Transcripts For CSPAN3 Manhattan Project 20170703

American Foreign Relations as well as the American History book prize. It was a 1976 finalist for both the nationalist book award and the Pulitzer Prize and the current paper back edition of a world destroyed is subtitled hiroshima and its legacies. Visiting as the fund visiting professor of American History. And is a visiting professor at wellesley college. Hes taught at uc berkeley and the university of pennsylvania. Hes received fellowships from the Macarthur Guggenheim sloan and rockefeller foundations and the National Endowment for the humanities. He was a visiting scholar at the institute for the advanced stud and the Woodrow Wilson National Center for scholars. In 2007, he was inducted into the American Academy of arts and sciences. So please join me now in a warm welcome for professor martin sherwin. [ applause ] okay, thank you, ruth. My mother wrote that int introducti introduction. I hope you liked it. It was more folsom because my father didnt get a chance to edit it. Im really glad to be here to speak about this topic. I think its the kind of subject that needs to be reviewed again and again and again because, unfortunately, the Nuclear Issue is still with us. And it looks like its going to be with us for a very long time. Now, ive had a chance to chat with a few of view. And i know that at least those i chatted with have a particular interest in all broad aspects of the Manhattan Project. And this talk im going to give, however, focuses on the as the subtitle said, visions of the Nuclear Future. That is the focus on the people who were thinking about what Nuclear Weapons would do. Not only for the war, but for the post war period. And thats one of the themes of this talk tonight. That Nuclear Weapons were from the very beginning not just a weapon that was thought about with respect to the war but the implications of such a powerful transformative weapon was automatically folded into ideas about what effect it would have on the postwar, on the postwar period. Now, many of you know that, are interested in the views of people like oppenheimer and general groves and hans beta and many, many other participants in the project. And id like to suggest to you that if you want to follow up voices of visions of the Nuclear Future and the voices that are the subject of tonights discussion, that you go to manhattanprojectvoices, one word, manhatt manhattanprojectvoices. Org. The Atomic Heritage Foundation has a wonderful website with lots of interviews. Some of which i did. But lots of other interviews that were done by other people. With major figures in the Manhattan Project. So i think its not too much to say the atomic bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki structured the future of not only the atomic age but also the future of civilization. So were talking about a very big a big subject here. And one that in effect change s an changed over time in terms of our views of the major issues. 70 years ago, there was a certain consensus on a view. 50 years ago, there was more diversity about the issues. And today there are many, many views. One interesting thing, the atomic bomb, although it was not predicted 100 years before it was developed, the idea that science would transform the human condition. Was something people thought about even in the 19th century. One of my favorite quotes was by henry brooks adams in a book he wrote in 1862 where he says the following. Man has mounted science and has now run away with. I firmly believe that before many centuries more science will be the master of men. The engines he will have invented will be beyond his strength to control. Some day, science will have the experience. Some day, science may have the existence of man kind in its power and the human race commits suicide by blowing up the world. Thats 1862. The beginning of the nuclear age is a moment when that possibility emerged. No matter how terrible previous weapons were, there is absolute ly nothing that compares to the transformative effect of nuclear of Nuclear Weapons. Now, im going to talk about the period of the discovery of Nuclear Fission to the postwar period. I hope in the discussion well be able to expand that beyond to present day. But to organize the talk, ive divided it into four pieces. Ive divided the pie in quarters. And the first section of the talk is about possibilities. When Nuclear Weapons were not Nuclear Weapons. When fission vwas first discovered and its implications were thought about. What were the possibilities. That runs from 1939 to 1941 to the time in which the United States entered the war. The Second Period is pearl harbor to about the time president roosevelt died in april 1945 and president truman took president ial office. And that was a time of panic. Especially at the beginning of that period. And then about the time truman comes in, we start to talk about promotion. That is, how is the bomb going to be promoted to the world. How is it going to be revealed. Are we going to have just a test. Are we going to use it on the japanese . Are we not going to use it at all . Whatever. These issues were the issues that were that were discussed in visions of the Nuclear Future. And finally in the postwar period, were talking about preeminence. The United States, the sole possessor of this incredible force. So lets begin at the beginning. With the discovery of Nuclear Fission. And i may be reviewing something that most of you most of you know. But Nuclear Weapons i keep saying that. Nuclear fission was discovered in germany. And it was discovered by two chemists, not physicists, chemists, otto hahn and fritz strasman. They were doing a series of experiments where they were bombarding the element, atoms of elements in the periodic table with neutrons to see what happened. And they got to the 92nd element, uranium and they bombarded it with a neutron. And the most amazing thing happened. They ended up not with uranium but with barium. Atomic number 56. And some leftover elements of uranium. And so they did it again. Same thing happened. They couldnt figure out what in the world had occurred. And they sent their experiment to a former colleague, lisa mitner, who was jewish and had to leave germany. And lisa mitner, who is a physicist, and her nephew, another physicist, figured out what had happened. The uranium atom had split in two. And when they weighed the two elements, the barium and what was left over of the uranium, it weighed less than the uranium. How many of you are watching the einstein series on television . So e equals mcsquare. And basically what that says is that when energy is converted into matter or matter is and energy can go back and forth, what had happened was that some energy had been released in this bombardment. And if a as gogazillion of thes atoms could be split at the same time, obviously an unprecedented amount of energy would be released. And that was scary. And it was fantastic. Because in a sense it transformed the whole understanding of what can happen in the universe. This was in like withne with a other transformations that had occurred in the 20th century. We mentioned einsteins theory of relativity. And then bores new conception of the adam. And highsenburgs uncertainty principle. Classical physics had been completely transformed by these new insights. And now this. So it was an amazing event. And it was an amazing event with all kinds of not clearly understood possibilities. One being perhaps we could end up with a weapon. Now, you all know about einsteins letter to roosevelt. Einstein said to his friend linus pauling, i made one great mistake in my life when i signed the letter to president roosevelt recommending the atomic bomb be made. But there was some justification. The danger that the germans might get them. That of course was the possibility that led to the panic. You know, phase two. And that letter that einstein wrote to roosevelt, however, was not a letter that said, you know, we got to hurry up and built atomic bombs because the germans are ahead of us and theyre going to build atomic bombs. It was much more cautious. It was written, by the way, by leo salard who had worked with einstein in berlin years, years before. Einstein wrote, it is conceivable, though much less then fission as a source of power, that extremely powerful bombs of a new type might be constructed. And he pointed out that a single bomb of this type carried by boat and exploded in port might very well destroy the whole port together with the surrounding territory. Now, if the letter had ended at that, it might not have had the effect that it had. Which was for roosevelt to say, to give it to an aide, name of paul watson and say look into this. But the last part of the letter was critical. I understand einstein and salard wrote that germany has actually stopped the sale of uranium from the czechoslovakian mines which he has taken over. So you can understand that the framework for what would eventually become the Manhattan Project, even in this earliest stage, when nobody knew if it was even possible. If a weapon could come out of this discovery. But the framework was this is something really important that can make a difference. Well, roosevelt initiated an activity. The activity in the United States was basically committees of scientists and some military people. Studying the not only the implications of this hans strasman discovery. Which, by the way, was published in Nature Magazine in february 1939. I think i neglected to mention that the experiment had taken place in december 1938. Couple of months later, its published in Nature Magazine which was the premier Science Magazine in the English Speaking world. And so every physicist around the globe knew about this. Had the same thoughts that salard had that he put into this letter that einstein wrote to roosevelt. But the committees in the United States between the spring of 1939 or the summer of 1939, which is when the letter was sent to roosevelt, could not figure a way that it was possible to built a Nuclear Weapon. They looked into all sorts of possibilities. But in effect got nowhere. In england, however, there were two german refugees or two refugees from germany. Another couple of jewish scientists. Otto frish who is lisa mitners nephew and rudolph pyles. They were in britain. And they were not allowed to work on the most secret project that the british were involved with. Anybody know what that was . Radar. Okay. Got an informed audience. It was radar. And they immediately decided, well, what do we know best. Nuclear fission. Lets work on that. And lets see if we can figure out if it would might be possible how a Nuclear Weapon could be built. And working together alone without a lot of advice from a lot of people. Just boring into the problem. Using their imaginations. They figured it out. And they came to the conclusion that if you could collect enough uranium 235, which is an isotope of uranium, of natural uranium 238. Into the conclusion in britain two years later. That a bomb could be built in two years. Oh, my god. Are the germans well on their way to building an atomic bomb. Possible. At least the thought. The vision. Of the Manhattan Project. The germans are ahead of us. They must be ahead of us. They have a lot of good physicians. Who remain in germany. So the british, who have an agreement with the to Exchange Information with each other that might be helpful for the war effort. Send the pries report to the United States. And that report arrives some time in the spring of 1941. Spring of 41. Was still before pearl harbor. It has a transformative effect on the activities in the United States. Vanibur bush, who is the head of the office of Scientific Research and development, which is the office that overseas all the wartime atomic bomb projects. He writes a memo to henry sti stimpson. The republican ason it goes to secretary of war is because the bomb project is going to be under the secretary of wars aegis. And he says, one thing is certain, if such an explosive were made, it would be thousand of times more powerful than existing explosives and its use might be determining. And its use might be determining. And that is the theme of the Manhattan Project. And that is the intellectual engine so to speak. Or the vision that drives the project at what is warp speed. Roosevelt approves the Manhattan Project on december 6th, 1941. Very interesting date. December 6th, 19411. December 7th at 8 00 in the morning pearl harbor time. Pearl harbor is bombed. The Manhattan Project is under way and the war is under way virtually at the same time. And, remember, the germans may be two years ahead of us. When general groves is appointed to run the Manhattan Project, he is assure ed thd that he has th highest priority for material. He has the highest priority for recruiting scientists. He has the highest priority for everything. Because its use might be determining. To use as fast as possible to dom please. Now, most studies of the atomic bomb or the atomic bombing, the use of what came out of the Manhattan Project, began on april 12th, 1945, when harry truman became president. Thats a big mistake. Because frankly de lly del lly roosevelts role is critical in understanding thetomic weapons inherited when he became president. Well whashs happen well, what happens after pearl harbor and the war . What is the environment in which the Manhattan Project develops . Six months after pearl harbor, theres the great battles of navy battle also of midway and carl c. Carl c. And the United States defeats the japanese fleet at midway and carl c. That stops the advance of the Japanese Forces towards our country. And it begins the process of churning the war in the pacific around. And the difficult process of island hopping. One island battle after another begins. Thats just six months after pearl harbor. Hayes june of 1942. Thats the war in the pacific. It has turned around within six months. The war in europe takes longer. Remember that begins september of 1939. The United States comes in right after pearl harbor. And the battle of stalingrad in the winter of 1942, 43, stops the german advance and begins the process of turning the war around and moving the soviet forces towards germany. So by the spring of 1943, which is exactly when los alamos opens in april 1943, the war is moving in the direction of victory for the United States. And churchill and roosevelt and the American Military and the British Military believe we are going to win the war. If the British Public and the American Public continue to support this difficult bloody awful global war. Were going to win it. Unless, unless the germans get the bomb first. If the germans get the bomb first, all bets are off. Because as vanibur bush said, the weapon could be determining. Roosevelt believed that. Churchill believed that. All of the military who were informed and there