DOCSLIB.ORG

A New Effort to Achieve World

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A New Effort to Achieve World th Reflections on the 70 Anniversary of the Manhattan Project: Questions and Answers Reflections on the 70th Anniversary of the Manhattan Project: Questions and Answers By B. Cameron Reed I began my professional life by obtaining degrees in physics and entering a conventional academic career in teaching and astronomical research, but I had always been curious about the physics of the Manhattan Project and its role in ending World War II. With grants, publications and tenure established, I began to indulge this interest as a legitimate part of my work and about 20 years ago, to explore it in depth. As anybody that comes to this topic in more than a casual way will attest, it can grow into an obsession. I have now published two books on the Project, well over two dozen articles and book reviews in technical, historical, and semi-popular journals, and have made a number of presentations at professional conferences. Over this time I must have looked at thousands of archived documents and held hundreds of real and electronic conversations with other scientists, historians, and writers whose interest in this pivotal event parallels my own. While my knowledge of the Project is certainly not and never will be complete, I have learned much about it over the last 20 years. To my surprise (and pleasure) I am frequently asked questions about the Project by students, family members, guests at dinner parties, colleagues at American Physical Society meetings, and even casual acquaintances at my favorite coffee shop. Typical queries are: “Why did we drop the bombs? Were they necessary to end the war?” “Did President Truman and his advisors really understand the power of the bombs and the destruction they could cause?” “Have nuclear weapons helped deter subsequent large-scale wars, and do we still need a deterrent?” “What about the ethical aspects?” “In studying the Manhattan Project, what most surprised you? Do you think it or something similar could be done now?” At first I was awkward in trying to answer these questions but with passing years, increased knowledge, and much reflection I now feel more comfortable addressing them. With accumulating experience in a scientific career, you often learn that the questions you and others initially thought to Federation of American Scientists | Public Interest Report | Winter 2015– Volume 68 Number 1 th Reflections on the 70 Anniversary of the Manhattan Project: Questions and Answers be important may not be the ones that the facts address and that there may be much more interesting issues behind the obvious ones. In this spirit, I offer in this essay some very personal reflections on the Project and the legacies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, framed as responses to questions like those above. In some cases a “yes” or “no” along with an explanation will do, but for many issues the nuances involved obviate a simple response. I begin with the issue of the “decision” to use the bomb and the state of President Truman’s knowledge. In the spring of 1945, Secretary of War Henry Stimson assembled a committee to consider and advise upon immediate and long-term aspects of atomic energy. This “Interim Committee” comprised eight civilians, including three scientists intimately familiar with the Manhattan Project: Vannevar Bush, James Conant, and Karl Compton. In a meeting on May 31 which was attended by Army Chief of Staff General George C. Marshall, Stimson opened with a statement as to how he viewed the significance of the Project1: The Secretary expressed the view, a view shared by General Marshall, that this project should not be considered simply in terms of military weapons, but as a new relationship of man to the universe. This discovery might be compared to the discoveries of the Copernican theory and of the laws of gravity, but far more important than these in its effect on the lives of men. While the advances in the field to date had been fostered by the needs of war, it was important to realize that the implications of the project went far beyond the needs of the present war. It must be controlled if possible to make it an assurance of future peace rather than a menace to civilization. For his part, President Truman had been thoroughly briefed on the project by Stimson and General Leslie Groves, director of the Project, soon after he became President in late April. In late July, Truman recorded his reaction to the Trinity test in his diary2: We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. ... Anyway we think we have found the way to cause a disintegration of the atom. An experiment in the New Mexico desert was startling - to put it mildly. Thirteen pounds of the explosive caused the complete disintegration of a steel tower 60 feet high, created a crater 6 feet deep and 1,200 feet in diameter, knocked over a steel tower 1/2 mile away and knocked men down 10,000 yards away. The explosion was visible for more than 200 miles and audible for 40 miles and more. ... The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs 1 Minutes of Interim Committee meetings can be found at https://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/pre- cold-war/interim-committee/interim-committee-informal-notes_1945-05-31.htm 2 R.H. Ferrell, Harry S. Truman and the Bomb. High Plains Publishing Co., Worland, WY (1996), p. 31 Federation of American Scientists | Public Interest Report | Winter 2015– Volume 68 Number 1 th Reflections on the 70 Anniversary of the Manhattan Project: Questions and Answers to surrender and save lives. I’m sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler’s crowd or Stalin’s did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful... I have no doubt that Stimson, Marshall and Truman were well aware of the revolutionary nature of the bomb and the possibility (indeed, likelihood) that a postwar nuclear arms race would ensue. Any notion that Truman was a disengaged observer carried along by the momentum of events is hard to believe in view of the above comments. These men were making decisions of grave responsibility and were fully briefed as to both the immediate situation of the war and possible long-term geopolitical consequences: the “mature consideration” that Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill agreed in 1943 would have to be carried out before use of the bombs was