# Talk:Seth Neddermeyer

The disagreements within the project that caused Professor Neddermeyer to be replaced by George Kistiakowsky are rumored to be that Professor Neddermeyer strongly disagreed with what his invention was to be used for. 
I had the pleasure of meeting with Professor Neddermeyer some years back. He didn't like to speak of the project much, though he did inform me he was embarassed by his part in the creation of the bomb.
I married the stepdaughter of Seth's nephew, Wesley Nicholson. That is how I came to meet with Professor Neddermeyer at a family function. I found him to be a very interesting man, though he did seem a bit withdrawn from people.

Well, such a rumor flies in the face of virtually everything that has been publicly disclosed about the situation.  I thought it was best to avoid discussions of why Neddermeyer was replaced because most of the facts known sound unflattering.  No published source I have seen offers pacifism as a reason for the falling out between Neddermeyer and Kistiakowsky.  Instead the published sources indicate that for many months Neddermeyer was spinning his wheels doing field experiments with cylindrical implosion and was making little progress toward getting a usably uniform shock wave. Meanwhile von Neumann had worked to convince the decision-makers of the importance of the implosion option.  As a result, Kistiakowsky, who had a unique background in the precision application of explosives, was shanghaied by Oppenheimer, Groves and Conant to come to Los Alamos to jumpstart Neddermeyer’s flagging program in January 1944.  It is presumable that Neddermeyer might have felt threatened by this.  We do know that Kistiakowsky reported that the effort was being poorly managed and that Neddermeyer and Parsons were not cooperating.  After a while [mid-June 1944], Kistiakowsky approached Oppenheimer saying that preferably he or otherwise Neddermeyer would have to go or that, at least, Neddermeyer would have to be relieved of non-technical responsibilities.  Oppenheimer apparently believed Kistiakowsky was the indispensable of the two and sacked Neddermeyer.  Neddermeyer was very angry and walked out of the meeting where the change was announced.  Kistiakowsky, with much help from von Neumann and others made up for lost time and accomplished what Neddermeyer desperately wanted to but never did achieve: uniform spherical implosion.
[As I say, the facts are unflattering in appearance.  Kistiakowsky and von Neumann were probably the two critically indispensable persons to the success of implosion.  It is not clear that anyone else at Los Alamos, other than these two individuals, could have done better than Neddermeyer did.  Neddermeyer recognized the merit of implosion early on and got the ball rolling on it.  That he lacked the singular mathematical genius of von Neumann or unique explosives background of Kistiakowsky is no indictment of him as a man or as a scientist.  That he was wounded at being booted from leadership of a program he had built himself is both human and understandable.]
The idea that Neddermeyer was replaced because he was opposed to the use of his implosion research in atomic weapons is simply comical.  He knew from day one that he was working on an atomic bomb.  He wanted to build such a bomb and did not stop before his involuntary replacement, nor even after.  Moreover, he was famously embittered about his replacement as head of an effort into which he had unquestionably poured much sweat and tears.  Some conjectured that his post-war reclusiveness was due to this blow (which I don’t speculate to).
Virtually everyone at Los Alamos was quite gleeful to work on the bomb because they thought it would be dropped on Germany.  Those opposed to making an atom bomb to drop on Germany all doubtlessly declined to participate in the program in the first place.  It was only with the surrender of Germany in May 1945 that the hand-wringing began.  They had built the bomb to use upon Germany and to ensure Germany’s enemies had the bomb first.  With Germany’s surrender, the desire to finish the technical achievement collided with the realization that only non-fascist targets like Japan or possibly even the Soviet Union would now be plausible targets.  This brought many of the scientists to question if work should continue on the bomb at all and if and how the bomb would be used against Japan.  No such misgivings were seen to exist before the Soviets entered Berlin.
Like many others at Los Alamos Nedermeyer reportedly became filled with self-reproach when the bomb was used to kill Japanese people against whom most held little antipathy—particularly when news of the dramatic casualties from Hiroshima and Nagasaki flowed back to Los Alamos.    This effect was later amplified as the nuclear armed United States came into conflict with its erstwhile ally, the Soviet Union.  Nedermeyer did register his opposition to the arms race during the cold war, but when he was relieved in mid-June 1944 he was as desirous of building the atomic bomb as anyone at Los Alamos.
Criticality 09:14, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Seth Neddermeyer/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk · contribs) 04:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Should be able to get to this by the w/e. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Toolbox checks -- no dab or EL issues.
Prose/content

Copyedited so pls let me know any concerns.
"In mid-June 1944, Kistiakowsky’s report to Oppenheimer about the dysfunctionality within the implosion team led to the ousting of Neddermeyer and his replacement." -- this reads a bit oddly as you say in the next sentence Neddermeyer was replaced by Kistiakowsky; I assume you mean Neddermeyer was ousted and replaced, not that he and his replacement were ousted...  If the former, suggest you just drop "and his replacement" as it's not really necessary.
Re-worded this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Structure/images/sources -- no issues I could see.
Nice succinct article, I felt that the importance and issues re. plutonium/implosion were expressed very well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I am very fond of his mug shot, which I think is one of the best. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
It is a good shot! Passing now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Was Neddermeyer Jewish?, or of Jewish descent?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.34.242 (talk) 09:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)