What do you think?
Rate this book
The Curve of Binding Energy: A Journey into the Awesome and Alarming World of Theodore B. Taylor
With his customary reportorial brilliance, John McPhee has written the story of the life and career of Theodore B. Taylor, a theoretical physicist who has been one of the most inventive nuclear scientists of our time.
Taylor was one of the most brilliant engineers of the nuclear age, but in his later years he became concerned with the possibility of an individual being able to construct a weapon of mass destruction on their own. McPhee tours American nuclear institutions with Taylor and shows us how close we are to terrorist attacks employing homemade nuclear weaponry.
Taylor was one of the most brilliant engineers of the nuclear age, but in his later years he became concerned with the possibility of an individual being able to construct a weapon of mass destruction on their own. McPhee tours American nuclear institutions with Taylor and shows us how close we are to terrorist attacks employing homemade nuclear weaponry.
241 pages, Kindle Edition
First published May 22, 1974
51 people are currently reading
922 people want to read
About the author
John McPhee
131 books1,842 followersJohn Angus McPhee is an American writer. He is considered one of the pioneers of creative nonfiction. He is a four-time finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in the category General Nonfiction, and he won that award on the fourth occasion in 1999 for Annals of the Former World (a collection of five books, including two of his previous Pulitzer finalists). In 2008, he received the George Polk Career Award for his "indelible mark on American journalism during his nearly half-century career". Since 1974, McPhee has been the Ferris Professor of Journalism at Princeton University.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 75 reviews
May 14, 2013
McPhee is an excellent writer. I realized this when I couldn't put this one down -- a book on U-235, Plutonium-240 and the nuclear fuel cycle. Written in 1973, when the AEC was still pursuing "peaceful uses" of nuclear energy, this book comes before the advent of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Department of Energy, Chernobyl, Three-Mile Island, and God help us, 9-11. Yet, the story of Ted Taylor's life's work from building the smallest atomic bomb in the 1940s to becoming an advocate for nuclear materials safeguards later in his life is chilling in its prophecies. I came to realize as I read that much of Taylor's advocacy work for nuclear materials safeguards, and McPhee's documentation of it through this book, may well have prevented terrorists -- then and now -- from obtaining the nuclear materials necessary for a dirty bomb. Obviously, it may be a more important work than anyone initially realized.
Now, if we could only employ Taylor's brains and McPhee's pen to figure out how to regulate pressure cookers and fertilizer.
Now, if we could only employ Taylor's brains and McPhee's pen to figure out how to regulate pressure cookers and fertilizer.
June 10, 2024
Reread notes 6/9/24:
This is a curious book, in that the main thrust is what atomic-bomb designer Theodore B. Taylor at the time perceived as a major threat: the construction of a home-made terrorist A-bomb, from poorly-guarded fissionables stolen from the electric-power industry. 50 years on, no such thing has happened. Plenty of other threats (and actual terrorist attacks). But that particular worry no longer seems likely.
There’s still some great stuff here: the best being Taylor, Freeman Dyson and the remarkable Orion atomic-bomb propelled spaceship proposal around 1958! Which deserved (and got) its own book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
Wikipedia’s article is thorough and a good introduction:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project...
And Taylor’s Wikibio is an excellent introduction to his career:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Tay...
It includes Freeman Dyson’s tribute:
“I think he is perhaps the greatest man that I ever knew well. And he is completely unknown."
So. If you are a John McPhee completist, you will want to read this. Or if you are very interested in nuclear weapons, spaceflight, and the amazing mix of optimism and dread of the 1950s and early 60s. All of this is why I used to think this was a 5-star book. For my just-concluded reread, I’m dropping it to 3.5 stars and rounding up. Still a fine book, but overtaken by later history. And it’s short: first serialized in the New Yorker in 1973.
There’s an eerie episode around 1973, when McPhee and Taylor visited the then-new World Trade Center, and Taylor outlines what a terrorist A-bomb set off there might do. We discovered to our sorrow on 9-11-2001 what a real terrorist attack there was like...
============
Earlier review (1975 & 1991 reads):
The unexpectedly fascinating life and career of Theodore B. Taylor (1925 - 2004)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Tay...
-- who designed the smallest nuclear weapon ever made: the "Davy Crockett", which weighed only 50 pounds, measured approximately 12 inches across, and yielded between 10 and 20 tons of TNT equivalent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Cr...
Freeman Dyson was a fan, and so am I. This is a sometimes-overlooked McPhee book, but it's an easy 5-star. Not to be missed!
This is a curious book, in that the main thrust is what atomic-bomb designer Theodore B. Taylor at the time perceived as a major threat: the construction of a home-made terrorist A-bomb, from poorly-guarded fissionables stolen from the electric-power industry. 50 years on, no such thing has happened. Plenty of other threats (and actual terrorist attacks). But that particular worry no longer seems likely.
There’s still some great stuff here: the best being Taylor, Freeman Dyson and the remarkable Orion atomic-bomb propelled spaceship proposal around 1958! Which deserved (and got) its own book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
Wikipedia’s article is thorough and a good introduction:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project...
And Taylor’s Wikibio is an excellent introduction to his career:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Tay...
It includes Freeman Dyson’s tribute:
“I think he is perhaps the greatest man that I ever knew well. And he is completely unknown."
