Britain’s Nuclear Deterrent Development – Part Three

Vulcan to the Sky Trust • Aug 01, 2021

(A sign outside the Manhattan Project building in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, in 1943)

The BNTVA have been allowed to use this blog with kind permission from the Vulcan to the Sky Trust www.vulcantothesky.org

(J.R. Oppenheimer’s Los Alamos ID photo c.1943)


Julius Robert Oppenheimer was an American theoretical physicist and is among those who are credited with being the “father of the atomic bomb”. He was the head of the Los Alamos Laboratory, which was to be the Manhattan Project’s secret weapons laboratory. Oppenheimer was selected for the role by Brigadier General Leslie R. Groves, Jr., the director of the Manhattan Project.


For security, Oppenheimer and Groves needed a centralised, secret research laboratory in a remote location. The site chosen by them was a private boys’ school called the Los Alamos Ranch School. In November 1942 the school and surrounding land were bought by the United States Army’s Manhattan Engineering District, and converted into the secret nuclear research campus also known as Project Y.


In early 1943, after an assessment of developments, Oppenheimer determined that two projects should proceed forwards. He chose the ‘Thin Man’ project (plutonium gun) and the ‘Fat Man’ project (plutonium implosion). The gun-type weapon was to receive the bulk of the research effort, as it was the project with the least uncertainty.


The code names were created by Robert Serber, a former student of Oppenheimer’s who worked on the Manhattan Project. He chose them based on their design shapes. The ‘Thin Man’ would be a very long device, and the ‘Fat Man’ bomb would be round and fat. It’s also suggested that the shapes mirrored the US President Roosevelt (Thin Man) and the UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill (Fat Man).


The Hanford site in south-central Washington was established in 1943 as part of the Manhattan Project. The site was to be home to the B Reactor, which began functioning in September 1944 and was the first full-scale plutonium production reactor in the world. The reactor was to produce plutonium-239 by neutron activation. Plutonium-239 would be used for the production of the nuclear weapons.

19 August 1943 – The Quebec Agreement stipulated that the United Kingdom and the US would pool resources to develop nuclear weapons. The agreement merged the British Tube Alloys project with the American Manhattan Project, and created the Combined Policy Committee to control the joint project.

After the signing of the Agreement, James Chadwick and the team of prominent British scientists who had been working on the Tube Alloys project, transferred to the United States to contribute to the Manhattan Project. The scientists included William Penney, Rudolf Peierls, Klaus Fuchs and Mark Oliphant.


Brigadier General Leslie R. Groves, Jr. originally disapproved of the collaboration. He put the British scientists in limited roles to restrict their access to complete information. The text of the Quebec Agreement was vague in places, with loopholes that Groves could exploit to enforce this compartmentalisation.


Chadwick, Peierls and Oliphant were important enough that the bomb design team at the Los Alamos Laboratory needed them. Chadwick was in no doubt that the first duty of the British was to assist the Americans with their project and abandon all ideas of a wartime project in England. Before the end of 1943 the three had taken up indefinite residence in America.


In September 1943, Groves and Oppenheimer revealed the existence of the Los Alamos Laboratory to the three British. Oppenheimer wanted all three to proceed to Los Alamos as soon as possible, but it was decided that Oliphant would go to Berkeley to work on the electromagnetic process and Peierls would go to New York to work on the gaseous diffusion process.


Chadwick began a tour of the Manhattan Project facilities in November 1943, except for the Hanford Site where plutonium was produced, which he was not allowed to see. He became the only man apart from Groves and Oppenheimer to have access to all the American research and production facilities for the uranium bomb.


Observing the work on the K-25 gaseous diffusion facility at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Chadwick realised how wrong he had been about building the plant in wartime Britain. The enormous structure could never have been concealed from the Luftwaffe.


Over the next two years, the Combined Policy Committee met only eight times. The first meeting on 8 September 1943, established a Technical Subcommittee. James Chadwick, the head of the British Mission to the Los Alamos Laboratory, was nominated to be a part of the Subcommittee along with Groves’ scientific advisor, Richard C. Tolman. It was agreed that the Technical Committee could act without consulting the Combined Policy Committee whenever its decision was unanimous.


