The bomb that will bring us together

Richard Rhodes wrote The Making of the Atomic Bomb which I have and am reading, slowly. Slow because a chief headache I got is that math and science are not my strong suit. Summarizing Part 1 so far of Rhodes' book, which takes the intrepid physicists and chemists, theoreticians and experimentalists, from the give or take 1900 to the cusp of the WW number 2 rumble. Well, before summarizing, I want to say that I rather view WW number 2 starting with either the expansion of the Jewish persecution laws (mid 1930's) or the Anschluss/Sudetenland absorption (happening about a year prior to the official start date of 1939).1 In both situations Hitler twisted such an environment of instability that escalation was dead certain and grounds were aplenty for other nations to intervene.

In the Sudetenland case, military rejoinder should have been plain as day as France and Russia had signed and sealed treaty obligations (and UK with a sort of handshake agreement) to resist a Hitler move to that region. From the little I gather, decisive (and collective) action by the old European powers at that circa 1938 time might have squashed the Reich's burgeoning but still sloppy war machinery. Though at the same token, France and UK's war machines were less burgeonful and quite sloppy at that time too. The appeasement period, I have heard argued, was partially intended to allow ramp up time for the what would be Allied forces' own war/death machinery. France, however, considering how she rolled over to Hitler's blitzkrieg'ing, well, she didn't quite ramp too good.2

Drats, I hate to flip-flop and I was all set to unequivocally say that once the Reich's stepped up her aggressive racist policies around 1935 a moral obligation to militarily intervene arose. I mean I would have to scratch my head bald and bloody raw to find where international intervention would not have improved a situation which had acts tantamount to genocide.3 But before I get accused of being a Jew lover, well, I backtrack.

One reason is the old chestnut that sovereignty rights are a big freakin deal. And Germany, right or wrong to outsiders' eyes, at that time mid 1930 time, should have sufficient latitude for how she treated her people. The main targets of persecution were political opponents even as Jews, among other disfavored groups, slowly found many (professional, legal, citizenry) rights restricted/stripped. The life and death part of the final solution did not manifest itself until late 1930's, at least not until Broken Glass Night (circa 1938) or perhaps probably after Hitler steamrolled Poland and gained access to a much larger number of Poles of Jewish faith to torture/murder.4 And until some significant life and death stakes are on the line, I cannot quite say that other nation-states were obligated to intervene with guns and tanks on behalf of how the Germans treated her people within her borders. Yikes, does that make me an anti-Semite?

One writer I really dig is David Markson. And, joy of bookworm joy, DM will be doing a reading/talk/whatever at the Union Square Strand Bookstore on September 5 for his new novel titled The Last Novel. DM's present style is basically something that you can pretty quickly catch from reading about 1 1/2 pages in of any of his last four novels, including Last Novel, so I will skip my paltry description of his writing.5 For his reviewers and admirers, I would ask: how is Last Novel different from his prior three novels, or how does it advance, refine, deviate from his now fairly established (but still radical) style, form, substance, etc? I mean, if it is more of the same old goodness, I can accept that, and gleefully. But I wonder if there is anything differently compelling with Last Novel that might deserve special notice/attention.6 I ask because from reviews and criticism I have come across thus far, aside from the effusive praise and brief bio, there is only more effusive praise and bio.

Otherwise, I am quite looking forward to that big Sept 5 date. Anxious over what I should ask him to inscribe if he is kind enough to do an autograph, or two, for me. I hardly get into the autograph thing, and I would be totally unfamiliar with the process and protocols that goes into these bookstore events. As well, even these weeks in advance, I am formulating questions or small talk talking points to contribute for either the possible Q&A or brief 1 on 1 face time payoff if there is an autograph line. I hardly remember when I was last so heavy with anticipation. The analogy goes like this: DM = Justin Timberlake, me = HS sophomore mall princess dreaming of that box.7

But this is the point.

Orsen Welles directed a movie titled The Stranger where a war crimes investigator/Nazi hunter is hot on the tail of a Nazi who somehow assimilated himself in small town America.8 During a dinnertime conversation, the villain reveals his villainous past despite his Our Town sheep costume via an imprudent assertion that Marx was not a German but a Jew. Later the hero/investigator/hunter comes up with his heroic hunch by figuring only a Nazi scumbag would draw that sort of distinction. I did not know/recall that Marx was a Jew or a German, though I probably did know and really, really should have recalled.

Jews contributed over 30 books of the Christian bible, depending on the Christian sect, way over 30 books.9 When the church pastor gives his/her lesson about Job, those scriptures are from a Jew about a Jew.

Actually, that point would take forever. I won't be a coy goy, this is the dirty point and I'll make it brief: Fuck it, I am anti-Semitic.10 Institutionalized faith blows.11

So back to Part 1 summarizing: the atom is still a question mark at around 1900's. Cavendish-HQ'ed Rutherford experiments with alpha particle projectiles lead to the conclusion of the atom's nucleus, massive and electrically charged, with oppositely charged stuff about it. Already formed was a suspicion of tremendous power potential. Copenhagen-located Bohr and Moseley did experiments involving the periodic table and something was learned about the electron, which are the oppositely charged stuff about Rutherford's nucleus. Then and around then, World War I and lots of woe and death. Then something particle accelerator,12 Joliot-Curie, Chadwick's gamma ray experiments, and the big thing in 1932: the neutron, which was determined to be ass-massive like protons but w/o electric charge. Big because neutron had the capability of penetration previously unavailable for scientists.