So. If you are a John McPhee completist, you will want to read this. Or if you are very interested in nuclear weapons, spaceflight, and the amazing mix of optimism and dread of the 1950s and early 60s. All of this is why I used to think this was a 5-star book. For my just-concluded reread, I’m dropping it to 3.5 stars and rounding up. Still a fine book, but overtaken by later history. And it’s short: first serialized in the New Yorker in 1973.
There’s an eerie episode around 1973, when McPhee and Taylor visited the then-new World Trade Center, and Taylor outlines what a terrorist A-bomb set off there might do. We discovered to our sorrow on 9-11-2001 what a real terrorist attack there was like...
============
Earlier review (1975 & 1991 reads):
The unexpectedly fascinating life and career of Theodore B. Taylor (1925 - 2004)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Tay...
-- who designed the smallest nuclear weapon ever made: the "Davy Crockett", which weighed only 50 pounds, measured approximately 12 inches across, and yielded between 10 and 20 tons of TNT equivalent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Cr...
Freeman Dyson was a fan, and so am I. This is a sometimes-overlooked McPhee book, but it's an easy 5-star. Not to be missed!
November 3, 2007
McPhee's writing at it's best, and investigative journalism like I've never seen him do before. As usual, he captivatingly writes about a topic that would usually be found in a dull textbook.
Although this book was written about a national security issue in and about the early 1970s, much of it still rings true today. He explains, with some detail, how to build an atomic bomb in a time when the internet was still 25 years in the future and when the threat of a terrorist possessing an atomic weapon was already a grave threat. Although some of the security issues dealing with nuclear power and the weapons-grade fuel it generates have surely been solved, the inherent national security and energy issues inherent in nuclear power he discusses are still incredibly timely and sobering.
Anyone who likes John McPhee or has the slightest interest in physics, its history, or terrorism and national security must read this book. I've read it twice now.
Although this book was written about a national security issue in and about the early 1970s, much of it still rings true today. He explains, with some detail, how to build an atomic bomb in a time when the internet was still 25 years in the future and when the threat of a terrorist possessing an atomic weapon was already a grave threat. Although some of the security issues dealing with nuclear power and the weapons-grade fuel it generates have surely been solved, the inherent national security and energy issues inherent in nuclear power he discusses are still incredibly timely and sobering.
Anyone who likes John McPhee or has the slightest interest in physics, its history, or terrorism and national security must read this book. I've read it twice now.
November 3, 2023
A masterful portrait of fascinating figure, Ted Taylor, a man who elevated bomb-making to an art form and saw the dangers that lay ahead (its chilling how often “leveling the World Trade Center” seems to have been used as the benchmark of destructive power as early as 1973). McPhee vividly illustrates the power and pitfalls of atomic energy both in terms of it’s potential for violence and catastrophe, but also in the ways in which it manipulates the very glue that holds the universe together (the binding energy of the book’s title). The crisis of nuclear power is fundamentally a crisis about humankind’s place in that universe.
I only hold off on giving it five stars because, despite McPhee’s best efforts, much of the scientific detail was simply impenetrable to me. The fault there lies with me as a reader much more than McPhee as a writer. Still it had an undeniable impact on my reading experience as I imagine it will for others.
I only hold off on giving it five stars because, despite McPhee’s best efforts, much of the scientific detail was simply impenetrable to me. The fault there lies with me as a reader much more than McPhee as a writer. Still it had an undeniable impact on my reading experience as I imagine it will for others.
October 15, 2023
Another book in the growing list of nuclear weapons titles that I’ve read recently. It’s a biography of one scientist, Ted Taylor, and his growing paranoia about the safety of nuclear weapons. Taylor insists that the United States has not sufficiently invested in the security of our nuclear arsenal and that it’s at risk of theft or that a motivated terrorist could craft their own nuclear bomb at home. Much of the book focuses on the risk of nuclear theft and the ease at which a person could make their own weapon.
McPhee published the book in 1973. I’m reading it 50 years later and it feels like the book misses the mark on the true danger of nuclear weapons. An adjacent book, Command and Control by Eric Schlosser, argues that a malfunction of our own weapons is a greater risk than the Soviet Union ever was, and I agree. There has never been a homemade nuclear weapon detonated nor have terrorists stolen a warhead. Still, the only nation to use a nuclear weapon on living people is the United States. It’s hard to read about the supposed risk of a nuclear weapon going off in downtown Manhattan, when we actually used one to kill people.
The book is at its best when it dives into the fascinating ideas that these nuclear scientists had to use the weapons in productive ways. Ted Taylor suggests using nuclear weapons to create a network of tunnels to connect the United States with an underground high-speed railway. Instead of liquid rocket fuel, Taylor and Dyson proposed using nuclear blasts to propel a craft into space. It’s depressing that maybe the only good that came of the nuclear arms race, space exploration, was essentially just placing people atop an ICBM and letting it rip. I’d love to see Taylor, McPhee, and Dyson’s perspective on where things stand today in terms of nuclear weapons. I’m sure their opinions have drastically changed.
I can’t say I’d recommend this one unless you have a deep fascination with intimate details of nuclear technology or you’re interested to see what the perspectives were on nuclear weapons in the midst of the Cold War. Otherwise, I think Eric Schlosser’s book is much more relevant to the modern reader.
McPhee published the book in 1973. I’m reading it 50 years later and it feels like the book misses the mark on the true danger of nuclear weapons. An adjacent book, Command and Control by Eric Schlosser, argues that a malfunction of our own weapons is a greater risk than the Soviet Union ever was, and I agree. There has never been a homemade nuclear weapon detonated nor have terrorists stolen a warhead. Still, the only nation to use a nuclear weapon on living people is the United States. It’s hard to read about the supposed risk of a nuclear weapon going off in downtown Manhattan, when we actually used one to kill people.