Chadwick ensured that British participation in the Manhattan Project was complete and wholehearted. With Churchill’s backing, he attempted to ensure that every request from Groves for assistance was honoured. James Chadwick surprised everyone by earning the almost-complete trust of project director Groves, Jr.


Chadwick endeavoured to place British scientists in as many parts of the project as possible in order to facilitate a post-war British nuclear weapons project to which Chadwick was committed. Requests were made by Groves, via Chadwick, for particular scientists to support the project. The British scientists arriving in America accelerated in the early months of 1944. The British team was going to be critical to the Project’s success.


Chadwick arranged for Niels Bohr to visit the US in December 1943. Bohr didn’t remain at Los Alamos. He made a number of extended visits over the next two years, but his contribution was enough for Robert Oppenheimer to credit him with acting “as a scientific father figure to the younger men”. Oppenheimer also gave Bohr credit for an important contribution to the work on modulated neutron initiators. “This device remained a stubborn puzzle,” Oppenheimer noted, “but in early February 1945 Niels Bohr clarified what had to be done.”


Bohr recognised early that nuclear weapons would change international relations. In April 1944, he received a letter from Peter Kapitza, a leading Soviet physicist, inviting him to come to the Soviet Union. The letter convinced Bohr that the Soviets were aware of the Anglo-American project, and would strive to catch up. He sent Kapitza a non-committal response, which he showed to the authorities in Britain before posting.


Bohr met Churchill on 16 May 1944, but found that they were not of the same minds. In a letter to Winston Churchill, Niels Bohr describes the immensity and success of the Manhattan Project in the US. Bohr also conveys to Churchill that British and American scientists were working together harmoniously to produce an atomic weapon. Finally, Bohr warns of the future change that could occur in international relations and competition due to the creation of nuclear weapons.


Churchill disagreed with the idea of openness towards the Russians to the point that he wrote in a letter: “It seems to me Bohr ought to be confined or at any rate made to see that he is very near the edge of mortal crimes.”


Oppenheimer suggested that Bohr visit President Franklin D. Roosevelt to convince him that the Manhattan Project should be shared with the Soviets in the hope of speeding up its results. Bohr’s friend, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, informed Roosevelt of Bohr’s opinions, and a meeting between them took place on 26 August 1944. President Roosevelt suggested that he should return to the UK to gain British approval.


In September 1944, a second wartime conference was held in Quebec to discuss plans for the final assault on Germany and Japan. The conference was codenamed OCTAGON. After the conference, Churchill spent some time with Roosevelt at his estate in Hyde Park, New York. They discussed post-war collaboration on nuclear weapons. On 19 September they signed the Hyde Park Aide-Mémoire. The details of the agreement included the line – “Full collaboration between the United States and the British Government in developing Tube Alloys for military and commercial purposes should continue after the defeat of Japan unless and until terminated by joint agreement”. It also detailed the plan to use the bomb against Japan, and Churchill’s distrust of Niels Bohr.


Leahy knew of this secret wartime agreement. Leahy never believed that the atomic bomb would work, and was perhaps not paying much attention to the meeting, had only a muddled recollection of what had been said. When the Hyde Park Aide-Mémoire was raised in a Combined Policy Committee meeting in June 1945, the American copy could not be found. The UK sent a photocopy on 18 July. Even then, Groves questioned the document’s authenticity until the American copy was located many years later in the papers of Vice Admiral Wilson Brown, Jr., Roosevelt’s naval aide. The document was apparently misfiled in Roosevelt’s Hyde Park papers by someone unaware of what Tube Alloys was. They thought it had something to do with naval guns or boiler tubes.


In June 1950, Bohr addressed an “Open Letter” to the United Nations calling for international cooperation on nuclear energy. In the 1950s, after the Soviet Union’s first nuclear weapon test, the International Atomic Energy Agency was created along the lines of Bohr’s suggestion, and in 1957 he received the first ever Atoms for Peace Award.


Back at Los Alamos, 17 July 1944 – a meeting was held and it was agreed a gun-type bomb using plutonium was impractical. A few months earlier it was discovered the plutonium-239 produced by the Hanford reactors had too high a level of background neutron radiation. If such plutonium were used in a gun-type design, the chain reaction would start in the split second before the critical mass was fully assembled causing the weapon to pre-detonate and blow itself apart in what is known as a fizzle. The ‘Thin Man’ wasn’t to be.


