Seventy Years Ago Today

---

---

"The atomic bomb is too dangerous to be loose in a lawless world. That is why Great Britain, Canada and the United States, who have the secret of its production, do not intend to reveal that secret until means have been found to control the bomb so as to protect ourselves and the rest of the world from the danger of total destruction."

Harry Truman
Aug. 9, 1945

---

Seventy years ago today, an atomic bomb was dropped on one country by another for what was the last time — so far.

The rationale for using the bombs in 1945 was to prevent what was widely believed to be a bloodier invasion of the Japanese mainland. But that has been questioned from the start, and proponents of the use of the bomb have been raising the estimate of lives saved ever since. If one is to defend the use of the atomic bomb, I suppose, any lives that are saved, even if it is only one or two, not hundreds of thousands or millions, is justifiable.

But then we start getting into complicated math — because there were casualties, between 50,000 and 150,000 initial civilian casualties, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. It is hard to be precise. Harry Truman had been told that a quick resolution of the war in the Pacific would save about 200,000 soldiers who could be expected to be lost in an invasion of Japan.

If you are of the opinion that all lives matter, though, even if the civilian casualties were the low–end figure, that would produce a much smaller net gain than simply focusing on the invasion that was prevented.

But that is just one part of the story, and it really only compares apples to oranges. The estimated casualties from an invasion would be accumulated over weeks and months of painstakingly capturing ground from a determined enemy; the civilian casualties I just cited came from the bombs' immediate detonations. To be more accurate, you would have to include those who died weeks and months later from radiation poisoning, which would further reduce the number of lives that were presumably saved.

Those who supported the use of the bomb kept raising the estimate over the years; recent estimates have been in the millions.

Of course, the whole subject of how many lives were saved by dropping two atomic bombs 70 years ago is a purely hypothetical one — and, as a rule, I prefer to avoid hypotheticals. What really is of greater importance is where we are now, seven decades later.

I suppose the nuclear technology that was born in World War II could not have remained secret for long, especially when you consider that so many scientists on both sides had been trying to harness the power of the atom; showing the world what the bomb could do may well have made the world, as some people claimed, safer — for awhile.

Until other countries began to get the technology, by legitimate or illegitimate means, and that was inevitable because, throughout history, unconventional weapons have, in time, become conventional weapons. It might have been delayed for a time by withholding the revelation from the public — but it could never have been kept under wraps forever.

That visual display of the bombs going off — and the photographs of victims that circulated later — may have been more valuable than anyone knew in preventing the use of nuclear weapons in the last 70 years. As more nations have joined the nuclear club, a sense of the awesome responsibility in their hands seems to have come with it. Perhaps that has been because, until fairly recently, everyone who acquired nuclear technology felt the weight of a moral obligation not to use it.

But now nations that sponsor terrorism are acquiring the technology, and I fear they will not hesitate to use it. They have already expressed their objectives, and the annihilation of perceived enemies is at the top of their lists. They have made no attempt to conceal their intention, and the United States has made no real attempt to prevent them from achieving it.

The "secret" to which Truman referred has been out for a long time, and there is much work to be done if his pledge to "control the bomb" is to be fulfilled.

The Nuclear Debate

Sometimes I have been accused of being overly negative.

I don't believe that is true. I think I am a realist — and a political centrist. I am not strongly committed to either the right or the left — which tends to annoy some people because they are so devoted to either side — but I feel it is a rational position to take. I try to find the merits in both arguments and, when possible, bring the two sides together.

Many times, that is a tall order.

But there are times when I am hopeful that it can be achieved — maybe because the stakes are so high that a compromise is the only way to break the stalemate.

And, perhaps implausibly, I am feeling hopeful about the complex issue of energy in the 21st century — while we wait to see if the situation with the nuclear reactors in Japan will be the greatest nuclear catastrophe in this planet's history.

Once and for all, let's have a discussion about energy that is calm and reasonable and supported by documented evidence. Let's avoid calling each other names. Let's rise above smears, emotional appeals and other unseemly tactics.

Let's work together.

It is true, as Real Clear Science editor Alex Berezow writes, that there has never been, is not now and will never be an ideal energy source.

Berezow, who (according to Real Clear Science) holds a Ph.D. in microbiology, emphatically underlines his point about every other form of energy currently known to man with that conclusion: "All sources of energy pose some sort of risk or cost. Risk–free, cost–free energy is a complete myth and simply does not, and will not, exist."

Granted. But that isn't really the issue.

He also says that those who fail to "propose realistic solutions" cannot be taken seriously.

Also granted — to a degree — along with his assessment that this is "the most serious of problems."

It is precisely because it is so serious that a truly serious dialogue must begin, and both sides must listen to each other.

The anti–nuclear faction isn't going to sway the pro–nuclear faction, even if Japan starts to glow in the dark, and the pro–nukes aren't going to win over the anti–nukes under just about any circumstances.

The only way to break this impasse is to find some common ground.

Right now, Berezow is right when he argues that there are no "realistic solutions" being proposed. The anti–nukes are frightened by what they have been seeing in Japan. It is a legitimate fear.

When it subsides a bit, that side may be able to make some rational suggestions. Then, perhaps, a discussion about alternative energy sources can begin.

But, for now, the pro–nukes must resist the urge to belittle the other side.

They must be understanding when Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post writes that nuclear power looks like a "bargain with the devil."

That's certainly the way it's looking to some people today. Perhaps events that are still to come will change their minds. Perhaps not.

Let's see what happens.

The Japan Syndrome

---

---

Years ago, I went with my mother to see a movie called "The China Syndrome."

The movie — which starred Jane Fonda, Jack Lemmon and Michael Douglas — was about the perils of nuclear power. The title came from the popular misconception that, if someone in America drilled through the earth, he/she would come out in China. The movie's premise was that, if a nuclear reactor melted down, its core would do something similar.

It was a frightening premise that was made even more frightening by an actual nuclear accident at Three–Mile Island in Pennsylvania not long after the movie made its theatrical premiere.

That event gave the movie a lot of unexpected publicity, resulting in higher–than–expected ticket sales and a lot of anxiety on the part of the public.

We know more about nuclear power now than we did when that movie came out — but not, perhaps, as much as we may have thought — or, perhaps, would like to have thought.

In my adult lifetime, Americans have always seemed eager to embrace the simple solution to a complex problem, and many seem to be taking that approach to the nuclear situation in Japan.

"How bad could it get?" asks Josh Dzieza at The Daily Beast. And that's a fair question to ask — flippant though it may seem.

Barry Brook writes at Brave New Climate about the "misinformation and hyperbole flying around the internet and media" and asserts that "[t]he plant is safe now and will stay safe."

Well, time will tell.

Maybe it is the same mindset that always seems to assure Americans that higher gas prices are only temporary. In the past, yes, gas prices have declined after enormous spikes — but rarely, if ever, to the levels that existed before.

I'm not inclined to think that gas prices will fall to anything resembling what they were just a couple of months ago — especially now because the most vocal proponents of that particular pie–in–the–sky theory (that gas prices will decline almost exclusively on the basis of consumer behavior) also have been advocates of nuclear energy as the solution to the cost of heating and cooling our homes.

Those are the same people who scoffed at President Carter when "The China Syndrome" was at the theaters — because he warned that America's dependence on foreign oil was setting this nation up for disaster.

The recent events in Japan are sure to be mentioned now whenever someone promotes nuclear energy in this country. The issues that have been raised are far too complex to be addressed by a simple solution.

The truth is that, for all that 21st century humans know about nuclear power, there is still much they do not know — even in Japan, which, if anything, has been overly cautious about safety in just about every aspect of its existence when compared to virtually any other place on earth.

That is why you could watch video footage of the area nearest to the ground zero of the earthquake — and see large buildings that were still standing, even though a 9.0–magnitude earthquake struck the area 2½ days ago, and powerful aftershocks continue to strike.

Japan is no stranger to earthquakes. As a result, it has done a remarkable job of preparing its buildings for the possibility that one will strike, but this is the strongest ever to hit that country — and only the third earthquake globally to register 9.0 or higher in the last 50 years. One was the 9.2 earthquake that struck Prince William Sound in Alaska 47 years ago this month, and the other was the 9.1 that struck Indonesia the day after Christmas in 2004.

And this earthquake, along with the tsunamis it has produced, has been causing a number of unforeseen problems. Japan, as I say, always appears to prepare for the worst–case scenario — but its engineers didn't actually anticipate the worst case, only a worse case.

And that could have tragic consequences.

When you are dealing with something like nuclear energy, you must think way outside the box. I don't fault Japanese officials for not preparing for the size earthquake that almost never happens, but the fact remains that attempts to restart the cooling system at one of the damaged reactors have failed.

Safety standards have to be revisited — and, until we know more than we do about nuclear power, we have to treat it with the respect it deserves and prepare ourselves for a disaster that is much greater than anything we've seen — or may be likely to see.

The Tsunami in Japan

---

---

If you remember the images after the tsunami that struck the day after Christmas in 2004 or after Hurricane Katrina came ashore in New Orleans the next year, there is an eerily familiar quality to the images we are seeing and eyewitness reports we are hearing today from Japan.

Events are still unfolding, of course, and it appears that the losses of lives and property do not yet reach the levels of either the tsunami or the hurricane — Hawaii seems to have been spared the brunt of it — but if you remember 2004, you will remember that the most devastating waves were the ones that spent hours traveling across the Indian Ocean, not necessarily the ones that struck near the quake zone (although those waves were pretty devastating).

Today, after the waves that weren't stopped along the way completed their journey across the Pacific Ocean, we have been hearing reports of damage in northern California and in Oregon.

And, as the waves move to the south, they will surely gather momentum.

Details will continue to emerge. The death toll is almost certain to continue to rise. Like the aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti, repairing the damage will be a long–term project.

Some lives have been irreparably altered.

As we wait for the entire picture to come into focus, some are pondering questions that should have been asked not too long ago — and, after what has happened, you have to wonder, is it too late to ask them now?

Matthew Daly of the Washington Post reminds readers that House Republicans voted for deep cuts in the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center budget last month.

I doubt that the Democrat–controlled Senate will go along with the idea. They seemed sure to question its wisdom before the earthquake in Japan. I have no doubt that they will reject the proposal now.