The book is at its best when it dives into the fascinating ideas that these nuclear scientists had to use the weapons in productive ways. Ted Taylor suggests using nuclear weapons to create a network of tunnels to connect the United States with an underground high-speed railway. Instead of liquid rocket fuel, Taylor and Dyson proposed using nuclear blasts to propel a craft into space. It’s depressing that maybe the only good that came of the nuclear arms race, space exploration, was essentially just placing people atop an ICBM and letting it rip. I’d love to see Taylor, McPhee, and Dyson’s perspective on where things stand today in terms of nuclear weapons. I’m sure their opinions have drastically changed.
I can’t say I’d recommend this one unless you have a deep fascination with intimate details of nuclear technology or you’re interested to see what the perspectives were on nuclear weapons in the midst of the Cold War. Otherwise, I think Eric Schlosser’s book is much more relevant to the modern reader.
June 9, 2018
3.5 stars.
First published in 1974 this book is a little less frightening as the decades have passed and the imminent threats haven't materialized. (Assuming effective safeguards have since been put in place.) One sadly interesting point was the numerous references about what type of nuclear load was necessary to bring down the twin towers in NYC (which were pretty new when the book was originally published).
McPhee sticks to his reliable style of conversational writing, infectious curiosity, factual tidbits, and humor of the deadpan and absurdist varieties. The combination works very well but repetitiveness ultimately swung the book from a 4 star rating to 3 stars. (Initially funny (in that absurdist way) and interesting, McPhee wrote from the point of view of Ted Taylor and described the broad concepts of high-level physics in a way that almost made it seem simple. Unfortunately he went to that well too often and the book lost some of its charm.) The descriptions of Stanislaw Ulam as lazy and Ted Taylor as a subpar applied physicist and mathematician were hilarious and nicely showcased McPhee's keen eye for subtle humor.
I've read a few other books by McPhee and would put this one in the middle. I preferred "Uncommon Carriers" and "The Pine Barrens." I'd recommend against reading "A Sense of Where You Are."
On the subject of nuclear weapons I'd recommend "The Dead Hand" (by David Hoffman) and "Command and Control" (by Eric Schlosser).
First published in 1974 this book is a little less frightening as the decades have passed and the imminent threats haven't materialized. (Assuming effective safeguards have since been put in place.) One sadly interesting point was the numerous references about what type of nuclear load was necessary to bring down the twin towers in NYC (which were pretty new when the book was originally published).
McPhee sticks to his reliable style of conversational writing, infectious curiosity, factual tidbits, and humor of the deadpan and absurdist varieties. The combination works very well but repetitiveness ultimately swung the book from a 4 star rating to 3 stars. (Initially funny (in that absurdist way) and interesting, McPhee wrote from the point of view of Ted Taylor and described the broad concepts of high-level physics in a way that almost made it seem simple. Unfortunately he went to that well too often and the book lost some of its charm.) The descriptions of Stanislaw Ulam as lazy and Ted Taylor as a subpar applied physicist and mathematician were hilarious and nicely showcased McPhee's keen eye for subtle humor.
I've read a few other books by McPhee and would put this one in the middle. I preferred "Uncommon Carriers" and "The Pine Barrens." I'd recommend against reading "A Sense of Where You Are."
On the subject of nuclear weapons I'd recommend "The Dead Hand" (by David Hoffman) and "Command and Control" (by Eric Schlosser).
June 20, 2019
A marvelous read by the master of narrative nonfiction John McPhee. Much of the technical content needs updating, as one would expect from a book published in 1974. Fortunately there is Wikipedia, where one can easily look up the new names by which the various companies and agencies in the book are now known, as well as how the book's speculations on the future fared (sorry, no nuclear fusion power plants by the year 2000, it's looking more like 2050 now at the earliest, making that particular technology slower to develop than a medieval cathedral). But aside from the "I just dug up a time capsule" aspect of reading a 1970s perspective on nuclear power, there is the sheer wonderment at how McPhee is managing to pull the reader in. In lesser hands the subject would be drier than the Atacama. How was I barely able to put down this book? It would be nice if McPhee's skills were teachable and taught to every academic (starting with the philosophers not named Dennett). Or programmed into computers to make academic writing readable.
August 8, 2017
Recently (a few months ago) I became interested in answering the question: given modern computers, and access to only unclassified research, is it possible to design a nuclear bomb? And, most importantly, is it possible for amateurs to do so?
This book answered this question back in 1974. 1) Yes, it was possible even back then, and it should be even easier today, 2) Obtaining nuclear materials for such bomb is also much easier than you'd think, and 3) It is a genuine miracle that no private organization accomplished that yet — or perhaps they did, but decided not to go public with it.
The book ends with the dry description of hypothetical results of a "fizzle yield" (i.e. a detonation of e.g. a crude terrorist-made nuclear weapon, that didn't work properly to give full explosion) inside the New York World Trade Center. It is slightly less dramatic than what actually happened at September 11, 2001. I think that the warnings were given less attention that they deserved.
This book answered this question back in 1974. 1) Yes, it was possible even back then, and it should be even easier today, 2) Obtaining nuclear materials for such bomb is also much easier than you'd think, and 3) It is a genuine miracle that no private organization accomplished that yet — or perhaps they did, but decided not to go public with it.
The book ends with the dry description of hypothetical results of a "fizzle yield" (i.e. a detonation of e.g. a crude terrorist-made nuclear weapon, that didn't work properly to give full explosion) inside the New York World Trade Center. It is slightly less dramatic than what actually happened at September 11, 2001. I think that the warnings were given less attention that they deserved.
April 26, 2020
When I found out that McPhee had written a book about nuclear weapons that featured Freeman Dyson I immediately tracked a copy down. While Dyson isn’t the focus he is prominent in the most fascinating section, an extended digression on Project Orion. Also significant is the reoccurring invocation of the World Trade Center as the most obvious target of a terrorist attack, a theme that peaks near the book’s conclusion.
While some of the details may become dated since its publication McPhee’s book is as relevant as ever to anyone interested in risk management and global threats.
While some of the details may become dated since its publication McPhee’s book is as relevant as ever to anyone interested in risk management and global threats.
May 12, 2018
When this was written, the growth of the nuclear power industry was assumed, and the threat of “missing” bomb-ready material was a real possibility. McPhee and his subject, Ted Taylor, couldn’t know that accidents would kill the industry before terrorists would. Still, since McPhee is a terrific storyteller, Taylor, his life, and his worries still make a gripping read. And every time (and there are many times) Taylor mentions that a small amount of Plutonium or Uranium could bring down the World Trade Center, I get a shiver down my spine.
October 10, 2023
Nuclear power and weapons in the rear view mirror
McPhee's tale is nearly 50 years old now. The prose holds up well, but the plot, not so much. We now fear nuclear accidents nore than nuclear terrorism. China, Pakistan, India , North Korea, and Iran all have nuclear weapons. We seem to be heading towards solar, tidal, and wind energy and away from Fossil and nuclear fuels.
Have we tightened security around the nuclear fuel cycle? I would like an update.
A historic perspective is instructive!
McPhee's tale is nearly 50 years old now. The prose holds up well, but the plot, not so much. We now fear nuclear accidents nore than nuclear terrorism. China, Pakistan, India , North Korea, and Iran all have nuclear weapons. We seem to be heading towards solar, tidal, and wind energy and away from Fossil and nuclear fuels.
Have we tightened security around the nuclear fuel cycle? I would like an update.
A historic perspective is instructive!
April 16, 2021
Fascinating with incredibly compelling writing. Really interesting to consider with the historical perspective of what's happened since
March 4, 2025
This book was published in 1973, and honestly- it’s a straight up miracle that we haven’t blown ourselves off the planet yet.
July 12, 2009
Books Can Kill
I picked up this book to learn something about the risks associated with nuclear technology in the hands of terrorist states. What I read instead was an unexpected cautionary tale about the risks of irresponsible journalism.
The Curve of Binding Energy is an early piece by the talented essayist, John McPhee. McPhee explores the psyche and experience of a nuclear engineer, Ted Taylor, who in the 1950's made substantial contributions to the miniaturization of fission bombs and then became an advocate for "nuclear safeguards" - i.e. methods and policies to keep weapons-grade material or bomb-making technology out of criminal or terrorist hands.
Mr. Taylor's involvement in the book is highly ironic. Like most in the nuclear weapons community, he originally justified the work for its deterrent potential. Looking back two decades later, Taylor tells McPhee that the original rationale was naive. But unconsciously applying the same logic, Taylor was now willing to publicize all that he knew about the easiest ways to make a cheap A-bomb in the hope that proliferation of that knowledge would scare governments into adopting more effective safeguards.
Throughout the book, McPhee relates conversations in which he pumped Taylor for technical details about bomb construction. Each time, Taylor states that he has gone into just as much detail as he can on various subjects without breaching official secrets. This of course is nonsense. Any attempts to delineate the bounds of official secrets, and especially the juxtaposition of related methods and means are expressly forbidden by the security oath that Taylor once swore. If a terrorist nuclear bomb is ever detonated, Taylor will bear direct personal responsibilty.
Fortunately, the value of Taylor's technical insights is much less that McPhee implies. He reports many kind comments about Taylor from distinguished nuclear physicists who worked on the same projects. But none of these scientists express particular respect for his technical skills. And at least one of Taylor's important judgments in this book - that successful fission detonations are easy to achieve - was proved untrue last year when a DPRK demonstration fizzled.
No, to date no one has been killed or injured by one of Ted Taylor's creations. But the same cannot be said of John McPhee. The most intriguing details in The Curve of Binding Energy are its repeated speculations about the attractiveness of the WTC towers as terrorist targets and their vulnerability to destruction from a sub-nuclear explosion. It appears highly likely that this book was the original motivation behind O. A. Rahman's truck-bomb attack in 1993 and K. S. Mohammad's follow-on attack in 2001.
This is not a personal criticism of John McPhee. The point is that journalists - even great journalists - plying their own craft can do just as much unintended damage as any of their usual suspects.
I picked up this book to learn something about the risks associated with nuclear technology in the hands of terrorist states. What I read instead was an unexpected cautionary tale about the risks of irresponsible journalism.
The Curve of Binding Energy is an early piece by the talented essayist, John McPhee. McPhee explores the psyche and experience of a nuclear engineer, Ted Taylor, who in the 1950's made substantial contributions to the miniaturization of fission bombs and then became an advocate for "nuclear safeguards" - i.e. methods and policies to keep weapons-grade material or bomb-making technology out of criminal or terrorist hands.
