A few of our stories and columns are now in front of the paywall. We at The Chief-Leader remain committed to independent reporting on labor and civil service. It's been our mission since 1897. You can have a hand in ensuring that our reporting remains relevant in the decades to come. Consider supporting The Chief, which you can do for as little as $3.20 a month.
To the editor:
In the Sunday Times’ opinion section, I stumbled upon an article that sparked a deep and thought-provoking contemplation. The article commemorated the 80th anniversary of the atomic bombings that marked the end of World War 11.
The atomic bomb, a direct result of the Manhattan Project, revolutionized human progress beyond our wildest dreams.
Sorrowfully, Donald Trump’s budget cuts have deeply eroded the intellectual achievements that elevated humanity to Valhalla, a realm of divine accomplishment and a power that propelled American prosperity to unimaginable heights. Why would Trump undermine our nation’s core strength?
Trump’s budget cuts deliberately undermine scientific and medical research, which goes beyond the development of the atomic bomb, and illustrates how government and individuals can collaborate for a shared objective.
The Manhattan Project was a fruitful endeavor because, from 1939 to 1941, a group of predominantly Jewish refugee scientists from Hitler’s Europe, including Albert Einstein, were determined to approach the government and meet with military officials. Their mission was to inform the military that the threat posed by Hitler’s ambitions to develop an atomic bomb was not a mere figment of imagination. However, the military disregarded their hypothesis.
Laura Fermi, the wife of the atomic pioneer Enrico Fermi, wrote that American-born physicists had yet to find a way out of their isolated ivory tower. In contrast, foreign-born scientists were fully aware of the military state and the concentration of power. The American mindset, on the other hand, focused solely on democracy and free enterprise.
The world is at a critical juncture, where a groundbreaking advancement in artificial intelligence is on the brink of emergence, potentially rivaling the transformative impact of nuclear fusion. Whether we can hold onto our scientific advantage is a moot point.
Robert Sica
8 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
Admin
In response to an interviewer, Linda Ronstadt once asked "What did I say that was controversial?" The interviewer mentioned her comments against nuclear weapons. She responded "You mean there are people who actually like nuclear weapons?" She never encountered Robert Sica, who apparently thinks that their invention was a good thing.
Tuesday, August 26 Report this
reenjoe
Admin, you've forgotten Dr. Strangelove. He also learned to "love the bomb".
Wednesday, August 27 Report this
Word Man
If Hitler had developed the atomic bomb first, this debate would never have taken place.
The New York Times’ Sunday Opinion section highlighted the success of the Manhattan Project, emphasizing how government and individuals collaborated towards a common objective.
J. Robert Oppenheimer famously said, "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds," reflecting on the profound impact of the atomic bomb. He also expressed concerns about the moral implications of nuclear weapons, stating, "I don't know if we can be trusted with such a weapon. But I know the Nazis can't."
Thursday, August 28 Report this
reenjoe
Word Man, I have a news flash for you, Germany surrendered BEFORE the first A-bomb was dropped and Japan was close to defeat as well.
America's use of the two bombs, on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, prevented the need for a very, very costly invasion of Japan. Undoubtedly the bombs saved many U.S. servicemen's lives, while taking many Japanese civilians lives. However, bombs or no bombs the outcome was already certain - the U.S. and our allies would prevail.
Thursday, August 28 Report this
Word Man
I have a rude awakening for you, Reenroe. About a week after V-J Day, a small group of scientists and engineers interrogated an intelligent and well-informed Japanese Army officer in Yokohama. They asked him what, in his opinion, would have been the next major move if the war had continued.
He replied: “We would have kept on fighting until all Japanese were killed, but we would not have been defeated,” by which he meant that they would not have been disgraced by surrender.
Was Japan already beaten before the atomic bomb?
The answer is “no” in the sense that she was still fighting desperately, and there was every reason to believe that she would continue to do so; this is the only answer that has any practical significance.
General Marshall stated that the facts are as follows: “If the atomic bomb had not been used, evidence strongly suggests that there would have been numerous more months of death and destruction on an unprecedented scale. It was not a single atomic bomb, or even two, that compelled surrender; rather, it was the anticipated consequences of an atomic bomb’s impact on a community, coupled with the fear of even more such attacks, that ultimately led to Japan’s surrender.”
Shalom
Friday, August 29 Report this
Word Man
In contrast, if President Truman had refrained from dropping the atomic bomb on Japan, the war in Japan would have persisted indefinitely. The Japanese military, deeply ingrained in the philosophy of “Bushido,” the samurai code of honor, prioritized bravery and self-sacrifice, perceiving surrender as a dishonorable act. (This cultural belief compelled numerous Japanese soldiers during World War II to fight to the death rather than surrender, as honor was associated with dying in battle rather than being captured.) Consequently, had the atomic bomb not been dropped on Japan, the Japanese military would have continued fighting until the last man standing; that’s a fact!
Friday, August 29 Report this
Word Man
Reenroe, your assumptions are nothing more than presumptions, which lead to speculation and misinterpretation of historical facts. Harry Truman didn’t drop the atomic bomb on Japan once, but twice, because he was testing the efficacy of the A Bomb. He had to drop the bomb twice because the Japanese military would have fought valiantly until the last man had been standing. Steeped in Bushido philosophy, surrender was unthinkable. The fundamental principle of Bushido is that surrender is a disgrace, and death is eternal grace. Your hypothesis is nothing more than a collection of fiction, predilection, and speculation, devoid of any connection to Japan’s military mindset. If you can, get with it, man!
Friday, August 29 Report this
reenjoe
Word Man,
I agree that Gen. Marshall was correct that the Japanese would have fought to the last man and dropping the two bombs convinced Japan to surrender. I acknowledged that, in my second post, when I wrote "use of the two bombs, on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, prevented the need for a very, very costly invasion of Japan". However, the fact that the Japanese would have fought on doesn't mean that their defeat wasn't inevitable, even though conventional warfare.
Your and my comments notwithstanding, @Admin was on target. The statement in the above letter -"The atomic bomb, a direct result of the Manhattan Project, revolutionized human progress beyond our wildest dreams." - is perverse.
Friday, August 29 Report this