Debating the Atomic Bomb in the New York Times - Article Example

? Day Month Year Atomic Bomb Essay Summary/Context There was an editorial published in the New York Times onDecember 9, 1945 titled ‘Debating the Atomic Bomb’. This short editorial focused in the social responsibility that the scientists developing weapons of mass destruction have. Mentioned in the article is that fact that the decision to use a major weapon, such as the Atomic Bomb, have largely been left up to the government, specifically the legislative body. As a result of the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, however, the public is increasingly becoming involved in the debate. This editorial makes it a point to mention that, if a third world war is to be avoided, then the public must become even more involved. The author of this editorial, who is not named, makes the point that scientists are creating weapons that can alter the course of history. As such, they must have a responsibility to ensure these weapons are used as a deterrent, rather than for purposes of evil. The author contends that never before in history have scientists held so much power and, as such, a debate must take place to determine how, if ever, such bombs will be used again. This keeps in line with the political leaning of the New York Times during this time period. The paper, while not necessarily being outspoken critics of war efforts undertaken by the United States, certainly advocated a stance more towards the concept of neutrality. The Atomic Bomb was a big step in the advancement of war technology and editorials in the New York Times during 1945 took a hesitant stance towards its further development. If you will, it would appear that the editorial board of the paper certainly did not want to appear proud of the fact that we had dropped two such massive bombs on Japan. Finally, this editorial piece focused its attention on beginning to educate the public more about the advances of science. To this point, the author contends that scientific advancement went largely unnoticed. Now that weapons, such as the atomic bomb, are being created, the public must have more of a voice. The obvious point here is made that the decision to use such weapons eventually impacts every citizen in the country, so they need to make their voices heard. This position of getting the public more involved in the affairs of science is the overarching theme of this particular editorial. Analysis The author of this editorial has two main points. The major idea centers on the responsibility that scientists who are charge of creating such weapons as the atomic bomb have. This responsibility entails them understanding the power of destruction they hold over the world as these bombs are created. Furthermore, a second underlying them of the editorial the contention that scientists need to bring the atomic bomb debate to the American people. Since citizens are directly impacted by this weapons use, all of society has the responsibility to let the government know whether or not they approve of its eventual deployment in times of war. The atomic bomb was designed to bring a quick end to any conflict. Scientists developed it with this end result in mind. We know from out studies in class that the fighting in Japan was not going anywhere. It appeared that, if the war were to be drawn out on land, America and its Allies would suffer many more casualties. Claiming he had exhausted every other option, Roosevelt authorized the eventual use of the Atomic Bomb in Japan in an effort to avoid a prolonged ground war. We know the results. Roosevelt contention at the time was the he desired a quick end to the war, which was exactly what he got. War is an ugly business. America saved potentially thousands of their own lives that would have been lost had the war continued. These lives were saved, however, with the sacrificing of hundreds of thousands of Japanese citizens that died in an instant. This background on the decision to use the atomic bomb is necessary to truly understand the context of this particular editorial. Any weapon that can kill so many people so quickly, and cause irreparable damage to the environment and a nation’s infrastructure, must not fall into the wrong hands. Any scientist, then, who is involved in its creation must understand and fully comprehend what the bomb could be used for. To create such weapons blindly would be a disaster. As they say, knowledge is power. The author is making the point that these scientists, in essence, carry an enormous amount of power. The fate of the world is truly on their shoulders. They have the responsibility to cease what they are doing if they fear that the bomb could be used for purposes that would not be good for mankind. In addition, because of the impact that this bomb can have, the editorial is imploring the public to become involved in the debate. We know throughout American history that war has been both applauded and protested in this country. What is rare, however, is for the public to openly debate the use of weapons that can truly alter the shape of the world forever. Consider what civilization would look like had atomic bombs been deployed all over Europe on a massive scale to end World War 1. Untold thousands would have ended their lives simply to bring a quick end to the war. Not to mention the thousands of buildings that would have been destroyed and the damage to the environment that would have taken place. If such a weapon is in existence, then the public should have a voice as to when and under what conditions it would be used. Conclusion In summary, the last line of this editorial sums up the entire argument: “For this reason, it is well that scientists should awaken to their obligations as citizens”. This student is in agreement with the overall thought process of the author. The very idea that such a bomb can carry so much destructive power is sobering. The other notion that such few people carry the power to actually decide when to use the bomb is actually quite troubling. With that in mind, scientists should be careful for whom they develop this technology. Thankfully, America is a country of sound values and we hope that such decisions about the atomic bomb are never taken lightly. Some countries around the world, however, do not carry those same ideals. If a scientist were to defect to another land and help a foreign government develop such weapons, such as is rumored to be occurring in a few countries today, the results could be devastating the world over. We know that the Cold War began to develop shortly after World War II ended. This war that contained no battles per say, was largely the result of two world superpowers possessing the power to truly destroy the other. It was a standoff unlike anything the world has ever seen. The public needed to be more involved in these debates. Sure, we trust our leaders to make many decisions for us and to protect or well-being and way life, but we must also voice our opinions when it comes to decisions of this magnitude. This student knows from talking to relatives that were alive during the Cold War that most Americans lived in a state of fear during this time. A country as free as ours should never live in fear. In summary, the arguments made by the author of this editorial are realistic. The debates of ever weapons of mass destruction should be public ones. Scientists should become leery of the further development of these weapons. It is wise to assume that we must continue to advance such technology in order to protect ourselves against rouge nations, but we must be careful that all such weapons are seen as a deterrent to possible attackers, rather than have the mentality that they will actually be used. The consequences for all mankind are simply to grave to consider it otherwise. Works Cited “Debating the Atomic Bomb.” New York Times 09 Dec. 1945, Editorial sec.: 76. Print. Read More