Atomic Euphoria

I was intrigued by the images from the National Geographic readings posted at the beginning of this week. The photographs ranged from ships being blown up to people using uranium and radiation in science, medicine, and technology experimentation. It is amazing that people would be scared and intrigued at the same time by the effects of a bomb, as people hid in shelters during the blasts, while others in Nevada watched the blast outside with their family. It is interesting to think that uranium can be called a "friendly atom", as it was both friend and foe to scientists in terms of producing a bomb, and using it in order to cure health issues.

The images from National Geographic depict people with helmets, lab coats, and behind glass so that the radioactive liquids don't touch them. obot hands were used to pour radioactive liquids in order to protect the scientist from exposure. If people know uranium's harmful effects and that it could kill anyone, how did scientists happen to come across this material and decide to use it for bombs? If it is so dangerous how could scientists possibly have done all of the necessary background research in order to find all of its effects. In connection with the reading for this week in Nuclear Choices, it seems that scientists still don't know all of its effects on society. No one imaged the great destruction that uranium could do to society, and not only to a little section of the world, but a bomb dropped would affect everyone in one way or another. Although uranium and other radioactive materials have grave effects on society, it was interesting to see how overtime these materials are constantly being used in order to advance science and medicine. Uranium was used for cancer patients, gamma was used in order to keep foods from perishing, and carbon-14 was used in order to see how photosynthesis works in plants. These elements are often seen as harmful, and indeed they are, but according to these images, we must take risks if we want to advance our knowledge in the science and medical realm.

I feel that one could almost argue that the images in the National Geographic to some extent, as well as, the Plowshare movie were examples of government propaganda. The whole time that I was watching the Plowshare movie, I felt that the government was trying to sell me something and tell me that Plowshare can give economic growth for the community, as well as, can pave the way for nuclear technology and nuclear expansion. The images in National Geographic represent the "good things" that uranium and other radioactive materials can bring to the community and essentially change society's life. The movie stated that Americans shouldn't be afraid of nuclear technology and that through rigorous experimentation and studies they will find a way to control explosions and make them safe. Plowshare can make the technology that the United States needs in order to move toward their nuclear goal. Also, Plowshare made a convincing argument that their goal will not be costly; by using the different graphs and comparing their methods to conventional methods and costs it seemed promising to the average American. Although the Plowshare movie looked like the United States was on their way to finding prosperous nuclear technology, the American public was not persuaded by the idea. Although through pictures and statistics they were showed that it can benefit them, is safe, and is not a waste of money, the public was still skeptical about the government's motivations, as well as, fearful for their own lives.

During the era of nuclear power magazines and media attempted to depict the benefits of nuclear power to society. They used persuasive pictures and convincing arguments to tell people that nuclear power would not only advance our nation but would aid the United States scientifically, medically, and technologically.

Nuclear Destruction and its Effects on Earth

The effects of a nuclear bomb can be deadly. As I read Nuclear Choices, I wondered how anyone could use a weapon that has such grave effects on society. The idea that the United States made nuclear weapons and actually used them is shocking. From what I can infer from the reading, we could have theorectically destroyed a a significant chunk of Japan, not just Nagasaki and Hiroshima. I am amazed that people survived the blast, although they did obtain flash burns and radiation. One would imagine that the radiation would be the effect that causes the most harm, but the heat that radiates from the fireballs can cause fires and severe burns on people who are as far as 20 miles away (316). Nuclear weapons not only have effects on people in their explosive vicinity but also people many miles away. It is difficult to fathom the fact that mankind is able to create something that is so destructive.

Another hazard from the destruction of bombs is the overpressure that could essentially crush objects. The bomb's energy is responsible for most of the physical destruction. Although humans are immune to overpressure, the objects that are harmed by it can kill people. I don't understand how people are immune to this overpressure if it is so great, but that is another subject of physics. Also, the fires that are started by the thermal flash, as mentioned earlier, not only have effects on the ground but also in the atmosphere. The fire consumes remaining oxygen which suffocates the remaining survivors of the blast (321). Clearly, the bombs suit the purpose they are intended for, major destruction and killing. The explosions from the bombs can kill people either thousands of miles away or right in the vicinity of the bomb.

An interesting concept is that the United States is cognizant about the destruction of an all out nuclear war, but when it comes down to saving society from the bomb's after effects, they would not be prepared to save people's lives. Thermal flash burns could affect people hundreds of miles away and the burns require special treatment. That being said, the United States does not have adequate facilities to treat all of the people that would be affected by the burns or any other injuries. If the United States was involved in a full out war, people would be affected by it no matter if they were 10 miles or across the country from the bomb. Atomic radiation can cause lowered disease resistance which can lead to death, and if bombs blow up medical facilities there aren't enough adequate places to get care for all of the people who are harmed (332). Besides a health crisis, transportation would be greatly affected because it would be blocked by debris and potentially blown up. In addition, neighborhoods and neighboring cities would be in shambles. Therefore, there would be nowhere or noone to ask for aid. Lastly, a large scale nuclear war would elicit dust and chemicals into the atmosphere. The excess chemicals would seep into the ozone layer and burn through it, thus causing ultra-violet radiation to reach Earth. The increase in UV would affect humans, plants, and animals. Atomic bombs not only affect the enemy directly but the areas around it, as well as, drastically change the environment one lives in.

It is no surprise that nuclear weapons caused a huge raucous among the public. The morality and health effects of a nuclear attack need to be questioned and the reasoning behind using a destructive weapon needs to be reevaluated. In the end, it seems like the atomic bomb could so more harm then good to a society.

