Book · 1986
The Making of the Atomic Bomb
by Richard Rhodes
Szilard talks Einstein into signing a letter to Roosevelt, and six years later Los Alamos turns the idea into two bombs before anyone can stop it.
What does Reddit think of The Making of the Atomic Bomb?
Ask r/AskHistorians about the Manhattan Project and Richard Rhodes gets cited back at you, not reviewed, cited. The ↑1834 excerpt walks through Szilard drafting the Einstein letter to Roosevelt; the ↑66 comment corrects a claim about bomb inventory by pointing straight at Rhodes' fissile-material numbers. That's the register this book lives in: source material for people who already know the subject, not a recommendation-thread pick. When people do talk about it as a read, the praise gets specific. The ↑58 comment credits it with making the physics legible without dropping the personalities; the ↑44 r/history comment says the same about tailoring a historical story around real science. The ↑35 comment treats it as the mandatory first half of a two-book arc, with Dark Sun as the hydrogen-bomb sequel. Ten of eleven recognized mentions come from AskHistorians. r/history has shown up exactly once.
Community feedback & reader fit
Themes
- · The Manhattan Project's science and its politics told as one continuous history
- · Cited by r/AskHistorians answers as the source for hard nuclear-program facts
- · The Oppenheimer angle covered without making him the whole book
- · A gateway into Rhodes' own sequel, Dark Sun, on the hydrogen bomb
Common praise
- + The ↑62 comment calls it straight-up excellent and useful even if you're reading only for the Oppenheimer angle.
- + The ↑58 comment says it explains the physics in an understandable way without shorting the people involved.
- + The ↑35 comment name-checks it as the original that made Dark Sun worth reading as a follow-up.
Common criticism
- − Every displayed mention but one comes from r/AskHistorians, where it gets cited as a source rather than pitched as a read.
- − r/history has shown up exactly once (↑44) in the sample; this isn't a book people are chattering about in the general book subs.
- − The arguments that do show up in the excerpts are about historical fact-checking (↑440, ↑66), not about whether the book itself is worth your time.
Who it's for
Come for the Oppenheimer movie context; stay because Szilard spent pages badgering Einstein into signing a letter, and the physics gets explained without dumbing down the people involved. If you want your nuclear history delivered by working historians rather than a documentary narrator, r/AskHistorians has quietly been using this as an answer key for years. The follow-up, Dark Sun, on the hydrogen bomb, is already lined up for when you finish.
Mentions over time
Top subreddits
Which Reddit comments matter for The Making of the Atomic Bomb?
The most relevant excerpts across the subreddits where this book is mentioned — opinionated, argued takes first, then top-upvoted mentions. Click through to read the full thread.
“Einstein and Szilard talked quite a bit about an effective strategy, and drafted several different letters, before finally deciding that the best way to do this would be to write to President Roosevelt himself and make sure he was aware of the situation. The letter itself is quite different from wh…
“Fitness (as in for duty, not just physical fitness) standards change during times of war when more people are needed. They never go away, but things start … I called a friend who is a historian for the park service here and asked. Her reply was, "I have no idea. Wait, shouldn't you be at work?" So, …
“This is a difficult question to answer since there are two ways that you could look at it. The first is the question "Can every other nations' nuclear program be traced to the Manhattan Project?" and the second is "Could anyone else have conducted a Manhattan Project?". **Can every other nations' …
“The economic "recovery" didn't happen overnight. During the 1980s, there was great media attention given to "Japanese quality". In 1947, General McArthur "introduced" American quality control to Japanese manufacturers by bringing several leaders in quality control. The most famous of which was [Edwa…
“Just came here to contest the claim that the US had "a handful of bombs available". The US had enough fissile material for 3 bombs by Mid 1945. This was utilized in the trinity test, nagasaki and hiroshima. There was not enough material left for a 4th device (Richard Rhodes "The making of the atomic…
“"The Making of The Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes is an excellent book that goes from the genesis of the idea of an atomic bomb to their dropping on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While not focusing on Oppenheimer exclusively he features prominantly and could give you some good accessible detail on Oppenh…
“As a side note, I’d highly recommend Rhodes’ *The Making of the Atomic Bomb* even for relative laypeople like myself. It does a spectacular job of not just explaining the physics in an understandable way, but also showcasing the importance and roles of the different people and personalities who were…
“The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes is one I’m reading right now that explains the history of nuclear physics and chemistry leading up to the Manhattan Project and the bombings. Does a good job at explaining science without it going over your head and at tailoring a historical story with…
“> E=mc2 has a lot less to do with how to make an atomic bomb than most people realize. It really just tells you why it doesn't violate any fundamental … estimates about the "before" and "after" parts of this reaction, the mass doesn't quite add up, and that represents a lot of released energy. (BTW …
“They did motivate their scientists with money - or the kind of creature comforts money can buy - when the project was needed. “Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb” (excellent follow up to “The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes), recounts the story of Stalin and Beria meeting with Ku…
Convinced? Pick up The Making of the Atomic Bomb
What else does r/AskHistorians read?
Other books mentioned in the same sub, ranked. Shared-sub overlap with this title breaks ties.
The Making of the Atomic Bomb — frequently asked
Is The Making of the Atomic Bomb worth reading if I only care about Oppenheimer?+
Yes, per the ↑62 r/AskHistorians comment, which says the book doesn't focus on Oppenheimer exclusively but that he 'features prominently' and gets good accessible detail. Read it for the machinery around him, not a biography of him specifically.
Does The Making of the Atomic Bomb explain the physics or just the history?+
Both, per the ↑58 comment, which says it does 'a spectacular job of not just explaining the physics in an understandable way' while covering the people involved too. The ↑44 r/history comment agrees it explains the science 'without it going over your head.'
Should I read The Making of the Atomic Bomb before Dark Sun?+
Yes. The ↑35 comment calls Dark Sun 'an excellent follow up to The Making of the Atomic Bomb,' treating the original as the required first half of Rhodes' two-book history of the bomb. Read them in that order.
Is The Making of the Atomic Bomb just for history buffs?+
It shows up almost exclusively in r/AskHistorians, where it gets cited to fact-check claims about the Manhattan Project (see the ↑1834 and ↑66 threads), which argues it holds up as a reference, not only as a narrative read for people already into the subject.