High priority and almost all of the research at the Los Alamos Laboratory was moved to the development of the plutonium based ‘Fat Man’ bomb – the implosion-type weapon. This was a far more difficult engineering task.


All gun-type work in the Manhattan Project was directed at the ‘Little Boy’ bomb. ‘Little Boy’ was a development and simplification of the ‘Thin Man’. Like the ‘Thin Man’ bomb, it was to be a gun-type fission weapon. The difference was its explosive power was produced from the nuclear fission of uranium-235, whereas ‘Thin Man’ was based on fission of plutonium-239.


In late 1944, Los Alamos started to move from research to development and bomb production. Increased production at Oak Ridge and Hanford showed promise of enough plutonium and enriched uranium for the bombs.


With the successful Allied landings in France on D-Day, 6 June 1944, the war in Europe appeared to be entering its final phase. Germany was no longer the intended primary target. Intelligence indicated that the German atomic program had not gone beyond the research phase. General Groves and his advisers turned their sights to Japan. The challenge was on, to complete the atomic bomb in time to end the war in the Pacific.



24 Jun, 2023
The National Service of Remembrance, held at The Cenotaph in Whitehall on Remembrance Sunday, provides the nation with a physical reminder of all those who have served and sacrificed, with British and Commonwealth soldiers, sailors, airmen and women represented, together with members of the emergency services and civilians, ensuring that no-one is forgotten.
23 Jun, 2023
Return to Tradition...
21 Jun, 2023
We have an update on the current situation regarding the provision of Coffin Drapes and Standard Bearers for the funerals of BNTVA veterans.
21 Jun, 2023
NAVAD will be celebrated at the National Memorial Arboretum at Alrewas, Staffordshire this year on Sunday 1st October 2023.
10 Jun, 2023
To all BNTVA Members Due to the issues being faced by the BNTVA, we are currently unable to produce or circulate editions of Campaign magazine. To assist with the very real need to get information out to its membership the BNTVA Trustees asked exposure magazine if they would accept an editorial section from the BNTVA. Because exposure is an editorial-based publication our team had to confirm with the constituent organisations that they sanctioned the measure. We are pleased to say that they have approved this inclusion as a benefit to our nuclear community. Within the BNTVA Editorial section, you will find announcements and information on the activities of the BNTVA. If you are not a member of the BNTVA but would like to become a supporter after reading this section please contact Shelly Grigg: s.grigg@bntva.com BNTVA Membership PO Box 8244 Castle Donington DE74 2BY
24 Mar, 2023
The Trustees have decided to set the Direct Debit amount to £0 for this year and will not process any cheques, they will be destroyed. Any payments already processed will be offered refunds. This is in recognition of the current financial hardship being suffered by many of our members and the poor service given by the BNTVA last year. Due to the restrictions on litigation, we remain unable to comment on certain matters and this will continue for at least the next six weeks after which we should be in a position to disclose everything to our members. We can certainly state that malicious gossip and speculation that the charity is suspended and being investigated by the Charity Commission is utter tripe. The only investigations being conducted at this moment are into former employees and members of the BNTVA. We have recently secured a significant court ruling in relation to the BNTVA archival material and as soon as the case is finalised we will also report on the matter. There have also been deliberate lies circulated about the archives and artefacts of the BNTVA. We can state that we are working to ensure no member of the Nuclear Community nor Researcher or Journalist working to the benefit of our community will ever have to pay to access the archives and artefacts of the BNTVA and that they will be protected in the future from the political upheavals that have been the hallmark of the BNTVA since its inception.
by Wesley Perriman 05 Feb, 2023
The BNTVA have received numerous enquiries regarding the Chef Executive Officer.
by Wesley Perriman 23 Jan, 2023
We are mindful that there is a lot of speculation and uncertainty as to what is happening with the BNTVA. Firstly we want to assure you that the organisation is still active and will be around for many years to come providing key services to our beneficiaries and associate membership.
by Ceri McDade 09 Nov, 2022
Open invitation from the Office of Veterans' Affairs
by w.perriman 15 Oct, 2022
More posts
Share by: