Brad+Mitchell+Entry+8

It is amazing to me how so few people actually recognize the legitimate protests by many of the Manhattan Project scientists regarding the use of the bomb. When people look back they always say that if someone had spoken up and petitioned its use and made the generals and politicians know how morally wrong its use would be than so many lives would have been saved. The fact of the matter is that this did happen. Dr. Leo Szilard, a key scientist on the project, clear made his objection to its use known. He even authored a formal petition which seventy fellows scientists co-signed. “In view of the foregoing, we, the undersigned, respectfully petition: first, that you exercise your power as Commander-in-Chief, to rule that the United States shall not resort to the use of atomic bombs in this war unless the terms which will be imposed upon Japan have been made public in detail and Japan knowing these terms has refused to surrender; second, that in such an event the question whether or not to use atomic bombs be decided by you in light of the considerations presented in this petition as well as all the other moral responsibilities which are involved.” They were basically ignored. Other scientists, such as Neils Bohr, also made their oppositions known. His argument was that there needs to be controls put on atomic weaponry. “Unless, indeed, some agreement about the control of the use of the new active materials can be obtained in due time, any temporary advantage, however great, may be outweighed by a perpetual menace to human security. Ever since the possibilities of releasing atomic energy on a vast scale came in sight, much thought has naturally been given to the question of control, but the further the exploration of the scientific problems concerned is proceeding, the clearer it becomes that no kind of customary measures will suffice for this purpose, and that the terrifying prospect of a future competition between nations about a weapon of such formidable character can only be avoided through a universal agreement in true confidence.” However, it is my opinion that what he is saying needs to be done is impossible. There is no way any of the agreement could be enforced. Just look at the world now as an example. North Korea is building nukes, Iran has a nuclear program, as does china and India as well as countless other countries that at one point or another agreed on the control of nuclear weaponry.