Mr. Taylor's involvement in the book is highly ironic. Like most in the nuclear weapons community, he originally justified the work for its deterrent potential. Looking back two decades later, Taylor tells McPhee that the original rationale was naive. But unconsciously applying the same logic, Taylor was now willing to publicize all that he knew about the easiest ways to make a cheap A-bomb in the hope that proliferation of that knowledge would scare governments into adopting more effective safeguards.
Throughout the book, McPhee relates conversations in which he pumped Taylor for technical details about bomb construction. Each time, Taylor states that he has gone into just as much detail as he can on various subjects without breaching official secrets. This of course is nonsense. Any attempts to delineate the bounds of official secrets, and especially the juxtaposition of related methods and means are expressly forbidden by the security oath that Taylor once swore. If a terrorist nuclear bomb is ever detonated, Taylor will bear direct personal responsibilty.
Fortunately, the value of Taylor's technical insights is much less that McPhee implies. He reports many kind comments about Taylor from distinguished nuclear physicists who worked on the same projects. But none of these scientists express particular respect for his technical skills. And at least one of Taylor's important judgments in this book - that successful fission detonations are easy to achieve - was proved untrue last year when a DPRK demonstration fizzled.
No, to date no one has been killed or injured by one of Ted Taylor's creations. But the same cannot be said of John McPhee. The most intriguing details in The Curve of Binding Energy are its repeated speculations about the attractiveness of the WTC towers as terrorist targets and their vulnerability to destruction from a sub-nuclear explosion. It appears highly likely that this book was the original motivation behind O. A. Rahman's truck-bomb attack in 1993 and K. S. Mohammad's follow-on attack in 2001.
This is not a personal criticism of John McPhee. The point is that journalists - even great journalists - plying their own craft can do just as much unintended damage as any of their usual suspects.
January 29, 2013
A friend recommended I read this. It's from 1974. The book bounces between being a biography of Taylor and an examination of the state of the nuclear industry regarding security. Both topics are interesting as well as frightening. In the end, you'll gain an appreciation of the risks taken in the early years of atomic weaponry. You'll also start worrying more about nuclear terrorism. Finally, you'll grasp the meaning of the curve of binding energy and have your mind blown by this:
I should note that it's actually more than a third of a modern penny. Old pennies have a mass of just over 3 grams. Newer pennies are 2.5 grams. So, it's 40% of a modern penny. Or, just say less than half a penny to be safe. But, in any case, I just sat back with my mouth literally hanging open after reading that. Well, my mouth was literally hanging open, but I was reading in bed, not sitting.
The book makes predictions about the direction of the nuclear energy industry. It would be interesting to check those against how the industry has actually developed over the past few decades. Not that I'm going to do that.
He said that Carson Mark had once pointed out to him a number, a fact, that brought with it the most astonishing realization he had ever experienced in physics. It had to do with binding energy, and it was that when Fat Man exploded over Nagasaki the amount of matter that changed into energy and destroyed the city was one gram—a third the weight of a penny. A number of kilograms of plutonium were in the bomb, but the amount that actually released its binding energy and created the fireball was one gram. E (twenty kilotons) equals m (one gram) times the square of the speed of light.
I should note that it's actually more than a third of a modern penny. Old pennies have a mass of just over 3 grams. Newer pennies are 2.5 grams. So, it's 40% of a modern penny. Or, just say less than half a penny to be safe. But, in any case, I just sat back with my mouth literally hanging open after reading that. Well, my mouth was literally hanging open, but I was reading in bed, not sitting.
The book makes predictions about the direction of the nuclear energy industry. It would be interesting to check those against how the industry has actually developed over the past few decades. Not that I'm going to do that.
May 1, 2016
This book is worth reading as a biographical sketch of Ted Taylor, the father of nuclear weapons miniaturization, and a stark warning of the dangers of nuclear energy. While the fact that a nuclear weapon has not been utilized by any nation, non state actor, or individual yet it is chilling to reading the discussion at the beginning of the book when the writer John McPhee utilizes quotes from scientists on the resiliency of society to withstand a nuclear weapon being used not once but multiple times. Remember that this book was written forty two years ago but it is just as relevant today in the warning that the information is readily available to thousands of knowledgeable individuals to make a nuclear weapon and that the safe guarding of nuclear fuels, especially plutonium, is not a top priority by nuclear power industry because it would affect their profits.
Physicist Taylor's vision of a nuclear power based society did not come to pass.
I highly recommend this book.
Physicist Taylor's vision of a nuclear power based society did not come to pass.
I highly recommend this book.
August 13, 2011
Read from the promontory of 35 years this book remains chilling. I'm not enough of a student to follow the textbook descriptions of ways to obtain nuclear material, much less assemble a bomb. I do know enough of human nature to believe that where there's a will there's a way. Thus I tremble in my bed at night.
Three things to note...
1) Nuclear deterrence worked, sort of. The escalating arms race bankrupted the Soviet Union before it bankrupted the US.
2) The subsequent emergence of the internet as a repository for more detailed information on weapons construction means that this genie can never be returned to the bottle.
3) One must marvel at the prescient identification of the World Trade Center as a highly symbolic target.
As with all of McPhee's writing, I am impressed by the lucid description and orderly flow. If one indeed learns to write by reading, then read John McPhee.
Three things to note...
1) Nuclear deterrence worked, sort of. The escalating arms race bankrupted the Soviet Union before it bankrupted the US.
2) The subsequent emergence of the internet as a repository for more detailed information on weapons construction means that this genie can never be returned to the bottle.
