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.