|
I have received many replies, public and private to my post
"Annual Attempt at Correction" both positive and negative, some attacking my
"simplicity for relying on one article." I have been involved with the Manhattan
Project aftereffects for many years.
1960 - 1965 Student Trainee US Naval Radiological Defense
Laboratory, Hunters Point California. Worked on Effects of Nuclear Weapons under
Dr. E. C. Freiling (worked on Air Burst and Fractionation chapters). Analyzed
fallout radionuclides and participated as an acknowledged radiochemist in the
discovery of Cd-121 in fission products. (We were analyzing samples collected by
Francis Gary Powers and other U-2 pilots to follow Russian device chemistry, as
well as samples from our own tests).
1960 - 1965 BS Chemistry UC-Berkeley Worked under I. Pearlman
and J.O. Rasmussen.
1965 - 19770 ScD, MIT Mentors: Charles Coryell, Glen Gordon,
R.D. Evans, Jack Irvine (all from Manhattan Project). Scientific Grandfathers
who I met and knew through their students: Linus Pauling (Charles Coryell) and
Glen Seaborg (Glen Gordon).
1970 - 1978 Group Leader Radioisotope
Applications
1978 - 1980 Senior Scientist, Environmental Protection Unit,
Rockwell Hanford Operations (spent many afternoons in the historical
library)
1980 - 1986 Assoc. Prof. and Director Triga Reactor Facility,
Reed College, Portland, OR
1986 - Present: Consultant (Licensed Health Physics
Consultant, State of Oregon) and Adjunct Faculty Portland State
University
1960 to today: Student of the Manhattan Project.
Perhaps I should have put all the materials I have studied as
a list, but I have given two boxes of books and papers to a younger student who
was interested in the history of the Manhattan project. He is to pass them on
someday in-toto. I am one of the older generation, not the 30-somethings
referred to in the article below.
Even one of the references sent to me:
"Why We Did It"; by Evan Thomas; Newsweek Magazine; July 24, 1995; Page
22 - A thorough analysis of the events that led to the decision to drop!
Web Master's Note:
After poring over dozens and dozens of articles, this is by far the most
objective treatment.
at
notes that the decision was a problematic one.
That article points out that some of the top military leaders
were on the side of the emperor in wanting to end the war.
The attacks on Japan prior to Hiroshima were acts of war, and
had caused tremendous civilian casualties, as was pointed out to me. The
difference here is that this loss was avoidable.
Records show that the US Navy leaders were in favor of a
total blockade of Japan. This was rejected because of the desire for a
quick solution.
The atmosphere of vengeance was involved in many of the
decisions.
I referred specifically to the Technology Review because it
has the copies of Truman's journal. The idea of a political solution was not
satisfactory to the political leadership--they thought it would be political
suicide. Unconditional surrender was the only result politically acceptable to
the leaders involved.
I read the articles (and more) by the Japanese High Command,
and note that there was a mixed determination to fight to the very end
(Bushido), and the sanity of surrender. There was not unity to continue the war.
The military knew Japan was defeated.
Secretary of War, Stimson, was one of the most vocal
opponents, in addition to the scientists who wanted to demonstrate the weapon on
an uninhabited island. Stimson's moral courage prevented the destruction of
Kyoto--the religious and cultural center of Japan with NO use as a military
target. It was untouched, and Groves and the other generals wanted a pristine
target to see the effects, if the device went off. The attempted targeting of
Kyoto is an indication to me of the mindset of the military at that time.
General Leslie Groves was determined to use the atomic bomb,
and was quoted as saying "Truman went along for the ride, 'Like a little
boy on a toboggan'."
When all these factors are looked at, the decision to use the
atomic bomb was a regrettable choice, based on the political and revenge climate
in the US.
I can see that there is no way that this question is going to
be resolved. I have had my annual say, and the rest is up to you. This is my
last post on this topic this year.
Michael A. Kay, ScD, CHMM
|