Diary of the Passionless

If my calculations are correct this is the last few hours of my first week of summer. Unfortunately little progress has been made in the job department and my writing is stagnating from lack of prompts. Why is it that I seem to need prompts in order to write? If I don't have prompts I need to get angry (also known as "passionate") in order to get any good writing done. Without 'passion' I suppose I would be forced to more 'verbal diarrhea' posts like this one. I suppose that my recent bout of finals has drained my intellectual waters. Perhaps I just need time to re-water my brain sponge with more material.

I hope for your sake and mine that this bout doesn't last too long. Or you, my fair reader, may resort to eating your keyboard as you read each insufferable line of my verbal spillage. I'm terribly sorry.

Tribbles...They're Everywhere...

I never knew I had so much stuff until I had to pack it all up and bring it home. It would appear that, like tribbles, my things seem to reproduce like bunny rabbits. I guess it could have been worse. In fact, my roommates seemed to have a much harder time than I packing up all of their things. Lucky for me I managed to keep my room fairly clean which made packing less of a chore. Now that finals are over and I'm relatively unpacked back at home I will continue to make regular posts to this blog...just in case anyone is reading.

First on my list of things to talk about is the new Star Trek movie. While I know many people disregard it as a fan boy film of little merit, I was surprised by J.J. Abrams adaptation. While I have been a Star Trek fan for some time I can't say that I grew up with the series or know all that there is to know. That being said, I was impressed that Abrams was able to make his film something that both fans and newcomers alike could enjoy. For the long time fans there were the occasional references to the original series including a few token phrases (McCoy's "I'm a doctor, not a..." or Scotty's "I'm giving it all she's got captain!"). For the newcomers (like my roommates) there was plenty of ship to ship combat and a few epic fight scenes including a particularly memorable sword fight. Of course, it wouldn't be Star Trek without a little tampering with the space-time continuum or subcutaneous philosophical debate and, luckily for Abrams, he caught on to these Star Trek nuances and integrated them quite nicely into the film. All in all, it was certainly worth the ten dollar ticket and the late night show. For those of you who haven't seen it, I highly recommend it.

Becoming Death: The Manhattan Scientists, The Atomic Bomb, and Irrevocable Change

{Author's Note}
I know I said I wasn't going to post anything until after finals but I decided otherwise. I have a few minutes and my final history paper for the semester deserves a post. Now...on to art history and computer science!

P.S. The picture above is a particularly ecstatic J. Robert Oppenheimer

And now without further ado...Becoming Death.

When Robert Oppenheimer quoted the Bhagavad Gita (“I am become death, destroyer of worlds.”) after witnessing the awesome destructive power of the atomic bomb at the Trinity test site, he quite adequately summed up the atomic bomb. The Manhattan Project’s terrifying new weapon would, in the end, provide an appropriately climactic end to the horrible devastation of World War II and change world politics forever. The annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would prove to the world that the modern American giant was not only awake, but angry. The Soviet Union after the war would see the United States through a different lens, changing their policy from America as an ally to America as a chief competitor for global domination. The rest of the world would come to fear American might, setting a new standard for international diplomacy; keep the U.S. happy or suffer a fate similar to the Japanese. Once the Enola Gay released its terrible payload in August of 1945 the world was irrevocably changed (lecture).
While the first use of the atomic bomb may have changed the world, there lies, at the heart of history, a question which remains open. This question: “Why did we drop the atomic bomb on a heavily populated city?” has been debated by historians since the drop and, in all actuality, will continue to be debated until a definitive answer is provided by the U.S. government.
It is common opinion that the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessitated by the belief that an invasion of the Japanese mainland would lead to tremendous casualties on both sides (Alperovitz, 5). In order to avoid this destruction, the American command structure, the myth goes, seemingly arrived at the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This was simply not the case. In fact, nearly all of the American military structure from Truman to Leahy did not approve of an atomic bomb drop on anything other than a purely military target (lecture). Why then was the atomic bomb released upon non military (or minimally military) targets if the command structure was so adamantly opposed? It appears that the command structure, for all intents and purposes, was swayed by the Scientific Advisory Panel and the rest of the Manhattan scientists that made “Recommendations on the immediate use of nuclear weapons” (Oppenheimer).
The report by the Scientific Advisory Panel clearly states that its member scientists, some of the leading researchers in atomic energy, “[could] propose no technical demonstration likely to bring an end to the war [and] see no acceptable alternative to military use” (Oppenheimer). This report is hilariously manipulative and near the end, obviously carefully designed to deflect guilt. The Manhattan scientists must have realized that the United States’ government which had “spared no effort in securing the earliest possible successful development of an atomic weapon.” would one day use it (Stimson, 1). Even a good politician couldn’t be faulted for believing the ‘experts’. To that effect, the panel scientists make an interesting comment at the end of their report “We have, however, no claim to special competence in solving the political, social, and military problems which are presented by the advent of atomic power” (Oppenheimer). This statement seems to be cleverly designed to remove all responsibility from the Manhattan scientists. And while this statement is true in general (the scientific community is not supposed to make decisions or determine policy only provide the devices and research for the policy makers), the Manhattan scientists must have realized that, if given a weapon of such tremendous might as the atomic bomb, no one could resist its terminating power.
Looking solely at this report by the Scientific Advisory Panel it appears that the Manhattan scientists should be held responsible for the dropping of the atomic bombs. Unfortunately, it isn’t that easy. Even though the scientists (the experts to Washington) proposed the immediate drop of the atomic bomb, the orders were still handed down by Truman and his staff. No one stopped the cataclysm that was to come, and, in that sense, all must share guilt. Additionally, a vast majority of the Manhattan scientists would, after witnessing the destructive potential of their creation, speak publicly that another course of action should have been considered. Dr. Edward Teller, father of the Hydrogen bomb stated that “We could have used the bomb to end the war without bloodshed by exploding it high over Tokyo at night without prior warning…If it had been exploded at an altitude over 20,000 feet there would have been…hardly any damage to property… [and] tremendous sound and light effects.”(Laurence). This course of action would, in hindsight, have been a far less destructive way of scaring the Japanese into surrender. If this particular method were not enough, a second drop could have been performed on an actual military target with far more destructive effect. However, from what we know today, it is unlikely that the Japanese would have continued the war (a war they were already losing) if they had witnessed such a deadly display over their capital (Laurence).
If the scientists proposed the drop sites and determined that the use of the bomb was necessary to expediently end the war, where does the President (the final authority) factor into the decision? Mr. Henry Stimson, Secretary of War to Truman, described the chilling final report to the President compiled by the Interim Committee in his article entitled The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb. In his article Stimson summarizes this report “1. The bomb should be used against Japan as soon as possible. 2. It should be used on a dual target (a military target surrounded by civilian structures). 3. It should be used without prior warning” (Stimson, 100). Stimson goes on to explain that pre-warning and a demonstration in an uninhabited area, while both proposed, were both discarded as “impractical”. The Interim Committee believed that pre-warning followed by a failure to detonate an atomic bomb would be detrimental in forcing surrender. Perhaps they were right, but nonetheless, it was the job of the President to determine the ultimate strategy. President Harry S. Truman accepted the recommendations of the Interim Committee unequivocally and, in signing the orders, would be written into history as the first leader to publicly authorize the use of nuclear weapons (Stimson 100-102).
Henry Stimson ends his article with a rather interesting statement, one that remains true to this day, “They (the atomic bombs) made it wholly clear that we must never have another war. This is the lesson men and leaders everywhere must learn, and I believe that when they learn it they will find a way to lasting peace. There is no other choice” (Stimson, 107). Mr. Stimson’s statement has a fair bit of truth to it. While the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was both unwarranted and unnecessary in forcing Japanese surrender, and while the Manhattan scientists, in their eagerness to see their creation end a devastating war, are, to some degree, at fault for what they did the dropping of the atomic bomb changed the world. Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki the world has been both blessed and cursed with the looming specter of nuclear holocaust. And while this constant enemy may strain diplomatic relations and lead to bitter (though minor) conflicts, it also guards the world against all out conflict, for in a nuclear war, everybody loses.

