In the wake of the fireball: Hiroshima after the fire-storms, what might it mean?

[Don Ferguson Jr.]

Thank you for your photos, Damien. I've not visited Horoshima and also have not seen any very recent images of the city. I, too, am enoying your travel snaps! (I do expect to be in Japan sometime this year, but principally in Tokyo.)

The monuments are unquestionably solemn, sincere symbols in a country where symbols really have weight. The immediate devastation of those two bombs, which were firecrackers by today's measures, is hard to fathom. But, sentimentality aside, here are a couple of other items from the history of that time.

- These bombs certainly dissolved any remaining surrender reluctance in the Japanese high command. In the months up to that point they had been toying with conditionality. But they almost certainly would have surrendered soon anyway. The two a-bombs caused immense death and destruction, but the enormous fire bombing campaign conducted over Tokyo and other largely civilian populations had pretty much destroyed the country's will and means for any futher military campaigns. Those fire bombings may have killed as many people as the a-bombs, an were arguably every bit as horrific as the a-bombs. (You've got to see an incendiary bomb ignition to believe it.) There's quite a moving account of the Tokyo fire bombings online if you're interested.

- After the war, and during allied occupation, Hiroshima rebounded amazingly quickly, thanks, in great part, to the birth of a new and powerful black market. This also spawned the now legendary (and quite real) Yakuza (the Japanese version of the Mafia) which also played a back-handed role in rebuilding the country through the Korean War years and into the 1960's.

The history of the end or WWII, and its aftermath, tends to be written selectively with strongest plaudits to the victors. That's normal; it takes centuries for fair-eyed histories to be witten. The "A-Bomb Dome" (which was actually an industrial exposition hall designed by a Czech architect) is what both countries want you to remember. But the barbeque of Tokyo was, in many ways, more horrific and would probably have ended the War without nuclear deployment. But the U.S. had spent billions on the Manhattan Project, originally intended to obliterate Berlin. When that war ended before the bomb was ready the U.S. found itself with the biggest firecrackers in history and itchin' to light 'em.

That's the history.

Nice revisionist history

 

[Ken Tanaka]

Nice revisionist history

Oh? What elements would you refute?

 

[Rachel Foster]

Looks like a "provocative thoughts" offspring thread has been born.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Looks like a "provocative thoughts" offspring thread has been born.

Once we really are into serious debate, a new thread is indeed deserved.

I do not know the forensic body-bag accounting accounting of the war in the Pacific and the post hoc cost-benefit analysis of firebombing Japan to earlier surrender. However, the war was started by the Emperor's Generals and/or cabinet and the cost in human misery must be laid at their doorstep. My tears are first for the Chinese, Koreans, Islanders across the pacific and especially the Australians whose lives were made hell and those allowed to live were spent shells of humanity to be pitied.

I do not find any objection to Ken's "must test the4 firecracker" conjecture/hypothesis. It may not be known why exactly the two bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki! I wonder about the good of the things. Without these demonically efficient fireballs, who, (outside crazy scientific conferences), would have believed such a thing was really possible. So we've had no further marches into Russia and what? 21 million dead! Maybe we've actually benefitted.

Asher

 

[Doug Kerr]

I'll stay completely clear of the military-social-ethical issues here.

But as an engineer, I have always been amazed that the weapon design used at Hiroshima (the "gun-type" concept, using uranium) had never been actually tested before that first battle use (and the design concept was essentially discarded shortly after).

The weapon design used at Nagasaki (the "implosion" design, using plutonium) had, of course, been actually tested once near Socorro, New Mexico prior to that first battle use.

 

[Don Ferguson Jr.]

Oh? What elements would you refute?

We killed about 75,000 in the Hiroshima bombing ,chosen since it was HQ of 5th Japenese Army and about 50,000 plus I believe at Nagasaki .I agree the fire bombings of Tokyo done in March 1945 were far worse with no nukes and killed 100,000, destroyed 16 SQ miles and the Japanese still did not surrender. Japan would not agree to end the war and to the terms of the the Potsdam Declaration and we dropped leaflets to warn the populace about the bomb .

Even after the second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki they would not surrender until the Emperor intervened ,so I dispute your assertion that the war would have ended soon by doing the same kind of firebombing that we had used in the past. We bombed Tokyo with B-29's in Aug of 1945 as well.