authorized. Perhaps Truman did not so much make a positive decision to use the bombs so much as he opted not to halt operations that were already moving along when he became President, but I have no doubt that he realized that atomic bombs would be a profoundly new type of weapon. Further, let us not forget that it was Truman who personally intervened after Nagasaki to order a halt to further atomic bombings when the Japanese began to signal a willingness to consider surrender negotiations. As much as I am convinced that Truman took his duties with the greatest sense of responsibility, I cannot answer “yes” or “no” as to the necessity of the bombings: the question is always loaded with so many unstated perspectives. If the Japanese could not be convinced to surrender, then Truman, Stimson, and Marshall faced the prospect of committing hundreds of thousands of men to a horrific invasion followed by a likely even more horrific slog through the Japanese home islands. After 70 years it is easy to forget the context of the war in the summer of 1945. Historians know that the Japanese were seeking a path to honorable surrender and might have given up within a few weeks, but the very bloody fact on the ground was that they had not yet surrendered; thousands of Allied and Japanese servicemen were dying each week in the Pacific. Military historian Dennis Giangreco has studied Army and War Department manpower projections for the two-part invasion of Japan scheduled for late 1945 and the spring of 19463. Planning was based on having to sustain an average of 100,000 casualties per month from November 1945 through the fall of 1946. The invasion of Kyushu was scheduled to begin on November 1, 1945. Had this occurred, the number of casualties might well have exceeded the number of deaths at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, let alone those which would have occurred in the meantime. From the perspective of preventing casualties, perhaps it was unfortunate 3 D. M. Giangreco, “Casualty Projections for the U. S. Invasion of Japan, 1945-1946: Planning and Policy Implications.” Journal of Military History 61, 521-582 (1997). Federation of American Scientists | Public Interest Report | Winter 2015– Volume 68 Number 1 th Reflections on the 70 Anniversary of the Manhattan Project: Questions and Answers that the bombs were not ready at the time of the battle for Iwo Jima, one of the bloodiest protracted battles from February 19 to March 26, 1945, during which more than 25,000 were killed on both sides. Even if they believe that the Soviet Union’s declaration of war on the night of August 8, 1945, against Japan was the most significant factor in the Japanese decision to surrender, most historians allow that the bombs had at least some effect on that decision. The Soviet invasion came between the two atomic bombings on August 6 (Hiroshima) and August 9 (Nagasaki).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter 4. CLASSIFICATION UNDER the ATOMIC ENERGY
    Chapter 4 CLASSIFICATION UNDER THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT INTRODUCTION The Atomic Energy Act of 1946 was the first and, other than its successor, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, to date the only U.S. statute to establish a program to restrict the dissemination of information. This Act transferred control of all aspects of atomic (nuclear) energy from the Army, which had managed the government’s World War II Manhattan Project to produce atomic bombs, to a five-member civilian Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). These new types of bombs, of awesome power, had been developed under stringent secrecy and security conditions. Congress, in enacting the 1946 Atomic Energy Act, continued the Manhattan Project’s comprehensive, rigid controls on U.S. information about atomic bombs and other aspects of atomic energy. That Atomic Energy Act designated the atomic energy information to be protected as “Restricted Data” and defined that data. Two types of atomic energy information were defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Restricted Data (RD) and a type that was subsequently termed Formerly Restricted Data (FRD). Before discussing further the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 and its unique requirements for controlling atomic energy information, some of the special information-control activities that accompanied the research, development, and production efforts that led to the first atomic bomb will be mentioned. Realization that an atomic bomb was possible had a profound impact on the scientists who first became aware of that possibility. The implications of such a weapon were so tremendous that the U.S. scientists conducting the initial, basic research related to nuclear fission voluntarily restricted the publication of their scientific work in this area.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Effort to Achieve World
    Marshall and the Atomic Bomb Marshall and the Atomic Bomb By Frank Settle General George C. Marshall and the Atomic Bomb (Praeger, 2016) provides the first full narrative describing General Marshall’s crucial role in the first decade of nuclear weapons that included the Manhattan Project, the use of the atomic bomb on Japan, and their management during the early years of the Cold War. Marshall is best known today as the architect of the plan for Europe’s recovery in the aftermath of World War II—the Marshall Plan. He also earned acclaim as the master strategist of the Allied victory in World War II. Marshall mobilized and equipped the Army and Air Force under a single command, serving as the primary conduit for information between the Army and the Air Force, as well as the president and secretary of war. As Army Chief of Staff during World War II, he developed a close working relationship with Admiral Earnest King, Chief of Naval Operations; worked with Congress and leaders of industry on funding and producing resources for the war; and developed and implemented the successful strategy the Allies pursued in fighting the war. Last but not least of his responsibilities was the production of the atomic bomb. The Beginnings An early morning phone call to General Marshall and a letter to President Franklin Roosevelt led to Marshall’s little known, nonetheless critical, role in the development and use of the atomic bomb. The call, received at 3:00 a.m. on September 1, 1939, informed Marshall that German dive bombers had attacked Warsaw.
