's so interesting that the reason we have so many nukes is that the different branches are competing for funding. Richard Rhodes 0:43:50Douhet, the theorist of air power, had been in the trenches in the First World War. Somebody (John Masefield) called the trenches of the First World War, the long grave already dug, because millions of men were killed and the trenches never moved, a foot this way, a foot that way, all this horror. And Douhet came up with the idea that if you could fly over the battlefield to the homeland of the enemy and destroy his capacity to make war, then the people of that country, he theorized, would rise up in rebellion and throw out their leaders and sue for peace. And this became the dream of all the Air Forces of the world, but particularly ours. Until around 1943, it was called the US Army Air Force. The dream of every officer in the Air Force was to get out from under the Army, not just be something that delivers ground support or air support to the Army as it advances, but a power that could actually win wars. And the missing piece had always been the scale of the weaponry they carried. So when the bomb came along, you can see why Curtis LeMay, who ran the strategic air command during the prime years of that force, was pushing for bigger and bigger bombs. Because if a plane got shot down, but the one behind it had a hydrogen bomb, then it would be just almost as effective as the two planes together. So they wanted big bombs. And they went after Oppenheimer because he thought that was a terrible way to go, that there was really no military use for these huge weapons. Furthermore, the United States had more cities than Russia did, than the Soviet Union did. And we were making ourselves a better target by introducing a weapon that could destroy a whole state. I used to live in Connecticut and I saw a map that showed the air pollution that blew up from New York City to Boston. And I thought, well, now if that was fallout, we'd be dead up here in green, lovely Connecticut. That was the scale that it was going to be with these big new weapons. So on the one hand, you had some of the important leaders in the government thinking that these weapons were not the war-winning weapons that the Air Force wanted them and realized they could be. And on the other hand, you had the Air Force cornering the market on nuclear solutions to battles. All because some guy in a trench in World War I was sufficiently horrified and sufficiently theoretical about what was possible with air power. Remember, they were still flying biplanes. When H.G. Wells wrote his novel, The World Set Free in 1913, predicting an atomic war that would lead to world government, he had Air Forces delivering atomic bombs, but he forgot to update his planes. The guys in the back seat, the bombardiers, were sitting in a biplane, open cockpit. And when the pilots had dropped the bomb, they would reach down and pick up H.G. Wells' idea of an atomic bomb and throw it over the side. Which is kind of what was happening in Washington after the war. And it led us to a terribly misleading and unfortunate perspective on how many weapons we needed, which in turn fermented the arms race with the Soviets and just chased off. In the Soviet Union, they had a practical perspective on factories. Every factory was supposed to produce 120% of its target every year. That was considered good Soviet realism. And they did that with their nuclear war weapons. So by the height of the Cold War, they had 75,000 nuclear weapons, and nobody had heard yet of nuclear winter. So if both sides had set off this string of mass traps that we had in our arsenals, it would have been the end of the human world without question. Dwarkesh Patel 0:48:27It raises an interesting question, if the military planners thought that the conventional nuclear weapon was like the fire bombing, would it have been the case that if there wasn't a thermonuclear weapon, that there actually would have been a nuclear war by now because people wouldn't have been thinking of it as this hard red line? Richard Rhodes 0:48:47I don't think so because we're talking about one bomb versus 400, and one plane versus 400 planes and thousands of bombs. That scale was clear. Deterrence was the more important business. Everyone seemed to understand even the spies that the Soviets had connected up to were wholesaling information back to the Soviet Union. There's this comic moment when Truman is sitting with Joseph Stalin at Potsdam, and he tells Stalin, we have a powerful new weapon. And that's as much as he's ready to say about it. And Stalin licks at him and says, “Good, I hope you put it to good use with the Japanese.” Stalin knows exactly what he's talking about. He's seen the design of the fat man type Nagasaki plutonium bomb. He has held it in his hands because they had spies all over the place. (0:49:44) - Stalin & the Soviet programDwarkesh Patel 0:49:44How much longer would it have taken the Soviets to develop the bomb if they didn't have any spies? Richard Rhodes 0:49:49Probably not any longer. Dwarkesh Patel 0:49:51Really? Richard Rhodes 0:49:51When the Soviet Union collapsed in the winter of ‘92, I ran over there as quickly as I could get over there. In this limbo between forming a new kind of government and some of the countries pulling out and becoming independent and so forth, their nuclear scientists, the ones who'd worked on their bombs were free to talk. And I found that out through Yelena Bonner, Andrei Sakharov's widow, who was connected to people I knew. And she said, yeah, come on over. Her secretary, Sasha, who was a geologist about 35 years old became my guide around the country. We went to various apartments. They were retired guys from the bomb program and were living on, as far as I could tell, sac-and-potatoes and some salt. They had government pensions and the money was worth a salt, all of a sudden. I was buying photographs from them, partly because I needed the photographs and partly because 20 bucks was two months' income at that point. So it was easy for me and it helped them. They had first class physicists in the Soviet Union, they do in Russian today. They told me that by 1947, they had a design for a bomb that they said was half the weight and twice the yield of the Fat Man bomb. The Fat Man bomb was the plutonium implosion, right? And it weighed about 9,000 pounds. They had a much smaller and much more deliverable bomb with a yield of about 44 kilotons. Dwarkesh Patel 0:51:41Why was Soviet physics so good?Richard Rhodes 0:51:49The Russian mind? I don't know. They learned all their technology from the French in the 19th century, which is why there's so many French words in Russian. So they got good teachers, the French are superb technicians, they aren't so good at building things, but they're very good at designing things. There's something about Russia, I don't know if it's the language or the education. They do have good education, they did. But I remember asking them when they were working, I said — On the hydrogen bomb, you didn't have any computers yet. We only had really early primitive computers to do the complicated calculations of the hydrodynamics of that explosion. I said, “What did you do?” They said, “Oh, we just used nuclear. We just used theoretical physics.” Which is what we did at Los Alamos. We had guys come in who really knew their math and they would sit there and work it out by hand. And women with old Marchant calculators running numbers. So basically they were just good scientists and they had this new design. Kurchatov who ran the program took Lavrentiy Beria, who ran the NKVD who was put in charge of the program and said — “Look, we can build you a better bomb. You really wanna waste the time to make that much more uranium and plutonium?” And Beria said, “Comrade, I want the American bomb. Give me the American bomb or you and all your families will be camp dust.” I talked to one of the leading scientists in the group and he said, we valued our lives, we valued our families. So we gave them a copy of the plutonium implosion bomb. Dwarkesh Patel 0:53:37Now that you explain this, when the Soviet Union fell, why didn't North Korea, Iran or another country, send a few people to the fallen Soviet Union to recruit a few of the scientists to start their own program? Or buy off their stockpiles or something. Or did they?Richard Rhodes 0:53:59There was some effort by countries in the Middle East to get all the enriched uranium, which they wouldn't sell them. These were responsible scientists. They told me — we worked on the bomb because you had it and we didn't want there to be a monopoly on the part of any country in the world. So patriotically, even though Stalin was in charge of our country, he was a monster. We felt that it was our responsibility to work on these things, even Sakharov. There was a great rush at the end of the Second World War to get hold of German scientists. And about an equal number were grabbed by the Soviets. All of the leading German scientists, like Heisenberg and Hans and others, went west as fast as they could. They didn't want to be captured by the Soviets. But there were some who were. And they helped them work. People have the idea that Los Alamos was where the bomb happened. And it's true that at Los Alamos, we had the team that designed, developed, and built the first actual weapons. But the truth is, the important material for weapons is the uranium or plutonium. One of the scientists in the Manhattan Project told me years later, you can make a pretty high-level nuclear explosion just by taking two subcritical pieces of uranium, putting one on the floor and dropping the other by hand from a height of about six feet. If that's true, then all this business about secret designs and so forth is hogwash. What you really need for a weapon is the critical mass of highly enriched uranium, 90% of uranium-235. If you've got that, there are lots of different ways to make the bomb. We had two totally different ways that we used. The gun on the one hand for uranium, and then because plutonium was so reactive that if you fired up the barrel of a cannon at 3,000 feet per second, it would still melt down before the two pieces made it up. So for that reason, they had to invent an entirely new technology, which was an amazing piece of work. From the Soviet point of view, and I think this is something people don't know either, but it puts the Russian experience into a better context. All the way back in the 30s, since the beginning of the Soviet Union after the First World War, they had been sending over espionage agents connected up to Americans who were willing to work for them to collect industrial technology. They didn't have it when they began their country. It was very much an agricultural country. And in that regard, people still talk about all those damn spies stealing our secrets, we did the same thing with the British back in colonial days. We didn't know how to make a canal that wouldn't drain out through the soil. The British had a certain kind of clay that they would line their canals with, and there were canals all over England, even in the 18th century, that were impervious to the flow of water. And we brought a British engineer at great expense to teach us how to make the lining for the canals that opened up the Middle West and then the West. So they were doing the same thing. And one of those spies was a guy named Harry Gold, who was working all the time for them. He gave them some of the basic technology of Kodak filmmaking, for example. Harry Gold was the connection between David Greenglass and one of the American spies at Los Alamos and the Soviet Union. So it was not different. The model was — never give us something that someone dreamed of that hasn't been tested and you know works. So it would actually be blueprints for factories, not just a patent. And therefore when Beria after the war said, give us the bomb, he meant give me the American bomb because we know that works. I don't trust you guys. Who knows what you'll do. You're probably too stupid anyway. He was that kind of man. So for all of those reasons, they built the second bomb they tested was twice the yield and half the way to the first bomb. In other words, it was their new design. And so it was ours because the technology was something that we knew during the war, but it was too theoretical still to use. You just had to put the core and have a little air gap between the core and the explosives so that the blast wave would have a chance to accelerate through an open gap. And Alvarez couldn't tell me what it was but he said, you can get a lot more destructive force with a hammer if you hit something with it, rather than if you put the head on the hammer and push. And it took me several years before I figured out what he meant. I finally understood he was talking about what's called levitation.Dwarkesh Patel 0:59:41On the topic that the major difficulty in developing a bomb is either the refinement of uranium into U-235 or its transmutation into plutonium, I was actually talking to a physicist in preparation for this conversation. He explained the same thing that if you get two subcritical masses of uranium together, you wouldn't have the full bomb because it would start to tear itself apart without the tamper, but you would still have more than one megaton.Richard Rhodes 1:00:12It would be a few kilotons. Alvarez's model would be a few kilotons, but that's a lot. Dwarkesh Patel 1:00:20Yeah, sorry I meant kiloton. He claimed that one of the reasons why we talk so much about Los Alamos is that at the time the government didn't want other countries to know that if you refine uranium, you've got it. So they were like, oh, we did all this fancy physics work in Los Alamos that you're not gonna get to, so don't even worry about it. I don't know what you make of that theory. That basically it was sort of a way to convince people that Los Alamos was important. Richard Rhodes 1:00:49I think all the physics had been checked out by a lot of different countries by then. It was pretty clear to everybody what you needed to do to get to a bomb. That there was a fast fusion reaction, not a slow fusion reaction, like a reactor. They'd worked that out. So I don't think that's really the problem. But to this day, no one ever talks about the fact that the real problem isn't the design of the weapon. You could make one with wooden boxes if you wanted to. The problem is getting the material. And that's good because it's damned hard to make that stuff. And it's something you can protect. Dwarkesh Patel 1:01:30We also have gotten very lucky, if lucky is the word