were very few military informed about the Nuclear Program it was so highly secret. But whoever was informed about the Nuclear Program believed that if we get the bomb first or if nobody can build a bomb, were going to, you know, win the the war. But if the germans get it first, all bets, all bets are off. And the scientists of course were behind this belief. So in effect by 1943, the spring of 43, months, only months after los alamos is opened up, the bomb is seen as this of w t whatever you want to call it, a magic bullet. Now, this was not such a fantastic and off the wall kind of idea. We talked about radar a few moments ago and how important that was to the british war effort. And in fact i think virtually all historians agree that it was the british superiority with its radar that allowed the british to win the battle of britain or in the skies over great britain. And turn hitler to attack the soviet union rather than finish off the british, which you couldnt do without air superiority. So in the period between 1943 and 1944, the Manhattan Project is going at great speed and progress is being made. Now, there are two kinds of bombs that are being developed. The one out of oak ridge, where uranium 235 is being isolated from uranium 238, and that bomb, if we get enough uranium 235, is going to be a very simple device. They called it a guntype bomb. Thin man was another name. In the front of the bomb, there was a target of uranium 235. Not so much that it would go critical. Packed loosely enough. So just sitting there. And in the back of the bomb was lets call it a plug or a bullet of uranium 235. And when the bomb was dropped, the idea was reach the certain altitude. The idea altitude for it to explode. It would the bullet in the back would be triggered. Fired into the target. And it would blow up. That was the hiroshima bombing. It was never tested. That bomb was they had total confidence that it would work. Unless somebody forgot to put two particular wires together or Something Like that. Which could always happen. But the theory of it was quite clear. So most of the work at los alamos and the angst at los alamos is related to the other type of atomic bomb which is a plutonium bomb. And pyles indicated it might be also possible to make a bomb out of plutonium. And plutonium, which is a manmade element, was easier to produce than the uranium 235. But so they decided to put some plutonium in the front of the bomb. Some plutonium in the back of the bomb. And they discovered they calculated, they figured out that there was no way that the plutonium bullet could be fired fast enough into the plutonium target to make it go up. Plutonium was active, so much more active than uranium 235 that no matter how fast you fired that bullet, by the time it got halfway, it would start to explode. But it would really fizzle because you wouldnt get the full effect. So we have this investment so to speak in plutonium. How are we going to make it make it work. And they came up with this idea of an implosion device. Of packing the plutonium in, lets say, a grapefruit sized bowl. And designing explosives that were all around the plutonium bowl that would go off at once and when those explosives. This was fat man. It was more or less almost a square bomb with the plutonium sitting in the middle of it. And when it hit the right altitude, squash it down to a golf ball size and boom. But boy that was much trickier than the first bomb. And all of the activity in 1944 was related to most of the activity was related to figuring out how this could work. And the test of july 16th, 1945, in the alamo gordo desert was a test of this plutonium device. And remember i said at the beginning that scientists and policymakers and everybody else and general grove involved with the Nuclear Weapons thought about it for the postwar period too. This was not something that was just for the war. This was something that would affect International Relations in the postwar period. So the advantage of the plutonium bomb was that, a, plutonium was easy to get. Easier to get than uranium 235. And two, the design was much more efficient. And you got more bang for the buck so to speak. So there was this concern that this design design would work. So thats whats going on at los alamos. Until, and this is before, you know, before truman comes in to office. But what i said roosevelts thinking was really important. What did roosevelt think about this . Theres a very important meeting in september 1944. September 18th, 1944. After the second quebec conference. When roosevelt invites churchill to come to his home at hyde park. And they have many meetings over several days. And a lot of alcohol is consumed. Especially by churchill. Roosevelt has to restock everything after churchill leaves. And the theres a memorandum of or what the british call a minute of the discussion they had with respect to the atomic bomb. And its called the hyde park minute or the hyde park memorandum. Talking about several different things. And its only three paragraphs, three numbered paragraphs long. But in the middle of the first paragraph, it says, but when a bomb, which is in quotation marks, is finally available, it might perhaps after mature consideration, come on, be used against the japanese. Who should be warned that this bombardment will besurrender. I want to go over that again. I have never in the fiftysomeodd years ive been doing research on topics related to Foreign Policy and whatnot, seen anything like this description of how people are thinking. When a bomb, remember, which is in quotation marks, is finally available, it might perhaps after mature consideration be used against the japanese. Now, why lets think about that. Why would the memorandum of this discussion be written that way . Maybe during the q a period people will have some ideas and a comment. My conclusion is two things. One, this was written for history. It was written to make clear that both roosevelt and churchill understood that the bomb was something special. It wasnt the bomb. It was some very kind of special thing that you just dont well, we decide to use it. We decide not to use it. Huhuh. It might perhaps after mature consideration be used against the japanese. So theyre making the case here and the second point i would say might perhaps after mature consideration, leaving open the possibility that we wont use it because after mature consideration, whatever that entails, we might decide its not a good idea. But we might perhaps, in fact, after mature consideration, use it. So its left up in the air. So that september of 1944. Now, at this time, just before this hyde park meeting, neils spore, the famous physicist, who had escaped from denmark. Who was smuggled out of denmark by the danish and British Underground when they came to the conclusion that the germans were going to seize him. Is informed about the Manhattan Project. And i wouldnt say that bore sort of panics. But he is deeply, deeply troubled by the possibilities of the bomb entering the world in the post war period and what it would do. So he writes a memorandum that argues that, a, it is not possible to keep this as a secret long term. That b, the soviets probably know something about this. He was in correspondence with some soviet physicist and he read between some lines and came to the conclusion once he learned about the Manhattan Project, ah, thats what he meant. That he probably knew something about it or were working