    [Show full text]
  • Revisiting One World Or None
    Revisiting One World or None. Sixty years ago, atomic energy was new and the world was still reverberating from the shocks of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Immediately after the end of the Second World War, the first instinct of the administration and Congress was to protect the “secret” of the atomic bomb. The atomic scientists—what today would be called nuclear physicists— who had worked on the Manhattan project to develop atomic bombs recognized that there was no secret, that any technically advanced nation could, with adequate resources, reproduce what they had done. They further believed that when a single aircraft, eventually a single missile, armed with a single bomb could destroy an entire city, no defense system would ever be adequate. Given this combination, the world seemed headed for a period of unprecedented danger. Many of the scientists who had worked on the Manhattan Project felt a special responsibility to encourage a public debate about these new and terrifying products of modern science. They formed an organization, the Federation of Atomic Scientists, dedicated to avoiding the threat of nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation. Convinced that neither guarding the nuclear “secret” nor any defense could keep the world safe, they encouraged international openness in nuclear physics research and in the expected nuclear power industry as the only way to avoid a disastrous arms race in nuclear weapons. William Higinbotham, the first Chairman of the Association of Los Alamos Scientists and the first Chairman of the Federation of Atomic Scientists, wanted to expand the organization beyond those who had worked on the Manhattan Project, for two reasons.
    [Show full text]
  • The Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima an Interview with Mr
    Doerr 1 A Rain of Ruin: The Atomic Bombing of Hiroshima An Interview with Mr. Francis Mitsuo Tomosawa by Leili Doerr Mr. Alex Haight February 12, 2007 Doerr 2 Table of Contents Release Form 2 Statement of Purpose 3 Biography 4 Historical Contextualization 6 Interview Trmiscription 25 Interview Analysis 81 Appendix 1 90 Appendix 2 91 Appendix 3 92 Appendix 4 93 Appendix 5 94 Appendix 6 95 Appendix 7 96 Appendix 8 97 Appendix 9 98 Appendix 10 99 Appendix 11 100 Appendix 12 101 Appendix 13 102 Appendix 14 103 Time Indexing/Recording Log Ill Works Consulted 113 Doerr 3 Statement of Purpose The purpose of this oral history is to achieve a better understanding ofthe atomic bombing of Hiroshima, and the pacific theatre ofthe Second World War, through an interview with Mr. Francis Mitsuo Tomosawa. The project aims to give a more valuable and intimate perspective of these events thmi can be acquired anywhere else. The Second World War still remains the most 'Sv odd-shaping" event ofthe 20 century and a thorough understanding ofit is a fundmnental part of any study ofthe United States. Doerr 4 Biography ' ^ ^B t ^^ Francis Mitsuo Tomosawa was bom in Honolulu, Hawaii, on January 25, 1930. Bom to Japanese natives, he was the youngest of three sons. Like most Japanese parents in Hawaii, Mr. Tomosawa's parents believed that their three sons must to go to Japan in order to experience a firsthand education about the Japanese culture. Therefore, in April 1941, at the age of eleven, Mr. Tomosawa and his mother lefl: for Hiroshima.