you want to use. I think you mentioned this in the book at some point, but the laws of physics could have been such that unrefined uranium ore was enough to build a nuclear weapon, right? In some sense, we got lucky that it takes a nation-state level actor to really refine and produce the raw substance. Richard Rhodes 1:01:56Yeah, I was thinking about that this morning on the way over. And all the uranium in the world would already have destroyed itself. Most people have never heard of the living reactors that developed on their own in a bed of uranium ore in Africa about two billion years ago, right? When there was more U-235 in a mass of uranium ore than there is today, because it decays like all radioactive elements. And the French discovered it when they were mining the ore and found this bed that had a totally different set of nuclear characteristics. They were like, what happened? But there were natural reactors in Gabon once upon a time. And they started up because some water, a moderator to make the neutrons slow down, washed its way down through a bed of much more highly enriched uranium ore than we still have today. Maybe 5-10% instead of 3.5 or 1.5, whatever it is now. And they ran for about 100,000 years and then shut themselves down because they had accumulated enough fusion products that the U-235 had been used up. Interestingly, this material never migrated out of the bed of ore. People today who are anti-nuclear say, well, what are we gonna do about the waste? Where are we gonna put all that waste? It's silly. Dwarkesh Patel 1:03:35Shove it in a hole. Richard Rhodes 1:03:36Yeah, basically. That's exactly what we're planning to do. Holes that are deep enough and in beds of material that will hold them long enough for everything to decay back to the original ore. It's not a big problem except politically because nobody wants it in their backyard.Dwarkesh Patel 1:03:53On the topic of the Soviets, one question I had while reading the book was — we negotiated with Stalin at Yalta and we surrendered a large part of Eastern Europe to him under his sphere of influence. And obviously we saw 50 years of immiseration there as a result. Given the fact that only we had the bomb, would it have been possible that we could have just knocked out the Soviet Union or at least prevented so much of the world from succumbing to communism in the aftermath of World War II? Is that a possibility? Richard Rhodes 1:04:30When we say we had the bomb, we had a few partly assembled handmade bombs. It took almost as long to assemble one as the battery life of the batteries that would drive the original charge that would set off the explosion. It was a big bluff. You know, when they closed Berlin in 1948 and we had to supply Berlin by air with coal and food for a whole winter, we moved some B-29s to England. The B-29 being the bomber that had carried the bombs. They were not outfitted for nuclear weapons. They didn't have the same kind of bomb-based structure. The weapons that were dropped in Japan had a single hook that held the entire bomb. So when the bay opened and the hook was released, the thing dropped. And that's very different from dropping whole rows of small bombs that you've seen in the photographs and the film footage. So it was a big bluff on our part. We took some time after the war inevitably to pull everything together. Here was a brand new technology. Here was a brand new weapon. Who was gonna be in charge of it? The military wanted control, Truman wasn't about to give the military control. He'd been an artillery officer in the First World War. He used to say — “No, damn artillery captain is gonna start World War III when I'm president.” I grew up in the same town he lived in so I know his accent. Independence, Missouri. Used to see him at his front steps taking pictures with tourists while he was still president. He used to step out on the porch and let the tourists take photographs. About a half a block from my Methodist church where I went to church. It was interesting. Interestingly, his wife was considered much more socially acceptable than he was. She was from an old family in independence, Missouri. And he was some farmer from way out in Grandview, Missouri, South of Kansas City. Values. Anyway, at the end of the war, there was a great rush from the Soviet side of what was already a zone. There was a Soviet zone, a French zone, British zone and an American zone. Germany was divided up into those zones to grab what's left of the uranium ore that the Germans had stockpiled. And there was evidence that there was a number of barrels of the stuff in a warehouse somewhere in the middle of all of this. And there's a very funny story about how the Russians ran in and grabbed off one site full of uranium ore, this yellow black stuff in what were basically wine barrels. And we at the same night, just before the wall came down between the zones, were running in from the other side, grabbing some other ore and then taking it back to our side. But there was also a good deal of requisitioning of German scientists. And the ones who had gotten away early came West, but there were others who didn't and ended up helping the Soviets. And they were told, look, you help us build the reactors and the uranium separation systems that we need. And we'll let you go home and back to your family, which they did. Early 50s by then, the German scientists who had helped the Russians went home. And I think our people stayed here and brought their families over, I don't know. (1:08:24) - Deterrence, disarmament, North Korea, TaiwanDwarkesh Patel 1:08:24Was there an opportunity after the end of World War II, before the Soviets developed the bomb, for the US to do something where either it somehow enforced a monopoly on having the bomb, or if that wasn't possible, make some sort of credible gesture that, we're eliminating this knowledge, you guys don't work on this, we're all just gonna step back from this. Richard Rhodes 1:08:50We tried both before the war. General Groves, who had the mistaken impression that there was a limited amount of high-grade uranium ore in the world, put together a company that tried to corner the market on all the available supply. For some reason, he didn't realize that a country the size of the Soviet Union is going to have some uranium ore somewhere. And of course it did, in Kazakhstan, rich uranium ore, enough for all the bombs they wanted to build. But he didn't know that, and I frankly don't know why he didn't know that, but I guess uranium's use before the Second World War was basically as a glazing agent for pottery, that famous yellow pottery and orange pottery that people owned in the 1930s, those colors came from uranium, and they're sufficiently radioactive, even to this day, that if you wave a Geiger counter over them, you get some clicks. In fact, there have been places where they've gone in with masks and suits on, grabbed the Mexican pottery and taken it out in a lead-lined case. People have been so worried about it but that was the only use for uranium, to make a particular kind of glass. So once it became clear that there was another use for uranium, a much more important one, Groves tried to corner the world market, and he thought he had. So that was one effort to limit what the Soviet Union could do. Another was to negotiate some kind of agreement between the parties. That was something that really never got off the ground, because the German Secretary of State was an old Southern politician and he didn't trust the Soviets. He went to the first meeting, in Geneva in ‘45 after the war was over, and strutted around and said, well, I got the bomb in my pocket, so let's sit down and talk here. And the Soviet basically said, screw you. We don't care. We're not worried about your bomb. Go home. So that didn't work. Then there was the effort to get the United Nations to start to develop some program of international control. And the program was proposed originally by a committee put together by our State Department that included Robert Oppenheimer, rightly so, because the other members of the committee were industrialists, engineers, government officials, people with various kinds of expertise around the very complicated problems of technology and the science and, of course, the politics, the diplomacy. In a couple of weeks, Oppenheimer taught them the basics of the nuclear physics involved and what he knew about bomb design, which was everything, actually, since he'd run Los Alamos. He was a scientist during the war. And they came up with a plan. People have scoffed ever since at what came to be called the Acheson-Lilienthal plan named after the State Department people. But it's the only plan I think anyone has ever devised that makes real sense as to how you could have international control without a world government. Every country would be open to inspection by any agency that was set up. And the inspections would not be at the convenience of the country. But whenever the inspectors felt they needed to inspect. So what Oppenheimer called an open world. And if you had that, and then if each country then developed its own nuclear industries, nuclear power, medical uses, whatever, then if one country tried clandestinely to begin to build bombs, you would know about it at the time of the next inspection. And then you could try diplomacy. If that didn't work, you could try conventional war. If that wasn't sufficient, then you could start building your bombs too. And at the end of this sequence, which would be long enough, assuming that there were no bombs existing in the world, and the ore was stored in a warehouse somewhere, six months maybe, maybe a year, it would be time for everyone to scale up to deterrence with weapons rather than deterrence without weapons, with only the knowledge. That to me is the answer to the whole thing. And it might have worked. But there were two big problems. One, no country is going to allow a monopoly on a nuclear weapon, at least no major power. So the Russians were not willing to sign on from the beginning. They just couldn't. How could they? We would not have. Two, Sherman assigned a kind of a loudmouth, a wise old Wall Street guy to present this program to the United Nations. And he sat down with Oppenheimer after he and his people had studied and said, where's your army? Somebody starts working on a bomb over there. You've got to go in and take that out, don't you? He said, what would happen if one country started building a bomb? Oppenheimer said, well, that would be an act of war. Meaning then the other countries could begin to escalate as they needed to to protect themselves against one power, trying to overwhelm the rest. Well, Bernard Baruch was the name of the man. He didn't get it. So when he presented his revised version of the Acheson–Lilienthal Plan, which was called the Baruch Plan to the United Nations, he included his army. And he insisted that the United States would not give up its nuclear monopoly until everyone else had signed on. So of course, who's going to sign on to that deal? Dwarkesh Patel 1:15:24I feel he has a point in the sense that — World War II took five years or more. If we find that the Soviets are starting to develop a bomb, it's not like within the six months or a year or whatever, it would take them to start refining the ore. And to the point we found out that they've been refining ore to when we start a war and engage in it, and doing all the diplomacy. By that point, they might already have the bomb. And so we're behind because we dismantled our weapons. We are only starting to develop our weapons once we've exhausted these other avenues. Richard Rhodes 1:16:00Not to develop. Presumably we would have developed. And everybody would have developed anyway. Another way to think of this is as delayed delivery times. Takes about 30 minutes to get an ICBM from Central Missouri to Moscow. That's the time window for doing anything other than starting a nuclear war. So take the warhead off those missiles and move it down the road 10 miles. So then it takes three hours. You've got to put the warhead back on the missiles. If the other side is willing to do this too. And you both can watch and see. We require openness. A word Bohr introduced to this whole thing. In order to make this happen, you can't have secrets. And of course, as time passed on, we developed elaborate surveillance from space, surveillance from planes, and so forth. It would not have worked in 1946 for sure. The surveillance wasn't there. But that system is in place today. The International Atomic Energy Agency has detected systems in air, in space, underwater. They can detect 50 pounds of dynamite exploded in England from Australia with the systems that we have in place. It's technical rather than human resources. But it's there. So it's theoretically possible today to get started on such a program. Except, of course, now, in like 1950, the world is awash in nuclear weapons. Despite the reductions that have occurred since the end of the Cold War, there's still 30,000-40,000 nuclear weapons in the world. Way too many. Dwarkesh Patel 1:18:01Yeah. That's really interesting. What percentage of warheads do you think are accounted for by this organization? If there's 30,000 warheads, what percentage are accounted for? Richard Rhodes 1:18:12All.Dwarkesh Patel 1:18:12Oh. Really?  North Korea doesn't have secrets? Richard Rhodes 1:18:13They're allowed to inspect anywhere without having to ask the government for permission. Dwarkesh Patel 1:18:18But presumably not North Korea or something, right? Richard Rhodes 1:18:21North Korea is an exception. But we keep pretty good track of North Korea needless to say. Dwarkesh Patel 1:18:27Are you surprised with how successful non-proliferation has been? The number of countries with nuclear weapons has not gone up for decades. Given the fact, as you were talking about earlier, it's simply a matter of refining or transmuting uranium. Is it surprising that there aren't more countries that have it?Richard Rhodes 1:18:42That's really an interesting part. Again, a part of the story that most people have never really heard. In the 50s, before the development and signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which was 1968 and it took effect in 1970, a lot of countries that you would never have imagined were working on nuclear weapons. Sweden, Norway, Japan, South Korea. They had the technology. They just didn't have the materials. It was kind of dicey about what you should do. But I interviewed some of the Swedish scientists who worked on their bomb and they said, well, we were just talking about making some tactical