on the same thing. And that if the war ends and if the United States uses the bomb without bringing stalin into this club or community that arrangement the United States has with the british, it is very likely that a peaceful relationship with the soviet union is going to be impossible. It will send a signal to stalin that watch it fella, you could be next. And so he goes to churchill when hes in london. And makes the case that chur churchhill, that stalin should be informed about the bomb, about the Manhattan Project. And churchill in effect throws him out of the office. And says, you know, you stick to your science. Ill do the politics. And actually at hyde park, part of this memorandum is a note where churchill says professor bush should be watched. Hes, you know, hes treading in hes giving away secrets of the russians or he wants to. To make connections with the current. So he makes the case to roosevelt before this hyde park meeting. And roosevelt is much more accommodating as roosevelt is want to be and seems to be persuaded. But eventually hes not because churchill is absolutely adamantly against the idea of informing stalin at all. Well, roosevelt dies on april 12th, 1945. And we come to the third period in this. The question of when the, you know, how the bomb will be presented to to the world. So the promotion, the promotion period. There were three points of view that emerge in the period between april 45 and august of 1945. The first point of view is do not introduce Atomic Energy to the world as a weapon used in war. And ill explain why shortly. And the second point of view is use the weapon to warn the world of the danger the world faces now that an atomic bomb is possible. But after the war promote the idea for the International Control of Atomic Energy. Creating a condominium or some kind of arrangement that will prevent a nuclear arms race. And the third point of view is use the weapon to end the war and to make it clear to the soviets that the advantage in conventional forces was now, pardon the expression, trumped. Okay, thank you. Okay, so truman and the soviets. Truman becomes president on april 12th, 1945. He says to reporters, guy, i feel like the moon, the stars and the sun have fallen on my head. Poor harry truman. He saw roosevelt once more or less for a photo op. He has been a senator during the 1930s but focused completely on domestic issues. He was head of the Truman Committee which was a committee designed to prevent waste in war. Production activities. And he does that very well. And thats one of the reasons hes chosen to be roosevelts president when roosevelt runs for the fourth, for his fourth, fourth term. But he knows absolutely nothing about Foreign Policy. So basically all of his information is inherited from roosevelts advisers. But he does have views. He has strong views about the soviet union. This is the senator who said when reporters asked him after the germans attacks the soviet union, well, what do you think about that. And he said, well, if the germans are winning, we should help the soviets. If the soviets are winning, we should help the germans. This of course before we got into the war. I mean, he does not like the soviets. He distrusts communism. You know, hes right out there. That make america great. Youll have to excuse me. Its very hard not to turn these things in. So when molotov, the soviet foreign minister, comes to, you know, check truman out, to introduce himself, on april 21st or 22nd i think it is. Truman starts to they get in a conversation and truman starts to dress him down and says youre breaking our agreement. Youre not doing this and youre not doing that. And molotov is so taken back, i mean, this is their first diplomatic meeting. So taken back, hes never been talked to like that in my life. Truman says just like a scolding school teacher. Well, keep your agreements and you wont be talked to like that. And all of the people in the room are absolutely shaken. The acting secretary of state goes back to his office and tells people about it. Word gets to stimpson, the account is of war. Just mentioned casually after the first meeting that theres a very important project that i have to tell you about. And it just goes over trumans head and stimpson has not told him enough to really alert him to the Manhattan Project. But stimpson is really shook up. Because he feels that the atomic bomb is going to be the key to either peace in the postwar world or a very, very difficult postwar period with the soviet union. So he writes a memorandum. Calls the white house and says, i have to see the president as soon as possible. And within two days, he is in the oval office with his memorandum talking to the president. And this is an absolutely amazing memorandum. Its april 25th, 1945. It has nine paragraphs, each numbered. And it begins with the first paragraph. And at the reads this to truman. Within four months, we shall in all probability have completed the most terrible weapon ever known in human history. One bomb of which could destroy a whole city. And then he goes on with two and three. Building on that case. And number four and number five. He says, the world in its present state of moral advancement compared with its Technical Development would be eventually at the mercy of such a weapon. In other words, modern civilization might be completely destroyed. And then he goes on to say, furthermore, on number seven, in the light of our present position, with reference to this weapon, the question of sharing it with other nations and if so shared upon what terms becomes a primary question of our Foreign Relations. Also, and this is really interesting because the moral dimension comes up quite often. And this, also, our leadership in the war and in the development of this weapon has placed a certain moral responsibility upon us. Which we cannot cannot shirk wi serious responsibility for any disaster to civilization which it would further. Im going to read that again. Because it is important. Our leadership in the war in the development of this weapon has placed a certain moral responsibility upon us, which we cannot shirk without very serious responsibility toward any disaster to civilization, which it would further. On the other hand, if the problem of the proper use of this weapon can be solved, we would have the opportunity to bring the world into a pattern in which the peace of the world and our civilization can be saved. So for simpson, the post war period depends on how we handle the atomic bomb. This is what hes telling president truman. Hes making the case. President truman, as i said was not very well informed about Foreign Policy, he turned to the man who had expected to be nominated as the Vice President , james f. Burns, who was a Supreme Court justice, known as mr. Assistant president during roosevelts third term. He knew about the atomic bomb. He was at the altar and took short hand. He was skilled at short hand, he had the very best notes of anyo anyone. And truman reaches out to burns and taps him as his secretary of state. He doesnt officially become secretary of state until july 1st, but hes at trumans side constant constantly. Hes the one who whispered in trumans ear, that the soviets were breaking their agreements at yalta. Burns has a very, very different view than simpson, the opposite in fact. Simpsons assistant john mccloy reported that after a conversation with burns, this is a memo that mccloy writes to simpson. He