Not really. While there might have been more HEU there's have been far fewer actual weapons.You, and he, seem to have missed my point. Had the atomic bomb program focused entirely on enriched uranium there would have been more available because none would have been diverted to the manufacture of plutonium.
There's a huge difference between the natural uranium used in the Hartford reactors (with 0.7% U235) and the HEU used in the MK1 (>80% U235). The resources to construct the Hanford complex wouldn't have helped much with uranium enrichment.
Hell even if you assumed a 50/50 split in resourcing between the uranium separation and plutonium production aspects of the project and assumed that dropping the plutonium aspect completely doubled the production of HEU there's still only have been two bombs by JUL1945 and two more by the end of the year, rather than a total of 22 weapons.
And such assumptions simply wouldn't be true. Take the dollar costs of the Manhattan Project for example.
Of the roughly 1.9 billion dollars (1945 dollars) the Oak Ridge isotopic separation facility consumed 1.19 billion. More specifically:
- Gaseous Diffusion Plant (K25) $512M
- Electromagnetic Separation Plant (Y12) $478M
- Thermal Diffusion Plant (S50) $16M
- Engineer Works, headquarters and utilities $156M
- Laboratories $27M
Dropping the uranium bomb in favour of a larger plutonium project (assuming sufficient natural uranium was available for the additional reactors) would have been a more economic path.
Of course this is with hindsight... We know the plutonium bomb concept is viable.