The Evening Star (February 3, 1946)
Infant atomic age at crossroads
Six months after first bomb world is still uncertain whether chaos or great advance in civilization will develop from new power
By William H. Harrison
The smoke of blasted Nagasaki mushrooming over the city, a symbol of the cloud hovering over world.
On Wednesday of this week the world will have lived through the first six months of the atomic age.
The age began last August 6 when a single bomb brought doomsday to Hiroshima and awesomely proclaimed, in a language of preternatural heat, light, fire, smoke and thunder, that mankind now had at its disposal an instrument capable – at least theoretically – of destroying, with appalling speed, every trace of vegetable and animal life on this planet.
Up to now, for reasons of security, there has been no detailed description of the thing that devastated Hiroshima, but this much is known about it:
(1) That its explosive contents were so light that a schoolboy could have carried them with one hand.
(2) That it was equivalent in destructive force to 20,000 tons of TNT, or 2,000 10-ton bombs of the orthodox type.
(3) That it was tremendously radioactive and gave off, at the moment of explosion, an almost unbelievably intense heat, measurable in terms of many millions of degrees Fahrenheit, or in terms of a theoretical maximum the same as the heat of the sun’s core.
(4) That despite its terrible destructiveness, it was made obsolete by the bomb that fell later on Nagasaki; that the Nagasaki bomb has been made obsolete by the bombs we have since manufactured and stored away, and that these, in turn – unless effective world control stops the process – will in the future be succeeded by bombs possibly 1,000 times more powerful, with other countries besides Canada, Britain and the United States knowing how to make them.
And finally (5) that this product of the science of nuclear fission opened up on last August 6 such mind-reeling and revolutionary vistas of good and evil – moral, social, economic, political and military – that civilization, if it is to survive, most certainly can no longer adhere to its old habits of thought or to the past patterns of its history.
To say these things is to repeat what has been said over and over again ever since the smashing of Hiroshima. The words and phrases – words like “awesome” and “appalling,” phrases like “vistas of good and evil” – have become slightly hackneyed, and Frank Sullivan’s celebrated Mr. Arbuthnot, the nimble witted cliche expert, has already made sport of them in The New Yorker.
This fact – the fact that the “awesome and appalling” implications of atomic energy can be spoken of only in a language that is beginning to bore people – constitutes a problem in itself. It is a problem because if words about the atom wear thin to the point of being unimpressive, the task of promoting a universal awareness of the unique and dangerous character of the new age is bound to be doubly difficult.
As chairman of the Special Senate Committee on Atomic Energy, Sen. Brien McMahon is fully aware of the importance of publicity in this sense. It baffles him, for instance, when he sees columns of newspaper type devoted to the Pearl Harbor inquiry and relatively little to the proceedings of his own committee. He understands, of course, that the story of December 7, 1941, is of great historical significance, that valuable lessons may be learned from it, and that the press may not be overreporting it as far as reader interest goes. But still the fact is, in his opinion, that it belongs essentially to the dead past and is not nearly so far reaching and meaningful, in respect to tomorrow, as the story of the atom.
This viewpoint will be echoed sympathetically by anybody who has followed the story with care and read the record of the open hearings so far held by the McMahon committee. The record – which contains many bright promises but which occasionally seems harrowing enough to make one speculate morbidly over what the senators have been told in secret – undoubtedly takes rank among the most fascinating documents ever published by the Government Printing Office. Yet any discussion of the subject immediately gives rise to a host of unavoidable cliches tending to blur the peculiarly urgent meanings of atomic energy.
Nevertheless, irrespective of their triteness, if the six-month-old atomic age is not to end one day in a universal catastrophe, the well-worn warnings about another war must be taken literally by peoples everywhere. And to help themselves understand this, to deepen their comprehension of the new realities, the masses of individuals could do worse than keep constantly in mind two basic facts set forth by Henry D. Smyth, the nuclear physicist, in his official War Department report on how the United States – with the help of Britain and Canada – converted the atoms of uranium into a fissionable material giving mankind not merely an explosive of unparalleled power but a new source of energy potentially capable of revolutionizing the life of the world.
The first of these facts is this:
That the making of the Hiroshima bomb demonstrated beyond doubt the rightness of a theory expounded by Albert Einstein as long ago as 1905 – namely, that inert matter, like a soup plate or a fistful of uranium, had locked up within it energy equal to its mass multiplied by the square of the velocity of light. Stated another way, as a simplifying illustration, the bomb – which itself utilized only a tiny fraction of its potential strength – proved that if 2.2 pounds of any substance were converted perfectly and entirely, the conversion would yield 25 billion kilowatt hours of energy, or approximately the same as that produced within a two-month period by the total American electric power industry working at full blast. In fantastic contrast, as the Smyth report points out, only 8.5 kilowatt hours can be had from the burning of 22 pounds of coal.
And the second fact is this, in Dr. Smyth’s words:
“As to the future, one may guess that technical developments will take place along two lines. Prom the military point of view it is reasonably certain that there will be improvement both in the processes of producing fissionable material and in its use. It is conceivable that totally different methods may be discovered for converting matter into energy since it is to be remembered that the energy released in uranium fission corresponds to the utilization of only about one-tenth of 1 percent of its mass. Should a scheme be devised for converting to energy even as much as a few percent of the matter of some common material, civilization would have the means to commit suicide at will.”
With these two fundamental facts as a basis of reference, it is possible for laymen to make a fairly sound evaluation of what may be expected as the Infant atomic age grows older. And as a starting point, even though much of the story remains a military secret, it may be re-emphasized that enough information has been let out to justify, in connection with nuclear fission, the use of such words as “awesome” and “appalling,” however hackneyed they may be.
There is a disposition in some quarters to deplore “sensational” talk about the atom. There is even a tendency to belittle the power of the bomb. Yet, on the strength of what some of the world’s most eminent scientists have been openly saying since last August 6, and on the strength of what has been said by such authorities as Maj. Gen. Leslie R. Groves, chief of our wartime nuclear fission project, it may safely be said that the subject is one which pretty much defies hyperbole and makes fantasy matter of fact.
For instance, it is no longer ridiculous to speculate over the possibility that man will be able in due course to send himself, or one of his guided missiles, on a round trip to the moon. Given the steady advance of electronics, given the harnessed atom as fuel, this becomes entirely conceivable. Similarly, as the Smyth report suggests, there is at least a theoretical chance that common materials will eventually lend themselves to nuclear fission. At present the atom-splitters can have success only with uranium and thorium – heavy, unstable elements, and definitely limited in quantity. On some tomorrow, however, what is now the highly improbable may become the actual, and abundant things like iron may be readily fissionable. A point worth remembering as regards all such speculation is that the science of atomic energy, as Dr. Vannevar Bush has declared, is “probably in the stage where electricity was at the time of Faraday.”
In relation to the present and the relatively near future, however, certain peacetime developments may be anticipated with considerable confidence, and the following statements – judging from what has been made known in the last six months – may be regarded as reasonably conservative:
(1) That with the advent of atomic energy and its radioactive byproducts, there probably will be a series of important new discoveries in biology, chemistry and physics. The fight against cancer, for example, may be spectacularly advanced.
(2) That the fissionable material now available in the United States – a material not susceptible to deterioration – could be used immediately to heat whole cities like Washington from central plants, and that such a project, though more costly now, would in time perhaps be cheaper than the use of coal, oil or gas – and it would be smokeless.
(3) That atomic fuel does not hold out much promise as motive power for automobiles and planes of current design, but that it could be used to drive locomotives, battleships and things of a similar nature structurally capable of absorbing the very thick shielding now needed to contain the extremely dangerous radiations of chain-reacting nuclear fission. Eventually, of course, it is possible that protective barriers will be made light enough for any means of transport.
(4) That there is nothing to prevent the use of atomic energy as a power producer. Since we already possess so much coal and falling water, there is no pressing need for rapid development along this line in America, but it is entirely possible – even probable – that in undeveloped areas of the world, where natural resources are scarce, nuclear fission will be employed to generate electricity at less than prohibitive cost, and there might thus be effected an international economic, social and political transformation in which perhaps even barren wastes like the Sahara could be made fruitful.
(5) That coal, oil and falling water probably will remain America’s primary source of power for a long time to come, but that atomic energy will play such an increasingly significant role that gradually – over a period of decades – there will almost certainly be far-reaching changes, for good or ill, in our economy, our society, our politics and our moral outlook.
And (6) that the domestic legislation now being considered by the McMahon committee will have to allow for such factors as these: That our present costly atomic plants may be obsolete not many years from now, that excessive secrecy restrictions may discourage many nuclear scientists from working for the Government and that private enterprise, because the manufacture of fissionable materials is by far the most dangerous production job ever undertaken by man. can never be permitted to operate in this field, except on a strictly limited licensing basis.
Having in mind the great peacetime potentialities of nuclear fission, Gen. Groves and many of his scientific colleagues have expressed the hope that the bomb eventually may come to be regarded merely as a minor byproduct of the atomic age. Meanwhile, though, they are grimly conscious of the fact that it now overshadows everything and that unless man handles it wisely, it may end the age before the age really has a chance to develop.
