Skip to main content

Militarised Scientists


From the series Atom and industrialisation of science


The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers” [Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto).

The Manhattan Project scientists

In Brighter Than a Thousand Suns: A Personal History of the Atomic Scientists, Robert Jungk [1913-1994] writes that the Manhattan Project was a labyrinth of winding paths and dead ends.

Commenting on Jungk’s romanticised account of the first phase of the history of the atomic bomb, Edward Teller [1908-2003], often called the “father” of the H-bomb, wrote: “There is no mention of the futile efforts of the scientists in 1939 to awaken the interest of the military authorities in the atomic bomb. The reader does not learn about the dismay of scientists faced with the necessity of planned research. He does not find out about the indignation of engineers asked to believe in the theory and on such an airy basis to construct a plant”. Teller highlights the resistance of the engineers to accepting theories, incomprehensible to them at the time, of quantum and relativistic physics and the unease of the scientists in accepting the military-industrial management of what was a giant process of industrialisation and militarisation of science.

From August 13, 1942, the date of the project’s inception, atomic scientists were defined simply as “scientific personnel”, lost their privileged position, and had to submit to the strict rules of military secrecy. Jungk writes that never before had a host of such brilliant minds been subjected to the yoke of a way of working and living so foreign to their habits. That they could not publish their work until the end of the war was a natural consequence of this regimen. In order to prevent information on nuclear fission and chain reaction being passed on to German scientists, British and American scientists led by Leó Szilárd [1898-1964] — many of whom were of Jewish heritage — were the first to recommend secrecy, even before the outbreak of war. But the military authorities went even further they erected a kind of invisible wall around each area of research, so that no area knew what the others were working on.

Militarisation of the Manhattan Project

The war inevitably militarised the Manhattan Project. “Compartmentalisation” was introduced which isolated the different groups of scientists. Barely a dozen, out of all the hundreds of thousands of people who were employed on the project in one way or another, could have a comprehensive view of the whole complex. Only a tiny fraction of the staff knew that they were working on an atomic bomb; the vast majority of the employees at the Los Alamos computing facility had no inkling of the real purpose of the complex calculations they performed with their computing machines. The secrecy was such that Vice President Harry Truman himself did not learn about the Manhattan Project until April 25, 1945, after the death of President Franklin D. Roosevelt on the 12th of that month. When an exchange of views between people working in different fields was absolutely essential, special permission had to be obtained from the military administration.

This “compartmentalisation” was regulated by decrees, even though the military and the anti-espionage agencies had already, by means of police investigations, interrogations and questionnaires, obtained the broadest possible guarantees on the private and political background of the scientists, as well as on their individual character, and monitored their every step with a surveillance system that was studied down to the smallest detail. Those who lived in Chicago or in one of the three secret cities built from the ground up in 1943 — Oak Ridge, Hanford and Los Alamos — were subject to censorship of all mail they received or sent. Telephone conversations were constantly monitored, and hotel doormen were counter-espionage agents. The most important atomic scientists had their own bodyguards, who accompanied them everywhere. Those who were not trusted one hundred per cent were watched even more intensely. Secret agents followed their every step without their knowledge and microphones were hidden in their offices.

The man who ruled over the Manhattan Project was General Leslie Richard Groves [1896-1970]. He was 46 years old when he was put in charge of the project on September 17th, 1942. Immediately, inevitable conflicts arose between the scientists and the military management, particularly between Groves and Szilárd, the Hungarian Jewish physicist who conceived the nuclear chain reaction in 1933 and patented the idea in 1936. The letter of August 20, 1939 to President Roosevelt initiating American involvement in the construction of the atomic bomb was written by him and was also signed by Albert Einstein. For Groves, “we should never have had an atom bomb if Szilárd had not shown such determination during the first years of the war. But as soon as we got going, so far as I was concerned he might just as well have walked the plank!".