Finals

With finals now upon us I will be issuing no new posts until summer break. Thank you for your understanding and continued support.

-B

The State of The Party

I am, each day, becoming significantly disillusioned with my Republican Party. What has become of the party which I once loved so much? A series of betrayals, rampant religious fundamentalism, and, quite frankly, idiotic stances on 'the issues' have led me to a position that I do not relish. Disillusionment is not a state in which to live and certainly not one I favor. It is my firm belief that, in order for the Republican Party to recover the many things it has lost (the respect of the nation and party dignity), there must occur a radical renovation of party ideals and concepts. The loss of the election this year was no accident. My party has fallen into the greatest evil available to it. My party, once a proud defender of liberty and equality, has fallen into religious fundamentalism and social disgrace.
First, the social aspect of the Republican party must see gigantic overhaul in order for the party to draw more (much needed) voters into the fold. The Republican stances upon gay marriage, stem cell research, and abortion are borderline barbaric and its adherents horrifyingly backwards. How is the issue of gay marriage any different than old question of emancipation for African Americans? The emancipation of the African Americans was, one must remember, actually brought to fruition BY the Republicans once upon a time. What has happened to that fundamental love of freedom, liberty, and rights? The Republican and Democratic Parties should never have been divided along the lines of fundamental human rights. We are, as Enlightenment philosophers stated, all endowed with certain inherent rights. Why then have some of those rights (ie. happiness and liberty) become divided along political lines, should they not be inherent in all political parties? It is a failure not just of the Republican party, but American politics in general, that allowed such rights to be split into political camps. And it is this failure that I will not soon forget.
Second, my hapless party has fallen into religious fundamentalism. This is an irritating, though not entirely unexpected fault. Since much of the Republican base comes from the deeply religious south it comes as no surprise that religion would leak into politics. However, this is simply not acceptable to any degree. The founding fathers and even the Enlightenment philosophers before them realized that religion and government must remain separate in order to maintain cohesive and fluid action. Religion dirties and distorts political reason. While religion is perfectly acceptable (even, at times, necessary) outside of politics it has no value in determining the political doctrine of a country, if only for the reason that religion does not provide sound (reasoned) justification for policy.
While there are many faults to the Republican party I remain a card carrying member. While I may not support some of my party's more ridiculous social policies, I can claim no aversion to the death penalty, the right to bear arms, laissez-faire capitalism, and the damnation of a universal health care plan. Despite all of its many failings, I find that, more often that not, I agree with a Republican far more often than I do with a Democrat. However, I am worried that without radical change (a word that has now been improperly cliched by the Obama administration) my party will never regain the respect of the public and never again be able to achieve power in any branch of government. I hope, for the sake of the party, that the Republican leaders can reexamine their stance upon issues and find innovative ways to integrate the political moderates or risk a total collapse of the Right.