Skip to main content

The USSR Races to Catch Up With the American Atomic Bomb

From the series Atom and industrialisation of science

In 1945, Robert Oppenheimer, the scientific head of the Manhattan Project, stated: If atomic bombs are to be added as new weapons to the arsenals of a warring world, or to the arsenals of nations preparing for war, then the time will come when mankind will curse the names of Los Alamos and of Hiroshima. The people of this world must unite, or they will perish. This war that has ravaged so much of the Earth, has written these words. The atomic bomb has spelled them out for all men to understand [Richard Rhodes, Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb, 1995].

American underestimation of Soviet science

According to Rhodes, the idea that the danger of an atomic war was common to all the nations of the world had been brought to Los Alamos by Niels Bohr [1885-1962], and strongly influenced Oppenheimer [1904-1967]. An element to consider in judging the doubts and ambiguities of the American scientist in the postwar period.

Bohr was aware of the advanced level of Soviet science and hoped for cooperation between the two powers to avert an otherwise inevitable nuclear arms race, which nonetheless eventually occurred. Transcending Bohr's scientific rationality was the confrontation between two imperialist powers.

Charles Percy Snow [1905-1980], an English writer, physicist, and researcher in the field of physical chemistry, comments: With the discovery of fission [...] physicists became, almost overnight, the most important military resource a nation-State could call on. The nuclear arms race was the inevitable consequence of the military scientific competition between the powers. The American president, however, did not share this awareness. Oppenheimer recalls his conversation with Harry Truman, as recorded by his biographer Nuel Pharr Davis: When will the Russians be able to build the bomb? asked Truman. I don't know, said Oppenheimer. Truman retorted: I know. Oppenheimer asked: When? Truman's final answer: Never [N.P. Davis, Lawrence and Oppenheimer, 1968]. Truman's attitude reflected the presumption of American technological superiority. The physicists disagreed.

Before leaving Los Alamos, Richard Feynman [1918-1988] wrote in his notes: Other peoples are not being hindered in the development of the bomb by any secrets we are keeping [...] but soon they will be able to do Columbus, Ohio, and hundreds of cities like it what we did to Hiroshima [James Gleick, Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman, 1992].

The public declaration of the Los Alamos civilian staff, signed in September 1944, stated: The development of the atomic bomb has involved no new fundamental principles or concepts; it consisted entirely in the application and extension of information which was known throughout the world before intensive work started. Furthermore, deposits of basic materials for atomic bombs have been found, even before the war, in many parts of the world and new deposits will undoubtedly be discovered. It is therefore highly probable that with sufficient effort other countries, who may in fact be well underway at this moment, could develop an atomic bomb within a few years [R. Rhodes, op. cit.].

However, the director of the Manhattan Project, General Leslie Groves [1896-1970], was not convinced of this and believed that the US monopoly would be long-lasting. On August 1st, 1946, Truman signed the Atomic Energy Act, which explicitly prohibited the United States from sharing nuclear weapons or related information with any other country, although Allies could receive material and assistance for the development of atomic energy. This law prevented any collaboration between the US and the USSR and scuppered Bohr's hopes for cooperation. It also undermined the Quebec Agreement on nuclear collaboration between the United States and Great Britain: it hit not only the USSR, but also a US ally. The legislation nationalised every aspect of the development of atomic energy.

Beria takes charge

Meanwhile in the USSR, on August 20th, 1945, the State's Defence Committee promulgated Stalin's decision to accelerate the USSR's nuclear project, establishing a special committee on the atomic bomb. This was placed under the command of Lavrentiy Beria, head of the secret police and of the Ministry of the Interior from 1938 to 1946. He had also been Stalin's right-hand man in carrying out the physical elimination of the Bolshevik leaders who, together with Lenin, had led the Revolution. Stalin's decision to give Beria the nuclear project indicates the priority the Soviet leader gave to the atomic bomb.

The physicist Yulii Khariton [1904-1996], one of the leading scientists of the Soviet atomic project, recalled: Once the project passed into Beria's hands, the situation changed completely. Beria understood the scope and dynamics of the research. This man personified evil in the country's modern history [and] possessed at the same time tremendous vigour and efficiency. To the scientists who met him it was impossible not to admit his intellect, willpower, and purposefulness. He was a first-class manager able to bring every job to its conclusion. Beria wanted a bomb whose functioning was guaranteed.

Soviet total commitment

The scientific director of the project, Igor Kurchatov [1903-1960], met with Stalin, Beria, and Vyacheslav Molotov in the Kremlin on the evening of January 25th, 1946, to discuss the programme for the bomb. Molotov was the foreign minister. Stalin decisively rejected the proposal of Pyotr Kapitsa [1894-1984] for an independent Soviet programme which would cost less than the American one. Khariton writes: In the course of the conversation, Stalin advised avoiding collateral issues and not losing time in seeking inexpensive solutions to the problems. He stressed that it was necessary to conduct the work broadly, with Russian scope, and that he would give it his full support.

