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 from this blog

The British Link in the Imperialist Chain

Internationalism No. 33, November 2021 Page 8 Lenin often used the metaphor of a chain that binds the world to describe imperialism. The October Revolution of 1917 broke a first link in that chain and hoped to pull the whole thing loose. The metaphor was adopted in those years by all the Bolshevik leaders and the leaders of the newly formed Third International. Within a decade, Stalin's well-known formula of socialism in one country signified the overturning of that strategic cornerstone and the defeat of the revolution in Russia, in Europe, and in the world. Dates that have come to symbolise historical change act as the synthesis of previously accumulated contradictions, and, while such a sudden change does not exhaust the possibility of future contradictions, the concentration of events in 1926 nonetheless marked a watershed that revealed the true extent that the counter-revolution had reached. The great general strike in the United Kingdom that year, wh...

German Socialism in 1917

Internationalism No. 78-79, August-September 2025 Page 6 From the series Pages from the history of the worker’s movement  According to Arrigo Cervetto [ Opere , Vol. 7], “paracentrism” is “the biggest obstacle to the formation of the worldwide Bolshevik party”. The Spartacists at Zimmerwald and Kiental Cervetto was analysing Lenin’s battle against centrism for the creation of the Third International, a battle which saw him isolated at Zimmerwald. He wrote down one of Zinoviev’s quotations from Histoire du parti communiste russe . “We were in the minority at Zimmerwald [1915]. […] In the years 1915 and 1916, we were nothing but an insignificant minority”. “But what is more serious?” – observed Cervetto – “is that the Zimmerwald Spartacists also said they were opposed to us”. In the strategic perspective of the “two separate halves” of socialism – the political conditions in Russia and the economic, productive, and social conditions in Germany – “for ...

The Theoretical and Political Battles of Arrigo Cervetto II

From the introduction to Arrigo Cervetto’s Opere Scelte (“Selected Works”), soon to be published in Italy by Edizioni Lotta Comunista. II “Neither Washington nor Moscow”, “Neither Truman nor Stalin”. These were slogans sufficient to rally the internationalist cause, not only against the influence of the Stalinist Italian Communist Party (PCI) on one front, but also, on the opposite side, against the pro-American, “Westernist” leanings present in certain political currents of anarchist individualism. There was a unitary imperialism to be fought, of which the US and the USSR were both expressions. 1951, Genoa Pontedecimo In the ideological climate of the Cold War, heightened by the Korean War, a third world conflict was considered imminent; La guerra che viene (“The coming war”) was the title of a Trotskyist-inspired pamphlet that ultimately leaned in favour of the USSR, but reflected a widespread perception. The internation alist principle alone proved insufficient. To maintain...

Battle Over Times for European Rearmament

Internationalism No. 78-79, August-September 2025 Pages 1 and 2 In current Anglo-Saxon vocabulary, appeasement stands for cowardly and illusory pacification, as exemplified by the Munich Agreement of 1938, which conceded to the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia without stopping the march towards world war. Were Shigeru Ishiba, Ursula von der Leyen, Emmanuel Macron, and Friedrich Merz really, as has been said, the Neville Chamberlains of the tariff war, accepting appeasement on the 15% tariff in an ignominious surrender to Donald Trump's blackmail? And has Trump really revealed himself in Anchorage, Alaska, to be an appeaser towards Vladimir Putin? Was it, finally, only the firmness of the Europeans at the Washington summit which convinced Trump to remain as one of the guarantors of Ukraine's security? The plague of television and social media diplomacy feeds on simplistic and propagandistic images, but also consumes and contradicts them at the pace of...

“Polish Moment” at Risk

Internationalism No. 78-79, August-September 2025 Page 3 From the series European news In July, the strategic triangle of London-Paris-Berlin was strengthened with the Northwood Declaration, in which the United Kingdom and France signalled the possibility of coordinating the use of their nuclear weapons through the creation of a “Nuclear Steering Group”, and with the Kensington Treaty, an Anglo-German defence pact. These agreements complement the Franco-British agreements of Lancaster House and the Franco-German Treaty of Aachen. Although Poland signed the Treaty of Nancy with France in May 2025, it was excluded from the recent “E3” consultations, in which only the United Kingdom, France, and Germany participated. Nevertheless, the establishment of the new government led by Donald Tusk, the Civic Platform (PO) leader, in the October 2023 elections, after eight years of antagonism with Brussels under the Law and Justice Party (PiS)-dominated government, ha...

The Drone War

Internationalism No. 78-79, August-September 2025 Page 13 From the series War industry and European defence The Economist provides an illustration of how the use of unmanned and remotely piloted systems in warfare is expanding. In Africa, 30 governments are equipped with UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles), or drones. In 2024, they were deployed 484 times in local wars in thirteen different countries, twice as frequently as the previous year, causing 1,200 deaths. The most widely used drone on the continent is the TB2, produced by the Turkish company Baykar, which has seen a decade of extensive use in conflicts across Syria, Azerbaijan-Armenia, and Ukraine. LBA Systems and MALE drones At the Paris Air Show in mid-June, an agreement was signed to establish LBA Systems, a joint venture between Baykar and Leonardo. The aim is to produce the Akinci and TB3 drones, the latter of which will be capable of taking off from helicopter carrier decks. The aircraft wil...

Class Consciousness and Crisis in the World Order

Internationalism No. 71, January 2025 Pages 1 and 2 The consciousness of the proletariat “cannot be genuine class-consciousness, unless the workers learn, from concrete, and above all from topical, political facts and events to observe every other social class in all the manifestations of its intellectual, ethical, and political life; unless they learn to apply in practice the materialist analysis and the materialist estimate of all aspects of the life and activity of all classes, strata, and groups of the population”. If it concentrates exclusively “or even mainly” upon itself alone, the proletariat cannot be revolutionary, “for the self-knowledge of the working class is indissolubly bound up, not solely with a fully clear theoretical understanding or rather, not so much with the theoretical, as with the practical, understanding — of the relationships between all the various classes of modern society”. For this reason, the worker “must have a clear picture in ...

The Chinese Dragon Does Not Wait for American Rearmament

From the series News from the Silk Road According to The Washington Post , through the federal budget the White House has opened negotiations with the Senate that include long-term competition with China. The figures — $6 trillion, including infrastructure and family welfare plans — will vary in the negotiations, and will be centred on three directives. One demand is common to various proposals of expenditure: they must have a positive impact on the American productivity vis-à-vis China on the open fronts of industrial, energy and technological restructuring, or on the efficiency of welfare systems. In the case of welfare, the competition is also vis-à-vis Europe. Another calculation, attributed to Biden’s administration and the Democrats, is the enlargement of the electoral coalition in view of the next mid-term elections. Finally, there is a need to direct military expenditure, within the framework of a greater increase in the other items of discretionary expenditure, not absorb...

Chinese Rearmament Projects Itself in Asia

Internationalism No. 78-79, August-September 2025 Page 5 From the series Asian giants Trends in rearmament spending and comparisons of military equipment are increasingly set to dominate coverage of the contention between powers in the crisis in the world order . The military factor has entered the strategic debate, accompanied by a wealth of figures and technical details. The increase in military spending as a percentage of GDP represents a widespread sign of the rearmament cycle at this juncture, but spending alone cannot entirely explain the situation, given the qualitatively different natures of the arsenals being compared. Nor are comparisons between this or that type of weapon useful in themselves, because ultimately all weapons are only ever used in combination with the complex military means available to a power, either in alliance or in conflict with other powers in the system of States. Therefore, while it is difficult to assess the real significa...