A committee of three was ideal

Saturday, August 16th, 2025

Now It Can Be Told by Leslie M. GrovesSecretary of War Henry Stimson told General Groves that the Manhattan Engineer District should be overseen by a committee of nine or possibly seven men, as Groves explains in Now It Can Be Told: The Story of the Manhattan Project:

I objected quite vigorously on the grounds that such a large committee would be unwieldy; it would cause delays in taking action; and some, if not the majority, of its members would tend to treat it as a secondary responsibility, to the detriment of our progress. I felt that a committee of three was ideal and that any more members would be a hindrance rather than a benefit. I pointed out that I could keep three people reasonably well informed on our major problems, and, furthermore, that I would be able to obtain advice from them much more readily than I could from a larger group. In the end, my views were accepted.

[…]

There followed some general conversation, in the midst of which, and with no small amount of embarrassment on my part, for I was by far the most junior person present, I asked to be excused if I were no longer needed, for I wanted to catch the train to Tennessee and inspect the proposed production plant site, so that the land acquisition could proceed. With this, the meeting broke up. I was a bit relieved when Somervell told me several days later that my request could not have been better timed, because it convinced everyone that he had not overemphasized my urgent desire to get a job moving.

Comments

  1. Bob Sykes says:

    Somewhere in one of his books, Peter Drucker writes that the maximum number of people a manager could effectively supervise is six.

  2. Bruce says:

    ‘I remembered the opinion of a very wise and successful Chief of Engineers, General Jadwin. When some of his subordinates intimated to him that there was no need to appoint a board of consultants on the Mississippi River, since its members would have neither the knowledge nor the background in this field possessed by many officers of the Corps of Engineers, Jadwin replied: “I have no objection to committees as long as I appoint them.” With this guidance, I had no qualms about setting up a review committee. Its primary purpose was to reassure Conant and me, as well as the members of the Military Policy Committee, that the program and the organization at Los Alamos were sound.5 As with every committee that I appointed, its members were very carefully selected, and at least one of them, in this case the secretary, was a man who was thoroughly familiar with the project and with my views on the subject under study. Although such an approach to committees may appear cynical, in my experience it produced excellent results.’

    Groves, Leslie M.. Now It Can Be Told: The Story of the Manhattan Project (Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Era of the New Deal) (pp. 210-211). Da Capo Press. Kindle Edition.

  3. Bruce says:

    Heinlein’s ‘Solution Unsatisfactory’ was based on a real threat assessment!:

    ‘What I thought more likely was that the Germans would use an ordinary explosive bomb containing radioactive material. If we were unable to neutralize the effects of such a weapon promptly, a major panic could easily sweep through the Allied countries. However, as the plans for the invasion of Europe began to take form, we considered very seriously indeed the possibility that the Germans might lay down some kind of radioactive barrier along the invasion routes. We could not calculate with any certainty the likelihood of their doing this, for we were truly in the dark then about their progress in atomic development.’

    Groves, Leslie M.. Now It Can Be Told: The Story of the Manhattan Project (Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Era of the New Deal) (pp. 256-257). Da Capo Press. Kindle Edition.

  4. Isegoria says:

    It looks like I need to pick up Robert Heinlein’s Expanded Universe: Volume One, which includes “Solution Unsatisfactory.”

    The Wikipedia entry shares this description:

    At the time when the Second World War just got seriously going, the United States and Soviet Union had not yet become directly involved and the world’s attention was riveted on the unfolding Battle of Britain, Heinlein was four or five steps ahead of everybody. More than a year before Roosevelt authorized the Manhattan Project, Heinlein correctly foresaw that: a) The President of the US would initiate a secret project to develop nuclear weapons and employ scientist refugees from Nazi Europe; b) By 1945, the US would have a weapon able to destroy an entire city in one blow from a single airplane—and would use that weapon to end to war; c) That with the US having thus won the war, the world would become aware of the realities of a nuclear arms race—without using the term, Heinlein predicted and described in detail the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction; and d) Concretely, the main issue on the agenda in the post-1945 years would be whether the Soviet Union would obtain nuclear arms, and if it did—would the Soviets try to launch a surprise nuclear attack on the United States. For having predicted all that in 1940—even to accurately predicting the remorse and guilt feeling of the scientists involved—Heinlein deserves much plaudits.

  5. Bruce says:

    Isegoria, I don’t think radioactive dust is easy to make in that amount. Think, hope. I need to reread Expanded Universe myself.

  6. Isegoria says:

    I just listened to the audiobook edition of Nevil Shute’s On the Beach, which features a world dying from cobalt bombs:

    The 5.27 year half-life of the 60Co is long enough to allow it to settle out before significant decay has occurred and to render it impractical to wait in shelters for it to decay, yet short enough that intense radiation is produced.

  7. Bruce says:

    Heinlein and Grove were talking about, say, 40,000 pounds of radioactive dust per B-29 dropped from a giant fleet of B-29s. I don’t know if that’s economically possible.

    Sure, big fusion bombs could leave everything radioactive.

Leave a Reply