In a war-devastated Soviet Union, where millions of people were starving and homeless, the scientists became the country's privileged elite, and their standard of living rose above prewar levels. Stalin understood the value of science as an element of a country's power: new scientific institutes multiplied like cells in biological cultures; an expanded network of technical schools and universities was created for demobilised soldiers with a secondary education. The number of high school students — 817,000 before the war — reached more than 1.5 million between 1948 and 1954. This, too, reflects a similarity with the US, where, at the end of the Second World War, the GI Bill guaranteed all those who had fought the right to access a university education. The bill provided veterans with funds to pay tuition fees and living expenses so that they could attend colleges and professional schools, as well as low-cost mortgages and loans to set up their own ventures.

On March 5th, 1946, during his speech at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, Winston Churchill coined the expression iron curtain to describe the division of Europe between the Western and the Soviet spheres of influence, marking the beginning of the Cold War. Almost simultaneously, on April 9th, Khariton and General Pavel Mikhailovich Zernov, deputy minister of tank production during the war, selected Sarov as the site for the Soviet counterpart to Los Alamos.

On August 20th, the State's Defence Committee adopted a decree establishing a special committee to direct all work on the use of atomic energy from uranium. The committee was chaired by Beria, charged with supervising the whole project and ensuring strict adherence to deadlines. Boris Vannikov [1897-1962] was appointed as the director of the project while Kurchatov remained as its scientific director, a position similar to that held by Oppenheimer in the US.

Vannikov reported directly to Beria. His story typifies the state of uncertainty for many political figures of the Stalinist period: one day, they risked the firing squad, and the day after they entered the government, and vice versa. In January 1939, Vannikov was appointed as people's commissar for armaments, but in June 1941 he was arrested by Beria. He was sentenced to death, but the sentence was never carried out because of the German invasion, after which Stalin realised he needed capable administrators. Vannikov was released on July 25th, 1941, and then appointed as people's commissar for ammunition.

Beria distrusted the Soviet scientists, but had to rely on Kurchatov. He did not interfere in scientific or technical decisions; his role was to obtain resources — such as labour, materials, and information — in order to build the bomb as soon as possible. He visited the institutes and plants and made threats: threats that were far from empty, as evidenced by the millions of victims. But Beria wanted the project to succeed and he understood that arresting its managers would have slowed it down. He was intelligent enough to understand that he needed competent management.

Conventional demobilisation and nuclear mobilisation

In November 1945, in his speech for the 28th anniversary of the October Revolution, Molotov declared the importance of nuclear energy. This was the first official announcement of a Soviet atomic project.

On May 26th, the State's Defence Committee ordered the gradual conversion of the military industry to civilian production. In June, the Supreme Soviet adopted the demobilisation bill and the Red Army, which had 11.365 million soldiers in May, was reduced to 3 million by the year's end. By the end of 1947, this figure was reduced to 2.874 million. The military budget dropped from 137.8 billion roubles in 1944 to 128.2 in 1945, 73.6 in 1946, and 66.3 in 1947.

Stalin implemented a policy similar to that of the US, whereby the reduction of Soviet conventional forces was to be compensated for by the development of the atomic weapon. For Stalin and Molotov, it was clear that the United States would use the bomb as a tool of political pressure: even if the Truman administration had refrained from nuclear diplomacy, its existence alone was seen by Stalin and Molotov as a factor in the balance of power. Neither Stalin nor Truman saw the bomb as a danger to the human race: for Stalin, the danger was not the bomb itself, but rather the American monopoly of the bomb. The obvious solution was that the Soviet Union should also have it.

Translated from the original work by , published in Lotta Comunista, , p. 17.

Popular posts in the last week

China’s Electromechanical Champions

Internationalism No. 85, March 2026 Page 9 From the series Major industrial groups in China Analysing the WTO data for 2023, it emerges that China exported goods worth $3,379 billion, surpassing the European Union and the United States. Industrial machinery accounted for over 7% of exports and electrical machinery 9%. In the same sectors, Chinese imports did not reach 40% of the value of exports, indicating that these are among the pillars of Beijing’s export economy. Sany Heavy Industry In this newspaper we have already examined the Chinese mechanical engineering giant Sinomach. But in the field of machine construction, Sany Heavy Industry also holds a prominent position, particularly in excavators, cranes, industrial elevators, and cement machinery. The company, based in Changsha (Hunan) since 1991, was founded by Liang Wengen, who had previously been an executive at a State-owned arms factory, and is its main shareholder. Sany had a 2023 turnover...

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...

The Munich Soviet Republic

Internationalism No. 87, May 2026 Page 9 From the series Pages from the history of the workers' movement The Munich Soviet Republic With the Munich Soviet Republic, the German Revolution, which began on November 9 th , 1918, seemed to be flickering its last. In the Bavarian capital, after the fall of the Wittelsbachs, power had fallen into the hands of Kurt Eisner, a pacifist intellectual, member of the USPD, and contributor to the revisionist newspaper Münchner Post since 1910. Eisner had managed something unheard of in Germany – to gain the support of the farmers, in particular Karl Gandorfer, head of the Bavarian Peasants' League. Workers, soldiers, and peasants "Traditionally a stronghold of Catholicism and reaction" , Bavaria "had declared early for the November Revolution, largely because its people hated the Prussians and re...