It was particularly difficult for the Danish physicist Niels Bohr [1885-1962] to keep to the rules of secrecy. After fleeing Denmark, he was no longer treated as a human being, but as a valuable secret weapon, which in no way could be allowed to fall into the hands of the enemy. Jungk relates that in the “Mosquito” plane that carried him across the North Sea, Bohr was placed on the edge of the hatch from which bombs were dropped, so that he could be dropped into the sea in the event of a German attack. When he arrived in New York together with his son Aage, two British secret service officials stuck to his heels, and he was also followed by two FBI agents.

The fear of the German atomic bomb

In his 1979 book Scientists in Power, Spencer R. Weart [born 1942], director of the Centre for History of Physics at the American Institute of Physics (AIP) from 1971 until his retirement in 2009, describes the conflict between atomic scientists and the chemical company DuPont. Numerous scientists at the University of Chicago’s Metallurgical Laboratory (or Met Lab), which was founded in February 1942, were outraged when, in June 1942, the military authorities decided to give the large industrial company the responsibility for running the Laboratory as part of the Manhattan Project.

Weart speaks of an attitude of revolt on the part of the scientists in Chicago, who were convinced that the work would not proceed satisfactorily if they were not given control over the project instead of bureaucrats, military or engineers who knew nothing about nuclear physics. This conflict between scientists and engineers represents a phase in the historical process of development of capitalism and affects most sectors: the expropriation of autonomous artisan labour and its subordination to capital in the form of wage labour.

The Chicago scientists’ protest was kept at bay by their fear that Germany would win the race for the atomic bomb. Although the international community of nuclear scientists had splintered according to adherence to the nationalism of their respective country’, all the world’s atomic scientists knew each other personally and had often been on friendly terms, as was the case of Bohr and Werner Heisenberg [1901-1976].

The Chicago physicists knew that what they were doing could certainly be achieved by German physicists. They calculated that Germany could potentially produce heavy water from 1943 and drop a nuclear bomb, or at least a cloud of deadly radioactive material, on London at the end of the same year. The “Battle of Britain”, the historical name for the air war fought in the British skies between the summer and autumn of 1940, had shown that German planes could reach as far as Liverpool, some 550 km north of the coast of continental Europe, and that they could bomb the cities of London, Birmingham, and Manchester. A German atomic bomb could destroy or even just contaminate Britain’s industrial heartland. The fear of a German bomb was real and pushed the British in the direction of building one ahead of the Americans.

The subjugation of scientists

Eventually, the scientists’ relationship with the DuPont company became cooperative in principle, although challenging in practice. As one immigrant physicist pointed out, a large industry needs a rigid organisation and well-defined tasks, whereas the scientist is “an individualist, who chose his profession [...] because he values his academic freedom more than a high salary”.

The industrialisation of science subjected scientists to factory discipline. The engineers at DuPont were under the impression that the scientists did not realise the extent of the work and facilities required for a great undertaking such as the construction of nuclear reactors. The scientists, for their part, were under the impression that they were being unfairly supplanted by people who knew nothing about nuclear physics and, in their opinion, would endanger the project and turn the laboratory into a mere branch of the chemicals group. DuPont was suspected of attempting to monopolise nuclear development in order to obtain profits after the war.

The atomic scientists quickly realised that they were no longer holding the levers of power, particularly since the Met Lab was no longer at the centre of the project and they had no means of imposing their ideas. Scientists who had been at the forefront of the relativistic and quantum physics revolution of the first three decades of the 20th century not only found themselves without a voice but also fell under military control. For many of them it was a psychological trauma.

Szilárd also posed the problem of intellectual property, namely of patents. The military demanded that all rights to chain reaction-based inventions be sold to the US government. When Szilárd refused, Groves ordered that he be excluded from the work until the issue was resolved. Throughout 1943, he was out of work until he sold the patents for a token sum. Other colleagues of his who considered patenting their ideas had a similar experience.

Most of the scientists in question had an idealistic conception of science: for them, the search for scientific truth transcended frontiers, and science would automatically lead mankind towards a more just society and guaranteed prosperity. They judged science as a field above politics. The Manhattan Project, Hiroshima and Nagasaki put an end to their illusions.