    [Show full text]
  • Foundation Document Manhattan Project National Historical Park Tennessee, New Mexico, Washington January 2017 Foundation Document
    NATIONAL PARK SERVICE • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Foundation Document Manhattan Project National Historical Park Tennessee, New Mexico, Washington January 2017 Foundation Document MANHATTAN PROJECT NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK Hanford Washington ! Los Alamos Oak Ridge New Mexico Tennessee ! ! North 0 700 Kilometers 0 700 Miles More detailed maps of each park location are provided in Appendix E. Manhattan Project National Historical Park Contents Mission of the National Park Service 1 Mission of the Department of Energy 2 Introduction 3 Part 1: Core Components 4 Brief Description of the Park. 4 Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 5 Los Alamos, New Mexico . 6 Hanford, Washington. 7 Park Management . 8 Visitor Access. 8 Brief History of the Manhattan Project . 8 Introduction . 8 Neutrons, Fission, and Chain Reactions . 8 The Atomic Bomb and the Manhattan Project . 9 Bomb Design . 11 The Trinity Test . 11 Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan . 12 From the Second World War to the Cold War. 13 Legacy . 14 Park Purpose . 15 Park Signifcance . 16 Fundamental Resources and Values . 18 Related Resources . 22 Interpretive Themes . 26 Part 2: Dynamic Components 27 Special Mandates and Administrative Commitments . 27 Special Mandates . 27 Administrative Commitments . 27 Assessment of Planning and Data Needs . 28 Analysis of Fundamental Resources and Values . 28 Identifcation of Key Issues and Associated Planning and Data Needs . 28 Planning and Data Needs . 31 Part 3: Contributors 36 Appendixes 38 Appendix A: Enabling Legislation for Manhattan Project National Historical Park. 38 Appendix B: Inventory of Administrative Commitments . 43 Appendix C: Fundamental Resources and Values Analysis Tables. 48 Appendix D: Traditionally Associated Tribes . 87 Appendix E: Department of Energy Sites within Manhattan Project National Historical Park .
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Winter and the End of the Age of Agriculture by Dr
    Nuclear Winter and the End of the Age of Agriculture By Dr. Lawrence Badash Professor Emeritus of History of Science Department of History University of California Santa Barbara, CA 93106-9410 [email protected] Prepared for The Jeffrey Rubinoff Sculpture Park MAY 2010 COMPANY OF IDEAS FORUM Dr. Lawrence Badash University of California, Santa Barbara Lawrence Badash received a B.S. in physics from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1956, and a Ph.D. in history of science from Yale University in 1964. He is Professor Emeritus of History of Science at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where he taught for thirty-six years. He has been a NATO Postdoctoral Science Fellow at Cambridge University, a Guggenheim Fellow, Visiting Professor of International Studies at Meiji Gakuin University in Yokohama, Director of the University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation's Summer Seminar on Global Security and Arms Control, a lecturer on the nuclear arms race at the Inter-University Center of Postgraduate Studies in Dubrovnik, Croatia, a Council member of the History of Science Society, a Member-at-Large of the Section on History and Philosophy of Science of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and a member of the Executive Committee of the Forum on Physics and Society of the American Physical Society. Badash is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. His research is centered on the physical sciences of the past century, especially the development of radioactivity and nuclear physics; on the role of scientists in the nuclear arms race; and on the interaction of science and society.
    [Show full text]
  • J. Robert Oppenheimer Papers [Finding Aid]. Library of Congress
    J. Robert Oppenheimer Papers A Finding Aid to the Collection in the Library of Congress Manuscript Division, Library of Congress Washington, D.C. 2016 Revised 2016 June Contact information: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/mss.contact Additional search options available at: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.mss/eadmss.ms998007 LC Online Catalog record: http://lccn.loc.gov/mm77035188 Prepared by Carolyn H. Sung and David Mathisen Revised and expanded by Michael Spangler and Stephen Urgola in 2000, and Michael Folkerts in 2016 Collection Summary Title: J. Robert Oppenheimer Papers Span Dates: 1799-1980 Bulk Dates: (bulk 1947-1967) ID No.: MSS35188 Creator: Oppenheimer, J. Robert, 1904-1967 Extent: 76,450 items ; 301 containers plus 2 classified ; 120.2 linear feet Language: Collection material in English Location: Manuscript Division, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Summary: Physicist and director of the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey. Correspondence, memoranda, speeches, lectures, writings, desk books, lectures, statements, scientific notes, and photographs chiefly comprising Oppenheimer's personal papers while director of the Institute for Advanced Study but reflecting only incidentally his administrative work there. Topics include theoretical physics, development of the atomic bomb, the relationship between government and science, nuclear energy, security, and national loyalty. Selected Search Terms The following terms have been used to index the description of this collection in the Library's online catalog. They are grouped by name of person or organization, by subject or location, and by occupation and listed alphabetically therein. People Bethe, Hans A. (Hans Albrecht), 1906-2005--Correspondence. Birge, Raymond T. (Raymond Thayer), 1887- --Correspondence.
