The Controversial Decision

The Controversial Decision

Atomic Diplomacy
153
views

There are several theories that arose after the use of the atomic bomb on Japan following the end of World War II, the Post War era and the Cold War era. Many critics of the atomic bomb have taken a hypercritical approach of men like former Secretary of War Henry Stimson and President of the United States Harry S. Truman. Others have taken a more moderate analysis on the development and the use of the atomic bomb, particularly its use in what is called "Atomic Diplomacy."

I. Atomic Diplomacy

In Louis Morton’s the Decision to use the Atomic Bomb it seems apparent that Truman and his advisors were hesitant for Soviet involvement in Asia.[Louis Morton, The Decision to Use the Atom Bomb. (Washington, DC: Center of Military History, U.S. Army, 1990), 503.] Morton cites the Soviet refusal to honor the Yalta agreements and the belief that the United States should not beg the Soviets to get involved as two prominent themes. [Ibid., 504.] Without the Soviet’s involvement many advisors believed that the United States and Great Britain could defeat Japan alone. [Ibid.] Martin Sherwin’s "A World Destroyed" discusses the beginning of a critical point in International Studies that would later become the ‘special relationship.’ [Martin J. Sherwin, A World destroyed: The Atomic Bomb and the Grand Alliance (New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf Inc., 1975), 68.] The shift in allegiance of the United States from the Soviet Union and Great Britain to just Great Britain began when the atomic bomb became a reality. [Ibid., 85.]

This favorable partnership with Great Britain began in 1940, when Britain sent a proposal to the United States for, “‘…general interchange of secret technical information with the United States, particularly in the ultra short wave [radar] field.’” [Ibid., 68.] Although this predates the United States entry in 1941, and the broken non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union this is the beginning of what would be more favorable terms and privileges to Great Britain. [Ibid., 88.] This growing preference towards Great Britain was a result of Churchill’s commitment for an atomic partnership with the United States. [Ibid., 78.] Churchill played upon President Roosevelt’s growing suspicions of the Soviet Union and Stalin. [Ibid., 79] This would led to Churchill pushing for a formal agreement with the United States and an (implied) isolation of the Soviet Union from anything of the kind. [Ibid.]

Overall, this is just one of the actions that the United States did that showed a growing distrust of the Soviet Union. These measures mentioned show a gravitation perpetrated by Prime Minister Churchill that would have serious consequences on diplomacy in the post war period. Therefore, it is necessary to conclude that based on the limited information on this point that this is the basis for reasoning of the use of the atomic bomb and its diplomatic consequences.

In his book "The Most Controversial Decision" Wilson Miscamble discusses Truman’s decision and background. Truman, a former Missouri Senator and World War I veteran came to power with relatively no knowledge of the Manhattan Project. [Wilson D. Miscamble, The Most Controversial Decision: Truman, the Atomic Bombs, and the Defeat of Japan (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 20-21.] Inexperienced and largely isolated by his successor late Franklin Roosevelt whose advisors like Henry Stimson sought to gain his favor. [Ibid., 22] Specifically, on April 25th Stimson briefed Truman on the merits of using the atomic bomb and its implications with the future relationship with the Soviet Union, whom both men distrusted. [Ibid., 32] It became apparent though, after the meeting with Soviet Foreign Minister Molotov with Truman’s concerns over Poland, he resolved to be tougher on the Soviet Union. [Ibid., 31.] Soon afterwards the atomic bomb being used for international affairs by Secretary of War Henry Stimson. [Ibid., 32]

Miscamble however, dismisses the notion that Truman used the bomb purely as ‘show of force’ against the ‘delaying conflict’ with the Soviet Union. [Ibid., 33] Truman also wasn’t the only one having doubts, Admiral Leahy had substantial doubts of the capabilities of the bomb uttering his famous phrase, “…the biggest fool thing we have ever done. The bomb will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives.” [Ibid.]

Bernard Brodie continues to discuss the fragile relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States at the end of World War II in "The Absolute Weapon." [Bernard Brodie, The Absolute Weapon (New York, NY: Yale Institute of International Studies, 1946), 111.] Brodie discusses that despite apparent atomic monopoly that the United States (and Great Britain) had, the Soviet Union wasn’t worried that the United States would use it. [Ibid., 114] The Soviets wagered that the United States had used to the bomb to end the war meant the war-fatigue public wasn’t willing to enter into another war with them. [Ibid., 111]

Brodie’s view (in 1946) reflect on the use of the atomic bomb on relations with the Soviet Union at the time. Brodie makes the claim that British and American Statesman had no intentions of using the atomic bomb as leverage against their ‘ally’. [Ibid., 115] However, (according to Brodie) the diplomats were counting on the presence of the bomb to aid in influencing policy, without overtly using it as a threat. [Ibid.] The Miscamble book (unlike Alperovitz and Brodie) takes a favorable look at Truman’s decision making, while seemingly scorning Stimson. However, Brodie asserts that the merits of having an atomic monopoly were used quickly in Soviet-American affairs in the post war period. These both reinforce though, the idea that atomic diplomacy was actually discussed as a way of controlling the Soviet Union in the post war era.

Cover Image Credit: Google Images

Popular Right Now

An Open Letter to the Person Who Still Uses the "R Word"

Your negative associations are slowly poisoning the true meaning of an incredibly beautiful, exclusive word.
229306
views

What do you mean you didn't “mean it like that?" You said it.

People don't say things just for the hell of it. It has one definition. Merriam-Webster defines it as, "To be less advanced in mental, physical or social development than is usual for one's age."

So, when you were “retarded drunk" this past weekend, as you claim, were you diagnosed with a physical or mental disability?

When you called your friend “retarded," did you realize that you were actually falsely labeling them as handicapped?

Don't correct yourself with words like “stupid," “dumb," or “ignorant." when I call you out. Sharpen your vocabulary a little more and broaden your horizons, because I promise you that if people with disabilities could banish that word forever, they would.

Especially when people associate it with drunks, bad decisions, idiotic statements, their enemies and other meaningless issues. Oh trust me, they are way more than that.

I'm not quite sure if you have had your eyes opened as to what a disabled person is capable of, but let me go ahead and lay it out there for you. My best friend has Down Syndrome, and when I tell people that their initial reaction is, “Oh that is so nice of you! You are so selfless to hang out with her."

Well, thanks for the compliment, but she is a person. A living, breathing, normal girl who has feelings, friends, thousands of abilities, knowledge, and compassion out the wazoo.

She listens better than anyone I know, she gets more excited to see me than anyone I know, and she works harder at her hobbies, school, work, and sports than anyone I know. She attends a private school, is a member of the swim team, has won multiple events in the Special Olympics, is in the school choir, and could quite possibly be the most popular girl at her school!

So yes, I would love to take your compliment, but please realize that most people who are labeled as “disabled" are actually more “able" than normal people. I hang out with her because she is one of the people who has so effortlessly taught me simplicity, gratitude, strength, faith, passion, love, genuine happiness and so much more.

Speaking for the people who cannot defend themselves: choose a new word.

The trend has gone out of style, just like smoking cigarettes or not wearing your seat belt. It is poisonous, it is ignorant, and it is low class.

As I explained above, most people with disabilities are actually more capable than a normal human because of their advantageous ways of making peoples' days and unknowingly changing lives. Hang out with a handicapped person, even if it is just for a day. I can one hundred percent guarantee you will bite your tongue next time you go to use the term out of context.

Hopefully you at least think of my friend, who in my book is a hero, a champion and an overcomer. Don't use the “R Word". You are way too good for that. Stand up and correct someone today.

Cover Image Credit: Kaitlin Murray

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

2019 Just Means That The 2020 Election Is Coming

I don't want things to be that way, people running for President make it that way.

91
views

The 2020 election has begun with Senator Elizabeth Warren announcing that she has formed an exploratory committee to run for president.

Other likely candidates include Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, Beto O'Rourke, Michael Bloomberg, Sherrod Brown, Kirsten Gillibrand, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders. And those are only the people eating at the adult's table, there are other Democrats that will probably throw their hats in the ring just for some publicity.

The last time a primary began to decide the opponent for an unpopular incumbent Republican president that had lost the popular vote in his first campaign was just 15 years ago, in 2004 when John Kerry became the nominee to challenge President George W. Bush.

Kerry may have lost the election, but he did have an easy primary. Kerry beat out his early challengers and went on to easily win almost all of the primary caucuses and elections.

I do not think that 2020 will be so easy and that is due in part to 2016. The 2016 primary may have eclipsed 2008 in terms of being one of the most consequential primaries in US history.

2016 showed the ideological split within the Democratic Party, with many New Democrats, socially liberal economically conservative centrists, holding most of the power within, while there's a strong grassroots force urging the party leftwards. Critics will claim Hillary Clinton lost because she was not left-wing enough. And Bernie Sanders's surprising success shows that anybody who wants to be the nominee has to appeal to the Sanders demographic.

This article is not really here to endorse any candidate, you can read my other articles to figure out who I'm voting for, it is however here to point out just how difficult it will be to win the nomination.

A candidate has to, according to the so-called experts: be left-leaning but also be a centrist, and be able to get minorities out to vote but also appeal to some Trump voters that they think they can win over by calling out the President's divisive tactics.

Trickle-down economics and massive deregulation always throws the economy into a recession, but the question now is when will that happen? If it happens during the 2020 election it's safe to say it's over for Trump, but if a Democrat has to challenge a Republican while the economy is doing great, it will be all the more difficult. The election will turn into a debate over so-called "social" issues (assuming Trump does not take us to war).

Issues that seem to be on most Americans' minds are healthcare and immigration. The healthcare debate will turn into a debate amongst Democrats over whether or not single-payer is possible and will likely be one of the most divisive issues of the primary. Immigration will be easy, every Democrat will go the safe route and boldly proclaim that putting children in cages and letting them die is not good. This will lead to Trump accusing them of being Antifa thugs.

The road to the White House is not meant to be easy. You need to fight hard to win the hearts of Americans, unless you are a Republican then you just need to win over rich Americans and let the electoral college do the rest of the work.

But seriously, we need to start the process of finding someone that will undo the years of horror unleashed by the Trump administration and also put the country in a new direction. Someone that will help the old and the young, and all workers. It's time for a leader that works for the American laborer, not the American entrepreneur, and above all, it is time for a new president.

Related Content

Facebook Comments