When they started working on the nuclear weapon, scientists felt no contradiction because they were motivated by the mobilisation against Nazism. In May 1945, the defeat of Germany made some scientists change their mind: the Manhattan Project which had been born out of fear of the German atomic bomb had now lost its meaning. For them, the conflict between physicists, engineers and the military over control of the project turned into a moral problem. The more far-sighted realised that the use of the atomic bomb against Japan would provoke a nuclear race with other countries when the war was over. They were not listened to. Powerful in dominating the forces of nature with their science, they were powerless against political power.

Lotta Comunista, June 2024

Popular posts in the last week

Hand and Brain and Artificial Intelligence

Internationalism No. 84, February 2026 Page 1 From the series Artificial Intelligence In the introduction to Dialectics of Nature and in his unfinished essay The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man , Friedrich Engels outlined the evolutionary process that led from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens . The text stands out for the conceptual power of its materialist method, and from it we draw five fundamental concepts. First, for Engels, the brain is a product of labour . It is in the dialectical relationship of mutual action and reaction with labour – made possible by the articulation of the hand freed by man's upright posture, the result of hundreds of thousands of years of natural selection – that the brain evolved to perform the most complex functions and develop self-awareness. In turn, labour is an expression of the social relations at th...

The EU Commission Plans for Rearmament and a Clean Industrial Deal

Internationalism No. 71, January 2025 Page 2 From the series European news Following the European elections which took place on June 6th - 9th, the leaders of the Member States met on June 27th at the European Council. Ursula von der Leyen was nominated as president of the next European Commission, after she was chosen as the European People’s Party’s (EPP) Spitzenkandidat (“leading candidate”). The agreement also included the election of former Portuguese Prime Minister Antonio Costa as president of the European Council, and the appointment of former Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas as High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. Subsequently, on July 18th, Parliament elected von der Leyen as president of the Commission by an absolute majority, with 401 votes out of 719 MEPs. On September 17th, von der Leyen presented her team of commissioners to the European Parliament and, two days later, the Council adopted this list of...

Libertarian Communism: A Different Kind of Communism

Chapter Three LIBERTARIAN COMMUNISM: A DIFFERENT KIND OF COMMUNISM   An examination of the debate within the groups that were to create GAAP (Anarchist Groups of Proletarian Action) gives a vivid picture of the problems that between 1948 and 1951 had to be slowly and painfully faced. Three major confrontations, progressively more serious, took place between Cervetto and Masini in the autumn of 1949 and again in the spring and autumn of 1950. As preparations were being made for the National Conference at Pontedecimo – from which GAAP would be born – debate on the nature of the organisation and on theories of the State and imperialism began to define the characteristics of the new political group, but also revealed the differences. The first step had been to look for ‘a different kind’ of communism in anarchism. Along this road Cervetto , with an ever-surer grasp, would raise the issue that had been first posed by Marx and Lenin : our militant...

Capitalist Chaos and Artificial Intelligence

Internationalism No. 88, June 2026 Page 1 It may seem curious that the Franciscan friar Paolo Benanti refers to neuroscience and the theories of David Eagleman, which reflect a materialistic conception of consciousness. The explanation probably lies in Eagleman’s self-definition as a possibilian , a not particularly clever neologism that seeks to distinguish itself from atheism, but also from agnosticism: we know too little, so science must keep multiple possibilities open at once. In Engels’ view, agnosticism is shamefaced materialism . The scientist, as such, is a materialist. However, outside his own field, he translates his ignorance into Greek and calls it agnosticism . Eagleman is even more circumspect, so it is understandable that religion sees an opening for itself in the possibilities left open. In Die Zeit , Benanti is quite explicit about Leo XIV’s encyclical on artificial in...

The Theoretical and Political Battles of Arrigo Cervetto: VII

Internationalism No. 83, January 2026, Special Issue Pages III and IV From the introduction to Arrigo Cervetto’s Opere Scelte ("Selected Works") , recently published in Italy by Edizioni Lotta Comunista. VII In this chapter, we offer a selection of writings on the Italian cycle, in both politics and in social and economic change, taken from three books that collect articles written over a 40-year period, from 1950 to 1991. Il ciclo politico del capitalismo di Stato ( The political cycle of State capitalism ) spans from the post-war period, at the beginning of the 30 years of the accelerated development of the economic miracle, until 1967, when the first signs of the struggles of workers’ spontaneity had already appeared, but before the explosion of the autunno caldo ( hot autumn ) of 1969. These are articles that appeared in Libertario , l’Impulso , Agitazione (the internal bulletin of the GAAP), Azione Comunista , Prometeo an...