To appreciate this, one need only review some of the salient bits of information and informed prognostication let out since last August 6; one need only let the imagination dwell upon such points as the following:
-
That it is “almost certain,” according to excellent authority, that we are well on our way to producing bombs 1,000 times more powerful than the one that fell on Hiroshima, which means a bomb equivalent to 20 million tons of TNT (Only last week Gen. MacArthur was represented as saying that we are even now “ready with one”).
-
That nuclear fission is giving us as byproducts radioactive gases so unprecedentedly poisonous and lethal that some experts believe them to be worse than the bomb itself, though doctors have assured Gen. Groves that to be fatally radioactivated is “a very pleasant way to die.”
-
That other powers, whether or not we tell them how to do it, will be able to manufacture atomic energy in the relatively near future.
-
That all past strategical, tactical and organizational concepts of armies and navies must undergo revolutionary revision.
-
That there appears to be little likelihood of perfecting an effective defense against atomic attacks because these attacks (bombs plus gases – plus, incidentally, fearsome new bacteriological weapons’ quite as destructive as the bombs and gases) can be delivered with devastating suddenness in a fantastic but terribly real age of jet-propulsion, radar, guided missiles, pilotless planes, transoceanic rockets of unbelievable speed, and possibly even “space ships” streaking through the ionosphere.
-
That 20 or 30 years from now, the United States, for example, could be laid waste in a single day or night by an attack (not to be overlooked is the possibility of super-saboteurs smuggling in the weapons) destroying no fewer than 40 cities and 40,000,000 Americans.
-
That such an attack, assuming that we had enough strength left to retaliate, might pose a nice moral problem for us. Thus, suppose the attack came in the form of rockets from Country B, but that Country B was innocent of the deed, having just been seized by Country A to serve as a launching site. Would we then be justified in striking back at B to stop A’s onslaught, even though it meant wiping out millions of B’s unoffending inhabitants?
-
Finally, that Dr. Bush’s dictum, in view of these and similar factors, is incontrovertible: Namely, that the “development of systems for the control and utilization of atomic energy is the most important task ever faced by the governments of the world.”
But it is clear from even a cursory consideration of the task that it is full of tremendous difficulties and uncertainties. Through the new control commission created by the United Nations, for instance, we can look forward to the establishment of an international inspection system and possibly the outlawry of the bomb. Yet, in the best of circumstances, inspection cannot be made foolproof, and because fissionable materials for industrial purposes can be readily converted into the dread weapon, bans against it can have little force if some criminal aggressor decides to ignore them.
Still, as Dr. Irving Langmuir has sensibly warned, “The worst thing that could possibly happen is to do nothing, so, therefore, let us do something and let us make it good.” The start must be made with the UNO commission, and all peoples and governments must come to comprehend the immense urgency of progressing from there, always remembering, of course, that the only absolute and unbreakable guarantee against the horror of an atomic war can be an absolute and unbreakable determination on the part of every nation to make this peace permanent.
There is only one alternative, and it is awful in the ghastliest sense of that word. If the next 10 or 15 years prove the world to be incapable of maintaining peace, if there is to be an atomic and bacteriological armaments race, then – taking the American viewpoint – let us give prompt thought to the decentralization of all our cities, which, according to some authorities who have already seriously advocated it, would cost about $200,000,000,000. Let us give thought, too, to the advisability of amending the Constitution to permit the President, without consulting Congress, to strike down potential enemies without warning, because in the age ahead, assuming the collapse of international reason the only defense against attack will be to attack first.
Last July, when the atomic bomb was tested in the New Mexican desert as a prelude to Hiroshima, Dr. George B. Kistiakowsky, one of the nuclear scientists on the scene, was profoundly moved and gave voice to words that bear repeating. “I am sure,” he said to his colleagues, “that at the end of the world – in the last milli-second of the earth’s existence – the last man will see what we saw.” What he was conscious of was that here the human race had at last taken hold of the basic force of creation and that this force – which had heretofore been God’s alone – was at the same time the thing capable of annihilating all life on our planet.
The thought is a somber one particularly because of the theoretical possibility – an extremely remote one, but a possibility nonetheless – that someday in the future, his genius having gone berserk and with the madness of war upon him, man with some new fissionable material will set off an atmospheric chain reaction that will make our earth a bright new star in the heavens until at length, the fire having expended itself, it will hang in space as forlornly dead as the moon.
Some scientists – like Einstein – comfort us with the thought that such an end, though conceivable, is highly unlikely, but they do grant that another war – an atomic war – could wipe out two-thirds of the human race in a swift nightmare of destruction. This is a fitting last point to be made in any summing up of the first six months of the atomic age. What happened at Hiroshima, if it does not change his heart for the better, ought at least to blackmail man into a lasting peace. The trite warning is true. Quite literally, the survival of civilization depends upon its being heeded.