No ,the Japanese of WWII would have fought to the death and what we experienced at Iwo Jima would have been nothing . Many experts predicted the war would have dragged on maybe up to a year or even more ,so countless American and Japanese lives were saved by the atomic bombs .

 

[Rachel Foster]

Interesting idea that Japanese lives were saved. I had never thought of it quite like that. However, I can't get past the babies. What about the babies? Probably there is no way to avoid killing babies in children and babies in war, but....what about the babies? All war is a tragedy.

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Interesting idea that Japanese lives were saved. I had never thought of it quite like that. However, I can't get past the babies. What about the babies? Probably there is no way to avoid killing babies in children and babies in war, but....what about the babies?

Depends on the babies one is referring to, the ones in the (in that case, Japanese) concentration camps in the region, or the ones in the bombed cities.

All war is a tragedy.

If not a crime against humanity.

Bart

 

[Asher Kelman]

Depends on the babies one is referring to, the ones in the (in that case, Japanese) concentration camps in the region, or the ones in the bombed cities.



If not a crime against humanity.

Bart

Bart,

To consider what might be a crime against humanity, one has to ask, "So what do we mean by the concept, "humanity"?

I think humanity* might be considered the elevated state of man, (homo sapiens, when he has consideration and empathy for others as if they have worth as much as oneself. This would be the biblical exhortation to , "Love one's neighbor as oneself". At present, we are still in the stage where the animal, aggressive and self-centered nature of man, wrapped in dogma, delusion and superstition, can wage war on massive levels.

Balance of terror and national interests and alliances prevent further war, not a change in the nature of man. To that extent, that's true, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, being proofs in concept of Nuclear Destruction, might have save at least 10-100 million lives in the past 60 years. However, biting the apple made us own the tree of knowledge and that is a huge burden!

Asher

*I don't agree with the idea of "Love your enemy", except I'd respect and try to reach the humanity of the person in side that hostile shell. I'm more interested in the folk we ignore. Those who are left behind.

Nobility, today, would be go one step further. It would allocate even more of a measure of consideration to the inherent nobility that can be inspired in others. The noble human views humanity and al life on this planet as a precious miracle to be protected and nurtured for future generations and for their own worth. Such a person would serve to elevate the less privileged from fragile animal existence to paths of opportunity, worthwhile endeavor, satisfaction, agreeable experience and hope and to be an advocate for this.

 

[Asher Kelman]

So from this discussion, there are three questions about the use of the little fire crackers, (by todays standards) atomic bombs on Japan, at the closing time of the war in the Pacific against the expansive and destructive forces of the Japanese Empire.

1. Was use of the bomb necessary?

2. Is it likely that the war did end earlier with less loss of life on one side or the other or is this the victor's version of history?

3. To what extent did the actual demonstration of the destructive force of just to small a-bombs have on maintaining peace between atomic powers and their respective areas of influence or "protection".

4. In light of these answers, how does one's view change of "Whether use of particular weapons of war be considered "Crimes against Humanity"" or rather necessary implements of a just war to limit war by mutual intimidation.

Asher

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Balance of terror and national interests and alliances prevent further war, not a change in the nature of man.

I very much doubt that. If fact, in the case of the forced capitulation of Japan, it was the sudden imbalance that created the negative outlook of a prolonged war on the Japanese side. Similarly, the German Third Reich was stopped because of the imbalance created when the USA finally (first bombing raid on Germany in Jan 27, 1943, more than 3 years after the Nazi invasion of Poland !) really joined the allied war effort in a way that raised the stakes. Selfdestruction is not a very good outlook for an agressor.

Balance of terror may postpone the outbreak of a new war, but it is just part of an ongoing risk calculation of gains and losses. Just wait what happens when a commodity like water, food, or oil gets scarce. The power hungry will abuse their position seeking to exploit the advantage, the deprived will have little to lose and lots to gain and want to (as a minimum) restore the balance, and war is the inevitable outcome of the calculation of risks.

Cheers
Bart

 

[Asher Kelman]

I very much doubt that. If fact, in the case of the forced capitulation of Japan, it was the sudden imbalance that created the negative outlook of a prolonged war on the Japanese side. Similarly, the German Third Reich was stopped because of the imbalance created when the USA finally (first bombing raid on Germany in Jan 27, 1943, more than 3 years after the Nazi invasion of Poland !) really joined the allied war effort in a way that raised the stakes. Selfdestruction is not a very good outlook for an agressor.

Balance of terror may postpone the outbreak of a new war, but it is just part of an ongoing risk calculation of gains and losses. Just wait what happens when a commodity like water, food, or oil gets scarce. The power hungry will abuse their position seeking to exploit the advantage, the deprived will have little to lose and lots to gain and want to (as a minimum) restore the balance, and war is the inevitable outcome of the calculation of risks.

Cheers
Bart

So where does N. Korea, Iran, The Taliban and Pakistan fall into this?

They are no arguing about natural resources, just territory and religion it seems? Land is made holy so the two are joined at the hip! Until we can penetrate the obstacles of unrestrained growth of people who believe in unrestrained growth that will be care for from the heavens, we'll progress towards more wars inevitably.

What's ironic, is the Western nations with population loss annually, need influx of labor to sustain their economies. However this will eventually change the make up of the area so they will become transformed to have unrestrained growth and decreased freedoms too.

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

Asher, sometimes we need to just face the tragic reality of what has happened without doing the what-ifs. Maybe the bombing resulted in fewer lives lost. That does not negate the horror of what happened. I defy anyone to stand over those tiny corpses and say, "Oh but we saved lives." I'm not saying under the circumstances it was not the best decision. Was it? How the hell would *I* know? All *I* know is that babies, children, women, men died en masse. That's tragic. That's a crime against humanity, as Bart suggests. Is it a lesser crime than the alternative? Perhaps. But still a crime. Let's stop intellectualizing for a moment and face the reality.

That's the only way our species can hope to engage in less warfare.


(Climbing off soapbox. Did anyone else hear Joan Baez singing just then? I could swear I did.)

 

[Don Ferguson Jr.]

Asher, sometimes we need to just face the tragic reality of what has happened without doing the what-ifs. Maybe the bombing resulted in fewer lives lost. That does not negate the horror of what happened. I defy anyone to stand over those tiny corpses and say, "Oh but we saved lives." I'm not saying under the circumstances it was not the best decision. Was it? How the hell would *I* know? All *I* know is that babies, children, women, men died en masse. That's tragic. That's a crime against humanity, as Bart suggests. Is it a lesser crime than the alternative? Perhaps. But still a crime. Let's stop intellectualizing for a moment and face the reality.

That's the only way our species can hope to engage in less warfare.


(Climbing off soapbox. Did anyone else hear Joan Baez singing just then? I could swear I did.)

Oh the argument that the two bombs saved countless lives both Japanese and American is more then a what if You need to read more about the massive invasion of the Japanese home islands, code-named Downfall that would have totally destroyed Japan and would have been even more a bloodbath .
And the reality is Japan started the war at Pearl Harbor so they are the ones responsible for the deaths of their babies.

 

[Rachel Foster]

And what are the babies responsible for? That's all I'm saying.

 

[Don Ferguson Jr.]

And what are the babies responsible for? That's all I'm saying.

Even more babies would have been killed with Operation Downfall .

 

[Rachel Foster]

No, Don, what I'm trying to say is that the loss of life is tragic regardless if there would have been more or less loss with other decisions. That's all.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Oh the argument that the two bombs saved countless lives both Japanese and American is more then a what if You need to read more about the massive invasion of the Japanese home islands, code-named Downfall that would have totally destroyed Japan .
And the reality is Japan started the war at Pearl Harbor so they are the ones responsible for the deaths of their babies.

I must say I have no tears for those dead burnt babies of Hiroshima, torched to charcoal in an instant of hell! My heart does feel the tragedy, but there are no tears for them, none at all!

I'll cry when and if the humiliation and ruin of the Korean women a made into sex slaves, (who beg recognition), are acknowledged and fully repented for and compensated. I will find tears when the Japanese publish openly the gruesome experiments they did with germ warfare and chemicals on Chinese civilians. Then they have to compensate for the rapes of Nanking. I'll find tears when each family that lost a young boy or girl in Pearl Harbor is paid a visit at least to display contrition and perhaps be compensated at least in some token way for the human loss.

If the Japanese launched their unprovoked attacks from the cities, they simply made their cities and their own people targets, men, women, children and infants in their mother's arms. Of course their lives are inherently as valuable as ours. However, the Emperors government brought fire to their own homes. They gambled foolishly and lost. Had they vanquished the Allies, more American, Australian, Korean and other folk would have been killed or slaves. They just happened to lose and tragically their innocent infants died in the very flames they lit.

There are few countries with such a long civilization as Japan! Had they been guided by the best of their cultural history, they wouldn't have bombed Pearl Harbor and they would have been no destruction!

As it is, I feel they should be paying reparations right now! My tears are for the women in Darfur who see their daughters raped before their eyes and then their menfolk butchered, animals killed and villages burnt to the dust. I have no tears for the dead, just the living!

When I see pictures of Hiroshima I just remember the nightmare's of the Imperial Japanese colonization of its neighbors and it's cruelty to anyone who opposed them or even surrendered. Of course, I pity those who didn't die and suffered the after-effects of the high radiation doses all their lives. These folk were likely all innocent. This was a tragic loss of human potential. I cringe at the fact that they suffered or suffer. There ruined lives are just another additional consequence of a horrible war that was not a necessity for Japan. Of course, Imperial Japan had no idea that the distance from Japan to the USA was identical to the distance from the USA to their own people. That was a reckless mistake for which they alone are responsible.

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

Sins of the fathers, Asher? I respect your position, but I weep for all slain babies, wherever, whenever, for whatever reason.

 

[Damien Paul]

...I weep for all slain babies, wherever, whenever, for whatever reason.

This, is the same for me - and please do not read between the lines or try to interpret it in any way other than the way I am stating it - which is exactly as it is said in Rachel's post, particularly in bold. (I do not appreciate anyone 'reading into' what I say - I say things exactly as i mean them).

This will be only post in this thread, as I am sure I'll be flamed or worse - have my words 'read into' and twisted.

I will make this very clear - I do not in any way support Japanese actions in WW2, or before in their war with China and enslavement of Korea etc. - don't insult me by 'reading into' this things that are not written right here.

Incidently, the next photos I was going to show are memorials to Korean and Chinese tortured and slain at Hiroshima before the A-bomb. I may even share some quotes from the book here on my lap - 'Who Was Responsible' written by some in the Japanese government a few years back. In the museum at Hiroshima, as I already said, there is a timeline and all Japanese aggression (Manchuria, Korea, Nanking, Pearl Harbour etc) are all described in detail and admitted. I am very aware about Operation Downfall and the potential consequences thereof.

My grandfather fought against and severely suffered by the hands of the Japanese (my other grandfather had a similar hell ride against the Germans from 1939), 20 years later he and Grandma hosted a Japanese exchange student. I am the 5th member of my family to have lived in Japan...

(Interestingly, my grandparents verge on nag me to send them more photos - I have snt over 1000 to them!)

But they taught me a wonderful skill (and a curse) - to see a situation from the viewpoint from the 'other side' - this does not mean support. So, I am looking at Hiroshima ONLY from the point of view of the civilians livng there. Nothing more.

I did a smiliar thing when I went to the site of the former Changi Prison Camp in Singapore, where atrocities from the Japanese were performed against the Allies - particularly the nurses. (I have a 'photo-logue' of this as well), I was quite overwhelmed by the feelings I felt when I thought about the POWs there (and apparantly a few of the photos do express that).

I did the same at the site of one of Australia's POW camps at WW2 - Cowra, and the tragic loss of life at the breakout - that place is now a Japanese garden. (I have a photo-logue of this as well - but from an older camera).

There are a number of other places that I have 'photo-logues' of including Port Arthur, Tasmania - site of a penal colony and the site of the 1996 massacre, where 1 man murdered 35 men, women and children in a rampage.

However, one thing I have learnt, and learnt in a quite awful way a few years back and has been repeated on many fora here and elsewhere (usually by members PM-flaming me) - having this openminded view and empathy is to some, a grave sin... or at the very least, it makes me a 'freak', so I usually don't bother outside the few places where these type of things are welcome.

 

[Ken Tanaka]

Oh the argument that the two bombs saved countless lives both Japanese and American is more then a what if You need to read more about the massive invasion of the Japanese home islands, code-named Downfall that would have totally destroyed Japan and would have been even more a bloodbath .
And the reality is Japan started the war at Pearl Harbor so they are the ones responsible for the deaths of their babies.

Don, I'm still waiting to see what categorized my remarks as "revisionist history" in your book.

 

[Asher Kelman]

This, is the same for me - and please do not read between the lines or try to interpret it in any way other than the way I am stating it - which is exactly as it is said in Rachel's post, particularly in bold. (I do not appreciate anyone 'reading into' what I say - I say things exactly as i mean them).

That we respect!

Incidently, the next photos I was going to show are memorials to Korean and Chinese tortured and slain at Hiroshima before the A-bomb. I may even share some quotes from the book here on my lap - 'Who Was Responsible' written by some in the Japanese government a few years back. In the museum at Hiroshima, as I already said, there is a timeline and all Japanese aggression (Manchuria, Korea, Nanking, Pearl Harbour etc) are all described in detail and admitted. I am very aware about Operation Downfall and the potential consequences thereof.

My grandfather fought against and severely suffered by the hands of the Japanese (my other grandfather had a similar hell ride against the Germans from 1939), 20 years later he and Grandma hosted a Japanese exchange student. I am the 5th member of my family to have lived in Japan...

(Interestingly, my grandparents verge on nag me to send them more photos - I have snt over 1000 to them!)

But they taught me a wonderful skill (and a curse) - to see a situation from the viewpoint from the 'other side' - this does not mean support. So, I am looking at Hiroshima ONLY from the point of view of the civilians livng there. Nothing more.

I did a smiliar thing when I went to the site of the former Changi Prison Camp in Singapore, where atrocities from the Japanese were performed against the Allies - particularly the nurses. (I have a 'photo-logue' of this as well), I was quite overwhelmed by the feelings I felt when I thought about the POWs there (and apparantly a few of the photos do express that).

I did the same at the site of one of Australia's POW camps at WW2 - Cowra, and the tragic loss of life at the breakout - that place is now a Japanese garden. (I have a photo-logue of this as well - but from an older camera).

There are a number of other places that I have 'photo-logues' of including Port Arthur, Tasmania - site of a penal colony and the site of the 1996 massacre, where 1 man murdered 35 men, women and children in a rampage.

However, one thing I have learnt, and learnt in a quite awful way a few years back and has been repeated on many fora here and elsewhere (usually by members PM-flaming me) - having this openminded view and empathy is to some, a grave sin... or at the very least, it makes me a 'freak', so I usually don't bother outside the few places where these type of things are welcome.

Your great effort to understand and document these World War II sites is exemplary. I only have praise for you. I look forward to seeing some of these. Also, to examine issues from another's perspective is also a great way to better understand, resolve and, (hopefully even), prevent conflicts.
,
Asher

 

[Don Ferguson Jr.]

Don, I'm still waiting to see what categorized my remarks as "revisionist history" in your book.

''But they almost certainly would have surrendered soon anyway''
''But the barbeque of Tokyo was, in many ways, more horrific and would probably have ended the War without nuclear deployment.''

''But the U.S. had spent billions on the Manhattan Project, originally intended to obliterate Berlin. When that war ended before the bomb was ready the U.S. found itself with the biggest firecrackers in history and itchin' to light 'em.''



Also ,you implied that Truman was really wanting to test it and not as Truman's secretary of war, Henry L. Stimson said '' This deliberate, premeditated destruction was our least abhorrent choice."
The firebombings would have never ended the war alone . The invasion plan Downfall would have totally destroyed Japan in a prolonged war ,maybe up to a year .It would have been even more a bloodbath then the past firebombings, which never got Japan to surrender. Oh , also Code Downfall would have included atomic bombs so many Americans would have been killed by radiation as well.
You should go back and read my other posts for more as I have stated more detail in them .

 

[Ken Tanaka]

Don;

An amateur photo hobby venue is certainly an inappropriate place to debate such matters, so I'll leave it at that. But if you have a genuine interest in this niche of history there are several excellent works of fine scholarship on the subject that you might enjoy.

 

[Asher Kelman]

This discussion has opened up questions where academic sources using real data would need to be referenced for more useful adamant comment about the absolute or relative necessity to use the atomic weapons. There are so many other factors, for example, signaling to Stalin that we possessed unrivaled power at a time when Russia had absorbed more of the onslaught by the Third Reich and fielded a massive army and had gobbled up a good part of Europe to its new Empire, the likes of which the Czars never imagined they would see!

The actual war reports and assessments then and the day to diaries and notes of the people around the president and in the air force and those in charge of the bombs have no doubt been studied by folk for and against the use of the weapons. I have not read the books which no doubt take great pains to refute other books, equally throughly referenced. So I cannot give anything more than my gut feeling which is just of course a visceral "let them burn in hell" reaction and not at all logical or correct.

I plan to make amends and see what I can discover has been achieved in the scholarly evaluation of these tragic and terrible times and events.

Asher

 

[Don Ferguson Jr.]

Don;

An amateur photo hobby venue is certainly an inappropriate place to debate such matters, so I'll leave it at that. But if you have a genuine interest in this niche of history there are several excellent works of fine scholarship on the subject that you might enjoy.

Understood Ken ,and I would recommend Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire by military historian Richard B. Frank

Also ,this interesting read :, Review of Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, ed. Robert James Maddox
and these
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/42108.html

Why Another Book on Hiroshima?
By Robert James Maddox
http://hnn.us/articles/38637.html

http://hnn.us/articles/52502.html

Regards ,
Don

 

[Don Ferguson Jr.]

This discussion has opened up questions where academic sources using real data would need to be referenced for more useful adamant comment about the absolute or relative necessity to use the atomic weapons. There are so many other factors, for example, signaling to Stalin that we possessed unrivaled power at a time when Russia had absorbed more of the onslaught by the Third Reich and fielded a massive army and had gobbled up a good part of Europe to its new Empire, the likes of which the Czars never imagined they would see!

The actual war reports and assessments then and the day to diaries and notes of the people around the president and in the air force and those in charge of the bombs have no doubt been studied by folk for and against the use of the weapons. I have not read the books which no doubt take great pains to refute other books, equally throughly referenced. So I cannot give anything more than my gut feeling which is just of course a visceral "let them burn in hell" reaction and not at all logical or correct.

I plan to make amends and see what I can discover has been achieved in the scholarly evaluation of these tragic and terrible times and events.

Asher

Just do not poison your mind with the writings of Alperovitz

 

[Doug Kerr]

Well, to buffer all this boiling interaction, let me tell another "engineering" anecdote to which I attach no socio-ethico-military significance, but some technico-historical significance.

Four days before the first test firing of a nuclear bomb, the "implosion" design, in New Mexico, the plutonium "core" of the device ("The Gadget") was transported from Los Alamos to the test site (identified as "Trinity") in a padded container on the back set of a government sedan (some have said that it was J. Robert Oppenheimer's official car).

Supposedly, the transport team stopped in a small town near the test site (perhaps Socorro - I forget) and used the pay telephone to call Washington (I think General Groves' office) to advise that they were almost there.

Here is a photograph of the arrival I found yesterday will updating my information on the event (I had last studied it in late 1968).

The "pit" of "The Gadget" arrives at Trinity site (courtesy USDoE)​

The story reminds us how the Manhattan Project spanned eras, in more ways than one.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Ken Tanaka]

Understood Ken ,and I would recommend Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire by military historian Richard B. Frank

Also ,this interesting read :, Review of Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism, ed. Robert James Maddox
and these
http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/42108.html

Why Another Book on Hiroshima?
By Robert James Maddox
http://hnn.us/articles/38637.html

http://hnn.us/articles/52502.html

Regards ,
Don

May I also offer Ronald Spector's excellent history of the Pacific Theater conflict Eagle Against the Sun: The American War with Japan. Dr. Spector is professor of history and international affairs at George Washington University.

 

[Doug Kerr]

May I also offer Ronald Spector's excellent history of the Pacific Theater conflict Eagle Against the Sun: The American War with Japan. Dr. Spector is professor of history and international affairs at George Washington University.

And of course there is Lansing Lamont's Day of Trinity, a wonderful telling of the story of the Manhattan Project itself:

http://www.amazon.com/Day-Trinity-Lansing-Lamont/dp/0689706863

It covers to some degree the conflicts borne by many of of the scientists among the various implications of their work (although that is not the thrust of the book).

It was my main source of information on the Manhattan Project as I prepared to move to Albuquerque in 1968 (where I became immersed in the local preoccupation with the overall matter of nuclear weaponry).

Best regards,

Doug