Slashdot Mirror
Twilight of the Bomb
merbs writes: On the 70th anniversary of the first nuclear bomb, Motherboard's Brian Merchant toured its crater with one of the last living Manhattan Project scientists. Here's the inside story of the road to the bomb, with the 90-year-old Murray Peshkin—the youngest man to work on the Project that built the bomb, and the first to set foot in its crater. From the story: "There are still nine nuclear nations that, between them, have stockpiled 16,300 weapons. And this network of decades-old nuclear armaments, some of which are still aimed at various strategic choke points around the globe, leaves civilizational scale death-becoming a technical possibility. Before all that, though, the atom bomb was one of the most successful science experiments of all time. It was the product of billions of dollars in government spending, hundreds of the world’s top scientists working in concert, in secret, in a city built from scratch in the desert, and a bygone patriotism united by common, Manichean cause: stop Hitler, defeat the Japanese."
There is an illusion today among younger people that somehow our world isn't full of evil people, that another Hitler or Stalin won't emerge, that world peace is at hand and that only small regional conflicts far away will happen in the future.
WWI was supposed to be "the war to end all wars", and it was horribly out done by WWII just 20 years later. We've had, more or less, 70 years of world peace since then, depending on how you look at it (there were a whole lot of regional wars during that time).
I don't like nuclear weapons, I hate them, they are horrible things that I wish had no use. But if wishes were fishes we'd all eat for free, and wishing for them to all go away misses the point. If just one evil power has them, then we all need them, or rather, a few reasonable and responsible powers need them.
Oh sure, the total number might go down, we might get down to 1,000 each for Russia and the US, maybe 300 for UK and France, etc. But we just aren't going to zero. The genie is out of the bottle and you can't invent it.
Murray Peshkin does not have to take pride in his work, but he should not feel that he is party to a war crime either
Lets not be deluded. Killing 80 000 civilians in one go (and many many more because in the aftermath of the bomb ) is a war crime. Curtis LeMay was man enough to recognise that strategic bombing, that is the indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets to break the will of the enemy was a war crime. And he would have ended as a criminal had he not been on the victorious side. History and law is written by the victors always. And many times this skews the moral analysis of the events.
Lets not be deluded. Killing 80 000 civilians in one go (and many many more because in the aftermath of the bomb ) is a war crime.
It is only a crime if you lose...
No, that isn't sarcasm... it is the truth... what is a "crime" is determined by the winner...
There are really no rules in war, either you win, in which case anything you did is ok, or you lose, in which case it doesn't matter how nice you were about it...
Threat of retaliation is a recognized means of encouraging compliance with the law of war by the enemy.
The enemy can't retaliate if they lose, now can they?
I'm quite sure some people in Japan consider the fire bombing of Tokyo a war crime, but they haven't been able to do anything about it, now have they?
I don't say that casually... we won, they lost... we executed many of their officers for various war crimes... yes, we did a few of ours as well, but no one major... a few token gestures to get people to say what you said...
Yes, but the very young will not understand.
Because we won the war, our children now have the luxury to question it.
It is testament to how successful we were, so just sit back and smile at the children's comments and raise a silent toast to those who didn't make it.
You may recall that it was the civilized world that would have needed to retaliate against Imperial Japan.
The question isn't what some random people in Japan consider to be a war crime, the question is what is the law, and was it violated? If it was violated, were there mitigating circumstances?
How many Rapes of Nanking did the Allies commit? How many Unit 731s did the Allies have that were experimenting on prisoners? Where were the extermination camps of the Allied powers? The Allies had fewer people deserving punishment because they weren't engaging in the sort of wholesale barbarism that were part of the Aixs nation's practices.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Every time, every time this knee-jerk excuse comes out. As if we had exactly two options in the entire universe. Because if we didn't nuke them or immediately invade them then... what? They were poised to invade California?
Give me a fucking break. There more than two options on the table. For example, they considered an option to invite Axis observers to watch as little boy was harmlessly detonated in the desert, but they turned it down because they were eager to see what kind of damage the thing would do in the real world. I'm not out to vilify the USA here--the rules of war were different back then and no one hands were clean (certainly not the Japanese.) The atomic bombs weren't the worse thing that happened in the war, and on the whole I think we behaved better than the Axis powers. And our ultimate aims were obviously much more noble.
But this brainlessly patriotic excuse is just so fucking pathetic. I could grant all of the premises, including the false dichotomy. So, for the sake of argument, I concede Hiroshima. And now... what of Nagasaki? Three fucking days later? Because their initial response to Hiroshima was almost an unconditional surrender but there was some question marks about the dispensation of their emperor, that justified another nuke?
It was wrong. Get over it. Jefferson was a great president even if he fucked up on slavery. And WWII was a good war even if we were clearly, at times, more ruthless than we had to be. But 70+ years later, this intellectual dishonesty is pointless and downright embarrassing--no different than the stubborn Japanese refusals to fully acknowledge their atrocities in China.
The large numbers soldiers that froze to death in Korea not long after due to a failure to supply equipment demonstrate that the reality is far, far less than the omnipotence suggested.
The death toll may well have been enormous, especially if it ended up with US vs USSR squabbles on Japanese soil as was expected by some, but ultimately we can only really guess today based on far more information that was available at the time. They just did not know. It may have been like the allies in Italy with very little local resistance or it may have been Stalingrad style house to house fighting all the way.
It was Truman and his advisors that made the choice for both bombs, so if there is any fault it lies there. There is plenty to justify the first bombing, even against civilians, since to be frank it was supposed to be a blatant demonstration the the USA would go as far as the mass slaughter of innocents to get the job done if that is what it took. The second is argued over at length on both sides of the issue by people who know far more about the topic than anyone on this site.
The Allies had fewer people deserving punishment because they weren't engaging in the sort of wholesale barbarism that were part of the Aixs nation's practices.
Perhaps, but we still sentenced people to prison for doing the exact same thing that we did.
Karl DÃnitz was sent to prison for sinking allied ships without warning, yet even at his trial, Admiral Chester Nimitz, wartime commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, stated the U.S. Navy had waged unrestricted submarine warfare in the Pacific from the day the U.S. entered the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
So we sent someone to prison for 10 years for doing the exact same thing that we were doing.
What we did we do to Nimitz? We named a line of carriers after him and called him a war hero.
There are other similar examples... Did we send anyone to prison for fire bombing German cities for example?
Conveniently forgetting Stalin and his camps were a major part of the allied forces? It was called the Russian front and it was the most brutal and inhumane battle fields of the war, both to their own people and to the enemy. Fact is all sides act like barbarians in all out war, none can hold their head high, the firebombing of Dresden and other European cities and the nukes on Japan were truly barbaric acts, purposefully designed to kill large numbers of civilians, each of these events slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians in a very short time. The fact that the other side perpetrated barbaric acts such as the Burma railway, and gas chambers, is not a valid excuse.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I wish the same effort of the Manhattan project or the moon race was replicated for things like a cure for some cancers, or clean energy, or food, and all the other things we desperately need. And it doesn't have to be a single country effort.
> Feynman, who worked on the Bomb, suffered psychological problems
He was a genius, I don't consider he had "psychological problems". He just understood the reality that some fools don't want to see even now. And even more, if you took American folks from 1900, they too would have problems.
My consolation is that we didn't really knew what we were doing...
Feynman, who worked on the Bomb, suffered psychological problems after the bomb was dropped
I don't doubt it, I would too...
If I was responsible for that, I think it would haunt me for the rest of my days...
Sometimes you have to do things that are terrible, that will break you as a person... and you have to do them anyway...
---
Ok, it is fiction, but it is a good example of the issue and it is what Star Trek was famous for before it went off the rails...
"In the Pale Moonlight"
With mounting losses in the Federation-Dominion war, and the specter of defeat, Captain Sisko enlists Garak's help to "persuade" the Romulans to join the Federation/Klingon alliance to win the war. Sisko unwittingly learns that to save the Federation, he may have to sell his soul and the values Starfleet stands for.