1932 and Europe obviously also meant the rise of Hitler. A lot of chemists and physicists had Jewish issues and as Nazism progressed things got hairier for many scientists. The international community did very little very late, which meant too late for many people who were of Jewish faith (or had ancestors who were) and just in the nick of time for the lucky not as many.

Through it all, more discoveries and experiments, along with fears and dreams of the potential energy from atomic exploration. Uranium, Fermi, Einstein, Bohr's liquid drop model. Finally, barium formed from uranium, Meitner, Frisch, Hahn and Straussmann.13 Essentially, the nucleus is like a water drop, neutrons hitting it would make it wobble, as it wobbles it goes from more or less circular to oscillating, ovally elongations. At that time, the strong force that kept the circular shape of the nucleus would weaken because strong force operates only over short distances, and the distance had widen because of the neutron impact and oscillation. At the same time, the electrical repulsion forces would increase, think water balloon tossed in the air. The nucleus would be pushed more ovally until it forms a waist or become like an hourglass, however, once that happens, the narrowing waist would bring the strong force back into play and the hourglass would squeeze closer and closer until poof and pop, one big nucleus become two smaller nuclei, along with a hell of a lot of energy being freed, something that E=mc(2) would probably aid in calculating. By then, most of the hearty band of superbad nerds, I mean scientists, had resettled in the New World. And World War 2? Awaiting, I assume, in Part 2.

If the summary made no/little sense, well, imagine that stretched across 300 pages of Making of Atomic Bomb. Equations are a language I cannot read. Still, it makes the subway ride go by faster.

Someone said, "I will have nothing to do with a bomb." Guess which scientist.14





----------------------------------------

1. This focus on Germany takes a rather skewered view as a lot of bad shit was going down in Asia too, and I am totally ignoring the implication that a stronger and earlier response from US, UK, etc against Japan and in support of China in the 1930's could have made things quite different (both in Asia and Europe). But I cannot clearly see how: Asia is/was seen as a beneath official notice, colonial trophy anyway and China, well, she was in such a sad conflicted state that Japan's military imposition could hardly be described as worsening her situation. However, Japan's abuse of soldiers and civilians in the 1930's and throughout Asia probably did require the international community to kick Jap asses sooner. Anschluss refers to Austria, and Sudetenland refers to, I think, the Bohemia part of Czechoslovakia.

2. You will probably come across people saying that the Brits and French were routed out of Europe due to bad strategy that allowed the Germans to divide their forces. I guess. But you know what, I'm slightly glad Paris did not got the shit pounded out of her like London or Dresden.

3. "Acts tantamount to genocide" is a fucking cowardly phrase which I more or less credit to Bill Clinton. The quick and dirty is that saying something is genocide, by international law, would require action, while saying acts tantamount to genocide basically permitted many, many folks to get systematically slaughtered, raped, and tortured.

4. Sort of explained if you continue reading. Sort of. By the way, Hitler's hate machine also preyed upon gays, Catholics, etc., but I'll presume in WW2's case, scale is not insignificant in assigning the main victims.

5. If you aren't even going to read 1 1/2 pages, then I especially should save my attempt at a what would be a paltry description.

6. Which is to say I have not read the new book yet. I have it, and it is on my to read pile, but I have not read it yet.

7. The instructions apparently are: (1) cut a hole in a box; (2) put your junk in that box; and (3) make her open the box.

8. Edward G. Robinson, the hero/investigator/hunter, is a tremendous character actor. Made great movies that much greater, plus terrific cartoons (Bugs Bunny, Courageous Cat & Minute Mouse) that much terrific-er.

9. The Bible: Part 1, aka Old Testament, for sure, right? Anyway, if I had anticipated I was just going to say what I had to say with essentially one throwaway line, I would not have bothered googling about the Old Testament. The main parts of the Christian bible that matches with the Jewish bible are about 36 books. However, the actually number of Jews writing (recording/telling) were probably less as certainly a few dudes (Moses, for one) got credit for multiple books (Pentateuc, for Moses' multiples).

10. Well, I am. Though I hope to avoid getting on the ADL and/or JDL shitlists.

11. The rituals, costumes, music, poetry, etc. are probably exquisite and fun. And the people, as individuals, are probably and typically deeply flawed and deeply beautiful, as people normally are.

12. Maybe I just missed the significance of Lawrence's cyclotron but I did not get its exact contribution for atomic research so far.

13. Einstein said of Lise Meitner, "the German Madame Curie." Which gives no notice of the fact that she was Austrian, her ancestry included folks who practiced the Jewish faith, and she was a baptized Lutheran.

14. I'll give it away, later; but, as well, there's always google.