3) One must marvel at the prescient identification of the World Trade Center as a highly symbolic target.
As with all of McPhee's writing, I am impressed by the lucid description and orderly flow. If one indeed learns to write by reading, then read John McPhee.
February 26, 2019
Every bit as fascinating today as the day it was published. McPhee exerts his usual skill at covering a subject from the scientific to the personal, this time with regards to the world of nuclear power and bombs. What an interesting character, genius, and occasional crackpot he chose in Ted Taylor.
This book takes on a seriously tragic patina so long after publication. The prime terrorist targets mentioned are the World Trade Center (at least a half dozen times), the Pentagon, and the White House. The nuclear power industry has faltered in the US, Chernobyl and Fukushima happened, and climate change is accelerating.
This quote is one of many that stood out, since part of growing up is realizing its sad truth: “What catches up with you is that you find out the people who are in charge of these things aren’t as wise as they should be”.
This book takes on a seriously tragic patina so long after publication. The prime terrorist targets mentioned are the World Trade Center (at least a half dozen times), the Pentagon, and the White House. The nuclear power industry has faltered in the US, Chernobyl and Fukushima happened, and climate change is accelerating.
This quote is one of many that stood out, since part of growing up is realizing its sad truth: “What catches up with you is that you find out the people who are in charge of these things aren’t as wise as they should be”.
August 27, 2007
This 1974 biography of weapons physicist Ted Taylor (which also charts the development of the conjoined commercial and military nuclear industries) made my blood run cold. McPhee is of course incredibly observant and astute, and is the master of a sort of warmly anayltic tone. This book is perhaps a little heavy on scientific detail, but I got a C in high school physics, so what do I know. But: chilling. Aside from reminding us how easy it is to build an atomic bomb (very easy!), the book repeatedly cites a certain site as an obvious potential target, and spends a decent amount of time figuring out what it would take to destroy said target. That target being, of course, the World Trade Center. And this in 1974. Oy.
I bought this book at Green Apple Books in S.F. Great store.
I bought this book at Green Apple Books in S.F. Great store.
May 14, 2017
Reading this book in 2017 finds it to seem a bit of an exercise in misdirected prognostication: in many ways, circumstances have changed dramatically since 1972-73 when McPhee was researching and writing the book.
Since then we've had Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima; we've gone from groups like the Red Army Faction, Sin Fein, and the PLO to al-Qaeda and ISIS. We've seen the terrible carnage of Timothy McVeigh's attack on the Murra Federal Building in Oklahoma City, politically-inspired attacks in Madrid, London, San Antonio, Boston, Paris, Nice, San Bernardino, Moscow, Mumbai, Bali, Tokyo, Lockerbie, and many other places. We've seen plots broken up--sometimes well-organized, more often inept. Though the World Trade Center was destroyed in a terrorist attack, as McPhee suggested it could, destruction was not accomplished with a low-yield nuclear device, but with everyday transportation machines used unconventionally.
We have yet to see a successful terrorist attack (or criminal blackmail/hostage scheme) using nuclear materials. In part this seems to be because the logic of terrorism is one of natural force amplification--sowing fear and pursuing the disruptions and costs fear incurs is the real point, not merely racking up a large number of dead and wounded. This point seems ms obvious today, but was tangential to McPhee's thesis in 1973. In addition, McPhee assumes putative terrorists would want to survive the carnage their acts cause. This in particular seems a quaint presumption, for we now know that some terrorists are quite willing to sacrifice themselves/to commit suicide to accomplish their ends.
Despite the sense of alarm and the insistence on the ease in which an attack using nuclear materials that pervades McPhee's book, there do seem to be easier ways to disrupt the social order than through use of nuclear materials. Conventional arms and explosives do a fine job of accomplishing the goals of terrorism, thank you. Even chemical and biological terror attacks have been rare and are apparently substantially more difficult than attacks carried out with guns and bombs. Certainly, modern nations with their police state apparatuses have done at least a moderately successful job at suppressing and minimizing terror attacks, though at costs that are difficult to reckon fully. Nuclear security seems to have improved. The US has had some success in preventing the wholesale dispersion of nuclear materials after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Today the biggest nuclear threats seem to come from smaller countries that want parity with larger nations. At the moment, North Korea is the most dangerous example of that form of nuclear threat. And we don't know what the outcome might be.
Since then we've had Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima; we've gone from groups like the Red Army Faction, Sin Fein, and the PLO to al-Qaeda and ISIS. We've seen the terrible carnage of Timothy McVeigh's attack on the Murra Federal Building in Oklahoma City, politically-inspired attacks in Madrid, London, San Antonio, Boston, Paris, Nice, San Bernardino, Moscow, Mumbai, Bali, Tokyo, Lockerbie, and many other places. We've seen plots broken up--sometimes well-organized, more often inept. Though the World Trade Center was destroyed in a terrorist attack, as McPhee suggested it could, destruction was not accomplished with a low-yield nuclear device, but with everyday transportation machines used unconventionally.
We have yet to see a successful terrorist attack (or criminal blackmail/hostage scheme) using nuclear materials. In part this seems to be because the logic of terrorism is one of natural force amplification--sowing fear and pursuing the disruptions and costs fear incurs is the real point, not merely racking up a large number of dead and wounded. This point seems ms obvious today, but was tangential to McPhee's thesis in 1973. In addition, McPhee assumes putative terrorists would want to survive the carnage their acts cause. This in particular seems a quaint presumption, for we now know that some terrorists are quite willing to sacrifice themselves/to commit suicide to accomplish their ends.