Our friends at The Week (where, fun fact, The Retrospectors met) have a great podcast we'd like to share with you for your Saturday listening pleasure.It's called The Overview, and it's the perfect accompaniment to our shows this week on the SOLAR APOCALYPSE and NUCLEAR DIPLOMACY - because it's about the future of nuclear power.As the world races to decarbonise, nuclear power is being touted as an essential energy source. But safety fears remain, along with claims that nuclear reactors are too expensive and too slow to build. So just what would it take to win over the nuclear sceptics?Presented by Julia O'Driscoll, with guests Richard Rhodes, author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb, and Douglas Parr, chief scientist and policy director at Greenpeace UK. Thanks to The Week's Kari Wilkin. Music and Sound Design by Rich Jarman. Produced by Rich Jarman for Rethink Audio.Follow The Overview to discover all episodes and get new ones as they drop: https://podfollow.com/the-overview-1 Our GDPR privacy policy was updated on August 8, 2022. Visit acast.com/privacy for more information.

On this episode of Our American Stories, author Richard Rhodes shares the amazing story of Austria-born turned Hollywood movie star, Hedy Lamarr. She was known for her beauty, but her accomplishments go far beyond her appearance, including inventing what would become WiFi, GPS, and Bluetooth. David and Zela Flor give us a look at what "Blue Zone" living in Loma Linda, California, is really like and how there way of clean living produces results you'd never imagine. Support the show (https://www.ouramericanstories.com/donate)   Time Codes: 00:00 - Hedy Lamarr: The 40s "Bombshell" Mind Behind Secure WiFi, GPS And Bluetooth 35:00 - They're One of the Youngest Couples in Their Community and Doing Aerobics... at 90?!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Week's new podcast explores the past, present and future of an idea in the news with insights from specialist experts. As the world races to decarbonise, nuclear power is being touted as an essential energy source. But safety fears remain, along with claims that nuclear reactors are too expensive and too slow to build. So just what would it take to win over the nuclear sceptics? This is The Overview.Presented by Julia O'Driscoll, with guests Richard Rhodes, author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb, and Douglas Parr, chief scientist and policy director at Greenpeace UK. Thanks to The Week's Kari Wilkin. Music and Sound Design by Rich Jarman. Produced by Rich Jarman.Follow The Overview wherever you get your podcasts.

In this week's episode, host Daniel Raimi talks with Michael Craig, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan who studies energy systems. Craig and Raimi discuss a recent study coauthored by Craig that explores how energy models can better incorporate variations in weather and climate and why an exchange of data between energy and climate modelers is crucial to helping keep the lights on. Craig outlines a research agenda that describes near-term and long-term steps to bridge the divide between energy and climate models; he also shares advice for interdisciplinary collaboration. References and recommendations: “Overcoming the disconnect between energy system and climate modeling” by Michael T. Craig, Jan Wohland, Lauren P. Steep, Alexander Kies, Bryn Pickering, Hannah C. Bloomfield, Jethro Browell, Matteo De Felice, Chris J. Dent, Adrien Deroubaix, Felix Frischmuth, Paula L. M. Gonzalez, Aleksander Grochowicz, Katharina Gruber, Philipp Härtel, Martin Kittel, Leander Kotzur, Inga Labuhn, Julie K. Lundquist, Noah Pflugradt, Karin van der Wiel, Marianne Zeyringer, and David J. Brayshaw; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2542435122002379 NextGenEC at the University of Reading; https://research.reading.ac.uk/met-energy/ “Downscaling Techniques for High-Resolution Climate Projections: From Global Change to Local Impacts” by Rao Kotamarthi, Katharine Hayhoe, Linda O. Mearns, Donald Wuebbles, Jennifer Jacobs, and Jennifer Jurado; https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/downscaling-techniques-for-highresolution-climate-projections/C261452F6DECC0372077B7533414CD95 “The Making of the Atomic Bomb” by Richard Rhodes; https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/The-Making-of-the-Atomic-Bomb/Richard-Rhodes/9781451677614

As the world races to decarbonise, nuclear power is being touted as an essential energy source. But safety fears remain, along with claims that nuclear reactors are too expensive and too slow to build. So just what would it take to win over the nuclear sceptics? This is The Overview.Presented by Julia O'Driscoll, with guests Richard Rhodes, author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb, and Douglas Parr, chief scientist and policy director at Greenpeace UK. Thanks to The Week's Kari Wilkin. Music and Sound Design by Rich Jarman. Produced by Rich Jarman.

There is a widely-held belief that strong governments deliver reforms and sustainable growth. Research, however, shows otherwise. In this episode, Uzair talks to Dr. Irfan Nooruddin about his research on this topic, based on his must-read book Coalition Politics and Economic Development: Credibility and the Strength of Weak Governments. Dr. Nooruddin is is the senior director of the Atlantic Council's South Asia Center and the Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani Professor of Indian Politics in the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. Irfan conducts research in the political economy of development, trade, and investment, and the challenges of democratization in the 21st century. He is the author of The Everyday Crusade (Cambridge University Press, 2022), Elections in Hard Times (Cambridge University Press, 2016), Coalition Politics and Economic Development (Cambridge University Press, 2011) and more than thirty scholarly articles and book chapters. In 2012, he was a Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC., and is a Team Member of Lokniti: Programme in Comparative Democracy in New Delhi, India. He has a PhD in Political Science from the University of Michigan and a BA in Economics from Ohio Wesleyan University. He was born and raised in Bombay, India. You can download his book from this link: https://www.coalitionpoliticsandeconomicdevelopment.com/chapters.html Reading recommendations: - Political Order in Changing Societies by Samuel Huntington - Democracy and Development by Adam Jaworski - Scientist: E. O. Wilson: A Life in Nature by Richard Rhodes

Richard Rhodes is a historian, a journalist, and is the author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Making of the Atomic Bomb." During our conversation, Richard talks about the technology and the people that led to the creation of the atomic bomb, the threat of nuclear war in modern times, nuclear winter, how nuclear weapons are influencing the war in Ukraine, and how we might mitigate the risk of a nuclear exchange.Richard also talks about his book "Scientist: E. O. Wilson: A Life in Nature." He details Ed Wilson's role in the history and science of evolution, sociobiology and the application of the evolutionary lens on human nature, the role of genes in human behavior, and his role in environmentalism and conservation.------------Support this podcast via VenmoSupport this podcast via PayPalSupport this podcast on Patreon------------Show notesLeave a rating on SpotifyLeave a rating on Apple PodcastsFollow "Keep Talking" on social media and access all episodes------------(00:00) Introduction(02:19) Developing an interest in writing non-fiction books(06:02) Shifting focus from fiction to non-fiction work(10:30) What about The Making of the Atomic Bomb was new and revelatory?(15:27) What from The Making of the Atomic Bomb is still not widely understood(21:21) The Manhattan Project and atomic technology(29:29) Nuclear winter - can we continue to prevent nuclear war?(36:50) Getting interested in E.O. Wilson(43:28) Ed Wilson: his upbringing, discoveries, and achievements(52:28) Sociobiology and Ed's dangerous ideas(01:06:12) The attempt to cancel Ed Wilson(01:12:12) Quotes from Ed Wilson and his place in the history of science(01:17:23) How a difficult childhood shaped Ed Wilson(01:23:02) Ed's enduring importance to the world, to science, to humanity(01:28:48) Finding meaning and spirituality in life