was quite radically opposed to any approach about cooperating on the International Control of Atomic Energy. He wished, mccloy wrote to have the implied threat of the bomb in his pocket during conferences after the war. The actual quotas, during the conference he was to attend in london, beginning on september 4th. And so thats after the war, during the war, burns is press secretary writes in his diary. That burns thought the atomic bomb might put us in a position to dictate our own terms at the end of the war. Back to the original thought the views may be determining it the bomb may be determining. We have two very opposing positions within the highest level of government. Whats happening in the Manhattan Project . There are also opposing views there about the atomic bomb there is a group at the university of chicago led by james franck, who wrote a memorandum known as the franck report that argues that the atomic bomb should not be used on japan. Because if we ever expect to cooperate with the soviet union after the war, such an act will make it impossible. If we consider Nuclear Warfare as the paramount objective, if were thinking about peace in the post war period as our paramount objective and we believe that it can be achieved, this kind of introduction may destroy all of our chances of success. Russia and even allied countries that bear less mistrust of our ways and intentions, as well as neutral countries may be deeply shocked. It may be difficult to persuade the world that a nation which was capable of secretly preparing and suddenly releasing a weapon as indiscriminate as the rocket bomb and a million times more destructive, is to be trusted in its proclaimed desire of having such weapons abolished by international agreement. Thats the argument scientists are making at the university of chicago. Which is part of the Manhattan Project as you know. Thats where familyies experiments took place. On the other hand, Robert Oppenheimer at los alamos is a member of a committee called the interim committee organized by simpson, and he believes that the bomb should be used hes been told hes back and forth to washington a lot. At this time of the year. And hes been told that were going to have to invade japan and the bomb may in fact prevent the necessity for the invasion. Hes supporting it. And in the incher um committee, he argues if two bombs are available, we should use both of them on the same day. But that is fortunately squashed. You all probably know the story of trumans attitude at the potsdam conference. It begins about the middle of july, july 15th and the test of the atomic bomb takes place as you know on july 16th and general groves report arrives in potsdam hand carried and given to simpson who bereaves president truman on it on the 21st of july. And truman when discussing potsdam, he says, now i know what happened to truman. He had learned about the atom ago bomb, and he bossed everybody around that afternoon. Suddenly he was a different man. It gave him the confidence that the United States was in a position to not only get the war over with with this weapon, but also to have something that simpson called the great equalizer. The atomic bomb would equalize or neutralize the huge soviet advantage in conventional forces in europe. Trumans attitude changes completely. He calls in general marshall and says, marshall, you know, we came here with the intention of getting the soviets to live up to their promise to innovate japan, to come into the war. And could we get them to back off that now that we have the atomic bomb . We dont need them . In fact we dont want them, because we dont want them to participate in the occupation of japan. Well, stalin had promised roosevelt that within three months of germanys surrender, he would come into the war against japan. You know, there was a nonaggression pact between the japanese and the russians. Neither of them needed a twofront war. So they had this nonaggression pact. But stalin wants a piece of the action in japan after the war, and remember there was this 1905 japanese war, which the japanese won, and they took all of sakalin and a lot of other territory from the soviets. Stalin wanted that three months. Germany surrenders on may 8. One month, may, june, july, august 8. Why three months . I mean, why didnt he end the war immediately. Why . Because all the soviet troops were on the our meehan front and it would take three months to move all of the forces to the japanese front. So stalin is committed to coming in, theres no question. Marshall says to truman, you know, we can tell them, its not necessary any more guys, thanks a lot, but its not going to do any good, theyre going to come in because they want to come in, and indeed thats the case. So the bomb dropped on japan on august 6th. And on august 9th hiroshima the 6th. And three days later nagasaki. Why three days . Originally it was a fiveday spread. The reason for the fiveday spread was that it was expected to be a very complicated process for arming the second bomb, the plutonium bomb, but the scientists are very gun hoe where the planes to attack japan took off from. And when the colonels plane the enola gay comes back to tinian after the successful raid on hiroshima. The Scientists Say we might be able to do this in four days now that weve had the experience with the first bomb. And tibbetts says can you do it in three days, because bad weather is expected to come in. And thats in effect what happens. That decision, that three day spread is made by gungho scientists and Army Air Force personnel. It is not a truman decision, it is not a Henry Simpson decision, its not a general groves decision, its a battlefield decision. So three days. After the atomic bombings, what effect does this have on stalin . Everyone was worried about stalins reaction. And, of course they were right. Subbock, very well known american russian historian writes in one of his books that the news of hiroshima and nagasaki struck stalin like a thunderbolt. He was shocked. And theres a wonderful memorandum of a conversation about a week later that stalin has with ambassador harriman, the American Ambassador to the soviet union, and George Cannon is there, and he takes the notes and writes this memorandum. And a couple lines in it, stalin says to harriman we have entered the war in spite of your attempt to end it, before we did so. And then harriman replies, the atomic bomb will end the war, we have it, it was very expensive to build. It will have a great impact on post war International Relations. That had to be a prepared text. He doesnt just say things like that, off the top of his head its expensive, its going to have a great impact on post war International Relations. Meaning, weve got it, and you dont. And stalin says, japan was about to surrender anyway and the secret of the atomic bomb might be hard to keep. I cant help thinking stalin really had to work hard to suppress a big grin when he said that. The soviets had been getting information on the Manhattan Project since 1943. And they stalin knew about the Manhattan Project long before harry truman or admiral harriman, et cetera, et cetera. What about the decision to use atomic bombs against two japanese cities. The first thing i would say about it, it was neither inevitable nor was it necessary in order to end the war in august of 1945. Why do i say that . There are several reasons. One, the invasion was not scheduled to take place until