    [Show full text]
  • Gar Alperovitz and the Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb
    Advances in Historical Studies 2013. Vol.2, No.2, 46-53 Published Online June 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ahs) DOI:10.4236/ahs.2013.22008 Reclaiming Realism for the Left: Gar Alperovitz and the Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb Peter N. Kirstein History Department, St. Xavier University, Chicago, USA Email: [email protected] Received December 24th, 2012; revised February 14th, 2013; accepted February 22nd, 2013 Copyright © 2013 Peter N. Kirstein. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons At- tribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Sixty-seven years after the decision to use the atomic bomb in World War II, controversy remains whether the United States was justified in using fission bombs in combat. Gar Alperovitz, the great revi- sionist historian, in his Atomic Diplomacy and The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb transformed our knowledge of the geopolitical motives behind the atomic attack against Japan at the end of World War II. These uranium and plutonium-core bombs were political, not primarily military in purpose and motive behind their deployment. His analysis will be compared to realists such as Hans Morgenthau, Kenneth Waltz, Henry Kissinger and George Kennan who for the most part questioned unrestrained violence and offered nuanced views on the wisdom of using such indiscriminate, savage weapons of war. The paper will explore Alperovitz’s classic argument that out of the ashes of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the A-bomb drove the incipient Cold War conflict. American national-security elites construed the bomb as a political- diplomatic lever to contain Soviet power as much as a military weapon to subdue Japan.
    [Show full text]
  • Atomic Engery Education Volume Four.Pdf
    ~ t a t e of ~ ofua 1952 SCIENTIFIC AND SOCIAL ASPECTS OF ATOMIC ENERGY (A Source Book /or General Use in Colleges) Volume IV The Iowa Plan for Atomic Energy Education Issu ed by the D epartment of Public Instruction J essie M. Parker Superintendent Des Moines, Iowa Published by the State .of Iowa ''The release of atomic energy on a large scale is practical. It is reasonable to anticipate that this new source of energy will cause profound changes in our present way of life." - Quoted from the Copyright 1952 Atomic Energy Act of 1946. by The State of Iowa "Unless the people have the essential facts about atonuc energy, they cannot act wisely nor can they act democratically."-. -David I Lilienthal, formerly chairman of the Atomic Energy Com.mission. IOWA PLAN FOR ATOMIC ENERGY EDUCATION FOREWORD Central Planning Committee About five years ago the Iowa State Department of Public Instruction became impressed with the need for promoting Atomic Energy Education throughout the state. Following a series of Glenn Hohnes, Iowa State Col1ege, Ames, General Chairman conferences, in which responsible educators and laymen shared their views on this problem, Emil C. Miller, Luther College, Decorah plans were made to develop material for use at the elementary, high school, college, and Barton Morgan, Iowa State College, Ames adult education levels. This volume is a resource hook for use with and by college students. M. J. Nelson, Iowa State Teachers College, Cedar Falls Actually, many of the materials in this volume have their origin in the Atomic Energy Day Hew Roberts, State University of Iowa, Iowa City programs which were sponsored by Cornell College and Luther College two or three years L.