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Are you really in a race? The Cautionary Tales of Szilárd and Ellsberg, published by HaydnBelfield on May 19, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum. OR The Tragedy of the Einstein Letter and the Gaither Report; Cautionary Lessons from the Manhattan Project and the ‘Missile Gap'; Beware Assuming You're in an AI Race; The illusory Atomic Gap, the illusory Missile Gap and the AGI Gap Summary In both the 1940s and 1950s, well-meaning and good people – the brightest of their generation – were convinced they were in an existential race with an expansionary, totalitarian regime. Because of this belief, they advocated for and participated in a ‘sprint' race: the Manhattan Project to develop a US atomic bomb (1939-1945); and the ‘missile gap' project to build up a US ICBM capability (1957-1962). These were both based on a mistake, however - the Nazis decided against a Manhattan Project in 1942, and the Soviets decided against an ICBM build-up in 1958. The main consequence of both was to unilaterally speed up dangerous developments and increase existential risk. Key participants, such as Albert Einstein and Daniel Ellsberg, described their involvement as the greatest mistake of their life. Our current situation with AGI shares certain striking similarities and certain lessons suggest themselves: make sure you're actually in a race (information on whether you are is very valuable), be careful when secrecy is emphasised, and don't give up your power as an expert too easily. I briefly cover the two case studies, discuss the atmosphere at RAND, then draw the comparison with AGI and explain my three takeaways. This short piece is mainly based on Richard Rhodes' The Making of the Atomic Bomb and Daniel Ellsberg's The Doomsday Machine. It was inspired by a Slack discussion with Di Cooke. The ‘atomic gap', the Einstein-Szilárd Letter, and the Manhattan Project Here is a rough timeline of some key events around the Manhattan Project: 12 September 1933: Szilárd conceives the idea of a nuclear chain reaction, and keeps it a secret for the next six years. 2 August 1939: Einstein-Szilárd letter to Roosevelt advocates for setting up a Manhattan Project. 1 September 1939: Nazi invasion of Poland. 9 October 1941: Roosevelt approves the atomic program, subsequently Manhattan Project receives serious funding (eventually, 0.4% of GDP). June 1942: Hitler decides against an atomic program for practical reasons. December 1942: First chain reaction in Chicago. Szilard notes “I shook hands with Fermi and I said I thought this day would go down as a black day in the history of mankind.” 30 April 1945: Hitler kills himself. 7 May 1945: Nazi surrender. July 1945: Szilárd petition (signed by 70 scientists) calls for the bomb to be used only after Japan had refused to surrender, and for the decision to be made by Truman personally – and reiterated the original intention was to defend against the Nazis. 6 and 9 August 1945: The USA bombs Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 29 August 1949: First successful Soviet nuclear test. The Manhattan Project (and other US projects like the Apollo program) was a ‘sprint' project, in which the peak year funding reached 0.4% of GDP (Stine, 2009, see also Grace, 2015). Why did nuclear scientists like Szilárd, who kept the chain reaction secret and opposed nuclear weapons for decades after the war, advocate for and participate in the Manhattan Project? In Ellsberg's words: “How could he? The answer is he believed, even before others, that they were racing Hitler to the attainment of this power. It was German scientists, after all, who had first accomplished the fission of a heavy element. There seemed no reason to suppose that Germany could not stay ahead of any competitors in harnessing this unearthly energy to Hitler's unlimited ambitions for conquest. The specter of a possible Germ...

Richard Rhodes won a Pulitzer Prize for his definitive book on the development of nuclear weapons called “The Making of the Atomic Bomb.” It's one of 26 books he's written, several of them focused on the world in the nuclear age. He joins Tim to talk about the wartime effort that changed everything, The Manhattan Project. This Encore Episode was first released November 4, 2019. https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/shapingopinion/Encore_-_The_Building_of_the_Bomb.mp3 In 1938, nuclear fission was discovered in Nazi Germany just in time for Christmas. News of the scientific breakthrough was published in Germany, and later in a British scientific journal in 1939. At that same time, many Jewish scientists had escaped or were in the process of escaping from Nazi Germany. They would continue their lives and work in places like Canada and the United States. The persecution of the Jews was quickly brewing as the imminent threat of war loomed. These scientists knew the Nazis personally. They also knew that Germany still had many good scientists working on nuclear fission. This fact worried a group of Hungarian Jewish scientists who came to the United States from Germany. They wondered if the Nazis were developing an atomic bomb. They knew that it was possible, if not probable. How much progress have the Nazi scientists made? No one knew. Once Hitler had a bomb, would he use it? Everyone knew the answer to that question. Something else they knew, they had to help the United States develop the bomb before the Germans, and to do that, they had to get the attention of the President of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The same thing was true in Great Britain. They enlisted the support of Albert Einstein, who together with scientist Leo Szilard, signed a letter to the president informing him of the grave threat. It worked. Winston Churchill also made a persuasive argument of his own. That was the formal beginning of America's commitment to the nuclear age. The actual beginning was on Monday, August 6th 1945 when the United States would drop a bomb called “Little Boy” on the Japanese city of Hiroshima that would forever change the threat of war in the world. Colonel Paul Tibbets piloted a B-29 bomber called the Enola Gay that dropped the bomb that would kill at least 70,000 people, and through radiation poisoning that total would rise to somewhere between 90,000 and 160,000 within a year. That bomb was the first time in history that an atomic bomb would be used in warfare, bringing about a swift end to the Allies' war with Japan and that country's unconditional surrender. Just as the bomb sent shockwaves in its wake, so, too did the emergence of the nuclear age. For the first time, one bomb could eliminate entire cities, leaving immediate and residual devastation. This in the context of the burgeoning Cold War, where the United States stood up against its geopolitical rival the Soviet Union, which was on its way to becoming the world's other nuclear power. In the ensuing decades as tensions between the super powers ebbed and flowed, no one ever felt as safe as they once did before the nuclear age. Richard Rhodes has authored 26 books, and has studied the nuclear age like few others. He has been a visiting scholar at Harvard, MIT and Stanford. He is an emeritus member of the Atomic Heritage Foundation's Board of Directors, and has interviewed several of the Manhattan Project's scientists in his work. Links Richard Rhodes (website) The Making of the Atomic Bomb, by Richard Rhodes (Amazon) Manhattan Project, History.com The Atomic Heritage Foundation Why They called it The Manhattan Project, New York Times About this Episode's Guest Richard Rhodes Richard Rhodes is the author of 26 books including The Making of the Atomic Bomb, which won a Pulitzer Prize in Nonfiction, a National Book Award and a National Book Critics Circle Award; Dark Sun: The Making of the ...

Michael's new book How to Begin: Start Doing Something that Matters is now available at www.HowToBegin.com. During the first phase of the pandemic I experimented with a type of online gathering, which I called Cocktails and Questions. After getting myself a cocktail, five people in my circle would gather, and we all had six minutes to reflect on a question I had sent them the day before; they would talk without interruption. The question I had sent was designed to provoke reflection, vulnerability, and insight. One of my favourite questions was this: What are you holding on to, and why? Woven into that question is the insight that once we've taken hold of something, we become committed to it, often to an extent that's irrational, and one that no longer serves us. This applies to companies we love as well: it's hard to let go of the brands we're committed to. Sandra Sucher is the Professor of Management Practice at Harvard Business School, and author of a new book: The Power of Trust: How Companies Build It, Lose It, Regain It. Smart companies use the power of trust to keep their customers committed to them. How? Here's a hint: moral reasoning. Get‌ ‌book‌ ‌links‌ ‌and‌ ‌resources‌ ‌at‌ https://www.mbs.works/2-pages-podcast/    Sandra reads two pages from ‘The Making of the Atomic Bomb' by Richard Rhodes. [reading begins at 14:05]  Hear us discuss: What it takes to nurture moral courage. [21:54] | Navigating different morality: “Assume good intent.” [27:03] | Refining your understanding of moral leadership. [28:42] | Being a moral leader in a flawed system: “It's always possible to be a moral leader.” [35:29] | Welcoming moral leadership in an organisation. [36:52]

“Biophilia is the connection that human beings innately seek with the natural world.” - E.O. WilsonThis week on Biophilic Solutions, Monica and Jennifer speak with Pulitzer Prize-winning author Richard Rhodes about his latest work, Scientist: E.O. Wilson: A Life in Nature. Recorded in early December, a few weeks before Wilson passed away at the age of 92, this interview delves into Wilson's extraordinary life and contributions to the field of biology, Richard's interest in him as a subject, and the important role that science plays in society. We also explore Wilson's conception of biophilia and Richard's own relationship with the natural world. Show NotesScientist: E.O. Wilson: A Life in Nature by Richard Rhodes (2021)E.O. Wilson, A Pioneer of Evolutionary Biology, Dies at 92 (New York Times)A Biography of E.O. Wilson, the Scientist Who Foresaw Our Troubles (New York Times)The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes, Winner of the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction(1987)Why They Kill: Discoveries of a Maverick Criminologist by Richard Rhodes (2000)

Michael sits down with Pulitzer Prize winning author, Richard Rhodes! They talk about the writing process along with his new book, Scientist E.O. Wilson: A Life in Nature.

 If you have not figured out by now that this is a critically important year in the history of humanity then you have been on vacation off planet all year. In a year whose main theme was energetic sovereignty we certainly got our lessons in what that means, probably not as we imagined it would happen. Is this really the ascension process and are we going to make it? The answer to those questions is yes and yes and we have some interesting things happening this month as well as some carryover from last month.November ushers in the 7 energy (1 + 1 + 2021) which is the number of spirituality, introspection, higher thought, and awareness.  October was a 6 energy which brought in energy from the Descension process (heaven to earth) and with a 7 vibe in November we get to think about how we're going to use that energy and what it means to us. This is going to tie into the energy of November rather well, providing us with an energy toolbox to make more enlightened, intentional, and aware decisions and choices we are faced with after the chaos of October. More on that later in this article/podcast.The biggest news of the month, even bigger than the eclipses, is that November 1 begins with Mars at 0 Scorpio, entering into its sign of historical rulership. Before Pluto was discovered in 1930 Mars was the designated ruler of Scorpio. If you remember from the October 2021 Energy Report, the October 20 full moon was at 27 Aries, which was the degree and sign of Mars on January 1, 2021. Mars is highly significant this year and its movements offer a lot of insight into what is happening around us. Everything is significant now and everything is connected, so we can't disregard any of the clues and signs that point us in the direction of achievement and success on this journey.Pluto was assigned rulership of Scorpio at the beginning of the atomic age, in the early 1930s. While the atomic bomb wasn't dropped until 1945, there was already early work being done in the area of nuclear science in the 1930s. And I know this because the man who wrote the book ‘The Making of the Atomic Bomb', Richard Rhodes, was my neighbor in Kansas City and he hired me to transcribe the interviews he did of all of the scientists who were involved in the Manhattan Project and earlier nuclear projects. I got quite an education about the history of the nuclear movement by transcribing hundreds of hours of interviews at my kitchen table in 1983. Read the full article on the Enlightening Life blog at this link.  

