NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, I'm back...I think...yeah...

Okay! Anyway I was just watching a program on the History Channel about the last weeks of WWII, namely, the Manhattan Project and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And I hear the great J. Robert Oppenhiemer say with grief:

"I am become death: the destroyer of worlds."

I think that the Manhattan Project, Trinity, and the resulting Fatman and Little Boy bombs marked the moral loss of science.

Many during the early 20th saw atomic energy as a boon to humanity, providing the world with a clean and renewable energy source that would rid Earth's dependence on polluting and finite fossil fuels. Unfortunately, WWII broke out during the heyday of atomic research, and the Allies needed a new weapon now more than ever.

Hence atomic research is diverted to millitary applications. I find it rather sad really. Humanity had an opportunity to create infinite energy, but now it seems squandered. Yes, it is true we have nuclear plants, but those are few and far between. Today, when a person thinks about the words "atomic" and "nuclear" they generally think "weapon", not "energy".

I'd like to ask you two questions.

-If you were a scientist during WWII, would you have willingly worked on the Manhattan Project.

-If you were the President at the time, would you have dropped the two devices on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Thank you.

On an unrelated note: I'd like to thank everyone for their comforting words and wishes since I have returned from the hospital. And a profound thanks to Eustrusca, who's telegram I just read. Thanks big guy!

-If you were a scientist during WWII, would you have willingly worked on the Manhattan Project.

Yes. The US already knew that the russians were working on a similar project. Its arguable that this is where mutually assured destruction started.

-If you were the President at the time, would you have dropped the two devices on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Nope. A simple drop in the ocean off the Japaneese mainland would have shown the power of the bomb without killing thousands of civilans.


-Jimus-

1) Yes. I would have helped create atomic weapons. We've learned things through the process of developing nuclear weapons that have illuminated the structure of matter on it's smallest scale. Also I think the enemies that the allies were fighting were so horrible that I'd want the allies to have the best weapons possible to deal with them.

2) If I was presented with estimates that said an invasion of the Japanese home islands would cost more lives than the destruction of two cities, yes, I'd use the nukes. From what I've heard I beleive the nuclear attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the lesser of two evils. Invasion would have resulted in a long guerilla war that would have claimed more lives.

1) Of course. Seveloping weapons is just as important as serving - I'd have done either.

2) Absolutely. After the first attack the Japs were still unwilling to surrender. A demonstration would have been even less effective. A land invasion would have been an atrocity in comparison.

If I had been selected for the Manhatten project I would have helped the US gladly and been incredibly proud of our accomplishment(A little scared of it maybe but still proud)

If I was the president I would have dropped the bomb on the japanese cities. Watching 1000s of lives destroyed by one bomb has a greater sobering effect than the power of the bomb itself. I think that without the massive destruction the japanese would still be defiant and we would have had to use much more destructive military effort.

For one thing, the germans were also working on an atomic bomb.

However, Germany fell a fair bit before the americans deployed either bomb.

I dunno, really. In one way, the manhattan project and the development of nuclear arms also allowed for a general exploration and understanding of the fission process, so scientific progress was made along the way, rather than simple destruction.

I think it's oversimplistic to say that science lost its "morality" then. For one thing, science is a process more than anything, how a process can have morals is beyond me. For another, there are many, many branches of science, many of which are highly specified, if you ask a biochemist how to produce nuclear fission, they might have some vague idea, but not know the details. Hell, I'm studying physics and I know what happens in a fission reaction, but give me a hunk of Uranium and tell me to build a bomb and I'll be lost.

If I were a scientist in WWII, I would be in the wrong field to work on the Manhattan project.

And If I were president, then, hmm... well, did they know about the fallout at the time? If they considered it to be just like a giant version of the regular bombs, that would just leave a huge crater and kill lots of civillians, then that's one thing, that's generally what happens in war anyways. If they knew about the nuclear fallout, then it was irresponsable to nuke the japanese cities.

1. Yes, and I would enjoy the fame and fortune afterwards.

2. Yes, and I probably would have done something similar to Russia and Britain, assuring the United States world dominance for the next few centuries.

I seem to remember reading an Isaac Asimov editorial on science and immorality. He concluded that the only known invention of science which could be viewed as purely destructive (and hence somewhat "evil") was the invention of Greek Fire. Look it up.

All the other inventions have productive uses. In this case, as you said, we can generate fantastic amounts of useable energy.

Anyway, never mind me.

However, almost any tool that can be used as a weapon, thoughout history, is.

Like many inventions, nuclear technology has its bennifits and drawbacks. It is a good energy source, but it can also be used as a weapon. However, to alienate it as "immoral" or the worst invention ever misses the point. It is no differant from any other development in the history of warfare. Napalm, chlorine gas, anthrax, the machine gun, and many many more developments are destructive because they are used for war, and war is destructive. The invention itself or the science is destructive. The real evil is the way humans choose to use it. That said, I would have gladly accepted the position of working on the bomb, and would have dropped it had I been in Truman's place. Even today, there seems to have been no viable alternative available to end the war without totally obliterating Japan. It would have been alot worse.