november 1st. And two, as stalin said, and he knew it, because the japanese were trying to see molotov in moscow. That the japanese had been searching for a way to surrender with conditions for months. We have all sorts of traffic from our decoding of the japanese diplomatic message tracker to this effect in 1939 the United States broke the japanese diplomatic code and throughout the war, we were reading all their message traffic. It was referred to as magic and you can see all this stuff on the web. And its fantastic what we knew about what was going on in japan that the japanese didnt know that we knew. We were demanding unconditional surrender, which was unacceptable to all of japans leadership, it implied that the emperor might be considered a war criminal and as you know at that point in time, the japanese considered the emperor a dety. It was opposed by the military, the Japanese Military for personal reasons. It was humiliating and the Japanese Military understood they had lost the war, they were trying to surrender with some kind of saving face and they wanted conditions. For example, they wanted to disarm their own troops. They wanted there were four or five conditions. One of them i usually say sarcastically was that the japanese generals should get their tea in the morning served by american sergeants. But none of that was going to be acceptable but all of japan was absolutely determined to fight to the death in the emper others life was at stake. The Japanese Military proposed a dual strategy. Not just proposed, imposed a dual strategy on the japanese. The diplomatic part was that japan must approach the soviet union and try to persuade the soviet union, bribe them with they would give back everything that was taken during the japanese war, and whatever else made sense to get the soviets to mediate. On behalf of japan and the United States. For better surrender terms than unconditional surrender. They argued the advantage of this also that if they were mediating on our behalf, that would keep them from attacking us. Which the japanese realized was a possibility. Thats the diplomatic part of the strategy. The military part of the strategy was that they would focus Attention Focus their military all the areas that were most likely to be the areas of the american invasion. The argument was that no, were not going to be able to defeat the americans, but we can bloody them enough so they will be willing to accept surrender with conditions. Thats the strategy. But stalin intended to be a victor and an occupier, not a mediator. Once he entered the war as i said on august 8, 1945. The Japanese Military strategy was completely lost. The diplomatic element had failed. But also, with the soviets coming into the war, the military Strategic Planning had failed. Because all of japans troops were in the southern part and it was impossible for the japanese to fight a two front war. When the soviets came in, what was the likely consequences. They were going to take those areas that the japanese had taken from them, but they were very likely to take hokkaido. And stalin proposed to truman after the war, that he take hokkaido, and truman said, no way the other thing you have to understand is that the japanese government was anticommunist more anticommunist than the americans at that time. So the thought of the soviet union coming into the war sharing in the occupation, taking hokkaido it was japans worst nightmare. All of a sudden when the soviets came in, the surrender japans surrender to the United States appeared to be its best possible option. There was no way the japanese were going to lend themselves to being occupied by the soviet union if there was some way to prevent it. So i think its fair to say based on that line of argument, we can talk about other lines of argument that the atomic bomb did not end the war, it was soviet entry into the war, and its probably also fair to say if the timing was the same since the bomb and the soviets coming into the war occurred simultaneously, more or less, the bomb did not save any american lives. In fact i discovered in some research that i did, that two americans who were in a hiroshima jail, two pilots, norman and ralph were killed during the atomic bombing. What would the reactions were talking about, visions of the Manhattan Projects and truman says in his memoirs, that when he heard the news, it was on the ship heading back to the United States. He gathered the sailors around him told them the news and said, this is the greatest thing in history. When eisenhower heard about it, he reports in his book i was against it. We didnt have to hit them with that awful thing. And theres a whole list of admiral leahy and others who were opposed to it, the one that i find the most interesting is john dulles who becomes eisenhowers secretary of state, a great promoter of massive retaliation with Nuclear Weapons. In 1945, august of 45, after the first bomb is used, dulles writes to truman sends a telegram, he says, if we as a professed christian nation feel morally free to use Atomic Energy in that way, men elsewhere will accept that verdict atomic weapons will be looked upon as a normal part of the arsenal of war, and the stage will be set for the sudden and final destruction of mankind. Taking us back to henry adams. Now after the war there is a concerted effort led by open oppenheimer to bring some form of International Control of Atomic Energy into being. The first report, state Department Report that he is not named in, but he is the designer of the report, its called the lillian that will report which comes out in february of 1945. Truman administration is not thrilled with this. Turns it over to bernard, who presents a different version to the United Nations Atomic Energy commission by 1945. By december of 1945 when its voted on, it has to be unanimous to be accepted. The vote is 10 to 2, russia and the soviet union disend and thats really the end of the possibility of a serious effort to bring some kind of arms control to the Nuclear Issue. I want to conclude with some general points. No decision in history, certainly not any government decision is or was inevitable. If you believe in ineveritt ability. Dont bother to study history. History is the study of possibilities. Why was a chosen over b and c. And in my view, what would have happened if b or c had been chosen. Im going to end with a counter factual what if the arguments of the franck report had carried the day . What if after the july 16th test that that was the last use of the atomic bomb. What would have happened after the war . Well, you could imagine there was no way to keep the Manhattan Project secret, it was the most expensive project in wartime history, 2 billion which today is a drop in the bucket, but was big bucks back then. What if simpsons views about Nuclear Danger had prevailed and the weapons were not used . There would have been a congressional hearing for sure simpson would have been called as the seshlgt of war in charge of the project. What would he have said . He surely would have said what he told truman, this weapon can destroy civilization or if its properly used can save civilization. That the United States is not nazi germany, were not imperial japan, we have our own morality, we have our own way of coming to decisions and since it was not necessary to use the bomb to end the war it is inconceivable that we would use such a weapon. Atomic weapons are beyond the pale. Atomic