During the first phase of the pandemic I experimented with a type of online gathering, which I called Cocktails and Questions. After getting myself a cocktail, five people in my circle would gather, and we all had six minutes to reflect on a question I had sent them the day before; they would talk without interruption. The question I had sent was designed to provoke reflection, vulnerability, and insight. One of my favourite questions was this: What are you holding on to, and why? Woven into that question is the insight that once we've taken hold of something, we become committed to it, often to an extent that's irrational, and one that no longer serves us. This applies to companies we love as well: it's hard to let go of the brands we're committed to. Sandra Sucher is the Professor of Management Practice at Harvard Business School, and author of a new book: The Power of Trust: How Companies Build It, Lose It, Regain It. Smart companies use the power of trust to keep their customers committed to them. How? Here's a hint: moral reasoning. Get‌ ‌book‌ ‌links‌ ‌and‌ ‌resources‌ ‌at‌ https://www.mbs.works/2-pages-podcast/    Sandra reads two pages from ‘The Making of the Atomic Bomb' by Richard Rhodes. [reading begins at 13:20]  Hear us discuss: What it takes to nurture moral courage. [21:09] | Navigating different morality: “Assume good intent.” [26:18] | Refining your understanding of moral leadership. [27:57] | Being a moral leader in a flawed system: “It's always possible to be a moral leader.” [34:44] | Welcoming moral leadership in an organisation. [36:07]

Pulitzer Prize-winning author Richard Rhodes joins us to talk about the remarkable story of science history: how a ravishing film star and an avant-garde composer invented spread-spectrum radio, the technology that made wireless phones, GPS systems, and many other devices possible. Beginning at a Hollywood dinner table, Hedy's Folly tells a wild story of innovation that culminates in U.S. patent number 2,292,387 for a "secret communication system." Along the way Rhodes weaves together Hollywood's golden era, the history of Vienna, 1920s Paris, weapons design, music, a tutorial on patent law and a brief treatise on transmission technology. Narrated with the rigor and charisma we've come to expect of Rhodes, it is a remarkable narrative adventure about spread-spectrum radio's genesis and unlikely amateur inventors collaborating to change the world.Order "Hedy's Folly" on Amazon! Please Subscribe and Share This Show! Show your support for Truth Be Told by shopping our website for official merchandise! www.truthbetoldworldwide.com

President Biden has set an ambitious goal for the United States to be carbon-neutral by 2050. Achieving it means weaning the country off fossil fuels and using more alternative energy sources like solar and wind. But environmentalists disagree about whether nuclear power should be part of the mix.Todd Larsen, executive co-director for consumer and corporate engagement at Green America and Meghan Claire Hammond, senior fellow at the Good Energy Collective, a policy research organization focusing on new nuclear technology, join Jane Coaston to debate whether nuclear power is worth the risks.And then the Times columnist Bret Stephens joins Jane to talk about why he thinks America needs a liberal party.Mentioned in this episode“Why Nuclear Power Must Be Part of the Energy Solution,” by Richard Rhodes in Yale Environment 360.“I oversaw the U.S. nuclear power industry. Now I think it should be banned,” by Gregory Jaczko in The Washington PostThe TV mini-series “Chernobyl,” a depiction of the 1986 explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant“America Could Use a Liberal Party,” by Bret StephensShare your arguments with us: We want to hear what you’re arguing about with your family, your friends and your frenemies. Leave us a voice mail message at (347) 915-4324. We may use excerpts from your audio in a future episode.You can find transcripts (posted midday) and more episodes of "The Argument" at nytimes.com/the-argument, and you can find Jane on Twitter @janecoaston.“The Argument” is produced by Phoebe Lett, Elisa Gutierrez and Vishakha Darbha and edited by Alison Bruzek and Paula Szuchman; fact-checking by Kate Sinclair; music and sound design by Isaac Jones.

Part 3 of our conversation with Richard Rhodes, author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning book, The Making of the Atomic Bomb. The conversation picks up the historical narrative of the WWII development and deployment of the atomic bomb right where it left off: with the US engaged in the conflict and scientists gathered in Los Alamos, NM to build the bomb. As the story moves toward its conclusion, listeners hear about the process of building the bomb and the end of the war. Visit us at: mynuclearlife.com Patreon: www.patreon.com/mynuclearlife

Richard Rhodes is the author of twenty-six books including The Making of the Atomic Bomb, which won a Pulitzer Prize in Nonfiction, a National Book Award, and a National Book Critics Circle Award; Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb, which was shortlisted for a Pulitzer Prize in History; and two further volumes of nuclear history. His latest book, Energy: A Human History, was published by Simon & Schuster in May 2018. During this episode of AMSEcast, Mr. Rhodes shares his thoughts on his various works, the drive required to write such authoritative volumes, and what's coming next.

In this episode of My Nuclear Life, Shelly Lesher continues her conversation with Richard Rhodes, author of award winning book, The Making of the Atomic Bomb. Their previous conversation left off with the time in history where the atomic bomb was only a theoretical plan in the scientific community. This episode picks back up with Richard introducing a man who managed the atomic bomb project named General Groves. Also discussed are Fermi and the first chain reaction, the risks scientists took to end the war, building the factories to produce bomb material, and preparing to create the bomb itself. Part 2 of 3. Visit us at: mynuclearlife.com Patreon: www.patreon.com/mynuclearlife

Today on My Nuclear Life, host Shelly Lesher speaks with Pulitzer Prize-winning author Richard Rhodes. This conversation has been broken up into three parts. This Part 1 discussion includes topics like the beginning of nuclear science as a field until the Manhattan Project was approved. You will hear parts of a speech in this episode given by Otto Hahn at the University of California, Berkeley and excerpt from Otto Frisch in 1967 from his talk called Fission: How it All Began. Visit us at: mynuclearlife.com Patreon: www.patreon.com/mynuclearlife

Merry Christmas from We Have Ways of Making You Talk. Over the next 12 days Al and James are reading extracts from some of their favourite books about the Second World War. Today Al is reading from Chindit, by Richard Rhodes James. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Join Mike Dudas and learn about the historic First Lutheran Church from Rev. Richard Rhodes as he tells of the first 170 years of the Church history. ETC Theatre is also performing the hilarious Trailer Park Christmas through December 12th. Get all the details on this and other events on the Island on Episode #112 of the Galveston Experience Podcast. For more info, check the Radio Galveston Island Events page at www.RadioGalveston.com

Episode Summary Dr. James L. Nolan, Jr., Chair and Washington Gladden 1859 Professor of Sociology at Williams College, joins McConnell Center Director Dr. Gary L. Gregg II to discuss Nolan’s recent book, Atomic Doctors: Conscience and Complicity at the Dawn of the Nuclear Age. Nolan shares how the discovery of his grandfather’s papers sent him on a journey researching the role of doctors in the Manhattan Project and culminated in the publication of his latest book. You won’t want to miss this exciting account of the dangers, struggles, and responsibilities these doctors faced while dealing with some of the most lethal weapons known to mankind. Links Mentioned James Nolan, Atomic Doctors: Conscience and Complicity at the Dawn of the Nuclear Age James Nolan, What They Saw in America: Alexis de Tocqueville, Max Weber, G. K. Chesterton, and Sayyid Qutb Eileen Welsome, The Plutonium Files: America's Secret Medical Experiments in the Cold War M. Susan Lindee, Suffering Made Real: American Science and the Survivors at Hiroshima  Richard Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb Ferenc Szasz, The Day the Sun Rose Twice: The Story of the Trinity Site Nuclear Explosion, July 16, 1945 Lecture: Dr. James Nolan on “Dark Lights, Bright Threads: What They Saw in America” Stay Connected Visit us at McConnellcenter.org Subscribe to our newsletter  Facebook: @mcconnellcenter Instagram: @ulmcenter  Twitter: @ULmCenter This podcast is a production of the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville. Views expressed in this show are those of the participants and not necessarily those of the McConnell Center.

Pulitzer Prize- and National Book Award-winning author Richard Rhodes reveals the fascinating history behind energy transitions over time—wood to coal to oil to electricity and beyond. People have lived and died, businesses have prospered and failed, and nations have risen to world power and declined, all over energy challenges. Ultimately, the history of these challenges tells the story of humanity itself. Through an unforgettable cast of characters, Pulitzer Prize-winning author Richard Rhodes explains how wood gave way to coal and coal made room for oil, as we now turn to natural gas, nuclear power, and renewable energy. Rhodes looks back on five centuries of progress, through such influential figures as Queen Elizabeth I, King James I, Benjamin Franklin, Herman Melville, John D. Rockefeller, and Henry Ford. In Energy, Rhodes highlights the successes and failures that led to each breakthrough in energy production; from animal and waterpower to the steam engine, from internal-combustion to the electric motor. He addresses how we learned from such challenges, mastered their transitions, and capitalized on their opportunities. Rhodes also looks at the current energy landscape, with a focus on how wind energy is competing for dominance with cast supplies of coal and natural gas. He also addresses the specter of global warming, and a population hurtling towards ten billion by 2100. Human beings have confronted the problem of how to draw life from raw material since the beginning of time. Each invention, each discovery, each adaptation brought further challenges, and through such transformations, we arrived at where we are today. In Rhodes's singular style, Energy details how this knowledge of our history can inform our way tomorrow.

The definitive history of nuclear weapons and the Manhattan Project. From the turn-of-the-century discovery of nuclear energy to the dropping of the first bombs on Japan, Richard Rhodes's Pulitzer Prize–winning book details the science, the people, and the sociopolitical realities that led to the development of the atomic bomb. This sweeping account begins in the 19th century, with the discovery of nuclear fission, and continues to World War Two and the Americans' race to beat Hitler's Nazis. That competition launched the Manhattan Project and the nearly overnight construction of a vast military-industrial complex that culminated in the fateful dropping of the first bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Reading like a character-driven suspense novel, the book introduces the players in this saga of physics, politics, and human psychology—from FDR and Einstein to the visionary scientists who pioneered quantum theory and the application of thermonuclear fission, including Planck, Szilard, Bohr, Oppenheimer, Fermi, Teller, Meitner, von Neumann, and Lawrence. From nuclear power's earliest foreshadowing in the work of H.G. Wells to the bright glare of Trinity at Alamogordo and the arms race of the Cold War, this dread invention forever changed the course of human history, and The Making of The Atomic Bomb provides a panoramic backdrop for that story. Richard Rhodes's ability to craft compelling biographical portraits is matched only by his rigorous scholarship. Told in rich human, political, and scientific detail that any reader can follow, The Making of the Atomic Bomb is a thought-provoking and masterful work.