As long as we eventually see some sweet-looking battlemechs, I'm all for sicence and warfare.

I think it's oversimplistic to say that science lost its "morality" then. For one thing, science is a process more than anything, how a process can have morals is beyond me.

As much as I hate debating morals, I'd rather see science be used as a tool for the betterment of mankind rather than a detractor. Perhaps that is simply my outlook however.

I just don't want the future centuries to look back us the same way we now look at the "Dark Ages".

I think that the Manhattan Project, Trinity, and the resulting Fatman and Little Boy bombs marked the moral loss of science. actually, the use of Gunpowder marked the moral loss of science IMHO.

Many during the early 20th saw atomic energy as a boon to humanity, providing the world with a clean and renewable energy source that would rid Earth's dependence on polluting and finite fossil fuels. Unfortunately, WWII broke out during the heyday of atomic research, and the Allies needed a new weapon now more than ever.


Hence atomic research is diverted to millitary applications. I find it rather sad really. Humanity had an opportunity to create infinite energy, but now it seems squandered. Yes, it is true we have nuclear plants, but those are few and far between. Today, when a person thinks about the words "atomic" and "nuclear" they generally think "weapon", not "energy".nope, all those Sci Fi Serials "Radio men from Mars" "Flash Gordon" all used "Atomic Weapons" as well and most of those were airing before the war.
Soo, can it be argued that the Entertainment Industry helped shape the viewpoint of the citizens... maybe.

the application for Nuclear Energy is wide and vast. however so are the dangers. the Dropping of the bombs revealed the true potency as well as the long-term effects of radiation, and now days, because we know the hazzards of Radiation, our Nuclear plants are well protected and safeguarded.

I'd like to ask you two questions.

-If you were a scientist during WWII, would you have willingly worked on the Manhattan Project. yes.

-If you were the President at the time, would you have dropped the two devices on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?yes. I will have nightmares about the horror I unleashed, but I would still have done it.

Thank you.

On an unrelated note: I'd like to thank everyone for their comforting words and wishes since I have returned from the hospital. And a profound thanks to Eustrusca, who's telegram I just read. Thanks big guy!
Sorry to hear you were hospitalized but glad to know you're out and ok! :D

I don't think science can be moral or immoral. It's ethically neutral, from my point of view. It was only a matter of time before the double-edged nature of atomic power was discovered and tapped.

That said, my answers to your questions are a firm "Yes" to both. I feel that there was nothing morally wrong with developing and using the A-bombs during the Second World War.

actually, the use of Gunpowder marked the moral loss of science IMHO.

(blink blink)...You know that makes excellent sense...Wow, I never thought of it like that.

Back to broadswords then!

(blink blink)...You know that makes excellent sense...Wow, I never thought of it like that.

Back to broadswords then!

Isn't smelting and metallurgy science? Rocks and Sticks for all!

Isn't smelting and metallurgy science? Rocks and Sticks for all!

Weaponizing rocks and sticks require the development of fire and basic mathematics...back to fists and biting!

Weaponizing rocks and sticks require the development of fire and basic mathematics...back to fists and biting!

Fists and Biting require a primitive, yet essential knowledge of fulcrums, pressure and kinetic energy! We should just wish nasty thoughts at each other and hope they get hit by lightning or mauled by crocodiles!

Fists and Biting require a primitive, yet essential knowledge of fulcrums, pressure and kinetic energy! We should just wish nasty thoughts at each other and hope they get hit by lightning or mauled by crocodiles!

I'm assuming that we're hoping some divinity will lighting-blast our enemies, which means that we've got some relatively advanced theological ideas. Religion, even more so than science, should not be involved in killing people! Which means we have to live in the most primitive style possible -- peaceful co-existence :eek:

(blink blink)...You know that makes excellent sense...Wow, I never thought of it like that.

Back to broadswords then!Hey... think about it...

with the sword you had to LEARN how to use it. the skill is developed and a healthy respect for the weapon is gained, not so with a gun, more often than not, people view the gun as a scepture of power. a Novice picking up a sword will most likely die in his/her first combat, while a punk picking up a gun stand a good chance of surviving a gunfight. The sword also forces you to be face to face with your opponent while the gun allows for sniping from concealment.

Imagine how wars would be if Missles, Guns and other Modern weaponry were outlawed...

no civilians accidentally killed... homes left intact (unless Razing was done) and most battles would take place on fields. no car bombs or "Collateral Damage"







and you never hear of someone accidently hurting another person because they thought their sword was unloaded while they were cleaning it :D