history
Compare and contrast the three perspectives on the atom bomb. What was the perceived value of this newly developed weapon? How does each primary source make you question the ethics of using an atom bomb? Be specific. Who is the intended audience for each document? How does each document show the author’s bias? How credible are these accounts? What did you learn from these sources?
ANSWER
The three accounts from Harry S Truman, Yoshito Matsushig and William Laurence all point towards the same conclusion about the atomic bomb. They indicate that this was a weapon like no other and would change the world forever. Truman indicated that the atomic bomb may be “the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark”. Yoshito in the aftermath of Hiroshima mentions that he would never have wished this tragedy on future generations and that is why they must choose the path that leads to peace. Laurence, on the other hand, observed during the loading of the material into the bomb with only a fraction of the yield, the bomb could produce “the greatest explosion on earth”. The three accounts all confirmed that the bomb had tremendous power and was capable of great destruction.
However, while Truman expresses his lack of choice in resulting in such a severe strategy, Laurence is impressed by the destruction capability of the weapon. As a scientist, he only sees the weapon as a combination of chemicals towards the achievement of a scientific goal and even the little time that he considers the people on the receiving end of the weapon, he says that no one feels any pity or compassion for the poor devils especially “not when one thinks of Pearl Harbour and the death march on Bataan”. He has no remorse, no second thought about dropping the bomb in Nagasaki. Yoshito can only account for the human consequences of the impressive weapon and he describes the destruction in detailed talking about blisters on kids on their backs and legs that burst open to leave open wounds and hanging wounds. He gives an account as if in response to Laurence and his dedication to science only that instead of the results being glorious and impressive as Laurence thought, it is death, pain, destitution and pain.
There is no doubt about the ethical standpoint of the bomb, it was unethical and unnecessary. Its only intention was to use a shortcut to end a war that both parties were responsible for. The general principle of morality is that it is not easy and even on the simplest of tasks like telling the truth, there are no shortcuts. I understand Truman’s conflict with a war that had dragged on for so long, but even his predecessor had been aware of the Manhattan project but had avoided applying because of the consequences he was aware of. Truman acted hastily and harshly and ended up making one of the most regrettable moment on the planet. Much later and during the Cold War when nuclear weaponry was much more advanced and both parties had the weapons, there was no instance where any of these weapons were detonated owing to the leaders understanding the weight, mark and destruction a nuclear weapon leaves in its wake.
The sources are all very accurate owing that they are a first-hand account of a new phenomenon that was unknown to the world. Truman’s account is more personal because it was his journal and could only express his deepest thoughts and desires. He even mentions that the Japanese were savages but not even then would he dedicate the weapon to the cities. The second account by Yoshito was intended for future generations and therefore it dove deep to the first-hand account of the terrible weapon and why future generations must never make the same mistake. The last account was a message to Americans who had fought a long bitter war and were anxious to see it end no matter what had to be done. Each source teaches a different lesson and also proves the point from an individual perspective as already demonstrated.