Dr. Vince Houghton is the historian and curator at the International Spy Museum and joined ClearanceJobs for a chat on everything intelligence and espionage. Vince specializes in military and intelligence history, with specific expertise on late-WWII and early-Cold War eras. Prior to joining the International Spy Museum, Vince was a history professor at the University of Maryland, and is also former U.S. Army. He is the author of two books – Nuking the Moon: and Other Intelligence Schemes and Military Plots Left on the Drawing Board and The Nuclear Spies: America's Atomic Intelligence Operation Against Hitler and Stalin. Vince became interested in everything espionage, specifically nuclear weapons, as a young boy after reading The Making of the Atomic Bomb , by Richard Rhodes. Science & Technology really sucked him in after working through grad school where he became fascinated with nuclear weapon systems and other related concepts. Learn more on intel: news.clearancejobs.com/2020/08/10/secrets-covert-action-and-intelligence-experts-shaping-history Learn more on nuclear weapons intel: https://news.clearancejobs.com/2020/07/29/threat-analysts-real-life-dungeons-dragons-with-nuclear-weapons/

Award-winning environmentalist and author Michael Shellenberger joins Wolf Tivy and Ash Milton to discuss ecomodernism, the history of the atomic age, and why nuclear is the real green energy. On June 30, Harper Collins will publish Michael Shellenberger’s timely new book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All, which is available for pre-order on Amazon and has received strong pre-publication praise from Harvard’s Steven Pinker, Pulitzer-winning author Richard Rhodes, and climate scientists Kerry Emanuel and Tom Wigley. Apocalypse Never is a comprehensive debunking of environmental misinformation about everything from climate change and rainforest destruction to nuclear energy and renewables.

In this episode, we see how many scientists in the desert it takes to build an atomic bomb by watching the 1989 movie “Fat Man and Little Boy.” How did scientists and the military both collaborate and clash in the pursuit of the first nuclear weapon? What was the role of women scientists in this endeavor? Could you actually buy a condo in Manhattan even if you had the budget of the atomic bomb project? Tim Westmyer (@NuclearPodcast) and special guests/nuke experts Erin Connolly (@Erin_Conn17) and Kate Hewitt (@BlondNukeGirl) from Girl Security answer these questions and more. Before we started eating our Pentagon cakes, we recommend: -Day One, 1989 TV Movie -Robert Serber, The Los Alamos Primer: The First Lectures on How to Build the Atomic Bomb, 1992 -Richard Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, 1986 -Denise Kiernan, Girls of Atomic City: The Untold Story of the Women Who Helped Win World War II, 2014 -John Hersey, Hiroshima, 1946 -Kate Brown, Plutopia: Nuclear Families, Atomic Cities, And The Great Soviet And American Plutonium Disasters, 2015 -GirlSecurity.org -HighlyEnriched.com (coming soon) Check out our website, SuperCriticalPodcast.com, for more resources and related items. We aim to have at least one new episode every month. Let us know what you think about the podcast and any ideas you may have about future episodes and guests by reaching out at on Twitter @NuclearPodcast, GooglePlay, SoundCloud, TuneIn, Stitcher Radio, Facebook, SuperCriticalPodcast@gmail.com, and YouTube. Enjoy!

The data show that one of the biggest barriers to higher ed completion is mathematics -- yet until recently and according to Karon Klipple of Carnegie Math Pathways, it was treated with a Sputnik-era mentality. Now innovation in college-level math isn’t about fixing math dev ed, but rather ensuring that students are on the right pathway, taking the right math courses for their degree or program, and making sure they have the support they need to be successful. According to Klipple and Dr. Richard Rhodes, Austin Community College President/CEO, the solution to this mult-faceted problem requires a radically more holistic view and collaborative approach.

Richard Rhodes won a Pulitzer Prize for his definitive book on the development of nuclear weapons called “The Making of the Atomic Bomb.” It's one of 26 books he's written, several of them focused on the world in the nuclear age. He joins Tim to talk about the wartime effort that changed everything, The Manhattan Project. https://traffic.libsyn.com/shapingopinion/Manhattan_Project_-_auphonic.mp3 In 1938, nuclear fission was discovered in Nazi Germany just in time for Christmas. News of the scientific breakthrough was published in Germany, and later in a British scientific journal in 1939. At that same time, many Jewish scientists had escaped or were in the process of escaping from Nazi Germany. They would continue their lives and work in places like Canada and the United States. The persecution of the Jews was quickly brewing as the imminent threat of war loomed. These scientists knew the Nazis personally. They also knew that Germany still had many good scientists working on nuclear fission. This fact worried a group of Hungarian Jewish scientists who came to the United States from Germany. They wondered if the Nazis were developing an atomic bomb. They knew that it was possible, if not probable. How much progress have the Nazi scientists made? No one knew. Once Hitler had a bomb, would he use it? Everyone knew the answer to that question. Something else they knew, they had to help the United States develop the bomb before the Germans, and to do that, they had to get the attention of the President of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The same thing was true in Great Britain. They enlisted the support of Albert Einstein, who together with scientist Leo Szilard, signed a letter to the president informing him of the grave threat. It worked. Winston Churchill also made a persuasive argument of his own. That was the formal beginning of America's commitment to the nuclear age. The actual beginning was on Monday, August 6th 1945 when the United States would drop a bomb called “Little Boy” on the Japanese city of Hiroshima that would forever change the threat of war in the world. Colonel Paul Tibbets piloted a B-29 bomber called the Enola Gay that dropped the bomb that would kill at least 70,000 people, and through radiation poisoning that total would rise to somewhere between 90,000 and 160,000 within a year. That bomb was the first time in history that an atomic bomb would be used in warfare, bringing about a swift end to the Allies' war with Japan and that country's unconditional surrender. Just as the bomb sent shockwaves in its wake, so, too did the emergence of the nuclear age. For the first time, one bomb could eliminate entire cities, leaving immediate and residual devastation. This in the context of the burgeoning Cold War, where the United States stood up against its geopolitical rival the Soviet Union, which was on its way to becoming the world's other nuclear power. In the ensuing decades as tensions between the super powers ebbed and flowed, no one ever felt as safe as they once did before the nuclear age. Richard Rhodes has authored 26 books, and has studied the nuclear age like few others. He has been a visiting scholar at Harvard, MIT and Stanford. He is an emeritus member of the Atomic Heritage Foundation's Board of Directors, and has interviewed several of the Manhattan Project's scientists in his work. Links Richard Rhodes (website) The Making of the Atomic Bomb, by Richard Rhodes (Amazon) Manhattan Project, History.com The Atomic Heritage Foundation Why They called it The Manhattan Project, New York Times About this Episode's Guest Richard Rhodes Richard Rhodes is the author of 26 books including The Making of the Atomic Bomb, which won a Pulitzer Prize in Nonfiction, a National Book Award and a National Book Critics Circle Award; Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb, which was shortlisted for a Pulitzer Prize in History; and...

Richard Rhodes won a Pulitzer Prize for his definitive book on the development of nuclear weapons called “The Making of the Atomic Bomb.” It’s one of 26 books he’s written, several of them focused on the world in the nuclear age. He joins Tim to talk about the wartime effort that changed everything, The Manhattan Project. https://traffic.libsyn.com/shapingopinion/Manhattan_Project_-_auphonic.mp3 In 1938, nuclear fission was discovered in Nazi Germany just in time for Christmas. News of the scientific breakthrough was published in Germany, and later in a British scientific journal in 1939. At that same time, many Jewish scientists had escaped or were in the process of escaping from Nazi Germany. They would continue their lives and work in places like Canada and the United States. The persecution of the Jews was quickly brewing as the imminent threat of war loomed. These scientists knew the Nazis personally. They also knew that Germany still had many good scientists working on nuclear fission. This fact worried a group of Hungarian Jewish scientists who came to the United States from Germany. They wondered if the Nazis were developing an atomic bomb. They knew that it was possible, if not probable. How much progress have the Nazi scientists made? No one knew. Once Hitler had a bomb, would he use it? Everyone knew the answer to that question. Something else they knew, they had to help the United States develop the bomb before the Germans, and to do that, they had to get the attention of the President of the United States, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. The same thing was true in Great Britain. They enlisted the support of Albert Einstein, who together with scientist Leo Szilard, signed a letter to the president informing him of the grave threat. It worked. Winston Churchill also made a persuasive argument of his own. That was the formal beginning of America’s commitment to the nuclear age. The actual beginning was on Monday, August 6th 1945 when the United States would drop a bomb called “Little Boy” on the Japanese city of Hiroshima that would forever change the threat of war in the world. Colonel Paul Tibbets piloted a B-29 bomber called the Enola Gay that dropped the bomb that would kill at least 70,000 people, and through radiation poisoning that total would rise to somewhere between 90,000 and 160,000 within a year. That bomb was the first time in history that an atomic bomb would be used in warfare, bringing about a swift end to the Allies’ war with Japan and that country’s unconditional surrender. Just as the bomb sent shockwaves in its wake, so, too did the emergence of the nuclear age. For the first time, one bomb could eliminate entire cities, leaving immediate and residual devastation. This in the context of the burgeoning Cold War, where the United States stood up against its geopolitical rival the Soviet Union, which was on its way to becoming the world’s other nuclear power. In the ensuing decades as tensions between the super powers ebbed and flowed, no one ever felt as safe as they once did before the nuclear age. Richard Rhodes has authored 26 books, and has studied the nuclear age like few others. He has been a visiting scholar at Harvard, MIT and Stanford. He is an emeritus member of the Atomic Heritage Foundation’s Board of Directors, and has interviewed several of the Manhattan Project’s scientists in his work. Links Richard Rhodes (website) The Making of the Atomic Bomb, by Richard Rhodes (Amazon) Manhattan Project, History.com The Atomic Heritage Foundation Why They called it The Manhattan Project, New York Times About this Episode’s Guest Richard Rhodes Richard Rhodes is the author of 26 books including The Making of the Atomic Bomb, which won a Pulitzer Prize in Nonfiction, a National Book Award and a National Book Critics Circle Award; Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb, which was shortlisted for a Pulitzer Prize in History; and...