A few choice quotes:
"My father used to say that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I laid the first stone right there. I'd committed myself. I'd pay any price, go to any lengths, because my cause was righteous. My... intentions were good. In the beginning, that seemed like enough."
"That was my first moment of real doubt, when I started to wonder if the whole thing was a mistake. So I went back to my office. And there was a new casualty list waiting for me. People are dying out there every day! Entire worlds are struggling for their freedom! And here I am still worrying about the finer points of morality! No, I had to keep my eye on the ball! Winning the war, stopping the bloodshed, those were the priorities! So I pushed on. And every time another doubt appeared before me, I just found another way to shove it aside."
"At oh-eight-hundred hours, station time... the Romulan Empire formally declared war against the Dominion. They've already struck fifteen bases along the Cardassian border. So, this is a huge victory for the good guys! This may even be the turning point of the entire war! There's even a "Welcome to the Fight" party tonight in the wardroom!... So... I lied. I cheated. I bribed men to cover up the crimes of other men. I am an accessory to murder. But most damning of all... I think I can live with it... And if I had to do it all over again... I would. Garak was right about one thing â" a guilty conscience is a small price to pay for the safety of the Alpha Quadrant. So I will learn to live with it...Because I can live with it...I can live with it. Computer â" erase that entire personal log."
---
What Ben Sisco did was "illegal, against the law, and wrong". But in all likelihood, there wouldn't have been a Federation left to debate it had he not.
That is a moral argument to be sure, which was the point of the show, to ask the question of the viewer, "are there times when the ends justify the means, when any price is acceptable to obtain the outcome desired?" Is the freedom and safety of a trillion people worth that?
You might say no, and that is fine, it is your right to believe and feel that way... but I think you'll always find someone who feels that the answer is yes, and because of that, we must and will always have nuclear weapons in this world.
And to be honest, I find that a little sad, because I would love nothing more than to move on from war and the pointless killing of our fellow humans... it is such a waste...
There was a belief though that the US only had the resources for a single bomb. The US expected an instant surrender, but it took time for the realization of what happened to sink in as much of the damage was similar to that of fire bombing and direct damage from the blast was not as large as damage from the ensuing fires. Ie, it looked like a repeat of the Tokyo attacks in some ways, which definitely cemented the view of the US as evil aggressors for targeting civilians directly.
Flip things around. If the Germans had gotten the bomb first and dropped one over the top of New York City would the US have surrendered?
It took two nuclear weapons to convince Japan to surrender.
No, it didn't. Japan was close to surrender anyway. The government felt that the situation was hopeless and a negotiated surrender would be the best option. The military was still holding out, but even they knew that there was little chance of reaching a stalemate by that point. Moves were afoot to negotiate with the US over terms, and of course the US knew that because some members of the Japanese government were talking to them to see what kind of deal might be possible.
Of course we can never know for sure if Japan would have surrendered without the bombs, but that in itself is a false dichotomy. A demonstration of the bomb, with Japanese military officials invited to see it, was considered by the US. It's hard to justify why that was not even tried first, before moving directly to the bombing of civilians.
The reason was simply that the US wanted to know the effects of atomic weapons on cities full of civilians, because it assumed that in the future other countries would also develop the bomb and might attack them with it. That's why they did two in quick succession, to test two different bomb designs. Again, if you disagree you have to justify the use of a second bomb only three days later, before the Japanese had time to really understand what had happened and make the political moves necessary to surrender.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
the firebombing of Dresden and other European cities and the nukes on Japan were truly barbaric acts, purposefully designed to kill large numbers of civilians, each of these events slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians in a very short time.
Perhaps, but you weren't fighting in 1941... you didn't see and experience Germany on the rise, sweeping over most of Europe, seemingly unstoppable...
The West at that time was quite frightened of Germany and was willing to do whatever it took to stop them, including firebombing cities.