weapons are weapons that can destroy all human life on earth. We must work to make sure these weapons do not become part of the arsenals of the world. I ask you, if Nuclear Weapons had been introduced to the world as being a pariah weapon rather than a magic bullet weapon, that was used twice on what oppenheimer later call ed an essentially defeated enemy. Would things have been different . I dont know. You dont know, but we all can have our opinions about that, and i submit to you that the most important thing that i have said to you tonight is to put that thought in your mind to think about, to discuss with your children and grandchildren. And to talk about the whole Decision Making process that leads from point a to point b and finally to a Nuclear Weapon. It seems to me that counter factuals are at the heart of the human condition. Every animal can understand what is happening to it at a particular given moment. It acts accordingly, only human beings can think about alternatives. Were not lemmings. And it is very, very important to always consider the alternative. Lets think about it in the context of the United States and Nuclear Weapons today . I dont think anyone can argue convincingly, that the Iran Nuclear Treaty was inevitable or what billion north korea right now. Is there an american policy that is inevitable . I dont think so. Kwhoiss are going to be made based on assumptions. Some times those assumptions are right, sometimes theyre wrong. Ill end with one that takes us back to the concerns of the most farsighted scientist of the Manhattan Project. Its a commission in 1997 discussing Nuclear Weapons and the world. And they say, the proposition that Nuclear Weapons can be retained in perpetuity and never used accidentally or by decision. Defies credibility. And thats a real downer to end on but it really is the crux of the issue today. The world that we face if Nuclear Weapons keep proliferating is a world that is going to be far more dangerous than the world we have lived through, thank you very much. [ applause ] is there a microphone around . Right here. Yes, go ahead. The atomic bomb on the soviet union, you want to make that suggestion . Were we . Was there not during certainly not during the war. But i mean afterwards, i mean, you know, especially during the eisenhower administration, massive retaliation, brinks manship, all the war plans that we have managed to be able to research are filled with plans to destroy the soviet union in a week many yes, absolutely. Thank you for your presentation. I would like to correct you by saying admiral harriman was not an admiral. No, its aviral. Truman did serve in the artillery in world war one. You said stalin was struck as a thunderbolt by understanding we had a Nuclear Weapon. Thats not what happened at potsdam . No, i quoted zubock. He was wrong. No, no. Saying that stalin, that the bombing the use of the bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki struck stalin like a thunderbolt. He knew about the Nuclear Weapons, the fact that we would use them on what he thought was a defeated enemy, he saw as a warning to him that the soviets could be next. Im sorry i wasnt clear enough thank you for your question. Do you believe you intimated that highsen berg deliberately slowed the german effort for the bomb down . You know, thats a big controversy, and just to explain it to the rest of the audience, that highsen burg, the famous german physicist who claimed that after the war, that he knew how to build anatomic bomb, but would not tell hitler about it, because it was too horrible a weapon to give to hitler. All of the german physicists that the russians didnt get were rounded up in in an operation near the end of the war and sent to farm hall, a building in britain, which was completely bugged. And we have the farm hall transcripts, and when the announcement came over the radio that hiroshima had been bombed. Someone said, if thats true, youre all second raters, implying they were trying to do it. Highsen berg argues he did know how to do it, but wouldnt reveal it. But the historians of science that ive read make a fairly persuasive case i think that his calculations were wrong. On the other hand, thomas powers, a friend of mine wrote also a strong case in a b biography of highsen berg defending him. So i guess its kind of up in the air. What do you believe . What i believe . Im more inclined to believe that he made a mistake. But without evidence, thats different. Maybe i should way in the back there. Yes . Views changed so quickly. They wanted to use a bomb to weaponize it. Why did oppenheimer change his views so quickly. He was convinced that it was necessary to use the bomb to prevent an invasion many and very soon after the war, he learned because he was very plugged into the War Department and he learned that it wasnt necessary. On two occasions that i know of one in a public speech, and one in an article in the earliest versions of the scientist, i think it was the june 36 issue, he wrote it in writing that it was used against an essentially defeated enemy. But he never argued publicly that we shouldnt have used it. Would it have been different had roosevelt lived . Well, thats another counter factual, and your guess is as good as mine. No, its not as good as mine. But your guess is okay. I have come to believe. Ive done a 180. Ive come to believe and the hyde park memorandum that i read to you is a part of that, if roosevelt had lived, it would not have been used the way it was uses, and heres the additional sort of reasons. Roosevelts primary goal for the post war period was good relations with stalin, with the soviet union. And a very persuasive case was being made that if that is your primary goal using the bomb on japan in august of 45 the way we did, is going to undermine that goal. I think that roosevelts goal would have been predominated. Yes, madam. Countries serve if one country pulls the trigger, theyre in a sense destroying themselves. Yeah. While destroying someone else at the same time, i mean, theres not going to theyre not going to pull the trigger and then someone say, lets talk about whether we should where is this all lead something. Im glad you asked that question, like everybody else, ive been thinking about that, and i was in seoul last november during the election for a conference on nuclear history, and we had a lot of koreans speaking about their view of north korea. Much to my surprise, south koreans argued that kim jongun appears to be a bit crazy and totally unpredictable, its a strategy. And he no more wants to see this very good life that he and you know, the elite in north korea live completely destroyed by starting a war. And the other thing to be said is that what the south koreans worry about most is the United States taking some initiative that could start a war without consulting with them. Since they believe they understand the situation much better, and they have the most to lose. It would not take Nuclear Weapons to destroy seoul. There are conventional everybody in the business, so to speak, believes that they have so many conventional weapons targeted on seoul that in a day, you know, the city would be flattened. These various countries having Nuclear Weapons. The potential its its a mexican standoff. Yes. If you dont have it, youre weak. If you have it youre stronger. People Pay Attention to you. Why does north korea want to spend all this money on Nuclear Weapons . Because