We speak to Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Richard Rhodes about his latest book, “Energy,” in which he chronicles the history of large-scale energy transitions and makes the case for nuclear power as a solution to the climate crisis. After reading Rhodes i had the EXACT reaction as the following.  Data must ALWAYS win!!  "Cravens and I, for example, both encountered respected scientists, men of honesty and integrity — in my case, the Nobel laureate physicists Hans Bethe and Luis Alvarez, among others — who quietly educated us in the relative risks and benefits of nuclear energy. As a result, we both concluded, independently, that the benefits greatly outweigh the risks." https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/the-curious-wavefunction/richard-rhodes-on-the-need-for-nuclear-power/ --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/movingforward/message

Today, Rokslide writer and paramedic Travis Bertrand hops on with us to talk about his first aid kit for hunting. We cover some controversial topics, dive into what items Travis carries and also touch on some situations we may find ourselves in. Backcountry First Aid & Survival Kits by Travis Bertrand -> https://www.rokslide.com/backcountry-first-aid-survival-kits/ Kifaru Pullouts -> https://store.kifaru.net/ultralight-pullouts-p22.aspx Backcountry First Aid by Richard Rhodes (2018) -> https://www.rokslide.com/backcountry-first-aid-kit/ Want a pre-made kit? Check out Adventure Medical Kits -> https://www.adventuremedicalkits.com/  

Dr. David Beck earned a PHD in Biomolecular Structure and Design and is the eScience Institute Director of Research and a Research Associate Professor in Chemical Engineering. Dr. Beck has been associated with eScience since 2009, formerly serving as the Director of Research for the Life Sciences. Beyond his biology and chemistry domain expertise, Dr. Beck provides experience in scientific data analytics and mining, parallel programming techniques for data intensive computing and high performance computing applications, and general  software design & engineering support. [1:10] What does post-doc mean: undergrad->PHD->post-doc (2 to 3 years to polish your skills): Biomolecular structure and Design (DNA/RNA/Protein design). How can you design new proteins/molecules. [3:05] Why start with computer science. Grew up when computers were becoming a commodity, so knew he wanted to do something with computers. His internship shaped his direction into biology/chemistry. The degree today would be bioinformatics, using computing with biology. [5:45] How David is leveraging his computer science degree, they use computers to find hidden structures in experimental data around biomolecules. [8:40] what is bio-informatics – a lot of data is generated, you need to know the right statistical models to apply to the data. [9:20] Opportunities exists in the pharmaceutical companies and also design microorganisms to remediate a contaminated site are some examples for careers. [12:10] What has David fired up is the broad adoption of data science methods in all domains of technology. There is a data revolution – called data science. [13:20] Getting through college: try new things, don’t get stuck with just the classes to get your degree expand outside of the core classes. We joked about gaming, but check out Foldit Game [15:50] ah ha moment – during graduate work was focused on simulation of proteins, he wrote those simulations. So he thought if we simulated thousands of molecule simulations and generated tons of data – but in the end the data was not really knowledge, they just had a lot of data. [18:40] – Best advice – you are not an impostor, this is a self-inflicted wound – it is all in your head and no true. And a habit – make sure there is something everyday in your job that you really love to do. Favorite Books both by Richard Rhodes: “Making the Atomic Bomb” “Energy: A Human Story” Free Audio Book from Audible. You can get a free book from Audible at www.stemonfirebook.com and can cancel within 30 days and keep the book of your choice with no cost.

In this episode, my guest is Jay Manning, partner at Cascadia Law Group, an environmental law firm, based in Olympia, Washington, in the US. In addition to working as an environmental attorney, Jay was the Chief of Staff for Washington Governor Christine Gregoire from 2009 to 2011. He was the director of the Department of Ecology where he helped clean up and restore the Puget Sound and passed a bill on water management. Recently, Jay helped create and now currently supports the Pacific Coast Collaborative, a partnership between the states of California, Oregon, Washington and British Columbia to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while spurring the economy. We discuss the economic opportunities governments have when they adopt environmentally friendly policies. We cover Jay’s experience of working with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to make a positive impact on the environment. From there, Jay describes his involvement at COP-21 where the Paris Agreement was signed. Jay believes we have the capabilities to reverse climate change right now and hopes we’re able to take advantage of these advancements in technology. Resources Book recommendations: Project Drawdown: http://bit.ly/2HKyxhR The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes: http://bit.ly/2HMzzKc Resources Cascadia Law Group website: https://www.cascadialaw.com Cascadia policy solutions: http://cascadiapolicy.com Pacific Coast Collaborative: http://pacificcoastcollaborative.org/ International Alliance to Combat Ocean Acidification: https://www.oaalliance.org/ You can read the transcript of this episode here: http://bit.ly/jay-manning-transcript Watch the full episode: https://sustainabilitym.at/Youtube-Jay-Manning

RGR pinball history RGR in the media Pinburgh sells out Betting on pinball Space cadet real pinball Zaccaria pinball app Stern Pro Circuit on ESPN Belles and Chimes Melbourne JJP future title rumour Drunk pinball Todd Tuckey on Counter Culture More Munsters impressions Mini playfields Marty loves cookie cutters

Gabe and Eric interview author, Richard Rhodes, on his latest book, Energy, A Human History. Richard Rhodes is the winner of the Pulitzer Prize, National Book Award, and National Book Critics Circle Award, and has  received research and writing fellowships from the Ford Foundation, National Endowment for the Arts, the Guggenheim Foundation, the MacArthur Foundation Program in International Peace and Security, and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. He has been a visiting scholar at Harvard and MIT, and a host and correspondent for documentaries on public television's Frontline and American Experience series.

In this episode, we followed chirping sounds in the desert and discovered GIANT RADIOACTIVE ANTS in the movie THEM! (1954). What happens to insects exposed to radiation in the real world? How did nuclear testing and atomic monster movies change public opinion on nuclear weapons? Where was Ant-man when the people Alamogordo needed him to calm these killer atomic ants? Tim Westmyer and returning special guest Tim Collins (@WarAndCake), PhD candidate studying British nuclear history, answer these questions and more. Before we nuke more insects to see what happens, we recommend checking out: -Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth, 1982 -Barry Atkinson, Atomic Age Cinema: The Offbeat, the Classic and the Obscure, 2018 -Spencer Weart, The Rise of Nuclear Fear, 2012 --Richa Malhotra, “Ants Trapped in Nuclear Bunker are Developing Their Own Society,” NewScientist, September 5, 2016 -Gerard J. DeGroot, The Bomb: A Life, 2006 -Richard Rhodes, Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb, 1996 -Godzilla (1954 movie) Check out our website, SuperCriticalPodcast.com, for more resources and related items. We aim to have at least one new episode every month. Let us know what you think about the podcast and any ideas you may have about future episodes and guests by reaching out at on Twitter @NuclearPodcast, GooglePlay, SoundCloud, TuneIn, Stitcher Radio, Facebook, SuperCriticalPodcast@gmail.com, and YouTube. Enjoy!

Richard Rhodes join Michael to discuss how companies are using innovative office spaces to attract talent.

In this episode, we interview Jonathan Elkind (Columbia University, former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy) and Clara Gillispie (NBR) about U.S. energy policy in Asia. Elkind and Gillispie discuss the role of energy in the “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” strategy, how countries in the region are responding, what U.S.-China trade tensions have to do with energy, and what they’d like to see from the Trump administration’s policies in the future.   2:30 How did your interest in energy policy begin? 4:50 What is the U.S. energy policy towards Asia? 8:49 Can you separate energy policy from broader policy toward Asia? 10:15 How do Japan and South Korea fit into our energy policy? 12:30 What are the primary concerns from other countries in the region? How have they been reacting to U.S. policy? 15:33 What is the future of U.S.-Russia relations on energy? 18:40 What are the prospects for a Russia-Japan energy pipeline? 20:12 How are U.S.-China tensions on trade affecting energy policy? References the report, “A Natural Gas Giant Awakens: China’s Quest for Blue Skies Shapes Global Markets” 27:55 How is the energy industry handling uncertainty in U.S. policy? 35:50 What have you seen in the Trump administration’s approach to investing in emerging energy technology? 40:20 What do you wish the administration would consider as it formulates energy policy? 43:58 What is the most promising energy source for the future and why? 45:00 What book on energy would you recommend to an Asia generalist? Richard Rhodes, Energy: A Human History Varun Sivaram, Taming the Sun: Innovations to Harness Solar Energy and Power the Planet Meghan O’Sullivan, Windfall: How the New Energy Abundance Upends Global Politics and Strengthens America's Power

This is one of the best dialogues Dr. Shermer has ever had in his quarter century of talking to the leading scientists and scholars of our time. Listen in as he and Pulitzer Prize- and National Book Award-winning author Richard Rhodes discuss nuclear weapons, North Korea, Iran, and Russia, the psychology of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), human violence and its causes, the “Bullet Holocaust” (the millions of Jews and others shot to death in Eastern Europe before the death camps ramped up their killing by gas), how people become serial killers (the socialization of violence), and his new book Energy: A Human History, which reveals the fascinating history behind energy transitions over time—wood to coal to oil to electricity and beyond. People have lived and died, businesses have prospered and failed, and nations have risen to world power and declined, all over energy challenges. Ultimately, the history of these challenges tells the story of humanity itself. In Energy, Rhodes highlights the successes and failures that led to each breakthrough in energy production; from animal and waterpower to the steam engine, from internal-combustion to the electric motor. He addresses how we learned from such challenges, mastered their transitions, and capitalized on their opportunities. Rhodes also looks at the current energy landscape, with a focus on how wind energy is competing for dominance with cast supplies of coal and natural gas. He also addresses the specter of global warming, and a population hurtling towards ten billion by 2100.

Between the First World War and the Second World War, there was another conflict that greatly impacted Europe. This was the Spanish Civil War. Although technically this was just a civil war between the Republicans and Nationalists, unofficially many of the nations that participated in the Second World War, were involved in the Spanish Civil War, at least unofficially. Hitler especially took advantage of this opportunity to perfect the strategies that he would use in the Second World War. My recommendation for an audio book is Hell and Good Company: The Spanish Civil War and the World It Made by Richard Rhodes. From the Pulitzer Prize-winning and best-selling author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb, the remarkable story of the Spanish Civil War through the eyes of the reporters, writers, artists, doctors, and nurses who witnessed it. Get this audiobook for free with a free trial of Audible through this link

On Saturday 27th October 1956, 26 year old Canadian sailor Richard Rhodes Henley committed armed robbery for the first and very last time, but he didn’t steal money, or booze, or drugs to feed his habit, he stole pornography to fuel his addiction to masturbation, and yet, so desperate was his carnal needs that it would drive him to commit murder.Murder Mile is a true-crime podcast and audio-guided walk of 300+ untold, unsolved and long-forgotten murder cases, all set within one square mile of the West End. Each episode is accompanied by photos, videos and an interactive murder map, so that no matter where you’re listening to this podcast, you’ll feel like you’re actually there. https://www.murdermiletours.com/podcast.html Murder Mile is researched, written and performed by Michael J Buchanan-Dunne of Murder Mile Walks with music written and performed by Erik Stein and Jon Boux of Cult With No Name with additional music by Kai Engel, Sergey Cheremisnov, and Kevin MacLeod, as used under the Creative Commons Licence 4.0 (Attribution) via Free Music Archive. A full listing of tracks used is on the script transcript and sources for each episode, as listed here. Follow us here:FacebookTwitterInstagramMurder Mile Discussion Group For a transcript of each episode, click here. If you’d like to sign-up for exclusive Murder Mile content, check out our Patreon Page by CLICKING HERE. And for OFFICIAL MERCHANDISE, please visit the Murder Mile Shop. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

NLS ANNOTATION: Hell and good company: the Spanish Civil War and the world it made DB81151 Rhodes, Richard. Reading time: 11 hours, 16 minutes. Read by Bill Burton. War and the Military

Chuck and Rachel offer a preview of events and upcoming podcast recordings at CNU.  Mentioned in this podcast: The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes, and Embedded podcast from NPR.

January 29, 2016 - Today’s history author, Richard Rhodes, has edited or authored several history books including The Making of the Atomic Bomb, winner of a Pulitzer Prize in non-fiction. His most recent book is Hell and Good Company: The Spanish Civil War and the World it Made. The fighting took place from 1936 to 1939, and so is often lost in the catastrophe of World War Two. But the Spanish Civil War featured many of the same players, and some names from literature that may surprise you. In many ways, Spain's fighting set the stage for the carnage that was to engulf the world in flames. History in Five Friday. It's the perfect way to kick off your modern weekend, with people from the past...

Big Science: Ernest Lawrence and the Invention That Launched the Military-Industrial Complex (Simon and Schuster) In Big Science: Ernest Lawrence and the Invention That Launched the Military-Industrial Complex, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Michael Hiltzik tells the fascinating story of how one man and one invention forever changed the course of scientific research.  Hiltzik explains how science went “big,” built the bombs that helped win World War II, and became dependent on government and industry. He also sheds new light on the forgotten genius who started it all, Ernest Lawrence. More than eighty years ago in Berkeley, California, a charming and resourceful young scientist with a talent for physics and perhaps an even greater talent for promotion pondered his new invention and declared: “I’m going to be famous!”  His name was Ernest O. Lawrence.  His invention, the cyclotron, would revolutionize nuclear physics, but that was only the beginning of its impact.  It would transform everything about how science was done, in ways that still matter today.  It would deepen our understanding of the basic building blocks of nature. It would help win World War II.   Its influence would be felt in academia, industry, and international affairs. Its progeny include the atomic bomb and the space program. It was the beginning of Big Science.Praise for Big Science“A fascinating biography of a physicist who transformed how science is done.”— Kirkus Reviews“Hiltzik here tells the fascinating story of how this exceptional scientist won support for his epoch-making research tool and then assembled and managed an unprecedented team of experts who used that tool to penetrate subatomic mysteries.  The continuing relevance of such issues will ensure a wide readership for this biographical inquiry into their origins.”— Booklist“In this dual history of Lawrence and the movement he single-handedly brought into being, Hiltzik… explains how Lawrence’s postwar research exceeded the budgets of universities and philanthropic foundations, necessitating government patronage… his portrait of Lawrence, who gave birth to the modern research lab through sheer force of will, is powerful.”— Publishers Weekly“Michael Hiltzik tells an epic story, one with arenas of tragedy as well as triumph, and he tells it well.”— Richard Rhodes, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian“Einstein famously formulated new theories of the universe while sitting alone in the patent office in Bern. Today, many endeavors in fundamental research require large budgets, elaborate facilities, and huge staffs. How did science become ‘Big Science’?  In this fascinating book, Michael Hiltzik gives us the inside story of this remarkable metamorphosis. This is a gripping biography of Big Science and of the people who originated it.”— Mario Livio, Astrophysicist, and author of Brilliant Blunders“20th-century science delivered a series of revolutions, none more instantaneous than the microseconds it took to explode the first atomic bomb. By framing this story—and the development of the cyclotron that made it possible—from the Lawrence/Livermore perspective rather than the Oppenheimer/Los Alamos perspective that has dominated most accounts, Michael Hiltzik sheds fresh light on the transition from small science to big science that we take for granted today. Especially timely is a fascinating account of Lawrence’s attempt to return to small science: how do you encourage a small group of scientists to produce big results, rather than the other way around?”— George Dyson, author of Turing's Cathedral: The Origins of the Digital UniverseMichael Hiltzik is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and author who has covered business, technology, and public policy for the Los Angeles Times for more than twenty years.  He currently serves as the Times’s business columnist.  His previous books include Colossus: The Turbulent, Thrilling Saga of the Building of Hoover Dam and The New Deal: A Modern History. In addition to the Pulitzer Prize, Mr. Hiltzik’s other awards include the 2004 Gerald Loeb Award for outstanding business commentary and the Silver Gavel from the American Bar Association for outstanding legal reporting.  He is a graduate of Colgate University and the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University and lives with his family in Southern California.

On the August 20, 2015 edition of Tell Somebody, Richard Rhodes appeared for the second time in as many weeks. Rhodes had been on the phone for the July 30 edition of the show, ahead of an August 9, 2015 speaking engagement in Independence, that would mark the 70th anniversary of the bombing of Nagasaki, Tell Somebody was in attendance at Community of Christ Church in Independence for Rhodes' speech, and was subsequently on hand to speak with him about an hour after the speech. Richard Rhodes was born in Kansas City, Kansas and grew up in Kansas City, Missouri and Independence, Missouri. He won the Pulitzer Prize for his 1986 book, “The Making of the Atomic Bomb,” and has written over 20 books on a wide variety of subjects. ​​Click on the pod icon above, or the .mp3 filename below to listen to the show, or right-click and choose "save target as" or "save link as" to save a copy of the audio file to your computer. You can also subscribe to the podcast, for free, at the HYPERLINK "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/tell-somebody/id303907790"iTunes store or other podcast directory. If you have any comments or questions on the show, or problems accessing the files, send an email to mail@tellsomebody.us. Follow Tell Somebody  on Twitter: @HYPERLINK "https://twitter.com/tellsomebodynow"tellsomebodynow.   “Like” the Tell Somebody page on facebook:  www.facebook.com/TellSomebodyNow

On the July 30 2015 edition of Tell Somebody, ahead of an August 9, 2015 speaking engagement in the area marking the 70th anniversary of the bombing of Nagasaki, Richard Rhodes talked about his early life in the Kansas City area, how violent criminals get that way, and about nuclear weapons. Richard Rhodes was born in Kansas City, Kansas and grew up in Kansas City, Missouri and Independence, Missouri. He won the Pulitzer Prize for his 1986 book, “The Making of the Atomic Bomb,” and has written over 20 books on a wide variety of subjects. ​​Click on the pod icon above, or the .mp3 filename below to listen to the show, or right-click and choose "save target as" or "save link as" to save a copy of the audio file to your computer. You can also subscribe to the podcast, for free, at the HYPERLINK "https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/tell-somebody/id303907790"iTunes store or other podcast directory. If you have any comments or questions on the show, or problems accessing the files, send an email to mail@tellsomebody.us. Follow Tell Somebody  on Twitter: @HYPERLINK "https://twitter.com/tellsomebodynow"tellsomebodynow.   “Like” the Tell Somebody page on facebook:  www.facebook.com/TellSomebodyNow

In this edition of the podcast, Richard Rhodes discusses the history of power, and how changing fuel sources has affected human civilisation in different ways. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Enrique Ganem. Segunda parte de "El Proyecto Manhattan". El extraño caso de Niels Bohr y Werner Heisenberg... uno de los momentos más importantes de toda la historia. Los dos proyectos: la bomba (Los Alamos) y el bombardero (Grupo de Bombardeo Mixto 509). Momentos cómicos y trágicos. Libros: "ENOLA GAY" de Gordon Thomas y Max Morgan-Witts y "THE MAKING OF THE ATOMIC BOMB" de Richard Rhodes (existe en castellano). Dos películas "COPENHAGEN" con Stephen Rea y Daniel Craig y "FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY" con Paul Newman. Todo esto y más. Contactos: elexplicador@yahoo.com.mx, Facebook: Enrique Ganem Sitio Oficial y Twitter: @ENRIQUE_GANEM. Gracias!.

Earl is the guest host tonight.Next week Patrick will be hosting.No Mail Bag, so on with the show:1) Republicans and Democrats.2) Killing in Chicago.3) Economics: The Bail-out.4) Free Markets.5) The Metric System.6) Mars Climate Orbiter.7) Nuclear Power/Isotopes/Manhattan Project/Uranium hexafluoride/Nuclear waste.Recommended books:1) The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes.2) Project Orion: The True Story of the Atomic Spaceship by George Dyson.3) Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb by Richard Rhodes.8) Evolution and Creationism.9) Charles Robert Darwin.

We speak with Richard Harrison, CEO of Smart Power Myanmar, a non-profit organization working to accelerate the adoption of decentralised renewables in Myanmar by providing data and evidence, convening key stakeholders, and offering financing solutions. We discuss the current energy landscape in Myanmar, the need for an integrated approach to electrification, the importance of offering financing solutions alongside electrification efforts, and the benefits of productive energy use.Recorded in May 2020Visit us at www.distributingsolar.com/podcast/smart-power-myanmarContact us at podcast@distributingsolar.comShow notes: (0:55) Richard's background and prior work in Myanmar(2:30) Introduction to Myanmar, its geographical, economic, and political background(8:05) Myanmar's electricity sector, progress in recent years, and electrification targets(11:40) Smart Power Myanmar's approach to accelerating electrification in Myanmar(13:55) Smart Power Myanmar's strategic focus and identified barriers to electrification (18:12) Approaches to providing commercial and consumer financing adopted by Smart Power Myanmar - equipment financing facility and the Energy Impact Fund(21:35) The origins of Smart Power Myanmar, and how the organisation came about(26:30) Overview of the Decentralised Energy Report for Myanmar(32:10) Minigrid operators, ESCOs, funding and subsidies for minigrids in Myanmar, and progress to date(35:45) Hydro minigrids in Myanmar (37:45) The integration potential between private minigrids and the public national grid(40:30) Productive Energy Use in minigrids, and the need for consumer financing solutions to support Productive Energy Use(44:50) Examples of productive energy users who have benefited from Energy Impact Funds(48:05) The impact of COVID-19 in Myanmar and for the energy sector(49:20) Recommended books: Hariri's Homo Deus, Richard Rhodes' Energy: A Human History, Gretchen Bakke's The Grid(51:00) Goals and hopes for electrification the next 5 years