Despite the sense of alarm and the insistence on the ease in which an attack using nuclear materials that pervades McPhee's book, there do seem to be easier ways to disrupt the social order than through use of nuclear materials. Conventional arms and explosives do a fine job of accomplishing the goals of terrorism, thank you. Even chemical and biological terror attacks have been rare and are apparently substantially more difficult than attacks carried out with guns and bombs. Certainly, modern nations with their police state apparatuses have done at least a moderately successful job at suppressing and minimizing terror attacks, though at costs that are difficult to reckon fully. Nuclear security seems to have improved. The US has had some success in preventing the wholesale dispersion of nuclear materials after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Today the biggest nuclear threats seem to come from smaller countries that want parity with larger nations. At the moment, North Korea is the most dangerous example of that form of nuclear threat. And we don't know what the outcome might be.
April 30, 2023
As a returning student in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, I discovered this book while procrastinating one evening in one of the school libraries. I had stumbled upon an article about how a high-school student, from Florida I think, using only materials in the public domain, had designed, for a science fair, a homemade nuclear bomb. The design had attracted the attention of the U.S. government and been reviewed by some of its experts in the field of nuclear weaponry, who had basically said something along the lines of "It could work."
Ted Taylor was a nuclear weapons designer whose particular specialty was miniaturizing nuclear weapons. He had, among other achievements, designed a bomb the power of the Fat Boy device dropped on Nagasaki but the size of a rugby football (as compared to Fat Boy's 10 x 5 foot size and 4.5 ton weight). Later he designed the highest-yield fission (as opposed to fusion, or "hydrogen") bomb ever created. But he had become concerned about how relatively easy it would be for someone to design a workable homemade nuclear weapon. He reached out to generals, politicians, and many others, but could get none of them to take this concerns seriously.
_The Curve of Binding Energy_ represents Taylor's effort to force the issue on these policymakers whose attention he could not get. Like Moby Dick, the book combines a compelling story with detailed but nonetheless riveting technical discussions. The story is that of Taylor's life; the technical discussions have to do with how one might build a working nuclear bomb in one's garage. Taylor supplied no classified information to author McPhee for inclusion in the discussion: every detail was available in the open literature. That was his point.
Taylor is an amazing character; the technical subject matter of the book is hair-raising; and McPhee, of course, is a master storyteller in the non-fiction domain. I've read the book multiple times over the years.
Ted Taylor was a nuclear weapons designer whose particular specialty was miniaturizing nuclear weapons. He had, among other achievements, designed a bomb the power of the Fat Boy device dropped on Nagasaki but the size of a rugby football (as compared to Fat Boy's 10 x 5 foot size and 4.5 ton weight). Later he designed the highest-yield fission (as opposed to fusion, or "hydrogen") bomb ever created. But he had become concerned about how relatively easy it would be for someone to design a workable homemade nuclear weapon. He reached out to generals, politicians, and many others, but could get none of them to take this concerns seriously.
_The Curve of Binding Energy_ represents Taylor's effort to force the issue on these policymakers whose attention he could not get. Like Moby Dick, the book combines a compelling story with detailed but nonetheless riveting technical discussions. The story is that of Taylor's life; the technical discussions have to do with how one might build a working nuclear bomb in one's garage. Taylor supplied no classified information to author McPhee for inclusion in the discussion: every detail was available in the open literature. That was his point.
Taylor is an amazing character; the technical subject matter of the book is hair-raising; and McPhee, of course, is a master storyteller in the non-fiction domain. I've read the book multiple times over the years.
August 8, 2018
The Curve of Binding Energy is a very interesting book about an American nuclear physicist that practically no one has ever heard of, Theodore B. Taylor. Nevertheless, he was responsible for some very interesting things. He designed the both the largest nuclear fission device, the Super Alloy Bomb (SOB) with 500 kilotons of force, and the smallest for the time, one that weighed only 20 pounds. The problem with reading the book is it was published in 1973 and, nuclear weapons being what they are, I suspect a lot of the information in it is out of date. Not, of course, about what he did but for what is current now.
The main focus of Ted Taylor became his certainty that there were not enough safeguards in place to prevent the theft of fissionable material, enriched uranium or plutonium. He devoted a large part of his later years to developing ideas that would thwart these kinds of thefts and terrorist attacks but the AEC, at the time did not see the threat as a serious one. Like many of the people in the book, I hope that's what they said publically while they were busy implementing intense safeguards but I rather doubt it. Some of the transportation methods and storage facilities mentioned were downright scary.
Taylor certainly was an extremely inventive type. He went on to promote some way out ideas (f0r the times) for energy production, space exploration and the like. The book is worth reading for all of that. No one seemed to buy into them but some would be worth looking into again. He was by no means a "crazy scientist" but there is that aura about his ideas.
The main focus of Ted Taylor became his certainty that there were not enough safeguards in place to prevent the theft of fissionable material, enriched uranium or plutonium. He devoted a large part of his later years to developing ideas that would thwart these kinds of thefts and terrorist attacks but the AEC, at the time did not see the threat as a serious one. Like many of the people in the book, I hope that's what they said publically while they were busy implementing intense safeguards but I rather doubt it. Some of the transportation methods and storage facilities mentioned were downright scary.
