http://www.me.utexas.edu/%7Euer/manhattan/debates.html
Arguments Against The Use Of The Bomb
The second major challenge that occurred was due to the scientists that produced the bombs were now against its use. Many scientists argued to the end that the bomb should not be used for ethical reasons. They also warned of an arms race that would develop after the end of WWII. The different opinions were given in The Franck Report on June 11, 1945 which includes Glen Seaborg (who is a Nobel Laureate and the only living man named after an element) and Leonard Szilard. Politicians did not listen. Byrnes makes the decision to have scientists pursue the invention of the more powerful hydrogen bomb. In Stimson's letter and memo to the President on September 11, 1945, Stimson admits that "feverish activity on the part of the Soviet toward the development of this bomb in what will in effect be a secret armament race of a rather desperate character. There is evidence to indicate that such activity may have already commenced" [Stoff, 1991]. The Cold War started in this fashion because the scientists were right about the consequences of not trusting the Russians.
The major struggle took place in the form of the Franck Report that urged President Truman not to use the bomb without a demonstration where Japanese observers could see first hand the power of the bomb. This would allow the Japanese the opportunity to surrender without the using the bomb on their island. The Franck Report was chaired by J. Franck, G. T. Seaborg, L. Szilard, and others. Unfortunately, the project was now out of scientific hands and now it was a military issue. During an interview, Seaborg said that a possible reason why the US did not demonstrate the bomb was because there would not be enough uranium or plutonium to produce another bomb. Szilard, along with Albert Einstein, was responsible for starting the project. Einstein even said, "I made one great mistake in my life - when I signed that letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made, but there was some justification - the danger that the Germans would make them" [Kraus, 1996]. Szilard, along with 69 other scientist from the project's Metallurgic Laboratory (MetLab), wrote a letter protesting the use of the bomb to President Truman. Unfortunately, the letter was no use; President Truman would continue to support the bombings. Szilard and others continued to protest its use but never succeeded. In 1962, Szilard established the Council for a Livable World, a Washington lobby group involved in nuclear arms control and foreign policies. He was also involved in establishing the civilian control of the Atomic Energy Commission in 1946.
Not all scientists were against the use of the bomb. In a report by A. H. Compton, E. O. Lawrence, J. R. Oppenheimer, and E. Fermi titled "Recommendations on the immediate use of nuclear weapons", Oppenheimer wrote for the panel, "we can purpose no technical demonstration likely to bring an end to the war; we see no acceptable alternative to direct military use" [Stoff, 1991]. Many scientists felt that the US was not attacking Japan, but it was defending itself from a country who attacked the US first, remember Pearl Harbor. However, many of these scientists did oppose the use of the second bomb so quickly. They felt the US should have waited longer for Japan to surrender.
Figure 8: Oppenheimer's security clearance was revoked because of his advocacy for nuclear weapons control [Manhattan, 1997]
After the war and the end of the project, Oppenheimer began to regret the discovery of nuclear weapons because his main rival, Edward Teller, began working on the Hydrogen Bomb. The Hydrogen Bomb used the principle of fusion, which made it even more powerful than the fission bombs. Oppenheimer's regrets are seen throughout the Manhattan Project. After the Trinity Test, Oppenheimer turned to a technician and said in a sober voice, "I have become Death; the destroyer of worlds." Another colleague turned towards Oppenheimer and said, "Now we're all sons of bitches." By 1946, the Atomic Energy Commission was established under civilian control and Oppenheimer was chairman of the General Advisory Committee. This committee gave more than technical advice, it had a lot of influence over decisions [Kraus, 1996]. Oppenheimer was very out spoken about the United Nations gaining more control over nuclear development. This controversy caused many people interested in military policy to fear Oppenheimer. In 1952, Oppenheimer faced the Gray Board hearings were he was accused of being sympathetic to the communists. Oppenheimer's hearing occurred during the Joseph McCarthy era when everyone feared communists, so Oppenheimer lost his security clearance [Kraus, 1996]. Figure 8 shows a section of a letter to the Atomic Energy Commission about Oppenheimer's security clearance revocation.
Neils Bohr became an advocate for the peaceful use of this new found power. In 1950, Bohr published a letter to the United Nations in which he pleaded for a world without nuclear weapons. He dedicated the remainder of his life to speaking against the negative uses of nuclear research [Kraus, 1996].