Morality and Responsibility of the Atomic Bomb

As we first learned in class, it is hard to separate politics and science, and the atomic bomb is a prime example of this discord. Truman wanted to drop the bomb but not everyone's motives were the same, as the scientists knew the destruction that the bomb would bring. The ongoing battle between politicians and scientists show that it is hard for anything in international politics to be accomplished when varying ideologies have to work together.

Ethics plays a large part in the decision of dropping the bomb. In order to advance the U.S. and minimize Russian influence do we drop the bomb and risk innocent lives or are there other ways to deter Russian influence? Oppenheimer said that " the more horrible and inhumane the weapon, the stronger the case would be for its postwar control". Therefore, dropping the bomb looked like it would help the U.S. obtain its goal. It is hard when different ideologies are working on a common goal. Politicians, scientists, and historians, all have differing opinion on if the bomb should have been dropped. Politicians would want to advance the status of the country and make it powerful, as well as, increase international relations. While scientists would look at the bomb as scientific advancement and it opens up another window in the science realm that can be further explored. Historians could look at it from the perspective of how the bomb impacted events that spurred from the incident. Would certain wars have spurred if the bomb wasn't dropped or would our relations be any different between countries if we did not have the atomic bomb?

The notion of morals always comes into question in science and politics. From a politician's viewpoint, we wanted our country to be in a powerful position, so dropping the bomb would put the U.S. at the paramount of the international realm. Morally, it can be argued, it was right to drop the bomb because we were fearful Germany was working on an atomic bomb and we were scared of the Soviet power. We didn't want Germany to beat us or the Soviet to take over the world. It was in our best interest, especially later in life to drop the bomb. Looking at the atomic bomb from a scientifically moral standpoint is a little harder. Scientists often know better then anyone else the impact of such an explosion and how the after effects are going to hamper society. It is their duty to warn others who are less knowledgeable about the atomic bomb in this respect, of the consequences. In a sense, they were morally obligated to fully explain how the explosions would affect society. One must also think about the psychological factor that comes with the bomb. Killing civilians has the greatest psychological affect on anyone no matter your role in the act.

The dichotomy between the scientist and the politician is one that we grapple with. The Interim Committee was formed to decide what happens with the bomb and they had a Scientific Advisory Panel which aided them in their decision. One argument is that the scientist should be responsible because they built the bomb. Contrarily, the scientist believes that he is not held responsible because he did not launch the bomb; that is the responsibility of the politician. He was employed to build the bomb, but he has not responsibility with what happens to it. The issue between responsibility makes people wonder why even build something so destructive as a bomb is no one wants to take credit for it. It is common knowledge that a bomb causes ruin and chaos so inevitably someone has take responsibility.

The dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a debate that will be left unanswered. President Truman's initial reaction was that it was a good idea because the war was going to be over. The public became uneasy of the fact that nuclear bombs existed because they feared their long term impact. The dropping of the atomic bomb was a pivotal point in history and no matter how long people scrutinize over it, there will always be an argument about it is was the appropriate thing to do.

Bombs and Black Holes

Black holes are a mysterious topic that in the past people have thought of as a myth. Einstein was the genius who discovered that gravity warps space-time, and that black holes are essentially large masses that warp space-time into a hole. He also concluded that light bends, and he applied this notion to the idea of black holes. Since light bends, scientists examined stars in space, and concluded that when the light path bends, it must be getting pulled by the gravitational force. The gravitational force from the hole is so large that it sucks in anything that comes its way. This phenomenon is quite scary if one thinks about it. Where does this light go after it is sucked into this bottomless pit? Although we know this much about black holes there is so much to learn that unfortunately might be left undiscovered. It is hard to find answers for this phenomenon because essentially close observance is a matter of life and death. Even if we sent satellites into orbit, we would have no way of knowing if they would ever come back, or be sucked into the pit of despair. Einstein's theory of black holes could be seen as skeptical by others, but it is an interesting concept that one must ponder.

The notion of the atomic bomb and Germany's ability to create the bomb is another issue that leaves people frightened and skeptical. Historians pondered if Germans had the ability and resources to make the atomic bomb, and the answer according to Professor Walker was yes. Although, the German war economy had less money then the successful American creators of the Manhattan Project, and Hitler's plan to oust non-Aryan scientists succeeded, they still had creative and intelligent physicists and chemists and an abundance of resources. Hitler's fault, some argue, was detrimental and a determining factor to German's success or failure of creating an atomic bomb.

In the science realm, the discovery of nuclear fission opens up new doors. Once they learned about nuclear fission, they realized that there were areas for exploration. Due to the state that Germany was in at the time, people might see the development of the nuclear bomb and their ability to use atomic fission as dangerous and a threat to the world. Scientists were only trying to contribute to German's technological and military advancement, expand their knowledge and use their creativity. Although, scientists were going to use nuclear weapons for the future, it was worth the time and effort to create them. It is somewhat surprising that German scientists and officials disagreed with the idea of expending time and effort into nuclear weapons. The German uranium project had little effect on the war economy and the scientists had difficulty in getting things that they needed. This was due to lack of priority, and it is surprising that such an extreme and important project would be demoted. Looking back at the situation, scientists probably wish they put more time and effort into the research, since the United States and Soviet Union succeeded in developing the weapon.

Ultimately, I believe the German scientists gave up without a fight. The funding, resources, and intellect was there to build successful nuclear weapons but the motivation was lost. Not until the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, did the scientists realize their loss and they became disturbed. Hahn was in denial of the situation and believed that his work didn't have to do with weapons. The scientists didn't want to believe the disastrous impact of nuclear fission. The discovery of nuclear fission essentially took a path that was not foreseen, and instead of aiding Germany it only created more controversy.