Taylor certainly was an extremely inventive type. He went on to promote some way out ideas (f0r the times) for energy production, space exploration and the like. The book is worth reading for all of that. No one seemed to buy into them but some would be worth looking into again. He was by no means a "crazy scientist" but there is that aura about his ideas.
February 25, 2020
John McPhee is a prolific author, and this book, in sharing the thoughts and insights of one of the creators of atomic weapons, is very insightful and provocative. The amount of one-on-one time spent with theoretical physicist Theodore Taylor is a demonstration of McPhee's dedication to getting the story right and in sharing some of those thoughts which existed within Taylor's day-to-day thoughts.
Although the world has changed in the decades since this book was published (1973), there are many questions identified that are still unanswered in our current day. And perhaps they will remain so until the civilized world decides to relinquish our selfish and combative nature for the common good of all.
As far as the title, "The Curve of Binding Energy", I was only able to find discussion or mention of that topic on pages 159 and 161. As I have been interested in that topic for several years, I was somewhat dismayed that much of the book did not disclose any additional details in that area. Additionally, there were no Table of Contents, Chapters or other foot/end note references included in this publication.
In the discussions shared between McPhee and Taylor, there are plenty of potentially radical innovations with possible positive usages of nuclear energy, and many of those ideas are fascinating to consider.
Although the world has changed in the decades since this book was published (1973), there are many questions identified that are still unanswered in our current day. And perhaps they will remain so until the civilized world decides to relinquish our selfish and combative nature for the common good of all.
As far as the title, "The Curve of Binding Energy", I was only able to find discussion or mention of that topic on pages 159 and 161. As I have been interested in that topic for several years, I was somewhat dismayed that much of the book did not disclose any additional details in that area. Additionally, there were no Table of Contents, Chapters or other foot/end note references included in this publication.
In the discussions shared between McPhee and Taylor, there are plenty of potentially radical innovations with possible positive usages of nuclear energy, and many of those ideas are fascinating to consider.
May 20, 2022
In a sense McPhee is at his best when he's wrong. Not to jinx anything (knock on wood), but it seems that the most dire predictions of McPhee and Taylor about roving bands of terrorists constructing fractional kiloton bombs in garages haven't come to fruition. I guess it's possible all the plots have been foiled, but given what we know about the FBI and quote unquote preventing crime I'm reasonably sure we would have heard some inkling. It reminds me of his fear in the Pine Barrens about the supersonic jetport about to be built over 1M acres of scrub pine in south Jersey... a terrifying potential to be sure but one that obviously didn't happen (although the inexorable sub/exurbanization of the area is tragic indeed..). But in any case, a great portrait of Taylor, a really interesting fellow, as well as of his contemporaries at the time (Dyson and co), interesting descriptions of life at Los Alamos, and the sections on how to actually construct a bomb were fascinating. Loved also when McPhee couldn't fathom why someone would deign to blow up Boston. What an insult to his daughter, who lives there!
September 2, 2025
An interesting snapshot of publicly available knowledge around enrichment and weapon manufacturing in the 1980's. Maybe I'm out over my skis here, but I will say that I wish the author would take Ted Taylor's claims with a grain of salt. That being said! Super concise, and shockingly easy to understand for the amount of technical details offered up here. I actually closed the book and gasped when the title came into play lol. Lots of details in here that made me immediately want to look into the present day state of affairs - I would love a 2025 reissue with a 50 page intro describing the changing landscape of fission energy, and the state of the modern fusion industry.
February 9, 2019
The book was written in the 1970's, so the information is dated. But, as with everything I've read by McPhee, meticulously researched. And as usual McPhee's presentation is accessible to those who are particularly versed in the topic.
I enjoyed the book and the warnings contained within will give a person pause. I hadn't read "The Curve of Binding Energy" and I don't know why. I've read about everything else John McPhee has written. The book is entertaining and informative and I recommend it.
I enjoyed the book and the warnings contained within will give a person pause. I hadn't read "The Curve of Binding Energy" and I don't know why. I've read about everything else John McPhee has written. The book is entertaining and informative and I recommend it.
November 18, 2023
The paranoid style of American nuclear policy — this is archival, published in 1974 before DOE and its safeguards — but this McPhee has aged badly. Its suspicions — about rogue bombs and material — are shockingly absent any concerns about fossil fuels, and its only good lines are the two literary references: a guard in white shoe covers reads Portnoy’s Complaint, Ted’s wife Caro “has great inner resources and would have made a great Penelope to his Odysseus.”
April 23, 2022
Dated; the vision of an early 2000s world mostly powered by nuclear instead of coal and gas never came to pass, rendering many of the complex concerns mooted in the book less threatening.
Still an interesting (and as ever with McPhee, well-written) picture of a lesser-known human grappling with first The Bomb and later many possible bombs.
Still an interesting (and as ever with McPhee, well-written) picture of a lesser-known human grappling with first The Bomb and later many possible bombs.
April 26, 2019
First half was great, last couple chapters lost me ;)
First physics book I ever read, many of his notations on how we handle our nuclear energy are still fresh in my mind and fully apply decades after this book was written.
Please heed his warning.
First physics book I ever read, many of his notations on how we handle our nuclear energy are still fresh in my mind and fully apply decades after this book was written.
Please heed his warning.
February 7, 2021
Meh. Some interesting scientific tidbits and historical anecdotes, otherwise uninspiring. The booklength hand-wringing over safeguards just prior to the de facto end of fuel reprocessing (in the US, at least) struck me as mildly humorous, but perhaps that just means the book was effective?
Displaying 1 - 30 of 75 reviews