Cyberspace and the Digital: Between Productive Forces and Ideologies

Internationalism No. 86, April 2026 Page 1 From the series Artificial Intelligence In his 1953 essay, Amadeo Bordiga argues for a very broad conception of economic structure and the means of production : The concept of the ‘economic base’ of a given human society thus extends far beyond the limits of a superficial interpretation confining it to the facts of the remuneration of labour and commercial exchange. It encompasses the entire field of the forms of reproduction of the species, i.e., family institutions; moreover, while the resources of technology and the provision of material instruments and tools of every kind form an integral part of it, its scope is not limited to that of a product showroom, but includes every mechanism available for the transmission from generation to generation of social ‘technological knowledge’. Accordingly, writing, song, music, the grap...

The Spider Web of OpenAI Agreements

Internationalism No. 83, January 2026 Page 14 From the series The telecommunications battle There are two interwoven and contrasting trends in the American economy. On the one hand, we are witnessing steady growth in the value of securities linked to the furious race towards artificial intelligence (AI), which could lead to a financial bubble; on the other, an increase in GDP, precisely due to the huge investments in this field, is taking place. In the first week of November, a downward correction saw many technological securities devalue by $1.2 trillion on the stock exchange. Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan, the biggest American bank, predicts that there is a one-in-three probability of a collapse, albeit not imminently. As I see it — he states — artificial intelligence is real and, all in all, it will pay off [...] just as happened in the past in the case of automobiles and television sets . Products which, however, have also seen many...

American Improvisation and the Third Gulf War

Internationalism No. 86, April 2026 Pages 4 and 5 According to The Economist , the war that began on February 28th with the American and Israeli attack on Iran has rightly earned the label third Gulf War . A clarification is needed: the war between Iran and Iraq, from 1980 to 1988, cost at least half a million lives and left its mark on the Persian Gulf no less than the subsequent conflicts. However, if we consider only the wars initiated by the United States in an attempt to manage its own decline, the current conflict follows on from those of 1991 and 2003. Hence, the third Gulf War . The conflict has already transcended regional boundaries, involving all countries in the area; the unprecedented assassination of Ali Khamenei, Iran’s religious and political leader, on the first day of the war, was the turning point. The war’s objectives are unclear: it is a war without a strategy , writes The...

The Four Petrochemical Giants

Internationalism No. 86, April 2026 Page 15 From the series Major industrial groups in China When the People's Republic of China was founded in 1949, oil extraction in the country was practically non-existent, and the country was completely dependent on imports. The exploration and development of domestic oil resources required a major effort. As Jin Zhang reports in his book Catch-up and Competitiveness in China [Routledge, 2004]: The required massive human resources were supplied by the People's Liberation Army (PLA). In 1952, Mao Zedong ordered the reorganisation of the 57 th Division of the 19 th Army of the PLA into the 1 st Division of Oil . The effort led to the discovery of several oil fields, the most significant of which was in Daqing, Heilongjiang Province, in northeastern China, in 1959. It became operational the following year, reaching a ...

Contested Capital

Internationalism No. 82, December 2025 Page 11 From the series Industry and pharmaceuticals On August 15 th , the White House published a long list of the most recent investments in American manufacturing. The statement emphasised the role of President Donald Trump who, with the aim of revitalising American industry [...], has spurred trillions of dollars of investments in US manufacturing, production, and innovation [ The White House, “Trump Effect: A Running List of New US Investment in President Trump’s Second Term” ]. The list includes around twenty pharmaceutical companies, which have announced a total commitment of over $340 billion in investments, more than half from European companies. Stephen Farrelly, an analyst at ING, estimates that investments in the United States announced by pharmaceutical multinationals amount to more than $400 billion [ Il Sole 24 Ore, October 15 th ]. Political pressures and old problems This i...