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: the PRINCIPAL UNCERTAINTY: U.S
    ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: THE PRINCIPAL UNCERTAINTY: U.S. ATOMIC INTELLIGENCE, 1942-1949 Vincent Jonathan Houghton, Doctor of Philosophy, 2013 Dissertation directed by: Professor Jon T. Sumida Department of History The subject of this dissertation is the U. S. atomic intelligence effort against both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in the period 1942-1949. Both of these intelligence efforts operated within the framework of an entirely new field of intelligence: scientific intelligence. Because of the atomic bomb, for the first time in history a nation’s scientific resources – the abilities of its scientists, the state of its research institutions and laboratories, its scientific educational system – became a key consideration in assessing a potential national security threat. Considering how successfully the United States conducted the atomic intelligence effort against the Germans in the Second World War, why was the United States Government unable to create an effective atomic intelligence apparatus to monitor Soviet scientific and nuclear capabilities? Put another way, why did the effort against the Soviet Union fail so badly, so completely, in all potential metrics – collection, analysis, and dissemination? In addition, did the general assessment of German and Soviet science lead to particular assumptions about their abilities to produce nuclear weapons? How did this assessment affect American presuppositions regarding the German and Soviet strategic threats? Despite extensive historical work on atomic intelligence, the current historiography has not adequately addressed these questions. THE PRINCIPAL UNCERTAINTY: U.S. ATOMIC INTELLIGENCE, 1942-1949 By Vincent Jonathan Houghton Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2013 Advisory Committee: Professor Jon T.
    [Show full text]
  • URANIUM Element Symbol: U Atomic Number: 92
    URANIUM Element Symbol: U Atomic Number: 92 An initiative of IYC 2011 brought to you by the RACI MARINELLE BASSON www.raci.org.au URANIUM Element symbol: U Atomic number: 92 Uranium is a radioactive metallic element, naturally occurring in most rocks, soil, and even in the ocean. It is occurs more commonly than gold, silver or mercury. It is formed from volcanic activity. Although uranium is not very common in the universe, it is the main source of heat inside the earth. The element is named after the planet Uranus. Uranium was discovered in 1789 in the mineral pitcheblende by German chemist, Martin Heinrich Klaproth. It wasn’t until 1841 that Eugene Péligot isolated the pure metallic element. Antoine Becquerel discovered the radioactive properties of uranium in 1896. Research begun by Enrico Fermi and others from 1934 led to uranium being used as a fuel in the nuclear power industry, with the first artificial self-sustained nuclear chain reaction being initiated on 2 December 1942. Of course, uranium can’t be discussed without remembering the impact of the uranium-fuelled bomb detonated over the Japanese city of Hiroshima. This and the plutonium- fuelled bomb exploded over Nagasaki resulted in death of 200,000 people, and contributed to the end of WWII in the Pacific. A number of scientists who worked on the bomb were against its use, making submissions to the Interim Committee advising the US President. The ethical use of scientific discoveries continues to be debated around the world. Until the world was thrust into the nuclear age with the detonation of the test atomic bomb in New Mexico on 16 July 1945, the commercial use of uranium was limited to providing colouring for ceramic products and very minor quantities of uranium metal.
    [Show full text]
  • Science, Scientific Intellectuals and British Culture in the Early Atomic Age, 1945-1956: a Case Study of George Orwell, Jacob Bronowski, J.G
    Science, Scientific Intellectuals and British Culture in The Early Atomic Age, 1945-1956: A Case Study of George Orwell, Jacob Bronowski, J.G. Crowther and P.M.S. Blackett Ralph John Desmarais A Dissertation Submitted In Fulfilment Of The Requirements For The Degree Of Doctor Of Philosophy Imperial College London Centre For The History Of Science, Technology And Medicine 2 Abstract This dissertation proposes a revised understanding of the place of science in British literary and political culture during the early atomic era. It builds on recent scholarship that discards the cultural pessimism and alleged ‘two-cultures’ dichotomy which underlay earlier histories. Countering influential narratives centred on a beleaguered radical scientific Left in decline, this account instead recovers an early postwar Britain whose intellectual milieu was politically heterogeneous and culturally vibrant. It argues for different and unrecognised currents of science and society that informed the debates of the atomic age, most of which remain unknown to historians. Following a contextual overview of British scientific intellectuals active in mid-century, this dissertation then considers four individuals and episodes in greater detail. The first shows how science and scientific intellectuals were intimately bound up with George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty Four (1949). Contrary to interpretations portraying Orwell as hostile to science, Orwell in fact came to side with the views of the scientific rig h t through his active wartime interest in scientists’ doctrinal disputes; this interest, in turn, contributed to his depiction of Ingsoc, the novel’s central fictional ideology. Jacob Bronowski’s remarkable transition from pre-war academic mathematician and Modernist poet to a leading postwar BBC media don is then traced.
    [Show full text]