by Werner » Mon Jul 30, 2007 2:10 pm
Roger T wrote: There was disagreement over how to use it (e.g. a demonstration as opposed to operational use), but that was it (and even then, Oppenheimer was one of the most vociferous critics of the 'demonstration' school of thought). Leo Szilard headed a petition by the Chicago scientists asking the government to think seriously about the use of the bomb, and to do so after making its terms of surrender public and clear to the Japanese.
Referring again to Rhodes, I believe the Japanese had the misfortune of clarifying their position on "unconditional surrender" at a time of relative power vacuum in Washington following Roosevelt's death. I think there were a great many second- and third-tier bureaucrats who wanted to see the weapon used as a source of satisfaction for their efforts.
Earlier, Bohr wrote to Roosevelt about an "extranational authority" for the control of nuclear power, and forwarded a notional charter which Roosevelt passed to Justice Felix Frankfurter who passed it back favorably to Roosevelt. The situation reversed during the "Tube Alloy" discussions when Churchill convinced Roosevelt that Bohr's views were socialist, simplistic and childish.
Oppenheimer (no member of the "Chicago" group) wrote he believed the world needed "very far-reaching changes. They are changes in the relations between nations, not only in spirit, not only in law, but also in conception and feeling. I don't know which of these is prior; they must all work together, and only the gradual interaction of one or the other can make a reality. I don't agree with those who say the first step is to have a structure of international law. I don't agree with those who say the only thing is to have friendly feelings. All of these things will be involved. I think it is true to say that atomic weapons are a peril which affects everyone in the world, and in that sense a completely common problem, as common a problem as it was for the defeat of the Nazis."
Speaking from my personal knowledge of the topic, in Chicago at least, there was a real division between those who felt that if you can research a thing you should, you must, and those who felt constrained from certain lines of work because of the possible, or inevitable, negative consequences for the human race. In any event, making a bomb is a task for engineers working from your calculations. They are, after all, an entirely lower form of mind, with limited vision and more able to deal with the technical consequences of the adaptation of your theories and experiments. In addition, who can say what positive spin offs occur from related activities. Who would have thought sealant K416 for the Uranium Hexafluoride centrifuges would find common use in the house as Teflon?
Gil Elliot wrote in
The 20th Century Book of the Dead that the century consumed 1-2 million lives by war between 1900 and 1914, the rate rising to 10/12 million a year by 1945. Since the detonation of the first atom bomb, the rate has fallen below 1 million a year and remained at this level for the next 50 years. This has been accompanied by a gigantic increase in the
capacity for killing. In that sense, these horror weapons have finally quelled human blood lust.
[quote="Roger T"] There was disagreement over [i]how [/i]to use it (e.g. a demonstration as opposed to operational use), but that was it (and even then, Oppenheimer was one of the most vociferous critics of the 'demonstration' school of thought). Leo Szilard headed a petition by the Chicago scientists asking the government to think seriously about the use of the bomb, and to do so after making its terms of surrender public and clear to the Japanese.[/quote]
Referring again to Rhodes, I believe the Japanese had the misfortune of clarifying their position on "unconditional surrender" at a time of relative power vacuum in Washington following Roosevelt's death. I think there were a great many second- and third-tier bureaucrats who wanted to see the weapon used as a source of satisfaction for their efforts.
Earlier, Bohr wrote to Roosevelt about an "extranational authority" for the control of nuclear power, and forwarded a notional charter which Roosevelt passed to Justice Felix Frankfurter who passed it back favorably to Roosevelt. The situation reversed during the "Tube Alloy" discussions when Churchill convinced Roosevelt that Bohr's views were socialist, simplistic and childish.
Oppenheimer (no member of the "Chicago" group) wrote he believed the world needed "very far-reaching changes. They are changes in the relations between nations, not only in spirit, not only in law, but also in conception and feeling. I don't know which of these is prior; they must all work together, and only the gradual interaction of one or the other can make a reality. I don't agree with those who say the first step is to have a structure of international law. I don't agree with those who say the only thing is to have friendly feelings. All of these things will be involved. I think it is true to say that atomic weapons are a peril which affects everyone in the world, and in that sense a completely common problem, as common a problem as it was for the defeat of the Nazis."
Speaking from my personal knowledge of the topic, in Chicago at least, there was a real division between those who felt that if you can research a thing you should, you must, and those who felt constrained from certain lines of work because of the possible, or inevitable, negative consequences for the human race. In any event, making a bomb is a task for engineers working from your calculations. They are, after all, an entirely lower form of mind, with limited vision and more able to deal with the technical consequences of the adaptation of your theories and experiments. In addition, who can say what positive spin offs occur from related activities. Who would have thought sealant K416 for the Uranium Hexafluoride centrifuges would find common use in the house as Teflon?
Gil Elliot wrote in [i]The 20th Century Book of the Dead[/i] that the century consumed 1-2 million lives by war between 1900 and 1914, the rate rising to 10/12 million a year by 1945. Since the detonation of the first atom bomb, the rate has fallen below 1 million a year and remained at this level for the next 50 years. This has been accompanied by a gigantic increase in the [i]capacity[/i] for killing. In that sense, these horror weapons have finally quelled human blood lust.