The Court: From Civil Rights to Individual Rights

Internationalism No. 87, May 2026 Page 11 From the series Chronicles of the new American nationalism Edward Lazarus, a clerk for Justice Harry Blackmun at the Supreme Court in 1988–89 and chief of staff at the Federal Communications Commission during Barack Obama's administration, published Closed Chambers in 1998, an account of the work of the Supreme Court under Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Lazarus considers that it is history and geography that have shaped the character of the Court. The author identifies four decisive battles in its history: in 1937, the bitter clash over the powers and economic policy of the New Deal; in 1954, the fierce battle over the civil rights of Black Americans; in 1973, the struggle for individual rights; and in 1974, the ruling that marked the end of Richard Nixon's presidency. Lazarus's supreme regionalism ...

American Convulsion and the Crisis in the World Order in Hormuz

Internationalism No. 87, May 2026 Pages 4 and 5 With the war against Iran and the naval blockade of Iranian ports in response to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the United States has plunged the energy artery of the Persian Gulf into chaos. This has triggered economic, social, and political upheavals from East to West, the full extent and uneven distribution of which have yet to be fully assessed. That the third Gulf War of American imperialism would have unintended consequences had long been written into the laws of politics. Every political action, all the more so if conducted by military means, is part of a parallelogram of forces, the result of which can never correspond to the intention of any individual actor involved. The objective each power pursues is either hindered or aided by the others. Therefore, the course of the conflict will correspond, to a greater or lesser extent, ...

Innovation Incubators

Internationalism No. 87, May 2026 Page 7 From the series Industry and pharmaceuticals II South San Francisco is considered the birthplace of biotechnology. Here, in 1976, the biochemist Herbert W. Boyer of the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), and the venture capitalist Robert Swanson founded Genentech, commonly considered the first biotech company in the world. Swanson had studied at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), then moved to San Francisco and cultivated a passion for molecular biology. Genetic engineering was about to take off in Californian universities, starting with the pioneering DNA manipulation experiments carried out by Boyer in collaboration with Stanley N. Cohen, a geneticist at Stanford University. At the time, observes Nature , leading scientists proposing involvement with industry was considered heresy . Swanson and Boyer...

The Vatican and the American Crisis

Internationalism No. 87, May 2026 Page 2 In Washington, they haven't understood the conclave. They don't understand this new phase of Catholicism . According to Massimo Franco, this is the view inside the Vatican regarding Donald Trump's attack on the Pope [ Corriere della Sera , April 14]. The day before, Trump had targeted Robert Prevost, dedicating a lengthy post to him on his own social media platform, Truth Social . At the heart of his criticism was papal opposition to the third Gulf War. I don't want a Pope who thinks it's OK for Iran to have a nuclear weapon – he had written – I don't want a pope who criticises the president of the United States or who meets with Obama sympathisers . All accompanied by an AI-generated image in which Trump appeared in the guise of a healing Jesus. Americanism and US imperialist expansion The forms are those of show and s...

The Social Brain and Artificial Intelligence

Internationalism No. 87, February 2026 Page 1 From the series Artificial Intelligence There is an anthropological question linked to the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on human consciousness, analogous – though at a higher level – to the effects of online communication and even television. We consider three aspects of this. Physical , concerning changes in the brain’s neural connections as a social product. Functional , concerning capacities that are stunted or developed by the internet and the use of artificial intelligence. Epistemological , concerning the implications for the theory of knowledge and the very notion of an objectively defined principle of reality . The Church, as it has already done with biotechnologies capable of intervening in human DNA, is developing its own reflection on artificial intelligence and its anthropological impli...

The Islamic Quartet and China in the New Equilibrium in the Gulf

Internationalism No. 87, May 2026 Page 6 At the time of writing, the third Gulf War , which began on February 28 th and escalated in April with a fresh Israeli intervention in Lebanon against Hezbollah, has reached an uncertain truce. Brokered by Pakistan's diplomats, it was agreed as part of a four-way Islamic agreement – bringing together Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey – and backed by China. According to the Japanese newspaper Nikkei , the diplomatic initiative's origins date back to the extraordinary summit of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), of which Iran is also a member, and was sealed at the March 24 th summit of the Islamic Quartet in Islamabad. First came the meeting between the foreign ministers of Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan; then came Chinese backing and Sino-Pakistani talks, which produced a five-point proposal for a ceasefire. The proposal ...

The Invisible Sword of Nuclear Latency

Internationalism No. 83, January 2026 Page 6 According to the Kyodo news agency, on December 17 th a senior government official involved in the revision of the three national security documents adopted in 2022 expressed his personal stance on the need for Japan to equip itself with nuclear weapons. In light of the severe security situation surrounding the archipelago and the questionable reliability of the American nuclear deterrent , Tokyo must recognise that it can only rely on itself . Although the creation of a national arsenal is unrealistic and difficult , given that the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) recognises only five nuclear States de jure , nonetheless this discussion must take place within the government . The official denies having discussions with Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi about the revision of the three non-nuclear principles (not to possess, manufacture, or permit the introduction of nuclear weapons into Japan) est...