they have our attention. And they have this perfect return situation. They have south korea they can swat like a fly, and we cannot without taking a chance, have south korea destroyed, bomb north korea. Why doesnt china do something . Well, china doesnt want to see regime change collapse. And worst of all, they talk about china doesnt want refugees streaming across the border, thats the number two issue. They dont want south korea on the river, an ally of the United States. And have the United States on the river, they entered a war for that reason. It seems the situation in the middle east is probably the most unstable and dangerous situation. Yes. Israel says they have the bomb, but everybody who has had a bomb has tested it to make sure it works. On the other hand. Iran developing the bomb and attitudes there and sensibilities there are a whole lot different than we could ever understand. I think thats probably the most their meeting iran or israel. Well, both because theres no way out. Youll use it, because of commitments, i dont know. A couple things, first youll recall that i mentioned that the iranian bomb was not tested, that was the one that was dropped on hiroshima, and did a pretty good job so that testing is not an issue. Also, its very likely that the test of south africa way back when was probably as israeli test, but i mean, who can argue with the point that its really unstable. Ill make a different argument than Prime Minister netanyahu would mike. He called the an Iranian Nuclear armed iran an existential threat to israel. I dont think its an existential threat to israel its an existential threat to israels hijemini in the area. Iran is not north korea. Persia is a civilization that goes back back back back back. They understand if they use Nuclear Weapons, israel would blow them out of the water, and maybe the United States would be in there too using it. Also speaking of blowing, the wind comes. Remember chernobyl and all the poisoning. The bomb has become this and it was from the beginning, this Silver Bullet thats you know, im king of the mountain, and all the littler kings are on top of the mountain too. Unless theres a reversal in some way, which i favor, were going to have more states with Nuclear Weapons. And i suppose we have to churchill said, jaw jaw jaw is better than war war war. And the idea that we dont talk to these people because theyre not behaving the way we want them to. Is insane. If you look at the cold war between 1945 and the end of the cold war, when the United States, certainly in the 1950s, we were hysterical about communism, absolutely certain they wanted to take over the world, they were going to take over america, they were going to be in if we didnt stop them in vietnam, they were going to be in california. It was crazy. We had an embassy in moscow, we talked to them constantly, im writing a book on the rube an missile crisis now, and the arent cuban missile crisis did not end in a disastrous war was because kennedy and khrushchev were talking constantly, there were quite a few letters between them. You have to keep talking, and we should have embassies everywhere. And this idea of cutting the state Department Budget, i mean, you know, we need to triple the state Department Budget is what we need to do. If the majority of the japanese people at the end of the war were willing to lay their life down for the emperor, that doesnt sound like a defeated enemy to me. What about the argument that is horrific or unfortunate, whatever word you want to use, as it is. We must eliminate the japanese peoples will to fight by facing them with a weapon which poses a threat second question, what makes you think that an unused weapon of this magnitude after the war is over would be recognized by the world as something as terrible, and ban it, when history of previous arms controls and Geneva Convention was against weapons that had been used in the war. What about the argument that using it created an incentive to see the true horrors of war, and result in an International Movement to control the weapon. I mean, its a perfectly legitimate arougument youre no alone in making it. And there are historians who have studied this issue, the way i do, who are convinced that thats the way to look at the issue. But i go back to the idea that it was obvious to every scientist who was involved in Nuclear Weapons, even before the bomb was built, you remember i read the memo that bush wrote to simpson and the president saying, this bomb if it is possible to build it, will be determining. It is beyond the pale to compare Nuclear Weapons to anything before, is a false analogy first of all. Second of all, the results of using it are what weve we see what weve got. If you think that declaring it an unacceptable weapon would not have changed things, then i cannot argue with, you but i am thoroughly convinced that if Nuclear Weapons were introduced as beyond the pale, unacceptable, and that International Relations had to be organized around the effort to make sure that Nuclear Weapons are not produced anywhere any more after the one test of july 16th, 1945 so we know that they can exist. It is quite possible that the history of the cold war would have been quite different certainly in the first 10 years. Remember stalin dies in 53. And khrushchev and malenkopf reach out to the United States and try to breakthrough the barrier of hostility that exists. But totally rejected by the eisenhower administration. And well, the rest is history, but i appreciate your putting that on the table because its important. I mean a lot of people think that way. One more question. Before they shoot them at seoul . Theres no way that can happen, because we dont know where they all are. If youre going to drop a 10, 20 mega tongue Hydrogen Bomb on north korea, its 25 miles. Ive been to the dmz, it took me about 1 25 by bus to get there. Nuclear weapons just cannot be used on that continent to bring about any kind of result. I think weve been cut off. Interested in American History tv . Visit our website, cspan. Org for our schedule. Watch museum tours, archival films and more cspan tv at cspan. Org history. Tonight on the communicators. I havent changed. The things that i care about in terms of consumers being first and foremost in our minds when it comes to policy and my interests, when it comes to serving them. That has not changed. The longest serving fcc commissioner and the only democrat on the commission, talks about how the fcc is changing under republican leadership, and what she sees as the major issues ahead. Shes interviewed by lynn stanton. When we go into a direction that might be more philosophical than practical. We need to ask ourselves, will consumers be protected. And under the current par dime that i see teed up, the what i am hearing in terms of moving back to the days of old. I really dont think the consumer benefits will de rise. Watch the communicators at 8 00 eastern on cspan 2. Up next, nurses in the army, a half hour look at peace time nurses in korea, japan, hawaii and germany. This is an episode of the big picture produced by the u. S. Army, between 1950 and 1975. Th archives and were airing it today to mark the 75th anniversary of the founding of the Womens Army Corps in 1942. Today, the latest weapons coupled with the fighting skill of the american soldier stand ready, on the alert all over the world to defend this country, you, the american people, against aggression