Even in 1944 when it appeared we were winning, there were small signs that Germany might have an edge and make a comeback... The V1 and V2, the ME-262, the ME-163, and other weapons that were way beyond anything we had.
It is so easy, in 2015, to judge what was done 70 year ago, but since you didn't live through it, you really have no idea what it was like... My Grandfather fought for Canada in WWII and he has shared many stories with me, and I've talked to other vets over the years who also served... their viewpoint is worth far more than your Monday Morning Quarterback take on it...
You can even be oblivious to what I think, but you cannot do anything about it...
You're quite right, there are plenty of people who believe in rainbows and unicorns in this world... I can't do anything about that either...
People say two bombs were necessary to stop the war... Really? How could Japan possibly surrender with just one bomb if they had no time to think and blam! ...there comes the second one.
That reply indicates that you actually don't know what you're talking about. You of course will dismiss me and claim that you do, but that doesn't make it so.
If you think this is just "dreaming", maybe you forgot your obligation to pass this onto the next generations. That sucks...
Yes, it sucks that you're judging actions taken 70 years ago with your limited viewpoint in 2015, when you weren't there and don't know what happened.
It is a shame that so many people like you exist in the world, humanity has little future when people like you learn nothing from history except what didn't happen other than what you imagine.
By your logic, the Nazis would have been perfectly justified to begin obliterating American cities
What? How would they have been justified? They were the aggressors, just like Japan. We were justified in taking actions to STOP the aggression of those two countries. Careful, your moral relativism is showing. How do you not walk in front of traffic with your moral compass twirling around like that?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Actually not true at all.
The invasion, if it went off, was planned for November.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Of course we can never know for sure if Japan would have surrendered without the bombs, but that in itself is a false dichotomy. A demonstration of the bomb, with Japanese military officials invited to see it, was considered by the US. It's hard to justify why that was not even tried first, before moving directly to the bombing of civilians.
Yes we can. The attempted coup by members of the military after it became known that the Emperor was contemplating surrender after the bombs were dropped shows that there were those perfectly willing to continue fighting even though there was no hope of defeat. The fact that you had Japanese soldiers walking out of jungles 10, 20, 40 years after the war; the countless islands where, out of 15000-20000 defenders you had survivors numbering less than 100; when Japanese soldiers would clutch primed grenades to head or chest sitting next to a loaded rifle or placing the muzzle of their rifle into their mouths at the first sight of a US Marine rather than risk a dishonorable surrender gives argument to the fact that plenty of Japanese would have willingly continued to fight, with many more following them along the path to death and destruction.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
How about you shut the fuck up right now and pick up a Japanese history book if you'd like to see white washing. You'll find no references of Japan being the aggressor or the lovely Unit 731 vivisecting live people.
In the words of my great uncle, a World War II vet who machine gunned Japanese boarders out of the water while he was a Marine, the only thing he and most of his people regretted is that they only had two bombs and not ten. Rei, I know you're a pussy, but seriously, sit back and put yourself in the time of a life or death war.
Yup.
The US should admit maybe the bombs weren't the best option when all of Japan admits what they did. ALL of it. I want pictures of the jap soldier holding his rifle aloft with the chinese baby impaled on the bayonet on the front page of every newspaper and website for a year. When that's done, we move on to other stuff.
Of course we can never know for sure if Japan would have surrendered without the bombs, but that in itself is a false dichotomy. A demonstration of the bomb, with Japanese military officials invited to see it, was considered by the US. It's hard to justify why that was not even tried first, before moving directly to the bombing of civilians.
How about vengeance, for Pearl Harbor (2,400 dead), Okinawa (14,000 dead), Iwo Jima (6,800 dead), etc?
It was war. Three years of watching young men come home in coffins will harden anyone's soul.
"Could be worse...could be raining." Igor
The problem being that if the full extent of Japan's crimes in Asia before and during the war were known, people would be Sking why ten bombs weren't dropped.
So awful was Japan's reign over parts of East Asia that seventy years later, a Japanese political leader visiting Yasukuni Shrine can still cause anger and dismay in China and the Koreas.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.