48 pages • 1 hour read
Countdown 1945: The Extraordinary Story of the Atomic Bomb and the 116 Days That Changed the World
A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Themes
Justification for the Use of Nuclear Weapons
From the very start of the Manhattan Project, the initiative was embroiled in questions concerning the ethics of nuclear development. The idea that a weapon could be developed and employed of such magnitude as to destroy entire cities in seconds, leaving them barren and poisoned by radiation, was a fearful one. In Countdown 1945, many of the key figures involved debate the ethics of the operation, some with wildly varying conclusions.
The principal objection to the use of the atom bomb in war was the perennial advice to consider the relationship between one’s choice of action and one’s desired outcome: i.e. the ends do not justify the means. This argument reasons that the desired outcome is not the only criterion for deciding questions of ethics—one cannot simply use any means indiscriminately just because it gets a good result. The critics of using the atom bomb pointed out it would result in the deaths of countless civilians: “Entire Japanese cities could be wiped out, millions of innocents destroyed, the landscape scorched and poisoned for decades after. The possibilities were disturbing” (81). Regardless of whether or not the bombing secured an Allied victory, it would be wrong no matter what. In this case, the ends (intentional mass slaughter of Japanese civilians) did not justify the ends (saving hundreds of thousands of American lives by preventing the land invasion of Japan from taking place).
Those who argued that the bomb should be used, however, expressed varying forms of a consequentialist ethics. In the pro-bombing line of thinking, supporters argued that the desired outcome would be such that the good would seem to vastly outweigh the bad. The invasion of Japan could cost more than half a million American lives, an estimate that did not even take into account the loss of likely even more Japanese lives as well. When viewed this way, the invasion of Japan would likely cause of over a million deaths, so when compared to the deaths caused by the atomic bombings—estimates put this number at less than 200,000 for both Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined—it was a mere fraction of the cost. The use of the weapon was simply a means to reduce the overall lives lost in the war—as Truman concluded, "no matter how devastating their losses, the Japanese refused to surrender. They left him no choice” (162). The debate remains controversial to this day, in both academic circles and in wider ethical discourse.
Popular Attitudes Regarding the Atom Bomb
While the ethics of using the bomb were debated all the way through its development to the moment it was deployed, popular opinion also shifted back and forth. The perception of the nuclear attack was often felt differently by different groups depending on their particular experience with the war and the various costs that came with that war (e.g. personal, financial, etc.). One group that felt particularly conflicted were those who were directly involved with the development and creation of the weapon. The scientists involved were all intellectually stimulated by, and committed to, the project, but even during their time on the project they had questions and second thoughts.
Leo Szilard was one of the most prominent figures to have doubts: he openly “express[ed] moral opposition to using [the atom bomb] in war” (13). Szilard was not alone, either. Others such as Lilli Hornig, a Harvard-trained chemist, felt more and more conflicted the longer she stayed on the project: “Lilli thought more and more about the possible outcome of all their labors. Scientists had a moral responsibility. This was the moment to speak up” (106). In the end, Lilli and her husband signed the petition requesting strict oversight and regulations for weaponizing nuclear energy, further exposing the lack of unanimity even among the scientists responsible for the project.
Then there were the civilian workers employed in various capacities on secondary projects that assisted in the nuclear developmental process. Ruth Sisson was one such woman, hired at a factory in Tennessee where the Manhattan Project had set up one of its research and development facilities. As part of her duties, “Ruth monitored an essential step for building atomic bombs, but no one told her that” (59). Once she discovered that this is what she had been doing after the war ended, she was deeply disturbed: “[She] had been a participant in killing all those people. Part of her felt angry and betrayed. They’d put her to work on such a terrible weapon without her knowing, and now she had blood on her hands. She tried to sleep, but couldn’t” (237). Ruth’s distraught reaction raises the questions of indirect culpability, and whether or not the military was justified in keeping its civilian workers in the dark about the true nature of their work.
For those who were far enough removed from the process, however—or those who were only concerned with the end of the war—support for the choice to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki was staggeringly high: “A Gallup poll just days after the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki found 85 percent of Americans approved of the decision to drop the atomic bomb” (249-250). Even years later, “public approval never fell below 53 percent” (252), suggesting that many Americans remain supportive of the bombing.
The Human Cost of War
The crux of the debate over using the atom bomb was the human cost of continuing to wage war in the Pacific and, ultimately, on the Japanese mainland. Conservative estimates put the death toll at that point in the war close to 60 million—15 million combat deaths and 45 million civilian deaths (not to mention the estimated 25 million wounded and maimed who would survive). Even without having to worry about the Nazi regime any longer, the moral calculus was greatly affected by the cost of continuing to wage war and extending the conflict months, or even years, into the future.
What made the decision so difficult was the infamous ferocity of the Japanese forces, who considered it their sacred duty to fight to their last breath. The realization of the difficulty came with the battle to take control of the island of Okinawa. “Covered in dense foliage, hills, and trees and honeycombed with caves and bunkers, Okinawa bristled with tens of thousands of Japanese determined to fight to the death. The enemy, even raw conscripts, did not believe in surrender” (28-29). Refusal to surrender was not just a characteristic of the Japanese government and their emperor, it was an attitude that trickled down all the way to each individual soldier as well.
As leaders in Washington prepared for the inevitable invasion of Japan, “military leaders back home were already talking about it in the newspapers, preparing the public for the inevitable horror and loss of life” (29). Commander Kaufman, the man who had been set in charge of the forces at Okinawa, dreaded the conflict that he knew was coming: “after Okinawa, there was only one target left. The biggest, bloodiest one of all. If they thought Okinawa was hell, they were in for much worse” (35). America had grown tired of the war, and at this point they had lost more than 400,000 soldiers. While this was a mere fraction of the overall cost to human life across the globe, it was still a devastating figure, and the atomic bombs provided a way out of the morass of the continuing horrors of war.
However, the human cost of war is civilian as well as military, as the narrative of Countdown 1945 also points out. Wallace uses the figure of Hideko Tamura to illustrate the suffering of Japanese civilians, who were the main victims of the bombings in both cities. Hideko is only a child at the time of the atomic bombing, and her youth and innocence create a sense of pathos in the narrative for the Japanese victims. As non-military personnel, Hideko and the other civilians have no real means of defending themselves from the bombings, and also lack the political power to determine whether or not Japan should surrender to the Allied forces. Wallace’s inclusion of Hideko’s experience underscores the moral debate at the heart of nuclear warfare, reminding readers that, ultimately, all military campaigns have real consequences for real victims.
Unlock all 48 pages of this Study GuidePlus, gain access to 8,800+ more expert-written Study Guides.
Including features: