Educate yourself!
Satisfy your curiosity to the fullest.
Go to your local library and ask the reference desk for help in finding books published in the late forties about the atomic bomb project. Actually termed The Manhattan Project for histories of the bomb, its development, testing, and actual use to bring the war in the western Pacific to an early life saving end. Had it been necessary to invade the islands of Japan the loss of life for soldiers and civilians alike would have eclipesed those dying from the bomb by far.
You will learn a lot more by reading the histories than from a few responses on SDMB which is more of a starting point.
My dad was in the Navy at the time, in the Pacific, helping the US work their way up the chain of islands towards the Japan mainland. He tells the story the same way - we today imagine a sense of surprise, shock, horror, awe, etc., and what I hear from my parents is more an overwhelming sense of relief that the dreaded attack on Japan had been averted.
My dad tells the story similarly as well (he was in the navy in the Pacific during WWII along with one of his brothers).
Thing is the fear of Japanese resistance was not simply one of speculation. Just look to a recounting of the battle for Okinawa to see what was a mere warm-up to Operation Olympic. There was plenty for the guys on the boats to worry about.
Just to add to what springears said, go to the library, but my suggestion is to look at the bound copies of Time magazine etc. at the time. I did this years ago at my college library. One week before Hiroshima, nothing, then the next week they had all kinds of info. Interesting reading.
Thanks for the advice. I have gone to libraries in the past and have found that a lot of source material I was looking for was already checked out or missing… wasting a lot of time and energy. Also, new relevations seems to come out every day so a book written only a few years ago may be out of date.
Educate yourself!
Satisfy your curiosity to the fullest.
Go to your local library and ask the reference desk for help in finding books published in the late forties about the atomic bomb project. Actually termed The Manhattan Project for histories of the bomb, its development, testing, and actual use to bring the war in the western Pacific to an early life saving end. Had it been necessary to invade the islands of Japan the loss of life for soldiers and civilians alike would have eclipesed those dying from the bomb by far. There are waiting lists, interlibrary loans and other options to persue. Persistence will pay off.
You will learn a lot more by reading the histories than from a few responses on SDMB which is more of a starting point. The SDMB will provide sources to seek out for the full story.
The link to the article in Asimov’s (in David Simmon’s post) makes it sound like Campbell had more specific knowledge of the possibility of the atomic bomb than I thought. The article says that Cartmill only wrote the story because Campbell suggested the idea to him and gave him some detailed knowledge of what might be necessary for an atomic bomb. Indeed, the details are so specific that I wonder if some information about the Manhattan Project had slipped out and had gotten to Campbell.
The second half of the Silverberg article concludes that there was no leak.
(Incidentally, Lansdale was more senior than the article suggests. He was in overall charge of Manhattan project security, while the Office of Censorship was outside it, but answerable to him on such matters. Drawing his attention to the matter was passing it as high up in the security apparatus as it was possible to go. He’s a crucial figure in the Oppenheimer case.)
If you are too young to know that phrase, let me put it another way. Call ahead and ask what books they have on the subject, and if they are checked out. Also, special order books you read reviews of, to be sent for other libraries, to yours.
In contrast to stories of this type, in his book “The Building of the Atomic Bomb”, Richard Rhodes describes a conversation between Tibbets and a crewman of the Enola Gay (which one I can’t remember right now. A list of the crew is here ) on the day of the Hiroshima bombing. The crewman asked him “Colonel, are we going to be splitting atoms today?” The crew had been training a long time to use a bomb with an unusual shape and size, but were not told what it was. However, with these clues, it seems a person with the right technical background could make a correct guess.
George “Bob” Caron’s guess is another example of how an association between atoms and vast amounts of energy was already an established part of popular culture, but it probably wasn’t any more astute than that.
Along the other crewmen, Caron - the tailgunner - had received a briefing on the afternoon of August 4th that revealed both the intended target and the unprecedented size of the bomb. Along with a brief outline of the scale and importance of the Manhattan project, they’d been shown photos and heard an eyewitness account of the Trinity test in order to give them some idea of what they were going to experience. It’d also been made clear to them that the single weapon they’d be carrying would destroy the city.
What they hadn’t been told was what type of bomb it was. Hence, before telling them during the flight two nights later, Tibbetts chose to tease some of the crew by challenging them to guess what they were carrying. After a couple of hestitant guesses, that’s when Caron suggested “splitting atoms”.
In his memoirs, Tibbetts does suggest that this showed that people could guess secret stuff if around it for any length of time, but Caron’s comments over the years have played down the story. Rhodes quotes him as saying it was “a lucky guess”, while Thomas and Witts, who interviewed him for Ruin From The Air (1977; Scarborough, 1990, p307-8), say that the phrase was simply something he’d picked up from a popular science magazine and he didn’t pretend to understand it.
Educate yourself . If you read Gar Alperovitz’ minutely-researched book The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb , you may convince yourself that: 1. With a simple adjustment of the surrender terms, we could have ended the war without using the bombs; 2. The Army’s initial casualty estimates for an invasion of Japan were much lower, and were later inflated for political purposes, and 3. Truman (on advice from James Byrnes, but against the advice of others) may have prolonged the war, by not taking his shipboard meeting with Churchill and Stalin seriously (indeed, he delayed the meeting as long as possible), waiting instead for the news of the Trinity test’s results. It appears that the main purpose of using the bomb, in the end, was to scare the Russians.
Alperovitz may not convince you, but he convinced me.
Spingears and others:
I apologize for the hijack – my previous post should probably be a new thread in Great Debates. I actually apreciate your advice that we should get out and use our libraries. Right on.
And yet none of that changes the fact that, in the end, the two bombs did end the war just like they were supposed to do. It would take a great deal of faith in wishful speculation to come up with am outcome that was more favorable to the allies and even to the world at large.